Gravity is the force of Feynman diagram gauge bosons coming from distances/times in the past. The Standard Model, the quantum field theory of electromagnetic and nuclear interactions which has made numerous well-checked predictions, *forces arise by the exchange of gauge bosons. This is well known from the pictorial ‘Feynman diagrams’ of quantum field theory. *Gravitation, as illustrated by the mechanism above and proved below, is just this exchange process. Gauge bosons hit the mass and bounce back, like a reflection. This causes the contraction term of general relativity, a physical contraction of radius around a mass: (1/3)MG/c^{2} = 1.5 mm for Earth. *Newton’s gravity law *is (written in tensor calculus notation):

_{m}

_{ n}= 4p GT

_{m n}/c

^{2}. Einstein’s result is: R

_{m}

_{v}– ½g

_{m n}R = 8p GT

_{m n}/c

^{2}.

Notice that the special term introduced is the contraction term (in red). Mass (which by the well-checked equivalence principle of general relativity is identical for inertial and gravitational forces), arises not from the fundamental core particles of matter themselves, but by a miring effect of the spacetime fabric, the ‘Higgs bosons’. Forces are exchanges of gauge bosons: the pressure causes the cosmic expansion. The big bang observable in spacetime has speed from 0 to c with times past of 0 toward 15 billion years, giving outward force of F = ma = m(variation in speeds from 0 to c)/(variation in times from 0 to age of universe) ~ 7 x 10^{43} Newtons. Newton’s 3rd law gives equal inward force, carried by gauge bosons, which are shielded by matter. The gauge bosons interact with uniform mass Higgs field particles, which do the shielding and have mass. Single free fundamental rest mass particles (electrons, positrons) can only associate with other particles by electromagnetism, which is largely shielded by the veil of polarised vacuum charges surrounding the fundamental particle core. Quarks only exist in pairs or triplets, so the fundamental particles are close enough that the intervening polarised vacuum shield effect is very weak, so they have stronger interactions.

*Correcting the Hubble expansion parameter for spacetime: *

*H = v/R.*This is ambiguous for ignoring time! The distance R is increasing all the time, so is not time independent. To get a proper Hubble ‘constant’ therefore you need to replace distance with time

*t = R/c.*This gives recession constant as

*v/t*which equals

*v/t = v/(R/c) = vc/R = cH.*So the correct spacetime formulation of the cosmological recession is

*v/t = cH*= 6 x 10^- 10 ms

**2. Outward acceleration! This means that the mass of the universe has a net outward force of**

^{-}*F=ma*= 7 x 10

^{43}N. (Assuming that

*F=ma*is not bogus!) Newton’s 3rd law says there is an implosion inward of the same force, 7 x 10

^{43}N. (Assuming that Newton’s 3rd law is not bogus!) This predicts gravity as the shielding of this inward force of gauge boson radiation to within existing data! (Assuming that the inward force is carried by the gauge bosons which cause gravity.)

The net force is simply the proportion of the force from the projected cone (in the illustrations above), which is due to the asymmetry introduced by the effect of mass on the Higgs field(reflecting inward directed gauge bosons back). Outside the cone areas, the inward gauge boson force contributions are symmetrical from opposite directions around the observer, so those contributions all cancel out! This geometry predicts the strength of gravity very accurately!

*Causal approach to loop quantum gravity (spin foam vacuum):*volume contains matter and spacetime fabric, which behaves as the perfect fluid analogy to general relativity. As particles move in the spacetime fabric, it has to flow out of the way somewhere. It goes into the void behind the moving particle. Hence, the spacetime fabric filling a similar volume goes in the opposite direction to moving matter, filling in the void behind. Two analogies: (1) ‘holes’ in semoconductor electronics go the other way to electrons, and (2) a 70 litre person walking south along a corridor is matched by 70 litres of air moving north. At the end, the person is at the other end to the end he was in when he started, and 70 litres of air has moved up to fill in the space he vacated. Thus, simple logic and facts give us a quantitative and predictive calculating tool: an equal volume of the fluid goes in the opposite direction with the same motion, which allows the inward vacuum spacetime fabric pressure from the big bang to be calculated. This allows gravity to be estimated the same way, with the same result as the other method. Actually, boson radiations spend part of their existence as matter-antimatter pairs. So the two calculations do not duplicate each other. If the fraction due to radiation (boson) pressure is

*f,*that due to perfect fluid pressure is 1-

*f.*The total remains the same: (

*f)*+ (1 -

*f)*= 1.

About 10 years ago I wondered why the Hubble constant is defined as recession velocities divided into the star distances, when those distances are themselves increasing while the light comes to us!

Because of spacetime, you can divide the recession velocities into the time past instead, which is a true constant as it is a fixed rate of change of velocity in spacetime. It also has useful units, (m/s)/s = ms^-2, acceleration.

This implies outward force of big bang F=ma, and equal reaction due to the 3rd law. We are immediately talking the physics of a real explosion, in which there is outward pressure and thus outward force (outward force = outward pressure multiplied by area of a sphere of the radius of that pressure), and inward or 'implosion' force. Implosions are used in all nuclear weapons: TNT is placed around fissile material. When the TNT is detonated, the 3rd law of motion shows that half the force goes inward and half goes outward. That going inward compresses the core and makes it supercritical.

So this kind of physics is not really innovative: all the ingredients are well accepted. But calculating gravity by putting together known facts was dismissed as "nonsense". While at the same time, string theory approaches to gravity (based on speculative untestable assertions about 10/11 dimensions in invisibly small strings, etc.), were applauded by the media. What you want to do of course is to get the idea published so other people can develop it. I don't think you want to get a half-baked idea published for egotistic reasons. When you do get it published, say in somewhere inoffensive (unread by the mainstream!), you realise that nobody will take it up as they prefer mainstream ideas.

You don't really want to develop your own ideas, partly because it opens up a can of worms - having to get into areas of physics you don't want to be submerged in, and partly because you have no support or hope of getting anywhere.

For me the main motivation in trying to think about the big bang problems was after reading Catt's letter in the May 1995 issue of Electronics World. I had previously had an article printed there (Nov 94 issue).

Catt's long letter was quite good and well argued. My first reaction was that he (Catt) and others should not try to dismiss existing physics without putting forward a proper replacement.

In hindsight I made a massive error in studying Catt's articles (in the Victorian SRIS - Science Reference and Information Service - library in London, now long since closed down and integrated into the British Library at St Pancreas).

There were other papers in back copies of Wireless World, all ignored for the 10-20 years since publication. The problem with 'negative crackpotism' is that, if you look hard enough, you can find reasons to doubt anything. For example, several individual pieces of evidence for the big bang are not conclusive proof of the big bang because of different interpretations, but taken together it is convincing.

But when you build from one set of accepted facts to another, without speculating, that seems to be proper science. Of course proper science has been suppressed many times in the past, due to prejudice toward mainstream ideas which are really the pet speculations of a dictatorial elite (flat earth, epicycles, caloric, phlogiston, elastic solid aether, Maxwellian gear cog and idler wheel ether, Kelvin vortex atoms, etc.).

A year ago I came across Dr Peter Woit's weblog, called Not Even Wrong, which sets out to examine 'string theory' objectively. Catt's response to Woit is to dismiss it as a farce, a kind of straw man for the string theorists to use as evidence that their outlandish ideas are critically reviewed! I think differently. It doesn't matter whether string theory is right or wrong, but it does matter if it is

**Not Even Wrong**.

**He has put a lot of work into running that blog efficiently, endlessly deleting off-topic or unhelpful comments, or replying to queries with helpfully constructive, readable dialogue. It would just have been too frustrating and hopeless to continue spending a lot of time on 'altarnative ideas' without that to read. Before reading Woit's blog, I was only interested in the weak nuclear force as the mechanism of beta radioactivity. Now I'm interested in electroweak symmetry breaking via the Higgs mechanism, and the problems in quantum field theory, the Standard Model, and reading some interesting arXiv.org papers he draws attention to.**

Dr Lubos Motl attacked the Discovery magazine interview by saying 'It's not an alternative to anything.' Motl's diatribe then says 'crackpots' read Woit's blog, and Motl suggested that people's scholarly credentials should be checked on http://scholar.google.com/. I tried this for 'Nigel Cook' and found on page 5 of the results the 'alternative' to (actually, replacement of) string theory, with a link to an abstract here:

*An electronic universe. Part 2: The Electronic Big Bang. Cook, Nigel Electronics World. Vol. 109, no. 1804, pp. 47-52. Apr. 2003 This is another article in the series questioning established theories. It discusses the concept of the single velocity universe - ie that the speed of electrical energy entering and leaving a pair of wires is that of the speed of light; the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity; the four fundamental forces in the universe; and deriving the basic equations of electromagnetism. Descriptors: ANTE; Electronics; Electromagnetism; Quantum theory; Relativity*

What a shame for Motl! Similarly, Lunsford's replacement of the 5-d Kaluza-Klein theory, is listed on Google Scholar: with links to here and here. Lunsford’s CERN document server paper discusses errors in the historical attempts by Kaluza, Pauli, Klein, Einstein, Mayer, Eddington and Weyl. It proceeds to the correct unification of general relativity and Maxwell’s equations, finding 4-d spacetime inadequate. Lunsford shows that 6 dimensions in SO(3,3) is the simplest irreducible system unifying GR and electromagnetism: ‘One striking feature of these equations ... is the absent gravitational constant - in fact the ratio of scalars in front of the energy tensor plays that role. This explains the odd role of

*G*in general relativity and its scaling behavior. The ratio has conformal weight 1 and so

*G*has a natural dimensionfulness that prevents it from being a proper coupling constant - so this theory explains why ordinary general relativity, even in the linear approximation and the quantum theory built on it, cannot be regularized.’ Lunsford's unification also discredits the cosmological constant, in agreement with the mechanism suggested for gravity back in 1996.

Illustration credit: top illustration (showing virtual particles in the quantum foam vacuum) is from

*Connecting Quarks with the Cosmo: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century,*Committee on the Physics of the Universe, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS, Washington, D.C. 2003, www.nap.edu:

*'Quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle tell scientists that the vacuum can never be truly empty: the constant production and then annihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs make it a seething sea of particles and antiparticles living on borrowed time and energy . … [it has] measurable effects, causing shifts in the spectrum of atomic hydrogen and in the masses of elementary particles that have been measured (e.g., W/Z bosons).'*

## 4 Comments:

copy of a comment to Christine Dantas' blog:

http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/01/smolins-online-course-on-qg-available.html

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Smolin´s online course on QG available in video

Lee Smolin´s Introduction to Quantum Gravity is now available in video! [ http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca:81/mediasite/viewer/FrontEnd/Front.aspx?&shouldResize=False ] Just scroll down the left side menu and you´ll find two presentations already there. I am watching the first part right now (and it´s 2 am! You see, sometimes it´s the only way to find time, just substract your precious sleeping hours and you get it...).

posted by Christine at 2:10 AM

Christine,

The background independence as Smolin presents it is very mathematically sophisticated. Part 1 of Smolin, going through spatial topology and Hilbert graphs, valent modes, Penrose's spin networks and arriving at the way to use these to deal with gravity by Feynman's sum over histories, is very good.

Part 2, showing with background independent (no metric)electromagnetism as field theories in Einstein's GR notation, is again interesting.

Special relativity (SR) is incompatible with spin foam vacuum because SR denies the spacetime fabric (i.e. accelerations resulting from curvature / spacetime fabric).

If you put any forces (accelerations of matter) into SR, you get paradoxes like the twins paradox.

This was one reason Einstein build general relativity (GR) which is not SR + gravity, contrary to Lubos Motl's ignorance.

SR is false because the principle of constancy of light speed duplicates the contraction. Remember, physically FitzGerald in 1889 and Lorentz in 1893 used the contraction (of distance in direction of motion) to save the spacetime fabric + variance of light speed.

The Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 showed that you can't measure the speed of light difference due to the direction and speed of the Earth's motion.

FitzGerald said it was because the distance the light beam had to travel was physically shortened, due to the spacetime fabric pressure inducing physical compression of everything electrically held together (atoms) in the direction of motion in the ratio [1 - (v^2)/(c^)]^1/2

SR contains both the postulate of that light speed appears the same to all observers, plus the contraction and no spacetime, which is too much.

My feeling is that SR is completely bogus.

Einstein did not do SR + gravity = GR. He wrote in 1916 that SR is the restricted approximation which doesn't deal with accelerations, so SR doesn't apply to any spacetime fabric (curvature and acceleration).

Motl's claim that SR should result from a physical gravity model (spin foam vacuum) is a fraud.

GR is really Newtonian gravity + equivalence principle + consistent tensor analysis of Ricci and Levi-Civita.

Ignoring the indices, Newton's law in tensors is R = 4 Pi GT. To get to the field equation of GR you introduce the contraction which arises several ways for mathematica consistency or conservation of gravitational potential energy which Newton's equation doesn't deal with when expressed in tensor calculus:

GR: R– ½gr = 8 Pi GT

The contraction term, -½gr, is the special thing which introduces all the special things about GR that Newton does not.

‘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.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

‘Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University lecture on ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15-23.)

Of course, Motl argues on his blog that SR is entirely right because Dirac's equation is supposedly SR + QM. But Dirac was just using the mathematical results of SR, which by the equivalence principle, are the same in GR. I've demonstrated how the contraction of FitzGerald-Lorentz gives the gravitational contraction (of radius, time, etc) on my site (although my presentation is not very neat as I don't have much time).

Therefore Dirac's equation doesn't prove SR is the right formulation. Dirac himself didn't pay attention to SR's denial of acceleration/fabric:

‘… with the new theory of electrodynamics [vacuum filled with virtual particles] we are rather forced to have an aether.’ – Paul 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’?) See also Dirac’s paper in Proc. Roy. Soc. v.A209, 1951, p.291.

Contrary to Motl, EM does imply a spacetime fabric with physical properties:

‘It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability.’ - Professor H.A. Wilson, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.

QFT also implies a spacetime fabric:

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

This picture of QFT, which is experimentally justified by the reduction in the EM coupling constant from 137 to 128 or less when electrons and positrons were collided at very high energy (they penetrate the polarised vacuum particle "shield" and expose more of the core charge), is actually INCOMPATIBLE with SR:

Quantum field theory is moving towards an ether picture of the Feynman path integral, due to problems with renormalisation in the purely abstract mathematical model.

See arXiv: hep-th/0510040, page 85, the virtual particles in the vacuum contradict special relativity and imply a Dirac sea because:

'...it is not possible anymore to define a state which would be recognised as the vacuum by all observers'.

So SR is incompatible with QFT.

So the 'spin foam vacuum' of loop quantum gravity is a Dirac sea or spacetime fabric, which does not obey SR philosophy, but GR + Lorentz-FitzGerald spacetime fabric dynamics!

Sorry for the length and style of this post, I just feel Smolin is being too mathematical and nice about it, so Motl et al. can abuse his kindness.

Best wishes

nigel

From:Nigel Cook

To:callegari05@aol.com

Sent:Monday, January 23, 2006 12:04 PM

Subject:Re: 1.87Hz

Hi Ciao, Tony and Jaga,

Yes I saw your letter in Jan 06 EW, very interesting. I do not subscribe to NS at present, but I'll have a look when I next visit the library. I'm interested in the 1.87 Hz signals because it seems to me that "radio" is a distortion in the background field of electromagnetism. The model I go along with is Feynman's exchange process, where all charges are continuously exchanging energy ("gauge bosons"), which causes force. Radio seems to me to be a oscillating form of this energy.

An analogy is thermodynamics, with real photon (infrared, etc) exchange. At constant temperature, you can imagine that no photons are being exchanged. But when temperature is varying in time, you notice the change.

A radio won't detect the gauge bosons being exchanged normally, because their rate of arrival doen't vary in space or time, so they don't induce any current. The laws that tell you when you do get currents are time dependent (Faraday's law and Maxwell's "displacement current" equation, which is in some ways misleading).

So my picture is that every charge is exchanging energy with every other charge, normally at a steady enough rate that we can't detect it, apart from as a steady electric, magnetic or gravity force field. But where there are periodic variations, they are detectable by radio or other means.

According to the orthodox picture of plasma attenuation, the Earth's ionosphere should absorb all radio below about 80-100 MHz.

However, the maths behind that omits the Feynman exchange approach. If all charges are exchanging energy and this exchange is interrupted partially in some directions by planetary or moon motions, this could vary slightly the background field in a periodic way at any frequency, such as a few Hertz or less. This would not be attenuated by the ionosphere because the force causing gauge bosons of electromagnetism don't seem to have a frequency as such, they don't cause radio noise!

Therefore the gauge boson radiation, varying in time with a frequency of say 1.87 Hz, would not behave like radiowaves of 1.87 Hz in being attenuated.

I think what happens is that the frequency of the force field created by gauge boson exchange is simply the variation in the number of gauge bosons arriving per second, and has nothing to do with a frequency of an individual gauge boson. Therefore, at such extremely low frequencies, you could measure effects due to processes in outer space and deep inside the earth without the shielding that would occur if the frequency of the radiation were associated with individual photons.

My effort to get the gravity model into a form that will convince people is very difficult. I see a lot of independent evidence from different places, but it is difficult to select and assemble the evidence in a convincing way. One interesting thing is that Lee Smolin's Loop Quantum Gravity suggests that gravity is mediated by a spin foam vacuum, and this is the main rival to string theory.

As I see it, string theory is an empty frame work to describe an unobserved graviton theory using unobserved 10/11 dimensional spacetime and predicting unobserved SUSY (super symmetry) partners. There is no effort in string theory to describe or model anything observable, and the claim that it predicts gravity is empty, as it just predicts and unobserved gravity mediation scheme, without any dynamics.

Smolin's Loop Quantum Gravity is completely different. His recent two lectures at the Perimeter Institute on 18 Jan, "Introduction to Quantum Gravity", are available on line if you have a fast internet connection. His pesentation is very mathematical, following the style of some of the material in Penrose's book The Road to Reality.

He starts off with spatial topology, sets of all graphs possible with or without edges, embeddings in all possible graphs, valent nodes on graphs (by analogy to chemistry, I presume). He defines Hilbert spaces on an orthagonal basis, then Penrose's "spin networks". Finally he shows how Feynman's "sum over histories" approach to quantum mechanics arises in the vacuum: each interaction is a graph and you sum over all the graphs describing interactions in spacetime to arrive at the "sum over histories".

Smolin's second lecture dealt with "background independence" which is the problem with special relativity and the spin foam vacuum (an aether physically). He starts out by showing which of Maxwell's equations are background independent and finds that divergence equations, like Gauss's law, are background independent. I do not like his approach to Maxwell's equations. It demonstrates he is a mathematician, who prefers to prove results rigorously with sophisticated maths, instead of using simple, lucid intuitive or experimental facts to obtain the same results. My feeling is that SR must be dumped as a postulate-driven endeavour and replaced by a causal mechanism for the contraction, mass increase, time dilation and energy-mass equivalence using the physical effects of the spin foam vacuum.

Peter Woit has allowed my anonymous comments on this (below).

Best wishes,

Nigel

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=330#comment-7837

anonymous Says:

January 21st, 2006 at 1:19 pm

Lumos has a long list of publications about speculation on unobservables. So I guess he’s well qualified to make vacuous assertions. What I’d like to see debated is the fact that the spin foam vacuum is modelling physical processes KNOWN to exist, as even the string theorists authors of http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0601129 admit, p14:

‘… it is thus perhaps best to view spin foam models … as a novel way of defining a (regularised) path integral in quantum gravity. Even without a clear-cut link to the canonical spin network quantisation programme, it is conceivable that spin foam models can be constructed which possess a proper semi-classical limit in which the relation to classical gravitational physics becomes clear. For this reason, it has even been suggested that spin foam models may provide a possible ‘way out’ if the difficulties with the conventional Hamiltonian approach should really prove insurmountable.’

Strangely, the ‘critics’ are ignoring the consensus on where LQG is a useful approach, and just trying to ridicule it. In a recent post on his blog, for example, Motl states that special relativity should come from LQG. Surely Motl knows that GR deals better with the situation than SR, which is a restricted theory that is not even able to deal with the spacetime fabric (SR implicitly assumes NO spacetime fabric curvature, to avoid acceleration!).

When asked, Motl responds by saying Dirac’s equation in QFT is a unification of SR and QM. What Motl doesn’t grasp is that the ‘SR’ EQUATIONS are the same in GR as in SR, but the background is totally different:

‘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… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

anonymous Says:

January 23rd, 2006 at 6:10 am

QFT has a spacetime fabric, the Dirac sea, the foam of virtual particles in the vacuum. So does GR! This doesn’t contradict Dirac’s unification of the equations of ‘SR’ with QM, because the equations of SR are background independent: long before Einstein they were obtained by FitzGerald (1889) and Lorentz (1893) from some of Maxwell’s physical theory of electromagnetism.

General relativity is not the invention of a metric, but the effect of applying the tensor calculus of Ricci and Levi-Civita to Newtonian gravity (which must be put into GR by hand), correcting the resulting field equation for consistency, and applying the equivalence principle.

String theorists falsely and conveniently “believe” GR = SR + Newton. Thus, they claim that SR is a vital component of GR, instead of being a replacement of SR which implies a spacetime fabric (if there is no fabric for curvature, there is no GR). So they use the no-accelerations permitted, no gravity permitted, no-spacetime fabric, naked SR (better called “restricted relativity”) to try to discredit the spin foam vacuum which is a fabric approach.

----- Original Message -----

From:callegari05@aol.com

To:nigelbryancook@hotmail.com

Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:31 PM

Subject:1.87Hz

Hi Nigel,

Just a short note.How is the research going?Did you see my letter in EW Jan.06?,and outsiders NS 21Jan.page 44?

Ciao,Tony and Jaga

A comment of mine to Motl's blog:

"GR has a symmetry principle that extends that of SR, not reduce it, so all constraints of SR remain true in GR" -Motl

We know how E got GR. He expressed Newton's gravity as a field equation and found that you have to include a contraction. The Newtonian field equation is R = 4.Pi.GT, but in 1915 E found that to correct it you need to put a contraction in to the left hand side (curvature), and correct the right hand side (mass-energy) by doubling it: R - x = 8.Pi.GT.

The physical contraction of earth's radius is by 1/3 MG/c^2 = 1.5 mm.

The physical content of GR is the OPPOSITE of SR:

‘… 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.’ – Professor Bernard Schutz, General Relativity, Cambridge University Press, 1986, pp. 89-90.

Notice that in SR, there is no mechanism for mass, but the Standard Model says the mass has a physical mechanism: the surrounding Higgs field. When you move a fundamental particle in the Higgs field, and approach light speed, the Higgs field has less and less time to flow out of the way, so it mires the particle more, increasing its mass. You can't move a particle at light speed, because the Higgs field would have ZERO time to flow out of the way (since Higgs bosons are limited to light speed themselves), so inertial mass would be infinite. The increase in mass due to a surrounding fluid is known in hydrodynamics:

‘In this chapter it is proposed to study the very interesting dynamical problem furnished by the motion of one or more solids in a frictionless liquid. The development of this subject is due mainly to Thomson and Tait [Natural Philosophy, Art. 320] and to Kirchhoff [‘Ueber die Bewegung eines Rotationskörpers in einer Flüssigkeit’, Crelle, lxxi. 237 (1869); Mechanik, c. xix]. … it appeared that the whole effect of the fluid might be represented by an addition to the inertia of the solid. The same result will be found to hold in general, provided we use the term ‘inertia’ in a somewhat extended sense.’ – Sir Horace Lamb, Hydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 6th ed., 1932, p. 160. (Hence, the gauge boson radiation of the gravitational field causes inertia. This is also explored in the works of Drs Rueda and Haisch: see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031 http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209016 , http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/ns-ijv081005.php .)

So the Feynman problem with virtual particles in the spacetime fabric retarding motion does indeed cause the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction, just as they cause the radial gravitationally produced contraction of distances around any mass (equivalent to the effect of the pressure of space squeezing things and impeding accelerations). What Feynman thought may cause difficulties is really the mechanism of inertia!

In his essay on general relativity in the book ‘It Must Be Beautiful’, Penrose writes: ‘… when there is matter present in the vicinity of the deviating geodesics, the volume reduction is proportional to the total mass that is surrounded by the geodesics. This volume reduction is an average of the geodesic deviation in all directions … Thus, we need an appropriate entity that measures such curvature averages. Indeed, there is such an entity, referred to as the Ricci tensor …’ Feynman discussed this simply as a reduction in radial distance around a mass of (1/3)MG/c2 = 1.5 mm for Earth. It’s such a shame that the physical basics of general relativity are not taught, and the whole thing gets abstruse. The curved space or 4-d spacetime description is needed to avoid Pi varying due to gravitational contraction of radial distances but not circumferences.

The velocity needed to escape from the gravitational field of a mass (ignoring atmospheric drag), beginning at distance x from the centre of mass, by Newton’s law will be v = (2GM/x)1/2, so v2 = 2GM/x. The situation is symmetrical; ignoring atmospheric drag, the speed that a ball falls back and hits you is equal to the speed with which you threw it upwards (the conservation of energy). Therefore, the energy of mass in a gravitational field at radius x from the centre of mass is equivalent to the energy of an object falling there from an infinite distance, which by symmetry is equal to the energy of a mass travelling with escape velocity v.

By Einstein’s principle of equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, this gravitational acceleration field produces an identical effect to ordinary motion. Therefore, we can place the square of escape velocity (v2 = 2GM/x) into the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction, giving g = (1 – v2/c2)1/2 = [1 – 2GM/(xc2)]1/2.

However, there is an important difference between this gravitational transformation and the usual Fitzgerald-Lorentz transformation, since length is only contracted in one dimension with velocity, whereas length is contracted equally in 3 dimensions (in other words, radially outward in 3 dimensions, not sideways between radial lines!), with spherically symmetric gravity. Using the binomial expansion to the first two terms of each:

Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect: g = x/x0 = t/t0 = m0/m = (1 – v2/c2)1/2 = 1 – ½v2/c2 + ...

Gravitational contraction effect: g = x/x0 = t/t0 = m0/m = [1 – 2GM/(xc2)]1/2 = 1 – GM/(xc2) + ...,

where for spherical symmetry ( x = y = z = r), we have the contraction spread over three perpendicular dimensions not just one as is the case for the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction: x/x0 + y/y0 + z/z0 = 3r/r0. Hence the radial contraction of space around a mass is r/r0 = 1 – GM/(xc2) = 1 – GM/[(3rc2]

Therefore, clocks slow down not only when moving at high velocity, but also in gravitational fields, and distance contracts in all directions toward the centre of a static mass. The variation in mass with location within a gravitational field shown in the equation above is due to variations in gravitational potential energy. The contraction of space is by (1/3) GM/c2.

This is the 1.5-mm contraction of earth’s radius Feynman obtains, as if there is pressure in space. An equivalent pressure effect causes the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction of objects in the direction of their motion in space, similar to the wind pressure when moving in air, but without viscosity. Feynman was unable to proceed with the LeSage gravity and gave up on it in 1965. However, we have a solution…

‘Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University lecture on ‘Ether and Relativity’, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)

‘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.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington (who confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity in 1919), MA, MSc, FRS, Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, pp. 20, 152.

‘It has been supposed that empty space has no physical properties but only geometrical properties. No such empty space without physical properties has ever been observed, and the assumption that it can exist is without justification. It is convenient to ignore the physical properties of space when discussing its geometrical properties, but this ought not to have resulted in the belief in the possibility of the existence of empty space having only geometrical properties... It has specific inductive capacity and magnetic permeability.’ - Professor H.A. Wilson, FRS, Modern Physics, Blackie & Son Ltd, London, 4th ed., 1959, p. 361.

‘All charges are surrounded by clouds of virtual photons, which spend part of their existence dissociated into fermion-antifermion pairs. The virtual fermions with charges opposite to the bare charge will be, on average, closer to the bare charge than those virtual particles of like sign. Thus, at large distances, we observe a reduced bare charge due to this screening effect.’ – I. Levine, D. Koltick, et al., Physical Review Letters, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424.

If the electron moves at speed v as a whole in a direction orthogonal (perpendicular) to the plane of the spin, then the c speed of spin will be reduced according to Pythagoras: v2 + x2 = c2 where x is the new spin speed. For v = 0 this gives x = c. What is interesting is that this model gives rise to the Lorentz-FitzGerald transformation naturally, because: x = c(1 - v2 / c2 )1/2 . Since all time is defined by motion, this (1 - v2 / c2 )1/2 factor of reduction of fundamental particle spin speed is therefore the time-dilation factor for the electron when moving at speed v.

Motl's quibbles about the metric of SR is just ignorance. The contraction is a physical effect as shown above, with length contraction in direction of motion, mass increase and time dilation having physical causes. The equivalence principle and the contraction physics of spacetime "curvature" are the advances of GR. GR is a replacement of the false SR which gives wrong answers for all real (curved) motions since it can't deal with acceleration: the TWINS PARADOX.

Strangely, the ‘critics’ are ignoring the consensus on where LQG is a useful approach, and just trying to ridicule it. In a recent post on his blog, for example, Motl states that special relativity should come from LQG. Surely Motl knows that GR deals better with the situation than SR, which is a restricted theory that is not even able to deal with the spacetime fabric (SR implicitly assumes NO spacetime fabric curvature, to avoid acceleration!).

When asked, Motl responds by saying Dirac’s equation in QFT is a unification of SR and QM. What Motl doesn’t grasp is that the ‘SR’ EQUATIONS are the same in GR as in SR, but the background is totally different:

‘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… The general laws of nature are to be expressed by equations which hold good for all systems of co-ordinates, that is, are co-variant with respect to any substitutions whatever (generally co-variant). …’ – Albert Einstein, ‘The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity’, Annalen der Physik, v49, 1916.

24 Jan 2006

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/01/fall-of-discover-magazine.html

Nigel said...

Dear Lubos,

Quality, not quantity. I searched the suggested scholar.google.com for "Nigel Cook". I was very impressed with to find that page 5 of the results includes my scholarly glorification of string theory:

An electronic universe. Part 2: The Electronic Big Bang.

N Cook - Electronics World, 2003 - csa.com

An electronic universe. Part 2: The Electronic Big Bang. Nigel Cook Electronics

World 109:1804, 47-52, 4/2003. This is another ...

Web Search

I then clicked on the link, and was delivered to a site saying:

If you are affiliated with an academic institution or research organization, contact your local academic library to find out how you can gain access to our CSA Illumina research platform.

An electronic universe. Part 2: The Electronic Big Bang.

Cook, Nigel

Electronics World. Vol. 109, no. 1804, pp. 47-52. Apr. 2003

This is another article in the series questioning established theories. It discusses the concept of the single velocity universe - ie that the speed of electrical energy entering and leaving a pair of wires is that of the speed of light; the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity; the four fundamental forces in the universe; and deriving the basic equations of electromagnetism.

Descriptors: ANTE; Electronics; Electromagnetism; Quantum theory; Relativity

Of course, Lubos, you will now revise your opinions of Google.Scholar just to suit your pro-string theory opinions, just as you have revised your opinion of Discovery magazine after they published an article.

I notice that you say in your post, Lubos, that Peter Woit's interview or blog is wrong because it doesn't give "alternatives". Of course, ceosnrship attacks alternatives without reading them. This is why some of the hype surrounding string theory needs to be cleaned before alternatives can be properly debated and funded. Arm-waving sneers and hypocrisy from 'string theorists' about 'crackpots' is not useful.

Bests,

Nigel

5:36 AM

Post a Comment

<< Home