Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Time past T in Hubble's law v = HR = H(cT) is related to time t since the big bang by t + T = 1/H. => v= HcT = Hc[(1/H)-t] = c - (Hct) => a = dv/dt = d[c-(Hct)]/dt = -Hc, the outward acceleration. Force, F = ma. Newton's 3rd law gives a reaction force, inward directed gravitons. Since non-receding nearby masses don't cause this reaction force, they shield graviton exchange with more distant masses in that direction; an asymmetry which produces gravity.

Monday, September 19, 2005

Lubos Motl turns on the sarcasm when he cannot grasp the problems with the version of special relativity string theorists use. Special relativity fails to apply to accelerated motion, and this flaw means you have to use general relativity which contains absolute acceleration. The only relativity generally (general relativity) is the equivalence principle: that inertial acceleration is identical to gravitational acceleration. If you are spinning, you feel centripetal force and thus can detect absolute acceleration. Acceleration is not relative like linear motion that special relativity applies to. Because all real motion involves starting and stopping, special relativity is inapplicable to ordinary motion. It is just valid for churning out the Lorentz transformation and E=mc2. It is not absolute truth.

Lubos should read these views:

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus…. The great stumbing-block for a philosophy which denies absolute space is the experimental detection of absolute rotation.’ – A.S. Eddington, Space Time and Gravitation, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152. So the contraction of the Michelson-Morley instrument made it fail to detect absolute motion. This is why special relativity needs replacement with a causal general relativity:

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden university lecture ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (A. Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, 1952, p. 23.)

‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – P.A.M. Dirac, ‘Is There an Aether?,’ Nature, v168, 1951, p906. (If you have a kid playing with magnets, how do you explain the pull and push forces felt through space? As ‘magic’?)

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/09/why-no-new-einstein-ii.html#comments:

Nigel said...
Dear Lumo,You write that perhaps the reason why nobody has been able to convince string theorists of an alternative to string theory, is probably because there is no such thing.I've just read Dr Randall's "Warped Passages", and she credits you with proof reading.What struck me were her statements about half way through that since the strings are so small, accelerator energies achievable today are 16 orders of magnitude too low to test strings.In the concluding chapter, she gives a sample of the wide range of stringy ideas. The justification for 10-D string theory being equivalent to 11-D supergravity (Witten's 1995 work), giving rise to M-theory, is fine. I'm not worried about the 4-D spacetime being either a brane on 5-D spacetime, or the 4-D spacetime being a hologram of a 5-D spacetime. These mathematical equivalences are undoubtedly interesting to mathematicians, but the physics is simply not there yet.Dr Randall, despite admitting that ST energies are 16 orders of magnitude too high for direct tests, suggests indirect tests. These include energy balances. We all know that with so much 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' postulated by the mainstream model of the big bang (general relativity force-fitted to observation) the energy balances are not going to come from standard cosmology.Therefore, ST is a dead end. What would be nice is would be a review of the way in which general relativity models the big bang: starting from the observations. When you do this you see that the Hubble law in spacetime is not proclaiming the increasing velocity of galaxies away from us with distance, but with time past.Thus, the big bang can better be formulated from observations as an acceleration of matter outward in spacetime. The acceleration is equal to light velocity divided by age of the universe a = dv/dt = c/t = cH (because Hubble constant is H = 1/t, ignoring the correction factor or 2/3 or whatever applied for the slowing down of the expansion by gravity when gravity is assumed to be independent of the big bang).This acceleration allows us to calculate the outward effective force of the big bang by Newton's 2nd law F=ma. The 3rd law tells us that there is an equal inward force. This physically occurs because the spacetime fabric, such as higgs field, fills the 3-D volume around fundamental particles, and flows in to fill the voids left behind the particles as they rush outward.Thus we get an inward pressure from the spacetime fabric which gives rise to the force of gravity, since the pressure is shielded by large quantities of matter: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/Weirdly, people try to use special relativity to discredit the spacetime fabric by claiming that "all" motion is relative, when in fact acceleration is not relative but absolute (hence the very reason why Einstein invented GR).One severe problem with 'special relativity' is that it is presented as the last word, as a disproof of reality. For example, in this big bang universe we are at an age of 15 Gyr, and everything we see is younger. The farther the star or supernova we see, the further back in the past it is, because of the time taken for the light to get here. So if we see two simultaneous supernovae, we can work out absolutely which happened first by knowing their distances! This is the exact opposite of the popular writings on 'special relativity' which say that you cannot tell which star exploded first.Another issue is absolute motion; the 2.734 K cosmic background radiation is 3 mK blue shifted in the direction of our absolute motion and 3 mK red-shifted in the other direction.So we can tell our absolute motion from that (about 400 km/s, partly due to the attraction of the Milky Way towards a big galaxy nearby, but if for sake of argument we have been going 400 km/s since the big bang - which is an order of magnitude approximation - we are only 0.3% of the radius of the universe, in other words within 0.3% to the middle of the big bang).This effect was called 'the new aether drift' (the title of a Scientific American article on the subject in the late 1970s). Critics responded by fiddling Copernicus' discovery. They claimed that Copernicus did not discover or work on the solar system, but instead had discovered that 'the earth is not in a special place in the universe'.Best wishes,Nigel
8:56 AM

Lumo said...
Dear Nigel,your text is more or less OK until you write the following sentences:"We all know that with so much 'dark matter' or 'dark energy' postulated by the mainstream model of the big bang (general relativity force-fitted to observation) the energy balances are not going to come from standard cosmology.Therefore, ST is a dead end."I am completely lost in your reasoning and strongly believe that it is not my fault. ;-)The existence of dark matter and dark energy is a very probable fact that follows from the experimental data combined with general relativity. General relativity is the correct classical theory of gravity. Most likely it is also correct for calculation of the dark energy and dark matter dynamics. Every quantum theory must agree with general relativity at these scales.String theory does, and its vacua also offer natural new elementary particles that play the role of the majority of dark matter. At any rate, deducing that string theory is a "dead end" from your confused considerations of classical cosmology shows that your brain had to make a horrible mistake, and I encourage you to think about it again because what you produced makes absolutely no sense.OK, when I continued to look at your text, I also noticed that you want to disprove special relativity. Hopefully you will find a better party to discuss your great ideas. Good luck Lubos

9:30 AM
Nigel said...
Dear Lumos,Mathematically special relativity is correct, so neither I nor anyone else can disprove it.It is actually a crucial advance, but is misrepresented in a lot of physics courses as disproving the existence of a spacetime fabric, which clearly it does not do.Einstein made it clear in his Leyden University lecture of 1920 that space without a spacetime fabric is unthinkable.Another falsity of the popular presentation of special relativity is that it disproves the existence of all absolute motion, when in fact it only deals with non-accelerating motion. Acceleration induces forces which are absolute, if you have a force then there is acceleration. This is not subject to the relativity implicit in Maxwell's equations.General relativity is correct as far as it goes, but it takes Newtonian gravity as the weak field approximation. If there is a mechanism for gravity, that affects the constant G in the Newtonian theory and thus in general relativity. The test for this is whether the most distant galaxies, receding at nearly light speed, are being slowed down or not by gravity pulling them from within the universe.Since Perlmutter's results in 1998 for supernovae (using completely automated detection with CCD telescopes) disproved the prediction from general relativity, we know something is wrong.The official solution is that general relativity as it stands (pulling gravity) is right, and something is speeding up the galaxies to overcome gravity.The reality is that gravity is the shielding of an inward pressure of the spacetime fabric, generated by the mass moving outward. There is therefore no gravitational pull slowing down distant galaxies.Best wishes,Nigel

2 Comments:

At 7:04 AM, bschaeffer said...: There seems to be two types of accelerations, one which is the derivative of the velocity and should be relative, like the velocity. It can be measured optically, for example with a laser using the Doppler effect.

The other one is measured with a mechanical accelerometer, for example in a lift where the aparatus is at rest in the lift. Its velocity is zero but its acceleration is not. It seems to be absolute absolute since its value is the same as the optically measured acceleration.

There seems to be some contradictory. How to understand it?
At 1:49 AM, nige said...: Bernard,

"There seems to be two types of accelerations, one which is the derivative of the velocity and should be relative, like the velocity. It can be measured optically, for example with a laser using the Doppler effect.

"The other one is measured with a mechanical accelerometer, for example in a lift where the aparatus is at rest in the lift. Its velocity is zero but its acceleration is not."

All accelerations are the derivative of a velocity.

Where you say that for someone in freefall: "Its velocity is zero but its acceleration is not," you need to say what you are referring to?

Acceleration isn't the same as velocity, it doesn't have a velocity. dv/dt is acceleration, and velocity v = 0 while dv/dt is not zero.

Clearly if v = 0, then you would expect dv/dt = 0, so you would expect no acceleration.

But remember that an apple which is sitting on the ground with no velocity at all, has downward acceleration which produces a force called weight, F = ma = mg, where a and g are symbols for the downward acceleration, 32 ft/s/s or 9.8 m/s/s.

The crucial point you are making is that dv/dt can be non-zero when where v = 0.

Clearly calculus indicates that d(0)/dt = 0, so the weight of a non-moving apple should be F = ma = m*d(0)/dt = 0.

The apple is not moving because the electrons in the ground exert an upward reaction force by Coulomb repulsion which just cancels out the weight of the apple.

This "cancellation" of force is what stops the apple accelerating downward, giving a simple explanation of how a = d(0)/dt = 0.

However, the apple still has weight and there are effects from the "cancelled" (balanced) gravity and normal reaction forces which prevent acceleration; the base of the apple is being pressed against the ground, and there is some compression there, for example.

From the quantum gravity view, force is produced by impulses delivered by gravitons, not a continuously acting curvature of spacetime. This affects the mathematical model when using calculus as an approximation for the lots of little impulses due to discrete quanta of momentum being imparted.

Calculus is just approximate when you are using it to model discrete steps. Calculus relates to continuous variables, not discrete ones. Really, you should be using a model for acceleration using the sum of discrete impulses to replace the differential law.

The only way to properly understand physic is to start with the mechanism, and let the maths follow from that. Otherwise you end up chained to a false maths, which breaks down where you need it most at the frontier of research.

Post a Comment

<< Home

Mathematical symbols in this blog: your computer’s browser needs access to standard character symbol sets to display Greek symbols for mathematical physics. If you don’t have the symbol character sets installed, the density symbol "r" (Rho) will appear as "r" and the "p" (Pi) symbol will as "p", causing confusion with the use of "r" for radius and "p" for momentum in formulae. This problem exists with Mozilla Firefox 3, but not with Microsoft Explorer which displays Greek symbols.

‘Dr Edward Teller remarked recently that the origin of the earth was somewhat like the explosion of the atomic bomb...’ – Dr Harold C. Urey, The Planets: Their Origin and Development, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1952, p. ix.

‘But compared with a supernova a hydrogen bomb is the merest trifle. For a supernova is equal in violence to about a million million million million hydrogen bombs all going off at the same time.’ – Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), The Nature of the Universe, Pelican Books, London, 1963, p. 75.

‘In fact, physicists find plenty of interesting and novel physics in the environment of a nuclear explosion. Some of the physical phenomena are valuable objects of research, and promise to provide further understanding of nature.’ – Dr Harold L. Brode, The RAND Corporation, ‘Review of Nuclear Weapons Effects,’ Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Volume 18, 1968, pp. 153-202.

‘It seems that similarities do exist between the processes of formation of single particles from nuclear explosions and formation of the solar system from the debris of a [7*10²⁶ megatons of TNT equivalent, type Ia] supernova explosion. We may be able to learn much more about the origin of the earth, by further investigating the process of radioactive fallout from the nuclear weapons tests.’ – Dr P. K. Kuroda, University of Arkansas, ‘Radioactive Fallout in Astronomical Settings: Plutonium-244 in the Early Environment of the Solar System,’ Radionuclides in the Environment (Dr E. C. Freiling, Symposium Chairman), Advances in Chemistry Series No. 93, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1970, pp. 83-96.

How would a 10⁵⁵ megaton hydrogen bomb explosion differ from the big bang? Ignorant answers biased in favour of curved spacetime (ignoring quantum gravity!) abound, such as claims that explosions can’t take place in ‘outer space’ (disagreeing with the facts from nuclear space bursts by Russia and America in 1962, not to mention natural supernova explosions in space!) and that explosions produce sound waves in air by definition! There are indeed major differences in the nuclear reactions between the big bang and a nuclear bomb. But it is helpful to notice the solid physical fact that implosion systems suggest the mechanism of gravitation: in implosion, TNT is well-known to produce an inward force on a bomb core, but Newton's 3rd law says there is an equal and opposite reaction force outward. In fact, you can’t have a radially outward force without an inward reaction force! It’s the rocket principle. The rocket accelerates (with force F = ma) forward by virtue of the recoil from accelerating the exhaust gas (with force F = -ma) in the opposite direction! Nothing massive accelerates without an equal and opposite reaction force. Applying this fact to the cosmological acceleration of matter in the universe which was predicted accurately in 1996 and later observationally discovered in 1999 (by Perlmutter, et al.), we find an outward force F = ma and inward reaction force by the 3rd law. The inward force allows quantitative predictions, and is mediated by gravitons, predicting gravitation in a checkable way (unlike string theory, which is just a landscape of 10⁵⁰⁰ different perturbative theories and so can’t make any falsifiable predictions about gravity). So it seems as if nuclear explosions do indeed provide helpful analogies to natural features of the world, and the mainstream lambda-CDM model of cosmology - with its force-fitted unobserved ad hoc speculative ‘dark energy’ - ignores and sweeps under the rug major quantum gravity effects which increase the physical understanding of particle physics, particularly force unification and the relation of gravitation to the existing electroweak [SU(2) x U(1)] section of the Standard Model of fundamental forces.

Richard Lieu, Physics Department, University of Alabama, ‘Lambda-CDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence?’, http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462.

A type Ia supernova explosion, always yielding 7*10²⁶ megatons of TNT equivalent, results from the critical mass effect of the collapse of a white dwarf as soon as its mass exceeds 1.4 solar masses due to matter falling in from a companion star. The degenerate electron gas in the white dwarf is then no longer able to support the pressure from the weight of gas, which collapses, releasing enough energy as heat and pressure to cause the fusion of carbon and oxygen into heavy elements, creating massive amounts of radioactive nickel-56. Type IA supernovae occur roughly once every 400 years in the Milky Way galaxy. When the solar system formed 4,540 million years ago, a supernova occurred 100 light years away from the solar system, and the heavy radioactive debris expanded at 1,000 miles/second. On 4 July 1054, Chinese astronomers observed in the sky (without optical instruments) the bright supernova in the constellation Taurus which today is still visible as the Crab Nebula through telescopes. The Crab Nebula debris has a diameter now of 7 light years and is still expanding at 800 miles/second. The supernova shock wave triggers star formation; bright stars are observed in the Orion Halo, the 300 light year diameter remains of a supernova. Essentially all of the heavy elements including iron, silicon and calcium in the Earth are products from a supernova explosion.

: Name: nige

Currently designing secure active server page (ASP) front ends for client SQL databases. In 1982 I began programming in basic, and at college learned Fortran while a physics undergraduate a decade later. Afterwards, I switched from mainstream physics and mathematical education to part-time programming student, while working in a series of jobs including four years in credit control. www.quantumfieldtheory.org http://glasstone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/capabilities-of-nuclear-weapons.html/ http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=353&cpage=1#comment-8728. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=215#comment-4082.

View my complete profile

Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Monday, September 19, 2005

2 Comments:

About Me

Previous Posts