Oct 2, 2012

The Ontological Einstein – Minipaper

Posted by in categories: existential risks, particle physics

The Ontological Einstein – One to Four

Otto E. Rossler and Dieter Fröhlich, Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 8, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

One: Ontological clock slow-down downstairs in gravity

Two: Ontological rest-mass decrease downstairs in gravity

Three: Ontological size increase downstairs in gravity

Four: Ontological charge decrease downstairs in gravity

(1): Assume an upstairs and a downstairs floor to be equally strongly accelerating in gravity for simplicity. Then the situation can be transposed to a constant-acceleration rocketship of equal height in outer space that by definition is governed by the rules of special relativity alone. Here one finds that whenever a light ray from the rear end arrives upstairs at the tip, the point of arrival has, during the flight time of the photon, picked up additional speed. Hence the emitted light arrives upstairs redshifted. The normal-ticking CLOCKS and atoms present downstairs therefore appear slowed down from the point of view of upstairs owing to a receding motion of constant speed (without falling back) performed by them. This 1907 result can be called “ontological” because an upper-level clock that is brought down and then back up again predictably presents an ontological (undeniably present) deficit in the number of ticks performed in the meantime, on its being re-united with its waiting twin. Einstein always called the “equivalence principle” between gravity and ordinary acceleration (that allowed him to solve everything from within the fold of special relativity and hence intuitively) “the happiest thought of my life.” It is indeed miraculous because it derives an asymmetry from the symmetry of special relativity. (So many perspective changes were never made before in a single mind according to anthropologist George Herbert Mead.) Three corollaries are implicit: points 2–4.

(2): Since the red-shifted photons arriving from below are non-redshifted on emission, they are inter-transformable into material particles and vice versa (as in positronium creation and annihilation) down there. Hence all locally-at-rest MASSES downstairs are ontologically reduced by the redshift factor relative to upstairs.

(3): Since the wavelengths of all locally emitted photons are increased downstairs by point (1), and simultaneously all masses locally at rest downstairs are reduced by point (2), it follows logically as well as independently from quantum mechanics that all the locally normal-appearing LENGTHS downstairs are ontologically increased by the redshift factor compared to upstairs.

(4): Since all masses that are locally at rest are reduced downstairs via (2), and the charge/mass ratio is locally conserved via Einstein’s principle of general covariance, the CHARGES of all local electrons and positrons (etc.) are ontologically reduced downstairs by the redshift factor compared to upstairs. (Q.e.d.)

Remark: Ulysses’ son Telemach helps one to remember all 4 ontological changes (Time, Length, Mass and Charge). Let us add that the “Einstein dilation” (3) does not show up in the transverse direction from above in spite the locally maintained isotropy – just as the Lorentz contraction does not show up in the transverse direction despite the likewise locally maintained isotropy.

Historical note: Points number 2 and 3 have been found many times individually (and several times in combination) by specialists and aficionados. Number 4 first appeared in a conference paper in mid-2008 (and under the name “Telemach theorem” on the Internet in early 2011 and in a refereed journal in early 2012, see ).

Acknowledgments: O.E.R. thanks Burton Voorhees and Ali Sanayei for a discussion. For J.O.R.


Comments — comments are now closed.

  1. Otto Rössler, why do you use the term ‘ontological’?

  2. Thank you for your important questiion, dear Benjamin:

    “Ontological” — being true in an absolute (“being”) sense (ón, ontós in Greek means “being”) — is the opposite of relative. Einstein discovered behind the observer-relativity (or as an implication of it) an ontological level. He sometimes wondered whether he should not have abandoned the name“relativity” for his theory because it can be misleading.

  3. wavettore says:

    Incapable to recognize the issue of simultaneity Einstein believed that Time was the same while Space instead had changed. The bureaucracy of traditional science prevents the recognition of any event unless certain criteria are first met. The problem is precisely in the compilation of these “laws” or criteria introduced by a few scientists in the name of all science. This antiquated approach results in a lack of progress.

    As for the special theory of relativity (which denies all absolutes and meanings of truth), this regards the example of two beams of light hitting one same embankment of a railroad on two Points: Point A and Point B. In between the two there is also the middle point, Point M. If one train was running over that track then on the train we would also have Point A1 on the wagon of the train correspondent to above Point A and also one other corresponding Point B1 right above Point B. We would also have on the train the corresponding Point M1 above Point M. Einstein’s theory is that as for Point M (not moving because on the embankment) those two beams are simultaneous and equidistant instead for the passenger sitting on M1 and moving towards Point B1 (and also toward Point B) the two beams are not simultaneous because the beam in Point B1 is being approached by the moving train, therefore closer to M1. In this example, while Einstein’s concept of Time is rigidly kept unchanged in regard to the embankment instead the concept of Space is extended to also the next moment in Time when the traveler will move even if in that precise instant the traveler has not moved yet.

  4. I am trying to understand what you mean. Einstein, following Poincaré, was forced to combine space and time; so Minkowski could arrive at his absolute “world” (not “space” or “time”).
    I have to say that the way you look at it above is very original. Nevertheless I would be very surprised if you are able to arrive at new quantitative predictions. I never saw a replacement of special relativity by a better theory so far.