Nature of Gravity: was Vector Gravitational Equations

In article , Doug Sweetser
wrote:

From: Doug Sweetser
Newsgroups: sci.physics.research
Subject: Vector gravitational field equations
Approved: (s.p.research moderator)
Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp)
NNTP-Posting-Host: perimeterinstitute.ca
Date: 8 Sep 2003 14:45:07 -0400
X-Trace: news.sentex.net 1063046707 perimeterinstitute.ca (8 Sep 2003
14:45:07 -0400)
Lines: 106
Path:
bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmaster12!wn11feed!worl dnet.att.net!128.23
0.129.106!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.co m!Cidera!news.sentex.net!not-
for-mail
Xref: wnmaster12 sci.physics.research:51310
X-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2003 18:45:29 GMT
(bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net)

Hello:

In this post, I hope to start a fight or at least an animated
discussion since that is all that can be done via a newsgroup. The
battle will be over demonstrations that a 4-potential cannot explain
how gravity works. To start out a little edgy, I will claim that
physicists should be embarassed as a community by two such
demonstrations, one in a technical review of possible theories of
gravitation, and another in the venerable "Gravitation" by Misner,
Thorne, and Wheeler.

As i was preparing this post, I came accross Richard Price's great
introduction to general relativity, an article I got a lot out of
previously. Looking back, I can see precisely where he cooked the
books to favor a tensor theory. I'll show why his reason for
rejecting a vector field equation is flawed too.

In the article "Einstein's and other theories of gravitation" (Reviews
of Modern Physics, 29:334-336, 1957) by Suraj N. Gupta, he writes out
the three most obvious types of field equations:

Box^2 U = k T, (Eq. 1)
Box^2 U_mu = k T_mu, (Eq. 2)
Box^2 U_mu_nu = k T_mu_nu (Eq. 3)

He continues:

It is, therefore, evident that the gravitational field (Eq. 2)
will be identical with the electromagentic field, except that the
gravitational charge of a particle might be different from its
electromagnetic charge. Such a theory of the gravitational field
has to be rejected, because the observed properties of the
gravitational field are quite different from those of the
electromagnetic field. For instance, the gravitational force
between any two particles is always attractive, while the
electromagnetic force between like charges is repulsive.

In the first line, Gupta says we could have two currents, one for mass
charge, the other for electric charge. Let's give them two names, say
Jm_mu and Jq_mu. These are completely separate animals. What is the
difference between a force that repels and one that attracts? One
well-placed minus sign. With the freedom to choose a current, choose
the sign:

Box^2 U_mu = - k Jm_mu

Does anyone doubt that for this equation, like charges will attract?
Thirring makes a similar mistake in an Annals of Physics article
(16:96-117, 1961) citing someone else's work in 1944 I'll have to look
up. Frankly, I find this "it must be repulsive" argument embarrassing
because it requires so little effort to correct.

In the big black phone book, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler do a little
better, starting out with a variation principle that at least has the
signs set up so like charges will attract (Eq. 7.6). There is no
reason however to do the exercise as it is presented. The equivalence
principle has been demonstrated experimentally (at least up to some
issues of chirality).

I would suggest that until people realize that Coulomb's law only
applies to charged particles which have relative motion that they're
never going to get to the bottom of gravity. We assume things that are
not in evidence physically and that gets us in deep trouble
conceptually. Hardly anyone doubts that like charges repel and unlike
charges attract but hardly anyone recognizes that the interactive
behavior of elementary charged particles depends upon their relative
motion state. Let's not 'assume' the existence of a repelling
'electrostatic' field. We know that pith balls and balloons and such
which have different amounts of charge (or charge density) will
attractively interact and that if they have the same amount of charge
(or charge density that they'll repulsively interact. This is not
news. Any kid with a small Van de Graaf generator can show these
effects. Let us ask ourselves if it is proper to extrapolate the
behavior of lots of quantum particles down to the behavior of a single
quantum particle. We don't do this with basic gas molecules; meaning
that things like gas pressure are not assignable to discrete quantum
particles nor to single molecules of a gas. So, how does it make
logical sense to believe that discrete charged particles (quantum
parti) will interactively behave in the same way that pith balls
interactively behave. Pith balls as macro scale objects can be pretty
much at rest with respect to one another but the charged particles on
their surfaces certainly are not. Where do we have experimental
examples of elementary charged particles being in a state of rest with
respect to each other? In our very thermal world a CO2 molecule at 20C
moves around at about 400 m/s and an electron at that same temperature
has an average speed of about 115,000 m/s. So, the reality is that we
don't have any experimental data which has characterized the
interactive behavior of elementary charged particles which are at rest
with respect to each other. So, we must ask ourselves the question
'Why do we believe like charged particles which are at rest with
respect to each other must behave like same charged pith balls when, in
fact, we have no experimental data that tells us that this is so?' Now
I know that this comes as a shocker to many people and many people will
simply reject this in disbelief but I encourage people not to let their
physics rest upon beliefs which have no laboratory demonstration of
their validity.

Let us use a little logic here and discuss the forces and fields that
might arise around a pair of elementary charged particles like a pair
of protons, A and B, which are on the order of several nuclear
diameters apart from each other and which are at rest (or nearly so)
with respect to each other. Let's hold off believing in an
electrostatic repulsive field for a bit or at least until we can prove
that such a thing exists between quantum particles.

Maxwell's equation Del X H = permeability *dE/dt means that if E is
changing with time at some point then H has curl at that point and can
be considered as forming a small closed loop linking (surrounding) the
changing E field.

If some remote particle, p, in the universe has motion with respect to
A, then A, because it is a charged particle, is the source of a
changing E field but this changing E field does not exist in A's frame
of rest. A cannot move with respect to itself so the H loop (Del X H)
does not exist in A's frame of rest. Some people use this argument to
say that an electric field is the same as a magnetic field because the
magnetic field can be 'transformed' away by the choice of correct rest
frame, in this case the rest frame of the particle A. Nevertheless, in
the rest frame of the remote particle, p, A does have a Del X H vector
field. Even though this Del X H may exist in p's rest frame it is just
as remote from p as is A. For any remote particle, p, that has some
component of its velocity as a normal to a plane containing A and B
there will emerge from the locations of A and B but not in their frame
of rest, a pair of vector fields, Del X H(sub A)p and Del X H(sub B)p.

What is true of that pair of vector fields is that at the point of
intersection of Del X H(sub A)p and Del X H(sub B)p (on that plane) the
vector sum will be zero or null. I'd rather use the terminology 'null'
to indicate that it is not the same thing has having nothing at the
intersection point as 'zero' would indicate but rather requires the
presence of both Del X H(sub A)p and Del X H(sub B)p to produce a
'null'. This null point is a low energy state and if we follow the
basic axiom that quantum particles obtain to the lowest energy state
available we should expect that A and B ought to begin to 'fall'
towards that null point.

Bear in mind that there are very many other particles, from p(1) to
p(x), in the universe which have some component of their relative
motion which is a normal to a plane containing A and B. This means
that there are very many pairs of vector fields Del X H(sub A)p(1) and
Del X H(sub B)p(1) through Del X H(sub A)p(x) and Del X H(sub B)p(x)
wherein the intersection of each pair produces a null vector sum. If
there were 10e60 particles in the universe, each of which which has
some component of its motion as a normal to a plane containing A and B,
then there would be 10e60 combined null points. This implies that
there would be a very sharp null motion gradient in the vicinity of the
combined null points and that the two particles A and B would
necessarily fall into this gradient just obeying the axiom that quantum
particles obtain the the lowest energy state possible. Now this isn't
any sort of trickery or anything but these conclusions follow directly
from Maxwell's equation couple with the axiom that quantum particles
can have motion only with respect to other quantum particles and not
with respect to any arbitrarily contrived coordinate system.

When we see that there's such a strong attractive interaction possible
between A and B when they are overlapping in the same momentum space
(nearly at rest with respect to each other) then we can also see that
there is no need to contrive some 'nuclear strong force' to account for
the attractive interaction between atomic nuclei that are undergoing
nuclear fusion.

If A and B were two oppositely charged particles which were at rest or
nearly at rest with respect to each other then we can see that the
intersection of any pair of vector fields generated by the motion of
any remote particle p in the universe which has some component of its
motion as a normal to a plane containing A and B, then that would lead
to an increase of vector density at that point. And because there
would be very many particles in the universe each of which would have
some component of it relative motion with respect to A and B normal to
a plane containing A and B then we would have the production of a point
where the vector density was exceedingly high. If the high null
density could be characterised as a sharp depression (on a hypothetical
energy plane) then a high vector density point could be characterised
as a sharply rising mountain (high energy state) away from which both A
and B would fall.

We should be able to see, using these arguments, which are based upon
the simplest axioms of motion and Maxwell's equations, that elementary
charged particles which are overlapping in momentum space will behave
just opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law.

If we characterize a gravitational field as a null motion gradient
field then we see that it is trivial to unify electomagnetism and
gravity suggesting that producing a gravitational field requires only
the production of a null gradient structure. This means that any
quantum particle which is the source of a gravitational field (without
implying that all quantum particles are gravitational sources) must be
able to self arrange its structure to produce a null flux point (or
line or circle).

These arguments may upset some people but I've stuck strictly to the
facts here. What I find amazing is that physicists in the early
twentieth century should have used these very arguments to unify
electromagnetism and gravity but they didn't. From this we can deduce
a previously unknown property of a gravitational field (as a null
motion gradient structure) which is that it must produce a charge
separation effect. In fact, anytime we see a charge separation effect
of any kind we ought to suspect the operation of a gravitational field.
In this case we can surmise that photons are gravitational sources that
they are a null motion gradient structure. Wheeler and Feynman,
labored for years, without success (according to Feynman) to comprehend
the direct implication found in Maxwell's equations that the emission
of any EM quanta as a retarded wave required the propagation backward
through time of the conjugate EM quanta (advanced wave) from the target
in the future. Maxwell's equations when expressed in terms of E and H
only characterize an EM wave. If we applied the geometry implicit in
Maxwell's equations to a photon we'd see that we can characterize the
photon as a quantum scale flux loop structure which oscillates between
being in the H loop mode and the E loop mode. Since a photon can
disassemble into an electron and a positron (pair creation event) we
can see that the EM quanta of a photon is a special means to assemble
two oppositely charged particles. In the case of a photon there's no
divergence of E just as there's no divergence of H. This only
reinforces the argument that a photon produces its own gravitational
field and suggests that discrete charged particles are not
gravitational sources. Thus we see that a neutron which can decay
into an electron and proton (and an antineutrino) is also a candidate
as a monolithic gravitational field source. If a neutron produces a
gravitational field in the nucleus then that gravitational field (as a
null motion gradient structure) not only excludes electrons from the
nucleus zone (charge separation effect) but also provides a means for
protons to continuously overlap in momentum space. Without a neutron
producing a null motion gradient field two protons which might have
become strongly attractively interactive can easily be separated by any
collisional event.

CC

change the 'y' to 'i' in CCRyder to respond via email.

CC wrote:


[Earlier bull**** snipped]


If we characterize a gravitational field as a null motion gradient
field then we see that it is trivial to unify electomagnetism and
gravity suggesting that producing a gravitational field requires only
the production of a null gradient structure. This means that any
quantum particle which is the source of a gravitational field (without
implying that all quantum particles are gravitational sources) must be
able to self arrange its structure to produce a null flux point (or
line or circle).


"null motion gradient field" ???
"trivial to unify electomagnetism and gravity" ???


[Latter bull**** snipped]

Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Si...ww .crank.net

Doug Sweetser wrote:
In this post, I hope to start a fight or at least an animated
discussion since that is all that can be done via a newsgroup. The
battle will be over demonstrations that a 4-potential cannot explain
how gravity works. To start out a little edgy, I will claim that
physicists should be embarassed as a community by two such
demonstrations, one in a technical review of possible theories of
gravitation, and another in the venerable "Gravitation" by Misner,
Thorne, and Wheeler.

In order for a 4 vector to describe gravity when you do the variation in the
lagrangian you will see that the source of gravity would not be the stress
energy tensor; it would be something like the mass analogue of electric
current. It would transform as a 4 vector but its physical meaning would be
non existent. Charge has the physical property of being conserved between
inertial reference frames - mass (when expressed in terms of energy which
you can do via E=MC2) does not. This means the 'source' of gravity can not
be a 4 vector - it is in fact the stress energy tensor Tuv. This is
discussed on page 140 of Ohanian and Ruffini Gravitation and Space-time.
Other possible outs such as using the trace of the stress energy tensor are
also discussed.

Thanks
Bill