A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological Implications

[Guest Zanket]

Abstract: A flaw of general relativity is exposed and is shown to source from a misapplication of the equivalence principle, the theory’s core postulate. A replacement for the Schwarzschild metric is simply derived. (The vast majority of experimental tests of general relativity have been tests of the Schwarzschild metric.) The new metric is shown to be confirmed to all significant digits by experiments of the three classical tests of general relativity. The predictions of the new metric are shown to diverge from those of the Schwarzschild metric as gravity strengthens. The cosmological implications explain some observations simpler than do alternative explanations.

 

A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological Implications

[EWright]

Abstract: A flaw of general relativity is exposed and is shown to source from a misapplication of the equivalence principle, the theory’s core postulate. A replacement for the Schwarzschild metric is simply derived. (The vast majority of experimental tests of general relativity have been tests of the Schwarzschild metric.) The new metric is shown to be confirmed to all significant digits by experiments of the three classical tests of general relativity. The predictions of the new metric are shown to diverge from those of the Schwarzschild metric as gravity strengthens. The cosmological implications explain some observations simpler than do alternative explanations.

 

A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological Implications

 

English translation please; anyone?

[UncleAl]

The predictions of the new metric are shown to diverge from those of the Schwarzschild metric as gravity strengthens.

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp

Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

 

A Schwarzschild metric assumes no rotation. That clearly does not obtain in the real world. Binary pulsars exactly behave within experimental error with unperturbed General Relatvity - and they are both massive (near collapse into a black hole) and rapidly rotating.

 

Why don't you disprove a Kerr metric?

 

http://www.astro.ku.dk/~milvang/RelViz/000_node12.html

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/KerrBlackHole.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_metric

[Guest Zanket]

Why don't you disprove a Kerr metric?

 

Disproving the Schwarzschild metric is good enough for government work.

[EWright]

Disproving the Schwarzschild metric is good enough for government work.

 

:shrug: English, I say! English! :wave:

[Erasmus00]

:shrug: English, I say! English! :wave:

 

In differential geometry, the metric, more or less, is a mathematical entity describing curvature, often used to solve for the dynamics of test particles around massive objects. GR provides a set of equations relating curvature to energy density, so to describe the physics of a situation, you solve these equations (tremendously difficult in most situations, as the equations are nonlinear). You end up with a tensor describing curvature, and you can work out, from that, the metric.

 

The schwarzschild metric is the metric for a spherically symmetric, non-rotating mass. It is a good approximation to the area around the sun. Or, I suppose, if there was such a thing as non-rotating black holes. (there probably isn't).

 

The Kerr metric, on the other hand, is for rotating symmetric bodies. That as close to English as this can probably be made. If you want to actually learn GR, I'd suggest Gravity, by James Hartle. It's an excellent intro to GR, if you have some calculus background. If you have a lot of math background, go straight to Gravitation by Misner, Wheeler and Thorne.

-Will

[Guest Zanket]

:shrug: English, I say! English! :wave:

 

Hee hee. As much as I like to keep it simple, a flaw of GR can be presented only so simply. You might have to do some further reading, or ask specific questions.

[EWright]

In differential geometry, the metric, more or less, is a mathematical entity describing curvature, often used to solve for the dynamics of test particles around massive objects. GR provides a set of equations relating curvature to energy density, so to describe the physics of a situation, you solve these equations (tremendously difficult in most situations, as the equations are nonlinear). You end up with a tensor describing curvature, and you can work out, from that, the metric.

 

The schwarzschild metric is the metric for a spherically symmetric, non-rotating mass. It is a good approximation to the area around the sun. Or, I suppose, if there was such a thing as non-rotating black holes. (there probably isn't).

 

The Kerr metric, on the other hand, is for rotating symmetric bodies. That as close to English as this can probably be made. If you want to actually learn GR, I'd suggest Gravity, by James Hartle. It's an excellent intro to GR, if you have some calculus background. If you have a lot of math background, go straight to Gravitation by Misner, Wheeler and Thorne.

-Will

 

My, this is so much cheaper than the university! Now if someone will just be willing to publish my theory based on my research at scienceforums.com... ok, maybe not.

 

So what is the basic difference between a non-rotating and a rotating mass that the two require different sets of equations? My guess is that time would run slower around the rotating mass, relative to someone 'on' the mass? But I'm likely way off base and there's likely much more to it...

:shrug:

[Erasmus00]

My, this is so much cheaper than the university! Now if someone will just be willing to publish my theory based on my research at scienceforums.com... ok, maybe not.

 

So what is the basic difference between a non-rotating and a rotating mass that the two require different sets of equations? My guess is that time would run slower around the rotating mass, relative to someone 'on' the mass? But I'm likely way off base and there's likely much more to it...

:shrug:

 

The easiest way to see the difference is to consider symmetries. When you have a spherical symmetric mass, there is no preferred axis, total spherical symmetry. Any line across the sphere is the same as any other. However, when you have a rotating mass, suddenly you have a special axis. You still have rotational symmetry around that axis, but not around any other.

 

Another way to think about it is that energy causes gravitation, same as mass. A rotating star has a different energy distribution, hence causes different curvature.

 

As to your theory, write a book and then go to a publish on demand publisher. They'll publish literally anything. If, instead, you want to get the scientific credit for it (not necessarily money) write a paper and put in on an archive site.

-Will

[GAHD]

Energy=mass, rotation is kinetic energy, thus a rotating body has additional mass based on it's speed of rotation.

 

I havn't checked the link yet, I'll probably comment more later when I have.

[UncleAl]

Disproving the Schwarzschild metric is good enough for government work.

http://www.crank.net/

[Little Bang]

Does anyone know if the amount of mass in a black hole is related in anyway to it's spin?

[Erasmus00]

Does anyone know if the amount of mass in a black hole is related in anyway to it's spin?

 

No. Like any classical body, black holes can (and do) have angular momentum. The angular momentum is proportional to the angular velocity and the mass, but black holes can have any angular velocity.

-Will

[Guest Zanket]

If, instead, you want to get the scientific credit for it (not necessarily money) write a paper and put in on an archive site.

 

Not always an option. I don’t know of any archive sites that are not for members only.

[Guest Zanket]

FYI - I’ve updated the paper to include experimental confirmation for the fourth classical test of general relativity. Related to this, a section (on a weak field approximation of light deflection) was removed as unnecessary. The rest of the changes were cosmetic.

[Guest Zanket]

Wow. I show a flaw of GR, give a new metric for that, fix the black hole problem, fix the flatness and horizon problems of cosmology, explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, all in a short paper using only elementary algebra, and there's no real challenge to it here? :evil:

 

I 've made a lot of improvements to the paper based on comments on other forums.

[Guest Zanket]

I updated the paper to include some reader comments / questions and my responses, gleaned from discussion here and elsewhere. Lots of other improvements too since my last post here.

 

A Flaw of General Relativity, a New Metric, and Cosmological Implications