Subject: The Physical Review versus the Royal Society on Gravity, both are 25 years out-dated

Professor C. Wong

Dear Chuen:

It is generally believed that the Physical Review and the Royal Society agree with each other almost everything on general relativity. The fact is nothing can be further than this from the truth. Recently, I discovered there is a big difference between these two giant scientific institutes on gravity.

It is well known that the Physical Review believed incorrectly [1, 2] that the so-called “covariance principle” is valid in physics. Therefore, they believed incorrectly that Pauli’s version of the equivalence principle is essentially the same as Einstein’s equivalence principle and the dynamic solution exists for the Einstein equation of 1915 [3, 4]. However, they also believed Einstein’s requirement on weak gravity, which is a basic assumption of the parameterized Post-Newtonian Approximation advocated by Clifford M. Will. In addition, they interpreted incorrectly [5], in disagreement with Einstein [6], that E = mcc as unconditional equivalence between mass and any type of energy.

A big challenge from the editorial of the Royal Society is that, as shown in the 1959 paper of Bondi et al [7], they considered Einstein’s requirement on weak gravity meaningless in physics because it is coordinate-dependent [8]. In other words, they believe the “covariance principle”, but rejected Einstein’s requirement on weak gravity.

Such a challenge is particular serious to Will, who has built his career essentially on the Parameterized Post-Newtonian Approximation (PPNA), while claiming validity of the “covariance principle”. However, although the paper of Bondi et al [7] is well known, nobody responded to such a challenge directly from the Physical Review. This seems to suggest unequivocally that few theorists such as Zhou [9, 10], other than the editorial of the Royal Society, understand the implication of the so-called “covariance principle” in physics.

Recently, I submitted an article, “The Necessity of Unifying Gravitation and Electromagnetism and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Force” (DB10370), in which the problems currently in general relativity is mentioned. Naturally, Dr. Eric J. Weinberg, the editor of the Physical Review D did not like such short-comings mentioned since most of such papers are published in the Physical Review. Then, he commented my paper, “considerable space is devoted to unsubstantiated and irrelevant remarks on the alleged incompetence of various physicists”. Moreover, probably due to his emotional state, he made a mistake on black hole, which is in disagreement with Hawking and Ellis [11].

Now, it seems that, in addition to Feynman’s comments on the competency of theorists on relativity, I should add the comments of the Royal Society to strength my judgment. I wonder he still labeled criticisms as “unsubstantiated and irrelevant.”

As an editor, Dr. Weinberg does not have to be an expert of everything. What I do not understand is that why he has to pretend as an expert of general relativity, a field obviously his knowledge is very limited. Nevertheless, he is the editor that one has to deal with carefully. For your perusal, the revised paper is attached herewith. Any suggestions you may have will be appreciated. Thank you.

Zhou [9, 10] correctly recognized that Einstein’s requirement for weak gravity is valid, but the “covariance principle” is invalid. This makes him a theoretical giant among the others. In other words, in comparison to Zhou, they are about 25 years out-dated.

Sincerely yours,

C. Y. Lo

References

1. Lo C. Y., The Bending of Light Ray and Unphysical Solutions in General Relativity, Chin. Phys., 13 (2), 159-167 (February 2004).
2. Lo C. Y., The Principle of General Relativity, the Restriction to Covariance, and Stanford’s Experiment Gravity Probe-B, Phys. Essays 18 (1), 112-124 (March 2005).
3. Lo C. Y., The Gravitational “Plane Waves” of Liu and Zhou and the Nonexistence of Dynamic Solutions for Einstein’s Equation, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215 (2006) (DOI 10.1007/s10509-006-9221-x).
4. Lo C. Y., Einstein’s Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455, 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995).
5. Lo C. Y., 1997, Astrophys. J. 477, 700-704.
6. Einstein A., 1982, ‘E = mc2′ (1946) in Ideas and Opinions (Dover, NEW York).
7. Bondi H., Pirani F. A. E., & Robinson I. 1959. Proc. R. Soc. London A 251, 519-533.
8. Pring, F., The Royal Society, reported the Board Member’s Comments, “The author wishes to require that the components of the metric be bounded. This is a coordinate-dependent condition, and is physically meaningless. (By this criterion, one would have to say that the flat metric on a plane in polar coordinates is unphysical, since r is unbounded.)” (Jan. 8, 2007).
9. Zhou (Chou) P. Y. 1982. Scientia Sinica (Series A), 1982 XXV (6) 628-643.
10. Zhou (Chou) P. Y. 1983. “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transformation in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ. ed. Hu Ning, Science Press & North Holland. (1983), 1-20.
11. Hawking S. W. & Ellis G. F. R. 1979. The Large Scale Structure of Space-time (Cambridge University, 1979), p. 156.

by 过客 on 2007/03/16 at 09:07. 回复 #

Subject: Academic Dishonesty outside China

Dear Professor Coleman:

Currently, academic dishonesty is a hot subject in China. An implicit assumption is that such things do not normally happen outside China, for instance, the US. Unfortunately, this is simply not true. However, this is done in a more subtle and organized way, often abusing the peer reviewing system in the form of authority worship although sometimes baseless claims are made up, just to appear as having reasons to reject a paper. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, academic dishonesty anywhere is wrapped with, if not out right lies, statements based on unsubstantiated opinions instead of facts.

So the cure is simply just insisting on opinions must eventually be supported with facts as Galileo taught us. However, this is hard to be implemented because this means much more work for the editors. Moreover, this also requires that perceived authorities must admit their ignorance even errors in some occasions. Perhaps, these would explain that such a simply method is often forgotten while we play lip service to the teaching of Galileo all the time.

In general relativity, currently there are still two fundamental problems, misinterpretations of Einstein’s equivalence principle and the acceptance of the invalid “covariance principle”. Einstein’s equivalence principle was incomprehensible because the coordinates were ambiguous. Although theorists such as Eddington and Whitehead saw the “covariance principle” problematic right at the beginning, many are simply overwhelmed by the accuracy of the predictions. Subsequently, because of no better substitution, invalidity was accepted by many as valid and misinterpretation was accepted by many as the “standard” interpretation. It is amazing that an inconsistent theory has that many followers.

Currently, misinterpretations of Einstein’s equivalence principle and the acceptance of the invalid “co-variance principle”, in effect, have developed into efforts conspired to give deceptive predictions. For example, Will [1], the Chair of NASA’s Science Advisory Committee for Gravity Probe B, in a paper published in Physical Review D, claimed that there is only one covariant formula for the de Sitter precession. However, Will has a record of being dishonest in science [2, 3]. Detailed calculations show that there is no covariant formula, but different formulas for the de Sitter precession [4]. Thus, as a matter of facts, the Physical Review D has become a tool for Will’s game of deception.

I attempt to rectify this situation because the project Gravity Probe-B has an accumulated cost of about 0.75 billions dollars. I would submit my paper to the Physical Review D, but the editor Eric J. Weinberg would not let my papers reaching the hand of a referee. I submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento B a paper, “Precession Formulas for Gravity Probe-B and Its Complementary Experiment of Local Light Speeds” that shows for a given frame of reference, the precession formulas are not independent of the gauges as the covariance principle requires. However, after half a year of reviewing, I got a most ridiculous report, in disagreement of Einstein, claiming, that the covariance principle means such formulas of different gauges, but the same frame of reference, must be different.

It seems to me there are organized efforts to cheat the US public that spend the money for such experiments. In view of that the experiment results would be announced before the end of 2007, I decided to write a paper for the conference on Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory at Moscow, Russia this summer. Hopefully, this would break a conspired (if true) deception. This article would expose to the public the fact that this experiment cannot tell the difference between Whitehead’s theory of gravity from Einstein’s theory. Thus, the ignorance of the so-called experts would also be manifested.

Thank you for your kind attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you for any comments you may have.

Respectfully yours,

C. Y. Lo

Reference:
1. C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 062003-1 (2003).
2. C. M Will, Astrophys. J. 204, 224-34 (1976).
3. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 477, 700-704 (1997).
4. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 18 (1), 112-124 (March 2005).

by 过客 on 2007/04/01 at 17:44. 回复 #

中文是优秀的語言文字

中文有一個不為許多人注意到的功能。那就是提供维持中国统一的有效工具。在幅原广大，言語複雜的古國度。沒有有效的溝通工具，是不可想象的。故中国可在合久分後，再重新统一。

在西方的羅馬帝國分裂後，便很難再统一起来。因其文字以拼音为基礎。語言不同，文字也就不同了。中国人南腔北調，且有多種方言。但却無礙中国人用中文溝通。官方行文更可通行無阻。

由於中文字義与發音分離，可望文生義，故便於不同語言的民族採用。目前在中国之外，使用中文的，便有日本，朝鲜，韓國，越南等。日本人更欣賞中文的簡練。

中文的唯一缺点是：書写较難，且更難以机械化。但這也是中国最早发明印刷術的原因。這对世界文明的進步貢獻很大。但長期以来中文打字机却龐大笨重。這也导致不少人有，扬亲棄中文的错誤主張。近年由於电腦的发明和推广，這種缺点已实际上诮失了。熟練的中文打字，已经比英文打字快。

by 过客 on 2007/05/25 at 20:23. 回复 #

On the Contribution of Zhou Pei-Yuan to General Relativity

Dear Professor Cao and Professor Liu:

I have been wondering why the out-standing contribution of Professor Zhou Pei-Yuan of Peking University was not properly rec-ognized even in China. Recently, I have my answer from the announcements in the Internet from different academic organizations in China. From these announcements, I conclude that Zhou’s work was still not well understood at least to those organizations in China. Thus, these would add tremendous difficulties to expect that Zhou’s contribution could be recognized worldwide. The purpose of writing this letter is let you know the facts that you would help improving such a situation.

From the announcements, the contributions of Zhou on general relativity are either without the necessary details or with some details of invalid attributions. In short, none of the announcements indicate an accurate over all understanding of Zhou’s work. These inevitably allow some theorists to belittle or even sneeze at Zhou’s contributions on general relativity and the academic achievements of China. Naturally, this would also add strength to those, who believe in “authorities” in this field, instead of the principle that practice (or experiments) is the only criterion for a theory.

For example, in the announcement of Chinese Academy, Zhou’s contribution is simply,
“主要从事物理学的基础理论中难度最大的两个方面即爱因斯坦广义相对论引力论和流体力学中的湍流理论的研究与教 学并取得出色成果。”
I did not find any other announcement form the Chinese Academy. However, since Professor Peng [1, 2], a student of Zhou and out standing theoretical physicist in China, also did not know the significant of Zhou’s work, I concluded that they probably did not know. In the announcement of中国科学技术协会, Zhou’s contribution with details (see attached) has the following errors and/or in accuracy:

1) Zhou is not a “坐标有关论者”1), which is known to all physicists to be incorrect. What he pointed out is that the physi-cal meaning of coordinates depends on the gauge chosen. Moreover, this gauge dependence can be derived from Ein-stein’s equivalence principle [3, 4]. From Zhou’s experiment [5, 6], it is clear that Zhou is probably the first theorist who understands that Einstein’s equivalence principle implies invalidity of the gauge invariance and the “covariance princi-ple”2). Such an inconsistency is overlooked by Einstein and other theorists until recently. For this reason alone, Zhou is the greatest theorist on general relativity of his time after Einstein.
2) From Zhou’s papers [5], it is clear that the difference between the vertical and horizontal light speeds is not zero for the Lanzos solution although it is zero for the isotropic solution. Moreover, according to the editorial of the Chinese Physics, the experimental result is unclear in favor of the Schwarzschild solution or the isotropic and Lanzos solutions. I check with the original paper [6], and the editorial of Chinese Physics is correct.
3) However, there are existing experiments that is clearly in favor of the isotropic and Lanzos solutions [7, 8]. They are the experiments on gravitational radiation of binary pulsars, and the first experiment of this kind, the Hulse-Taylor experi-ment has won a Nobel Prize. In the explanation of these experiments, the Maxwell-Newton Approximation must be used [7] and this approximation rejects the Schwarzschild solution.
4) Zhou proposed the harmonic gauge only for the case of asymptotically flat metrics [2]. Fock [9], however, advocated the harmonic gauge unconditionally; and Fock’s proposal has been proven incorrect [10].

These are the errors and inaccuracy that I have found and this is probably not a complete list. However, I hope these com-ments would be useful for you to rectify the situation. Any questions and comments you may have will be appreciated. Please note that it is based on the work of Zhou that the knowledge of the current Royal Society is judged as about 25 years out-dated. However, if one counted from the date of Eddington [11], the current situation is about 85 years out dated!

Sincerely yours,

C. Y. Lo

Endnotes

1) Recently, a board member of the Royal Society comments [12], “The outcome off a real experiment cannot depend on a choice of coordinates. This is true for Newtonian theory as much as general relativity.”
2) The “covariance principle” leads to the notion of Lorentz manifolds [13] that cannot be one-one corresponding to a four-dimensional Minkowski space, and this is the theoretical basis for the paper of Bondi et al [14].

References:

1. Peng Huanwu, & Xu Xiseng, The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics (Peking University Press, Beijing, 2000).
2. Peng Huangwu, Commun. Theor. Phys. (Beijing, China), 31, 13-20 (1999).
3. An Existence of Local Minkowski Spaces is Insufficient for Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, Phys. Essays, 15 (3), 303-321 (September, 2002).
4. Space Contractions, Local Light Speeds, and the Question of Gauge in General Relativity, Chinese J. of Phys. (Taipei), 41 (4), 233-343 (August 2003).
5. Zhou Pei-yuan, “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”, International Symposium on Experimental Gravitational Physics (Guangzhou, 3-8 August 1987), edited by Peter F. Michelson, 110-116 (World Sci., Singapore).
6. Measurement of the Relative Difference of the light Velocity in the Horizontal and vertical Directions on the Earth Surface Proceedings of the Fourth Asia Pacific Physics Conference, Seoul, Korea, August 13-17, 1990, 2: 1155-1159.
7. Einstein’s Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455, 421-428 (1995).
8. On Incompatibility of Gravitational Radiation with the 1915 Einstein Equation, Phys. Essays 13 (4), 527-539 (2000).
9. V. A. Fock, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation, translated by N. Kemmer (Pergamon Press, 1964).
10. Misunderstandings Related to Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and Einstein’s Theoretical Errors on Measurements, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
11. A.S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Chelsea, New York, 1975), p. 10.
12. Louise Le Bas, Publishing Editor, the Royal Society, A Board Member’s Comments (July 24, 2007).
13. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
14. H. Bondi, F. A. E. Pirani, & I. Robinson, Proc. R. Soc. London A 251, 519-533 (1959).

Attachment:
　广义相对论在物理上取得了许多辉煌成就，但从一开始就存在着一个困难，这就是，表达引力场的方程是一个包含10个二阶非线性偏微分方程的方程 组，而这10个方程之间又存在着4个独立的非线性偏微分方程组所组成的恒等式，也称为比安基(Bianchi)恒等式，这就使得只用引力方程得不到10个 引力函数的确定解。周培源一进入相对论领域便抓住这个难题，主张引进另外的物理条件才能求解出引力函数的确定解。沿循这个思路，周培源在20世纪20年代 用引入新物理条件的办法获得了轴对称静态引力场的若干解，以后又于20世纪30年代在引入各向同性条件下，又求得了与静止场不同类型的严格解。
　　与此同时，国际上的同行学者为了克服上述困难，采用坐标变换的方法来减少引力函数的数目。但这种方法只能求出一种常微分方程的特殊引力场——球 对称静态引力场的严格解，例如史瓦西(Schwazchild)解，而对众多的其他物理问题仍然束手无策。沿着这条思路求解引力场方程的相对论研究者，在 国际上称为“坐标无关论者”。他们主张坐标在引力论中无关紧要。与此相反，周培源从一开始进行引力论研究时，就认为坐标是有物理意义的，因此他是一位“坐 标有关论者”。“坐标有关论者”在一些特殊问题上，引进谐和条件以求解引力场方程的做法，可以追溯到1919年爱因斯坦本人。他引进谐和条件的近似式来求 解线性化了的引力场方程，从而获得了引力波解，预言了引力波的存在。后来，德•东德(de Donder)将谐和条件严格化。1923年，郎曲斯(Lanzos)曾用这一条件得到了球对称静态引力场的解。
　　沿着这条思路，1979年，周培源把严格的谐和条件作为一个物理条件添加进引力场方程中，和他在北京大学的同事以及他在高能物理所的学生一起， 发表了多篇论文，其中包括无限平面、无限长杆、围绕无限长杆作心速转动的稳态解和严格的平面波解。面对当前存在的两个解，即坐标无关论者的史瓦西解和坐标 有关论者的郎曲斯解，从20世纪70年代开始，周培源和他的学生李永贵开始从事测量与地面垂直和与地面平行的两种光速的比较实验，希望回答两种解中哪一种 更符合实际。理论上，史瓦西解得到的两种光速的一级近似之差与光速之比为7×10︰10，而郎曲斯解的这一比值为零。目前，李永贵所获得的这个比值在准确 到10︰9时表明：两种光速是相等的。这项实验仍在进行中，以期取得更高一级的近似。这是“坐标有关论者”同“坐标无关论者”两种理论较量中的关键性实 验。它的进一步结果，将是整个物理界所关心的。
在广义相对论方面，周培源一直致力于求解引力场方程的确定解，并应用于宇宙论的研究。早在二三十年代，他就求得了轴对称静态引力场的若干解，与静止场不同 类型的严格解，并于1939年证实，在球对称膨胀宇宙中，若物质和辐射处于热平衡态，则宇宙必为弗里德曼宇宙。70年代末，他又把严格的谐和条件作为一个 物理条件添加进引力场方程，求得一系列静态解、稳态解及宇宙解。还指导研究生进行了与地面平行和垂直的光速比较实验，以探求史瓦西解和郎曲斯解哪一个更符 合静态球对称引力场的客观实际。初步结果已显示出，郎曲斯解与实际相符。80年代，周培源致力于广义相对论的基本问题，即经过坐标变换联系起来的几个解， 究竟应该是一个解还是几个解。他对照流体力学中保角变换，认为这种情形应该是几个解而不是一个解。产生这种不确定的原因在于爱因斯坦方程缺少必要的坐标条 件。

by 过客 on 2007/08/06 at 13:38. 回复 #

关于”荷-质排斥力”的验证，给刘武青先生的信

刘武青先生：

你实验的结果不但得到中国计量科学研究院测试证书，而且也被俄国科学家实验再确认。恭喜你! 你的工作给了”荷-质拒力” [1] 的存在一个实验的证据,也初步地证实了五度空间理论的威力 [2, 3]。王钏教授和我对此都十分高兴，特此致谢。更重要的，你也证明了爱因斯坦的质能变换公式 E = mc**2 有局限性 [4, 5]。

回想你的实验长期以来不但不被鼓励，反而受到了不少的冷嘲热讽。中国的反科学的传统有了精彩的显示。反观俄国的科学家，只是再获得你的结果来验证。两相比较，中国不少人善长于窝里斗，扯着别人进步的后腿，自已却对科学并无贡献。诚可叹也。可是在中国，往往是不学有术，如何作庥院士之流得势。

去年，我曾写了一封”关于诺贝尔奬”的公开信给江泽民先生，在光明罔等罔站上茇表。该信支持你的工作，但当时并未附上一份给你，今补附。目前，胡锦涛先生提倡以科学为荣。据近来跡像，并非”叶公好龙”。想来先生当可受到充份支持。 专此,

祝进一步成功!
鲁重贤谨 八月十九日
参考文献:
1) C. Y. Lo, and C. Wong, The Intrinsic Difference between Mass and Electromagnetic Energy and the Repulsive Effect in Gravity, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 25D (2), 109-117 (2006).
2) C. Y. Lo, The Necessity of Unifying Gravitation and Electromagnetism and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Effects in Gravity, XIII Moscow International Conference on Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Monday 2 July – Thursday 5 July 2007.
3) C. Y. Lo, G. R. Goldstein and A. Napier, Electromagnetic Radiation Reaction Force and Radiation Potential in General Five-Dimensional Relativity, Hadronic Journal 12 (2) 75-89 (1989).
4) C. Y. Lo, Remarks on Interpretations of the Eötvös Experiment and Misunderstandings of E = mc2, Chin. Phys. (Beijing), 16 (3), 635-639 (March 2007).
5) C. Y. Lo, Comments on Misunderstandings of Relativity, and the Theoretical Interpretation of the Kreuzer Experiment, Astrophys. J. 477, 700-704 (March 10, 1997).
附；
关于诺贝尔奬给江泽民先生的公开信

江泽民先生：

文汇报报道：先生你关心中国人的科学成就。还问什么时候中国人可拿诺贝尔奬。可惜，显然你所得答案是不得要领。但是，这种关心是我非常欣赏的。因此写这封公开信给你。

我以为你所问的人并不能给你个有效的答案。因为在场的人不是本身与诺奬无缘，便是对中国的学术请况不了解。例如，给你介绍的”时间简史”便是一本有许多错误的书 [1]。而且，霍金教授本人便是科学上并无实在的成就，只是徒具虚名之辈 [1, 2]。

近来丘成桐教授指出，中国学术界许多不公和腐败的事。如果他指出的是真的话，那么培养诺奬人材便是十分艰难。古语有云；与其临渊羡鱼，不如退而结罔。如果你致力中国教育与科研事业的改进，务请达到大力鼓励支持创新，务求竞争公平，并扶助先进于萌芽状态之中。中国的历史表明，中国人是聪明的。只要不受社会上传统保守思想和习惯的防碍和阻挠，许多中国人都会有杰出的成就。现在相当多的华裔在中国外有所成，难道这不是说明了相当多的问题吗？

以上说的是大局。但是中国这样大的国家，例外并不是不能发生的事。现在我告诉你，诺贝尔奬也许不是太遥远的事。据我所知，四川大学的刘武青先生所作的三种实验，便是十分可能有这种成就。希望你能通知有关方面研究此事，予以可能的大力支持。专此。
祝你
身体健康
晚
鲁重贤谨 十月＋五日

参考数据：

1. 鲁重贤：霍金教授是现代的爱因斯坦 吗？
http://www3.chinesenewsnet.com/gb/MainNews/Opinion/2006_6_21_16_13_26_17.html
2.
2.鲁重贤:超弦统一理论的先天不足–多维新闻网duoweinews.com.
www5.chinesenewsnet.com/MainNews/Opinion/2006_10_9_18_59_34_764.html – 48k –

by 过客 on 2007/08/19 at 08:01. 回复 #

The Physical Review and the Game of Deception

Dear Professor Wong:

I would like to report to you some of the events in the conference on general relativity in Moscow.

I point out an unpleasant fact that many current famous theorists actually do not understand adequately the principle of causality, the foundation of scientific research [1, 2, 3]. This problem is probably largely responsible for the lack of real progresses as claimed in some branch of physics, namely, in the area of gravitation.

This is a serious problem because it involves the editorials of the Physical Review, and well-known theorists. Such a list includes Hawking, Penrose, Will (Chair of NASA’s Science Advisory Committee for Gravity Probe B, and the President of the International Society on General Relativity and Gravitation) as well as the Wheeler School that dominates the area of gravitation in the US. Moreover, a recent Nobel Laureate ‘t Hooft is also in this unpleasant list, and for this reason alone, Professor ‘t Hooft is essentially still a mathematician, but not yet a physicist.

Currently, misinterpretations of Einstein’s equivalence principle and the acceptance of the invalid “covariance principle”, in effect, have developed into efforts conspired to give deceptive claims. For example, Will in a paper published in Physical Review D, claimed that there is only one covariant formula for the de Sitter precession. However, explicit calculations have shown that there is no such covariant formula. Will also has a record of being dishonest in science [3]. Thus, as a matter of facts, the Physical Review D has become a tool for Will’s game of deception.

Obviously, this is a very difficult situation to change. However, since the genii have been out of the bottle now, it is hope that the National Science Foundation and companies supporting such research would check whether the tax-dollars and the company money are spent for the said purpose.

If you have any suggestions, please let me know.

Sincerely yours,

C. Y. Lo

References

1. C. Y. Lo, The Necessity of Unifying Gravitation and Electromagnetism and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Effects in Gravity, XIII Moscow International Conference on Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Monday 2 July – Thursday 5 July 2007.

2. C. Y. Lo, Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, its Justifications, and Misinterpretations, XIII Moscow International Conference on Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Monday 2 July – Thursday 5 July 2007.

3. C. Y. Lo, Einstein versus the Physical Review on Gravitational Waves and the Principle of Causality, XIII Moscow International Conference on Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, Monday 2 July – Thursday 5 July 2007.

by 过客 on 2007/07/18 at 14:33. 回复 #

C. N. Yang versus P. Y. Zhou on General Relativity – an issue to be discussed

Professor C. N. Yang,
Department of Physics
Tsinghua University
E-mail: cnyang@cuhk.edu.hk , wlx@tsinghua.edu.cn

Dear Professor Yang:

How are you?

In July 2-5 2007, I participated to the XIII International Meeting Physical Interpretations of Relativity Theory, in Moscow . The main purpose is to present my report, “The Necessity of Unifying Gravitation and Electromagnetism and the Mass-Charge Repulsive Effects in Gravity”. This paper has been well received. In addition, I have presented two other papers: “Einstein versus the Physical Review on Gravitational Waves and the Principle of Causality” and “Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, Justifications, and Misinterpretations”. From the feedbacks of the conference, I find that it is necessary to comment your view on general relativity because yours is in direct conflict with that of the late Professor Zhou Pei-Yuan.

You regarded general relativity as a gauge invariant theory [1]. However, Professor Zhou correctly pointed out that, according to Einstein’s equivalence principle as well as physical considerations, for a given frame of reference only one gauge is valid in physics [2, 3]. My comments are based on your paper of 1974 [1]. Although you are not alone on the view that general relativity is gauge invariant, many cited your paper because of your prominence in current gauge theories.

The purpose of informing you this matter is to guard against any misunderstanding such as that your view on general relativity may have been changed. Moreover, if you feel that there is a need to present your view in a more accurate manner, or to defend your view, I would recommend that your opinion be published along with my articles. This would give a chance for the readers to appreciate your view better.

My papers are attached herewith for your perusal. (For your convenience, your paper is highlighted in the reference.) Any comments you may have will be greatly appreciated. I have a dead line, October 1 2007, to send my papers to be published in the proceedings of the conference. However, I would return them at least two weeks ahead of the dead line.

Moreover, I would like to thank you again for your 1997 letter that you kindly promised to comment on my work. Unfortunately, I did not receive a subsequent letter. Thank you for your kind attention. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours,
C. Y. Lo

Reference:
1. C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 445 (1974); R. Pavelle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1461 (Dec. 1974).
2. Zhou Pei-Yuan, “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transformation in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ. ed. Hu Ning, Sci. Press & North Holland. (1983), 1-20.
3. P. Y. Zhou (Chou), “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the International Symposium on Experimental Gravitational Physics, Guang Zhou, China August 1987.

by 过客 on 2007/08/12 at 00:26. 回复 #

也談談楊振寧教授的非專業議論 鲁重贤

楊振寧教授常有非專業性的議論。為此，受到了不少贊賞或非議。近来的評論，除了少数惡意毁謗之外，多是以求全為出发點的。古語有云，言多必失。楊教授也不能例外。例如，他評論陈省身的数学成就，被認為是十分恰当。但是，楊振寧教授在广义相对論及周培源教授的評論，却暴露了他在這领域中，缺乏足夠的認識 [1-3]。

周培源教授在卄五年前已指出”協变原理”是錯誤的 [4, 5] ，而且近来這一錯誤已有明確的証明 [6-8]。但楊教授却直到最近依旧認為這是对的，而且承認了没有看过周教授的論文。更重要的是，爱因斯坦的测量理論已被証明與他的等效原理和实际覌察都有矛盾 [6, 9]。而且，因此覌察到的遠星红移其实是不可以作為宇宙膨脹的論據 [10]。但是以红移為論據的宇宙加速膨脹論，却被轻率地发给了邵逸夫奬。這显然與諾貝尔委員会力排众議地没有完全認同大家公認的广义相对論，大異其趣 [11]。也就是说，在楊教授领导下的邵奬委員会缺乏諾奬委員会的嚴謹性。

楊教授喜发表非專業性議論是他個性的特点而已。例如，丁肇中和李政道便一般只发表意見关於熟知的事。如果因此談到或牽扯上性格的缺陷，這未免是失諸太过偏激。但以此主观来领导邵逸夫奬，也未免是一種遗撼。

参考文獻：
1. 鲁重贤：也谈谈“爱因斯坦的机遇和眼光”— 与杨振宁教授相榷, October, 2006.
2. C. Y. Lo, “C. N. Yang versus P. Y. Zhou on General Relativity – an issue to be discussed” August 12, 2007.
3. 鲁重贤:超弦统一理论的先天不足
DWNEWS.COM– 2006-10-09 18:59:34(京港台时间) –多维新闻网.
4. Zhou Pei-Yuan, “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transformation in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ. ed. Hu Ning, Sci. Press & North Holland. (1983), 1-20.
5. P. Y. Zhou (Chou), “Further Experiments to Test Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the International Symposium on Experimental Gravitational Physics, Guang Zhou, China August 1987.
6. Space Contractions, Local Light Speeds, and the Question of Gauge in General Relativity, Chinese J. of Phys. (Taipei), 41 (4), 233-343 (August 2003).
7. The Bending of Light Ray and Unphysical Solutions in General Relativity, Chin. Phys. (Beijing), 13 (2), 159-167 (February 2004).
8. The Principle of General Relativity, the Restriction to Covariance, and Stanford’s Experiment Gravity Probe-B, Phys. Essays 18 (1), 112-124 (March 2005).
9. Misunderstandings Related to Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and Einstein’s Theoretical Errors on Measurements, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
10. On Interpretations of Hubble’s Law and the Bending of Light, Progress in Phys., Vol. 1, 10-13 (Jan., 2006).
11. Pais A. 1996. ‘Subtle is the Lord …’ (Oxford University Press, New York).

by 过客 on 2007/11/07 at 21:32. 回复 #

On the Nature of Physics and Invalidity of the “Covariance Principle” by C. Y. Lo

General relativity is established on two principles [1, 2], namely: 1) Einstein’s equivalence principle, which requires that a free falling point-like particle in a gravitational field is along a geodesic and results in a co-moving local Minkowski space; and 2) the principle of general relativity, that is “The law of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion.” However, the latter principle is practically replaced with unrestricted covariance, which Einstein called the “principle of covariance” [1], “The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant).”

The “principle of covariance” is an interim assumption of Einstein due to his inadequate understanding of the space-time co-ordinates, and such a “principle” is a source of theoretical inconsistence in Einstein’s theory [3]. This principle was first ques-tioned by Eddington [4] and was proven invalid recently [3]. Nevertheless, many still believe such a “principle” because it is the root of many errors. Currently a popular defense of the “covariance principle” is based on the notion of the so-called gauge in-variant measurable quantities. The idea is that if physical quantities can be expressed in term of gauge invariant quantities, then the theory is gauge invariant. However, just as Einstein’s arguments [1, 2] for the “covariance principle”, this notion has a fatal error, i.e. the issue of how to do a physical measurement is not addressed [3].

In such an approach, instead of the usual system of length and time, the genuinely measurable quantities would serve as a new measuring system. This new system includes no coordinate; otherwise it would be gauge dependent. Then, a question is what is used to measure the elements of the new system? If one has to use coordinates to measure such a genuine measurable quantity, then the end result is still gauge dependent and thus the gauge independence is only just a mathematical illusion. (However, nobody had thought about this.) Thus, this approach has little meaning other than misleading others.

Unfortunately, having discontinued the tradition of physical considerations of Eddington [4], the Royal Society of London is among the advocates of this absurdity. Consequently, this becomes a popular belief among theorists, who simply follow the “authorities”. The root of this problem is that theorists such as Penrose and Hawking are essentially mathematicians who understand little about physical requirements [5, 6, 7]. A major difference between physics and mathematics is that in a physical theory the question of measurement must be addressed in a consistent manner [3, 8, 9]. It is due to an inadequate ability to distinguish the difference between physics and mathematics that the notion of “genuinely measurable quantities” was created.

However, this kind of problem is not entirely new. Whitehead [10] has already pointed out that Einstein’s theory of meas-urement is not acceptable in physics. Fortunately, it has been found [11, 12, 13, 14] that Einstein’s theory of measurement is not an integral part of the theory of general relativity. Zhou [15] is the first pointing out the invalidity of the “covariant principle” while accepting Einstein’s equivalence principle, thus is a great theorist in general relativity. On the other hand, Nobel Laureate, C. N. Yang [16] had mistakenly accepted the “covariance principle” and thus believed incorrectly that general relativity is a gauge invariant theory.

References
1. A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Weyl, and H. Minkowski, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, New York, 1952).
2. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press, 1954).
3. C. Y. Lo, The Principle of General Relativity, the Restriction to Covariance, and Stanford’s Experiment Gravity Probe-B, Phys. Essays 18 (1), 112-124 (March 2005).
4. A. S. Eddington, The Mathematical Theory of Relativity (Chelsea, New York, 1975), p. 10.
5. C. Y. Lo, Einstein’s Radiation Formula and Modifications to the Einstein Equation, Astrophysical Journal 455, 421-428 (Dec. 20, 1995).
6. C. Y. Lo, On Incompatibility of Gravitational Radiation with the 1915 Einstein Equation, Phys. Essays 13 (4), 527-539 (December, 2000).
7. C. Y. Lo, Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, the Principle of Causality, and Plane-Wave Solutions, Phys. Essays 20 (3) (Sept. 2007).
8. C. Y. Lo, Misunderstandings Related to Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and Einstein’s Theoretical Errors on Meas-urements, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
9. C. Y. Lo, Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and the Einstein-Minkowski Condition, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sci-ences, 26D (2), 117-132 (2007).
10. A. N. Whitehead, The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1922).
11. C. Y. Lo, An Existence of Local Minkowski Spaces is Insufficient for Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, Phys. Essays, 15 (3), 303-321 (September, 2002).
12. C. Y. Lo, Space Contractions, Local Light Speeds, and the Question of Gauge in General Relativity, Chinese J. of Phys. (Taipei), 41 (4), 233-343 (August 2003).
13. C. Y. Lo, On Interpretations of Hubble’s Law and the Bending of Light, Progress in Phys., Vol. 1, 10-13 (Jan., 2006).
14. C. Y. Lo，Remarks on Interpretations of the Eötvös Experiment and Misunderstandings of E = mc2, Chin. Phys. (Beijing), 16 (3), 635-639 (March 2007).
15. Zhou (Chou) Peiyuan, “On Coordinates and Coordinate Transformation in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation” in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ., ed. Hu Ning, Science Press & North Holland. (1983), 1-20.
16. Yang, C. N.1974. Phys. Rev. Lett. 33: 445 (1974).

by 过客 on 2007/12/25 at 11:40. 回复 #