Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

- Current physics is based on direct relationships between quantities measured by observers located in different G potentials. This is a tacit way to assume that the bodies are absolutely invariable after a change of distance with respect to the observer and with respect other bodies. This is the last classical hypothesis in physics. According to it, for example, the rest mass of a non-local body with respect to a local observer is constant, i.e., it is “independent on the difference of G potential that exists between the body and the observer”. However such hypothesis is in clear contradiction with the results of GTD experiments made up with clocks.

2. Which experiment is most clearly inconsistent with the classical hypothesis?

The Hafele-Keating experiments on GTD provide the most direct evidence in that the classical hypothesis is wrong. In such experiments, during 48 hours a group of standard clocks have been flying at about 9 km over the earth surfaces. The initial and the final readings of the atomic clocks were compared with the readings of a standard clock at the earth surface. This was done when all of the clocks were close together at the earth surface. Thus the positive differences of time had nothing to do with photons traveling between the clocks. The results corrected for differences of velocity show that the frequency of the NL clock, with respect to an observer in a fixed G Potential, is a well-defined function of the difference of G potential between the NL clock and the observer.

In other GTD experiments, the time intervals of the NL clock were compared with the local ones by detecting electromagnetic signals sent by the NL clocks after pre-determined time intervals. The time intervals between consecutive signals are obviously independent either on the frequency of the photons or on the flight time. Thus the measured time intervals don’t depend on the frequency of the electromagnetic signals traveling between the clocks.

In general, the results of the last kind of experiments, corrected for velocity differences, are consistent with those of Hafele-Keating.

3. Which are the main conclusions coming from the GTD experiments?

From such experiments it is inferred that the proper frequency of a NL clock with respect to an observer is a well-defined function of the difference of G potential between the NL clock and the local one. The same holds for the atoms because their proper frequencies and masses are related with the frequency of the clocks after universal constants. Consequently,

· In general, the reference standards of observers located in different G potentials are not physically identical with respect to each other. They have different proper frequencies compared with respect to each other.

· Thus most of the direct relationships between quantities measured by observers located in different G potentials are inhomogeneous. They have not a well-defined physical meaning because their physical reference standards are not strictly the same. For example, the time relationships between quantities referred to clocks running with different frequencies cannot possibly have any well-defined meaning.

4. Why local observers cannot detect any physical change of their objects when they change of G potential?

- This is because all of the atoms and clocks have changed their local frequencies and lengths in just the same proportions as their local reference standards. This fact makes them believe in that nothing has changed, i.e., on the classical hypothesis..

- For this reason he assigns their standards with constant numerical values. But the truth is that “everything” in the local system has changed in just the same proportion.

- His measuring units and, therefore, they are physically different with respect to those of other observers located in different G potentials, regardless of the same numerical value assigned to their local standards.

- Strictly, such standards are well defined, only for local purposes, i.e., within a region infinitely close to the observer.

5. Is it true that the GTD experiments made up with clocks verify the theory on general relativity?

- No. The GTD experiments verified the “equivalence principle” which is just an experimental fact that has been verified from many kinds of experiments..

- On the contrary, both the experiments shows that the classical hypothesis used in the Einstein’s theory on GR is not true, i.e., that some absolute kind of changes occur to every clock (or body), after a change of G potential, compared with the original one.

In more detail, the GTD experiments prove that a clock, after a change of G potential, changes its proper frequency with respect to the original clock. According to the EEP, the same should occur with the frequencies and the masses of all of its atoms of the same system because, their local ratios are constants that do not depend on G potentials of the local system. Then the masses and the frequencies of all of the clock’s atoms must change in the same proportion as the clock’s frequency, after the same change of G potential.

Quantitatively, the difference of masses-energy of each body turns out to be just equal to the energy released during the G work. Thus such energy comes not from the field but from the body.

6. Is it true that a free electromagnetic wave can change its frequency during its trip in a G field?

(According to the Einstein’s hypothesis, the frequency of a free electromagnetic wave traveling in a G field would change due to some presumed energy exchange between the field and the photons.).

- Such hypothesis is not consistent with the most fundamental property of electromagnetic waves, which is “wave continuity.

- According to it, the crest of each single wave of a wave train must cross all of the static planes, between the light source and the observer, regardless of its amplitude and position.

- Not a single wave can be lost, or created, during the trip.

- Thus the frequency after which the wave train crosses each plane, with respect to a clock of constant frequency, must be the same, independently on the position of the plane.

- In other terms, the frequency of a NL electromagnetic wave traveling in a G field, with respect to some clock in a fixed potential, is conserved (Conservation law for the frequency and energy of NL photons with respect to fixed clocks)

Such hypothesis is also inconsistent with the comparison of the results of experiments on GTD made up with clocks and the GRS experiments made up with its atoms.

1. According to the GTD experiments, the frequency of some NL clock B with respect to some local clock A depends on the difference of G potential between the clocks B and A.

2. According to the points 1) and the EEP, the frequencies of the NL atoms of the clock B must be shifted in just the same proportion as the NL clock, compared with those of the clock A, respectively. Thus they must emit photons with an initial red shift with respect to the observer A.

3. According to the results of GRS experiments, the observer at A finds detects a final frequency, shifted in just the same proportion as the frequency of the NL clock.

Then, from 2) and 3), during the trip of the electromagnetic wave, its frequency with respect to a clock in a constant potential is constant”. (Conservation law for the frequency of non-local photons with respect to observers in some constant G potential).

7. Is it true that free photons exchange energy with the G field?

- From the last answer it is concluded that photons cannot exchange energy with G fields because the photon’s frequency, with respect to some observer in a fixed potential, remains constant during its trip. Then both the frequency and the energy of the photons, with respect to any observer in a constant G potential, remain constant. Then they do not exchange energy with G fields.

- An independent proof of this conservation law comes out from the fact that the deviation of photons produced by G fields, like the Sun, does not changes the frequency (color) the radiation. This is a fundamental property of the refraction phenomenon. According to it, during “G refraction”, photons don’t exchange energy with static dielectrics.

8. Why the classical error has not been detected from the current “G tests”?

- This is due to the fact that the formalism used in the gravitational tests is based on the same classical hypothesis. In this way the experiments have been previously interpreted by assuming that the bodies are really invariable after a change of G potential. In this way, the theories and the G tests are tacitly based on the same classical error. What is worse, these tests have been used to reject the other theories that might be right. This seems to accounts for the long endurance of this classical error.

9. Why most people believe in the classical hypothesis?

- Such belief comes from a wrong interpretation of the EEP. According to it, an observer does not detect, from local measurements, changes on any local ratio after the common changes of velocity and of G potential of his local bodies. Most people don’t realize in that such ratio are constants because all of the bodies obey the same inertial and gravitational laws and, therefore, all of them change in just the same proportion after identical circumstances.

10. Which is the new principle fixed by the “local” and “non local” experiments in G fields?

- The EEP can be consistent with the results of NL experiments in G fields’ only if

. When system changes of G potential, the absolute properties of all of its well-defined parts change “linearly”, in just the same proportion, without changing any local ratio, compared with the original system before the G potential change.

- In more detail, when an observer moves altogether with his measuring system, he cannot detect the real changes that have occurred to his bodies, after a change of G potential, because the absolute values of all of the natural frequencies, masses, and lengths of all of his local bodies have changed in just the same proportion with respect to other bodies that have not changed of G potential. Thus every local ratio remains unchanged.

This principle has been called General Equivalence Principle (GEP).

11. Why the speed of speed of “local” light does not change after a change of G potential?

- This because, according to the GEP, the absolute values of the wavelengths of the radiation emitted by the local atoms have changed in just the same proportion as the length of the rods of the measuring system.

12. Why the speed of “non-local” light is different from that of “local” light?

- Because according to the GEP, the natural frequencies and wavelengths of NL atoms increase in the same proportion (Df), compared with the “local” frequencies and wavelengths at r. Thus the speed of NL light, which is equal to the product of its NL frequency and its NL wavelength, increases in the proportion 2Df. This fact accounts for, according to the Huygens’s principle, the deviation of the wave fronts of light traveling near the Sun.

13. Which are the basic conditions for testing the classical hypothesis with the experiments?

- To test such hypothesis, the objects must be in a G potential different from that of the observer,

- Then the experiments must be described in terms quantities that in principle can describe any real change that the bodies may effectively have after a change of rest-position with respect to other bodies that don’t change of G potential. Only position-dependent quantities can do so.

14. Which is the general formalism fixed by the experimental facts?

- In general, from special relativity and the GEP, the real properties of the NL bodies with respect to some well-defined observer depends on the velocity and on the position of the bodies and on the velocity and position of the observer with respect to the field source. Thus, for simplicity, a Lorenz reference frame at rest in a fixed G potential must be used. In this way the reference clock has a constant frequency. This is equivalent to use a strictly flat theoretical reference frame based on SI reference standards.

Then, to relate local quantities with other measurements done by other observers located in different G potentials, the last quantities must be corrected (transformed) for the two kinds of differences that their reference standards may have with respect to the local standard: the ones due to of differences of velocity (special relativity) and the ones due to differences of G potential (“non local” relativity) between the object and the observer.

Notice that this approach turns out to be a plain generalization of special relativity for the more general NL cases in G fields. For the moment, and for simplicity, only central (static) fields have been studied here.

15. Which is the base for the new theoretical approach?

- This one is based on the new GEP and the new formalism and fixed by the experimental facts.

- According to this principle, all of the well-defined parts of a local system obey the same inertial, quantum-mechanical, and gravitational laws. The absolute properties of all of them change linearly, in just the same proportion, after a common change of velocity and of G potential, respectively.

- In particular, any standing wave that may exist between any two parts of the local system is also a well-defined part of it. According to the GEP, it must obey the same general properties of the other uncharged bodies of the same system. If this were not so, the differences could be detected from local experiments such as the Michelson-Morely experiments, thus violating the EP.

- Consequently, particle models made up of photons in stationary states between perfect mirrors can emulate particles and uncharged bodies.

- The theoretical properties of uncharged particles and their G fields can be derived in terms of the dual properties of radiation. In this way, radiation can be used to unify concepts in different branches of physics, like special relativity quantum mechanics, gravitation and particle physics.

16. Which are the main advantages of this theory?

- It does not depend on any arbitrary hypothesis.

- It is based on a well-defined particle model granted by a more general and well-tested principle.

- The real physical properties of any kind of uncharged body and its G field can be derived, in a unified way, from general properties of radiation.

- The same holds for the new properties of black holes and of the universe.

This work turns out to be a base for an extremely simple and unified theory on the relative properties of uncharged bodies and of their G fields. Later on you can verify that the results are in strict agreement with special relativity, quantum mechanics and the true results of all of the G tests. The correspondence of the new cosmological scenario with the astronomical observations is likely to be the best test for this NL theory.

17. Which are the main differences of this theory with general relativity?

o In one way or another, the Einstein’s hypothesis on the existence of some G field energy is a direct consequence of this classical hypothesis. According to it, the G field would put on both the momentum and the energy for the G work.

o The present theory is not based on any classical or non-classical hypothesis. It is not assumed that bodies are invariable after a change of position in the field. For this reason, a position-dependent formalism must be used. This one is based on a flat (strictly invariable) theoretical reference frame that does not change either of velocity or of position with respect to the field sources.

o The Einstein’s theory on GR is not based on a particle model. Thus the field equations are based on the hypotheses on the G field energy, which tacitly comes form the classical hypothesis-.

Here, the new relationships are based either on the true results of local and non-local experiments, or on the theoretical properties of a particle model granted by the EEP and general experimental facts. The relative properties of the non-local space and the non-local bodies are derived directly, from experimental facts or theoretically, from a particle model. From both it is concluded that the G field itself has no energy, i.e., it does not exchange energy with the bodies. The G energy comes from the body, not from the field.

18. Is the G Field energy hypothesis is direct consequence of the classical hypothesis?

Yes. Because according to such hypothesis, in a free fall, it is assumed that the initial and the final rest mass of the body, with respect to the observer, is the same. Then the presumed G field energy given up to the body appears to be necessary to account for the larger mass-energy that the body has at the end of the fall.

19. Why it is currently assumed that the classical hypothesis is true?

- It is obvious that this belief comes from strictly local observations.

- For example, when an observer moves himself altogether with his local instruments, may be in an elevator or anywhere, he observes that all of the relative proportions within the measurement system are invariable. Thus the form of the local physical laws, within a small region around the observer, remains unchanged. This fact, also known as the Einstein’s equivalent principle (EP), is the base of the classical belief in that each body, after a G potential change, has not changed compared with the original body before the G potential change.

19b. Which are the fundamental differences between local and non-local measurements?

Notice that there is a fundamental difference between a local measurement that compares a body and a reference standard of the same system, after a common G potential change, and a non-local measurement that compares a body that has changed of G potential with a reference standard that has not changed of G potential.

- The first one gives a constant ratio, that doesn’t change after a common change of G potential, because bodies and standards change in the same proportion.

- The second ones give a ratio that depends on the G potential change. This is because only the body has changed while the reference standard does not. This is an “absolute” (real) kind of change.

The EEP has been tested only for the first kind of “local” measurements. Thus such principle is valid only within infinitely small regions in which the differences of G potentials between the objects and the observers can be neglected.

The GEP, on the other hand, is a NL principle, i.e., it is valid for general cases in which bodies and observers are in different G potentials.

20. Is the classical hypothesis a true solution for the Equivalence Principle?

No, because the single NL solution consistent with local and non-local experiments is that all of the well-defined bodies of the system change linearly, in just the same proportion, after the same change of relative position with respect to the G field sources. This solution keeps the local proportions and physical laws unchanged.

21. Is the G field energy consistent with the EEP and GTD experiments?

No. According to the EEP and the GTD experiments, the energy released during G work is just equal to the difference between the initial and the final rest mass-energy of the body. The G work is done at the cost of a decrease of the rest-mass-energy of the same body, not from the field. The G field energy does not exist.

22. Which formalism must be used for testing the classical hypothesis?

The single way to fairly test such hypothesis is by using a more general formalism with position dependent quantities. In other words, it must not be assumed that the relative values of all of the standards at rest in a G field are the same with respect to each other. Only in this way the experiments or the theories can tell whether or not the classical hypothesis is true. (Let nature to tell the truth instead of presuming it). In this way, after using the true experimental facts, we can do without the arbitrary hypotheses normally used in general relativity and cosmology.

23. Which is the main hypothesis of the present theory?

The present work is not based on any classical or non-classical hypothesis. It is based either on just the plain experimental facts or a particle model consistent with local and non-local experiments.

24. Which methods were used here to test the classical hypothesis?

Here the tests have been done from two radically different methods:

o The experimental approach based on the general results of the experiments used for testing the Equivalence Principle and the G theories. (Vera 2001,2002)

o The theoretical approach is based on general properties of electromagnetic radiation (Vera 1981b).

The formalism fixed by the two approaches is the same. The two methods give the same results but with different exactitude. The experimental ones are accurate enough to find the fundamental inconsistency of the hypothesis on the G field energy. The theoretical one gives more exact results for cosmological distance ranges.

25. Which are the main conclusions from the two approaches?

The two approaches gave the same result:

The classical hypothesis, the same as the G field energy hypothesis, is not true: All of the bodies have absolute (real) changes after a change of G potential, with respect to an observer that has not changed of G potential.

What really happens is that the absolute properties of all of the bodies of a system at rest in a G field, with respect to some fixed observer, are well-defined functions of the G potential. When the system changes of G potential, all of these bodies change in just the same proportion, by keeping their original physical proportions,. Since every local ratio remains constant, this fact makes believe, erroneously, in that nothing has changed, which is not true. In fact, all of the bodies have changed compared with the original bodies before the G potential change.

“Radiation and bodies do not exchange energy with the G field. The G energy comes from the body, not from the field.” The field gives up just momentum.

The space in the field has a gradient of the absolute refraction index. Thus the trajectory of bodies and radiation is ruled out by a “refraction” phenomenon that does not change the relative values of the frequency (color) of radiation. Thus, during free trajectories in G fields, to the contrary of the current theories, the absolute frequencies and mass-energies of radiation and bodies, respectively, with respect to a strictly invariable observer, are constants.

The G forces come from the momentum changes produced by the propagation of standing waves in a space with a gradient of the refraction index. The G field provides just the momentum. The energy released comes from the lower proper frequencies of the atoms at rest in the final position, compared with that at the initial position. The G field does not give up the energy, which is just in opposition to the Einstein theory on GR.

26. How did the present theory come out?

I remember that, originally, I was trying to reduce the gravitational phenomena to its most elemental forms after thought experiments with particles and antiparticles. Then I realized that, for inertial and gravitational purposes, particle models made up of standing waves could emulate uncharged particles.

Since standing waves are periodical phenomena, then I though that it is reasonable that, in general, the universe is made up of large number of periodical phenomena. Then I tried to fit this gross cosmological model with the astronomical facts, according to an old book on astronomy that some colleague borrowed me. Guided by this model, my first trial was clearly consistent with the astronomical facts. This trial was in clear disagreement with GR and with the current cosmological model, reason for which it was rejected for publication in international journals. However I published it in Atenea (1974), of the University of Concepción, Chile.

After that I tried to find the truth by myself, independently on GR. For this purpose I started a new approach based on the particle model consistent with the inertial and gravitational properties of matter. However, this work looked too simple so that I did not dare to call it “a new theory”. Furthermore, I thought that most probably someone else could have had the same idea.

Later on, I presented my new ideas in The Einstein’s Centennial Symposium on fundamental Physics, in 1979, in Bogotá, were I received some encouragement of some of the students of Einstein. These ideas were published in the Proceedings (Vera 1981a). A more lengthy and complete work was published after the title “A dilemma in the physics of gravitational fields” (Vera 1981b), in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. Later on I found further justifications for the model and for the inconsistencies of GR with the experiments.

27. Has this theory been fairly tested with the G tests?

I have verified the full consistency of this new approach with the G tests Vera (1981a, 1981b). In principle, such tests would be unnecessary because any difference between the relative properties of the particle model and the ones of other local particles could be detected as a violation of the EP.

28. Which are the properties of the new kind of linear black hole?

The EP determines strictly linear relationships. Thus the new kind of “linear” black hole has no singularity. This one is just a massive neutron star with a strong gradient of the relative refraction index of the space. However for 2GM>>r, such gradient virtually reflects light and particles coming from the inside, like it were a perfect mirror. This prevents the escape of the radiation. On the other hand the capture cross-section for external radiation increases with (2eGM)² . Thus the LBH would capture and store energy until the average mass-energy per neutron is higher than the one in free state far away from it. In such unstable condition, “frustrated reflections” can trigger a sudden explosion that would produce a rather spherical cloud of new H rather free of metals

29. Is the classical error present in current cosmology?

Of course! This error is tacit in cosmology because it is assumed that the particles do not expand after the change of G potential produced by the universe expansion.

According to the true experimental relationships, the increase of G potential would produce a G expansion of every part of it in just the same proportion as every other distance of the universe. Thus the relative distances and velocities would not change with the time. From the relative viewpoint, the universe must be static, indefinitely.

Notice that the theories on universe expansion arbitrarily assume that the intergalactic distances increase with the time and that the particles and standard rods do not expand in the same proportion. The arbitrariness of this hypothesis is obvious. Because there are not fair reasons for which some parts of the universe do expand and some other doesn’t. This is even clearer in the “raisin pie” analogy used to explain such theory. It is tacitly assumed that the pie expands and that the raisins do not. Notice that the raisins do expand with water, during the formation of the pie. Thus, if the raisins expand in the same proportion as the cake, the relative distances remain unchanged.

30. Which is the current argument refuting the absolute expansion of every-part of the universe?

It is currently thought that bodies would not expand due to the strong forces within particles.

However such argument is not valid for the phenomenon of absolute expansion of bodies after the increase of G potential. This is because this one was derived from the EEP and the GTD experiment. Both, the EEP and the results of the GTD experiments are absolutely independent on the strong forces that exist within the internal structure of the bodies. Such expansion, anyway, is an absolute one, i.e., it is not detectable from local measurements. It does not change the proportions of the bodies thus making believe, locally, in that the bodies have not expanded.

31. Which is the main change on the properties of the universe?

From the new relationships, if the universe were expanding, every standard rod should expand in the same proportion. Thus only an absolute kind of universe expansion can exist.

Such kind of expansion would not change the distances measured with standard rods with the time. The same holds for the relative velocities and Doppler shifts. Thus the average proportions in the universe should not change with the time. From the relative viewpoint, the universe is static.

32. Which is the new cosmological scenario?

In the new scenario, the universe age is infinite.

Statistically, matter should evolve in closed cycles between the states of gas and the new kind of linear black holes. The last ones, after absorbing energy from the rest of the universe, would explode regenerating gas that would condense over other bodies thus regenerating new star clusters and galaxies. Thus galaxies and clusters would also evolve in closed cycles. Their luminous stages would be initiated after the chain of linear black hole explosions that generate the gas that would generate the new stars. Thus the mass-energy and the entropy of the universe would remain invariable

33. Where the low temperature CMB background and the missing mass of the universe come from?

Statistically, all of the evolution stages of the galaxies must be present in the sky proportionally to their evolution periods.

Since the longest galactic period is that of a black galaxy, then most of the matter of the universe should be in the stage of black galaxy cooled down by their linear black holes and by the rest of the universe. They should account for the dilemmas of the low temperature cosmic microwave background and the missing mass of the intergalactic space. They would be not cosmological relics.

The main missing mass “within a galaxy” must come from dead stars and other bodies that cannot emit light any longer. It is like a dark galaxy that is growing up with the time at the cost of a decrease of the number of the luminous ones. Only some “galactic relics”, coming from black hole explosions, may exist.

34. Has this theory been published?

Yes. The main foundation of this theory was published, in 1981, (Vera 1981b) in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. But, to prevent adverse reactions, I did not dare to name it as a new theory. I used the title “A dilemma in the physics of gravitational fields”. So that most people have not realized in that this is indeed a new theory.

For reason of space, such article was published in a highly condensed form. Thus it is necessary to read carefully each word. Otherwise it may look tiresome to read. This may be one of the reasons for which this work has not called much the attention of the scientific community.

Parts of this work have also been published in the proceedings of a large list of meetings. However the space for such publications is too small for giving a fair idea of the present theory.

For the above reasons I have published a book on “The new universe fixed by the equivalence principle and properties of light” (1997), which is cited in the references.

My task for publishing full articles have not been easy because some referees have rejected some of my papers without any fair reason, or for reasons that had nothing to do with the theory. For example, the single argument of some referee was that I should be crazy for thinking in that GR can be wrong. Another one just denied the results of the experimental facts after using false arguments. Other one did not use any argument. Another editor just declined the publication just because it was against the mainstream of current ideas in the literature.

I have found the doors more opened for the discussions in some international meetings on gravitation and cosmology. Groups working, for long time, on GR, normally organize such meetings. It is reasonable that they don’t like to hear talks questioning its favorite theory. Thus the conditions for the talks on any other alternative theory different from GR are usually the most unfavorable ones for a fair discussion. This kind of talks is normally scheduled as the last ones, after some tiresome journey, almost at a meal hour. The time-intervals for the talks, or the spaces for publication, are normally too small for a fair discussion of a theory. Finally, in some proceedings, the articles are accepted depending on whether or not they agree with to the mainstream of currently accepted ideas of the group.

Yes, I know that my task is neither easy nor pleasant for me. This is because I do not like to be in disagreement with most people. But what else would you do in my place?

35. According to this theory, which would be the unifying link between particles, space and the universe?

According to the particle model, particles can be described in terms standing waves between mirrors or other bodies of the same system. The radiation, according to the Huygen’s principle can be described in terms of wavelet interference. Thus the most elemental realities of the universe would be the “wavelets”.

When all of the particles of the universe are emulated by photons in stationary states it is found that the universe must be a dense sea of the “wavelets”. According the Huygens’s principle and to the nature of the particle model, photons and particles should be located at the sites of coherent interference of such wavelets.

Notice that the “wavelets” are not new entries in physics. They have been extensively used in optical physics and in many other fields. Then they turn out to be one of the most fundamental elements for understanding almost everything.

Since the main property of the wavelets is “wave-continuity”, then the wavelets must be the ones that fix the relative properties of particles, the space and of the universe.

Effectively, it is simple to verify that the theoretical properties of the particle model and of the space can be more simply described in terms of the wavelets. They are consistent with special relativity, quantum mechanics, and with the true G tests (Vera 1981)(Vera 1997). The new universe scenario, also, is clearly consistent with the astronomical facts.