[General] HA: HA: Gravity
Chip Akins
chipakins at gmail.com
Sat Apr 22 06:07:49 PDT 2017
Hi Alex
I have modeled this effect that spin has on surrounding space.
My work was to calculate the magnetic moment anomaly of the electron. And
the solution is very straightforward.
So I think this spin influence on surrounding space is significant. But I
did not call it gravity. I considered it to be part of the charge field.
Your work in this area is interesting, and I will study it more. Thank you
for the link to the article.
Chip Akins
-----Original Message-----
From: General
[mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.
org] On Behalf Of Burinskii A.Ya.
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 2:06 AM
To: phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
<general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>; Wolfgang Baer
<wolf at nascentinc.com>
Subject: [General] HA: HA: Gravity
Dear Albrecht and all,
What you tell on weakness of gravity
"maximal assumed gravitational constant is smaller than the field, necessary
for the Higgs model"
is a typical delusion. In Cosmos weakness of constant is compensated by the
giant masses.
In particle physics, gravity is weak when you test it by mass, but
particles have huge spin, on 22
orders more than mass. It is experimentally stated that spin curves the
space (frame-dragging effect).
As a result, gravitational interaction is shifted from Planck to Compton
distances - just region of the Higgs field.
In particular, the gravitational spinning Kerr-Newman solution breaks space
topologically at Compton distances.
This ignorance of the spin impact caused failure of superstring theory.
In fact, it is failure of all modern concept. I wrote it in
arXiv:1701.01025<https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01025> .
Alex
________________________________
От: Albrecht Giese [genmail at a-giese.de]
Отправлено: 21 апреля 2017 г. 23:19
Кому: Burinskii A.Ya.; phys at a-giese.de; Nature of Light and Particles -
General Discussion; Wolfgang Baer
Тема: Re: HA: [General] Gravity
Dear Alex,
here two comments
1.) There is a gravitational field, to this I do agree. But what are
superfields? At least the Higgs field is a severe problem. In so far as the
astronomy tells us that it does not in fact exist. Any quantum field
extended through the universe which is compatible with a maximal assumed
gravitational constant is smaller than the field, necessary for the Higgs
model, by a factor of at least 56 orders of magnitude. (And here I simply
state that this field does not exist.)
2.) You are saying that gravity is a theory of space-time. That is correct
in so far as this was Einstein's position. On the other hand, if we use the
approach of Hendrik Lorentz to explain relativity, gravity is not a
phenomenon of space-time but a side effect of the other forces.
Albrecht
Am 18.04.2017 um 15:24 schrieb Burinskii A.Ya.:
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<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:af.kracklauer at web.d
e><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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><m
ailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
An:
general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflig
htandparticles.org><mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><mail
to: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><http:/
/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-anima
ted-tick-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source
=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient><https://www.avast.com/
sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_conten
t=emailclient> Virenfrei.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medi
um=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient><htt
ps://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=s
ig-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><mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com><
mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
<a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"<http://
lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandpart
icles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1><http://lists.natureo
flightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wol
f%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1><http://lists.natureoflightandpart
icles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentin
c.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima
ted-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_s
ource=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient><https://www.avast
.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_c
ontent=emailclient> Virenfrei.
www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medi
um=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient><htt
ps://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=s
ig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-anima
ted-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_s
ource=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei.
www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=li
nk&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 chipakins at gmail.com <a
href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureo
flightandparticles.org/chipakins%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
More information about the General
mailing list