[General] HA: HA: Gravity

Sun Apr 23 04:39:08 PDT 2017

Dear Alex,

regarding the conflict between the gravitational constant and the 
necessary Higgs field I will not go this time into the detailed 
arguments but will give some references. The discrepancy of 56 orders of 
magnitude between the existing quantum field and the field needed for 
the Higgs model was presented in the following paper:

arXiv:astro-ph/0111520v1

This paper was mentioned by theoretical physicists who work about the 
Higgs model, and I have up to now not met anyone who objected against 
the results of this paper. Do you?  On the other hand I have at several 
physics conferences about particles used to confront the representatives 
of the Higgs model with this discrepancy. I have got no other answers 
than the statement: "Yes we have a problem here which has to be solved". 
No one has stated that the Higgs model is without a problem at this 
point. Some say, however, that there may be a quantum field in the 
universe, unknown until today but existing, which compensates the Higgs 
field  so that the resulting difference is the cosmological constant 
which we believe to be true. -  But this means in effect that both field 
are identical (depart from their sign) except the relative difference of 
10^-56 . - Does anyone believe that such a situation could exist?

Second point: "Spin curves the space." I guess that you refer to the 
Lense-Thirring effect. True? - The normal argument that space is curved 
is gravitational lensing as Einstein has deduced it. But several  known 
cosmologists have presented a calculation (and I do it as well on my web 
site about gravity) that this lensing can be also explained as a 
refraction process. And the result of this calculation is not only 
numerically identical to the result of Einstein but also analytically. 
And in a similar way the Lense-Thirring effect can be explained 
classically in the way that a non-changing space is assumed. Direction 
of the solution: If a gyroscope orbits a gravitational source (and of 
course it self-rotates on its path) then at the changing positions of 
/the parts /of the gyroscope the speed of light changes permanently and 
also the inertial mass of the parts change permanently. That causes the 
slow precession of the  rotational axis of the gyroscope. - Is this what 
you meant?

The Kerr-Newman solution is based on Einstein's GRT which generally 
assumes a changing space-time. For an alternative approach (like the 
Lorentzian relativity) it is accordingly not applicable.

Albrecht

Am 22.04.2017 um 09:06 schrieb Burinskii A.Ya.:
> 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.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><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de><mailto:genmail at a-giese.de>
> An: general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org<mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><mailto: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><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-animated-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_content=emailclient>   Virenfrei. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com><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_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-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><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><https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>      Virenfrei. www.avast.com<http://www.avast.com><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_content=emailclient>
>
>
>
>
>
> [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>
>

---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170423/634bef7f/attachment.htm>