To top page

Old-fashioned Cosmology and Its CG Pictures (2022.11)

Until recently, the broadcasting stations (especially NHK and BBC) continue to broadcast the CG pictures of cosmology related to Black holes or Big Bang and etc. In order to help those who may have some basic problems to understand these CG pictures, I decided to write a short note to answer their question. But the content of this short note should be rather general, and thus it may not present some direct and sufficient solutions for their question.
The basic point is that the physics of CG pictures is based on quite old-fashioned Cosmology, but unfortunately these editors may not have noticed this fact. Further, the CG pictures of Cosmology have nothing to do with physics. In terms of professional terminology, physics can describe the motion of particle and is extremely useful, but it cannot treat space-time or space dimensions since they are not the target of physics.
The theoretical background of these CG pictures may be based on the general relativity. However, the Einstein equation is written in terms of the metric tensor which is proved to have nothing to do with the gravitational field [ Cosmology ][ Why Is General Relativity Meaningless? ].
Therefore, the general relativity is not a theory for physics that can describe nature. One thing that is clear concerning the metric tensor is that, if the metric tensor depends on the space-time coordinate, then the general relativity should violate the relativity principle which is the most important ansatz in physics. See the following reference [ Fundamental Problems in Quantum Field Theory ( Bentham Publishers, 2013) ].
Now, the important point is that the editors as well as physicists that may supervise these CG pictures may well have never realized that the Cosmology these people understand is quite old-fashioned and, therefore, these CG pictures are completely out of date. This is, of course, a shame for most audience even though they should be skeptical for the CG pictures.
Apart from mass media physicists, the science editors of broadcasting stations should have a good sense of judging what should be right in science. For example, there should not be very rare to find people who can judge the quality of work of art in a decent manner, but it should not be very easy to find people who can make a good work of art since artists must have very high skills with special talents. In this sense, scientists should be similar to artists. Therefore, those editors who make the CG pictures may well be short of the good sense of judging what should be meaningful in science.
Now, in order to make it clear that these CG pictures should be completely out of date, I should ask physics professors collaborating for mass media to solve some basic problems in physics. It should be most often the case that, once they became professors, then there should be no chance to examine their physics ability correspondingly. If they could solve the basic problems I present here, then they may understand the defects of general relativity in a correct fashion.

Below are these basic problems which should be solved by professors that supervise the CG pictures of broadcasting stations (especially NHK and BBC). They can refer to some textbooks in advance, but they should solve the problems by themselves in 8 hours. You can see the TEX version of examination problems [Examination Problems].

Basic Physics Problems

[A] Basic Physics : Classical Mechanics

(1) Consider the motion of planet with mass of m
in the gravitational potential together with
the additional potential of (α/r²).
Note that the additional potential is not integrable.
The total gravitational potential becomes
U(r) =-G (Mm/r) + (α/r²)
where M denotes the mass of the sun.
(a) Find an exact solution of the Newton equation.
(b) Prove that the orbit should have a discontinuity.
(2) The Newton equation with non-integrable potential
must be solved in a perturbation theory.
(a) Find a perturbative solution of the planet orbit.
(b) Explain the behavior of orbit perihelion shifts.

[B] Basic Physics : Electromagnetisms

(1) Describe some physical properties of Poynting vector.
(2) Is the Poynting vector related to the electromagnetic
wave or not ?
(a) If yes, then explain its reason.
(b) If no, then explain the physical picture why
the Poynting vector is not related to photon.
(3) Explain any physical reasons
why the vector potential must be quantized.
(4) Dirac field must be quantized with
the anti-commutation rule. Explain the physical
reason of this quantization method.
(5) The equation of motion of free photon can be written
as ∂_μF^μν =0, with F_μν = ∂_μA_ν- ∂_νA_μ where
F_μν denotes the electromagnetic strength.
In this case, the number of freedoms of vector
potential A_μ is four while photon has only two.
Explain why the two degrees of freedom are lost.

[C] About the right-hand side of Einstein equation.

(1) Suppose the state vector is denoted by Ψ(x).
In this case, write explicitly
the energy-momentum tensor of T_μν.
(2) In classical mechanics, the energy-momentum
tensor T_μν cannot be defined. Explain why.
(3) In Einstein equation, the energy-momentum
tensor T_μν is defined. Answer as to why
it can be defined.
(4) Questions for star formation and star
distribution function.
(a) Explain any interactions that determine star
formations and star distribution functions.
(b) Describe the properties of these interactions.
(c) For the star formation, which interaction may
play what role?
(d) For the star distribution, which interaction
may play what role?
(5) Black Hole is not defined as a star. Explain why
people believed that the Black Hole is a star

[Appendix] : Why is it difficult to make out the problem of general relativity?

Here I should explain why it should be difficult to point out the basic problem (incorrectness) of general relativity. This is mainly due to the fact that the general relativity is not based on the modern physics at all. The basis of modern physics is quantum field theory, but the general relativity has nothing to do with the modern physics. The basis of general relativity cannot be found in any area of physics. This is mainly due to the fact that Einstein was not a Shokunin (expert) in physics.
Therefore, it is generally quite difficult to clarify any defects of theoretical framework which should not be constructed on the basis of modern physics. In this case, what should one do? As the starting point, one should be well-trained for the basic physics in modern physics since one should prove that any elements of general relativity cannot be found on the basic ingredients of modern physics.
Next, we should clarify why this strange theory of general relativity could survive for a long time as an important theory. But this is quite simple to answer, and the reason why it could continue in existence in physics world must be because this theory of general relativity was believed to be related to gravity. In addition, people who criticized the general relativity were minority.
Therefore, it is crucial to prove that the general relativity has nothing to do with gravity. Fortunately, it is quite easy to prove that the metric tensor is not related to the gravitational field at all [Cosmology ] [Why Is General Relativity Meaningless?].
Now it should be most important to find as to whether a gravitational model in the field theory terminology is constructed or not. Fortunately, the new gravity theory is, by now, discovered [Fundamental Problems in Quantum Field Theory (Bentham Publishers, 2013)].
The new gravity model is quite simple in that the gravitational field is put into the mass term in the Dirac Lagrangian density. In addition, the gravity field is introduced as a massless scalar field. This gravitational model can describe all the observables related to gravity. In particular, it can naturally prove the equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass, and this is a very important prediction of the model. Also, this gravity field is not quantized, which is similar to the Coulomb field, and, therefore, it is just as simple as the Coulomb potential which has no ambiguity in the field theoretical framework.

[fffujita@gmail.com]