Gravity as a Force and the Newtonian Limit

Erkenntnis, 2020

I argue that the best interpretation of the general theory of relativity (GTR) has need of a causal entity (i.e., the gravitational field), and causal structure that is not reducible to light cone structure. I suggest that this causal interpretation of GTR helps defeat a key premise in one of the most popular arguments for causal reductionism, viz., the argument from physics.

2019

2007

I. Introduction: Newtonian Physics and Special Relativity- 1. Relativity Principals and Gravitation 2. The Special Theory of Relativity II. The Mathematics of the General Theory of Relativity- 3. Vectors, Tensors, and Forms 4. Basis Vector Fields and Metric Tensor 5. Non-inertial Reference Frames 6. Differentiation, Connections and Integration 7. Curvature II. Einstein's Field Equations- 8. Einstein's Field Equations 9. The Linear Field Approximation 10. The Schwarzschild Solution and Black Holes IV. Cosmology- 11. Homogeneous and Isotropic Universe Models 12. Universe Models with Vacuum Energy 13. An Anisotropic Universe V. Advanced Topics- 14. Covariant decomposition, Singularities, and Canonical Cosmology 15. Homogeneous Spaces 16. Israel's Formalism: The metric junction method 17. Brane-worlds 18. Kaluza-Klein Theory VI. Appendices- A. Constrants of Nature B. Penrose diagrams C. Anti-de Sitter spacetime D. Suggested further reading

European Physical Journal H, 2017

Einstein’s 1915 theory of gravitation, also known as General Relativity, is now considered one of the pillars of modern physics. It contributes to our understanding of cosmology and of fundamental interactions between particles. But that was not always the case. Between the mid-1920s and the mid-1950s, General Relativity underwent a period of stagnation, during which the theory was mostly considered as a stepping-stone for a superior theory. In a special issue of EPJ H just published, historians of science and physicists actively working on General Relativity and closely related fields share their views on the process, during the post-World War II era, in particular, which saw the “Renaissance” of General Relativity, following progressive transformation of the theory into a bona fidae physics theory. In this special issue, new insights into the historical process leading to this renaissance point to the extension of the foundation of the original theory, ultimately leading to a global transformation in its character. Contributions from several experts reveals that the theory of 1915 was insufficient to reach firm conclusions without being complemented by intuitions drawn from the resources of pre-relativistic physics. Or, in the case of cosmology, the theory needed to be complemented by philosophical considerations that were hardly generalizable to help solve more mundane problems. As physicist Pascual Jordan puts it, there was a “mismatch between the simplicity of the physical and epistemological foundations and the annoying complexity of the corresponding thicket of formulae.” A number of contributions in this special issue also explain how the theory underwent a period of successive controversies, leading by the 1960s, to the renaissance of the theory. Subsequently, it became in the 1970s, an important, empirically well-tested branch of theoretical physics related to the new, successful sub-discipline of relativistic astrophysics.

This essay, Chapter 2 of an earlier published work, develops the idea that General Relativity will not be reconciled with quantum physics until physicists recognize that several assumptions underlying the latter theory must be abandoned. For example, it is a fact that micro-events appear to be fundamentally random; but it is an assumption that this appearance of randomness discovers their reality. Rather than assuming fundamental randomness, and from this assumption concluding that free will is an illusion, as many general relativists and quantum physicists do, it is more intellectually honest to assume that the convincing appearance of free will is not an illusion, and on the basis of this assumption begin an honest search for the explanation of the appearance of fundamental randomness at the micro level. The gratuity of other assumptions that underlie the two theories are also subjected to the smell text.

2017

The text proposes some directions of research, as based on previous works made by the author. Our purpose is to discuss the contribution of general relativity to the epistemology of space and time, in the context of a relational, and not substantial, rationality. General relativity brings us the important idea (of a relational nature) that space and time do not constitute a scene external to phenomena, but that, on the contrary, the phenomena themselves, in the first place the phenomenon of gravitation, are responsible for assessing the corresponding variables. However, this contribution does not make us progress on the "mystery" of time, that remains conceptually separated from space, even though, since the relativity theory, the values of space and time variables are related. Encouraged by general relativity, we must go further and express more strongly the link between the concepts of space and time, and their identity of substance. The relational approach must extend t...

An extensive review of Einstein's theory of special relativity and his writings from today's scientific and philosophical perspectives found that at the turn of the 20th century, the scientific and philosophical views were not sufficiently developed to understand the problems that physicists faced and that Einstein tried to solve with his theory. Regardless how brilliant a scientist he was, in his pursuit, Einstein was guided by incorrect philosophical views; views prevalent at that time. These views misled him into an incorrect method and unrealistic theory with circular definitions, inconsistencies in the explanations and principles that contradict those developed from the empirical evidence. In particular, this study found that neither Einstein nor Poincaré expressed sufficiently the " inertial frames of reference " (coordinate systems) in their respective relativity principles. They expressed them in terms of the uniform movement of translation instead of absence of external forces. Because of that they both overlooked that fields generated in one frame of reference cause forces at a distance in the other frames of reference turning them into noninertial ones. Thus, their respective principles of relativity cannot be valid for field-based processes when field is generated outside of the frame of reference. Einstein's use of his relativity principle for conditions when it cannot be valid, in combination with an incorrect idealistic ontological view of the term " Law of Nature " and insufficient rationalistic understanding of the term " time, " misled him into an incorrect method of developing his theory and to incorrect inferences of the other principles and concepts of this theory. Thus, the foundations of Einstein's theory of special relativity, his two postulates (principle of relativity and the invariance of velocity of light) as well as the relativity of simultaneity cannot be any longer justified. With that, Einstein's attempt to unify light and electro-magnetism with mechanics, his concept of light, space, time and the whole theory of relativity with its other consequences cannot correctly represent the realities of the physical world. Apart from the philosophical, conceptual and logical problems of this theory, the invariance of velocity of light is in serious need for the experimental verification or refutation. Although the technology of Einstein's time was insufficient to carry out such test, it is technologically feasible to do so today. Therefore, it is recommended, and it should be of the utmost importance, for physicists to carry out such a test today. V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx. Résumé: Un examen approfondi de la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein et de ses e ´crits, réalisé au travers des connaissances scientifiques et philosophiques actuelles, montre qu'a ` l'orée du 20 ième siècle, les visions scientifiques et philosophiques n'e ´taient pas suffisamment développées pour comprendre les problèmes auxquels les physiciens faisaient face alors quand Einstein essayait de les résoudre avec sa théorie. Quand bien même il fut un brillant scientifique, Einstein e ´tait guidé par une approche philosophique incorrecte, approche qui e ´tait courante a ` l'e ´poque. L'environnement philosophique d'alors l'a amené a ` développer une méthode incorrecte et une théorie irréaliste basée sur des assertions, des explications inconsistantes et des principes qui contredisent ceux développés a ` partir de l'e ´vidence empirique. Cette e ´tude montre, en particulier que ni Albert Einstein ni Henri Poincaré n'ont suffisamment approfondi les " référentiels inertiels " dans leurs respectifs principes de la relativité. Ils les ont définis par le mouvement de translation uniforme au lieu de les définir par l'absence de forces extérieures. Pour cette raison, ils ont tous les deux négligé le fait que des champs générés dans un cadre de référence provoquent des forces a ` distance dans les autres cadres de référence les transformant en noninertiels. Ainsi leurs respectifs principes de la relativité ne peuvent e ˆtre valides pour des processus basés sur le champ quand le champ est généré en dehors du cadre de référence. L'utilisation par Einstein de ses principes de la relativité dans des conditions qui ne peuvent e ˆtre validées, en combinaison avec une vision ontologique incorrecte et idéaliste du terme " Loi de la Nature " et une compréhension rationnelle a) [email protected] 0836-1398/2014/27(3)/411/37/$25.00 V C 2014 Physics Essays Publication 411 PHYSICS ESSAYS 27, 3 (2014) insuffisante du terme " Temps " , l'amenèrent a ` développer sa théorie au moyen d'une méthode incorrecte et tirer des conclusions erronées sur les autres principes et concepts de sa théorie. Ainsi, les bases de la théorie d'Einstein sur la relativité restreinte, ses deux postulats (principe de la relativité et l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière) ainsi que la relativité de la simultanéité ne peuvent plus e ˆtre justifiés. Avec cela, la tentative d'Einstein d'unifier lumière et e ´lectromagnétisme avec la mécanique, son concept sur la lumière, l'espace, le temps et toute la théorie sur la relativité y compris ses autres conséquences ne peuvent pas représenter les réalités du monde physique. Mis a ` part les problèmes philosophique, conceptuel et logique de sa théorie, l'invariabilité de la vitesse de la lumière a un sérieux besoin d'une vérification ou réfutation expérimentale. Mais si la technologie au temps d'Einstein e ´tait insuffisante pour mener a ` bien un tel test, c'est techniquement faisable de nos jours. C'est pourquoi, il est conseillé aux physiciens, et c'est de la plus haute importance, de procéder a ` ce test aujourd'hui.

2019

2008

It is demonstrated herein that:-1. The quantity 'r' appearing in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is neither a distance nor a geodesic radius in the manifold but is in fact the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spatial section and does not generally determine the geodesic radial distance (the proper radius) from the arbitrary point at the centre of the spherically symmetric metric manifold. 2. The Theory of Relativity forbids the existence of point-mass singularities because they imply infinite energies (or equivalently, that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuo); 3. Ric = R µν = 0 violates Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence' and so does not describe Einstein's gravitational field; 4. Einstein's conceptions of the conservation and localisation of gravitational energy are invalid; 5. The concepts of black holes and their interactions are ill-conceived; 6. The FRW line-element actually implies an open, infinite Universe in both time and space, thereby invalidating the Big Bang cosmology.

Cosmos and history: the journal of natural and social philosophy, 2015

We are drawn to physics by our desire to understand the most fundamental physical entities and processes of the Cosmos, from which all complexity evolves. However, the foundational models we are using, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, were not created for this purpose. They confine inquiry to the description and prediction of the observer’s experiences and measurements. Not understanding these models’ limitations, physicists misinterpret and misapply them in their attempts to explain phenomena, producing confusion. The recent discoveries of black holes and the galaxial rotation and recession anomalies have highlighted the need for a new approach. Theoretical physics must become space physics—the study of space and its causal role in all fundamental phenomena including particle formation gravity, inertia, and electromagnetism. To replace Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity we need only identify the position and motion of the space that causes the effects that they describe. Gravity t...