Is there any way to make Gravitoelectromagnetism invariant in boost transformations or more general in curvilinear transformaitons?
See the link below for more infromation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
In the proposed link GEM is presented like an analogy between gravitational field and electromagnetic field EM. Generally the concept of analogy is the outcome of a comparison between mathematical models of two different physical situations. If the comparison involves the same model form, also of course in the presence of different parameters and physical quantities, then the conclusion is that the two different physical situations present an analogy in the variety of content. In GEM the situation from the logical viewpoint is completely different. There are equations of the electromagnetic field and, supposing an analogy, analogous equations of a prospective gravitoelectromagnetic field are built. Generally analogy is the outcome of a comparison, here the analogy is supposed in order to reach analogous equations. This logical process isn't fully in concordance with the physical method even if unfortunately it is a very used process in postmodern physics. In casual terms it could be also possible that this anomalous process leads to an acceptable result and in that case nevertheless, analysing GEM equations, it is easy to identify a few internal weaknesses (for instance the analogy between electric field and static gravitational field, induction phenomenon and the assumption that prospective gravitational waves move with the speed of light). Electromagnetic equations instead are the outcome of a long theoretical and experimental physical process of analysis of electric and magnetic phenomena. Besides equations GEM would work only for supposing the existence of gravitational waves that anyway has to be verified experimentally. Considering the question with free mind that analogy appears little verisimilar and in fact in "Physics of gravitational fields" I have demonstrated the existence into gravitational field of a gravitational perturbation due to the motion of a falling body and that perturbation moves with the speed cp(r)=SQR[GMoro(ro-r)/2r3].
Me and my co-author have just published an article that shows, that it requests a bit other formulation of gravitational field, than GEM propose. We have shown, that we indeed may treat gravity as field (similar way that GEM consider it) and obtain Lorentz invariant, field oriented formulation of gravity that keeps full compliance with GR solutions. To prove it, we have derived correct effective potential and orbit equation for Schwarzschild case and we showed, that this way of calculations must be valid also for other GR solutions.
In case you would be interested: http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3426
Dear all
Thank you for your answers, I think the problem essentially is not with the GEM idea itself, Mainly the problem is this field hasn't been given its sufficient interest of research. Many of the researchers convinced that GR is perfect theory and no need to any modifications. To go through the GEM I think we need to modify GR itself, then the mission will be easier. As Prof. Piotr claimed (I didn't read the paper yet) but it seems to be promising.
The concept of field is one of most controversial concepts of postmodern physics together with others. That word is becoming a sort of magic word that would solve all problems of physics. Field is from the physico-mathematical viewpoint a vector quantity that joins well with the vector quantity of force. In GR instead field is fundamentally a scalar quantity described through a tensor and not through a vector. This is the main controversy between EM equations and GR. Schwarzschild solutions have a great obstacle in the concept of singularity that generates a heavy contradiction between mathematical model and physical model and the same Schwarzschild was aware of that.
Dear Daniele
"This is the main controversy between EM equations and GR." Highlight view, thank you. To date, there is no way to explain the process that describes how particles as photon absorb gravitons.
In quantum electrodynamics (QED) a charged particle emits exchange force particles continuously. This process has no effect on the properties of a charged particle such as its mass and charge. How is it explainable? If a charged particle as a generator has an output known as a virtual photon, what will be its input?
In this article, according to the experimental observations, I generalize the Maxwell equations of electromagnetism to the gravitational field. I have used the pair production and decay to show that a charged particle acts like a generator, the generator input and output are gravitons and virtual photon. The negative charged particle produces positive virtual photon and positive charged particle produces negative virtual photon. A negative and a positive virtual photon combine with each other in the vicinity of a charged particle and cause the charged particle to accelerate. Although this approach to Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is presented, it has some differences. The mechanism of negative and positive virtual photons interaction is easier and more realistic than exchange particles of QFT, and it also has no ambiguities of QFT. After all, I explain the real photon and its structure by using the virtual photons.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279288309_Graviton_and_virtual_photons?ev=prf_pub
Article Graviton and virtual photons
Dear Sadeem Fadhil, see Gravitoelectromagnetism in Wikiversity and way, how the equations can be made invariant in LITG approach.
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism
Hi Sadeem. I agree, that we need explanation for field phenomena. Fortunatelly, many scientists investigate this subject :-)
We have also made some small step into this direction, showing, that every material acceleration may be expressed as gradient of the dilation factor Grad(1/gamma) minus local time derivative of the velocity. In our description, existence of the field is then just some mathematical transformation, something that comes out directly from calculus rules.
I'm just curious of any of you have heard of John Brandenburg. I know he works on GEM theory.
Dear Sadeem,
Please take a look at these two fruitful papers.
Article Minimalist's Electromagnetism
Article Lorentz covariance `almost' implies electromagnetism and more?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude