Content uploaded by C. Y. Lo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by C. Y. Lo on Mar 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
Could Galileo Be Wrong?
C. Y. Lo
Applied and Pure Research Institute
7 Taggart Drive, Unit E, Nashua, NH 03060
Physics Essays, 24, 4 (August 2011)
Abstract
The free falling of a neutral capacitor, though more massive after charged, would be slower. Thus, the claim of
Galileo that neutral objects of different masses would fall with the same speed at vacuum is not always true. Neverthe-
less, the equivalence between gravitational and inertial masses would still be valid. Moreover, Einstein’s equivalence
principle, which has been misrepresented with distortion to become invalid by the Wheeler School, actually is generally
valid, although the charge-mass repulsive force unequivocally shows that acceleration is intrinsically not generally just
related to attractive gravity. To verify the equivalence of masses, new experiments should be conducted when the charge-
mass interaction is present. To this end, first the experimental confirmation of the details, such as the distance depen-
dence, of such a repulsive force between charge and mass is needed; and this is also a crucial test for general relativity.
Key Words: repulsive force, charge-mass interaction, charged capacitors, Pioneer Anomaly.
04.20.-q, 04.20.Cv
“Science sets itself apart from other paths to truth by recognizing that even its greatest practitioners sometimes err. … We
recognize that our most important scientific forerunners were not prophets whose writings must be studied as infallible
guides—they were simply great men and women who prepared the ground for the better understandings we have now
achieved.” -- S. Weinberg, Physics Today, November 2005.
1. Introduction
Galileo showed that objects of different weight would fall with the same speed toward earth when air resistance and
etc. are negligible. 1) Thus, Aristotle’s thesis that heavier matter always falls faster is wrong. However, as Einstein pointed
out, one cannot prove a theory with experiments. Thus, in principle, it is still not entirely clear whether Galileo’s state -
ment is always true.
Owing to the charge-mass repulsive force [1], Galileo could be wrong since it would be possible that a heavier ob -
ject falls faster or slower. Consider two charged particles such as the electron and the proton. The attractive force toward
the proton is much larger than the attractive force toward the electron since their masses have a difference of about 2000
times. However, the charge-mass repulsive forces toward these particles are the same 2) because they have the same abso-
lute charge [1]. Thus, the lighter electron would fall slower than the heavier proton.
One may note also that a charged particle would emit electromagnetic wave and thus has a radiative reaction force.
However, this force is absent when the acceleration is zero and is negligible for the free fall. This slowing down would
1
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
also make the electron falling slower since the mass of proton is much larger. Moreover, since the neutron has no charge,
it would fall faster than the proton and the electron. 3) For macroscopic objects, which are not strongly subjected to quan-
tum mechanics, the difference due to the effects of the charge-mass interaction should be observable in vacuum.
One may argue that the above cases involve an object with net charges, and thus is beyond the cases that Galileo
considered. However, because of the charge-mass interaction, a capacitor would fall slower after charged although its
mass would have a negligible increment [1].4) Therefore, the claim of Galileo is actually not always valid although his ob-
servation is approximately valid for many cases. In other words, what the 1993 press release of the Nobel Committee [2]
termed “the equivalence principle” (which is only intimately connected with Einstein’s equivalence principle [3; p. 58]) 5),
the identity between gravitational and inertial mass is tested only when the charge-mass interaction is absent.
Einstein [3] once remarked,
“The equality of two (gravitational and inertial) masses, so differently defined, is a fact which is confirmed
by experiments of very high accuracy (experiments of Eötvös), and classical mechanics offers no explana-
tion for this equality. It is, however, clear that science is fully justified in assigning such a numerical equal -
ity only after this numerical equality is reduced to an equality of the real nature of the two concepts.”
Now, we should have a new level of understanding on this equality since it is intimately related to Einstein’s equivalence
principle and is crucial to general relativity; and thus to the modern development of physics.
2. The Equality of Gravitational and Inertial Masses
As Einstein [3] pointed out, “this principle (his “principle of equivalence”) is evidently intimately connected with
the law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, …” And this principle is the foundation of general
relativity that produces the static charge-mass interaction. Validity of the equality between these two masses, is crucial for
general relativity to be a self-consistent theory.
However, the experiments of Eötvös verify this equality only for the case that the charge-mass interaction is ab -
sent. Thus, a new experimental test should be conducted for the case when the charge-mass interaction is present. 6) To
this end, first one must know what the new repulsive force is. It has been found that, for a small particle Q with charge q
and a particle P with mass m separated by a distance r, the static neutral repulsive force derived by Lo [1] to the first or-
der is
F =
3
2
r
mq
, (1)
(in the unit light speed c = 1 and gravitational coupling constant = 1 [4]). However, such a force could be too small to be
measured experimentally with current technology.7)
2
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
Nevertheless, if we consider the repulsive force between a metal ball B with charge q and a test particle P with mass
m, and the distance between the test particle P and the center of the ball B is denoted by r, then the repulsive force is the
same as eq. (1) [5]. As the number of electrons N increased in the ball B, the attractive force due to masses would linearly
increase with number N, but the repulsive force would increase with the square of the number N. Since the charge q for a
metal ball can be considerably large, such a repulsive force is measureable [5]. On the other hand, an increment of charge
would increase the energy, but the weight is reduced. 2) Thus, such a more massive object would fall slower, and thus it
would be unclear that the acceleration mass and the gravitational mass are equivalent.
Further experimental verification for details of this force such as the distance dependence is important because it is
the only confirmation of general relativity with a non-massive source, and thus is beyond the Maxwell-Newton Approxi-
mation. After the formula (1) for the neutral repulsive force is confirmed, we would be ready to do improved experiments
of Eötvös that is based on a charged metal ball. A difficulty is that a charged metal ball is not neutral.
A easier confirmation of the force (without clear distance-dependence) would be to weight the charged capacitors
[1]. According to special relativity, the change of mass of a particle is related to the change of energy ΔE are related by
ΔE = Δmc2 (2)
although eq. (2) is not generally true for any energy [1].7) For a capacitor of 200µF charged to 1000 volt, the related
mass increment would be about 10-12 gram, and the mass increment of a charged capacitor is negligible. Note also
that the increment of energy is not purely electromagnetic since the electron has mass. In fact, as observed, the increment
of the attractive force to the neutral capacitor due to the increment of mass is far smaller than the repulsive force [1].
3. Validity of Einstein’s Equivalence Principle and its Misrepresentations
Although most theorists agree with Einstein [3, 6] that his equivalence principle is the foundation of general relativ-
ity, there is no book or reference, other than Einstein’s own work, that can state and explain his principle correctly. In par-
ticular, they often confused the principle with Einstein’s 1911 assumption of equivalence [7], which has been proven in-
valid by experiments such as the bending of light. Another source of confusion is that many theorists, including Nobel
Laureate ‘t Hooft [8],8) still have mistaken Pauli’s invalid version [9] as Einstein’s equivalence principle although Ein-
stein has made clear it as a misinterpretation [10]. This manifests that many physicists have a tradition of inadequate
background in pure mathematics. Many rely on only the opinions of the so-called “authorities”,9) and thus here a more
detailed analysis is provided for those who failed to understand Einstein’s equivalence principle [8].
In the book ‘Gravitation” [4] of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, there is no reference to Einstein’s equivalence princi-
ple (i. e. [3] and [6]). Instead, they misleadingly refer to Einstein’s invalid 1911 assumption [7] and Pauli’s invalid ver -
sion [9]. (As shown in their eq. (40.14), they also failed to understand the local time of a particle at free fall [4].) Due to
their influence, Einstein’s equivalence principle was often mistakenly regarded the same as the 1911 assumption. 9) More-
3
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
over, many simply cannot tell the difference between the principle of 1916 and the assumption of 1911 [11-13]. 10)
In view of the charge-mass interaction, Einstein’s equivalence principle is clearly inadequate [1, 14]. Thus, one may
wonder whether Einstein’s equivalence principle is generally valid. The answer is that it is because a uniform gravity in
the equivalence principle is not generated by a massive source, but is generated by acceleration [13]. In an isolated gravi -
tational field generated by acceleration, there is no charge-mass interaction for a charge; whereas in a gravitational field
generated by masses, there is a charge-mass interaction for a charge [1].
Einstein’s equivalence principle [3, 6] leads to the Einstein-Minkowski condition, on which the time dilation and
space contractions are based. On his equivalence principle, Einstein [3] wrote:
‘Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other bodies are
then, with respect to K, free from acceleration. We shall also refer these masses to a system of co-ordinates K’,
uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K’ all the masses have equal and parallel accelerations;
with respect to K’ they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K’ were unaccelerated. Overlook-
ing for the present the question as to the “cause” of such a gravitational field, which will occupy us latter, there is
nothing to prevent our conceiving this gravitational field as real, that is, the conception that K’; is “at rest” and a
gravitational field is present we may consider as equivalent to the conception that only K is an ”allowable” sys-
tem of co-ordinates and no gravitational field is present. The assumption of the complete physical equivalence of
the systems of coordinates, K and K’, we call the “principle of equivalence;” this principle is evidently intimately
connected with the law of the equality between the inert and the gravitational mass, and signifies an extension of
the principle of relativity to coordinate systems which are non-uniform motion relatively to each other.’
Later, Einstein made clear that a gravitational field is generated from a space-time metric. What is new in Einstein’s
equivalence principle in 1916 is the claim of the Einstein-Minkowski condition as a consequence for gravity.
The Einstein-Minkowski condition has its foundation from mathematical theorems [14] as follows:
Theorem 1. Given any point P in any Lorentz manifold (whose metric signature is the same as a Minkowski
space) there always exist coordinate systems (x
µ
) in which
∂
g
µν
/
∂
x
λ
= 0 at P.
Theorem 2. Given any time-like geodesic curve
Γ
there always exists a coordinate system (the so-called Fermi
coordinates) (xµ) in which
∂
g
µν
/
∂
x
λ
= 0 along
Γ
..
In these theorems, the local space of a particle is locally constant, but not necessarily Minkowski. However, after some
algebra, a local Minkowski metric exists at any given point and along any time-like geodesic curve Γ. In a uniformly ac-
celerated frame, the local space in a free fall is a Minkowski space according to special relativity.
What Einstein added is that physically such a locally constant metric must be Minkowski. Such a condition is needed
for special relativity as a special case [13]. However, these theorems imply only that the local metric is locally constant at
a given point P. Thus, in general, gravity may not be transformed away in a small region by a coordinate transformation
4
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
although the changes of the local metric would be very small within such a small region if the metric at P is a continuous
function. In fact, Einstein [6; p.144] remarked with a counter example, “For it is clear that, e.g., the gravitational field
generated by a material point in its environment certainly cannot be ‘transformed away’ by any choice of the system of
coordinates…“ 11) Nevertheless, both Pauli [9] and Will [15, 16] overlooked (or disagreed with) the remark of Einstein.
Consequently, Pauli’s version [9] is a simplified but corrupted version of these theorems as follows:
“For every infinitely small world region (i.e. a world region which is so small that the space- and time-vari-
ation of gravity can be neglected in it) there always exists a coordinate system K 0 (X1, X2, X3, X4) in which
gravitation has no influence either in the motion of particles or any physical process.”
Thus, Pauli regards the equivalence principle as merely the existence of locally constant spaces, which may not be
locally Minkowski. Thus, the physical content of Einstein’s principle has been removed. (Mathematically, if for
each point, there is a small world region in which gravitation has no influence, then gravity has no influence, i.e.,
special relativity.)8) Therefore, Einstein’s claim of Pauli’s version as being a misinterpretation [10] is well justified
Moreover, Einstein’s equivalence principle is often misinterpreted. Will [15] claimed “’Equivalence’ came
from the idea that life in a free falling laboratory was equivalent to life without gravity.” The British Encyclopedia
also stated Einstein’s Equivalence Principle incorrectly and ignored the Einstein-Minkowski condition [13].
Apparently, Pauli [9] and the Wheeler School failed to understand the mathematics of the above theorems.
Misner et al. [4] claimed that Einstein’s equivalence principle is as follows: -
“In any and every local Lorentz frame, anywhere and anytime in the universe, all the (non-gravitational) laws
of physics must take on their familiar special-relativistic form. Equivalently, there is no way, by experiments
confined to infinitestimally small regions of spacetime, to distinguish one local Lorentz frame in one region of
spacetime frame from any other local Lorentz frame in the same or any other region.”
They even claimed the above as Einstein’s equivalence principle in its strongest form. However, this version makes es -
sentially another form of the misinterpretation of Pauli [9]. Since a local Lorentz frame may have only one point with a
local Minkowski metric, the local Lorentz frames are distinguishable. Therefore, as Einstein pointed out [6], gravitation
is not generally equivalent to acceleration. Thus, they made the combined errors of Pauli and the 1911 assumption.12)
To be specific, the phrase, “must take on” should be changed to “must take on approximately” Also, the phrase, “ex-
periments confined to infinitesimally small regions of spacetime” does not make sense since experiments can be con -
ducted only in a finite region. Moreover, in their eq. (40.14) they got an incorrect local time of the earth.13) Thus, clearly
these three theorists [4] failed to understand the basics of general relativity [3, 6, 9].9)
Thorne [17; p. 105] even criticized the distortion of Will [15], who ignored tidal gravitational force, as if Einstein’s
equivalence principle. However, Einstein has already explained these problems to Rehtz [10] as follows:
“The equivalence principle does not assert that every gravitational field (e.g., the one associated with the Earth)
5
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
can be produced by acceleration of the coordinate system. It only asserts that the qualities of physical space, as
they present themselves from an accelerated coordinate system, represent a special case of the gravitational field.”
Moreover, Einstein [10] explained to Laue, “What characterizes the existence of a gravitational field, from the empirical
standpoint, is the non-vanishing of the Γlik (field strength), not the non-vanishing of the Riklm.” This allows Einstein to
conclude that the geodesic equation is also the equation of motion of a massive particle under gravity.
Following the misidentification of Fock [18], the Wheeler School [16] also claimed that Einstein’s equivalence
principle invalid.5) Although Einstein’s equivalence principle was clearly illustrated only recently [19], 14) the Wheeler
School should bear the responsibility of their misinformation on this principle [4] by ignoring both crucial work of Ein-
stein, i. e., references [3] and [6]. Their main problem, among others, is the lack of rigor in logic. Moreover, since the
Wheeler School did not even state the facts correctly, they are very far away from being authoritative. 15) In fact,
many probably need the help from the physics community.
4. The Conflict between Einstein’s Covariance Principle and his Equivalence Principle.
A problem in general relativity is that Einstein’s covariance principle is actually in conflict with his equivalence prin-
ciple. The covariance principle implies that he time dilation and the space contractions can be measured [1, 6], and there-
fore should be unique for a given frame of reference. On the other hand, the covariance principle would imply different
gauges (such as the Schwarzschild and the harmonic gauges of the same frame) as equivalent in physics. However, if one
reads carefully, Einstein only assumed, but did not prove his equivalence principle to be valid for the gauge considered.
Hence, it is possible that only one gauge is valid for the equivalence principle.
This is a major problem because the covariance principle is Einstein’s remedy for his theory of measurement. For its
justification Einstein had used special relativity, and this probably was why Whitehead’s criticisms of Einstein’s theory of
measurement being invalid in physics, was rejected [20]. This would explain also that many still believed in Einstein’s
covariance principle, in spite of experimental and theoretical evidences against it [21]. The problem is finally settled after
it is discovered that Einstein’s justifications were actually based on invalid applications of special relativity [20].
Major sources of errors are not only the incorrect rejection of Einstein’s equivalence principle, but the acceptance of
Einstein’s invalid covariance principle [21]. In addition to the usual mistake due to a failure in distinguishing physics
from mathematics, the Wheeler School has a special need because the covariance principle is crucial for their theory of
black holes [4, 5, 19, 20]. However, they probably were aware of the inconsistency between Einstein’s covariance princi-
ple and Einstein’s equivalence principle [22] since they used a different approach to derive light bending.
Ironically, the Wheeler School also inadvertently provides probably the earliest counter example for the covariance
principle. Will [4; p. 1067] found that Whitehead’s theory is invalid; but the solution of Whitehead is diffeomorhpic to
Einstein’s solutions [23].16) This example illustrates also a failure on their logical consistency in thinking.
6
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
5. Conclusions and Remarks
Based on evidences, we conclude:
1) All the mass fall in the same way in vacuum only if the mass-charge interaction is absent.
2) The inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent, and this should be further verified with experiments.
3) Einstein’s equivalence principle is inadequate [1], but generally valid. The attempt of the Wheeler School to re-
place Einstein’s equivalence principle with the invalid equivalence of gravity and acceleration is incorrect.
Moreover, errors in general relativity are related to misinterpretation of Einstein’s equivalence principle [19]. The influ -
ence of the Wheeler School leads many theorists, including Eric J. Weinberg, editor of Physical Review D, to claim that
there is no difference in physics between Einstein’s and Pauli’s versions [24]. 17) Thus, it is necessary to rectify the dam-
ages done to general relativity by the Wheeler School and associates [5, 16, 17, 20, 25]. 16) The rectification of this main
stream of errors is urgent since they have already dominated the 1993 Nobel Committee [2].
Up to 1990, Zhou Pei-Yuan of Peking University probably was the only theorist, who took the view of rejecting the
covariance principle but accepting Einstein’s equivalence principle [26, 27]. Moreover, Zhou could have discovered that
linearization to obtain an approximate wave solution is invalid 18) if his student and friends had not made surprising mis-
takes [28, 29]. However, the works of Zhou was misunderstood as an incorrect coordinate dependent theory, 19) and thus
nobody would continue the experiments on local light speeds that Zhou initiated [27, 30]. 20) Apparently, Zhou [27] agrees
with Einstein that the Michelson-Morley experiment does not provide a firm foundation for special relativity. Zhou is
right since the light speeds may not be isotropic although the data exclude the Galileo transformation.
Thus, the misinterpretations of the Wheeler School are the obstacles that would prevent the progress in relativity not
only in the US and Europe but also in China [31]. Their misinterpretations created a distortion of the Einstein-Minkowski
condition, the so-called “local Lorentz invariance” [32]. This would unfairly give a further destructive damage to the reputation of
Einstein. A problem is that many blindly accept invalid claims and misinterpretations [19, 21, 33, 34].8)
In short, a crucial issue is the details of the static repulsive force [1, 35-38] since it would also confirm the static
Einstein equation. Currently, the string theory was assured by the positive mass theorem [33, 34] as would be a theory for
everything. However, such a theorem is also based on an invalid assumption of a unique coupling sign [39], whose ac-
ceptance was due to mistakenly considered E = mc 2 as unconditionally valid for any energy. Thus, investigating the
charge-mass interaction [5] and the equivalence of the inertial and gravitational masses seems more urgent. 21)
Acknowledgments:
Special Thanks are to the referees for valuable comments and useful suggestions. This work is supported in part by
Innotec Design, Inc., U. S. A. and the Chan Foundation.
7
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
Endnotes:
1) What Galileo claimed is that a neutral body, independent of its weight, would have the same acceleration for a free
fall in vacuum. A free fall in vacuum would eliminate all effects due to other near by particles and air resistance.
2) The effect of such a repulsive force [5] was inadvertently detected by Tsipenyuk & Andreev [38]. They discovered
that the weight of a metal ball is reduced after it is irradiated with high energy electrons. However, they could not
explain this phenomenon because they did not know the repulsive force discovered in 1997 [40]. Thus, this experi-
ment shows that this new force cannot be explained in terms of electromagnetism or attractive gravitation, and that
electromagnetic energy is a source of gravity but is not equivalent to mass.
3) Any neutral object is in a bounded state and the electrons and the protons are not at rest. Note that the current-mass
interaction would normally cancel the static charge-mass repulsive forces [1]; as suggested by a charged capacitor.
4) Experiments on the weight reduction of a capacitor after charged have a very long history that can be traced back
to before 1960 [35-37]. However, since this weight reduction cannot be explained in term of electromagnetism or
attractive gravitation, they remain to be mysteries before the charge-mass interaction was discovered [40].
5) Ohanian & Ruffini and Wheeler [25] and etc. have mistaken Einstein’s equivalence assumption of 1911 as Ein -
stein’s equivalence principle of 1916 [3] just as Fock [18] did. The misidentification has unfairly projected an im-
age of Einstein as an obstinate old man since the 1911 assumption has been proven incorrect by observations. Ap-
parently, the Nobel Committee was unaware of the experimental supports of Einstein’s equivalence principle [19].
One can invent his own principle, but he should make clear the advantage of his version over Einstein’s. Other -
wise, anybody has the right to call it as a misinterpretation [9].
6) The charge-mass interaction was over looked because E = mc2 was mistakenly considered as unconditional [19].
7) The repulsive force between a charge and a spherical distributed mass is complicated due to the 1/r 3 dependency
[1]. However, such a force between a mass and a charge metal ball is far simpler [5]. This force further confirms
that Einstein’s proof of E = mc2 is incomplete [19, 40-42]. Although it is known that the electromagnetic energy is
not equivalent to mass, it was not clear a direct experimental confirmation have been obtained.
8) A common problem of Pauli [9], ‘t Hooft [8], and Misner et al. [4] is inadequate background in mathematics. How-
ever, Fields medalists, S. T. Yau and E. Witten fail to see their mathematical errors on Einstein’s equivalence prin-
ciple probably due to careless reading. They also made other claims [33, 34] based on an invalid assumption on
unique sign of couplings [19, 39]. These theorems are cited as one of the reasons for awarding the Fields Medals to
them [43]. Many rejected the claim of Zhou [27], but accepted Yau’s that the Wheeler School approved.
9) Fock [18] and the Wheeler School [25] claimed that it is impossible to express a uniform gravity in terms of a
spacetime metric, and that Einstein’s equivalence principle is invalid. They are proven wrong [13].
8
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
10) In the book of Liu [11], although he refers to Einstein [6], he also refers to others who misinterpreted Einstein’s
equivalence principle [13]. He also claimed that Einstein’s equivalence principle is not rigorously valid. In the pa-
per of Huang [12], he used conflicting references, since he refers to both Einstein (his ref. [1] therein) and Ohanian
(his ref. [21] therein) as if the same. Like Pauli’s, Huang also made a principle without valid contents. Note that
open-mindedness means only giving different views a due consideration that need not be acceptance.
11) In effect, Einstein pointed out that the versions of both Misner et al [4] and Pauli [9] are impossible in physics.
12) Their influence has altered MIT open course phys. 8.033 to include errors in general relativity again in 2006 [13, 19, 22, 41]. I
discovered these problems [41] and have reported them with adequate details directly to MIT in 2010.
13) Liu [11], Wald [20] and Weinberg [44] do not make the same mistake, but Ohanian & Ruffini [25] do.
14) Hsu & Hsu [45] failed to get a transformation between an inertial frame and a uniformly accelerated frame.
15) Institutes such as the Princeton University, the Royal Society, and etc. are normally considered as authoritative.
However, due to their reputations of excellence, errors relating to such institutes are often overlooked by many edi -
tors, and a paper criticizing such errors would often be rejected. Consequently, errors accumulated and ironically
they become the usual sources of errors in general relativity [12, 19, 21, 22, 24, 46].
16) As Feynman [47] pointed out, many theorists in gravitation are incompetent. An example of logical deficiency is
Will [4; p. 1067] showed Whitehead’s theory is invalid while concurrently believing the covariance principle [23].
A crucial error is the failure to see the impossibility to have a bounded dynamic solution [19]. Misner et al. [4]
claim that there is a bounded “plane wave” form,
( )
222222222
dzedyeLdxdtcds
ββ
−
+−−=
where L=L(u),
β
=
β
(u), u = ct – x, and c is the light speed. This form satisfies the Einstein equation, which at vacuum is reduced
to d2L/du2 + L(d
β
/du)2 = 0. However, this equation actually has no bounded weak solution (i.e.,
4
1L
≅
and
21e
β
±≅
). Note that – L’(u) is a monotonic increasing function in any finite interval of u since
β
’(u) = 0 means L’’ = 0, i.e.,
no wave. In turn, this implies that L(u) is an unbounded function of u since
β
’(u) is a periodic function [4].
17) Eric J. Weinberg won prizes (1992, 1995, 2000) from “Gravity Research Foundation” that has undisclosed judges.
18) ‘t Hooft [41, 48] and also Hehl [49] believe that linearization is unconditionally valid. The error is originated from
Christodoulou & Klainerman [46], who claimed the existence of dynamic solutions with an invalid proof [50-52].
19) There is a couplet that portrays some theorists. It runs: “The reed growing on the wall--top-heavy, thin-stemmed
and shallow of root; The bamboo shoot in the hills--sharp-tongued, thick-skinned and hollow inside” [53]. Richter
[54] comments, “… I think some of what passes for the most advanced theory these days is not really science.”
Historically, self-interest sometimes could be a deciding factor for maintaining incorrect views in physics [55].
Many Chinese theorists have not been able to be out from their past errors [10, 11, 31, 56]. Yu follows the errors of
Misner et al. [4], and he claims [31; p. 57] that a measurable physical quantity must be a scalar. In 1993 I have al-
9
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
ready reported the non-existence of dynamic solution for the Einstein equation in Hong Kong [57]. However, theo-
rists were still unable to understand the subsequent paper [39] because they did not know the earlier errors [34, 35].
20) C. N. Yang opposed Zhou’s view because Yang still misunderstood that a gauge theory must be gauge invariant
[21, 58] although Pauli has pointed out such gauge invariance cannot be accomplished in physics [59].
21) The repulsive force has shaken the foundation of the theory of black holes, that gravity is always attractive.
References:
1. C. Y. Lo, Physics Essays 21 (1), 44-51 (March 2008).
2. The 1993 Press Release of the Nobel Prize Committee (The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, 1993).
3. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity (Princeton Univ. Press 1954).
4. C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, & J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).
5. C. Y. Lo & C. Wong, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 25D (2), 109-117 (2006).
6. A. Einstein, The foundation of the general theory of relativity (translated from), Annalen der Physik, 49, 769-822
(1916); A. Einstein, H. A. Lorentz, H. Minkowski, & H. Weyl, The Principle of Relativity (Dover, 1923).
7. A. Einstein, On the influence of Gravitation on the propagation of light, Annalen der Physik, 35, 898-908 (1911).
8. ‘t Hooft still considers Misner et al. [4] valid on the equivalence principle (private communication, May 30, 2011).
9. W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity (Pergamon Press, London, 1971).
10. J. Norton, “What was Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence?” in Einstein’s Studies Vol.1: Einstein and the History of
General Relativity, Eds. D. Howard & J. Stachel (Birkhäuser, Boston, 1989).
11. Liu Liao, General Relativity (High Education Press, Shanghai, China, 1987).
12. Y.-S. Huang, Physics Essays 4 (1), 68-75 (March 1991).
13. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 26D (2): 73-88 (2007).
14. J. L. Synge, Relativity: The General Theory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971), pp. IX–X.
15. C. M. Will, “Was Einstein Right?” (Basic Books, New York, 1986), p. 20.
16. C. M. Will, Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics (Cambridge Univ. 1981).
17. K.S. Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps (Norton, New York, 1994), p. 105.
18. V. A. Fock, The Theory of Space Time and Gravitation (Pergamon Press, 1964). The Russian edition was published
in 1955 as part of the mud throwing campaign to discredit Einstein, after his death.
19. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 23 (2), 258-267 (2010).
20. R. M. Wald, General Relativity (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).
21. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 23 (3), 491- 499 (Sept. 2010).
22. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 18 (4), 547-560 (December, 2005).
10
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
23. C. Y. Lo, Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences, 28D (1), 67-85 (2009).
24. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 16 (1), 84-100 (March 2003).
25. H. C. Ohanian & R. Ruffini, Gravitation and Spacetime (Norton, New York, 1994).
26. Zhou, Pei-Yuan, in Proc. of the Third Marcel Grossmann Meetings on Gen. Relativ. ed. Hu Ning, Sci. Press/North
Holland. (1983), 1-20.
27. P. Y. Zhou, Proc. of the International Symposium on Experimental Gravitational Physics, Guang Zhou, China (1987).
28. H. Y. Liu and P.-Y. Zhou, Sci. Sin., Ser. A 28, 628 (1985).
29. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. Space Sci., 306: 205-215 (2006).
30. C. Y. Lo, Chinese J. of Phys. (Taipei), 41 (4), 233-343 (August 2003).
31. Yu Yun qiang, An Introduction to General Relativity (Peking University Press, Beijing, 1997).
32. K.-Y. Chung, S.-w. Chiow, S. Herrmann, Steven Chu, & H. Müller, Phys. Rev. D 80, 016002 (July 2009).
33. R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, “Proof of the Positive Mass Theorem. II,” Commun. Math. Phys. 79, 231-260 (1981).
34. E. Witten, “A New Proof of the Positive Energy Theorem,“ Commun. Math. Phys., 80, 381-402 (1981).
35. T. Musha and T. Kanamoto, Proc. of the 38th Space Science and Technology Conference, JSASS, 1994, pp. 31–32.
36. T. Musha, Proceedings of the 37th Conference on Aerospace Propulsion, JSASS, 1997, pp. 342–349.
37. D. R. Buehler, J. of Space Mixing 2, 1 (2004); see also electrogravitics in Wikipedia.
38. D. Yu. Tsipenyuk, V. A. Andreev, Physical Interpretations of the Theory of Relativity Conference, Bauman Moscow
State Technical University, 4 – 7 July 2005. e-mail:andrvlad@yandex.ru.
39. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 455, 421-428 (1995); Editor S. Chandrasekhar, a Nobel Laureate, suggests and approves the
Appendix: The Gravitational Energy-Stress Tensor for the necessity of modifying Einstein equation.
40. C. Y. Lo, Astrophys. J. 477, 700 (1997).
41. "Einstein's Miraculous Year" edited and introduced by John Stachel, Princeton Univ. Press (1998), p. 118.
42. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 24 (1), 20-27 (2011).
43. Fields Medalists S. T. Yau (1982) and E. Witten (1990), Wikipedia.
44. S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (John Wiley, New York, 1972).
45. Hsu, J. P. & Hsu, L. 1997. Chinese J. of Phys., Vol. 35 (No. 4): 407-417 (1997).
46. D. Christodoulou & S. Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space (Princeton. Univ.
Press, 1993); No. 42 of the Princeton Mathematical Series.
47. R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995).
48. G. ‘t Hooft, “Strange Misconceptions of General Relativity”, (there are other problems beyond those addressed in
this paper therein) http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.html
11
APRI-TH-PHY-011-01
49. Friedrich W. Hehl, Co-Editor, Annalen der Physik, believes an approximate dynamic solution can always be obtained
by perturbation, and failed in understanding the related mathematics at undergraduate level [37] (Dec. 2010).
50. Volker Perlick, Zentralbl. f. Math. (827) (1996) 323, entry Nr. 53055.
51. C. Y. Lo, Phys. Essays 13 (1), 109-120 (March 2000).
52. Volker Perlick (republished with an editorial note), Gen. Relat. Grav. 32 (2000).
53. “Reform our Study” (May 1941) Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung.
54. B. Richter, Phys. Today 8-9 (October 2006).
55. L. Motz & J. H. Weaver, The Story of Physics (Avon, New York, 1992).
56. Peng Huanwu, Xu Xiseng, The Fundamentals of Theoretical Physics (Peking University Press, Beijing, 1998).
57. C. Y. Lo, Einstein's Radiation Formula and Modifications in General Relativity, The Second William Fairbank
Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic, Hong Kong Dec. 13-16 (1993).
58. C. N. Yang & R. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. 96, 191 (1954).
59. Yang-Mills theory (Yang-Mills-Shaw theory), Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Résumé
« La chute libre d’un capaciteur neutre bien qu’étant plus massif après avoir été chargé, serait plus lente. Par conséquent,
la proposition de Galilée, comme quoi les objets neutres de masses différentes tomberaient à la même vitesse dans le
vide, n’est pas toujours exact. Néanmoins, l’équivalence entre les masses gravitationnelles et inertes resterait valable. De
plus, le principe d’équivalence d’Einstein, qui a été représenté faussement avec distortion pour devenir non valable selon
l’Ecole Wheeler est en fait généralement valable bien que la force de répulsin charge-masse démontre sans équivoque
que l’accélération est intrinsèquement non pas simplement rattachée à la gravité d’attraction généralement. Pour vérifier
l’équivalence des masses, de nouvelles expériences devraient être entreprises où l’interaction de la charge-masse est pré-
sente. Dans ce but, en premier lieu la confirmation expérimentale des détails, tels que la dépendance de la distance, d’une
telle force de répulsion entre la charge et la masse est nécessaire ; et ceci est également un test crucial pour la relativité
générale. »
12