"The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two
fundamental theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals
with
the very large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises
when
attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two theories
just
don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by astronomical
observations while the latter theory has provided predictions of incredible
precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two, the validity of
Quantum
theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of its predictions.
Combining
the theories produces the conclusion that, at the subatomic scale, space is
violently curved to the point that it is more akin to a foam than to what we
normally consider as space.
Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the
development of superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program
on
NOVA, can lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has
been
in one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of
the
predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
General
Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General Relativity
have
only been made using the effects of the Sun's gravitational field or
observations made on distant objects which are made without the ability to
measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful conclusion is to
be
drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a million times too weak to
reveal second order effects which, if present, can become predominant at
high
field strengths. The same is true of the astronomical observations of
massive
objects. Without the ability to obtain precision orbital data, observations
made
of the effects occurring around a neutron star, for example, cannot be used
to
determine the existence of such second order effects. Since General
Relativity
requires that space be "curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of
no
other theory (cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w
whole
is not curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where its
derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and
compares those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one finds an
interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
relativistic
transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT system of units one
finds
the transformations:
Dimensional Content
Special Relativity General Relativity:
Force (F) = 1 1
Length (L) = 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
Time (T) = (1-V^2/C^2))^0.5 (1-$)
Space (S) = (1-$) 1
Note 1 - The term "$" represents the combined terms in the time
transformation expression provided by General Relativity. This
transformations represents a time contraction so as to be
compatible with the definitions of Special Relativity. It is the reciprocal
of
General Relativity's Time Dilation.<BR><BR>Note 2 - General Relativity
requires
an additional term to account for the curvature of space. This term is
provided
as the "Space Transformation". Until this degree of freedom re3presented by
"curved space" was added, Dr. Einstein found it impossible to solve the
mathematical equations involved.
If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible
to find the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the
trouble
to look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
expression:<BR><BR>(dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2 - (Kt*C*dT)^2
It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant
term, Kt. The terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The
effect of
the omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required
coefficient
is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence. If a term, Kl,
were
provided along with the "length" terms, no error would since the solution
would
provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential error exists if it is
omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical process called
integration and in that process the omitted term would be forced to have a
value
of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as every undergraduate student of
Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous omission, Dr. Einstein labored
unsuccessfully to solve the equations of General Relativity for 18 months
until
he resorted to the non-Euclidean of Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?).
The
use of this geometry led to a solution by providing an additional degree of
freedom to the mathematics, but the mathematical error remains to compromise
work using General relativity as a base.
The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a
space transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for
Length, is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of
General
Relativity's Time Dilation. We may then write:
Dimensional Content - Special Relativity - General Relativity
Force 1 1
Length 1/(1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 1(1-$)
Time (1-V^2/C^2)^0.5 (1-$)
Space 1 1
With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved.
The revision would not be viable if it were not consistent with the results
of
observation and if it were not consistent with other means of derivation.
(http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity/htm. One must recognize that the
observations
made which allegedly verified General Relativity were made in the Sun's
gravitational field which is about a million times too weak to make a
determination. Observationally, either interpretation is valid, but the
revised
theory does not require that space be curved, reveals the source of
gravitational energy, and even shows how universes are created! (I was
surprised
too!). Isn't time that Dr. Einstein's screw up was repaired?
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity"
{1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL
OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT
ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF
WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.
.
|
