TrappedLight

I just read this again and realized I never actually answered your question. There could be a self-force of particles, even in this model, it would be called a gravitational self-force. The Abraham-Dirac classical equation describing the self-force of a particle is a tad different perhaps, but it involves peculiar things like an increasing charge with a change in position! I wouldn't actually know how to calculate the self-force of a particle, especially in a relativistic manner as this would include retarded and advanced forms of the Green's function, the tool itself used to calculate self-energy. In a way, I suppose a gravitational self-force would exist as [math]F = \frac{GM^2}{r^2}[/math] Of course, inside a particle, in my model the force would take on an extremely large value to cancel out the forces due to the coloumb force. Therefore, the gravitational self-force has an order of [math]F_{self} = \frac{\Gamma M^2}{r^2}[/math] Where [math]\Gamma[/math] is the strong gravitational constant (not to be mistaken for a Christoffel symbol). This would be true if [math]E_{self} = \frac{GM^2}{r}[/math] is a gravitational self-energy.

hmmm no it's not open in mainstream any more. Hawking retracted his statement concerning loss of information. Instead, the information is jumbled up inside the black hole, then leaves the black hole through information tunnelling.

You are right, it's not the same. I wrote in the original draft: ''Lloyd Motz, who was an American astronomer and cosmologist with a keen interest in gravity physics, began to describe elementary particles as bound pairs of photons, similar to a cooper pair only that the difference is that photons are in fact massless particles. But bound photons not only would cancel out the electric charge of a system but he speculated at the time that it could give rise to spin itself. He used this model consecutively to talk about the structure of neutrino's. In this work, we are not going to discuss the nature of other particles, instead we are going to focus on the electron. One particular part of his model involved describing mass of particles as a charge itself on the system, just like how an electron has an electric charge by moving in an electromagnetic field, the mass of an electron was also a charge on the system; the problem I suffered for quite a number of years was whether there was a direct analogy... ie. Is the mass of a particle then a charge gained by moving in a gravitational field? Gravity and the field itself is such a troublesome thing in physics at the moment. Not only does it appear to be significantly smaller by many magnitudes than the other three forces of nature but it also differs from the other forces that the force itself is not carried by a mediator particle. For instance, the electromagnetic force is mediated by photons, so what is the gravitational force mediated by? The speculation was that a field of ''gravitons'' was responsible for transmitting a gravitational signal from one place to another... but alas none have ever been found. In fact, the search for the fundamental mediator of gravity has been pretty much given up for not many scientists today believe there is even one. Instead, gravity was a pseudoforce, like the Coriolis force. Something experienced by a system in an inertial frame of reference. Of course, General Relativity which was formulated by Albert Einstein showed us that it was instrinsically related to the fabric of space and time and that objects accelerating in their frames of reference would not be able to tell whether they where falling or elevating. But what is gravity at the fundamental level? As I said, for many years I struggled to find an answer for myself why then there was not a complete analogy between the electric charge of a moving particle in an electromagnetic field and that with a mass charge moving in a gravitational field. The answer finally came to me by realizing that if the gravitational force wasn't actually a real force (ie. ficticious force) then it seems that mass had to come about another way. It can be as I found, still valuable to speak of the gravitational field and think of the particles charge of mass as something related to the curvature of spacetime.'' ... so to summarize and answer your question the gravitational self-energy is not caused by self-interaction with the gravitational field. The gravitational self-energy is characterized by the feature of the charge [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math] which may arise from fully electromagnetic features of the theory. The gravitational self-energy is about the effective mass of the system. The first time I wondered if [math]GM^2[/math] could be describes by electromagnetic features of the theory was when I evaluated a theoretical value for [math]GM^2[/math] by fitting it within the parameters of the trusted CODATA charge as I wrote ... Like all important fundamental dynamical processes in nature, physics often described them in terms of the constants of nature, such as the speed of light, permittivity, permeability, the gravitational constant ect. The CODATA elementary charge does exactly this. The point of the equation about to be shown, is to attempt to describe charge as a ratio of important fundamental constants [math]e = \sqrt{\frac{2 \alpha \pi \hbar}{\mu_0 c}}[/math] (1) We can be really theoretical about this and create a simple equation which will do the same thing for the gravitational charge. We first of all recall the relationship between the elementary charge and the gravitational charge [math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon_0 GM^2[/math] Square equation (1) and set them equal, this gives [math]4 \pi \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c GM^2 = 2 \alpha \pi \hbar[/math] Solving for the gravitational charge and cancelling out some factors we have a fundamental relationship for the gravitational charge [math]\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{\alpha \hbar}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}[/math] What is the interepretation of a dubious looking equation like this? I noticed a few things. First of all, in physics it is recognized that the angular momentum component [math]\hbar[/math] of a system is conserved through the fine structure constant [math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon_0 c} = \pm \alpha \hbar n[/math] Actually this is a special quantization condition. We should notice the positive and negative eigenvalues of increment [math]n[/math] and we may therefore imagine a same condition on our gravitational charge equation [math]\sqrt{G}M = \sqrt{\frac{ \pm \alpha \hbar n}{2 \epsilon_0 \mu_0 c}}[/math] This means that angular momentum is conserved in our definition of the gravitational charge itself. Notice also that our charge is proportionally dependant on the electric and magnetic resistance constants [math](\epsilon_0, \mu_0)[/math], something you might expect if mass itself was an electromagnetic phenomenon. Somehow, magnetic and electrical resistance, the mass and spin... and the charge are all fundamentally-related.

I'd like to point out, that GM^2/r is actually a gravitational self-energy. It can, as Swansont pointed out, is also a description of potential energy... depending on the text you read. In this work, it is a gravitational self-energy with a numerator describing the gravitational charge (the self-mass of the system). The gravitational charge Gm^2 is related to the energy and the radius as Er. Actually, this is the gravitational charge squared. Perhaps importantly, knowing the energy is related to gravitational charge by a product with the radius [math]E r = GM^2[/math] The self-energy is calculated as [math]\frac{\hbar c}{(\frac{\hbar}{Mc})} = Mc^2[/math] So what we really have is [math]\frac{\hbar c}{(\frac{\hbar}{Mc})} \bar{r} = GM^2[/math] Or you can swap the definitions around [math]\frac{GM^2}{(\frac{\hbar}{Mc})} \bar{r} = \hbar c[/math] Means the same thing though Note, [math]\frac{\hbar}{Mc}[/math] is an important quantity known as Comptons reduced wavelength... considered to be the ''size'' of a particle.

Oh God yes, a bit technical. String theory, I don't think we have any string theorists here at the forum? I certainly wouldn't know the answer to this.

Do we have any chess addicts here, that either play for fun in their spare time or even play professionally? I quite enjoy the chess myself but I am probably considered a serious player, I study all the openings, traps. My rating is roughly 1900-2000. So who enjoys chess here, have any games you'd like to show me, or even interested in seeing a few of mine? Maybe even challenge me to an online game perhaps?

I'll just expand on what ajb said, the model you are looking for is geometrogenesis. Ajb is talking about the low energy epoch: Which is in fact when geometry and matter appeared in the universe. The Planck epoch exists in the high energy stages of our universe. General Relativity works well in a vacuum where geometry is present. Relativity is inconsistent without geometry, so it's meaningless to try and make sense of it when the universe was extremely young. No doubt this is going to require a new path of physics called ''beyond the standard model'' physics. Though it's really interesting stuff! A really strange prediction however of geometrogenesis, is that when the universe came into existence, we are led to believe there was no space to speak of, it appeared as a single point without dimensions. This must, if we take relativity seriously about it's first principles, must mean that there was no time either to speak of since space and time are considered unified as the same properties of the same space triangle. Of course, it kind of reminds us of the Wheeler de Witt equation, which has been interpreted to mean we live in a timeless universe. - you obtain this equation by quantizing the Einstein Field Equations.

Good pun. I think the rotational properties are believed to have vanished when the universe inflated. You can't rotate something which expanded faster than light, it would have to also rotate many magnitudes of the speed of light. (Edited) I suppose a really good question to ask, is what would the universe spin relative to anyway? And to spin, wouldn't that require that the universe has a boundary? And what is it a boundary between?

From what I understand of cosmological rotation, is that no one really believes the universe is spinning today. However, observations of galaxies rotational properties seem to show a bias for a particular handedness, meaning that it is possible our universe rotated very early on. The rotation of the universe, doesn't create black holes. You simply can't have a black hole (form from nothing). Black holes have a distinct property of mass.

There are some really nice perks with having a variable gravitational constant. For starters, we can be biased about a particular scale property of G. The value of G would depend on either a cosmological scale or a particle scale. It's a nice feature of the theory for two reasons 1) That it explains why gravity is normally detected very weak on our scale of things 2) It takes on a massive value [math]\frac{\hbar c}{M^2}[/math] inside of particles, to orders of [math]G \cdot 10^{40}[/math] neutralizing the internal coulomb stresses. Not sure how this would implement into my theory, even if it could, but this source claims [math]G^{-1}[/math] is a scalar theory of gravity which doesn't need to be constant http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/scalar-tensor Of course, I need to be careful what the change is in respect to the theory. The change of G for strong gravity depends on getting to smaller and smaller spacetime distances/intervals. It probably isn't the same kind of varying G as found, for instance, here http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/dr-rupert-sheldrake/how-the-gravitational-constant-varies_b_2479456.html and even here http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf but of course, if G varies in those circumstances, why can't there be a varying of G as distances are reduced to particle scales?

Yes but much later, when I try to look at the gravitational charge in terms of electromagnetic properties, the same way one can only reason that if all particles are actually made up of electromagnetic energy, then their gravitational charge terms will be also a product of electromagnetic features of the theory. I am fine with discussing it, but I need a bit of effort from both sides. Remember how you entered my thread, it wasn't particularly nice, but that's life. Now you understand that this isn't so much the mass, or being constrained by Planck Parameters. We have a bit more of a complicated theory involving a strong gravitational constant at smaller distances of space and time. This was vital in my theory to be a mechanism or origin of the Poincare stresses which are vital because they are absolutely needed in my theory, indeed, any semi-classical model of the electron would require it.

It doesn't need to be a Planck Charge. We notice that when we study [math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math] here [math]e[/math] is almost never defined as the Planck Charge in the fine structure constant. In fact, [math]e[/math] is defined as an electron charge in almost all cases I have seen. ''Again, this looks just like the Planck mass, but you have stated that we now have a variable G, but you should give some indication of what it depends on. The physics here is unclear to me.'' When you say ''we now have a variable G'' you make it sound like I am making this up as we go along. I have always had a variable [math]G[/math] in my theory, you just never bothered to read my work. ''This you will have to explain to me carefully. What has your relations and a variable G got to do with gauge invariance? '' You know... I don't have to do all the work for you. If you had followed the work, read the links given, I wouldn't need to explain this. The equation [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] is noted by Motz as being derivable from the weyl principle of Gauge invariance, ref http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf I used to have the paper in which it was derived, but I no longer have it. I only have this original paper reference. I also know of a few other papers which refer back to this exact condition. The physics of [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] is changed in this theory so that the gravitational constant plays the role of strong gravity, we therefore can adjust the mass term for other particle masses as was seen above, you can derive a proportionality between the constants and the pion mass. [math]\Gamma = \frac{\hbar c}{M_{\pi}^{2}}[/math] where gamma is playing the role of the strong gravitational constant. The mass term will become the Planck mass term in the special condition of high energy physics where black hole particles are taken into consideration.

First of all, the Heaviside relationship is [math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c[/math] We are understanding first of all, that the equation [math]e^2 = 4 \pi \epsilon GM^2[/math] is a consequence of finding an exact equivalence of [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math] This condition is reached from the Weyl Principle of Gauge invariance.

Oh there is definitely real physics involved with the Heaviside equation. For instance, the fine structure constant can be defined from the equation by making it into a meaningful and physical dimensionless subject [math]\frac{e^2}{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math] Or if you want to speak about it in terms of the gravitational charge [math]\frac{GM^2}{\hbar c}[/math] When in the special condition of talking about Planck units, the latter has an important meaning [math](t_p \omega_C)^2[/math] where we are dealing with the Planck time. The dimensionless case appears very frequently in strong gravity cases http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2010/PP-22-06.PDF

Well, to show the negative and positive values of the KG equation, is second order in time and admits the solutions [math]\psi(r,t) = e^{\frac{i(pr - Et)}{\hbar}}[/math] where the sign of the energy is [math]E = \pm c \sqrt{p^2 - Mc^2}[/math] The difference between the Dirac equation and the KG equation, is that the Dirac equation describes heavy fermion particles with spin 1/2 states. The KG equation is an equation used to describe spinless particles. Another large difference is that the Dirac equation is first order in time.

The internal Poincare stresses are in fact non-electromagnetic in nature. I did realize however, that the Poincare stress could be the appearance of a strong gravitational force field inside of particles, with a magnitude of [math]G \cdot 10^{40}[/math]. This would neutralize the internal Coulomb repulsive force. We already have existing theories for such a model, where we may assume the presence of what is called ''strong gravity'' and is a major research subject at the moment among scientists attempting to unify gravity with the rest of the forces. Even if it isn't gravity which plays the role of a Poincare stress, for a non-zero radius of a particle, the Poincare stress is very much needed.

Well, I did say that I was using a model where gravity gets strong at smaller and smaller levels - one of the main reasons for doing this was so that the gravitational field inside of the particle would act as a Poincare Stress.

Yes, I am not thrilled by the ''other explanations'' for the Casimir effect. What people forget is that the Casimir effect was discovered [because] and only because quantum theory predicted it.

I knew I had it written down somewhere: [math]\frac{ hc}{M_{\pi}^{2}} = 3.2 \times 10^{30}m^3kg^{-1}s^{-2}[/math] This is a strong gravitational constant, written in terms of the pion mass. That all heavily depends on what mass you are using, or even what gravitational constant you are using. Nothing is fixed.

It can be the Planck mass, it doesn't always need to be defined in such a way. For instance, the gravitational constant can be defined proportional to a pion mass [math]G = \frac{\hbar c}{M^{2}_{\pi}}[/math] And I haven't just ''picked out some units,'' I've already explained to you, [math]\hbar c[/math] and [math]GM^2[/math] are completely equivalent. Therefore [math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon GM^2}[/math] must be a true statement if the equivalence is to hold.

The Larmor energy is written as a Hamiltonian [math]\Delta H = \frac{2 \mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} r^{-1}\frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}(L \cdot S)[/math] The part we will concentrate on is [math]\frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}[/math] And we will use Greens theorem to derive an equivalence with this expression. We begin with the determinant [math]\nabla \times F = \begin{vmatrix}\hat{n}_1 & \hat{n}_2 & \hat{n}_3 \\ \partial_x & \partial_y & \partial_z \\F_x & F_y & 0 \end{vmatrix}[/math] You can write this as [math]\nabla \times F = \frac{\partial F_y}{\partial x}\hat{n}_1 - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial y}\hat{n}_2 + (\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z})\hat{n}_3[/math] The first set of terms cancel out [math]\nabla \times F = (\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z})\hat{n}_3[/math] A unit vector squared just comes to unity, so if you multiply a unit vector of both sides we get [math]\nabla \times F \cdot \hat{n} = (\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z})[/math] Now, a force equation can be given as [math]F = \frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r} \hat{n}[/math] Notice, apart from the unit vector, this is an identical term found in the Larmor energy. Again, if one multiplies the unit vector on both sides we get [math]F \cdot \hat{n} = \frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}[/math] A quick check over the original Larmor energy [math]\Delta H = \frac{2 \mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} r^{-1}\frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}(L \cdot S)[/math] Shows that the Larmor energy can be written as [math]\Delta H = \frac{2 \mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} r^{-1} F \cdot \hat{n} (L \cdot S)[/math] Here [math] L \cdot S = |L| |S| \cos \theta [/math] appears like an equation describing an angle between two vector quantities, the momentum and it's spin coupling. we replaced like terms with the inverse curl operator [math] F \cdot \hat{n} =(\nabla \times)^{-1} \mathbf{A}[/math] [math](\frac{\partial F_y}{\partial z} - \frac{\partial F_x}{\partial z}) = \mathbf{A}[/math] so that [math]F \cdot\hat{n} = \frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r} [/math] is related to the quantity [math](\nabla \times)^{-1} \mathbf{A}[/math] (which if my memory serves right) shouldn't be much of a surprise because the inverse of the curl involves the potential of a system, so that the Larmor energy can be written as [math]\Delta H = \frac{2 \mu}{\hbar Mc^2 e} r^{-1} (\nabla \times)^{-1} \mathbf{A} |L||S| cos \theta[/math] The geometric interpretation of this equation isabout the orbit itself, a closed curve displacement. Specifically, the perimeter of the closed curve in which the electron is moving in, in vector notation. I don't know why some of these equations are not showing up :/

That particular equation is a consequence of [math]\hbar c = GM^2[/math]. [math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon \hbar c}[/math] The two terms [math]\hbar c[/math] and [math]GM^2[/math] are completely equivalent.

The idea of a non-zero radius for an electron has been discussed for many years. I mean, I can see why part of the work is speculative, but none of the threads in the speculations section entertains a rigorous mathematical model. It's not all speculative. In fact, it's more of a hypothesis really.

Best not to think of macroscopic observers... There is no one observing the observer...

Alright... it's been a while.. can I ask why it is in speculations? I understand why many would speculate the idea involved. I do not understand why the general idea is not witheld. The idea is hardly your general speculation, nor pseudoscience. I am by far apart the differences involved.