Visualizing Interstellar's Wormhole

The theory of special and general relativity causes a “schizophrenic” dilemma in physics. It undeniably provides mathematically correct values, but it is undeniably epistemologically wrong in many respects. Including the relativistic explanation of the gravitational “time dilation” and the curvature of light beams at the surfaces of large masses, the author demonstrates the illogical character of relativistic physics. When one thinks the relativistic explanations of gravitational time dilatation and of the curvature of light rays by masses through to the end, they lead to absurd and contradictory logical conclusions.

Considering Landau-Lifshitz (LL), Papapetrou (PP), Bergmann-Thomson (BT), Møller (ML), Einstein (EI) and Tolman (TL) energy and momentum prescriptions in general relativity theory (GR) and the tetrad theory of gravity (TG), we get total energy and momentum distributions based on dimensional Kasner type universe model. Using different energy and momentum prescriptions, we obtain zero energy and momentum distributions in different gravitation theories. Also, we calculate two and three dimensional Kasner type universe solutions in GR and TG. Our solutions consist with each other. The obtained results are agree with previous studies of Kıy and Aygün for higher dimensional Bianchi type I universe, Do ru et al. for 5-D Bianchi type I universe, Banerjee, Xulu, Aydo du and Saltı, Radinschi, Lau and Vargas for 4-D Bianchi type I universe, Taşer et al. for 5-D Kasner universe, Havare and Saltı, Saltı for 4-D Kasner solutions, Tryon, Cooperstock, Rosen and Johri et al. for 4-D FRW universe in GR and TG. All these studies, the authors have obtained the energy-momentum distribution is zero in GR and TG. However we could say that GR and TG are equivalent and these definitions are working properly for higher dimensional Kasner type universe in GR and TG.

A discussion of the diffraction and scattering of particles by a grating shows that the experiment discussed by H. Honl and by L. Rosenfeld in 1965 and again in 1981 does not reveal any contradiction between general relativity and quantum theory. Moreover, these theories, in principle, cannot refute one another because the (weak) principle of equivalence, underlying general relativity theory, entails that gravitation does not alter the laws of microphysics.

Einstein’s theory of gravity — the general theory of relativity — is based on the principle that all objects accelerate identically in an external gravitational field. A triple-star system provides a stringent test of this principle. Einstein’s theory of gravity — the general theory of relativity — is based on the principle that all objects accelerate identically in an external gravitational field. A triple-star system provides a stringent test of this principle.

The equations for the general theory of relativity (GTR) have to date proved enormously successful. However, despite its success, there are a number of difficulties with GTR. Standard GTR predicts the formation of singularities in black holes, and it has enormous mathematical complexity. In this paper we find that the equations for GTR can be modified by mathematically defining the equations for the curvature of space-time, in terms of geodesics. Using these equations, we translate this curvature back into equations for an advanced Newtonian force of gravity. Using worked examples we show that such an advanced Newtonian equation can give results that agree very closely with GTR, but resolve the difficulties of standard GTR, including the formation of singularities. The formulation of this advanced Newtonian gravity can also potentially provide the basis for understanding the apparent missing mass of the Universe.

We reformulate the general theory of relativity in the language of Riemann-Cartan geometry. We start from the assumption that the space-time can be described as a non-Riemannian manifold, which, in addition to the metric field, is endowed with torsion. In this new framework, the gravitational field is represented not only by the metric, but also by the torsion, which is completely determined by a geometric scalar field. We show that in this formulation general relativity has a new kind of invariance, whose invariance group consists of a set of conformal and gauge transformations, called Cartan transformations. These involve both the metric tensor and the torsion vector field, and are similar to the well known Weyl gauge transformations. By making use of the concept of Cartan gauges, we show that, under Cartan transformations, the new formalism leads to different pictures of the same gravitational phenomena. We show that in an arbitrary Cartan gauge general relativity has the form of a scalar-tensor theory. In this approach, the Riemann-Cartan geometry appears as the natural geometrical setting of the general relativity theory when the latter is viewed in an arbitrary Cartan gauge. We illustrate this fact by looking at the one of the classical tests of general relativity theory, namely the gravitational spectral shift. Finally, we extend the concept of space-time symmetry to the more general case of Riemann-Cartan space-times endowed with scalar torsion. As an example, we obtain the conservation laws for auto-parallel motion in a static spherically symmetric vacuum space-time in a Cartan gauge, whose orbits are identical to Schwarzschild orbits in general relativity.

Homogeneous isotropic models of the universe, based on the general theory of relativity, lead to the existence of a preferred frame of reference, which is similar to the absolute space of, Newton, and a preferred time coordinate, which resembles the absolute time of Newton. These concepts seem to be in contradiction to the principle of covariance on which the general relativity theory is based. A theory of gravitation is therefore proposed which uses the world picture of general relativity but is not covariant. In the three crucial tests, the proposed theory gives the same results as the general relativity theory. However, in contrast to general relativity, the present theory predicts the emission of gravitational waves by spherically symmetric systems, and gravitational waves are found, in general, to have both transverse and longitudinal components.

Volume 6 of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein includes Einstein's writings during 1914 - 1917, his first three years in Berlin. Einstein moved to Berlin in April 1914 from Zurich where he had been a Professor at his old undergraduate school, The Federal Institute of Technology, since February 1912. In the spring of 1913, Max Planck and Walther Nernst journeyed from Berlin to visit Einstein in Zurich in order to make him an offer that, in the end, he could not refuse: a professorship with no teaching obligations and the directorship of the fledgling Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics. Soon after their arrival in Berlin, the Einsteins separated. Mileva departed for Zurich with their sons Hans Albert and Eduard. At this point Einstein's relationship with his cousin Elsa Löwenthal deepened further. Thus, as the editors put so well, in the period covered in this volume, `Einstein's life and career entered a new phase'. Amongst the key documents in Volume 6 are publications from 1914 in which Einstein concluded that gravitational field equations `cannot possibly be generally covariant'. After having realized his errors, Einstein returned to the theme of general covariance and, in 1915, published three papers in succession in which he developed the generalized theory of relativity. The third paper, published on 25 November 1915 and entitled `The Field Equations of Gravitation', is the capstone of the trio, correcting as it does errors in the previous two. A week prior to its publication Einstein published a result of his new theory: the calculation from the new generally covariant field equations of Mercury's perihelion motion of 43 seconds of arc per century, in agreement with observation. Some time later, Einstein told his former collaborator Adriaan Fokker that upon seeing the result emerge he had heart palpitations. On 8 February 1917 Einstein essentially started the field of modern cosmology with the publication of `Cosmological Considerations in the General Theory of Relativity'. One of the many points of interest in this pioneering paper is Einstein's modification of his field equations with the so-called `cosmological constant' in order to incorporate, as best he could, Machian ideas on effects of distant rotating masses. Besides tidying up general relativity theory with his review paper of 1916, Einstein made new and far reaching contributions to the quantum theory of radiation. In two papers of 1916 he published his A and B coefficients and went on to conclude that atoms need not emit radiation in spherical waves, but in light quanta with a specific direction and definite momentum. The presence of probability in this theory was to Einstein a `weakness'. The eclectic set of publications in Volume 6 include ones on molecular currents in magnets, book reviews, contributions to Bohr's atomic theory and statements on the war, as well as documents relating to Einstein's participation as an expert witness in a patent dispute between the German firm Anschütz & Co. and the American Sperry Gyroscope Company. In the end the court chose to follow the former patent clerk's report and decided to prohibit Sperry Gyroscope from manufacturing gyrocompasses that incorporated methods patented by Anschütz. In summary there is something for everyone in this fascinating collection of papers published by Einstein during 1914 - 1917 and assembled in what we have come to expect as a meticulous scholarly presentation replete with an up to date listing of secondary studies and informative footnotes. We eagerly await further volumes of this truly historic project.

Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity revolutionized physics and cosmology. Newton assumed four identities namely mass, energy, space, and time. He told that space is absolute. Einstein modified and refined Newtonian concepts s by postulating that mass-energy and space-time. This enabled Einstein to find special relativity theory which predicted the variance of mass with velocity, the equivalent of mass and energy, time dilation, and length contraction. The extension and generalization of special relativity theory is the outcome of general relativity theory which is the geometrical interpretation of gravity. Almost all the predictions of Einstein’s general relativity theory have been experimentally verified. By delving into the equations of general relativity, the famous Russian mathematician Alexander Freedman found that the geometry of our Universe has only three possibilities, namely, open, closed, and flat. Freedman’s publication in the 1920s paved the way to study the geometry and fate of our Universe. Recently, NASA’s WMAP spacecraft and ESA’s Planck probes and observations revealed that the geometry of our Universe is flat with a marginal error of 0.04%. But to this day, there is no mathematical proof for these observations. In this short work, by applying the multiplication and division laws of number theory to cosmic triangles the author attempts to show that the shape/geometry of our Universe is FLAT.

The non-inertiality of Faraday’s unipolar generator’s rotating system forces us to confront this issue using general theory of relativity principles. The purpose of this study is to compare the theoretical quantitative estimates of induced electromotive force with the experimental results obtained from the corresponding measurements and to settle the dichotomy among members of the scientific community regarding this scientific question. Theoretical elaboration of this issue demonstrates that the differences between the results of the general theory and those of the special theory of relativity are some negligible terms caused by the rotating reference system’s non-inertiality. Because of this finding, we can fairly accurately compare theoretical estimations based on special and general relativity. As a result, a very serious reflection arises from the comparison of the results generated on the basis of the general theory of relativity and the measurements of induced electromotive force, because, as previously demonstrated in the literature, the experimental data are not as expected from the standpoint of the special theory of relativity.

In in the Foundations of General Relativity and Newtonian Gravitation Theory, David B. Malament presents the basic logical-mathematical structure of general relativity and considers a number of special topics concerning the foundations of general relativity and its relation to Newtonian gravitation theory. These special topics include the geometrized formulation of Newtonian theory (also known as Newton-Cartan theory), the concept of rotation in general relativity, and Godel spacetime. One of the highlights of the book is a no-go theorem that can be understood to show that there is no criterion of orbital rotation in general relativity that fully answers to our classical intuitions. Topics is intended for both students and researchers in mathematical physics and philosophy of science.

Recent attempts at explaining free-fall motion (i.e. motion only under the influence of gravity) in the context of the General Theory of Relativity have invoked a concept of time passing/progressing. Although students who have studied the Special Theory of Relativity will likely know that this concept does not feature in Special Relativity, they may incorrectly accept the concept of time passing/progressing as an aspect of General Relativity if they have encountered these accounts of free-fall motion. It is pointed out that time passing/progressing is not part of General Relativity theory and is briefly shown that free-fall motion in General Relativity is quantitatively described without such a concept.

According to the big bang theory, the universe began about 15 billion years ago and has been continually expanding ever since. If certain elementary physical concepts are naively applied to this cosmological theory, it can lead to a paradox in which distant astronomical objects seem to have lain at distances from the Earth larger than the possible size of the universe. The paradox is resolved by using concepts from general relativity theory. These concepts may appear startling to some readers.

In this book the use of inhomogeneous models in cosmology, both inmodelling structure formation and interpreting cosmologicalobservations, is discussed. The authors concentrate on exactsolutions, and particularly the Lemaitre–Tolman (LT) and Szekeresmodels (the important topic of averaging is not discussed). The bookserves to demonstrate that inhomogeneous metrics can generaterealistic models of cosmic structure formation and nonlinearevolution and shows that general relativity has a lot more to offerto cosmology than just the standard spatially homogeneous FLRW model.I would recommend this book to people working in theoretical cosmology.In the introduction (and in the concluding chapter and throughout thebook) a reasonable discussion of the potential problems with thestandard FLRW cosmology is presented, and a list of examplesillustrating the limitations of standard FLRW cosmology are discussed(including potential problems with perturbation methods). Inparticular, the authors argue that the assumptions of isotropy andspatial homogeneity (and consequently the Copernican principle) mustbe properly challenged and revisited. Indeed, it is possible for`good old general relativity' to be used to explain cosmologicalobservations without introducing speculative elements.In part I of the book the necessary background is presented (readersneed a background in general relativity theory at an advancedundergraduate or graduate level). There is a good (and easy to read)review of the exact spherically symmetric dust Lemaitre–Tolman model(LT) (often denoted the LTB model) and the Lemaitre and Szekeresmodels. Light propogation (i.e. null geodesics, for both central andoff-center observers) in exact inhomogeneous (LT) models is reviewed.In part II a number of applications of exact inhomogeneous models arepresented (taken mainly from the authors' own work). In chapter 4,the evolution of exact inhomogeneous models (primarily the LT model,but also the Szekeres model) is studied regarding structureformation. I thought that the authors describe the advantages anddrawbacks of the idealized exact solutions used in the physicalmodelling in a reasonable manner (although more concise conclusionsmight have been useful). The authors also address the formation of agalaxy with a central black hole, the formation and evolution of richgalactic clusters and voids and other structures, and the effects ofradiation in the models.The most interesting application is presented in chapter 5; namely,the effects of inhomogeneities on observations such as the luminositydistance relation and the explanation of the observed dimming ofdistant SN Ia (which is usually interpreted within the standard FLRWmodel in terms of the existence of dark energy). The main conclusionof this work is that data can be reproduced within the LT model (viainhomogeneities in general relativity, but without introducing darkenergy). In particular, a number of exact LT solutions weresurveyed, and a full discussion of various models in the literature(and a critique of the various assumptions) is presented.In the next chapter the possible resolution of the horizon problemwithout inflation, in terms of shell crossing in a LT model, isdiscussed. This is perhaps the most controversial chapter of thebook. In the final chapter 7, the influence of inhomogeneousstructures in the path of a light ray (for both center and off-centerobservers in a special Szekeres Swiss cheese model) on the observedtemperature distribution of the CMB is discussed. This is a veryimportant topic, but only a heuristic and qualitative study ispresented here; more work on the multipole moments of higher orderwould be necessary for a more comprehensive analysis.

Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its greate practitioners sometimes err.