Gravitational Physics

Matts, Please do not erroneously correct me or lecture me for responding to your unsupported remarks with supporting references.

Andrew Beckwith, Interesting remarks and reference. However, if gravitons are the the mediator of a quantum force of gravity, doesn't the Earth's gravitation reliably affect the Moon, for example, requiring that the Moon is a reliable detector of gravitons? Not to mention satellites in Earth orbit... Please check my reasoning, but I think that this invalidates the argument that a reliable graviton detector would have to be as large as Jupiter. Have I misunderstood something?

>However, GR is not flat and Euclidean! In GR the effects of gravity and inertial acceleration are indistinguishable (equivalent) only locally. The effects of rotation can't be made equivalent to inertia on extended scales of course. Any reference frame should be equally valid to describe Nature, from this and the transformation rules between arbitrary reference frames (covariant transport, tensor analysis) provide the laws of Einstein gravitation, space metric = matter energy contents and vice versa.

It seems incumbent on the science fiction author, Lem, to support his accusation that “The Internal Constitution of the Stars” "must be read now as (genuine!) Science Fiction," especially the assertion that "nothing in it corresponds anymore with our present knowledge." Without substantiation that the book is out of date and inaccurate, why should anyone respond to Lem's opinion? After all, he is the Science Fiction writer...

When we talk about dimension if we take time & one dimension than it is no more one dimension as time it self is a dimension. The best example since my student days i have observed while travelling in a train the pables on the track are almost invisible as the time of light to reach is less where farther the distance from the train will slowly increase the visibility & relative velocity turns slow. Here all layers should be considered as one dimention with different time frame.

James, The conclusion that the angular momentum is not conserved follows from the Schwarzschild metric and is independent of Mercury's orbit, or to anything else it is applied to. It was Riemann's great accomplishment of generalizing the dot product to the inner product which would be applicable to geometric surfaces that are quite different from the Euclidean plane. If you accept the generalization of the dot product you have to be prepared to generalize the cross product so that the trigonometric formula holds. Thus, you have to accept that on these new geometric surfaces, the conservation of angular momentum won't be the same as in the Euclidean plane--but it will still be a conservation condition on the new geometric surfaces. Moller's statement that the radius vector "has an unambiguous meaning only in a Euclidean space" shows that he hasn't a clue to the new geometric structure that must be considered. This is independent of the fact that the Schwarzschild metric doesn't give the correct expression for the metric.

Giovanni, The inner solution of Schwarzschild has a constant mass density. Why should space change from one of nonconstant curvature to one of constant curvature just by going from the exterior to the interior solution? Einstein's equations are solved with T_ij=0, more uniform and isotropic than that is hard to come by. Mass is only introduced as an arbitrary constant of integration, and then rationalized that Newtonian physics should apply at large distances and weak fields. But Newton's law vanishing at infinity applies to absolute space not to GR in which the g_ij have different values in different systems of coordinates at infinity. What makes me believe there is a mass, if there was none to begin with? What causes the nonconstant curvature? I would expect that deviations from Euclidean geometry would have constant curvature and the only two that are known are hyperbolic and spherical geometries. In the limit as the radius of curvature tends to infinity, you get back Euclidean geometry. Not so with Schwarzschild's solution to Einstein's equations.

It was possible to measure the force that 11 000 lumen lamp that blocked some of the gravitational force on a 100 g mass. The forced blocked is small, only 3,4 x10-8 Newton. The article was published in GRAVITYFORCES.COM.

To James Dwyer: hi, so let me go through this: 1. For the 2-body problem, I admit I never worked on it: what you talk about, the fact that there could be tidal forces, is justified by the fact that these tidal forces usually go as an inverse of cubic radial coordinate, so what you say makes sense to me; but again, I do not have much insight on this problem. 2. About the other issue, the preponderance of matter over antimatter, there have been attempts to derive them from torsion: physically, matter and antimatter have opposite helicity states, and so they couple to the same background with slightly different energies. But this is certainly a work-in-progress topic. If you cannot understand what I write is most probably my fault; so please feel free to ask whatever you like. I will try my best to reply.

Again, this 'question' posting declares that there is a (new) requirement to test the speed of light, claiming: "The recent measurements of the Casimir effect by Wilson, et al established the existence of a pervasive background of charged particles in what has been perceived as an empty Universe. As a result, photons moving through what has hitherto been taken as a vacuum will be slowed, while neutrino speed will be unaffected. All our measurements of the propagation of light and its wavelength have not been corrected for this slowing." In fact the Wilson et al study I found establishes only that photons are slowed within a superconducting circuit. It has previously been shown the EM field effects become localized in the presence of a superconducting field. I can only conclude that these results do not apply in the absence of a superconducting circuit, ad thus cannot be universally extended to all vacuum conditions. Please see Wilson, et al., (2011), "Observation of the Dynamical Casimir Effect in a Superconducting Circuit," http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4714

Yes but i think that is it possible to compute the value of αf_d(α) for each resonance. Any way the problem is how Murray & Dermott plot the resonances becuase with the two method i use they overlap only in the second case (i.e.: when i put a as a costant) but this is a correct method ?

This is a topic that is being discussed here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Difference_between_gravity_and_gravitational_force

Colleagues, Dear Miroslav, Radiating from black hole there is an emission spectrum of higher frequency excitation in counter flow of energy attracted to the black hole. Then, Yes!! Becomes inevitable that inside events are entangled with outside events, and vice versa. The scientific methods of spacetime are not yet well understood such higher energy flows, however you guys already know that dark energy is ejaculated for the outside the black hole (or not!?). Remembering that the structural of energy systems is the vortex, from micro to macro system. Therefore, there aren't only macro black hole. Regards,

This may be of interest http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4368

Not being conversant in the physics involved, I'd be reluctant to speculate that quantum fluctuations can even occur in the extreme curvature of the spacetime vacuum near the event horizon of a BH... Moreover, I like to conjecture that, since neutron star material already approaches the greatest density possible - no material can meet the density requirements of a BH singularity, therefore a BH cannot 'ingest' any dimensional matter - its gravitational energy must be extracted from ejected material. I guess this might occur as accelerated, atomic matter collides and disintegrates into fundamental particles, releasing the mass-energy of its nuclear bindings. While similar processes may occur in particle accelerator experiments, there the relatively small amount of released mass-energy is allowed to dissipate within the Earth's gravitational field. I suspect that the enormous amounts of mass energy released by particle disintegration at the event horizon of a black hole is retained by and contributes to the static external curvature of spacetime encapsulating the BH, with the abstract singularity as its directional focal point. In this scenario, even if quantum fluctuations do occur in the spacetime near a BH event horizon and a particle-antiparticle member is ejected prior to entering the event horizon, the 'ingested' particle never actually enters the event horizon but interacts with other fundamental particles at its periphery as they are all expelled through the relativistic polar jets observed during periods of high 'ingestion' activity. Obviously, though, I'm just attempting to speculate in accordance with general observations, unencumbered by any established theory...

The idea of entropy can be measured as a vector such as the sugar entropy which moves through the saccharides and peptides to glycolysis and glycosylation. However, in convective phase relations which include apoptosis or precipitation and evaporation, entropy moves as a tensor between two vectors. ent ent y ( U ) d N d Z = del v ( r ) d q . The entropy of a compacted density in space reverses. ent Z r ( i ) d N = exp v ( p ) d Q .

The topological properties of relativistic constants can be quantized as indefinite, formal values. This is a special theory of quantum mechanics, where the boson range of the relativistic constant is known and the coefficient tensor can be selected. d _ top rel d P ( Z ) N = c int int u ( n ) d n d r - - y .

F. Leyvraz, Good points, well taken. However, I think that better instruments led to falsification of the Ptolemaic system, which (as allowed by region and politics) would have eventually led to its replacement. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution#Tycho_Brahe "...contributed to the revolution by showing that the heavenly spheres were at best mathematical devices rather than physical objects, since the great comet of 1577 passed through the spheres of several planets, and, moreover, the spheres of Mars and the Sun passed through each other. Brahe and his assistants also made the numerous and painstaking observations which allowed Johannes Kepler to derive his laws of planetary motion. Kepler's revised heliocentric system gave a far more accurate description of planetary motions than the Ptolemaic one." Given the new observational data, it seems that Kepler was able to develop a "far more accurate" model. I'm sure ease of use also helped... Just for reference, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Current_status "General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed many unambiguous observational and experimental tests. However, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete. The problem of quantum gravity and the question of the reality of spacetime singularities remain open. Observational data that is taken as evidence for dark energy and dark matter could indicate the need for new physics." (references omitted) I certainly agree that GR is a fundamental breakthrough. IMO, its major shortcoming is that it's sitting on the shelf while astronomy attempts to apply simplified methods of gravitational evaluation to very large scale, exceedingly complex problems. Please see my simple essay/profile thesis: "Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Vast Spiral Galaxies..." I certainly haven't figured out the perceived acceleration of universal expansion, but in my systems analyst opinion galactic dark matter was erroneously conceived. I also think that the viral theorem evaluations of homogeneous galaxy 'particles' within galaxy clusters also produce significant errors. The extreme complexity of statistically identified minute weak lensing effects produced by galaxy clusters is also a potential source of significant error. As I understand, cosmological dark matter estimates are primarily based on extrapolations of galactic estimates. Falsification of even galactic dark matter would have severe implications for cosmological models... I don't know if a more complete explanation of the processes that produce gravitational effects might produce more correct methods of simplifying gravitational evaluations, but I hope that it might. I'd anticipate that this more complete description of gravitation would fundamentally be a conceptual extension to GR... I do appreciate your expert advice - thanks!

Then there's Einstein's "now famous" initial publication of faulty field equations in Oct. 1915, one month before his scheduled presentation of GR to the Prussian Academy of Science in Nov. 1915. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#History Einstein suddenly realized the equations "were inconsistent with the local conservation of energy-momentum unless the universe had a constant density of mass-energy-momentum. In other words, air, rock and even a vacuum should all have the same density. This inconsistency with observation sent Einstein back to the drawing board. However, the solution was all but obvious, and in November 1915 Einstein published the actual Einstein field equations..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity#The_development_of_the_Einstein_field_equations So a less lucky Einstein might have had his theory of general relativity roundly discredited before it was ever seriously considered - we might otherwise now have Hilbert's theory of general relativity... This anecdote also demonstrates that Einstein's theory of gravity was developed more or less haphazardly from a conceptual analysis ('thought experiment') rather than being derived through careful mathematical analysis - perhaps something to consider before routinely dismissing silly ideas from the mathematically impaired, such as I <%)

X^3/ x^2 = x (x: the "something" minimum necessary).

The Doppler red shift has to do with the expansion of crystallizing density, matter in volume is growing colder by radiation and floats like ice. This is hypothetical. Gravitational red shift has to do with the imploding tonal wave, a matter of compression by which the crystallization becomes more dense until, by a phase shift, it becomes amorphous like glass. There is a third kind of red shift by which rotation has a red shift accompanied by a blue shift. H: { d F ind ind d t [ ( q , e ) exp 8 ] u = c int g ( v ) d ( Z , N ) } .

Thanks Dr. Dottori, I'll take a good look at it.

Dear Marshall, please distinct two cases in social science: first aime is to get money from the taxpayers and second is to perform a real scientific research. For all your references http://search.nasa.gov/search/search.jsp?nasaInclude=black+holes+pictures we have the case 1 just because astronomical images can not prove that one sees a black hole resolution of telescopes too small to see gravitational radius R_g. Only in near future the VLBI observations at millimeter waves will observe such small sizes for the closest BH candidates (e.g. in our Galaxy center). So now you are in the position of Ptolemaic scientist which see the rotation of the sky and say "Hi! My name is Rotatung Sphere". Your question "If they aren't black holes, then what are they?" should be addressed to the scientists who develop the physical theory of gravitational interaction, but not to the nice pictures of beautiful astrophysical object. Then you should know that in the scientific literature there is acute discussion on relativistic quantum gravity theory and general relativity is one example of them. All really tested relativistic gravity effects also exists in alternative gravity theories. For example there are relativistic compact objects which has sizes about R_g but it is not a black holes. They have surface, magnetic field, jets and accretion disc, but they are not a black hole which predicted by GR. I already gave you the references.

Dear Ali Bleybel, Thanks ! I guess the authors initially planned to produce a series of papers, one for each observable effect. Probably a referee or an editor of CQG pointed out the wrongness of their way. If that scenario is correct, it shows óne positive influence of the"classical" scientific journals. Kindest regards, Henk Smid

To explore Robert Mcnees' excellent comment further, as well as Prakash Kumar's interesting reply, the determining factor in compliance with the Cosmological Principle is the observational perspective and constraint imposed on any observer. While a spherical expanding universe, with concurrent observers located on a two dimensional surface, complies with the CP, an expanding sphere does have a point origin of radial expansion. That it is not detectable by any surface observer assures compliance with the CP. However, a more complete analogy would add a few constraints to observer's perceptual capabilities. The ability to observe distant objects on the concurrent surface of the spherical universe would be limited by the relation between its circumference, the rate of expansion and the speed of light. In a static, non-expanding universe, light emitted from anywhere on the surface would eventually reach all surface observers. If the cosmological redshift of distant light is caused by the universal expansion of spacetime (in effect dynamically increasing the distance light must traverse - identically to recessive motion), none will be observed. For completeness then, in an expanding universe the observer must be able to perceive light that has been emitted in the past. However, since the concurrent surface of the sphere is in the process of expanding, an observer cannot look into the future to see light that will eventually reach him. To see into the past, the simple sphere must now become essentially like a movie of the sphere, a transparency containing not only objects on the concurrent surface of the sphere but the images or frames of all past spherical surfaces. The only problem is that the sphere is not absolutely transparent, and the amount of light, or radial EM emissions, from ancient sources diminishes in time and distance. In this scenario, any observer can only see those objects that are very nearby in both time and space and those that are further away in both time and space. However, the perspective of any observer is that of someone looking through a telescope, seeing only a small portion of the 'sky' (the objects contained within the transparent 'movie' frames of the spherical universe) throughout time. Looking throughout the sky, seeing only objects selected by a narrow aperture of observable spacetime, those objects appear to be projected in three spatial dimensions. I think that is another illusion that I should not attempt to address at this time… In this spherical expanding universe, selectively observable objects appear to all be receding away from us, even though it is actually we who are receding away from all of our past view of them presented by their ancient light emissions. This peculiar perspective of the universe will appear to any observer, depending only on variations in the present size of the sphere and the current and past rates of expansion. To concurrent observers anywhere on the surface of the sphere, the universe will always appear to be essentially the same. I think this still relatively simplistic model of an expanding universe and the constraints that it imposes on an observer's perspective fit very well to the perceived conditions that are actually observed. The Cosmological Principle is maintained, despite the fact that the universe is actually a radially expanding sphere, since any observer's perspective is restricted to an axis of expansion. I think in this case the universe appears to be flat, for example, because we are essentially making only linear observations in time and space...

I find the discussion here interesting in that it seems to agree with some of my purely conceptual analysis. While GR gravity has been demonstrated to be most accurate for most applications (more on the misrepresentation of large scale masses below), I have difficulty in there being no physical process or mechanism described to produce the mathematical results. As I understand, GR very accurately describes the effects of gravitation using an abstract system of spacetime coordinates within some geometric 'curvature' of spacetime. However, there seems to be no physical element or surface being represented by this abstract geometry. I do not wish to resurrect non-existent material aether, but surely geometric coordinates must represent some physical element to produce physical effects imparted to the motion of material objects. Consistent with GR's description of gravitational effects imparted through external spacetime, it seems the described geometry must represent some physical aspect of spacetime. Moreover, the effect seems to be identical to acceleration. In my very simple conceptual terms, this implies to me that the most likely candidate is some accelerating energy contained within spacetime: vacuum energy. As I understand and as mentioned previously, a spacetime containing kinetic vacuum energy of varying density should, on its own, disperse in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, producing the omnidirectional fundamental expansion of spacetime. Conversely, if some process could be shown to locally compress kinetic vacuum energy, locally increasing its density, producing locally directed kinetic energy gradients within spacetime, it could be very accurately be represented by the geometric coordinates of spacetime used by GR to describe the (accelerating) effects of gravitation. In this case, gravitation would be a locally directed acceleration of material objects produced by the condensed ('pushing') kinetic energy of external spacetime. As an aside, the 'attractive force vector' described by Newton's universal law of gravitation between two point-masses (or spherically symmetrical distributions of mass) is then a simulation of the interaction of two opposing directed gradient fields of kinetic vacuum energy, each directionally accelerating the other object of mass... Considering how this conception might be physically tested, I propose that gradient fields of vacuum energy density should produce some corresponding variation in the rate of local quantum fluctuations - the physical annihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs should be a product of vacuum energy density and an indirect measure gravitational field strength. A sufficiently sensitive detector of local particle-antiparticle annihilations should detect some (possible minute) variation at varying altitudes - distances from the Earth's center of mass (or in Earth orbit). Note that, in this case, gravity is not a property of matter at all! It is instead a property of spacetime. Its quantum effect is limited to its directional interaction with mass-energy to produce (as I understand) inertial momentum. I think this would mean that no 'unified theory' could fully describe gravity as a property of matter in the context of quantum particle theory. I think this external conception of gravity also best explains its local 'weakness' in comparison to the forces of matter - and, in contrast to their limited local effects requiring the physical exchange of mediating particles, gravitation's effectiveness over vast ranges of spatial distance. The critical remaining question would be: 'What mechanism produces gradient fields of kinetic vacuum energy density?" I suggest that it, along with the condensation of matter, is a product of the process of accretion. As matter is being condensed by kinetic vacuum energy it is also being extracted or extruded from spacetime - this action would impart directional focus and the local contraction of the kinetic vacuum energy, producing accelerating gradient fields vacuum energy density within the local spacetime from which matter has been condensed. I'm sorry if this explanation is quite vague - certainly requires refinement and definition in the context of physical theory. I think this conception of gravity as vacuum energy density gradients is a direct physical interpretation of the representative geometric effects described by GR. It also considers the primary effect of gravitation to be acceleration physically produced by the 'push' of external kinetic energy proportionally enveloping objects of mass. I apologize for the extremely large comment - I appreciate your consideration... P.S. Regarding the Nov. 11 comment regarding the failure of existing gravitational theories when applied to large scale mass configurations, I strongly think that the failure is not in gravitational theory per se, but in the improper application of overly simplistic methods of approximation to represent very complex configurations of discrete masses comprising large scale, compound objects - whose gravitational interactions are also extremely complex. Please see my profile thesis "Inappropriate Application of Kepler's Empirical Laws of Planetary Motion to Vast Spiral Galaxies Erroneously Created the Galaxy Rotation Problem - Thereby Establishing a Galactic Presence for Inferred Dark Matter" or an earlier version: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Dwyer_FQXi_2012__Questionin_1.pdf Also, please see: J. D. Carrick and F. I. Cooperstock. "General relativistic dynamics applied to the rotation curves of galaxies." Astrophysics and Space Science. 337 1 (2012): 321-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10509-011-0854-z James Q. Feng and C. F. Gallo. "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies." Res. Astron. Astrophys. 11 (December 2011): 1429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/11/12/005 http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3236v4 P.P.S. I'm a lay retired information systems analyst, so I must apologize for not being conversant in physics or mathematics.

The answer is purely based on triangle geometry. Each point L4, L5 forms equilateral triangle with the two masses . This follows from the equations of motion of the three-body problem. So, M1, M2 and L4 (say) are the vertices of an equilateral triangle regardless of the sizes of M1 and M2. . If you draw a straight line from L4 perpendicular to the line M1-M2, then this line from L4 will meet the M1-M2 line (perpendicularly) at the midpoint between M1 and M2 regardless of the sizes of M1 and M2.This midpoint will not be the center of mass of the pair M1, M2, UNLESS the two masses are equal.

Jeffrey, I can't really asses the proposition of a fourth spatial dimension, although I do suspect that physical structure plays an important role in the potential aspect of mass-energy: that is is likely peripherally configured energy field directed towards a singular focal point. In this way the application of external, directed energy may be partially absorbed by the potential mass-energy field, increasing effective mass-energy producing the effects of inertia. But I certainly don't have a fully developed conceptual model of particle structure or configuration. I do find it interesting that particle/wave duality seems to involve the exclusive manifestation of energy that alternatively produces either kinetic directional propagation or potential inertial mass. I am wondering whether particle and wave states may actually coexist simultaneously or whether particles vibrate between the two alternative states at a frequency that is undetectable. The latter view provides that potential benefit of explaining why the mass quantity varies by particle type, as it may represent the frequency or duration of particle state manifestations over time. In any case, my previous comment was intended to suggest a potentially more correct mechanism for the (persistent) acquisition of mass by particles as they are initially emitted rather than as a continuous, reiterative process. I didn't find in your references any mention of a process by which various type of particles would acquire varying mass quantities. Thanks, but I really am not capable of assessing your proposal. Again, I agree that the physical structure or configuration of particles is likely a critical factor in determining their characteristic properties.