QM and GR


by einsteinian77
Tags: None
Tom Mattson
Tom Mattson is offline
#19
May19-03, 08:26 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,540
Why not post it in the Theory Development section here at PF?
einsteinian77
einsteinian77 is offline
#20
May20-03, 12:16 PM
P: 204
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
Tom Mattson
Tom Mattson is offline
#21
May20-03, 01:24 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,540
You could try to send it to the Los Alamos preprint arXiv:

http://xxx.lanl.gov
marcus
marcus is offline
#22
May20-03, 02:20 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,794
Einsteinian if you don't mind my butting in I think
those two suggestions are excellent, namely
publishing in physicsforums T.D. department and/or
sending to arXiv.

As far as I can see, physicsforum is the best of its sort
and it archives its posts. so if you present a theory in T.D.
and later it is discovered by someone else you can refer
to a specific post and the recorded date on that post---
the date you last edited or revised it.
Everything is email these days so having something in an
electronic archive is the best possible.

Of course you could also print your theories out on paper
and mail them to the Library of Congress or mail them to
yourself and keep the unopened package with the datemark
in your closet [;)]. But seriously, what is wrong with archiving
your idea at physicsforums?

If I had an offbeat theory I believe that is what I would do with it, in fact. Life is short and other types of publication are a hassle.
But of course you must do as you please.
marcus
marcus is offline
#23
May20-03, 03:22 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 22,794
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I've read alot of books on general relativity and Im pretty sure i know what the theory is offering. However, Im not exactly an advanced mathematician so can't understand stand all of it completely. What im curious about is how matter actually "bends" space-time or in other words what is it that matter is doing that bends space-time?
ANY form of energy bends space-time

the key term in the equation determining curvature is an energy density

In today's physics parlance photons do not have mass (mass is equated with inertia of a body at rest) and so there are massless terms which contribute to the energy density that curves space.

Your question is extremely interesting---very basic question and a good one to be asking. I have no idea how the energy density in a region of space manages to bend things, can only congratulate you for asking an intelligent question.

Here are a couple of equation you might look at----the Friedmann equations---derived from the Einstein equation under the
simplifying assumptions of uniformity proposed by Friedmann in 1922. I shall state them in the case where the spatial curvature term k = 0, the now generally accepted case:

at,t/a = - (4pi/3) (rho + 3p)

(at/a)2 = (8pi/3) rho

*a* is the universe's distance scale, used in defining the metric
It is normalized so that it is equal to one at the present time.
the LHS of the second equation is the square of the Hubble parameter by definition.

The second equation has to do with expansion.
at/a indeed is how cosmologists define the Hubble parameter----an expansion rate

If you are interested in curvature then you might look at the first equation, since the LHS is in effect a curvature (second derivative) term.

The curvature is seen to depend on the energy density ( rho = energy per unit volume) and the pressure. In the universe at large the pressure produced by matter is very low and not important but in certain special cases (cores of stars) it can be very important and contribute significantly to gravity.

The pressure of dark energy (if it exists) plays a significant role in curving space-time. The special feature of dark energy is that its pressure is equal to minus its density.

To a first approximation, looking at the large scale, this is what causes the curvature:

rho = rhomatter + rhodark energy + some small terms
p = - rhodark energy + some small terms

at,t/a = - (4pi/3) (rho + 3p) = - (4pi/3) (rhomatter - 2rhodark energy )

But this does not describe a mechanism! It only shows how the energy density of matter (including a small contribution from radiation) and of dark energy enter into the equation.


I apologize for discussing only the very large scale picture. I am sure you want to think about smaller scale gravity too, where the einstein equations

Gmu,nu = 8pi Tmu,nu

apply without Friedmann's simplifying assumptions. I tend to omit writing c, and newton's G, in this equation, as people often do these days, but if you want you could insert G/c4

This G/c4 is the reciprocal of an incredibly powerful force which you can calculate if you wish.

c4/G is equal to 12E43 newtons---a truly vast universal force constant.

Putting that back into the Einstein equation ("putting back the cees and Gees") one has

Gmu,nu = (8pi G/c4 ) Tmu,nu

So you see it is this huge force which connects the curvature terms (Gmu,nu ) on the lefthand side with the energy density terms (Tmu,nu) on the right.

Good luck with figuring out the mechanism! I believe no mechanism is known at present---anyway havent heard of one!
Alexander
#24
May20-03, 07:39 PM
P: n/a
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
Send it to any respectable peer-reviewed journal. If the theory is good, it will be published. As to recognition, don't bet much on this horse - I do not know anyone who became wealthy from theoretical physics (if not to count a couple of nobelists in their 60+).
chroot
chroot is offline
#25
May20-03, 07:44 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
LOL, I can't wait hear einsteinian77's theory... *rubs hands expectantly*

- Warren
wimms
wimms is offline
#26
May21-03, 04:21 AM
P: 473
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
Are you professional scientist, specifically theoretical physicist? If not, then you don't have even snowballs chance in hell to gain any kind of recognition. Scientific hierarchy protects itself very strongly against unitiated. And for a good reason.
The best you can do is to generate a new IDEA, and let the pros to handle it properly. Even getting pros to LOOK at it is achievement you can be proud of, let alone start working on it. And, if your theory is nonsense, then by posting it to official science archives you actually hurt the science, by creating more noise and overload. Think about it, if every dude who thinks hes right would post to lanl, what would be left of it? If you have something worth it, share it, and get satisfaction from fact that you did also think of it, and it appeared to be correct. Recognition goes only to pros anyway.
totoro
totoro is offline
#27
May21-03, 04:55 AM
P: 42
Originally posted by einsteinian77
I'm not trying to sound overly confident in my theory but i don't necessarily want to post a potentially correct theory on the internet without knowing that I will get the full recognition for it.
from what i see, you are very confident with your theory and selfish. is it getting full recognition is very important to you? no people want to steal your idea... and i'm very happy for you if your new idea is truly original and great. but as i can see, you will not go far.


Register to reply