I have been working on this model part-time for about 18 months. So far, it is still in the thought-experiment stage, with no quantification. If anyone here wishes to critique the model, I thank you in advance. If there is anybody here that is sufficiently crazy to believe this model is correct and who wants to collaborate and help with quantification, I welcome your help.

Thank you RussT - I "borrowed" your thread title because that thread gave the motivation to polish this overview of my model and put it out to get bashed.



The Polarized Zero Point Energy Electromagnetic Field as the Source of Gravitation. A Non-technical Overview of Quantum Gravity.


Abstract:

I show that an innate anttraction between matter and antimatter is the mechanism by which the ZPE EM field is polarized in the presence of matter. This polarization gives rise to the gravitational forces between bodies of matter embedded in the field without invoking GR curved space-time. I will also demonstrate that densification of the ZPE field by this same mechanism produces lensing as predicted by classical optical theory, again without invoking GR curved space-time. Polarized ZPE provides a dynamical model of quantum gravity and reconciles QFT with GR.


Introduction: Interesting Problems in the Field of Quantum Gravity


1) General Relativity - ad hoc Gravitational Space-time Curvature

General Relativity expresses gravitation as the curvature of space-time by embedded matter. There is no explanation in GR for the mechanics of how matter curves space-time. Einstein ("On the Ether" 1924) tried unsuccessfully to determine the nature of the GR ether, which he believed was necessary to extend GR and provide a physical mechanism for gravitation and inertia. According to his 1924 paper, the GR ether has real physical properties that are determined by the distribution of the matter embedded in it. The interaction between matter and the local ether in which it is embedded gives rise to gravitation, inertia, and centrifugal effects. Einstein rejected action-at-a-distance in his later formulations of GR, insisting that the effects arise from the interaction of matter with local ether.

GR’s space-time curvature is an ad-hoc mathematical model of gravitation that is very predictive under simple (solar-system type) circumstances. GR’s predictive powers on these scales have been confirmed, leading to a situation in which GR’s mathematical model of space-time curvature is sometimes treated as if the mathematical model itself has an intrinsic reality, absent an explanation of the mechanical process being modeled by the math. On galactic and galactic cluster scales, however, the GR model of gravitation breaks down and requires the insertion of dark matter in precisely the right amounts and distributions to fix each discordant observation, like excessive cluster lensing, excessive cluster binding, and the flat rotational curves of spiral galaxies. An accurate model of the mechanics of gravitation must address these shortcomings without invoking additional entities.


2) MOND - ad hoc Modeling of Galactic Rotation Curves

Modified Newtonian Dynamics models the rotational curves of galaxies in terms of their observed distribution of matter. Like GR’s model of the curvature of space-time, MOND is an ad-hoc model with no obvious mechanism for the behavior it describes. MOND is very predictive, however, and in fact accurately predicted the behavior of low surface brightness galaxies a decade before they were detected and studied. MOND is clearly modeling galactic rotations quite accurately on some scales, but the mechanism that it is modeling has not yet been discovered.



3) QFT – Absolute Energy Density of ZPE Fields

Quantum Field Theory predicts the existence of ZPE fields. I will deal exclusively with the ZPE EM field (hereafter referred to simply as the ZPE field), which is proven to exist by various demonstrations of the Casimir force. The ZPE field as envisioned by QTF contains a tremendous amount of energy, and that has been the source of much speculation by those seeking copious free energy, antigravity drives, etc. There is a fundamental misunderstanding fueling these ideas, however. We can only extract energy by exploiting energy differentials. The quantum ZPE field has tremendous absolute energy compared to a “true” vacuum, but in our universe, a true vacuum cannot exist. Even in a vacuum at absolute zero, the particle/antiparticle pairs of the ZPE field spontaneously arise and annihilate. ZPE is the ground state of the quantum vacuum in our universe, and fluctuations in vacuum energy can only be applicable in GR when they are expressed relative to that ground state. The QFT concept of the “absolute” energy density of the ZPE field relative to that of a theoretical pure vacuum is irrelevant to GR, however useful it might be in QFT. Unification of QFT with GR will require an acknowledgement of this ground state disparity, lest we end up dealing with huge (practically infinite) ZPE field energies. It is worth mentioning that the fine structure of our universe may provide an intrinsic ZPE high-frequency cutoff by preventing the formation of particle/antiparticle pairs at certain energies. This concept is being explored by Loop Quantum Gravity researchers.


4) Quantum Gravity and the Lack of a Dynamical Model

If quantum theory and the gravitation of GR are to be reconciled, there must be a dynamical model that explains how quantum fields act in the presence of mass. This is fundamental and it bears repeating – a model of quantum gravity must not only explain how fields and particles at the quantum level might act in a GR gravitational field, it must go beyond the GR curved space-time mathematical model of gravity and explain the actual mechanism by which gravitation is expressed at the quantum level.


5) Goal of this Paper

I will show how this polarized ZPE model leads naturally to a unification of QFT with GR and explain the mechanics by which gravitation arises at the quantum level, with no need for GR’s space-time curvature. I will also show how the qualities of the polarized ZPE field in the presence of matter produces the observed lensing and gravitational effects without invoking space-time curvature. I will also show how the ZPE field leads naturally to the CMB, and how dipole and multipole anisotropies observed by WMAP can be explained as movements of the probe relative to the GR ether (the ZPE field).


II. Mechanics of ZPE Field Polarization

Polarization of the ZPE field has a simple universal cause. Particle-antiparticle virtual pairs preferentially arise in the alignment that requires them to “borrow” the least energy and exist for the longest time before self-annihilating in accordance with the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. The antiparticles of the “virtual pairs” of the ZPE field are more strongly attracted to concentrations of matter than are their partner particles. This causes the ZPE field to assume an alignment in the presence of matter in which the antiparticle of each pair is preferentially oriented toward the dominant matter in its environment. Considering for now only the v-pairs that arise closest the the embedded matter, it is evident that this layer will in turn present a unified “face” of matter to the the v-pairs arising farther from the dominant matter, causing them to preferentially arise with their antiparticles oriented toward the dominant matter. This self-attractive, self polarizing effect will of course be strongest nearer the dominant concentration of matter, resulting in a very dense ZPE field that falls off with distance.

The particle pairs of the ZPE field are commonly believed to be opposite in each respect, except one: each particle and antiparticle are believed to have equivalent inertial mass and equivalent gravitational mass. The equivalence of the inertial mass of these particles is uncontroversial in polarized ZPE. The gravitational mass equivalence of matter and antimatter has never been proven, however. Previous measurements have been attempted using charged antiparticles. Measurements of the infall rates of charged particles have been impossible to obtain, because charged particles react readily to very tiny fluctuations in the EM field and react only very weakly to gravitation. This allows miniscule stray EM effects to swamp any potentially observable gravitational effect. The goal of CERN’s Athena Project is to produce usable amounts of cooled, electrically neutral anti-hydrogen. Since it is neutral, anti-hydrogen should be usable in sensitive gravitational-infall rate experiments, avoiding the interference of EM field effects. It is here that I expect the equivalence of gravitational masses of matter and antimatter to diverge. My model predicts a higher gravitational infall rate for antimatter due to the attraction of antimatter to matter, providing the mechanism by which the field of ZPE virtual pairs is polarized.



III. Effects of ZPE Field Polarization


1) Gravitation

Inertial masses of antimatter and matter remain equivalent in the Polarized ZPE model, but their apparent gravitational masses are not equivalent, due to the attraction of antiparticles to masses of matter. This higher gravitational mass of antimatter vs. matter in a matter-dominated domain provides the mechanism by which the ZPE field is polarized. The effects of ZPE polarization are simple and powerful. In the absence of matter, the ZPE field is non-polarized, relaxed, and gravitationally relaxed. In the presence of mass, the ZPE field is polarized, dense and gravitationally attractive. Virtual particle pairs are aligned and densified by their proximity to the large mass of matter, and in turn present a unified wall of virtual matter particles to their outward neighbors, aligning them, as well.

Gravity is the attractive force between massive objects in the presence of polarized ZPE fields. Polarized ZPE fields provide the mechanics for gravitational attraction between masses and the fields self-gravitate when polarized, providing a gravitational field that is stronger than can be predicted by GR on galactic and cluster scales. The densification produced by this attraction is dynamically balanced by the refusal of same-spin virtual fermions to occupy the same quantum state - the Pauli Exclusion Principle. Regardless of the amount of mass present, and the density of the local ZPE field, the field will always be in dynamical equilibrium - the pressure of the Pauli Exlcusion Principle perfectly balances the self-attraction of the polarized virtual pairs. The ZPE model of gravitation, with dense self-interacting fields, allows stronger gravitational and optical effects on galactic and cluster scales than can be calculated from the visible masses of those systems alone. This obviates the need for Dark Matter to explain cluster binding and galactic rotation curves.


2) Lensing Effects

The ZPE field is properly seen as an ether through which EM waves propagate. The densification of these fields by the presence of mass gives rise to the lensing effects predicted by GR’s curved space-time concept. A primary strength of this ZPE model is that it relies on well-understood and accepted laws of optics, and it will not fall apart in the domains of galactic or cluster masses. In classical optics, lensing is caused by 1) a gradient in the optical density of the media through which light propagates, 2) the orientation of the gradient with respect to the wave-front of the light and 3) the overall shape and density of the lensing area. This model does not require us to envision particle-like photons following null geodesics in curved space-time. Instead light consists of EM waves interacting with the optical media through which they propagate, in accordance with well-understood optical physics.


3) Variable Speed of Light in a Vacuum

In GR the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute value for a freely falling observer. In my model, I dispense with the reference frame of the observer and instead model the speed of light at any location as a function of the refractive index of the local vacuum field. (Edited - thank you Tensor) QFT shows that there is no such thing as a true vacuum in our universe, and the ZPE model shows that the EM field of the vacuum can be polarized and densified. Light waves propagating through the ZPE fields in a massive galactic cluster will slow as they enter the denser optical medium, and they will curve based on the geometry, orientation, and density gradient of the lensing region, as in classical optics. The concept of the invariant speed of light in a vacuum is thus seen to be an idealized value only. The speed of light in a vacuum is a useful approximation, but it can never be attained in our universe, and should not be applied to astronomical observations without recognition of this shortcoming. In the polarized ZPE model, the speed of light through space is variable, depending on the density of the ZPE fields through which it is propagating.


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.

to be continued.....

__________________
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

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

Just wanted to acknowledge that I indeed read the whole thing, and it was an interesting read. I'm not in any position to give any specific comments. Except, perhaps, that I don't see that your theory necessarily prohibits expansion/Big Bang (EDIT: not implying that you claimed that).

Correct. The model does not prohibit cosmological expansion, but if my model is viable, "cosmological redshift" arises from light's interaction with the EM fields of the quantum vacuum, and the Hubble distance/redshift relationship needs to be revisited. If there is no cosmological expansion, there was no Big Bang.

__________________
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

Thank you.

I have not spent much time on this BB until very recently and was unaware of Cold Creation until then, and frankly have not seen enough consistency in those posts to warrant further follow-up.

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!

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

In GR the speed of light in a vacuum is an absolute value.

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:

Not true. One of the primary roadblocks is that the particle of gravitation, the graviton, is a spin 2 particle and current mathematical methods cannot renormalize spin 2 particles. It will be interesting to see how you reconcile spin 2 with other types of particle spin renormalization within your idea. Although, no where in your statements do you mention anything about spin.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

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

I'm not certain that black holes are singularities in my model - I haven't gotten there yet. I was pointing out that if Hawking radiation is real, the type of vacuum polarization that I envision would result in a net excess of real matter particles, as their antimatter virtual particle partners get captured at the event horizon. Just an interesting effect, at this stage.

__________________
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

Thank you for pointing that out. You are correct about this difference in SR vs GR. Lifted from John Baez's site:

"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.

In my model, there is no graviton, nor Higgs boson. Mass, gravitation, and inertia arise through matter's interaction with the polarized vacuum field in which it is embedded. There are no action-at-a-distance forces mediating these properties of matter, and therefore no need for "carrier particles" of these forces.

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

I have asked Robert Caillau from CERN about a hydrogeb/antihydrogen gravity and he wrote me that they measured it and their gravities are equal. I do not know if their measurement was exact. How much different (% ?) should it be according to your theory ?

Actually, I don't know how much of an infall differential to expect, and was hoping Athena's results would help me quantify the effect. I watch the Athena web site hoping for results from the planned test of the Weak Equivalence Principle, but have seen no reports. Certainly, someone would publish about a null result, and I've not seen any papers from the Athena group about that result. I'm not in touch with any of the people there, but was under the impression that the production, trapping and cooling of experimentally useful amounts of neutral antihydrogen had not yet been accomplished.

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

Your welcome.

Anyone who has studied GR in any depth would know.

That's probably because, under current physics, that wouldn't be one of the reasons for the anomaly.



I wasn't commenting on your model, I was commenting on your statement on why there are problems combining GR and QM. The absolute speed of light is not the problem (which doesn't, as you now know, apply to GR anyway). As a matter of fact, there were subtle and not so subtle differences between theory prediction and observation until Dirac combined QM with SR The relativistic version of QM is the most precise theory we have (matching to 9 decimal places), based on prediction vs observation. That presise of a match didn't exist until SR (and it's absolute value for c)was combined with QM.

Again, I haven't had time to look at the rest of your post (and probably won't until later in the week). I am probably not going to be commenting on any QM particulars, as it isn't something I've studied (unless it applies, in some way, to GR) in any depth yet.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Certainly that is the implication of GR gravitational lensing. If light does not slow in the presence of a large amount of matter (curved spacetime), then how is it refracted?

"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

__________________
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

How is it possible a separation of the matter and antimatter near a Black Hole in your theory? Is it because a different gravitation or because an opposite spin polarization ?

In my model, the virtual particle pairs arise preferentially oriented with the antiparticle aligned more closely to the dominant local mass. If this is true (and if black holes are real and Hawking radiation is real - a lot of ifs there!) then an excess of antiparticles will be trapped behind the event horizon and there will be an excess of particles promoted to "real" status. I don't know if I like the explanation for Hawking radiation - I only include it because if my vacuum polarization model is accurate, the expected excess of "real" particles (vs "real" antiparticles) in Hawking radiation would be an interesting effect.

One reason that I hesitate to endorse the Hawking radiation is that these virtual particles should be VERY entangled, and share an identical energy debt that is dependent on their alignment, and the density of local vacuum field in which they arise. It seems that to separate these v-particles, the BH's event horizon would have to form an impenetrable barrier on exceedingly small (Planck-scale) distances. I threw this potential effect in just because Hawking radiation is a popular subject and vacuum polarization could potentially create this interesting effect. We'll never be able to observe or measure this, but it is interesting anyway.

__________________
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

You'll find something similar to your model in this: Matter-Antimatter Molecules.

Hope it helps you with yours. Cheers.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

I found almost 200 papers on CiteBase relating to positronium. Thank you very much. My wife would curse your name every evening for the next few weeks as I track these down looking for hints of perferential alignment/polarization, but I won't tell her who you are, so you needn't fear the next knock on the door.

I expect that given the energies at which this material is created and the short life, there may be insufficient time for them to approach a measurable preferred alignment with the local vacuum field. That's a gut feeling, but I'm going to follow this up.

For the virtual particle pairs of the quantum vacuum, in contrast, I believe that they will preferentially arise in the orientation that requires them to "borrow" the least amount of energy, and to exist for the longest possible time WRT the Heisenburg uncertainy priciple. They are not teased into alignment (classical field theory idea) but preferentially arise in this alignment (quantum wierdness).

Thanks again for the heads-up!

__________________
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

A further elaboration on the polarization of the vacuum field. In the neighborhood a star, planet, or other spherical agglomeration of matter, the virtual particle pairs contiguous with the matter will arise with their antimatter component oriented to be closest to the object under consideration. The polarized field is spherical.

In the case of a system of two such bodies, the field (which locally self-attracts and self-polarizes) will assume the aspect of a smoothly-tapered dumbbell. This shape moderates and softens farther and farther from the system until, sufficiently distant from the system, the field polarization becomes indistinguishable from a spheroid. At a distance from the system, the self-attraction and self-polarizing properties of the local field swamp the polarizing effects of the embedded matter. For this reason, I have edited the summary of my model (first two posts in the thread) to include a 6th experimental falsification of the model - namely, that the self-polarizing nature of the local vacuum field precludes the detection of gravity waves from distant objects (binary neutron stars, etc).

__________________
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

As you have pointed out. We can only get energy for work if there is a differential. We are within the ZPE field and therefore cannot get a differential because we would need to be outside of our event horizon to get a differential. Outside of our E.M.F. globule universe.
This E.M.F. was first predicted by George Gamow, detected by Penzias and Wilson as the cosmic background radiation. It was later , mapped by the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite.
So we know it is there.
We might even call it 'the ether.'
GR considers gravity as distortions of this space time field by mass.

If we can exploit the difference between the ZPE field and some suppressed ZPE field, maybe something could come of it. It is my understanding that the people working on NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Project (now abandoned) were exploring ways to "engineer" the vacuum to accomplish this.

My view is that the CMB is just the temperature of "empty" space. We know that this OOM temperature had been predicted by various physicists for at least 50-60 years before Gamow.

Please read chapter one of "The Philosophy of Vacuum" by Saunders and Brown. It is a 1924 paper by Einstein in which he explains how the mathematical model of "space-time curvature" must be replaced by a physical local model of gravitation (GR ether) before gravitation and electromagnetism can be reconciled. I firmly believe that the virtual pair fields of the quantum vacuum comprise this ether. We know it exists, we know that it has tremendous energy and gravitational potential, and GR must be modified to include 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

Vacuum Polarization Effects in the Global Monopole Spacetime in the Presence of Wu-Yang Magnetic Monopole
By E. R. Bezerra de Mello

2002 PDF Paper

it may have some information for you

Sorry for the delay. Life got in the way.


It follows a null geodesic path on the curved Reimann Manifold. Within GR, light is not "refracted" in the sense of the definition used in optics.

And so? What does this mean to you vs what it means within GR? I'm going to have a hard time taking your idea seriously if you are basing your critique of GR on quotations culled off the net and not on finding fault with the actual math, assumptions and solutions of the theory itself. You've already made two very basic errors in claims of what GR says and does, and leads to the question of how much more of GR do you misunderstand? For instance, what is a major use of the Ricci Scalar in GR and what is the significance of Killing vectors in GR?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

I modeled "gravitational" lensing in terms of refraction in classical optics. I also supplied a quote from Einstein in which he says that curvature of light rays can ONLY occur if the the speed of propagation varies with location. This is classical optical refraction. However handy the mathematical model of curved space-time in GR may be, it is an approximation. If you will read Einstein's 1924 paper "On the Ether", contained in Saunder and Brown's book "The Philosophy of Vacuum" you will see that Einstein was quite unsatisfied by the mathematical model, and was working to identify the GR ether that he felt was responsible for the entirely local effects of gravitation, inertia, and optical effects.

__________________
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

Severe Limits on Variations of the Speed of Light with Frequency; Bradley E. Schaefer, Physical Review Letters 82(25): 4964-4966, June 21, 1999

Abstract
Explosive astrophysical events at high redshift can be used to place severe limits on the fractional variation in the speed of light with frequency (Delta-c/c), the photon mass (M_gamma), and the energy scale of quantum gravity (E_QG). I find Delta-c/c < 6.3×10^-21 based on the simultaneous arrival of a flare in GRB 930229 with a rise time of 220+/-30 mus for photons of 30 and 200 keV. The limit on M_gamma is 4.2×10^-44 g for GRB 980703 from radio to gamma ray observations. The limit on E_QG is 8.3×10¹⁶ GeV for GRB 930131 from 30 keV to 80 MeV photons.

Following the references might be likewise informative. For instance, Gharibyan, 2005 claims evidence for high frequency photons moving faster than the speed of light, rather than slower, but it appears to be a far from conclusive result.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Thank you for the references, Tim. I have spent a few hours scanning papers that subsequently cited these and have bookmarked lots of them for follow-up. One prevailing theme is that the effect is expected to be very tiny and hard to extract from the noise and that if an effect is seen (even in EM from the more explosive sources), it may be due to an evolution in the signal and not due to a frequency dependent differential in c. I would like to see GRBs observed over a very large spread in frequencies. That would require using quite a number of instruments, though, so synchronization would be a real bear.

__________________
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

But, the view of classical optics has also been superceded by QM. It's now an absorbtion and emittion of the photons, that slows the measured speed of the photon through the material. Gravitational lensing, in GR, is due to the paths (the null geodesic) a photon moves around a massive object. This has nothing to do with the slowing of c.

Again, what does this have to do with GR? In what way, in your interpretation, does this matter. Notice it doesn't say the speed of light varies due to curvature around a massive object, just that the speed of light has to vary for curvature to be valid. For instance, within GR (which uses curvature) if you use an Earth-Centered frame, anything out past the orbit of Uranus has to be moving faster than c in an inertial frame (a varying c, wouldn't you say?) and this scenario is valid in GR. So exactly how do you match up a slowing c around a mass from that statement?

In what way? All physical models are approximations, even your classical optics model of lensing, so what. Some are closer than others, the decision to use on or the other is based on how well a model matches observation. What is the measured deflection of light within your idea. Also I would also ask you to produce a prediction, using your idea, for PSR B1913+16, the inspiraling binary pulsar system. Here are the orbital particulars for it. Here is the General Relativity prediciton and the observation points (scroll down to fig 18-1). Note the good match between GR prediction and the observations, can your idea match this?


And so? He was also quite unsatisfied that his theory predicted black holes, and he wasn't all that fond of QM. Just because he was unsatisfied, doesn't mean it invalidates either theory. I've read Saunder and Brown's book (although I no longer have it). My question is, have you read, and worked through the problems of any GR textbook (or even a SR textbook)?

I repeat: Pulling quotes off of the net or pulling them out of books, without having more than your interpretation (without some kind of math backup) of what those quotes mean, is not going to convince very many people. Please show us where exactly, within GR (not and interpretation of GR pulled from a website or non-GR textbook) these ideas are wrong.

Oh, and you seemed to miss these questions I posed to you before:

For instance, what is a major use of the Ricci Scalar in GR and what is the significance of Killing vectors in GR?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

When you have your eyes checked and order some new glasses, an optician figures the lenses to provide the corrections prescribed by your doctor. We do not need a quantuum physicist to calculate the curvatures necessary to provide the correction, based on whether you want glass, polycarbonate, or conventional plastic lenses. The optician does this simply by knowing the type and amount of correction desired and the optical properties of the lens material.

My question to you is: At what scale do you abandon classical optics and proclaim that QM has taken over and optics is no longer valid?

What this has to do with GR is self-evident. Einstein is saying that the curvature of light in a gravitational field is a purely local optical function. The light slows and is refracted as it enters a region inhabited by massive bodies. The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant, but varies with location. Classical optics.

GR gravitation is a better (more accurate) approximation than Newtonian gravitation. When relativistic corrections are made, it explains the precession of the orbit of Mercury quite accurately. On galactic and cluster scales, GR gravitation is not as predictive, and actually fails by a factor of 10 or so to predict the gravitational behaviour of those structures, requiring the invention of non-baryonic cold dark matter.


My model is still in the thought-experiment stage, and I do not know if I can develop the math skills to extend it properly. You're right that all models are approximations, but in this case (GR gravity) there is the tendency to assign reality to the model without an understanding of what dynamical mechanical process the model is describing. Modeling gravitational lensing as massless corpuscles of energy hurtling around on null geodesics just doesn't cut it. Light obeys some very well-understood rules, or we would not be able to build HST, Keck, etc. I don't think there was a team of quantum physicists designing the optics of these telescopes. That was done by opticians. The light in intergalactic space has to follow the same rules as the light in this room.

No. I have no formal training in GR, only in chemistry and optics.

The Eisntein quote came from one of his papers that appears in his collected works. I can't simply be shrugged off as if he had suddenly gone batty or something.

As I said, I have no training in GR, including the mathematics of space-time curvature. My motivation is to describe the optical and gravitational attractive effects as local effects of the interction of EM and matter with the vacuum field. If I thought that the GR mathematical model of gravitation was correct, but just needed a bit of tweaking, I would leave all the math to the relativists. I happen to think that a different approach is needed.

__________________
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

Here is the source of the Einstein quote regarding the variability of the speed of light. It is from the Bartleby site and is free of copyright. The book is by Albert Einstein - Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html

I point out again that by 1924 in his paper "Uber den Ather", Einstein was much more explicit regarding the existence of a real local GR ether with physical properties mediating the emergent "forces" of gravitation and inertia and responsible for the propagation of EM through "empty" space, and the resulting optical effects. Saunder's translation of this paper is chapter one of "The Philosophy of Vacuum". I think that it is likely that Einstein had some real insights after publishing GR, and perhaps we need to pay attention to his writings.

__________________
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

Hum,
Are you from the California Institute for Physics?

If i remember correctly a theory of Zero Point Energy using photons as the Source of Gravitation has already been thought of by a couple of guys there.

Their paper was released in April this year...