Scalar Gravitational Theory with Variable Rest Mass

In summary, this paper presents a scalar potential relation that can predict orbital and photon motion in a gravitational system, similar to General Relativity in weak field solutions. However, it is different in that it predicts significant differences in strong field solutions, such as the absence of black holes and the presence of mass to gamma ray converters. The paper has gone through multiple revisions and has been reviewed by multiple individuals. It also addresses the conservation of energy and the difference between inertial and gravitational mass.

How do you find this paper?

  • Bad theory badly developed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bad theory ok development

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Good theory poorly developed

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Good theory ok development

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • #1
dtfroedge
27
0
ABSTRACT
In this paper we will present the mechanical dynamics of a gravitational system resulting from a specific, rest mass, scalar potential relation, that is equivalent in predicting orbital and photon motion to that of General Relativity in the weak field solutions. The weak solutions of General Relativity do not appear to be contradicted by this development, and in this range the physical difference may not be measurable. The strong field solutions will be significantly different, however since, in this scalar relation, the rest mass goes to zero at at Scwarzschild boundary. The consequences of the mass dependence gravitational potential results, for large masses, not in the prediction of black holes, but rather mass to Gamma ray converters.
 

Attachments

  • Scalar Gravitational Theory with Variable Rest Mass.pdf
    112 KB · Views: 396
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Revised version

Due to the helpful input of several readers this paper has gone through a series of revisions, the latest of which is located at:
http://www.arxdtf.org/css/grav2.pdf
The math in this paper has been gone through multiple times by myself and others, but errors are not inconceivable. The most notable differences in this paper with GR are in the predicted properties of black holes, and should be the most likely avenue of success or crash for the paper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
Technical does not mean sensible

Hello:

Equation 1 looks like nonsense to me. In standard GR, we have a few well defined tensors.

The Riemann curvature tensor:
[tex]R^{\alpha}_{\beta \mu \nu}[/tex]

The Ricci tensor, a contract of the Riemann curvature tensor:
[tex]R_{\mu \nu}[/tex]

The Ricci scalar, a contract of the Ricci tensor:
[tex]R[/tex]

The metric tensor
[tex]g_{\mu \nu}[/tex]

And the stress energy tensor:
[tex]T_{\mu \nu}[/tex]

One starts with the Hilbert action:

[tex]S = \int \sqrt{-g} d^4 x R[/tex]

and by varying this action with respect to the metric tensor, one gets three terms. One of these is zero (I think it is the boundary of a boundary term based on a theorem by Gauss). The result is the Einstein field equations:

[tex]R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu}R= 8 \pi T_{\mu \nu}[/tex]

As I vaguely understand it, should you choose not to work with the Ricci scalar, it can in a way be moved over to the other side of the equation.

Anyway, that is a brief description of the road to the Einstein field equations.

Here is equation 1, taken directly from the paper:

[tex]R^t_t = 8 \pi (T^t_t - T)[/tex]

By Einstein's summation convension, the left hand side should just be the Ricci scalar, and the right hand side should be zero. The Ricci scalar can equal zero, but that is not too interesting. At this point I stop reading.

doug
 
  • #4
I found this a bit difficult to follow. Do you use Newton's definition of the grav field to calculate [tex]\alpha[/tex] ? What is [tex]\mu[/tex] ?

We will take Eq.(3) to be the defining relation for the motion of the particles in the system, and presume that the total energy of a particle in a conservative system to be constant.
(my emphasis) Conservation of energy should be guaranteed, not assumed.

You do not mention inertial vs gravitational mass. I think you might be saying that the mass which generates the field is different from the mass that 'feels' the field.

I don't think it's right, but it is interesting to see another theory of gravity.
 
  • #5
sweetser said:
Hello:

Equation 1 looks like nonsense to me. In standard GR, we have a few well defined tensors.



[tex]R^t_t = 8 \pi (T^t_t - T)[/tex]

By Einstein's summation convension, the left hand side should just be the Ricci scalar, and the right hand side should be zero. The Ricci scalar can equal zero, but that is not too interesting. At this point I stop reading.

doug

sweetser:
Apologies and thanks for the 1/2 typo which has been corrected.
[tex]R^t_t = 8 \pi (T^t_t - 1/2T)[/tex]
This historical reference to negative Komar mass is on well worked out physics available in most texts, and I didn't think the notatio needed to be that precise, I just used the short notation used by Ansorg in the paper cited.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0607/0607091v2.pdf
My apologizes if it triggered misgivings.
 
  • #6
Mentz114 said:
I found this a bit difficult to follow. Do you use Newton's definition of the grav field to calculate [tex]\alpha[/tex] ? What is [tex]\mu[/tex] ?


(my emphasis) Conservation of energy should be guaranteed, not assumed.

You do not mention inertial vs gravitational mass. I think you might be saying that the mass which generates the field is different from the mass that 'feels' the field.

I don't think it's right, but it is interesting to see another theory of gravity.

[tex]\mu[/tex] is just the gravitationla radius Gm/c^2

The presumption is that particle energy
[tex] mc ^{2} = m_{\o}c^{2} + G M m/r = m _{\o}c^{2} +1/2mv}^{2} =constant [/tex]
, is not the normal assumption. The normal assumption is that gravitational energy is being contributed by the gravitational field as the particle decends. The present presumption is that the total particle energy is constant, with no contribution by the field. The source of the kinetic energy being extracted from the loss of the rest mass
 

Related to Scalar Gravitational Theory with Variable Rest Mass

1. What is Scalar Gravitational Theory with Variable Rest Mass?

Scalar Gravitational Theory with Variable Rest Mass is a scientific theory that proposes a new understanding of gravity. It suggests that the rest mass of an object can vary depending on its location in space, and this change in mass can affect the gravitational force it experiences.

2. What is the significance of this theory?

This theory challenges the traditional understanding of gravity as a fixed force and offers a potential explanation for phenomena that have remained unexplained by traditional theories. It also has implications for our understanding of the universe and its fundamental laws.

3. How does this theory differ from other theories of gravity?

Unlike other theories, Scalar Gravitational Theory with Variable Rest Mass takes into account the possibility of a changing rest mass and its impact on gravitational forces. It also proposes a different mathematical framework for understanding gravity.

4. Is there any evidence to support this theory?

Currently, there is no direct evidence to support this theory. However, some scientists have proposed experiments to test its predictions, and there are ongoing discussions and debates within the scientific community about its validity.

5. How could this theory potentially impact our understanding of the universe?

If proven to be valid, this theory could revolutionize our understanding of gravity and its role in the universe. It could also lead to new discoveries and advancements in our understanding of other fundamental forces and laws governing the universe.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
631
Replies
1
Views
406
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
72
Views
6K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
58
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top