[General] Gravity
Dr Grahame Blackwell
grahame at starweave.com
Tue Aug 30 14:16:24 PDT 2016
Hi Albrecht,
I agree that force interactions can be modelled AS IF they are mediated by particles of certain types - that much is not an issue to me. But to propose that this is ACTUALLY the case (rather than just a simple analogy or model) for me simply leads to a host of questions - far more than this one 'solution' to action-at-a-distance that gauge bosons purport to provide.
Let's take the case of electrostatic interaction: this is unlimited in its range - so presumably the cloud of virtual photons that mediate this force extends out without limit from the charged particle whose effect they carry? Also they must be present wherever that charge effect may have an influence - which means that they must completely envelop that charged particle in spherical shells at every radius from that particle to infinity? In other words, the totality of the universe plays host, in every cubic attometer of its entirety, to virtual photons for EACH and EVERY elementary charged particle in the cosmos. The housekeeping requirements for such an arrangement are beyond belief: what is the mechanism that links each particle to its attendant virtual photons, way out to the limits of the universe? How are the VPs of one material particle distinguished from those of another? And that's before we even start considering the strength (frequency?) of those VPs in relation to distance from their 'parent' particle and how they communicate their behaviour, let alone the bizarre notion of 'negative photons' that can attract other charged particles rather than repel them. Come back phlogiston, your mysteries are as nothing compared to virtual photons!
Actually my own proposal for the basis of 'electrostatic charge' effects isn't a million miles removed from this notion. However it recognises that 'action at a distance' isn't actually 'at a distance' at all, since the actual form of an electromagnetically-formed 'particle' will itself extend without limit, as is the nature of electromagnetic effects (notably electromagnetic potential). We then also have to recognise that our perception of material particles (including our own bodies!) is seriously limited by our own senses, which rely on certain forms of interaction that give the illusion of 'localisation'. This leads on to the observation that space itself IS suffused with the extended electromagnetic 'being' of those 'localised' material particles, giving all of space an electromagnetic 'texture' that gives the effects known as 'electrostatic attraction/repulsion' and 'gravitation' (also an effect that may be MODELLED as 'curvature of space', since it defines paths through space for all entities, including light).
That takes me to another point in your email (below): it's not quite 100% correct to say that "all explanations about gravity which do not use Einstein's funny distorted space-time rely on exchange particles"; my own explanation, published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal five years ago (and attached to two of my previous emails, so I won't do so again here), most definitely does NOT use Einstein's proposed space-time, neither does it rely to any extent whatsoever on exchange particles. So maybe I have a first in that respect, at least?
Best regards,
Grahame
++++++++++++
----- Original Message -----
From: Albrecht Giese
To: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Dear Chandra and dear Grahame,
firstly, thank you, Chandra, for your feedback to my contribution. I generally agree that there is a hierarchy of physical quantities. But for your example of Einstein's m=E/c^2 I am not so sure. Is E more fundamental than m? True, m is not a fundamental quantity on the lowest level. It describes the force which is needed to accelerate an object. So, the quantity force should be more fundamental. But what about E? In my understanding it is a human concept which was brought up, when physicists detected one day that in a closed system the quantity F*way is conserved. So it received the name "energy". Is this energy always conserved? I think that in some reactions of particle physics it is not. And that is not only in the context of Heisenberg's uncertainty relation. It is also violated by exchange particles.
So, what is about exchange particles which mediate a force or a charge? You both seem not to like it. But it has advantages. The general law of distance of forces: 1/r^2 (e.g. the Coulomb law) can easily be deduced by it if using the continuity relation and geometrical broadening. In this context it is just simple geometry. In addition the relativistic contraction (of fields) is easily understandable if exchange particles are assumed. And further, all explanations about gravity which do not use Einstein's funny distorted space-time rely on exchange particles.
Another point in the discussion is the question of how photons can be understood. It is said (at different places of the foregoing discussion) that matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) can be converted into pure energy, which means photons in this context. Why is it denied that a photon is a particle? It has all properties of a particle which the speciality that it permanently moves with c. And with this latter property it is very close to a neutrino for which nobody questions that it is a particle. And a photon has a well defined energy. This fact was indeed questioned by some contributions in this forum. To those who are questioning it I would like to explain the following:
My PhD thesis was about an experiment in which photons were scattered. The source of the photon beam delivered photons with well defined energy (it was a spectrum with a strong limit of an upper energy). The photons were, after the scattering, detected by pair production which took place when the photon passed a thin sheet of metal. From the energy and direction of the electron-positron pair the energy and the direction of the photon was determined. The resulting energy of the scattered photon was in agreement with the energy of the incoming photon. So the energy of the individual photon was precisely measured and so well defined. I do not see any argument for the position that a photon is not an individual but just a beam with properties which can only be statistically assumed. The photon energy measured was clearly not defined by some property of the detector what was sometimes suspected in the discussion here.
Sincerely
Albrecht
Am 28.08.2016 um 00:51 schrieb Dr Grahame Blackwell:
Roy (et al)
Thanks for this. I believe I'm in full agreement with all you've said (as long as I've understood it correctly); my only slight difference in view is, I believe, a matter of semantics rather than science.
Like you, I don't accept the concept of 'force-carrying particles'; this concept appears to raise far more questions than it answers (if it answers any) - it certainly doesn't in any way offer significantly greater insight than the 'action at a distance' proposed by Newton. [Not to put too fine a point on it, I find it an insult to the intelligence as it appears to expect a whole raft of counter-intuitive notions to be taken on trust.] I agree 100% with your definition of rest-mass, also the additional 'oscillatory energy' that relates to motion, induced by some form of 'force gradient' that is itself an extended consequence (part of the structure) of 'material particles' and moves concomitantly with them. In this respect such 'force effects' are not in some way communicated at light-speed or faster, they are an integral part of the particle producing that effect: if a complete unified singular object moves as a whole, we don't propose that one part of the object 'communicates its motion' to another part (at FTL speed) so that it too moves - it just IS a unified moving body. No threat to causality there. The fact that our limited senses don't perceive the whole of that extended entity doesn't mean that it can't exist - its very action proves that it does, in accordance with our understanding of EM effects.
My difference in view relates to your observation that particles "are not made of photons"; as I say, I believe this is a matter of semantics - essentialy how one defines a photon. We agree that they are formed from light-like oscillations of the universal field - i.e. TEM wave packets. If one defines a photon simply as a TEM wave packet then particles are formed from photons; if however we add the stipulation that a photon radiates rectilinearly from its dipole oscillatory source, then by definition that wave packet forming a particle cannot be a photon. The fact that elementary particles are (or at least can be) initially created from photons is, I believe, established by Landau & Lifshits (1934) and demonstrated by the SLAC multiphoton Breit-Wheeler experiment of 1997.
I'm interested in your observation that the 'force gradient' of a particle will be distorted by a state of motion; I agree that this must be true, since the configuration of its formative field will be somewhat different. As you say, it would be interesting if it were possible to construct an experiment to demonstrate this - I suspect one would first have to persuade the experimenters that SR is primarily a subjective effect, so that they don't apply 'SR logic' as an objective truth to their readings!
Best regards,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Chip, Albrecht, and the rest of the team:
Chip:
After reading the article by Flandern, sent by Chip, I dug out a possible later publication by Flandern. The link is given below.
……………………………..
Foundations of Physics
July 2002, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 1031–1068
“Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions” by Tom Van Flandern, Jean-Pierre Vigier
…………………………………………..
The beginning caveat – I am not a theorist and am not conversant with the GR math. My knowledge of GR is mostly from review articles without math. Now, after reading Flandern, Now I believe, like that for SR, GR does also have rather serious foundational problems. And our understanding of momentum of a moving object needs to explored deeper in light of the fact that mass in not some immutable “substance”. It is the perturbation energy that creates the resonant self-looped oscillation of the cosmic Complex Tension Field (CTF); the rest mass being the original oscillation-inducing energy. Spatial (definitely not space-time) velocity, induced by some “force gradient” adds further energy to a particle in the form of “kinetic oscillations”. We need to carefully analyze how we measure and interpret “momentum” since mass is not an immutable intrinsic property.
Even with my limited experimental expertise, I have always intuitively believed that forces are not mediated by various force particles. Thus, I clearly disagree with Flandern and Vigier. I have said that in many of my publications, including my book.
Based upon the various intrinsic physical tension properties of the CTF, the self-looped oscillations in the CTF generate various kinds of decaying potential gradients of the CTF properties around the oscillating “particle”. These gradients are not exactly like the physical curvature in a stretched membrane (prevailing GR analogy). Then the “particles” in the vicinity of each other will move towards or away from each other depending upon the sign of the potential gradients. all into or are repulsed by this gradient. Hence, these force gradients are mobile with the particles and would suffer spatial distortion at very high velocity. Attempts to measure these distortion should open up new frontiers of physics. “The potential gradients representing “forces”, obey the principle of linear superposition; very much like the EM wave amplitudes; even though the former is “stationary” around the parent particle; and the latter is true propagating wave that follows the classic wave equation.
LCH should accommodate a new group of experimentalist to design experiments to measure the distortions in the electrostatic “force gradient” generated by speeding electrons and protons. Speedy protons-electron collision might help reveal the distortion in their gravitational potential gradients. These potential gradient based “forces” are not communicated by some particles. Causality is not violated. “c” is not exceeded by anything since even the particles are light-like self-looped oscillations. Note that I am using the phrase, light-like oscillations of the CTF; they are not constructed out of photons. Photon wave packets are linear propagating excitations of the CTF; perpetually running away from the original point in space where they were created by some dipole oscillation (from radio to nuclear).
Albrecht:
In a separate recent email you have raised a very important point, which in some of my epistemology articles underscore as the necessity of assigning the physical parameters in any physics equation with the hierarchy of “primary”, “secondary”, “tertiary”, etc., based upon the physical roles they play in interactions with other entities; or their emergence out of the CTF. So, I like your argument related to √μ₀=1/c√(ε₀). In this context, we may note that Einstein preferred to write m=E/c-squared; because m is not an immutable property; it is an emergent property in our methods of measuring it.
Sincerely,
Chandra.
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Chip Akins
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 5:41 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Hi Vladimir
Here is one reference for the speed of gravity and pulsars.
The speed of gravity – What the experiments say – attached.
Chip
From: Chip Akins [mailto:chipakins at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 4:15 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: RE: [General] Gravity
Hi John D and Vladimir
As it turns out gravity needs to be 10000 to 20000 times as fast as light in order for the orbits of the pulsars to be as we observe.
If most of the mass of a black hole is inside the “event horizon” then how does the huge gravity field escape? It seem that all of the black holes gravity escapes the event horizon with no problem.
For a black hole to have gravity which is related to its mass then gravity HAS to travel faster than light.
Charge (the Coulomb field) also travels “almost instantaneously” (10000 to 20000 times the speed of light).
Yes John D. Transverse (S) waves travel at the velocity:
<!--[if !msEquation]--><!--[endif]-->
Where v is velocity of propagation, 𝜇 is the transverse modulus of the medium, and 𝜌 is the “density” of the medium.
And longitudinal (P) waves travel at the velocity:
<!--[if !msEquation]--><!--[endif]-->
Where K is the bulk or longitudinal modulus.
We have never found a medium which supports transverse waves and does not support longitudinal waves. Longitudinal waves are always faster, and can be orders of magnitude faster.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 1:26 PM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Chip:
I don’t think it’s heresy. See hyperphysics: “S waves travel typically 60% of the speed of P waves”.
I wouldn’t bat an eyelid if different types of waves in space travelled at different speeds too.
But I have to say I’m not totally convinced by the recent LIGO news.
Regards
John
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: 25 August 2016 16:14
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists..natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Chip
The pulsars analysis sounds interesting - a reference would be appreciated. Would it change calculation if one considers that just as light slows down in a gravitational field (as John D pointed out) gravity itself would slow down in its own field. A gravitational wave starts out sluggish just after starting out at the edge of the black holes and reach c in empty space?
Here is a thought: Following my own arguments would measuring light velocity as c in the Earth's gravitational field mean it is larger in space?!
Cheers
Vladimir
_____________________
vladimirtamari.com
On Aug 25, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All
The issue of gravity is a bit more involved than the density of electromagnetic fields.
When we study binary pulsars, we see orbits which are much more stable than they would be if gravity traveled at the speed of electromagnetic fields. Studying pulsars is important because if the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light these pulsars would change their orbits at a specific rate, but they do not. The “static field” argument does not apply to pulsars which are moving massive bodies with their gravitational centers constantly changing. Studying pulsars clearly indicates that gravity is much faster than light (electromagnetic fields).
It seems that gravity may be the result of the Coulomb field (electric charge) density instead of electromagnetic field density. (There is a significant difference between the Coulomb field and electromagnetic fields).
I have quoted two experiments on this forum before, conducted in Italy, which indicate that the Coulomb field (charge) is much faster than the speed of light, just a Feynman found in one of his papers.
While moving charge creates electromagnetic fields, charge is not the same as an electromagnetic field. It is not even the same as the E portion of the EM field. Charge is a quantized quantity, EM radiation may be any magnitude.
There are things in this universe which travel much faster than light.
I know some will consider these statements to be “heresy”, but take a good look at the experimental evidence and the issue of binary pulsars.
Happy to provide references for those interested.
Chip
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 2:08 AM
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion' <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Vlad:
It’s the Einstein digital papers. See this. The first page is here. Einstein was talking about the “Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity, Presented in Their Development”.
Note though that Einstein wasn’t talking in terms of “a car decelerating because it takes a curve”. He was talking about a car’s path curving to the left because the speed of its wheels on the left is less than the speed of its wheels on the right. Imagine you’re driving down a country road. The road is muddy on the left, so the car pulls left. We steer tanks in this fashion.
Your paper reminds me of Inhomogeneous Vaccuum, an Alternative Interpretation of Curved Spacetime. See attached.
<image002.jpg>
Regards
John
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Vladimir Tamari
Sent: 25 August 2016 03:04
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Very good Grahame
John D. What is the book you quoted about light speed varying?
Yes Einstein admitted that the speed of light had to vary, as in mechanics the speed slows down with curvature - that is the link between gravity and acceleration - actually deceleration when a car takes a curve. Unfortunately the whole unnecessarily complex structure of General Relativity equations remained expressed in the language of variable spacetime!
In my 1993 paper United Dipole Field I show how curvature of light rays ie gravity occured in the variable refractive index of a dipole. http://vladimirtamari.com/United-Dipole-Field-Tamari.pdf
Here is a figure from the Dipole paper. I generalized this idea in my Beautiful Universe model for an entire Universe made up of such dipoles.
Cheers
Vladimir
<image003.jpg>
Cheers
Vladimir
_____________________
vladimirtamari.com
On Aug 25, 2016, at 2:47 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:
Grahame:
Sorry I haven’t got back to you on your paper yet, I’ve been busy. But note that Einstein never said light curves because spacetime was curved. He said light curves because the speed of light varies with position.
<image001.jpg>
Light curves for the same reason sonar waves curve.
<image002.gif>
Regards
JohnD
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 23 August 2016 14:38
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity
Dear Chandra, John D, John H, Wolf and others,
Thanks, Chandra, for your response. I totally agree that the answer to the gravitation issue (as to so many others) involves reverse engineering the system we refer to as reality. More on that below. (I also find myself in strong agreement with your views on 'the spacetime continuum'.)
John D, I agree also the the 'curvature' of spacetime is in fact inhomogeneity of the electromagnetic field density - which also appears to concur with Hammond's view. More on this also below.
Wolf, I understand your preference for considering the interplay of electricity and gravity/inertia; however, given that gravitation is an effect wholly engendered by particles of matter, it seems most unlikely that we're going to understand gravity without getting a clear grip on those particles.
The SR 'explanation' of gravitation as 'curvature of spacetime' is in fact no explanation at all - it says nothing about WHAT is being curved, HOW it's being curved, WHAT it is about matter that causes that curvature or WHY light and material objects move in accordance with that 'curvature'. It's a useful picture, certainly, but in terms of explanation it appears to add little to Newton's action-at-a-distance (other than relativistic effects).
So let's try a bit of that reverse systems engineering:
Fact (1): It's known (and has been since at least 1934) that particles of matter are (time-varying) electromagnetic constructs.
Fact (2): Given fact (1), and given that electromagnetic field effects drop off inverse-quadratically in relation to the distance from their source, it follows that material particles will have a presence that likewise drops off as the inverse square of distance; that presence is detectable - we refer to it by two names: gravitation and electrical charge.
Fact (3): In this very real sense every particle of matter is in fact unlimited spatially in its extent; the limitations that we attribute to such particles are in fact limitations of our own perception, which is only capable of detecting them through 'virtual photon' interactions, which are interactions between the central 'cores' (loops) of particles being sensed and particles doing the sensing.
Fact (4): Given facts (1) - (3), it follows that the whole of space will be permeated by the totality of (time-varying) electromagnetic field effects from all the particles in the universe, each contributing in accordance with the inverse square law; given also the evening out of 'positive' and 'negative' charge effects on a macroscopic scale, these field effects constitute what we refer to as 'the universal gravitational field'.
Fact (5): That field will vary in intensity in accordance with distance from the various massive bodies that form it; this varying intensity of electromagnetic field effects will influence the behaviour of other electromagnetic constructs passing through that field, i.e. ensembles of particles that form massive bodies; (it is implicit in this, of course, that the principle of coherent superposition of linear photons won't apply to these non-linear time-varying electromagnetic field effects - i.e.they will influence each other through a complex process of mutual interference).
Fact (6): This varying density of field effects will give this continuum a 'shape' defined by the surfaces of equal intensity of those effects; these 3-D contours will effectively determine the motion of electromagnetic constructs - light, particles - through that medium; (any scuba diver who has seen or felt a thermocline in water will have a good analogy to work from here).
Fact (7): It's implicit, and would necessarily be the case, that, although electrostatic charge 'cancel out' if they are equal and opposite, the electromagnetic field effects giving rise to those charges will in fact be additive across the cosmos; likewise, though gravitational 'pull' from opposing directions may appear to cancel out, there may still be a strong gravitational field in that location - think of a plateau high on a great mountain, with a small hillock on that platea.
Fact (8): Substantial supporting detail for this perspective on gravitation can be found in my paper 'Cosmic System Dynamics', posted with my email of 20th August.
A couple of points as a postscript:
(a) This means that we ourselves, being ensembles of material particles, actually extend across the whole cosmos; this may prove relevant;
(b) The entire cosmos is in fact one electromagnetic entity; from the QM point of view there is just ONE wavefunction, spanning the whole universe: wavefunctions for single particles or ensembles of particles are in fact local approximations to this universal wavefunction, in which terms for more distant influences have been ignored as being insignificant; this could well have something to say about 'quantum randomness', which may in fact be those other influences tipping the balance (this is also expanded upon in my book).
Best regards to all,
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: Roychoudhuri, Chandra
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion ; Roychoudhuri, Chandra ; Chandra UConn
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission
Grahame: I like your spirit, the mode of thinking. I call it ergently needed "Evolution Process Congruent Thinking", which I sometimes express as, "Reverse System Engineering Thinking".
My papers can be downloaded from the web: phy.ucon.edu -- faculty -- research; the link is below my image.
Keep up the good spirit.
Chandra.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S® 5 ACTIVE™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: Dr Grahame Blackwell <grahame at starweave.com>
Date: 8/21/2016 8:04 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission
Thanks John,
I'm more than ever convinced that unless we can get a better grasp of what 'space-time' actually IS - which fundamentally means a proper understanding of gravitation - then our species is at very serious risk of imploding and taking much (most?) of life on this planet with us. For the past century or more we've been looking inward rather than outward; humankind is essentally an outward-looking race (the very word 'race' implies that!), and without somewhere to look outward TO we tend to flounder and bicker - just look around the planet today! The world is so vastly overcrowded now, and set to be increasingly more so, with numerous environmental issues to compound the problem. We need new horizons, new frontiers, more than we ever did in the time of Vasco de Gama and Columbus!
[As an aside, I hope we'd also be rather more considerate of any indigenous lifeforms that those who followed Columbus!]
That's a major reason why I've offered my proposal on gravitation for consideration. If we don't crack this one, VERY soon, we may run out of time, lebensraum AND the ability to deal with the pressure-cooker environment we've created for ourselves. David Attenborough is proposing that we seriously limit population growth; the Chinese have tried that and it didn't work - and it never will; the 'prime directive' built into our makeup by evolution is procreation. Our planet is like a dandelion head full of seeds ready to fly - we've even been exploring the heavens around us for places to fly TO! What we need now is the way to do it; I earnestly believe that the way to do it is there in a greater understanding of matter, space-time and gravitation - but not as long as the established scientific community insists on hanging on to outdated paradigms and doggedly refuses to even look at things from a new perspective.
Ok, off my soap-box now. But I do really hope that a few of you out there will take a look at my paper posted with my last email; if there's something clearly wrong with it, please tell me - if not, please tell others! Thanks.
Grahame
----- Original Message -----
From: John Duffield
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2016 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission
Grahame:
I share your general sentiment. I’ll read through your paper and get back to you. Meanwhile I rather think the “shake the rug” waves are light waves. A gravitational field is a place where space is inhomogeneous, not curved. See what Percy Hammond says here: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction".
Regards
John D
From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of Dr Grahame Blackwell
Sent: 20 August 2016 16:37
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Subject: Re: [General] Gravity and ultraweak-photonemission
Hi Wolfgang, John M, John D, Hubert, Vladimir, Beverly et al.,
There appear to be very strong reasons to believe that gravitation is in fact an EM effect. If one starts from the premise that elementary particles are themselves electromagnetic constructs then it's almost a foregone conclusion. That premise was strongly evidenced by Landau & Lifshits in Sov. Phys., 1934, reinforced by Breit & Wheeler later that same year and proved beyond all reasonable doubt at SLAC in 1997 by Burke et al. (Phys Rev Lett 79, pp1626-9).
It's at times somewhat paradoxical to me that physicists (present company excepted!) all too often go looking for complicated explanations when there's a simple one staring them in the face. If one simply sees the force of attraction between unlike unit charges as being minutely greater than the force of repulsion between like charges - and there's no known reason why they should be identical (in fact it's likely that they won't) - then gravitation drops out totally naturally as the difference between those two effects. This would seem to sit well with Occam's razor since it eliminates the need for one otherwise totally unexplained cosmic force at a stroke. We know that every nucleon is made up of a mix of particles of opposing charge (quarks) to give an overall charge; it seems eminently likely that even those quarks are formed from energies that, taken separately, would give rise to either positive or negative charge elements to give the overall charge for a quark - this links the gravitational effect of a particle directly to its total energy content and so to its total mass.
I've attached a copy of my paper, published in 'Kybernetes' five years ago, that details this proposal for gravitation. You'll see that it posits the notion that space(-time) has a 'texture' (also explaining its 'stiffness' and the 'curvature of spacetime') given by the summation of all time-varying EM field effects emanating from all of the material particles in the universe - this of course draws on the fact that electromagnetic fields are unlimited in their reach (and electromagnetic potential is unblockable - Aharonov-Bohm Effect), i.e. that what we experience as a localised particle is just the 'core', so to speak, of an electromagnetic field effect unlimited in its extent. The (-time) in brackets above reflects the fact that this 'texture' of this 'neo-aether' is continually varying as celestial bodies (and groups of celestial bodies) are themselves in continuous motion, so also is their contribution to this 'textured' continuum.
I'd be most interested in any feedback on this proposal, including of course any clear reasons (if any such exist) why it may not be a feasible proposition. You'll note that this concept includes a pretty thorough explanation for every aspect of the Equivalence Principle as included in GR. There's also the strong implication that the gravity waves recently detected are themselves electromagnetic constructs (since the fabric of spacetime is itself EM in nature, and so susceptible to being 'shaken like a rug' by such waves); this may have something to say to Beverly's field of interest, since tidal forces are themselves in a sense a pale shadow of gravity waves.
Thanks all,
Grahame
--------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at vladimirtamari at hotmail.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/vladimirtamari%40hotmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
Virenfrei. www.avast.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at grahame at starweave.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/grahame%40starweave.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160830/1fe3559f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 789 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160830/1fe3559f/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160830/1fe3559f/attachment-0001.png>
More information about the General
mailing list