Oldman

Why G is changing --albeit very slowy? Can general relativity live with changing G?

I don't understand! I have answered these several times. They are not being posted?! Q. But why do those numbers mean anything? Why are they reasonable? A. The relative strengths of the fundamental forces are pretty mush experimentally verified. So are the emission rates of in the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic. They tell us that for some reason, gravity is way lopsided. This could be one good reason to leave gravity out of the superunification effort. They could also hint that there could be other forces between gravity and the weak. Also, the possibility of gravity being an exchange force. Also, why there would a so violent symettry breaking to develop gravity? Q. Wait for the description of mass field. A. I am also figuring out the form of mass-momentum field. To fit the observation, I think mass field is infinite ranged, but somehoe developes into momentum field when the mass is in motion. By the way, for lack of observations, I am guessing that momentum field range is very short. I have formed a Lagrangian for mass-momentum field as a first step toward quantization. But there is problem. Take two electrons in (parallel) motions. They repel due to charges, but attract due to magnetic fields. This is not the situation in the Constructive Model. I a sure you know that by reading the paper. Note: I am quite pleased that the CMG being a linear model, it very well predicts the results of the Pound-Rebka experiment. Also, the model tells me that both em wave and a rod would get elongated in gravitational field! I don't know what that means for the rod! I HOPE THIS RESPONSE GETS POSTED. iF YOU, THE MODERATOR, HAVE DECIDED TO DROP THIS TOPIC, THIS WOULD BE THE GOOD TIM TO DO SO. THERE IS NO POINT WASTING THE TIME.

To the moderator: I have responded several times; none were shown! If you have decided to drop this topic, please let me know. There is point in wasting time. Response to swansont: These numbers tell us that gravity is lopsided: its strength is feeble by many orders and its interaction rate is slow by many orders. It could mean: There may be other forces between the weak and gravity; gravity may not be an exchange force; and if gravity is a gauge force, related symmetry breaking would be huge! Response to others: (1) General relativity does not decide whether another gravitational theory is right or wrong. Only Nature tells us. (2) A theory's life is usually limited. There is usually something newly observed that the old theory can't explain. GR does not explain inertia. (Please see my draft paper on this subject on www.wbabin.net.) GR has so many mathematical singularities. (3) The predictions that a theory makes are more meaningful and significant than the theory itself. (4) A new theory must make a new prediction that older theories have not. Then Nature tells us whether the new prediction is there or not. The Constructive Model makes a couple of new predictions. FYI: (1) The Constructive Model tells me that an electromagneic wave and a material rod behave similarly in gravitational field: they both get longer! (2) I am working on the quantization of mass-monentum field. I succeeded in forming a Lagrangian. I hope I make it, but I doubt it.

I added several replies. Have you decided to drop this topic? Please let me know.

A photon has no (gravitational) mass. That's why no force can act on it and (de)accelerate it. BUT, ... there is usually a but, ... A photon has inertial mass = (Planck constant * frequency)/(speed **2). See my previous responses. Is that okay?

I made several responses. For some reasons, they were not posted?! I few points are in order. I respect General Relativity. I studied it and researched it ever since I was a graduate student. But GR is not the issue, nor is the issue of comparing the Constructive Model with GR. A theory is just a theory. For a brief epoch of time, experiments may keep it alive. But no one can predict how the theory would hold against future observations. A theory, including its math, has no meaning, but the predictions it makes are what counts. A new theory must make a new prediction that the previous theories did not make. And, then, .. the decisions are made based upon the confirmstion or falsification of the predictions. That's how I believe physics worked. I worked under such a framework. But something has happened to physics. Multi-dimensions, super stuff, dark stuff, et al., don't work. GR has its own problems. The Constructive model makes one significant prediction: that Gravity exists in repulsion and attraction. Repulsion is inherent; attraction is acquired. It is this prediction that we physicists must discuss, not the theory itself. Right now I don't even know what kind of a force is gravity: gauge force, specetime curvature force, or some thing very unique. As i said before I am working on the quantization of mass-momentum field. I have succeeded with forming a Lagrangian. See what happend next. I will keep you posted. I appreciate your comments. I am making the paper clearer based on your comments. But for the foreseable future, it may be a good idea to drop this paper from the Forums. I got what I wanted. Thank you. Unamuno: The sole purpose of reasoning is to cast doubt upon its iown validity.

I have lost track of comments. I am already updatoing my March 1, version based on some comments. To swansont. I am sorry I had to use those energy ratios for the fundamental inteactions. I just wanted a rough feeling of transition times. The transition time for gravitational interaction that I got, 10**21 years, should not change very much. I don't have the reference, but Gamow in 1961 calculated it to be 10**60 secs (10**58 years). [i retired in 2000 and I lost track of many things I loved and knew.] But, I am sure you can guess as a physicist that the weaker the interaction the longer the time of transitions. Forget about comparing two interactions, you can get the same resuls from General Relativity and my model just by staying within the gravitational field.] Please let me know if you want Gamow's calculations, I will try my best to look for it; maybe Dr. Babin can locate it. On his website, there are many historical papers, maybe Gamow's there as well.] To all of you who commented. Well, my real rational for going after this model is natural. Nothing of foundational significance has happened in physics since 1981. I never appreciated making cooordinates and observers parts of the laws of Nature. Nature has been here way long before we humans arrived. Space coordinates and time are human invention for a purpose. We should get rid of coordinates and time, including field metric, from the our laws of Nature (equations of motions are not laws of nature). I want to formulate an interaction between two physical entities only and only in terms of those entities and their properties. How matter (or antimatter) acquires those properties is still hidden from us. By properties I mean mass, charge, color, and weak charges. I never knew where they come from. "Nature loves to hide." As you will see the model gives predictions remarkably close to observations. Particularly the results from the Pound-Rebka experiment. There are no singularities in the model! (A singularity is always mathematical; Nature does not have singularity.) I was afraid of mentioning this in my paper: The genesuis of a time lies in an interaction. Biological sciences are telling us something like that for some time. A theory may be important for us, but it's the predicction that the theory makes is of vital, vital importance. Right now I am working on quantizing the mass-momentum field. See what happens. I will definitely let you know. Please watch Dr. Babin's website. Thanks again.

Thanks for your comments. I respect your disagreement. The paper, A Constructive Model of Gravitation, March 1, 2011, is the first in a series of articles which I plan to write. My next venture will be the quantization of the mass-momentum field (gravitational). But I can’t proceed because I must know whether matter and antimatter have gravitational mass of opposite signs! I have asked three Nobel Laureates this question; I am waiting for their answers. (I hope one of them answers. It could very well be a silly question.) Gravity. At this point, I am not sure whether gravitation, the way we humans perceive it, is a gauge force! Maybe when we include matter and antimatter, then gravity is a gauge force. So, all is on hold. I repeat what bothers me about gravitation, ever since I studied General Relativity and Elementary Particles. 1. The gravitational force is lopsidedly weak compared to the other known fundamental forces (the strong: electromagnetic: the weak: gravitational ~ 1042: 1040: 1030: 1). 2. Newton’s gravitational force, Coulomb’s electrostatic force, and Gilbert’s magnetostatic force are similar in structure, except that the first one is found to be always attractive. It seems odd that the gravitational force would show only one sign (attraction). Repelling electrons moving in about parallel directions manage to attract. Static, repelling ions manage to form crystals! Spinning electrons may attract or repel. Gravity never shows us humans any repulsive aspect of it. 3. The rate or probability of emission or absorption of a quantum is related to the strength of the underlying interaction. Physicist’s commonsense: The stronger the interaction, the shorter the interaction time. (This is true even a gravitational field: the run of time is faster in a stronger gravitational field.) Comparing electrostatic and gravitational forces and employing the Uncertainty Principle, to get a quick feeling, I get 1021 years for gravity compared to 10-12 sec for electromagnetism. The universe is only 14 billion (US units) old! The time necessary for a nucleus to emit a graviton is again lopsided compared to the emission times of quanta under other forces. 4. The three fundamental forces (s, w, e) are mediated by their respective gauge fields (bosons) which are inherently ‘attached’ to the interacting particles. Maybe spontaneous symmetry breaking will help us unify these three fundamental forces. A force between two particles is an ‘issue’ between those two particles and only those two particles. Gravity under General Relativity is due to matter warping the field of space-time geometry, which is not inherent but external to interacting matter. In this case, gravitons would be quanta of the field of space‑time geometry. What does that mean: a quantum spacetime? Is the field of spacetime geometry a gauge field? How matter warps (or creates) the field of spacetime is left unexplained! If warping occurs by whatever mechanism, there must be something tangible (directly or indirectly) that is warped. Neither space nor time seems to be tangible. There should be a boundary beyond which we physicists cannot be imaginative! 5. No rationale justifies as to why it is absolutely necessary to unify all the fundamental forces – and must it be with gauge fields in every case? It is feasible that a fundamental force, or a particular aspect of it, developed and evolved as the universe began and evolved. The speeds of the masses relative to the Primordial Point (the Big Bang point) could have some purpose. If Nature has something, it’s only for the purpose – for conserving energy. (Please remember, for Nature, the Big bang or the Primordial Point is not a singularity, which is a mathematical construct.) When I some answers, I will come back to the Speculative SubForums. Cheers!

ajb, Which version of the paper did you read? It should be dated March 1, 2011. You have commented so much. I need to read them first and then repond, which I will do. Thanks.

Well, my aim was to get a quick value of emission time by comparing with other fundamental interactions. Physicists do it. I recall Gamow's calculations (I forgot the reference), where he obtained a much higher value, somewhat 10**60 sec. But that's not the point. The point is to get some reasonable value by comparing with other fundamental interactions. I am positive this 10**21 sec would be reasonable. By relativistic I meant doing the forumations when the speeds are high, which I am getting to be 10**8 m/s. I think I can be forgiven for using p=E/c for photons here just to get the momentum. I have mass as gravitational charge, the way other charges are: the color, the weak, and electric. We have the three fundamental fields, so mass field could be possible. Postulating it not invalid. Momentum field is analogous to magnetic field in electrodynamics. If charge, electric field, current, magnetic field are proven entities, why not mass, mass field, momentum, and momentum field? I have never seen any explanation of how a mass curves (warps) space-time! We have not answered Milne's question so far. Physicists know that. The Primordial Point is where the Big Bang occurred. Singularity is a mathematical construct, and it's not relevant here in this model. I cannot transfer GR's singularity to the model. Maybe when I complete the (relativistic) quantizarion of mass-momentum field, I pray I do not encounter singularity. Point density m/R is the only term that is indeterminate theoretically. Please check Table I in the paper and tell me which entry(ies) is wrong and why. If a scientist has to justify everything before doing anyhing, General Relativity would not have passed peer review in 1914. I have postulates; unless someone proves them wrong, I should be allowed to employ them. The constancy of the speed of light is a postulate. Please tell me who has proven it theoreatically. The best: we have not found any evidence falsifying that. What do I need to correct/improve the model? I can use your insight. Addition to my last reply. I looked into my notes (I have been working on this problem for some time). From classical electrodynamics (theory of em waves) you have: momentum of em wave = (energy of em wave)/(the speed of the em wave).

I am puzzled as to these answers. Uncertainty Principle is as fundamental science as you can get. Without it, quantum mechanics would not have formulated. By the way, Yukawa used UP to estimate the time for nucleon-nucleon interaction ~ 10**-23 sec. These super-physics (supersymmetry, supergravity, superstrings, ...) -- I don't consider them even speculations, they are just hunches. These superstuffs don't work anyway. How much time and talent can we afford on these; it's about time we look somewhere else. I remind you that more than one theory could explain a physical phenoomena. We need to conduct more experiments and make more observations to get a reasonable theory. This is what I think as a gut physicist. An interaction between two entities is an issue between those two entities. If there is gravitational interaction between two entities, then those two entities have to find a mutual way to gravitationally interact, as they do in the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions. I urge you all to review my papers, but promise me to read them completely before making up minds. The papers are: "A Constructive Model of Gravitation' and 'Inertia.' You will find them at this website: www.wbabin.net. Please scroll down to 'Papers - Recent upodates.' You will see the papers there. They are dated March 1, 2011. I need some sanity check. Please tell me whether the papers are internally consistent and logical. Beyond that who knows what Nature has in store. I will respect your comments. If you do not wish to put your comments on the Forums, you may e-mail them to me. Thank you so much.

1. I will definitely answer emission rate and energy relationships. Yukawa was the first to employ the Uncertainty Principle in nuclear reaction rates. I will do here for gravitation. The relative interaction strengths are not energy values. They are just ratios. I used electrostatic and graviitational interactions because they are very similar -- strikingly similar. From UP: ΔEe Δte ≈ h ≈ ΔEg Δtg, Δtgr = (ΔEem/ΔEgr) Δtem ≈ 1028 secs ≈ 1021 years. 2. You got the website correct. But please do not read my paper yet. I am modifying it to explain the attractive part of gravity. The modified paper should be ready by Friday. This website has my paper on inertia. I am sure you will be interested to know inertia is a community property irrespective of the underlying forces. 3. If you are dealing with quantum gravity, you must exchange a quantum to 'generate' a force. The strong force: quarks exchange gluons. The weak forces: Quarks and leptons exchange W+-0 bosons. Electromagnetic: Quarks, nucleons, leptons exchange photons. So, if you want to have quantum gravity, it should be matter exchanging gravitons. But the question is what is this graviton, quanta of what?: the field of spacetime geometry or mass field or something else? 4. I will answer others later. 5. I must thank Cap'n for searching the GSJ website and mentioning it.

I can sort of prove that a system has its own clock -- employing physics. The following is from my research work in physics. Time is meaningless in the absence of mass. Time exists in the presence of mass. Time runs slower closer to mass. Time virtually stops in the vicinity of an infinitely high point-dense mass. That is, the run of time depends on the quantity of and proximity to mass, or on the strength of gravitational interaction. Perhaps the genesis of time lies in interactions; perhaps an interaction works with its own time. If so, two systems (inanimate or animate), for they have interacting constituents, have different internal clocks; as interactions between the constituents of a system change, its internal time run changes also. Time in other fundamental fields is not clear. Given the relative strengths of the fundamental interactions (g : w : e : s ≈ 1 : 1030 : 1040 : 1042), time periods should be dilated in similar proportions under them. (Electrons and protons could be ‘immortal’ after all.)

I believe I posted my answers yesterday. I will do it again here. Thanks for your responses. Appreciate those. How do you post a link? I don't have a website. I will ask the General Science Journal for their permission; they have a great website. Then you will also know what the GSJ is! I can’t come up with a rationale as to why it is absolutely necessary to unify all the fundamental forces – and must it be with gauge fields in every case? It is feasible that a fundamental force, or a particular aspect of it, developed and evolved as the universe began and evolved. The speeds of the masses relative to the Primordial Point (the Big Bang point) could have some purpose. If Nature has something, it uses it; nothing gets wasted. (Sorry, I made a mistake in copying my calculations from the late sixties.) It is well known that the rate or probability of emission or absorption of a quantum is related to the strength of the underlying interaction. For example: the time associated with the strong interaction is 10–23 sec; a nucleus takes about 10–12 sec to emit a photon; and the beta decay of a neutron takes about 12 mts. The relative strengths of electromagnetic and gravitational forces are 1040 : 1 (these forces are so similar in structure). From the Uncertainty Principle, the time it takes a nucleus to emit a graviton is Δtgr = (ΔEem/ΔEgr) Δtem ≈ 1028 secs ≈ 1021 years (10 sextillion years!). The universe is said to be only 14 billion years old! [The constructive model yields the fractional change in the energy of a photon as it 'falls' from height 22.5 m to the earth to be δE/E = 6.17 x 10-15. The Pound-Rebka experiment yields δE/E = 2.5 x 10-15. And that after I ignored special relativity!] I can't find anything in the formal papers about other fundamental forces intermediate between electromagnetic and gravitational. Some physicists do wonder about it though. I am going to submit a revised version of my paper to the GSJ. When the GSJ posts it and they give me permission, I will let you know here in this section of the Forums.

To the Scienceforms Manager: I have developed a paper, A Constructive Model of Gravitation. This is based on analogies between mechanics and electrodynamics, and not on General Relativity. I have suggested an experiment to determine the sign of antimatter gravitational ass, which would help in deciding between this model and GR. This paper is on the website of the General Science Journal. In that regard I have a request. Will you permit me to put this paper on the Science Forums website? My sole desire is to solicit comments. (It’s okay, I am thick skinned.) If you wish to see the paper before hand, I can e-mail it to you. If you so decide then, how would I go about doing it and in which section of the Forum? Here is my rationale for this new model: 1. The gravitational force is lopsidedly weak compared to the other known fundamental forces (the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic). Either there are other forces in between, or gravity is very unique indeed. 2. The time necessary for a nucleus to emit a graviton is 10**53 years. This suggests that gravitons may not exist. Physicists might be wasting their time on quantum gravity. 3. The three known fundamental forces are mediated by their respective fields (bosons) which are inherently ‘attached’ to the interacting particles. Gravity under GR is due to matter warping the field of space-time geometry, which is not inherent but external. 4. The electromagnetic attractive force is very similar to gravitational force, which is known to be attractive. It seems odd that such a macro force would be always attractive. The new model has both repulsive and attractive gravity. Please let know of your decision. Thank you. Raghu Singh

The sum of forces created by the constituents of a system within the system is zero. Similarly for torques. The universe is a system. So, you have conservation of momntum, conservation of angular moentum, and Newton's third law.

I agree with Swansont's answer. Imagine you are moving with the charge; you won't detect magnetic field.

Thanks to Millinia for asking this question. I read the answers above; they do not even come close to answering this question. We physicists do not know how matter warps space, time, or spacetime! Some modern cosmologists have proposed that matter creates space (and maybe time)! This question was first asked by the great astrophysicist E. A. Milne in his book, Relaivity Gravitation and World-Structure, in 1935. When I was a graduate student in the late sixties, I read this book on my own against my General Relativity professor's advice.

Of course, spin 1 could have an s=0 orientation. But I had a photon on my mind. Photon is a very special boson! It does not have s=0.

Thanks for the web reference. I am waiting for the LIGO results as well. I hope it tells us whether the gravitational waves are disturbances in the field of space-tiime geometry or in specific something else. Followup for the Moderator: I read the Speculative section rules. Under this rule, all String theories and quantum gravity theroy will be out! Should the evidences be for the premises of a theory or the predictions it makes?

If a photon has mass, you can slow it down or speed it up. This you can't do. So, the mass =0. However, a photon has momentum: p = E/c. A photon's spin =1. But it has only two orientations: +1, -1. If it were to have s=0, it would not be relativistically invariant. A photon is its own antiphoton. Pretty special boson! Isn't it? I don't vision any other 'particle' like it. Do you? By the way, neutrinos have mass.

Thanks, ajb. That's is my understanding as well. The string theories, as Prof. t' Hooft calls them just a hunch, have no answers either. Please let me know if you find something new here. Recently I read a book by Lee Smolin: The Trouble with Physics. Recommend it.

Answer to: "Where does general relativity fit in your picture?" General Relativity has passed three classic tests, which we know that. My problem is this: In GR, the gravitational field is the field of spece-time geometry. Then quantization of this field would be gravitons. And, disturbances in this field would gravitational waves. So far we have found no evidences of either of them despite astronimic collisions and interactions in the universe. If I missed related papers, would you tell me please? In the words of George Gamow (1961): "... if a future experiment should show that antiparticles have a negative gravitational mass, it would deliver a painful blow to the entire Einstein theory of gravity by disproving the Principle of Equivalence. ..." He did not explain it fully. I think I understand him, but I can't say it here. A question to the moderator: Is there a section in the Forum where people may post new ideas fo academic/philosophical discussions? but subject to such declarations?

Thanks ajb. I agree with you -- experiments are needed here. By work I mean I am developing a new model of gravitation starting over afresh with classical mechanics and electrodynamics. I am tired of all these new theories of grand unification and supersymmetry. By the way, when I was a graduate student in the late sixties, I remember Prof. Teller giving us a lecture to us students. I asked him about the gravitational force beween matter and antimatter. He said: "Ask me in ten years." The same question was put forth by George Gamow in the late thirties. These questions are vital for the principle of equivalence, General Relativity, and my model. I am not sure about arxiv! But I will look for the ALPHA project. Thanks for pointing it out.

To ajb, Will you please cite some references from published papers? To Steevey, Please cite some references. I THINK antimatter is opposite to matter in every charge (the stong, the weak, electro-magnetic, AND gravitational). If you take an antimatter atom, it has antimatter nucleus and an antimatter electron (positron). To both of you, I will be be greetful if you cite your or other's research papers. My work depends upon such citations. I have not found any paper that would help me. Thank you