Dr Woit has retained a comment of mine dealing with the gravity mechanism! See http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322
I'll have to re-do my internet pages.
Update: the basic ideas were published in Electronics World from October '96 to March '05. However the recent expansion of my internet pages has made them too long. I'll have to print everything out and write a brief summary. I just can't edit half a megabyte of technical text on a screen without going insane. The number of new results and proofs should be emphasised, and the fact arXiv.org and the editor of PRL ignorantly blacklisted me in 2002 should not!
posted by nige @ 10:50 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
Copies of some of my recent comments to:
http://christinedantas.blogspot.com
Nigel said...
To create gravitational force, energy is being exchanged via all possible pathways between masses. The graphs are abstract representations so don't need to link directly to causality.
It is like electric and magnetic field "lines" which in QFT merely indicate where gauge bosons go to produce forces; they are convenient for mathematically describing the electromagnetic field, but the lines are just a model.
(There may be too much abstraction in classical electromagnetism and it would be good to forget E and B fields for a while, and just produce a causal version of Maxwell's equations which describe forces as results of a net energy exchange. This would provide a proper link up between classical EM and QFT, helping to illuminate methods that would help LQG.)
10:49 AM
Nigel said...
Who, I've listened to Smolin's lectures. The sticky tape may be where the spatial topography graph labelling using Penrose's spin networks is used. It is clear that you integrate over all the graphs to get Feynman's path integral/sum over histories, and this relates to GR.
But there is a lot of obfuscation introduced by maths even at low levels of physics. Most QED calculations completely cover up the problems between SR and QED, that the virtual particles in the vacuum look different to observers in different motion, etc.
In Coulomb's law, the QED vector boson "photon" exchange force mechanism will be affected by motion, because photon exchanges along the direction of motion will be slowed down. Whether the FitzGerald-Lorentz contraction is physically due to this effect, or to a physical compression/squeeze from other force-carrying radiation of the vacuum, is unspeakable in plain English. The problem is dressed up in fancy maths, so people remain unaware that SR became obsolete with GR covariance in 1915.
On the spin foam vacuum of LQG, the vacuum is full of all kinds of real and imaginary particles with various spins, virtual fermions, vector bosons, speculative Higgs field and superpartners. Exactly how these are related to Smolin's connection of Feynman's path integrals to GR, is unanswered.
The same questions can be asked in electroweak theory and light.
First of all, take the simple question of how the vacuum allows photons to propagate any distance, but quickly attenuates W an Z bosons. Then you are back to the two equations for a transverse light wave photon, Faraday's law of electric induction and Maxwell's vacuum displacement current in Ampere's law. Maxwell (after discarding two mechanical vacuums as wrong), wrote that the displacement current in the vacuum was down to tiny spinning "elements" of the vacuum (Maxwell, Treatise, Art. 822; based partly on the effect of magnetism on polarised light).
I cannot see how loop quantum gravity can be properly understood unless the vacuum spin network is physically understood with some semiclassical model. People always try to avoid any realistic discussion of spin by claiming that because electron spin is half a unit, the electron would have to spin around twice to look like one revolution. This isn't strange because a Mobius strip with half a turn on the loop has the same property (because both sides are joined, a line drawn around it is twice the length of the circumference). Similarly the role of the Schroedinger/Dirac wave equations is not completely weird because sound waves are described by wave equations while being composed of particles. All you need is a lot of virtual particles in the vacuum interacting with the real particle, and it is jiggled around as if by brownian motion.
It's really sad that virtually nobody is interesting in pursuing this line of research, because everyone is brainwashed by string theory. I don't have the time or resources to do anything, and am not expert in QFT. But I can see why nobody in the mainstream is looking in the right direction, it's simply because fact is stranger than fiction. They're all more at home in the 11th dimension than anywhere else...
9:49 PM
Nigel said...
Who: since LQG makes a real effort to connect a vacuum QFT to GR, and gets results, it's important. By all means let's discuss it.
(By the way, are you the same Dr Who of the discussion at http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=273#comment-5322 back in October? If so thank you because it the comment hasn't been deleted, and mentions that the "spacetime" concept implies that the big bang recession evidence is a velocity variation with time, or an acceleration, which allows big bang force to be calculated from F=ma, and you then get the magnitude of the inward vector boson force that causes gravity from Newton's 3rd law. This is non-speculative, unless you disagree with the concept of spacetime, or F=ma ...)
Recent comments by anon to Woit's blog:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=349
anon Says:
February 14th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
“someone else who took the trouble to submit it to a journal.”
That person may have cribbed it from an outsider who was suppressed by the journal
anon Says:
February 14th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
‘As for domain names, with costs of ten bucks per year, everyone who publishes should be able to afford one.’
Then it gets deleted when the person dies. Some ideas have to stick around longer than 75 years for anybody to pay attention. Aristarchus’ solar system of 250 BC was ignored until 1500 AD. What if the internet had been around in 250 BC and Aristarchus bought a domain name instead of writing on parchment?
anon Says:
February 15th, 2006 at 6:53 am
“I wrote a paper showing that CC was zero, and why. No one is interested in results. -drl”
Ah, the modern Aristarchus! Just wait 1750 years, Lunsford!
Woit deleted the following
anon Says:
February 14th, 2006 at 3:46 am
‘For the CC, many people don’t believe that the anthropic string theory landscape is really an explanation, at least not a scientific one.’
You don’t need CNS. You just need to think clearly of what QFT says, which is that forces are due to exchanges of some kind of bosons between mass. CC attempts to explain the extreme redshift without considering if the force causing bosons of gravity are affected by redshift at extreme distances, near the horizon.
Peer reviewed work on this approach will inevitably be dismissed as crackpot as long as there are people in charge of journals who are completely convinced that any ‘alternatives’ to ST are not worth reading or publishing.
New comment to a Lubos Motl blog:
Dear Dr Motl,
Yes, perhaps you are right. The global warming may be instead due to a wormhole opening up deep inside a climate scientist and causing the heating, if the other end of the wormhole is deep inside a hot star.
But as you say, applying ST to global warming looks like a hoax because it is such a down-to-earth use of ST. When you see an anomaly in a distant star which is so far away that the first pictures are blurred anyway, it is not a hoax but a real scientific conjecture, or "candidate" as you say.
When I say that spacetime proves the Hubble recession is a recession with time (hence an acceleration, dv/dt = c/age of universe = 6.10-10 ms-2) and not just a recession with distance, it is immediately dismissed because by F=ma and the 3rd law of motion it predicts an inward force which is shielded by matter to predict 10 ms-2 gravity, which is close to the 9.8 ms-2 measurement.
It is vital that new ideas are credible, which means they should not predict the acceleration of an apple. Far more credible if I had predicted a spin-2 gauge boson (graviton) which nobody can observe.
Best wishes,
Nigel
recent comment to http://precondition.blogspot.com/2006/02/glimpse-of-charge-of-quark-by-profyock.html
Nigel said...
Hi Geon,
"... we find that the electromagnetic coupling grows with energy. This can be explained heuristically by remembering that the effect of the polarization of the vacuum ... amounts to the creation of a plethora of electron-positron pairs around the location of the charge. These virtual pairs behave as dipoles that, as in a dielectric medium, tend to screen this charge, decreasing its value at long distances (i.e. lower energies)." - arxiv hep-th/0510040, p 71.
The electron core charge is around 137 times higher than its measured value at low energies (i.e., in Coulomb's law and Maxwell's equations).
The reduction factor of 1/137 comes from the polarised electric charge in the vacuum around the electron core.
The same applies to quarks, although they are close enough together in mesons and baryons that the major polarised veil shielding their charge is outside their group of two or three quarks.
Presumably the true electric charge of a quark core, if you could remove the shielding veil around a proton, would be 137x2/3 or 137x1/3?
Best wishes,
Nigel
Post a Comment
<< Home