Gravitation - Science topic

February 07, 2025

The foundation of Extended Classical Mechanics (ECM) is constructed upon classical mechanics principles, as formulated by Newton, Lagrange, and Hamilton, yet it aims to transcend the limitations encountered at quantum scales, relativistic speeds, and in complex systems.

A central innovation within ECM is the introduction of the concepts of apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ) and effective mass (Mᵉᶠᶠ). These constructs extend the traditional framework to incorporate the effects of dark matter and dark energy, offering a more comprehensive understanding of gravitational dynamics.

The concept of apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ) is established in classical mechanics, specifically through the fundamental relationship between force, mass, and acceleration (F = ma). However, it also integrates observational evidence from phenomena like dark energy, bridging classical principles with contemporary cosmological insights.

Extended classical mechanics offers a unified perspective on photon dynamics. It synthesizes classical principles with modern observations, emphasizing the conservation of photon energy (E) and the symmetry of gravitational interactions (Eg). This approach posits that photons maintain their intrinsic energy (E) while interacting with gravitational fields, dynamically exchanging gravitational interactional energy (Eg) during their trajectories.

In summary, ECM weaves together classical mechanics with modern astrophysical phenomena through the constructs of Mᵃᵖᵖ and Mᵉᶠᶠ. This cohesive model not only respects the heritage of classical mechanics but also embraces the complexities revealed by modern science, offering new avenues for exploring the cosmos.

Is there a stellar equilibrium against gravitational collapse?

Discussion

Is there a stellar equilibrium against gravitational collapse?

The idea of ​​gravitational collapse can be traced back to the earliest solutions to Einstein's equations, but at this early stage there was no convincing evidence to support the idea. Furthermore, there were many theoretical gaps in the belief that a star could not contract beyond its critical radius.Gravitational collapse objects are a conceptual precursor to black holes, and their history illustrates how such a counterintuitive idea was accepted long before their existence was proven. A black hole is a strong field structure of space-time surrounded by a one-way membrane that contains a singularity. General relativity (GR) predicts that sufficiently massive objects will collapse into black holes. In fact, the first solution to Einstein's field equations implies the existence of black holes.

Abdul Malek added a reply

9 hours ago

Abbas Kashani > "In fact, the first solution to Einstein's field equations implies the existence of black holes".

Einstein himself never accepted the notion of "black hole"; nor gravitational wave. These are the concoctions by official science to big-up Einstein's false theories of relativity.

On the question of "Black Hole", Albert Einstein (in whose name this big fraud is promoted) himself in a published paper (link Below) emphatically dismissed the possibility of "Back Holes" even in theory! The following is a copy of his conclusion at the end of this mathematically rich and lengthy publication: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters whose particles move along circular paths it does not seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.

This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative, as to whether physical models are capable of exhibiting such a singularity." Albert Einstein. A. Einstein, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Oct., 1939), pp. 922-936

Abdul Malek added a reply

9 hours ago

Einstein's theories of relativity and the dark/black cosmic Monsters are Fairy Tales, which have with no relevance to objective reality. Please see the following:

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

Alexander Sobolev added a reply

1 hour ago

Abbas Kashani

Foundations of the theory of gravity with a constraint. Gravitational energy of macroscopic bodis. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10773-024-05723-7; arxiv:2312.02217v3

Hello,

There is an error with an author having a similar name as mine, hence I have many wrong papers in my profile

Can you remove from my list all papers having "gravitational" or "LIGO" in the title?

I started to do it, but I cannot select a series of papers and remove them all, from the search result, I could not find how to select several

Thanks in advance

Olivier

Is there a stellar equilibrium against gravitational collapse?

The idea of ​​gravitational collapse can be traced back to the earliest solutions to Einstein's equations, but at this early stage there was no convincing evidence to support the idea. Furthermore, there were many theoretical gaps in the belief that a star could not contract beyond its critical radius.Gravitational collapse objects are a conceptual precursor to black holes, and their history illustrates how such a counterintuitive idea was accepted long before their existence was proven. A black hole is a strong field structure of space-time surrounded by a one-way membrane that contains a singularity. General relativity (GR) predicts that sufficiently massive objects will collapse into black holes. In fact, the first solution to Einstein's field equations implies the existence of black holes.

In my lab, most scientist had max rcf(about 15000g?) for centrifuging cells when they performed RNA precipitation with Trizol. And cells are about 1*10^5 ~ 1*10^6. How much g force is the least damage to cells?

This discussion critically examines the concept of time dilation as proposed by Einstein’s theories of relativity and maintains that it is fundamentally an error in clock readings rather than a physical reality of time itself. While Special and General Relativity suggest that time slows down due to relative motion and gravitational potential differences, this interpretation overlooks the principles of standardized timekeeping established by authoritative bodies such as the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) and the International System of Units (SI).

Recent experimental findings on piezoelectric crystal oscillators and photon behaviour in gravitational fields indicate that factors such as heat, mechanical forces, motion, and energy dissipation lead to phase shifts and frequency variations in clock mechanisms, which result in erroneous time readings. This paper asserts that relative time is an artefact of physical changes in measurement devices and not an intrinsic property of the universe. Adhering to standardized guidelines for clock time measurement is essential to avoid misinterpretation of such discrepancies as time dilation.

However, the theory not only disregarded classical interpretations of time but also overlooked the prevailing standards for clock time measurement at the time.

Standardized timekeeping aims to achieve a single, consistent reference time across different locations and conditions, following the guidelines set by authoritative bodies such as the International System of Units (SI). In standardized time systems, such as Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), discrepancies in measurements due to environmental factors—including heat, mechanical forces, motion, and gravitational effects—are considered errors, as they cause deviations from the expected standardized value.

Nonetheless, all scientific disciplines, including relativity, must adhere to standardized time measurement principles. Organizations such as the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), which existed prior to the introduction of the time dilation concept, and current standards such as the SI second—defined by atomic transitions—ensure precise definitions of time.

Furthermore, the constancy of the time scale in relation to entropy is a well-established principle.

Recent experimental findings on piezoelectric crystal oscillators, along with observational data on photon behaviour within curved gravitational fields—distinct from the concept of curved spacetime—and the constancy of entropy in the time scale, collectively support the conclusion that time dilation is fundamentally an error in clock readings. These findings suggest that infinitesimal energy loss leads to frequency shifts and phase changes in clock oscillations, which have been misinterpreted as time dilation.

Through these experimental and observational findings, it is maintained that energy dissipation within clock mechanisms results in phase shifts and frequency variations, ultimately leading to perceived discrepancies in time that are mistakenly attributed to relativistic effects.

This research scientifically asserts that relative time is not an intrinsic property of the universe but rather an artefact of physical changes—such as heat, mechanical forces, motion, and gravitational effects—within clock mechanisms. It further emphasizes that any valid scientific approach must align with standardized guidelines for clock time measurement to ensure accuracy and consistency.

In essence, relative time emerges from relative frequencies. The phase shift in relative frequencies, caused by infinitesimal energy loss and the corresponding elongation of oscillation wavelengths, occurs in any clock operating between different relative locations due to relativistic effects or variations in gravitational potential. These shifts result in errors in clock time readings, which have been incorrectly interpreted as time dilation.

Soumendra Nath Thakur

January 21, 2025

Title: Could gravitational gradients induce measurable dephasing in the electromagnetic fields of a traveling beam?

I am exploring the possibility of detecting gravitational gradients by measuring the phase difference (dephasing) between the electric and magnetic fields of a traveling electromagnetic wave. The idea relies on precise phase measurements using advanced materials such as graphene, which could serve as a sensitive sensor.

The core concept is:

I hypothesize that gravitational gradients could cause measurable cumulative dephasing effects over a distance. This might offer a novel method for gravity detection, with potential implications for understanding gravitational waves or mapping gravity fields in space.

A preliminary draft of my research proposal is available here.

I welcome insights, criticisms, and potential collaborations to refine this idea. Thank you!

Another thread here highlighted the need for a solid counterargument to Dingle's objection to Relativity Theory. It seems that previous participants were unable to resolve the issue convincingly. Therefore, we would like to present a straightforward and intuitive solution, providing easier access to understanding the problem.

We apply the theory of segmented spacetime to this problem. If you are not familiar with the theory yet, here is an illustrative paper. Please don’t dismiss it simply because it also addresses singularities - that’s only part of the discussion. The paper is straightforward and engaging to read.

Essentially, the segmented spacetime theory proposes that gravitation segments space, slowing down objects, while moving objects are segmented themselves. This concept is expanded upon in a subsequent paper:

Now, consider two clocks in different gravitational fields. In this scenario, space is segmented differently in each field, meaning these are distinct environments with varying segmentations. If we take a clock from environment A and place it near a clock in environment B, the time difference between them remains observable due to these distinct segmentations.

However, in the example with two clocks, where one moves and the other remains stationary, both exist within the same environment, with the same spatial segmentation. Here, any time difference arises from the moving clock itself: as it accelerates, its internal segmentation increases, causing it to run slower. Upon negative acceleration, these segments are removed, allowing the clock to speed up again.

This is why a clock accelerating and negative accelerating within the same environment will not retain a permanent time difference. It contrasts with moving a clock from environment A to environment B, where the segmentation is tied to the environment, not the clock itself.

We invite you to discuss this concept.

Unless and until a physicist is a philosopher, he cannot contribute anything to physics. Newton was not a philosopher. He deprived God of the only power as Prime Mover which Greek philosophy had assigned to Him. Because Newton gave the power of motion of celestial and terrestrial bodies to matter with inherent power of gravity, thus Newton reduced God to a powerless entity somewhere and he was a believer and would go to Church also which suggests he was not a philosopher. Either Newton should have left going to Church after giving his laws/theory or he should not have given the laws/theory because his theory was philosophically incorrect. Philosophical difficulties of Newtons theory is a long discourse and would be discussed in other discussion.

Whereas Einstein was a trickster right from the start and he would also talk about God whereas he laid the foundation of physics under which there is absolutely no chance of the existence of God. This is how they were not philosophers and their contribution to physics is negative. Maxwell has done excellent work as he could do just that because at that time time was absolute but yet he gave a clue that gravitation may be an electromagnetic force and this suggests that he was the real philosopher. The proof of Einstein was a trickster, half of the tricks are described in the Rebuttal to Lann N. Ramez, the man who had accepted my open challenge to theory of relativity, and other half of the proof is in the paper titled 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of the Space-time concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' which is available in my profile. I consider Descartes one of the great philosophers and it is he who had proposed the existence of aether and I looked for the proof of aether and finally I confirmed the existence of aether through the very experiment due to which aether was rejected. Since aether fills the space, space has to be absolute as such space cannot connected with anything like they did it by making the space-time concept and dragged the concept to Big Bang then a simple question arises as to where was aether before the Big Bang which question still stands at present as to where from Dark Matter & Dark Energy has come? Once aether is confirmed light/radiation is an electromagnetic wave motion due to the vibrations of electric dipoles of aether. With the aether the theory of relativity is baseless, E=mc^2 is fundamentally incorrect, space-time concept is absolute rubbish and all forces of nature are electromagnetic forces, Newtons incorrect laws are not universal laws, every star system has its time frame and different gravitational property depending upon the recessional motion of star system and all problems of physics are resolved. I don't believe mathematics should define physics as mathematics should be a tool in the hands of physics.

I entertain here the possibility of a scientific arguement and theory [1], that what we call as "free space" or vacuum space or fabric of spacetime is actually an exotic type of gravitons condensate. In other words, space is made up and quantized by gravitons.

However, these exotic space gravitons differ from normal propagating at the speed of light c gravitons we find in gravitational waves in that when space is not disturbed in its rest status these gravitons remain stationary forming an onmipresent in the universe graviton condensate we know as SPACE.

This universal gravitons condensate IS in fact what we call three-dimesional SPACE.

This quantum propably sub-Plankian gravitrons condensate forms a continioum having medium-like, Maxwell ε_0,& μ_0, and Special and General Relativistic properties at our macroscopic size dimensions level and also responibe fon quantum mechanical properties observed at the microscopic subatomic scale.

Because its unique exotic nature the gravitons inside this graviton condensate are normally at rest without translational motion completelly filling all mathematical 3D Cartesian Space of our universe. Notice, it is assumed also that because the gravitons inside this exotic condensate are vibrating-zitterbewegung (similar to Brownian motion) at superluminal energy (sub-planckian energy) the gravitons are the only Bosons (i.e. spin-2 particles) in our universe that can be massless and at the same time being stationary at rest (i.e. cold) . Which makes the graviton becuase its superluminal energy (not to be confused with tachyons) the only "cold massles spin-2 Boson" in our universe.

The answer, comes surprisingly from a know phenomenon in magnetism and magnetic materials we call superparamagnetism [2] we find in ferrofluids thin films [3] where all the magnetic moments of the magnetic nanoparticles of the fluid are randomly thermionically vibrating in all directions and teherefore cancelling each other out.

Therefore, such a ferrofluid thin film excibits no magnetism when at rest and becomes magnetic only when disturbed and polarized by an external magnetic field. Similar in our case, these 2D manifold graviton sub-planckian particles [1] creating the condensate, have all their gravity monopole moments randomy vibrating in all Cartesian directions cancelling out and therefore free space appears as not having any gravity when not disturbed at rest.

When "free space" is described as such above then this is actually the fundation of a theory of everything (ToE) and quantum gravity theory that can potentilly answer all our physical questions of our universe in the near future and beyond.

- Emmanouil Markoulakis, 30th December 2024.

References

[1]

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superparamagnetism

[3] Ferrolens, https://tinyurl.com/mvyj33y8

On the basis of previous questions and an elder research proposal, see references below, we have come to a stimulating relation between the dimension of elementary particles and the global gravitational potential (GP):

ℏω/m = GP = c² = 2GM_u/R_u

GP stands for the cumulative gravitational potential originating from mainly the distant masses of the universe.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_radiation_of_whatever_kind_generally_accepted_as_link_to_remote_sources_of_the_universe_while_gravitational_potential_is_not?

In Greek philosophy, since matter, space, and, time were considered as absolute so power as Prime Mover had been assigned to Allah/God. Newton gave the power of motion of celestial and terrestrial bodies to the matter per see inherent power of gravity, thus Newton deprived God of the power of Prime Mover also and reduced God to a powerless entity somewhere though he was a believer and would go to Church also which suggests that he was not a philosopher. Either Newton should have left going to Church after giving his laws/theory or he should not have given the laws/theory because his theory was philosophically incorrect. Philosophical difficulties of Newton's theory is a long discourse and would be posted separately.

Einstein was a trickster right from the start and he would also talk about God whereas he laid the foundation of physics under which there is absolutely no chance of existence of Allah/God. This is how they were not philosophers and their contribution to physics is negative. Maxwell has done excellent work as he could do just that because at that time, time was absolute but yet he gave a clue that gravitation may be an electromagnetic force, suggesting that he was the real philosopher. The proof that Einstein was a trickster is partly described in the Rebuttal to Lann N. Ramez, the man who had accepted my open challenge to the theory of relativity, and the other half of the proof is in the paper titled 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidence of Fallacy of the Space-time concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' which is available in my profile in ResearchGate, SlideShare and Academia.edu and viXra. I consider Descartes to be one of the great philosophers who proposed the existence of aether besides the concept of innate knowledge of the existence of Allah/God in all humans. I looked for proof of aether for several years by reading physics & philosophy. Finally, I confirmed the existence of aether through the very experiment due to which aether was rejected. Since aether fills the space, space has to be absolute as such space cannot be connected with anything as they did it by making the space-time concept and dragging the concept to the Big Bang but if we accept the Big Bang Theory then a simple question arises as to where was aether before the Big Bang which question still stands at present as to where from the imaginary Dark Matter & Dark Energy has come? Once aether is confirmed light/radiation is an electromagnetic wave motion due to the vibrations of electric dipoles of aether. With the aether the theory of relativity is baseless and so E=mc^2 has been shown as fundamentally incorrect, the space-time concept is absolute rubbish and all forces of nature are electromagnetic forces, Newton's incorrect laws are not universal as every star system has its time frame and different gravitational property depending upon the recessional motion of star system and all problems of physics are resolve. With aether, the scientific view of the non-existence of Allah/God changes to the obvious and evident existence of Allah/God, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. All this is shown in my published papers which are available on Academia.edu, ResearchGate, SlideShare, General Science Journal, Natural Philosophers Database, and vixra where everybody can see the open challenge to the theory of relativity that I have put forward and the same is standing since last twelve years despite a few physicists accepted the challenge but finally, they failed miserably. An alternative theory of the creation of the universe by obvious and evident Allah/God stands proposed whereunder mockery of physics in the form of space-time concept, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the Big Bang Theory including the jugglery of inflation has been shown as baseless

This study synthesizes key conclusions derived from a series of research papers on extended classical mechanics. These papers provide a fresh perspective on established experimental results, challenging traditional interpretations and highlighting potential inaccuracies in previous theoretical frameworks. Through this reinterpretation, the study aims to refine our understanding of fundamental physical phenomena, opening avenues for further exploration and validation.

Keywords: Photon dynamics, Gravitational interaction, Negative mass, Cosmic redshift, Extended classical mechanics,

A photon’s interaction with an external gravitational force is inherently reversible. The photon maintains its intrinsic momentum throughout the process and eventually resumes its original trajectory after disengaging from the gravitational field.

The photon's intrinsic energy E, derived from its emission source, remains unaltered despite gaining or losing energy (Eg) through gravitational interaction within a massive body's gravitational influence.

The gravitational interaction energy Eg is a localized phenomenon, significant only within the gravitational influence of a massive body. Beyond this influence, in regions of negligible gravity, the photon retains only its intrinsic energy E.

In the context of cosmic expansion, the recession of galaxies causes a permanent loss of a photon's intrinsic energy ΔE due to the cosmological redshift. This energy loss is independent of local gravitational interactions and reflects the large-scale dynamics of the expanding universe.

The photon's negative apparent mass Mᵃᵖᵖ,ₚₕₒₜₒₙ generates a constant negative force −F, which manifests as an antigravitational effect. This behaviour parallels the characteristics attributed to dark energy in its capacity to resist gravitational attraction.

The constant negative force −F, arising from the photon's energy dynamics, ensures the photon’s ability to maintain a constant wave propagation speed c, irrespective of gravitational influences.

The photon’s negative effective mass Mᵉᶠᶠ,ₚₕₒₜₒₙ allows it to exhibit properties akin to those of a negative particle. This feature contributes to its unique interaction dynamics within gravitational fields and reinforces its role in antigravitational phenomena.

Constant Effective Acceleration:

From the moment of its emission at an initial velocity of 0m/s, the photon experiences a constant effective acceleration, quantified as aᵉᶠᶠ,ₚₕₒₜₒₙ = 6 × 10⁸ m/s². This acceleration underpins the photon’s ability to achieve and sustain its characteristic speed of light (c), reinforcing its intrinsic energy and momentum dynamics.

Physicists and technicians generally accept the existence and significance of gravitational potential gradients while the gravitational potential by itself is regarded meaningless as it apparently does not have any obvious effect such as forces.

Ernst Mach (1838-1916), in fact, has pointed to the possible effect of remote masses on local physical phenomena, in particular, inertial forces.

In 1963 James C. Keith devised a high speed rotor experiment which he expected would show some specific drag of highly accelerated atomic nuclei due to retarded gravitational interaction with external masses. The Keith theory seems to be supported by laboratory experiments.

It appears remarkable that the famous Einstein formula, E = mc², directly follows from the cumulated gravitational potential Φ_g = c² = 2GM_u/R_u of all masses M_u of the visible universe by multiplying with m. Please note that no relativity theory is required for that.

Einstein (1911) has shown that light deflection close to heavy masses is easily explained by local decrease of gravitational potential and speed of light indicating that c is not a natural constant but rather depends on local gravitational potential, ie not gradient thereof.

On the basis of ℏω = mc² the proton radius and magnetic moment have been derived within reasonable limits.

I think it would be worthwhile to reconsider the above mentioned proposals and findings, in particular, when searching for a unified view of physical phenomena at universal and nuclear scales.

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

[1] Schmidt-Böcking, H., Schmidt, L., Lüdde, H. J., Trageser, W., Templeton, A., & Sauer, T. (2016). The Stern-Gerlach experiment revisited. The European Physical Journal H, 41(4), 327-364. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2016-70053-2

[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.

An article on Google by physicist Ethan Siegel says, "There is no known non-cosmic explanation for the CMB". Can't electrons spiralling in electric and magnetic fields (think of a microwave oven's magnetron) produce microwaves? Also, can gravitational and micro- waves interact to become quantum entangled? If they can imprint each other, is a Big Bang necessary?

Initial Straight-Line Trajectory: The photon starts along a straight path from the source, traveling at speed c. As it moves away from the gravitational well of the source, a slight redshift occurs, indicating a small increase in wavelength (Δλ > 0).

Interaction with External Massive Body: As the photon approaches an external massive body, it undergoes a temporary blueshift (Δλ < 0) while moving toward the body. Once the photon passes the body and begins to move away, it experiences a redshift (Δλ > 0), returning to its original wavelength. This reversible shift reflects the energy gained and lost by the photon in response to the external gravitational field. The photon’s inherent energy drives its straight-line path, but the external field temporarily adds energy, altering its trajectory in an arc-like fashion. After completing this interaction, the photon resumes its original straight path, with no net change in wavelength (Δλ = 0).

Return to Original Trajectory: After passing the gravitational influence of the external body, the photon’s trajectory returns to its original straight-line path, maintaining its inherent energy and wavelength. The photon’s wavelength remains unchanged beyond the initial shift caused by the source’s gravitational well.

Over the past 55 years, hundreds of experiments have been conducted to determine the value of the Newtonian constant of gravitation. The data obtained in various experiments have a significant spread of values ​​of this constant, and its accuracy has increased by only one order of magnitude. This fundamental constant has the lowest accuracy among all fundamental constants. Perhaps, in relation to this constant, the analytical method of research, which is usually auxiliary, should be made the main one. In the article:

"An analytical method for increasing the accuracy of the value of the Newtonian constant of gravitation." https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385546538_An_analytical_method_for_increasing_the_accuracy_of_the_value_of_the_Newtonian_constant_of_gravitation

an analytical method for increasing the accuracy of the value of the Newtonian constant of gravitation is proposed. This method EXCLUSIVELY on CODATA 2022 data and known physical laws allowed to increase the accuracy of the value of the Newtonian constant of gravity by 7 orders of magnitude at once. I would like to emphasize once again that this actually revolutionary breakthrough is based not on various kinds of physical and mathematical constructions, but exclusively on official data on the values ​​of physical constants presented in the CODATA listing.

The presence of torsion in spacetime affects gravitational interactions, leading to different phenomena than those predicted by curvature alone.

This can be modeled using teleparallel gravity, where gravity is described through torsion rather than curvature.

Some observational results from DESI support the correspondence but more are needed to establish it.

In a more theoretical argument, Gregory Tarle, professor of physics at the University of Michigan, proposed this idea.

To substantiate it further, he said:

"If you ask yourself, 'Where in the later Universe do we see gravity as strong as it was at the beginning of the Universe?' the answer is at the center of black holes. It's possible that what happened during inflation runs in reverse, that the matter of a massive star becomes dark energy again during gravitational collapse like a small Big Bang does in reverse"

What is dark matter? And how was the structure of the world formed?

Dark matter is still a subject of ongoing debate. It has been considered in the theoretical description of compact objects such as neutron stars with cores of very dense matter. Various candidates for dark matter have been proposed in the scientific literature. Among them, the sexaquark has been identified as a potential boson particle that can form in the neutron star material based on its mass properties. We investigate the viability of the sexquark as a candidate for dark matter, especially under certain density conditions. Addressing the challenges associated with the formation of a boson particle in a highly dense medium without compromising the stability of the neutron star. A direct linear mass change for the sexaquark in the hadronic equation of state. It was observed that including the sexaquark as a dark matter candidate in the hadronic matter equation of state, although it has a repulsive interaction with the baryonic matter, softens the equation of state. We assume that the interaction strength of dark matter with baryonic matter increases linearly with the baryon density. We observe that the increase in the effective mass of the Sexaquark as a result of the increase in its vacuum mass causes the equation of state to become stiffer compared to the constant mass state. We determine lower and upper mass limits for this bosonic dark matter based on observational limits for neutron stars in the DD2Y-T model, when a quark-matter phase-to-phase transition is used. Dark matter, neutron star, equation of state, relativistic mean field, phase transition, sexquark.

Stam Nicolis added a reply

The particle content of dark matter is, for the moment, unknown.

Sexaquarks, as the name indicates, are composite particles made of six quarks-quarks are among the constituents of ``ordinary'' matter. The reason they don't have anything to do with dark matter is that dark matter is made of other kinds of particles. If it were made of known particles, quarks or leptons, it would have had known interactions with ordinary matter, beyond just gravitational interaction (which is how its presence has been established). It doesn't, however, have strong or electromagnetic interactions with ordinary matter (whether it has, only, weak interactions is, still, a matter of study), so it doesn't carry color or electric charge.

How the ``structure of the world was formed'' is known, after the era in which gravity decoupled from the other interactions, in general terms, though many details are, still, not clear. Cf. for instance: https://workshops.ift.uam-csic.es/uploads/charla/275/Zavala_SM_LCDM.pdf

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

Hello,

Dark matter is a substance that makes up about 27% of the universe. We can't see or detect it directly, but we know it's there because of its gravitational effects on visible matter. Scientists think that dark matter played a crucial role in forming galaxies and large-scale structures in the cosmos. It acts like an invisible scaffold, helping to clump regular matter together. Well We're still not sure what dark matter is made of. Some ideas include exotic particles like WIMPs or the sexaquark you mentioned. Researchers are trying to detect dark matter particles in labs and looking for indirect signs of it in space.As for how the world's structure formed, dark matter was undoubtely the key. After the Big Bang, it helped gravity pull matter together to form the first stars and galaxies. Over time, this process built up the complex web of galaxy clusters and filaments we see today. So Dark matter remains one of the biggest puzzles in physics. We're working on understanding it better, but for now, its true nature is still a mystery.

Javad Fardaei added a reply

Dear Abbas these two articles might answer your questions.

Article The Mythos of Gravity Or (Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity is a Myth)

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply:

Hello,

Dark matter is a substance that makes up about 27% of the universe. We can't see or detect it directly, but we know it's there because of its gravitational effects on visible matter. Scientists think that dark matter played a crucial role in forming galaxies and large-scale structures in the cosmos. It acts like an invisible scaffold, helping to clump regular matter together. Well We're still not sure what dark matter is made of. Some ideas include exotic particles like WIMPs or the sexaquark you mentioned. Researchers are trying to detect dark matter particles in labs and looking for indirect signs of it in space.As for how the world's structure formed, dark matter was undoubtely the key. After the Big Bang, it helped gravity pull matter together to form the first stars and galaxies. Over time, this process built up the complex web of galaxy clusters and filaments we see today. So Dark matter remains one of the biggest puzzles in physics. We're working on understanding it better, but for now, its true nature is still a mystery.

Forrest Noble added a reply

Dark Matter is a place holder for a hypothetical entity. There are a great many other explanations for what is being observed other than dark matter. The most well-known alternative is called Modified Gravity, which assert different equations than mainstream gravity. There are many problems related to the dark matter hypothesis, but many believe there are even more problems related to Modified Gravity proposals.

The structure of the (world) the universe and how it was formed always relates to mainstream theory, which presently incorporates both dark matter and dark energy, Inflation, etc., entities that cannot be observed.

Because of the observations of the James Webb and other scopes and arrays, the mainstream proposals and predictions seem to be continuously contradicted. In the end I think the entire mainstream theory of cosmology will be replaced by a much simpler cosmology that does not require unknowns, and will have very few perceived problems associated with it.

What is gravitational music?

We think that this tnew heory could be built when describing the ratio of the planck constant to the reduced Planck constant a function of the cosmological constant, in this new condition one therefore can think to link the gravitational constant G to the speed of light, c, and to the new ratio of h to reduced h. In current physics one cannot link the Planck constant h to the gravitatioanal constant, and to the speed of light because of Pi.

Should there be a cosmological constant Λ term in the GR field equations? Is the Λ term symmetric with G_μν?

"According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity should lead to a slowing of the cosmic expansion. Yet, in 1998, two teams of astronomers studying distant supernovae made the remarkable discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. To explain cosmic acceleration, cosmologists are faced with two possibilities: either 70% of the universe exists in an exotic form, now called dark energy, that exhibits a gravitational force opposite to the attractive gravity of ordinary matter, or General Relativity must be replaced by a new theory of gravity on cosmic scales."[1] In order to match the phenomenon of cosmic expansion, the general theory of relativity introduced the cosmological constant term and various speculations on its cause have been made [2]. However, these studies have rarely addressed the possible solutions in the structural aspects of the universe [3].

If there is only gravitational force, it looks like there is a deficiency. We believe that if there is a gravitational force, there is a corresponding repulsive force. But who should cause it and under what circumstances? It is important to know that in electromagnetic interactions, both positive and negative forces are formed by charges, and our goal is to unify the electromagnetic and gravitational forces. Would dark energy be a repulsive force symmetrical to gravity? Where does their symmetry come into play? If the result is to be symmetrical, the cause must first have symmetry. According to the assumptions of modern physics, the dark energy that causes the expansion of the universe is background and not symmetrical with the energy in GR. Regular energies are floating above the dark energy background, so they cannot have symmetry. In Einstein's gravitational field equation, G_µν + Λg_µν = G*T_µν, the energy Tµν leads to an unmeasurable intrinsic Space-Time Curvature G_µν [4] while Λg_µν is assumed to be a measurable extrinsic Space-Time Expansion due to the universal energy [5]. Specific and background, intrinsic and extrinsic, curvature and expansion do not have any symmetrical meaning. It would then not be appropriate to arrange them in a GR field equation.

Philosophically speaking, there should be no difference with ‘existence’ at this time and the other time, this place and the other place, i.e., when space and time are considered as background ^*, ‘existence’ does not depend on space-time coordinates. Therefore, the equations of the universe should not require boundary and initial conditions. Physics, by analysing observational data, has proposed the ‘Big Bang Theory’ and the ‘Accelerated Expansion Theory’ of the Universe, both of which are inconsistent with this. Therefore, the hypothesis of dark energy based on this foundation is questionable.

Our Questions:

Does the existence of ‘energy’ necessitate the existence of ‘dark energy’ or ‘anti-energy’? The hypothesis of the existence of dark energy is based only on the observation of the expansion of the universe. Is it the only explanation for the expansion of the universe? [6]

The function of energy is to drive interactions, and energy is presented in discrete forms, which can be manifested in a variety of forms, including gravity. Is the function of dark energy only to cause negative gravity? Is there only one form of dark energy?

Conservation of energy is an important physical principle, is dark energy conserved?

If gravity and negative gravity cancel each other out, why can't energy and dark energy cancel each other out directly?

-----------------------------------

* We believe that existence itself has a space-time parameter, but not a coordinate parameter.

-----------------------------------

[1] Dark Energy Survey, Collaboration. https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/the-des-project/overview/

[2] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.

[3] Fan, C. (2023). Convergent and Disperse Cyclic Multiverse Model (CDCMM). https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202309.0784/v2

[4] Doubts about General Relativity (7) - Is Space-Time Bend a Motion? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO42Doubts_about_General_Relativity_7-Is_Space-Time_Bend_a_Motion；

Doubts about General Relativity (5) - Should there be "negative gravity" in General Relativity?，https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO40Doubts_about_General_Relativity_5-Should_there_be_negative_gravity_in_General_Relativity.

[5] Doubts about General Relativity (3) - Are Space-Time Curvature and Expansion Two Different Geometrical Mechanical Properties? https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO38Doubts_about_General_Relativity_3-Are_Space-Time_Curvature_and_Expansion_Two_Different_Geometrical_Mechanical_Properties.

[6] Is there a reasonable alternative to the theory of the expanding universe?

This discussion explores the gravitational dynamics of gravitationally bound systems, considering the influence of dark matter and dark energy. We will delve into the relationship between gravitational mass and matter mass, as well as the role of the zero-gravity sphere in defining the boundaries of such systems. The discussion will also examine the implications of these concepts for understanding the large-scale structure and evolution of the universe.

• The equivalence of gravitational mass and matter mass in classical mechanics

• The influence of dark matter and dark energy on gravitational dynamics

• The concept of the zero-gravity sphere and its significance

• The composition of matter mass within gravitationally bound systems

• The role of gravitating mass in governing gravitational dynamics

Join the discussion to share your insights.

Pages 7-11

I had a lengthy discussion with Bernd where I tried to explain the two mistakes he made in his reasoning:

I provided ChatGPT analysis and Dr. Floripes's lecture notes showing how Gravitational Time Dilation Depends upon distance and density.

Berndt didn't know about the existence of Gravitational Blue shift. Once presented with Dr. Floripes's text, he discarded Einstein's Equivalence Principle as "a joke".

So, I decided to check to see how many of you understand my criticism.

Please help Berndt to see the light and correct his nonsensical misinformation (which he spreads to whoever is willing to hear).

Cheers,

Marco Pereira

The field energy density /gravitational energy density is missing in General relativity but in Newtonian gravitation, it is present and negative as expected.

As stated by Penrose not very accurately, about potential energy

"Although there is no room for such a thing in the energy–momentum tensor T, it is clear that there are situations where a ‘disembodied’ gravitational energy is actually playing a physical role.

As a matter of fact what is negative is the binding energy which is localizable... what is not localizable is the potential energy.

There is substantial a difference between gravitational energy which is negative in Newtonian Gravitation and is a sort of BINDING ENERGY and Potential energy which is positive since it is "given" to the system of attracting masses.

It is undisputed that there is no room at all for a potential energy density in gravitation since it is not determinable from where such energy comes from, although it exists...it cannot be part of the "gravitational field"...

1. Dark energy has been a subject of considerable debate since its discovery due to its association with the accelerated expansion of the universe. Traditionally perceived as an unknown force or substance, dark energy is better understood as a by-product of the universe’s dynamic processes, particularly the transformation of potential energy into kinetic energy during and after the Big Bang. This work explores the interconnected roles of gravitational forces, kinetic energy, and apparent negative mass, highlighting that dark energy results from the complex interplay between these elements rather than being an independent substance.

Initial State of the Universe and Energy Transformation

Immediately after the Big Bang, the universe's total energy consisted of potential and kinetic components:

Eᴛₒₜ,ᴜₙᵢᵥ = PEᴜₙᵢᵥ + KEᴜₙᵢᵥ

In the earliest moments, the universe was dominated by potential energy, which rapidly approached zero as kinetic energy surged from zero to infinity:

PEᴜₙᵢᵥ: ∞ → 0, KEᴜₙᵢᵥ: 0 → ∞

This energetic shift was driven by gravitational dynamics, where the rapid conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy fuelled the universe’s expansion.

Emergence of Dark Energy: A Dynamic Outcome

Dark energy did not pre-exist the universe but emerged from the dynamic interactions between mass, gravity, and kinetic energy. As the universe’s initial potential mass accelerated due to gravitational forces, an apparent negative mass effect arose, which we interpret as dark energy:

Fᴜₙᵢᵥ = (Mᴘᴇ,ᴜₙᵢᵥ - Mᵃᵖᵖ,ᴜₙᵢᵥ)•aᵉᶠᶠ,ᴜₙᵢᵥ

Here, the apparent mass (Mᵃᵖᵖ,ᴜₙᵢᵥ) represents the dynamic influence of dark energy, emerging from the acceleration of potential mass under universal forces.

Inverse Relationship Between Potential and Kinetic Energy

The universe’s potential energy is inversely related to its kinetic energy, illustrating the natural balance that dictates cosmic evolution:

PEᴜₙᵢᵥ ∝ 1/KEᴜₙᵢᵥ

This relationship underscores the continuous transformation and reactivation of dark energy as the kinetic energy of the universe’s matter evolves.

Dark Energy's Dormancy and Reactivation

Dark energy enters a dormant state when kinetic energy and potential energy achieve equivalence. However, as the universe’s matter mass persists in motion, dark energy reactivates, leading to the accelerated expansion observed today. This cyclical behaviour underscores the transient nature of dark energy:

When PEᴜₙᵢᵥ = KEᴜₙᵢᵥ , Mᵃᵖᵖ = 0

As the universe continues to expand, dark energy becomes dominant once again, reflecting the evolving interplay of mass-energy dynamics.

Dark energy is not a fundamental substance but a manifestation of the universe’s dynamic processes. The accelerated expansion is driven by the continuous transformation of kinetic and potential energies, highlighting that dark energy is a consequence of the cosmic gravitational and kinetic interplay. This understanding shifts the perspective from viewing dark energy as an isolated force to recognizing it as an emergent property of the universe’s mass-energy transformations.

Does "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies?

Newtonian gravity behaves differently at very large scales of mass and distance, i.e., galaxy scales, in contra-indication to the assumption that massive quantities of invisible, or "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies.

… Read more

Preston Guynn added a reply

Your discussion statement question is:

The phrase "Newtonian gravity" refers to a very specific equation relating mass and acceleration, so saying it behaves differently under some condition is not a correct usage of the phrase. Newtonian gravity is Newtonian gravity, and it gives incorrect results at scales greater than the solar system. There is a significant body of research on modified Newtonian gravity, and you can find it by searching on the phrase or "MOND".

Your question"Does dark matter make up large proportion of those galaxies?" is the question that numerous branches of research are investigating either experimentally or theoretically. First of course is the search for any experimental evidence of any matter that couples gravitationally but not via the electromagnetic field. No evidence of any such matter has been found. Second is that there is no such matter expected from current models such as the so called standard model of physics.

Even if there were some type of matter that couples gravitationally but not via electro-magnetic coupling, the number of non-conforming physical observations cannot be solved by such matter. The galaxies not only have a rotation that is unexplained by GR, but the galaxies interacting in clusters, and the clusters of galaxies interacting in superclusters could not simultaneously be described by such matter regardless of its distribution patterns. Additionally, gravitational lensing observed due to galaxies and clusters of galaxies could not be described by GR simply by applying such conjectured matter. The number of non-conforming observations cannot be solved by adding matter or energy, so general relativity should be abandoned as a dead end. Newtonian gravity does not apply, and no known modification of Newtonian gravity describes all the observed interactions. Modern physics will only progress when GR is abandoned and my research based on special relativity is adopted. See

Article The Physical Basis of the Fine Structure Constant in Relativ...

Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space

For some insights on dark matter see :

Article Cold Dark Matter and Strong Gravitational Lensing: Concord o...

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear and respected Preston Gan

Researcher in Guynn Engineering

United States of America

You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas

Jouni Laine added a reply

According to my theory, the influence of quantum entanglement on spacetime curvature could provide an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter in galaxies. Traditional models suggest that large proportions of invisible “dark matter” are required to account for the observed gravitational behavior at galaxy scales. This is because, under Newtonian gravity, the visible mass of galaxies cannot account for the gravitational forces observed, leading to the hypothesis that there must be additional, unseen mass—dark matter.

However, my research proposes that quantum entanglement could be influencing spacetime curvature in a way that mimics the effects of this “missing” dark matter. If quantum entanglement can alter the curvature of spacetime, it might enhance the gravitational pull within galaxies without requiring massive quantities of unseen matter. This would mean that the observed discrepancies at galactic scales could be due to quantum entanglement effects rather than vast amounts of dark matter.

In this view, while dark matter has been the dominant explanation, it might be possible that the gravitational anomalies are instead the result of entanglement-induced modifications to spacetime. This theory could offer a new perspective on why Newtonian gravity appears to behave differently at large scales, suggesting that the need for dark matter could be reconsidered in light of quantum effects on gravity.

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear Johnny Line, greetings and respect

You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas

Does "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies?

Newtonian gravity behaves differently at very large scales of mass and distance, i.e., galaxy scales, in contra-indication to the assumption that massive quantities of invisible, or "dark matter" make up large proportions of those galaxies.

… Read more

Preston Guynn added a reply

Your discussion statement question is:

The phrase "Newtonian gravity" refers to a very specific equation relating mass and acceleration, so saying it behaves differently under some condition is not a correct usage of the phrase. Newtonian gravity is Newtonian gravity, and it gives incorrect results at scales greater than the solar system. There is a significant body of research on modified Newtonian gravity, and you can find it by searching on the phrase or "MOND".

Your question"Does dark matter make up large proportion of those galaxies?" is the question that numerous branches of research are investigating either experimentally or theoretically. First of course is the search for any experimental evidence of any matter that couples gravitationally but not via the electromagnetic field. No evidence of any such matter has been found. Second is that there is no such matter expected from current models such as the so called standard model of physics.

Even if there were some type of matter that couples gravitationally but not via electro-magnetic coupling, the number of non-conforming physical observations cannot be solved by such matter. The galaxies not only have a rotation that is unexplained by GR, but the galaxies interacting in clusters, and the clusters of galaxies interacting in superclusters could not simultaneously be described by such matter regardless of its distribution patterns. Additionally, gravitational lensing observed due to galaxies and clusters of galaxies could not be described by GR simply by applying such conjectured matter. The number of non-conforming observations cannot be solved by adding matter or energy, so general relativity should be abandoned as a dead end. Newtonian gravity does not apply, and no known modification of Newtonian gravity describes all the observed interactions. Modern physics will only progress when GR is abandoned and my research based on special relativity is adopted. See

Article The Physical Basis of the Fine Structure Constant in Relativ...

Article Thomas Precession is the Basis for the Structure of Matter and Space

For some insights on dark matter see :

Article Cold Dark Matter and Strong Gravitational Lensing: Concord o...

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear and respected Preston Gan

Researcher in Guynn Engineering

United States of America

You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas

Jouni Laine added a reply

According to my theory, the influence of quantum entanglement on spacetime curvature could provide an alternative explanation for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter in galaxies. Traditional models suggest that large proportions of invisible “dark matter” are required to account for the observed gravitational behavior at galaxy scales. This is because, under Newtonian gravity, the visible mass of galaxies cannot account for the gravitational forces observed, leading to the hypothesis that there must be additional, unseen mass—dark matter.

However, my research proposes that quantum entanglement could be influencing spacetime curvature in a way that mimics the effects of this “missing” dark matter. If quantum entanglement can alter the curvature of spacetime, it might enhance the gravitational pull within galaxies without requiring massive quantities of unseen matter. This would mean that the observed discrepancies at galactic scales could be due to quantum entanglement effects rather than vast amounts of dark matter.

In this view, while dark matter has been the dominant explanation, it might be possible that the gravitational anomalies are instead the result of entanglement-induced modifications to spacetime. This theory could offer a new perspective on why Newtonian gravity appears to behave differently at large scales, suggesting that the need for dark matter could be reconsidered in light of quantum effects on gravity.

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear Johnny Line, greetings and respect

You answered my question very well. Thank you very much for your excellent and technical explanations. You made me proud and I am happy for you because you are a great scientist. Thank you Abbas

Forrest Noble added a reply

18 hours ago

No ! Dark Matter, like Dark Energy, is simply a 'place holder' for an unknown source of energy which cannot presently be explained excepting via speculation and related hypotheses. If either or both do not exist, their replacement will do damage to, or also cause the replacement of mainstream cosmology, by far simpler but presently unrecognized alternative(s).

The stability of the Solar System is a complex subject that blends the classical framework of Newtonian mechanics with the modern insights provided by General Relativity (GR). Understanding this stability involves analyzing gravitational interactions, particularly using Einstein’s field equations, and examining specific phenomena such as the precession of Mercury’s orbit. This article explores how Einstein's theory refines our understanding of planetary motion and contributes to assessing the long-term stability of our Solar System.

#### Einstein’s Field Equations

Einstein’s field equations form the foundation of General Relativity, describing how matter and energy influence the curvature of spacetime, which manifests as gravity. The equations are expressed as:

\[ G_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8 \pi G}{c^4} T_{\mu\nu} \]

where:

- \( G_{\mu\nu} \) is the Einstein tensor, representing the curvature of spacetime due to gravity.

- \( T_{\mu\nu} \) is the stress-energy tensor, representing the distribution of matter and energy.

- \( G \) is the gravitational constant.

- \( c \) is the speed of light.

In the context of the Solar System, these equations are used to understand the impact of relativistic effects on planetary orbits.

#### Application of General Relativity to the Solar System

1. **Schwarzschild Metric:**

For a spherically symmetric mass like the Sun, the Schwarzschild metric describes the spacetime around it:

\[ ds^2 = - \left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right)c^2 dt^2 + \left(1 - \frac{2GM}{c^2r}\right)^{-1} dr^2 + r^2 \left(d\theta^2 + \sin^2\theta \, d\phi^2\right) \]

Here:

- \( M \) is the mass of the Sun.

- \( r \) is the radial coordinate.

- \( \theta \) and \( \phi \) are the angular coordinates.

This metric describes how the spacetime curvature around the Sun affects planetary orbits.

2. **Perihelion Precession:**

One of the key applications of General Relativity is explaining the precession of Mercury’s orbit. In Newtonian mechanics, Mercury’s orbit is predicted to be an ellipse with the Sun at one focus. However, observations showed that the point of closest approach to the Sun, the perihelion, shifts over time.

General Relativity provides an additional term for this precession. The additional precession angle per orbit is:

\[ \Delta \varphi = \frac{6 \pi G M}{c^2 a (1 - e^2)} \]

where:

- \( \Delta \varphi \) is the additional precession per orbit.

- \( M \) is the mass of the Sun.

- \( a \) is the semi-major axis of Mercury’s orbit.

- \( e \) is the orbital eccentricity.

For Mercury:

- \( M \approx 1.989 \times 10^{30} \) kg

- \( a \approx 5.79 \times 10^{10} \) m

- \( e \approx 0.2056 \)

Calculating:

\[ \Delta \varphi \approx \frac{6 \pi \times 6.674 \times 10^{-11} \times 1.989 \times 10^{30}}{(2.998 \times 10^8)^2 \times 5.79 \times 10^{10} \times (1 - 0.2056)} \]

\[ \Delta \varphi \approx 5.02 \times 10^{-7} \text{ radians per orbit} \]

This value contributes to an observable perihelion shift of about 574.10 arcseconds per century, with General Relativity accounting for approximately 43 arcseconds of this shift.

#### Long-Term Stability of the Solar System

1. **Newtonian Dynamics with Perturbations:**

In the Solar System, Newtonian mechanics describe the primary gravitational interactions:

\[ \mathbf{F} = -\frac{G M_{\text{Sun}} m_{\text{planet}}}{r^2} \hat{r} \]

where:

- \( \mathbf{F} \) is the gravitational force.

- \( m_{\text{planet}} \) is the mass of a planet.

- \( r \) is the distance from the Sun.

- \( \hat{r} \) is the unit vector pointing from the planet to the Sun.

Relativistic corrections are added to these equations to account for effects such as the perihelion precession and time dilation.

2. **Numerical Simulations:**

Advanced simulations integrate the equations of motion for all Solar System bodies over long timescales, incorporating both Newtonian and relativistic effects. Methods like N-body simulations and symplectic integrators are used to predict the behavior of the system.

These simulations reveal that the Solar System remains stable over billions of years. While gravitational perturbations between planets and relativistic effects cause small, periodic adjustments in orbital elements, they do not lead to significant destabilization.

#### Conclusion

The precession of Mercury’s orbit is a compelling example of how General Relativity refines our understanding of planetary motion. Einstein’s equations provide critical corrections to the Newtonian model, especially in high-precision scenarios. However, the overall stability of the Solar System is effectively described by Newtonian mechanics with relativistic adjustments. Numerical simulations confirm that the Solar System’s stability is maintained over long timescales, with perturbations and relativistic effects carefully managed within current models.

For the relationship between limit cycles (inertial manifolds) and the gravitational potential on a straight line or in Euclidean space, see Equations 1.1.4 and 1.1.6

and (PDF) SPIRAL universe size at decoupling CMB calibrated (researchgate.net)

discussion Marco Pereira describes his 'Big Pop' hypothesis.

Here we hope to compare where they can reconcile and where not.

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 (E_g and B_g) 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 (E_g, B_g) 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.

[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

What is dark matter? And how was the structure of the world formed?

Dark matter is still a subject of ongoing debate. It has been considered in the theoretical description of compact objects such as neutron stars with cores of very dense matter. Various candidates for dark matter have been proposed in the scientific literature. Among them, the sexaquark has been identified as a potential boson particle that can form in the neutron star material based on its mass properties. We investigate the viability of the sexquark as a candidate for dark matter, especially under certain density conditions. Addressing the challenges associated with the formation of a boson particle in a highly dense medium without compromising the stability of the neutron star. A direct linear mass change for the sexaquark in the hadronic equation of state. It was observed that including the sexaquark as a dark matter candidate in the hadronic matter equation of state, although it has a repulsive interaction with the baryonic matter, softens the equation of state. We assume that the interaction strength of dark matter with baryonic matter increases linearly with the baryon density. We observe that the increase in the effective mass of the Sexaquark as a result of the increase in its vacuum mass causes the equation of state to become stiffer compared to the constant mass state. We determine lower and upper mass limits for this bosonic dark matter based on observational limits for neutron stars in the DD2Y-T model, when a quark-matter phase-to-phase transition is used. Dark matter, neutron star, equation of state, relativistic mean field, phase transition, sexquark.

Stam Nicolis added a reply

The particle content of dark matter is, for the moment, unknown.

Sexaquarks, as the name indicates, are composite particles made of six quarks-quarks are among the constituents of ``ordinary'' matter. The reason they don't have anything to do with dark matter is that dark matter is made of other kinds of particles. If it were made of known particles, quarks or leptons, it would have had known interactions with ordinary matter, beyond just gravitational interaction (which is how its presence has been established). It doesn't, however, have strong or electromagnetic interactions with ordinary matter (whether it has, only, weak interactions is, still, a matter of study), so it doesn't carry color or electric charge.

How the ``structure of the world was formed'' is known, after the era in which gravity decoupled from the other interactions, in general terms, though many details are, still, not clear. Cf. for instance: https://workshops.ift.uam-csic.es/uploads/charla/275/Zavala_SM_LCDM.pdf

Reply to this discussion

Dark Matter

Neutron Star

Density

Gravitation

Electromagnetic Phenomena

Following

Share

Popular replies (1)

📷

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

1 day ago

Hello,

Dark matter is a substance that makes up about 27% of the universe. We can't see or detect it directly, but we know it's there because of its gravitational effects on visible matter. Scientists think that dark matter played a crucial role in forming galaxies and large-scale structures in the cosmos. It acts like an invisible scaffold, helping to clump regular matter together. Well We're still not sure what dark matter is made of. Some ideas include exotic particles like WIMPs or the sexaquark you mentioned. Researchers are trying to detect dark matter particles in labs and looking for indirect signs of it in space.As for how the world's structure formed, dark matter was undoubtely the key. After the Big Bang, it helped gravity pull matter together to form the first stars and galaxies. Over time, this process built up the complex web of galaxy clusters and filaments we see today. So Dark matter remains one of the biggest puzzles in physics. We're working on understanding it better, but for now, its true nature is still a mystery.

Recommend

Share

Javad Fardaei added a reply

3 days ago

Dear Abbas these two articles might answer your questions.

Article The Mythos of Gravity Or (Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity is a Myth)

… Read more

Abbas Kashani added a reply

Dear Javad Fardai

From the United States of America

Thank you very much for your kindness, I was very impressed with your articles. Thank you Abbas

… Read more

Alessandro Rizzo added a reply

Hello,

Dark matter is a substance that makes up about 27% of the universe. We can't see or detect it directly, but we know it's there because of its gravitational effects on visible matter. Scientists think that dark matter played a crucial role in forming galaxies and large-scale structures in the cosmos. It acts like an invisible scaffold, helping to clump regular matter together. Well We're still not sure what dark matter is made of. Some ideas include exotic particles like WIMPs or the sexaquark you mentioned. Researchers are trying to detect dark matter particles in labs and looking for indirect signs of it in space.As for how the world's structure formed, dark matter was undoubtely the key. After the Big Bang, it helped gravity pull matter together to form the first stars and galaxies. Over time, this process built up the complex web of galaxy clusters and filaments we see today. So Dark matter remains one of the biggest puzzles in physics. We're working on understanding it better, but for now, its true nature is still a mystery.

Recommend

Share

What is dark matter? And how was the structure of the world formed?

Dark matter is still a subject of ongoing debate. It has been considered in the theoretical description of compact objects such as neutron stars with cores of very dense matter. Various candidates for dark matter have been proposed in the scientific literature. Among them, the sexaquark has been identified as a potential boson particle that can form in the neutron star material based on its mass properties. We investigate the viability of the sexquark as a candidate for dark matter, especially under certain density conditions. Addressing the challenges associated with the formation of a boson particle in a highly dense medium without compromising the stability of the neutron star. A direct linear mass change for the sexaquark in the hadronic equation of state. It was observed that including the sexaquark as a dark matter candidate in the hadronic matter equation of state, although it has a repulsive interaction with the baryonic matter, softens the equation of state. We assume that the interaction strength of dark matter with baryonic matter increases linearly with the baryon density. We observe that the increase in the effective mass of the Sexaquark as a result of the increase in its vacuum mass causes the equation of state to become stiffer compared to the constant mass state. We determine lower and upper mass limits for this bosonic dark matter based on observational limits for neutron stars in the DD2Y-T model, when a quark-matter phase-to-phase transition is used. Dark matter, neutron star, equation of state, relativistic mean field, phase transition, sexquark.

Stam Nicolis added a reply

The particle content of dark matter is, for the moment, unknown.

Sexaquarks, as the name indicates, are composite particles made of six quarks-quarks are among the constituents of ``ordinary'' matter. The reason they don't have anything to do with dark matter is that dark matter is made of other kinds of particles. If it were made of known particles, quarks or leptons, it would have had known interactions with ordinary matter, beyond just gravitational interaction (which is how its presence has been established). It doesn't, however, have strong or electromagnetic interactions with ordinary matter (whether it has, only, weak interactions is, still, a matter of study), so it doesn't carry color or electric charge.

How the ``structure of the world was formed'' is known, after the era in which gravity decoupled from the other interactions, in general terms, though many details are, still, not clear. Cf. for instance: https://workshops.ift.uam-csic.es/uploads/charla/275/Zavala_SM_LCDM.pdf

Gravitational force between two bodies acts in a straight line, not in a curvature. Two endpoints of the straight line along which the gravitational force acts, are the centers of the two bodies.

My answer: the gravitational force between two bodies/planets attracts towards its centers of planets.

The Dodecahedron Linear String Field Hypothesis (DLSFH) integrates concepts from string theory, quantum field theory, and general relativity to propose a unified model that addresses the fundamental interactions of particles and fields. This model relies on dodecahedral symmetry and represents quarks with a specific configuration of string qubits.

Regarding the concept that matter is highly concentrated energy as described by Einstein's famous equation E=mc^2, the DLSFH acknowledges this relationship. It incorporates the Einstein-Hilbert action for gravitational interactions within its unified Lagrangian density, which also includes terms for gauge fields, fermion fields, the Higgs field, string dynamics, and dark photon interactions. This integration ensures that energy and mass are treated as interchangeable, aligning with the principle that matter is a form of condensed energy.

The hypothesis suggests that the interactions and dynamics of string qubits within a dodecahedral structure can explain various cosmological and particle phenomena, including those related to the conversion of mass into energy, as seen in nuclear reactions. By maintaining internal consistency and addressing anomalies, the DLSFH offers a robust platform for exploring beyond the Standard Model physics and enhancing our understanding of the universe.

Gravitational waves are ripples of spacetime propagating at the speed of light [1]. A gravitational wave can be described as a small perturbation h_μν on a flat spacetime metric η_μν [2]:

g_μν = η_μν + h_μν ....... (Eq.1)

1) Cosmological observations prove that the speed of gravitational waves and the speed of light are identical [3]. In the absence of any third party or any law constraints, if the speeds of gravitational waves and light are exactly the same, they cannot be independently unrelated to each other, so what should be the relationship between them?

2) "The energy associated with gravitational waves is a second-order effect, and so its justification goes beyond the linearised approximation considered so far. ...... Aside from energy, GWs may also carry angular momentum and linear momentum" [1]. Gravitational waves undoubtedly contain energy, and when it travels at the speed of light, it means that the energy spreads at the speed of light and that there is momentum, not that there may be momentum. It does not make sense that energy travelling at the speed of light is not light and is not directly related to light. Light itself contains defined energy and momentum, why wouldn't a gravitational wave contain both defined energy and momentum? How is it best defined if its energy and momentum are defined with only the spacetime parameter?

3) We usually interpret gravity as a geometrical effect of spacetime, and also as an exchange of "gravitons", what is the relationship between these two interpretations, and are gravitons embodied by spacetime parameters? Is there local gravity inside a gravitational wave? What is its relation to the "graviton"?

4) One can think of hμν as the coefficients of the spacetime metrics <Δt, Δx, Δy, Δz>, which, if combined, can express this ripple wave packet in terms of the variable metrics <Δt', Δx', Δy', Δz'> (there is a Locked Relationship between the space and time metrics). Then, in such a spacetime, let us assume that there is a light that is fully accompanied by gravitational wave propagation, i.e. they have a common source:

4.1) How do we define the speed of propagation of light when light itself is in <Δt', Δx', Δy', Δz'>? Defined as c=Δs' /Δt', Δs' = √(Δx'² + Δy'² + Δz'²), it means that light is a synchronised ripple like gravitational waves.

4.2) How do we define the speed of gravitational waves themselves? Gravitational waves are the propagation speed of their own spacetime fluctuations <Δt', Δx', Δy', Δz'>. That is, how do we define the speed of propagation of this <Δt', Δx', Δy', Δz'>? How much distance Δs it travelled in what time Δt?

4.3) LIGO directly measures the length contraction of space, not "bending". "Gravitational waves change the metric describing the spacetime between two freely falling test masses" [1]. "strain-to-length relation used in GW detection based on Michelson interferometers is h+=ΔL/L" [2]; if we consider the geometrical nature of Space-Time Curvature. Can we design a direct measurement of Space-Time Curvature?

4.4）“If light waves are stretched by gravitational waves, how can we use light as a ruler to detect gravitational waves?” This is explained in the literature [4]; is it sufficiently rational?

-----------------------------

[1] Bambi, C., Katsanevas, S., & Kokkotas, K. D. (2022). Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy. Springer Nature.

[2] Cahillane, C., & Mansell, G. (2022). Review of the Advanced LIGO gravitational wave observatories leading to observing run four. Galaxies, 10(1), 36.

[3] Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Acernese, F., & etal. (2017). Gravitational waves and gamma-rays from a binary neutron star merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848(2), L13.

[4] Saulson, P. R. (1997). If light waves are stretched by gravitational waves, how can we use light as a ruler to detect gravitational waves? American Journal of Physics, 65(6), 501-505.

Since a singularity has properties that reach infinity, one might assume its gravitational influence is also infinite. When a star collapses into a black hole, its mass is compressed into an extremely small volume, leading to a significant increase in gravitational strength near the singularity. For example, a star with a mass of approximately 3.978 ×10³⁰ kg compressed into a volume of 10⁻⁸ m³ results in a gravitational strength multiplier of 3.978 × 10³⁸. This enormous increase in gravitational strength raises the question: why doesn't this immense gravitational pull extend to engulf the entire universe?

Typically, the gravitational influence of a black hole, like any mass, diminishes with distance. While the gravitational pull is extremely strong near the event horizon, it weakens as one moves farther away. However, with a gravitational strength multiplier of 3.978 ×10³⁸, the black hole could engulf enough matter within its reach and correspondingly increase its gravitational strength further. This suggests that the black hole could potentially extend its gravitational reach indefinitely, challenging the idea of diminishing influence over distance.

The effect of cosmic expansion is not applicable to a black hole within a galaxy, as dark energy's influence is negligible within galactic scales. A black hole cannot be isolated from a galaxy unless it engulfs the entire galaxy, so cosmic expansion does not apply within this context.

While black holes are typically found within galaxies, their gravitational influence near the event horizon is immense. The gravitational boundaries of their host galaxies pose limits, but with a gravitational strength multiplier as high as 3.978 ×10³⁸, the black hole could potentially overcome these boundaries by engulfing enough mass to further increase its gravitational pull indefinitely.

Despite the singularity's extreme gravitational strength near its event horizon and the potential for an ever-increasing gravitational pull, the limits posed by the gravitational boundaries of galaxies and cosmic structures may be challenged by the immense gravitational strength of a black hole, suggesting the possibility of extending its reach indefinitely.

This paper contains a detail description of dark energy (analytical formula), gravity (analytical formula for the gravitational constant) and an explanation for the dark matter phenomenon.

\href{https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381757860_XI_How_works_gravitation?}{What is gravitation}

J. E. S.

Vestibular agnosia is a cognitive disability that prevents a patient from detecting body motion that includes the head during periods of imbalance (Calzolari et al. 2020; Hadi et al. 2022), which can lead to falls that are denied by the patient. Consequently, this dysfunction is under reported (Hadi et al. 2024). It is suspected that this disorder is due to a degeneration of the inferior longitudinal fasciculus of the right hemisphere, as evidenced by diffusion tensor imaging (Hadi et al. 2024). This fasciculus interconnects the occipital cortex along with the medial temporal cortex (MT) and medial superior temporal cortex (MST) with anterior regions of the temporal lobe including the insular cortex (see Fig. 1), all of which are part of the cortico-vestibular network (Gogolla 2017; Guldin and Grüsser 1998). Electrical stimulation of the inferior longitudinal fasciculus induces a plethora of vestibular sensations (Kahane, Berthoz et al. 2003): the sensation of head and body rotation with mainly a contralateral bias, the sensation of head and body translation either forward or backward, and the sensation of gravitational force either of heaviness or lightness. Returning astronauts are very aware of these feelings when they must adapt to 1G (Carriot et al. 2021; Demontis et al. 2017; Lawson et al. 2016). See Figure 2 to understand how distance from the earth’s surface affects our experience of gravity.

Volitional behaviors such as reading, writing, speaking, walking, or running are accompanied by theta activity (i.e., 6 to 10 Hz; Tehovnik 2017; Vanderwolf 1969), which is omnipresent in the brain including both cortical and subcortical regions (Tehovnik, Hasanbegović, Chen 2024). As well, for both human and non-human mammals, theta activity is potentiated as subjects learn and acquire new skills (Asaka, Berry et al. 2005; Berry and Thompson 1978; Griffin, Berry et al. 2004; Hoffman and Berry 2009; Pu, Johnson et al. 2017). Of late, it has been discovered that before human subjects are cued to rotate the head and body (whether real or virtual) there is a burst of theta activity that precedes the start of rotation in the frontal and parietal lobes (as measured at Fz, F3, F4, C3, Cz, C4, P3, and P4; Hadi et al. 2024). This concurs with the observation that when there are changes in the stream of consciousness, as assessed with binocular rivalry, there is a burst of theta activity in the neocortex that precedes a transition in perception (Dwarkanath, Logothetis et al. 2023).

Figure 1: The inferior longitudinal fasciculus projecting between the occipital cortex and temporal cortex of a human subject. Image from figure 3 of Sobhani et al. (2015).

Figure 2: Acceleration is plotted as a function of distance from the earth’s surface (distance = 1) plotted as a function of the earth’s radius. Notice that at the center of the earth, the gravitational force is zero since all the forces cancel each other out. Plot derived from John Wo, an aircraft and spacecraft designer, as made available on Google on June 22, 2024.

Thesis: The force may result from the parallel motion of matter from the past into the future. Therefore, this force is exclusively attracting.

The fact that force fields contain an energy density leads to remarkable consequences for the radiation of accelerated force field sources.

The first consequence is that the fields are material subjects that always move with their source in the inertial frame of the source. The idea that field sources would permanently renew their immaterial force fields is refuted if these fields contain an energy density. A permanent renewal would then exhaust the source.

But the second consequence is more spectacular. The fact is that when a field is accelerated, it has to adapt its force field to the changed speed. We know that accelerated force field sources radiate. However, we have not yet noticed that the aperiodic part of this radiation is there to adapt the force field to the changed speed.

This adaptation is now the actual cause of the radiation from accelerated force field sources. So far, we have only focused on the periodic part of the radiation that is produced by accelerated charges or masses. But an aperiodic part is also part of such a situation.

Mathematically, the situation of an accelerated field source is described by an initial/boundary value problem. The solution to such a problem involves periodic and aperiodic parts.

This is a remarkable, very fundamental aspect that affects gravitational, electric and magnetic fields equally. In any case, this is worth a specific discussion.

There are over 300 physical constants in physics [1][2], c, h, G, e, α, me, mp, θ, μ0, g, H0, Λ, ...... with different definitions [3], functions and statuses; some of them are measured, some are derived [4] and some are conjectured [5]. There is a recursive relationship between physical constants, capable of establishing, from a few constants, the dimensions of the whole of physics [6], such as SI Units. There is a close correlation between physical constants and the laws of physics. Lévy-Leblond said, any universal fundamental constant may be described as a concept synthesizer expressing the unification of two previously unconnected physical concepts into a single one of extended validity [7], such as, the mass-energy equation E = mc^2. Physics is skeptical that many constants are constant constants [8], even including the speed of light invariance. But "letting a constant vary implies replacing it by a dynamical field consistently" [9], in order to avoid being trapped in a causal loop, we have to admit that there is a set of fundamental constants that are eternally invariant*.

So which physical constants are the most fundamental natural constants? Are they the ones that have invariance, Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance, diffeomorphism invariance [10]? Planck's 'units of measurement' [11], combines the relationship between the three constants Planck constant h, speed of light c, gravitational constant G. "These quantities will retain their natural meaning for as long as the laws of gravity, the propagation of light in vacuum and the two principles of the theory of heat hold, and, even if measured by different intelligences and using different methods, must always remain the same."[12] This should be the most unignorable reference to the best provenance of these constants, which should be the coefficients of some extremely important equations? [13]

-------------------------------

* They are eternal and unchanging, both at the micro and macro level, at any stage of the evolution of the universe, even at the Big Bang, the Big Crash.

-------------------------------

[1] Group, P. D., P. Zyla, R. Barnett, J. Beringer, O. Dahl, D. Dwyer, D. Groom, C.-J. Lin, K. Lugovsky and E. Pianori (2020). "Review of particle physics." Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2020(8): 083C001.

[2] Tiesinga, E. (2021). "CODATA recommended values of the fundamental physical constants: 2018."

[3] https://www.nist.gov/programs-projects/fundamental-constants-nature;

[4] DuMond, J. W. (1940). "A Complete Isometric Consistency Chart for the Natural Constants e, m and h." Physical Review 58(5): 457.

[5] Carroll, S. M., W. H. Press and E. L. Turner (1992). "The cosmological constant." Annual review of astronomy and astrophysics 30: 499-542.

[6] Martin-Delgado, M. A. (2020). "The new SI and the fundamental constants of nature." European Journal of Physics 41(6): 063003.

[7] Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1977, 2019). "On the Conceptual Nature of the Physical Constants". The Reform of the International System of Units (SI), Philosophical, Historical and Sociological Issues.

[8] Dirac, P. A. M. (1979). "The large numbers hypothesis and the Einstein theory of gravitation " Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 365.1720: 19-30.

Webb, J., M. Murphy, V. Flambaum, V. Dzuba, J. Barrow, C. Churchill, J. Prochaska and A. Wolfe (2001). "Further evidence for cosmological evolution of the fine structure constant." Physical Review Letters 87(9): 091301.

[9] Ellis, G. F. and J.-P. Uzan (2005). "c is the speed of light, isn't it?" American journal of physics 73(3): 240-247.

[10] Utiyama, R. (1956). "Invariant theoretical interpretation of interaction." Physical Review 101(5): 1597.

Gross, D. J. (1995). "Symmetry in physics: Wigner's legacy." Physics Today 48(12): 46-50.

[11] Stoney, G. J. (1881). "LII. On the physical units of nature." The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 11(69): 381-390.

Meschini, D. (2007). "Planck-Scale Physics: Facts and Beliefs." Foundations of Science 12(4): 277-294.

[12] Robotti, N. and M. Badino (2001). "Max Planck and the 'Constants of Nature'." Annals of Science 58(2): 137-162.

[13]

Einstein field equations [1]:

R_µν - (1/2)g_µνR + Λg_µν = T_µν ...... (EQ.1)

where Λ is the cosmological constant, g_µν is the spacetime metric, and R_µν is the Ricci tensor. EQ.1 expresses the relationship between the amount of energy-momentum (mass) and the curvature of spacetime in a region (or point) of spacetime.

The basic Friedmann equation that dominates the expansion of the universe [2]:

(a')²+K=8πGρa(t)²/3 ...... (EQ.2)

where a(t) is the Robertson-Walker scale factor, and it determines how large-scale distances in space change with time in Friedmann-Lemaître -Robertson-Walker metric：

ds²=g_µνdx^µdx^ν=dt²-a²(t)dX² ....... EQ.3

And it is a solution of Einstein field equations. Two Space-Time properties are expressed here: curvature and expansion over time.

What causes Space-Time Curvature is local energy. What drives spacetime expansion is dark energy. ”Physics welcomes the idea that space contains energy whose gravitational effect approximates that of Einstein's cosmological constant,Λ; today the concept is termed dark energy or quintessence." [3] Dark energy is not the usual matter and radiation[2].

Our questions are:

1) Space-time is interconnected, confined by the speed of light c =Δx /Δt; the factor a(t) that determines space-time is of a kinetic nature; what makes it relevant only to time (it affects all of space in the same way as time passes) [4] and not to space？

2) Can the Einstein field equations essentially be written as two separate equations, the bending effect equation and the expansion effect equation?

3) How does Space-Time know to distinguish between energy and dark energy if Space-Time Curvature and Expansion are both different properties?

4) Can local Space-Time Curvature geometrically affect expansion if it appears to be strongly curved?

-----------------------------

* “How the view of space-time is unified (3)-If GR's space-time is not curved, what should it be? ”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO17How_the_view_of_space-time_is_unified_3-If_GRs_space-time_is_not_curved_what_should_it_be

** How the View of Space-Time is Unified (4) - Is Space-Time Expansion a Space-Time Creation?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO18How_the_View_of_Space-Time_is_Unified_4-Is_Space-Time_Expansion_a_Space-Time_Creation

-----------------------------

[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8

[2] Weinberg, S. (2008). COSMOLOGY (Chinese ed.). Oxford University Press.

[3] Peebles, P. J. E., & Ratra, B. (2003). The cosmological constant and dark energy. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75(2), 559.

[4] https://profoundphysics.com/the-friedmann-equations-explained-a-complete-guide/

General Relativity field equations [1]:

G_µν = G*T_µν...... (EQ.1).

It is a relation between the matter field (energy-momentum field) T_µν and the spacetime field G_µν, where the gravitational constant G is the conversion factor between the dimensions [2].Einstein constructed this relation without explaining why the spacetime field and the matter field are in such a way, but rather assumed that nine times out of ten, they would be in such a way. He also did not explain why the spacetime field G_µν is described by curvature and not by some other parameter. Obviously, we must find the exact physical relationship between them, i.e., why T_µν must correspond to G_µν, in order to ensure that the field equations are ultimately correct.

We know that matter cannot be a point particle, it must have a scale, and matter cannot be a solid particle, it must be some kind of field. The fact that matter has a scale means that it has to occupy space-time; the fact that matter is a field means that it is mixed with space-time, i.e., matter contains space-time. So, when applying Einstein's field equations, how is matter's own spacetime defined? Does it change its own spacetime? If its own energy-momentum and structure have already determined its own spacetime, should the way it determines its own spacetime be the same as the way it determines the external spacetime? If it is the same, does it mean that the spacetime field is actually a concomitant of the matter field?

If one were to consider a gravitational wave, one could think of it as a fluctuating spacetime field that propagates independently of the material source after it has been disconnected from it. They have decoupled from each other and no longer continue to conform to the field equations (EQ.1). Although gravitational waves are the product of a source, the loss of that source prevents us from finding another specific source for it to match it through the equation (EQ.1). Just as after an electron accelerates, the relationship between the radiated electromagnetic wave and the electron is no longer maintained. Does this indicate the independence of spacetime field energies?

-----------------------------

♛ “Does the Energy Tensor T_µν in the Field Equations Contain the Energy-momentum of the Spacetime Field?”：https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO37Doubts_about_General_Relativity_2-Does_the_Energy_Tensor_Tmn_in_the_Field_Equations_Contain_the_Energy-momentum_of_the_Spacetime_Field

♛ “Is the Geometry Interpretation of Gravity a Paradox?”：https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO36_Doubts_about_General_Relativity_1-Is_the_Geometry_Interpretation_of_Gravity_a_Paradox

-----------------------------

[1] Grøn, Ø., & Hervik, S. (2007). Einstein's Field Equations. In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity: With Modern Applications in Cosmology (pp. 179-194). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-69200-5_8

[2] “The Relationship Between the Theory of Everything and the Constants of Nature”：https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377566579_The_Relationship_Between_the_Theory_of_Everything_and_the_Constants_of_Nature_English_Version

"How do we understand special relativity?"

The Quantum FFF Model differences: What are the main differences of Q-FFFTheory with the standard model? 1, A Fermion repelling- and producing electric dark matter black hole. 2, An electric dark matter black hole splitting Big Bang with a 12x distant symmetric instant entangled raspberry multiverse result, each with copy Lyman Alpha forests. 3, Fermions are real propeller shaped rigid convertible strings with dual spin and also instant multiverse entanglement ( Charge Parity symmetric) . 4, The vacuum is a dense tetrahedral shaped lattice with dual oscillating massless Higgs particles ( dark energy). 5, All particles have consciousness by their instant entanglement relation between 12 copy universes, however, humans have about 500 m.sec retardation to veto an act. ( Benjamin Libet) It was Abdus Salam who proposed that quarks and leptons should have a sub-