Jump to content
SergUpstart

Experiment verification of General relativity

Recommended Posts

I can suggest an experiment to test GRT based on the verification that the speed of light does not depend on the gravitational potential. It is known that the speed of light is a wound

1881581417_.jpg.8afec55135663da29d26d57f8ae8bc84.jpg

The experiment consists of launching two spacecraft from earth. one flies towards the Sun, the other away from the Sun. Each device is equipped with equipment that will accurately measure the value of the magnetic constant and transmit the results of measurements to the earth. If the value of the magnetic constant does not change, then the GRT is correct. If the measured value of the magnetic constant decreases on a vehicle flying towards the Sun, and increases on another vehicle, then the Yanchilin's formula is correct

f2.jpg.31dcfba2cdcfa1dde0900a6b44c2f7ac.jpg

In the link, the results of astrophysical measurements, which can be interpreted as the fact that in the vicinity of massive bodies, the magnetic constant decreases https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/1299

с.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

The experiment consists of launching two spacecraft from earth. one flies towards the Sun, the other away from the Sun. Each device is equipped with equipment that will accurately measure the value of the magnetic constant and transmit the results of measurements to the earth. 

The devil’s in the details. How do you do this?

Why are existing experiments insufficient to confirm relativity?

Where does Yanchilin's formula come from? Why is it necessarily correct if GR is correct?

 

Quote

In the link, the results of astrophysical measurements, which can be interpreted as the fact that in the vicinity of massive bodies, the magnetic constant decreases https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/1299

How do you arrive at that interpretation? They measured the magnetic field near a black hole binary, not the permeability of free space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, swansont said:

How do you arrive at that interpretation? They measured the magnetic field near a black hole binary, not the permeability of free space.

Based on the law of Biot-savard-Laplace, the smaller the magnetic constant, the weaker will be the strength of the magnetic field created by a current of the same force.

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You can’t summarize? 

Briefly, the essence of Yanchilin's quantum theory of gravity theory, as it explains the mechanism of gravitational attraction.

The square of the speed of light is equal to the gravitational potential with a minus sign

f2.jpg.7d9ba653f5463d568749d7be3eda76db.jpg

Planck's constant and the speed of light are related by the ratio

 

f3.png.a899540a614b3146b5a0ab5da485888c.png

 

Thus

f1.jpg.1518df92b1ed230ddd596ebfd7998223.jpg

Therefore, the gravitational potential determines not only the speed of light, but also the value of the Planck constant. the greater the absolute value of the gravitational potential, the smaller the value of the Planck constant. This means that at a point with a higher absolute value of the gravitational potential, the quantum uncertainty value is less, and this in turn means that the probability of a particle's transition from a point with a lower gravitational potential is greater than the probability of a particle's transition from a point with a higher gravitational potential to a point with a lower absolute value of the gravitational potential.

59 minutes ago, swansont said:

Why are existing experiments insufficient to confirm relativity?

The Institute of Special Studies (Saint Petersburg, Russia) announced in 2016 that it would pay a prize of 100,000 us dollars to anyone who provides IRREFUTABLE proof that the GRT is correct. The bonus has not yet been paid to anyone and the offer is still valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Therefore, the gravitational potential determines not only the speed of light, but also the value of the Planck constant.

Actually,

\[\alpha\overset{{\scriptstyle \textrm{def}}}{=}\frac{e^{2}}{4\pi\epsilon_{0}\hbar c}\]

is a definition, not an equation. Definitions are not equations. Before there was an h bar there was no alpha, and electric charge could not be expressed as a dimensionless number. In the CGS Lorentz-Heaviside system of electric units this is obvious, and it had the dimensions of M1/2L3/2T-1. You might as well "determine" pi from "your equation." You're going in circles. A minimum baggage of history of physics is necessary in order not to say nonsense.

There's much more nonsense in what you say, but time is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As joigus said, you have given the definition of the fine structure constant. You haven’t presented any connection between GR and QM.

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

Based on the law of Biot-savard-Laplace, the smaller the magnetic constant, the weaker will be the strength of the magnetic field created by a current of the same force.

Did they measure this? Did they do it in free space? 

 

1 hour ago, SergUpstart said:

The Institute of Special Studies (Saint Petersburg, Russia) announced in 2016 that it would pay a prize of 100,000 us dollars to anyone who provides IRREFUTABLE proof that the GRT is correct. The bonus has not yet been paid to anyone and the offer is still valid.

The key here is “irrefutable proof”

Science doesn’t deal in proof, and is never irrefutable. They will never pay out, since they have a way out of doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Did they measure this? Did they do it in free space? 

If they had measured not the strength of the magnetic field (which was 400 times weaker than expected) but the magnetic permeability of space, it would not have been a "possible interpretation" but a fait accompli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, swansont said:

The key here is “irrefutable proof”

Science doesn’t deal in proof, and is never irrefutable. They will never pay out, since they have a way out of doing so.


If not word by word, this is exactly what I was going to say argument by argument, but in the last moment refrained from doing so.

21 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

If they had measured not the strength of the magnetic field (which was 400 times weaker than expected) but the magnetic permeability of space, it would not have been a "possible interpretation" but a fait accompli.

You got epsilon naught and mu naught completely wrong. They don't mean anything in and of themselves. One or the other can be re-absorbed in the system of electric units. The only thing that really has an invariant meaning is their product,

\[\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}=c^{-2}\]

You really must go back to basics and learn EM.

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You might as well "determine" pi from "your equation." You're going in circles.

Pun unintended, but comes in handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

The key here is “irrefutable proof”

Science doesn’t deal in proof, and is never irrefutable. They will never pay out, since they have a way out of doing so.

I wrote about this award not because I want to get it😃😃, but because they quite reasonably do not consider gravitational redshift to be proof of time slowing down near a large mass. It can be explained in another way. Moving away from a massive body, a photon with its own mass spends its energy on performing work against the force of gravity and its energy decreases, and therefore its frequency decreases.

Their team believes that there is no other way to test the theory other than directly measuring the passage of time at different gravitational potentials using a very accurate atomic clock. I see another method based on a different physical principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, joigus said:

You got epsilon naught and mu naught completely wrong. They don't mean anything in and of themselves. One or the other can be re-absorbed in the system of electric units. The only thing that really has an invariant meaning is their product,

ϵ0μ0=c2

 

You really must go back to basics and learn EM.

It follows from the formula

f2.jpg.036c4ded0142dbe30db19ccdd60bcf2c.jpg

that the square of the speed of light is not an invariant, but depends on the gravitational potential.

In addition, Yanchilin's theory contradicts GRT. According to GRT, time slows down near massive bodies, but in the Yanchilin's theory, it accelerates on the contrary, although due to the gravitational redshift, the remote observer has the illusion that time slows down near a massive body.

It also follows from the formula written above that black holes do not exist, since the speed of light increases in proportion to the square root of the gravitational potential. Light can leave the vicinity of any massive body, but the amount of gravitational redshift is not limited. Theoretically, it is possible that leaving the vicinity of a sufficiently massive body, even gamma radiation can turn even into radio waves of the ultra-long-wave range

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

It follows from the formula

f2.jpg.036c4ded0142dbe30db19ccdd60bcf2c.jpg

that the square of the speed of light is not an invariant, but depends on the gravitational potential.

That's what you're trying to show, so it does not "follow" in that what joigus stated is part of standard electrodynamics. The speed of light can vary for other reasons, such as from the change in index when it's in a medium. It also deviates from the invariant value if you are in an accelerated frame of reference.

Quote

In addition, Yanchilin's theory contradicts GRT. According to GRT, time slows down near massive bodies, but in the Yanchilin's theory, it accelerates on the contrary, although due to the gravitational redshift, the remote observer has the illusion that time slows down near a massive body.

OK, so what's the prediction about the net effect on time? 

How is gravitational redshift an "illusion"? Why do we get good agreement with the GR formula if there is this other effect of opposite sign?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, swansont said:

How is gravitational redshift an "illusion"? Why do we get good agreement with the GR formula if there is this other effect of opposite sign?

Yanchilin considered two atoms that are at different heights above ground level, the height difference is equal to H, and emit photons at the same energy transition. the frequency of the photon emitted by the atom at point A (below) is higher by
relative value 2gH/c^2 than the frequency of the photon emitted
exactly the same atom at point B (above). But while the photon is flying up, its
the frequency is lowered by a relative value of 3gH/c^2
. At the same time 2/3 this value (i.e. 2gH/c^2) is caused by a decrease in the photon energy
(the energy of a photon decreases twice as fast as the energy of a non-relativistic body because the photon has no rest energy), and 1/3 of this
values (i.e. gH/c^2) caused by an increase in the Planck constant.

Thus, the total result of the two effects is that the frequency of the photon emitted by the atom below decreases when it rises to the height H by a relative value of gH/c^2, which coincides with the result predicted by GRO and corresponds to the experimental data.

Agree that this explanation is simple, logical, and it is devoid of contradictions that exist in the explanation from the point of view of GR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

 

Their team believes that there is no other way to test the theory other than directly measuring the passage of time at different gravitational potentials using a very accurate atomic clock. I see another method based on a different physical principle.

We can already invalidate Yanchilans theory as we have already tested different gravitational potentials for time dilation at different elevations.

With precision atomic clocks. Even testing it a distance of one foot.

The results agree with GRT. 

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet

This isn't the only experiment done at different elevations. I assisted at a University that also conducted similar experiments as part of the course curriculum. Though we used the coastal mountains of BC coast. It was pointless publishing the results. Nothing newsworthy or unexpected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We can already invalidate Yanchilans theory as we have already tested different gravitational potentials for time dilation at different elevations.

With precision atomic clocks. Even testing it a distance of one foot.

The results agree with GRT. 

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet

This isn't the only experiment done at different elevations. I assisted at a University that also conducted similar experiments as part of the course curriculum. Though we used the coastal mountains of BC coast. It was pointless publishing the results. Nothing newsworthy or unexpected.

 

Interesting. +1

Does Yanchilin's theory predict deviations from GR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2020 at 9:41 AM, SergUpstart said:

Yanchilin considered two atoms that are at different heights above ground level, the height difference is equal to H, and emit photons at the same energy transition. the frequency of the photon emitted by the atom at point A (below) is higher by
relative value 2gH/c^2 than the frequency of the photon emitted
exactly the same atom at point B (above). But while the photon is flying up, its
the frequency is lowered by a relative value of 3gH/c^2
. At the same time 2/3 this value (i.e. 2gH/c^2) is caused by a decrease in the photon energy
(the energy of a photon decreases twice as fast as the energy of a non-relativistic body because the photon has no rest energy), and 1/3 of this
values (i.e. gH/c^2) caused by an increase in the Planck constant.

Thus, the total result of the two effects is that the frequency of the photon emitted by the atom below decreases when it rises to the height H by a relative value of gH/c^2, which coincides with the result predicted by GRO and corresponds to the experimental data.

Agree that this explanation is simple, logical, and it is devoid of contradictions that exist in the explanation from the point of view of GR.

A shift in the frequency emitted by a photon means the transition in question has shifted by that amount, and you're saying the shift is in the opposite direction predicted by GR (you say the lower system has a higher frequency). Is that correct?

2 problems with this:

1.  If the frequency shift is predicted to be two times as large, then what happens if you just don't send a signal, so there is no photon. You move a clock to a certain height and let it accumulate a difference in time, and then move it back to the reference point, and check.

No photon to worry about, and there's a factor of 2 difference in the predicted effect. Easy to observe. (Yes, the experiment has been done.) Therefore, easy to disprove the conjecture.

 

2. I don't think this having asymmetric shifts is consistent with the Pound-Rebka effect. You have the photon shift of one value, but the resonance of the atom has shifted by a different value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, joigus said:

Interesting. +1

Does Yanchilin's theory predict deviations from GR?

Yes if it the same one I have encountered before on his theory he predicted the opposite decay rates for atomic clocks. He does have some english literature though mostly in book format. I have never seen a peer reviewed article from him. Either way the quoted claim that the tests needs to performed when they have been numerous times indicates either poor research or an older theory prior to those tests.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

The Institute of Special Studies (Saint Petersburg, Russia) announced in 2016 that it would pay a prize of 100,000 us dollars to anyone who provides IRREFUTABLE proof that the GRT is correct. The bonus has not yet been paid to anyone and the offer is still valid.

If they came up with one piece of evidence that it was wrong, they would probably be in line for a Nobel Prize (roughly a million dollars?)

22 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Therefore, the gravitational potential determines not only the speed of light, but also the value of the Planck constant. the greater the absolute value of the gravitational potential, the smaller the value of the Planck constant.

That would have very obviously measurable effects. As these have never been observed, this is another falsification of the hypothesis.

14 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

that the square of the speed of light is not an invariant

And yet the invariance of the speed of light has been extensively tested. And, if it were not invariant, it would be a violation of Lorentz invariance, which has also been extensively tested, to extremely high precision,  in many and varied ways.

20 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

If they had measured not the strength of the magnetic field (which was 400 times weaker than expected) but the magnetic permeability of space, it would not have been a "possible interpretation" but a fait accompli.

An equally plausible "possible interpretation" of the results is that they were affected by invisible pink unicorns. 

You can make up any number of untestable reasons for the results of experiments. We tend to go with the ones that are based on known science, not unsupported guesses.

5 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Agree that this explanation is simple, logical, and it is devoid of contradictions that exist in the explanation from the point of view of GR.

There are no contradictions in GR. And, as others have noted, the experiment has been done and confirms GR.

Also, it isn't "simple and logical" to come up with an explanation where you have to invent an extra mechanism that makes your different result look just like the one predicted by a successful theory.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/24/2020 at 9:36 PM, SergUpstart said:

The square of the speed of light is equal to the gravitational potential with a minus sign

f2.jpg.7d9ba653f5463d568749d7be3eda76db.jpg

Just to add to what has already been said by other contributors here:

1. First and foremost, the notion of "gravitational potential" can only be defined in spacetimes that are stationary (more precisely: those which admit a time-like Killing vector field) and asymptotically flat. It cannot be generalised to more general spacetimes, which makes it useless so far as a general model for gravity is concerned

2. Gravitational potential itself is not an observable, only differences in potential can be observed and measured. This is because the potential has a gauge freedom, in that one can freely choose where the zero point is, without affecting the physics. The same is not true for the speed of light, hence the relation above is trivially and obviously wrong, since it equates two quantities that cannot physically and numerically be equal, on fundamental grounds.

3. A varying speed of light would constitute a violation of Lorentz invariance. This symmetry has been experimentally and extensively tested with modern equipment to extremely high precision, both here on Earth and in the vacuum of space - needless to say, no such violations have ever been found. Given the degree of precision of these tests, any variability in the speed of light can effectively be ruled out far beyond the usual 5 sigma threshold.

4. A variable speed of light would also break CPT symmetry, which underlies the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Since we continue to successfully use and test this model in particle accelerators on pretty much a daily basis, any variability in c can also effectively be ruled out on that ground.

5. Neither classical Maxwellian electrodynamics nor quantum electrodynamics allow for varying values of permittivity and permeability (in the same medium of course). Hence the notion of a varying speed of light is actually in direct contradiction to what we know about electrodynamics.

6. As has been pointed out on another recent thread, a scalar field theory such as this one is fundamentally incapable of capturing all required degrees of freedom of gravity; there is more to gravity than just time dilation! 

I could probably go on, but these are the points that immediately come to mind without thinking about the issue too much. I'll leave it at this.

Edited by Markus Hanke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

4. A variable speed of light would also break CPT symmetry, which underlies the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Since we continue to successfully use and test this model in particle accelerators on pretty much a daily basis, any variability in c can also effectively be ruled out on that ground.

Very good summary. And very good point. +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Mordred said:

Yes if it the same one I have encountered before on his theory he predicted the opposite decay rates for atomic clocks. He does have some english literature though mostly in book format. I have never seen a peer reviewed article from him. Either way the quoted claim that the tests needs to performed when they have been numerous times indicates either poor research or an older theory prior to those tests.

Indeed, it is impossible to refute GRT using a formula f2.jpg.7d9ba653f5463d568749d7be3eda76db.jpg.

But not because the formula is incorrect, but because we can not fundamentally compare the course of the clock at points with different gravitational potential, bypassing GRT.

And radioactive decay will not help here, since it is necessary to compare the number of decay events for and the time intervals for which they occurred, and it is impossible to compare these time intervals bypassing GRT.

But to conduct this experiment with the measurement of the magnetic constant at different gravitational potentials would still be interesting, not from the point of view of checking GRT, but from the point of view of checking the above formula. In addition, a previously unknown effect can be detected, the dependence of the wave resistance of the vacuum on the gravitational potential

 

1.png.5e79b2d93654f3c90316380db9bd15bc.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, SergUpstart said:

Indeed, it is impossible to refute GRT using a formula f2.jpg.7d9ba653f5463d568749d7be3eda76db.jpg.

But not because the formula is incorrect, but because we can not fundamentally compare the course of the clock at points with different gravitational potential, bypassing GRT.

And radioactive decay will not help here, since it is necessary to compare the number of decay events for and the time intervals for which they occurred, and it is impossible to compare these time intervals bypassing GRT.

But to conduct this experiment with the measurement of the magnetic constant at different gravitational potentials would still be interesting, not from the point of view of checking GRT, but from the point of view of checking the above formula. In addition, a previously unknown effect can be detected, the dependence of the wave resistance of the vacuum on the gravitational potential

 

1.png.5e79b2d93654f3c90316380db9bd15bc.png

None of these formulas are practical for modelling gravitational systems.

For example the formula 

[math] c^2=-\phi[/math]

The second term describes a negative scalar field yet the term on the left hand side is a momentum vector not a scalar. The formula doesn't even describe a vector field for a central potential gravitational body 

Quite useless overall. Particularly since you have units m/s^2 on the left hand side but either energy of mass density on the right hand side.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2020 at 4:36 PM, SergUpstart said:

 

Planck's constant and the speed of light are related by the ratio

 

f3.png.a899540a614b3146b5a0ab5da485888c.png

 

...

 

Therefore, the gravitational potential determines not only the speed of light, but also the value of the Planck constant. the greater the absolute value of the gravitational potential, the smaller the value of the Planck constant.

So this implies that you think these other terms are constant, but hbar and c are variable. Why is this? Why aren’t you saying charge is variable, too?

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

Indeed, it is impossible to refute GRT using a formula f2.jpg.7d9ba653f5463d568749d7be3eda76db.jpg.

But not because the formula is incorrect, but because we can not fundamentally compare the course of the clock at points with different gravitational potential, bypassing GRT.

And radioactive decay will not help here, since it is necessary to compare the number of decay events for and the time intervals for which they occurred, and it is impossible to compare these time intervals bypassing GRT.

Why not? The effect is on rates, so one clock evolving at a faster rate will accumulate more phase. (i.e. time) This can be directly compared to a reference clock.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, swansont said:

So this implies that you think these other terms are constant, but hbar and c are variable. Why is this? Why aren’t you saying charge is variable, too?

Yanchilin assumed that the splitting of spectral lines in distant quasars will not change, so the constant of the fine structure does not change. He also showed that the variation of the elementary charge violates the law of conservation of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.