In general relativity, gravitation is attributed to the curvature of the space-time fabric. Orbital period decay of two gravitating bodies such as binary pulsar results in loss of orbital energy of the system. This lost energy is dissipated in the form of ripples in the space-time fabric. These ripples are known as the gravitational waves. Graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson. The spin follows from the fact that the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-order tensor (compared to electromagnetism's spin-1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-order tensor). Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field would couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational interactions do. Seeing as the graviton is hypothetical, its discovery would unite quantum theory with gravity. This result suggests that, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton.
The three other known forces of nature are mediated by elementary particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by the gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. The hypothesis is that the gravitational interaction is likewise mediated by an – as yet undiscovered – elementary particle, dubbed as the graviton. In the classical limit, the theory would reduce to general relativity and conform to Newton's law of gravitation in the weak-field limit.
An interesting approach is to consider that an attraction force can be obtained mechanically when a graviton hits a spinning particle. It is known that a particle can be seen as "trapped" circling light.
When a graviton hits a spinning particle, the Coriolis force is applicable, which is a purely mechanical force.
When the Sun's dynamics are expressed in terms of its mass, radius, and rotation frequency, it appears that there is an empirical relationship, see eq.(3) in the annexed paper.
This empirical equation matches the Coriolis force as the initiator of the Newton's gravity equation for a random graviton that crosses the equator at the speed of light.
It should be added that gravitons are likely wave packets that travel at the speed of light rather than particles.
Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...
I agree with mr. Robert J.Low - and we dont know if Gravitons does exist, and do remember matter curves space-time in this case it is not a force.
You have to change Your question.
Who cares if GRT doesn't recognize forces, which however are indeed present in every day's life? This is not about GRT. It is about physics!
Can the downvoter falsify my claim? No. But a coward he is...
Further to the responses of Robert Low and Kurt Wraae, it appears that spin 2 massless particles do not couple to the energy momentum tensor unless in the vacuum where the Ricci tensor vanishes. Massive gravitons will certainly be a part of the quantization of spacetime at or near the Planck length. GR is unlike the other 3 forces and effectively describes the "force" of gravity without particle exchange. GR is hidden and resides beautifully within QFT. Please see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304325189_General_relativity_and_dark_energy_are_hidden_in_the_quantum_equation_of_curved_spacetime?ev=prf_pub for details.
Gravitons describe the gravitational interaction between two masses according to general relativity. While their shot noise is a quantum effect, and hasn't been observed, gravitational waves, in particular, and metric perturbations, more generally, are classical effects and they are described, within general relativity, as coherent superpositions of gravitons. Indeed, both the period variation of binary pulsars and the measurements by LIGO are consistent with and can only be explained by the properties of the metric tensor, as provided by general relativity. Similarly for comparing measurements of the Planck satellite with calculations.
When relativistic effects are relevant, the interaction of matter and spacetime, which is what's called gravity, is described by the invariant combination of the metric and the energy-momentum tensor of matter (and radiation) that can be eliminated from the gravitational action by field redefinitions-not just the mass, which is but the integral of the time-time component of the energy-momentum tensor.
There are courses available on the subject, e.g. here: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-962-general-relativity-spring-2006/readings/ so there's really no excuse not learning this material, which is, really, background knowledge in physics and hardly cutting edge.
Blah blah from mainstream textbooks will not make advance science. This forum is not meant to ventilate only mainstream textbooks. Otherwise, please start a ConfirmedGate forum if you which, but don't put your energy in holding back any possible progress in science...
Words don't matter-calculations do. So where are the ``alternative'' calculations, that are consistent with everything's that's known, and allow to calculate new effects and thus design experiments? That's what matters, not gossip. Nonsense isn't helpful. Gravitons, spinning particles, the Coriolis force are all known concepts and how to do calculations with them and design experiments is known-there's nothing new here. So statements about them can be checked, whether they make sense or not. For instance, the claim that there's any difference between a particle and a wavepacket is easily shown to be meaningless.
The Sun's a star-its properties depend on the matter it's made of-its equation of state. How, is known for decades.
“…All physics questions have to be asked and answered within some theoretical framework. I've assumed the framework of conventional physics, as generally accepted by the community…”
- such statements indeed seems as rather questionable, especially “as generally accepted by the community”. Any indeed new [and correct, of course] ideas – i.e. that are indeed the science, are always outside “the accepted by the community”.
Returning to the thread’s question:
“…I agree with mr. Robert J.Low - and we dont know if Gravitons does exist, and do remember matter curves space-time in this case it is not a force…”
- to claim that is necessary, first of all, to define – what are “space”, “time”, “spacetime”, “matter” and only after proper definitions of the notions above, to define/introduce - what is “spacetime curvature” and how “matter curves space-time”.
GR doesn’t contain any of corresponding definitions, when if somebody understands – what are the notions above then she/he understands also that the Matter’s spacetime is [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”- or [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, which is “absolute” in the sense that nothing in Matter, including “masses” and “reference frames” can transform anything in the spacetime – “to contract”, “to dilate”, “to curve”, etc.
Including – there cannot be some “spacetime curvature”, when the gravity is simply the fourth fundamental physical force; at that there is no reasons to suggest that this force differs from the three other in that the gravitational interactions aren’t quantized – with a large probability gravitons exist and are corresponding mediators of the gravity force.
That is another problem that usually in the gravity very large “gravitational charges” interact and so usually it is impossible to select single gravitons interactions. Correspondingly to detect such interactions is necessary to use extreamly small masses, and such possibility exists – when, for example, to study the impact of Earth gravity on photons.
Photons have both – inertial and gravitational – masses and change their energy/frequency at motion between points with different gravitational potentials; though the GR postultes that photons don’t change their enrgy in this case, this postulate is very probably a next GR’s non-adequacy to the reality.
A possible version of the experiment where the quantum nature of the gravity rathrer probably can be ovserved – see “The informational model - possible tests”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215526868_The_informational_model_-_possible_tests
http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.3979 ; DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34963; at least the section 2.1.2. “Monochromatic photon beam distortion”
Cheers
Article The informational model - possible tests
Stam, yes mainstream "knows" everything for decades, but they still need to invent dark matter and other ridicule chimeras.
They got SRT but don't know what it is. During decades they pretend that matter becomes heavier at high speeds, then suddenly they deny it.
They got GRT which denies the fundamental physical properties of gravity. Dozens of metrics are invented, uselessly. Then they invent an ersatz of gravitomagnetism but still pretend that there is no magnetic-like component of gravity. They still don't understand that velocity and angular momentum is transmitted by gravity.
I will give you another nice example: it is found (by calculations, not by words) that the *exact* Lorentz Transforms are found by *solely* considering the retardation of electromagnetic fields of an E-M system in an inertial frame wrt to the mass of another system that is accelerated by the corresponding Lorentz force from the first frame.
In other words, the very LT are *old* physics, not the alleged SRT physics.
Annexed the brilliant book that explains that.
The only thing guys like you do is repeating the mainstream textbooks. But thinking twice is not your strong side....
https://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Retardation-Theory-Relativity-Classical/dp/0917406257
All these statements are simply wrong, so it's not surprising that the conclusions drawn from them are, also. That something is ``old'' says nothing about its content, so it doesn't make sense. And a simple exercise is to check that Maxwell's equations are covariant under global Lorentz transformations: they take the same form in any frame, related to any other by a global transformation, if the metric is flat. If a system is accelerating, it's not an inertial frame, so Lorentz transformations to another frame are local not global-and it's known how to write them, in this case, too, the mathematical framework is called general relativity. In that case one needs to take into account the spacetime metric and then Maxwell's equations are, also, shown to be covariant, to take the same form in any two frames, related by a local Lorentz transformation, using the curved metric.
The confusing statements caused by trying to discuss ``retardation effects'' are, simply, that-confusing. It is known how to do the calculations in ways that avoid such confusion.
Lorentz transformations are mathematical statements, they don't have anything to do with physics-that comes afterwards.
Completely wrong, Stam. You clearly take position before having checked Jefimenko's work. How unprofessional!
Maxwell's equations are not invariant wrt Lorentz Transforms. The frame that is moving induces a magnetic component whereas the frame that doesn't move, doesn't.
The same happens with gravity.
The point was that mainstream thinking is hopelessly stuck in inertial physics, dynamics and gravity from the very beginning in 1905.
The Coriolis hypothesis for the origin of the gravity force gives a empirically substantiated, a very plausible and simple solution. It is moreover purely mechanical.
Dear Ravi,
your intriguing question overlap two things that must be considered in two different contexts. When one talks of gravitons one refers to quantum world. When instead one talks of gravitation force one refers to the macroscopic world. Of course there is a relation between the two worlds ... this relation is given justifying at the quantum level the meaning of mass. My quantum gravity theory gives a clear understanding of these phenomena. In particular it is possible to answer to your question:
'How the gravitons determine the gravitational force between two masses?'
Dear Thierry,
I appreciated your effort to give a mechanics-like interpretation ... but in the quantum world the classical mechanics does not work ...
All the best,
Agostino
Agostino, "in the quantum world the classical mechanics does not work"
It depends. If you perform a repetitive experiment, like trowing a coin in a cup, you can make the statistics on that. But the statistics don't describe the very physics due to the coin's or cup's mass, their shape, gravity, throwing distance, velocity and height, etc.
Since quantum physics theory is only descriptive and related to statistics, it may do "its job" for a while.
So, it is the theory itself that makes that the underlaying electromagnetics or mechanics don't work, not the physics themselves.
If you are able to think outside the frame of the original theory in GRT, QM, SRT, you may get progress. If you can't, you get stuck in a very limited world. The more such theories are further developed inside their own frame, the farther from reality and from coherence they get, because the crux of the problem is not understood.
No Thierry !
you have written:
'If you are able to think outside the frame of the original theory in GRT, QM, SRT, you may get progress. If you can't, you get stuck in a very limited world. The more such theories are further developed inside their own frame, the farther from reality and from coherence they get, because the crux of the problem is not understood.'
But you do not think outside the frame ... you use classical mechanics ...
One thing is by now well clear: the logic of the quantum world is noncommutative. Where is this logic in your formulation outside the frame ?
No Agostino!
Maybe could you understand it if I explain it more simply...
As far as I know, classical mechanics is *outside the frame* of GRT, QM, SRT.
Who proves that there really *is* new physics, like SRT, GRT, QM?
On the contrary! Oleg Jefimenko has proven in his genius book about relativity that the *exact* Lorentz Transforms are found when *solely* taking into account the time retardation of E-M field between inertial frames.
That is a crucial finding, explaining the very physics behind the LT.
The same can be true for GRT and QM.
You say: "the logic of the quantum world is noncommutative"
Well, yes, indeed: statistics will never explain the very physics behind the statistic results.
No Thierry ! You are wrong.
You pretend to justify quantum phenomena with classical mechanics ... and at the same time to state that quantum phenomena follow a noncommutative logic.
This is a contradiction !
No Agostino! You miss insight.
Electromechanism is totally self consistent. Classical mechanics are too. Quantum theory is not since it is a descriptive and a statistical theory.
As long as the quantum phenomena are not explained with physics, of course they may be non commutative.
The problem is not caused by the quantum phenomena, it is caused by the theory.
The examples I have given bring insight.
NO THIERRY !
What you write:
'As long as the quantum phenomena are not explained with physics, of course they may be non commutative.
The problem is not caused by the quantum phenomena, it is caused by the theory.'
is non-sense. In fact, to say that quantum phenomena are explained with physics it means that you did not understand that nobody knows physics !!!
In other words we do not know what is the world (physics) ... We can only do mathematical models that try to encode world. Therefore to claim that we can explain world by world is a nonsense.
Instead we can explain world with mathematical models that give us a rational map to understand world.
Even if QM and QFT are incomplete theories, what can be well understood from both is that the logic of the quantum world must be noncommutative. To state now that this is not true, it means that a century of science is passed in vain. I cannot seriously consider this your approach ...
Instead is more scientific to say that QM and QFT must be completed ... In fact my quantum gravity theory just completes QM and QFT adding the dynamic geometric meaning that was lacking in that theories of the quantum world. In fact, my quantum gravity theory is not a statistical theory !
Sorry I must insist.
Thierry is wrong.
One of the interesting examples of noncommutavity in electromagnetism is that the Lorentz invariance is non existent.
Maxwell's equations are not invariant wrt Lorentz Transforms. The frame that is moving induces a magnetic component whereas the frame that doesn't move, doesn't.
Only the general form complies, but claiming the Lorentz invariance is a wrong idea. Many mathematical derivations wrt physics are therefore wrong.
The same happens with gravity.
When one understands the physics, things become clear. If one doesn't understand them, all that happens is that mathematical "un-physics theories" like SRT, QM and GRT are created.
My dear Agostino,
You didn't read what I wrote and you put words in my mouth. Moreover, you play with words but don't come to the facts. Very unprofessional!
We can to a sufficient level say that we understand the physics of classical mechanics, dynamics and electromagnetism.
We cannot say that of SRT, GRT and QM, in the first place because they are non-physics theories but mathematical theories that are in many points disconnected from the reality of everydays' experiments, and because they are mainly resting upon indirect observation and upon deductions.
The book of Jefimenko about electromagnetism and relativity is very clear, and based upon the excellent Maxwell theory.
He found the Lorentz invariance wrong. he found the Lorentz Tranforms explicitely deducible from the retardation of the fields.
With the same Maxwell equations, I found the quantum state of 45° and 135° about a spinning object, as well as the explanation of Saturn's numerous tiny rings.
However, in your mind, you think in terms of micro and macro. So the macro cannot explain the micro. Put this kind of reasoning out of your head and think out of the box!
@ Thierry De Mees
you have written:
'... you play with words but don't come to the facts. Very unprofessional!'
But what are your facts ?
1) Classical mechanics are physical theories.
2) SRT, GRT and QM are un-physical theories.
3) The Lorentz invariance is wrong.
What you call facts are only non-sense. Any mathematical model can be called a physical theory whether well interprets world under suitable conditions. From this point of view classical mechanics. SRT. GRT and QM are worthy to be called physical theories.
Furthermore, you confused Lorentz invariance with Lorentz covariance. Moreover a nonlinear quantum propagator encoding a quantum reaction (in my quantum gravity theory) does not necessitate to be Lorentz invariant. Therefore your 'fact (3)' is another nonsense.
I must insist once more.
Thierry is wrong.
My dear Agostino,
I didn't write populist one-liners, you did.
To put it more clearly, the Lorentz covariance, as a key property of spacetime following from the special theory of relativity, is disputed by Jefimenko.
He found that the *exact* Lorentz Transforms are found by *solely* considering the retardation of electromagnetic fields of an E-M system (i.e. a Lorentz force) from this first frame upon the mass of another system.
You might not be aware of the fact that SRT is just a mathematical derivation without any physical substantiation. Its interpretation was wrongly sustaining during several decades that mass would increase with velocity.
Hence, the SRT interpretation is questioned, for the alleged variability of mass, length and time, with velocity. Only in the case of transmitted E-M fields, these changes can be physically substantiated.
One of the consequences is that time is not intrinsically changing with speed, but only the clocks will show other tick rates, depending from its exact mechanic or electromagnetic structure and the clock's orientation wrt to the velocity.
The claims are very well founded by Jefimenko's rigorous book on Electromagnetism and Relativity, see annexed link.
The definition of velocity is problematic in SRT, because a rocket that leaves the Earth can also be seen as the Earth leaving the rocket. SRT defecders will always choose the most convenient interpretation.
Also GRT, which is a consequence of SRT, should be questioned. Indeed, the denial of the physical constants as actors of the propagation medium of the waves, just like any propagation of waves, is un-physical.
Instead, when gravitomagnetism is applied according to the findings of electromagnetism, many interesting results are obtained, which GRT doesn't. A list is annexed.
https://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Retardation-Theory-Relativity-Classical/dp/0917406257
In general relativity, gravitation is attributed to the curvature of the space-time fabric. Orbital period decay of two gravitating bodies such as binary pulsar results in loss of orbital energy of the system. This lost energy is dissipated in the form of ripples in the space-time fabric. These ripples are known as the gravitational waves. Graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson. The spin follows from the fact that the source of gravitation is the stress–energy tensor, a second-order tensor (compared to electromagnetism's spin-1 photon, the source of which is the four-current, a first-order tensor). Additionally, it can be shown that any massless spin-2 field would give rise to a force indistinguishable from gravitation, because a massless spin-2 field would couple to the stress–energy tensor in the same way that gravitational interactions do. Seeing as the graviton is hypothetical, its discovery would unite quantum theory with gravity. This result suggests that, if a massless spin-2 particle is discovered, it must be the graviton.
The three other known forces of nature are mediated by elementary particles: electromagnetism by the photon, the strong interaction by the gluons, and the weak interaction by the W and Z bosons. The hypothesis is that the gravitational interaction is likewise mediated by an – as yet undiscovered – elementary particle, dubbed as the graviton. In the classical limit, the theory would reduce to general relativity and conform to Newton's law of gravitation in the weak-field limit.
Vikram: bravo for your Wikipedia page. However, it is time to get at higher levels than that. One page ago, I have shown that there is an empirical link between the solar dynamics and the mechanism of gravitational attraction by a Coriolis interaction between gravitons (waves) and particles. See paper at former page.
I think this kind of evidence is valuable to establish a new level of understanding.
Dear Ravi,
You can find answers about gravitons and gravitational force in the paper: The Graviton Field as the Source of Mass and Gravitational Force in the Modernized Le Sage’s Model. More information is in the second paper about the origin of electromagnetic force: The Charged Component of the Vacuum Field as the Source of Electric Force in the Modernized le Sage’s Model.
http://vixra.org/abs/1503.0126
Article The Graviton Field as the Source of Mass and Gravitational F...
Dear Sergey,
the revised Fatio-Le Sage's kinetic theory of gravity considered in your papers, cannot justify the graviton contribution as you claim. In fact graviton is a quantum particle that can be considered in a quantum world. Your considerations instead are only classical ones. In other words the situation is like the classical statistical mechanics that should pretend to characterize thermodynamic properties of bodies, by adopting statistical considerations on a set of classical particles only. It is well-known that such an approach is not enough ...
The relation between graviton and gravitation necessarily passes through quantum gravity as I proved.
All the best,
Agostino
Dear Agostino, I wish you success in your research. But there is a problem with quantum mechanics in which we have mathematical models for calculations and cannot see real interaction picture. And up to now it is not clear what the graviton in the quantum theory is. Also I do not agree when for graviton the Plank constant is used as a quantum of action. We can imagine that gravitons are particles of the lowest level of matter (see Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter) and then the particles have another value of the Plank constant.
Sergey: I agree with you concerning your issue with QM. However, seeing the graviton as a particle is quite problematical, because its propagation speed is 'c'. So, it should in fact be a wave with an impulsion momentum and with a zero rest mass.
There is another consequence of the discovery of the empirical relationship between the Solar rotation and Newton's gravity.
In the known universe, we may to certain extend assume that in 'vacuum', the speed of light is constant. However, the proven empirical link between the Solar dynamics and the Newtonian gravity appear to be responsible for the value of the Gravitational constant in our solar system.
It follows from the calculus that in another star system, the value of the Gravitational constant might be different.
This is explained in the annexed paper.
Article The Discovery of the Gravitational Constant as a Specific St...
Dear Sergey,
you have written:
1) 'But there is a problem with quantum mechanics in which we have mathematical models for calculations and cannot see real interaction picture.'
Right ! But I do not use classical QM or QFT. In my quantum gravity the real interaction picture is encoded by nonlinear quantum propagators. These are geometric objects that allow us to give a real description of quantum world dynamics.
2) '... up to now it is not clear what the graviton in the quantum theory is.'
This is not true ! In fact in my quantum gravity it is well defined the quantum graviton field as well the quantum graviton particle.
3) '... I do not agree when for graviton the Plank constant is used as a quantum of action.'
Right ! In fact the Planck constant is not necessary to define quantum graviton field and quantum graviton particle.
Some experimental results can only be explained by saying gravity is a pushing force
@RAVI
Most people will say we don't know and they are being honest.
But synthesizing the whole picture, we now know that space-time has inherent energy,
If you are a proponent of GTR then effectively gravity would be an energy density gradient.
That means the most likely role of the graviton as a guage particle is to repel the substance of space time, thus producing the energy density gradient.
Dear Michael, I would not say so. Gravitational repell, due to the motion of masses is well established.
Saturn's prograde rings are caused by the gravitational repell due to the gravitational spinning dipole that is Saturn, which push the rings towards the equatorial plane.
The formation of prograde disc galaxies out of a spherical/elliptical galaxy is caused by the gravitational repell of the orbits due to the gravitational spinning dipole of the central black hole.
The shape of eta caterinae and SN1987A are caused by the deviation (partly a repell) of matter by the dipole of the spinning central star that partially exploded.
An overview is given in the annexed paper.
Research A coherent dual vector field theory for gravitation
On the other hand, I agree that the essential action of a graviton is not a repell (like with LeSage's theory), but attraction. This can be obtained when orbiting gravitons about spinning particles hit other spinning particles, by the invocation of a Coriolis interaction.
I am no Physician but in my knowledge SR and GRT are parts of classical physics and can't be integrated in Quantum Physics. Einstein was at the beginning of quantum physics.
Gravitons seam to be very new and are in my understanding parts of QM. HIGGS-Particles are also quite new and not yet clear enough.
So it will be clever to say each own meaning and try to learn if differences appear. Try to be scientific and not emotional - summer time is coming!
Dear Michael, gravitational repel is not my invention. Oliver Heaviside proposed it in 1893. Heaviside was a genius scientist who wrote the line theory which is at the basis of any computer chip on earth.
The gravity theory was further developed by Oleg Jefimenko, a brilliant scientist in electromagnetism.
He understood that the supposed need of Lorentz invariance, claimed in the special relativity interpretation, is a violation of reality. It is the highway to try to force all physics into the special relativity trap.
If the Lorentz invariance were true, the twin paradox would allow the rocket to leave the Earth, but also the Earth leaving the rocket. So, the time on Earth is becoming slower too.
Then the relativitists will say: No, because we *know* that the Earth is orbiting etc etc...
That is exactly the thing. Only the Newtonian considerations wrt to velocity are valid, not the special relativity's.
Hence, the Lorentz transformations must be analysed with *real* physics, and then, it is found that the Lorentz transformations from frame 1 to 2 are different from these from frame 2 to 1, depending from which one is really moving and which one is really standing still.
When using electromagnetism, Prof Oleg Jefimenko calculated the effect from a moving frame 1, seen by the still frame 2 and vice versa, due to the retardation of the fields by the speed of light. He came to the exact Lorentz transformations. However, the magnetic field is created by the (moving) frame 1 only. This results in an *asymmetry* of the Lorentz transformations of both systems.
The same happens with gravity. The velocity must be defined wrt the (Newtonian) gravity fields of the system. For the Sun and one planet it is simple, for N body systems it's a lot of work, but everything can be added linearily, and small masses and velocities neglected.
Every moving mass induces a magnetic-like field, which acts upon every other moving mass. A spinning star even acts upon itself: the total mass minus one particle is moving, creates a magnetic-like field, and acts upon the one remaining moving particle. And every single particle gets this induction from all the other particles of the star. The result is a Lorentz-like force that acts against falling apart in the equatorial region!
The use of gravitomagnetism (Maxwell equations for gravity) allows to explain that Saturn's rings are pushed to the equator by the rotation of Saturn. If Saturn weren't spinning, the rings would only be formed by the spinning of the Sun, and created much looser rings.
Once you get amazed by gravitomagnetism, gravity physics become fun, because it all becomes logical, suddenly!
The link of Jefimenko's book is below. It it a milestone in modern physics.
https://www.amazon.com/Electromagnetic-Retardation-Theory-Relativity-Classical/dp/0917406257
Dear Kumar, your question is a very clear and surprisingly "simple"!
Nor Great Newton and no genius Einstein and anybody not yet gave any definite answer to it. Meantime, we know long ago how to calculate the gravity enough exactly! Of course, many people saying different things, in different time. Now is accepted to say, for example, that the spacetime is curved that creates the gravity! But you can just ask them - excuse me, and where is the "spacetime" himself? Is it a kind of physical reality or, what? If yes, who has seen it? If no, then about what we have talking? Such situation tell us that we completely not understand about what we have talking!
So, I have gone in described way and I got something, that can be interested you ... if the enough patience.
Regards
http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=64836
Michael, you pretend that you can explain the Saturn's rings with Newtonian physics.
Can you show that?
It's been explained. Cf. here: http://www.lesia.obspm.fr/perso/bruno-sicardy/ensei/cours/cours_G1/dynamics_planetary_rings.pdf for instance.
Dear George,
Great analysis! I enjoyed reading it.
Indeed, the causality is primordial and essential. All of our daily physics is impregnated with it. The consequences you deduce wrt a tight link between GRT and the expansion of the universe is very interesting. Even the double bending of light becomes causal, then.
If it is true, it is still a pity that dark matter and energy are still needed. If it is untrue, all the physics wrt GRT and expansion are wrong.
I invite you to compare your analysis with my annexed book. Maybe can we find some ground of agreement?
All the best,
Thierry
http://gsjournal.net/books/De-Mees-Gravitomagnetism-and-Coriolis-Gravity-2011-A4.pdf
No Stam, that paper doesn't explain why the rings are in Saturn's equatorial plane. It just *starts* from that plane.
The position of the rings is only possible if the angular momentum is transmitted by gravity.
Moreover, Stam, when I look at your link on page 185, section "3. Flattening of Rings", expression H is a downright lie. One cannot split vi in vZ and vH as shown in the alleged equation, since vi = sqrt(vH2+vZ2).
Hence, trying to explain the flatness of the rings the Newtonian way is only possible by using such trickeries.
In any case, trying to explain the Newtonian way that the position of the rings is in the Saturn's equatorial plane is impossible.
The only way to explain that position is by admitting the transmission of angular momentum by gravity.
One should actually read the paper. It's a well known fact that 1/r forces lead to planar orbits. The non-trivial result, that's the topic of the article, is what controls the thickness of the ring, in the direction perpendicular to it. And that's related to the phenomena that are described in the article. Similar effects are relevant in particle accelerators, where the forces are electric and magnetic-and, insofar as the grains can be charged, the magnetic field of Saturn is of interest. But these are real, physical, fields, not analogies. They're, also, non-relativistic, so don't have anything to do with gravitons.
No Stam, that is nonsense. I have pointed an error in the deduction in detail, and you don't even reply scientifically? How unprofessional!
The 1/r forces? What the heck is that? Do you mean the balance between the Newtonian gravity and the inertia? There is absolutely no ground to pretend that there is a Newtonian flattening of rings based upon that. With respect to what in the first place would there be such a flattening? Any orbit angle would give your 1/r forces!
Then, you jump to the argument of the electrically charged ring and Saturn's magnetic field.
However, there is no proof whatsoever that the rings are charged and no proof whatsoever that Saturn's magnetic field is a dipole that points exactly and permanently in the same direction as its spin axis.
Neither the Sun, nor the Earth, nor any planet is in such a situation.
Your paper and your arguments are pure claptrap. There is no electromagnetic effect with Saturn's rings, as less as there is a electromagnetic effect with disc galaxies, in SN1987 or in Eta Carinae.
As a said before, the only way to explain that position and the flattening is by admitting the transmission of angular momentum by gravity.
The graviton level is of another order than the gravitomagnetic field theory and doesn't relate directly with the theory in its actual form.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Particle Physics
- Elementary Particle Physics