Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions: September 2005

Friday, September 30, 2005

Removing material

I've removed material from http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/discussion.htm which is silly sexism commentary on author's book jacket photo's and that sort of thing. I've also added further scientific commentary explaining the Standard Model and its links to string theory.

Now it should not offend anybody, I hope. The rest of that internet site will be removed and replaced by briefer pages.

The new idea is to remove all negative comments about suppression, and keep to positive coments about scientific material. Obviously, this will change when I get suppressed again!

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Rude comments

I have watered-down the page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/EW.htm .

When people suppress a discovery, which makes the inventor (Ivor Catt) have difficulty publicising the resultant electronics technology, and people needlessly die as a result, should the suppressor's be made responsible? Or should they be hero-worshipped for saving the world from having better safety features? Call me what you like, but I don't exactly have much respect for those who just throw mud at inventors who have spotted a contradiction between two electrical mechanisms which modern physics ignores.

The thing about the popular interpretation of special (restricted theory) relativity is that it is presented as denying that anyone can say two events are simultaneous. Now I say two events are simultaneous if they occur the same age after the big bang. This dispenses with that special relativity claim. What you always get is bogus mainstream guys who claim that special relativity is infallible, ignoring the fact that Einstein himself had to replace it by general relativity because it can't account for any acceleration, and therefore can't account for any real motion in this particular universe.

All acceleration is absolute since it produces detectable force. Hence circular motion, with its centripetal motion, is something you can feel. Try it! Put some one in a box and spin them around. Then repeat the experiment without spinning the box. They will be able to tell the difference. This invalidates the application of special relativity to acceleration, which Einstein knew a long time ago. This is why Einstein realised that deep down, there is absolute motion. If you take anyone on any journey in a vehicle with no windows, they can in principle work out where they are by integrating the accelerations to obtain velocities, and integrating those to obtain displacements.

What is really interesting here is that nobody is interested in the physics, only in the mathematical predictions. When you see that the relativity equations were not introduced by Einstein, but had come out of bogus ether speculations years previously by FitzGerald, Lorentz, Larmor, and even Poincare, it is surprising that these claims for the formulae are taken so seriously: if the mass increase formula is the same for the ether theory as relativity, what does experimental confirmation prove? You can see that the whole special relativity brigade, apart from simply being ignorant of general relativity (http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/) must also be abusive in order to avoid complete dismissal. Such abusiveness consists of making false accusations about what is being stated. For example, if you point out that general relativity supersedes special relativity because the latter is false for virtually all practical situations, then they must abusively take this as an attack on Einstein, when in fact they are the ones attacking Einstein's general relativity by going on about the embarrassingly obsolete earlier theory.

Nigel Cook

Monday, September 26, 2005

‘The special theory of relativity … does not extend to non-uniform motion … The laws of physics must be of such a nature that they apply to systems of reference in any kind of motion. Along this road we arrive at an extension of the postulate of relativity….’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

Wonder why the 'defenders of Einstein' don't attack general relativity? I suppose they are too busy defending obsolete special relativity, which only applies to non-accelerating motion....

Yesterday I made two further revisions uploads to http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ . I've deleted some personal comments in the general relativity section, added external links, added an explanation of the general relativity prediction of twice the deflection of light that Newtonian gravity suggests, and added a section explaining the mathematics of the tensor (or six-vector) form of Maxwell equations.

I've also posted a message for EMS who believes he is doing a public service by suppressing science:

Dear EMS57,
In ignoring the gravity mechanism as verified experimentally, you should be aware of some interest in the spacetime fabric by Professor t'Hooft, sor example http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/08/fifth-dimension-is-spacetime-fabric.html
There are various conflicting ideas about science progresses, due undoubtedly to the fact that it will progress by whatever means are necessary. For example, sometimes facts are ignored because they superficially do not appear to fit into existing models. However, it mey be that the popular interpretation of existing models is flawed.
The difficulty with suppressing a defensible viewpoint by simply refusing discussion (or claiming to disprove it by a bogus claim that 'logic' can prove the moon to be cheese), is that it does not stop progress from being made. Current teaching of general relativity, as causing a flat surface like a rubber sheet to curve into a manifold, is unhelpful to further progress in unifying quantum space with gravitation, since physical space fills volume, not surface area.
At some point, the issues regarding the relationship between the graviton gauge boson and the Higgs field boson will be completely ironed out. Regardless of when this happens, the correct mechanism is already available and allows calculation of the gravity strength, because this calculation does not depend on the details of the relationship between the graviton and the Higgs boson. It would be far better to allow some link to this research now since it makes quantitative predictions and gives a testable physical mechanism, despite its suppression by superstring theorists (led by Witten who vacuously claimed string theory 'predicts gravity' in the April 1996 issue of Physics Today). This is because this avenue of research would be undertaken more rapidly if a greater number of people were aware.
Yours sincerely, Nigel

Thursday, September 22, 2005

General relativity is simple

I like the brief summary of the basic mathematics in general relativity given by John Baez: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/outline1.html although his more detailed explanation here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/outline2.html is less encouraging; it seems to omit both physics and the process by which general relativity was obtained. What can anyone learn from the conventional teaching of general relativity? The answer is mathematical manipulation.

On my page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ I give a discussion from a different perspective, considering the physical processes and historical development of general relativity. I also give simplified differential equations for the various tensors and their units very briefly. I do not give the full expansion of the Riemann tensor, for example. Students have to go elsewhere for that.

What seems more important for quantum gravity is the fact that the spacetime fabric can be treated as a perfect fluid.

‘… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, ‘General Relativity’, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

‘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.)

An overdose of the tensor properties of general relativity can give the reader the false impression that nature is mathematical not physical. This seems to be the case with the current interest in string theory. I don't doubt that extra dimensions, particularly the 4th dimension and possibly the M-theory compactified dimensions, have a mathematical equivalence to reality. But the answer might not be found by getting ever more mathematical. Electromagnetism is weird enough, with forces being propagated along electric and magnetic field lines, to believe that there could be some extra dimensional significance behind it. But you need a physical theory tied to experimental facts even more if there are extra dimensions, because you will get in a real tangle without sticking to physical reality. The vast number of ideas about branes and ways to deal mathematically with extra dimensions show this.

‘Children lose interest … because a natural interest in the world around them has been replaced by an unnatural acceptance of the soundness of certain views, the correctness of particular opinions and the validity of specific claims.’ – David Lewis, You can teach your child intelligence, Book Club Associates, London, 1982, p. 258.


Gerard t'Hooft, 'Quantum Gravity as a Dissipative Deterministic System', Classical and Quantum Gravity v16 (1999), p3263:

'It is argued that the so-called holographic principle will obstruct attempts to produce physically realistic models for the unification of general relativity with quantum mechanics, unless determinism in the latter is restored. The notion of time in GR is so different from the usual one in elementary particle physics that we believe that certain versions of hidden variable theories can -- and must -- be revived. ...'

Hidden variables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory) are an attractive approach, but not determinism. Determinism to me means the ability to mathematically produce an exact solution to a problem. This cannot be done in quantum mechanics where you have the uncertainty principle or wave equation, even if the basis for the uncertainty and wave equation are explained by a causality (chaos created by orbits in a three body system, because the mutual interactions continuously change the plane of orbit and so on; as soon as you fire a particle at a hydrogen atom to probe it you have a three body situation, with the probeing particle affecting the orbit of the electron around the proton).

I've taken a look through t'Hooft's paper. It does not look very exciting. For example, there is a section dealing with viscosity. I don't see why viscosity is of interest for a continuum model. We know that viscosity implies drag force, and that the continuum does not behave like this, and that it just resists accelerations (inertia, Newton's 1st law).

I don't see what information loss and quantum computing or the entropy of the black hole have to do with understanding quantum gravity. Perhaps I'm just plain stupid.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Spin and the fifth dimension

Does the difference between the known differing spin of bosons and fermions derive from the freedom to spin in an extra dimension?

If indeed black holes (mass) in 5-D spacetime are equivalent to radiation on the 4-D hologram, does this equate fermions in 5-D with bosons on the 4-D hologram? Is spin altered by freedom in extra dimensions?

In electromagnetic theory, a boson like a photon contains equal amounts of positive and negative electric field energy travelling at light speed with integer spin and ‘no rest mass’ (it is never at rest anyway).

A fermion like an electron has just one type of electric field energy (negative in the case of an electron), and has half integer spin with a rest mass (it can be at rest, while still spinning around some internal axis).

I think this is the kind of deep question that should be addressed. Is the distinction, between normal fermions and bosons, that spin can include an extra dimension?

This may sound a bit like Feynman's crackpot idea that positive charge like a positron is simply negative charge like an electron travelling backwards in time.

However, Dr t’Hooft has suggested that the holographic conjecture (based on Bekenstein bound) implies that a 5-D spacetime is equivalent to 4-D spacetime with the spacetime fabric as fifth dimension. Dr Jacob D. Bekenstein say (http://www.essentia.com/discovery/holographic_spacetime.htm):‘Superstring theory rules in the 5-D spacetime, but a so-called conformal field theory of point particles operates on the 4-D hologram. A black hole in the 5-D spacetime is equivalent to hot radiation on the hologram--for example, the hole and the radiation have the same entropy even though the physical origin of the entropy is completely different for each case.’

Holography is the encoding of information from a larger number of dimensions into fewer dimensions, eg a 3-D image by holography exists on a 2-D photo.

Black holes (mass) as the 5-D spacetime fabric are gravitational gauge bosons (gravitons) on the 4-D hologram we observe; hence gravity is caused by radiation which has an associated mass

The abstract of a paper by Ruth Gregory http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9381/17/18/103/Q018l3.html states: 'We show how to extend the usual black string instability of vacuum or charged black p-branes to the anti-de Sitter background. The string fragments in an analogous fashion to the ^ = 0 case, the main difference being that instead of a periodic array of black holes forming, an accumulation of "mini" black holes occurs towards the AdS horizon.'

The paper begins begins: 'It has been known for some time that the extended event horizon of a black string or p-brane in higher-dimensional gravity is unstable to fragmentation into black holes [1], and that this instability extends to a much broader range of charged black holes in string theory--the only exception being extremal solutions [2]. '

I don't remember much about anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime, and looking at the material available I can see why. Science which begins by taking a hypothetical spacetime and then investigates its properties, is to me back-to-front science. At least some of the major developments in string theory have been driven by the need to conform to facts, such as the development of superstring theory to incorporate supersymmetry (SUSY) to make the Standard Model unify the fundamental forces (apart from gravity).

For more on 'the holographic principle and M-theory (10/11 Witten spacetime): http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/holo/. After paying homage to Plato and his student t'Hooft, that page states:

'At the heart of many of these exciting ideas is a version of the Holographic Principle known as the adS/CFT correspondence.

'Are YOU a Hologram? M-theory and the adS/CFT correspondence

'The adS/CFT correspondence is a type of duality, which states that two apparently distinct physical theories are actually equivalent. On one side of this duality is the physics of gravity in a spacetime known as anti-de Sitter space (adS). Five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space has a boundary which is four-dimensional, and in a certain limit looks like flat spacetime with one time and three space directions. The adS/CFT correspondence states that the physics of gravity in five-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, is equivalent to a certain supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory which is defined on the boundary of adS. This Yang-Mills theory is thus a "hologram" of the physics which is happening in five dimensions. The Yang-Mills theory has gauge group SU(N), where N is very large, and it is said to be "supersymmetric" because it has a symmetry which allows you to exchange bosons and fermions. The hope is that this theory will eventually teach us something about QCD (quantum chromodynamics), which is a gauge theory with gauge group SU(3). QCD describes interactions between quarks. However, QCD has much less symmetry than the theory defined on the boundary of adS; for example, QCD has no supersymmetry. Furthermore, we still don't know how to incorporate a crucial property of QCD, known as asymptotic freedom.

'Here in DAMTP, we have been working to see if the adS/CFT correspondence can be generalized. Working with collaborators in such far-flung places as the United States, Canada, and Durham, we have managed to show that the duality is still true even when you replace adS with more complicated five-dimensional spacetimes. In particular, we have calculated what happens when you put electric charge in adS, or rotation in adS, or even what happens when you put a certain exotic charge known as "NUT-charge" into adS.'

Nigel said...
Dear Lumos,In a previous post you wrote:"The ratio of shear viscosity to the volume density of entropy seems to be always greater than a fixed constant "1/4.pi" (times hbar over Boltzmann's constant). The inequality is saturated for a large class of strongly coupled interacting quantum field theories - corresponding to a kind of ideal fluids - and one can explain it by the fact that they are the holographic dual of a gas of black holes in some kind of anti de Sitter space."In the new post you write: "The relevant calculation involves a graviton propagator in the background of a large (greater than the AdS curvature radius) AdS Schwarzschild black hole; such a black hole is generically dual to the lowest-viscosity environment. It's a rather tedious calculation but you may get the result including the numerical pre-factor. A simpler but less rigorous calculation involves the quasinormal modes."Are you saying that in field theories you can have viscosity present due to the field in space? If that is what you saying then there will be a drag force on a particle moving through space which is proportional to the viscosity.If the spacetime fabric is a 'gas of black holes' in 5-D, these appear as radiation on the 4-D hologram if I understand what is suggested. The spacetime fabric as seen in 4-D is radiation without viscosity. However, I'm probably on a different wavelength and shouldn't comment.Best wishes,Nigel
1:45 PM

Nigel said...
Hi Lubos,Found the New Scientist article that started your previous post on this subject:"Exotic black holes spawn new universal law16:24 23 March 2005 NewScientist.com news service Jenny Hogan "Black holes may define the perfect fluid, suggests a study of black holes that only exist in a theoretical 10-dimensional space. The finding may have spawned a new universal law in physics, which puts constraints on the way fluids behave in the real world."Dam Thanh Son from the University of Washington, US, and his colleagues used string theory to model a 10-dimensional black hole as a liquid. String theory tries to explain fundamental properties of the universe by predicting that seven dimensions exist on top of the known three spatial dimensions. While the concept is currently unproven as a cosmological model, the tools of string theory can sometimes provide answers to real quantum problems."That means that while the 'black holes' modelled by Son are not astrophysical black holes, but mathematical objects that exist in string theory, their findings may have relevance to the real world."The fluid has two properties that relate to the black hole's surface area: viscosity, which describes how thick the liquid is, and entropy density, which is a measure of the internal disorder. Son's team found that the ratio of these two properties is a constant which can be expressed as a mixture of fundamental constants from the quantum world."My initial reaction above was inspired by the reference you made to a "holographic dual of a gas of black holes" in space.However, I don't care about the entropy of a black hole. All I'm interested in is whether black holes have relevance to the spacetime fabric. The holographic conjecture seemed to me to imply that for dealing with the space time fabric, it is admissible to treat the gauge bosons which cause gravity as radiation which in 5-D spacetime is equivalent to black holes (ie, mass), so the radiation is associated with an equivalent mass of black holes.Best wishes,Nigel

String theory: the Planck length

In string theory, the scale length of strings is taken to be the Planck length, based on a few fundamental constants by Planck. Planck noticed that it was a small size, 10^-35 m. Everyone since then seems to take the Planck size, which is as arbitrary as sizes come, as the smallest size in physical theory. However, the black hole radius of an electron mass is only 2GM/c^2 or 6.8 x 10^-58 m, much smaller than the Planck size.

Notice that string theory since the 1960s has relied on strings all having the same fixed size of about 10^-35 m. This means that the string tension would have to vary to allow different fundamental particles to be strings of equal scale length. However, if the strings are rolled up into loops of a black hole size, the radius increases directly with the mass. This makes me wonder whether the reliance on Planck dimensions makes sense.

As pointed out in previous posts, there are arguments from the Standard Model for 10/11 dimensions.

The fifth dimension can represent the spacetime fabric which appears in 4-D spacetime as the gauge boson the graviton, the light speed radiation which causes gravity. Individual units of string theory, like Witten's M-theory, are self-consistent, but the whole of string theory includes many different and contradicting ideas about branes imbedded with particles which give lie to the concept of a self-consistent string theory.

A brane on a 5-D spacetime is 4-D (just as a 2-D membrane exists on a 3-D bubble).

A 4-D spacetime is a hologram of 5-D (just as a 2-D hologram contains 3-D information).

We already know in general relativity that 4-D spacetime can be used to model gravity as causing a curvature in 3-D space. General relativity is often 'explained' as the curvature of a rubber sheet causing indentation so that balls placed on roll towards one another. This is manifestly more obscure than need be, because the real space fabric is not two but three dimensional. Some of these abstract equivalences are actually a hindrance, not a help.

Tuesday, September 20, 2005

3, 4, 5, 10, 11 dimensions

If you look up at the stars tonight, remember the nearest is over 4 years away (unless you count the sun as a star, in which case 8.3 minutes away). If you quote a distance you are fooling yourself, because everything you see in in the past.

Something you see 1 metre away is 3.3 nanoseconds in the past. Spacetime is real because not only visible light itself, but also the physical forces such as electromagnetism and gravity, travel at the speed of light. So when the 'recession speeds of distant stars increase with distance' you know Hubble is not thinking about the fourth dimension, time.

The increase in speeds is not just with apparent distance, but with time past. Any variation of speed with time is an acceleration, which implies an effective outward force. Anyway, general relativity treats time (multiplied by the speed of light to get distance units) as a dimension, albeit as a Pythagorean spacetime resultant so that its square has an opposite sign to the squares of the three other dimensions. It works mathematically like a fourth dimension.

The fifth dimension is the Kaluza-Klein dimension, which reconciles Maxwell's basic electromagnetism (the light wave, based on the two curl equations) with general relativity, and says the extra dimension is curled up to give a string particle. The first four dimensions can be viewed as a brane on the five dimensional universe, or as a hologram of the five dimensional universe.

It seems that these two differing perspectives are all mathematically equivalent and equally valid physically. The issue then arises that there is a completely different formulation of string theory which is necessary, and involves 10 or 11 dimensional spacetime. This is due to the need to explain supersymmetry in the Standard Model of fundamental particle interactions. Supersymmetry doubles the number of fundamental particles by introducing a 'super partner' for each one.

The original particle and its super partner are related by supersymmetry transformation. This transformation transforms a fermion into its partnered super boson, changing the spin from a half integer to an integer value (in terms of h over twice pi, obviously). Because of supersymmetry, even the virtual particles which produce the 'Higgs field' (or spacetime fabric) have supersymmetric partners.

Unless supersymmetry is broken, the virtual particles have a mass which is the exact opposite of their super partners, so the Higgs field itself has no mass. However there is a slight break of supersymmetry, and this gives rise to mass. The superpartners have very large masses and existing particle accelerators do not have sufficient energy to detect them. Supersymmetry makes the forces described by the Standard Model - the electro-weak and the strong nuclear force - unify into a superforce at an energy of 10^16 GeV.

Without supersymmetry, the Standard Model is less elegant. Therefore 'superstring' theory was developed in 1985 to incorporate supersymmetry. It does so by utilising 10 dimensional spacetime, in which 6 dimensions are compressed into a Calabi-Yai manifold, suggested by Eugenio Calabi and proved as a possibility by Shing-Tung Yau. In 1995 Edward Witten had another success, with M-theory, in which 10 dimensional superstring theory is equivalent to 11 dimensional supergravity.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supergravity):

'A supergravity theory is a field theory combining supersymmetry and general relativity. Like any field theory of gravity a supergravity theory contains a spin-2 field whose quantum is the graviton. Supersymmetry requires the graviton field to have a superpartner. This field has spin 3/2 and its quantum is the gravitino. The number of gravitino fields is equal to the number of supersymmetries. Supergravity theories are believed to be the only consistent theories of interacting massless spin 3/2 fields.

'A supergravity theory is generally the zero-length limit of a superstring theory (i.e., the limit in which the string is approximated as having zero length, and treated as a dimensionless point-particle), with the exception of "maximal" 11-dimensional supergravity, which is a limit of M-theory (most likely the limit in which the membranes are treated as having zero volume). The underlying spacetime is a supermanifold and its symmetries are superdiffeomorphisms.'

So we can see why Witten's breakthrough in 1995 was greeted with such enthusiasm that every other approach to gravity was dismissed. Witten had proved that an extra-dimensional quantum theory of gravity, 11-D supergravity, was mathematically equivalent to 10-D superstring theory.

The issue I take is that at each step in this story, the role of pure mathematical induction has increased slightly, and the connection to direct experiment has declined slightly. After sufficient steps, however small, you find yourself in a world of 10/11 dimensional spacetime. It is just a mathematical convenience, or is it a reality which is here to stay?

Peter Woit is concerned that if string theory is allowed to go unchallenged, experiments may become a thing of the past. From the other end of physics, when you look deeply at the electromagnetic field, which is crucual to Maxwell's electromagnetism, you can see that it may give way to a deeper understanding in a different way.

The physical mechanisms of forces, the light speed energy of gauge bosons which actually flow along electric and magnetic field lines to cause forces, can be examined by a new approach, the experimental facts of how a light speed logic pulse is propagated by a transmission line, a pair of wires. What is amazing is the culture clash between the mathematical physicists and some electrical engineering physicists who when presenting a problem or a new approach are treated as crackpots. Who is more in tune with reality, the mathematician or the engineer?

Of course both can turn crackpot when they are outside their area of expertise. Consider the following article, which is very valuable as a source for a new, wave based, approach to physics:

http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec1.htm http://www.ivorcatt.org/icrwiworld78dec2.htm

Sadly that article, while brilliantly showing that a capacitor charges up with light speed enegy flowing into it (sucking in electrons to the negative plate at the same time, of course), was deemed politically inexpedient and was suppressed for 27 years.

No wonder Ivor Catt has little patience with modern physics.

I think it weird that in order to point out that a light photon is half negative electric field energy and half positive, and that in pair production a light ray (gamma photon) of at least two electron rest masses transforms into an electron and positron pair, I have to be obscure. Clearly the electron is Poynting vector electromagnetic wave energy, in which the electric field, magnetic field and light speed propagation vectors are all perpendicular, trapped in a circle.

This gives rise to radial electric field at long distances, and magnetic dipole field (inspired by Penrose's twistor picture) like a torus. It therefore has all the known electron properties: wave properties, spin, magnetic moment, radial electric field. It is confined by gravity due to its own equivalent mass. But if I point this out too directly, it looks crackpot, so it must be made a harmless muse on the subject of a mathematician's bible (a very useful book in fact, because it covers all of the standard ideas to a high level) written by Roger Penrose:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=259#comments : Nigel Says: September 19th, 2005 at 8:19 am Penrose’s book reminds me of Maxwell’s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, being a mixture of ingenious physical ideas .... Whenever I see the picture of Penrose’s twistor, I automatically wonder what the lines are, electric field, magnetic field, or Poynting vector of energy transfer? The same happens with field lines in electromagnetism. If you have a Poynting vector going around in a simple circle, you get a dipole magnetic field which looks similar to Penrose’s twistor, while the electric field lines spread out radially.

Monday, September 19, 2005

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

Nigel said...
Dear Lumos,Re: your comment "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."

When I say ST is at a dead end I'm referring to the approach by which you hope to get something useful out of an energy balance using the existing cosmology.

With 90% of the mass of the universe undetected if classical cosmology is right, plus the issue that distant expansion is not being slowed down as classical cosmology predicted, it looks like a dead end.My "great idea" comes from LeSage, who suggested gravity is a pushing effect in 1748 and used it to predict the nuclear atom (because the force would have to penetrate atoms to act on every particle of matter, not just on the outer surface area of a planet): George Louis LeSage, Lucrece Newtonien, Nouveaux Memoires De L’Academie Royal de Sciences et Belle Letters, 1782, pp. 404-31. It is online at http://www3.bbaw.de/bibliothek/digital/struktur/03-nouv/1782/jpg-0600/00000495.htm

In CERN preprint EXT-2004-007 and in two Electronics World articles I showed that Feynman's ideas on presenting general relativity as a compressing force of the spacetime fabric were equivalent to the Lorentz contraction: the spacetime fabric pressure when moving shortens objects in the direction of motion, and the contraction term in general relativity supplies the same effect for gravity.‘… the source of the gravitational field can be taken to be a perfect fluid…. A fluid is a continuum that ‘flows’... A perfect fluid is defined as one in which all antislipping forces are zero, and the only force between neighboring fluid elements is pressure.’ – Bernard Schutz, ‘General Relativity’, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

‘It was proposed that a mechanism of gravity should be developed to rigorously test all of the consequences of the physical fluid model for the fabric of space… The success of this model for gravity has implications for the unification of fundamental forces via quantum theory.’ – Nigel Cook, ‘Solution to a Problem with General Relativity’, CERN Document Server paper preprint EXT-2004-007.

The paper is at http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ and shows that for the correct mechanism of gravity due to LeSage, the critical density is exactly .5e^3 (or about 10 times) higher than the true density. Hence most of the dark matter is eliminated, enabling an energy balance to become feasible.It is interesting that your reaction is so similar to Peter Woit's and also Quantoken's, who both dismissed it as 'nonsense'.

When I pointed out that the editor of PRL, Stanley Brown, used ST to block my paper, Peter wrote http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=215 :

I'm tempted to delete the previous comment, but am leaving it since I think that, if accurate, it is interesting to see that the editor of PRL is resorting to an indefensible argument in dealing with nonsense submitted to him (although the "..." may hide a more defensible argument). Please discuss this with the author of this comment on his weblog, not here. I'll be deleting any further comments about this. Posted by Peter Woit at July 7, 2005 07:27 PM

Both you and Peter need to see this: ‘(1). The idea is nonsense. (2). Somebody thought of it before you did. (3). We believed it all the time.’ - Professor R.A. Lyttleton's summary of inexcusable censorship (quoted by Sir Fred Hoyle in ‘Home is Where the Wind Blows’ Oxford University Press, 1997, p154).

Best wishes,Nigel

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’?)


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

TEM wave electron model

‘It had been an audacious idea that particles as small as electrons could have spin and, indeed, quite a lot of it. … the "surface of the electron" would have to move 137 times as fast as the speed of light. Nowadays such objections are simply ignored.’ – Professor Gerard t’Hooft, ‘In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks’, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p27.

‘(a) Energy current can only enter the capacitor at the speed of light.

‘(b) Once inside, there is no mechanism for the reciprocating energy current to slow down… [magnetic field curls due to equal amounts of light speed energy going in each direction cancel out, while electric fields add up] … The dynamic model is necessary to explain the new feature to be explained, the charging and discharging of a capacitor …’ – Ivor Catt.

Ivor Catt proposed the ‘Catt Anomaly’ as a wave-particle duality conflict between electron drift current (1 mm/s, carrying negligible kinetic energy) and the TEM wave mechanism for electricity (which travels at the speed of light for the insulator between the two conductors comprising the cable, such as vacuum or plastic).

Weirdly, Catt had this crackpot notion that wave-particle duality in modern physics could be resolved by studying electricity, which to modern physicists was a topic ‘done and dusted’ by Faraday and Maxwell.

In the ‘Catt Anomaly’ charge spreads along the two conductors, positive in one and negative in the other, at light speed for the medium between the wires. Reader in Electromagnetism at Bradford University, Dr Neil McEwan, and a analogue electronics engineer (Consultant to Electronics Magazine, Dr Ian Hickman), both ‘explain’ the anomaly. They both say that in the positive conductor the existing electrons get spread out so the number of positive ions per unit area exceeds the number of electrons, creating a positive field.

For the negative conductor, they both agree that the electrons bunch up, so that there is then more electrons than protons per unit length of wire, so it gains negative charge. This ignores the problem that the speed of electricity depends on the speed of light in the vacuum between the two wires, which the pushing-electron hypothesis fails to deal with.

In other words, the mechanism of electricity depends on energy exchange between each wire. Remember we are dealing with a light speed pulse, not a steady-state circuit. The whole problem with electrical theory is that it was devised before people knew that electricity goes at light speed.

Although Catt did make an enormous break through by showing that the capacitor charges up at light speed in a lot of discrete steps as it reflects off the far edge of the capacitor plates, he ignored the physical process of how energy flows across the vacuum gap of the capacitor.

Logic pulse > -------------I I-------
Logic pulse > -------------I I------- LIGHT BULB

In the two wire transmission line above, there are two capacitors in series with two wires. Each capacitor plate is symbolised by ‘I’ since I don’t have another better vertical line symbol on my keyboard to use. The light bulb at the other end of the transmission line lights up briefly. So there is a ‘displacement current’ of energy while charging or discharging occurs.

When you then consider the electron as a single charge in a negative capacitor plate (you can do this in principle by cutting a negative charged capacitor plate in half, then half again, etc., until arriving at a single charge) you find it is going at light speed.

We can conceive what happens in pair-production, which Anderson discovered in a cloud chamber in 1932. What happens is this. You send light with the energy of 2 electrons near the nucleus of a heavy atom like lead, and this light ray (a gamma ray of at least 1.022 MeV, since the electron rest mass is 0.511 MeV in energy equivalent) splits into an electron and an anti-electron (positron).

The negative electric field portion of a photon, which has mass (light is deflected by gravity and light exerts radiation pressure, implying momentum and thus mass to me), forms an electron. (The mechanism for its mass is assumed to be the Higgs field mechanism.) In the model of electron as a tiny negative capacitor plate, with negative electric field energy trapped by gravity (which is strong on a small scale due to the inverse square law) into a loop, you obtain radial electric field and dipole magnetic field in addition to spin.

What actually happens is that spinning electrons radiate energy continuously. This is aside from the quantum jumps that they radiate as photons of specific frequencies when they are decelerated. Any ‘static’ electron has light speed motion, and a continuous – not periodic – centripetal acceleration due to the spin (circular motion). The energy goes along the electric field lines. It is also receiving similar energyfrom surrounding electrons, all over the universe. The nearest electrons obviously have the greatest effect. This explains how electromagnetic forces arise; energy (with momentum p = energy/c) exchanges causeattraction when opposite charges shield one another and are pushed together by energy arriving from outside. Repulsion is where similar charges exchange energy, recoiling apart. The actual mechanism is dealt with in my April 2003 EW article. The electricity TEM wave is light-speed energy exchange between electrons.

It is an energy ‘pass the parcel’ game. Once the field exists, with a gradient in potential difference, the electrons are forced to drift, creating electric current and heating the conductor as the electrons are resisted. If I connect a metre wire from the positive to the negative terminal of a 1.5 volt cell, the electric field gradient of 1.5 volts/metre is not immediately set up. After the instant of connecting the wire to the terminals, the electric field must flow in an incomplete circuit at light speed until it completes the circuit, which takes 3.3 nanoseconds if the wire is surrounded by a dielectric like air which does not slow the speed of light too much. The whole of Ivor Catt’s work focusses on the grossly oversimplified Heaviside ‘slab of energy’ (TEM wave or Poynting-Heaviside vector, with E = c x B, where E is electric field vector, c is light velocity vector and B is magnetic field vector, with E, c and B all perpendicular to each other). In fact this vector is an over simplification, as energy exchange is also occurring at light speed along electric field lines, normally in equilibrium.

A net amount of energy passes between the plates of a capacitor at light speed while charging or discharging. (When the capacitor is in a steady charged state, it is in equilibrium with virtual energy exchange in each direction exactly cancelling out.) In order for electric field lines to have any meaning, there is energy flow along them to produce electric force. In fact, it is an exchange process, with energy being radiated and received at (normally) equal rates.

The key is not to theorise at all, as Dr Arnold Lynch explained to me. All the errors in science come from speculations being disproved. The mainstream approach is that Nobel guys speculate. You can built entirely on Catt’s experimental finding that the TEM wave is primitive. You don’t put more into the theory than is justified by experiments and observations. The output is greater than what you put in; you get testable predictions out despite not having speculated. A [vacuum dielectric] charged capacitor contains energy circulating at light speed as proved by the charging and discharging of a capacitor. When you then consider the electron as a single charge in a negative capacitor plate (you can do this in principle by cutting a negative charged capacitor plate in half, then half again, etc., until arriving at a single charge) you findit is going at light speed. You find also that this light speed is the speed of light for the opposite charge with which it is paired in the other (positively charged) capacitor plate, or rather, that the electron’s spin speed depends on the surrounding medium. The only way this can occur is if there is communication through the surrounding medium by energy exchange.

The attractive force between the plates of a charged capacitor must be explained physically. This is consistent with the plates shielding one another from space radiation pressure and being pushed together. Thus, there is energy flowing along electric field lines. We can think of this by analogy to Prevost’s 1792 suggestion that at constant temperature, cooling is only prevented by the equilibrium of energy exchange.

All electrons have a spin. If you take the known amount of spin and apply it to the classical spherical electron radius, it should be moving at 137c. Obviously this is wrong, and the physics are more complex than the usual classical spherical electron model. The electron is electromagnetic energy going at speed c.This leads to the equation proving that the electron can’t move in one direction at c, or its mass would be infinite. Spin is separate from straight line motion, I've dealt with this in the April 2003 ElectronicsWorld article. For consistent spin speed everywhere on the loop, this speed is maintained at right angles to straight line motion of the whole electron. This gives the addition of spin and straight line motion by Pythagoras. You square the spin speed, add it to the square of straight line speed, and the result is always equal to the square of light speed. The ratio of spin speed to light speed is a fundamental measure of the rate of flow of time (which depends on motion), and is equal to the FitzGerald-Lorentz transformation (1 - v^2 /c^2)^1/2

Ivor thought that because he could model the transmission line and the capacitor charging up with light-speed ‘static electricity’, he had disproved the idea of electrons. As additional evidence, he and others including Walton, Davidson and Gibson (an American programmer who invented Microsoft’s scalable fonts), have also treated the inductor and transformer using the TEM wave calculations originally applied only to the capacitor and transmission line. Ivor also argues that if an electron exists, it can’t have any size because if you touch one side of it, how can the other side respond instantly? If it doesn’t respond instantly, the electron could break, and thus would not be a fundamental particle. Obviously this argument applies to a particular idea of the electron, and does not disprove all models of electron.

Catt, in the December 1979 issue of Wireless World, had a two page paper entitled ‘Displacement Current – and How to Get Rid of It’. It is available free on the internet at www.ivorcatt.org

Displacement current is the real physical process that occurs in all electrolytic capacitors, so the subtitle ‘and How to Get Rid of It’ makes the real physics of the article look crackpot. Catt of course is talking something entirely different – capacitors with just a void (vacuum) between their plates.

The title should clearly have been ‘Maxwell’s Extra Equation Corrected: Capacitors Charge in a Series of Quantum Steps’. But on 16 September Catt blamed the editor of Wireless World for their subtitle:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ivor Catt" <ivorcatt@electromagnetism.demon.co.uk>
To: "Forrest Bishop" <forrestb@ix.netcom.com>; "Nigel Cook" <nigel.cook2@tesco.net>
Cc: "Chris Phoenix" <cphoenix@CRNano.org>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: how a capacitor works (Cook thread)

… The subtitle to our dec78 article ("and how to get rid of it") was added by the Editor Tom Ivall without the knowledge of the authors. I have always thought that is was unhelpful, but was polite enough not to say so. My team had bigger fish to fry. …

Saturday, September 17, 2005

Have added my book review of string theory book by expert string theorist to my page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/discussion.htm:

Book Review

WARPED PASSAGES by Dr Lisa Randall
(Allen Lane, London, 2005, 500 pp.)

Summary: this book is a nice discussion of the Standard Model, electroweak unification, the vitality of the Higgs field mechanism to electroweak theory, supersymmetry in the Standard Model to allow unification of all fundamental forces apart from gravity at high energy, the role of the Calabi-Tau manifold (in 10 dimensional string theory in which 6 dimensions are rolled up in such a way that the parity-violating weak force is explained in the standard model while supersymmetry is preserved), and Witten’s proof in 1995 that 10-D strongly coupled superstring theory is equivalent to 11-D weak supergravity speculation. Lisa explains that extra-dimensional strings are treated in some ways as real physical entities, having tension which determines the resonate frequency. The more tension, the more energy the string requires to oscillate, so gravity can be forced to work.

On the down side, the string size is assumed to be the Planck length, about 10^-35 metre, which is equivalent to an energy of 10^19 GeV. Lisa admits on page 295 that ‘even if string theory is correct, we are unlikely to find the many additional particles it predicts. The energy of current experiments is sixteen orders of magnitude too low. … because the string length is so tiny and the string tension is so high, we won’t see any evidence to support string theory at the energies achievable in accelerators, even if the string description is correct.’

At the end of the book, Lisa summarises what to me are even bigger problems, the fact that not only are these speculations impossible to test convincingly, they are also extremely vague because there are many variations of the extra-dimensional theories. She remarks on page 456: ‘We now know that extra-dimensional setups can come in any number of shapes and sizes. They could have warped extra dimensions, or they could have extra large dimensions; they might contain one brane or two branes; they might contain particles in the bulk and other particles confined to branes. … Which, if any, of these ideas describes the real world? We’ll have to wait …’

Bearing in mind that the energies to test the theories are sixteen orders of magnitude higher than we can achieve even if we copy Hitler’s technological methods and allow the Third World to starve to build earth-stradling particle accelerators, hell will freeze over before string theorists get anywhere.

I feel inclined to review Lisa Randall’s book, Warped Passages, in considerable depth here, because it is a sort of answer to Dr Roger Penrose’s Road to Reality which I reviewed somewhere on my website a few months ago. (I was surprised to learn recently that Penrose has given help to Peter Woit for finding a publisher in Britain for Woit’s book Not Even Wrong. Penrose is locked into twister theory, which is less well understood in mainstream physics than string theory. Twister theory is abstract mathematics resulting in a picture of a particle that looks like a rotating vortex. However, physically what are the lines that Penrose draws in the vortex? It would be nice to take the twister as a gravitationally confined slab of electromagnetic field energy, but these mathematicians have the knack of steering clear of the ‘crackpot’ idea of modelling reality.)

Lisa’s dust jacket contains a black and white picture of her, unsmiling and sultry, in a black dress. She is ‘the first tenured woman in the Princeton physics department and the first tenured woman theorist at MIT and Harvard’ (quoted from the publisher’s blurb below the picture). Below each chapter title are crazy lyrics from pop songs, to send out the message that string theorists can be groovy. You get the idea that Warped Passages is going to be a less lady like, or rougher, ride than the elegant sophistication of certain other writers.

Page 6 reveals the author’s motivation: ‘A tiny magnet can lift a paper clip, even though all the mass of the Earth is pulling it in the opposite direction. Why is gravity so defenceless against the small tug of a tiny magnet? In standard three-dimensional particle physics, the weakness of gravity is a huge problem [the ‘hierarchy problem’, the differences in the strengths of the fundamental forces]. But extra dimensions might provide an answer.’

I agree with her up to this point. But Lisa then goes on to explain that in Einstein’s general relativity, the spacetime fabric is warped by matter and energy to cause gravitational forces, and that she (and her collaborator, Raman Sundrum) had a pet theory in 1999 that ‘an invisible extra dimension can stretch out to infinity, provided that it is suitably distorted in a curved spacetime… (Not all physicists immediately accepted our proposal. But my non-physicist friends were more quickly convinced I was on to something…)’

The publisher’s blurb states: ‘Her work has attracted enormous interest and is some of the best cited in all of science.’ (A bit like saying that Hitler can’t be politically wrong, because Mein Kampf was a best seller and so many people can’t all be wrong. If something is popular, it must be correct. That’s all.)

Because the spectra of fascism had arisen so quickly, I was suspicious, checking Lisa’s index for Dr Luboš Motl. Sure enough, he is cited on page 152, in the context of Vladimir I. Lenin. Lisa writes that Lenin used the electron as a metaphor in his book Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. Lenin stated that the ‘electron is inexhaustible’, because of the its wave-particle duality (or whatever problem in electron physics that Lenin perceived at the time); but Lisa responds that the electron is really simple, with just a few properties, and she says in parenthesis that: ‘(The Czech anti-Communist string theorist Luboš Motl quipped that this is not the only difference between his and Lenin’s perspectives.)’

Other parts of the book reveal how surreal craziness starts. She admits in the preface: ‘When I was a little girl, I loved the play and intellectual games in math problems or in books like Alice in Wonderland.’ So we know why Lisa tries to copy Alice by going through the looking glass into the world of extra dimensions. (Lisa: beware of the big white rabbit following you, it looks very hungry!)

On page 17, she quotes from another inspiring book: ‘In Roald Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka introduced visitors to his "Wonkavator." In his words, "An elevator can only go up and down, but a Wonkavator goes sideways and slandways and longways and backways and frontways and squareways …".’ After reading this, I went back to page vii where she wrote that other popular books ‘often seemed condescending to readers…’. The big white rabbit is a real menace!

By page 20 she has explained that a straight line has one dimension, a flat surface two dimensions, and a cube has three dimensions. On page 23 there is a nice picture of a three-dimensional rabbit dancing in front of a projection lamp to throw the image that looks just like a human hand on a two-dimensional screen. Unlike Penrose, she produces no mathematical equations (except in the mathematical notes at the end of the book). One think she shares in common with Penrose is the idea that climate change should be speeded up, which is why her book is about as thick as Road to Reality, requiring almost a rainforest in pulped trees (it uses thicker sheets of paper to make up the bulk, despite having only half as many sheets as Penrose).

In chapter 2, Lisa recounts the story of the Kaluza-Klein theory. In 1919, Theodor Kaluza wrote a paper that put 5 dimensions instead of 4 into the metric of general relativity, obtaining electromagnetism. Einstein had to referee the paper, and held it up two years, wanting to know what physical significance a fifth dimension could have. It was published in 1921. In 1926 the answer came from Oskar Klein, who suggested the extra dimension was unseen normally because it was rolled up into a small (sub-atomic sized) circle, forming the fundamental particles of matter. (All this was abstract unification mathematics, not mathematical physics: there were no testable predictions. The Klein unification just showed that electromagnetism and general relativity could be united by an extra dimension, it did not allow general relativity (gravity) to predict how strong the electric force was. All you could get out was what you had already put into general relativity in the form of the constants ‘c’ and ‘G’. Lisa does not mention these problems with the Kaluza-Klein theory.)

Chapter 3 is headed ‘exclusive passages’ and is about branes, explaining that in 1995 Joe Polchinski ‘established that they were essential to string theory.’ Branes (short for membranes) are domains with ‘fewer dimensions that the full higher-dimensional space that surrounds or borders it.’ In fact, therefore, a 4-dimensional spacetime is simply a ‘brane’ on the 5-dimensional spacetime.

Chapter 4, ‘approaches to theoretical physics’, contrasts two approaches of doing physics: building a theory on experimental facts (physics phenomenology), versus speculating and testing the theory by experiment (Popperian physics). Lisa says candidly: ‘The choice could also be phrased as "Old Einstein vs. Young Einstein".’ She then launches into a discussion of string theory, saying that it seems the only way to consistently unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Actually, this is quite convincing, and vaguely correct, although her personal suggestion on how to bring gravity into quantum mechanics is actually wrong.

The later chapters improve markedly. I was surprised to find that this book makes a real effort to avoid glossing over some of the problems in the standard model that other books ignore.

Bosons (such as photons with spin 1) have integer spin, while fermions (such as electrons with spin ½) have half-integer spin. The ‘boson’ group name is named after Satyendra Bose who developed Bose-Einstein statistics, while the ‘fermion’ group is named after Enrico Fermi who built the first nuclear reactor and developed Fermi-Dirac statistics. The spin determines whether the statistics of a gas of the particles obey Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac statistics. (Ordinary gases obey, of course, Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics.)

In particular, fermions like electrons obey the Pauli exclusion principle that states that in an atom each electron must have a different set of quantum numbers. The reason behind this principle is clearly related to the magnetic moment of the electron. When you put two magnets in the same place, they pair up with opposite poles adjacent, so if one magnet has its North Pole pointing upwards, the other magnet (attracted to the first) will end with its South Pole pointing upwards. This causes each electron in a pair of adjacent electrons in an atom to have different spin states. As you add more electrons to an atom, more shells get filled up, so you physically cannot have any two electrons with the same set of quantum numbers. So it appears that the Pauli exclusion principle is powered by magnetism, which keeps the electrons apart and acts as a repulsive force to prevent the atom being compressed easily.

Lisa points out that the electromagnetic force is mediated by the photon, which is the carrier or ‘gauge boson’ of the force. The use of the term ‘gauge’ in this context is ‘because of a tangential analogy to railway gauges that tell you the distance between the rails – a term that was far more familiar a hundred years ago’ Lisa says (she is an expert on railways as well as string). Gluons would be the ‘gauge bosons’ for the strong nuclear force, and gravitons for the gravitational force. For the weak nuclear force there are three gauge bosons, positive, negative and neutrally charged. The positive gauge boson is symbolised W+ (shortened from ‘weak + charged’), the negative is W-, and the neutral is Z (shortened from ‘zero charged’). Weak forces are complex since they violate parity symmetry, so a left-hand spinning particle obeying the weak force does not behave like the mirror image of a right-hand spinning particle. This investigated theoretically by C.N. Yang and T.D. Lee and experimentally proved by C.S. Wu in 1957. Lisa says that the male physicists Yang and Lee who suggested the experiment won a Nobel Prize, but the female physicist Wu who actually did the experiment didn’t.

Quarks and leptons (like electrons) can spin either one way or another. This is like the option of the planet earth either spinning towards the east (spinning anticlockwise as seen looking down on the North Pole) as it does, or spinning the opposite way. Because the weak force is responsible for beta radioactivity, where a neutron decays into a proton (by emission of an electron and an antineutrino, as predicted in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli from energy conservation issues with the spectra of beta particle energies), it allows a downquark in a neutron to change into an upquark. Pauli however did not succeed in generating much interest in the neutrino, since when Enrico Fermi wrote about in a letter sent to the journal Nature in 1933, the paper was rejected as containing ‘speculations too remote to be of interest to the reader.’ Nevertheless, neutrinos were detected from a nuclear reactor in 1956.

Lisa explains that in the Standard Model of fundamental particle physics, gauge bosons do not have mass (these people mean that the gauge bosons have light velocity and by special relativity this implies they have zero rest mass, or their transit masses would be infinite), but the carriers of the weak force turn out to have mass. In order to explain this difference, the ‘Higgs mechanism’ is used to give weak gauge bosons their mass.

Chapter 10 in Warped Passages is ‘The Origin of Elementary Particle Masses: Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and the Higgs Mechanism’. Peter Higgs proposed the mechanism for mass in 1964. Lisa says: ‘Without the Higgs mechanism, all elementary particles [according to the Standard Model] would be massless; the Standard Model with massive particles but without the Higgs mechanism would make nonsensical predictions at high energies.’

The reason that weak force gauge bosons have to have non-zero mass is that they are short-ranged. If they had no rest mass, then like light and electromagnetic forces they would have infinite range, decreasing only by the inverse-square law due to geometrical divergence. To get a short-range requires a borrowing of energy according to the uncertainty principle, whereby the maximum force range is inversely proportional to the mass-energy of the gauge boson. Another option is that Higgs bosons in the fabric of spacetime obstruct the weak force gauge bosons from travelling long distances but not short distances.

The Higgs field boson is too heavy to have been created in high energy experiments to date, which is why it has not been discovered, according to Lisa. However, if the Higgs boson is the cause of inertial mass, then we are feeling them everytime we have to overcome inertia to move, and by Einstein’s equivalence principle, inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass. The Higgs field is the ether of the vacuum of space, and inertia arises by the physical mechanism whereby the Higgs field obstructs the motion of fundamental particles.

To be clear, the Higgs field exists everywhere as the spacetime fabric or ether. It stops the weak gauge bosons within a short distance, and provides the masses of quarks and leptons by the mechanism of their bouncing off the virtual charges of the Higgs field. Because the weak force has a maximum range of 10^-18 metre, the energy-time version of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (assuming light speed force mediation, so that time multiplied by speed of light equals this maximum distance) tells us the energy of the weak force mediator – it is 250 GeV, equivalent to 10^-24 kilogram.

This energy, 250 GeV, is close to the observed mass-energy of the weak gauge bosons (W-, W+, and Z). It is also the energy of the Higgs bosons. The weak force symmetry (which exists for energies above 250 GeV) breaks spontaneously at 250 GeV, because of the Higgs mechanism. Below 250 GeV, there is no weak force symmetry because particles have masses since they are mired in the Higgs field which causes inertia. Above 250 GeV, particles become effectively massless, simply because they then have more energy than the Higgs bosons. (By analogy, it is possible to move through syrup if you have enough energy to overcome the sticky binding forces holding together the syrup molecules, but you get stuck after a short distance if you don’t have enough energy!)

Electroweak theory was developed by Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam. They showed that early in the big bang, there were three weak gauge bosons and a neutral boson, and that the photon which now exists is a combination of two of the original gauge bosons purely because this avoids being stopped by the weak charge of the vacuum; other combinations are stopped so the photon exists uniquely by the filtering out of other weak gauge bosons. Because the photon does not interact with the weak charge of the vacuum, it only interacts with electric charges. The vacuum is composed of weak charge, but not electric charge, so the photon can penetrate any distance of vacuum without attenuation. This is why electric forces are only subject to geometrical dispersion (inverse-square law).

These developments in the 1960s led to the Standard Model of fundamental particles. In this model, the strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces all become similar at around 10^14 GeV, but beyond that they differ again, with electromagnetic force becoming stronger than the strong and weak forces. In 1974, Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow suggested a way to unify all three forces into a single superforce at an energy at 10^16 GeV. This ‘grand unified theory’ of all forces apart from gravity has the three forces unified above 10^16 GeV but separated into three separate forces at lower energies. The way they did this was by ‘supersymmetry’, doubling the particles of the Standard Model, so that each fundamental particle has a supersymmetric partner. The energy of 10^16 GeV is beyond testing on this planet and in this galaxy, so the only useful prediction they could make was that the proton should decay with a half-life somewhat smaller than has already been ruled out by experiment.

Edward Witten developed the current mainstream superstring model, which has 10/11 dimensions with 6/7 rolled up into strings. The history of string theory begins in the 1920s with the Kaluza-Klein theory as I’ve already explained above. Kaluza showed that adding a fifth dimension to general relativity units gravity and electromagnetism tensors, while Klein showed that the fifth dimension could remain invisible to us as a rolled up string. In the late 1960s, it was shown that the strings could vibrate and represent fundamental particle energies. In 1985, Philip Candelas, Gary Horowitz, Andy Strominger and Edward Witten suggested that 10-D string theory with the 6 extra dimensions curled up into a Calabi-Yau manifold would model the standard model, preserving supersymmetry and yet giving rise to an observable 4-D spacetime in which there is the right amount of difference between left and right handed interactions to account for the parity-violating weak force. This ‘breakthrough’ speculative invention was called ‘superstrings’ and led to the enormous increase in research in string theory.

Finally, in March 1995, Edward Witten proved that 10-D strongly coupled superstring theory is equivalent to 11-D weakly coupled supergravity. Apparently because it was presented in March, Witten named this new 10/11-D mathematics ‘M-theory’.

Witten then made the misleading claim that ‘string theory predicts gravity’:

‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity’: false claim by Edward Witten in the April 1996 issue of Physics Today, repudiated by Roger Penrose on page 896 of his book Road to Reality, 2004: ‘in addition to the dimensionality issue, the string theory approach is (so far, in almost all respects) restricted to being merely a perturbation theory’. String theory does not predict for the strength constant of gravity, G!

This means that my work on gravitational force mechanism which does predict gravity correctly is suppressed: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook

Tuesday, September 13, 2005


The 19th century 'ether' research failed because there were two models built on speculation, both wrong. Maxwell's ether was initially a solid, but after a disaster with the elasticity of the ether in displacement current (see three posts back), he converted to gear cogs and idler wheels. Opposing him was Kelvin's ether, a jelly like substance which could sustain permanent vortex rings, hence Kelvin's vortex ring atomic model.

The problem you understand started with J.J. Thomson and Henry Becquerel, who discovered evidence for a subatomic particle (electron) and for the break up of the atom (radioactivity). Kelvin then simply used his powerful reputation to dismiss these as speculative nonsense, rather like modern work on the spacetime fabric is treated by most experts today.

Anyone speaking out in favour of science was ridiculed. Progress was denied. Then, just as science was getting into a serious rut, Einstein came along, an obscure patent clerk on the Continent, and showed the way forward very clearly: damn the mechanical models and mechanisms. All that matters, Einstein's philosophy showed, is mathematical models that can be tested and that are useful.

Einstein saved radioactivity and the electron, not merely by working on the mathematical theory of the photoelectric effect and relativity, but giving the world an excuse to ignore the ether. Maxwell's and Kelvin's ether models were not only contradictory in mechanical detail, but virtually untestable. If you have a vague, non-mathematical, idea of vortices or gear boxes in the fabric of space, you can keep adding new idler wheels or new properties to keep it from failing in tests, just as epicycles were added to the Earth-centred universe to keep it 'fixed'.

This is the great problem with the over-simplistic Popper-Kuhn conception of science. You have a theory and make a prediction. The test is done and the result is unexpected. Now, does that disprove the theory, or does it prove that you need to modify the theory to bring it into line with the latest experimental finding? This is where the big controversy occurs.

Kelvin's vortex atoms were mathematically shown - by Kelvin and Tait, great mathematical physicists of the day - to be permanent and indestructable. Rutherford therefore had problems with Kelvin over radioactivity. Rutherford also competed with J.J. Thomson who had a plum pudding (mixed, i.e., non-nuclear) theory of the atom. In the end, Rutherford won recognition, in part because his nuclear atom led to Bohr's early theory of quantum mechanics, later developed into the modern theory by de Broglie, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Born, and others.

Sadly, Bohr, Heisenberg and Born opposed Einstein, de Broglie and Schrodinger over the interpretation of the mathematical result. Einstein's fame of 1919 (confirmation of general relativity in the solar eclipse) allowed him to become heretical in 1920, where he said in his inaugural lecture at Leyden University: 'According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable.'

So we are, all things told, indebted to Einstein. Even if special relativity is not the final word.

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'.

In other words, the anthropic argument - that everything is the way it is because if it wasn't, it would be different! This anthropic argument was usefully used by Fred Hoyle in the 1950s to predict that because we contain carbon, a nuclear reaction producing carbon in stars must be possible. The prediction was confirmed afterwards by nuclear physics! So this 'mum's argument' - the anthropic principle - has made useful scientific predictions.

However, it is a cheap explanation for everything to say that 'everything must be the way it is because otherwise we wouldn't see it the way it is'. What people want are scientific facts, not arm-waving waffle. One way of getting useful information out of the anthropic principle is to define it precisely as the set of circumstances needed to create humans: how different would the laws of nature need to be to prevent humans from existing (and observing nature) now?

By trying calculations using different values of fundamental constants, for example, it can be ascertained that small differences would prevent the synthesis of some elements and thus prevent humans from existing as they do now. However, is this really a useful way to approach science? Some prople try to use these results to 'prove God exists' by saying that the universe must have been deliberately designed, or we would not be here to observe it.

Others (Susskind and Kaku like the multiverse) turn this argument on its head and claim that there are an infinite (or very large) number of parallel universes (the 'multiverse', since the definition of universe is at odds with many universes), and say that the reason this universe is the right one for life is simply because it is the one with life in it. If you have only one universe which is precisely right for life, then that would suggest deliberate design, but if you have a great many universes which are all a bit different, then it could have arisen by accident.

So modern physics is being driven by religious ideas. In this way it is, indeed, crackpot.

Einstein and Special Relativity

First, some people call it 'restricted relativity', the 'restricted theory of relativity' or similar. Why call an incomplete theory - unable to deal with accelerations (including all circular motions) - 'special'?

Special relativity applies only to something which Einstein says is impossible - it applies to motion in a straight line, with no acceleration, no deflection.

Einstein's general relativity disproves the possibility of straight line motion, and therefore disproves the applicability of 'special relativity' to this universe we all live in.

Despite this, popularisers like Gamow (who worked on the big bang theory, making some mistakes like claiming at first that the big bang would create all elements, when in fact the heavy elements are made in stars and star explosions) and Asimov applauded 'special relativity'.

Gamow falsely asserts in his book One, Two, Three Infinity (I believe, from memory) that the pressure contraction of objects proposed by FitzGerald and Lorentz was wrong. He rightly points out that a wooden boat and a steel boat moving at same speeds in the sea will be contracted by different amounts by the water pressure. This he uses to claim that the contraction of different materials would occur differently if the ether (spacetime fabric) pressure caused the contraction. This is wrong: because the atom is mostly void, spacetime fabric pressure acts against the individual electrical forces between electrons and nuclei, which are the same for all materials, wood and metal alike.

The errors made by Asimov are more banal. First, in his 1960s History of Physics (I believe, from memory), Asimov states that the ether would need to be solid to convey transverse waves (light), since fluids can only convey longitudinal waves. Asimov they discredits the ether on the basis that if it were solid it would prevent motion through it. The error here is that obvious: there is no absolute distinction, so a jelly conveys both types of wave, and a jelly also allows motion of small (fundamental) particles, squeezing around them as they go. For all the rubbish of 19th century ether speculations, they were not as dense as Asimov on this subject.

This is why the conventional dismissal of ether is the Michelson-Morley experiment, not Asimov's ramblings. Asimov in a later book, again one which was written at a faster typing speed than the speed of his brain, says that a man wrote to him pointing out that Einstein's absurd special relativity came after Poincare's brilliant ether-retaining relativity, not to mention the FitzGerald contraction equation of 1889 and Lorentz's full transformation equations of 1893 (both ether theories, but giving the equations now associated with Einstein).

Asimov dismissed this by expressing an ignorance of the different mathematical approaches to relativity: he said that if Einstein got the same result using relativity, then it is all the same.

The difference is that one approach gets the same equations while retaining the ether, and the other doesn't. This is why Michelson was able to remain an ether theorist, despite having made the experiment which 'special relativity' worshippers claim disproved the ether. Suppose you try to detect something and fail. Do you then conclude that you have disproved the existence of the thing you were trying to detect?

‘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.)

So all these guys who say they are 'defending Einstein' by dismissing ether are liars.

‘… 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, p.906.

If you have a kid playing with magnets, how do you explain the pull and push forces felt through space? As ‘magic’?

So Eddington, Einstein, and Dirac are all ether crackpots.

Me too.

Sunday, September 11, 2005


In the previous post about the Catt discovery, the point comes across that in charging up, a capacitor with a vacuum between its plates allows energy to flow across the vacuum between the plates, in the direction of the electric field lines.

This energy is in a sense photon-type electromagnetic radiation, but in a sense it is not like that. The electromagnetic energy which travels along lines of force like this has no frequency (frequency is zero), so it does not oscillate like a photon. It therefore can't be detected by a radio, since it can't resonate electrons in an aerial. This non-oscillatory radiation causes electromagnetic forces, as explained in the April 2003 issue of Electronics World. But what about the force mediator of gravity?

According to the latest revision of my page http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/ , it might be true that the graviton is oscillatory radiation of extremely high frequency; beyond normal gamma rays. Normally you would think that the impulse from such radiation would simply blast a nucleus apart or induce fission, but when you calculate the actual radiation frequency for Hawking radiation from electron-size black holes in the spacetime fabric (5th dimension), you see that even nuclei are quite transparent to such radiation.

We know that the impulsive strikes from 'gravitons' on a nucleus will just cause it to jiggle about slightly, because there will be almost equal strikes from all directions. Indeed, the gravitons would presumably be striking Higgs bosons surrounding the fundamental particles in the nucleus, which may diffuse and smooth out the impacts. The question is, does the Hawking radiation formula apply to black holes of fundamental particle size? It should not according to some of the approximations used in its derivation. However, it is interesting to consider the fabric of spacetime as black holes that are emitting light speed radiation which could cause gravity. What is really needed are detailed quantitative calculations to see if it is completely absurd, or if it could be made to work.

There are quite a few crackpot ideas around about the mediator of gravity which are simply not crazy enough to be right. Neutrinos have been claimed by crackpots to cause gravity. The problem is, they do not do the nuclear physics needed to justify the existence of sufficiently many, strongly interacting neutrinos to do the job of causing gravity. A vague, 'arm-waving' idea is crackpot unless or until it can be made more rigorous and testable. What matters in science is being able to test ideas properly. Simply naming the mediator the 'graviton', and calculating a predicted spin from conservation principles in physics, is not really very useful. If it turned out that 'gravitons' were a type of high energy Hawking radiation which interacted with the Higgs boson in the right way to give gravity, that would be useful.

A simpler idea is that by Dr Dr Rueda and Dr Haisch published in Physical Review A v49 p 678 (1994), saying the virtual photon sea causes inertial mass, and their more recent idea in Annalen der Physik v14 p479 that the same effect causes gravitational mass, by the shielding mechanism for space pressure discussed by Feynman in 1965. They also explain inertial force by the increased pressure against the fabric of space that you feel when accelerating. It was dismissed by Sheldon Glashow for making no predictions. However, Nobel laureate Dr Glashow may not have actually read the paper.

LeSage's gravity mechanism of 1748 (LeSage was an electrical engineer who made the world's first transmission line for telegraph message signalling) was similarly dismissed. In fact, LeSage used the mechanism to predict that atoms were mainly void, which was heresy in Newton's time but was verified by Rutherford's nuclear physics in 1912. So it did make a prediction which was subsequently confirmed, albeit a non-numerical one. (LeSage did not predict the size of the nucleus or anything that detailed.)

http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/EW.htm :

LeSage also, between 1747-82, explained gravity as a shadowing effect of space pressure (see diagram above). The speculative, non-quantitative mechanism was published in French (George Louis LeSage, Lucrece Newtonien, Nouveaux Memoires De L’Academie Royal de Sciences et Belle Letters, 1782, pp. 404-31). But there was no general relativity or electromagnetism to prove the physical nature of space, which LeSage assumed to be particles like a gas but is actually a continuum or perfect fluid with 377 ohms fixed impedance to all forms of energy (matter is electrical in nature).

Comment on one internet page: ‘It seems that LeSage in 1747, on the basis of gravitational arguments alone and because gravity is no surface effect, deduced that the atomic structure was practically empty and wide open. Certainly an unorthodox idea in his day. Rutherford’s work in 1911 confirmed the accuracy of that early idea and it is now generally accepted.’
LeSage argued that there is some kind of pressure in space, and that masses shield one another from the space pressure, thus being pushed together by the unshielded space pressure on the opposite side.