A simple proof Einstein got it wrong with GR

[Q-reeus]

In a previous thread, I managed to get, via evidently now departed tashja, feedback from imo the brilliant theoretician Stanley Robertson re GR vs Yilmaz gravity theory:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-20#post-3338529
Note particularly his reply paras 2 and 3 - emphasizing that logically redshift need be an exact exponential function of Newtonian gravitational potential.
Well in his latest arXiv article, that logical proof is conveniently set out explicitly and simply in appendix A of: https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417#

Most of you are so enthralled with the promotional hype glorifying 'infallible' Einstein this continuing centenary celebration year, mere contrary logical proofs will carry no weight.
Still, one or two might recognize that just on it's own, appendix A (add appendix B for good measure) provides a death strike against 'perfect' GR.

How long it takes for a general recognition of that will be more down to sociological/ideological forces than pure reason. In the end, that 2 + 2 = 4 must prevail. Will add that owing to GW self-consistency considerations, Carver Mead's G4v may prove to be a superior theory even to Yilmaz gravity. Currently corresponding with a few relevant parties on that one.

 

[Daecon]

Theories get refined in light of new information. If Einstein didn't get relativity 100% correct, that doesn't mean relativity is wrong - any more than Darwin not getting DNA 100% correct means evolution is wrong.

 

[Q-reeus]

Theories get refined in light of new information.

So far so good.

If Einstein didn't get relativity 100% correct, that doesn't mean relativity s wrong...

Wrong. It means general relativity, loudly proclaimed as the benchmark classical theory of gravity, is wrong. For instance - much beloved by some BH's are impossible under a Yilmaz style exponential metric. And so it must be.

- any more than Darwin not getting DNA 100% correct means evolution is wrong.

The discovery of DNA structure and function wasn't made until 1953. Amazingly, and you wouldn't have known this, it's been argued the initial 'discovery' was made in the late 1860's, a time when Darwin was still alive and kicking:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/discovery-of-dna-structure-and-function-watson-397

 

[James R]

Well in his latest arXiv article

I think I'll wait for publication in Physical Review Letters or similar.

 

[Q-reeus]

I think I'll wait for publication in Physical Review Letters or similar.

Which may never happen. Oh yeah, there really is such a thing as bias heavily favouring an incumbent in the supposedly neutral and entirely objective scientific system. Especially one as exceedingly promoted as GR. Why not rather just use your own noggin James. That is - work through the quite straightforward derivation of exponential redshift in that Appendix A. And show us all where you think Stan Robertson 'obviously must have got it wrong'. A challenge open to all here - especially any resident maths whizzes.

 

[Farsight]

Interesting stuff, Q-reeus. There is however an issue with appendix A. In a gravitational field, the ascending photon doesn't change frequency.
Gravitational redshift is where the photon is emitted at a lower energy. See Einstein talking about it here:

"An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated".

Also note that the principle of equivalence is such that SR is "nowhere precisely realized in the real world", see the second paragraph here. This means the principle of equivalence is not exact. Acclerating through homogeneous space is like standing still in inhomogeneous space, but it isn't exactly the same. On top of that, see the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity Einstein said this:

"the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".

That doesn't sit too well with what Robertson said on page 3 of his paper:

"This occurrence of an event horizon can be traced to Einstein’s exclusion of gravitational field energy as a source of spacetime curvature."

Huh, Robertson doesn't understand the firewall either. All in all, the situation is not as clear cut as you might think. Einstein wasn't a big fan of black holes anyway. As far as I know he didn't claim they contained a central point-singularity, and didn't object to Oppenheimer's original frozen star interpretation.

 

[James R]

Q-reeus:

In a previous thread, I managed to get, via evidently now departed tashja, feedback from imo the brilliant theoretician Stanley Robertson re GR vs Yilmaz gravity theory:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawking-radiation.152642/page-20#post-3338529
Note particularly his reply paras 2 and 3 - emphasizing that logically redshift need be an exact exponential function of Newtonian gravitational potential.

I read the correspondence in the post you linked. Among other things, Robertson writes:

"The exponential metric essentially moves the point particle singularity back to r=0, whereas the Schwarzschild metric is too strongly curved and gravitational forces become infinite out at the Schwarzschild radius, where there is neither mass nor curvature singularity. Why so many physicists think this to be acceptable is baffling to me."​

I'm not sure what he means by gravitational forces becoming infinite at the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius is the distance at which it becomes impossible for anything to escape from a black hole, but what's all this about forces being infinite there? He claims this is something that is accepted by many physicists, but I don't even understand what he's getting at. Do you understand what he is talking about? Can you explain?

[Publication in a peer-reviewed journal] may never happen. Oh yeah, there really is such a thing as bias heavily favouring an incumbent in the supposedly neutral and entirely objective scientific system.

If this brilliant theoretician really has a solid argument that GR is fatally flawed, I can't see why he couldn't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The conspiracy theory doesn't add up for me.

We know that GR isn't the final theory of gravity. It sounds to me that Robertson is making an argument based on classical physics, though, not one based on quantum physics. Perhaps the problem is that he can't propose an experimental test to distinguish between GR as it stands and his preferred modified version of it. What do you think?

Especially one as exceedingly promoted as GR. Why not rather just use your own noggin James. That is - work through the quite straightforward derivation of exponential redshift in that Appendix A.

I might take a look if I have some free time. I'm no expert on GR. But you say it's a simple argument to follow. Is that right?

And show us all where you think Stan Robertson 'obviously must have got it wrong'.

My first impression is not that he got it wrong, but that he can't provide a way to distinguish his modified version of GR from the "first order" GR that he wants to replace. Can he?

 

[PhysBang]

Wrong. It means general relativity, loudly proclaimed as the benchmark classical theory of gravity, is wrong. For instance - much beloved by some BH's are impossible under a Yilmaz style exponential metric. And so it must be.

You are not quite correct. If you bother to read your citation, it shows that in order to derive this "new" theory, the author is assuming that GR is correct and requires an additional clarification factor that can be measured from the phenomena of gravity that appear only if we assume that GR is correct. This is exactly what Einstein did with Newtonian mechanics: assume (based on the staggering amount of evidence) that the theory is very much correct and use it to produce more evidence for a new theory.

Just like Einstein vindicated Newton's work, this author, if correct, vindicates Einstein's work. If someone wants to use this new metric, they have to use GR.

 

[PhysBang]

Which may never happen. Oh yeah, there really is such a thing as bias heavily favouring an incumbent in the supposedly neutral and entirely objective scientific system. Especially one as exceedingly promoted as GR. Why not rather just use your own noggin James. That is - work through the quite straightforward derivation of exponential redshift in that Appendix A. And show us all where you think Stan Robertson 'obviously must have got it wrong'. A challenge open to all here - especially any resident maths whizzes.

You seem to be shockingly ignorant of the history of physics. There were many, many alternatives to GR that have been developed and investigated with millions of dollars throughout the 20th Century. There continue to be millions of dollars each year poured into universities and research institutes just to find alternatives to GR!

 

[PhysBang]

Interesting stuff, Q-reeus. There is however an issue with appendix A. In a gravitational field, the ascending photon doesn't change frequency.

As everyone has pointed out to Farsight before, this statement that the photon does not change frequency assumes that there is one true and secret reference frame and that Einstein himself could not do GR.

 

[James R]

Farsight:

Interesting stuff, Q-reeus. There is however an issue with appendix A. In a gravitational field, the ascending photon doesn't change frequency.

What is your understanding of the term "gravitational red shift"? Is it your position that such a thing simply does not happen?

Gravitational redshift is where the photon is emitted at a lower energy.

No. Look it up.

See Einstein talking about it here:

"An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated".

I see you misunderstand what Einstein was referring to there. Either that, or you're quote mining.

Also note that the principle of equivalence is such that SR is "nowhere precisely realized in the real world", see the second paragraph here. This means the principle of equivalence is not exact.

No. It means that in a curved space-time, the frames are only locally inertial.

On top of that, see the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity Einstein said this:

"the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".

In other words, GR is non-linear.

That doesn't sit too well with what Robertson said on page 3 of his paper:

"This occurrence of an event horizon can be traced to Einstein’s exclusion of gravitational field energy as a source of spacetime curvature."

Robertson is claiming that Einstein was wrong, so of course it doesn't sit too well. What did you expect?

Huh, Robertson doesn't understand the firewall either.

What firewall? What are you talking about?

Einstein wasn't a big fan of black holes anyway. As far as I know he didn't claim they contained a central point-singularity, and didn't object to Oppenheimer's original frozen star interpretation.

And this is important because ... ?

 

[rpenner]

As everyone has pointed out to Farsight before, this statement that the photon does not change frequency assumes that there is one true and secret reference frame and that Einstein himself could not do GR.

Since Farsight is quoting from Einstein's pop-physics account of GR, it seems he still can't do GR. But he can willfully misteach it.

 

[Q-reeus]

Interesting stuff, Q-reeus. There is however an issue with appendix A. In a gravitational field, the ascending photon doesn't change frequency.

It does and must do so wrt the emitter frame! Your restrictive viewpoint is one seen from an inertial frame. The derivation which obviously takes into account the frame of the receiver is perfectly correct.

Gravitational redshift is where the photon is emitted at a lower energy. See Einstein talking about it here:
"An atom absorbs or emits light at a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated".

And there is some argument with Robertson on that?! Read rest of article and you will find out straw-man arguments burn up.

Also note that the principle of equivalence is such that SR is "nowhere precisely realized in the real world", see the second paragraph here. This means the principle of equivalence is not exact. Acclerating through homogeneous space is like standing still in inhomogeneous space, but it isn't exactly the same.

Tidal effects are correctly taken into account in the analysis, which anyway in the end yields an exact differential relation.

On top of that, see the Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity Einstein said this:
"the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy".
That doesn't sit too well with what Robertson said on page 3 of his paper:
"This occurrence of an event horizon can be traced to Einstein’s exclusion of gravitational field energy as a source of spacetime curvature."

This has been gone over many times in many threads and still it never gets through - Einstein when uttering that quote, did not understand the full implications of his own theory. Evidently you are still not aware that the vacuum Schwarzschild solution explicitly precludes 'self-gravitation of gravity' - given the Ricci scalar curvature R = 0.
It's an area of confusion and conflict within GR - not surprising given the inherent internal consistency issues.

Huh, Robertson doesn't understand the firewall either.

Why should he? It's a desperate attempt via QFT to patch over internal inconsistencies inherent in applying GR to 'BH's'.

All in all, the situation is not as clear cut as you might think. Einstein wasn't a big fan of black holes anyway. As far as I know he didn't claim they contained a central point-singularity, and didn't object to Oppenheimer's original frozen star interpretation.

It's well known AE never accepted the possibility of unrestrained gravitational collapse. He recognized the 'singularity' implications, but had no theoretical way out.

 

[Q-reeus]

I read the correspondence in the post you linked. Among other things, Robertson writes:

"The exponential metric essentially moves the point particle singularity back to r=0, whereas the Schwarzschild metric is too strongly curved and gravitational forces become infinite out at the Schwarzschild radius, where there is neither mass nor curvature singularity. Why so many physicists think this to be acceptable is baffling to me."

Robertson is very clued up on all aspects of GR, and his reference there to "moves the point particle singularity back to r=0" is possibly just a terminological slip-up - he was in context likely referring to the event horizon, not singularity. However he may have been likening the infinite g accelerations at EH to a 'singularity' of sorts.

I'm not sure what he means by gravitational forces becoming infinite at the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius is the distance at which it becomes impossible for anything to escape from a black hole, but what's all this about forces being infinite there? He claims this is something that is accepted by many physicists, but I don't even understand what he's getting at. Do you understand what he is talking about? Can you explain?

You do not know that in order to hover at an EH, acceleration i.e. g-forces are infinite for a Schwarzschild BH?! Of course the standard response is everything is in free-fall at that point so not to worry.

If this brilliant theoretician really has a solid argument that GR is fatally flawed, I can't see why he couldn't get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The conspiracy theory doesn't add up for me.

Please James, leave your stock-in-trade 'conspiracy theory' aspersions out of this one. There is undeniable peer pressure and other such real world influences at work in science.

We know that GR isn't the final theory of gravity. It sounds to me that Robertson is making an argument based on classical physics, though, not one based on quantum physics. Perhaps the problem is that he can't propose an experimental test to distinguish between GR as it stands and his preferred modified version of it. What do you think?

I think you should read the rest of that excellent article, which variously answers and refutes some of your points there.

I might take a look if I have some free time. I'm no expert on GR. But you say it's a simple argument to follow. Is that right?

Is for me. You up to doing some basic calculus James? No heavy GR tensor maths there.

My first impression is not that he got it wrong, but that he can't provide a way to distinguish his modified version of GR from the "first order" GR that he wants to replace. Can he?

Answered that above. Again - read the entire article, and then decide if your comments here make sense.

 

[Q-reeus]

You are not quite correct. If you bother to read your citation, it shows that in order to derive this "new" theory, the author is assuming that GR is correct and requires an additional clarification factor that can be measured from the phenomena of gravity that appear only if we assume that GR is correct. This is exactly what Einstein did with Newtonian mechanics: assume (based on the staggering amount of evidence) that the theory is very much correct and use it to produce more evidence for a new theory.

Just like Einstein vindicated Newton's work, this author, if correct, vindicates Einstein's work. If someone wants to use this new metric, they have to use GR.

Hard to follow your reasoning there. I consider it telling though that given you have a quite good grasp of maths, opted for the above discourse rather than simply critique the simple derivation of Appendix A itself. Which if correct which it is, overthrows GR - period. One then rounds it off with Appendix B.

 

[Q-reeus]

You seem to be shockingly ignorant of the history of physics. There were many, many alternatives to GR that have been developed and investigated with millions of dollars throughout the 20th Century. There continue to be millions of dollars each year poured into universities and research institutes just to find alternatives to GR!

And I actually stated anywhere such was not the case? Relevant point for me is that a fatal flaw in GR was evident from before it's publication, but such are the forces that played out, somehow got buried and forgotten. No millions of dollars needed to see it.

 

[PhysBang]

Hard to follow your reasoning there.

You mean, the reasoning of reading the author and following what the author says?

I consider it telling though that given you have a quite good grasp of maths, opted for the above discourse rather than simply critique the simple derivation of Appendix A itself. Which if correct which it is, overthrows GR - period. One then rounds it off with Appendix B.

You mean, the Appendix B that contains the words, "If Einstein’s gravitational field equation is modified to include this field stress-energy tensor as a source term in the right member the field equations would become..." This makes it seems a lot like the author is taking everything that Einstein did as correct and adding a new correction term. Like I said.

This is exactly the sort of thing that everyone, including Einstein, expected to happen at some point. It may be that this author is correct, it may not be.

 

[PhysBang]

And I actually stated anywhere such was not the case? Relevant point for me is that a fatal flaw in GR was evident from before it's publication, but such are the forces that played out, somehow got buried and forgotten. No millions of dollars needed to see it.

OK, so you are admitting that you haven't really read this paper and that you are only using it because you imagine that the conclusion supports your bizarre preconceptions. Congratulations.

 

[Q-reeus]

You mean, the reasoning of reading the author and following what the author says?

No, the contorted rambling logic of #8.

You mean, the Appendix B that contains the words, "If Einstein’s gravitational field equation is modified to include this field stress-energy tensor as a source term in the right member the field equations would become..." This makes it seems a lot like the author is taking everything that Einstein did as correct and adding a new correction term. Like I said.

This is exactly the sort of thing that everyone, including Einstein, expected to happen at some point. It may be that this author is correct, it may not be.

No. It's not what everyone including Einstein expected at all. AE maintained his GR was the classical theory - and so it has been heavily promoted more and more so ever since. What you quoted above drastically modifies - or rather invalidates - GR as explicitly formulated in the EFE's. Gravity self-gravitates or it doesn't. BH's if it doesn't, vs no BH's if it does, etc. Result of Appendix A is purely classical with nothing to do with fancy QG mods most 'beyond GR but only near the singularity limit' theorists are working on. Ditto for Appendix B.

 

[Q-reeus]

OK, so you are admitting that you haven't really read this paper and that you are only using it because you imagine that the conclusion supports your bizarre preconceptions. Congratulations.

Resorting to ad hominem attack already? Like I said earlier, telling you have not critiqued the derivation in Appendix A.