Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:03 am

Hi Folks,

We think the paper at this link is a major breakthrough for modern physics. It completes both classical and quantum electrodynamics and solves the hierarchy problem.

"Geometric Solution of the Hierarchy Problem by Means of Einstein-Cartan Torsion"

Two of the major open questions in particle physics are: (1) Why are there no elementary fermionic
particles observed in the mass-energy range between the electroweak scale and the Planck scale?
And (2), what mechanical energy may be counterbalancing the divergent electrostatic and strong
force energies of point-like charged fermions in the vicinity of the Planck scale? In this paper, using a
hitherto unrecognized mechanism derived from the non-linear amelioration of Dirac equation known
as the Hehl-Datta equation within Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble extension of general relativity, we
present detailed numerical estimates suggesting that the mechanical energy arising from the gravity-
induced four-fermion self-interaction in this theory can address both of these questions in tandem.

Any and all reasonable comments are greatly appreciated.
...
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:36 am

***
In case this site is down or something, the paper can be accessed also from our Centre's website: http://einstein-physics.org/wp-content/ ... rarchy.pdf

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby Ben6993 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 4:51 am

Hi Fred and Joy

Paper reads very nicely and I like the incorporation of the anti-symmetric terms for spinors.
Just a few points.

Do you really want to use the expression 'akin to a kind of "anti-gravity" effect' on page 8? It invites the "c" word even when you use it in quotes. Unless of course you really mean that particle spin can have a genuine anti-gravity effect, rather than just acting against gravity with a non-gravity force, in which case it could be boosted as a finding of the report as one might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. IMO spin is an important, fundamental quality in its own right, which should not be confounded with gravity. So IMO you shouldn't use the term "anti-gravity" just because a spin effect happens to be countering gravity.

Have you tried the formula, leading to the results on page 6, for a hypothetical fourth generation lepton with say 10^5 times the mass of the tau?
Say you calculated it and it came to 8.2143011998064500000 × 10−34 m.
Could you say that was an inadmissible particle mass?
I am saying this because you say that you are addressing "Why are there no elementary
fermionic particles observed in the mass-energy range between the electro-weak scale and the Planck scale?""
I.e. is there an upper/lower limit on results such as 8.2143011998064500000 × 10−34 m beyond which you would rule out the possible existence of such a particle?

Best wishes
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:15 am

Thanks Ben.

Look at eqs. (42) and (43). Torsion due to spin density squared is completely opposite of the curvature effects of gravity due to energy density so I think you have to call that anti-gravity. Fortunately it is pretty much contained within the fermion since it has such short range and does not propagate long range like regular gravity.

We have not considered any fermions heavier than the top quark. There is quite a bit of evidence that the top quark is probably the heaviest fermion. But we would definitely expect the limit of r_x to be the Planck length. That would give a mass of about 4.37 x 10^16 GeV/c^2. Pretty heavy. So there is actually room for heavier fermions.
...
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby Ben6993 » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:37 pm

FrediFizzx wrote: Thanks Ben
You're welcome.
I have an aside based on your following statement:
FrediFizzx wrote: Look at eqs. (42) and (43). Torsion due to spin density squared is completely opposite of the curvature effects of gravity due to energy density so I think you have to call that anti-gravity. Fortunately it is pretty much contained within the fermion since it has such short range and does not propagate long range like regular gravity. ...

So the fermion torsion leads to an anti-gravity force located pretty much within the fermion...
In which case, the torsion of the universe could lead to an anti-gravity force located pretty much throughout the universe contributing perhaps to dark energy.
{That's rhetorical as I know you won't thank me for that very speculative idea.} :)
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:29 pm

Ben6993 wrote:I have an aside based on your following statement:
FrediFizzx wrote: Look at eqs. (42) and (43). Torsion due to spin density squared is completely opposite of the curvature effects of gravity due to energy density so I think you have to call that anti-gravity. Fortunately it is pretty much contained within the fermion since it has such short range and does not propagate long range like regular gravity. ...

So the fermion torsion leads to an anti-gravity force located pretty much within the fermion...
In which case, the torsion of the universe could lead to an anti-gravity force located pretty much throughout the universe contributing perhaps to dark energy.
{That's rhetorical as I know you won't thank me for that very speculative idea.} :)


See this reference and other references by Poplawski in the paper.

N. J. Poplawski, Universe in a black hole with spin and torsion, arXiv:1410.3881

He and others have explored cosmological effects due to torsion within the ECSK gravity theory quite extensively.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby Ben6993 » Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:49 am

Fred wrote (above):
See this reference and other references by Poplawski in the paper.
N. J. Poplawski, Universe in a black hole with spin and torsion, arXiv:1410.3881
He and others have explored cosmological effects due to torsion within the ECSK gravity theory quite extensively.

Thanks Fred. I looked through that Poplawski paper and I like it very much. When he referred to a bounce or an eternal universe, I kept wanting to add the CCC model at the end of his eternal universe. So the options are: bounce or transmit. IMO the metric of a universe is derived by something akin to the Rasch Model. I have very recently transferred my Rasch paper from my Wordpress website to http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329 , which is in the general mathematics section of vixra. You can see in my paper just how the metric can break down when the (simulated) data are not good enough to form a metric.

I also noted a new arxiv paper of 28 September 2016, also referencing Poplawski, and also using an action with an asymmetric torsion. (Can't find title now.)

The antigravity effect is obviously of interest to me. There is so much here to follow up and I must write the ideas down before I forget. One is that a 'con' for preons is the high masses required of the preons as they are confined in a small space. But an antigravity effect at very small scales could help soften that 'con' by supplementing the usual excuse of a very high binding energy. Also, what is the gravitational effect of two counter-spin particles in very close proximity? And ditto for same-spin particles. (Rhetorical question but with answer presumed to be gravitational repulsion, and maybe relevant to proton spin problem and Pauli's exclusion principple.)

Fred also wrote, in a nearby thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283#p6775 :
The torsion in Joy's EPR framework may not be the same as the torsion due to spin density squared for fermions. However, it is possible they might be related in a deeper theory of the quantum "vacuum". It did lead me to ask Joy one day about how to quantify torsion and the result ended up being this paper. Another major breakthrough in physics. Now we have two major breakthroughs.

Yes, torsion seems to be the name of the game, on all scales.
Ben6993
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:53 pm

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Oct 01, 2016 9:53 am

Ben6993 wrote:Also, what is the gravitational effect of two counter-spin particles in very close proximity? And ditto for same-spin particles. (Rhetorical question but with answer presumed to be gravitational repulsion, and maybe relevant to proton spin problem and Pauli's exclusion principle.)


We would expect the gravitational effects to be very weak and in the case of charged leptons, the Coulomb effect will dominate. Of course it depends on what the particles are. If electron and positron, then the electrostatic and spin density energies cancel leaving 2mc^2 in energy to fly off as photons. If two free electrons then the repulsion of their Coulomb fields will dominate before they could ever get close enough for the spin density squared terms could have any effect. But what about smashing two electrons together in an accelerator? What center of mass energy is required for them to get close enough for the spin density squared term to have an effect? It has to be of order of 10^-34 m which translates to an energy of about 2 x 10^18 GeV. Not likely to happen in any current accelerators. ;)
...
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:27 am

***
Image

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:55 pm

Joy Christian wrote:***
Image

***


For those interested slides from the presentation and a revised paper is here.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:07 am

.
Image
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:38 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:.
Image
.


This is the updated cancellation radius for charged leptons that was extracted from using a quantum field theory evaluation instead of using our semi-classical evaluation which was . So in the same "ball park" and is simple enough that it may be correct. Revised paper to follow soon.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby thray » Sat Jan 14, 2017 9:20 am

Why no variables?

The equation suggests a static scale-invariant relation among universal constants. This contradicts relativity, in which length contraction is a function of velocity, and not constant.

Where is the function here?
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jan 14, 2017 11:37 am

thray wrote:Why no variables?

The equation suggests a static scale-invariant relation among universal constants. This contradicts relativity, in which length contraction is a function of velocity, and not constant.

Where is the function here?

Hi Tom,

Good question. This would be a new constant of Nature if we are right. And it only depends on Planck length and the fine structure constant. And... perhaps geometry. Of course that Planck length is a constant of Nature is somewhat controversial but it is formed from 3 other "constants" and is supposedly scale-invariant. And also we know that the fine structure constant "runs" with energy scale. So the formula is a starting point. It is kind of similar to how Compton wavelength is a scale-invariant length.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby thray » Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:57 pm

Hi Fred,

Einstein, in discussing radiation with Max Planck among others (Development of our conception of the nature and constitution of radiation) said:

“One should not think that radiation consists of quanta that do not interact with each other; this would be impossible for an explanation of the interference phenomena. I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field. With a large number of a quanta a vector field can be composed that differs little from the one we presume for radiation. I can imagine that when the radiation hits a boundary there occurs a separation of the quanta by processes at the boundary, say according to the phase of the resulting field at which the quanta reach the separating surface. The equations for the resulting field would differ little from those of the previous theory.”

The electromagnetic field, as well as the gravitational field, exerts an infinite influence. Infinity as a single point would resemble an Einstein quantum singularity at the boundary; therefore, I think the new constant you are looking for requires a scaling variable. What I mean is, a scale at which the Planck length demonstrably becomes zero is the complete domain of classical physics. (Wheeler: "The boundary of a boundary is zero.")

This will, however, necessitate a field equation with boundary condition [0, oo). I'm going to go back and read your paper while I think about this.

Good job!
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:37 pm

This research is basically a follow-through on Poplawski's reseach (see references) indicating that the singularities may be avoided. But we moved the "goal posts" from Cartan radius to closer to the Planck length. The "infinities" may be gone from all of electrodynamics and possibly gravity.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby thray » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:17 pm

Understood.

An uncountable infinity of singularities, though, comprises the one distant point that distinguishes S^3 from R^3. Joy has proved that if fermions are point-nodes (particles) of a simply connected network, such a singularity must exist. (Einstein: I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field.)

The infinite propagation of EM and Gravity waves evolving covariantly on the interval [0,oo) is then a function of the geometry, a Riemann sphere, and wave interferences may extend to infinity continuously, without contradiction or loss of generalization -- if the Planck constant goes to zero. In the curved spacetime of our 3 dimensions, we experience local curvature of the globe, while space appears Euclidean on average.

It may be necessary to consider the role of bosons in Joy's framework. They can, after all, "conspire" to assure a preferred geometry, given that any number of them can occupy a point. Geometry preserving is equivalent to preservation of angle and momentum.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:17 pm

thray wrote:Understood.

An uncountable infinity of singularities, though, comprises the one distant point that distinguishes S^3 from R^3. Joy has proved that if fermions are point-nodes (particles) of a simply connected network, such a singularity must exist. (Einstein: I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field.)

The infinite propagation of EM and Gravity waves evolving covariantly on the interval [0,oo) is then a function of the geometry, a Riemann sphere, and wave interferences may extend to infinity continuously, without contradiction or loss of generalization -- if the Planck constant goes to zero. In the curved spacetime of our 3 dimensions, we experience local curvature of the globe, while space appears Euclidean on average.

It may be necessary to consider the role of bosons in Joy's framework. They can, after all, "conspire" to assure a preferred geometry, given that any number of them can occupy a point. Geometry preserving is equivalent to preservation of angle and momentum.


If Planck's constant doesn't go to zero, then Planck length can be a limit preventing the singularities. For me there is only a network of fermions. Bosons are just wavicles (phonons) of the fermionic network medium.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby thray » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:43 am

FrediFizzx wrote:
thray wrote:Understood.

An uncountable infinity of singularities, though, comprises the one distant point that distinguishes S^3 from R^3. Joy has proved that if fermions are point-nodes (particles) of a simply connected network, such a singularity must exist. (Einstein: I think of a quantum as a singularity, surrounded by a large vector field.)

The infinite propagation of EM and Gravity waves evolving covariantly on the interval [0,oo) is then a function of the geometry, a Riemann sphere, and wave interferences may extend to infinity continuously, without contradiction or loss of generalization -- if the Planck constant goes to zero. In the curved spacetime of our 3 dimensions, we experience local curvature of the globe, while space appears Euclidean on average.

It may be necessary to consider the role of bosons in Joy's framework. They can, after all, "conspire" to assure a preferred geometry, given that any number of them can occupy a point. Geometry preserving is equivalent to preservation of angle and momentum.


If Planck's constant doesn't go to zero, then Planck length can be a limit preventing the singularities. For me there is only a network of fermions. Bosons are just wavicles (phonons) of the fermionic network medium.


Then your model replicates quantum mechanics; however, to take the Planck length as a limit that differs from zero is to disallow the continuity of spacetime. It doesn't have the framework for a field theory.

This has been the problem with Bell believers all along -- putting the model ahead of the framework. Joy didn't make that error.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Gravity Meets Particle Physics

Postby FrediFizzx » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:07 am

thray wrote:Then your model replicates quantum mechanics; however, to take the Planck length as a limit that differs from zero is to disallow the continuity of spacetime. It doesn't have the framework for a field theory.

Why? We are only talking about matter here. And we are pretty certain that matter is quantized in a few different ways.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Next

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 81 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library