Gravitation, inertia, and the vacuum

In summary, the authors of this paper are missing something critical in their model of inertia and gravitation, and their theory relies on unsupported assumptions about the nature of the EM ether.
  • #1
turbo
Gold Member
3,165
56
Here is a paper of special interest to me. The authors model inertia and gravitation as effects of the EM fields.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504061.pdf

Unfortunately, they still model the ZPE fields as if they were pretty flat. This is not logical, because if the ZPE fields have dynamical effects on the massive bodies embedded in them, the fields are capable of polarization and densification. Without a mechanism to explain the dynamical effects of the masses on the fields, as well as the effects of the fields on the masses, they are missing something critical. Particularly the optical effects of the polarized ZPE fields on EM propagating through them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
turbo-1 said:
Here is a paper of special interest to me. The authors model inertia and gravitation as effects of the EM fields.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504061.pdf

Unfortunately, they still model the ZPE fields as if they were pretty flat. This is not logical, because if the ZPE fields have dynamical effects on the massive bodies embedded in them, the fields are capable of polarization and densification. Without a mechanism to explain the dynamical effects of the masses on the fields, as well as the effects of the fields on the masses, they are missing something critical. Particularly the optical effects of the polarized ZPE fields on EM propagating through them.

There has been a lot of speculated_insight_Wave's_Hand..non more than on PF forums:https://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-32436_Why_does_Expanding_Space_have_a_2_to_1_Ratio_with_Contracting_Space?.html

here:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=39328

here:https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=285319#post285319

are just three links from a pool of hundereds, many have stagnated due to the lack of scientific qualifications of the authors.

It seems the authors of your linked paper have suffucient quality to weather the storm?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Haisch and Rueda are clowns by my accounting system.
 
  • #4
Chronos said:
Haisch and Rueda are clowns by my accounting system.
By your accounting system, everybody that explores options to the standard model are clowns. :yuck:

NASA evidently did not believe that these guys were clowns, since until NASA's funding got slashed by the Bush Administration, they financed work done by California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics to explore the mechanics of gravitation under the auspices of the Breakthrough Propulsion Project. The GR model of gravitation as "the curvature of space-time induced by the presence of mass" is a mathematical representation of the effects of gravitation. It does not speak to the mechanical processes through which gravitation arises, although since stars and planets do not know how to do the math (so they will know how to behave under GR), we should reasonably assume that there is a universal mechanical process that every massive body follows without exception. We cannot find the mechanical process if we limit ourselves to what is already accepted in GR, because the process is not addressed by GR.

Here's a BIG clue. One thing deliberately left unaddressed by Einstein (as he explained in his 1920 address at Leyden) was the nature of the EM ether. He was absolutely certain that an EM ether had to exist to allow the propagation of EM waves through space, but since he had not managed to incorporate it into GR, he punted, and said that it must have NO sensible properties. He needed a dynamical gravitational ether to mediate gravity, so he modeled that, but he found irresolvable inconstencies with the EM ether, and needed to make the EM ether insensible so he could ignore those inconsistencies. I believe that he either neglected to consider (or found the idea unappealing) that the gravitational ether is also the EM ether. This simplification (one ether mediates both the gravitational and the EM forces) will remove Einstein's "no sensible properties" problem, and it will allow us to model the differences in the speed of light through the vacuum fields and the refraction of light through those fields using just classical optics. We will be able to determing the amount by which the vacuum fields are polarized by the presence of mass by studying the mass/luminosity of the visible matter of clusters and quantifying the lensing effects produced by that cluster.

Haisch and Rueda haven't gotten to this state yet, although others are closer. A key result from the Athena project at CERN will be the measurement of the gravitational infall rate of antihydrogen. If it differs from that of hydrogen (likely due to matter-antimatter attraction) then we have a natural, universal mechanism by which the virtual particle/antiparticle pairs of the vacuum are polarized and densified. Just with what we already know to exist (matter, virtual particle pairs, and EM waves for the basics) we can model the universe with no DM, DE, gravitons, Higgs bosons etc. I know you're laughing at me, Chronos, and are preparing to write another dismissive (cowpie, crackpot, clown, etc) riposte, but I urge you to step back and take a look at the situation before letting loose. This solution lies at the convergence of too many problems to be ignored.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
turbo-1 said:
By your accounting system, everybody that explores options to the standard model are clowns.
I would call that an unsupported claim, not unlike the ones Haisch and Rueda have been asserting since 1998. The fact their papers have hardly any citations by anyone other than themselves suggests the scientific community also does not take their work very seriously. Equating US government funding with credibility is not very compelling. I like to think I'm receptive to new ideas [although admittedly slow to warm to them]. But, revolutionary ideas can only hang around for so long without gaining any traction before I start hearing cowbells.
 
  • #6
Chronos said:
I would call that an unsupported claim, not unlike the ones Haisch and Rueda have been asserting since 1998. The fact their papers have hardly any citations by anyone other than themselves suggests the scientific community also does not take their work very seriously. Equating US government funding with credibility is not very compelling. I like to think I'm receptive to new ideas [although admittedly slow to warm to them]. But, revolutionary ideas can only hang around for so long without gaining any traction before I start hearing cowbells.

There are certain scientific awards, that once awarded to individuals, appear to contribute to altering some of Humankinds most un productive notions, for instance, in area's of certain research, it would be best if individual's maintain a low profile, whilst continue their chosen research interests.

Whilst one cannot compare literally the PF scientific award 'scheme', to that of Nobel, one can see the Human traits that surface after an award gain, do bare similarities, espescially to the individuals ego.

A perfect recent example is Frank Wilczek, and the exercise he undertook just after his nobel commission? example here:http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0502074

is a further research from this:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9907001

It appears evident that the low profile of such a great thinker (Wilczek)..has bounded across the accepted formulized mainstream standard approach, before his nobel commission, and thus just after, was helping to promote others in their 'not-so-standard' modelling?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I hold Wilczek in high regard. He is no clown. His modeling is good and I'm willing to take my lumps for being a skeptic. I also think he has pushed the envelope and has more to prove. What he has not done is propose the kind of experiment I would like to see. It appears you like to hover just under the radar, spin. I understand that. We all have opinions.
 
  • #8
I look at the equations and in particular at part 7 and get pretty skeptical. Specifically, Haisch and Rueda purport to derive Newtonian gravity from first principles, rather than from simplification of their version of the GR equations (which are absent from the paper entirely). Moreover, while they claim that their theory is equivalent to GR, they do so by stating that it shares certain assumptions, yet state their theory without so much as a single tensor in evidence.

While not every single aspect of GR has been perfectly confirmed by experiment (although no experiement has definitively disproven any aspect of it either), the notion that gravity is wickedly more complex than the simple Newtonian formulation would suggest under certain conditions is completely ignored in this paper, as if the authors aren't even aware of the complexity that they are ignoring.

Where are the pressure and stress-energy inputs?

Tensors are the usual means of formulating GR equations because they render the equations transparently independent of coordinate system. How is this achieved here?

My skepticism of Haisch and Rueda is also intensified by knowledge of their previous NASA work which basically seems to claim that one can turn off inertia if you do it right, in what sounds to me like it has conservation of energy issues.

There is also the issue of why an electro-magnetic field would have any interactions at all, regardless of its source, within a non-charged particle. Yet, neutrinos, a spin 1/2 particle with no charge appears to have a non-zero mass. Likewise, while there is a claim that their results could be derived from QED, there is not a single QFT equation in the article.

Simply put, it doesn't add up.
 

1. What is gravitation?

Gravitation is a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass are brought towards each other. It is the force that governs the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies in the universe.

2. What is inertia?

Inertia is the resistance of an object to change its state of motion. It is a property of matter that causes objects to remain at rest or in motion at a constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.

3. What is the vacuum?

The vacuum is an absence of matter in a space. It is a region with no particles, atoms, or molecules. It is often referred to as empty space, but it may contain energy and other quantum particles.

4. How does gravitation affect objects in the vacuum?

Gravitation is a force that acts between all objects with mass, even in the vacuum. The force of gravitation causes objects to attract each other, and the strength of the force depends on the masses of the objects and the distance between them.

5. How do gravitation and inertia work together?

Gravitation and inertia are two fundamental concepts that work together to explain the motion of objects in the universe. Gravitation is the force that pulls objects towards each other, while inertia is the tendency of an object to keep moving in the same direction unless acted upon by an external force. The combination of these two forces explains the orbits of planets, moons, and other celestial bodies.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Mechanics
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
658
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
471
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
72
Views
5K
Back
Top