Is there a relationship between the value of the Universal Gravitation Constant G, the density and the lifetime of virtual pairs?

[Giovanni]

Hello everyone,

It's been several months since I opened the discussion Scharnhorst effect + EM field greater than the Schwinger limit = c value increase on the NASA forum 'New Physics for Space Technology'.

The focus of the discussion are the 2 articles:

(A) Does the speed of light depend upon the vacuum ? (non-peer-reviewed) 

(B) The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (a highly cropped version of the previous that has passed peer-review)

The content of the articles concerns the constants ε₀, μ₀ and c₀ which according to the authors depend on the physical characteristics of the virtual pairs.

Over time I am convinced that the same theoretical treatment should also apply to the constant G. In this regard I have found nothing but the article Principles of Gravity Manipulation via the Quantum Vacuum . 'Journal of Theoretics' is a little known peer reviewed journal. But I have found also theories about variation of G over time or in space.

It is clear that in the absence of a gravitational field source virtual pairs have an isotropic distribution and their gravity is zero. In the presence of a field source, for example a point-like mass, the isotropy is broken. In the example of a point-like mass the distribution of virtual pairs has spherical symmetry. When we measure the gravity force that this field exerts on a test charge we then measure the force generated by the point-like mass + the virtual pairs (whose distribution, as already said, is no longer isotropic).

This implies that G should be written as a function of ρ (the density of virtual pairs) and τ(the average lifetime of such pairs). Anything that can influence ρ and  τ also influence G. For example in (A) we consider the effect of an electric field on the lifetime of virtual pairs. (equation 51)

(Note: equation 51 holds only for an electric field lower than the Schwinger limit)

So an electric field (even lower than the Schwinger limit) can have an influence, even if small, on G.

[hoola]

I also see a possible connection between virtual particles and gravity mechanism in that the geometric path variations of the pairs enroute from creation to annialation as a component, if not fundamental to gravitation, but what I want to talk about is your reference to small variations in observed G strength. I have  considered that gravity waves coursing through the universe might  impinge upon lab tests for G, and that ELF (extremely low frequency) gravity waves could accord for the gradualness of the observation variations, and could be partly primordially generated remnants,  in a mix of cosmic gravitational background noise.

Edited May 1, 2018 by hoola

[Strange]

29 minutes ago, hoola said:

I have  considered that gravity waves coursing through the universe might  impinge upon lab tests for G, and that ELF (extremely low frequency) gravity waves could accord for the gradualness of the observation variations

While this is true in principle, the magnitude of gravitational waves far too small to affect measurements of G. Given the fact that a massive and highly sensitive detector is needed to spot the largest disturbances, these are not going to affect a couple of lead weights hanging in a lab. 

Also, experiments to measure G take a relatively long time to get a stable result. Gravitational waves are gone in a fraction of a second.

Next time you consider the relation between two things, you should do some back of the envelope calculations to see if it is valid or not. 

[hoola]

what I was discussing was ELF primordial waves, with perhaps a light year in length...which could give  year long pertubations in observed G. Thank you for your input...

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, hoola said:

what I was discussing was ELF primordial waves, with perhaps a light year in length...which could give  year long pertubations in observed G. Thank you for your input...

Do a comparison of their magnitudes. I bet they will be many orders of magnitude smaller than the measurement errors (never mind the variation). 

But feel free to prove me wrong with evidence rather than supposition. That would be very interesting. 

[hoola]

.. I agree that transient variations such a black hole mergers wouldn't skew tests. The analogy here is comparing a  primordial  gravity wave to an oceanic  "tsunami" wave,  which causes a fairly long term "flooding" vs. normal wave action. I'm not sure if it's more than conjecture that primordial gravity waves even exist, but if they do, it seems appropriate to consider them in the  G variation question if they are shown to contain significant energy.

[Strange]

20 minutes ago, hoola said:

.. I agree that transient variations such a black hole mergers wouldn't skew tests. The analogy here is comparing a  primordial  gravity wave to an oceanic  "tsunami" wave,  which causes a fairly long term "flooding" vs. normal wave action. I'm not sure if it's more than conjecture that primordial gravity waves even exist, but if they do, it seems appropriate to consider them in the  G variation question if they are shown to contain significant energy.

Then show us that the magnitude of these primordial waves are large enough. Stop guessing and do some science.

This is what separates those with a scientific mind from crackpots: doing a quick test of random ideas that pop into your head before testing them. Those with a rational approach will do this and then forget the idea when it turns out to be nonsense. Others won't bother because it is "logical" (in other words, they thought of it is it makes sense to them).

Which do you want to be: the rational, science minded person or the crank?

It's up to you. Show us the numbers or wear your crackpot badge with pride.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Strange

[hoola]

 it's too early to do more than conjecture about a possible effect of primordial waves, given that they have not been detected yet. Too bad that the Tegmark team didn't find them (yet)...and perhaps give some parameters on their strength (if any). 

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, hoola said:

it's too early to do more than conjecture about a possible effect of primordial waves, given that they have not been detected yet.

There is an upper bound on the ,magnitude of these waves. So you should be able to show that they are large enough to affect measurements of G.

But they haven't been detected yet with our very sensitive measurements which, surely, means that they cannot be affecting the very low precision measurements of G.

[hoola]

thanks for the info on the upper bound on g waves, I will check into that further.   If  G testing were accurate enough,  and showed a slow trending change with multiple samplings over a period of years,  this might infer  ELF g wave shapes and values.

[hoola]

giovanni....i also read in the cited text of a casimir test being purported to show an elevated c in the reduced flux of virtual pairs...and that a similar reduction of said pairs within a region  with an electric field would increase c. From this, could it be inferred that c is faster at the event horizon, since the pairs have been naturally separated...leading to a surrounding shell of superluminal light?

[Giovanni]

I think that less virtual pairs implies greater c. But some simple considerations can show that the hypothesis on the first post should be rejected.

[Giovanni]

I mean: the hypothesis of a relationship between G and virtual pairs density is maybe untenable. I'm really not sure. I will write a longer post this Saturday if i can. 

[hoola]

I am curious as to your reasons to reject the hypothesis.