[General] HA: Gravity

Tue Apr 18 06:24:25 PDT 2017

Dear All,
I  would like to probe your response on small reply against modern conception.
I think that graviton is a fiction related with long failed attempts to quantize gravity. Gravity  is a theory of space-time, which has priority for quantum,  providing area for quantum theory.
So, gravity schould  not be subordinated to quantum theory -- no graviton, as well as no Higgs particle and no superparticles.
There are gravitational field,  Higgs fields and superdields forming particles as extended  nonperturbative solutions.

Yours replies are welcome.
Alex

________________________________
От: Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
Отправлено: 18 апреля 2017 г. 13:03
Кому: Wolfgang Baer; 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Тема: Re: [General] Gravity

Hi Wolf,

some questions and comments to the topic of gravity:

If you follow Einstein's concept that the cause of gravity is a curvature of space then the influence of a gravitational source will be symmetric. Any shielding is (to my knowledge) not in the GRT of Einstein. And - as always with Einstein - the propagation speed is c.

You mention on the other hand gravitons as actors for the gravitational force. In case of no shielding the effect on a sphere or on a ball of mass will be the same as for a point mass. That is true for all forces which have the distance law of 1/r2 . (It should be not too difficult to prove this by integration over the according figure.) Shielding is here an open question but there seems to be no result from observations which gives a hint to a shielding effect.

You write that an instantaneous propagation of gravity would avoid the problems which you suspect. In which way should that work?

What has the stability of a neutron has to do with gravity? The gravitational force is weaker than the nuclear force by more than 40 orders of magnitude. That cannot have a measurable effect.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

I hope that you also did have Happy Easter!

Albrecht

Am Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:49:22 -0700 schrieb Wolfgang Baer <wolf at nascentinc.com><mailto:wolf at nascentinc.com>:

sorry I have been absent for a time:

kracklauer expresses a very important distinction between what we actually see or measure and what we infer from those measurements.

I'm developing a physics of the observer and it is extremely important to understand and even have an observational and theoretical language as the Positivists proposed to keep what we see and what we infer straight. Our perceptive system fuses our visual sensation with a theoretical calculation or inference displayed in our perceptive space. However we normally do not notice because it happens too rapidly. So we say I see an apple. No I see a red blob and infer from learned experience that the blob should be collocated with a tangible object. Every predicate refers in our language to a teoretical influence. I do NOT see an apple, I infer an apple exists based upon what I do see.  I've even written a paper on the subject specifically in German. so far the DUden people are not impressed, but they will be.

Now back to gravity: I have a few more questions

Calculating the gravity force on a point particle in a symmetric mass shell gives force balance , but any finite size particle will have a net force that pulls a mass apart. because the attractive force on the left side of the extended  particle will be greater from a distant mass on the left than a symmetric distant  mass on the right. the difference is proportional to the diameter of the particle. It is a small effect if gravity passes through matter unaffected but if the finite particle absorbs gravitational energy it becomes larger. What holds and extended particle of mass like a neutron together?

If there are gravitons to carry gravity should they not get absorbed and emitted by a receiver and sender? If yes then  there should be shielding? Does the Sun shield Mercury?

I did the mc^2 = mGM/R  calculation when one is in the center of the surrounding mass shell, but we are not at the center of the Universe or are we? If I do the off center calculation in an expanding universe I no longer get symmetrically cancelling force since the retarded potential from an earlier time will no longer be equal to its opposite nearer and newer mass. However if I assume infinite gravity speed things work out. Another argument for action at a distance.

Happy Easter

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com<mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>

On 9/13/2016 1:10 PM, Albrecht Giese wrote:

Hi!

Am 12.09.2016 um 20:34 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de<mailto:af.kracklauer at web.de>:

Gesendet: Montag, 12. September 2016 um 16:59 Uhr
Von: "Albrecht Giese" <genmail at a-giese.de><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Betreff: Re: [General] Gravity

Hi Al:

" "Photons"  (given anybody's definition) cannot be directly an object of observation.  PEROID. "

In this case please explain the corresponding process in my experiment, i.e. the detection of photons by pair production where all necessary physical quantities for an individual photon have been conserved. The distance between generation and detection was about 10 m.

AK:  You didn't see any photons, rather the pair after the split and infered what happend based on the taget location and the cite of the 'pair production' and their subsequent orbits in a bubble chamber (or equivalent).  [If I got the experiment wrong, please describe the target and detection apparatus.]   BTW, respecting conservation laws does not require direct observation of a means of interaction between source charges and sink charges, (modulo an uncharged---i.e. unobservable---sink charge).

In the experiment photons have been generated  having a certain energy. 10 meters downstream an electron-positron-pair was generated representing the same energy. So, there was some object flying between the generation point and the detection point which transported just that energy. And this object did not have any charge. (Otherwise it would have been deflected away as there was a strong magnetic field.)

If it should not have been a photon as you suspect, should we give this object a different name? Do you propose a name? Then we could have new physics. Existing physics tells us that it was a photon.

And hi Chandra:

Why can we not assume that the particles "photons" have a "pilot wave" in the sense of de Broglie around them as similarly have e.g. electrons and neutrons? And those pilot waves follow similar rules like the Maxwell equations?

AK:  If the "pilot wve" itself is not of E&M origin, what is it? How does it work?  [Granted deBroglie himself did not have specific models for his pilot wave; but others have!  For example, see #11 on my web page, www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com<http://www.nonloco-physics.0catch.com>]

We could also use the understanding of present main stream physics: All particles like photons, electrons, neutrons are a particle and a wave at the same time. If we take the mode as wave in case of the photon we can use Maxwell's equations to describe the situation. -  I like the pilot wave of de Broglie better as it is perceptible by human imagination. In the case of the photon the superposition of all pilot waves would in that case fulfil the requirements of Maxwell's equations. Something equivalent should happen to the superposition of the pilot waves of e.g. electrons and neutrons. De Broglie did not specify what the pilot wave is made of. He assumed his "waves of harmony" without further specification. That sounds a bit mysterious. In the case of hadrons those should be waves of the strong force.

Albrecht

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>   Virenfrei. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com<mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>      Virenfrei. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>