Jump to content
rjbeery

Paper: A causal mechanism for gravity

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

In the context of my discussion with MigL and Joigus, I'm using "absolute" to differentiate clocking rates in different gravity wells from what they apparently believe to be "relative' effects. What would be more appropriate? Unqualified? Indisputable?

Relative.

Just because the situation is asymmetrical, it is still relative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Relative.

OK Strange, thanks for your input.

Do you have any feedback on the paper I posted in OP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

A remote light-clock which is clocking more slowly than mine due to gravity is doing so because the photons in it are literally moving more slowly.

Well, there goes the invariance of c :doh: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

OK Strange, thanks for your input.

Do you have any feedback on the paper I posted in OP?

Not really. I haven't looked at it in detail, but it is not very surprising if you can derive gravity from time dilation as they both have the same underlying cause. It's a bit like saying "if you tell me how fast we are going, I can tell you when we will arrive".

I struggle to see the relevance of this speculative "EM mass" concept. Mass is mass.

And we have a "causal mechanism for gravity" so I'm not sure what is new, as you are invoking the same cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

In the context of my discussion with MigL and Joigus, I'm using "absolute" to differentiate clocking rates in different gravity wells from what they apparently believe to be "relative' effects. What would be more appropriate? Unqualified? Indisputable?

1) I do not believe anything, I need, demand AAMOF in this context, logical proof or experimental evidence. You have neither.

2) Clock rate is a relative (frame-dependent) quantity.

 

Plus you only too obviously don't understand special relativity, let alone GR.

Edited by joigus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Strange said:

I struggle to see the relevance of this speculative "EM mass" concept. Mass is mass.

The EM mass is important because it would explain why mass would move in the direction of a graded time dilation field.

This paper is predicting no new physics. From a philosophical standpoint, though, it offers: new (likely simpler) ways to analyze old problems, as well as more physically intuitive explanations of the mass-energy equivalence, the cosmic speed limit, and relativistic mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rjbeery said:

The EM mass is important because it would explain why mass would move in the direction of a graded time dilation field.

We already have an explanation for that. And you are using it already, by basing things on time dilation.

2 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

This paper is predicting no new physics.

It is based on rather dubious science (this "EM mass" concept seems to have been invented by some engineers and, despite [or perhaps because of] being an engineer, I have seen some very dubious "physics" produced by engineers.).

Quote

From a philosophical standpoint, though, it offers: new (likely simpler) ways to analyze old problems, as well as more physically intuitive explanations of the mass-energy equivalence, the cosmic speed limit, and relativistic mass.

Does it reproduce all the effects of GR? Can you correctly calculate the precession of Mercury? The Lense-Thirring effect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Strange said:

We already have an explanation for that. And you are using it already, by basing things on time dilation.

If you're comfortable with the current explanation of gravity in GR, that's fantastic. Many people would not agree, though, and some say we don't have an explanation for it at all.

This is Richard Feynman:

Quote

But is this such a simple law? What about the machinery of it? All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this; he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery. It is characteristic of the physical laws that they have this abstract character. The law of conservation of energy is a theorem concerning quantities that have to be calculated and added together, with no mention of the machinery, and likewise the great laws of mechanics are quantitative mathematical laws for which no machinery is available. Why can we use mathematics to describe nature without a mechanism behind it? No one knows. We have to keep going because we find out more that way.

 

26 minutes ago, Strange said:

Can you correctly calculate the precession of Mercury?

I'm working on that as a matter of personal satisfaction, but Eddington (and others) claim that the analogy is "complete".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rjbeery, I'm giving you some homework:

https://www.amazon.com/Introducing-Einsteins-Relativity-Ray-dInverno/dp/0198596863

You don't sound to me like you're completely off your rocker. Maybe you've tried to get into the forest a little too deep, a little too devil-may-care, and without dropping your breadcrumbs on the floor. I don't want to be completely negative. So there you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

I'm working on that as a matter of personal satisfaction, but Eddington (and others) claim that the analogy is "complete".

What analogy?

If you cannot reproduce all the results of GR, then your model is wrong. Which would be especially ironic as you are basing it on GR.

5 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

If you're comfortable with the current explanation of gravity in GR, that's fantastic. Many people would not agree, though, and some say we don't have an explanation for it at all.

Irrelevant. It works. No one disagrees with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

What analogy?

The "F=ma optics" analogy. The analogy claiming that mass in gravitation behaves like light in a graded time dilation field. Once the analogy is ordained "complete" I don't see the value in solving it for various special cases.

 

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Irrelevant. It works. No one disagrees with that.

I agree that "it works" but I completely disagree that it's irrelevant. It's a matter of personal preference, and how much of a philosopher-at-heart a person is, I suppose. I cannot stand the Copenhagen Interpretation, for example. It's offensive to me, and it baffles me that some folks are at peace with it.

If a causal mechanism for gravity is uninteresting or redundant to you, that's OK. I suspect others might find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

I agree that "it works" but I completely disagree that it's irrelevant. It's a matter of personal preference, and how much of a philosopher-at-heart a person is, I suppose.

Personal preference has nothing to do with it. Unless you can reproduce all the results of GR (or improve on it) it is irrelevant what approach you take or what you like.

9 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

I cannot stand the Copenhagen Interpretation, for example.

That is just a preference about an interpretation. It has nothing to do with the underlying science, which is the same for all interpretations of QM. You can dismiss all the interpretations. It doesn't matter.

But you are not claiming a different interpretation of GR (if that is even possible). You are presenting a different model (based on a result of GR) which does not appear to produce the same results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

But you are not claiming a different interpretation of GR (if that is even possible). You are presenting a different model (based on a result of GR) which does not appear to produce the same results.

Why do you say it doesn't produce the same results? Also, if it was shown to do so, would your reaction be dismissive? Because I'm fine discussing the details but not if you're not sincerely interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

No one has since given any machinery.

Yes, this is Richard Feynman in 1965. Have you heard of entropic gravity? Erik Verlinde deduces Einstein's equations and Newton's laws. And it is by no means sure it is the right theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity#Criticism_and_experimental_tests

IOW, people don't buy it just yet. Why should scientists pay more attention to you than to Verlinde, for example?

Com'on, don't make a fool of yourself any longer. This is really painful to witness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

Why do you say it doesn't produce the same results?

Because you haven't shown that it does. And it seems impossible for a simplistic model like yours to reproduce all the complexity of the Einstein field equations. I think someone would have noticed in the last 100 years if it could be simplified like that.

But of course, even if your model does reproduce some limited results from GR, it is only because you have based it on GR.

Quote

Also, if it was shown to do so, would your reaction be dismissive? 

I would love it if you did that. Which is why I asked about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think someone would have noticed in the last 100 years if it could be simplified like that.

They have noticed. I think the analogy goes back into the 18th century. The only thing I've done is suggest that it isn't an analogy at all, but two ways of looking at the same thing.

I find it odd that you agree that this would be a simplification of GR but also that, if true, you say "it is only because you have based it on GR..."

If it reproduces the predictions of GR faithfully, is it redundant and trivial, or does it have value in your eyes?

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Thanks for the recommendation Joigus. Is this your source for claiming that gravitational time dilation can be attributed to longer absorption and re-emission times? Because I've never heard of that and I'd be interested in a proof because I don't think it's tenable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ladies and gentlemen, is hands down the dumbest abstract I have read in a „proper” paper in my entire life. I will give that I am not very old and I haven’t been reading physics abstracts for more than 10 years but still, this has got to be in at least top 10 for more of you?

79B50019-7E97-4DF0-9B34-105F50F6242F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, rjbeery said:

They have noticed. I think the analogy goes back into the 18th century. The only thing I've done is suggest that it isn't an analogy at all, but two ways of looking at the same thing.

I find it odd that you agree that this would be a simplification of GR but also that, if true, you say "it is only because you have based it on GR..."

If it reproduces the predictions of GR faithfully, is it redundant and trivial, or does it have value in your eyes?

Thanks for the recommendation Joigus. Is this your source for claiming that gravitational time dilation can be attributed to longer absorption and re-emission times? Because I've never heard of that and I'd be interested in a proof because I don't think it's tenable.

I never said that. The bouncing photon clock that you talked about involves photons interacting with matter, which no longer is a photon travelling through the gravitational field. Such system, with two parallel mirrors and a photon bouncing back and forth, doesn't work like you claim it does. If you ever see a radiation pressure fan or radiometer, you will understand what I mean just looking at it. You won't have to think or listen to anybody, or read what they say, which for you is a definite advantage:

photons push against a mirror, you see? That's why your idea didn't work. But I'm starting to lose track of what you're saying. You've talked so much nonsense today I can't keep track.

Now those are real photons, not the ones that are in your mind.

Cheers

Edited by joigus
duplicated video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, joigus said:

Now those are real photons, not the ones that are in your mind.

The actual timing mechanism (photon vs spring vs something else) of a clock doesn't matter. If it did we would violate the equivalence principle. Regardless, a photon-clock is a real thing: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-scientists-create-tiny-photon-clock-1029

The talk about absorption and re-emission doesn't and can't have any bearing on the rate of the clock ticking for a simple, logical reason that I mentioned earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rjbeery said:

I find it odd that you agree that this would be a simplification of GR but also that, if true, you say "it is only because you have based it on GR..."

Well, as I say, if you take a conclusion of GR as your starting point, it is not surprising that you might be able to derive another related result from GR. (You haven't actually done that, though.)

1 hour ago, rjbeery said:

If it reproduces the predictions of GR faithfully, is it redundant and trivial, or does it have value in your eyes?

IF it did, you would become incredibly famous. Maybe even get a Nobel Prize. (Spoiler: it doesn't.)

I just had another look: you haven't even shown you can derive Newtonian gravity, never mind the non-linear effects of GR.

 

On 5/14/2020 at 10:21 PM, rjbeery said:

Additionally we have shown that if mass were to possess an electromagnetic nature moving in a cyclic fashion (i.e. “EM mass”) then we are able to precisely predict the gravitational behavior of that mass in the presence of such a time dilation field without invoking any other mechanism related to General Relativity.

Come on, then. Let's see you derive [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] from RiVpdpQ5Lw5xgr3DmOgZhOj9LZuB26XmaaheLAFPaZr8Pk5ptklC8dddfeJHzWH0N3sDrqc7i2Dz1yQ0bDNKAmVQKhCaGiH1dniw-h7WbQW6bS8vW4RDqLWcH1kbnHpO8ukXWM78 (the only math in your "paper").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rjbeery said:

In the context of my discussion with MigL and Joigus, I'm using "absolute" to differentiate clocking rates in different gravity wells from what they apparently believe to be "relative' effects. What would be more appropriate? Unqualified? Indisputable?

Add me to the list. Clock rates are relative to your position in the well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Explain how time dilation makes me fall down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uummm…
You think you've been drinking for only an hour, but actually, it's been 4 hours.
Then you stumble.
:D :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rjbeery said:

The actual timing mechanism (photon vs spring vs something else) of a clock doesn't matter. If it did we would violate the equivalence principle. Regardless, a photon-clock is a real thing: https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-scientists-create-tiny-photon-clock-1029

The talk about absorption and re-emission doesn't and can't have any bearing on the rate of the clock ticking for a simple, logical reason that I mentioned earlier.

'Absorption and instantaneous re-emission' was a colloquial way of saying 'radiation pressure' of the photons on the cavity where you're confining them to make the clock. I said that to have you picture in your mind that the photons are interacting within the clock by means of non-gravitational forces. Then I rephrased it as 'radiation pressure,' just to see whether you understood it better:

11 hours ago, joigus said:

If you ever see a radiation pressure fan or radiometer, you will understand what I mean just looking at it.

 

11 hours ago, joigus said:

photons push against a mirror, you see? That's why your idea didn't work. [...]

Now those are real photons, not the ones that are in your mind.

Then, on your linked Caltech article (https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/caltech-scientists-create-tiny-photon-clock-1029😞

Quote

The paper, "Radiation-pressure-driven micro-mechanical oscillator," appearing in the July 11 issue of the journal Optics Express, is available on-line at http://www.opticsexpress.org/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-13-14-5293.

Lo and behold, your Caltech publication confirms my diagnostic. What was I telling you? Radiation pressure. You've missed the point completely. That's what makes your clock be affected by time dilation (never mind it's made of photons.) And I, and everybody here, is tired of repeating to you, but there it goes once more:

Time dilation is a frame-dependent effect.

As I spent many hours, c. 1990, thinking about toy models for massive elementary particles made up of bouncing photons (massless) and had to rule them out because I wasn't able to postulate the self-interaction, I know what I'm talking about. IOW, I had the same idea (just the non-crazy snippet) than you 30 years ago and it took me less than 24 hours to throw it in the garbage can. I didn't in my wildest dreams try to model gravity with that, though.

And please, don't try to smother me with big names like Eddington or Feynman to try and push ahead a crazy idea. We're all grown-ups here, or are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rjbeery said:

I believe it does generalize. What we call space-time curvature in GR can simply be reframed as a time dilation field, and the effects of gravity are already accounted for.

It is not possible to capture all of gravity’s degrees of freedom with a scalar field theory (or even a vector field); you do require at the very least a rank-2 tensor field to do so. 

16 hours ago, rjbeery said:

I believe it does generalize.

Even if you take just the next “baby step” up from Schwarzschild spacetime to Kerr spacetime, you will find that this concept no longer works. At least in principle you can still derive closed expressions for the relativistic optics in such a spacetime (though the maths are anything but trivial), but they no longer correspond to anything resembling a scalar time dilation field. I invite you to try it out, but be warned - some heavy maths ahead! And the whole thing most certainly does not generalise to arbitrary spacetimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.