Hi doug
I appreciate your math about EM and gravity.
Ii is very hard to connect two quite different interactions. It is even harder when we don't know what it exactly is. There are many quantum gravity theories but each of them has some problems.

I do not create a new Quantu Gravity. I did search what the relation of the Gravity/EM interactions looks like. It shows that it is like a simple relation between Planck length^2/deBroglie length^2 alfa. May be it is nothing or may be it is not accidently.

Planck Length is a shortest distance in physics and de Broglie length is observable length of the real particle. A fine structure constant alfa is here the most suitable constant.
We can get it just from the math on constants.

This equation may suggest just space curvature mechanism. This simple proportions work good.
It could be helpful in your effort to find one equation for Gravity and EM interaction.

If the space is build of Vacuum (virtual charged particles) and it is a gravitational field too, we have good proportions how to join it together.

czeslaw

Sorry,,, too late and not enough coffee,, I dont either,, think i mixed threads.

__________________
I once put instant coffee in a microwave and nearly went back in time - Steven Wright

Hello czeslaw:

I use a few common words in a much more constrained way. The word "theory" I reserve for a system of logic that can be used to do many calculations, all of them consistent with the theory. Special relativity is a theory. Quantum mechanics is a theory. A theory is what we know best in all of science. General relativity is also a theory, even though it has problems getting along with quantum mechanics.

A hypothesis is a rare animal: a specific test that has not been done yet, that could be for or against a theory. The GEM proposal has a hypothesis that could be tested. If it passes the bending of light to second order PPN accuracy, GEM will replace GR. Those are the stakes of having a well defined hypothesis.

An area of study is where the bulk of theoretical physics research happens. A few things might be calculated, but not the kind of tour de force behind special relativity.

Readers of this thread may have noticed how I always refer to the work on strings, despite a far more popular label in the physics community. These are good people doing good studies, but the work is free of a hypothesis, and I choose a label to reflect that property.

There is much study on what sort of physics could occur on the Planck length, √(Hbar G/c³). Since that number is so small, 1.6 x 10^-35m, folks who work in this area promise we may never be able to form a hypothesis. For this reason, I do not study the area. It is true that people who are demonstrably brighter and more skilled in physics do work with Planck time and Planck lengths. I don't wish them harm, but the logic of science is harsh. It may well be that absolutely nothing of value arises from work whose effects can never be seen.

The GEM proposal has opened an area of study for relativistic quantum gravity. It even holds together logically if you let me speculate a bit. A 1/distance² potential yields a 1/distance³ force law. That sort of law appears for dipoles. In the GEM proposal, there are two types of charges: electric charges and mass charges. Like electric charges repel, like mass charges attract. Every particle that has an electric charge also has a mass charge. There are no exceptions to this rule. So every electrically charged mass is a unified charge dipole.

It is often difficult to do anything in theoretical physics, the walls of logic so flat and smooth like polished marble covered in olive oil. That is one reason I like keeping track of units: the job is simple, I know how to do it. I calculated the units for √G h/c², and it turns out to be √(m L³). I have not the slightest idea what a mass.volume is. I checked that if I use a 1/distance² potential, and take a time and then a spatial derivative, we end up with the units of a current density, √(m/L³ t²). The important thing to note is that my dipole equation did not end up at the Planck length.

Oops, I forgot, I don't even need the completely relativistic solutions to get into relativistic quantum gravity. The action S has units of mt. Multiply that by c², and you get m L²/t, the units of Planck's constant. If you want to work with Feynman diagrams, you'd be working with expressions like:

phi = exp(S c²/hbar)

If the action S has a G inside it, then working with this function will be a relativistic quantum gravity equation. Too bad I don't know how to proceed from here.


About vacuums - they get the blame for doing incredible things when we don't understand the physics yet. As a conservative ATMer, I think vacuums do nothing. The average amount of energy in a vacuum is zero. I have done this standard calculation myself in a quantum mechanics class. The deviation from the average amount of energy is not zero. An average is a different animal from a deviation from average. In baseball, one might know the averages of a few players, but no one knows about their deviation from their average. That number can make a difference - this player is having a super hot streak, play him more. They do have the same units, number of hits per 1000 at bats.

To be logically consistent, I don't believe in any of the areas of study that give big jobs to the vacuum. The GEM proposal breaks the symmetry of the standard model, so the Higgs mechanism is unnecessary. The GEM proposal has new classical constant velocity solutions for gravity, so there may be no need for dark matter or dark energy (note: these are areas of study for me, I am not good enough with numerical integrals to see if the constant velocity solutions match data). There are many good people who work on the Higgs, dark matter, and dark energy, so the math behind GEM will not be popular. Popularity is not suppose to matter, but it does.

doug

Do weird math, not drugs.

Not really, the author use mainstream datas to go against the mainstream.

But that is what the author say
The substitution of the direct experimental test for the deflection of visible light during solar eclipses by the indirect measurement of the delay of radio signals traveling between a space probe or from extra galactic sources and the Earth is examined.


That is also the work done by the author.

Lets go for tests of the equivalence principle.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter10.html

Note that all demonstrations made by the author are made using mainstream method so they are mainstream in the usual use of this board.

the precession of the perihelion of Mercury
Using Einstein's general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculated in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/MERCURY/Mercury.html


the light bending around the Sun
the time delay of radar reflections.

....since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the Sun.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN/Chapter10.html
see
10.5.3 - The Equivalence Principle and Light Deflection.


bold are mine

Dang it! There go my plans to buy a Point Nine Ninety-Nine model C space cruiser to tour the universe on my fiftieth birthday.

Curse you, Newton!!

__________________
"...wait for the ricochet."

Sweetser, in the one year and two weeks I've been a member here you are the first ATMer I can recall who was for real and had maths that didn't include things like dividing by zero as being intergral to their theory.

For that reason alone I'll buy you an ale if we were to meet in the real world. A good one too, like Full Sail Amber. Though Newcastle is pretty tasty too dispite being sold in clear glass bottles. (Which leads to photo degradation and "skunking")



Are you sure there are no celestial beings, babylonian texts, Sumerian space aliens or Romanian pyramids in you theory? Just checking.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

I will do physics for beer.

Astonishing. Did your GPS stop working the moment you realized this?

These papers all appear to lack peer review. The first, I suspect, has the SR corrections hidden in the time measurements for Mercury. And I rather doubt that ellipses can be considered as off center circles.

Big Don, you may want to take back the "dividing by zero" part of your comment, perhaps in the very near future (zero divisor algebras ARE real, and beginning to get some attention in physics and other 'real' contexts), but appart from that, I generally agree what you say, although Celestial Mechanic has a rather nice discussion going on here in the ATM forum too, but it's more conceptual than mathematical, at this point.

And Doug, if the the chance ever comes up, it just may be possible to organize a beer or two for you with one of these "zero-dividers" - you seem to be in the right neighborhood. Don, if you're willing to join in, I'd love to have you there to help with the tab!

__________________
"...wait for the ricochet."

Some of them do include peer rewieved material from other researchers listed on the reference section.
I dont see any use of SR corrections.Can you point them if any.

I think that the author refers about the cause of the eccentricity.

"When the early solar system was forming, countless planetesimals were orbiting the Sun on highly eccentric elliptical orbits. (Eccentric means the Sun is off-center.) As they collided and coalesced into planets, their orbits became averaged out and came close to being circles, although not precisely so. They became ellipses with small eccentricities. The Sun is at one focus and the other focus is unoccupied. "

Hello:

I have spent the last week trying to understand gravity waves. Understanding gravity waves happens in the deep end of the intellectual pool: it is easy to drown in jargon and feel beat up by complicated equations (or at least that is how it felt to me). I made a bit of progress, and will share those insights.

The first thing to understand is the speed of the wave. That can be read right off of the GEM wave equation:

Jq^u - Jm^u = 1/c d²/dt² - c ∇² A^u

It is the "c" in the field equation that says the spin 1 photons travel at the speed of light, and the spin 2 gravitons go at the same speed.

Let's think about dipoles for EM. There are two charges, so construct a dipole like so:

+..........-

If you take a look at this dipole from far, far, away, the strength of the field will depend on the sizes of the charges, and how far they are separated. Imagine that the person constructing the dipole didn't have access to negative charges, so built this sort of thing:

+.........+

If you looked at this from far, far, away, it would be no different than two charges real close:

+.+

This is not a dipole.

Now let's build a quadrupole. There are not 4 types of charges, but one can make a pair of dipoles:

.....+.....
+.........-
.....-.....

There is a long dipole, and a short dipole. It will not be possible to dream up an imaginary dipole that does the work of both of these. This will have 2 dipole moments and a quadrupole moment. How does the power of these two compare?

The power is vastly different! Here the units tell the story. Let's call the dipole moment D, and the quadrupole moment Q. The power P for these two is:

P = dE/dt = k/c³ d² D/dt² + k'/c⁵ d² Q/dt²

The big difference being a c².

Let's go back to the shortage of negative charges.

.....+.....
+.........+
.....+.....

No dipole, no quadrupole. This time, don't leave the charges static, but start to move them, get them to wobble, like a water balloon:

.....+.....
............
..+...+..
............
.....+.....

Something has changed. There is not a dipole in action, only a quadrupole. This collection of wobbling electric charges will have a quadrupole moment, but not a dipole moment.

Now let's think about gravity. As the bright readers here have probably guessed, the EM situation without electrons is exactly the situation faced for mass charges, because there is only one sort of mass charge. If you have a very simple theory like GR, then the quadrupole is the lowest form of gravity wave emission. If one makes a theory a bit more complicated than GR by adding another field, it turns out that the new field and the mass can trade energy. Since gravity is about responding to energy trades, it means one can make a gravity wave dipole, which is c² stronger than a quadrupole. We have measured the energy loss from a binary pulsar, it clearly indicates the loss is by a quadrapole, not a gravitational dipole.

The GEM proposal is simpler than GR. This claim is justified by looking inside the Riemann curvature tensor and seeing the difference between two divergences of a connection, while GEM gets by using just one divergence of a connection.

Based on a calculation in wikipedia, we can write out the details of the gravity waves generated by the Earth/Sun binary system.

P = 32/pi G⁴/c⁵ M_Sun² M_Earth²(M_Sun + M_Earth)/R⁵

G = 5.974[/sup] m³ kg^-1 s^-2
c = 2.999 x 10⁸ m s^-1
M_Sun = 1.989 x 10³⁰ kg
M_Earth = 5.974 x 10²⁴ kg
R = 1.46 x 10¹¹ m

Open up Google, and calculate:

32 / pi * G^4 /c^5 * (1.989 * 10^30 kg)^3 * (5.974 * 10^24 kg)^2 / (1.47 * 10^11 m)^5 = 341.2 watts

For the Sun/Earth system, the gravity waves are far beyond measuring. The Sun cranks out some 4 x 10²⁶ watts of power, 24 orders of magnitude greater.

What does GEM predict? I feel confident that all the big numbers will stay the same (the factors of G, c, M_Sun, M_Earth, R). What will change is the 32/pi. In GR, the gravity wave is a transverse wave, like EM. In GEM, the transverse wave is EM, leaving the longitudinal and scalar modes for the gravity wave. I have not been able to understand the geometrical factors for the GEM proposal.

doug

So are you proposing adding a new field/force that is much weaker than than that of gravity?

(given the weakness of gravity itself and the relative weakness of the new one (if it is), then there's no big surprise there have been no detection of it through observation, and I am not sure I can even think of a test sensitive enough to find it, unless perhaps, if the below questions are not really too far out - and that would require some accurate estimates to do some calculations to see of observed effects (especially at very large scales) that are currently hard to explain could be explained by it).


If so, would this wind up being the equivalent of Lambda (for the purposes of the equations, at least) or something else?


Taking this a few dozen steps further (and probably naively so), would this extremely weak force perhaps be one in which supposed non-baryonic "dark matter" transacts, or do you propose: i) the force is associated with either some other new particle, or ii) is one in which 'normal' matter transacts?


[disclaimer: it's saturday, i just woke up, and have had no coffee afer only about 3-4 hours sleep, after about 2 weeks of averaging about that much sleep/night. i'm taking the chance of posting this as is now since, just in case the questions ARE good ones, i'll probably have forgotten them 30 minutes from now when i have had my coffee. if they are NOT good ones, then i have at least a some lame excuse... ]

__________________
"...wait for the ricochet."

Hello Bob:

As the name implies, GEM tries to put gravity and EM into the same equation. There may be a path to the weak and the strong force via group theory applied to quaternions, but that has not led to any calculations.

The calculation in post #43 deals with gravity waves, which have yet to be detected. Why not? It is the combination of the constants, G⁴/c⁵ that will make things far too small to see. People who work with GR think that gravity waves are real, and have convinced the funding agencies that trying to measure gravity waves directly here on Earth is worth the effort. In my work with GEM, I also think that there should be gravity waves that for an isolated source will have a quadrupole moment as the lowest form of wave emission. At this time, I don't know the geometric factors needed in the expression for power emission of a GEM gravity wave.

Gravity waves are not going to do anything significant in our Universe. They do provide a means for a binary pulsar to toss away a bit of energy, but no one will be able to catch a gravity wave and ride it anywhere.

Dark matter is an area of study which tries to address the huge problems we have applying Newtonian gravity to large scale systems in the Universe, either galaxies, clusters, or the big bang. The problems these systems all face are huge. Take the rotation profile of a thin disk galaxy. The mass falls off exponentially from the center, while the velocity stays flat. The constant velocity solution for Newtonian gravity falls off as 1/√R, far slower than the exponential seen. A less well known problem is that giving a galaxy a little disturbance along the axis leads to a collapse of that galaxy. One galaxy passing by another should lead to such a collapse, yet we have images of spiral galaxies passing by each other without their destruction.

From a math perspective, what is needed is a stable, constant velocity solution for gravity where the mass drops off exponentially. Here is Newton's gravity law:

d(m V)/dt = - G m M/R²

Here is the math riddle of the day. Using the product rule of calculus, come up with an expression where the velocity V is constant, but the mass m falls off exponentially with distance R.

Good luck with this calculus word problem, much of the matter in the Universe depends on it,
doug

No,here is why.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/index.html

Finally! Something I can understand and perhaps relate to. The riddle you've stated is a little bit more complicated than that. It depends heavily upon the shape of the galaxy in question. Newton's formula in that form only applies to a spherical body, so the gravity on the edge of a thin disk will vary greatly with the precise shape, becoming much larger than for that of a sphere. I am also not sure if that means that the distribution of mass in a galaxy would depend on the gravity involved or the other way around (or both, upon each other), but dark matter might not even be necessary in this c