|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
||||
|
IV. Unification of Quantum Theory with General Relativity
The ZPE gravity model unites QFT and GR by supplying a polarizing mechanism by which the fields of the quantum vacuum are densified and aligned. These effects on the ZPE vacuum field are due solely to the presence of matter in the field, as explained above. In the Polarized ZPE model, the GR gravitational field is no longer curved space-time. Instead, the gravitational field is the polarized field of the quantum vacuum in the presence of matter. Unification is straightforward, when we address the following shortcomings in each theory. 1) A roadblock to the development of a quantum theory of gravitation has been the lack of a dynamical solution to explain the interaction of particles at the quantum level with real-world masses in our GR universe. In the Polarized ZPE model, the matter/antimatter gravitational infall differential provides the mechanics by which the vacuum is densified. Polarized ZPE is the basis for a truly dynamical model of quantum gravity, since the self-attractive nature of the polarized ZPE field is perfectly balanced by fermionic repulsion, in accordance with the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It should be noted that the energy of the vacuum is finely balanced to 120 OOM. There is only one way in which this can be accomplished - the gravitational attraction and the resistive pressure MUST arise from the same field. They cannot arise from different fields, or any slight imbalance would already have caused the Universe to collapse or disintegrate. This is perhaps the strongest proof that the ZPE field is the source of gravitation. 2) In quantum theory, it is easy for one to lose sight of the value of locality. The polarized ZPE model of gravitation establishes the critical importance of locality, however. Interaction with local vacuum fields confer gravitational mass and inertial mass to matter. This leads to a semi-Machian model in which acceleration in relation to the local ground state of our universe confers inertia, and not acceleration in respect to all the matter everywhere in the universe. Gravitation and inertia in this model are local effects and are not conferred by action-at-a-distance, nor are mediating entities like gravitons or Higgs bosons necessary. Particle physicists have already explored energy levels at which the Higgs was expected to be found, with no success. Their response has been to increase the estimated energy level where the Higgs might be found. I suggest that if the polarized vacuum field model is accurate, we need no further entities to explain most of the Universe. No gravitrons, no Higgs bosons, nor their respective fields. Indeed, it is illogical to believe that mass can be conferred by the Higgs field, and that gravitational forces can be mediated by a separate gravitational field. These two separate fields would have to be fine-tuned to the nth order everywhere and everywhen, else the Universe would look very different from place to place. This assumed perfect congruity of the gravitational and Higgs fields is perhaps the strongest argument against their very existence. 3) There has been an unfortunate trend (especially in the popular press) to express the energy density of the quantum vacuum as an absolute value relative to a theoretical pure vacuum, which cannot exist in our universe. It should instead be expressed relative to the ground state of our universe, which is the ZPE field at zero degrees absolute, in a relaxed domain unperturbed by matter. This popular misapprehension gives rise to statements like “ZPE fields are 120 OOM too energetic to be responsible for the Cosmological Constant”. We must acknowledge the fact that in our observable universe, “absolute” energy levels can only be expressed relative to the ground state of the quantum vacuum. The absolute energy density of the ZPE ground state relative to a theoretical ideal vacuum (as expressed in QFT) is of no consequence in GR. We cannot measure it nor exploit it from our place in the universe. To unify QFT with GR, we must express quantum energies relative to the ground state of our universe, not as absolutes relative to a theoretical quantum zero-energy reference frame. Since the expansive pressure (fermionic behavior) of the ZPE field is in equilibrium with its gravitational attraction, the ZPE field is very difficult to detect except through sensitive experiments in which boundary conditions prevent the formation of virtual particle pairs of some frequencies (Casimir effect). 4) A primary roadblock in GR that inhibits unification with quantum theory is its reliance on the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. GR’s concept of the vacuum must be seen as an ideal approximation, only. True vacuum has been shown by QFT to be unattainable in our universe. Vacuum in our universe exists at a quantum ground state expressed by the ZPE field and that field has a variable density. The GR speed of light in a vacuum is therefore not achievable, since no absolute vacuum exists. In addition, since the energy density and orientation of the ZPE field are modified by the presence of mass in the Polarized ZPE model, the speed of light is shown to be variable. The speed of light varies based on the density of the quantum vacuum fields it traverses, as is proper in classical optics. Predictions of GR that differ from observational results must be reexamined to take into account the fact that light traveling through space is not traversing an ideal vacuum, even in the absence of detectable mass. 5) The distance/redshift relationship that Hubble refined is (in Standard Cosmology) routinely regarded as proof of the expansion of the Universe. Hubble himself was not entirely comfortable with this interpretation, nor the inevitable extrapolation back to a Big Bang. Instead, as we envision light as waves propagating through the EM aether of the ZPE fields, we should contemplate that there is no frictionless wave propagation in nature. We should expect that EM waves interacting with the ZPE fields should lose energy in the interaction and become redshifted. The amount of redshift should be frequency-dependent, with higher-frequency EM being redshifted more readily than long low-frequency waves, (although some expect that this effect will not be measurable except when observing extremely high-frequency sources, like gamma ray emittors). The net result of this redshifting is that sufficiently distant EM sources are invisible to us, their light having been shifted to a frequency so low that it it cannot be detected. This effect moots Olber's Paradox and explains how interstellar/intergalactic space can have such a low average temperature, as measured in the CMB. The 2.7K temperature is not a remnant of the Big Bang - it is the average temperature of the vacuum, as predicted by Eddington in the 1920s. 6) Another feature of GR that must be addressed is the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass. The breaking of the equivalence of gravitational mass for antimatter vs. matter in Polarized ZPE has profound implications for GR’s treatment of gravity, especially in very massive domains, like galaxies and galactic clusters. The polarized ZPE field is self-gravitating, and self-aligning. This densifies the field, and coupled with the attraction resulting from the field alignment, results in gravitational effects far stronger than can be predicted by the standard model. Under the standard model, the mass of the galaxy or cluster is estimated by observing its visible components and the gravitational attraction is calculated using the curved space-time model of GR. On galactic and cluster scales, these procedures routinely result in a shortfall of matter that has to be fixed by invoking invisible cold dark matter. Polarized ZPE, with its dense self-gravitating field, negates the need for DM. Experimental Falsification The following experiments will shed light on the viability of the Polarized ZPE model. 1) Testing the Gravitational Mass of Matter vs. Antimatter The Athena Project is designed to produce experimentally usable quantities of anti-hydrogen. One experiment in particular is of interest to the creator of this model – the measurement of the gravitational mass-equivalence of matter vs. antimatter. The Polarized ZPE model relies on a differential in the gravitational infall rates of matter vs. antimatter, and is potentially falsifiable by this experiment. 2) Testing for the Existence of ZPE Field Polarization in Earth Orbit I propose adding an experiment to an Earth-orbiting platform to test the strength of the Casimir effect in various orientations. Using a conventional Casimir device with parallel conducting plates, the device should be oriented with the plates parallel to an imaginary line drawn from the orbiter to earth. A second data run should be made with the conducting plates oriented perpendicular to that line. Each data run should consist of a large enough number of orbits to allow the effects of ZPE field fluxes caused by the Sun and the Moon to be extracted and compared. The Polarized ZPE field model predicts measurable differences in Casimir force as the device traverses gradients in the ZPE field caused by these massive bodies. Subject to instrument sensitivity, the Polarized ZPE model is falsifiable by this test. 3) Measuring the Speed of Light in a Casimir “Vacuum” Casimir devices produce ZPE fields that are slightly under the local ground state by using very small gaps to physically suppress the appearance of some frequencies of the ZPE spectrum. This suppressed field is somewhat below the local ZPE ground state, although it is by no means a true quantum vacuum. I propose an experiment using interferometry to compare the speed of light across a Casimir gap to that of a beam crossing an equivalent vacuum with no ZPE suppression. The Polarized ZPE model’s concept that the speed of light is dependent on the density of the ZPE field through which is propagates is falsifiable by this test. GR’s invariable speed of light in a vacuum is also falsifiable by this test. (Note: Dr. Hal Puthoff kindly pointed out to me that this effect had already been predicted by Klaus Scharnhorst in 1990. My newness to the field has resulted in several such surprises, though I find it encouraging to have deduced a concept only to find that someone else has come to the same conclusion, often through another line of reasoning.) Note 11/26/05: Since I developed this model, it has become evident that this test of the model has already been performed with extreme precision by the Pioneer probes. The telemetry data exhibit a steady, smooth, coordinated shortening in the expected signal-return times from both probes. Since GR predicts that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, the shortened return times have been interpreted as evidence that the probes are experiencing a constant sunward acceleration, producing a positional error of ~40ppm at 70 AU from the Sun. There have been many attempts to model the anomalous acceleration – none of which are convincing. The simplest explanation for the Pioneer anomaly is that the probes are behaving exactly as they should, but that EM travels at a higher rate of speed farther from the Sun. It appears that the Pioneer probes have provided a quantifiable measure of the refractive index of the “empty” space in our Solar system. 4) WMAP Anisotropies Resulting from Motion Relative to the Vacuum Fields WMAP's first year data contains interesting anisotropies. The dipole anisotropy is oriented with respect to our galaxy, and there are several strong multipole anisotropies. These anisotropies are due to our motion relative to the vacuum fields. Contributory motions include the passage of the MW through the vacuum (responsible for the large dipole anisotropy), the rotation of our spiral arm, the motion of the Sun through the spiral arm, and the motion of the Earth (and the WMAP probe at L2) around the Sun. When WMAP's second year is finally released, I predict that the dipole anisotropy and larger-scale anisotropies will be consistent with the first year data. The smaller anisotropies will not overlay properly, and when studied, they will be seen as artifacts of the WMAP probe's motion relative to the reference frame of the vacuum field. Note: Even the very smallest anisotropies in the WMAP data cover vast areas when projected to cosmological distances, as in the CMB. These vast areas cannot have conspired to change from one year to the next. The failure of these small-scale anisotropies of WMAP2 to overlay properly with those of WMAP1 would have profound implications for the Standard Model. 5) Frequency-dependent Effects of the ZPE Fields on Light Light propagating through ZPE fields should exhibit effects that are frequency-dependent. High frequency, short wavelength EM will be found to interact more strongly with the ZPE fields and will be slowed more than low-frequency, long wavelength EM. Observationally, the light curve of a distant astronomical source like a supernova should exhibit a stretched light-curve, with the low frequency EM arriving sooner on average than the high frequency EM. The spectra of long-lived objects of steady luminosity will appear normal, and frequency-dependent arrival times will not be measurable. The spectra and luminosity curves of objects that exhibit rapid changes in luminosity will be spread by the interactions of the EM with the ZPE fields. Perhaps the best objects to study for confirmation of this effect are distant gamma-ray bursters. Their light curves should exhibit a spectral smear in which long wavelength "forerunner" EM precedes gamma rays by an amount proportional to the distance from the source to Earth and the density of the ZPE fields traversed on that path. 6) Non-detection of Gravity Waves The local self-polarizing nature of the vacuum field precludes the detection of gravity waves from distant objects. While sensitive detectors may uncover density gradients in gravitational field strength, these effects will be entirely local. Detection of gravitational waves from binary neutron star systems or other such massive systems by LISA or a similar experient would falsify this model of vacuum polarization. ______________________ Note: if you have been kind enough (or perhaps just crazy enough) to plow through all this, you will have surmised that I am constructing a cosmology that negates the need for cosmological expansion to explain redshift, mooting the BBT and opening the way for consideration of the possibility that we live in a temporally and spacially infinite Steady State universe. The continued discovery of old, massive, highly metallized structures at redshifts z~6 is encouraging.
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter. Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924 Last edited by turbo-1; 08-December-2005 at 09:08 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter. Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924 |
|
|||
|
turbo-1
Member I am pleased that my post was helpful and encouraging! I did read the whole thing and found it to be very concise. However, it is very similar to Cold Creation, although you seem to be concentrating on Gravity, and your "Matter Creation" is different than his. Also, please explain how ZPE can 'create' Super Massive Black Holes to produce the 'Matter' (IMHO, Hawking Radiation is not "How the Matter gets here"), and how galaxies are born and evolve. RussT S=G |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This may seem a bit goofy, but my training as an ABO-certified optometrist made me think about "why does GR posit the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant", and the whole thing fell together pretty quickly from there.
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter. Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924 |
|
|||
|
Quote:
Not true. It is an absolute in SR, not GR. In GR, c is an absolute value only for freely falling observers. If measured in any other frame of reference, the value can be different from c. Section IV, 4) states: Quote:
__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues. |
|
|||
|
turbo-1
Member [4) Production of Matter by Black Holes through Hawking Radiation One implication of ZPE Polarization in the presence of black holes is that the black hole will capture an excess of antiparticles and an excess of particles will be promoted to “real” status at the event horizon. The Hawking Radiation should contain an excess of matter vs. antimatter particles. After the inevitable (and very energetic) annihilation events near the event horizon, there will remain a net excess of new real particles to form atomic matter in our observable universe. ] [I do not know how ZPE can promote the creation of super massive black holes, and at this point (early days yet) I do not even know if black holes (as singularities with infinite density) are even allowed in my model. I need some help here!] Then I don't now how you would reconcile these 2 statements. "Infinite Density" is "NOT" the infinity reached to create a 'singularity' IN MY Humble Opinion (IMHO), and 'singualrities do not have "Infinite Density". I cover this very topic at the begining of my paper...GO TO ATM>>>Big Bang Most Correct page 1 RussT S=G |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter. Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924 |
|
||||
|
Quote:
"according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Einstein 1920 I will have to revise that section and pose the problem accurately. >>>Edit: I have edited the summary in light of your critique. Thank you, Tensor. I wonder how many people understand the distinction you made, though. I have searched the web for references to the refractive index of local space-time as an explanation for the Pioneer anomaly, and have found none. Quote:
A critical problem of the standard model is that mass arises from matter's interaction with one field (Higgs field), and gravitational attraction arises from matter's interaction with another field (gravitational field). Since these are fields, they should be capable of being densified, rarified, etc, and of being influenced by the matter with which they interact. How does it happen that these two fields are so perfectly congruent across all time and space so that matter acts about the same everywhere we look? This is a strong argument against the Higgs and gravitational fields and for a single field that gives rise to mass, inertia, and gravitation. Regarding spin, there is one area in which spin is quite important, and I glossed over it, thinking that the reference to the Pauli Exclusion Principle would cover it. The PEP says that identical Fermions of the same spin state resist being forced into the same quantum state. The fermionic nature of the virtual particle/antiparticle pairs provides the dynamical balance that allows the vacuum field to be densified by the presence of matter and its self-attraction, but not to densify to a runaway collapse. It is often said that if the quantum vacuum fields are real, the gravitational equivalence of the field's energy would collapse the entire visible universe to a diameter not much larger than the Earth. The fermionic nature of the v-pairs of the vacuum prevents that, via that PEP. Thank you again for your comments. I appreciate it.
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter. Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924 Last edited by turbo-1; 27-November-2005 at 03:52 PM. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
Does anybody here have links to papers arising from this research? >>>EDIT: Aricle from CERN Courier: http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/42/9/1/1 >>>EDIT: CERN article re ALPHA, the extension of the Athena Project in which cold antihydrogen will be trapped and studied. http://alpha.web.cern.ch/alpha/Laserlab.html It appears that only the first phase of the project (producing cold antihydrogen) has been completed, and the ALPHA phase will involve trapping and studying cold antihydrogen. From the web site, it is apparent that the tests of the WEP have not yet been conducted, so we do not know if the gravitational infall rates are equivalent.
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter. Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924 Last edited by turbo-1; 27-November-2005 at 05:49 PM. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|