Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Sunday, May 28, 2006

High energy unification just implies unification of forces at small distances, because particles approach closer when collided at high energy. So really unification at extremely high energy is suggesting that even at low energy, forces unify at very small distances.

There’s empirical evidence that the strong force becomes weaker at higher energies (shorter distances) and the electroweak force becomes stronger (electric charge between electrons is 7% stronger when they’re collided at 90 GeV), there is likely some kind of unified force near the bare core of a quark.

As you move away from the core, the intervening polarised vacuum shields the bare core electric charge by a factor that seemingly increasing toward 137, and the strong force falls because it mediated by massive gluons which are short ranged.

If you consider energy conservation of the vector bosons (photons, Z, W+, W- and gluons), you would logically expect quantitative force unification where you are near the bare charge core: the QFT prediction (which doesn’t predict unification unless you have SUSY) seems to neglect this in producing a prediction that electric charge increases as a weak function (some logarithm) of nteraction energy.

The reason why energy conservation will produce unification is this: the increasing force of electroweak interactions with increased energy (or smaller distances from the particle core) implies more energy is in the gauge bosons delivering the momentum which produces the forces. This increased gauge boson energy is completely distinct from the kinetic energy (although a moving mass gains mass-energy by the Lorentz effect, it does not gain any charge by this route).

Where does the extra gauge boson energy that increases the effective charge come from when you get closer to a particle core? Answer: the fall in the strong force around a quark core as distance decreases implies a decrease in the amount of energy in short-ranged strong force gauge bosons (gluons). The fall in the energy available in gluons, by conservation of energy, is what is powering the increase in the energy of electroweak gauge bosons at short ranges.


At low energies, the experimentally determined strong nuclear force strength is alpha = 1 (which is about 137 times the Coulomb law), but it falls to alpha = 0.35 at a collision energy of 2 GeV, 0.2 at 7 GeV, and 0.1 at 200 GeV or so.

Levine's PRL data from 1997 show that Coulomb's law increases by 7% as collision energy rises to 90 GeV (PRL, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424).

Look at it physically: you are getting past the polarised shield of vacuum charges. Once you are really near the core so there are no intervening vacuum charges, the electric charge has no mechanism to carry on increasing further, so the QFT prediction is false. The QFT formulae are for continuous variables, and therefore don’t deal with the quantum (discrete) nature of vacuum charges properly at extremely high energy:

You can’t physically have a fraction of a polarised vacuum charge pair between you and the quark core! Hence the usual mathematical model which doesn't allow for the discreteness, i.e., the fact that you need at least one pair of vacuum charges between you and the quark core for there to be any shielding at all, is the error in the mainstream QFT treatment which, together with avoiding the conservation of energy for gauge bosons, creates the unification 'problem' which is then falsely 'fixed' by the speculative introduction of SUSY (supersymmetry, a new unobserved particle for every onserved particle).

More on the mechanisms here and here:

Dr M. E. Rose (Chief Physicist, Oak Ridge National Lab.), Relativistic Electron Theory, John Wiley & Sons, New York and London, 1961, pp 75-6:

'The solution to the difficulty of negative energy states [in relativistic quantum mechanics] is due to Dirac [P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A126, p360, 1930]. One defines the vacuum to consist of no occupied positive energy states and all negative energy states completely filled. This means that each negative energy state contains two electrons. An electron therefore is a particle in a positive energy state with all negative energy states occupied. No transitions to these states can occur because of the Pauli principle. The interpretation of a single unoccupied negative energy state is then a particle with positive energy ... The theory therefore predicts the existence of a particle, the positron, with the same mass and opposite charge as compared to an electron. It is well known that this particle was discovered in 1932 by Anderson [C. D. Anderson, Phys. Rev., 43, p491, 1933].

'Although the prediction of the positron is certainly a brilliant success of the Dirac theory, some rather formidable questions still arise. With a completely filled 'negative energy sea' the complete theory (hole theory) can no longer be a single-particle theory.

'The treatment of the problems of electrodynamics is seriously complicated by the requisite elaborate structure of the vacuum. The filled negative energy states need produce no observable electric field. However, if an external field is present the shift in the negative energy states produces a polarisation of the vacuum and, according to the theory, this polarisation is infinite.

'In a similar way, it can be shown that an electron acquires infinite inertia (self-energy) by the coupling with the electromagnetic field which permits emission and absorption of virtual quanta. More recent developments show that these infinities, while undesirable, are removable in the sense that they do not contribute to observed results [J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev., 74, p1439, 1948, and 75, p651, 1949; S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto), 1, p27, 1949].

'For example, it can be shown that starting with the parameters e and m for a bare Dirac particle, the effect of the 'crowded' vacuum is to change these to new constants e' and m', which must be identified with the observed charge and mass. ... If these contributions were cut off in any reasonable manner, m' - m and e' - e would be of order alpha ~ 1/137. No rigorous justification for such a cut-off has yet been proposed.

'All this means that the present theory of electrons and fields is not complete. ... The particles ... are treated as 'bare' particles. For problems involving electromagnetic field coupling this approximation will result in an error of order alpha. As an example ... the Dirac theory predicts a magnetic moment of mu = mu[zero] for the electron, whereas a more complete treatment [including Schwinger's coupling correction, i.e., the first Feynman diagram] of radiative effects gives mu = mu[zero].(1 + alpha/{twice Pi}), which agrees very well with the very accurate measured value of mu/mu[zero] = 1.001...'

VACUUM POLARISATION, AN EMPIRICALLY DEFENDABLE FACT

What is the mechanism for the empirically confirmed 7% increase in electric charge as energy increases to 90 GeV (PRL, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424)?

There is something soothing in the classical analogy to a sea of charge polarising around article cores and causing shielding.

While the electroweak forces increase with interaction energy (and thus increase closer to a particle core), data on the string force shows it falls from alpha =1 at low energy to ~0.15 at 90 GeV.

If you think about the conservation gauge boson energy, the true (core) charge is independent of the interaction energy (although the mass rises with velocity), so the only physical mechanism by which the electroweak forces can increase as you approach the core is by gaining energy from the gluon field which has a falling alpha closer to the core.

If true, then this logic dispenses with SUSY, because perfect unification due to energy conservation will be reached at extremely high energy when the polarised vacuum is penetrated.

RECAP

Strong force coupling constant decreases from 1 at low energy to 0.15 at about 90 GeV, and over this same range the electromagnetic force coupling increases from 1/137 to 1/128.5 or so.

This is empirical data. The 7 % rise in electric charge as interaction energy rises to 90 GeV (Levine et al., PRL, v.78, 1997, no.3, p.424) is the charge polarisation (core shield) being broken through as the particles approach very closely.

This experiment used electrons not quarks because of course you can’t make free quarks. But quarks have electric charge as well as colour charge so the general principle will apply that the electric charge of a quark will increase by about 7% as energy increases to 90 Gev, while the strong nuclear (colour) charge will fall by 85%.

So what is it that supplies the additional energy for the field mediators? It must be the decrease in the strength of the short-range strong force in the case of a quark.

Get close to a quark (inside the vacuum polarisation veil) and the electric charge increases toward the bare core value, while the colour charge diminishes (allowing asymptotic freedom over a the size of nucleon). The energy to drive the electromagnetic coupling increase must come from the gluon field, because there is simply nowhere else for it to come from. If so then when the polarised vacuum around the core is fully penetrated, the strong force will be in equilibrium with the electroweak force and there will be unification without SUSY.

Update: here is a relevant recent blog post from http://glasstone.blogspot.com/:


‘Dr Edward Teller remarked recently that the origin of the earth was somewhat like the explosion of the atomic bomb…’

– Dr Harold C. Urey, The Planets: Their Origin and Development, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1952, p. ix.

‘It seems that similarities do exist between the processes of formation of single particles from nuclear explosions and formation of the solar system from the debris of a supernova explosion. We may be able to learn much more about the origin of the earth, by further investigating the process of radioactive fallout from the nuclear weapons tests.’

– Dr P.K. Kuroda, ‘Radioactive Fallout in Astronomical Settings: Plutonium-244 in the Early Environment of the Solar System,’ Radionuclides in the Environment (Dr Edward C. Freiling, Symposium Chairman), Advances in Chemistry Series No. 93, American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., 1970.

The fractionation of fallout particles (which have a core of refractory material - i.e., high melting point material - surrounded by material with a lower melting point which has condensed at a later time in the fireball history), and their spherical nature, is similar in a way to planets. Obviously there are many differences.

One of the main ones is that a typical fallout particle, 1 millimetre in diameter or smaller, is drawn into a spherical shape by electrical attractive forces called surface tension - similar to the reason why water forms droplets. But planets are held together by gravity, not surface tension. The main difference is that surface tension acts on the outer surface area which in turn causes internal compression.

Gravity, however, is not due to a surface compression but instead is mediated through the void between fundamental particles in atoms by exchange radiation which does not recognise macroscopic surfaces, but only interacts with the subnuclear particles associated with the elementary units of mass. The radial contraction of the earth's radius by gravity, as predicted by general relativity, is 1.5 mm. [This contraction of distance hasn't been measured directly, but the corresponding contraction or rather 'dilation' of time has been accurately measured by atomic clocks which have been carried to various altitudes (where gravity is weaker) in aircraft. Spacetime tells us that where distance is contracted, so is time.]

This contraction is not caused by a material pressure carried through the atoms of the earth, but is instead due to the gravity-causing exchange radiation of gravity which is carried through the void (nearly 100% of atomic volume is void). Hence the contraction is independent of the chemical nature of the earth. (Similarly, the contraction of moving bodies is caused by the same exchange radiation effect, and so is independent of the material's composition.)

Since most of the mass of atoms is associated with the fields of gluons and virtual particles surrounding quarks, these are the gravity-affected parts of atoms, not the electrons or quarks themselves.

The mass of a nucleon is typically 938 MeV, compared to just 0.511 MeV for an electron and 5 MeV for a quark. Hence the actual charges of matter aren't associated with much of the mass of material. Almost all the mass comes from the massive mediators of the strong force fields between quarks in nucleons, and between nucleons in nuclei heavier than hydrogen. (In the well-tested and empirically validated Standard Model, charges like fermions don't have mass at all; the entire mass is provided by a vacuum 'Higgs field'. The exact nature of the such a field is not predicted, although some constraints on its range of properties are evident.)

Getting back to the topic at the top of this post, every type of force is nuclear in a broad sense. Gravity is basically nuclear because it depends on mass, which is concentrated in the exchange radiation between quarks in the nuclei of atoms. (If gravity was like electric charge, it would depend presumably on macroscopic surface area, which is not the case: in a charged metal sphere, the net electric charge involved in long range forces resides on the surface of the sphere not throughout its volume.) Electromagnetism in the form of the Yang Mills exchange-radiation U(1) symmetry has been unified with the weak nuclear force isospin symmetry SU(2) to produce the electroweak portion of the standard model, SU(2) x U(1), which has 4 gauge bosons that cause forces: the massive charged W+ and W- particles, the uncharged but massive Z particle, and the uncharged and light velocity (no 'rest mass') force causing photon.

The reason why only one (the photon) of the four electroweak gauge bosons operates outside nuclear distances is simply that the other gauge bosons are attenuated by the vacuum at low energy. At high energy collisions (ie, near the charge core, assuming the particles have are able to hit hard enough to break through the vacuum shield) there is attenuation and the weak nucelar force is experienced.

The quark is like a steel cored, rubber coated ball. Throw it gently (low energy) and all the interactions are soft, because the rubber shield is able to prevent the steel core from experiencing any direct interaction. But if you hit nuclear matter together very hard, the rubber is less effective at insulating the core and metallic interactions occur. It is really almost as simple as this; this is not a completely fraudulent analogy. Vacuum polarisation and shielding cause much of the 'rubber' type insulation. There is however some additional complexity which I've recently described on another blog, here, but as stated there it is not as complex as the supersymmetry formulation of the Standard Model.

The strong nuclear force is described in the Standard Model by colour rotation symmetry, SU(3). It has 8 massive gluon mediators, twice as many as the electroweak force. The observed effective colour charge of quarks falls off with increasing collision energy, while the observed electromagnetic force increases with collision energy. These facts suggest that energy may be conserved between all types of gauge boson; the fall of the coupling for the strong force is accompanied by an increase in the coupling for the electromagnetic force.

Conservation of energy of gauge bosons would suggest that when the polarised vacuum is completely broken down (at short ranges/high energies) and the electromagnetic force is maximised, the strong nuclear force will have fallen to the same value (not less than that value). Hence, including conservation of energy for the sum of gauge bosons of the fields automatically does what SUSY (supersymmetry) sets out to do, but instead of inventing unobserved imaginary superpartners like SUSY, we are utilising including a well-established physical principle (conservation of mass-energy) to do the same job.

Of the four usually distinguished elementary forces of the universe (the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic and gravitational), some 50% at first glance appear to be nuclear in origin (i.e., the strong and the weak forces). However, as we have shown, electromagnetism has been unified with electromagnetism - and this electroweak unification predicted the masses of the W+, W-, and Z massive weak gauge bosons discovered at CERN in 1983, so it is hard real science. Hence on this basis there are three fundamental force categories (electroweak, strong, and gravity) of which near 67% are nuclear (electroweak ad strong). When you include the fact that gravity depends essentially on the nuclear mass between quarks as discussed above, you then see that 100% of the fundamental forces of the universe are intimately nuclear in origin.

ANOTHER UPDATE:

DISCUSSION AT NOT EVEN WRONG ABOUT WHETHER THE POLARISED VACUUM IS REAL.

I don't believe this discussion between Professor Bert Schroer and Eugene Stefanovich. The latter claims: 'If you think that vacuum is a “boiling soup” of particles and antiparticles, then you need to explain the null result of the following simple experiment: place a photographic plate (or any other sensor) in an evacuated shielded chamber. Wait for a long time and then develop the plate. I think you agree that there will be no image on the plate. This means that all those virtual particles are not observable. Then what is the point to keep them in your theory?'

This is why physics is stagnating. Any scrap of useful insight from the abstract mathematical quantum field theory is doubted, while fictitious extra dimensional speculations and entanglement lies based on pure ignorance of the distinction between the mathematical models (two versions of Schroedinger's equation, time dependent and time independent) and REAL PHYSICS at the moment of measurement is IGNORED by lunatics supported by New Scientist and other groups of mindless abusive fascists who refuse to print the facts about their total incompetence and ignorance on the matters they are engaged on reporting.

The virtual charges in the polarised vacuum don’t boil off, the vacuum is not radioactive due to high energy virtual particles. If the energy of the vacuum was high enough to make it completely chaotic kind of gas, it wouldn’t be ordered enough to be polarised in shells around real charges. Dirac called the vacuum charges a sea, not a gas.

6 Comments:

At 5:25 AM, Blogger Mike Schuler said...

What if there actually is no "force of gravity?" Ptolomy and Brahe went to great mathematical lengths to prove that the Earth was stationary at the center of the Universe, and that everything revolved around the Earth. Nothing could be shown to them that would make them look in another direction, or to explore other possibilities, namely, that the Earth was rotating on its own axis.

If space itself can be perpetually expanding, why can't matter also be perpetually expanding? If matter is perpetually expanding, it would explain all of the observed phenomena associated with gravity, without there having to be any actual "force" of gravity. Gravity would simply be the inertial resistence to acceleration.

If matter is perpetually expanding, the surface of any object, be it a galaxy or an atom, would be accelerating away from its own center. The space between each object is also expanding, keeping everything relative. The result would be exactly what we observe. If you hold an object in your hand above the ground and release it, you observe it falling to the ground not becuase it is being sucked down by some attractive force; it appears to fall to the ground because the ground is always accelerating upwards, and when you released the object it simply stopped accelerating, and the ground came up and hit it.

In a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon, there is not as much expanding space as there is in other parallel lines. The mass of the Earth and the mass of the Moon each rotate around a common point on the line between their centers. This makes the Earth and Moon a single rotating object, with the Earth and Moon being accelerated away from each other along the straight line between them which is rotating. If matter displaces space, the space between the centers of the Earth and Moon has to stretch in order to keep up with the space on parallel lines, thus causing the illusion that the Earth and Moon are connected together by an unseen attractive force that works at a distance. As the expanding space between the Earth and the Moon accelerate them away from each other, they expand in size because of the perpetually expanding nature of matter, and everything appears exactly the way we observe it.

 
At 3:14 AM, Blogger nige said...

Mike Schuler,

I stick to the facts: there is evidence distant galaxies are redshifted, and there is only one experimentally confirmed way to correlate the observations: recession. This is very strong evidence for recession. Tired light hypotheses are all wrong: see http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

From these facts, there is strong evidence that distant galaxies and clusters of galaxies are receding approximately as given by Hubble's empirical law. There is no evidence directly of whether this means that we some place near the middle of an explosion, or whether as you say space is expanding. If you look at my page http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/ you will find the quotation:

‘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.

There is no evidence that the fabric of spacetime is expanding, and you should not confuse things.

If the big bang can be modelled by explosion dynamics, that will disprove John "Jupiter effect" Gribbin's (and many other philosophers who are confused) idea that the expansion is like a currant bun rising in the oven.

I realised this was wrong when I checked the basis for the arguments: these people claim the big bang was NOT an explosion of any type, because they simply don't know what an explosion is!

Explosions (see http://glasstone.blogspot.com/ for film stills of nuclear explosions in space in 1962) don't require air! You can set off a nuclear bomb in a vacuum, and the mass-energy expands outward. Dr Gribbin in his 1987 book on the big bang and his New Scientist friend Marcus Chown in a book on COBE results, both claim that falsely that explosions are characterised by air blast and shrapnel. Nope. An explosion is "the very rapid release of a very large amount of energy!"

Physics is justified by numerical agreements between theory and experiment. This is why my work is concerned with getting quantitative results out of existing observational facts.

Scientific American in May 1978 published the article, "The Cosmic Background Radiation and the new Aether Drift" (Vol. 238, N. 5, p. 64-74), which explains that the redshifted ~2.7K cosmic background radiation (microwaves) has a +/- 0.1% variation which has been accurately determined to depend on the direction relative to Earth's absolute motion against the cosmic background radiation (which was emitted 300,000 years after the big bang, when the fireball cooled enough for charges to combine, reducing ionisation and making the fireball transparent - almost exactly like mechanism for the final pulse of radiation in a nuclear test fireball!).

The absolute motion of the Milky Way galaxy (where we are) is therefore determined to about 400 km/s towards Andromeda, if we accept the average distribution of matter at 300,000 years after the big bang as a reference!

This velocity and direction may have changed considerably during the last 15,000 million years, but it is likely to be within a factor of two or three of the average velocity over that time.

Hence the distance the particles in the earth have travelled from the origin of the big bang (the singularity) is simply:

distance = age of universe x velocity

= 0.1 % of the radius of the universe. Even with an order of magnitude error, this would be 0.01-1%, which is still as close to the centre of a real explosion as makes no difference: the symmetrical expansion around us is explained simply by the fact that we are near the centre of the universe as shown by the 2.7 K microwave background.

Hence, we ARE NEAR THE ORIGIN of the universe. There is absolutely NO scientific evidence whatsoever to assume metaphysical (non-explosion analogy). The fraudsters are all proud to be anti-explosion metaphysics philosophers who prefer at best obfuscation and more regularly downright lies based on the OBSOLETE steady-state model of the universe which should never have been carried over to the big bang model!

The steady-state model, dumped rightly in 1965, had used the currant-bun analogy to explain how the recession around us could hypothetically be reconciled with an infinite universe. But it should have been dumped as an extravagant and superfluous epicycle when the cosmic background radiation was discovered in 1965. It wasn't.

What you get are abusive sneering thugs who don't know anything preaching their opinions in "popular" books about group-think which masquerade as science. The media and the public lap it up because the loud-mouthed bullshitters are famous sons of bitches. It all makes a genuine researcher want to vomit.

There is evidence for CONTRACTION, not expansion of matter. Take a look at http://nigelcook0.tripod.com/.

Where you write "why can't matter also be perpetually expanding?", my answer is that it gets contracted. The errors in mainstream general relativity are (1) assuming FALSELY - either inplicitly or explicitly - that general relativity is the "final theory of quantum gravity" and that locally measured gravity is the same everywhere, and (2) assuming that spacetime is expanding without clearly distinguishing between cosmic expansion and time, and the contraction of matter.

When you look at the mechanism for the physical contraction, you see that general relativity is consistent with FitzGerald's physical contraction, and I've shown this mathematically at my home page. Special relativity according even to Albert Einstein is superseded by general relativity, a fact that evil nutters will never grasp (witness the abuse anyone gets from string theorist Lubos Motl when telling him this; he hates it because string theory agrees with special relativity, and he claims falsely that general relativity is based on the same basic principle of special relativity which is a lie because special relativity is distinct from general covariance which is the heart of general relativity):

‘... the law of the constancy of the velocity of light. But ... the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On the contrary, we arrived at the result according to this latter theory, the velocity of light must always depend on the coordinates when a gravitational field is present.’ - Albert Einstein, Relativity, The Special and General Theory, Henry Holt and Co., 1920, p111.

‘... the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognise that the path of a ray of light … must in general be curvilinear...’ - Albert Einstein, The Principle of Relativity, Dover, 1923, p114.

‘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.

‘According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, p23.

‘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.

Now back to your argument:

"If space itself can be perpetually expanding, why can't matter also be perpetually expanding? If matter is perpetually expanding, it would explain all of the observed phenomena associated with gravity, without there having to be any actual "force" of gravity. Gravity would simply be the inertial resistence to acceleration.

"If matter is perpetually expanding, the surface of any object, be it a galaxy or an atom, would be accelerating away from its own center. The space between each object is also expanding, keeping everything relative. The result would be exactly what we observe. If you hold an object in your hand above the ground and release it, you observe it falling to the ground not becuase it is being sucked down by some attractive force; it appears to fall to the ground because the ground is always accelerating upwards, and when you released the object it simply stopped accelerating, and the ground came up and hit it.

"In a line between the center of the Earth and the Moon, there is not as much expanding space as there is in other parallel lines. The mass of the Earth and the mass of the Moon each rotate around a common point on the line between their centers. This makes the Earth and Moon a single rotating object, with the Earth and Moon being accelerated away from each other along the straight line between them which is rotating. If matter displaces space, the space between the centers of the Earth and Moon has to stretch in order to keep up with the space on parallel lines, thus causing the illusion that the Earth and Moon are connected together by an unseen attractive force that works at a distance. As the expanding space between the Earth and the Moon accelerate them away from each other, they expand in size because of the perpetually expanding nature of matter, and everything appears exactly the way we observe it."

My comment is that this should be on the arXiv.org as a scientific paper along with string theory and the other speculations that don't have hard numerical proof: it is philosophy without the kind of comparison between prediction and observation that is useful.

How fast is the expansion in your model? Wouldn't every planet have to expand at a different rate to account for the empirical fact that gravity strength depends on the mass inside the planet and not simply on the radius of the planet?

It doesn't address the problems of predicting the masses of force strengths quantitatively from other unrelated experimentally determined quantities, and allowing the accuracy between prediction and experiment to be computed.

I agree in general that it is possible to view the scale size as you suggest because if the size of your ruler is always expanding as well as everything else, then you won't measure any expansion.

Contraction due to the effect of gravity when conservation of mass-energy is allowed (general relativity) will then be simply a slower rate of expansion, instead of a true expansion.

The suggestion looks very similar to the McCrutcheon book "The Final Theory" which has driven Professor Lubos Motl crazy; he hasn't even read the book but apparently dismisses it on the basis that Harvard University string theory is intellectually superior and that everyone else is vermin, an outlook similar to many fascists. Motl and the other string theorists are hated by everyone decent so I don't hold any personal bitterness against those scum.

Let's take a careful look:

The expansion as Nobel Laureate Professor Phil Anderson says (quoted on my home page), simply shows no gravitational deceleration (you only have "acceleration" if you assume there is deceleration slowing it down, which means that you then have to add a cosmological constant with a small positive value to make general relativity agree with the 1998 supernovae redshift CCD observations).

However, there is still the acceleration associated with expansion in spacetime observable to us: we see a velocity variation of c over an observable time (looking further back in time with distance) of the age of the universe. The observable acceleration is velocity/time = c/(age of universe) ~ 10^ -10 ms^-2.

This is entirely a different acceleration from the fictitious "acceleration of the universe" meant to cancel out the presumed (but fictitions) gravitational pull-back on receding distant supernovae.

It is also an acceleration that is way different to gravity: the universe has an expansion of ~10^-10 ms^-2. Gravity on earth's surface is 9.8 ms^-2.

So when you look at the numbers, the idea you suggest is wrong by a factor of about 10^10 unless you can explain (like I do on my home page) that expansion of the universe produces a large outward force because of Newton's 2nd law F=ma which by Newton's 3rd law (action and reaction are equal and opposite) produces an inward force which is within 1.65 % of gravity.

However, notice that string theorists treat me with even more abuse - for predicting the 1998 experimental results by Perlmutter back in October 1996 Electronics World via an 8 page publication - than they treat McCrucheon. He can at least have their jackbooted ignorant crankiness deleted from reviews of his book. I can't get lies about me from internet discussion pages run by wicked and vile owners of "Physics Forums" deleted, nor do they allow me to even respond to them!

All I can hope is that people with alternative ideas will read Peter Woit's book "Not Even Wrong" about string theory and will fight the fascism which sustains mainstream physics hoaxes. Peter Woit is a soft intellectual who quite rightly defends the Standard Model's accurate prediction of thousands of radioactive half lives of particles, and other high-energy physics. However, he sides with Jacques Distler and other intellectually brilliant mathematicians who are concerned foremost that new ideas come from professors or PhD's who are deemed politically correct or "respectable". Since when has science worked that way? Would he have suppressed Michael Faraday for not having a PhD?

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger Mike Schuler said...

Nigel said... "However, he sides with Jacques Distler and other intellectually brilliant mathematicians who are concerned foremost that new ideas come from professors or PhD's who are deemed politically correct or "respectable". Since when has science worked that way? Would he have suppressed Michael Faraday for not having a PhD?"

Actually, it seems to me that new ideas have been crushed by those that hold high office since the begining of history. Aristarchus of Samos was dismissed as a crackpot for his idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun along with the other planets. It was 2,000 years before the mainstream accepted this reality as fact. You can't "feel" the Earth moving or rotating, and this is what held science back for all of those centuries.

In the 20th Century, we were all raised as children to know that the Earth rotates on its axis, so we don't have a problem understanding it, but even Galileo had a problem understanding it even though he knew it was true, as evidenced by his attempt to prove that the tides were caused by the sloshing effects of rotation, and were only coincidently in time with the phases of the Moon. He failed to understand what causes tides, just as Copernicus failed to understand that a perfectly circular orbit was virtually impossible.

I'm not a researcher and I only have a simple, basic understanding of astronomy and quantum physics, but I had to reject string theory as completely false based on the argument I was given for extra hidden dimensions. According to the same argument, the Earth and everything in it is only a one dimensional point if you get far enough away from it. The reason we can't visualize extra dimensions, is because they are flat out impossible. We can visualize the Earth rotating on its axis, even though we can't "feel" it move.

I was taught that the distant galaxies were being carried away from us by the expanding space of the Universe, but it was also assumed that they were slowing down, like a rock thrown up into the air slows down as it travels upward. Then it was discovered that the distant galaxies are actually accelerating away from us, and now they are searching for "dark energy" to expalin it.

It seems to me that in curved space, every point in the Universe would act as if it were the center of the Universe, and every observer would see the distant galaxies receding away in all directions, and would observe the same cosmic background radiation.

If matter and space are perpetually expanding, we would not be able to directly measure it just as you say, because our ruler would also be expanding. But all gravitational phenomena could still be explained. Density would still be a factor in the rate of acceleration at the surface of an object, not just radius. Matter is a mixture of matter and space. The Moon and the planet Mercury have similar radius, but Mercury is proven to be much more dense than the Moon. It is believed that Mercury has an iron core, and that the Moon does not.

On a line from the center of an object to its surface, there is a certain amount of space between the particles of matter that make up the object. There is not as much space as there would be on an equal length line in empty space, so there is not as much expansion. At the surface of the object, matter is only partially accelerating through space because of the partial space that is also accelerating along with it due to the expansion of space. Because Mercury is more dense than the Moon, there is not as much space in its interior to expand, thus the higher rate of acceleration through space at its surface.

It seems to me that because of the limit of the speed of light, that in a model with expanding matter and space, there would be a limit distance where the Doppler effect on light waves would become measurable, and that this effect would appear the same in all directions, would increase with distance, and it would make objects appear to be accelerating away at greater speeds with greater distance, which is exactly what is being observed.

 
At 11:34 AM, Blogger Mike Schuler said...

Nigel said... "However, he sides with Jacques Distler and other intellectually brilliant mathematicians who are concerned foremost that new ideas come from professors or PhD's who are deemed politically correct or "respectable". Since when has science worked that way? Would he have suppressed Michael Faraday for not having a PhD?"

Actually, it seems to me that new ideas have been crushed by those that hold high office since the begining of history. Aristarchus of Samos was dismissed as a crackpot for his idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun along with the other planets. It was 2,000 years before the mainstream accepted this reality as fact. You can't "feel" the Earth moving or rotating, and this is what held science back for all of those centuries.

In the 20th Century, we were all raised as children to know that the Earth rotates on its axis, so we don't have a problem understanding it, but even Galileo had a problem understanding it even though he knew it was true, as evidenced by his attempt to prove that the tides were caused by the sloshing effects of rotation, and were only coincidently in time with the phases of the Moon. He failed to understand what causes tides, just as Copernicus failed to understand that a perfectly circular orbit was virtually impossible.

I'm not a researcher and I only have a simple, basic understanding of astronomy and quantum physics, but I had to reject string theory as completely false based on the argument I was given for extra hidden dimensions. According to the same argument, the Earth and everything in it is only a one dimensional point if you get far enough away from it. The reason we can't visualize extra dimensions, is because they are flat out impossible. We can visualize the Earth rotating on its axis, even though we can't "feel" it move.

I was taught that the distant galaxies were being carried away from us by the expanding space of the Universe, but it was also assumed that they were slowing down, like a rock thrown up into the air slows down as it travels upward. Then it was discovered that the distant galaxies are actually accelerating away from us, and now they are searching for "dark energy" to expalin it.

It seems to me that in curved space, every point in the Universe would act as if it were the center of the Universe, and every observer would see the distant galaxies receding away in all directions, and would observe the same cosmic background radiation.

If matter and space are perpetually expanding, we would not be able to directly measure it just as you say, because our ruler would also be expanding. But all gravitational phenomena could still be explained. Density would still be a factor in the rate of acceleration at the surface of an object, not just radius. Matter is a mixture of matter and space. The Moon and the planet Mercury have similar radius, but Mercury is proven to be much more dense than the Moon. It is believed that Mercury has an iron core, and that the Moon does not.

On a line from the center of an object to its surface, there is a certain amount of space between the particles of matter that make up the object. There is not as much space as there would be on an equal length line in empty space, so there is not as much expansion. At the surface of the object, matter is only partially accelerating through space because of the partial space that is also accelerating along with it due to the expansion of space. Because Mercury is more dense than the Moon, there is not as much space in its interior to expand, thus the higher rate of acceleration through space at its surface.

It seems to me that because of the limit of the speed of light, that in a model with expanding matter and space, there would be a limit distance where the Doppler effect on light waves would become measurable, and that this effect would appear the same in all directions, would increase with distance, and it would make objects appear to be accelerating away at greater speeds with greater distance, which is exactly what is being observed.

 
At 2:24 AM, Blogger nige said...

The problem today is slightly like Ptolemy versus Aristarchus.

"Aristarchus of Samos was dismissed as a crackpot for his idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun along with the other planets. It was 2,000 years before the mainstream accepted this reality as fact. You can't "feel" the Earth moving or rotating, and this is what held science back for all of those centuries."

Well, Aristarchus didn't agree with physical reality very well. He didn't have a proper solar system model, just circles which are wrong.

Copernicus put epicycles into Aristarchus' scheme to make it fit observations like Ptolemy's stringy theory, making it bunk.

Kepler straightened it out by (1) getting rid of epicycles, and (2) making the orbits elliptical instead of circles.

Kepler thought gravity was magnetic, but Hooke grasped that terrestial gravity falls by the inverse square law as evidenced by the moon's orbit (which conveniently is almost circular, not elliptical). (Newton then claimed to have made the brilliant discovery 20 years before Hooke without bothering to tell anyone or publish, and produced an undated manuscript in his later handwriting to "prove" priority.)

Newton showed that the inverse-square law for gravity applies to elliptical orbits.

I think if Aristarchus had done this in 250 BC, the Greeks would have had universal gravitation.

Newton didn't use any calculus in Principia. He did gravity by Greek type (Euclid style) geometrical proof.

So Aristarchus is a difficult case to represent as someone 100% right being suppressed/censored 100% fraudulently.

You can also go into the fact that Aristarchus' book "On the distances of the sun and the moon" (or similar) survived because enough copies existed outside the main reference libraries of Alexandria etc, which were sacked and/or burned.

If Aristarchus' solar system book was useful and was just being suppressed by the elite, why did so few people copy it? The answer is that it was not helpful to anyone, unlike Aristarchus' other books on distance of sun etc. which were more useful.

The only reason a mention of the solar system theory survived was because critics singled it out for ridicule, so it is mentioned by other Greek writers and dismissed as "lunacy" using false reasons ("if Aristarchus was right, then we'd see clouds orbiting the earth at 1000 mph!").

Aristarchus could in principle have have worked out what Newton did:

Newton never expressed it with the constant G because he didn't know what the constant was.

Newton did have empirical evidence, however, for the inverse square law. He knew the earth has a radius of 4000 miles and the moon is a quarter of a million miles away, hence by inverse-square law, gravity should be (4000/250,000)^2 = 3900 times weaker at the moon than the 32 ft/s/s at earth's surface. Hence the gravity acceleration due to the earth's mass at the moon is 32/3900 = 0.008 ft/s/s.

Newton's formula for the centripetal acceleration of the moon is: a = (v^2)/(distance to moon), where v is the moon's orbital velocity, v = 2Pi.[250,000 miles]/[27 days] ~ 0.67 mile/second), hence a = 0.0096 ft/s/s.

So Newton had evidence that the gravity from the earth at moon's radius is the same as the centripetal force for the moon.

Dark energy to negate gravitational pull-back on distant deceding matter is a complete hoax:

‘the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating’ - Prof. Phil Anderson, http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901

Best wishes,
Nigel

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger nige said...

Mike Schuler said:

"If matter and space are perpetually expanding, we would not be able to directly measure it just as you say, because our ruler would also be expanding. But all gravitational phenomena could still be explained. Density would still be a factor in the rate of acceleration at the surface of an object, not just radius. Matter is a mixture of matter and space. The Moon and the planet Mercury have similar radius, but Mercury is proven to be much more dense than the Moon. It is believed that Mercury has an iron core, and that the Moon does not.

"On a line from the center of an object to its surface, there is a certain amount of space between the particles of matter that make up the object. There is not as much space as there would be on an equal length line in empty space, so there is not as much expansion. At the surface of the object, matter is only partially accelerating through space because of the partial space that is also accelerating along with it due to the expansion of space. Because Mercury is more dense than the Moon, there is not as much space in its interior to expand, thus the higher rate of acceleration through space at its surface.

"It seems to me that because of the limit of the speed of light, that in a model with expanding matter and space, there would be a limit distance where the Doppler effect on light waves would become measurable, and that this effect would appear the same in all directions, would increase with distance, and it would make objects appear to be accelerating away at greater speeds with greater distance, which is exactly what is being observed."




The idea that the earth's surface is accelerating upward at 9.8 ms^-2 is wrong, it doesn't correlate to cosmic expansion which implies a spacetime acceleration of ~c/(age of universe) ~ 10^-10 ms^-2.

It doesn't predict anything that can be checked. So it is like string theory, it claims to be consistent with what is known and whenever experiments disagree with it, it needs adjustments to "continue" appearing to be consistent. That isn't science, it's politics.

What is curious is that I published checkable predictions in 1996, they were subsequently verified. Despite this, there is no interest in the details from either the mainstream or outsiders. A lot of people claiming to be scientists and being paid hansomly for that, are not merely stringy charlatans, but they are succeeding in making the going very difficult - needlessly difficult - for those who rigorously stick to fact based checkable physics. They take pride in asserting how expert they are but then end up making no scientific comments on the facts, perhaps just sneering that it "is not mainstream". (Doh!!! I do know that! Since the 10/11 dimensional mainstream of backward time-travel, multiverse anti-fact preaching religiously prejudiced snobs have no science, the statement it "is not mainstream" is really a kind of applause, no matter how rudely it is rasped.)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home