PDA

View Full Version : The "Maxwell Equations" of Gravity I


Rock Brentwood
Jan31-09, 06:34 AM
The term "Maxwell Equations" is used loosely here. The analogy is with
the equations
dA = F; dF = 0
which describe the field "kinematics" and
dG = J; dJ = 0
which describe the field "dynamics". These are rendered in 3-vector
form with respect to a fixed basis (when in flat-space) by the usual
convention:
A = *A*.d*r* - phi dt
F = *B*.d*S* + *E*.d*r* dt
G = *D*.d*S* - *H*.d*r* dt
J = *J*.d*S* dt - rho dV
where
d*r* = (dx,dy,dz)
d*S* = (dydz,dzdx,dxdy)
dV = dxdydz.
This is in the language of differential forms, and the exterior
product is denoted by juxtaposition (e.g. dxdy = -dydx).

In a general field theory one starts with a Lagrangian 4-form L and
defines the conjugate fields G and J by the variational of L as:
DL = (DA)J - (DF)G.
The variational for (DF)G can be done algebraically by
(DF)G = D(dA)G = d(DA)G = d((DA G) + (DA) dG
thus leading to the result
DL = DA (J - dG) + d(DA G).
Out of the former comes the field law J = dG, and out of the latter
comes the canonical form Theta = DA G from which the Hamiltonian
structure is derived.

For the gravity field, the analogous role of A is played by the frame
1-forms (theta^a: a = 0, 1, 2, 3) and connection 1-forms (omega^a_b:
a,b = 0,1,2,3). It is assumed here that the connection is
"metrical" (i.e. yields 0 covariant derivatives) with respect to the
metric given by
g = delta_{ab} theta^a (x) theta^b - c^2 theta^0 (x) theta^0
(summation convention used; (x) denotes tensor product).

This leads to the result that
0 = dg_{ab} = g_{ac} omega^c_b + g_{bc} omega^c_a
or
omega_{ab} + omega_{ba} = 0
lowering the index with the metric.

The analogous role of F is played by the curvature 2-forms Omega^a_b
and torsion 2-form Theta^a.

Similarly, Omega_{ab} is anti-symmetric in its two (lowered) indices.

The reduction is carried out by writing everything in form-valued
scalar and 3-vector form with the following definitions:
*x* = (theta^1,theta^2,theta^3), t = theta^0
*X* = (Theta^1,Theta^2,Theta^3), T = Theta^0
*sigma* = (omega^2_3,omega^3_1,omega^1_2)
*alpha* = (omega^1_0,omega^2_0,omega^3_0)
*Sigma* = (Omega^2_3,Omega^3_1,Omega^1_2)
*Alpha* = (Omega^1_0,Omega^2_0,Omega^3_0).

The resulting of writing the Cartan equations
d theta^a + omega^a_b theta^b = Theta^a
d omega^a_b + omega^a_c omega^c_b = Omega^a_b
and the Ricci and Bianchi identities
d Theta^a + omega^a_b Theta^b = Omega^a_b theta^b
d Omega^a_b + omega^a_c Omega^c_b = Omega^a_c omega^c_b
is
d*x* - *sigma* x *x* + *alpha* t = *X*
dt + (1/c)^2 *alpha*.*x* = T
d*X* - *sigma* x *X* + *alpha* T = -*Sigma* x *x* + *Alpha* t
dT + (1/c)^2 *alpha*.*X* = (1/c)^2 *Alpha*.*x*
d*sigma* - 1/2 *sigma* x *sigma* + (1/2) (1/c)^2 *alpha* x *alpha*
= *Sigma*
d*alpha* - *sigma* x *alpha* = *Alpha*
d*Sigma* - *sigma* x *Sigma* + (1/c)^2 *alpha* x *Alpha* = 0
d*Alpha* - *sigma* x *Alpha* - *alpha* x *sigma* = 0

This will be continued in the next part...

robert bristow-johnson
Feb2-09, 06:00 AM
On Jan 31, 6:25*am, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The term "Maxwell Equations" is used loosely here.
...
>
> This will be continued in the next part...

referred to loosely, Brent, where do you expect to end up? with the
GEM equations? ain't them precisely the subject line of this thread?

just curious.

r b-j

Ian Parker
Feb3-09, 06:00 AM
On 31 Jan, 11:25, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The term "Maxwell Equations" is used loosely here. The analogy is with
> the equations
> dA = F; dF = 0
> which describe the field "kinematics" and
> dG = J; dJ = 0
> which describe the field "dynamics". These are rendered in 3-vector
> form with respect to a fixed basis (when in flat-space) by the usual
> convention:
> A = *A*.d*r* - phi dt
> F = *B*.d*S* + *E*.d*r* dt
> G = *D*.d*S* - *H*.d*r* dt
> J = *J*.d*S* dt - rho dV
> where
> d*r* = (dx,dy,dz)
> d*S* = (dydz,dzdx,dxdy)
> dV = dxdydz.
> This is in the language of differential forms, and the exterior
> product is denoted by juxtaposition (e.g. dxdy = -dydx).
>
> In a general field theory one starts with a Lagrangian 4-form L and
> defines the conjugate fields G and J by the variational of L as:
> DL = (DA)J - (DF)G.
> The variational for (DF)G can be done algebraically by
> (DF)G = D(dA)G = d(DA)G = d((DA G) + (DA) dG
> thus leading to the result
> DL = DA (J - dG) + d(DA G).
> Out of the former comes the field law J = dG, and out of the latter
> comes the canonical form Theta = DA G from which the Hamiltonian
> structure is derived.
>
> For the gravity field, the analogous role of A is played by the frame
> 1-forms (theta^a: a = 0, 1, 2, 3) and connection 1-forms (omega^a_b:
> a,b = 0,1,2,3). It is assumed here that the connection is
> "metrical" (i.e. yields 0 covariant derivatives) with respect to the
> metric given by
> g = delta_{ab} theta^a (x) theta^b - c^2 theta^0 (x) theta^0
> (summation convention used; (x) denotes tensor product).
>
> This leads to the result that
> 0 = dg_{ab} = g_{ac} omega^c_b + g_{bc} omega^c_a
> or
> omega_{ab} + omega_{ba} = 0
> lowering the index with the metric.
>
> The analogous role of F is played by the curvature 2-forms Omega^a_b
> and torsion 2-form Theta^a.
>
> Similarly, Omega_{ab} is anti-symmetric in its two (lowered) indices.
>
> The reduction is carried out by writing everything in form-valued
> scalar and 3-vector form with the following definitions:
> *x* = (theta^1,theta^2,theta^3), t = theta^0
> *X* = (Theta^1,Theta^2,Theta^3), T = Theta^0
> *sigma* = (omega^2_3,omega^3_1,omega^1_2)
> *alpha* = (omega^1_0,omega^2_0,omega^3_0)
> *Sigma* = (Omega^2_3,Omega^3_1,Omega^1_2)
> *Alpha* = (Omega^1_0,Omega^2_0,Omega^3_0).
>
> The resulting of writing the Cartan equations
> d theta^a + omega^a_b theta^b = Theta^a
> d omega^a_b + omega^a_c omega^c_b = Omega^a_b
> and the Ricci and Bianchi identities
> d Theta^a + omega^a_b Theta^b = Omega^a_b theta^b
> d Omega^a_b + omega^a_c Omega^c_b = Omega^a_c omega^c_b
> is
> d*x* - *sigma* x *x* + *alpha* t = *X*
> dt + (1/c)^2 *alpha*.*x* = T
> d*X* - *sigma* x *X* + *alpha* T = -*Sigma* x *x* + *Alpha* t
> dT + (1/c)^2 *alpha*.*X* = (1/c)^2 *Alpha*.*x*
> d*sigma* - 1/2 *sigma* x *sigma* + (1/2) (1/c)^2 *alpha* x *alpha*
> = *Sigma*
> d*alpha* - *sigma* x *alpha* = *Alpha*
> d*Sigma* - *sigma* x *Sigma* + (1/c)^2 *alpha* x *Alpha* = 0
> d*Alpha* - *sigma* x *Alpha* - *alpha* x *sigma* = 0
>
> This will be continued in the next part...

I have an uneasy feeling. I feel that if your derivation could be put
into QED, Mizar or a formal system it would be shown to be the
equivalent of GTR.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math.research/browse_frm/thread/38b498=
1f397713e9?hl=en

Albert Neumeier has said that different theorems exist in many
different forms and this constitutes a difficulty. As I said I have an
uneasy feeling that this could be one of them.

I would like to ask the following.

1) Are predictions made which are quantitatively or qualatively
different from GTR?

2) Are phenomena predicted that GTR does not predict?

If there is no difference then it follows that the equations probably
amount to the same thing. It is simply a more complicated derivation.

- Ian Parker

Ian Parker
Feb5-09, 06:30 AM
On 31 Jan, 11:25, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The term "Maxwell Equations" is used loosely here. The analogy is with
> the equations
> dA = F; dF = 0
> which describe the field "kinematics" and
> dG = J; dJ = 0
> which describe the field "dynamics". These are rendered in 3-vector
> form with respect to a fixed basis (when in flat-space) by the usual
> convention:
> A = *A*.d*r* - phi dt
> F = *B*.d*S* + *E*.d*r* dt
> G = *D*.d*S* - *H*.d*r* dt
> J = *J*.d*S* dt - rho dV
> where
> d*r* = (dx,dy,dz)
> d*S* = (dydz,dzdx,dxdy)
> dV = dxdydz.
> This is in the language of differential forms, and the exterior
> product is denoted by juxtaposition (e.g. dxdy = -dydx).
>
> In a general field theory one starts with a Lagrangian 4-form L and
> defines the conjugate fields G and J by the variational of L as:
> DL = (DA)J - (DF)G.
> The variational for (DF)G can be done algebraically by
> (DF)G = D(dA)G = d(DA)G = d((DA G) + (DA) dG
> thus leading to the result
> DL = DA (J - dG) + d(DA G).
> Out of the former comes the field law J = dG, and out of the latter
> comes the canonical form Theta = DA G from which the Hamiltonian
> structure is derived.
>
> For the gravity field, the analogous role of A is played by the frame
> 1-forms (theta^a: a = 0, 1, 2, 3) and connection 1-forms (omega^a_b:
> a,b = 0,1,2,3). It is assumed here that the connection is
> "metrical" (i.e. yields 0 covariant derivatives) with respect to the
> metric given by
> g = delta_{ab} theta^a (x) theta^b - c^2 theta^0 (x) theta^0
> (summation convention used; (x) denotes tensor product).
>
> This leads to the result that
> 0 = dg_{ab} = g_{ac} omega^c_b + g_{bc} omega^c_a
> or
> omega_{ab} + omega_{ba} = 0
> lowering the index with the metric.
>
> The analogous role of F is played by the curvature 2-forms Omega^a_b
> and torsion 2-form Theta^a.
>
> Similarly, Omega_{ab} is anti-symmetric in its two (lowered) indices.
>
> The reduction is carried out by writing everything in form-valued
> scalar and 3-vector form with the following definitions:
> *x* = (theta^1,theta^2,theta^3), t = theta^0
> *X* = (Theta^1,Theta^2,Theta^3), T = Theta^0
> *sigma* = (omega^2_3,omega^3_1,omega^1_2)
> *alpha* = (omega^1_0,omega^2_0,omega^3_0)
> *Sigma* = (Omega^2_3,Omega^3_1,Omega^1_2)
> *Alpha* = (Omega^1_0,Omega^2_0,Omega^3_0).
>
> The resulting of writing the Cartan equations
> d theta^a + omega^a_b theta^b = Theta^a
> d omega^a_b + omega^a_c omega^c_b = Omega^a_b
> and the Ricci and Bianchi identities
> d Theta^a + omega^a_b Theta^b = Omega^a_b theta^b
> d Omega^a_b + omega^a_c Omega^c_b = Omega^a_c omega^c_b
> is
> d*x* - *sigma* x *x* + *alpha* t = *X*
> dt + (1/c)^2 *alpha*.*x* = T
> d*X* - *sigma* x *X* + *alpha* T = -*Sigma* x *x* + *Alpha* t
> dT + (1/c)^2 *alpha*.*X* = (1/c)^2 *Alpha*.*x*
> d*sigma* - 1/2 *sigma* x *sigma* + (1/2) (1/c)^2 *alpha* x *alpha*
> = *Sigma*
> d*alpha* - *sigma* x *alpha* = *Alpha*
> d*Sigma* - *sigma* x *Sigma* + (1/c)^2 *alpha* x *Alpha* = 0
> d*Alpha* - *sigma* x *Alpha* - *alpha* x *sigma* = 0
>
> This will be continued in the next part...

I have an uneasy feeling. I feel that if your derivation could be put
into QED, Mizar or a formal system it would be shown to be the
equivalent of GTR.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.math.research/browse_frm/thread/38b498=
1f397713e9?hl=en

Albert Neumeier has said that different theorems exist in many
different forms and this constitutes a difficulty. As I said I have an
uneasy feeling that this could be one of them.

I would like to ask the following.

1) Are predictions made which are quantitatively or qualatively
different from GTR?

2) Are phenomena predicted that GTR does not predict?

If there is no difference then it follows that the equations probably
amount to the same thing. It is simply a more complicated derivation.

- Ian Parker