I am searching Vacuum Energy and it suggests new approach in physics. String Theory shows oscillations of the space-time in compact higher dimensions. In my simple calculation this ocsillations are equal Planck length^2/alfa for every deBroglie wave length. (alfa is fine structure constant).

The potential gravitational energy is not an imagination - it is a real energy moving in the space between energetic particles and its oscillations causes space curvature. http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

The Riemannian space-time is the effective one, postulating the metric tensor on the base of the reduced density matrix of the gravitational fields.

The energy of the gravitational field is not uniformly distributed. The gravity is just a curvature of the space as a sum of the Plank's length oscillation for every one oscillation of the energetic particle. This tiny Planckian oscillations move in the space according to existing space's curvature.
It explains Dark Matter effect, Dark Energy and Pioneer's deceleration.

It is not only my idea. You may see - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../9911007v1.pdf

Astronomical observations of the Dark Matter motion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster

Not a very good reference, C. You may as well cite Tina Bear.

What do you think about it:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
and
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../9911007v1.pdf

Second one wouldn't link. First one is good.

Czeslaw's blackholes link sounds interesting. I'm not sure if anyone who's in the know has debunked it, yet. It mirrors several things I've read concerning how gravity might actually act upon matter, which supports a theory advanced by my senior physics prof in college.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

If the energy equivalent of a mass object (E = mc^2) is taken as positive energy, isn't the energy of its gravitational field negative (E = -mc^2), meaaning that the field has negative mass and the total mass of the object and its field is zero?

I think you are confusing potential energy with gravitational energy. The energy of a gravitational field can't be measured locally. One can construct coordinates so that any reasonable measure of the field energy at any chosen point is zero. How ever, one can also construct space-times that have no matter, but the total space-time has positive mass. These indicate the possibilities of the field itself having mass. There are a number of different concepts for measuring the mass inside a bounded region, but none of them are perfect (they are either incomputable, or know to only provide an upper bound)

The energy of a gravitational field is positive. It shows Dark Matter effect, Pioneer deceleration, Mercury orbit and others.
I copied the link again. I hope it goes.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pd.../9911007v1.pdf

The negative energy is in Penrose process when Ergosphere of the rotating Black Hole supplies the energy into particles of an accretion disc.

Physics 101 students have flunked out for handling units as badly as the linked paper does. Equation (2) contains the first such serious error:

dt' c v₀ = E_t = m_t c².

The paper goes rapidly downhill from there. Another glaring example: equation (9) has:

G = G(1 + 2*(sqrt(R) - sqrt(R₁))/c^1/3).

That's right, the cube root of c. Needless to say, the second term is not dimensionless as it must be.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

True. Gravity is not energy. It is a tensor. To become energy, it must be coupled with a local mass.

CM, I dig you. Right on target with the flawed references.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that.

I am human. Fully human.

Gravity is a curvature of the space. Every energy causes a curvature of the space. I would say - if there is a curvature of the space it has to be an energy too.
It is possible to create the particles (matter-antimatter) from a gravitational field http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999physics..11025A

A quantized Maxwell field propagating in the gravitational field of a Schwarzschild black hole is considered. The vector Hartle-Hawking propagator is defined on the Riemannian section of the analytically continued space-time and expanded in terms of four-dimensional vector spherical harmonics. The equations for the radial functions appearing in this expansion are derived for both odd and even parity. Using the expansion of the vector Hartle-Hawking propagator the point-separated expectation value of the Maxwellian energy-momentum tensor in the Hartle-Hawking vacuum is derived. The renormalized values of radial pressure, tangential pressure and energy density are obtained near the horizon of the black hole. An extension is provided of previous work of various authors on vacuum polarization of a massless scalar field near a black hole to the more realistic case of the Maxwell field. In contrast to the scalar field, the Maxwell field exhibits a positive energy density near the horizon in the Hartle-Hawking vacuum state.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984CQGra...1...43E

I have seen the errors too, but there are many scientists calculating a scalar gravitational field as having its own gravity. For example Beckenstein's TeVeS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor-...scalar_gravity

I have my own idea that Vacuum Energy of the Universe is not uniform distributed and it has its own gravity :
WEIGHT OF THE SPACE'S ENERGY (VACUUM)
The density of the virtual plasma is inversely proportional to the distance from a mass center. Local sphere density d=DR/r, where D- average Universe's vacuum density = 8,9x10-27 kg/m3, r-radius of the local sphere , R-Radius of the Observable Universe = c/H (speed of light/Hubble const.)

The anomalous Dark Matter acceleration a=GM/r2, where G-gravitat.const., M-mass of the vacuum inside the local sphere, r- radius of the local sphere.

Mass of the local sphere M=Vd =4,2r3Dc/Hr

Anomalous acceleration a = GM/r2=4,2Gr3Dc/Hr3 = 4,2GDc/H=3.25x10-10 m/s2
http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

mmm does he anywhere tell us what dt' is? and how he does that equation 2?
shows you you cannot trust everything that is published on arxiv.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

That is very interesting. I have also calculated something like this, but in a different way. The problem I see with what you did, though, is that you are applying a universal vacuum density only to the local sphere, as if it would not continue much beyond that. But since it is universal, there would be no particular center of mass to relate it to, like that of a local gravitational field. It would exist everywhere.

Due to that, it should act more like a deceleration due to frictional drag the way this is done, regardless of a gravitational field of a body and the direction of travel relative to the center of mass. Notice that the distance from the center of mass cancels out, and the mass of the body never even figures into the equation. It would also make 'H' a coefficient of drag, meaning the light from distance galaxies would also lose energy due to this, which translates to tired light, and is generally not accepted by the mainstream, although my models do use this mechanism as well.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Yes, but at least Beckenstein et al balance their units properly. Of course they usually make things easier for themselves by choosing units where c = G = 1 and only dealing with powers of length. When an answer in SI units is required the appropriate powers of G and c are restored.

For example, in the units mentioned above the quantity 2*M/r is dimensionless because both mass and length are measured in units of length. In SI this is 2*G*M/(c²*r), which is also dimensionless. (Exercise left to the student! )

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Bekenstein's TeVeS is much better than the fields of Ernst Kunst but the ideas are similar.

Looking through this some more, I notice that if 'H' is the rate of energy loss in the case of drag, then this seems to take the inverse of it, and it has no mention of a relative speed to the vacuum energy either. But I know I came up with the same answer as you, so I guess I'll have to wade through my notebooks to find it or recreate it or something, if you're interested. Anyway, in case you were thinking that the 'G' in that implies a gravitational field must be present, think about the context of how it is applied here. You are thinking about the vacuum energy as being somehow related to the production of a gravitational field in the first place, right? If so, then 'G' would simply be the coefficient of the rate of interaction of a massive body and the vacuum particles that create the field. The same thing applies with a friction drag. 'G' would be the rate of interaction of the vacuum particles as a body passes through it.

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Mainstream claims the Gravity is a metric space curvature.
In my idea the Gravitational field is made of the Vacuum. Every energetic particle oscillate and the space oscillate too. The oscillations warps the space and we observe curvature of the space.Where the oscillations are enough dense we observe the virtual particles. The virtual particles create the Vacuum. The Vacuum is created by oscillating energetical particle and move away with "c" like a virtual plasma.

The virtual plasma (virtual particles of the matter-antimatter) is in an equilibrium and every distortion causes a motion towards the distortion.
The space oscillate with a Planck length for every deBroglie oscillation of the real particle. I calculate it according to the relation of the Gravitational.EM interactions. May be the relations are just accidental. You may see my calculations http://www.blackholes.int.pl/

The strongest distortion is close to charged particle. it is like double layer in an ordinary plasma. That way a surplus charge of an electron appears in quantum state. The virtual particle lives short but sometimes they meet and annihilate (spontaneous gamma emission).

The virtual particles behave like all charged particles in EM field and the Vacuum field has its own energy with its relativistic mass and weight. That way it is not uniformly distributed in the space.