You may view my papers through links on my web page (from profiles of CFI). I am proposing another cosmological model. Each of the papers is on a topic with observations that all other current models fail to fully describe. The introductions list references. There are many such topics, so I will have lots of areas to examine. The weakness of the other models is the problems they have in the solar system (Pioneer Anomaly), galaxy, and galaxy clusters. As QM and cosmological models based on the Equivalence Principle (nearly all) differ, so too do cosmological and intermediate range (solar system to galaxy cluster) observations differ from current models. A TOE must be consistent with this range, also. I’m now into the 6th year of developing my model. As far as I know, I’m the only one working along the lines of my model. But the numbers work for the otherwise unexplained observations. That is, my model is way out of the mainstream. But, so was Newton and Einstein. Ah, well. That is part of the fun.
I think in our discussion we should separate the Special Theory of Relativity from the General Theory of Relativity.
In brief, GR has been tested only in the weak field approximation (weak Equivalence Principle). As a skeptic, I view this as Newtonian plus Special Theory of Relativity. To date, there is no supporting empirical evidence regarding how GR fares for the strong field. I think to be a theory; either the Strong Equivalence Principle or Mach’s Principle must have empirical evidence. Lack of evidence does not disprove a model. However, scientist has been searching for such evidence for a long time without result.
An example of a model (theory) is the gravitation effect of each body in a galaxy combines by vector addition (Newton) to calculate the net gravitational effect of the galaxy. A calculating method: 1+1=2, 1+2=3, etc. That is, addition is used to calculate the physical gravitational effect of the galaxy. Addition is not normally viewed as having predictive power. However, the physical model states use the mathematical method of addition to calculate the net effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_(geometry)
Likewise, many currently published models use the GR formalism with some different assumption (physical model) to calculate some effects.
GR starts with Newtonian mechanics, adds Special Relativity; the idea that physical laws are identical for all observers (called the general principle of relativity but is applicable to Newtonian mechanics as well – close to the Copernican Principle and the Cosmological Principle); the Strong Equivalence Principle, which is unconfirmed, to overcome inertial acceleration issues; and the spacetime concept to place time on the same footing as space to calculate the stress energy tensor. In Newtonian mechanics, calculating the future position, velocity, etc. from initial conditions and rate of change parameters becomes very complex with only a few bodies. GR then uses a Riemann transformation, which in general is not Euclidean; to change the coordinates to geometry based simplification. Ideally, the calculation ends when the transformed side of the equation is inverse transformed back to position and velocity coordinates called the solution. There are many forms of transformation such as Fourier (used by QM), Laplace, Lagrange (in mechanical problems), and many others. Mathematically any could be used. However, the problem is to simplify the calculation. In physics, reality is claimed when the mathematical model uses fewer parameters to describe the processes. This is true for the Riemann transform when applied to distance and time measurements. Hence, transformed ``space” and ``time’’ are called real. In QM, the Fourier transform is simpler math but involve more parameters. Hence, the argument about the reality of the waves. A claim that physical space exists independent of distance measurements between objects dates back to the Greeks (Aristotle vs. Democritus, at least). To date, no hypothesis has been suggested which can test the space proposition. The same applies to the ``time’’ of the Riemann transform. However, terminology interferes because the word time is used in both senses. Therefore, the claim of reality for space and time must remain a philosophical or speculative issue.
However, the term GR may also be used to include Principles that were added in the 19th and 20th centuries. These Principles could also fit with Newtonian mechanics. The sticking point is the Newtonian absolute space and time concept. Mach’s Principle or something very like it is needed to truly separate GR from Newtonian Mechanics. So far, including Mach’s Principle in a model remains elusive and the Strong Equivalence Principle remains undemonstrated.
Let me address another point that you raised by starting with an example. We could use the term distance and clock rate for the physical measurement side of the transformation equation and space and time for the transformed side of the equation. The clock rate is the duration between physical events. There is a lot of discussion on this. Note that Einstein used ``clock’’ when a measurement was implied. Pendulum clocks measure time between the events of one swing of the pendulum and the next. Take two identical pendulum clocks. Leave one at home. Take the other with you in your car. Travel around (obeying the speed limit, of course). When you get home, the clocks will show ``time dilation’’. Well, when you accelerate or slow, the added force changes the way the pendulum swings. Hence, a different clock rate. You might also go up in a plane, into a weaker gravitational field. This also affects the pendulum rate. But, you know the physical mechanism of measuring duration between events of a pendulum and you don’t assign the term ``time dilation’’ to this process. So, experiments use an atomic clock. But, the physical process of radioactive decay is as yet unknown. Perhaps, the gravitational field or acceleration changes the rate of radioactive decay. If this is true, then ``time dilation’’ is stating physical processes involve energy changes. The Pound-Rebka experiment measured a wavelength shift over the 22 feet change in a gravitational field. (By the way, this is sometimes mistakenly called the gravitational redshift.) The muon and other subatomic experiments and GPS have the same issue.
I agree, all models are false. That is, all models are inconsistent with some observation. The scientific problem is developing a better model. Unless we can create a universe, all our models are false. However, some are better than others in some restricted range.
Distances tested in quantum entanglement experiments are meters and longer, which are well within speed of light measurement distances. As I said, proponents view the transfer of quantum entanglement as less than superluminal. However, even proponents seem to accept the quantum change of state is instantaneous; the interpretation of it being information is not instantaneous. That is, determining that a give change of state was information or a random event takes the time.
I might also add, Special Relativity does not forbid faster than light travel provided the particle travels faster than light at all times. SR forbids acceleration to superluminal speeds. If you are a proponent of GR calculations, then you accept the (unproven) possibility of wormholes, which transport matter to distant locations faster than light would travel through normal space. Also, there are more than a few published, scientific papers examining the possibility of superluminal transport. The speed of light limitation is a proposition (assumption). Lack of evidence is not proof.
The progress of science is achieved by the examination of accepted assumptions and by the requirement that models fit observations not public opinion. The current models are inconsistent with a plethora of observations.
People, this is all science today from a skeptics viewpoint. Further, its all published skeptics. I’m not the originator of these alternate views. Tom Van Flandern is a published, scientific author. Just because one experiment does not reject (the only outcomes of experiments is ``reject’’ or ``not reject’’) some proposition, doesn’t mean others do reject a given hypotheisis. Just because some fact or observation doesn’t fit a model is no reason to ignore the fact and not try for a more inclusive model. I like to keep aware of them to help point the way to future papers in my quest for the TOE.
Do you have thoughts on what may make a better model? What’s your TOE?
