Discussion
Started 26 July 2024
  • Katholieke Hogeschool Sint-lieven, Ghent, Belgium

Is the gravitational field a substantial element of nature or is it an element of our thinking about nature?

With the term “gravity”, we refer to the phenomenon of the gravitational interaction between material bodies.
How that phenomenon manifests itself in the case of the interaction of two mass particles at rest relative to an inertial reference frame (IRF) has, in the framework of classical physics, mathematically been described by Isaac Newton. And Oliver Heaviside, Oleg Jefimenko and others did the same in the case of bodies moving relative to an IRF. They described the effects of the kinematics of the gravitating objects assuming that the interaction between massive objects in space is possible through the mediation of “the gravitational field”.
In that context, the gravitational field is defined as a vector field having a field- and an induction-component (Eg and Bg) simultaneously created by their common sources: time-variable masses and mass flows. This vector-field (a mathematical construction) is an essential element of the mathematical description of the gravitational phenomena, and as such an element of our thinking about nature.
One cannot avoid the question of whether or not a physical entity is being described by the vector field (Eg, Bg) and what, if any, is the nature of that entity.
In the framework of “the theory of informatons”[1],[2],[3], the substance of the gravitational field – that in that context is considered as a substantial element of nature - is identified as “gravitational information” or g-information” i.e. information carried by informatons. The term “informaton” refers to the constituent element of g-information. It is a mass and energy less granular entity rushing through space at the speed of light and carrying information about the position and the velocity of its source, a mass-element of a material body.
References
[1] Acke, A. (2024) Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation Explained by the Theory of Informatons. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103056
[2] Acke, A. (2024) The Gravitational Interaction between Moving Mass Particles Explained by the Theory of Informatons. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103060
[3] Acke, A. (2024) The Maxwell-Heaviside Equations Explained by the Theory of Informatons. https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103061

All replies (3)

The STOE has a slightly different model. All objects in the universe create or modify a real plenum (ether, vacuum energy, spacetime, etc.) field. The gradient of this field acts on matter particles. There is only 1 such field and 1 such force which manifests differently depending on the circumstance to appear as the other "forces" standard physics postulates.
SUMMARY
STOE on CNPS Intro
Antoine J.H. Acke
Katholieke Hogeschool Sint-lieven, Ghent, Belgium
Dear Preston,
Thanks for your quick response.
1. You wrote: ”The "informatons" in your theory are not necessary for the interaction of matter because space and time alone are sufficient and a theory of "informations" is therefore redundant or superfluous.
In the context of classical physics time and space are considered as elements of our thinking about nature. They do not participate in what is happening. They are conceived as constructions of our thinking that allow us to locate and date events in an objective manner (art. [1], §2). So they cannot be the cause of the physical phenomena.
2. You wrote: “If you look at my one page summary paper
I will look at your papers but I need more than a few hours to form my opinion.
Regards,
Antoine

Similar questions and discussions

Fundamental Physics is stuck in conceptual crisis and reached a dead end. What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?
Discussion
324 replies
  • Gurcharn Singh SandhuGurcharn Singh Sandhu
Fundamental Physics Research is intended to explore the grand maze of the unknown. Throughout the last century, Physicists have occupied themselves with working out Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology in all their implications. In the process, Fundamental Physics has absorbed mathematical ideas and notions of increasing sophistication and abstraction. The tragedy of the last century was the gradual shift in our focus from the physical reality to the abstract mathematical formulations, which are supposed to describe physical reality. We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that due to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand deeper understanding and mental visualization of the basic phenomena in quantum mechanical world. Now we are stuck in plethora of unfounded Belief Systems which are hindering any real progress in Fundamental Physics Research. On the other hand, Applied Physics is supported by physical or experimental feedback as well as mental visualization. As such Applied Physics never gets stuck in abstract mathematical formulations or unfounded Belief Systems.
As a consequence, Fundamental Physics researchers have inadvertently adopted certain abstract mathematical concepts into their physical worldview. For example, the notions of virtual particles, exchange theory of interaction, probability density representing instantaneous particle location, spacetime curvature, Black Holes, Big Bang, metric expansion of Space, etc. are truly abstract mathematical concepts which have been erroneously adopted in our physical worldview as physical realities. Experimental proofs and validations of such physically unacceptable mathematical concepts are often claimed through erroneous interpretation of raw observations. Agreed that Fundamental Research does require a lot of mathematical support, but the end results of any complex mathematical processing must be applicable to the physical world and hence must come within the grasp of human mind and mental visualization.
Perhaps, it is a part of Human Nature that we find ourselves so prone to mass indoctrination by dominant vested interest groups in all fields. Our inherent capacity to use Logic and Reason gets restricted or diminished under such a state of mass indoctrination and we involuntarily join 'Group Thinking'. Fundamental Research is one such area where indoctrination of innocent students and mass hypnosis of general public is inhibiting the use of Reason and Logic for discarding erroneous beliefs like Black Holes, Big Bang, probability waves, spacetime curvature etc.
In my opinion, Fundamental Physics Research is currently plagued by three dominant syndromes.
(a) "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome.
Throughout the last century, Industrial development and technological advancements remained in the public limelight and won public acclaim. However, Fundamental Physics research being of somewhat abstract and slow, could not compete with engineering and technology for winning public limelight and appreciation. As such, Fundamental Physics researchers instinctively started adopting highly abstract but sensational models of Nature, that could attract public attention in wonder and amazement, to win higher public acclaim in comparison with technological advancements. The adoption of highly abstract and sensational models in Fundamental Physics research for gaining public limelight, represents "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome. This approach has been adopted by the mainstream Physics community and sensational models of Black Holes, gravitational waves, Big Bang, weird QM models, particle entanglement, metric expansion of space etc. all represent this syndrome. These highly illogical but sensational models of Nature have now got embedded in permanent Belief Systems of the Scientific Community.
(b) "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" Syndrome.
If we represent the Nature by the proverbial 'Elephant', then the popular tale of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" aptly highlights the current state of Fundamental Physics research. The six blind men in the popular tale could be represented by the researchers in the fields of Astrophysics, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, Relativity Physics, Gravitational Physics and Cosmology. Just as in the popular tale, all researchers are extremely busy in making appropriate observations and making most sophisticated models thereof to represent Nature - 'The Elephant'. Many of such models have won public applaud and even Nobel Prizes. However, making models from raw observations, without necessary physical insight, often leads to fallacious Belief systems that defy Logic and Reason. Prominent examples of Models in this category are - Black Holes, Big Bang, Gravitational Waves, Spacetime Curvature, Length Contraction, Time Dilation, Fields without medium, Exchange Theory of Interaction, Probability Density representing instantaneous electron location, Atomic Orbitals, Metric Expansion of Space, Quantum Gravity, Particle Entanglement, etc. etc.
(c) "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome.
In spite of tens of thousands of advanced research papers being published every year, there is hardly any perceptible advancement in Fundamental Physics. One reason is that under the current system of research dissemination, it is virtually impossible for any researcher to know about the research contributions of all other researchers. Second reason is that when a researcher develops a model of certain aspect of Nature, due to long mental association and efforts put in, the model tends to get embedded in one's permanent Belief System. Accordingly, each researcher will tend to develop a personal Belief system which will act as a Benchmark for evaluating the models or contributions of all other researchers. In the absence of any centralized or common research dissemination and evaluation system, the individual Belief systems will constitute a "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome, which is a great hinderance for any advancement in Fundamental Physics Research. Most independent researchers are likely to be affected by this syndrome.
Under the circumstances, even if a few researchers do put up valuable research contributions for advancement of Fundamental Physics, we cannot distinguish their voices from the background noise. In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination.
Learned researchers are requested to give their considered opinion on the issue of "What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?" and how to rectify the situation.
Classical unified field theory with interesting properties
Discussion
7 replies
  • Philip D FlammerPhilip D Flammer
I've been working for quite some time on developing self-consistent extended-body electromagnetic theories, with the idea it may resolve some of the infinite self-interactions of the standard model.
The culmination of this is that if one simply considers a single 2-tensor on a manifold, and looks at the lowest order, quadratic Lagrangians that can produce gravity and electromagnetism from this tensor, one obtains a theory that can support such solutions:
It has a number of other interesting properties (for instance, magnetic charge is naturally introduced, but only interacts via curvature coupling, which sounds a lot like dark matter).
I'll be submitting it for peer review soon, and I'm getting some feedback from colleagues, but I'd be interested in feedback from a wider audience. General discussion is great, but I'm looking for two types of feedback in particular.
1. Mathematical or logical flaws with what I've done.
2. Areas where I need to improve how I am communication of what I'm doing.
Any feedback is appreciated.
Shaping the Future: Insights and Collaborations from the Kick-Off Event of the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQ 2025)
Discussion
1 reply
  • Iftikhar AhmadIftikhar Ahmad
Dear Colleagues,
Following the successful Kick-Off Event of the International Year of Quantum Science and Technology (IYQ) 2025, held on January 1, 2025, at the University of Malakand, I am excited to initiate this discussion. The event brought together a diverse group of people including parliamentarian, faculty members, and students, marking a significant milestone in Pakistan's journey towards scientific and technological advancement.
Event Highlights:
  1. Cake-Cutting Ceremony: A symbolic start to the year-long festivities, celebrating the global focus on quantum science and technology.
  2. Quantum Walk: Themed "Every Step Counts: A Quantum Walk for the Promotion of Science and Technology in Pakistan," this walk emphasized the importance of collective efforts in advancing quantum research.
  3. Distinguished Lecture: Prof. Dr. Fida Younas Khattak delivered a compelling talk titled "Quantum Technology: A Roadmap for Promoting and Establishing in Pakistan," providing valuable insights into the future of quantum technology in our country.
Objectives of This Discussion:
  • To share insights and experiences from the kick-off event.
  • To discuss the potential impact of quantum science and technology on various sectors in Pakistan.
  • To explore opportunities for interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships.
  • To identify challenges and propose solutions for advancing quantum research and education in Pakistan.
  • To engage with scientific communities, policymakers, and institutions in promoting science-friendly policies and raising public awareness.
STEM and Living Standards:We believe that STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and advancements in science and technology are the best sources for promoting the living standards of developing countries. These fields drive innovation, economic growth, and societal progress. By prioritizing STEM education and research, developing countries can address critical challenges such as energy crises, climate change, healthcare, and education quality, ultimately improving the quality of life for their citizens.
Call to Action:I invite all members of the scientific community, including physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, and representatives of learned societies such as the Pakistan Institute of Physics, Pakistan Chemical Society, Pakistan Nuclear Society, Pakistan Botanical Society, and Pakistan Zoological Society, to actively participate in this discussion. Your contributions are crucial in fostering a culture of innovation and scientific excellence in Pakistan.
Together, let's work towards making 2025 a year of significant advancements and breakthroughs in quantum science and technology. I look forward to your valuable insights and collaborative efforts.
Best regards,
Prof. Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, TI
Founding Director, Center for Computational Materials Science University of Malakand & Secretary General, Pakistan Institute of Physics, Pakistan
【NO.53】Unification Issues (2) - Why can't gravity be considered the spacetime part of the electromagnetic force?
Discussion
5 replies
  • Chian FanChian Fan
In electromagnetism the Coulomb force F=q1q2/r^2, the Lorentz force F=q(E+νxB), are computed treating spacetime as flat, and we are measuring what is actually a macroscopic phenomenon, not at the microscopic level. But this does not mean that the principle fails completely at the microscopic level.
Consider particles with mass such as electrons, which should have both electromagnetic and gravitational forces (we cannot rule out the validity of GR at tiny masses). Looking at an electron from the outside, it expresses electric field, magnetic moment, and mass. The Stern-Gerlach experiment fully expressed these covariates [1]. The electron involves only 4 factors, time t, space x, electric field E, and magnetic field H. We express the electron in the set e={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, where the elements are all variables. This then implies that the external electromagnetic force, gravitational force, and mass, should all be able to be described by these components, since we can only act on the electron through these components.
Mass then could be exclusively electromagnetic mass [2][3], me={Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, regardless of the mechanism by which it is produced [4]. The electric field force can likewise be expressed only in terms of Fe=α{Δt, Δx, ΔE, ΔH}, and the gravitational force in terms of the set Fg=G{Δt, Δx}. Obviously, this is their simplest expression.
We need not consider what the electron is. It can be inferred from the set that its electric and gravitational forces overlap, since they share the same part of spacetime expression. This can also be seen by comparing Coulomb's law with Newton's law of gravity. As for neutral massive particles, they can be regarded as cancelling out the electromagnetic field [5] leaving only the Fg = G{Δt, Δx} part. In this way, the gravitational force is naturally unified to the electromagnetic force, and they are coupled together by the spacetime {Δt, Δx}, and automatically incorporated into the gauge field theory; the 'graviton' can be regarded as the spacetime product of the 'photon'. As for gravitational waves, they can be regarded as a part of space-time detached from accelerated motion, like electromagnetic waves radiated by accelerated electrons. This is exactly what Poincaré envisaged [6].
"After Einstein developed his theory of general relativity, in which a dynamical role was given to geometry, Herman Weyl conjectured that perhaps the scale of length would also be dynamical. He imagined a theory in which the scale of length, indeed the scale of all dimensional quantities, would vary from point to point in space and in time. His motivation was to unify gravity and electromagnetism, to find a geometrical origin for electrodynamics. [7, 8]" Wouldn't Weyl have been right if, instead of searching for a geometrical origin of electromagnetism, he had searched for an electromagnetic origin of gravity? Wouldn't electromagnetism be equally geometrical if one considered that the electromagnetic force Fe = α{Δt, Δx, E, H} is essentially the same as that resulting from variations of {Δt, Δx} therein?
-------------------------------
References
[2] Thomson, J. J. (1881). XXXIII. On the electric and magnetic effects produced by the motion of electrified bodies. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 11(68), 229-249.
[3] What is Mass? Must the Hierarchy of Mass be Determined Simultaneously by the Origin of Mass? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO45_What_is_Mass_Must_the_Hierarchy_of_Mass_be_Determined_Simultaneously_by_the_Origin_of_Mass
[4] Higgs, P. W. (2014). Nobel lecture: evading the Goldstone theorem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(3), 851.
[5] The Relation Between Mathematics and Physics (2) - Is the Meaning of Zero Unified in Different Situations in Physics? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO26The_Relation_Between_Mathematics_and_Physics_2-Is_the_Meaning_of_Zero_Unified_in_Different_Situations_in_Physics
[6] H. Poincaré
[7] Straub, W. O. (2009). Weyl's 1918 Theory Revisited. Pasadena, California. Disponível em: http://www. weylmann. com/revisited. pdf.
[8] Gross, D. J. (1992). Gauge theory-past, present, and future? Chinese Journal of Physics, 30(7), 955-972.
【NO.44】 What is an electric charge? Can it exist apart from electrons? Would it be an effect?
Discussion
44 replies
  • Chian FanChian Fan
In the Standard Model, if we ignore the unverifiable property of colour charge and consider neutrinos as ‘dark matter particles’ for the time being [1], then we can consider fermions to have the signature properties of electric charge, spin magnetic moment and mass. We consider the electron as a representative, which differs from other fermions only by its mass size, stability, and position in the composite particle.
‘Charge’ was one of the first properties of particles to be discovered, and it appears to correspond to “mass-charge”, which has a similar behaviour [Weyl][Heaverside]. While we have paid a great deal of attention to the existence of an origin of mass [2] and introduced the Higgs mechanism [9], no one seems to have paid much attention to the existence of an origin of electric charge since the beginning of the last century. In order to establish an electromagnetic worldview [3], physicists at that time worked on determining the electron model [4][5][6] : is it rigid? What is its radius? A most crucial question is how should the charge in it be distributed? To this day, physics still does not know the structure of the electron, and what the charge is, except that there exists e+e- ↔ γ γ . Then,
1) Does electric charge have an origin? The fact that it is capable of annihilation and creation, there must be a process of generation. What determines this process? Doesn't a process need to be described, even if it is vacuum-excited generation?
2) Is electric charge an independent entity? We have never seen a ‘charge’, only electrons.
3) A charge cannot be a ‘point’, how does it manage not to repel itself? Poincaré once postulated the existence of a non-electromagnetic reaction force that balances the repulsion between distributed charges to keep them from splitting [7].
4) Does the electric field of a charge act on itself? Why do we see this as a problem? [10]
5) Why is the charge a discrete (quantised) value?1 or 1/3 . Is the discrete nature of energy related to the discrete nature of charge? Or furthermore, do all discretisations originate from the discrete nature of energy? 〠
6) How can charges be positive and negative and perfectly equal? What is the physical pathway by which charge is created? How can different positive and negative charges be created at the same time in the same physical picture? And positive and negative charges can cause annihilation of positive and negative electrons, not just positive and negative charges.
7) Is there a relationship between electric and magnetic charge? According to Dirac [8], the electric charge e and the magnetic charge g must co-exist, hc/eg=2 *. Why can the spin-magnetic moment (the inner discreative magnetic moment of the electron) [11] not be considered as a result of ‘magnetic charge’? The magnetic charge must be a magnetic monopole [12], can't it be a magnetic dipole **? We are looking for magnetic monopoles, why not electric charges? [13]
8) Charge appears to be independent of mass. How can particles with different masses (e, μ, τ; u, c, t; d, s, b) have the same charge? But when e+e- → γ γ occurs, the charge disappears and so does the mass.
9) How can electric charge share a particle with magnetic charge and mass? † Wouldn't this be a good answer if they were all the result of spin [14]?
10) U(1) symmetry produces conserved charge [15]; charge is conserved when interacting. Is conservation of charge independent of conservation of energy? What will it mean if they are not conserved? 〠
11) What should the charge of a black hole be if it is one of its characteristics? Will the charge of the ultimate black hole eventually be the same as that of an electron?
12) The more important question is this: all of these questions, mentioned above, must be answered at the same time for the problem to be truly solved.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supplement (2024.8.28)
【NO.46】Phenomena Related to Electric Charge,and Remembering Nobel Laureate Tsung-Dao (T.D.) Lee;
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
* Note in particular that the relationship between electric and magnetic charge is related solely to Planck's constant h and the speed of light c. This implies that their roots are the same.
** “If Magnetic Monopoles Would Annihilate Like Positive and Negative Electrons, Would Magnetism Still Exist?”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO23If_Magnetic_Monopoles_Would_Annihilate_Like_Positive_and_Negative_Electrons_Would_Magnetism_Still_Exist
† The central question of interest here is why should fermions have multiple properties and only these properties? Where do these properties come from? What must be the relationship between these properties? How do they fit together?
‡ Dirac asked, "the reason for the existence of a smallest electric charge."
-----------------------------
Refererncs
[1] Adhikari, R., Agostini, M., Ky, N. A., Araki, T., Archidiacono, M., Bahr, M., Baur, J., Behrens, J., Bezrukov, F., & Dev, P. B. (2017). A white paper on keV sterile neutrino dark matter. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(01), 025.
[2] Wilczek, F. (2006). The origin of mass. Modern Physics Letters A, 21(9), 701-712.
[3] Battimelli, G. (2005). Dreams of a final theory: the failed electromagnetic unification and the origins of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 26(6), S111.
[4] Waite, T., Barut, A. O., & Zeni, J. R. (1997). The Purely Electromagnetic Electron Re-visited. In J. P. Dowling (Ed.), Electron Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics: 100 Years Later (pp. 223-239). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0081-4_18
[5] Williamson, J., & Van der Mark, M. (1997). Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie,
[6] Damour, T. (2017). Poincaré, the dynamics of the electron, and relativity. Comptes Rendus Physique, 18(9), 551-562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.10.006
[7] Poincaré, H. (1905). Sur les Invariants Arithmétiques (On the dynamics of the electron). http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/fonds-et-archives; http://www.academie-sciences.fr/fr/Colloques-conferences-et-debats/henri-poincare.html;
[8] Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, 133(821), 60-72. Dirac, P. A. M. (1948). The theory of magnetic poles. Physical Review, 74(7), 817.
[9] Higgs, P. W. (2014). Nobel lecture: evading the Goldstone theorem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(3), 851.
[10] Wheeler, J. A., & Feynman, R. P. (1949). Classical electrodynamics in terms of direct interparticle action. Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3), 425.
[11] Ohanian, H. C. (1986). What is spin? American Journal of Physics, 54(6), 500-505.
Yang, C. N. (1983). The spin. AIP Conference Proceedings,
Sasabe, S., & Tsuchiya, K.-i. (2008). What is spin-magnetic moment of electron? Physics Letters A, 372(4), 381-386.
[12] Rajantie, A. (2012). Introduction to magnetic monopoles. Contemporary Physics, 53(3), 195-211.
Rajantie, A. (2016). The search for magnetic monopoles. Physics Today, 69(10), 40-46.
[13] Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abbott, D. C., Abud, A. A., Abeling, K., Abhayasinghe, D., Abidi, S., AbouZeid, O., Abraham, N., & Abramowicz, H. (2020). Search for magnetic monopoles and stable high-electric-charge objects in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector. Physical Review Letters, 124(3), 031802.
[14] Yang, C. N. (1983). The spin. AIP Conference Proceedings,
[15] Lancaster, T., & Blundell, S. J. (2014). Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur. OUP Oxford.

Related Publications

Article
Full-text available
It is shown that even in the case of a negligibly small change in the gradient of the gravitational field of the mass source in the axial direction, the dependence of this gradient in the radial direction leads to a systematic error in Newton gravitational constant value. The magnitude of this error is calculated for two configurations of the field...
Preprint
Full-text available
It is shown that even in the case of a negligibly small change in the gradient of the gravitational field of the mass source in the axial direction, the dependence of this gradient in the radial direction leads to a systematic error in Newton gravitational constant value. The magnitude of this error is calculated for two configurations of the field...
Article
Full-text available
Atomic interferometry methods used to measure the Newtonian gravitational constant. To improve the accuracy, one should measure the phase of an atomic interferometer at extreme values of atomic vertical velocities and coordinates. Owing to symmetry, the horizontal components of atomic velocities and coordinates are also extreme. We propose using a...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.