SciPhysicsForums.com

Dear SPF friends:

I reported the morning I left for Mexico on January 7, in the thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=239, that PRD had rejected the Lorentz force paper, not because it is wrong and not because it is not new. It was rejected as being merely an "algorithm" for obtaining the Lorentz Force from a geodesic variation. In later correspondence while I was away Erick Weinberg even said that there might be other mathematical physics journal interested in the paper, but without my going beyond a mere derivation and getting into fundamental physics it would not be suitable for PRD.

Whether I agree or not with that analysis, that has motivated me to develop my "letter" deriving the Lorentz Force law into a full-blown paper that unifies electromagnetism and gravitation at that classical level, and which, in the centennial year of the 1916 publication of General Relativity, will have the same level of physical and historical significance as the GR paper. I know that is a tall order, but that is my intent with this present paper.

As it turns out, the key to this endeavor, as it was a century ago, is a very complete development of Einstein's Equivalence Principle. So to lay the foundation for this undertaking, in the past two days I have written three new sections 1,2,3 for this paper, and this midstream effort is posted on my blog at:

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... cs-2-1.pdf

Sections 4+ as well as the abstract are what you have already seen in prior posts. I am simply keeping them in the document as I make a new pass through and revamp. This will include an extended discussion of Kaluza-Klein which Joy has helped me keep an eye on.

But sections 1,2,3 are brand new, they deeply explore the equivalence principle as a vehicle for electromagnetic and gravitational union, and I am sharing them with SPF viewers at this stage simply to enable you to see where I am heading with this and to read what I hope will be a rather informative discussion of Einstein's equivalence principle and how it provides the basis for uniting gravitation with electromagnetism.

Jay

I make no secret of being a fan of Yilmaz gravity as superior to GR in all respects - except it's lacking in overwhelming incumbency supported by a well honed and funded PR machine. You and others might like to have a read through the following fairly recent arXiv article by Stanley Robertson: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809
While a 'natural' answer to DE is the title headline, the advantages of the underlying theory are set out pretty well.
One surprising evidently historical note concerning Einstein's rejection of the correct gravitational redshift expression - in 1907 - is discussed by Robertson here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawkin ... st-3338529
Not expecting much chance above will change anyone's view that GR is the perfect classical theory of gravity, but throwing it in as another perspective.

Q-reeus wrote:I make no secret of being a fan of Yilmaz gravity as superior to GR in all respects - except it's lacking in overwhelming incumbency supported by a well honed and funded PR machine. You and others might like to have a read through the following fairly recent arXiv article by Stanley Robertson: http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809
While a 'natural' answer to DE is the title headline, the advantages of the underlying theory are set out pretty well.
One surprising evidently historical note concerning Einstein's rejection of the correct gravitational redshift expression - in 1907 - is discussed by Robertson here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hawkin ... st-3338529
Not expecting much chance above will change anyone's view that GR is the perfect classical theory of gravity, but throwing it in as another perspective.

Thanks Q-reeus:

As I just reported in a new thread at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=244, a draft of my paper with substantial progress over the past week is now posted for the SPF community at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4-spf.pdf. You will see that section 7 relates the Lorentz force, which is the Coulomb interaction in electrostatics, to the time dilations and contractions of the gravitational redshift and relativistic motion. If anything, I am digging GR an even deeper foundation.

Best,

Jay

Yablon wrote:Thanks Q-reeus:
As I just reported in a new thread at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=244, a draft of my paper with substantial progress over the past week is now posted for the SPF community at https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... -4-spf.pdf. You will see that section 7 relates the Lorentz force, which is the Coulomb interaction in electrostatics, to the time dilations and contractions of the gravitational redshift and relativistic motion. If anything, I am digging GR an even deeper foundation.

I quite understand and it's evident from your experiences that trying to get traction for a new paradigm in particle physics is uphill as is. To then go further and link it with a gravitational theory anything other than incumbent GR is just asking for total academic suicide. Nevertheless, it's a straightforward exercise to show the correct expression for gravitational redshift is not and cannot be that given in GR. For instance slides 10 to 20 here: http://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-Zjh ... esentation
using in that case Bondi's k-calculus sets out the logical derivation that inevitably yields a pure exponential expression. No way around it logically. And unlike for that given by GR, predicts the physically sensible situation that gravitational redshift, owing to a notional 'point-mass' static source, can only become infinite in the limit as r -> 0. Various other advantages over GR are set out there also - including how much better that theory lends itself to being quantized! Ideological commitment to an incumbent, plus success in all the weak-field tests to date, is all I can see as reason for GR's continued position as 'gold standard'.

Q-reeus referred to a slideshow at http://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-Zjh%20...%20esentation
Slide#5 says that "Lunar Laser Ranging measurements showing that gravitational binding energy gravitates".
Slide#30 says that GR excludes the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field from the stress-energy side of the GR equation. (Whereas Yilmaz gravity includes it.)

So, can space tell a (hypothetical) graviton how to move? And can a graviton tell space how to curve?
And why is Slide#30 restricted to binding energy? Is all gravitational energy binding energy? Is there a suggestion that non-binding gravitational energy is already known to gravitate?

I asked a similar question ages ago on this site (but I can't find it now ... rarely can find specific old posts here). The question was whether higgs fields gravitated. Though the higgs fields being all around [though IMO not necessarily uniformly evenly distributed throughout the universe] should bend space evenly in all directions hence having a negligible effect on curvature? Can space tell higgs fields how to move, and vice versa?

Ben6993 wrote:Q-reeus referred to a slideshow at http://www.powershow.com/view/1bbc8-Zjh ... esentation
Slide#5 says that "Lunar Laser Ranging measurements showing that gravitational binding energy gravitates".

Ben, that assertion by Alley there is one of the few I disagree with. LLR data afaik merely shows there is no detected departure from the expectation that passive mass = active mass = inertial mass. For any and all significant contributions to earth-moon system mass-energy. Given that equivalence, LLR is then insensitive as to existence of gravitational field energy density (presumably there as a component in overall binding energy!) or not. The real problem for GR is the inconsistencies where for instance a pseudo-tensor field energy-momentum is conjured up for say assumed GW's, yet logically there is no actual room for that in the EFE's. As pointed out clearly in that article, and in the even better arXiv article by Stan Robertson I cited elsewhere:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809

Slide#30 says that GR excludes the stress-energy tensor of the gravitational field from the stress-energy side of the GR equation. (Whereas Yilmaz gravity includes it.)

True. But it hasn't stop 'inventive' devotees of GR from routinely swapping terms between LHS effect and RHS cause to suit needs of the moment.

So, can space tell a (hypothetical) graviton how to move? And can a graviton tell space how to curve?

I'm on record as claiming the usually expected quadrupole mode TT-gauge GW's as depicted e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave
are impossible - self-contradictory when all is considered. Not divulging my reasoning any time soon but point is, if the wave is impossible, graviton makes little sense.
The implication is imo gravity is an effective field phenomena - something along the lines Sakharov outlined.

And why is Slide#30 restricted to binding energy? Is all gravitational energy binding energy? Is there a suggestion that non-binding gravitational energy is already known to gravitate?

See above. Of course it's standard GR expectation all forms of non-gravitational energy-momentum and even 'pure' pressure gravitate. And, when it suits, even gravitational energy-momentum-stress is made a source ('self-consistent' GW's). Personally, I have issues with stress/pressure - having easily devised gedanken experiments showing stress as source term(s) directly predicts possibility of a perpetuum mobile. I'm still ambivalent as to which way to choose - accept such as fact, or excise all 9 lower right-hand terms in stress-energy tensor.

I asked a similar question ages ago on this site (but I can't find it now ... rarely can find specific old posts here). The question was whether higgs fields gravitated. Though the higgs fields being all around [though IMO not necessarily uniformly evenly distributed throughout the universe] should bend space evenly in all directions hence having a negligible effect on curvature? Can space tell higgs fields how to move, and vice versa?

Higgs field/particle should be no exception. As article by Stan Roberson showed, there is though now real cause to doubt existence of 'dark energy' as an all-pervading 'ether'.

Hi Q-reeus

Thanks for your very full reply. Plenty more references for me to read later.

The wiki definition of gravitational binding energy is: the minimum energy that must be added to a system for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state. That definition seems to me to be slippery as the defined binding energy is not clearly identified as something in the system already, merely as something to be added to the system. Presumably, though, the binding energy is actually already in the system.

It seems much clearer to me when using the hypothetical gravitons. In my preon model I have modelled gravitons, and the one responsible for gravitational attraction between nucleons also gravitates itself. There is in my model another graviton which repels nucleon with nucleon but the effect could only overcome the attractive gravitation when the nucleons are separated by great distances, but whether the repulsion can be seen within the limited scale of the observable universe is unclear. So my model could possibly cope qualitatively with dark energy.

Ben6993 wrote:The wiki definition of gravitational binding energy is: the minimum energy that must be added to a system for the system to cease being in a gravitationally bound state. That definition seems to me to be slippery as the defined binding energy is not clearly identified as something in the system already, merely as something to be added to the system. Presumably, though, the binding energy is actually already in the system.

Ben, the thing about binding energy is it's a negation. That energy missing in the final system, that was present in the sum of pre-assembled system components. For instance a +ve/-ve charge pair when separated to large r has a total E field energy asymptotically close to the sum of each taken as in isolation. When brought close, we have an electric dipole whose total field energy is less - the difference being accounted for by the work given out to whatever exterior agency allowed the mutually attractive charges to draw closer to a final *static* configuration. Sans typically inconsequential elastic energy associated with stresses required for stability.

The analogous (weak field limit) case of gravitating masses is not as straightforward. The usual approach ignores any consideration of field energy and instead simply calculates the summed effect of Newtonian attractive forces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_potential
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_energy

However assuming some kind of parallel exists between an electric and gravitational field, quasi-Newtonian calculations predict a negative energy density for latter. 'Gravitational charge' being universally of the same sign means more not less field following a partial system contraction. That quasi-Newtonian approach ignores that metric, in particular time-time component, already acts to depress energy-momentum content of assembled mass - i.e. redshifting of say escaping heat radiation. It turns out the effect of metric depression is twice as great as calculated field energy, while the net binding energy is of the same magnitude as for field energy calculations.
The resolution in that quasi-Newtonian setting requires field energy to be positive not negative, such that the sum then equates to net binding energy. Which then at least presents no obvious conflict with belief GW's are real and carry positive energy-momentum.

A for me part amusing part tragi-comic example of round-and-round repetition that nevertheless introduces above thoughts (and role of stress!) is say here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/q ... gy.851769/
The two protagonists, posts #7 and #8, continue on to an inevitable stalemate as I've seen them do maybe 4 or 5 times before. A definitive resolution isn't hard but it requires an example that clarifies not obscures. If as is so there is commitment to a standard GR position by one party, obscuring things via needless complication can handily sidetrack an otherwise 'awkward' situation. Perhaps a harsh judgement but anyway....

If you want to plow through more high-level GR thinking on question of 'gravitational energy', one example is:
http://dauns.math.tulane.edu/~dupre/OLD ... NRGN12.pdf

It seems much clearer to me when using the hypothetical gravitons. In my preon model I have modelled gravitons, and the one responsible for gravitational attraction between nucleons also gravitates itself. There is in my model another graviton which repels nucleon with nucleon but the effect could only overcome the attractive gravitation when the nucleons are separated by great distances, but whether the repulsion can be seen within the limited scale of the observable universe is unclear. So my model could possibly cope qualitatively with dark energy.

I'm not suggesting your theory is saying anything different (I don't know), but are you aware that standard QFT requires any massless (real) Boson to conform to E = hf? I had to confront someone in another forum on that, who was claiming postulated gravitons were ~ 10^-39 less energetic than photons of same frequency. Actually, the general expectation is that energies of the two quanta are equal, but probability of assumed graviton emission is ~ 10^-39 times less - say for oscillating electrons in a quadrupole oscillator configuration. For me a non-issue as mentioned earlier.

Hi Q-reeus

Thanks for the detailed reply. I know little about GR so I shouldn't really speculate on whether or not Yilmaz gravity is more correct than GR (but I might!). I have been following Susskind's online video lectures but have not yet taken his GR course. The GR equations do arise in several of his other courses, eg string theory and cosmology courses, so I am not completely unfamiliar with them.

Yilmaz gravity includes gravitational binding energy as a separate term whereas Einstein's equations exclude it. You say gravitational binding energy is a negation, i.e.it is: "the energy missing in the final system that was present in the pre-assembled system components". If the gravitational binding energy is an energy in a system not already accounted for in GR then I suppose it should be included. However, the 'negation' aspect is confusing for me, yet it is presumably not confusing for Yilmaz gravity supporters who want to include gravitational binding energy as a separate term in the equations, and also not confusing for GR supporters who either do not want to include gravitational binding energy at all in the equations or else feel that that energy is already included somewhere without adding a separate term.

With your electric dipole analogy, I look at this as oppositely charged particles exchanging photons. Two separated charged particles have more photons to exchange with the rest of the universe than do two close charged particle, which are exchanging quite a few photons with each other. So the close particles have less energy in terms of photon exchange capability wrt the rest of the universe. In my graviton model, there is a QED-like graviton which would behave differently to a QCD-like graviton. So if the charged particles were an e- and an e+ then there would be a graviton exchange between them exactly parallel to the QED exchange resulting in gravitational attraction (so weak that it is not measurable). Not sure what that means in terms of the masses of the particles in the near and far scenarios, but the close particles would be exchanging gravitons more than the far particles and (hence?) have more gravitational binding energy.

When you go on to mention that gravitation is always attractive, I understand that, but a complication for me is that it is not true in my model. In my model of quantum gravity, mass would probably need to be replaced by the electric charge (or colour charge) plus appropriate coupling constants for gravitation, plus energy. This is because a red quark will gravitationally repel a red quark, just as a red quark will repel a red quark via QCD. That brings me to your final point about energy of photons or gravitons being related to frequency. Different frequencies imply different energies. Agreed, but I am not sure how that affects my model. Maybe ... are gravitons weakly powered but frequently exchanged, or are they more strongly powered but less frequently exchanged.

Hi Ben,

Ben6993 wrote:Thanks for the detailed reply. I know little about GR so I shouldn't really speculate on whether or not Yilmaz gravity is more correct than GR (but I might!). I have been following Susskind's online video lectures but have not yet taken his GR course. The GR equations do arise in several of his other courses, eg string theory and cosmology courses, so I am not completely unfamiliar with them.

Like the vast majority of relativists/theoretical physicists Susskind takes as a given GR is the classical theory of gravity, and would 'prove' the necessity of that via various arguments. None of which would faze me. If it fails at first few hurdles e.g. correct redshift expression (and other matters), no amount of sophisticated counterarguments will change that.

Yilmaz gravity includes gravitational binding energy as a separate term whereas Einstein's equations exclude it.

Not quite accurate. Both theories include *net* gravitational binding energy, which can be strictly defined in the case of a static spherical mass, in terms of gravitational redshift. Which redshift will be calculated differently in the two theories but the observed value is what is used to determine the actual fractional binding energy. There is only significant divergence as to the calculated values, in strong gravity situations e.g. stellar core collapse -> 'BH'.

Not to be confused with energy in the field. In Yilmaz theory gravitational field energy density is present in the RHS as a source term hence 'gravity gravitates'. It's done in such a way as to obviate the usually cited dificulty that, sans tidal effects, in free-fall 'gravity' disappears. In GR there is no such provision in RHS of standard EFE's - BUT - various pseudo tensor formulations have been concocted that nonetheless make 'gravity gravitate' when 'self-consistency' more or less demands it. In particular, gravitational waves. The following article series provides a reasonably clear account of why gravity does not 'normally' gravitate in GR:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... gravitate/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... -2-sequel/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... rt-3-wave/

The same author and one or two others exhibit imo a typical level of disingenuousness in trying to get round one poster's use of cited articles re 'zero energy universe' here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/z ... se.853595/
Fact is there is no consensus within GR community on certain issues one would imagine to have been longed settled.

You say gravitational binding energy is a negation, i.e.it is: "the energy missing in the final system that was present in the pre-assembled system components". If the gravitational binding energy is an energy in a system not already accounted for in GR then I suppose it should be included.

As mentioned above, it's accounted for in GR, but the accounting procedure imo becomes meaningless or at best ill-defined in the case of a 'BH', whereas in Yilmaz gravity, it's always well defined, at least in principle. One caveat that effects both theories involves role of pressure - a link on that was given last time.

However, the 'negation' aspect is confusing for me, yet it is presumably not confusing for Yilmaz gravity supporters who want to include gravitational binding energy as a separate term in the equations, and also not confusing for GR supporters who either do not want to include gravitational binding energy at all in the equations or else feel that that energy is already included somewhere without adding a separate term.

See above.

With your electric dipole analogy, I look at this as oppositely charged particles exchanging photons. Two separated charged particles have more photons to exchange with the rest of the universe than do two close charged particle, which are exchanging quite a few photons with each other. So the close particles have less energy in terms of photon exchange capability wrt the rest of the universe. In my graviton model, there is a QED-like graviton which would behave differently to a QCD-like graviton. So if the charged particles were an e- and an e+ then there would be a graviton exchange between them exactly parallel to the QED exchange resulting in gravitational attraction (so weak that it is not measurable). Not sure what that means in terms of the masses of the particles in the near and far scenarios, but the close particles would be exchanging gravitons more than the far particles and (hence?) have more gravitational binding energy.

When you go on to mention that gravitation is always attractive, I understand that, but a complication for me is that it is not true in my model. In my model of quantum gravity, mass would probably need to be replaced by the electric charge (or colour charge) plus appropriate coupling constants for gravitation, plus energy. This is because a red quark will gravitationally repel a red quark, just as a red quark will repel a red quark via QCD. That brings me to your final point about energy of photons or gravitons being related to frequency. Different frequencies imply different energies. Agreed, but I am not sure how that affects my model. Maybe ... are gravitons weakly powered but frequently exchanged, or are they more strongly powered but less frequently exchanged.

To answer the last question first; for say an oscillating quadrupole moment system, hypothetical real gravitons are very infrequently emitted but each quanta has the same energy as the vastly more frequent photon emissions. That relates to radiation. Going back to first point in above passage, I used to see it like that - virtual quanta continuously exchanged as a kind of ping-pong game. Then someone knowledgeable in QED pointed out that was false and in a static field there is no exchange going on. Only when there is a change in the configuration are 'virtual photons' exchanged, and even then, such virtual quanta are considered mathematical artifacts of the perturbative approach using Feynman diagrams.
Which is not to say your approach is wrong - just afaik quite different to standard QED/QCD.

Hi Q-reeus

Thanks. I have read your latest references, and all the previous ones except the arxiv paper. It just shows me how little I know yet.

Can I have a stab at the weak and strong field cases:

Say UA is the set of gravitons exchanged between the rest of the universe [ie other than A and B] and A.
Say UB is similarly defined
and AB is the set of gravitons exchanged between A and B.

In my model the QCD-like gravitions between quarks are similar in nature to the gluons except they have spin 2 [and also some weak isospin].
In your ref https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... -2-sequel/
M < M0
which I interpret as UA + UB < UA +UB +AB, by counting gravitons available for each measurement (although I did not really follow how to make the measurement in practice for the RHS.)
In my model the gravitons can emit gravitons just as gluons can emit gluons, hence a small fraction of the AB will emit to the rest of the universe and will be called say UAB.

The equation can be modified but it should be true that UA + UB + UAB < UA +UB +AB.

I know less about BHs than about GR but here goes:
Let B be the BH.

The equation becomes UA + UB + UAB < UA +UB +AB just as before.

If A gets closer to B then the set AB will get bigger at the expense of UA. UAB could also diminish.
So the RHS gets bigger and the LHS gets smaller, which does not threaten the integrity of the inequality.

Still not sure what this means wrt GR and Yilmaz, but I will have to defer thinking about that until I know more.

Your ref: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... gravitate/
says that spin 2 implies "attraction only" forces.
I will need to pursue that as, if true, that would mean than my gravitons, which are spin 2 of course, would all cause attraction. If true, that would skewer my dark energy model, but leave dark matter intact. It would be be a good thing for my graviton model as having repulsive gravity is out on a limb (though at the moment I quite like the idea of repulsion and am dubious of that reported spin 2 effect).

My approach wrt fields is quite different to QM in a few ways. BTW at the moment I am only 7/10 of the way through Susskind's QFT course.

1. In my model there is no spontaneous emission (eg of photons by an electron). I mean that there is no unexplainable, pure chance emission. An electron emits a photon when something in the vacuum hits the electron, or vice versa. The something could be a 1/4 higgs particle, and when the photon hits an appropriate other electron the 1/4 higgs is is returned to the vacuum.

2. Standard theory does not conserve weak isospin whereas in my model it is conserved in interactions. In point 1 above , the higgs has only weak isospin, + or - 1/2 value, so if I include the higgs in the interactions, then I can conserve weak isospin by using the higgs as the hidden conveyor of the 'missing' weak isospin.


There is a lot to field theory which I do not know yet, and some that I have not yet made up my mind about.
From Susskind's lectures I have heard about virtual e- and e+ pairs of particles being created from the vacuum and swiftly annihilated back to the vacuum around say an electron. (From memory.. ) The pair can align so that the + is nearer to the electron than the - and so they act to screen the electron charge. The nearer this occurs to the electron the stronger the effect and ultimately the electron needs an infinite (bare) charge to still appear to be a -1 charge after strong screening. That does not really seem to be a static field. Given a dynamic vacuum, I am not sure that one can have a static field. Is it not dynamic equilibrium?

With QED one can stop light entering the apparatus but one can't screen like that for gravitation forces. If one could screen gravitationally then one could take inequality UA + UB + UAB < UA +UB +AB
and remove all terms involving U leaving 0< AB
This would be similar to a static case where little gravitational exchange was occurring. The inequality is still not invalidated ,though unfortunately one cannot really screen out the U terms. I think I am saying that I am not sure what the existence of a static QED field says about my model. The main areas where I think I differ from standard are my points 1 and 2 above.

Ben6993 wrote:Your ref: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/ ... gravitate/
says that spin 2 implies "attraction only" forces.
I will need to pursue that as, if true, that would mean than my gravitons, which are spin 2 of course, would all cause attraction. If true, that would skewer my dark energy model, but leave dark matter intact. It would be be a good thing for my graviton model as having repulsive gravity is out on a limb (though at the moment I quite like the idea of repulsion and am dubious of that reported spin 2 effect).

It's evidently a tricky subject to master and all I can do is suggest the following article may help:
https://www.quora.com/Quantum-Field-The ... ly-attract

From Susskind's lectures I have heard about virtual e- and e+ pairs of particles being created from the vacuum and swiftly annihilated back to the vacuum around say an electron. (From memory.. ) The pair can align so that the + is nearer to the electron than the - and so they act to screen the electron charge. The nearer this occurs to the electron the stronger the effect and ultimately the electron needs an infinite (bare) charge to still appear to be a -1 charge after strong screening. That does not really seem to be a static field. Given a dynamic vacuum, I am not sure that one can have a static field. Is it not dynamic equilibrium?

Being totally unqualified to personally judge on such matters, I simply took my cue from certain experienced professionals e.g.:
http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physf ... s/virtreal
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/d ... er.848573/

However, just like the basic divergences of opinion I mentioned earlier re GR, the same situation seems evident amongst quantum physicists. So yes there is a school of thought that gives virtual particles 'real' status, as others say no.
On your other thoughts, this has drifted quite away from OP topic so best leave that to some other time & place.