**Thomas R. Love's discussion of Carlo Rovelli's**

*Quantum Gravity*bookI reviewed Dr Thomas Love's paper,

*Towards an Einsteinian Quantum Theory,*in a previous post. He has several other interesting papers as well as his many mainstream publications. One part I did not comment on was a major argument that the best approach to quantum gravity is to replace the Standard Model groups SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) with the complex spacetime U(3,2)/U(3,1) x U(1), and to interpret the latter as excited states of anti-de Sitter spacetime. I investigated anti-de Sitter spacetime about a decade ago and it just didin't have any empirical validity. While I'm convinced that the Standard Model has validity in some sense, and I have sympathy with electroweak theory SU(2) x U(1), there is evidence that the strong gluon mediated color charge force of SU(3) is incomplete. The exact reason why to make the theory work there are 8 rather than 3 x 3 = 9 gluons to mediate the color force, would appear to indicate that the maths has been pushed on to the physics; it works at checkable energies and distances, but it is incomplete as shown for example by the fact that it does not unify naturally with electroweak forces at extremely high energies.

I've just read Thomas Love's paper Elementary Particles as Oscillations in Anti-de Sitter Space-Time. The major portion of it, the first 80 pages, deals with expansions and applications to U(3,2)/U(3,1) x U(1) of the spinor differential operator representation of U(3,2), which I'm really totally unqualified to comment on. I do not have much knowledge of this specialist area. The only comment I can make in superficially looking at that material, is that it is a large amount of formal and abstract mathematics.

Moving on to page 82, section

*28: The Meaning of Quantum Gravity,*Love helpfully reviews some of the claims made by Carlo Rovelli in his 2004 book

*Quantum Gravity*(Cambridge University Press). As pointed out earlier on this blog, Rovelli is critical of 'string theory':

'The history of science is full of beautiful ideas that turned out to be wrong. The awe for the math should not blind us. In spite of the tremendous mental power of the people working in it, in spite of the string revolutions and the excitement and the hype, years go by and the theory isn’t delivering physics. All the key problems remain wide open. The connection with reality becomes more and more remote. All physical predictions derived from the theory have been contradicted by the experiments. I don’t think that the old claim that string theory is such a successful quantum theory of gravity holds anymore. Today, if too many theoreticians do strings, there is the very concrete risk that all this tremendous mental power, the intelligence of a generation, is wasted following a beautiful but empty fantasy. There are alternatives, and these must be taken seriously.' - Carlo Rovelli, arXiv:hep-th/0310077, p20.

Love rightly points out some problems in Rovelli's approach. Rovelli states on page 4 of his book

*Quantum Gravity*that:

'We have learned from general relativity that spacetime is dynamical and we have learned from quantum mechanics that any dynamical entity is made up of quanta and can be in probabilistic superposition states.'

Love showed in the earlier paper that 'probabilistic superposition states' are a fallacy due to the switch over that you can make between the time-dependent and time-independent forms of Schroedinger's equation at the moment of taking a measurement:

*the wavefunction collapse is a manifestation of the mathematical discontinuity which is a human calculating problem in the maths*. So wavefunction collapse is not a physical fact:

*it is not inherent in physical events except in the straightward causal sense that you physically (not magically) disturb something by poking it with a stick or a particle when you take a measurement.*

Love also disagrees with the argument that general relativity demands a dynamical spacetime. I agree with Love: matter and radiation are dynamical, and spacetime is used to measure such dynamics. Perhaps Rovelli meant that spacetime

*fabric*appears to be dynamical; if so he should have said so. In fact you later find that Rovelli

*does*say so, on page 9 of the book: 'General relativity is the discovery that spacetime and the gravitational field are the same entity.' (This is as false as saying that energy and mass are 'the same' because of E=mc

^{2}in special relativity.) It is true that general relativity shows that the amount of deflection of light (or other radiation travelling along geodesics) is

*directly proportional*to the gravitational field strength, but this doesn't indicate they are the 'same entity'. According to the Standard Model, there appear to be several exchange radiation types for different force fields (strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic), and these fields related to spacetime but are not the same entity as it. Rovelli might as well claim 'a ruler is the same entity as distance' or 'a clock is the same entity as time', just because there is a direct relationship in each case. This is simply not scientific or careful.

Rovelli does immediately improve the situation slightly by adding: 'What we call "spacetime" is itself a physical object, in many respects similar to the electromagnetic field. We can say that general relativity is the discovery that there is no spacetime at all. What Newton called "space", and Minkowski called "spacetime", is unmasked: it is nothing but a dynamical object - the gravitational field - in a regime in in which we neglect its dynamics. ... the Universe is not made up of fields on spacetime; it is made up of fields on fields.'

I agree with Rovelli in the sense that gravity can be modelled dynamically as due to exchange radiation in a Yang-Mills type quantum field theory, but I think he should distinguish the dynamical field from spacetime, just as you should distinguish a ruler/clock from distance/time.

What gets me very angry is censorship effect such illucid/slack and simply careless popular terminology has on a simple fact I grasped a decade ago: geometric volume is distinct from the

*content*of that volume, so receding matter vacates observable volume around us by recession. Since there is no mechanism for the spacetime fabric/Dirac sea/quantum foam vacuum to do anything except fill the volume where there is no matter [Dirac's theory; it predicted antimatter], the observable recession of real mass around us in spacetime automatically results in an equal and opposite inward pressure from the Dirac sea pressing inward to fill in the volume. (

*This directly led to the original calculation of gravity via the October 1996 Electronics World magazine, due to censorship by Campbell and Ziemelis at Nature, which has since been developed further, and supplemented with a Yang-Mills exchange radiation heuristic calculations that give the same correct prediction of gravity to within 1.7%.*)

Love also takes issue with Rovelli's statement on page 5 of his book:

'The fact is that we do have plenty of information about quantum gravity, because we have quantum mechanics and we have general relativity. Consistency with quantum mechanics and general relativity is an extremely strick constraint.'

Love points out that this is misleading because the usual formulation of quantum mechanics is inconsistent with the usual formulation of general relativity. Love's argument is that both the usual structure of quantum mechanics and that of general relativity must be modified slightly.

Rovelli is concerned in his book with Loop Quantum Gravity. The main point about Loop Quantum Gravity is that it is a mathematical unification between Feynman's quantum field theory 'path integrals' and background independent general relativity, general relativity without a specific metric.

In this sense Loop Quantum Gravity, which sums Penrose spin network interaction graphs for all the interactions to arrive at the Feynman path integral, is going to be true.

All you have to do is to supply Loop Quantum Gravity (which is purely a mathematical calculating equivalence between general relativity and quantum field theory) with some dynamics for gravity and the PHYSICAL contraction which creates a dynamical compression of matter by gravity (contraction is usually falsely attributed to a metaphysical special relativity metric), and you get quantum gravity unified with general relativity. Problem sorted!

Of course it is not so easy: although by putting my censored dynamics into the Loop Quantum Gravity of Penrose, Rovelli, Smolin, etc., unifies quantum gravity with general relativity and allows predictions to be made of all kind of things which were later experimentally confirmed, there are still issues with electroweak symmetry breaking and also Standard Model force unification in the absence of supersymmetry.

Love states on page 83 of his paper: 'Like the GUTS program which ignored gravitation and could not possibly lead to a totally unified theory in which the particles arise from the gravitational field, Rovelli's LQG program cannot be made consistent with a unified theory of all interactions.'

This is literally true, but there is no problem with LQG just describing gravitational effects (gravity and contraction consequences, spacetime fabric) if the Standard Model is retained for the other forces. It all depends on whether you are somehow certain that gravity is a quantum field theory somewhat like the Standard Model quantum field theory, or whether you just want a description that works and is compatible with the Standard Model.

On page 87, Love explains the structure of matter clearly: 'what we call elementary particles are actually patterns of energy flows in what we normally call the field of the particle.' Love then quotes Hans C. Ohanian ('What is Spin?',

*Am. J. Phys.*

**54,**1986, pp. 500-505):

'[Belinfante in 1937] established that the spin of an electron could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy, or a momentum density, in the electron wave field. He established that this picture of the spin is valid not only for electrons, but also for photons, vector bosons, and gravitons - in all cases the spin angular momentum is due to a circulating energy flow in the fields. Thus contrary to the common prejudice, the spin of the electron has a close classical analog: It is an angular momentum of exactly the same kind as carried by the fields of a circularly polarized electromagnetic wave.'

I haven't read that article, but presumably that it means is that the electric field vector rotates a half turn per revolution (this rotation is described as circular polarization) in going around in a circle. This makes the electron like a Mobius strip (a strip of paper glued into a loop containing half a twist, so that both sides are joined as one and if you draw a continuous line around it, the line will cover both sides and have twice the circumference of the loop), in that it must be rotated 720 degrees to get back to starting point (one complete transformation); electrons have spin 1/2, which implies this concept (spin 1 is normal spin).

This is exciting as I've come to the same conclusion from experimental electromagnetism evidence. This is concerned with a vacuum dielectric capacitor storing light speed logic pulses of

*v*volts and

*x*metres length and discharging them into sampling oscilloscopes as pulses of

*v*/2 volts and 2

*x*metres width, which implies that trapped electric charge such as static electrons are dynamic with some kind of light speed energy oscillation or real spin; because the trapped energy goes all directions, when you discharge a capacitor plate at one end, half the energy is already going towards that point in a pulse of

*v*/2 volts and

*x*metres long, while the other half is going the opposite way in a pulse of

*v*/2 volts again

*x*metres long; it reflects from last bound electrons at the other end of the plate and exits consecutively, giving a total combined output pulse of

*v*/2 volts and

*x*+

*x*= 2

*x*metres duration!

The magnetic field curls from each opposite-direction superimposed energy flow in a stable, 'static' charged wire (or anything else) cancel, but the electric field vectors from each component add up. Transverse electromagnetic, TEM, wave of electricity as photons: Yang-Mills quantum field theory, unitary group U(1) in the Standard Model of particle physics, established circa 1974. This describes all electromagnetic interactions as the result of exchange photons. TEM wave electron model was first established in 1937 and is now verified by Love's analysis of the cause of the superposition/entanglement of states mechanism (it is just due to a mathematical problem, the discontinuity between the time-dependent and time-independent forms of the electron wave equation when a measurement is made).

**Update:**someone brave has anonymously stepped in to defend the QCD gluon exchange model from further development (see comments in this post), claiming that any increase in dynamical representation of reality is an 'insult' to science. My response: Take a proton; two upquarks and a downquark. The two otherwise identical upquarks according to QCD have different color charges. (I'm not interested in color charge being determined at the moment of taking a measurement by collapse of the wave function, since in a sense the color charge is continuously in evidence because protons don't explode under electrostatic repulsion, because the color force keeps keeps them together.) SUSY was invented to make the strength of the QCD interaction the same as electroweak interactions at extremely high energies.However, approaching the problem from another (

*physics-based*not

*speculation based*) angle, you can see the true mechanism for unification:

Electric charges are shielded by the polarized vacuum field they create at short distances. If you hypothetically put three electron charges close together so that they all share the same vacuum polarization cloud,

*the polarization in that cloud will be three times stronger.*Hence, the shielding factor for electric charge will be three times greater. So the electric charge you would theoretically expect to get from each of the three electron-sized charges confined in close proximity is equal to:

-1/3e

This is the actual size of the downquark charge observable from a distance! In developing this model we have unification: the

*conservation of energy*tells us that the shielded energy of Yang-Mills exchange gauge bosons from the electromagnetic interaction gets used in

*some other way*. Doh... the

*strong nuclear force*and

*the weak nuclear force*. (This is the fact based path to the final theory: nothing new, just some logical structure imposed on what is already known, some interconnections.) A proton has a charge +1e instead of say +3e, because (1)opposite charges "cancel out" and (2) there is shielding by the polarized vacuum which converts some electromagnetic energy into short-ranged nuclear forces.

A proton has some residual electric charge because the attenuated electromagnetic field energy is used only for QCD binding energy. A neutron has no residual electric charge

*because,*in addition to the QCD binding force, it has also

*considerable*

*weak force binding energy*(free neutrons will decay into protons by beta radioactivity). To get force unification qualitatively as well as merely quantitatively (SUSY is only quantitative), means accounting for the differences in charges between leptons and quarks, which in turn will mean a better understanding of gluons.

Gluons are a bit like the Higgs bosons: you can argue that Higgs bosons are vital because they give rise to all mass, which is an observed fact. But that is pseudoscience: like arguing that Ptolemy's epicycles 'must' be real because we see the the sun and stars appear to orbit the earth, that phlogiston is proved real because 'fires burn', and that caloric is proved real because temperature is measurable. (These examples led Sir Karl Popper to formulate the absurd and false suggestion that

**being falsifiable means being scientific**: which is a lie because it includes epicycles, phlogiston, and caloric

*before those pieces of speculative trash could be disproved*!!!!! So just because something

**is falsifiable**doesn't means it is scientific! What you want is a theory which is grounded in hard logic and experimental observations, such as Archimedes proof of the law of buoyancy. That is definitely science precisely

**because it is not open to potential falsification!**Archimedes proved buoyancy laws directly using observable facts and logic. Popper simply ignores Archimedes'

*On Floating Bodies.*)

I'm not arguing that QCD is completely wrong or that gluons don't exist, because clearly the theory works mathematically (although it leads the mainstream into extravagant SUSY speculation).

Science is concerned with

*clarifying and analysing facts,*and is not concerned with religious worship of QCD. I just want to know the dynamics of what is really occurring. If you are a mathematician - as I suspect - consider the fact that there is more than one way to prove certain theorems, and some ways are clearer and more interesting than other ways. I'd like to see a causal interpretation of the standard model, BECAUSE THAT WILL LEAD TO EXPLANATIONS FOR THE STANDARD MODEL PARAMETERS:

Guess a mechanical-type analogy (simple polarization, exchange of radiation, etc), then see if you can get it represent the abstract theory. This will work because the abstract theory has been guessed as a model for nature in the first place. All you are doing is finding the underlying dynamics. It could be that the standard model is an exact representation (in abstract terms) of reality, but there are still issues over the exact chiral symmetry mechanism etc.

**Additional update:**

Copies of comments to Cosmic Variance physics blog, in case deleted:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/19/the-string-theory-backlash/

Science on Jun 21st, 2006 at 12:06 pm

Island,

Neither the equations of quantum mechanics nor Alain Aspects experiments disprove causality proper or prove Copenhagen philosophy/politics/religion. So please don’t throw that around here.

Dr Thomas Love has proved that the entanglement philosophy is just a statement of the mathematical discontinuity between the time-dependent and time-independent Schroedinger wave equations when a measurement is taken. There’s no evidence for metaphysical wave function collapse in either the authority of Niels Bohr, the Solvay Congress of 1927, or Alain Aspect’s determination that the polarization of photons emitted in opposite directions by an electron correlate when measured metres apart.

Accept that Copenhagen quantum mechanics is speculative. Don’t build it up as a pet religion. The uncertainty principle in the Dirac sea has a perfectly causal explanation: on small distance scales, particles get randomly accelerated/decelerated/deflected by the virtual particles of the spacetime vacuum. This is like Brownian motion. On large scales, the interactions cancel out. If so, then photon polarizations correlate not because of metaphysical “wavefunction entanglement” but because the uncertainty principle doesn’t apply to measurements on light speed bosons, and only to massive fermions which are still there after you actually detect them.

Science on Jun 21st, 2006 at 4:50 pm

Steuard,

Everyone is trapped into supporting string theory if they want to get published, or even on arxiv. If you get suppressed for having an “alternative to currently accepted [string] theory” (Stanley Brown, PRL editor, in email to me), that’s equivalent to be trapped into supporting string theory.

When you point out that there isn’t a proper theory there at all unlike your work, they give you an abusive rant about their personal problems in life or whatever, and when you point out they are just bitter, you just get get them saying the same thing back to you. They just act like kids and hurl abuse. You can’t answer back, or they say you are being censored for being rude.

Science on Jun 22nd, 2006 at 4:44 am

*Witten’s hype seemed to stop around 1998, though. By coincidence, this is also the year that the CC was found to be positive, something that EW described as the most disturbing fact he had ever learned.- Thomas Larsson comment #116*

Please don’t spread this CC propaganda. The evidence in the data is that the supernovae weren’t slowing down, and the data don’t prove that the reason is CC/dark energy offsetting gravitational deceleration. The effect was predicted in a paper published in

*Electronics World*October 1996 which was censored out of more appropriate physics journals for disagreeing with mainstream speculation. Gravity is generated by surrounding expansion which predicts the strength of gravity correctly and also predicts that the distant expansion is not being slowed down. Just goes to prove that Kuhn was wrong. Make correct predictions, and you get more censorship and downright abuse when they’re confirmed by observations two years later!

That’s because the mainstream (string theory) derives its power

*not from empirically defensible physics, but from censorship on non-scientific reasons like mere disagreement with mainstream speculation.*

*Science on Jun 22nd, 2006 at 4:58 am*

"...Dirac sea, you seem to think that the uncertainty arises due to imperfect knowledge of the system (Brownian motion is a classical phenomenon). This is called a hidden variable theory, and was explicitly ruled out by Bell’s formulation of his famous inequaliies." -PK #110

No, the Bell inequality deals with Bohmian hidden variables which are wrong. The quantum vacuum effects in say the Casimir force and the polarization of the vacuum which shields charge cores are directly observable. In 1997 Levine and others collided electrons at 90 GeV and noted a 7% increase in electron charge, due to penetration of part of the polarized shield of vacuum charges around the electron core. It is empirically confirmed. Bohm build up an elaborate class of theories with infinite potentials and "pilot waves" which were ruled out by Bell's inequality. If you want to promote entanglement, may I suggest you find a UFO blog to do it on?

Science on Jun 22nd, 2006 at 4:57 pm

PK on Jun 22nd, 2006 at 8:39 am

*Science: Bell showed that in local hidden variable theories we can derive Bell inequalities (which are violated in experiment)....*

This is a posting about string theory not Bell’s theory. If you want to know, Yang-Mills exchange radiation is the mechanism. You can discuss on my blog if you want. Must not go off topic of strings here.

**Another update:**

*The neutron is dominated by strong nuclear force effects. The physics is dominated by the fact that you have several charges very close together in a neutron or proton. Each charge, even electrons, have a polarised shell of virtual charge around them, created in the strong field at short distances. I have gone into the nuclear forces in detail, as nuclear physics was originally my major interest. The short range forces are effects in the polarized shells around charged particles. If two particles get close enough that their polarized shells of virtual charges overlap, strong forces result. Once you are inside the polarized shell, the force from the polarized shell itself falls off as you approach more closely to the real cores, because the thickness of polarized shell between you are the core deceases as you approach the core. Hence the strong nuclear force actually falls at very close-in distances as you approach the core, while the electromagnetic force gets less and less shielded by polarization and ecomes stronger. The equilibrium when these force variations with distance offset one another in a nucleon causes the "asymptotic freedom" of quarks within a nucleon.*

*Also, suppose for sake of argument you put 3 electrons close enough together that they were separated by distances like the distances between quarks in a nucleon (neutron or proton). In that case, a very interesting piece of physics emerges very simply: all 3 particles SHARE THE SAME polarized shield, which because it is proportional in strength to the electric field strength, is then exactly 3 times stronger than in the case of a single electron, because it is contributed to by the 3 electrons instead of by just 1. So the polarization electric charge shielding factor will be increased by a factor of 3, and each electron will have an apparent charge (seen from beyond the polarised charge shell) of 1/3 of the electron's charge. The downquark has exactly this electric charge, -e/3!Hence downquarks can be shown to be like electrons locked in pairs or triads of quarks, and the special forces and properties result from this entrapment effect on the shared polarization of the vacuum which shields the core charge. Consider energy conservation! What happens to the electric charge energy when the electric charge is shielded by a factor of 3? Simple: nuclear force field effects! This is a quantitative prediction which affects the unification of forces in the Standard Model, replacing string theory's supersymmetry (SUSY) to explain high-energy unification effects, and is better than string as it makes checkable predictions even at low energy.*

*This nuclear mechanism appears to be on the right lines. Obviously the upquark, with charge +2/3, is more challenging than simply putting 3 positrons in close together so that they share a vacuum polarization which is 3 times stronger, shielding the individual positron charge by a factor of 3 to +e/3. The upquark charge is +2e/3 not +e/3. The reason is that when you put different charges together, the effects on the polarized vacuum become complex.*

*Suppose you have just an electron and a positron close together, like a pair of quarks in a meson. In that case the net electric field is zero at long distances. What happens to the energy of the electric field in space when you bring a positive charge beside a negative charge? The late Dr Arnold Lynch, who during the war helped build the Colossus computer that broke the Nazi codes, worked on microwave beam interference problems for BT in the 1980s. He wrote to me that experimentally the superimposed field energy is still there, even when you can't detect any fields due to perfect interference (cancellation). The fields become hidden, but the energy is still there in space, as can be shown by their immediate reappearance if the cancellation is stopped by ending one of the two interfering beams.So in a neutron, with some electromagnetic field energy at very long distances as a magnetic field (since the neutron has a magnetic dipole moment) the physics is intricate. To calculate the amount of energy available to create and polarize virtual charge (which in turn attenuates the real core charge as seen from a large distance), you need in either a neutron or a proton (or other particles) to take account of the energy residing in the magnetic field of that particle. Neutrons and protons both have magnetic dipole moments.*

*The fact that nuclear particles containing quarks have magnetic moments makes the physics of where shielded energy goes, a very subtle challenge to analyse. Part*

*of the magnetic moment is from the virtual charges being polarized and aligned in the vacuum. The official mainstream theory of strong nuclear interactions, QCD or SU(3), cannot predict very much very accurately because it is an abstract analytical theory which is not easily solved by computer calculation. The whole of nuclear physics needs to be physically represented as causal models which are less abstract and more pictorial, before progress is made. The main successes of the standard model in terms of numerical predictions are for weak nuclear forces where there are only 3 gauge boson types, not strong forces with 8 gauge bosons.*

## 14 Comments:

Copy of a comment in case deleted:

http://chaosinmotion.blogspot.com/2006/06/attack-on-string-theory.html

nigel said...

"Democritus and John Dalton both proposed a theory based on the atomic model, but had no means to prove that it was true. They were indeed correct for the most part. But by Woit's argument, these models should have been ignored."

Yes of course. Funny, I thought the Greeks were totally wrong with their "unsplittable" atom, the only thing their work predicted! The word atom means unsplittable, which I thought was a Motl type lie.

Dalton, however had evidence from the near integer ratios of relative atomic weights.

What evidence is there for extra dimensions, paranormal, dark energy, dark matter, entanglement, unification of forces within a fraction of second of the big bang (SUSY), and other unobserved fantasies?

Just because you may have watched a TV show about strings powering UFOs and time machines doesn't give them scientific merit.

Try to remember that crackpots like Motl are all in a giant conspiracy to brane-wash you.

Cheers,

Nigel

Copy of a comment in case deleted:

http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/06/top-10-string-theory-results.html

nigel said...

Joe,

Surely the fitting of a small value of the vacuum energy to the observed dark energy implied by the small value of the "cosmological constant" is building a castle in the air.

The alleged "cosmological constant" value can be predicted from a Yang-Mills quantum gravity mechanism based entirely on empirical facts, which is consistent with empirically defensible parts of general relativity (which do not include the ad hoc and hopelessly extravagent, quantum gravity theory-less "lambda-cold dark matter" cosmological model).

This is censored out as crackpot without people reading it. In reality, the crackpots are those who insist on ad hoc fixes which have no evidence such as dark energy (hence cosmological constant) and dark matter.

"... the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating ... there’s a bit of the “phlogiston fallacy” here, one thinks if one can name Dark Energy or the Inflaton one knows something about it." - Philip Anderson, http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901

The result is that string theory is built up like caloric and phlogiston, whose supporters firmly "believed" in them as facts. Simplicity under Occam's Razor would have helped caloric survive, for it had to be replaced by two separate mechanisms (kinetic theory + radiation).

The beautiful simplicity of some aspects of string theory is meaningless. Take string to an art dealer if you think it is beautifully free of parameters.

What would be more useful is the prediction of parameters. Notice that Tony Smith is censored off arxiv for non-mainstream stringy ideas: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/TShome.html

Mainstream stringers are quick to call others "crackpot". But they have very little.

I'd be interested in seeing a string theory based on observables, such as 3+1 dimensions. Or even one in higher dimensions that sorted out something. But it is just crazy that the work of many people on alternatives (including myself) is censored off arxiv without being read because of mainstream speculation. It really is a cult.

Nigel

6/14/2006 05:51:21 AM

I do not know whether you are past caring, but you should understand that the 8 gluons come from exactly the SAME logic as the electroweak theory having 3 vector bosons(before breaking symmetry)The adjoint of su(2) has dimension 3, the adjoint of su(3) has dimension 8. In general the adjoint of su(n) has n^2-1. What is mathematically imposed in su(3) that is not there for su(2)? You must have the vector bosons in the adjoint to have a meaningful gauge theory. That's all there is to it. Can't you even read Baez's explanation-- it is superb-- I can guarrantee you that. Besides you do realize that QCD has been experimentally proven rather neatly.

You should not insult science by adopting that pseudonym. Please don't do that. Call yourself something else please.

anonymous,

I love the Baez explanation:

"But note, these three are not linearly independent: any one of them is a linear combination of the other two. So we can get stuff like

"red-antired - blue-antiblue

"and so on, but not 3 linearly independent things of this sort, only two. One less than you might expect.

"If you are wondering what the hell I am doing subtracting particles from each other, well, that's quantum mechanics.

"This may have made things seem more, rather than less, mysterious, but in the long run I'm afraid this is what one needs to think about."

What a pity you're unable to read.

Take a proton; two upquarks and a downquark.

The two otherwise identical upquarks according to QCD have different color charges.

(I'm not interested in color charge being determined at the moment of taking a measurement by collapse of the wave function, since in a sense the color charge is continuously in evidence because protons don't explode under electrostatic repulsion, because the color force keeps keeps them together.)

SUSY was invented to make the strength of the QCD interaction the same as electroweak interactions at extremely high energies.

However, approaching the problem from another (PHYSICS BASED, not SPECULATION BASED) angle, you can see the true mechanism for unification:

Electric charges are shielded by the polarized vacuum field they create at short distances.

If you hypothetically put three electron charges close together so that they all share the same vacuum polarization cloud,

THAT CLOUD WILL BE THREE TIMES STRONGER.

Hence, the shielding factor for electric charge will be three times greater.

So the electric charge you would theoretically expect to get from each of the three electron-sized charges confined in close proximity is equal to:

-1/3e

This is the actual size of the downquark charge observable from a distance.

In developing this model we have unification: the CONSERVATION OF ENERGY tells us that the shielded energy of Yang-Mills exchange gauge bosons from the electromagnetic interaction gets used in SOME OTHER WAY.

Doh... the STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE and THE WEAK FORCE.

This is the final theory: nothing new, just some logical structure imposed on what is already known, some interconnections.

A proton has a charge +1e instead of say +3e, because opposite charges "cancel out" and because there is shielding by the polarized vacuum which converts some electromagnetic energy into short-ranged nuclear forces.

A proton has some residual electric charge because the attenuated electromagnetic field energy is used only for QCD binding energy.

A neutron has no residual electric charge BECAUSE in adition to the QCD binding force, it has also considerable weak force binding energy (free neutrons will decay into protons by beta radioactivity).

To get unification means accounting for the differences in charges between leptons and quarks, which in turn will mean a better understanding of gluons.

Gluons are a bit like the Higgs bosons. You can argue that Higgs bosons are vital because they give rise to all mass, which is an observed fact.

That would be a bit like arguing that phlogiston is real because "fires burn" and that caloric is real because you can "keep the cold out" by having more blankets on your bed.

I'm not arguing that QCD is completely wrong or that gluons don't exist, because clearly the theory works in some sense (although it leads the mainstream to SUSY speculation).

Science is concerned with clarifying and testing facts, and is not concerned with religious worship of QCD. I just want to know the dynamics of what is really occurring.

If you are a mathematician - as I suspect - consider the fact that there is more than one way to prove certain theorems, and some ways are clearer and more interesting than other ways.

I'd like to see a causal interpretation of the standard model, BECAUSE THAT WILL LEAD TO EXPLANATIONS FOR THE STANDARD MODEL PARAMETERS:

Guess a mechanical-type analogy (simple polarization, exchange of radiation, etc), then see if you can get it represent the abstract theory.

This will work because the abstract theory has been guessed as a model for nature in the first place. All you are doing is finding the underlying dynamics.

It could be that the standard model is an exact representation (in abstract terms) of reality, but there are still issues over the exact chiral symmetry mechanism etc.

copy of a comment in case deleted:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/19/the-string-theory-backlash/

Science on Jun 21st, 2006 at 12:06 pm

Island,

Neither the equations of quantum mechanics nor Alain Aspects experiments disprove causality proper or prove Copenhagen philosophy/politics/religion. So please don’t throw that around here.

Dr Thomas Love has proved that the entanglement philosophy is just a statement of the mathematical discontinuity between the time-dependent and time-independent Schroedinger wave equations when a measurement is taken. There’s no evidence for metaphysical wave function collapse in either the authority of Niels Bohr, the Solvay Congress of 1927, or Alain Aspect’s determination that the polarization of photons emitted in opposite directions by an electron correlate when measured metres apart.

Accept that Copenhagen quantum mechanics is speculative. Don’t build it up as a pet religion. The uncertainty principle in the Dirac sea has a perfectly causal explanation: on small distance scales, particles get randomly accelerated/decelerated/deflected by the virtual particles of the spacetime vacuum. This is like Brownian motion. On large scales, the interactions cancel out. If so, then photon polarizations correlate not because of metaphysical “wavefunction entanglement” but because the uncertainty principle doesn’t apply to measurements on light speed bosons, and only to massive fermions which are still there after you actually detect them.

Copy of comment to Christine Dantas' blog in case it is considered "silly" and deleted:

http://christinedantas.blogspot.com/2006/06/blog-mania.html

...

Some genuine questions I have about the loops of LQG, inspired by Woit's "Not Even Wrong", pages 189-190.

A loop is a rotational transformation in the vacuum. Is the loop physically the exchange of energy-delivering field radiation from one mass to another, and back to the first mass again?

Like the exchange radiation in Yang-Mills (Standard Model) theories, but with the added restriction of the conservation (looping between masses) of the exchange radiation?

Things accelerated by a gravity field are losing gravitational potential energy and gaining kinetic energy, so the exchange radiation carries energy.

If the LQG spinfoam vacuum does describes a Yang-Mills energy exchange scheme, you can get solid checkable predictions by taking account of the effect of the expansion of the universe on these conserved gravity field mediators.

...

6/21/2006 11:35:07 AM

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/06/physics-phds-vs-special-relativity.html

Copies of some fast comments:

"... such replies are only meaningful if the crackpots are already influential enough so that the number of people who have been already exposed to the crackpots and who will hear or find your reply exceeds the number of people who have not yet been exposed and find the crackpot because of your promotion."

So it is justifiable to expose string theorists as crackpots. Great!

anon | Homepage | 06.21.06 - 1:44 pm | #

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

Dear anon, let me try to be very slow because you clearly need it: I emphasized that the rule involving the influence has nothing to do with a justification. It was an explanation of strategy, and moreover the strategy only leads to desirable results if the debunked groups actually are crackpots, which is clearly not satisfied in your case. But of course, feel free to write silly anonymous comments.

Lubos Motl | Homepage | 06.21.06 - 2:07 pm | #

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

Dear Lumo,

"It was an explanation of strategy, and moreover the strategy only leads to desirable results if the debunked groups actually are crackpots, which is clearly not satisfied in your case."

Lumo, I never claimed that your rule was an explanation of strategy. You debunk people as crackpot because they risk being wrong, when string theory doesn't risk being wrong. If anyone is a crackpot, it is Witten.

"String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity" - EW, Physics Today, Apr 96.

At least amateurs make CHECKABLE predictions. EW is not a crackpot because he does many useful things, but some of his remarks are exaggerated.

String theory is not crackpot in itself, but some of the people hyping it up are behaving as crackpots.

Bests,

anon

anon | Homepage | 06.21.06 - 2:57 pm | #

Copies of some interesting fast comments on Lubos Motl's blog

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/06/nas-schizofrenic-climate-report.html

Earlier you mentioned Millikan. This last point reminds me of the famous scandal involving Blondlot and N-rays:

http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Benjamin | Homepage | 06.22.06 - 7:11 pm | #

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

These N-Rays are fascinating, Benjamin. It's just beyond my understanding how such a nonsense could have survived for a nonzero time. It's just like alchemy - moreover alchemy that clearly could not product any visible results. N-rays were not emitted by green wood and a few metals - wow.

Lubos Motl | Homepage | 06.22.06 - 9:40 pm | #

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

Dear Lumos,

N-rays of a different kind were also ridiculed. Neutrinos were predicted by Pauli to solve the problem of the missing energy in beta ray emission.

By about 1931 they knew the beta spectra and Fermi devised a nice theory. However, the mean energy of a beta particle in the spectrum is around 30% of the maximum possible beta energy, and the difference between mass of the radioactive material and the decay product implied that the total energy emitted in beta decays for any nuclide is constant.

Pauli explained this by saying that a neutrino (neutral, non-massive, hard to detect particle) was emitted, sharing energy with the beta particle.

Bohr however asserted that Pauli was wrong, and that the reason for the beta paradox is that the principle of conservation of energy does not hold for beta decay (Bohr claimed that conservation of energy only holds on the average).

Neutrinos were detected from a nuclear reactor in around 1956.

Wolfgang Pauli tells the story in chapter 1 of the free online book:

http://assets.cambridge.org/ 0521...521650038ws.pdf

On 4 December 1930, Pauli sent his letter to the "Radioactives" predicting the neutrino.

On page 5 of that book he admits a very big error.

Pauli estimated that the neutrinos (which he called neutrons in 1930; because nucleon type neutral particles were discovered first in 1932 by Chadwick they were called neutrons and Pauli's particle became the neutrino) would have a penetrating power of 10 cm of lead, whereas the actual figure known when Pauli wrote the historical essay (1957) was about 100 light-years of lead!

So you see, not all N-rays are absurd.

anon | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 9:23 am | #

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

Dear anon,

the story of neutrinos is exactly the opposite than the N-rays because it is a conclusion of a very thoughtful theorist who never claimed to have a direct experimental proof - a conclusion that was of course correct, consistent with everything, and that was eventually proved experimentally.

N-rays are a statement about a new observed phenomenon by bad experimental physicists who had no idea how physics works but who claimed to have very important discoveries, ones that eventually turn out to be completely wrong, of course.

You can't say it's the same thing. The story of neutrinos is just like the story of string theory. String theory's validity can also be derived by thoughtful and accurate theoretical reasoning, it is being ridiculed by idiots, and it will be proved in the future.

Best

Lubos

Lubos Motl | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 9:29 am | #

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

Dear Lumos,

As I stated, in his 4 Dec 1930 letter, Pauli predicted neutrinos would penetrate 10 cm of lead, when by 1957 the correct figure was 100 light-years of lead.

So Pauli was off by a factor of 9.46 x 10^18.

String theory (supersymmetry version) according to page 179 of Peter Woit's N.E.W. book predicts spontaneous symmetry breaking to occur at a minimum of 100 GeV or 10^11 eV. Because energy density implied by the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law scales as the fourth power of temperature (eV), the vacuum energy density for supersymmetry to work is about 10^113 times that suggested from the CC/dark energy fix implied by the Lambda-CDM model of cosmology.

Hence string theory is 10^113 times off target and so it is inconsistent with the alleged observations of cosmology.

Actually, I'm on your side on this one. The vacuum may have an energy density far higher than that suggested by Lambda-CDM cosmology, which is not a quantum gravity or mechanism based piece of physics.

By the way, how do you arrange for Google search engine to extract the text summary "The best theoretical physics blog that the search engine can offer you, by a Czech conservative string theorist at Harvard University" from your page?

I searched the current page and the cached page for that text, but it is not there. Do you add the text to the top of the blogger page template with a special instruction or something?

Bests,

anon

anon | Homepage | 06.23.06 - 10:32 am | #

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/19/the-string-theory-backlash/

anon on Jun 25th, 2006 at 4:57 am

"Jacques suggests that someone might earn a Clay prize by rigorously constructing quantum Yang-Mills within LQG. It will certainly not be me, but there are people working on exactly that program."

- Lee Smolin

Well mathematical rigor and physical predictions can be two different things. (Rather that someone wins a Nobel Prize for physics than a Clay Prize for math.)

I would like to see a clear physical description of the LQG spinfoam vacuum, one that can compete with string theory in popular understanding. In a LQG for a Yang-Mills theory, the loop consists (presumably) of the cycle of gravity causing gauge boson radiation from the Higgs field giving one mass to that of another mass, and back again to the first mass? Is gauge boson radiation redshifted by cosmic expansion? Would that weaken long-range gravity without requiring a repulsive dark energy in the Lambda-CDM model? Is this a checkable prediction?

Copy of a comment in case deleted

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/06/26/shaw-prize-for-the-accelerating-universe/#comments

science on Jun 26th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

Congratulations to Professors Perlmutter, Riess, and Schmidt for their exciting observations. Just beware the possibility that a flimsy ad hoc theory has been forced to fit those interesting observations:

“…the flat universe is just not decelerating, it isn’t really accelerating … there’s a bit of the “phlogiston fallacy” here, one thinks if one can name Dark Energy … one knows something about it.” - http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/01/03/danger-phil-anderson/#comment-10901

Without gravitational deceleration, the universe would coast along so radius r ~ t. For a flat universe and gravitational deceleration, r ~ t^2/3. “Flat” is a universe expanding at a rate which is forever diminishing, balanced between eventual collapse due to gravity, and eternal expansion.

This is the rationale for assuming that the age of the universe is t = 2/(3H), where H is Hubble parameter, H = v/r (where v is recession velocity at distance r) instead of saying the age of the universe is simply t = 1/H. Without gravitational retardation, the age will presumably be t = 1/H?

Please don’t believe that the Lambda-CDM cosmology is the last word in quantum gravity! All work from Friedmann onwards has focussed on assuming that the Newtonian potential as the weak field limit in general relativity is correct even at very large distances where there is no evidence. It may make more sense to consider the modifications to gravity in general relativity as energy conservation corrections to Newtonian theory, than to consider the whole thing to be a complete gravity theory.

Two recent emails:

From: "Nigel Cook"

To: "Forrest Bishop"...

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:17 AM

That page also repeats Ivor's vague drivel-like statement "Space itself is

the ability to accommodate energy." What does "ability" and "accommodate"

mean?

Ivor later denied to me that he meant accommodate in the strict

mathematical, physical sense. If you accommodate someone, they displace an

amount of air from your home equal to their volume. This gives the

mechanism of gravity. Receding galaxies vacate a volume around us, which is

filled by spacetime fabric. If someone 70 kg walks away from you at 2 m/s,

an amount of air equal to 70 litres moves towards you at 2 m/s, filling in

the volume being vacated as the person moves away. This doesn't produce a

pressure towards you. But if people move away with a speed which, as far as

your measurements are concerned, increases with distance (accelerates), then

you get an outward force of F=ma due to the mass accelerating away from you,

and the inward force by Newton's 3rd law (action has equal and opposite

reaction) is equal to the same amount F=ma. So from the mass and recession

of the surrounding universe, both of which can be estimated from modern

astronomy, you get an outward force on the order 10^43 Newtons and an equal

inward force. The Standard Model, which predicts all particle reaction

rates within 0.1% accuracy, tells you that this inward force must be carried

by gauge bosons (Yang-Mills exchange radiation). So you get gravity.

It is important that Ivor complain about my calculation and result (full

proof at http://feynman137.tripod.com/ see also

http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/).

I first contacted Ivor on this ten years ago this month. Ivor misled me

into thinking he was interested in physical mechanisms, and then exposed he

was not interested, by having the temerity to complain that I credited him

with the basic idea. So you see, if anybody copies Ivor and attributes it

to Ivor, he complains that he is being credited for something he considers

nonsense (my calculation predicts gravity strength G correctly, and explains

the physics of general relativity, so in Ivor's eyes it is too mainstream

and not sufficiently arcane/vague; Ivor sees vagueness and lack of

predictability as strengths, because he believes physics is somehow

strongest when it cannot be falsified, a belief he shares with string

theorists and other mainstream crackpots).

Nigel

From: "Nigel Cook"

To: "Ian Montgomery"

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 10:58 AM

Subject: Re: Newtons 1st Law

If the [ether] is radiation, there is no drag. You have to ask why drag

occurs in the air. It occurs because the fluid particles leaving after a

collision are speeded up, and so have more kinetic energy. With a spacetime

fabric of exchange radiation, you don't have this problem, as it doesn't

speed up (velocity remains c).

Nigel

Copy of a comment of mine to cosmic variance:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/07/06/interim-roadmap-report/

nigel cook on Jul 8th, 2006 at 8:53 am

JoAnne,

I hope you won’t mind asking how the dark energy surveys are going to work, what if anything definite they hope to find, etc?

Also, has anyone to your knowledge even considered the redshift effect on the energy of the gauge bosons presumed to be exchanged in causing quantum gravitation?

If these exchanged gauge bosons are red-shifted (by cosmic expansion) over large distances of exchange, gravity will be weakened, so there will be little or no no observable gravitational [deceleration] of the expansion of the universe?

So the empirical Hubble law will hold with no slowing down on expansion velocities at extreme distances. Which is just what is observed… A simple modification of general relativity is needed, not CC/dark energy.

I can’t understand why Occam’s razor seems to be ignored. Like caloric and phlogiston, and also like material aether, dark energy is ad hoc and not a falsifiable scientific prediction as such. Sorry if this sounds like bitter attack on dark energy theories (arxiv deleted my paper and cern doc server won’t allow my paper there to be updated now, nor other ext papers).

From: Nigel CookCc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Thanks for asking questions on this sensible problem. All the mass in the universe is firing energy at us and it bounces back from us the way it came. The presence of another mass shields it. We are naturally in equilibrium of energy exchange in all directions, but a nearby mass disturbs the equlibrium of exchange. Firstly, a nearby mass is not receding like the universe, so it is not sending us redshifted radiation (or slowed down, low energy bullets if you prefer the analogy). Secondly, the nearby mass is also shielding us from incoming radiation from great distances.

- - - - -> Machine gunner 1 ===== Machine gunner 2 <- - - - - incoming all-round gauge boson radiation from surrounding universe (redshifted)

The gentlemen above are shooting at each other. Ignoring an outsiders shooting in at them, they will recoil apart. Since the incoming bullets from great distances around them are "redshifted" (or slowed), they have less effect and do not offset the non-redshifted exchange of bullets between the two machine gunners, and the machine gunners recoil apart. Two reasons occur for the recoil: (1) the momentum gained when bullets hit their flak jackets, and (2) the recoil when bullets are fired.

As far as I'm concerned the two are the same thing since a better analogy would be a tennis game. You get knocked back slightly by the ball hitting your racket and you also recoil back a bit when you reverse the ball's momentum and send it back to the other player. OK for why SIMILAR CHARGES repel (2 electrons, or 2 protons)?

Dissimilar charges cannot exchange any radiation between each other, they can only get pushed together by the exchange of radiation on their opposite sides, which pushes them together since they shield one another. Gravitational is electrical because there are two components.

Will the left hand side charges attract the right hand side charges?? Or because the sum of left hand charges is zero, and the sum of right hand charge sum is zero, will there be no attraction?

Obviously there is still a weak attraction, and this is GRAVITY. There are only two paths by which the voltage or potential difference carried by the gauge boson radiation adds up to a non-zero net amount in exchanges between all the charges of the universe:

(1) a straight line (which is weak, since it has a random number of positive and negative charges; but we can still analyse this precisely because on average there will be an even number of charges in a randomly drawn straight line across the universe 50% of the time, and an odd number 50% of the time too, so the mean number of charges will be half way between odd and even, corresponding to an average of half the voltage of between 1 electron and 1 proton), and

(2) a zig-zag "drunkards walk" statistical line (like brownian motion statistics) between all charges in the universe, in which the mean vector sum is equal to the voltage between one pair of charges (electron and proton) multiplied by the square root of the number of pairs of charges in the universe.

The path (1) is easily shown to be an always "attractive" force (since it relies on a none-equal number of positive and negative charges, implied by the odd charges; if the number of charges in a straight line was always an even number, it would on average be 50% positive and 50% negative and would produce no attraction and no net voltage), and is 10^40 times weaker than the force of path (2) which can be either attractive or repulsive.

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

Despite your previous extended reply to me and this illustrated version I have to admit that I still fail to understand how the dissimilarly charged machine gunners are pushed together by shielding. What shields them and why aren't similar gunners shielded? Do we assume that dissimilarly charged bullets can be absorbed without inertia? What when they are exposed without shielding - is this a short range repulsion? Is there a converse of short range attraction, is this the broken symmetry?

Also please explain two like charges and two unlike charges are repelled/attracted with the same force at the same distance when shielding is involved in one but not the other.

Cc: marinsek@aon.at ; pwhan@atlasmeasurement.com.au ; graham@megaquebec.net ; andrewpost@gmail.com ; george.hockney@jpl.nasa.gov ; tom@tomspace.com

To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:10 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Yes. The mechanism is best understood drawing arrows towards, away from and between the relevant charges along the line of force action (the forces cancel out in other directions due to symmetry). Use thick-lined arrows to represent non-redshifted radiation being exchanged and causing repulsion, and thin-lined arrows to represent incoming red-shifted (weakened) radiation from vast distances in the universe.

Alternatively, use red lines for redshifted radiation and some other colour for non-redshifted: http://feynman137.tripod.com/Image25.gif/ The attraction force between two opposite charges in electromagnetism is identical in magnitude to the repulsion between two similar charges (of the same amount of charge charge as the opposite charges for attraction).

There is a more complex looking version of this diagram in my Electronics World article dated April 2003, picture here: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/Image11.jpg. Under each diagram there, I add up the vectors and prove that the inward force is equal to the outward force.

The neutron is dominated by strong nuclear force effects. The physics is dominated by the fact that you have several charges very close together in a neutron or proton. Each charge, even electrons, have a polarised shell of virtual charge around them, created in the strong field at short distances. I have gone into the nuclear forces in detail, as nuclear physics was originally my major interest. The short range forces are effects in the polarized shells around charged particles. If two particles get close enough that their polarized shells of virtual charges overlap, strong forces result. Once you are inside the polarized shell, the force from the polarized shell itself falls off as you approach more closely to the real cores, because the thickness of polarized shell between you are the core deceases as you approach the core. Hence the strong nuclear force actually falls at very close-in distances as you approach the core, while the electromagnetic force gets less and less shielded by polarization and ecomes stronger. The equilibrium when these force variations with distance offset one another in a nucleon causes the "asymptotic freedom" of quarks within a nucleon.

Also, suppose for sake of argument you put 3 electrons close enough together that they were separated by distances like the distances between quarks in a nucleon (neutron or proton). In that case, a very interesting piece of physics emerges very simply: all 3 particles SHARE THE SAME polarized shield, which because it is proportional in strength to the electric field strength, is then exactly 3 times stronger than in the case of a single electron, because it is contributed to by the 3 electrons instead of by just 1. So the polarization electric charge shielding factor will be increased by a factor of 3, and each electron will have an apparent charge (seen from beyond the polarised charge shell) of 1/3 of the electron's charge. The downquark has exactly this electric charge, -e/3!

Hence downquarks can be shown to be like electrons locked in pairs or triads of quarks, and the special forces and properties result from this entrapment effect on the shared polarization of the vacuum which shields the core charge. Consider energy conservation! What happens to the electric charge energy when the electric charge is shielded by a factor of 3? Simple: nuclear force field effects! This is a quantitative prediction which affects the unification of forces in the Standard Model, replacing string theory's supersymmetry (SUSY) to explain high-energy unification effects, and is better than string as it makes checkable predictions even at low energy. (See my blog.)

This nuclear mechanism appears to be on the right lines. Obviously the upquark, with charge +2/3, is more challenging than simply putting 3 positrons in close together so that they share a vacuum polarization which is 3 times stronger, shielding the individual positron charge by a factor of 3 to +e/3. The upquark charge is +2e/3 not +e/3. The reason is likely that when you put different charges together, the effects on the polarized vacuum become complex.

Suppose you have just an electron and a positron close together, like a pair of quarks in a meson. In that case the net electric field is zero at long distances. What happens to the energy of the electric field in space when you bring a positive charge beside a negative charge? The late Dr Arnold Lynch, who during the war helped build the Colossus computer that broke the Nazi codes, worked on microwave beam interference problems for BT in the 1980s. He wrote to me that experimentally the superimposed field energy is still there, even when you can't detect any fields due to perfect interference (cancellation). The fields become hidden, but the energy is still there in space, as can be shown by their immediate reappearance if the cancellation is stopped by ending one of the two interfering beams.

So in a neutron, with some electromagnetic field energy at very long distances as a magnetic field (since the neutron has a magnetic dipole moment) the physics is intricate. To calculate the amount of energy available to create and polarize virtual charge (which in turn attenuates the real core charge as seen from a large distance), you need in either a neutron or a proton (or other particles) to take account of the energy residing in the magnetic field of that particle. Neutrons and protons both have magnetic dipole moments.

The fact that nuclear particles containing quarks have magnetic moments makes the physics of where shielded energy goes, a very subtle challenge to analyse. A lot of the magnetic moment is probably from the virtual charges being polarized and aligned in the vacuum. The official mainstream theory of strong nuclear interactions, QCD or SU(3), cannot predict very much very accurately because it is an abstract analytical theory which is not easily solved by computer calculation. The whole of nuclear physics needs to be physically represented as causal models which are less abstract and more pictorial, before progress is made. The main successes of the standard model in terms of numerical predictions are for weak nuclear forces where there are only 3 gauge boson types, not strong forces with 8 gauge bosons.

Best wishes,

Nigel

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

From: Guy Grantham

To: Nigel Cook ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 9:43 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Nigel

I'll forgive you the dowsing which is a system function and not a fundamental property!

As I understand you, the mechanism for repulsion of like charges is by the momentum and recoil of their exchanged bosons whilst less influenced by, and overcoming, the similar but weaker repulsions on their other faces.

A charged particle can put a particle of complementary charge in its shadow by stopping the other's gauge bosons without being influenced by the momentum of those bosons which causes (or allows) them to close by pressure from behind of the weaker but 'right' kind of bosons. Perhaps we could assume that the incoming gauge bosons are neutralised all around a particle by outgoing bosons of the opposite charge presenting as neutralisation at a distance of incoming potentially repulsive 'wrong' bosons and the zero charge field at a saddle point between the charged particles, this would appear as a full shadowing of repulsions only along the imaginary line joining the particles.

Yet, the attraction per unit charge at given separation by one mechanism is exactly equal to the repulsion per unit charge by the other mechanism (!) and the attraction/repulsion seems to be independent of the number or relative strength (redshift extent) of bosons emitted and received - unless those numbers are infinitely large. (?? comment??)

Moreover, a neutron, possibly containing a balance of charges in its core, neither suffers nor presents no net /gross influence by that shielding mechanism. It does however present a repulsion, only at very short range, to other neutrons and to protons (quite probably to electrons too), perhaps because it presents anisotropic emission/shielding at very short range??

Have I cracked it?

Best regards, Guy

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

From: Nigel Cook

To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:41 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

" "Dissimilar charges cannot exchange any radiation between each other". Why cannot dissimilar charges accept the incoming radiation from the other team's player?" - Guy Grantham.

(1) The electric field from two electrons adds up, implying trapped light speed energy current exists inbetween them (evidence from Catt's experiments on capacitor charging and discharging via sampling oscilloscopes). The electric field from an electron and a positron cancels to zero half way inbetween them. This is some evidence (independent of the mechanism for the forces) which shows that there is evidence of energy exchange between similar charges but not dissimilar charges.

(2) As stated in a reply below, for electric field to be mediated around a negative charge by a field, the components of the field (gauge bosons) would have to deliver the properties associated with the electric charge they are representing in the force field mediation. So I think the electron has negative gauge bosons being exchanged around it with other charges, while the positron and proton have positive charged gauge bosons which do the same thing. Unfortunately, QFT textbooks/professors are too obfuscating and steer well clear of the physical dynamics.

Dissimilar charges can't accept the radiation from each other because it simply doesn't interact, so they get pushed together hard by shadowing each other not just from the straight line addition (weak) path of gravity but also from the random walk (strong) path. A weak analogy is to say it is like the house of babble: people talking different languages don't interact as such. (This could either be due simply to the lack of a mechanism by which interaction can take place, or due to a mechanism which specifically acts to prevent interaction.) A stronger analogy is to borrow from Quantum Chromo Dynamics in which there are different colour charges each with different force-mediating gluons, alhough that is too complex. In a proton, the three quarks in addition to electric charges have blue, green and red colour charges, and mediate gluons with charges such as red-blue, green-blue, etc.

Can you see what the problem here is? The more objections people raise with a theory which is on the right lines, the better it will be developed. There were a lot of mysteries in the mechanism as raised in 1996, although it made checkable predictions from day one. There are fewer questions remaining today. The absurdity would be to complete the mechanism entirely and publish it complete with all the rejections from 1996 onwards from editors of Nature etc, and the various widely ignored early publications in obscure places. The objections get ever more absurd as the predictions get better. The final objection I'll get is that "the mechanism is horseshit because it can't predict dowsing."

Best wishes,

Nigel

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

From: Nigel Cook

To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 12:00 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Regarding your last point, I didn't prove that light comes to us at 6 km/s, I just showed that if the explanation for Michelson-Morley is as Eddington says (the contraction of the instrument exactly offsets the variation in lght speed by giving it a shorter path to travel where it is slowed down), then the CBR emitted at 300,000 years after BB comes to us at 6 km/s. Light/radiation emitted at time zero will come to us at speed 0 km/s. Light emitted at half the age of the universe will come to us at 50% of c. The percentage is not a fixed fraction, but is proportional to the age of the material. All were considering is the possibility that redshift is caused by light coming to us more slowly. Hence light from the sun comes to us at c, light from galaxies at 1,500,000,000 light years comes to us at 90% of c (because they are receding from us at 10% of c), etc.

This argument is irrelevant for the gravity-electromagnetism mechanism. The figure of 10^80 hydrogen atoms in the universe is measured by multiplying the average material (directly observed) density of the universe by its spherical volume out to how far light travels in the age of the universe (time since BB).

This figure has always been the same. Back in the 1930s it was calculated by Eddington who used Hubble's grossly exaggerated value of the Hubble constant (Hubble thought it was 540 km/s/megaparsec - which is 6-8 times too high - because he under-estimated the distances to stars by confusing two populations of Cepheid variables, which he used as measuring sticks for relative distances in multiplying up absolute distances derived from accurate parallax measurements locally).

Eddington got the right answer because the two massive errors in his calculation largely cancelled each other out. He underestimated the size of the universe because the excessive Hubble constant underestimated the age of the universe (if Hubble constant H is expressed in SI units it has units of 1/seconds, and 1/H is the age of the universe ignoring gravitational deceleration, whereas 2/(3H) is the age of the universe assuming a critical density between collapse and infinite expansion, assuming falsely that gravity is independent of the BB not the result of a mechanism based on the BB), but he overestimated the density of the universe for the same reason. Hence the mass he calculated by multiplying two numbers (one a gross overestimate, and one a gross underestimate) happened to turn out fairly accurate.

Because the false (high) figure of the Hubble constant used in the 1930s implies an age of the universe 6-8 times less than today's figure (2,000 million years in the 1930s, compared to a modern figure around 15,000 million years), the apparent measured density of the universe was over-estimated by a massive factor in the 1930s.

Because masses of galaxies were not known accurately then the density estimates were known to have large error margins, but the over-estimate made the apparent density of the universe in agreement with the critical density of general relativity. Later data takes away the exaggerated (high) density value, and so there is a disagreement which is filled by the ad hoc dark matter hypothesis.

The gravity mechanism dispenses with this by showing the true density when general relativity is made a quantum theory of gravity is not the critical density but is smaller by a factor of (e^3)/2 which is a factor of just over 10. This brings the observed density of the universe today into alignment with theory. It also gets rid of dark energy because the gravity mechanism doesn't cause gravitational retardation on expansion. The postulate of dark energy comes from a small positive cosmological constant added to a general relativity cosmology with critical density (ie the Lambda-CDM model) to cancel out gravitational retardation by causing an acceleration wich cancels out the long range postulated gravitational deceleration which is not observed in supernovae redshifts. Gravity mechanism gets rid of gravitational retardation at long ranges by physical mechanism (there are several equivalent ways to formulate this argument, the most brief and least rigorous being the simple statement to people that gauge bosons are redshifted like light over vast distances, so gravity doesn't cause distant supernovae to slow down). Hence it predicted the correct supernovae recession rates via the Oct 96 issue of Electronics World, two whole years before Perlmutter's experimental results confirmed it. There is no ad hoc dark energy because that isn't needed to counteract gravitational deceleration over vast distances, because the latter is a falsehood due to ignoring the details of quantum gravity mechanism in general relativity.

Best wishes,

Nigel

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

From: Nigel Cook

To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 11:24 AM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Below is an extract from a comment dealing with the issue of obfuscation on QFT and the fact that two types of charge may require two types of charged force-mediating gauge bosons, from the Ivor Catt discussion page on Wiki where I wrote about that issue yesterday. (It seems to be that because there are two types of electric charge and gauge bosons are the mediators of the force field, the "gauge bosons" are not uncharged photons but must be charged negative in order to create a negative force field, and positive to create a positive force field; this won't violate conservation of charge since the gauge boson number will be conserved. Notice that in electroweak theory, there are charged W+ and W- gauge bosons.) My gravity-electromagnetism mechanism is focussed on the U(1) part of the Standard Model, the simple electromagnetism symmetry (less complex than the SU(3) and SU(2) symmetries which describe quark interactions and weak interactions).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ivor_Catt

"... if you have an electron in space, the exchange radiation around it causes the negative "electric field". It is the exchange radiation which indicates to you the presence of the electron, not the electron core itself. So for two types of electric charge (positive and negative) there are going to be two types of exchange radiation, one positive and one negative? Is this true? If so, what does this say about the nature of the exchange radiation? That it is charged and not uncharged? You can find nothing about the dynamics for quantum field theory forces in textbooks. See, for instance, the up to date and comprehensive 615 page QFT book by Prof. Mark Srednicki here: [5].

"Recently I found an error in 1st edition of the textbook Introduction to Quantum Field Theory on arXiv.org which stated the charge of the electron as shielded by the virtual electron-positron shell around it has a charge relative charge 7% higher at 92 GeV energy of collision than at 0.511 MeV. The authors actually had the equation, with 0.511 Mev and 92 GeV cutoffs, shown to be equal to the experimentally known charge. Putting the numbers into the equation shows it is totally wrong, off by a factor of 100 or so. Why? I asked Lubos Motl the string theorist [6]. It turns out that that textbook (1st ed) was wrong as it ignored all the particle creation-annihilation loops which can be created at energies between 0.511 MeV and 92 GeV. Motl emailed the Professor then replied: "Prof. Alvarez-Gaume has written me that it was a pedagogical simplification, which I fully understand and endorse, and in a future version of the text, they will have not only the right numbers but even the threshold corrections!" The second edition [7] corrects the error, with a footnote thanking Motl. Fair enough, but you can see the problems I have in getting hard facts out of quantum field theory. It is very clear to me now that the renormalization cutoffs in quantum field theory are simply due to the fact that the field at high energy density (near the electron or other particle core) actually creates the particles. (The measurement of distance in terms of collision energy, 0.511 MeV to 92 GeV, adds to the confusion. The mechanism for the creation of charge pairs exists around the electron core even if there is no collision, and the mechanism is the field energy. The reason why higher energy charge pairs appear involved at higher collision energy is simply that at higher energy you penetrate more closely to the real particle core, where the field is stronger and where there are normally more exotic charge loops being formed - regardless of whether a collision is occurring or not. So it is vital to convert units of collision energy cutoffs into the less obfuscating units of real distance from the middle of a particle. The upper energy cutoff then corresponds to the distance near the real particle core where you are measuring the increased charge within the polarization veil, whereas the lower energy cutoff corresponds to the maximum distance from the real particle core where the electromagnetic field has sufficient energy density to be capable of first creating and then polarizing virtual charges. This is the meaning of the renormalization of charges in QFT.) If the field were merely polarizing an infinite aether, the polarization of vacuum virtual charge would extend far enought to completely cancel out all real charges completely. This does not happen, because the vacuum is not full of virtual charges, just exchange radiation. None of these physical facts are bona fide subjects for discussion in quantum field theory, where extra dimensional speculation reins. This is apparently why the subject remains so illucid, even to the textbook authors. The basic facts of QFT which have empirical evidence are very strong indeed, but the mathematical trivia submerges the physical facts and it is taking a lot of effort to break it down [8]."

Best wishes,

Nigel

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

From: Guy Grantham

To: Nigel Cook ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:50 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Nigel

Thank you for persevering with me. I understood the similar charges repelling - as with my own quoted example of two persons on ice skates throwing medicine balls back and forth - irrespective of the colours of their team shirts.

However I fail to understand how unlike charges (different team members) can avoid reacting to the virtual photons from non-team members when virtual photons from both teams are intercepted by them.

"Dissimilar charges cannot exchange any radiation between each other".

Why cannot dissimilar charges accept the incoming radiation from the other team's player? A boson bullet is a bullet and all particle masses send out gauge bosons in all directions. Else, if not, how does the remote particle know where to aim?

Are we now back to the equivalent of the advanced and retarded waves in time with 'colour' making connections before propagating for W+ and W- bosons?

What is difference with the neutral Z boson and why is that not shielded?

If the virtual photon gauge bosons from the opposite team are unperceived, why are these team members not transparent to the bosons instead of behaving as shields? Why are real photon bosons impartial?

I understood your argument for the 'drunkard's walk' analogy given previously. I had asked why you used 10^80 as number of mass particles in universe and assumed, without your reply, it might be accepted density data related to event horizon sphere of dimension "flight time" at 'c' around Earth such that returning light was zero velocity. However, something you wrote since altered this. You showed return light speed of 6 km/s, meaning universe is not old enough for us to be at extent of our limit of vision in standard model. Can you comment further please.

Best regards, Guy

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

From: Nigel Cook

To: Guy Grantham ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:24 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Guy,

Consider + as proton and - as electron

+ ..................- and they will attract

But what happens if you have the 4 charge situation:

+.................-

-.................+

Path (1) is therefore gravity, path (2) electromagnetism.

best wishes,

Nigel

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

From: Guy Grantham

To: Nigel Cook ; Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 2:23 PM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Dear Nigel

I may just be simple but prefer to claim that I have been indoctrinated for too long!

Best regards, Guy

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

From: Nigel Cook

To: Ian Montgomery ; David Tombe ; jvospost2@yahoo.com ; epola@tiscali.co.uk ; Monitek@aol.com

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 11:59 AM

Subject: Re: Light speed energy exchange is fact

Above: mechanism of attraction and repulsion in electromagnetism, and the capacitor summation of displacement current energy flowing between accelerating (spinning) charges as gauge bosons (by analogy to Prevost’s 1792 model of constant temperature as a radiation equilibrium). The net exchange is like two machine gunners firing bullets at each other; they recoil apart. The gauge bosons pushing them together are redshifted, like nearly spent bullets coming from a great distance, and are not enough to prevent repulsion. In the case of attraction, the same principle applies. The two opposite charges shield one another and get pushed together. Although each charge is radiating and receiving energy on the outer sides, the inward push is from redshifted gauge bosons, and the emission is not redshifted. The result is just like two people, standing back to back, firing machine guns. The recoil pushes them together, hence the attraction force.

Heuristically, gauge boson (virtual photon) transfer between charges to cause electromagnetic forces, and those gauge bosons don’t discriminate against charges in neutral groups like atoms and neutrons. The Feynman diagrams show no way for the gauge bosons/virtual photons to stop interactions. Light then arises when the normal exchange of gauge bosons is upset from its equilibrium. You can test this heuristic model in some ways. First, most gauge bosons are going to be exchanged in a random way between charges, which means the simple electric analogue is a series of randomly connected charged capacitors (positive and negative charges, with vacuum 377-ohm dielectric between the ‘plates’). Statistically, if you connect an even number of charged capacitors in random along a line across the universe, the sum will be on average be zero. But if you have an odd number, you get an average of 1 capacitor unit. On average any line across the universe will be as likely to have an even as an odd number of charges, so the average charge sum will be the mean, (0 +1)/2 = 1/2 capacitor. This is weak and always attractive, because there is no force at all in the sum = 0 case and attractive force (between oppositely charged capacitor plates) in the sum = 1 case. Because it is weak and always attractive, it's gravitation? The other way they charges can add is in a perfect summation where every charge in the universe appears in the series + - + -, etc. This looks improbable, but is statistically a drunkard's walk, and by the nature of path-integrals gauge bosons do take every possible route, so it WILL happen. When capacitors are arranged like this, the potential adds like a statistical drunkard's walk because of the random orientation of ‘capacitors’, the diffusion weakening the summation from the total number to just the square root of that number because of the angular variations (two steps in opposite directions cancel out, as does the voltage from two charged capacitors facing one another). This vector sum of a drunkard's walk is the average step times the square root of the number of steps, so for ~1080 charges, you get a resultant of ~1040. The ratio of electromagnetism to gravity is then (~1040) /(1/2). Notice that this model shows gravity is electromagnetism, caused by gauge bosons. It does away with gravitons. The distances between the charges are ignored. This is explained because on average half the gauge bosons will be going away from the observer, and half will be approaching the observer. The fall due to the spread over larger areas with divergence is offset by the concentration due to convergence.

ALL electrons are emitting, so all are receiving. Hence they don't slow, they just get juggled around and obey the chaotic Schrodinger wave formula instead of a classical Bohr orbit.

‘Arguments’ against the facts of emission without net energy loss also ‘disprove’ real heat theory. According to the false claim that radiation leads to net energy loss,

because everything is emitted heat radiation (separately from force causing radiation), everything should quickly cool to absolute zero. This is wrong for the same reason above: if everything is emitting heat, you can have equilibrium, constant temperature.

The equation is identical to Coulomb's law except that it expresses the

force in terms of different measurables. This allows it to predict the

permittivity of free space, the electric constant in Coulomb's law. So it

is a correct, predictive scientific mechanism.

The concepts of "electric charge" and "electric field" are useful words but

are physically abstract, not directly observable: you measure "them"

indirectly by the forces they produce, and you assume that because the mass

of the electron is quantized and the charge/mass ratio only varies with the

velocity of the electron by Lorentz/Einstein's law, charge is fundamental.

Really, energy is fundamental and the amount of "electric charge" you see

depends on how much attenuation there is by the polarised vacuum, the

observed (attenuated) charge falling by 7% at 90 GeV collisions (Koltick,

PRL, 1997), and mass varies because it is due to the surrounding The forces

are actually caused by vector radiation exchange. This is established by

quantum field theory.

If you have a series of parallel capacitor plates with different

charges, 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 the

angular 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 as

there 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 charge

is 2 units (2 units is equal to the difference between 1 negative charge and

1 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.

ABOVE IS FROM http://feynman137.tripod.com/

STUFF BELOW IS FROM http://electrogravity.blogspot.com/

Dr Woit concludes his book Not Even Wrong with a call for new symmetry principles to develop the standard model, explaining it and solving the problem of quantum gravity. Light has zero mass, but it delivers momentum of p = (energy)/c. Why not accept the simple symmetries that explain the verified facts of quantum field theory and of general relativity?

Yang-Mills (standard model) force-causing exchange radiation seen in the context of loop quantum gravity is the loop of energy exchange from any given mass to any other: these closed loops predict definite facts like conservation of gauge boson energy. At cosmological-sized distances, redshift of such exchange radiation weakens gravity, preventing retardation of the recession of distant supernovae.

Why don't people want to know the gravity mechanism? Why invent false snubs of the mechanism?

Yang-Mills models of the forces are literally correct. Prof. Smolin's work on loop quantum gravity (a low-dimensional, empirical type, largely ignored alternative to string theory) can be understood to say that Yang-Mills (standard model) particle physics are unified with general relativity when there are closed loops of energy exchange between masses. These closed loops mean that the energy being exchanged is constant. Hence, if masses recede from each other, the energy is redshifted which they receive from each other, etc.

I've explained this simple mechanism once. But I'll try reformulating my answer to be 100% clear. There are two types of electric charge. Forces result from shielding of exchange radiation (predicting the "attraction" force accurately) and a more complex situation where two charges are the same and so exchange radiation with each other. The exchanged radiation between two charges say 1 m apart is not redshifted (weakened), but the exchange radiation from the surrounding universe is redshifted (substantially) substantially. This mechanism for similar charges predicts a mutual recoil ("repulsion") force of the right size.For the simple shielding mechanism (attraction force), the cross-sectional shield area is that of the event horizon of a black hole, which is the same for gravity. The increased strength of electromagnetism over gravity comes from the addition of similar charges in the universe by random-walk statistics as compared to straight line averages, as I've shown. Just to be clear:

(1) Opposite charges (negative and positive) shield each other 100%, and so get pushed together (attraction). The opposite charges produce a net field because the sum of charges is zero (equal positive and negative charges produce zero total charge). Hence, they cannot sustain any trapped Catt type energy current between them (any net static charge implies a trapped light speed energy current, such as the gauge boson radiation in the vacuum between two protons). Since opposite charges (net electric charge of zero) are therefore NOT exchanging energy, they are not recoiling apart. Hence the only net force is the inward force from outside, pushing them together. So opposite charges "attract".

(2) Two like charges also shield one another 100%. However they recoil apart ("repel"), because they also exchange non-redshifted (non-weakened) radiation with one another (the electric field from two electrons adds up, implying trapped light speed energy current evidence from Catt's experiments on capacitor charging and discharging via sampling oscilloscopes). Hence for similar charges, the inward (redshifted) push is smaller than the mutual recoil from the exchange of radiation between simiar charges (Catt's so-called "contrapuntal TEM wave/trapped c-speed Heaviside energy current", or quantum field theorist's "Yang-Mills gauge boson exchange radiation"; use whichever description you prefer according to your taste, physically it is precisely the same stuff). I've explained previously how CERN in 1983 discovered the electroweak gauge boson exchange radiations with the masses predicted based onYang-Mills quantum field theory (the standard model, which also predicts thousands of particle physics reaction rates to within 0.1%, and electrodynamics to far greater accuracy. It is far better tested than any other theory). Light delivers momentum as it carries energy. This is experimentally confirmed fact. The momentum of light is simply p = (energy)/c.

The age of the universe is 1/H, where H is Hubble's parameter given by the recession equation v = Hr or H = v/r, where v is recession velocity and r is radial apparent distance from us. Friedmann's solution to general relativity for the critical density and ignoring a cosmological constant is that the universe expands as the 2/3 power of time after big bang, which (after some calculation) implies an age for the universe of (2/3)/H. However, the 1998 results show that the universe is not being slowed by gravity, in other words it is expanding as the Hubble law without any slowing down. The official "explanation" is a small positive value of the cosmological constant (Lambda) in the general relativity Lambda-CDM (Cold Dark Matter) model, which is a ******* ***. I explained in an 8 page paper (available via Electronics World, Oct 96, letters pages), that gravity is a reaction to expansion and this implies there is no gravitational retardation at the greatest distances from us in spacetime.

There are several ways to get the last result....

Post a Comment

<< Home