Atomically structured material matter is undoubtedly the source of gravitational force.
The assumption is valid in physics that gravitational force influenced electromagnetic radiation.
Is the electromagnetic radiation for its part also source of gravitational force and attracts material matter?
Dear Hans,
The short answer is: yes. Electromagnetic fields make a contribution to the stress-energy tensor, which in turn acts as the source term of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity. Electromagnetic fields generally carry both a density and flux of energy and momentum, which is why they contribute to Einsteinian gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor
Dear Hans,
The short answer is: yes. Electromagnetic fields make a contribution to the stress-energy tensor, which in turn acts as the source term of the gravitational field in the Einstein field equations of general relativity. Electromagnetic fields generally carry both a density and flux of energy and momentum, which is why they contribute to Einsteinian gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor
An interesting case in point was considered by John Wheeler: A photon (or many) having passed, either both ways around a distant galaxy, or one way - dependent on your own "delayed choice" in measuring the self-interference, or the non-self-interfering unilateral passage, millions of years later.
With good reasons you can ask also if the electromagnetic waves cannot gravitate without lapsing common time i.e. interacting at least with the quantum vacuum. Entropy and decoherence seem to be necessary for gravitating. Hence, the question is open.
Still, the another open question might be linked to the issue. What role the dark energy plays? Check the theory of gravastar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar
One of my naive toy-models tells that straight waves increase the space and curled waves (massive particles) decrease the space. Of course I have some more detailed studies behind the slogan but the work is yet in the early steps... My hypothesis is that the gravity of radiation could be in fact a repellent force and the reason for the dark energy and redshifting, the expanding of distances was so under interpretation. But: that's only the one grazy of a speculation of course until explored out.
In any case, your question is a good one, tests are difficult and answers speculative.
Dear Pekko!
I concretise my question: I look for evidences and not for theoretical statements.
Hans
Dear Hans,
Can I answer your question with more questions?
First of all let's confess that the static gravity based on mass-mass attraction force isn't precise anymore either in Newton's laws or in the fabric of the cosmos of Einstein
To reveal the truth of the gravity as a dynamic force we need more essential statistical data from astrophysics
To understand what I mean, please, read the following carefully
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reasons-behind-gravity-ashraf-aboshosha?published=u
Thanks
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reasons-behind-gravity-ashraf-aboshosha?published=u
Yes, in the mainstream theory of physics, there is graviton-photon interaction. And, the energy can be transferred between gravity and light. please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304151459_Observation_of_Graviton_and_Ways_to_Manipulate_Gravitational_Field
Experiment Findings Observation of Graviton and Ways to Manipulate Gravitational Field
Yin Zhu: "In gravitational redshift, photons absorbing energy from gravitational field...".
This is an error in the very first sentence of your publication. When redshifted, electromagnetic waves lose quantum energy, don't receive it.
My question aims at a contradicton within the valid theories:
If electromagnetic radiation is attracted by material matter, the electromagnetic radiation for its part has to attract material matter. Gravity is no one way road.
If electromagnetic radiaton is the source of gravity then it should be impossible that an exploding supernove (or similar events) causes a gravitational wave. The gravity of matter is substituted by gravity of radiation.
Hans-G. Hildebrandt,
The gravity is a phenomenon between energy and space, not between particles. The motion "creates" space leaving it behind or defining the orbit. Hence I see that the motion and the radiation is the opposite of each other. Similarly the mass energy and the kinetic energy are counterparts. The potential energy is actually same to the kinetic energy.
My reasoning on the radiation (and the motion with the matter wave) being a good candidate for dark energy and for the illusion of the dark matter is quite an simple deduction. I appreciate all the challenge to its arguments.
“…The gravity is a phenomenon between energy and space, not between particles. The motion "creates" space…”
- it seems rather interesting – so what is “space” and how the motion "creates" space?
Though, besides – and why the gravity is “a phenomenon not between particles”? – what prohibits such interaction?…
Cheers
Simply when two particles moves apart from each other, the distance between them increases and a distance is one-dimensional space.
There is the old slogan: "Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move".
The interaction is between a particle and the space(-time). It is an indirect affection between particles, not similar to the direct em-contact between particles.
Space and time are caused by matter. How and why should gravity be a "phenomenon between energy and space"?
Without knowledge about the fundamental laws of matter we can only argue with such imprecise terms like phenomenon.
Gravity has to be caused by special properties of matter. But the term "Matter" is nearly undefined. The different properties of matter are arising at differend levels of organisation of matter. At this point we have to recocnise the objectice reality resp. the matter and its laws.
Gravity should be nothing. The nature don't function by human orders. We observer events and make hypothesis. So far there is no contradictions between predictions and observations, a hypothesis is a theory. Can you see some contradiction with the hypothesis "a phenomenon between energy and space"?
It's hard to make observations and conclusions on my next hypothesis "matter decreases and radiation increases space", but my intention is to solve it out...
The old slogan: "Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells matter how to move" only makes sense in the context of the hypothesis that space and time are constituent elements of nature.
In the description of gravitation according to gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM) this is not the case: space and time play there a passive role, they are just elements of our thinking about the world. In that context the “gravitational field” or the “g-field” is the constituent element of nature that interacts in the gravitational phenomena: each material object creates a g-field and the g-field tells material objects how to move. To each material object there is a “g-field” associated: it is the spatial manifestation of that object and it is determined by its rest mass and by its kinematics.
To an electrically charged object there is – in addition – an “EM-field” associated: it is the spatial manifestation of the electric status of that object and it is determined by its charge and by its kinematics.
“…Simply when two particles moves apart from each other, the distance between them increases and a distance is one-dimensional space…”
- yeah, that is indeed so and is indeed simply; but
why/how from this indeed true claim follows that “…The interaction is between a particle and the space(-time)…”? And what is “the interaction between a particle and the space” at all, though?
– do somebody know/ has some physical grounds (besides a mystic, of course)?
Cheers
- Yeah, I have math but I'll reveal it not until in a few years meanwhile wondering if no one else don't find the same... ;D
“…Yeah, I have math…”
- and how/why from this fact and from this math it follows that
“…The interaction is between a particle and the space(-time)…”? And what is “the interaction is between a particle and the space” at all, though? besides a mystic, of course?
Cheers
You have two ways to solve those dilemmas, either to wait my publishing or study and explore it out by yourself...
“…You have two ways to solve those dilemmas…”
- here is only one way – first of all to understand what are the notions/phenomena “Space”, “Time” , and further to understand that they are fundamentally absolute, when they compose the [Matter’s] “spacetime” as [5]4D Euclidian “empty container” – or, by other words, [5]4D Euclidian spacetime;
where just such number of dimensions is because of in depth material objects and Matter as a whole have 4 main/universal independent degrees of freedom at changing their states: - 3 spatial degrees, i.e. changes of spatial positions and 1[2] temporal degree, i.e. one degree to change internal state; and one temporal ["true time"] dimension, where every object moves obligatorily at any change, i.e. of a spatial position and/or of an internal state.
At that at any change – when every material object changes its spatial position and/or internal state uninterruptedly – nothing happens with the empty container, where the objects simply exist and change; including – any particle doesn’t interact with the spacetime, Matter principally cannot “tell” to the empty container how to curve, and the emptiness principally cannot “tell” matter how to move; etc.
More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics ; DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494
Though yeah, for those, who don’t understand what are “Space” and “Time” – when in both relativity theories there are no any definitions what are these notions/phenomena – anything is possible, including rather lively “Matter-spacetime” dialogs…
Cheers.
Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics
Confined EM radiation has 'weight' in a gravitational field, and so EM radiation clearly 'gravitates'! See:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.06478.pdf
Dear Hans,
It seems that your question is an indirect quest. Are shy or afraid to ask your question clearly?
Do you want to say that the mass - mass attraction force based gravity is wrong and the gravity is based on something else?
This means the laws of Newton and the fabric of the cosmos are wrong. Consequently the relativity will be wrong as well.
Dear Ashraf!
You have recognised the problem. But it's more differentiated. The mass-mass attraction force (or the gravity) like Newton stated is right. But we have to ask: What are the causes of gravity, and not to stay: This is a phenomenon.
The weak point is in Einsteins theories that there are no declaration or description of the causes of gravity. Einsteins great theories are based on Newtons simple phenomenological picture of gravity. But we know that all forces are caused by material resp. structural reasons.
I say: If electromagnetic radiaton is also the source of gravity then it should be impossible that an exploding supernove (or similar events) causes a gravitational wave. The gravity of matter is substituted by gravity of radiation. In my opinion it is impossible that gravity acts indiscriminate between all real objects.
You asked: Are (you) shy or afraid to ask your question clearly? The downvote above is the answer. If someone would present a possible reason of gravity, nobody would notice it. But there is a declaration.
My Regards!
Hans
"If someone would present a possible reason of gravity, nobody would notice it. But there is a declaration."
You can find a possible explanation of gravity in the following publication:
Article GRAVITO-ELECTROMAGNETISM EXPLAINED BY THE THEORY OF INFORMATONS-2
``In my opinion it is impossible that gravity acts indiscriminate between all real objects.''
This, however, is the content of the principle of equivalence. That gravity acts on light is well known: the light---and especially radio wave---deflection experiments on the Sun are among the most accurate tests of relativity. So gravity acts on light. It is shown in the paper quoted by David Thornton on p. 2, that this implies that light is heavy, that is, that a box full of light has weight additional to the box's weight.
Eventually a theory should first explain the data. If it turns out to be esthetically satisfactory, so much the better. But there are many possible disagreements as to which theory should be viewed as more attractive. It is easier to work out which theory is closer to the facts. In that respect, all predictions of GRT which can be tested have turned out to be confirmed by experiment.
I my opinion and regardless of all valid theories I would say:
The cause of the electrostatic force is the opposite charge of objects, e.g. between electron and positron. The chemical bond is caused by electrons - very elementary charged particles. If you don't stay in old theoies you will recognise, that the forces between particles (weak, electromagnetic, strong) are based at least on electron-positron-interactions on different structural levels. (See the link below.) All forces have a uniform source. Gravity acts at a very high structural level - probably between atomic structured matter and it is also caused by charge(d particles). There is one declaration of gravity and many theories.
By the way a small poem of Th. Storm:
Faith is good for stay, but it's not getting any place.
Doubts in genuine fist of a man break the gate of the hell.
I hope it's properly translated.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
Experimentally, a pi meson can decay into two photons. However, the elecromgnetic energy is not equivalent to mass because the electromagnetic energy-stress tensor is traceless. This problem is solved by general relativity, which requires the photonic energy includes the electromagnetic energy as well as the gravitational energy.
Gravity does not work against photons, does not work against radiation which passes from a lower to a higher gravitational potential. During their travel there is not any force which can act on photons, the photon becomes massive only after the collapse of the wavefunction.
The radiation power= photons per unit time of a laser departing from a planet to free space is an invariant.
Electromagnetic fields tied to fermions take part in the Energy stress tensor, not eletromagnetic radiation.
Article Gravitation, photons, clocks
Good for you Stefano!
Contrary to accepted opinion, gravity does not couple to freely moving light. A proper understanding of the gravitational red shift supports this view, but the long-standing misunderstanding of the 'bending' of light rays seems to support the conventional view. In the correct geometry, light rays move along spatial geodesics. These curves have the property that a body constrained to move along a geodesic will not experience speed dependent forces - e.g., centrifugal force. In Newtonian physics, this property is true of straight lines only. Geodesics are thus the non-Euclidean equivalent of straight lines, and one may conclude that gravity exerts no force on freely moving light. This also implies that light does not act as a source of gravity!
Details and much more in the attached paper.
Best regards, John (Jack) Heighway
I think Pekko is correct and the above two are wrong. Photons are deflected by gravitational wells in the same way that particles with mass are - gravitational lensing has been shown to exist. This results in a change of momentum of the photon that has a corresponding opposite change in the object(s) causing the gravitational well. I think this means that photons are affected by gravity, and have gravitational fields, i.e. generate their own gravitational well.
In the correct geometry, light rays move along spatial geodesics. These curves have the property that a body constrained to move along a geodesic will not experience speed dependent forces - e.g., centrifugal force.
yes
Geodesics are thus the non-Euclidean equivalent of straight lines, and one may conclude that gravity exerts no force on freely moving light.
yes
No particle travelling under gravity experiences any force - speed dependent or not - this is the basis of general relativity. Other observers see the particles take curved paths, but the particles themselves do not experience acceleration. In free-fall, particles - whether photons or not - do not experience acceleration, so this is not a difference between photons and other particles. There is no centrifugal or centripetal force experienced by a particle travelling under gravity.
Read: Mechanisms that Keep Reality Coherent
http://vixra.org/abs/1606.0028
“…In the correct geometry, light rays move along spatial geodesics. These curves have the property that a body constrained to move along a geodesic…”, etc. in this page
- though here is [including the post that is seems ritually downvoted by some disciplinary GR true believer] SS posts already on 2-nd page, it seems necessary to make some comments again.
So – to make rather concrete claims as above is necessary before to define/explain – what is this “correct geometry” and of what? And further – what are those “geodesics”/ “curves”; and by what reason some “curve” has the property “that a body constrained to move along a geodesic”?.
Without corresponding definitions/physical grounds such claims seems as something magical, however.
The correct answer [there are no “spacetime curvature”, “geodesics”, etc.” principally, Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime/”empty container” is absolute and cannot be transformed by anything inside it] – see the SS posts on the 2-nd page.
Besides seems is worthwhile to point out that the GR postulate that “light does not act as a source of gravity!” is nothing more then a next GR bare declaration that hasn’t any experimental confirmation. Moreover it seems as very probable that the gravity is simply fourth fundamental physical force and this force is utmost universal, it act between every material objects. Including the light/photons are some material particles without any mystic, and so have both – inertial and gravitational masses; and they change energy at motion between spatial points with different gravitational potentials.
At that the GR with large probability predicts evidently wrong value for so called “gravitational time dilation” that is twice larger then the real value – if, of course, one understands that because of the gravitational mass defect internal processes in objects that constitute some gravitational system are indeed slowed down - but this slowing down is two times lesser then the GR prediction.
Besides this “gravitational time dilation” is evidently a next bare declaration; when any, including this, “time dilations” cannot exist principally.
Including, for example, it evidently contradicts to the reality – if there is some fundamental “time dilation”, then every/any clocks – since “the time is what clocks show” – must tick faster if a gravity potential is lesser. Atomic clocks indeed do so – though with large probability with the rates that is two times lesser then corresponding “gravitational time acceleration”. But sandglass and pendulum clocks, which evidently well “show time”, in lesser potential [in the same fields as the atomic clocks] “ticks” slower – in contrast to the atomic clocks, and, of course, quite opposite to what the GR claims.
Though the points above seems as well grounded, in the text above they are with the note “with large probability”, because of are based on some common [and non-magical, though] physical principles, so some experimental testing of them seems as rather useful. And corresponding test – which is, of course, some indeed test of the GR – is rather simple and cheap – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment
At that the experiment in the link above (with using an air balloon) can be made in more simple and cheap way, if the exposition of two previously synchronized atomic clocks on different heights above Earth surface and further comparing their showings is made in some skyscraper having floors near 400 –500 m. For the experiment seems could be enough to spend a few $millions; comparing with the other experiments where “the GR is tested” that is a negligible sum…
Cheers
Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment
Malcolm,
"... so this is not a difference between photons and other particles."
Particles of non-zero rest mass move on space- time geodesics. Moving on such a path maximizes the time of travel as measured by an on-board clock. The path followed is curved since it does not generally correspond to a spatial geodesic, which is the equivalent of a straight line in non-Euclidean geometry.. There is a difference!
``At that the experiment in the link above (with using an air balloon) can be made in more simple and cheap way, if the exposition of two previously synchronized atomic clocks on different heights above Earth surface and further comparing their showings is made in some skyscraper having floors near 400 –500 m''
That experiment was already made, and is called Gravity Probe A, in hich a hydrogen maser was put on a spaceship. See wikipedia for details.
“….That experiment was already made, and is called Gravity Probe A…”; “the gravitational dilation correction in accordance with the GR is applied in GPS…”, etc.
- such “the GR confirmations” don’t differ from much more correct, well controlled and repeatable Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, where the GR was “confirmed” also – in all experiments two effects aren’t separated – the indeed existent gravitational slowing/acceleration of atomic clocks tick rates and reddening/bluing of photons that travel between clocks and receivers.
Just therefore Pound and Rebka in their first papers interpreted the outcomes of their experiments as the discovering of the losses/increasing of photons energy at photons’ motion between points with different gravity potentials, what contradicts principally with the GR (see the link in Stefano post on the 4-th page), since this theory claim that photons don’t change their energy when moving in gravity field. Though that is nothing more then a bare declaration that has no corresponding clear experimental confirmations and physical grounds (moreover, “the gravitational time dilation” becomes be “gravitational time acceleration” for non-atomic clocks - see downvoted (!) SS post on the 4-th page).
The experiment that is proposed in the link in the SS post on 4-th page differs from the experiments above just in that here only one effect is measured – the net difference of tick rates of the atomic clocks that are exposed during some time interval on different heights above Earth surface.
And with a great probability the result will be two times lesser then the GR prediction, i.e. will be in accordance with Newton gravity theory; and so photons change their energy in gravity fields - the PRS (and others) experiments' outcomes were the sum of both effects.
Cheers
Dear friends,
Light is a form of matter. It is not a ghost, neither "pure reason", nor "a soul". It is a form of matter, and we all know that under certain condition a photon can be split into an electron and a positron - particles possessing rest-mass.
Therefore, light is attracted by massive objects -- the gravitational attraction is a universal law.
Then, by the universal law of action and reaction, light also attracts massive objects.
Next: citing geodesic lines is not an argument against the mutual attraction between matter in the form of light, and matter with rest mass. If one writes the laws of physics in English, they are as correct as if writen in French. To speak of masses and attraction, or to say that the space-time is curved in presence of masses, are two equivalent languages. (I am aware that using the language of curved space-time is more useful in GR, and in other domains.)
You could perhaps expand on your remarks concerning Gravity Probe A: this experiment concerns exactly your setup, apart from the fact that tthe clocks are not at rest, but that they move. The SRT effect must then be subtracted, and that is why a Doppler signal is measured.
In any case, it does not matter what Pound and Rebka may have said in their paper, if you do the GR calculation, you will find that, in the final analysis, the GR prediction coincides with the observed result. If you have claim anything else, it would be nice if, instead of giving us as always empty words, you could at some stage actually do some honest work and show us a calculation.
But of course, anything like honesty has you scared stilff...
Dear Sofia,
The correct understanding of the gravitational red shift is that the photons move upward with constant energy. This is an instance of Emmy Noether's theorem: time independence implies energy conservation. Gravity cannot change the momentum of a freely moving photon. Photons are received red shifted because they were born red shifted. The conversion of photon energy to massive particles does not change the fact that a photon has zero rest mass: E2 = (mc2)2 + (cp)2 always, and for a photon E= hv and p = hv/c, so m = 0. The gravitational 'bending' of light rays is a consequence of the fact that light rays follow the spatial geodesics of the correct geometry. These paths are 'bent' but are the straightest possible paths in the Non-Euclidean geometry of a real gravitational field. They are like the straight lines of flat space in that a particle constrained to move on such a path will not experience speed dependent forces - such as centrifugal force.
“…You could perhaps expand on your remarks concerning Gravity Probe A: this experiment concerns exactly your setup…”
in Gravity Probe A (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_A ) experiment any clocks weren’t used, that was, in fact, some replica of the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment, where instead of gamma-quanta a H-maser radiation was used; besides in the SS post above also is pointed out a next analogue - adjusting, “by using the GR”, of clocks’ showings in the GPS.
Again, in all cases both gravitational impacts – on atomic clocks (maser, Fe-57 nuclei) and on radiated photons are summed – in contrast to the experiment that is suggested in the link in the SS post on 4-th page above, where only clocks tick rates are compared. This principal difference seems as quite evident seems even for a scholar.
Another, if not principal but at least very essential, difference of the experiment in the link in the SS post above is that this experiment is 200 times cheaper then the Gravity Probe A and 1000 times cheaper then the Gravity Probe B.
“…the photons move upward with constant energy. This is an instance of Emmy Noether's theorem: time independence implies energy conservation…”
From the Noether's theorem the energy conversation law follows from the uniformity of the time and not from “time independence” above – the author of the claim that “photons move with constant energy” is Einstein, not Noether. Though seems interesting to know what is this “time independence” and why because of this independence photon don’t change their energy at motion between point with different gravitational potentials.
And, again, seems for a next who continue repeat that the GR is true physical theory when postulates the existence of so called “spacetime curvature” (with “correct geometry”) , that “the photons move with constant energy”, etc. ,
would be rather useful to make some explanations to such declarations – what is the time? the space? the spacetime? why and how some material object can “curve” the time/space/spacetime? Where/ when and how anybody observed just a “spacetime curvature” – or in more simple case of the SR – where/when and how anybody observed some linear spacetime transformations, for example – a “space contraction”?. It would be rather useful to make some explanations also – why postulated in the GR “gravitational time dilation” becomes be “gravitational time acceleration” for pendulum and sandglass clocks, when these clocks well “show time”,
- etc.
When these questions were written a number of times in SS posts in a number of RG threads, till now no of them was reasonably commented by any of the SR/GR true believers, all what exists – a disciplined repetition of the SR/GR bare [and evidently wrong] declarations [that seems as something rational– there exist indeed effective propaganda method “many times repeated false seems as a truth”, though], disciplined downvoting opponents’ posts and disciplined upvoting each other;
and even writing passages as “…But of course, anything like honesty has you scared stilff…”
Possibly that is higher level of intelligence of the SR/Gr true believers?…
Cheers
John,
People are busy and not happy to waste time repeating what they already explained. If you react to my post - and thanks for that - you are supposed first to read it. I repeat what I said:
"geodesic lines is not an argument against the mutual attraction between matter in the form of light, and matter with rest mass. If one writes the laws of physics in English, they are as correct as if writen in French. To speak of masses and attraction, or to say that the space-time is curved in presence of masses, are two equivalent languages."
As to my example with the pair production, from your reaction I guess that I wasn't enough clear. Then, let me try to replace it by an example, which shows that if there is no gravitational attraction on the photon, we can extract infinite energy from a conservative field. Please see:
Consider an electron and a positron falling from a height H in the gravitational field toward a horizontal mirror on the Earth surface They fall between two vertical mirrors, with a distance d between them which is smaller than the wavelength produced by pair annihilation. Before the particles touch the Earth surface the mirrors are removed. Thus, they annihilate, and produce a photon of energy
(1) h\nu = 2m0c2 + 2m0gH.
The horizontal mirror on the Earth reflects the photon upwards. At the height H, a device captures the photon and splits it again into an electron and positron. Note that the pair has gained an amount of energy equal to 2m0h.
Putting back the vertical mirrors, letting the pair to fall again, the new photon produced at the Earth surface would have now an energy of 2m0c2 + 4m0gH. And so on.
You are assuming that photons gain energy by moving downward in a gravitational field.
They don't because they don't couple with the gravitational field. Perhaps a respected authority can convince you. See Julian Schwinger (1986) Einstein's Legacy, Scientific Books, Inc.p.142.
C. Y. Lo:
Can you give some links to those experiments resulting repulsively gravitating em-energy?
Dear Sofia,
I apologize for my thoughtless and off- point response to your positronium gedanken. Permit me to try again.
To begin with, we have the e-/e+ pair at height, h, and we agree their total energy measured there is 2m0c2. Now they fall to earth, and you claim that they have gained energy in the amount 2m0gh. But this is a time-independent situation, so energy must be conserved. How can this be? The conventional answer is that the pair has lost potential energy by moving to a lower position in the gravitational field in the amount 2mgh, so the total energy of the pair at the surface of the earth is unchanged at 2m0c2. This total energy is converted to a photon that moves upward with constant energy, which, on reaching the location at height, h, is somehow converted to an e-/e+ pair, and the cycle is complete, harmlessly to energy conservation.
The nagging question is “where is this potential energy?” I have attached a paper in which I argue that gravitational potential energy of a massive body resides in the body itself as a change in the rest mass of the body. The concept is nicely expressed by the equation #
m*c2 (1 – v2/c2)-1/2 = constant,
where m* = m |g00| ½ is the true rest mass, m is the proper rest mass, a constant, and g00 is the time-time component of the metric tensor.
# (Landau and Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, Rev. 2nd ed., Pergamon Press, (1962), p292.
John Archibald Wheeler's "Geons" are a case in point with regard to the main question posed here. But they are intrinsically unstable.
Electromagnetic radiation at speed c never gravitate. The energy of radiation is a source of gravity not until absorbed into massive particles. Of course you must admit the radiation at circular motion round massive particles to be a part of those particles.
Esa,
I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that free radiation does not gravitate.
Permit me to attach a paper proposing gravitational rest mass reduction and its implications.
Best regards,
John (Jack) Heighway
Dear all,
I might suggest you this script of mine which may clarify on the nature of the gravitational redshift.
Curved space-time is not necessarily responsible of a net force on a body, but still be present, like in the center of Earth, the gravitational acceleration is 0, but the space-time is curved according to the EST.
Article Radiation power invariance across gravitational potentials
Thanks, John and Stefano.
While exploring the relation between space and mass I found the relation of energy density or energy flux between spatiality and spacetime singularity (mass mechanism).
It seems to me that the momentum of the radiation content of space and the mass momentum are equal in defined spacetime volume. Σp(r-st) = Σm(m-st)*c; Σp(r-st) is the sum of radiation momentums in the certain spacetime volume and m(m-st) is the sum of singular rest masses of the matter in the certain spacetime volume. De Broglie waves sums up as parts to the Σp(r-st). This define exactly the amount of the space in respect to the amount of rest masses.
Σp(r-st) = nh/Σλ(r-st), Σλ(r-st) is the sum of all quanta wavelengths, n is the amount of quanta, in the examined spacetime volume. That volume can keep m(m-st) -massive matter at rest in the certain inertial reference frame.
Hence nh/Σλ(r-st) = Σm(m-st)*c. Unfortunately the wavelength of the neutrino radiation is still a little puzzle. Are they only longitudinal waves and De Broglie will be the evident way?... Maybe the further research reveals something...
The space volumes are intersected dynamically with each other defining the quantum vacuum flow which is the same as the inertia; vacuum energy quanta flow into matters for to remain their masses. Hence the redshifting seems to be the way space expands - the radiation give energy to the space when more space is needed. And it is valid both gravitational redshifting and Doppler redshifting. Shortly: the mass use/eat space for inertia and the radiation create space for moves - the matter radiate and the space is defined by the radiation.
The dark energy is due to redshiftings and the dark matter is an illusion because the strong gravitational redshifting create space and get the matter seem to be lighter than it really is, orbits slow down because orbiting body gets the new-born vacuum quanta nearby, no need to gather it with a speed.
That was the short view to the current situation of my space-mass research. A lot of maths are waiting for my acts...
Edit: corrected the lapsus with the formula of the sum of momentums.
Dear All,
While the whole known universe to me is a dynamic system, the assumption of the mass at rest gravitational force is ambiguous.
My humble mind disagrees with mass at rest concept while there is no static/stationary or fixed point in the seen horizon.
Do you agree with that?
So sorry for my naive questions
The EM field and the gravitation fields are fundamentally different. They get coupled through elementary particles.
http://vixra.org/abs/1607.0146
Dear Ashraf!
I quite agree: The whole known universe is a dynamic system. The dynamic processes are material-energetic cycles and they are much deeper as par example on earth or the processes in the sun. There was no beginning and it would never end. The current ideas in physics are mostly based on a simple transfer of mechanistic imaginations and thermodynamics at the microcosm and also at the macrocosm. All theories are incomplete and incorrect.
@Hans v. L.: Maxwell (I'm not sure about the scientist!) stated the similarity between electrostatic and gravitational forces resp. fields. He failed to formulate the gravity based on electrostatic. But there is a possibility. It is contrary to some current theories par example that electromagnetic radiation is attracted by gravity. But it is forbidden to slaughter holy cows espacially in physics. Therefore is no sense in that to publish any paper about the real causes of gravity.
Maybe hundreds of years later.
My regards!
Hans
A general valid field theory exists for an Euclidean setting.
http://vixra.org/abs/1506.0111
Dear All,
In fact I'm not a scientist and I wonder are you sure that light bending happens due to gravitational fields and not due to normal temporal light diffraction or refraction?
The term (temporal) means that the source and the destination of the light are dynamic.
Please, see the attached images and let me get your assumption with simple arguments of your point of view.
Have a great Day/Night!
Dear All,
Does the gravitational behavior in the Valley of Demons near the holy city (Al Madinah) in Saudi Arabia prove a relation between the gravitational force and the magnetism even with nonmagnetic materials like water?
Does what happens there answer your question Hans?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qMVpD3xA4
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023009
Here is the the article about gravitational effects of light pulses that don't gravitate "at flight". Only the changes in the massive emitter and absorber influence gravitational field changing signals.
Yes, Example on Moon surface... The rocks getting atractive force caused by Sun's rays...
The gravitation field and the electromagnetic field are two basic fields (fields that are affected by point-like artifacts) that obey the same field equations, but that react differently on the artifacts that affect them.
𝙂𝙀𝙉𝙀𝙍𝘼𝙇𝙄𝙕𝙀𝘿 𝙁𝙄𝙀𝙇𝘿 𝙀𝙌𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎
Generalized field equations hold for all basic fields. Generalized field equations are best treated in a quaternionic setting.
Quaternions are constituted from a real number valued scalar part and a three-dimensional spatial vector that represents the imaginary part.
The multiplication rule of quaternions indicates that the product is constituted from several independent parts.
In this comment, we use a suffix ᵣ to indicate the scalar real part of a quaternion and we use bold face in order to indicate the imaginary vector part.
c = cᵣ + 𝙘 = a b = (aᵣ + 𝙖) (bᵣ + 𝙗) = aᵣ bᵣ − 〈 𝙖, 𝙗 〉 + aᵣ 𝙗 + 𝙖 bᵣ ± 𝙖 × 𝙗
The ± indicates that quaternions exist in right-handed and left-handed versions.
The formula can be used to check the completeness of a set of equations that follow from the application of the product rule.
The quaternionic conjugate of a is a* = (aᵣ − 𝙖)
From the product rule follows the formula for the norm |a| of quaternion a.
|a|² = a a* = (aᵣ + 𝙖) (aᵣ − 𝙖) = aᵣ aᵣ + ⟨ 𝙖, 𝙖 ⟩
The quaternionic nabla ∇ acts like a multiplying operator. The (partial) differential ∇ ψ represents the full first order change of field ψ.
ϕ = ∇ ψ = ϕᵣ + 𝟇 = (∇ᵣ + 𝞩 ) (ψᵣ + 𝟁) = ∇ᵣ ψᵣ − ⟨𝞩,𝟁⟩ + ∇ᵣ 𝟁 + 𝞩 ψᵣ ±𝞩 × 𝟁
The terms at the right side show the components that constitute the full first order change.
They represent subfields of field ϕ and often they get special names and symbols.
𝞩 ψᵣ is the gradient of ψᵣ
⟨𝞩,𝟁⟩ is the divergence of 𝟁.
𝞩 × 𝟁 is the curl of 𝟁
The equation is a quaternionic first order partial differential equation.
ϕᵣ = ∇ᵣ ψᵣ − ⟨𝞩,𝟁⟩ (This is not part of Maxwell equations!)
𝟇 = ∇ᵣ 𝟁 + 𝞩 ψᵣ ±𝞩 × 𝟁
𝜠 = −∇ᵣ 𝟁 − 𝞩 ψᵣ
𝜝 = 𝞩 × 𝟁
From the above formulas follows that the Maxwell equations do not form a complete set.
Physicists use gauge equations to make Maxwell equations more complete.
χ = ∇* ∇ ψ = (∇ᵣ − 𝞩 )(∇ᵣ + 𝞩 ) (ψᵣ + 𝟁) = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ + ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩) ψ
and
ζ = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩) ψ
are quaternionic second order partial differential equations.
χ = ∇* ϕ
and
ϕ = ∇ ψ
split the first second order partial differential equation into two first order partial differential equations.
The other second order partial differential equation cannot be split into two quaternionic first order partial differential equations. This equation offers waves as parts of its set of solution. For that reason it is also called a wave equation.
∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ ψ = ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ = ω ψ ⟹ f = exp(2π𝕚ωxτ)
In odd numbers of participating dimensions both second order partial differential equations offer shape keeping fronts as part of its set of solutions.
f(cτ+x𝕚) + g f(cτ−x𝕚) ; one-dimensional fronts
After integration over a sufficient period the spherical shape keeping front results in the Green’s function of the field under spherical conditions.
f(cτ+r𝕚)/r + g f(cτ−r𝕚)/r ; spherical fronts
𝔔 = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩) is equivalent to d'Alembert's operator.
⊡ = ∇* ∇ = ∇ ∇* = (∇ᵣ ∇ᵣ + ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ describes the variance of the subject
Maxwell equations must be extended by gauge equations in order to derive the second order partial wave equation.
Maxwell equations use coordinate time, where quaternionic differential equations use proper time. In terms of quaternions the norm of the quaternion plays the role of coordinate time. These time values are not used in their absolute versions. Thus, only time intervals are used.
Hilbert spaces can only cope with number systems that are division rings. In a division ring all non-zero members own a unique inverse. Only three suitable division rings exist. These are the real numbers, the complex numbers and the quaternions. Thus dynamic geometric data that are characterized by a Minkowski signature must first be dismantled into real numbers before they can be applied in a Hilbert space. Quaternions can be applied without dismantling.
Quantum physicists use Hilbert spaces for the modelling of their theory. Quaternionic quantum mechanics appears to represent a natural choice.
The Poisson equation
Φ = ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ = G ∘φ
describes how the field reacts with its Green’s function G on a distribution φ of point-like triggers.
G(𝙦−𝙘)=1/| 𝙦−𝙘|
⟨𝞩 × 𝞩, 𝟁⟩=0
𝞩 × (𝞩 × 𝟁) = 𝞩⟨𝞩,𝟁 ⟩ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ 𝟁
(𝞩𝞩) ψ = (𝞩 × 𝞩) ψ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ = (𝞩 × 𝞩) 𝟁 − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ = 𝞩⟨𝞩,𝟁 ⟩ − 2 ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ + ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψᵣ
The term (𝞩 × 𝞩) ψ indicates the curvature of field ψ.
The term ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ indicates the stress of the field ψ.
(𝞩 × 𝞩) ψ + ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψ = 𝞩⟨𝞩,𝟁 ⟩ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ ψᵣ
With respect to a local part of a closed boundary that is oriented perpendicular to vector 𝙣 the partial differentials relate as
𝞩 ψ = 𝞩 (ψᵣ + 𝟁) = ⟨𝞩,𝟁⟩ + 𝞩 ψᵣ ±𝞩 × 𝟁 ⇔ 𝙣 ψ = 𝙣 (ψᵣ + 𝟁) = ⟨ 𝙣,𝟁⟩ + 𝙣 ψᵣ ± 𝙣 × 𝟁
This is exploited in the generalized Stokes theorem
∭ 𝞩 ψ dV = ∯ 𝙣 ψ dS
This turns the differential continuity equation into an integral balance equation.
It also elucidates what the terms in the continuity equation mean.
𝞩 × (𝞩 × 𝟁) = 𝞩⟨𝞩,𝟁 ⟩ − ⟨𝞩,𝞩⟩ 𝟁 ⇔ 𝙣 × (𝙣 × 𝟁) = 𝙣 ⟨ 𝙣,𝟁 ⟩ − ⟨ 𝙣, 𝙣 ⟩ 𝟁
∭ 𝞩 × (𝞩 × 𝟁) dV = ∯ ⟨ 𝙣,𝟁 ⟩ 𝙣 dS − ∯ 𝟁 dS
docs.com/hans-van-leunen
O.K.
Now can you tell me in two words what the cause of Earth gravity field?
Yes.
"Bent space-time".
If you want a proper answer it takes a lot of words or equations and a lot of work to understand them and what the limits of present understanding and knowledge are and why.
Because there is graviton-photon interaction, the gravitational and electromagnetic field could be varied by each other. Please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311049619_An_outline_to_detect_graviton_and_attractive_force
Experiment Findings An outline to detect graviton and attractive force
Dear
Einstein proposed a set of equations called the Einstein Field Equations that related spacetime curvature to the presence of momentum energy. He called the theory of General Relativity. General relativity says, given a distribution of momentum energy (e.g. a syphericslly symmetric non-rotating charge free mass distribution) we can calculate the spacetime curvature. So, one example would be the sun. The sun induces curvature (ie gravity) because mass is equivalent to energy. And so the sun's momentum-energy curves spacetime.
Regards
At me...
Earth*s outer-core...
With it can be easily explained Earth*s tides, Tsunamis caused by earthquakes, the planet erosion process which leads to formation of asteroids belt (well know that the asteroids are similar with rocks of Earth*), The yearly diurnal variation of Earth*s gravity field...
As you observe i do not need alternative answers... Because i am counting with real things in resolving of my knowledge about nature...
My response to main question was simply and observed onto Moon*s surface ...
Best Regards,
Laszlo
Please, read the following notes;
- The static magnetism itself shows gravitational force even for non-magnetic materials, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qMVpD3xA4
- Gravitational speed equals the speed of the electromagnetic waves, see http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/12/chinese-scientists-find-evidence-for.html
- The gravitational waves are similar to the electromagnetic waves, see MIT/LIGO announced the discovery of the gravitational https://youtu.be/B4XzLDM3Py8
- The reduction of the planetary rotational speed leads to reduction in planetary magnetism which leads to reduction of gravitational field
Based on the above mentioned arguments I think that the gravitational field is influenced strongly by the electromagnetic field or it is itself an electromagnetic field. I'm highly convinced that the gravitational field is dynamic, nonlinear and analog field.
Please, look at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reasons-behind-gravity-ashraf-aboshosha?trk=pulse_spock-articles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qMVpD3xA4
http://www.astrowatch.net/2012/12/chinese-scientists-find-evidence-for.html
https://youtu.be/B4XzLDM3Py8
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reasons-behind-gravity-ashraf-aboshosha?trk=pulse_spock-articles
Dear colleague
Electromagnetic radiation is the radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes. Visible light is electromagnetic radiation, as is invisible light, such as radio, infrared, and X-rays.
Electromagnetic radiation consists of electromagnetic waves, which are synchronized oscillations of electric and magnetic fields that propagate at the speed of light through a vacuum. The oscillations of the two fields are perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of energy and wave propagation, forming a transverse wave. Electromagnetic waves can be characterized by either the frequency or wavelength of their oscillations, which determines their position in the electromagnetic spectrum, which includes, in order of increasing frequency and decreasing wavelength: radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, X-rays and gamma rays.
The effects of EMR upon chemical compounds and biological organisms depend both upon the radiation's power and its frequency. EMR of visible or lower frequencies (i.e., radio, microwave, infrared, and visible light) is called non-ionizing radiation, because its photons do not individually have enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules. The effects of these radiations on chemical systems and living tissue are caused primarily by heating effects from the combined energy transfer of many photons. By contrast, high ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays are called ionizing radiation since individual photons of such high frequency have enough energy to ionize molecules or break chemical bonds. These radiations have the ability to cause chemical reactions and damage living cells beyond that resulting from simple heating, and can be a health hazard.
If you can see link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation
regards
Ahmed,
Waves cannot bridge the distance from the nearest star to us and then have sufficient energy to trigger the human eye. So you must rethink your lecture. It contains a few pertinent lies. I advise you to study the solutions of the wave equation. It has more solutions than just waves.
A significant different exist between EM waves and photons. Also the carrier of the photons is not the EM field. The EM field does not reach far enough. However, a field exists that exists always and everywhere. It can be vibrated and it can be deformed. It differs fundamentally from the EM field. Still both fields obey the same field equations.
Do not thrust what you learned at the university. You were false informed!
docs.com/hans-van-leunen
Dear All!
The other side of my question is: The gravitational red shift of the solar radiation would be so significant that experimenters before Einstein would have notice it. Pound/Rebka and others take into account in their experiments only the desired effects which are visible within the backround noise of events (I say indulgent in German: Auswertung des Experiments in positiver Erwartungshaltung). Energy respectively electromagnetic radiation has only a equivalence of rest mass and the assumption that it wuold have the same properties as gravitational mass is more than doubtful. See also the Pioneer anomaly.
My Regards! Hans
@ HGH:
You have raised all these points in another thread. Various people told you that all these points are based on an erroneous view of the facts: the gravitational red shift on the Sun is hard to measure, due to the Doppler shift caused by large scale motion of the solar material. On the other hand, Pound-Rebka was done with an extremely clean system (Mössbauer effect) and the accuracy reached was 10% of the noise in the original experiment, brought down to 1% in later versions. So unless you have other evidence (which you should then quote) your claims are of the nature of old-fashioned lies and slander.
Einstein did not continue to believe in gravitational waves. The reason apparently was the implied fact that inside a long-wavelength gravitational wave, light pulses would sometimes take longer and sometimes shorter to bridge the same distance. (This is my pictorial hypothesis at the moment which may contain a flaw somewhere.)
“…Pound-Rebka was done with an extremely clean system (Mössbauer effect) and the accuracy reached was … 1% in later versions…”
- indeed Pound and Rebka have discovered that when a radiating source [in the experiments – Fe-57 nuclei] emits photons in a point with gravity potential φ1 then the photons’ measured with a good accuracy relative energy at interacting with analogous elements [Fe-57 also in this case] in a point with the potential φ2, (φ2 -φ1)= δ φ, is lesser/larger then the initial photon’s energy so that the relative frequency shift is equal to δ(ω)=gh/c2
But Pound and Rebka didn’t know the GR well, and in the corresponding papers claimed that they discovered just photons’ energy changes at motion in the gravity fields, when that was quite heretical in the GR – this theory is based on the postulate that photons don’t change their energy at motion “along geodesics” and observed “allegedly photons red/blue shifts” in the reality is a realization of the action of the “spacetime curvature”, when just the Matter’s spacetime by some undefined in the GR way impacts on every [besides photons] material objects [here – Fe-57nuclei] so, that all observed “photons’ red/blue shift” is caused in the reality by different “gravitational time dilation”, which [the “dilation”] acted by some mystic way in the experiments on of Fe-57 nuclei in different spatial points.
If there is a real photons’ energy shift then there is no “spacetime curvature”.
Though from this GR claim immediately follow non-conservation of energy in the system “Earth+ Fe-57 nuclei”, including – GR thus predicts the gravitational mass defect of this system that is two times larger then the real/possible value.
In the reality with a great probability both effects exist – the changes of internal processes rate that is caused at real interaction of the nuclei with material Earth gravity field and photons red/blue shift that is caused at real interaction of photons with material Earth gravity field; at that both effects are equal, i.e. the real relative photon’s energy/frequency shift is equal to δ(ω)=gh/2c2; Pound and Rebka simply measured the sum of these effects.
Thus in the reality the Pound and Rebka experiments didn’t tested and so didn’t “confirmed” the general relativity, however that is possible if to measure only one effect. At that seems practically impossible to measure only the photons’ red/blue shift, but the quite simple and cheap experiment allows to measure only the impact of the gravity on “having rest mass” material objects – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment
The experiment can be made in a week if be made on Earth in some skyscraper; and costs near $1000 000 only ; and that would be indeed direct GR test, which with a great probability will show that the GR is wrong. Just therefore the very simple experiment was suggested rather long time ago, but it isn’t made till now; when a big number of disciplined physicists continue stubbornly to claim that the GR is correct and Pound and Rebka proved that …
Cheers
Research The informational model – gravity; a next experiment
@F. Leyvraz: Your statement is simply wrong.
To say that the red shift of sun radiation is hard to measure is an excuse. It should be measurable a significant deviation already by comparing of spectral lines like the scientists before Einstein have done. Despite of the turbulences on sun they have observed sharp spectral lines.
Pound-Rebka was not done with an extremely clean system. An extremely clean system would mean at least vacuum. The gamma-rays crossed more than 40m air with diverse interactions and disorders. The first experiment was unsuccessful! Later experiments show much higher disturbing effects as espected effects. It was always a red shift visible. The experimenters have obviously learned to select the desirable events. IOW the examination was done with attitude of positive espections. I see parallels to some other current experiments. Theory dictates the evaluation of experiments.
The points I have raised on various points are rejected by theoretical scientists like you. But exact science is a steady doubt and not a belive in theories.
A presumption of validity does not apply for theories and a theory can be only falsified by experiments. Therefore your claims are lies of theories and a slander of the independence of science.
My Regards! Hans
Hans,
“…To say that the red shift of sun radiation is hard to measure is an excuse. It should be measurable … of spectral lines ... Despite of the turbulences on sun they have observed sharp spectral lines….”
- that isn’t so. It is impossible to detect the gravitational photons’ red shift by XIX century instruments - the impact of Sun’s gravity on the gravitational photons’ red shift is near 10-11, when the resolution of the spectrometers was in this case not better then 10-3.
Though that seems as “principally possible” if somebody takes into account a large intensity of Sun’s photons, what principally allows to reduce the random error that is caused by the turbulence if a measurement is long enough - but in the reality that is impossible because of at such deviations a huge number of other interfering factors become be essential, which are non-controlled or even unknown.
[Though - the LIGO team uses just this method and claims that the reducing of the random error at very large photons’ intensity in the installation allow them to measure mirrors spatial positions deviation lesser then atom’s nucleus size (!)…]
When Pound and Rebka’s “spectrometer” indeed had the resolution near 1% of the real red/blue shifts of Fe-57 quanta. Their results are valid – and are non-consistent with the GR.
Cheers
``Despite of the turbulences on sun they have observed sharp spectral lines.''
The sharpness is limited by the Doppler effect. As an elementary calculation shows, the gravitational shift on the Sun corresponds to a Doppler shift of a speed far less than that of convective motion. Saying that the ``spectral lines'' are ``sharp'' is simply wrong. Spectral lines always have a width. On the Sun they are dominated by the Doppler effect, which is significantly larger than the expected effect. It can be measured, but is difficult.
As to Pound and Rebka, you keep on making the same statements. Do give verifiable citations. Making wrons statements while aware that they are wrong is lying. When they are derogatory of other people, they re slander.
I am in anxious expectation of the *precise details* of your otherwise baseless claims
In fact I focus on the definition of physics fundamentals to go through mature research level with confidence. Mainly and namely I mean Space, Time, Mass, Energy, Particle and Wave. Based on these intuitive concepts I deny two important serious topics in the world of physics
Based on my concept I deny clearly and definitely the existence of the mysterious photon and graviton subjectively and objectively. The importance of this denial is that it opens the floodgates for revolutionary research to rewrite our academic and scientific understanding on the gravitational force and its relation to the electromagnetic fields.
Asraf,
The second order partial differential equations do offer more solutions than just waves. Good arguments exist that photons are not waves and that at long trips the EM field is not their carrier. Intuition is not a good guide to judge over what massless and what massive objects are. Mathematics is a much better guide. Experiments can help, but many aspects of physical reality are not observable and that includes experimental verification.
docs.com/hans-van-leunen
Hans,
Great to believe in mathematics as an argument for reality. What I believe is that mathematics and experimental physics should meet the (rational) truth. Look at these photonic dilemma
- If we consider the photon is mass-less object then its energy according to relativity is E=mc2=Zero, see the file e=mc2
- If we consider it massive object then its relativistic mass is infinity, see file R-Mass
Unfortunately both of the above cases are wrong.
It is easier consider that the light is composed of waves and particles until we know more details about it. Mathematics alone could lead to a paradox exactly like those who proved mathematically that they can produce a tiny black which will swallow the whole galaxy and finally nothing happened after spending a giant fund. Please, see the file 1=2 which is a simple model of Math conflict;
Your homepage is too interesting, it will get long time just to take a look. It is really full of treasures
Ashraf,
Let me introduce a new object. A warp is a solution of a homogeneous second order partial differential equation. A warp is a one-dimensional front that keeps its shape and its amplitude when it travels through its carrier field. The warp owns no frequency, but it carries a bit of energy that can be interpreted as a bit of information. A photon is a string of equidistant warps. It obeys the Planck-Einstein relation. This means that the emitter of the photon must keep emitting warps at equidistant instance during a period that independent of the frequency of the photon is the same for all photons. E=m c2 does not hold for photons. instead holds E=h v.
Apart from warps, clamps exist. Clamps are the mass equivalents of warps. Clamps are spherical fronts that keep their shape as the travel away from the trigger point, but in contrast to warps they lose their amplitude as 1/r with distance r from the trigger. If a clamp is integrated spatially over a long enough period, then the Green's function of the carrier field results. Clamps occur as responses of hop landings. The hops form a stochastic hopping path and after a while the hop landings form a coherent location swarm. The hopping path, the location swarm and a corresponding location density distribution characterize the point-like particle that hops around in the hopping path. The location density distribution equals the squared modulus of the wave function of the particle. If the Green's function of the embedding field is convoluted with the location density distribution of the swarm, then the deformation of the embedding field that is due to the nearby existence of the particle results.
If the particle annihilates, then a photon is released that contains as many warps as the swarm contains clamp triggers. This indicates the mass-energy equivalence of clamps and warps. Each clamp carries a bit of mass where each warp carries a bit of energy. The mass of the particle is proportional to the number of hop landings that form the location swarm.
In the overall model, the elementary particle can zigzag along the progression axis. The time travel reflects at the location/instant where a particle and its antiparticle are created or annihilated. In fact nothing is created or annihilated. The same object reverses its direction of time travel. Only observers will interpret the reflection events as creation or annihilation of particle/antiparticle pairs. The conclusion is that at the same instant the same object can exist multiple times. These reappearances are entangled.
Hans,
It sounds good and how does the warp go with the following topics?
- 3D Space
- Dark matter and dark energy
- light properties
- Laser physics
- Matter heterogeneity and interference
- Astrophysics and cosmic phenomena
- Gravitational force
- Electromagnetic fields
- Mass/Energy
- etc.
I'm not highly interested in its compatibility with modern physics theories (relativity, quantum, string, ...). I hope it goes on well
Ashraf,
3D Space:
The homogeneous second order partial differential equation is acting on quaternionic functions that use a quaternionic parameter space. The fact that the warp moves in one dimension, does not say that is must restrict to that one dimension. In fact the path of the warp runs along a geodesic in the field that is represented by the quaternionic function.
Dark matter and dark energy:
These sets may be sets of spurious warps and clamps.
Astrophysics and cosmic phenomena:
The paper in the link treats black holes and considers them as optimally packed assemblies of clamps that zigzag inside the event horizon.
Gravitational force:
Gravitation is partly explained in the previous message.
Electromagnetic fields:
Those fields are fundamentally different from the embedding field. However all basic fields obey the same field equations. They differ in the kind of artifacts that trigger them.
Mass/Energy:
Treated above
https://doc.co/WmxXCB
@F. Leyvraz: You keep on making the same theoretical statements in all your answers. The reality is not the image (in German: Abbild) of the theory. It has to be vice versa - also in physics! There are to much experiments in contradiction with theories. The 'great' theoreticians like Einstein, Pauli, Feynman were only masters of thougth experiments but they dictate the evaluation of practical experiments - thats the problem.
I'm the opinion that the gravitational red shift is unmeasurable because it is only a theoretically prophety. Pound/Rebka were measuring in both cases (radiation upward or downward in gravitational field) red shift. They believed to see a difference.
You can also assume a deformation of atoms (asymmetrical shift of the nuclei within the atomic shells) as cause of a possible difference. Podklednows experiment may give raise.
@Sergey: I agree with your answer. But the red shift in the experiment of Pound/Rebka was very much smaller than 10-11. The triumph of hope over experience. See also the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956.
My Regards! Hans-G.
Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956
@ HGH:
I am not making ``theoretical'' statements of any kind: you make *factual statements* of the kind ``Pound/Rebka were measuring in both cases (radiation upward or downward in gravitational field) red shift. They believed to see a difference.''
What is your evidence? Have you read the Pound/Rebka paper? It does not look that way! You claim that the gamma rays crossed through air, which is false: it went through helium. In any case, the problem with having an intervening substance is merely that it would absorb some of the photons, thus diminishing the statistic: no theory predicts a frequency shift by either air or helium. What are your arguments to claim that the effect is spurious?
You are right to say, of course, that the effect is less than 10^(-11). So what? The Mössbauer effect with the substances used was expected to yield photons in a narrow frequency range (of 10^(-12) times the photon frequency). What is left is to measure an effect of order 10^(-3) due to gravity (which produces a shift of 10^(-15)), which is nothing impossible. Again, state, concretely, motives to argue for an artefact, or else stop spreading lies around.
Similarly for the Sun. In fact, as you have been told, although the effect is small, it has eventually been measured in the 70's. That should certainly count against your claim that `` it is only a theoretically prophety''. Or will you now go on to spread further lies and slander on those measurements as well?
Finally your claim: ``There are to much experiments in contradiction with theories.''
Do you have a concrete example? Usually, these experiments are published in non-peer reviewed journals, have been performed in an inadequate environment, by people with little formation in physics. Serious experimental challenges to accepted theories are, to my knowledge, few and far between.
@ HGH:
The attached paper presents arguments indicating that the free electromagnetic field does not couple to the gravitational field. The importance of this issue cannot be exaggerated.
Best regards, JH
I am repeating myself when I say the following:
There are two ways to approach to the reality.
First and simply: You are sitting on your desk and make theories to declare the reality in its largest and smallest dimensions. It is not clear whether the theories are right or wrong. The theories are only parallels to reality. But you will inevitable reach a point of assumptions and prophecies. Your world view becomes more and more theoretical-mathematical features. The experimenters are required at least to verify the assumptions and proof the prophecies. The experiments and the evaluations are mandatory by theory. Contradictions and unexpected results are disruptive factors and they lead almost always to adjustments and corrections of theories, which are disproved at bottom.
Second and difficult: You made observations, experiences, experiments and explore the reality step by step. The results are dicussed with an open outcome and without stop thinkings by theories. Contradictions and surprising or unexpected results are leading to further experiments and to new explanatory approaches. The reality becomes more and more visible on this onerous way. An 'end of science' as some scientists already oracles will never been reached.
The first possibility was also the way of all founders of a religion. The second possibility is the way to overturn dogmas. Look at the history of science.
You can be absolutely sure that in the whole universe do not exist only one 'black hole', only one 'quark' or any kind of 'dark matter' and also some other theoretical prophecies. They exist only on earth in the thoughts of certain scientists. Every theoretical prediction is at first a deficit of knowledge.
My Regards!
Hans-G.
Dear Dr. Hans-G. Hildebrandt,
I think, your above statement caught the key problem in current theory of physics.
-------------------
About the gravity and electromagnetic field, I had these conclusions:
If one should study the relationship between photon and gravity, on need consider the Newtonian theory of gravity. In fact, Einstein did not have any original contribution to the theory of gravity. If one trapped into Einstein’s theory, one could not understand the theory of gravity.
It is Newton who first predicted that gravity has an action on photon assuming that photon is a corpuscular. From this assumption, Newton predicted that a light ray can be bended by the gravity of the Sun.
I believe that, gravity has an action on photon. And, I concluded that photon is the least particle that can be interacted with graviton. So, described with quantum field theory, the interaction between gravity and light can be described as graviton-photon interaction. Therefore, the interaction between gravitational and electromagnetic field can be described with graviton-photon interaction. Maybe, some of the experiments for this subject are questioned, it does not mean that gravity cannot have action on light. But, how to detect this action is a very great problem.
In their response to the artefacts that influence the EM field and the gravitation field, these fields behave fundamentally different. Both fields obey the same differential field equations. They can only influence each other if they are somehow coupled. If the fields are coupled via massive artifacts, then this does not show that the EM field shows gravity. It only shows that the fields share artifacts that affect them.
On hypothesis concerning to the equivalency between space as massless radiation and matter as massive fields:
Σp(st_r) = nh/Σλ(st_r) = Σm(st_m)*c | in energetic closed spacetime section consisting st_r (radiation) and st_m (matter).
Σm(st_m)*c is intristic inner mass momentum of the matter in respect of free fall inertial frame and Σλ(st_r) is the sum of all massless quanta wavelengths, n is the amount of quanta.
Of course, all partial energetic closed spacetime sections are spatially "hairy" or intristic highly curved - the equation applies best for the whole universe.
The conclusion of that hypothesis is: massive matter gravitates, massless radiation not. Photons at emissions and at absorptions are part of massive matter structure.
@Esa: I agree with your assertion: 'massive matter gravitates, massless radiation not'.
I would formulate the second sentence as follows: 'Photons at emissions are a part of massive matter and they become at absorptions a part of massive matter.'
All experiments and observations which intended to show gravitational effects of radiation are not persuasive. Par example: Why was the experiment of Pound/Rebka with its enormous disturbing effects not done with light analog to the Michelson-experiment?
@Pekko: Well, the Wikipedia ruminates the doctrine. But at ResearchGate we should ask unconventional questions and give answers uninfluenced by the doctrine.
Dear Dr. Hans-G. Hildebrandt,
The gravitational field g could be varied by magnetic field B with
Dg=(fG/u)^(1/2)DB
please see:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316438315_Gravitational-magnetic-electric_fields_interaction?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=5fBDldXHjoVpyofsfHfTpySC&_iepl%5BprofilePublicationItemVariant%5D=default&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfpi&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A316438315&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle
Experiment Findings Gravitational-magnetic-electric fields interaction vi
@Yin: Thank you for the linked paper. If you are searching for possibly causes of gravity then you comes to a point you have to say:
- Gravity is a long-distance effect which acts only between atomically structured matter.
- The experiment of Jewgeni Podklednov shows clearly an effect of asymmetrical altered atoms.
- The equivalence principle (inertial mass = gravitational mass) is a empirical formula and it has to be checked by experiments. You will probably find a material constant.
- Gravity resp. the gravitational field is influenceable by electrostatic and therefore also by magnetic fields and probably by some other causes.
(Remark: The gratest problem in physics is to insist on the old theories like the medival clerics on the geocentric world view.)
- Badges
- Science topic