Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

## Thursday, April 06, 2006

Observer's frame of reference in spacetime

Quantum field theory is the most precisely tested physical theory in history, and forms the Standard Model of particle physics. The quantum electrodynamics part has been tested to many decimals - not for masses or force strengths, but for correction factors to small magnetic coupling errors such as a 0.116 % increase in the real magnetic moment over the simple Dirac prediction for that value, and half lives for particles.

According to this theory, forces result from the exchange of radiation which is not otherwise detectable. You can't detect the vector boson radiation that causes force in any way other than by forces (because of inertia, which is a resistance of mass to accelerations).

A radio, for example, will not detect vector bosons from charges, unless of course the charges are accelerating with a frequency that the radio is tuned to detect. The radiation power in watts from a non-relativistic accelerated charge is simply P = (e^2)(a^2)/[6(Pi).(Permittivity)c^3] where e is electric charge, a is acceleration, and c is velocity of light. The radiation occurs perpendicular to the direction of the acceleration.

If the electrons have a velocity approaching that of light (in a straight line), the equation becomes more complex. For a logic step, the electrons at the front can undergo a large acceelration, so because in this situation each conductor (wire) is carrying an inverted image of the field and current in the other, they each radiate and exchange energy at the logic front. Furthermore, the exchange is perfect. There is no loss to the surroundings, because the radiated signals from each conductor cancel each other out perfectly beyond the transmission line. Hence the entire energy radiated due to the step in each conductor is radiated to the other conductor, so each causes the signal to propagate in the other. See the diagram and discussion here.

Technically, this is very sweet. Ivor Catt is supposed to be interested in this, but despite my having written several articles about his work, including his award winning computer development, he doesn't reply in a civilised way to these developments.

This is because he is fixed in a false simplified paradigm of Heaviside from 1893 and Catt has developed a whole philosophy of suppression since 1976 to defend it. He is stuck in his paradigm and cannot advance. Likewise, the string theorists are stuck in an unattractive conjectural framework which I've proved to be wrong by proving that the correct gravity is simply unified with electromagnetism by the vector boson exchange dynamics of electromagnetism:

Quantum field theory accounts for electrostatic (Coulomb) forces vaguely with a radiation-exchange mechanism. In the LeSage mechanism, the radiation causing Coulomb's law causes allforces by pushing. I worked out the mechanism by which electric forces operate in the April 2003 EW article; attraction occurs by mutual shielding as with gravity, but is stronger due to the sum of the charges in theuniverse. If you have a series of parallel capacitor plates with differentcharges, each separated by a vacuum dielectric, you need the total (net) voltage needs to take into account the orientation of the plates.

The vector sum is the same as a statistical random walk (drunkard's walk): the total is equal to the average voltage between a pair of plates, multiplied by the square root of the total number (this allows for theangular geometry dispersion, not distance, because the universe is spherically symmetrical around us - thank God for keeping the calculation very simple! - and there is as much dispersion outward in the random walk asthere is inward, so the effects of inverse square law dispersions and concentrations with distance both exactly cancel out).

Gravity is the force that comes from a straight-line sum, which is the only other option than the random walk. In a straight line, the sum of charges is zero along any vector across the universe, if that line contains an average equal number of positive and negative charges. However, it is equally likely that the straight radial line drawn at random across the universe contains an odd number of charges, in which case the average chargeis 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and1 positive charge). Therefore the straight line sum has two options only, each with 50% probability: even number of charges and hence zero net result,and odd number of charges which gives 2 unit charges as the net sum. The mean for the two options is simply (0 + 2) /2 = 1 unit. Hence electromagnetism is the square root of the number of charges in the universe, times the weak option force (gravity).

Thus, electromagnetism and gravity are different ways that charges add up. Electric attraction is as stated, simply a mutual blocking of EM "vector boson" radiation by charges, like LeSage gravity. Electric repulsion is an exchange of radiation. The charges recoil apart because the underlying physics in an expanding universe (with "red-shifted" or at least reduced energy radiation pressing in from the outside, due to receding matter in the surrounding universe) means their exchange of radiation results in recoil away from one another (imagine two people firing guns at each other, for asimple analogy; they would recoil apart). Magnetic force is apparently, as Maxwell suggested, due to the spins of the vacuum particles, which line up.

More here.

At 2:57 AM,  Anonymous said...

A comment to Plato's blog:

http://eskesthai.blogspot.com/2006/04/describing-intuitive-process.html

Aristotle argued for the "intuitive grasp of self evident principles", did he?

And you think I'd be best calling myself Aristotle?

I do like Aristotle's arrow. Aristotle wrote about it in his Physics, 350 BC.

The spacetime fabric of GR or the Dirac sea is affected when matter moves through it.

By analogy, the motion of negative charge (real electrons) one way in a wire is equivalent to the motion of "holes" (pseudo positive charges) in the opposite direction.

Take a submarine of x cubic metres volume moving at velocity v.

This causes a volume of water of exactly x cubic metres (the same volume as the sub) to move the opposite direction, and this mass of water has an average velocity of -v (the same speed but the oppposite direction to the sub).

So the water is filling in the void in the wake of the submarine. This comes from pure logic. If the water, which is virtually incompressible, did not move out of the way and flow around into the wake of the sub, then the sub would be unable to move.

So the surrounding fluid creates a kind of inertia. When the flow is established, it creates momentum.

Take this concept to the expanding universe. The matter of the universe appears to recede radially away from us in at velocity v = Hx, H is Hubble's constant and x is distance of stars, galaxies, etc.

Because of Minkowski's spacetime in our frame of reference as observers, we can change x to time past by the substitution x = ct.

Then we get v = Hx = Hct.

Now we see that v varies as a function of t. This means acceleration in spacetime. A somewhat unfamiliar conjecture in cosmology, but the evidence for spacetime is empirical!

But did you look at the magnitude? Because the gradient of v with respect to t is linear, a = dv/dt = v/t = Hct/t = Hc.

This is about 6 x 10 ^ - 10 m/s^2.

Newton's 2nd law: F = ma.

We know the acceleration of the spacetime universe, a. Now what is the mass of the spacetime universe, m? Simple, it is the average density, multiplied by the volume of a sphere with radius x = ct where t is age of universe.

So we have mass and acceleration, and we find F(outward) = ma ~ 7 x 10^43 Newtons.

Newton's 3rd law then says that there must be an equal and opposite reaction to any force.

From the known particles of the Standard Model and their known abundances, we can see that the only known particles which can have such an immense inward ("implosion") force are vector bosons which cause forces!

Doing two different calculations with completely different logical arguments, we find independently the same conclusion: the strength of gravity predicted correctly within 2% using current data, and the solution to several other problems.

But nobody wants to know?

No I'm not an Aristotle! Aristotle was widely read and admired, so he got most things wrong.

I'm not going to speculate. Of course, the empirical facts of geometry, spacetime, mathematical proof, etc., which I'm using are dismissed as "speculation" by you and others.

But if you stated the facts, you'd be dismissed as a "science hater who is ignorant of string theory" by someone at Harvard.

Far better that you falsely call me Aristotle or Hitler, or a crackpot, without first reading my work or checking that what you say is right.

That way, you actually protect your reputation with Gerard 't Hooft "the determinist". Be intolerant and dismiss Aristotle as crazy.

;-)

At 3:30 AM,  Anonymous said...

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/04/14/defending-science-2/#comment-17603

Science on Apr 15th, 2006 at 5:24 am
Lubos is absolutely right on this one. Science is not an opinion but a collection of facts, evidence and theory. Hitler’s Nazis defended one particular ’science’ of genetics from criticism. I feel this is tragic, so was the defence of the ’science’ of Ptolemy. Modern historians dress up the story as religion versus science, but you can substitute ‘authoritive established scientific speculation’ for ‘religion’. Lubos wrote:

‘It’s kind of entertaining - although admittedly the humor is black - that DailyKos, the most politicized web blog in the world whose atmosphere is dictated by hundreds of radical far left-wing lunatics, wants to pretend that they fight against politicization of science.’

If people want to disbelieve global warming or string theory, then they are hardly being heretics. Science is about constantly holding doubt and being prepared to re-examine foundations. Those who defend evolution like an orthodox religion are simpletons because evolution is not, or should not become, a religion.

You don’t need to religiously defend a fact, just to state the evidence. If the other side refuses to see the logic of 1 + 1 = 2, that’s life in a free world. I’d prefer to live in a free world where you get heretics, than one in which facts are turned into a religious ideology and ‘defended’ against inspection. Although evolution has plenty of evidence, other areas of science have less evidence, as Lubos often points out. Religious style orthodoxy is a danger in other sciences.

At 8:46 AM,  Anonymous said...

After my comment (copied above), Alex came up with a reply mentioning Edward Teller at http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/04/14/defending-science-2/#comment-17610

I've commented there in reply sticking to the main issue, but did not want to get sidetracked on Teller. So I'll put my comments on Teller below:

Scientifically Teller was a second rate scientist, but his political drive got things done. Teller co-authored a book on physics in the late 1940s which was full of errors and confusion, claiming for instance that you can get get the Bohr radius from the uncertainty principle (which is a fiddle). He also missed the idea that x-rays travel faster than material shock waves in the H-bomb from 1946-51. Other errors he made were that a single suitcase sized x-ray laser could shoot down the the entire Soviet missile force (the laser would really need to be 1 km long), and the claim that a variable gravity constant would cause the sun's radiating power to vary (which is false because if forces are related and one force strength varies, Coulomb's law would also vary, which would keep the fusion rate in the sun constant).

Teller was best however for politically getting Oppenheimer a taste of his own medicine, by helping to have his (Oppenheimer's) security clearance withdrawn in 1954.

Reference:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=189#comment-3222

Tony Smith Says:

May 1st, 2005 at 1:09 am

Peter, you say that you have “… never heard of any case in math or physics where this … political beliefs … was in any way an issue in a tenure decision. …”.

What about David Bohm’s expulsion from Princeton?

According to the Bohm biography Infinite Potential, by F. David Peat (Addison-Wesley 1997) at pages 101, 104, and 133:

“... when his [Bohm’s] ... Princeton University ... teaching ... contract came up for renewal, in June [1951], it was terminated. ... Renewal of his contract should have been a foregone conclusion ... Clearly the university’s decison was made on political and not on academic grounds ... Einstein was ... interested in having Bohm work as his assistant at the Institute for Advanced Study ... Oppenheimer, however, overruled Einstein on the grounds that Bohm’s appointment would embarrass him [Oppenheimer] as director of the institute. ... Max Dresden ... read Bohm’s papers. He had assumed that there was an error in its agruments, but errors proved difficult to detect. ... Dresden visited Oppenheimer ... Oppenheimer replied ... “We consider it juvenile deviationism ...” ... no one had actually read the paper ... “We don’t waste our time.” ... Oppenheimer proposed that Dresden present Bohm’s work in a seminar to the Princeton Institute, which Dresden did. ... Reactions ... were based less on scientific grounds than on accusations that Bohm was a fellow traveler, a Trotskyite, and a traitor. ... the overall reaction was that the scientific community should “pay no attention to Bohm’s work.” ... Oppenheimer went so far as to suggest that “if we cannot disprove Bohm, then we must agree to ignore him.” ...”.

Tony Smith
http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/

At 4:54 AM,  Anonymous said...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/04/carlo-rovelli-and-graviton-propagator.html

Thank you for this post, it really does make me laugh.

Start by writing down a metric and building a mathematical model without understanding the mechanism...

Yes complete background independence is a fallacy. General relativity describes local changes in spacetime geometry, accelerations and contractions of spacetime.

The universe as a whole goes on expanding and aging at the same rate, so the contraction of distance/dilation of time is local.

Your muon suffers local contraction and local time dilation. In other words, the spacetime describing the matter distorts. This is entirely compatible with a physical mechanism.

The pressure of vacuum radiation causes the contraction when you're moving, and by Fatio's mechanism (which Newton laughed at and LeSage plagarised), it also causes gravity.

Thus the inward arrows towards masses which depict the gravity field also depict a real pressure of vacuum radiation, which contracts matter and - where shielded by other matter - causes attraction of masses.

Ultimately, if you go on being rude about Rovelli's efforts, he may switch on to the English saying "in for a penny, in for a pound" (ie, if the punishment is the same for all crimes, you are better off committing a big crime, since that will carry a more worthwhile reward). He may then develop some of these far more heretical - and straightforward - ideas.

The tensor maths of general relativity and the spinors of QFT are not the physical essence. Physics is not a parlour game for mathematicians.
Paranoid and stupid | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 7:29 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Motl on background independence:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/ 0...dependence.html

"Be sure that it is not easy to create a system where only transverse waves propagate but Maxwell and FitzGerald were able to do it and immitate Maxwell's equation. (No model of gravitational aether that would mimic Einstein's equations has been constructed as of 2005.)"

This is horseshit. Heaviside showed you can treat vector operators as normal algebra for many purposes. This applies also to the formal tensor shit.

The general relativity field equation in Newton's form and with the Einstein-Hilbert contraction:

Newton:

amount of curvature (hence acceleration) = matter

Einstein-Hilbert:

curvature - contraction term = matter (including energy and pressure effect)

The contraction term is physically necessary for mass-energy conservation and produces the discrepancies from Newton's scheme.

Feynman showed that the contraction of the earth is 1.5 millimetres radially. It also causes the fact that light is deflected twice as much as a low speed bullet would be (Newton's law), in passing the sun. You can soon work out that the doubling of deflection comes from conservation of energy in general relativity.

The photon coming at light speed gains gravitational potential energy as it approaches sun. For a bullet with velocity v
Paranoid and stupid | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 7:45 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v
Paranoid and stupid | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 7:46 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

v < < c, the average overall effect of the transit is that half the gravitational potential energy gained is used in angular deflection, and half in speeding up the bullet.

A photon of light can't speed up, so all the energy (instead of half of it) is used in angular deflection, so it falls twice as much as a bullet does.

The physical basis for general relativity and the Lorentz contraction is not gear wheels but vector boson radiation exchange, which is a real process Lubos.
Paranoid and stupid | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 7:47 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GR is as Penrose describes it:

(1) the tensor field formulation of Newton's law, R_uv = 4Pi(G/c^2)T_uv, and

(2) the contraction term which leads to all departures from Newton's law (apart from CC, cosmological constant, which is a "dark energy"/horseshit art form like stringy stuff).

Putting the contraction term into the Newtonian R_uv = 4Pi(G/c^2)T_uv gives the Einstein field equation without the CC: R_uv - ½Rg_uv = 8Pi(G/c^2)T_uv
Paranoid and stupid | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 7:55 am | #