An ether theory of gravity compatible with modern physics

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Schmelzer, Dec 1, 2015.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,603
    The theory I want to present here can be, if one likes, classified as an alternative theory, but, given that it is published in a peer-reviewed journal, the classification "on the fringe" as well as the usual stuff posted there does not really fit (but if some moderator decides to shift it, no problem).

    The paper presenting the theory is
    I. Schmelzer, A generalization of the Lorentz ether to gravity with general-relativistic limit, Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1 (2012), p. 203-242 and can be downloaded from http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 A more popular introduction can be found at http://ilja-schmelzer.de/gravity/

    The main properties: Mathematically, it is very close to general relativity. It contains two additional parameters, \(\Xi, \Upsilon\), and, if above are set to zero, we obtain the Einstein equations of GR in harmonic coordinates. Even if they are nonzero, the additional terms have mainly cosmological character, become important only at very large, cosmological distances, and very close to the horizon of a black hole. The theory itself does not tell us anything about how large they have to be, they are free parameters, thus, they can be very small, and in this case, the theory is almost indistinguishable from GR by observation. Some principles of GR, like the Einstein Equivalence Principle, hold even exactly, and the theory is a metric theory of gravity.

    On the other hand, the metaphysics are completely different from the spacetime interpretation of GR. We have a classical Newtonian absolute time and an absolute space, which is filled with an ether. This ether has classical properties - an ether density \(\rho=g^{00}\sqrt{-g}\), and a velocity \(v^i = g^{0i}/g^{00}\) as well as a stress tensor, and the usual classical continuity and Euler equations hold - which are equivalent to the harmonic equation for the preferred Euclidean coordinates of absolute space and time.

    The main interest for laymen is that this ether theory of gravity shows that all the claims that relativity proves that there is no ether, and that the ether is incompatible with observation and modern physics in general are simply false.

    The main interest for professional physicists is that all the conceptual problems of GR quantization disappear. We know that to quantize a condensed matter theory in a Newtonian spacetime is unproblematic. The proposed theory remains, of course non-renormalizable, but the very concept also tells us that it can be only an effective field theory, which has to be replaced, below a critical length (the atomic distance of the ether) by a different theory. And for effective field theories, non-renormalizability is a quite natural, expected property.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,603
    First, mass is nothing external to the ether, but all matter consists of waves of the ether, and the fields which describe matter describe also properties of the ether. Which properties is not specified by the theory of gravity, but by a more specific ether model. And, of course, we have nontrivial gravity even if there are only massless things like light.

    Then, the ether velocity is \(g^{0i}/g^{00}\), thus, once this is zero in the no gravity limit, the ether is static in this case. And its density also is constant, like it would have to be for an incompressible ether.

    No. In general, the ether is compressible, but has a density which is defined by \(\rho = g^{00}\sqrt{-g}\). What you have quoted was simply to avoid the possible confusion related with the idea that one could measure it in \(g\, cm^{-3}\).
    First, there is a derivation of the equations from first principles, and so claims of "superfluous clinging on GR" are unjustified. It does not rely on GR in its derivation at all.

    Then, the flat background is not at all irrelevant. It is a necessity for quantization.

    You obviously don't know that the SR is equivalent to the Lorentz ether, and that, therefore, the Lorentz ether has not been invalidated by the Michelson/Morley experiment. The ether paper proves, that also all the known experiments which support GR do not invalidate the ether concept.
    And my theory shows that this claim is false. In my theory, the space and time coordinates are different, and do not mix together. But the theory nonetheless accurately describes what we see.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,233
    Then claim your Nobel prize.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,603
    This would be bad style.
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Sounds great. To bad the Gravistar it predicts [instead of black holes] has been falsified. There's no evidence for an atomic ether. If the ether has atomic properties do you propose an experiment to measure for these properties? I like the idea of effective field theories for theories that can't be empirically tested. I think your ether theory of gravity has been falsified in the same classical domain as GR. What I think is irrelevant beyond whether I'm interested in this thread or not. I think this thread should be in physics and math.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    No it doesn't Schmelzer. It doesn't describe what we see. Calling the ether atomic is nonsense. There's no evidence for a Gravistar. Matter falling on the surface of your Gravistar would result in what happens when matter falls on a neutron star or be reflected. The impact parameter is close to radial and would be reflected in the + radial direction. After reflection it would initially be hard to see, due to redshift, but as it moves away it become visible. If that was observed it would be very interesting. But it isn't.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    Firstly you make the most basic of mistakes in that "proof" in the scientific discipline, particularly cosmology, is not at all the goal to be achieved.
    Although, logically and obviously, scientific theories such as SR/GR and the BB, do grow in certainty over time, as they continue to make correct predictions and align with observations.
    Even if your theory does all that you claim, [and I do have doubts on that for many reasons] it does in no way replace GR.
    The incumbent model will always surpass interlopers or similar repeats.
    see http://www.sciforums.com/threads/for-the-alternative-theorists.141223/
    note points
    [3]Whatever you have at the very least, must be able to explain and predict better then the incumbent model:
    and
    [10] If you think you have accomplished a theory over riding Evolution, SR, GR the BB QM or Newton, you most certainly have not: 100 years and more of past giants, and the 100's of books and papers since, means that you will not invalidate such overwhelmingly supported ideas in a few words or posts: Accept that from the word go:

    Finally and as another has already iterated, if what you claim has any substance, then go claim your Nobel.
    Although I see other factors at play here.
    We have had over my period on this forum, at least 6 that have claimed to either surpass SR/GR, invalidate SR/GR, and two that have claimed to have a TOE, one of whom has written a book. All see there own "theory" as truth and superior....and yet all are totally different. Here are some of the types I refer to......
    [1]Religious fanatics are well known to be doing their darndest to attempt to invalidate present cosmology, as present cosmology has pushed back, and continues to push back the need for any magical pixie in the sky.

    [2]Then we have genuine independent researchers, but I ask, what is an independant researcher: This kind is more politically motivated, that indulges in many conspiracies re mainstream science and academia. They also obviously see the need for new models, which they cling to with as much adoration as a mother for a new born baby. This fact also applies to the next of the alternative brigade as follows.

    [3]Finally many types venture onto science forums, all forms of Tom's Dick's and Harry's .....most such as myself, have an interest in true science, the knowledge it has obtained for us, its explanations as to what we see, and our continuing voyage into revealing the awesome unknowns yet to be properly determined. But also sprinkled among those lote are a few afflicted with "delusions of grandeur", and which I linked professional medical evidence the other day, linking it to individual brain anomalies. They see themselves as the "be all's and end all's" of scientific knowledge, rudely and arrogantly deride the many giants of the present and past, and just as rudely and as arrogantly deride the data and vast knowledge that these giants are responsible in obtaining. Although its worth noting that most are "self taught" and do not have the necessary qualifications to deride anything.

    In essence, and as I sarcastically inferred earlier on, no new science, no new model, no real invalidation of present mainstream science is ever going to surface or be born on a forum such as this. That's not to denigrate this forum, that's just plain ordinary common sense.
    Other forums that have more strict rules of engagement, totally disallow such alternative, pseudoscience and give its perpetrators one month to validate their claims, or the thread is locked and cesspooled.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    We have to be fair. Schmelzer has much scholarship but like all humans has a tendency to fall in love with their own creation. It's pretty clear he thinks his model is a classical effective field theory overruling a need for a theory of quantum gravity. This hasn't found much traction amoungst his peers. It seems ether based physics lost traction years ago. It's kinda weird he mentions Lorentz ether theory and the 'atomic' ether. Based on Lorentz the ether was undetectable and doesn't have atomic properties.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2015
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225

    You reading my mind bruce?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    I certainly recognise that fact and have also told him so.
    But remember also, although Anikan Skywalker was trained in the use of the force as taught by Yoda, he did eventually turn to the dark side.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    brucep likes this.
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    When I read this I got a little chuckle, because I post my alternative ideas out in fringe in order to comply with the rules on alternative content, but I'll give you the slack you request that justifies your posting in the Cosmology forum. At the same time I request some slack in that my threads are not the "usual stuff" out there.
    Have you ever considered differentiating between the aether medium, and the waves that traverse it? That way, if you imagine the medium without wave energy, it would be equalized, meaning at the same density everywhere. In itself, it would have no velocity. It would just be there, filling space, and with the potential to be compressed by energy wave fronts passing through (waiting for waves to come along so it could carry them across it, lol).
    I don't think that there is any proof that there is no aether. It is just that the current model doesn't require an aether. Can you provide a link to claims that aether has been falsified? I know you aren't referring to the Michelson and Morley experimental results, and clearly you are describing a different kind of aether.
     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    That's the point...the current model doesn't require an ether and is working exceptionally well and has passed all tests.
    No proof of an ether along with any scientific theory is correct, but the Michelson/Morley experiment was evidence as to its probable non existence.
    Gravitational Radiation is also strongly evident, despite no direct observation...the same applies to BH's, DE, DM.
    Remember about proof in science?
    The problem is of course, our technical achievements to be able to probe at those quantum/Planck scales, has not quite caught up with the macroscopic observations we are able to make.
    It gets down then to trust and faith in our cosmologists that they are interpreting it as it should be.
    I see far more logic in having some faith and trust in accepted mainstream academia in general, then putting faith in the claims and remarks of those that only have this forum for an outlet.
    And yes, most certainly I will acknowledge your honesty and humility in having the intestinal fortitude to post your own alternative models in the alternative section, despite us at times crossing swords on different issues.
     
  16. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Granted, there is all of that going on, though the luniniferous aether that M&M couldn't detect is not the same aether that Schmelzer is invoking. Never-the-less, my question to him stands, and is an opening to an on topic discussion with him about an aspect of his paper. Hopefully he will respond for himself, and perhaps that will lead to other related content.
     
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    It's like God. No proof either way. So what does atomic mean? It's not the Lorentz ether. The 'atomic ether distance'? The reality is this theory has been falsified. Schmelzer's reasoning why the Gravistar hasn't been observed is trying to survive in an error bar. Like somebody claiming the universe is closed because the measurement error bar is slightly greater on the + side.
     
  18. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Really? Try making sense. You're just making up bullshit. Your opinion is worthless because you need to inject your personal bullshit into the conversation.
     
  19. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    My question as well, atomic ether? I hope to approach that with him, with the interest of understanding the aether he invokes. Some of it makes sense to me, and then there is the part I don't quite get, hence my question to him.
     
  20. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    He invoked his ether and it didn't work. The question is why does his ether theory predict a Gravistar? Invoking the ether leads to such a bad prediction. What does atomic mean? In his context I would have used particle since that is what he's predicting the ether is. A bunch of particles. What does that sound like? A sea of gravitons but it doesn't work because it predicts that the final state of collapsed matter results in an object > a black hole. Pretty sure it's not a singularity but convinced the final state has radius < r=M for an extremal rotating black hole. Schmelzer probably has me on ignore so I'll go *poof*.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2015
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Paddoboy's glee on 'purpose' is different.
    You clearly state that the motivation for your theory is to revive ether, IMO not to debunk GR. You do not mention anything uncomfortable about GR either in your motivation or in your main paper, while claiming your theory an alternative to GR. In the same breath you state that its predictions etc are same as that of GR and you remain careful about straightaway debunking GR (Compulsion?). So what is the purpose of having two co existing alternative theories, one must go. Occam's razor will do the needful. Thats why I stated you must be explicit about issues with GR, which you wish to reolve with your theory, you are silent on that except passing remarks on Gravastar / BB singularity. Quantization is also non re normalizable in your theory and it is due to absolute nature of spacetime which is not a novel aspect of your concept.

    You know very well that peer reviewed publication is the first hurdle, but real success is wider acceptance and you cannot wait for GR to die before your theory gets acceptance. You must demonstrate the superiority / flawlessness of your concept.

    I will be abrupt to get a better grip of your concept.... You propose flat spacetime and you claim Gravity as stress / distortion of a compressible entity which has density (defined differently..thats ok) and is called ether (or any other term), so primarily you are creating a force field which is non existent in GR, which is simply the distortion in the spacetime geometry. Once a distortion is created in the materialistic ether then light is not expected to traverse this distorted path, it will follow the Euclidean straight lines, suggesting that you have gotten over with the concept of geodesic / spacetime curvature etc. This instantly seeks compliance of your theory with the observations regarding a. Gravitational Lensing b. Mercury precession which can be addressed by Newtonian but inaccurately. I still do not get the convincing argument about the relevance of flat spacetime (other than providing a space for ether) in your theory once you propose gravity as the stress in the ether. In the sense your Gravity is absolutely independent of background space. Your theory will also debunk the concept of Gravitational Waves, they will be more akin to Gravity Waves as the ripples in your ether media. So my request to you is to please list down that these are the problem areas in GR and this is how they are addressed by your theory and of course you have to be more specific about this Ether. It appears as difficult as spacetime.
     
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,225
    No glee at all, just taken aback somewhat in seeing you finally recognising some invalid concepts.
    The incumbent theory holds the default position, particularly since it has stood all tests so far over a 100 years.
    Spacetime is not difficult to understand at all. It is the Universe itself...that which evolved at the BB...that background or fabric against which GR is referenced.

    Let me remind you again, and Schmelzer, no new theory/model of gravitational radiation, or any other aspect of cosmology, will be discovered/realized or otherwise fabricated on any science forum such as this.
    It just ain't gonna happen, dreaming and delusions aside.
     
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,603
    Too bad that this is false, and, given that you repeat this claim, despite the repeated evidence I have given that this is not the case, this is simply a lie.

    But I will repeat: A stable gravastar is a prediction for \(\Upsilon > 0\). The theory does not have such a requirement, so \(\Upsilon < 0\) is possible too. Moreover, for very small \(\Upsilon > 0\) the stable gravastar will remain indistinguishable from a black hole because in the limit \(\Upsilon \to 0\) the surface redshift reaches infinity, thus, whatever happens on the surface will simply not visible because it will be darker than the background radiation.

    I propose, independent of this ether theory of gravity, an ether model which explains all the fields of the standard model of particle physics. See http://ilja-schmelzer.de/matter/
    For discussing this model, I have started a separate thread, because, even if above parts are compatible with each other, this is a separate thing.
    http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an...he-standard-model-of-particle-physics.153207/
    I don't understand. Or it can't be empirically tested, or it has been falsified, above together is nonsense. Of course, it is a well-defined theory and can be tested as well as GR, and in most domains it makes the same predictions as GR, which is no wonder because in the limit \(\Xi,\Upsilon \to 0\) the equations become the Einstein equations of GR in harmonic coordinates.
     

Share This Page