/Nexus - 1304 - New Times Magazine/pages/0044/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
8. Explaining the planetary discrepancies 9. The question of a cosmological reference frame In order to understand what may be going on, we have to After this hopefully intriguing detour, let us return to recall a fundamental aspect of GR. highlighting a few additional properties of the SEC theory. The General relativity theory describes the world using existence of cosmic drag would invalidate Newton's first law of coordinates for space and time that may be selected more or less motion and cause a major revision of science, which partly may freely. We might think of a specific coordinate selection as a explain the total silence with which the SEC theory has been particular pair of glasses that lets you view the situation in a met. But, on the flip side, it would resolve a festering problem certain way, but GR does not tell us which choice of glasses is since the days of Newton: the question of a cosmological the "right" one. reference frame. In the SEC theory, space is flat but space-time is curved due In his famous spinning bucket experiment, Isaac Newton to the accelerating scale expansion. This causes the observed that the surface of the water in a spinning bucket cosmological redshift and cosmic drag. But, to every curved becomes concave and he concluded that the bucket somehow space-time there always corresponds a locally flat space-time, "senses" that it is spinning. But, spinning relative to what? It is just like a planar surface locally approximates a curved surface. not the Earth because the planets are subjected to the same force Thus, there exists a locally flat coordinate representation even in their motion around the Sun, and it is not the Sun since stars here in our solar system. In this coordinate system, the in a galaxy are subjected to the same force. planetary orbits are determined by Newton concluded that a frame of Newton's laws; the orbits are "Newtonian" absolute universal rest must exist, and this (with relati cc corrections). became the subject of a celebrated debate If there is cosmological curvature as between Clark, who spoke for Newton's predicted by the SEC theory, the position, and Leibniz, who contended that cosmological time-base—which I will all motion is relative. assume is proportional to atomic time and From the time of Newton until Einstein's is incorporated in barycentric dynamical One of the most special relativity theory appeared in 1905, ti TDB)—will differ fi th i 1 convinced that th as ¢ cphemeris lime-bave determined from the embarrassing problems cosmological reference frame defined by orbits, which JPL calls "Teph". of contemporary the "aether", which was believed to be some H , fitting the re ‘as ts H A defined kind of "pl " in absolute rest to Newtonian orbits could lead to the | SClence is that there | crying light andthe electromagnetic field wrong conclusion. By fitting the measured seemingly is no Einstein did away with the aether, but only distances to essentially Newtonian orbits, the computer program might automatically select the locally flat coordinates for which Newton's laws apply. This will of course create excellent agreement with the ranging measurements, which JPL apparently thinks confirms the validity of its approach. But this is circular reasoning, since the coordinates for which the orbits become Newtonian may differ from the cosmological coordinates. In particular, the T eph time-base may not be proportional to for a relatively short time—the 11 years between 1905 and 1916. After introducing GR in 1916, he gradually changed his position. By the end of his life, Einstein was convinced that space-time was a new form of aether that somehow served as a reference frame for inertia. Cosmic drag would resolve this problem by defining the cosmological reference frame as the frame toward which all motion converges. Thus, in the SEC, the cosmological reference frame is self-induced by bootstrapping caused by diminishing relative connection between its two dominant theories: general relativity and quantum mechanics. atomic time. velocities and rotations. This should be good news, since If the SEC theory is right, Teph accelerates relative to atomic physics desperately needs a cosmological reference frame to time. explain the phenomenon of inertia (Masreliez, 2006a) and of In the construction of the ephemerides, JPL fits atomic time as non-local influences of the quantum world. It also would closely as possible to Teph in the belief that Tepn is identical to explain the CMB dipole, which indicates that the solar system is atomic time except for a scale factor. By this procedure, the in motion relative to the very distant universe at about 350 maximum difference between Teph and atomic time predicted by km/sec. the SEC theory could be reduced to merely 0.10-0.15 seconds during a 30-year observation interval. This corresponds toafew 10. The SEC explains the quantum world kilometres' ranging error, which currently also is the estimated One of the most embarrassing problems of contemporary accuracy of the JPL ephemerides. science is that there seemingly is no connection between its two However, as already mentioned, earlier ranging observations dominant theories: general relativity and quantum mechanics. taken in the beginning of the ranging program no longer agree These theories successfully model different aspects of the world, with the updated ephemerides and therefore, like the optical but they are starkly different in both philosophical approach and observations, are considered inaccurate. It is possible that both scope. GR applies to gravitation and cosmology, while QM this earlier ranging data and the optical data would fit the deals with the sub-microscopic world. Although these two ephemerides if the SEC model were adopted. We might be on theories describe different aspects of the same universe, it is the verge of a discovery of historical significance! perplexing that they are so different and are incompatible. of contemporary science is that there seemingly is no connection between its general relativity and quantum mechanics. 10. The SEC explains the quantum world One of the most embarrassing problems of contemporary science is that there seemingly is no connection between its two dominant theories: general relativity and quantum mechanics. These theories successfully model different aspects of the world, but they are starkly different in both philosophical approach and scope. GR applies to gravitation and cosmology, while QM deals with the sub-microscopic world. Although these two theories describe different aspects of the same universe, it is perplexing that they are so different and are incompatible. JUNE — JULY 2006 NEXUS = 43 One of the most embarrassing problems two dominant theories: www.nexusmagazine.com