John A. Macken , Gravitational potential energy is a mathematical ideal. It's a form of accountancy which is tied up with the instantaneous conservation of energy in conjunction with conservative (position dependent) forces.

But it tells us absolutely nothing at all about the physical mechanism behind gravity. As far as we actually know, when we expend energy to raise an object to a higher height, that energy is lost, but of course, more energy can be gained in its place, if gravity is allowed to pull it back down again.

You might like to ask the question as to where did the lost energy go while the object was still up high, and where did the new energy come from during the free fall. But we wouldn't even know what energy means in the context until we had a definite idea about the physical mechanism that lies behind gravity.

As regards gravitational potential energy, it has an arbitrary constant of integration, which always cancels when we are considering potential differences. But if we define it as zero in the absolute scenario, as the textbooks like to do, so that the values will always be negative, we cannot conclude that this proves that actual gravitational energy is negative.

So where might we encounter a scenario involving actual intrinsic gravitational energy? In eccentric GPS satellite orbits, the caesium atoms in the clocks are simultaneously in a state of maximum kinetic energy and intrinsic energy at the same time. Rather than having instantaneous energy conservation, we have cyclical energy conservation. This is in line with gravity involving an inflowing tensile fluid, where the lower we go, the more tense the fluid is, as it is being pulled down into the gravity sink.

It's tension and not negative energy that we are looking at in a gravitational field.

Frederick David Tombe

Your reply has advanced the discussion far faster than I anticipated. Thank you. You say the concept of gravitational potential energy "tells us absolutely nothing at all about the physical mechanism behind gravity." I agree completely.

This is a discussion question, so I will give my ideas on this subject. The key point starts with a discussion of gravitational time dilation. Suppose a photon with energy of 511,000 eV (electron’s annihilation energy) is emitted at the surface of the sun. When this photon leaves the solar system, the photon would appear to lose about 1 eV (measured locally). This gravitational redshift is due entirely to the different rates of time at the surface of the sun compared to the rate of time when the photon leaves the solar system (leaves the sun's gravity). Suppose the frequency of this photon (∿1020 Hz) could be measured by a single clock. This single clock (not local) would show that there is no change in the frequency (energy) of the photon. The apparent loss of energy (frequency) is due entirely to the change in the rate of time. At the surface of the sun, the rate of time is about 1 - 2x10-6 = 0.999998 times slower than the faster rate of time beyond the solar system.

Now we will switch from a photon to an electron. A stationary electron beyond the solar system has about 1 eV more energy than a stationary electron near the surface of the sun (same temperature). This approximate 1 eV increase corresponds to a 2x10-6 increase in the electron's 511,000 eV energy. This corresponds to the gravitational potential energy imparted by lifting an electron from the sun's gravity.

The model of an electron proposed in the paper below is a quantized wave that rotates at an electron’s Compton frequency (≈ 1020 Hz). The rotation is a type of clock. The rotation rate of an electron depends on the local rate of time. Therefore, a 2x10-6 increase in the electron’s rotation rate corresponds to about a 1 eV increase in an electron’s energy. Therefore, an increase or decrease in the gravitational potential energy of an electron is stored in the internal energy of an electron. All other fundamental particles also have the gravitational potential energy stored in the particle’s internal structure.

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

John A. Macken , If you are trying to understand the physical nature of the gravitational field, why start at the deep end by bringing in extra complications like quantum mechanics and relativity?

Why not start with Newton's formula, because we have nothing else to go on.

The formula itself doesn't tell us anything definite, but the escape velocity concept which follows from the formula, might suggest the agency of an inflowing medium, whereby if something moves with a speed greater than the inflow medium, it escapes from the field.

While it is unnecessary to acknowledge the existence of such a medium when doing orbital mechanics, and because curl g = 0, it might become relevant in other areas of physics.

For example, the Lorentz transformation applied to the gravitational inflowing medium might account for general relativity.

Surely we need to explore the basics before speculating on matters like time dilation in gamma photons and electrons.

Frederick David Tombe

We have had Newton's gravitational equation for about 300 years. It describes gravity well enough for space travel, but this equation does not imply the underlying physics that creates gravity. General relativity described the properties of gravity more completely than Newton's gravity, but again even general relativity does not reveal the underlying physics that creates gravity.

The question I propose, Is a gravitational field a form of negative energy? This question probes the underlying physics. I have proposed a model of the universe based on the properties of spacetime creating everything in the universe. The value of a structural model of the universe that conceptually explains gravity and other mysteries, is that this type of model makes predictions that can be tested. Such predictions and tests advance science. You can read about the model and predictions I propose here:

Preprint A Single Field Model of the Universe

My point to answer this is much more simple: there just exists no negative energy whatever the model. Also the so called big-bang driving initial negative energy „blob“ is fiction in pure form as to save older wrong theories.

John A. Macken , I was always fully aware of the fact that Newton's law of gravity doesn't physically explain gravity. But it's the only formula that we have from where we might start to guess the physical nature of gravity, and the clue lies in the escape velocity which many people have linked to an inflowing medium, although this cannot be proved experimentally. The idea is, that the aethereal fluid connects all matter and pulls it all together. But even if that is so, it still wouldn't explain what is pulling the aethereal medium into the gravity sinks.

The only conclusion is that we cannot explain the ultimate cause of gravitational acceleration.

GTR doesn't help either, because that is simply the Lorentz transformation applied to the aethereal inflowing medium.

And neither does it help to muddle the topic with electron-positron pair annihilation, which will be connected with the medium for the propagation of light, and not with the pure radially inflowing aether.

And by the way, there is no such a thing as negative energy. I think you are getting the idea confused with aether tension, which is still positive energy.

Dear John A. Macken

The formulation of the graviton particle helped me to create a fairly clear theory of gravity.

In this idea, the main emphasis is on establishing the natural mechanism of the gravitational phenomenon, it was needed to make the macro world compatible with the micro world, it was necessary to formulate a metaphysical concept that could be easily related to the form of electromagnetic matter in nature that could easily explain the phenomenon of gravity in all dimensions.Thus was born the concept of the a priori entity:

See more in the article:

Article Fizikailag-metafizikailag bizonyítható a graviton létezése

(Hungarian)

It has English abstarct and conclushion:

Chapter 230902-En-H-Gr-t

Chapter Physico-metaphysical proof of the existence of graviton

If you use energy in this sense, you can see that the concept of negative energy is not so wrong, but it all depends on the reference.

Regards,

Laszlo

The energy density W of the gravitational field is W=-g²/(8πG). G is the gravitational constant, g is the gravitational field strength, the gravitational acceleration.

An absolute negative energy density cannot exist. Therefor a cosmic field of gravitational nature and energy density W0 must exist.

The absolute energy density of the gravitational field then is:

W=W0-g²/(8πG).

The cosmic field warps the space to a homogenous scalar curvature of 1/R².

The volume V of the space in our universe is V=2π²R³. The space has no surface.