GravitationLab.com Speed of Light and Rates of Clocks in the Space Generation Model of Gravitation, Part 1 1 R. BENISH( ) (1) Eugene, Oregon, USA, [email protected] Abstract. — General Relativity’s Schwarzschild solution describes a spherically symmetric gravi- tational field as an utterly static thing. The Space Generation Model (SGM) describes it as an absolutely moving thing. The SGM nevertheless agrees equally well with observations made in the fields of the Earth and Sun, because it predicts almost ex- actly the same spacetime curvature. This success of the SGM motivates deepening the context—especially with regard to the fundamental concepts of motion. The roots of Einstein’s relativity theories thus receive critical examination. A particularly illumi- nating and widely applicable example is that of uniform rotation, which was used to build General Relativity (GR). Comparing Einstein’s logic to that of the SGM, the most significant difference concerns the interpretation of the readings of accelerom- eters and the rates of clocks. Where Einstein infers relativity of motion and space- time symmetry, it is argued to be more logical to infer absoluteness of motion and spacetime asymmetry. This approach leads to reassessments of the essential nature of matter, time, and the dimensionality of space, which lead in turn to some novel cos- mological consequences. Special emphasis is given to the model’s deviations from standard predictions inside matter, which have never been tested, but could be tested by conducting a simple experiment. PACS 04.80.Cc – Experimental tests of gravitational theories. 1. – Introduction; Intended Audience Beware ye, all those bold of spirit who want to suggest new ideas. —BRIAN JOSESPHSON, Nobel Laureate [1] The fate of the Space Generation Model (SGM) hinges on the result of an experiment proposed by Galileo in 1632. Galileo wondered what would happen “if the terrestrial globe were pierced by a hole which passed through its center, [and] a cannon ball [were] dropped through [it].” [2] Testing the idea would be easier, of course, in a laboratory or satellite with bodies of more convenient size. My intended audience are those who can imagine that it is not only worthwhile, but important to conduct this simple grav- itational experiment. If only out of respect for the spirit of Galileo, it seems obvious to me that doing the experiment is important, regardless of the existence of a model (the SGM) that predicts a non-standard result. c Richard Benish 2014 1 2 R. BENISH Though my attempts are still in progress, I have yet to succeed in convincing any physicists on this point. To my knowledge, there are no plans among physicists to do the experiment. Possibly others would be interested. Therefore, I reach out to science- oriented lay readers who have an appetite for new ideas. The experiment is not eas- ily done in a garage-converted laboratory. I’ve tried. Ultimately, the idea needs to be judged by physicists who have the most direct access to laboratories and other resources needed to do the experiment. Therefore, I reach out to physicists and physics students who have an appetite for new ideas. The material to follow may often be too basic for physicists and may often be too technical for lay readers. On average, the level is about that of a Scientific American article. In science, as in life, being momentarily in over one’s head is often beneficial. When lay readers feel overwhelmed, I would therefore recommend sticking with it as long as possible, because almost everything in this essay is covered from a variety of levels and approached from a variety of angles. If the first approach is hard, please be patient; it will eventually make sense. As for the more technically savvy readers, I hope they share the view that starting from the beginning can be enlightening and refreshing. Much of the territory we explore is familiar. This time around, however, the basics are presented with an eye on opening a new perspective—a perspective that may sometimes seem to be impossible because it conflicts with prior knowledge. I intend to show that where such conflict exists, it is with theoretical “knowledge,” not with empirical knowledge. The best example is Galileo’s experiment itself. The presumed result is standard fare in first year college physics courses. All that is known, however, is the theoretical answer. A simple calculation gives the mathematical result, but obviously not the physical one. The actual experiment has never been done. In such matters the only authority whose testimony holds any weight is that of Nature. But in this case, she patiently waits to be summoned. Until that happens we cannot rightly say we know whether the textbook answer is correct, or not. In our attempt to act as diligent scientists, we do not let this oversight pass. We question, if it is really so, then why don’t we prove it? With a flexible mind, one can see both the proverbial vase and the proverbial fa- cial profiles; both the proverbial duck and the proverbial rabbit. Being ever-cognizant of the empirical facts, we construct a new portrait of physical reality that, of neces- sity, accommodates most of the old impressions, but is ultimately distinguishable from them. Far from being merely a new interpretation of established knowledge, the SGM proposes that much of that knowledge is demonstrably wrong. Galileo proposed the needed demonstration almost 400 years ago. If the reader’s curiosity has been kindled as to the result of this experiment—which would unequivocally decide the issue—if the scholars of gravity would please refrain from pretending to know the result before the experiment is actually carried out, then we are off to a good start. 2. – Accelerometers and Clocks; Empirical Foundation . 2 1. Extreme Strategy. – Physical facts are often most clearly revealed in the extremes. Physicists are well-served by empirically observing these extremes when possible and by otherwise deducing what exactly are the extremes, i.e., what are the baselines and the limits. This uncontroversial strategy partly explains why modern physicists invest so heavily in the extreme case of smashing the tiniest bits of matter into one another SPEED OF LIGHT AND THE RATES OF CLOCKS IN THE SPACE GENERATION MODEL, PART 1 3 with high energies, to analyze the results of these violent collisions. One of the extreme consequences predicted by General Relativity (GR) is inherently impossible to observe, yet receives a similar level of mental investment. Known as a black hole, this extreme arises because the theory allows the undesirable possibility of dividing by zero. Another extreme that, by contrast, is physically quite accessible, has nevertheless remained empirically unexplored. We have lots of data concerning gravity-induced motion of objects near and over the surfaces of larger gravitating bodies, [3, 4] but no data at all concerning gravity-induced motion near the centers of gravitating bodies. The zone near r = 0, where r represents the body’s radius, is thus a reachable extreme that remains unreached. This fact is especially interesting for the Space Generation Model of gravity (SGM) because, as noted above, it is where the model can be most convincingly tested. It is obviously impractical to drill a hole through the Earth. Using smaller bodies, however, the experiment is quite feasible in an Earthbased laboratory or in an orbiting satellite. [5, 6] My first priority is to generate interest in probing this inner space, to find out the result of Galileo’s experiment. Until that happens, my second priority—and the main purpose of this essay—is to explain why many experiments that have already been done (far beyond the extreme r = 0) reveal GR and the SGM to be in nearly exact agreement. Considerable attention will also be given to the historical and philosophical roots of our concepts of matter, space, time, gravity, and the Universe. Establishing this broad context is necessary because the SGM poses a challenge to much of the standard wisdom concerning these core foundations. 2 2. Preliminary Case: Massive Bodies, Accelerometers and Clocks. – The stakes are clearly high. To establish the new model as a viable contender, we pay due respect to the subject’s roots and the rules of the game. Of necessity this involves casting a wide and deep net. Before doing so, however, a brief preview concerning a physical example from our current understanding of gravitational fields is in order. For this defines the stage upon which the drama of humanity’s quest to figure out the physical Universe is played. It defines the kinds of questions that need to be asked and answered. Happily, the stage is very familiar: a large spherical body, such as the Earth. One of the tricks, as the history of science testifies, is to be alert to ways that familiarity may give false impressions. Taking nothing for granted, we thus ask for empirical evidence to back up every claim of knowledge. However abstract our exploration may sometimes get, we seek to maintain a firm connection to the concrete world of experience, which is where we must ultimately begin and end. To better understand both GR and the SGM, and to see how they differ, it is helpful to conceive of gravitational fields with concretely visualizable imagery. Consider the weak-field case such as applies to the Sun, Earth, or even to laboratory-sized spheres of matter. As is typically done, in what follows we will consider such fields in relative iso- lation because including additional bodies of comparable mass needlessly complicates the picture. Our idealized field is well-characterized by the readings of accelerometers and the rates of clocks fixed to the source mass, as shown in Figure 1.