Newly revised paper on zero point energy and cosmological constant

[turbo]

Here is a fellow who is working on the cosmological constant problem. He is working with the standard model and has taken a different approach than mine, but has arrived at a similar understanding of the ZPE fields. In empty space, the ZPE fields are self-moderating and non-gravitating, but in the presence of mass, they are perturbed and thus gravitate. I arrived at this intuitively and started modeling the mechanism by which the ZPE fields could be perturbed (polarized virtual particle/antiparticle pairs in my model). He arrived at this by trying to "fix" the ZPE fields' contribution to the cosmological constant that is at least 120 OOM too large in the standard model.

http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/abs/gr-qc/0405012

 

[Chronos]

I did not see anything in that paper that suggests the ZPE field does anything more than react to the presence of a gravity field. I do not find that very amazing. Trot your model out and make a prediction.

 

[turbo]

I did not see anything in that paper that suggests the ZPE field does anything more than react to the presence of a gravity field. I do not find that very amazing. Trot your model out and make a prediction.

In my model, the ZPE EM field does not "react to the presence of a gravity field." It is the gravitational field. The ZPE field is polarized by the presence of matter due to a difference in the infall rate of particles vs antiparticles. In the absence of matter, the ZPE field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate, but exerts a slight pressure. In the presence of matter, the ZPE field becomes preferentially oriented and more dense and does gravitate. There is no need for dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, Higgs bosons, etc. The only entities needed to produce observed gravitational effects (lensing, cluster binding, etc) are matter and the ZPE field with which it interacts.

Prediction: at some point, we will be able to collect and cool enough antiparticles to make usable quantities of molecular antimatter (antihydrogen would be the likely first choice). The gravitational infall rate of antihydrogen will be found to differ from the infall rate of hydrogen, thus breaking the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass. This will demonstrate how the presence of matter causes the virtual pairs of the ZPE EM field to align, polarizing the field. My model is falsifiable by this experiment.

You will note in the above paper that the author states that the ZPE field is neutral (self-cancelling to 120 OOM) in the absence of matter, but gravitates in the presence of matter. He arrived at this while trying to explain the disparity between the summed energies of the ZPE field and the tiny cosmological constant. I believe his result is essentially correct (as seen in the context of the Standard Model) but as yet incomplete. The fact that he arrived at this by an entirely different logical route than the one I took is encouraging.

 

[wolram]

In my model, the ZPE EM field does not "react to the presence of a gravity field." It is the gravitational field. The ZPE field is polarized by the presence of matter due to a difference in the infall rate of particles vs antiparticles. In the absence of matter, the ZPE field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate, but exerts a slight pressure. In the presence of matter, the ZPE field becomes preferentially oriented and more dense and does gravitate. There is no need for dark matter, dark energy, gravitons, Higgs bosons, etc. The only entities needed to produce observed gravitational effects (lensing, cluster binding, etc) are matter and the ZPE field with which it interacts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No dark energy, no higgs boson, no gravitons, no dark matter," excellent",
All the above are pet hates of mine, and to be able to get rid of them in one
fell swoop is ingenious.

 

[turbo]

No dark energy, no higgs boson, no gravitons, no dark matter," excellent",
All the above are pet hates of mine, and to be able to get rid of them in one
fell swoop is ingenious.

Thanks, Wolram! I don't think I'm ingenious, but I strive to be logical, conservative, and parsimonious, and my model reflects that.

Those "pet hates" (and the myriad cosmological conditions that must be just so to prop up the standard Big Bang theory) are all problems. The standard procedure seems to be:
1) measure the deviation of observation from SBB
2) invoke a previously unknown force or material that will close the gap
3) give it a snazzy name, like "dark energy".

For some reason, many physicists will not permit SBB to be falsifiable by any discordant observation, and that is "faith", not science. When confronted by a discordant observation, the faithful simply crank out another constant or invent another unprovable entity or initial condition to make the discordant observation more palatable. I am very uncomfortable with that approach, and that is why I went back to the basic things that we know exist, and built a model that explains observations without invoking any outside entities.

My model may be wrong, but Ockham's Razor is on my side, and the model is eminently falsifiable. If the infall rates of matter and antimatter are the same, then the equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses for matter and antimatter is unbroken, and my model fails. I am convinced that the infall rates are not equivalent, though, and that one simple fact will supply the mechanism by which the ZPE EM field is polarized and densified in the presence of matter. These polarized ZPE EM fields are the means by which gravity is expressed, not some mysterious force acting over a distance with as-yet undetectable mediating particles, or the GR curvature of space-time. These polarized ZPE EM fields also define the texture and apparent density of local space-time (in the GR sense) giving rise to the optical effects responsible for "gravitational" lensing (the optical properties of lensing media drew me to the ZPE fields in the first place).

 

[Chronos]

Production of anti-hydrogen is in the works. Should be interesting. See
http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena/
for latest news.

 

[Mike2]

His paper mensions "extra degree of freedom in the trans-planckian scale", or words to that effect. So what would these extra degrees of freedom come from, would it be from the extended nature of particles, or perhaps from motion in the extra dimensions? So the zero cosmological constant prove string theory? Thanks.

 

[turbo]

Production of anti-hydrogen is in the works. Should be interesting. See
http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena/
for latest news.

I'm patiently waiting. Garth is waiting for the results of Gravity Probe B, as well - for some reason, no incremental results will be released, only final (2-year) results.

 

[Garth]

No dark energy, no higgs boson, no gravitons, no dark matter," excellent",
All the above are pet hates of mine, and to be able to get rid of them in one
fell swoop is ingenious.

May I bring attention to the fact that these characterisitcs also apply to SCC!

Garth

 

[turbo]

His paper mensions "extra degree of freedom in the trans-planckian scale", or words to that effect. So what would these extra degrees of freedom come from, would it be from the extended nature of particles, or perhaps from motion in the extra dimensions? So the zero cosmological constant prove string theory? Thanks.

I don't understand how the extra degrees of freedom apply to the measurement of the energy of the ZPE field. We can measure differences in energy, and we can measure energy relative to what we perceive to be a ground state. Now, the energy of the ZPE field may indeed be enormous, but if it is truly the ground state in our Universe and it is all-pervasive, how do we establish an absolute no-energy (zero) baseline against which to measure it? Perhaps the 120 OOM disparity between the summed energies of the ZPE fields in quantum theory and the cosmological constant arises at least in part from the assumption by QFT mathemeticians that a true zero-energy baseline exists, when in fact it cannot. I haven't spent much time on this aspect of the cosmological constant problem, so please jump into point out any faulty logic.

 

[Garth]

Is this not where the fault line between GR and Quantum theory reveals itself? In QT energy differences are measured, whereas in GR energy, having a mass equivalent, causes curvature and can therefore be quantified in any observer's frame of reference.
The QT ground state would require a preferred foliation of GR space-time. Mach's Principle anybody?
- Garth

 

[turbo]

Is this not where the fault line between GR and Quantum theory reveals itself? In QT energy differences are measured, whereas in GR energy, having a mass equivalent, causes curvature and can therefore be quantified in any observer's frame of reference.
The QT ground state would require a preferred foliation of GR space-time. Mach's Principle anybody?
- Garth

Yes, this is the interesting intersection being probed by the loop quantum gravity folks, the string folks, etc, which is what drew me to model a practical mechanism for gravitation, instead of simply accepting gravitation as GR space-time curvature (which is another way of saying the effects are this, and I can mathematically model them so, without getting my hands dirty). Space-time curvature is a neat way of modeling the effects of gravation, but it does not explain the mechanics of gravitation, and it falls far short of explaining the effects that we see on galactic and galactic-cluster scales.

To get back to Mach's principle. As I understand it, his principle states that there is no preferred local reference frame, and that inertia can be expressed only in relation to other bodies occupying the universe (both local and VERY distant, although he had no idea how distant the background bodies would be in the present day.) I probably summarized this poorly, but I have a hard time with that holistic approach in which inertia can be conferred by acceleration as measured against the backdrop of the entire universe. Please feel free to point out my misconceptions, if necessary. I've only been working on this model for about 6 months, and haven't properly explored its relation to the important works of Mach, Poincare, and many others.

In my model, gravitation and inertia are not strictly equivalent (the equivalence is broken by infall-rate differentials for matter vs antimatter), but they are local, and they are expressed by interaction with local ZPE fields. This avoids FTL effects implied by Mach's relativistic approach, and it introduces an "aether" through which electromagnetic waves can propagate.

 

[Mike2]

His paper mensions "extra degree of freedom in the trans-planckian scale", or words to that effect. So what would these extra degrees of freedom come from, would it be from the extended nature of particles, or perhaps from motion in the extra dimensions? So the zero cosmological constant prove string theory? Thanks.

If the ultraviolet trans-planckian degrees of freedom exist everywhere, then we are probably talking about something inherent to spacetime itself. Does this prove a micro structure to spacetime?

 

[Garth]

To fully include Mach's Principle in GR would seem to require a Brans Dicke -type manifestly covariant scalar field. The gravitational constant G would also seem to necessarily dependent (because of the equivalence principle) on the distribution of matter in motion in the entire universe i.e. on its density and pressure. - Or perhaps is it that the cosmic density and pressure are dependent on the gravitational constant?
(BTW In SCC such a scalar field has a major influence on gravitational theory and cosmological evolution and G is a function of cosmological density and pressure.)
- Garth

 

[wolram]

Turbo-1
can this theory explain Frame dragging, as reported at-- http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle...storyID=6575621
I imagine it can and if results Mach it would be another
feather in your cap.

 

[turbo]

Turbo-1
can this theory explain Frame dragging, as reported at-- http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle...storyID=6575621
I imagine it can and if results Mach it would be another
feather in your cap.

Yes, it can explain frame dragging. The virtual particle pairs of the ZPE field orient preferentially in the presence of large masses like planets. Rotation of such a mass introduces a shear in the field (the field self-gravitates when polarized). The ZPE field is space-time, as envisioned in relativistic models, but it is also an EM aether. I haven't modeled the behavior of the ZPE field very well yet in the case of galactic rotation (flat rotation curves in spiral arms), but I expect that it will explain MOND effects without non-baryonic DM.

 

[Garth]

turbo-1 - Interesting ideas but a bit 'hand waving', any mathematics to back up the ideas with solid predictions?

Garth

 

[turbo]

turbo-1 - Interesting ideas but a bit 'hand waving', any mathematics to back up the ideas with solid predictions?

Garth

My math skills are not up to the task, but fortunately the model is eminently falsifiable. The mechanism by which the ZPE EM field is polarized is a difference in the gravitational infall rates for matter vs antimatter. The Athena project should be able to produce enough antihydrogen to test that.

Many people working in quantum gravity have speculated that somehow the strict equivalenct of inertial mass and gravitational mass will have to be broken somehow before quantum theory and GR can be reconciled. In my model the inertial masses of matter and antimatter are equivalent, but the gravitational masses are not. Here is where the equivalence is broken. If this is indeed proven to be the case by the Athena project, I won't have to come up with a mathematical description of my model, because some very smart physicists will do that for me. They can dispense with non-baryonic dark matter, and begin modelling cluster lensing, weak lensing, cluster binding, galactic rotations, etc in light of the gravitational effects of the polarized ZPE field. There will be pain and consternation, because modeling space-time in terms of the ground-state of the quantum vacuum will have serious implications for relativistic cosmology.

 

[Garth]

I wait with anticipation - BTW SCC also breaks the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass in its Jordan frame.
Garth

 

[turbo]

I wait with anticipation - BTW SCC also breaks the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass in its Jordan frame.
Garth

What is the mechanism by which it is broken in SCC? Is there a physical, process or is a mathematical artifact resulting from your selection of reference frames?

 

[Chronos]

In my model, the ZPE EM field does not "react to the presence of a gravity field." It is the gravitational field.

I still have some questions. I thought it might become clearer as the thread progressed, but it has not. I infer you mean the ZPE field, as opposed to matter, is the source of gravity. That appears to infer gravity is repulsive, as opposed to attractive. In other words, it is a 'push' gravity model.

The ZPE field is polarized by the presence of matter due to a difference in the infall rate of particles vs antiparticles.

I have no idea how polarization of the ZPE field [or any other field] has anything to do with gravity. Nor do I understand how the infall rate of matter vs antimatter has any bearing on this polarization phenomenon, or consequences you intuitively derived. Garth's objections are appropriate, mathematically supported and consistent with the scientific method.

 

[Garth]

What is the mechanism by which it is broken in SCC? Is there a physical, process or is a mathematical artifact resulting from your selection of reference frames?

There are two conformal frames in SCC.
The Einstein frame is in vacuo canonical GR in which the presence of a Brans Dicke type scalar field 'in the background' results in a linearly expanding, "freely coasting" universe. In this frame energy-momentum, not energy, is generally conserved and inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent.

However in the Jordan frame the BD scalar field comes into its own and interacts with particle trajectories as well as perturbing space-time curvature, energy is locally conserved:
m(r) = m₀exp[Phi(r)],
where Phi(r) is the dimensionless Newtonian potential at r, and G also varies so:
G(r) = G_Nexp[-Phi(r)] where G_N is the normal Newtonian gravitational constant measured in Cavendish type experiments, so G(r)m(r) is constant.
The gravitational force acting on a freely falling test particle, measured in the centre of mass frame of reference of the gravitating mass works out to be:
m₀d2r/dt2 = - m(r) [G_NM/r^2],
so we we see that m₀ is inertial mass and m(r) is gravitational mass.
Garth

 

[Blueplanetbob]

Most of you will have probably found this site but if anybody has missed it http://www.seaspower.com/InsideZeroPoint-Valone.htm

 

[Garth]

Most of you will have probably found this site

Interesting site, it seems nearly everything can be explained by ZPE!
One problem with it is, if

"Not only is it big but its energy is estimated to exceed nuclear energy densities, so even a small piece of it is worth its weight in gold."

then how come experimental verification has revolved around only the tiniest of forces, the Casimir force, and no one has been able to extract any noticeable energy out of it?
Although the Casimir force ~d^-4 does tend to infinity as d tends to zero the separations are so small that only a tiny amount of energy can actually be extracted, and once the plates have collapsed together it will require the same amount of energy to prise them apart. IOW it is a 'use once only' source of power.
Having said that I find ZPE quite useful from a cosmological point of view in SCC, and indeed perhaps in standard cosmology as dark energy so I don't want to be too dismissive!
But turbo-1

In my model, the ZPE EM field ... is the gravitational field. The ZPE field is polarized by the presence of matter due to a difference in the infall rate of particles vs antiparticles.

Is there not a "chicken and egg" problem, which comes first, ZPE polarisation or gravitational infall?

Garth

 

[turbo]

I still have some questions. I thought it might become clearer as the thread progressed, but it has not. I infer you mean the ZPE field, as opposed to matter, is the source of gravity. That appears to infer gravity is repulsive, as opposed to attractive. In other words, it is a 'push' gravity model.

No, polarized ZPE fields are attractive. The ZPE field is randomly oriented and neutral in the absence of mass. In the presence of mass, it becomes polarized, and attractive. It gravitates. The ZPE field is not strictly "the source of gravity" - gravity the the result of interaction between a massive object and the polarized ZPE field surrounding it.

I have no idea how polarization of the ZPE field [or any other field] has anything to do with gravity. Nor do I understand how the infall rate of matter vs antimatter has any bearing on this polarization phenomenon, or consequences you intuitively derived. Garth's objections are appropriate, mathematically supported and consistent with the scientific method.

The EM ZPE field is made up of particle pairs - each pair consists of a particle and an antiparticle. For the pairs to be oriented to create a polarized field, there must be a mechanism by which they are oriented. The obvious mechanism is a difference in gravitational infall rates between matter and antimatter. The inertial masses of each particle and its antiparticle are equivalent, but their gravitational masses are not equivalent. I expect the difference to be small, but measurable.

 

[turbo]

Interesting site, it seems nearly everything can be explained by ZPE!

There are a lot of sites that are quite off-the wall, claiming that we are on the verge of antigravity, free energy, etc. They seem to forget the fact that we are presently capable of exploiting energy differentials, and since ZPE is the ground state of the quantum vacuum, it's tough to generate a diferential in it.

One problem with it is, if then how come experimental verification has revolved around only the tiniest of forces, the Casimir force, and no one has been able to extract any noticeable energy out of it?
Although the Casimir force ~d^-4 does tend to infinity as d tends to zero the separations are so small that only a tiny amount of energy can actually be extracted, and once the plates have collapsed together it will require the same amount of energy to prise them apart. IOW it is a 'use once only' source of power.
Having said that I find ZPE quite useful from a cosmological point of view in SCC, and indeed perhaps in standard cosmology as dark energy so I don't want to be too dismissive!

You are correct. Few people understand that the small gap between the plates of a Casimir device restrict the formation of some portion of the ZPE field and therefore produce an area that is just a bit under the normal ZPE ground state, so the measured Casimir forces are quite small. The ZPE field contains tremendous amounts of energy, but unless someone can find a way to generate a field that is considerably lower in energy than the ZPE ground state, extracting usable amounts of energy from the field is impossible.

But turbo-1

Is there not a "chicken and egg" problem, which comes first, ZPE polarisation or gravitational infall?

Garth

In my model, the antiparticles in each ZPE virtual pair are attracted more strongly to nearby matter than are their particle counterparts. This attraction causes the difference in gravitational infall rates. The inertial masses of particles and antiparticles are perfectly equivalent, but the gravitational masses differ due to this attraction.

As a crude analogy, envision the field as a tabletop full of weak bar magnets, randomly oriented. Now introduce a powerful N monopole into the middle of them, and what happens? The magnets near the monopole guickly swing into alignment (S poles toward the N monopole) and pack toward the monopole. Magnets farther out will also align and pack in more tightly as they are faced with a uniformly-oriented wall of N poles from their neighbors closer to the monopole. The strong attraction of antiparticles of the ZPE field will cause antiparticles to align closer to the large mass than their particle counterparts. The neighboring pairs (farther from the large mass), faced with a wall of particles, will also orient with their antiparticles oriented toward the mass. This is how matter densifies and polarizes the ZPE field.

Garth, I understand that in SCC the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass is broken. Is the equivalence broken equally for both matter and antimatter, or can your model make that distinction? Does it even need to?

 

[Garth]

turbo-1 - Imagine a sea of pairs of virtual particles in empty space. There is no gravitational field, no ‘infalling'. Place a mass in the middle. How does the gravitational field develop? According to your theory with no infalling there is no field, and with no field there is no infalling, so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

In SCC there is no difference between the way matter and antimatter interact with the gravitational field, as their only difference is the sign of the charges they carry.

Garth

 

[turbo]

In SCC there is no difference between the way matter and antimatter interact with the gravitational field, as their only difference is the sign of the charges they carry.

Garth

Thank you. In that case, if the Athena project shows no differential in the gravitational infall rates between matter and antimatter, my model is falsified, and SCC gains a point. That is the heart of the scientific method. Every model should be falsifiable by observation.

turbo-1 - Imagine a sea of pairs of virtual particles in empty space. There is no gravitational field, no ‘infalling'. Place a mass in the middle. How does the gravitational field develop? According to your theory with no infalling there is no field, and with no field there is no infalling, so which comes first, the chicken or the egg?

As for the mechanics, in my model the ZPE field polarizes because the "antimatter" antiparticle of each ZPE virtual pair is more strongly attracted to the large mass of matter than the matter particle. That is the only mechanism required to polarize the ZPE field. There is no chicken or egg dichotomy. There is no "gravitational field" required to effect the infall rates of matter vs antimatter. The infall differential is mediated by the attraction of matter to antimatter, and it polarizes the ZPE EM field with no other mechanism required. Gravitation is what happens when masses interact with the polarized ZPE fields surrounding them and their massive neighbors. The "gravitational field" cannot exist in a pure vacuum surrounding a mass - gravitation is the effect of mass interacting with the quantum ZPE EM field surrounding it and cannot exist independently of the ZPE field.

1) GR offers a complicated mathematical model for "curvature of space-time" to explain gravity, with no physical explanation for the mechanics that cause that curvature.

2) Quantum theory posits the existence of the ZPE field at over 120 OOM higher energies than can be explained by observation.

3) My model unites GR and QT at a very basic level. ZPE is the ground-state energy level of our universe and is practically undetectable unless the ZPE field is polarized by the presence of mass.

 

[Garth]

As for the mechanics, in my model the ZPE field polarizes because the "antimatter" antiparticle of each ZPE virtual pair is more strongly attracted to the large mass of matter than the matter particle.

So then my question is why is antimatter attracted more strongly? Are not masses generally charge neutral?

Garth

 

[turbo]

So then my question is why is antimatter attracted more strongly? Are not masses generally charge neutral?

Garth

That has never been proven, and has been the subject of some conjecture for a number of years. Here is an overview.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/antimatterFall.html

There have been attempts to detect an infall rate differential, but when charged particles are used, any gravitational effect can easily be swamped by any variability in the much more powerful EM field. The Athena project will collect and cool antiparticles and use them to form atomic antimatter (making and containing usable amounts of antihydrogen is their current goal). Antihydrogen is electrically neutral, so gravitational effects should be more easily detected.

http://athena.web.cern.ch/athena

I should add that the question about antimatter vs matter infall rates has typically been posed in such a way as to allow the infall rate of antimatter to be either faster or slower than that of matter, if it differs at all. I believe that it is faster because in my model, this orientation of the ZPE EM field allows antiparticles to be captured by black holes at a higher rate than their accompanying particles, allowing the black hole radiation to promote more particles than antiparticles from "virtual" to "real" status, producing an excess of matter over antimatter.

 

[Garth]

Thank you for that link.

I find their version of the "Morrison" argument does not stand up either in SCC, in which gravitational red shift is caused by the apparatus gaining energy, not the photon losing it, or in general. The general criticism of their argument would be that they have combined a classical concept of potential energy with GR, which is logically inconsistent; although other reputable authors do the same, such as MTW (page 187) and Weinberg (page 85), only Wald gives the correct GR interpretation (page 136/7)!

Garth

 

[north]

guys

i was wondering wether this evidence for "frame dragging" could be the result of interplanetary plasma? although interplanetary plasma is not a homogeneous phenomenon?

 

[Chronos]

I should add that the question about antimatter vs matter infall rates has typically been posed in such a way as to allow the infall rate of antimatter to be either faster or slower than that of matter, if it differs at all. I believe that it is faster because in my model, this orientation of the ZPE EM field allows antiparticles to be captured by black holes at a higher rate than their accompanying particles, allowing the black hole radiation to promote more particles than antiparticles from "virtual" to "real" status, producing an excess of matter over antimatter.

Do you consider this an explanation for what happened to all the antimatter that should have been around in the very early universe?

 

[Blueplanetbob]

Can I just clarify that what I am picking up from this thread is correct?
So ZPE is the natural state of Energy conservation?
When it is violated by a random quantum fluctuation that creates a pair of particles they must immediately annihilate to restore equilibrium.
Simply put then Gravity has or is a negative energy created by the ZPE field to cancel the positive energy of matter in order to preserve equilibrium?
So ZPE must be a fundamental part of matter otherwise there would be no attraction?

 

[turbo]

Do you consider this an explanation for what happened to all the antimatter that should have been around in the very early universe?

As I said in an earlier (much earlier) thread, it can provide a mechanism for removing anti-matter from our observable universe and promoting new matter from "virtual" to real status on a continuous basis.

I think you might have trouble using this effect to explain the matter/antimatter ratio we see today if your model constrains the age of the universe to just 13.7Gy, as the Standard Big Bang model does. Of course, you are aware of my arguments against the validity of SBB, since it has been falsified by observations over and over again, only to be patched up like Frankenstein to live another day (little Halloween reference ).

 

[turbo]

Can I just clarify that what I am picking up from this thread is correct?
So ZPE is the natural state of Energy conservation?
When it is violated by a random quantum fluctuation that creates a pair of particles they must immediately annihilate to restore equilibrium.

I'll try to address these one at a time. Zero Point Energy is the ground state of the vacuum, as expressed in Quantum field theory. There is a tremendous amount of absolute energy in the field, but since we can only measure energy differentials in the real world, it is difficult for us to even detect. The particle pairs of the ZPE Electromagnetic Field arise spontaneously even in a vacuum at absolute zero, but must annihilate within limits set by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This field is everywhere, and there is no true vacuum. If we could create a true vacuum and exploit the energy difference between that and the ZPE field, we would have unlimited energy on tap. There is no practical means of creating such a vacuum, and probably will never be, despite the numerous breathless pronouncements of anti-gravity drives and free energy being right around the corner.

Simply put then Gravity has or is a negative energy created by the ZPE field to cancel the positive energy of matter in order to preserve equilibrium?

Gravity is the result of interaction between massive objects and a ZPE EM field that has been polarized by the presence of matter, due to the differential in matter/antimatter infall rates. Simply put, antimatter is more strongly attracted to matter that matter is to matter, so the ZPE field aligns accordingly. In the absence of matter, ZPE field is neutral and the field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate.

So ZPE must be a fundamental part of matter otherwise there would be no attraction?

The ZPE field is the ground state of vacuum in our universe. It is everywhere and it polarizes in the presence of matter. It is the interaction between masses and the polarized ZPE fields in which they are embedded that cause the attractive effect we call gravity.

Someday, I'll take the time to pull in all my notes and references and put together a page that explains this model in detail.

 

[Mike2]

Gravity is the result of interaction between massive objects and a ZPE EM field that has been polarized by the presence of matter, due to the differential in matter/antimatter infall rates. Simply put, antimatter is more strongly attracted to matter that matter is to matter, so the ZPE field aligns accordingly. In the absence of matter, the matter/antimatter ratio of the ZPE field is neutral and the field is randomly oriented and does not gravitate.

If the ZPE is everywhere in space accept where matter exists, then what you are saying is that matter is the absense of space. Perhaps if spacetime is the QM superposition of different geometries of various genus, then maybe matter (if it is the absense of space) is where the various holes of various genus combine on occasion to produce the absence of space.

 

[Chronos]

As I said in an earlier (much earlier) thread, it can provide a mechanism for removing anti-matter from our observable universe and promoting new matter from "virtual" to real status on a continuous basis.

I think you might have trouble using this effect to explain the matter/antimatter ratio we see today if your model constrains the age of the universe to just 13.7Gy, as the Standard Big Bang model does. Of course, you are aware of my arguments against the validity of SBB, since it has been falsified by observations over and over again, only to be patched up like Frankenstein to live another day (little Halloween reference ).

Thanks turbo, I wasn't sure I caught your drift and wanted to make sure I understood before proceeding. A steady state universe much older than 13.7 Gy appears to be required by your model. A BB model would fall flat on its face. A matter v antimatter dominated universe emerges long before the first black hole could possibly have formed under current theory.

Setting that aside, current theory constrains the maximum difference between the infall rate of matter v antimatter in a gravitational field to 0.04%. Assuming that constraint applies, what is the minimum time required [under your model] for the universe to match current observational evidence?

I am tempted to ask what observations have falsified SBB over and over again, but that can wait. I do request the right to cross examine.

 

[turbo]

Setting that aside, current theory constrains the maximum difference between the infall rate of matter v antimatter in a gravitational field to 0.04%. Assuming that constraint applies, what is the minimum time required [under your model] for the universe to match current observational evidence?

I'm going to have to put more time into this one, but I'll be back. (not like Aahnold!)

I am tempted to ask what observations have falsified SBB over and over again, but that can wait. I do request the right to cross examine.

No need to wait. Suppose that I can develop a consistent, mathematically logical model of gravitation in polarized ZPE fields, and that it perfectly predicts solar system dynamics, precession, etc, and it perfectly predicts the refraction of star images at the sun's limb.

Now, imagine that when I apply my model to glalactic clusters, it predicts lensing far stronger that is currently observed. My model of gravitation is immediately falsified. It is a good local approximation, but it is not predictive on very large scales.

Now, imagine that I use my gravitational theory to model to the binding forces in clusters, and it predicts a binding force that is so strong that many observed clusters should coalesced under its strength long ago, forming huge multi-thousand galactic-mass black holes. My model is again flalsified. Again, it's a good local approximation for simple systems of spherical bodies, but it is not predictive with huge massive clusters. Back to the drawing board!

Shall I continue? I have more examples. The gravitational model of GR has failed in just these ways (with opposite signs, of course). It has been falsified by conflicts with many observations. This curved space-time model of gravity is a critical underpinning of SBB, so SBB adherents have invented exotic undectectable forms of matter, that has to be distributed "just so" to fix each conflict with astronomical observations. The curved space-time mathematical model of gravity in GR is a really good approximation on solar-system scales, but it is not predictive on much larger scales and is therefore NOT general or universal. Until we come up with a truly general theory of gravitation that follows the same rules everywhere, cosmology is in trouble.

Again, Chronos, if my polarized ZPE model of gravitation failed to properly predict even one of these: 1)cluster binding forces, 2)cluster lensing, 3)galactic rotation curves; you would immediately declare it falsified. I doubt you would allow me to come up with imaginary forces and matter to "fix" the problems.

 

[wolram]

I'm patiently waiting. Garth is waiting for the results of Gravity Probe B, as well - for some reason, no incremental results will be released, only final (2-year) results.

As every one is on tenter hooks waiting for some discovery of" gravity waves",
i find it strange that any results from this experiment will not be reported until
its conclusion, maybe it is because so much depends on these results, and
breathing space is needed to come up with a reason for a null result.

 

[Garth]

As every one is on tenter hooks waiting for some discovery of" gravity waves",
i find it strange that any results from this experiment will not be reported until
its conclusion, maybe it is because so much depends on these results, and
breathing space is needed to come up with a reason for a null result.

The Gravity Probe B satellite that was being referred to does not detect gravity waves but the effects of curvature caused by a spinning mass (the Earth).

Indeed 'so much does depend on these results', and that is why they are being very careful to do the experiment objectively.

It tracks the precession of four most accurate gyroscopes against a guide star. That star is also moving against the night sky with its own proper motion. There is another team accurately tracking the star and the two sets of data have to be compared.

Rather than the two teams possibly colluding to produce an expected result, it has been decided to keep the two sets of data entirely separate until they both have been assessed as accurate and only then will they be brought together. The final result will be known in early 2006.

Garth

 

[wolram]

The Gravity Probe B satellite that was being referred to does not detect gravity waves but the effects of curvature caused by a spinning mass (the Earth).
Please forgive me garth, but i imagine this as one and the same thing,
space time is a mathematical model of our universe that scientists are trying
to give some mechanical properties to, elasticity or rigidity, i have yet to
see an explanation of how this works, strings, loop quantum, only go to
the fringes of an explanation.

 

[turbo]

The Gravity Probe B satellite that was being referred to does not detect gravity waves but the effects of curvature caused by a spinning mass (the Earth).
Please forgive me garth, but i imagine this as one and the same thing,
space time is a mathematical model of our universe that scientists are trying
to give some mechanical properties to, elasticity or rigidity, i have yet to
see an explanation of how this works, strings, loop quantum, only go to
the fringes of an explanation.

That is the crux of the gravity problem. The curved space-time of GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model that is quite predictive on solar-system scales. It falls apart on galactic scales and larger, though, where MOND has proven to be very predictive.

Neither of these ad-hoc mathematical models yields much insight into the mechanics of gravitation, although there is much to be learned from the comparison of GR and MOND. First of all, the DM needed to patch GR has to be applied in special ways to reconcile GR with observations of galactic rotation curves. In MOND, only the distribution of luminous materials in the observed galaxies need be considered, and the curves fall into place. This tells us that MOND is the more accurate model on galactic scales, and that the mechanical process by which gravitation and inertia are expressed on galactic scales is simple and universal.

This is why I started modeling gravitation as the interaction of mass with polarized ZPE fields. We know massive bodies exist, and we know that quantum ZPE fields exist. I believe that a difference in gravitational infall rate between matter and antimatter will provide the polarizing mechanism needed for the ZPE fields to exist at energies considerably above ground state, and interact gravitationally with matter and with itself. One key concept - I think the quantum theorists need to stop expressing the energy density of the ZPE field as an "absolute" number compared to a true vacuum (which cannot exist in our universe). This leads to ridiculously high energy densities. To reconcile quantum theory with GR, we will have to express the energy of the ZPE fields in relation to our universe's ground state, which would be vacuum in a relaxed frame, unperturbed by mass, at zero degrees Kelvin.

 

[Chronos]

That is the crux of the gravity problem. The curved space-time of GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model that is quite predictive on solar-system scales. It falls apart on galactic scales and larger, though, where MOND has proven to be very predictive.

GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model? Going out on a limb is one thing, going out on a twig is another. Your reluctance to buy into a standard, or concordant model is acknowledged. Asserting GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model is not only outrageous [in my opinion], it is a reckless disregard for empirical evidence and a slap in the face to real scientists [i.e., those who have made the personal sacrifices and effort required to gather facts and make informed, rational conclusions]. Apologies for being blunt.

 

[turbo]

GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model? Going out on a limb is one thing, going out on a twig is another. Your reluctance to buy into a standard, or concordant model is acknowledged. Asserting GR is an ad-hoc mathematical model is not only outrageous [in my opinion], it is a reckless disregard for empirical evidence and a slap in the face to real scientists [i.e., those who have made the personal sacrifices and effort required to gather facts and make informed, rational conclusions]. Apologies for being blunt.

No need to apologize. It is not my intent to hurt your feelings, nor the feelings of anybody who subscribes to the "curved space-time" model of gravitation in GR. I do not use the term "ad-hoc" as a perjorative. I use it because the model does not explain how gravitation arises. Instead of explaining the mechanics of gravitation, Einstein modeled its behavior - there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we do not elevate his mathematical model to the status of "reality". Curved space-time is a mathematical model that works well in some circumstances. MOND is a mathematical model that seems to be a lot more predictive on galactic scales and larger. Neither model explains the mechanics of gravitation - they only model the effects of gravitation.

Why should we want to know the mechanics of gravitation? Discovering the mechanics of gravitation is essential, if gravitation is going to be united with the other fundamental forces of nature. I repeat, GR's curved space-time and Milgrom's MOND are mathematical models that predict the effects of gravitation - they do not address the cause of gravitation.

I do not have a "reckless disregard for empirical evidence", nor is my investigation into the mechanics of gravitation a "slap in the face to real scientists" (emphasis mine). There are real scientists all over the world who support themselves in other jobs, and who may nevertheless make real contributions. In fact, observational astronomy is one of the most democratic of the sciences, and amateurs routinely make discoveries that are valuable to real scientists (yes, emphasis mine). For my part, I try to sort through the various interpretations of observational evidence to determine where the problems lie that make the unification of GR and quantum theory difficult. That might not seem like much of a contribution to you, but it is interesting and compelling work.

If we are at a point where any particular theory cannot be questioned or subjected to falsification, then science is dead. I do not believe that this is the case, although in some instances, science may be on life-support. We have to be especially careful about what you refer to as "empirical evidence", since all observations are filtered though our perceptions and prejudices. When a statement is prefaced by "obviously" or "as everybody knows", the warning flags should go up. We are only human after all, and despite our advances, we are no more objective and open-minded as a group than the peers of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

 

[Garth]

Curved space-time is a mathematical model that works well in some circumstances. MOND is a mathematical model that seems to be a lot more predictive on galactic scales and larger. Neither model explains the mechanics of gravitation - they only model the effects of gravitation.

The interesting point is that some conceive of space-time curvature as actually existing in some Platonic sense, they are called idealists, others that it is only a conceptual model that makes accurate predictions, they are called instrumentalists.

An idealist does not require a mechanism of gravitation, it is all explained by geometry, there is no mechanism because there is no gravitational force, no graviton or whatever.

Aninstrumentalist requires various forms of mechanism and often wanting to see gravitation alongside the other three fundamental forces conceives of a graviton to mediate the force.

Until such gravitons are experimentally verified you can take your choice.

Garth

 

[turbo]

The interesting point is that some conceive of space-time curvature as actually existing in some Platonic sense, they are called idealists, others that it is only a conceptual model that makes accurate predictions, they are called instrumentalists.

An idealist does not require a mechanism of gravitation, it is all explained by geometry, there is no mechanism because there is no gravitational force, no graviton or whatever.

Aninstrumentalist requires various forms of mechanism and often wanting to see gravitation alongside the other three fundamental forces conceives of a graviton to mediate the force.

Until such gravitons are experimentally verified you can take your choice.

Garth

Einstein had this to say regarding the dangers of blindly elevating useful concepts to the status of "commonly accepted knowledge". He was not just an intelligent man, he was a very wise man.

"How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. ... Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as 'necessities of thought,' 'a priori givens,' etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long common place concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken."

The good doctor would have had little patience for those who enshrine his work and refuse to re-examine it and falsify it in light of new knowledge.