ArticlePDF Available

New Mechanism and Analytical Formula for Understanding the Gravity Constant G

Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology, 2020, 6, 357-367
ISSN Online: 2380-4335
ISSN Print: 2380-4327
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 Jul. 8, 2020 357 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
New Mechanism and Analytical Formula for
Understanding the Gravity Constant G
Nader Butto
Rabin Medical Centre, Petah-Tikva, Israel
The nature of gravitation and
not well understood. A new gravitation
mechanism is proposed that explains the origin and essence of the gravita-
tional constant,
. Based on general relativity, the vacuum is considered to be
a superfluid with measurable density. Rotating bodies drag vacuum and cre-
ate a vortex with gradient pressure. The drag force of vacuum fluid flow in
the arm of the vortex is calculated relative to the static vacuum and a value
that is numerically equal to that of
is obtained. Using Archimedes’ princi-
ple, it is determined that
is the volume of vacuum displaced by a force
equivalent to its weight which is equal to the drag force of the vacuum. It is
concluded that the gravitational constant
expresses the force needed to dis-
place a cubic metre of vacuum that weighs
one kg in one second. Therefore,
is not a fundamental physical constant but rather is an expression of the re-
sistance encountered by the gravitational force in the vacuum.
Gravitational Constant, Vacuum Density, Drag Force, Vortex Formation,
Specific Volume Flow, Archimedes’ Principle
1. Introduction
The gravitational constant denoted by the letter
, is an empirical physical con-
stant pivotal in the calculation of gravitational effects in Newton’s law of univer-
sal gravitation and in Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.
Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (pro-
posed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force but as a
consequence of the curvature of space-time caused by the uneven distribution of
mass. The most extreme example of this curvature of space-time is a black hole,
from which nothing can escape once past its event horizon, not even light [1].
How to cite this paper:
Butto, N. (2020
New Mechanism and Analytical Formula
for Understanding the Gravity Constant
Journal of High Energy Physics
tion and Cosmology
, 357-367.
April 10, 2020
July 5, 2020
July 8, 2020
Copyright © 20
20 by author(s) and
Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY
Open Access
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 358 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
In 1687, Newton published Principia, which hypothesises the inverse-square
law of universal gravitation [2].
Newton’s law states that every object in the universe attracts every other ob-
ject with a force which, for any two bodies, is proportional to their mass and
varies inversely as the square of the distance between them. This statement is
expressed mathematically by the following well-known equation:
( )
F Gm m r= ⋅
, (1)
1 and
2 are the interacting masses and
is their relative distance vec-
tor. The Newtonian constant of gravitation
, is typically assumed to be a uni-
versal constant whose measured value is
( )
11 3 1 2
6.67408 31 10 m kg s
− −−
× ⋅⋅
The numerical value of
was initially determined by English physicist Cavendish
in 1798 through the measurement of the attractive force between two spheres
with the aid of a torsion balance.
More than three hundred and fifty years after the discovery of gravity by New-
ton, there is still no theoretical explanation for the mechanism of gravity. As a re-
sult, the true nature of gravity and the essence of
are not understood. It is un-
known whether the origin of
can be described using an analytical formula [4].
The current spread of values is approaching 0.05%, which is more than 10 times
the uncertainties on each measurement, and it therefore appears that we know
only to three significant figures! This is very poor compared with other physical
constants, many of which have uncertainties of the order of parts in 108 [5].
Determining the ultimate physical origin of gravity and its associated constant
could provide important insights into a fundamental understanding of the
In this article, the origin and essence of
is described and a mathematical
formula is derived to calculate its value.
The starting point is the superfluid vacuum that has calculable density based
on universe expanding measurements and Hubble constant determination. Then
gravity is described as the result of the dragging force of the rotating planet that
generates a vortex that curves space and time and generates pressure gradient
and vacuum flow to the centre of the vortex. Calculation of the dragging force of
the flow with the vacuum gives us the same value of constant
The superfluid nature of the vacuum
Models that describe the theory of gravity based on the idea that the physical
space could be filledwith a constitutive continuum medium characterised by
specific properties have been previously proposed. The vacuum could therefore
be comprised of a fundamental substrate (on the quantum scale) such as an elas-
tic solid-state medium, a fluid, or a Higgs condensate [6] [7] [8] [9].
According to the superfluid theory of vacuum, the physical vacuum is de-
scribed as a quantum superfluid, which behaves like a fluid with minimal viscos-
ity and with extremely high thermal conductivity. It is a perfect fluid in the sense
that it is non-particulate and has no structural memory. If perturbed, it has no
tendency to revert to its former physical state.
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 359 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
The superfluid vacuum theory proposes a mass generation mechanism that
may replace or supplement the electroweak Higgs mechanism. It has been shown
that the masses of elementary particles could arise because of their interaction
with a superfluid vacuum. This phenomenon is similar to the gap generation
mechanism in superconductors [10].
Furthermore, the first postulate of general relativity states that the source of a
gravitational field is the stress-energy tensor of a perfect fluid [11]. This
‘stress-energy tensor’ contains four non-zero components,
, the density of the
perfect fluid and the pressure of the perfect fluid in each of the three physical
axes. According to general relativity, a perfect fluid is defined as a fluid with no
viscosity or heat conduction.
2. Density of the Vacuum
Although there is no consensus regarding vacuum density, its value primarily
depends on general relativity. It is therefore possible to measure the energy den-
sity of the vacuum through astronomical observations that determine the curva-
ture of space-time and the expansion of the universe.
The measurement of universal expansion based on the relation between galaxy
velocity (
) and its distance (
) [12]
v Ho d
= ×
. (2)
This relation is the well-known Hubble Law. It indicates a constant expansion
of the cosmos, where galaxies recede from each other at a constant speed per
unit distance; thus, more distant objects move faster than nearby ones.
The expansion of the universe has been studied by several different methods.
The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mission completed in
2003, represents a major step toward precision in determining the expansion of
the universe and calculating vacuum density [13].
Another method is using the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS)
[14] by studying more than 140,000 extremely bright galaxies known as quasars,
which serve as a “standard ruler”, scientists map density variations in the uni-
verse. By nearly tripling the number of quasars previously studied, as well as im-
plementing a new technique, the scientists were able to calculate the expansion
rate to 42 miles (68 kilometres) per second per 1 million light-years with greater
precision, while looking farther back in time.
It is important to note that the study of the expansion rate of the universe has
shown that the universe is close to critical density. Critical density is the value at
which the Universe is balanced and expansion is halted.
The density is typically expressed as a fraction of the density required for the
critical condition to be fulfilled through the use of a parameter known as omega
(Ω) where
. The limiting critical density is described by
For a value of omega less than 1 (known as an “open universe”), the final fate of
the universe is a “cold death”. In this case, the universe expands forever, albeit at
an ever-decreasing rate. For omega greater than 1, the universe is “closed” and
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 360 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
will at some point collapse in on itself and end in a “big crunch”. For omega
equal to 1, the universe is called “flat”; this universe has a critical density and
expansion is halted only after an infinite time. Currently, the estimated sum of
the contributions to the total density parameter, Ω0, is
1.02 0.02
Ω= ±
, which
indicates that the universe is close to critical density.
Hence, the critical density that defines the boundary condition between the
open and closed solutions of the standard cosmological model is [15]
( )
2 2 29 3
3 8 1.88 10 g cm
HG h
= π = ×
, (3)
is the critical density,
is the current value of the Hubble constant and
71 km sec MpchH
≡ ⋅⋅
71 km s MpcH
= ⋅⋅
(WMAP value for the
Hubble parameter [16]).
The infrared camera was installed on the Hubble Telescope in 2009, and the
astronomical measurements used to calculate the Hubble constant obtained a
slightly higher value with narrow error bars.
The Hubble Space Telescope can determine the distances to Milky Way Ce-
pheids (a type of variable star) through accurately separating their spectra from
the bluer stars that tend to surround cepheids. In a recent publication, Riess [17]
reported that
073.24 km s Mpc
= ⋅⋅
where Mpc is equal to 3.09 × 1019 km.
The most recent result published in this year (2017) [18], and the cosmologi-
cal density
(with small uncertainty) is therefore calculated to be
( )
2 27 3
,0 0
3 8 11.11 1.05 10 kg m
= = ±×π
. (4)
3. Mechanism of Gravitation
According to general relativity, the gravitational attraction observed between
masses results from the warping of space and time by these masses. The gravita-
tional potential generated by a mass, which depends on the radial distance from
the mass, affects the running rate of clocks, the measurement of distances and
the velocity of light. This fact is theoretically explained within general relativity
and supported by strong experimental evidence. Nevertheless, there is no de-
scription of causation as a curvature of space.
In this work, a new model that explains the gravitational force and the curvature
of space-time is proposed. The interaction of rotating masses within the vacuum
leads to a drag effect, vortex formation, space-time curvature and resultant gravi-
tational force. All particles and celestial bodies are immersed in this fluid vacuum.
All particles of matter spin and exert a drag effect on the surrounding vacuum.
This creates a small vortex around the particle even if it is located within a station-
ary body. The sum of the effects due to all the constituent particles creates a gravi-
tational force arising from the mass. In a rotating celestial body, the rotating parti-
cles have translational speed that drags the surrounding vacuum. It follows from
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 361 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
the case of the “normal” drag force for an object moving in a linear fashion, such
that rotational motion creates a vortex around the celestial body.
The vortex resulting from the rotating mass creates a dynamic pressure that is
lowest in the core region closest to the vortex core. This pressure increases with
distance from the centre of the vortex. This behaviour is in accordance with
Bernoulli’s principle, which states that for an inviscid flow, an increase in the
speed of the fluid occurs simultaneously with a decrease in pressure or a de-
crease in the fluid’s potential energy. The gradient of this pressure forces the
fluid to curve around the central axis of the vortex. This dynamic pressure
causes the gravitational force and is proportional to the square of the distance
“r,” from the axis according to the inverse-square law. This law states that a
specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of
the distance from the source of that physical quantity.
The flow in the arms of the vortex (created by the gradient pressure) travels at
the speed of light relative to the static surrounding vacuum. This creates a drag
between static vacuum and vortex arm flow.
Drag is a common term which refers to any force that opposes motion. When
a fluid moves in a fluid such as a vortex, it experiences two forms of drag force.
Forces normal to the motion are referred to as pressure drag and shear forces
due to flow along surfaces “parallel” to the motion (edges) are referred to as vis-
cous drag.
Pressure drag is caused by molecules hitting a surface and returning. This
causes a change in linear momentum and results in normal force. Viscous drag
results from the attraction between molecules due to the relative velocity be-
tween flux and static fluid.
The drag force on any object is proportional to the density of the fluid and the
square of the relative flow speed between the moving object and static fluid, ac-
cording to the following formula:
F v AC
, (5)
is the drag force (which is defined as the force component in the direc-
tion of flow velocity [19]),
is the mass density of the fluid,
is the flow velocity
relative to the object,
is the interaction area and
is the drag coefficient.
In fluid dynamics, the drag coefficient is a dimensionless quantity that is used
to quantify the viscous drag or shear forces on an object in a fluid environment.
The drag coefficient is the ratio of drag force to the product of area and the force
generated by dynamic pressure.
C F vA
. (6)
However, if there are no data on the drag coefficient and drag force, the above
mentioned formula cannot be used to determine the drag coefficient.
Another method of calculating the drag coefficient is by using the Reynolds
number. The drag coefficient of an object is regarded as a function of the Rey-
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 362 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
nolds number, based on the relative velocity between the rotating object and
surrounding fluid. Reynolds number is the ratio of inertial (resistance to change
or motion) forces to viscous forces [20].
( )
( )
Re u u L
Re uL
Re uL
Re =
Reynolds Number (non-dimensional),
density (kg/m3),
is the
mean velocity of flow relative to vacuum (speed of light; SI units: m/s),
namic viscosity (Ns/m2),
characteristic length (m)
viscosity (m2/s).
In general, the drag coefficient is not an absolute constant for a given body
shape. Larger velocities, larger objects and lower viscosities (such as that in this
case) contribute to larger Reynolds numbers [21].
While there is no theorem that relates the Reynolds number to turbulence,
flows at Reynolds numbers larger than 5000 are typically turbulent, while those
at low Reynolds numbers are laminar.
As the Reynolds number increases, inertial forces become stronger than vis-
cous forces, and a laminar boundary layer is generated. Therefore, the drag coef-
ficient decreases as the Reynolds number increases.
The graph of
is shown in Figure 1.
According to Figure 1, the value of the drag coefficient can be estimated.
Planets and large celestial bodies have large Reynolds numbers. It can therefore
be deduced that these objects have drag coefficients that lie between 0.1 and 0.2.
4. Drag Force of the Vacuum
If the vacuum is considered as a liquid that travels at the speed of light and given
its density, the drag force can be calculated by applying the drag force formula.
The drag force equation is transformed to the pressure equation by dividing
both sides by area to obtain:
F A P vC
= =
, (10)
Figure 1.
for a sphere. The dashed curve represents theoretical results for small
values of
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 363 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
is the pressure gradient generated by drag. The drag pressure of the
vacuum is constant because it is derived through conservation of momentum
using density and velocity.
If the vacuum density is 11.11 × 1027 kg/m3,
3 10 m svc= = ×
and the drag
coefficient is between 0.1 and 0.2.
Substituting for
ρ, v
(0.13349) in Equation (9) gives:
11 2 2
6.67383255 10 kg m s or N mP
= ×⋅
The resulting answer has the same numerical value as
, (6.67384 ±
0.00080) × 1011 m3/kgs or Nm2/kg2.
This drag pressure is the pressure required to move the equivalent specific
volume per second (specific volume rate). In fluid mechanics, a fluid is displaced
when an object is immersed in it
, the object displaces the fluid and occupies
its space. In this case, drag force generated by gradient pressure is what displaces
the vacuum fluid. The volume of vacuum that is displaced is equivalent to the
volume of fluid flow generated by gradient pressure.
In thermodynamics, specific volume is defined as the number of cubic metres
occupied by one kilogram of a particular substance or the ratio of a substance’s
volume to its mass. It is the reciprocal of density and it is an intrinsic property of
matter. The standard unit of specific volume is the cubic metre per kilogram
(m3kg−1). Specific volume rate is defined as the number of cubic metres occu-
pied by one kilogram of a particular substance that flows, per unit time. This is
equivalent to the flow rate per unit weight because m3/s represents flow rate.
According to Archimedes’ principle, the weight of a displaced fluid is directly
proportional to its volume. The magnitude of force required to counteract flow
is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. Therefore, the rate of displacement
of specific volume per kg per second (
constant) would be proportional to the
pressure needed to move the weight of that volume, which is equivalent to the
drag force.
is the resistance force that gravity must overcome in order to
move the weight of one cubic metre of vacuum.
5. Discussion
In this work, a new mechanism of gravity related to the rotation of a planet in a
superfluid vacuum has been proposed. Rotating planets drag vacuum energy
around their particles and curve space-time by creating vortex flow. Although
this idea is not new because general relativity predicts that the rotation of planets
drags superfluid vacuum and ‘warps’ space-time, there is no explanation for the
curvature of space-time. In the proposed model, curved space-time is the effect
and not the cause of gravity.
According to the proposed model, a rotating planet drags vacuum from all
directions toward its centre and creates a vortex with a pressure gradient that at-
tracts the vacuum fluid from the periphery to the centre of the vortex. Therefore,
the vacuum superfluid flow from the periphery to the centre of the vortex
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 364 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
“curves” space-time and generates the pressure that pushes the objects forward
to the centre of the vortex. Objects obstructing the flow will be pushed to the
centre of the vortex. This is the origin of the gravitational force.
The vortex model is not new. A large number of philosophers used the idea of
cosmic vortices in their explanation of creation. In the ancient world, these phi-
losophers included Empedocles, Leucippus, Democritus and Aristotle. During
the Renaissance, this idea was developed by R. Descartes, J. MacCullagh, J. J.
Thomson and W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin). However, these scientists could not
formulate their ideas in a rigorous and mathematical form and instead their
findings were formulated as philosophical speculations. In recent years, different
theories proposed the existence of ether vortex mechanisms as the cause of grav-
ity, such as the vortex gravitation model [23]. However, there is no explanation
of the mechanism of vortex formation. Furthermore, the theory does not predict,
calculate, or describe the essence of
In this model, the drag force created by the interaction between a mass and
the surrounding vacuum is considered to be the origin of vortex formation.
The drag theory of gravity was originally proposed by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in
1690 and later by Georges-Louis Le Sage in 1748 [24]. They proposed a me-
chanical explanation for Newton’s gravitational force in terms of streams of
minute unobservable particles impacting all material objects from all directions.
According to this model, any two material bodies partially shield each other
from impinging corpuscles. This results in a net imbalance in the pressure ex-
erted by the impact of the corpuscles on the bodies, which tends to drive the
bodies together. This mechanical explanation for gravity was not widely ac-
cepted, although it continued to be studied occasionally by physicists until the
beginning of the 20th century. However, by this time it was considered to be de-
finitively discredited [25].
According to general relativity, planet rotation is dragged by an unknown
force. Such a “drag” implies that there is friction in the motion of space-time
with respect to a mass where “inertial dragging” occurs. General relativistic for-
mulations show the requirement of tangential motion when the continuum is
assumed to be a superfluid. The explanation of inertial dragging does not pro-
vide an identifying cause based on a fundamental theory [26]. The inertial drag-
ging is explained by the theory of vortex space rotation. This states that the
gravitational force is independent of the masses and densities of bodies. The
masses of the planets have therefore been determined based on the law of angu-
lar momentum conservation as they were created at the centres of space torsions
through matter accumulation. The same force that created celestial bodies con-
tinues to exist and it exerts inertial dragging that maintains their rotation.
This theory does not exclude a drag force as the causes the rotation of celestial
bodies. However, vortex formation caused by a rotating mass is proposed. In
both scenarios, there is vortex formation and associated pressure gradient that
attracts vacuum fluid to the centre of the planet as demonstrated by experiments
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 365 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
of rotating spheres in liquid.
In order to obtain
, the drag force of the flowing vacuum fluid is calculated
relative to the static surrounding vacuum that depends primarily on the density
of the vacuum and the square of velocity of the flow according to dragging force
6. Conclusions
The results presented here strongly suggest that
related to the structure and
properties of the physical vacuum, where the vacuum is considered as a medium
characterised by specific properties such as density, viscosity and speed. The den-
sity of vacuum is calculated based on the current value of the Hubble constant.
A new mechanism of gravity is proposed according to which gravitational
force is the result of the gradient pressure of the vacuum that is generated by the
drag force of a rotating planet. The drag force of a vortex created by a rotating
body is calculated, and this is found to have the same numerical value as
It is therefore concluded that the gravitational force is a “push force” that de-
livers a part of its momentum to a mass upon colliding with it and pushes it
forward toward the vortex centre. However, the gravitational force is diminished
by the
value that represents the resistance of the vacuum to the gradient flow of
the vortex. Therefore,
is not a fundamental physical constant instead it is an ex-
pression of the resistance encountered by the gravitational force in the vacuum.
This paper proposes a new approach to understand gravity. Hence, it will sig-
nificantly contribute to understand the mechanism of gravitation.
The density value used to calculate the drag force is based on recent astronomi-
cal measurements. This value, which has been determined as 11.11 × 1027 kg/m3
still has an associated uncertainty of (±1.05), which can result in a significant
change in the value of G. Furthermore, although the drag coefficient value used
to calculate the drag force was within the range values, it is an estimated value.
Further research is therefore needed to confirm this theory.
The author would like to thank Enago ( for the English
language review.
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
[1] Poynting, J.H. (1911) Gravitationin Chisholm, Hugh. Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol.
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 366 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
12, 11th Edition.
[2] Podlaha, M.F. and Sjodin, T. (1984) On Universal Fields and de Broglie’s Waves.
Nuovo Cimento B
, 79, 85.
[3] The NIST Reference on Constants, Units and Uncertainty.
[4] Winterberg, F. (1988) Substratum Approach to a Unified Theory of Elementary
Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A
, 43, 1131-1150.
[5] Quinn, T. and Speake, C. (2014) The Newtonian Constant of GravitationA Con-
stant Too Difficult to Measure? An Introduction.
Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences
372, Article ID:
[6] Dmitriev, V.P. (1992) The Elastic Model of Physical Vacuum.
Mechanics of Solids
26, 60-71.
[7] Consoli, M.A. (2002) Weak, Attractive, Long Range Force in Higgs Condensates.
Physics Letters B
, 541, 307-313.
[8] Liberati, S. and Maccione, L. (2014) Astrophysical Constraints on Planck Scale Dis-
sipative Phenomena.
Physical Review Letters
112, Article ID: 151301.
[9] Zloshchastiev, K.G. (2011) Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Mass Generation
as Built-In Phenomena in Logarithmic Nonlinear Quantum Theory.
Acta Physica
Polonica B
42, 261-292.
[10] Avdeenkov, A.V. and Zloshchastiev, K.G. (2011) Quantum Bose Liquids with Loga-
rithmic Nonlinearity: Self-Sustainability and Emergence of Spatial Extent.
of Physics B
Molecular and Optical Physics
44, Article ID: 195303.
[11] Schutz, B.F. (2009) A First Course in General Relativity. Sections 4.6 & 4.7, Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge.
[12] Hubble, E.A. (1929) Relation between Distance and Radial Velocity among Ex-
tra-Galactic Nebulae
. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America
15, 168-173.
[13] Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
[14] Dawson, K.S.,
et al
. (2013) The Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS) of
Astronomical Journal
, 145, 10.
[15] Oldershaw, R.L. (1987) The Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm—A New Test and
Two New Predictions.
Astronomical Journal
322, 34-36.
[16] Tegmark, M.,
et al
. (2004) Cosmological Parameters from SDSS and WMAP.
Physical Review D
, 69, Article ID: 103501.
[17] Riess, A.G.,
et al
. (2016) A 2.4% Determination of the Local Value of the Hubble
The Astrophysical Journal
826, 56.
[18] Bonvin, V.,
et al
. (2017) H0LiCOWV. New COSMOGRAIL Time Delays of HE
0435-1223: H0 to 3.8 Percent Precision from Strong Lensing in a Flat
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
465, 4914-4930.
[19] Drag Equation.
N. Butto
10.4236/jhepgc.2020.63029 367 Journal of High Energy Physics, G
ravitation and Cosmology
[20] Reynolds Number.
[21] Fox & McDonald (1973) Introduction to Fluid Mechanics. John Wiley, New York,
[22] Clancy, L.J. (1975) Aerodynamics, Section 4.17. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
[23] Orlov, S. (2012) Foundation of Vortex Gravitation, Cosmology and Cosmogony.
International Journal of Astronomy
1, 1-16.
[24] Le Sage’s Theory of Gravitation.
[25] Edwards, M.R. (2002) Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage’s Theory of
Gravitation (Illustrated ed.). Indiana University, Bloomington, 65.
[26] Islam, J.N. (1985) Rotating Fields in General Relativity. 6th Edition, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 18-20.
... The previous article [9] described the nature and the origin of Constant G based on superfluid vortex theory. ...
... The same model was presented to explain the origin of the gravitational force [14] and the gravitational constant G [9], indicating the universality of the phenomena. ...
... In previous articles [1], the nature and the origin of the fine structure constant was described. Furthermore, new mechanism and analytical formula for understanding the gravity constant G was presented [2]. ...
... This study opens up a new approach to determine the nature and essence of the fundamental constants of nature, related to vacuum density and thus to reduce the number of fundamental constants to one. The origin and essence of gravitation constant G, fine structure constants was published in previous papers [1] [2], electric constant ε 0 , speed of light c constant and Planck constant will be presented in separate papers in the near future. ...
... The fine structure constant α was first interpreted as the ratio of the velocity of the electron in the first circular orbit of the relativistic Bohr atom to the speed of light in the vacuum [35]. The fine structure constant was proposed by Sommerfeld as the ratio of the speed of the electron v in the ground state of Bohr's Hydrogen atom model to the speed of light c [36]: 2 2 v c e c α = =  , where e is the charge of the electron. However, why this ratio is constant is not known. ...
... Previous article [36] described the nature and the origin of Constant G based on superfluid vortex theory. ...
... The vortex shape of the electron and the Hydrogen atom give a full explanation for the origin of fine structure constant [20]. The same model was presented to explain the origin of gravitation force [21] and gravitation constant G [22] indicating the universality of the phenomena. ...
... In previous articles, the nature and the origin of the fine structure constant [7], the gravitational constant G [8], magnetic constant μ 0 [9] and electric permittivity [10] were described. ...
... In previous articles the nature and the origin of the fine structure constant, [2] the gravitational constant G, [3] and magnetic constant μ 0 [4] were described. ...
Full-text available
If special relativity is a dynamic symmetry caused by true physical deformations of bodies in absolute motion through a substratum or ether, the question if all interactions and elementary particles arc excitations of this ether must be raised. The ether being the cause of all the observed relativistic effects should then obey an exactly nonrelativistic law of motion, and which permits it to consist of positive and negative masses. The fundamental constants of nature, which according to Planck are 1) Newton's constant (G), 2) the velocity of light (c) and 3) Planck’s constant (ћ), suggest that the ether is made up of densely packed positive and negative Planck masses (Planckions), each with a diameter equaling the Planck length. Symmetry demands that the number of positive and negative Planck masses should be equal, making the cosmological constant equal to zero. Because the Planckions are nonrelativistic spin-zero bosons, the ether would therefore consist of two super­fluids, one for the positive mass Planckions, and the other one for the negative mass Planckions. By spontaneous symmetry breaking this superfluid ether can in its ground state form a lattice of small vortex rings, with the vortex core radius equaling the Planck length. Force fields of massless vector gauge bosons can be interpreted as quantized transverse vortex waves propagating through this lattice. Because the smallest wave length would be about equal the ring radius of the circular vortices, the ring radius would assume the role of a unification scale. The ring radius is estimated to be about 10 Charge is explained by the zero point fluctuations of the Planckions attached to the vortex rings, w If spinors are made up from the positive and negative masses of the vortex ring resonance energy, whereby the spinors would assume the character of excitons, the spinor mass can be computed in terms of the Planck mass. Vice versa, with the lowest quark mass m given, a value for the gravitation­al constant in terms of m, ћ, and c can be obtained. The existence of different particle families can be understood by internal excitations of the spinors, and parity violation may find its explanation in a small nonzero vorticity of the ether. Bacause of its simple fundamental symmetry the theory is unique, it is always finite and has no anomalies. In the proposed theory all fields and interactions are explained in a completely mechanistic way by the Planck masses and their contact interactions. With special relativity as a derived dynamic symmetry and space remaining euclidean, the proposed approach can be seen as an alternative to Einstein’s program to explain all fields and their interactions by symmetries and singularities of a noneuclidean spacetime manifold. In Part I, the fundamental equation for the substratum, which has the form of a nonrelativistic nonlinear Heisenberg equation, is formulated. It is shown how it leads to a Maxwell-type set of equations for the gauge bosons. In Part II, Dirac-type spinors and quantum electrodynamics are derived. These results are then applied to obtain the lowest quark mass in terms of the Planck mass.
Full-text available
It is generally accepted that the magnitude of the force attracting two spherical bodies of mass M 1 and M 2, separated by a distance r , is given by Newton's law of gravitation ![Formula][1] The constant, G , determines the strength of Newton's inverse square law in a particular system of
Full-text available
The emergence of a classical spacetime from any quantum gravity model is still a subtle and only partially understood issue. If indeed spacetime is arising as some sort of large scale condensate of more fundamental objects, then it is natural to expect that matter, being a collective excitation of the spacetime constituents, will present modified kinematics at sufficiently high energies. We consider here the phenomenology of the dissipative effects necessarily arising in such a picture. Adopting dissipative hydrodynamics as a general framework for the description of the energy exchange between collective excitations and the spacetime fundamental degrees of freedom, we discuss how rates of energy loss for elementary particles can be derived from dispersion relations and used to provide strong constraints on the base of current astrophysical observations of high-energy particles.
Full-text available
We measure cosmological parameters using the three-dimensional power spectrum P(k) from over 200 000 galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) in combination with Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and other data. Our results are consistent with a “vanilla” flat adiabatic cold dark matter model with a cosmological constant without tilt (ns=1), running tilt, tensor modes, or massive neutrinos. Adding SDSS information more than halves the WMAP-only error bars on some parameters, tightening 1σ constraints on the Hubble parameter from h≈0.74-0.07+0.18 to h≈0.70-0.03+0.04, on the matter density from Ωm≈0.25±0.10 to Ωm≈0.30±0.04 (1σ) and on neutrino masses from <11 to <0.6eV (95%). SDSS helps even more when dropping prior assumptions about curvature, neutrinos, tensor modes and the equation of state. Our results are in substantial agreement with the joint analysis of WMAP and the Two Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey, which is an impressive consistency check with independent redshift survey data and analysis techniques. In this paper, we place particular emphasis on clarifying the physical origin of the constraints, i.e., what we do and do not know when using different data sets and prior assumptions. For instance, dropping the assumption that space is perfectly flat, the WMAP-only constraint on the measured age of the Universe tightens from t0≈16.3-1.8+2.3Gyr to t0≈14.1-0.9+1.0Gyr by adding SDSS and SN Ia data. Including tensors, running tilt, neutrino mass and equation of state in the list of free parameters, many constraints are still quite weak, but future cosmological measurements from SDSS and other sources should allow these to be substantially tightened.
Full-text available
It is demonstrated that the magnetic dipole moments of atomic nuclei and neutron stars are quantitatively related by the fundamental scaling equations of the self-similar cosmological paradigm, and therefore a 16th falsification test has been passed by this theoretical model. Two definitive predictions are also pointed out: (1) the model predicts that the electron will be found to have structure with radius of about 4 x 10 to the -17th cm, at just below the current empirical resolution capability, and (2) the model makes quantitative predictions regarding gravitational microlensing by predicted 'dark matter' candidates. Some possible theoretical implications of cosmological self-similarity are introduced.
We present a new measurement of the Hubble Constant H0 and other cosmological parameters based on the joint analysis of three multiply imaged quasar systems with measured gravitational time delays. First, we measure the time delay of HE 0435-1223 from 13-yr light curves obtained as part of the COSMOGRAIL project. Companion papers detail the modelling of the main deflectors and line-of-sight effects, and how these data are combined to determine the time-delay distance of HE 0435-1223. Crucially, the measurements are carried out blindly with respect to cosmological parameters in order to avoid confirmation bias. We then combine the time-delay distance of HE 0435-1223 with previous measurements from systems B1608+656 and RXJ1131-1231 to create a Time Delay Strong Lensing probe (TDSL). In flat Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM) with free matter and energy density, we find H0 = 71.9-3.0+2.4 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹ and ΩΛ = 0.62-0.35+0.24. This measurement is completely independent of, and in agreement with, the local distance ladder measurements of H0. We explore more general cosmological models combining TDSL with other probes, illustrating its power to break degeneracies inherent to other methods. The joint constraints from TDSL and Planck are H0 = 69.2-2.2+1.4 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, ΩΛ = 0.70-0.01+0.01 and Ωk = 0.003-0.006+0.004 in open ΛCDM and H0 = 79.0-4.2+4.4 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, Ωde = 0.77-0.03+0.02 and w = -1.38-0.16+0.14 in flat wCDM. In combination with Planck and baryon acoustic oscillation data, when relaxing the constraints on the numbers of relativistic species we find Neff = 3.34-0.21+0.21 in NeffΛCDM and when relaxing the total mass of neutrinos we find ∑mν =0.182 eV in mνλCDM. Finally, in an open wCDM in combination with Planck and cosmic microwave background lensing, we find H0 = 77.9-4.2+5.0 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹, Ωde = 0.77-0.03+0.03, Ωk = -0.003-0.004+0.004 and w = -1.37-0.23+0.18.
We use the Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) on the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) to reduce the uncertainty in the local value of the Hubble constant (H_0) from 3.3% to 2.4%. Improvements come from observations of Cepheid variables in 10 new hosts of recent SNe~Ia, more than doubling the sample of SNe~Ia having a Cepheid-calibrated distance for a total of 18; these leverage the magnitude-redshift relation based on 300 SNe~Ia at z<0.15. All 18 hosts and the megamaser system NGC4258 were observed with WFC3, thus nullifying cross-instrument zeropoint errors. Other improvements include a 33% reduction in the systematic uncertainty in the maser distance to NGC4258, more Cepheids and a more robust distance to the LMC from late-type DEBs, HST observations of Cepheids in M31, and new HST-based trigonometric parallaxes for Milky Way (MW) Cepheids. We consider four geometric distance calibrations of Cepheids: (i) megamasers in NGC4258, (ii) 8 DEBs in the LMC, (iii) 15 MW Cepheids with parallaxes, and (iv) 2 DEBs in M31. The H_0 from each is 72.39+/-2.56, 71.93+/-2.70, 76.09+/-2.42, and 74.45+/-3.34 km/sec/Mpc, respectively. Our best estimate of 73.03+/-1.79 km/sec/Mpc combines the anchors NGC4258, MW, and LMC, and includes systematic errors for a final uncertainty of 2.4%. This value is 3.0 sigma higher than 67.3+/-0.7 km/sec/Mpc predicted by LambdaCDM with 3 neutrinos with a mass of 0.06 eV and the Planck data, but reduces to 1.9 sigma relative to the prediction of 69.3+/-0.7 km/sec/Mpc with the combination of WMAP+ACT+SPT+BAO, suggesting systematic uncertainties in CMB measurements may play a role in the tension. If we take the conflict between Planck and the H_0 at face value, one plausible explanation could involve an additional source of dark radiation in the early Universe in the range of Delta N_eff=0.4-1. We anticipate significant improvements in H_0 from upcoming parallax measurements.
The aim of this book is to introduce the reader to research work on a particular aspect of rotating fields in general relativity. The account begins with a short introduction to the relevant aspects of general relativity, written at a level accessible to a beginning graduate student in theoretical physics. There follows a detailed derivation of the Wehl-Lewis-Papapetrou form of the stationary axially symmetric metric. The Kerr and Tomimatsu-Sato forms of the rotating interior and exterior solutions of the Einstein equations are then discussed. The last three chapters of the book illustrate the applications of the theory to rotating neutral dust, rotating Einstein-Maxwell fields, and rotating charged dust. The author has drawn on his own research work to produce a timely discussion of this important area of research.
A hypothesis is proposed concerning the cause of the origin of universal gravitation. This cause consists in a system of the ether vortex rotations. Physical and mathematical grounds are described and the formula for the determination of the space gravitation forces is deduced. On the basis of the vortex gravitation, the principles of creation and existence of the celestial bodies are shown. Methods of the use of the vortex gravitation properties for the space flight projection are proposed. Keywords: Ether Theory; Vortex Gravitation; Cosmology; Cosmogony DOI: 10.3126/kuset.v6i2.4023Kathmandu University Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology Vol.6. No II, November, 2010, pp.142-169