A Constructive Model of Gravitation

[Oldman]

To the Scienceforms Manager:

 

 

 

I have developed a paper, A Constructive Model of Gravitation. This is based on analogies between mechanics and electrodynamics, and not on General Relativity. I have suggested an experiment to determine the sign of antimatter gravitational ass, which would help in deciding between this model and GR. This paper is on the website of the General Science Journal.

 

 

 

In that regard I have a request. Will you permit me to put this paper on the Science Forums website? My sole desire is to solicit comments. (It’s okay, I am thick skinned.) If you wish to see the paper before hand, I can e-mail it to you. If you so decide then, how would I go about doing it and in which section of the Forum?

 

 

 

Here is my rationale for this new model:

 

 

 

1. The gravitational force is lopsidedly weak compared to the other known fundamental forces (the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic). Either there are other forces in between, or gravity is very unique indeed.

 

 

 

2. The time necessary for a nucleus to emit a graviton is 10**53 years. This suggests that gravitons may not exist. Physicists might be wasting their time on quantum gravity.

 

 

 

3. The three known fundamental forces are mediated by their respective fields (bosons) which are inherently ‘attached’ to the interacting particles. Gravity under GR is due to matter warping the field of space-time geometry, which is not inherent but external.

 

 

 

4. The electromagnetic attractive force is very similar to gravitational force, which is known to be attractive. It seems odd that such a macro force would be always attractive. The new model has both repulsive and attractive gravity.

 

 

 

Please let know of your decision. Thank you.

 

 

 

Raghu Singh

 

 

[md65536]

In that regard I have a request. Will you permit me to put this paper on the Science Forums website? My sole desire is to solicit comments. (It's okay, I am thick skinned.) If you wish to see the paper before hand, I can e-mail it to you. If you so decide then, how would I go about doing it and in which section of the Forum?

Why not just post a link? There's nothing against that... no need to axe permission. The closest applicable rule I can see is

 

7. Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your site in your signature, but don't go around making dozens of threads about it.

Edited February 25, 2011 by md65536

[ajb]

I have developed a paper, A Constructive Model of Gravitation. This is based on analogies between mechanics and electrodynamics, and not on General Relativity. I have suggested an experiment to determine the sign of antimatter gravitational ass, which would help in deciding between this model and GR. This paper is on the website of the General Science Journal.

 

I think posting a link and a proper citation would be fine.

 

I am not aware of the General Science Journal. Who is on the editorial board in gravitational physics or whatever is close? Is this journal peer-review?

 

 

1. The gravitational force is lopsidedly weak compared to the other known fundamental forces (the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic). Either there are other forces in between, or gravity is very unique indeed.

 

The idea that there are other forces in nature is interesting. In essence would need to include gauge theories other those found in the standard model and GR. String theory could well incorporate this, but one would not have to invoke stringy ideas to consider it.

 

In a sense supersymmetry also predicts increasing the number of forces in nature.

 

What have you found in the existing literature about this?

 

 

2. The time necessary for a nucleus to emit a graviton is 10**53 years. This suggests that gravitons may not exist. Physicists might be wasting their time on quantum gravity.

 

Can you heuristically tell us how this was calculated?

 

The idea that gravitions may not exist is not new, nor are gravitions essential in quantum gravity. You should look up Weinberg's asymptotic safety scenario for gravity. There are plenty of new works about this using renormalisation group flow.

 

 

3. The three known fundamental forces are mediated by their respective fields (bosons) which are inherently ‘attached’ to the interacting particles. Gravity under GR is due to matter warping the field of space-time geometry, which is not inherent but external.

 

You should think about the metric or the associative connections or vierbein as being the gravitational degree of freedom.

 

You should also know that the other forces of nature can be formulated in an equally geometric manner as general relativity.

 

4. The electromagnetic attractive force is very similar to gravitational force, which is known to be attractive. It seems odd that such a macro force would be always attractive. The new model has both repulsive and attractive gravity.

 

Sure it is interesting. Repulsive gravity like the cosmological constant? Exotic matter? or something else?

[Oldman]

I believe I posted my answers yesterday. I will do it again here.

 

Thanks for your responses. Appreciate those.

 

 

 

How do you post a link? I don't have a website. I will ask the General Science Journal for their permission; they have a great website. Then you will also know what the GSJ is!

 

 

 

I can’t come up with a rationale as to why it is absolutely necessary to unify all the fundamental forces – and must it be with gauge fields in every case? It is feasible that a fundamental force, or a particular aspect of it, developed and evolved as the universe began and evolved. The speeds of the masses relative to the Primordial Point (the Big Bang point) could have some purpose. If Nature has something, it uses it; nothing gets wasted.

 

 

 

(Sorry, I made a mistake in copying my calculations from the late sixties.) It is well known that the rate or probability of emission or absorption of a quantum is related to the strength of the underlying interaction. For example: the time associated with the strong interaction is 10^–23 sec; a nucleus takes about 10^–12 sec to emit a photon; and the beta decay of a neutron takes about 12 mts. The relative strengths of electromagnetic and gravitational forces are 10⁴⁰ : 1 (these forces are so similar in structure). From the Uncertainty Principle, the time it takes a nucleus to emit a graviton is Δt_gr = (ΔE_em/ΔE_gr) Δt_em ≈ 10²⁸ secs ≈ 10²¹ years (10 sextillion years!). The universe is said to be only 14 billion years old!

 

 

 

[The constructive model yields the fractional change in the energy of a photon as it 'falls' from height 22.5 m to the earth to be δE/E = 6.17 x 10^-15. The Pound-Rebka experiment yields δE/E = 2.5 x 10^-15. And that after I ignored special relativity!]

 

 

 

I can't find anything in the formal papers about other fundamental forces intermediate between electromagnetic and gravitational. Some physicists do wonder about it though.

 

 

 

I am going to submit a revised version of my paper to the GSJ. When the GSJ posts it and they give me permission, I will let you know here in this section of the Forums.

 

 

[ajb]

You calculation of the time is incorrect. The ration of energies is dimensionless, it is not a time.

[imatfaal]

I think oldman was saying that the ratio of times of emission and the ratio of strengths of forces should be inversely proportional - rearrangement of that simple equation would give time for graviton emission in terms of the ratio of energies and the time of emission of a photon. This would be dimensionally correct - but I am really very unsure that there is any physics behind it

[ajb]

... but I am really very unsure that there is any physics behind it

 

Indeed. Anything like that will be very nieve and attributing physical significance should be done with real caution.

 

So, I invite Oldman to write it out with a bit more clarity for us all.

[swansont]

I don't see why the time to undertake an arbitrary (but real) transition would have any impact on the time it takes to emit a virtual particle.

[lemur]

I don't think gravity will end up requiring a mediating particle because it think gravity and inertia/mass will be found to exist as resistances to propagation. Electrons, imo, seem like photons that resist propagation, for example. I hope it doesn't divert too much from this thread to mention my personal opinion, and I hope it's not too speculative to be legitimately posted.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

From my cursory Googling, here's the General Science Journal's website:

 

http://www.wbabin.net/

 

Oldman: Their policy says that authors retain copyright of their papers, so you should be free to post your research wherever you want. Also, your paper can be found fairly easily by searching "constructive model" in the search box on their site. I haven't had a chance to read through it yet.

[ajb]

I don't think gravity will end up requiring a mediating particle...

 

I'll say it again. Weinberg's asymptotic safety scenario, says that a non-Gaussian (ie. outside of perturbation theory) fixed point. In short it is believed that general relativity (or a higher curvature theory) has a good UV limit, that is where all the coupling remain finite when the energy tends to infinity. Moreover, this limit is a fixed point under the renormalisation group flow.

 

As this is all outside of perturbation theory there is no need to invoke gravitons! So, quantum general relativity (or some generalisation of) is likely to be well defined, but not well defined as a perturbation series.

[Oldman]

1. I will definitely answer emission rate and energy relationships.

Yukawa was the first to employ the Uncertainty Principle in nuclear reaction rates. I will do here for gravitation.

The relative interaction strengths are not energy values. They are just ratios.

I used electrostatic and graviitational interactions because they are very similar -- strikingly similar.

From UP: ΔE_e Δt_e ≈ h ≈ ΔE_g Δt_g,

Δt_gr = (ΔE_em/ΔE_gr) Δt_em ≈ 10²⁸ secs ≈ 10²¹ years.

 

2. You got the website correct. But please do not read my paper yet. I am modifying it to explain the attractive part of gravity. The modified paper should be ready by Friday.

This website has my paper on inertia. I am sure you will be interested to know inertia is a community property irrespective of the underlying forces.

 

3. If you are dealing with quantum gravity, you must exchange a quantum to 'generate' a force. The strong force: quarks exchange gluons. The weak forces: Quarks and leptons exchange W+-0 bosons. Electromagnetic: Quarks, nucleons, leptons exchange photons. So, if you want to have quantum gravity, it should be matter exchanging gravitons. But the question is what is this graviton, quanta of what?: the field of spacetime geometry or mass field or something else?

 

4. I will answer others later.

 

5. I must thank Cap'n for searching the GSJ website and mentioning it.

[swansont]

1. I will definitely answer emission rate and energy relationships.

Yukawa was the first to employ the Uncertainty Principle in nuclear reaction rates. I will do here for gravitation.

The relative interaction strengths are not energy values. They are just ratios.

I used electrostatic and graviitational interactions because they are very similar -- strikingly similar.

From UP: ΔE_e Δt_e ≈ h ≈ ΔE_g Δt_g,

Δt_gr = (ΔE_em/ΔE_gr) Δt_em ≈ 10²⁸ secs ≈ 10²¹ years.

 

You have not explained why the time to emit a real photon in a de-excitation has any bearing on the time to emit a virtual graviton. You haven't justified that they are somehow analogous interactions.

 

I recall that Yukawa used the uncertainty relation to estimate the mass of the mediating pion. What rate calculation did he do? Do you have a link?

[ajb]

You have not explained why the time to emit a real photon in a de-excitation has any bearing on the time to emit a virtual graviton. You haven't justified that they are somehow analogous interactions.

 

I too think that the physical interpretation of this time scale is in question.

 

3. If you are dealing with quantum gravity, you must exchange a quantum to 'generate' a force. ...

 

This only makes full sense if the perturbation theory of the gravity can be mathematically handled. As I have said already, you can treat quantum general relativity as an effective theory, in essence you "cut off" what we don't know by hand.

 

If quantum general relativity has an non-Gaussian fixed point (under the renormalisation group flow) then the full theory may be well defined, but not within perturbation theory.

 

If what I have said makes no sense to you, then you have a lot of catching up to do with established and published researchers in quantum gravity and field theory. Thus, your "paper" is unlikely to be of interest to these researchers or the physics community at large.

[Oldman]

I am puzzled as to these answers. Uncertainty Principle is as fundamental science as you can get. Without it, quantum mechanics would not have formulated. By the way, Yukawa used UP to estimate the time for nucleon-nucleon interaction ~ 10**-23 sec.

 

These super-physics (supersymmetry, supergravity, superstrings, ...) -- I don't consider them even speculations, they are just hunches. These superstuffs don't work anyway. How much time and talent can we afford on these; it's about time we look somewhere else. I remind you that more than one theory could explain a physical phenoomena. We need to conduct more experiments and make more observations to get a reasonable theory.

 

This is what I think as a gut physicist. An interaction between two entities is an issue between those two entities. If there is gravitational interaction between two entities, then those two entities have to find a mutual way to gravitationally interact, as they do in the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions.

 

I urge you all to review my papers, but promise me to read them completely before making up minds. The papers are: "A Constructive Model of Gravitation' and 'Inertia.' You will find them at this website: www.wbabin.net. Please scroll down to 'Papers - Recent upodates.' You will see the papers there. They are dated March 1, 2011.

 

I need some sanity check. Please tell me whether the papers are internally consistent and logical. Beyond that who knows what Nature has in store. I will respect your comments. If you do not wish to put your comments on the Forums, you may e-mail them to me.

 

Thank you so much.

[swansont]

I am puzzled as to these answers. Uncertainty Principle is as fundamental science as you can get. Without it, quantum mechanics would not have formulated.

 

That's not an answer to the question.

 

The objection isn't to the validity of the HUP. The objection is to the values used in it. You have been asked to justify that they mean something relevant.

[ajb]

I need some sanity check. Please tell me whether the papers are internally consistent and logical. Beyond that who knows what Nature has in store. I will respect your comments. If you do not wish to put your comments on the Forums, you may e-mail them to me.

 

A couple of comments. I have not read all the paper in detail.

 

• There is indirect evidence of gravitational waves. For example careful studies of binary pulsars.
   
  
• "How" matter curves space-time is explained in the context of general relativity.
   
  
• You claim a non-relativistic framework. So, what is wrong with Newtonian gravity? Also, you use p = E/c which is relativistic!
   
  
• I am not clear on what a mass field is. Nor a momentum field, which looks like a velocity vector up to some coefficients.
   
  
• What is the Primordial Point? If it is the big bang singularity then your model is really a cosmological one. I do not understand how local gravitational effects could be modelled.
  

 

I have not read the later pars of the paper. Though I noticed that the latest reference is from 1979. To me this suggests that the work is not topical even before reading it.

 

The objection isn't to the validity of the HUP. The objection is to the values used in it. You have been asked to justify that they mean something relevant.

 

Right, the objections are two fold. 1) the values used. 2) would this be the correct interpretation anyway?

[Oldman]

Well, my aim was to get a quick value of emission time by comparing with other fundamental interactions. Physicists do it. I recall Gamow's calculations (I forgot the reference), where he obtained a much higher value, somewhat 10**60 sec. But that's not the point. The point is to get some reasonable value by comparing with other fundamental interactions. I am positive this 10**21 sec would be reasonable.

 

By relativistic I meant doing the forumations when the speeds are high, which I am getting to be 10**8 m/s. I think I can be forgiven for using p=E/c for photons here just to get the momentum.

 

I have mass as gravitational charge, the way other charges are: the color, the weak, and electric. We have the three fundamental fields, so mass field could be possible. Postulating it not invalid.

 

Momentum field is analogous to magnetic field in electrodynamics. If charge, electric field, current, magnetic field are proven entities, why not mass, mass field, momentum, and momentum field?

 

I have never seen any explanation of how a mass curves (warps) space-time! We have not answered Milne's question so far. Physicists know that.

 

The Primordial Point is where the Big Bang occurred. Singularity is a mathematical construct, and it's not relevant here in this model. I cannot transfer GR's singularity to the model. Maybe when I complete the (relativistic) quantizarion of mass-momentum field, I pray I do not encounter singularity. Point density m/R is the only term that is indeterminate theoretically.

 

Please check Table I in the paper and tell me which entry(ies) is wrong and why.

 

If a scientist has to justify everything before doing anyhing, General Relativity would not have passed peer review in 1914. I have postulates; unless someone proves them wrong, I should be allowed to employ them. The constancy of the speed of light is a postulate. Please tell me who has proven it theoreatically. The best: we have not found any evidence falsifying that.

 

What do I need to correct/improve the model? I can use your insight.

 

Addition to my last reply.

 

I looked into my notes (I have been working on this problem for some time).

 

From classical electrodynamics (theory of em waves) you have: momentum of em wave = (energy of em wave)/(the speed of the em wave).

[ajb]

I have mass as gravitational charge, the way other charges are: the color, the weak, and electric. We have the three fundamental fields, so mass field could be possible. Postulating it not invalid.

 

Momentum field is analogous to magnetic field in electrodynamics. If charge, electric field, current, magnetic field are proven entities, why not mass, mass field, momentum, and momentum field?

 

So, we start with an underlying space and time like [math]R^{3}\times R[/math] (or maybe time is an interval)? No metric? Or are we taking Euclidean space? (which would be quite a natural thing to do)

 

You then put fields on this space-time and provide sources for them. So, I know mathematically what the electromagnetic field is. I also know how to deal with Yang-Mills fields, like that required by the weak and strong force. So what is a mass field and a momentum field?

 

So a field is understood as a section of some fibre bundle over the space (or space-time). Can you tell me what this fibre bundle is for the case of the mass field and the momentum field? In particular we want to know what values the field can take (real, complex or something else?) and the transformation rules of the fields.

 

Are these fields dynamics? If so do we have a Lagrangian or at least equation of motion?

 

The Primordial Point is where the Big Bang occurred. Singularity is a mathematical construct, and it's not relevant here in this model. I cannot transfer GR's singularity to the model. Maybe when I complete the (relativistic) quantizarion of mass-momentum field, I pray I do not encounter singularity. Point density m/R is the only term that is indeterminate theoretically.

 

Have I read your paper wrong?

 

Page 2. You say that the velocity vectors u1 and u2 are relative to P. So everything is relative to the initial singularity?

 

Now, I am not sure exactly what you mean by where the big bang occurred. We could be thinking 4d and then I would be happy. If we are thinking 3d with time "external" then I am confused. Every point in space can be tracked back to the initial singularity, so it happened everywhere.

 

Singling out a preferred point in space-time seems odd. It goes against the cosmological principle. But of course we are free to investigate models that violate this. You should probably say something in your paper.

 

 

If a scientist has to justify everything before doing anyhing, General Relativity would not have passed peer review in 1914.

 

I think more or less you should justify everything. In the introduction it is worth saying why one would want to try to do something.

 

I am sure Einstein did this.

 

You should make it much clearer why you are thinking about your "constructive model". This will help the reader a lot.

 

I have postulates; unless someone proves them wrong, I should be allowed to employ them.

 

Sure you can use whatever axioms or postulates you like. Justifying why is important.

 

The best: we have not found any evidence falsifying that.

 

That is pretty much how the physical science works. You look to disprove things rather than prove them.

 

 

What do I need to correct/improve the model? I can use your insight.

 

On page 3 you have a prediction that gravitational waves travel at less than the speed of light. This would not agree with general relativity.

 

Thus, without strong motivation for your model this will probably be enough for most people to disregard your paper.

[swansont]

Well, my aim was to get a quick value of emission time by comparing with other fundamental interactions. Physicists do it. I recall Gamow's calculations (I forgot the reference), where he obtained a much higher value, somewhat 10**60 sec. But that's not the point. The point is to get some reasonable value by comparing with other fundamental interactions. I am positive this 10**21 sec would be reasonable.

 

But why do those numbers mean anything? Why are they reasonable?

[Oldman]

ajb,

Which version of the paper did you read? It should be dated March 1, 2011.

You have commented so much. I need to read them first and then repond, which I will do.

Thanks.

[ajb]

http://www.wbabin.net/ntham/singhr.pdf

 

Is there a later version?

[Oldman]

Thanks for your comments. I respect your disagreement.

 

 

 

The paper, A Constructive Model of Gravitation, March 1, 2011, is the first in a series of articles which I plan to write. My next venture will be the quantization of the mass-momentum field (gravitational). But I can’t proceed because I must know whether matter and antimatter have gravitational mass of opposite signs! I have asked three Nobel Laureates this question; I am waiting for their answers. (I hope one of them answers. It could very well be a silly question.)

 

 

 

Gravity. At this point, I am not sure whether gravitation, the way we humans perceive it, is a gauge force! Maybe when we include matter and antimatter, then gravity is a gauge force.

 

 

 

So, all is on hold. I repeat what bothers me about gravitation, ever since I studied General Relativity and Elementary Particles.

 

 

 

1. The gravitational force is lopsidedly weak compared to the other known fundamental forces (the strong: electromagnetic: the weak: gravitational ~ 10⁴²: 10⁴⁰: 10³⁰: 1).

 

 

 

2. Newton’s gravitational force, Coulomb’s electrostatic force, and Gilbert’s magnetostatic force are similar in structure, except that the first one is found to be always attractive. It seems odd that the gravitational force would show only one sign (attraction). Repelling electrons moving in about parallel directions manage to attract. Static, repelling ions manage to form crystals! Spinning electrons may attract or repel. Gravity never shows us humans any repulsive aspect of it.

 

 

 

3. The rate or probability of emission or absorption of a quantum is related to the strength of the underlying interaction. Physicist’s commonsense: The stronger the interaction, the shorter the interaction time. (This is true even a gravitational field: the run of time is faster in a stronger gravitational field.) Comparing electrostatic and gravitational forces and employing the Uncertainty Principle, to get a quick feeling, I get 10²¹ years for gravity compared to 10^-12 sec for electromagnetism. The universe is only 14 billion (US units) old!

 

The time necessary for a nucleus to emit a graviton is again lopsided compared to the emission times of quanta under other forces.

 

 

 

4. The three fundamental forces (s, w, e) are mediated by their respective gauge fields (bosons) which are inherently ‘attached’ to the interacting particles. Maybe spontaneous symmetry breaking will help us unify these three fundamental forces. A force between two particles is an ‘issue’ between those two particles and only those two particles. Gravity under General Relativity is due to matter warping the field of space-time geometry, which is not inherent but external to interacting matter. In this case, gravitons would be quanta of the field of space‑time geometry. What does that mean: a quantum spacetime? Is the field of spacetime geometry a gauge field?

 

How matter warps (or creates) the field of spacetime is left unexplained! If warping occurs by whatever mechanism, there must be something tangible (directly or indirectly) that is warped. Neither space nor time seems to be tangible. There should be a boundary beyond which we physicists cannot be imaginative!

 

 

 

5. No rationale justifies as to why it is absolutely necessary to unify all the fundamental forces – and must it be with gauge fields in every case? It is feasible that a fundamental force, or a particular aspect of it, developed and evolved as the universe began and evolved. The speeds of the masses relative to the Primordial Point (the Big Bang point) could have some purpose. If Nature has something, it’s only for the purpose – for conserving energy. (Please remember, for Nature, the Big bang or the Primordial Point is not a singularity, which is a mathematical construct.)

 

 

 

When I some answers, I will come back to the Speculative SubForums.

 

Cheers!

 

 

[ajb]

General relativity is a gauge theory. You have local symmetries.

[Oldman]

I have lost track of comments. I am already updatoing my March 1, version based on some comments.

 

To swansont. I am sorry I had to use those energy ratios for the fundamental inteactions. I just wanted a rough feeling of transition times. The transition time for gravitational interaction that I got, 10**21 years, should not change very much. I don't have the reference, but Gamow in 1961 calculated it to be 10**60 secs (10**58 years). [i retired in 2000 and I lost track of many things I loved and knew.] But, I am sure you can guess as a physicist that the weaker the interaction the longer the time of transitions. Forget about comparing two interactions, you can get the same resuls from General Relativity and my model just by staying within the gravitational field.] Please let me know if you want Gamow's calculations, I will try my best to look for it; maybe Dr. Babin can locate it. On his website, there are many historical papers, maybe Gamow's there as well.]

 

To all of you who commented. Well, my real rational for going after this model is natural. Nothing of foundational significance has happened in physics since 1981. I never appreciated making cooordinates and observers parts of the laws of Nature. Nature has been here way long before we humans arrived. Space coordinates and time are human invention for a purpose. We should get rid of coordinates and time, including field metric, from the our laws of Nature (equations of motions are not laws of nature). I want to formulate an interaction between two physical entities only and only in terms of those entities and their properties. How matter (or antimatter) acquires those properties is still hidden from us. By properties I mean mass, charge, color, and weak charges. I never knew where they come from. "Nature loves to hide."

 

As you will see the model gives predictions remarkably close to observations. Particularly the results from the Pound-Rebka experiment. There are no singularities in the model! (A singularity is always mathematical; Nature does not have singularity.) I was afraid of mentioning this in my paper: The genesuis of a time lies in an interaction. Biological sciences are telling us something like that for some time.

 

A theory may be important for us, but it's the predicction that the theory makes is of vital, vital importance.

 

Right now I am working on quantizing the mass-momentum field. See what happens. I will definitely let you know. Please watch Dr. Babin's website.

 

Thanks again.