The field energy density /gravitational energy density is missing in General relativity but in Newtonian gravitation, it is present and negative as expected.
As stated by Penrose not very accurately, about potential energy
"Although there is no room for such a thing in the energy–momentum tensor T, it is clear that there are situations where a ‘disembodied’ gravitational energy is actually playing a physical role.
Imagine two massive bodies (planets, say). If they are close together (and we can suppose that they are instantaneously at rest relative to each other), then there will be a (negative) gravitational potential energy contribution which makes the total energy, and therefore the total mass, smaller than it would be if they are far apart. Ignoring much tinier energy effects, such as distortions of each body’s shape due to the gravitational tidal field of the other, we see that the total contributions from the actual energy–momentum tensor T will be the same whether the two bodies are close together or far apart.
Yet, the total mass/energy will differ in the two cases, and this difference would be attributed to the energy in the gravitational field itself (in fact a negative contribution, that is more sizeable when the bodies are close than when they are far apart)."
As a matter of fact what is negative is the binding energy which is localizable... what is not localizable is the potential energy.
There is substantial a difference between gravitational energy which is negative in Newtonian Gravitation and is a sort of BINDING ENERGY and Potential energy which is positive since it is "given" to the system of attracting masses.
It is undisputed that there is no room at all for a potential energy density in gravitation since it is not determinable from where such energy comes from, although it exists...it cannot be part of the "gravitational field"...
Considering the issues raised in the thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_non_locality_of_the_gravitational_energy_a_serious_problem_for_General_Relativity
I would like to continue this analysis, without the quarrels in the past which made RG close the participation to all to the thread!!!!
A debate about field energy and potential energy has been overdue. First without considering general relativity but of course finally including general relativity. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
We all feel forces and have experience with energy as force times path. Therefor we also shall be familiar with energy contained in force fields as indicated in this thread.
But living on the surface of planet earth within a huge gravitational force field has told us another but illusory story. The story is about a stationary unmodifiable field, which defines potential energy for all objects in this field. But this story is not true because the gravitational field of earth only is approximately constant. Moving everyday objects up and down slightly modifies this gravitational field. The relation of the modification in respect to the whole field is the same as the relation of the object mass to the mass of earth. Because the huge mass of earth, the story about potential energy is an incredibly good approximation. The approximation is so good that we can solve all relevant mechanics problems with sufficient accuracy.
Relativity has revealed that there are more subtle effects behind gravitational potentials. But those relativistic effects really are extremely subtle. Considering that potential energy only is an approximation, is much less subtle.
If we want to make a step behind potential theory, then leaving its approximative nature must be the first step. Space warping and similar effects then can follow.
Extending the well-known field energy principle to the gravitational field performs this step. We consequently replace the principle that the force on an object is given by “mass multiplied by potential gradient” by “derivative of the total field energy in respect to the object position”.
We certainly must execute this step before we consider more subtle effects, like general relativity. Consequently the (negative) energy content of gravitational fields and the (positive) energy content of gravitational waves must be considered in relativity theory.
Dear Wolfgang,
there is one fact that brings back energy into play, the right application of the WEP.
So far the WEP has been extended to the EEP which is a local physical equivalence between electrodynamics and gravitation... that is not at all the case.
What is certainly the case is that WEP is crucial for the application of the conservation laws. Besides the Eotovos Fg=Fi equilibirium balance there is also the displacement of the point of application of the forces where a quasi-equilibrium produces work.
We have to consider this fundamental concept and start again.....
Dear Stefano Quattrini
Sorry for the late answer.
Without considering general relativity, the answer about "field energy or potential energy" seems simple. It is exactly "either or". Potential energy consideration is a good approximation for considering a small object in the gravitational field of a large object. In this case it is legitimate to assign the potential energy to the small object. But if we consider objects of comparable weight, considering potential energy is not a good option because potential energy in a changing gravitational field is difficult to calculate.
This aspect is even more fundamental and another reason for a restart.
Dear Wolfgang Konle ,
I can agree on the terminology since the field is defined as the configuration where a very small object can enter without disturbing the vector field generated by the big object. So as per definition the field energy should be the one that involves the big and small.
On the other hand it is not definable the boundary between field and potential energy, if you consider them as such...
What I consider field energy and potential energy do not involve instead this "shaky" estimation of what is big or what is small and has behind a strong rationale.
The two quantities are quite different physically in gravitation:
a) the potential energy is positive, being the one which allows any two distant bodies AB, sufficiently isolated from any other, to approach with increasing speed in the center of mass of the system AB, hence it is not localizable because it is not provided by the masses themselves. Masses remain untouched and it is not definable where exactly in space the energy is from.
That energy, to simplify, which manifests as kinetic energy measured in the COM of the system, is radiated away after the inelastic collision, such that the mass of the new body remains A+B.
b) the field energy is negative, it is a binding energy, and is localized with the density rho=- k(grad phi)2. It is the energy required by the system AB to be brought back to a certain position of separation between A and B. It is the same quantity but has opposite sign than the potential energy originally provided to the system A and B to form A+B.
As a consequence the gravitational field becomes a volume of space depleted of some energy, a hole....
It is possible to consider the case where the potential energy-->kinetic energy-->heat is not totally radiated away but some of it gets bonded into something else, increasing the mass A+B...
Stefano Quattrini
I think this is a misunderstanding. We can describe gravity either with potential energy or with field energy. This is a selectable option. But both possibilities at once, this is not possible.
The case that two bodies attract each other should be considered with the field energy.
Dear Wolfgang Konle
and where does the kinetic energy (first "potential energy") which exists and is measurable in their center of mass, come from?
Is it understood that whatever is provided, at first instance, is radiated away after collision?
Is that clear that something is contained in space independently on the masses and the masses trigger this energy out?
Stefano Quattrini
If two separated, about equal masses attract each other, they gain kinetic energy and finally they collide. After the collision, the gravitational field has doubled its strength and accordingly quadrupled its negative energy. But the kinetic energy becomes converted to thermal energy and finally radiated away. What remains is a system which has centred its mass and has lost energy. The lost energy has been put in the stronger gravitational field.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster , Stefano Quattrini
With your questions and with your deep knowledge about general relativity you are digging much deeper as I am currently doing it.
However, I would like to draw your attention to the problem of negative energy density. It is obvious that the energy density of the gravitational field around planets and suns is negative. But I am not convinced that nature allows a negative energy density.
The only possibility to solve this dilemma is the existence of an omnipresent gravitational field with a positive energy density, which compensates the negative energy density of the fields around masses.
Such a field reopens the discussion about the cosmological constant.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster "The gravitational energy density of the whole cosmos is positive."
The proposal is that the gravitational energy density in every point in our universe is given by two components:
(1) A negative contribution from the gravitational field of all masses in the vicinity.
(2) A positive contribution from the homogenous cosmic gravitational field with a positive energy density. The positive contribution overcompensates all negative contributions from celestial objects, except black holes.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
No, this consideration applies to all celestial objects, except those we call black holes with an abnormal state of matter.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
The crucial point is if nature allows a negative value of the gravitational field energy density.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
“In Newtonian gravity, its value is always negative.”
This is not correct. Newton’s gravity only is relative. This means the energy density decreases from infinity to the nearfield region. But Newtons gravity does not claim any value at infinity.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
Yes, but this value, epsilon = -(grad Phi)²/(8 pi G), is only relative to zero gravity. We do not know the energy density at zero gravity. If it is zero, the sum of the energy stored in all gravitational fields of the universe would be negative. This is in contradiction to your statement:
"The gravitational energy density of the whole cosmos is positive."
We must assume that in all points with zero gravity the gravitational energy density is equal to the dark energy density.
Dear all,
in regard to the issue of gravitation I really think that this paper
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.509.6294&rep=rep1&type=pdf
tells us quite interesting things, and points out the presence of an active background strictly necessary for the gravitational interaction to work
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster "This tells us, that gravitational field energy density is relative and no absolute quantity."
Sorry, but an energy density, specified in Joule/m³ must be absolute. Otherwise also a mass density would be relative or E=mc² is wrong.
Some thoughts about a negative energy density
According to m=E/c² a negative energy density corresponds to a negative mass density. The problem of a negative mass is a negative inertia. A negative inertia would lead to a reverse acceleration force. This means that the negative mass once accelerated, would on its own increase the acceleration.
Dear Wolfgang Konle ,
exactly...it is due to the arbitrary assumption of zero energy of the empty space far from masses...
this arbitrariness descends from the fact that Einsteinian empty space as has no energy at all or very little (cosmological problem). Since the energy cannot be negative unless given away, the background is forcibly full of energy since you can get out of this (grad Phi)²/(8 pi G) which is a first order approximation, in the extreme case of a BH a value of 10100 Joule/cm3 . That is the depleted energy from the background energy by the BH formation which is a closer estimation of the background energy itself.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster "E = mc² has absolutely nothing to do with gravitational field energy density"
E=mc² is valid for all kinds of energies including gravitational field energy. Otherwise contradictions with energy conservation occur.
We know that gravitational field energy can be converted into kinetic energy.
should have, but it does not...
do you want to redefine energy?? What does it mean a negative energy unless that it is missing from a predefined level???
Dear Stefan Bernhard Rüster "it makes absolutely no sense to express gravitational field energy (density) to be or relate to a mass ... because then the mass would be negative".
This argument is of the type "the tail wags the dog".
It does not matter to which theory E=mc² belongs. Einstein’s mass/energy relation is valid for any kind of energy including gravitational field energy.
We only have one unit “Joule” for all kinds of energy. Energy conservation considers all kinds of energy as convertible.
Introducing a special kind of energy would be introducing new physics.
Stefano Quattrini "...in the extreme case of a BH a value of 10100 Joule/cm3"
If the energy density of a gravitational background is strong enough to enforce a positive field energy around neutron stars, the energy density value remains in plausible regions.
If, as it is also plausible, an absolute negative value is not allowed, black holes must be surrounded by a zone with zero energy density. This sheds a new light into the nature of black holes.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,
You can give an arbitrary meaning to negative energy, then up to you about the consequences. If you give it the proper meaning, the negative energy is the one "depleted" from the region of space due to collapsed masses which let out radiation. That is not an orthodox view but it is the only rational explanation...
what, do you think, does give energy to masses initially at rest in deep space and make them collide?
dear Wolfgang Konle ,
yes BH should be the deepest known local depletion of vacuum energy (slow down of atomic clocks) while the largest presence is far from masses (highest rates of atomic clocks).. atomic clocks feel the background energy... what is assumed to be the Vacuum energy by GR , the cosmological constant can be a negligible global variation of that 10^100 joule/cm3.
General Relativity works by bending something…
the metric of space-time with its diffeomorofism , wants to represent such distortion. It shows that "something" deep is deformed.... it is the background whose energy density is changed.
Stefan Bernhard Rüster
there is no field yes, but this does not mean that the background is not full of energy, otherwise what is bent, distorted???
The distortion of the space-time represents something, by itself that matter bends the space-time does not mean anything unless the space-time distortion is a description of something much deeper.
it is the dog biting its tail....
Stefan Bernhard Rüster ,
light does not bend in what is considered flat spacetime because it is homogeneous hence would have no reason to bend.
space-time is an expression of something deeper. A metric does not move anything..by itself does not posses any energy, it describes the phenomenology of something
cause a variation of something which can be represented also with a variation of the metric.
TWO masses are accelerated because it naturally exist vacuum energy named potential energy in classical Physics which provides the two masses with the kinetic energy as expressed in center of mass of the system of two masses.
Better: Space time is curved by gravitational fields.
We must consider gravitational fields with both, negative and positive energy density.
Special interest must be on the curvature caused by a homogenous gravitational field of positive energy density.
The curvature caused by a gravitational field of negative energy density leads to an open topology.
"With respect to the FLRW metric for describing our whole universe, there exists a positive energy density of the gravitational field".
We should discuss the impact of such a gravitational field with a positive energy density. First let us assume that a negative energy density does not occur.
The cosmological consequences are obvious. The field energy at zero gravitation must exceed the absolute value of the neutron star gravity.
But the consequences for black holes are, that they are surrounded by a zone with zero gravitational field energy.
This zone shields black holes from gravitational waves.
The second point concerns gravitational waves. With a positive gravitational field energy we have a medium which supports the propagation of waves with velocity c.
For waves with wave pressure p and wave energy E in a medium with energy density X we get p=√(EX). We therefor must consider “oscillation of medium X” instead of “quadrupole radiation” as the mechanism to generate gravitational waves.
But this has further consequences. Stars are sources of microscopic gravitational waves. The gradient of the flow density of these waves has a gravitational impact. It shields the gravitational field of the star. Primarily the shielding leads to underestimate the mass of the star. But the shielding has a limited range. It ends as soon as the flow density has reached the background density. The dark matter then is the shielded matter. Shielded by the gradient of the flow of incoherent gravitational waves out of stars.
Stefano Quattrini, Stefan Bernhard Rüster , all others
With one plausible assumption we get to an alternative to the big bang theory and to an explanation of the dark matter mystery. Here are some consequences of this assumption:
(1) Gravitational waves change their nature from “quadrupole radiation in vacuum” to oscillation of the medium “gravitational field”.
(2) An omnipresent gravitational field exists. This field is homogeneous and has a positive energy density. It has a higher energy density as the gravitation field around the biggest neutron stars.
(3) Black hole matter is surrounded by a zone of zero gravitational field energy. This means that inside this zone no gravitational field exists.
(4) Due to the oscillatory nature of gravitational waves (c.f. (1)), electromagnetic radiation excites post pulse oscillations in the medium they cross.
(5) Moving particles and accelerated particles cause more intense gravitational waves. Even rotating discs seem to generate gravitational waves. At least discussions about levitating effects of rotating discs point to this direction.
(6) Stars are giant sources of incoherent gravitational waves caused by electromagnetic radiation and moving particles. The hot inner zones of stars are over proportional strong volume sources of this radiation.
(7) The intensity gradient of this radiation behaves like gravitation, but in the opposite direction. This gradient partially shields the gravitational impact of the mass of the star.
(8) The range of the shielding is shorter than the range of the gravitational impact of the mass. The radiation gradient vanishes as soon as the background density has been reached. In the range, when this happens, the real gravitation force of the star appears.
(9) The shielded mass is the dark matter.
(10) Every electromagnetic or kinetic activity leads to gravitational waves. These waves collect a tiny energy tax from every electromagnetic or kinetic activity. The energy contributes to all energy contained in the wafting background of gravitational waves and gravitational fields.
(11) The energy density of this background slowly increases. With the increasing background energy density, the gravitation less zones (c.f. (3)) around black hole matter shrink.
(12) If the zones have reached diameter zero, gravitational waves reach the black hole matter and become absorbed.
(13) After a few million years all energy, out of a zone of a few million light years has been transferred to the black hole in the centre. This happens to all black holes in the universe.
(14) The result of this transfer is that the black holes emit all its matter in form of neutrons. The neutrons decay to hydrogen and provide new star fuel for the next fruitful lifecycle of the universe for the next about 20 000 000 000 years.
(15) The points (12) to (14) contain the alternate of a big bang with a closed universe of about constant size.
You surely have guessed that the assumption which, when it would be fulfilled, would lead to all what is described in those points above, is the following: “An absolute negative energy density cannot exist”.
Compared with the assumptions of the big bang theory, which all are more or less of the quality “a miracle occurs”, this assumption is highly plausible.
Dear Stefano,
Your questions are very good and get to the heart of the problem. Please read the thermodynamic interpretation of the Free Fall
"Fundamental laws of nature confirmed by free fall". Here we have to do without SR and GR.
Stefano Quattrini's citation from Penrose: "It is undisputed that there is no room at all for a potential energy density in gravitation since it is not determinable from where such energy comes from, although it exists...it cannot be part of the "gravitational field"
Dear Stefano,
thanks a lot for starting the present discussion ! It apparently comes close to my thoughts initiated by J.C. Keith in the early 1960s, see PDF reference below. As I understand, Keith finds out what may be interpreted as equivalence between retardation of gravitational interaction between local accelerated masses and of local accelerated masses with remote masses of the universe, see last two paragraphs on page 11.
After having tried to experimentally validate the predictions of Keith in the early 1970s, see article below, I still stick to the idea that basic physical phenomena might be effected by the gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_at_all_to_discuss_on_cosmology_without_taking_into_account_the_influence_of_remote_masses
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Aether_something_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does-formation-of-elementary-particles-confirm-Machs-principle
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_probe_the_local_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Article Significant Deviation of Rotational Decay from Theory at a R...
Dear Johan K. Fremerey
A small rotor lifted magnetically and rotating in a vacuum has many possibilities to lose energy with a much higher rank than gravitational waves and aberrated force reactions. Let us consider them:
(1) Electric currents in the rotating object cause Ohm’s losses.
(2) The material of the rotor loses particles from its own structure or adhesive molecules of any kind.
(3) Static charges cause small forces on the object and deform it periodically with the rotation. The deformation slightly heats the object and takes the energy from the rotation.
(4) Thermal radiation causes a weak "light mill" effect. The radiation balance is not perfectly symmetric. It leads to an unsymmetric exchange of molecules with the environment.
(5) Slight inhomogeneities of the gravitational field cause tidal effects in the structure of the rotor. The tidal effects also produce heat and take the energy from the rotation.
The point is that all the weak mechanisms (1) to (5) are many orders of magnitude more intense than generation of gravitational waves or aberrated force reactions. Strategies to avoid them or to assess them quantically are not available.
Wolfgang Konle: "The point is that all the weak mechanisms (1) to (5) are many orders of magnitude more intense than generation of gravitational waves or aberrated force reactions."
I gratefully acknowledge your critical remarks even though your above conclusion due to obvious lack of detailed knowledge of experimental details and accompanying theoretical analysis appears rather unsubstantiated. You may find some more details in a more recent review of the former experiments and associated literature:Research A second look at experimental data suggesting gravity speed ...
In particular, "electric curents in the rotating object" as mentioned under (1) of your above list have been quantitatively identified as asymmetries of the magnetic supension field which is mainly caused by earth rotation:Article Residual Drag Torque on Magnetically Suspended Rotating Spheres
The effect of particle exchange as according to (2) is well known from basic investigation of the Spinning Rotor Gauge and has been eliminated in the former experiments by providing ultra high vacuum conditions:Article The Spinning Rotor Gauge
Your points (3) to (5) are expected to cause decreasing relative rotor deceleration with increasing rotational speed, while the Keith gravitational retardation effect strongly increases with speed and for this reason can be discriminated from background effects including statistical scatter of measured deceleration data. Please note that the experimental data obviously fit in both, magnitude and frequency characteristic, with the predictions of J.C. Keith. The Keith effect should be clearly discriminated from what is being investigated by LIGO and associated labs. You might be interested to have a look at Keth's paper as cited with my previous contribution.
Johan K. Fremerey
What do you think is the power of the gravitational radiation the rotor can emit?
The resulting force of this radiation is equal to the resulting force of an electromagnetic radiation with the same power.
Wolfgang Konle: "What do you think is the power of the gravitational radiation the rotor can emit?"
The extra drag observed at 75 kHz rotational speed of our 2.5 mm test rotor is equivalent to a power loss of 1.6*10 -10 W.
"The resulting force of this radiation is equal to the resulting force of an electromagnetic radiation with the same power."
Electromagnetic radiation power increases in proportion to radiation frequency f. Similar as in case of gaseous drag, and in contrast to the gravitational drag according to J.C. Keith, this would lead to frequency independent values in our (df/dt)/f diagrams.
Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,
couldn't that concur in the explanation of the following?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_do_you_explain_the_frequency_shift_ratio_of_radiation_of_2_3_found_in_some_experiments_instead_of_the_expected_1_2_according_to_rel_dynamics
Johan K. Fremerey
Such a high rotation frequency significantly stresses the rotor. This leads to an inelastic flow which finally (after years) would destroy the rotor.
But thermal consequences of this flow and the increase of the moment of inertia easily would lead to a braking effect in the range of 10-10 W.
Wolfgang Konle: "inelastic flow" ... "increase of the moment of inertia"
As you may read in my above cited papers, see appended, this type of inelastic material creep, in fact, has played a central role in our investigations. It has been clearly identified and completely eliminated from the experimental data by a special "multi-branch" evaluation method.
Article Significant Deviation of Rotational Decay from Theory at a R...
Research A second look at experimental data suggesting gravity speed ...
Johan K. Fremerey
Did you also consider that this inelastic material creep may occur in randomly distributed stimuli which only affect extremely small volumina?
Wolfgang Konle
As also described in above cited papers, material creep and other relaxation processes such as, in particular, magnetic relaxation due to the multi-branch evaluation method make associated deceleration data (df/dt)/f clearly turn downwards in contrast to supposed gravitational data that obviously increase with rotor speed.
Once the question of absolute vs. relative potential has been discsussed: In Newtonian theory the potential is defined only modulo a constant. But in GR already in the weak filed (almost Newtonian) limit this constant defines the time dilation. Ok, time dilation is also relative, butwhat we can measure is thefactor. This factor is defined by \(\sqrt{1-V/c^2}\). Thus, if you add a constant, you get a different factor. So, the gravitational potential is absolute.Except you want to change in a modified theory of gravity well-tested results about gravitational time dilation.
Stefano Quattrini: "The field energy density /gravitational energy density is missing in General relativity"
Ilja Schmelzer: "Once the question of absolute vs. relative potential has been discsussed"
Do you think equivalence of local mass and local cumulative gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe is just accidental?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Stefano Quattrini: "How do you explain the frequency shift ratio of radiation ..."
Unfortunately, I'm not at all familiar with that matter, so I cannot really answer your question.
Johan K. Fremerey,
"Do you think equivalence of local mass and local cumulative gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe is just accidental?"
Looks that I don't understand the meaning of this. Let's take two bodies of different rest mass nearby. The local cumulative gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe will be the same, the rest mass different.
Ilja Schmelzer: "Looks that I don't understand the meaning of this."
You are right: In the discussion referred to we have in fact been talking about potential energy ! The outcome apparently suggests that E = m*c2 is equivalent to the potential energy of of a body at the local cumulative gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe.
Wolfgang Konle: "What are remote masses?"
When assuming uniform mass density throughout the universe, contribution of distant masses to local gravitational potential predominates over gravitational potential of nearby masses. This is because potential only linearly decreases with distance R while mass volume at distance R increases by R2.
Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,
I guess your viewpoint on gravitation is Machian.
I respect yours but I think that if you want to make any unification with quantum mechanics there is an hypermedium which has to be considered, a background which is partly described by the metric of GR. The diffeomorfism of space-time has severe limitations...it would be better to go back to Euclidean space with a VSL, that would better address many problems (as LEVI CIVITA AND MAX ABRAHAM strongly supported)
Preprint SHAPIRO TIME-DELAY, Curved 4D space-time or Variable speed of light
Stefano Quattrini: "If you want to make any unification with quantum mechanics"
In fact, I already have made some humble attempt along this direction:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does-formation-of-elementary-particles-confirm-Machs-principle
... and on "variable speed of light":
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
Johan K. Fremerey
The gravitational potential of masses uniformly distributed around any point is exactly zero in any point.
Wolfgang Konle: "The gravitational potential of masses uniformly distributed around any point is exactly zero in any point."
Why shouldn't the superposition principle apply in case of gravitational potential ?
Johan K. Fremerey
It is the superposition principle, which leads to a zero result of isotropic contributing force vectors.
Wolfgang Konle: "force vectors"
So you are talking about potential gradients.
Johan K. Fremerey
Yes, force vectors are potential gradients. They cancel out to zero if they equally apply from all directions.
Wolfgang Konle: "Yes, force vectors are potential gradients."
Please note that we are talking here about cumulative local gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe and associated potential energy of a local body. In fact, that accumulated local gravitational potential due to large distance of respective sources is virtually free of gradients. But - we should be aware that it is something big and not zero.
Dear all,
in view of the current discussion, have you become aware of Alexander Unzicker's book entitled "Einstein's Lost Key: How We Overlooked the Best Idea of the 20th Century" ?
https://www.amazon.com/-/de/dp/B01BRXXEWE/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&qid=1624783510&refinements=p_27%3AAlexander+Unzicker&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.de/Einsteins-verlorener-Schl%C3%BCssel-Jahrhunderts-%C3%BCbersehen/dp/1517045452
Johan K. Fremerey
If it is free from gradients its interaction is zero. If there are gradients they isotropically cancel out. Nothing remains except a medium for wave propagation.
But this medium must have a positive energy density.
Wolfgang Konle: "If it is free from gradients its interaction is zero."
... but even then it is far from being "nothing" ! Flat water surfaces in fact are capable of bearing ships and build up waves.
Johan K. Fremerey
Yes, I already admitted that a medium for gravitational wave propagation can be provided as a contribution of the universe.
Once you unify the quantum vacuum with gravitational potential energy then you understand that space is curving to change in potential. Set your negative extremium in potential as zero quantum vacuum activity at the event horizion where time stops. An upper limit is probably that of a white hole.
This vacuum activity determines the coordinate speed of light or the Shapiro time delay i think they call it.
Once you understand how electric and magnetic fields can affect the quantum vacuum states you have your unification. Einstein wasn't able to join the QV with GR. Another approach that attempts this is the polarizable vacuum approach. Recommend looking at Todd Desiato 's approach.
I have an interest in us learning to manipulate space time is my focus and I believe part of humanities next big steps
Our measurements of the quantum vacuum are probably affected the same way our measurements of the coordinate speed of light. Speed of light looks constant to a local observer. That needs to be looked into.
Dear all,
I would like to bring this paper to your attention...
"Recently, we have presented the local-ether model, whereby the propagation of earthbound waves is supposed to be referred uniquely to a geostationary inertial frame. Further, in order to comply with this propagation model, the modified Lorentz force law is developed. Thereby, the corresponding wave equations of potentials and fields are derived in this investigation. It is shown that the local-ether wave equation of electric field can account for various precision interferometry experiments in a consistent way, including the one-way-link experiment with a geostationary fiber, the Sagnac rotating-loop experiment with a comoving or a geostationary dielectric medium, and Fizeau’s experiment with a moving dielectric medium in a geostationary interferometer. These experiments together then provide a support for the local-ether wave equation. Meanwhile, some other phenomena are predicted, which provide a means to test its validity."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208082.pdf
Max Abraham, supported by Levi Civita, proposed a gravitation based on the variable speed of light.
d'Alembertian(u) = ∆u − 1/c ∂/∂t ( 1/c ∂u ∂t) = 2αµ · u
where µ · u = η/u
µ = mass density
u∆u − u/c ∂/∂t ( 1/c ∂u ∂t) = 2αη
where u=sqrt(c) and and η = energy density, α a universal constant.
Another name for the variable speed of light is "coordinate speed of light". If one shifts perspective from a local observer measuring the speed of light locally to a nonlocal observer you measure changes in the speed of light and the Shapiro time delay.
Another related concept is frame dragging, with the rotation of a galaxy where the coordinate speed of light one way around the galaxy is faster than the other direction via frame dragging. I suspect they will eventually find that the missing dark matter they thought was dark matter is actually the gravitomagnetic effect which is very different from a dark matter halo because matter orbiting in the opposite direction will experience a repulsive effect. I suspect dark matter and dark energy may be unified this way. Link to coordinate speed of light https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_light_in_non-inertial_reference_frames
That is energy is lost to space time in various ways. Merging black holes for example. I suspect it may be a dominant player in the structure of our universe as well. The voids and filaments are also probably a result of gravitomagnetism. Just reciently they also discovered the filaments are rotating which again smacks of gravitomagnetism.
Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space
Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter
It is surely true that empty space at least is filled with gravitational field energy. But if we assume that gravitational field energy cannot have a negative absolute value, we get a new cosmology.
According to this assumption, gravitational fields generated by matter, only reduce the gravitational field with a positive energy density, generated by the cosmos.
But this assumption has far reaching consequences, which even make dark matter and big bang obsolete.
The first point of the new cosmology establishes a limit for the strength of the gravitational field. The field strength of the gravitational field around matter cannot exceed the strength given by cosmic background field.
This smashes the Schwarzschild solution for black hole gravity.
Dear Stefano Quattrini
The term “gravitation” is dedicated to the observation that every object is “attracted” by all the other objects and visa versa. We know it because of the mutual changes of position of all the objects. Objects represent concentrations of energy (E = mc2) thus the difference between an object and vacuum space around is the local “density” of the energy within a large volume. If we propose that there is a magic trick to redistribute (expand) the concentrated energy of the objects it is easy to imagine that the expansion of the energy of all the objects in the universe will result in a universe with average amplitudes everywhere within the electromagnetic field. An imaginary situation that is part of the Standard cosmological model.
Conclusion: objects represent energy densities in relation to vacuum space around and – because of that – potential energy too. Moreover, every local amplitude of the electromagnetic field differ from the adjacent amplitudes around so energy density and potential energy are concepts that are only relevant if we use the limited classical phenomenological point of view. Because the whole volume of the universe represents energy densities and potential energies. There are no exceptions.
Suppose we can “roll back” the evolution of our universe till the moment that there is no matter to be find. Now there are only the continuous changing amplitudes of the electric field and the resultant vectors of the corresponding magnetic field. An amplitude of the electric field is a local amount of quanta (Planck’s constant) thus the amplitude generates vectors and the vectors generate the direction of the change of the "next" amplitude (law of conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of momentum). However, the electric and magnetic field are not the only 2 universal fields that fill the volume of our universe. There is also the universal scalar field (the Higgs field).
In vacuum space all the scalars of the Higggs field have exactly the same magnitude. In a universe without matter the whole volume of the universe is vacuum space thus the scalars of the Higgs field don’t change their magnitude. Energy is change in position and time (= the power to change position and time) thus in our universe the electric field is the cause behind the total amount of change (the magnetic field is a vector field and vectors don’t transfer energy because vectors are 1-dimensional).
Now, where is the force of gravitation? Einstein told his students (1920) that without matter in the universe there is no theory of General relativity and Eric Verlinde (2011) proved that Newtonian gravity is an emergent force field too. Thus the field of gravitation emerges at the moment that matter is created in our universe. And the mechanism behind the creation of matter – rest mass carrying particles – is the electromagnetic field (the local concentration of quanta).
The Higgs mechanism represents the local decrease of scalars at the moment the local concentration of the electromagnetic field (density) exceeds a certain threshold. The released energy of the decreased scalar becomes part of the local electric field, the flat scalars of the Higgs field get vectorized by the decreased scalar(s) of the rest mass carrying particle and at the same moment a local field of gravitation emerges.
Now the question is, which of both forced changes – the local increase of the electric field and the vectorization of vacuum space around – is what we have termed “the force of gravitation”?
Newtonian gravity is a vector field, it doesn’t transfer energy and it acts instantaneous, so this is in line with the vectorized scalars of the Higgs field (an attracting force is identical to a push force).
Einstein’s curved spacetime is bound to the speed of light, it transfers energy and it is supposed to “curve” space itself (actually the electric field). This is partly in line with the local supply of energy from the Higgs field to the electric field. Although Einstein didn’t realize that the whole volume of the universe isn’t dynamical, only the part of the volume of the electric field (about 26% of the volume of the universe). Thus Einstein's gravitational waves (by merging black holes) are long range macroscopic waves within the electromagnetic field.
The mechanism behind the concentration of quanta by the electromagnetic field doesn’t stop at the moment local rest mass is created. So we have to conclude that there are 2 types of gravitational fields. A vector field responsible for the concentration of rest mass (Newtonian gravity) and a topological field (= electric field) responsible for the concentration of energy (Einstein’s “curved spacetime”). The concentrations of energy (mass) in vacuum space are known as Dark matter.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm: "Objects represent concentrations of energy (E = mc2) thus the difference between an object and vacuum space around is the local “density” of the energy within a large volume."
It appears as if E = mc2 is equivalent to the energy of mass m due to local gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Local-effects-of-remote-masses
Dear Johan K. Fremerey
It has no sense if I comment on a question or discussion without the use of accepted concepts in theoretical physics. Otherwise everyone is flabbergasted and don’t know how to react. The used concept about the creation of rest mass in my comment above (the Higgs mechanism) is common ground. I used the mechanism to explain that the force of gravitation in Newtonian gravity isn’t equal to Einstein’s curved spacetime. There are striking differences and if we relate these differences to the known properties of the basic quantum fields it shows that Newtonian gravity and Einstein’s theory of gravitation (GR) are not created by the same basic quantum fields (gravity as an emergent force field).
Your comment is about another subject so you better address your comment to Stefano Quattrini if you think that your papers will answer his question.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney Ernest Grimm: "discussion without the use of accepted concepts in theoretical physics."
Isn't Mach's Principle an "accepted concept in theoretical physics" ? What is the effect of remote masses of the universe in your theoretical concept ?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_at_all_to_discuss_on_cosmology_without_taking_into_account_the_influence_of_remote_masses
Johan K. Fremerey
Wouldn't it be convenient to replace "remote masses" by "gravitational contribution of the cosmos"? For us as inhabitants of the cosmos, it does not make a difference if an influence is remote, or has its origin in the cosmos itsself.
If we consider the topology of the cosmos as closed without an outer rim, remote influence as an influence which crosses the outer rim, does not exist.
Another argument against remote masses is their pure existence. If remote masses exist, we must extend the scope of the universe until all remote masses belong to the universe.
Wolfgang Konle: "it does not make a difference if an influence is remote"
Remote masses of the universe due to 1/r dependence contribute much more to the local gravitational potential than masses at closer distance.
"we must extend the scope of the universe until all remote masses belong to the universe."
The local accumulated gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe is based on the assumption that the range of gravitational interaction is limited to the radius R ~ 2GM/c2 of electromagnetic sight.
"gravitational potential energy contribution which makes the total energy, and therefore the total mass, smaller than it would be if they are far apart." Penrose.
Very interesting for me. Would You name the source?
"gravitational potential energy contribution which makes the total energy, and therefore the total mass, smaller than it would be if they are far apart." Penrose.
When negative "gravitational potential energy" E = - m*Φu of a mass m is the energy required for shooting m to infinity then this energy apparently equals E = m*c2, provided that Φu is the local accumulated gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe, see https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning