Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream science?

  1. [SOLVED] Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream science?

    Hello guys,

    I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is
    not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. I know it
    gave rise to numerous published works, amongst which we have those of
    Lorentz, H.Poincare, F.Brush, Secchi, Leray, V.Thomson, Schramm, Tait,
    Isenkrahe, Preston, Jarolimek, Waachy, Rynsanek, Darwin, Majorana... so
    it cannot be all wrong.

    Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles
    theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can
    easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of
    electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting
    as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse
    square law, low pressure areas.

    Thanks,
    S.Borg.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Re: Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstreamscience?

    Blaze Labs wrote:
    >
    > Hello guys,
    >
    > I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is
    > not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. I know it
    > gave rise to numerous published works, amongst which we have those of
    > Lorentz, H.Poincare, F.Brush, Secchi, Leray, V.Thomson, Schramm, Tait,
    > Isenkrahe, Preston, Jarolimek, Waachy, Rynsanek, Darwin, Majorana... so
    > it cannot be all wrong.
    >
    > Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles
    > theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can
    > easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of
    > electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting
    > as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse
    > square law, low pressure areas.


    Electromagnetism propagates as spin-1 vector bosons. If gravitation
    is quantized it propagates as spin-2 tensor bosons. The selection
    rules for allowed transitions are different. EM and gravitation do
    not unify - not even if you are wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans. EM is
    trivially shielded with alternating layers of grounded conductor
    (Faraday cage) and lossy inductor (e.g., ferrite) and eventually by
    electron scattering (nuclear shielding for beta-rays). Gravitation
    cannot be shielded.

    The source of monopole radiation is a changing monopole moment for a
    charge q or for a mass m. Since charge and mass are conserved, there
    can be neither monopole electromagnetic radiation nor monopole
    gravitational radiation.

    The source of dipole radiation is a changing dipole moment.
    (Punctiliously, you need a second time derivative of the dipole
    moment.) For a pair of charges

    d = qr + q'r'

    and there's nothing special about the derivatives. For a pair of
    masses, the gravitational dipole moment is

    d = mr + m'r'

    and its time derivative is

    mv + m'v' = p + p'

    By conservation of momentum the second time derivative of the
    gravitational dipole moment is zero, and you can go to a center of
    momentum frame and set the first derivative to zero as well. There
    is no gravitational "electric dipole" radiation.

    Consider the analog of "magnetic dipole" radiation. The gravitational
    equivalent of the magnetic dipole moment for a pair of charges is

    M = mv x r + m'v' x r'
    ("x" is the cross product, "mv" is the "mass current")

    But M is the total angular momentum, which is also conserved. There
    is no gravitational "magnetic dipole" radiation.

    The next moment up is quadrupole, with no relevant conservation laws,
    so gravitational quadrupole radiation is permitted.

    --
    Uncle Al
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
    (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
    http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
     
  4. Re: Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream

    On Wed, 24 May 2006, Blaze Labs wrote:

    > I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is
    > not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science. I know it
    > gave rise to numerous published works, amongst which we have those of
    > Lorentz, H.Poincare, F.Brush, Secchi, Leray, V.Thomson, Schramm, Tait,
    > Isenkrahe, Preston, Jarolimek, Waachy, Rynsanek, Darwin, Majorana... so
    > it cannot be all wrong.
    >
    > Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles
    > theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can
    > easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of
    > electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting
    > as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse
    > square law, low pressure areas.


    Isn't this exactly what Brush wrote about? A search to see who cite
    Brush's paper might be revealing. Perhaps it's just the observation that,
    apart from rather speculative push-gravity effects, we don't seem to be
    immersed in a bath of lots and lots of ultra-gamma rays?

    Modern experiments on the falling of single cold atoms might be a
    conclusive disproof, since radiation pressure due to ultra-high frequency
    radiation tends to be in discrete jumps; E=hf and all that. This isn't
    observed.

    I see you list Majorana, although perhaps his suggestion should be called
    "anti-push" (surely better than "suck"!) gravity.

    My impression is that while push gravity, at least in certain limits, give
    plausible results, doesn't offer any improvement over other theories of
    gravitation, while introducing severe difficulties related to the exchange
    of energy between the gravitational particle flux and conventional matter.

    A relativistic treatment of gravitational particles (relevant if photons)
    doesn't seem to improve matters such as galactic rotations curves (thanks
    Rob for this).

    --
    Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
    E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
    Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
     
  5. Re: Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstreamscience?

    Blaze Labs <saviour@blazelabs.com> wrote:
    > Hello guys,


    > I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is
    > not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science.


    There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with
    particular models. The main generic objections I know of are

    1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything
    that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.
    There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the
    Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.

    2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and
    look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d
    from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous
    position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the
    past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the
    Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year
    time scale.

    (The effect of aberration is to increase the velocity of a planet,
    and you might hope that drag would cancel it. But it's easy to
    check that such cancellation can occur at, at most, one radial
    distance from the Sun.)

    3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not
    only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory
    would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do
    the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding
    energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that
    "push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter.

    In particular, we observe that gravitational binding energy itself
    gravitates. This seems to require self-interaction among the
    pushing particles. On the other hand, the accuracy of the inverse
    square law over long distances requires that the self-interaction
    be very small -- you certainly need a mean free path larger than
    the size of the Solar System if you don't want to mess up Pluto's
    orbit.

    4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind
    of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity"
    model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)
    062002.

    [...]
    > Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles
    > theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can
    > easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of
    > electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting
    > as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse
    > square law, low pressure areas.


    You immediately run into trouble with the principle of equivalence,
    for one thing. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other
    electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); but
    gravity bends light. Nor do electromagnetic waves interact with
    internal energy, not with neutrinos; but these *are* affected by
    gravity. You also run into grave problems with aberration (see above),
    and very probably with drag. You would *further* have to explain why
    this high frequency radiation is not absorbed by the Earth enough to
    lead to gravitational screening of the type ruled out by experiment.

    Note that "high frequency [electromagnetic] radiation" is gamma radiation.
    There are experimental measurements of very high energy gamma rays, and
    a fair amount is known about their spectrum. I suspect you would have
    a very hard time reconciling your model with these observations.

    Steve Carlip
     
  6. Re: Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstreamscience?

    carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:

    snip

    >
    > Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other
    > electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);


    snip

    > Steve Carlip
    >


    Steve

    Could you please provide a reference to:

    "truly tiny quantum effects"

    of

    "interacting Electromagnetic waves"

    Richard
     
  7. Re: Why is push gravity concept considered not viable by mainstream

    Timo A. Nieminen wrote:
    > ... Perhaps it's just the observation that,
    > apart from rather speculative push-gravity effects, we don't seem to be
    > immersed in a bath of lots and lots of ultra-gamma rays?


    OTOH, de Broglie showed that treating a particle as a standing wave
    would predict many effects which were subsequently found to be just so.
    If a particle is a standing wave, then (as Wheeler and Feynman got
    close to saying) it is a combination of both an in and out wave at
    the Compton frequency of the particle. This is indeed ultra-gamma
    rays, but it is not something that "happens to the particle" but
    rather "what the particle is".

    I highly recommend the web site of Gabriel LaFreniere at
    http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
    which has many animated GIFs showing how standing waves look and
    produce all the effects of de Broglie, including waves relating to
    particles in motion and much more.

    > My impression is that while push gravity, at least in certain limits, give
    > plausible results, doesn't offer any improvement over other theories of
    > gravitation, while introducing severe difficulties related to the exchange
    > of energy between the gravitational particle flux and conventional matter.


    If the particle as a standing wave idea is adopted, then LeSage gravity
    does follow still.

    carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:
    > 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything
    > that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.
    > There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the
    > Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.


    > 2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and
    > look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d
    > from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous
    > position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the
    > past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the
    > Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year
    > time scale.


    When the in and out waves are considered, it seems to me that both the
    drag and aberration problems are solved. That is because there is an
    almost exactly equal and opposite effect from each of the two parts
    of the wave.

    I say almost equal and opposite because there does have to be a
    difference of 1 part in 10^40 between the two fluxes in order to
    explain why gravity is that must weaker than other forces.
    That difference also leads to a correct prediction of the
    cosmological redshift as being a side effect of the imbalance.

    These relationships are deeply satisfying.

    > 3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not
    > only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory
    > would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do
    > the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding
    > energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that
    > "push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter.


    If particles are a type of e/m standing wave then this would of
    course be so.

    > 4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind
    > of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity"
    > model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)
    > 062002.


    There are of course observations of effects of shadows from eclipses
    on pendulums (Maurice Allais) and on gravitational acceleration
    (Wang and Wang(?)) which do show that there is screening, although
    it might better be described as a mixture of screening and scattering.

    Ray Tomes
    http://ray.tomes.biz/
    http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/
     
  8. <carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote in message
    news:e54rdf$qcb$1@skeeter.ucdavis.edu...
    > Blaze Labs <saviour@blazelabs.com> wrote:
    >> Hello guys,

    >
    >> I would like to know the main reasons why the push gravity concept is
    >> not considered as a viable concept by mainstream science.

    >
    > There are a few generic objections, along with particular problems with
    > particular models. The main generic objections I know of are
    >
    > 1. Drag: As Feynman pointed out in the Feynman Lectures, anything
    > that's capable of "pushing" will also create drag on a moving object.
    > There are very strong observational limits on such drag, in the
    > Solar System and in binary pulsar systems.


    I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are referring to the paragraph
    in Vol. I, pages 7-9 to 7-10, in which Feynman commented on the theory
    of a mechanism of gravitation. I was thinking that if these
    "push-particles" are traveling at the speed of light, c, something like
    the following might hold. Let F be the flux of these particles thoughout
    space (i.e., the number of particles passing through unit area in unit
    time.) Also, assume the flux is isotropic in direction. Consider a thin
    sheet of matter traveling at speed u in the +X direction (traveling
    broadside so you see the full area when looking along X.) To simplify,
    consider only those particles going either in the +X or -X direction.
    (Nothing is lost, in principle, by doing this, as you could integrate
    over velocity components for other directions.) When the object is at
    rest, it sees the same particle flux, F,coming from both the front side
    and the hind side. But in motion, the flux it meets is increased to
    F(c+u)/c and the flux from behind is decreased to F(c-u)/c. If Feynman's
    anology with running in the rain applies, the thing would certainly
    absorb more particles from the front than from the back per unit time,
    and would feel a resistance to the motion. (With raindrops, if they hit,
    they are absorbed.) However, the sheet of matter is composed of
    individual absorber particles, say "atoms". Looking at a single atom,
    the number of encounters per second it has with a push-particle is
    proportional to the particle flux in the vicinity of the atom. The
    number absorbed per second by that atom is equal to the number of
    encounters per second times the probability, p, of absorption per
    encounter.So, for push-particles coming from the front, an atom in the
    sheet of material would absorb

    N(1) = ApF(c+u)/c particles per second (1)

    where A is the proportionality constant mentioned above for encounters,
    and p is the probability of absorption per encounter.

    This same atom would absorb from behind,

    N(2) = ApF(c-u)/c particles per second. (2)

    If the probability were the same in each case, the atom would certainly
    absorb more per second from the front than from behind. However, the
    atom (or whatever absorbing "particle") may be assumed to have an
    effective absorbing diameter,d. A particle can be absorbed by it only
    when it is traversing this distance through, or close by, the atom. It
    takes a time t(1) = d/(c+u) for the particles meeting the atom to
    traverse its sphere of influence. And for those coming from the rear, it
    takes a time t(2) = d/(c-u) for them to get away from its influence. The
    probability of absorption per encounter should also be proportional to
    the time lapse of the encounter. (if it stays in the vicinity of the
    atom longer, it should have a higher probability of absorption.)
    Therefore, the probability of absorption in each case would be p(1) =
    Bd/(c+u) for particles meeting it, and p(2) = Bd/(c-u) for particles
    coming from behind, where B is the proportionality constant.

    Replacing the probability p in equations (1) and (2) above with these
    probabilities as a function of the time lapse of encounter, gives:

    the number absorbed from the front per second by a given atom as
    N(1) = A[Bd/(c+u)]F[(c+u)/c] = (ABdF)/c

    and the number absorbed from behind per second by the same atom
    as:
    N(2) = A[Bd/(c-u)]F[(c-u)/c] = (ABdF)/c

    The result is the same, which shows that a moving object will absorb the
    same number per second of push-particles from the front as from the
    back. Therefore the object will feel no net force due to motion in this
    isotropic flux of particles. (If one worries about the energy build-up,
    we may assume that the particles, once absorbed, are very quickly
    re-scattered isotropically.)

    Whether I'm right or not,
    Have one on me!

    >
    > 2. Aberration: Suppose "pushing" particles move at a speed v, and
    > look at the effect on the Solar System. For a planet at distance d
    > from the Sun, the "push" will not be toward the instantaneous
    > position of the Sun, but towards its position at a time d/v in the
    > past. This is a drastic effect -- if v is the speed of light, the
    > Solar System would be drastically unstable over a thousand-year
    > time scale.
    >
    > (The effect of aberration is to increase the velocity of a planet,
    > and you might hope that drag would cancel it. But it's easy to
    > check that such cancellation can occur at, at most, one radial
    > distance from the Sun.)
    >
    > 3. Principle of equivalence: It is observed that gravity acts not
    > only on mass, but on all forms of energy. A "push gravity" theory
    > would have to come with an explanation of how the particles that do
    > the pushing manage to push against, for example, electrostatic binding
    > energy and the kinetic energy of electrons in an atom, and why that
    > "push" exactly matches the "push" against ordinary matter.
    >
    > In particular, we observe that gravitational binding energy itself
    > gravitates. This seems to require self-interaction among the
    > pushing particles. On the other hand, the accuracy of the inverse
    > square law over long distances requires that the self-interaction
    > be very small -- you certainly need a mean free path larger than
    > the size of the Solar System if you don't want to mess up Pluto's
    > orbit.
    >
    > 4. Gravitational screening: There are very strong limits on the kind
    > of "gravitational screening" one would expect from a "push gravity"
    > model -- see, for example, Unnikrishnan et al., Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001)
    > 062002.
    >
    > [...]
    >> Please note, I am NOT asking about Le Sage ultramundane particles
    >> theory (which also falls under the push gravity category), which I can
    >> easiely discredit myself. I'm mostly interested in the concept of
    >> electromagnetic radiation pressure of high frequency radiation acting
    >> as the gravitational mechanism, and its shadowing creating the inverse
    >> square law, low pressure areas.

    >
    > You immediately run into trouble with the principle of equivalence,
    > for one thing. Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other
    > electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects); but
    > gravity bends light. Nor do electromagnetic waves interact with
    > internal energy, not with neutrinos; but these *are* affected by
    > gravity. You also run into grave problems with aberration (see above),
    > and very probably with drag. You would *further* have to explain why
    > this high frequency radiation is not absorbed by the Earth enough to
    > lead to gravitational screening of the type ruled out by experiment.
    >
    > Note that "high frequency [electromagnetic] radiation" is gamma radiation.
    > There are experimental measurements of very high energy gamma rays, and
    > a fair amount is known about their spectrum. I suspect you would have
    > a very hard time reconciling your model with these observations.
    >
    > Steve Carlip
    >
     
  9. Richard Saam <rdsaam@att.net> wrote:
    > carlip-nospam@physics.ucdavis.edu wrote:


    > snip


    >> Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other
    >> electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);


    > snip


    > Could you please provide a reference to:


    > "truly tiny quantum effects"
    > of
    > "interacting Electromagnetic waves"


    One place to look is www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html.
    For observations involving real (not virtual) photons, see, for example,
    Burke et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 1626 and Bamber et al., Phys.
    Rev. D 60 (1999) 092004. There is even a proposal to build a photon-
    photon linear collider -- see, for example, www.desy.de/~telnov/ggtesla/
    and diablo.phys.northwestern.edu/~mvelasco/gg-papers.html.

    For a description of the process in QED, you can look at most quantum
    field theory textbooks, under "photon-photon scattering." For example,
    see section 7-3-1 of Itzykson and Zuber.

    Steve Carlip
     
  10. Steve Carlip pointed out that
    > Electromagnetic waves don't interact with other
    > electromagnetic waves (except by truly tiny quantum effects);


    Richard Saam <rdsaam@att.net> asked for references for this.

    The usual phrase for this is "photon-photon scattering". A brief
    bout of googling this phrase found (among others) the following pages
    which look quite informative:
    http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/feb99/919892082.Ph.r.html
    http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/opal/gammagamma/gg-tutorial.html
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512033
    The last of these is an M.Sc thesis on the possible observability of this.

    Cheng and Wu,
    Phys Rev D 1, 3414 (12 June 1970),
    http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v1/i12/p3414_1
    give a detailed calculation of photon-photon scattering cross sections.

    Chiao,
    http://www.physics.berkeley.edu/research/chiao/EOY00/chiao6.pdf
    gives an experimental observation, abeit in a dilute gas rather than
    in a vacuum (which would be a "purer" situation).

    ciao,

    --
    -- "Jonathan Thornburg -- remove -animal to reply" <jthorn@aei.mpg-zebra.de>
    Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
    Golm, Germany, "Old Europe" http://www.aei.mpg.de/~jthorn/home.html
    "Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
    powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral."
    -- quote by Freire / poster by Oxfam
     
  11. 1.
    In GR I thought that gravity propagates (insofar we can talk about gravity propagating) also at the speed of light, and not instantanious, like Newton. Why doesn't the solar system becomes unstable then?
    Is in GR the gravitational pull towards the instantanious position of the Sun?

    (As explained to me somewhere else, GR handles this properly, and therefore the expected results for GR and Newton are in fact the same in most cases (with the exception for example of Mercury), even though in GR gravity is not instantanious and in Newton the effects of gravity are instantanious).

    2.
    The shielding by the Sun of planet at distance d circling the sun happens not only at the present position of the planet, but at every location at distance d. At every point (wether occupied by a planet or not) some shielding occurs because of the shielding effect of the sun. And vice versa.
    So, I don't see how that is going to affect the direction of the netto pull that occurs, it would be in the right direction.

    Conclusion:

    The argument is not valid.

    Not that "pushing gravity" is a viable assumption, as there are - even when the math would show that is equal to GR - detectable differences.

    And many thing are not explained, like do these particles interact with matter elastically or inelastically, are the particles themselves massless and traveling the speed of light?, etc..
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook