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

## Thursday, December 08, 2005

Light has momentum and pressure. The pressure due to gauge boson force-carrying radiation towards us produces gravity by pushing us from all directions, except where reduced by the shielding of the fundamental particles in the planet earth below us. Hence, the overriding push is that coming downwards from the stars above us, which is greater than the shielded effect coming up through the earth. This is the mechanism of the acceleration due to gravity.

The big bang has an outward force (Newton’s 2nd law) that results in an equal inward force (Newton’s 3rd law) which causes gravity as an inward force, Higgs field or rather gauge boson pressure. This is standard heuristic quantum field theory (for the Feynman path integral approach), where forces are due not to empirical equations but to the exchange of radiation. Where partially shielded by mass, the inward pressure causes gravity. Apples are pushed downwards towards the earth, a shield.

There is strong evidence from electromagnetic theory that every fundamental particle has black-hole properties. The effective shielding radius of a black hole of mass M is equal to 2GM/c2. A shield, like the planet earth, is composed of very small, sub-atomic particles. The very small shielding area per particle means that there will be an insignificant chance of the fundamental particles within the earth ‘overlapping’ one another by being directly behind each other. The total shield area is therefore directly proportional to the total mass: the total shield area is equal to the area of shielding by 1 fundamental particle, multiplied by the total number of particles. (Newton showed that a spherically symmetrical arrangement of masses, say in the earth, by the inverse-square gravity law is similar to the gravity from the same mass located at the centre, because the mass within a shell depends on its area and the square of its radius.) The earth’s mass in the standard model is due to particles associated with up and down quarks: the Higgs field.

From the illustration above, the total outward force of the big bang,

(total outward force) = ma = (mass of universe).(Hubble
acceleration, a = dv/dt = Hc)

while the gravity force is the shielded inward reaction (by Newton’s 3rd law the outward force has an equal and opposite reaction):

F = (total outward force).(cross-sectional area of shield
projected to radius R) / (total spherical area with radius R).

The cross-sectional area of shield projected to radius R is equal to the area of the fundamental particle (p multiplied by the square of the radius of the black hole of similar mass), multiplied by the (R/r)2 which is the inverse-square law for the geometry of the implosion. The total spherical area with radius R is simply four times p, multiplied by the square of R. Inserting simple Hubble law results c = RH and R/c = 1/H give us

F = (4/3)p r G2M2/(Hr)2.

We then set this equal to F=Ma and solve, getting

G = (3/4)H2/(p r ).

G = (3/4)H2/(p r (local) e3),

which is accurate to within 1.65% (see http://feynman137.tripod.com/) and identical to that obtained in the older analysis (this proof is at: http://feynman137.tripod.com/).

The density correction factor explained: For mass continuity of any expanding gas or explosion debris, dr/dt = -Ñ.(rv) = -3rH. Inserting the Hubble expansion rate v = Hr and solving yields, r = rlocal e3 (early visible universe has higher density). The reason for multiplying the local measured density of the universe up by a factor of about 20 (the number e3 , the cube of the base of natural logarithms) is because it is the denser, more distant universe which contains most of the mass which is producing most of the inward pressure. Because we see further back in time with increasing distance, we see a more compressed age of the universe. Gravitational push comes to us at light speed, with the same velocity as the visible light that shows the stars. Therefore we have to take account of the higher density at earlier times. What counts is what we see, the spacetime in which distance is directly linked to time past, not the simplistic picture of a universe at constant density, because we can never see or experience gravity from such a thing due to the finite speed of light. The mass continuity equation dr/dt = -Ñ.(rv) is simple hydrodynamics based on Green’s theorem and allows the Hubble law (v = HR) to be inserted and solved. An earlier method of calculation for this the notes of CERN preprint EXT-2004-007, is to set up a formula for the density at any particular time past, so as to calculate red-shifted contributions to inward spacetime fabric pressure from a series of shells surrounding the observer. This is the same as the result r = rlocal e3 .

The acceleration is

a = (variation in velocity)/(variation in time) = c / (1/H) = cH
= 6 x 10-10 ms-2.

outward force (F = ma) is very large. The 3rd law of motion implies equal inward force like an implosion, which in LeSage gravity gives the right value for G, disproving the ‘critical density’ formula of general relativity by ½ e3 = 10 times. This disproves most speculative ‘dark matter’. Since gravity is the inward push caused by the graviton/Higgs field flowing around the moving fundamental particles to fill in the void left in their wake, there will only be a gravitational ‘pull’ (push) where there is a surrounding expansion. Where there is no surrounding expansion there is no gravitational retardation to slow matter down. This is in agreement with observations that there is no slowing down (a fictitious acceleration is usually postulated to explain the lack of slowing down of supernovae).

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.

‘… 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.

According to the physical fabric of space analogy already described, geometrical volume is equivalent to the sum of the its volume of fluid space plus its volume of matter. Therefore, if we accept that the stars are receding as modern astronomy shows, we must accept that the fabric of the vacuum moves in the opposite direction (towards us), maintaining the continuity of volume. If one walks down a corridor, a volume of matter V moving in one direction will be continuously balanced by a volume of air, also V, moving in the opposite direction; this is why walking does not create a vacuum!

Air is flowing around you like a wave as you as you walk down a corridor (an equal volume goes in the other direction at the same speed, filling in the volume you are vacating as you move). Similarly, as fundamental particles move in space, a similar amount of mass-energy in the fabric of space (Higgs / graviton field) is displaced as a wave around the particles in the opposite direction, filling in the void volume being continuously vacated behind them. For the mass of the big bang, the mass-energy of Higgs/graviton field particles in the moving fabric of space is similar to the mass of the universe. As the big bang mass goes outward, the fabric of space goes inward around each fundamental particle, filling in the vacated volume. (This inward moving fabric of space exerts pressure, causing the force of gravity.)

‘Popular accounts, and even astronomers, talk about expanding space. But how is it possible for space … to expand? … "Good question," says [Steven] Weinberg. "The answer is: space does not expand. Cosmologists sometimes talk about expanding space – but they should know better." [Martin] Rees agrees wholeheartedly. "Expanding space is a very unhelpful concept".’ – New Scientist, 17 April 1993, pp. 32-3.

Feynman discussed this vaguely in ‘Character of Physical Law’ 1965 BBC lectures, with a diagram showing that if there is a pressure in space masses will be pushed together by mutual shielding. He elsewhere noted that the contraction effect in general relativity compresses the earth’s radius by 1.5 mm. (By the same pressure effect for inertial mass in motion, you get the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction in the direction of motion, explaining the Michelson-Morley result.) If there were any other reason for gravity with similar accuracy, the strength of gravity would then be twice what we measure, so this is a firm confirmation.

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thusfailed 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: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

Militant Erik Max Francis responds to these facts saying they are all totally crackpot, see http://www.crank.net/, while refusing to acknowledge that his sort of egotistic raving about these facts leads to life saving technology being laughed at while people die: http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm.

Compare the fascism (defined blow by Forsyth) with the simple ignorance endorsed on the page http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=128 (which mentions Ivor Catt!).

Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express (7 Oct 05, p11): ‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media ... the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by. ... But I do not believe the innate decency of the British people has gone. Asleep, sedated, conned, duped, gulled, deceived, but not abandoned.’

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: How many more air disasters?
Nigel Cook, Electronics World, January 2003, p12

Lack of physical understanding kills people; see Ivor Catt in Electronics World September 2003 issue, ‘EMC - A Fatally Flawed Discipline’ pages 44-52:

‘during the Falklands War, the British warship HMS Sheffield had to switch off its radar looking for incoming missiles ... This is why it did not see incoming Exocet missiles, and you know the rest. How was it that after decades of pouring money into the EMC community, this could happen ... that community has gone into limbo, sucking in money but evading the real problems, like watching for missiles while you talk to HQ.’

More deaths linked to the suppression of Catt’s work: Electronics World, January 2003, pp12-14:

‘In July last year, problems with the existing system were highlighted by the tragic death of 71 people, including 50 school children, due to the confusion when Swiss air traffic control noticed too late that a Russian passenger jet and a Boeing 757 were on a collision path. The processing of extensive radar and other aircraft input information for European air space is a very big challenge, requiring a reliable system to warn air traffic controllers of impending disaster. So why has Ivor Catt’s computer solution for Air Traffic Control been ignored by the authorities for 13 years?’ – http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm and http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ewk.htm

In Electronics World, March 1989, a contributor explained the longterm future of digital electronics. This is a system in which computers are networked adjacently, like places in the real world, but unlike the internet. An adjacent processor network is the ingenious solution proposed for the problem of Air Traffic Control: a grid network of computer processors, each automatically backed-up, and each only responsible for the air space of a fixed area. Figure 1 shows the new processing system, the Kernel computer, as proposed for safe, automated air traffic control. ... http://www.ivorcatt.com/3ew.htm

‘The creative period passed away … The past became sacred, and all that it had produced, good and bad, was reverenced alike. This kind of idolatry invariably springs up in that interval of languor and reaction which succeeds an epoch of production. In the mind-history of every land there is a time when slavish imitation is inculcated as a duty, and novelty regarded as a crime… The result will easily be guessed. Egypt stood still… Conventionality was admired, then enforced. The development of the mind was arrested; it was forbidden to do any new thing.’ – W.W. Reade, The Martyrdom of Man, 1872, c1, War.

## Monday, December 05, 2005

UPDATE

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/12/electric-dipole-moments.html
Inspired some comments from me.

Same here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/12/is-electricity-fire.html

Just added some background notes here: http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/. The on-line editing tool has deleted paragraph indentations, but as I'm not bothered whether anybody reads background information about me personally, I couldn't care less. If you just want the science: http://feynman137.tripod.com/

List of crazy professors who should be censored from the media
TO ALLOW SOME SPACE FOR GENUINE TESTED INNOVATIONS!

‘Oh, my dear Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together! Here at Padua is the principal professor of philosophy [Professor Cremonini] whom I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And to hear the professor of philosophy at Pisa [Professor Giulio Libri] labouring before the Grand Duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm the new planets out of the sky.’ Letter from Galileo to Kepler, 1610 (Sir Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, London, 1913, Chapter 4).

1. Double Dutch:
http://www.ar-tiste.com/qcomp_onion/jan2002/DDutchAccuses.htm

2. 'String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity'. - Edward Witten, Physics Today, April 1996, more at http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41454

3. Single Dutch: http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/charlatans-who-use-gravitons.html
http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-first-principle-was-it-was.html
http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/11/foundations-of-mathematics.html
http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/12/bumblebee-wing-rotations-and-dancing.html

4. Royal Society: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/royal-society-ban-science-on-web.html

5. 'Dark energy' nutters: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/11/supernovae-lambda-is-constant.html

6. Pope Edward the Great Genius Witten: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/12/witten-and-langlands.html

There is also an interesting Motl piece on quantum entanglement:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/12/einstein-and-entanglement.html

Measuring the spin of photons doesn't necessarily change then like measuring the spin of molecules that Einstein suggested. It is clearer to think of 1 m wide (transverse wavelength) radio waves, than photons. One electromagnetic pulse to the aerial gives you 'one photon'. You can measure the polarisation by means of a field strength meter connected to a straight aerial. You don't need an aerial as long as the wavelength of the radio aerial, because you can vary the resonate frequency of the receiver aerial by adding a loading coil. If you do that, you are detecting radio waves by affecting only a small part of the transverse wavelength! If you measure the spin of a photon (going at light speed), for any change to be caused by the act of measurement, you have to assume that an effect can pass throughout the photon's transverse extent instantaneously, otherwise the 'remainder' of the photon will have passed by before the rest of it can be affected.The assumption used in the theory behind the Bell test is crackpot. Therefore the result is crackpot.

On Multiple Universes Crackpotism

If I understand the crackpots at all, everytime I measure something, the wavefunction collapses, selecting the universe we are in. If it is a coin toss situation, then there are two parallel universes, one in which it lands heads and the other has the coin landing tails. If the situation has an infinite number of possibilities, for example a photon which may be emitted in any number of directions at random, then collapsing the wavefunction selects one out of not just two but an infinite number of parallel universes. Now you repeatedly measure things where they could go any direction, you create an infinite number of universes each time (each universe containing the photon going in a different direction). So when you look at it objectively, for N decisions involving wavefunction collapses that create an infinite number of universes of which ours is one, you have (infinity).N parallel universes, which exceeds infinity! I'd be prepared to stake my life on the fact that the photon spins correlate because Heisenberg's indeterminancy principle doesn't apply to measuring photon polarisations: you can't apply indeterminancy to light, only to electrons. This is because when you measure light, the measurement can't change it as its going at light speed.For the measurement process to affect a light photon, changing its polarisation or whatever, you have to assume that the effect goes faster than light so that the whole photon is influenced. This assumption is metaphysics. Indeterminacy doesn't apply to photons. If you stick to mechanisms, there is no reason why it should. (Of course, now I have to be written off by Lumos as a crackpot with a 'personal pet theory' instead of taken seriously.) The way officialdom interprets experimental results, I'm sure string theory will be experimentally validated soon. Peter Woit admitted a few days ago on this blog that he validated some of Edward Witten QCD theory work, so I'm waiting for Woit to come up with a validation of Witten's string theory. Woit could do it very easily, by observing an apple drop. Witten in April 1996 (Physics Today) wrote that string theory 'has the remarkable property of predicting gravity'. Notice: no prediction of numbers, so it can't be falsified. Therefore, it is accepted!

Gluon crackpotism and string theory

I've taken to calling people who deny general relativity 'flat earthers', since gravity causes the shape of the earth, and special/restricted relativity ignores the curvature due to gravity and (by the equivalence principle) other accelerations. To account for the real world you need absolute motions, such as rotation with respect to the rest of the matter in the universe, not with respect to an observer. People who deny this can get themselves into a spin dryer machine, and will find that even though they are not in relative motion to the clothes or to the inside of the dryer, all still experience accelerative force. Restricted relativity does't apply!

http://cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/07/how-many-dimensions-are-there/:

The issue of whether there are 10 or 11 dimensions in ST reminds you of the issue whether there are 8 or 9 gluons in QCD. James Bottomley and John Baez discuss this herehttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/gluons.html

Nine types of gluon:

green-antigreen, green-antired, green-antiblue,
red-antired, red-antiblue, red-antigreen,
blue-antiblue, blue-antired, blue-antigreen.

Why then are there only eight gluons? To make the physics work, you have to subtract one, but you don’t say which particular one you subtract. They concluded:

“If you are wondering what the hell I am doing subtracting particles from each other, well, that’s quantum mechanics. This may have made things seem more, rather than less, mysterious, but in the long run I’m afraid this is what one needs to think about.”

More crackpotism debunked

http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/12/xtra-dimensions.html
http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2005/12/color-glass-condensate.html
http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2004/11/fools-gold.html

Comment on the last of these links:

Boltzmann's contribution was vital, but had a tragic outcome. Towards the end of the nineteenth century several puzzling facts (which eventually led to quantum theory), triggered a reaction against 'materialist' science, and some people even questioned whether atoms exist. Boltzmann, whose work was based on the concept of atoms, found himself cast as their chief defender and the debates became increasingly bitter. Always prone to bouts of depression, Boltzmann came to believe that his life's work had been rejected by the scientific community, although this was far from being true. In 1906, he committed suicide. If despair over rejection, or frustration over being unable to prove his point, were contributing factors the irony would be great indeed. Soon after Boltzmann's death, clinching evidence was found for atoms, and few would ever doubt their existence again.

It is nice that the scientific community is never wrong, and that so many people are never all wrong! It is nice that they don't call people egotists or ignore work (because of their religious belief in Mach's or Bohr's philosophy). Notice also that revisionist history avoids the statement that Jesus was crucified by the mass and only had 12 real followers, one of whom was a doubter and another of whom betrayed Jesus. Instead, revisionist history says Jesus was crucified deliberately to accord to supernatural scripture, and that Jesus was really a very popular figure! See http://archivefreedom.org/. The problem is, any revolutionary theory is going to be unpopular by its revolutionary nature. What you have to do, however, is to fight against lack of clarity but continuing to develop the simplicity, so that people understand it. The major weapon in favour of status quo is that it is (claimed to be) clear and concise (which is a lie, when you ask there are really 10 or 11 dimensions in M-theory, or 8 or 9 gluons in QCD).