Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

this to start with..

Data From the Maxwell TREATIES concerning "gravitational energy"

Nothing in this universe with billions galaxies, where each galaxy holds billions of suns and solar systems is working mechanically as our icons on past stated it.

On the other hand speed of sunlight with massive frequencies, wavelength, visible and invisible character does not constant speed as you mention.

Article Title: Science is wrong on…Light & Photon

James Clerk Maxwell : "As I am unable to understand in what way a medium can possess such properties, I cannot go any further in this direction in searching for the cause of gravitation."

Thanks Stefano for linking us to the above Maxwell statement.

I'm certainly quite far away from understanding the cause of gravity. I just try to find out special relations between observations that I find cannot be just accidental, so eg my estimate of the proton radius and magnetic moment which in particular depends on the E = mc2 equivalence. As mentioned above under 3. the latter immediately follows from the universal gravitational potential.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Johan K. Fremerey Stefano Quattrini Javad Fardaei

The under-appreciated role of gravitational potential (GP) in understanding various physical phenomena is a fascinating topic. Here are some thoughts on your points:

1. Cumulative Effect of GP: You're absolutely right. The 1/r dependence leads to a significant contribution from distant masses. Have you explored any recent research on dark matter and its potential influence on the cumulative GP?

2. GP Gradients and Orbital Mechanics: The role of GP gradients in celestial mechanics is well established. Perhaps we can delve deeper into specific applications, like calculating planetary perihelion precession using GP.

3. GP and E=mc^2: The connection between GP and the mass-energy equivalence is an intriguing idea. Could you elaborate on the specific mathematical framework used in the ResearchGate link you provided? Understanding the derivation might spark interesting discussions.

4. GP and Light Bending: The application of GP to explain gravitational lensing, like Einstein rings, is a great example of its practical use. Are there ongoing efforts to improve the accuracy of light deflection calculations using GP?

5. GP and Escape Velocity/Schwarzschild Radius: These applications are indeed fundamental. Do you think a visualization tool demonstrating the relationship between GP, escape velocity, and the Schwarzschild radius could be helpful for the community?

Happy Regards,

Sandeep

Sandeep Jaiswal :

Thanks for your comments. I'll try to respond:

1. GP depends on M/R. So when M due to dark matter requires correction, R should be corrected to similar extent, if possible in view of observational data.

2. Sounds rather ambitious. I just wanted to emphasize the strength and significance of GP, when even gradients thereof are capable of moving stars and galaxies.

3. There is no mathematical framework behind. It's just the potential energy of a mass m at some given potential.

4. I'm not up to date with this research.

5. I think this just requires placing the right parameter on the left hand side of the equation.

Johan K. Fremerey

Thanks for your clarifications, Johan! Your insights on the role of GP are valuable.

1. Dark Matter and Cumulative GP: You're right, for a complete picture, we need to consider dark matter's influence. Perhaps exploring recent simulations that model dark matter distribution might provide insights.

2. GP Gradients and Applications: Agreed, focusing on specific applications like perihelion precession is a great way to showcase GP's utility. Maybe we can collaborate on creating a simple explainer that demonstrates this concept.

3. GP and E=mc^2: While a direct mathematical link between GP and E=mc^2 might not be established yet, there could be underlying connections worth exploring. Have you come across any theoretical work in this direction?

4. Light Bending and Ongoing Research: It would be interesting to see if anyone else on ResearchGate is familiar with ongoing efforts to refine light deflection calculations using GP. Perhaps we can tag relevant experts?

5. Visualisation Tools for Escape Velocity/Schwarzschild Radius: Absolutely! Creating a visualisation tool could be a fantastic contribution to the community. If you have ideas for the design, feel free to share them – maybe we can find someone with coding expertise to collaborate.

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

"What is the gravitational potential good for?"

May-be, we can see it, if we write it down like this

V = UM/m = -K ∙ ħc/(2r) ∙ nM ∙ 1/mᵥₑᵥ = -K ∙ ħc/(2r) ∙ M/m²ᵥₑᵥ

with nM the number of particles, assuming each is mᵥₑᵥ (in RHS), giving the central mass M, m (LHS) the mass within the potential field at distance r.

K is the energy-backflow factor of the wave between both masses with the lowest energy, thus (2r).

K = 2∙G∙mᵥₑᵥ²/(ħc) = 8.13434(6)∙10⁻³⁴

You can identify

K ∙ ħc/(2r)

which is the common kernel VEV-gravitational term, as also shown within the three equations for gravitation, charge and CASIMIR in the attached image above...

Sandeep Jaiswal and Andreas Schwarz

Many thanks for your kind responses and further suggestions!

Unfortunately, due to missing background in theoretical physics, I am ot familiar with the VEV and Planck mechanisms. On the other hand, I see some relation between your results, Andreas, and my proton model, see reference below, as to the equivalence ω = mc2 / ℏ. When extending this by replacing c2 with the universal gravitational potential GP = 2GMu/Ru, we wil gain some intriguing formal relation to elementary particles: ℏω/m = GP. Would this comply in any way with your formalism? This equivalence from my point of view at least indicates that elementary masses and energies comply with the universal GP.

Research Proposal Triple-gyro model for deduction of proton radius and magnetic moment

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

without having read your paper: yes, there is a relationship.

Starting with your

ω = mc² / ℏ

we can re-write as

ω = 2π∙f = mc² / ℏ

and thus as

hf = E = mc².

This is the basic equivalence of wave's energy and its related "mass", if this wave is a spherical oscillator, a standig wave. Then this oscillator interacts with mass m gravitationally.

Thus, for such oscillators you can write

m = h/(c∙2π∙r)

with

r = λ/(2π)

the "radius" of the oscillator.

The oscillator with the highest energy for particles is that of the vacuum. Its value, the Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) is 246.21965(6) GeV,

with an associated mass of 4.3892639(9)∙10⁻²⁵ kg,

and a "radius" of 8.0142663(18)∙10⁻¹⁹ m.

This energy is the very first resonance of that oscillation, which may occur within the quantum-fluctuations. These fluctuations occur with a much higher frequency, but, due to their smallness and because their oscillation phases typically cancel out each other, we cannot "see" or measure it: its state is "symmetric". This level is the PLANCK-level with wave period's lengths of about 1.616∙10⁻³⁵ m.

PLANCK also comes into play when using the SCHWARZSCHILD formula as you did:

GP = 2GMᵤ/Rᵤ = c²

This sets into relation mass and its minimum radius, where even light cannot escape.

The smallest such sphere is that with ~1.616∙10⁻³⁵ m, the PLANCK length. This is the "photon-sphere".

The largest such sphere is that with ~1.4∙10²⁶ m, the radius of the observable universe.

Black holes also show this formula, because their "event horizon" is the radius related to its mass, where its radiation cannot escape.

Interesting may-be: if you add one PLANCK-mass to any black hole, its radius increases by one PLANCK-length...

Andreas Schwarz

Thanks again for your input. I can follow the upper part. What I can't follow is, I'm sorry to say, the entire VEV and Planck formalism.

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

are you aware of the masses of particles? The heaviest are

top quark: 172.76 GeV

Higgs: 125.6 GeV

Z°: 91.1876(22) GeV

W⁺⁻: 80.4335(117) GeV

These are energies, which were measured at the LHC and other colliders.

As you may see, their values roughly follow a certain schematic:

top quark mass ∙√2 ≈ 244 GeV

Higgs mass ∙√4 ≈ 251 GeV

Z° mass ∙√7 ≈ 241.3 GeV

W⁺⁻ mass ∙√9 ≈ 241.3 GeV

There is an upper limit for particle masses, and this limit is the vacuum energy, the VEV, at 246.21965(6) GeV.

Since all particles with charge have the same unique elementary charge value, I assume that all particles below Higgs are a resonance of the VEV, more exact of an energy near-by:

E₁ = VEV · (1 - 1/√(2·5·13·19)) = 241.26547523(75) GeV.

The particles' energies are

Eₙ = E₁/√n.

For the proton n = 66120 = 2³·3·5·19·29.

With this you can calculate also the proton's radius, firstly that of its standing wave's energy

r = ħc/Eₚ

The nowadays published "proton radius" is measured using a myonic hydrogen.

This myon needs a near-integer number, here 25, of r on its resonating path around the proton to produce a nearly closed wave. Since the circumference factor 2π is an irrational number, only approximations can be constructed. The radius r can only be multiplied with √m, m integer, because the results are the resonances. The best-matching resonance occurs at m=16.

Since 25/2π = 3.979 ≈ 4 = √16, the "proton-radius", that of the myon path, is

r· √m = r·4 = 8.2430925(22) fm.

Dear Andreas Schwarz,

thank yo very much for your kind privatissimum lecture on elementary particles among themselves. Do you have an idea about their relation to the global GP as expressed by our initial formula ?

let's use the words from the lyrics, War, by Edwin Starr. "absolutely nothing, sing it again".

Dear Johan K. Fremerey,

since your formula is the whole universe, quasi we are within a "black hole", there is no direct knowledge.

But, since the SCHWARZSCHILD equation also is valid in our environment, you can cancel the "u" from your formula and go on.

If you offer your ideas based on that, we could review...

Andreas Schwarz : "since your formula is the whole universe, quasi we are within a "black hole" "

I had such idea a couple of years ago:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_we_living_at_the_joint_periphery_of_3K_Holes_with_radius_R_GM_c2

... "you can cancel the "u" from your formula and go on."

I just would like to point out the significance of distant masses.

... "If you offer your ideas based on that, we could review..."

What is your idea ?

@ Preston Guynn

Gravitational potential gradients is what I refer to under 2. of the initial question. Please note that the initial question is about the gravitational potential, ie not about gradients thereof.

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

"significance of distant masses"

What is the purpose of the distant masses? MU is not distant masses alone: imagine the masses near-by, which have a much higher incluence to us.

Additionally, what about the maximum size of galaxies: they have a radius of about 1-2Mpc, not more. Suns behind that distance are less and more less gravitationally bound.

We do not live in a black hole, because then there were a very huge dense kernel somewhere, and everything would encircle that kernel in a more-or-less disk-like structure! Since there is no disk-like structure observed, we do not live in a black hole. Instead, we observe a filigrane structure...

Andreas Schwarz : "imagine the masses near-by, which have a much higher influence to us."

You obviously refer to the effect of gravitational potential gradients and associated forces. These due to 1/r2 dependence on distance r are relatively short ranged compared to the gravitational potential which goes by 1/r.

... "We do not live in a black hole, because then there were a very huge dense kernel somewhere, and everything would encircle that kernel in a more-or-less disk-like structure!"

From where do you take this assumption?

See https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_c_the_escape_velocity_out_of_the_visible_universe

Dear Johan K. Fremerey ,

yes, the potential goes with 1/r, but we have

F = dE/dr => (E₁-Eₒ)/(2r).

It is the energy (potential) difference between both sides of a mass (here radius r), which let the body "feel" a momentum, thus, a force.

"From where do you take this assumption?"

A black hole can be constructed in the following way:

Start with exactly ONE PLANCK mass. The radius then is PLANCK length.

Add ONE PLANCK mass. The radius increases by one PLANCK length.

Add again one mₚₗ => radius plus one ℓₚₗ.

: and so on...

After each step, the SCHWARZSCHILD equation is fulfilled:

1 = 2GM/(c²r)

That is, because

G/c² = ℓₚₗ/mₚₗ

a constant ratio, which is always valid after each step.

But: the volume of this construction increases with r³ and thus gets less dense with each step. Somewhen, the space around the BH may be even as dense as our interstellar medium. But that's at the edge of our observable universe only!

With the idea "living in a BH", we would have a very small thin zone with our density, further away less dense and nearer to the BH denser.

Such gradient has never been detected.

And, angular moments are conserved, thus, around a very dense BH kernel, all masses would more or less gather within an accretion disk...