Unifying Gravity and EM

jhmar

doug

Thanks for a detailed reply which will take some time to digest. But at the risk of making a fool of myself I will make a few comments.

We are approaching the problem of explaining the universe from two completely different points of view; you take the GR approach, I take the classical particle physics approach.

Take for example "there will be a singular at tau=0". Now I would agree that a vacuum field can be reduced to a zero point but the mass (matter, anti-force, Higgs field? call it what you will) cannot be reduced to a point. That is why Fahr and Heyl and myself (although I add 'myself' here with some trepidation) say the constant is 1. The field can be 'zeroed' the field content cannot, but as the content of a single field is a fixed quantity there is a mass,force and radius formula that produces the 1 constant. This is as true of a gravity field as it is of an electron field. Gravity and the other forces can be 'unified' when each is considered in its particle form. That is to say that all force carrying particles have the same structural formula (graviton, lepton and quark are different states of a single fundamental particle), and a universal gravity field, like all formations where particles are contained in a single bonding field; is just another composite particle.

john

sweetser

Hello John:

It sounds like my efforts to communicate the GEM proposal have fallen short. My proposal is in direct, technical conflict with general relativity. GR is a rank 2 field theory that is generated by varying the action (just the Ricci scalar) with respect to the metric. GEM is a rank 1 field theory generated by varying the action (the contraction of a rank 2 asymmetric tensor) with respect to the potential. There are two testable differences cited in the first post (and I'll try not to repeat myself about them again).

The conservative me says one cannot claim to have a field theory until the action is defined. For a long time, I too did not have the action, and was darn uncertain I would ever find it. It was something like a year and a half before I did find it because at the time I had no practical experience with Lagrangians. That is quite common in the human population!

Most of your points leave me confused. Classical field theory is about Lagrangians, actions, field equations, and solutions to those field equations, all of which are part of the GEM proposal. I know it takes a good long time to understand that volume of detail in this thread, but it is there.

I don't feel I understand the case where tau=0. I would just point out that only particles with a mass of zero will live on that surface.

Elsewhere in the thread I've discussed how the proposal breaks U(1) symmetry due to mass, so there may be no need for the Higgs field.

In the GEM proposal, the stuff of gravity is in the symmetric, rank 2, irreducible tensor, while the stuff of EM is in the antisymmetric, rank 2, irreducible tensor. The graviton cannot do the job of a proton, particularly since like charges attract for the former but repel for the latter.

One must be ultra careful in unified field theory saying what is similar and what is different.

doug

ps. Learning physics is difficult stuff, so I don't consider you foolish at all.

jhmar

doug

Classical field theory is about Lagrangians, actions, field equations,

My lack of a decent education is the cause of our communication problem as demonstrated your statement. I thought Classical particle physics was about what particles arerather than what particles do.

I thought that only when we know what determines mass, force and radius (physical size), can we understand the cause and outcome of actions. Realising that this was a far simpler problem than the study of actions I set about finding a formula that gives the basic structure of all elementary particles; only to find that there is only one elementary particle that can be transformed into an infinite number of states (all with the same content).

I could only make a crude estimate for the graviton state and my constant is related to force (it is still valid). So I was over the moon to find Fahr and Heyl's paper and quickly realised that by a variation of my formula, my table could be extended to produce the same value (1) constant.

The difference between states is determined by the wave structure. The data given by The Particle Data Group is compared to the theoretical data and falls within the margins of error given by PDG in all but two borderline cases (about 150 are given).

PDG reject many experiments and average the remainder, I make no rejections and do not average. Each experiment is considered to find a specific particle state.

Sorry, have to go, cannot stop to edit reply, hope it is readable

john

Sariaht

Hey, I recognise that face! You've been on tv! Coool! What are you working with?

And if i asked you right now, what momentum per time causes gravity, what would you respond?

jhmar

doug

I cause much confusion by using the wrong terms (lack of training). That aside, I have submitted my work and await the moderator's decision due in about three weeks.
Basically I believe I have demostrated a relationship between wave length and mass, but must now wait and see if I have managed to convince those with a greater knowledge of this subject.
Please keep returning to this forum where I will notify you of the outcome when received; a positive outcome will, of course, appear as a separate forum.
regards
John

sweetser

Hello Sariaht:

"The Stand-Up Physicist" is award winning TV seen by almost no one! The show represents ultra-narrow casting. The show appeared on BNN-TV in Boston at 11:30 on a Tuesday night, and no doubt got killed by the likes of Jay Leno & David Letterman. The town of Auburn outside of Worcester gets several doses a week because the guy helping with the post-production work tries to fill the airways. The third place it shows in the town of Acton where I live, four times on the weekend, but I have no idea what time (they schedule things poorly here).

There are all kinds of video festivals out there, particularly if the video has gay content (perhaps as an excuse to get together and party). So far, I found only one festival that had an education category. I entered the episode, "Why Quantum Mechanics is Weird" in the Berkeley Video and Film Festival, and it won Best of Festival in the Education Category. Sounds good, but it was second place to the Grand Prize winner, a film on polar bears. I went up against a polar bear and got mauled.

After reading an article on digital video recording on Slashdot and having discussions with a friend who does professional video work, I spent about $4k to get a 3-CCD digital camera, a great Sennheiser boom microphone, 1500 watts of lights, a tripod, background set holder, and a green screen.

Why bother? Here's my situation: Mathematica and I feel confident that we have found exactly what Einstein was looking for: a unified field theory for gravity, and a reason why causality is different for quantum mechanics versus classical mechanics. In my world view, I don't know if I could construct a more unlikely thesis. It is reasonable for people not to believe it is true. I have no idea how to get through that social barrier. It could be that I am just wrong. That in so many ways is the easiest. Sincere nerd is a moron. I take that seriously because I have made technical mistakes along the way, from the wrong sign for the charge coupling term, to misstatements about the field strength tensor. My honest appraisal is that the foundation still feels solid, and more work can be done.

If and only if the unified field theory is correct, then it is my responsibility to communicate it. I will continue to put my money there in diverse ways. I have a web site, there is the self-printed book, I go to conferences three or four times a year (never as an invited guest, and that limits the audience to those who also were not invited). I make deliberate efforts to toss the idea up to leading researchers in physics, but those folks are busy, busy, busy. There are many more people with more time, but less training, that are interested in the possibility of a unified field theory. That is the group the show is target at. The show is too technical for a general audience. I work through most of the mathematical detail, which is unusual.

The show is just me yakking in front of a camera, very minimalist. I make sure the equations I am thinking about at the moment are on the screen, because physics is math. I do the post-production work at Auburn Community Access Television, in Auburn, MA (a fifty minute drive I have done many times). I use Final Cut Pro, version 5, on a Mac. Sixteen shows are complete, another 8-10 to write, shoot, and produce. The half hour shows can be downloaded from the web (no idea about the stats). The DVDs are for sale internationally, and as of today, the global sales are up to 1 DVD to a friend of mine.

That is the TV story.

> "what momentum per time causes gravity"?

I am going to work to translated this... The units for momentum per time are the units of force. In general relativity, one cannot write an equation for the force of gravity like you can for EM. Instead, there are geodesic paths that objects follow, paths of no force.

GEM is modeled on EM. The answer to what is the force equation of EM is the Lorentz force:
[tex]\frac{d m V^{\mu}}{d \tau} = q_e V_{\nu} (\nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu}) = \gamma q_e (\vec{\beta} . \vec{E}, \vec{E} + \vec{\beta} \times \vec{B})
[/tex]
This is the relativistic force law. At low speed, [itex]\beta\rightarrow 0, \gamma \rightarrow 1[/itex], so the law becomes Coulomb's force law, or:
[tex]\vec{F} = q_e \vec{E}[/tex]
For my approach, one key change is the field strength tensor is the symmetric partner to the antisymmetric field strength tensor of EM. This has an important consequence: like charges attract. The charge for gravity is independent from EM and must have an opposite sign. This should be enough information to form the gravitational Lorentz force equation:
[tex]\frac{d m V^{\mu}}{d \tau} = -q_m V_{\nu} (\nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} + \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu}) = -\gamma q_m (g_0 + \vec{\beta} . \vec{e}, \vec{g} + \vec{e} + \vec{\beta} \times \vec{b})
[/tex]
where small e and small b are the symmetric analogues to the E and B of EM, and g is the four parts along the diagonal of the symmetric field strength tensor. In the classical physics realm, the only term that survives is the small e:
[tex]\vec{F} = - q_e \vec{e}[/tex]
Newton's law of gravity, bingo. This is darn similar to the case for EM, but the sign is different, which is essential.

Another way to look at this is that I have found the right way to pluck out Newton's law form a relativistic force law from gravity. That wasn't how it was done, but it could be viewed that way.

Hope all had a good thanksgiving (if in the US),
doug

CarlB

Doug,

Lubos Motl wrote a paper that pretty much states my objections to the requirement that Lagrangian or Hamiltonian formalism be at the foundations of physices here:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/co...s-physics.html

sweetser

Hello Carl:

In this forum, I am working on a rank 1 field theory to explain gravity as a gauge choice between changes in the potential and the connection (call it diffeomorphism invariance, which is also at the heart of GR, but the details of implementation are different). One consequence is that any rank 2 field theory for gravity will be superseded, included GR. If GEM is correct, the huge amounts of work on black holes and the singularities of GR is not relevant to the description of Nature. Ouch, that is not going to be popular! So for this forum, the first half of Prof. Motl's blog can be summarily dismissed.

EM theory is completely integrated with the standard model. There are 2 charges, and one massless force particle. It is reasonable to speculate that gravity, with only 1 charge and one massless force particle, should be a wee bit simpler to understand. The Newtonain law of gravity, and Coulomb's law are clones. Only for GEM, the relativistic forces also look similar. Here is the EM Lorentz force:
[tex]F_{EM}^{\mu}=q_e U_{\nu}(\nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu})[/tex]
A force is a coupling of the moving charge ([itex]q_e U_{\nu}[/itex]) with a field strength tensor ([itex]\nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} - \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu}[/itex]). Move a charge around in a field, forces happen. Right answers are simple and direct.

One path to GR is to start from Newton's law of gravity, which is flawed, and try to correct that one flaw, ignoring for example that no one tries to quantize Newtonian gravity. The result of that exercise is the field equations of GR. Gupta, Feynman, and Weinberg have all shown that to be the case.

If you start from a bad place, bad things follow. Instead, construct the GEM Lorentz force as happened in EM, as the charge in motion coupling to the field strength tensor:
[tex]F_{G}^{\mu}=-q_m U_{\nu}(\nabla^{\mu} A^{\nu} + \nabla^{\nu} A^{\mu}) [/tex]
I copied the EM equation, changed two signs, and swapped two labels. What could be more simple, and direct?

I see no value in his comments about Lagrangians, Hamiltonians, actions, and the Feynman integral approach because it is an all or nothing deal. If you know the right Lagrangian, you can calculate the Hamiltonian. If you know the right Lagrangian, you know the action. If you know the right Lagrangian, you know the Feynman integral which is the exponential of the action. If you first figure out one of the other three, then you can determine the set. They are a logically consistent set.

Prof. Motl like other researchers in gravity does not know one of these, therefore he does not know any of them. So this group flounders no matter what tool they use. It is kind of tragic really. The logic of physics is unkind.

Here is his best lip service:
That's exactly how "lucky" I feel.

Why is this lip service? There was a time when both Lubos and I posted to the newsgroup sci.physics.research. He was a strident believer in the value of string theory. I often found his position embarrassing even for other people doing string theory. I know my own lack of intellectual precision was embarassing to professionals reading SPR. Lubos conveyed the message that if you did not understand how right string theory was, you were foolish, or stupid but probably both. I had been listening to string theory - not studying it, just eavesdropping - and it did not make sense to me. The units for a volume of spacetime are just wrong, and if you get the units wrong, you are wrong. Compatification is a fancy name for bold physics BS. Call the stuff that stinks s--- and move on before the stench causes permanent brain damage.

There was a post in SPR years ago where someone said don't complain unless you have something better to offer. Once I reached the point of my unified field theory research where I had testable hypotheses (it is plural), I wrote Lubos, the poster child of string theory, a simple financial reward. If anyone anywhere in the world in the next ten years develops an explanation for gravity that uses more than 4 dimensions, then I would send $100 to Lubos. This was not a bet, there is no risk to Prof. Motl. I wrote out the check, but did not sign it, in April of 2004. I closed that bank account in 2006, so had to write another check. I sent Lubos the jpegs, along with a draft of my paper. No comments have been returned. So I have data that he is not interested in a complete set of equations in four dimensions that make predictions that challenge GR.

doug

CarlB

I'm confused here. What are the two charges of EM? I can think of only one, Q.

Carl

sweetser

Perhaps my bad lingo, there is one electric charge with two signs. With gravity for GEM, there is one type of mass charge that can only have one sign. GR uses the stress energy tensor, not a notion of mass charge density. This really is the vanilla momentum 4-vector with units of electric charge, acheived by multiplying by the square root of Netwon's gravitational constant.

doug

CarlB

If you're going to count the number of different signs, it seems to me that you should also count the number of different magnitudes. Then the elementary particles come in a fairly wide number of charges, -1, -2/3, -1/3, 0, +1/3, 2/3, +1, which is 7 in all. And while gravity comes in just positive charges, the number of different charges is fairly large. I want to say 12 just for the fermions, plus you need the W and Z.

jhmar

Then the elementary particles come in a fairly wide number of charges, -1, -2/3, -1/3, 0, +1/3, 2/3, +1, which is 7 in all.

Surely in experiments involving quarks, fractional charges are allocated to make the particles observed comply with the charge conservation law? In TFQHE they are part of a proposed mathematical explanation? In neither case are the charges actually observed; they are purely theoretical. Even the minus sign is questionable, it cannot denote a reality that is less than nothing, but, a measurement below an arbitrary (unknown) base line.

I would like a reference to the positively charged graviton as I have not come accross any such charge.

W and Z charges are the same as the leptons -1, +1, and 0.

sweetser

Hello Carl and Jhmar:

There is the fundamental electric charge, and so far, we have only measured integral amounts of that charge. The quark model does have the fractional charges noted by Carl, but those have not been measured in an experiment. There is a theory as to why they cannot be measured, and I do not know the details of quark confinement.

> W and Z charges are the same as the leptons -1, +1, and 0.

These particles play the roll of a force particle, like the photon for EM. Why one photon for EM, and three force particles for the weak force? It has to do with the Lie algebra for the group U(1) needing one number for EM, and SU(2) needing three numbers for the weak force. Because the W and Z have a mass, the weak force is short range. Gravity and EM are long range forces, to the force particles must be massless.

> I would like a reference to the positively charged graviton as I have not come across any such charge.

I don't know that I can provide you with a reference. All the work with gravity has gravity coupling to the stress-energy rank 2 tensor, not the 4-momentum vector (rank 1 tensor). Mass charge is going to be different than electric charge. As noted above, electric charge is an integral multiple of a fundamental charge. Mass charge does not appear to work that way. A neutron and a proton have slightly different mass charges ([itex]\sqrt{G} M[/itex]). At this time, I have no idea why the pattern of mass charges is the way it is.

doug

jhmar

doug

Thanks a lot for your detailed reply. The purpose of my submission was to find out if there was any experimental data that would nullify my proposed model, and I am pleased to say your reply indicates there is not.

I have split my interpretation down into small sections, the first two parts have been submitted. The third,and possibly final section, is almost ready for submission; so I hope you will be able to see where I am heading, in the near future.

For me, it is not a question of devising new mathematical theories (strings, brans etc.), which are totally beyond my abilities. But, it is a question of the correct interpretation of past experiments. It is in the interpretation that I dissagree with the Standard model, but that, of course; does not mean that I dissagree with Quantum theory. Interpretation and theory are related but different; a correct interpretation will, I hope; place a limitation on the multitude of possible mathematical solutions thrown up by QT.

sweetser

Hello Jhmar:

The standard model is really successful, but there are two "weak" points. The first is why should the three particular groups, U(1), SU(2), and SU(3), be so important? There are lots of other possibilities, yet so far no one can provide a reason for these three.

The GEM proposal as it is written can explain these three groups: Diff(M)xU(1)xSU(2) - or gravity and the electro weak force. Gravity comes from the two covariant derivatives. One is free to choose how much the 4D wave propagation is due to changes in the potential or in changes that happen as you move around the manifold. If one write the 4-potential as a normalized quaternion, then the quaternion potential can be written as a unit quaternion times itself, like so:
[tex]q = \frac{q}{|q|} exp(q - q^*)[/tex]
SU(2) is the unit quaternions, the exponential part of the expression above. Quaternions do commute with themselves, so:
[tex]\frac{q}{|q|} exp(q - q^*) = exp(q - q^*)\frac{q}{|q|}[/tex]
The normalized quaternion, [itex]\frac{q}{|q|}[/itex], is now behaving just like U(1), a complex number with a norm equal to one. Let's rewrite the 4D wave equation in the very first post to look like it justifies the electroweak part of the standard model:
[tex]J_q - J_m = \square^2 \frac{A}{|A|} exp(A - A*)[/tex]
The box has Diff(M), A/|A| has the U(1) part, and SU(2) is the exponential. This is good, but not good enough because we need to spot SU(3). One thing I could do with this equation is to calculate its norm. That kind of thing happens all the time in quantum mechanics. It is possible that the norm operation would give the
equation SU(3) symmetry. That is speculation I don't have the skills to prove.

This is a benefit of GEM I don't discuss much due to my lack of self-confidence in group theory: the GEM field equation in and of themselves justify the symmetry seen in the standard model.

Another weakness of the standard model has to do with mass. The standard model out of the box makes one simplifying assumption: all particles have zero mass. Of course that is not true. So now the accepted way to introduce mass back into the model is known as the Higgs mechanism. There has to be a scalar Higgs field everywhere in the universe ready to break the symmetry of the vacuum such that all massive particles get their inertial mass. One of the main reasons for a multi-billion dollar bet being made at CERN is to detect the
Higgs.

The GEM hypothesis rejects the Higgs mechanism, and the Higgs boson. I've had two people comment on my Lagrange density that it does not have U(1) symmetry. This is mostly true. The Lagrangian has U(1) symmetry if the particles are massless. When there is a mass, the mass charge breaks the U(1) symmetry. The symmetry breaking is EXTREMELY slight - one part in 10^16 for an electron. We only define electric charge to ten significant digits, so the symmetry breaking is beyond our ability to directly measure.

This is actually very reasonable. Take a pair of electrons, and a pair of protons, put them 1 cm apart, then measure the acceleration, which is the F/m ratio. To ten significant digits, they are the same. All electric charges repel the same amount once the inertial mass is taken into account. Now take the same electrons and protons, but measure F/m to twenty significant digits. The answer is no longer the same. The gravitational mass of the electron is less than that of the proton, and now the difference can be measured. Gravitational mass
breaks the electron charge symmetry.

Particle physicists are concerned with the scalar Higgs which is suppose to bring inertial mass to the standard model. People who work with inertial gravity are concerned about the spin 2 graviton. Yet there must be some unbreakable link between the particle of inertia (the Higgs) and the particle of gravity (the graviton). The rank 2 symmetric tensor in GEM is the graviton, and its trace which is a scalar field, does the work of the Higgs. It is clear you can never
have an inertial gravity field without having a gravitation field.

It was an unexpected gift that the 4D wave equation to give me insight into the standard model.

doug

CarlB

Doug,

I am still very convinced that you're on the right track here. I just haven't had time to work on my simulation. Thanks for the continuing explanations.

Carl

sweetser

Hello Carl:

Thanks. I find struggling to explain the proposal is fun. Remember, I really want a solid technical reason to drop this hypothesis. Although I feel confident about having the right symmetry for gravity and the electroweak forces, if I didn't have a proposal for the symmetry of strong force, that would be a reason to reject the proposal. Three out of four is not good enough, since this fantastic four does all the work in the Universe.

In the eternal kids game of "Why?", now that the 4D wave equation may justify the symmetry of the standard model, why is the 4D wave equation so central? The Universe has lasted a good long time. How could it be doing all that it does for such an expanse of time? The key is to do almost nothing. Almost nothing is not the same as nothing. The next door neighbor to doing nothing is the simple harmonic oscillator. The 4D wave equation is the equation that describes the fundamental family of simple harmonic oscillators in spacetime. If you are some particle that happens to exist in 4D spacetime, the closest thing to doing nothing is simple harmonic oscillation caused by that other crap in the Universe. It is really amazing that the Maxwell equations are just a partial rewrite of the 4D wave equations. There is also a set of equations for the symmetric expression which is not an exact clone of Maxwell (like the area of study known as gravitoelectrodynamics, which had identity equations that are not part of GEM). Mapping the classical field equations for GEM back to the 4D wave equation requires getting lots of signs correct, but it is an impressive wad of algebra. A detailed description starts here:

http://theworld.com/~sweetser/quater...IAP_2/925.html

and goes on for 9 slides. It is hard to generate that many partial differential equations that work together unless there is some truth there. This is the kind of thing I checked with Mathematica because there are so many signs that have to be right, no exceptions.

doug