nonstandard approach to relativity

[kuartus4]

Hello. My name is A.J and I was wondering if I could get some feedback on a book about general relativity that I found on the web. The book is written by a former professor of mathematics named Robert A. Herrmann. It is entitled,"Nonstandard Analysis Applied to Special and General Relativity -The Theory of Infinitesimal Light-clocks"

The author describes the book like this:

 

"It is actually dangerous for me to present the material that appears within this book due to the usual misunderstandings. Any scientist who claims that there are fundamental errors within the foundational methods used to obtain Einstein's General and Special Theories of relativity may be greatly ridiculed by his colleagues who do not read carefully. The reason for this has nothing to do with science but has everything to do with scientific careers, research grants and the like. Thousands upon thousands of individuals have built their entire professional careers upon these two theories and their ramifications. The theoretical science produced is claimed to be ``rational'' since it follows the patterns of a mathematical structure. As a mathematician who produces such structures, it is particular abhorrent to the scientific community if I make such a claim. Mathematicians seem to have an unsettling effect upon some members of the physical science community, especially when a mathematician delves into a natural science. After all, it was the mathematician Hilbert who, without any great effort, was actually the first to present, in a public form, the so-called Einstein gravitational field equations.

 

Now please read the following very carefully. The results presented here and in my published papers on this subject are not intended to denigrate those scientists who have, in the past, contributed to these Einstein theories or who continue to do so. The corrections I have made are in the foundations for these theories. The corrections are totally related to how the results are interpreted physically. These corrections do not contradict the results obtained when the Einstein approach and the language used are considered as models for behavior. These corrections are based upon newly discovered rules for rigorous infinitesimal modeling. These results may also be significant to those that hold to the belief that many events within the natural world are produced classically by a zero-point radiation field.

 

Many unqualified individuals continue to present their own alternatives to these Einstein theories, some claiming that the results are but an exercise in high-school algebra. Further, many of these alternate theories ignore or contradict quantum physical descriptions for natural-system behavior. Certain scientific groups tend to categorize any and all criticisms of the Einstein theories as coming from the unqualified and lump such criticisms into the same unworthy category. However, many highly qualified scientists of the past such as Builder, Fock, Ives and Dingle have made such claims relative to the foundations of these two theories. For Ives and Dingle, the fundamental approach was to assume that length contraction, and not time dilation, is a real natural effect and it is this that leads to the Einstein conclusions. In order to eliminate these criticisms, Lawden states the "modern" interpretation that length contraction has no physical meaning, and only "time dilation" is of significance. This modern assumption is certainly rather ad hoc in character. Further, many, many theory paradoxes still appear within the literature and are simply ignored by the scientific community. There is, however, a reason for this.

 

In 1992, the Einstein approach was shown explicitly to contain logical error. It was not possible to show this until many years after the theory was fully developed. Further, the original approach to Einstein's General Theory utilizes a "geometric language," a language that has been criticized by many including John Wheeler as the incorrect approach to analyze the fundamental behavior of universe in which we dwell. Einstein's theory is but a "model" for physical behavior, a model for physical behavior that does not, at present, foundationally correspond to objective reality. As Patton and Wheeler stated it, ". . . geometry is as far from giving an understanding of space as elasticity is from giving an understanding of a solid. . . . the basic structure is something deeper than geometry, that underlies both geometry and particles . . . what is the substance out of which the universe is made?"

 

Although Einstein used an explicit operational approach in his Special Theory, he was unable to use a mathematical approach that encapsulates his operational definitions since the actual mathematics was not discovered until 1961. Einstein and Hilbert used what was available to them at the time. Further, I respectfully submit that one of the greatest absurdities within modern science is that the concept of "time" is altered by physical behavior or physical entities as if "time" itself is a particle or field entity or the like. It is the measurement of this concept that is used to describe alterations in physical behavior. In this book, this absurdity has been eliminated by showing that one specific measurement of time is altered and, using this specific altered entity, all other appropriate behavioral alterations are predicted. Further, using the modern corrected theory of the infinitesimal and infinite numbers as discovered by Robinson, all logical errors and paradoxes are removed. Moreover, the recently discovered correct rules for infinitesimal modeling are used, and this eliminates the need for tensor analysis and Riemannian geometry. One important aspect of this new approach is that it does not in any manner contradict or eliminate any quantum physical theory. This new approach indirectly shows the existence of an additional electromagnetic interaction with a substratum composed of entities from the nonstandard physical world; a "world" that is distinct from what one defines as our natural world. This is a portion of a substratum, a subquantum region, "below" the vacuum of particle physics that is required for most modern quantum physical theories.

 

Some interesting results produced by this new investigation are (1) these theories are relative to electromagnetic properties only. (2) All alterations in natural system behavior rigorously predicted by these theories would indirectly indicate an electromagnetic interaction is taking place. (3) These theories need not apply under all physical conditions. (4) The non-rigorous methods used to establish the universal constancy of a "speed for electromagnetic informational transmissions" need not hold unless a specific rigorous derivation, not using the "observer" notion, is applied."

 

 

Here is the link where the book in its entirety can found:

http://www.raherrmann.com/cont4.htm

 

What is the opinion of the experts here concerning this approach? Any thoughts or comments are very much appreciated. Thank you.

[ACG52]

It is actually dangerous for me to present the material that appears within this book due to the usual misunderstandings. Any scientist who claims that there are fundamental errors within the foundational methods used to obtain Einstein's General and Special Theories of relativity may be greatly ridiculed by his colleagues who do not read carefully. The reason for this has nothing to do with science but has everything to do with scientific careers, research grants and the like. Thousands upon thousands of individuals have built their entire professional careers upon these two theories and their ramifications.

 

Well, first of all, it's not a book. It's a website. There is a difference.

 

Any intro which opens with the standard crank litany of how it's dangerous to have another opinion, careers... blah bla grants,....yadda yadda thousands of people built carreers, does not bode well.

[Aethelwulf]

 

Although Einstein used an explicit operational approach in his Special Theory, he was unable to use a mathematical approach that encapsulates his operational definitions since the actual mathematics was not discovered until 1961. Einstein and Hilbert used what was available to them at the time. Further, I respectfully submit that one of the greatest absurdities within modern science is that the concept of "time" is altered by physical behavior or physical entities as if "time" itself is a particle or field entity or the like.

 

I read everything, but this part struck me the most.

 

I agree it was an absurdity, but I think it came about because of the unification of space with time. I think, because fields could create a gravitational distortion in space, then time somehow was physical. Which is a load of rubbish. I think today, time is one of the most misunderstood concept there is - and a much abused one, where people often I read equate motion with change and a change with time, or that time is something which can be observed because there is a clock on the wall... these things are just ridiculous. Time does not mean change nor is time an observable, just as much time is not a real physical entity.

 

 

 

[swansont]

I am not aware of any interpretation that states the length contraction is an illusion and time dilation is real or vice-versa. And ACG52's point about conspiracy is well-taken. That's a self-administered dose of Hemlock.

[Aethelwulf]

I am not aware of any interpretation that states the length contraction is an illusion and time dilation is real or vice-versa. And ACG52's point about conspiracy is well-taken. That's a self-administered dose of Hemlock.

 

I never said it was an illusion. You need to start reading more carefully Swansont. You have a record with me now of not reading people correctly.

 

I said time was not a physical phenomenon.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[swansont]

I never said it was an illusion. You need to start reading more carefully Swansont. You have a record with me now of not reading people correctly.

 

I said time was not a physical phenomenon.

 

Well, bully for you. I didn't quote you nor was I addressing you. This isn't your thread. From the OP, emphasis added

 

For Ives and Dingle, the fundamental approach was to assume that length contraction, and not time dilation, is a real natural effect and it is this that leads to the Einstein conclusions. In order to eliminate these criticisms, Lawden states the "modern" interpretation that length contraction has no physical meaning, and only "time dilation" is of significance. This modern assumption is certainly rather ad hoc in character.

 

The context should have made that clear, since I also brought up what ACG52 wrote, and he responded before you did.

[Aethelwulf]

I thought you were replying to me.

 

I apologize.

[elfmotat]

SR and GR are mathematically consistent classical theories, so the only real question is whether or not they agree with experiment. So far they do.

 

Beware anyone who says things like "thousand of people built their career on [insert theory here] so they will refuse to accept my brilliance..." That's completely nonsensical. If someone were to falsify SR, they'd likely win the Nobel prize. In physics you receive accolades for successfully challenging common knowledge.