My Thanks to Raghu Singh for presenting this paper to the Talkshop. We have been in touch for a while now, and I have had some behind the scenes appraisal going on with a quantum physicist, who has now sent a copy to a personal friend who works with the LHC team at CERN. This is a serious and demanding paper, and I would ask interested parties to download and read the pdf document, since formatting all the equations is too difficult for wordpress’ limited capabilities, and so THE MATHS AND RELATED COMMENTARY IS NOT SHOWN IN THIS POST.
A Constructive Model of Gravitation
Raghubansh P. Singh
1534 Malvern Hill Place; Herndon, VA 20170; USA
Abstract for the conference
May 1, 2012
This paper proposes a physical model in which gravitational interaction between masses is mediated by their mass-momentum fields. A mass in the mass-momentum field of another mass experiences two types of gravitational forces: repulsion due to separation; and attraction due to motions but under specific conditions.
The model addresses: gravitational interaction between matter and matter and between matter and energy; gravity’s effect on spectral lines, clock time periods, and the length of an object; and gravitational radiation from an accelerating mass. It explains Mercury’s orbital precession rate. It estimates the speed of gravitational radiation; revisits inertia and pseudogravity; and makes new predictions. It compares the predictions of the model with those of general relativity.
It rediscovers that gravity bends a light ray, increases the wavelength of emitted light, dilates the time period of an atomic clock, and elongates a material rod. An experiment similar to the Pound-Rebka’s is suggested to test the lengthening of rods. The model rediscovers that at a black hole: time run virtually stops; light virtually turns flat in waveform but still propagates; light passing nearby might go around it and return toward its source; and rod flattens to the point where it disintegrates. It finds that time is physically meaningless in the absence of mass. The model, despite lacking observed values of its three ‘constants,’ agrees on the older predictions well within an order of magnitude.
The model makes new predictions: gravitational interaction is also repulsive; the classical gravitational constant is not constant; an accelerating mass emits gravitational radiation, which in turn accelerates masses at 45 degrees to the direction of propagation; and gravitational radiation propagates at about 18.5% of the speed of light and has four degrees of polarization.
The model introduces for gravity mass-momentum field, which, being of the type almost similar to electric-magnetic field, could help decipher gravity further, possibly as a fundamental interaction.
For the life cycle of the universe, the model does not seem to favor a steady or an expansion-for-ever state.
Newton (c. 1686) discovers the law that gravitational attraction between two bodies is proportional directly to the product of their masses and inversely to the square of their separation distance.
Einstein1 (c. 1915) publishes the general theory of relativity, according to which gravitation is due to the curvature which matter creates in the field of space-time geometry. The field of space-time geometry is the gravitational field. Astronomic collisions and interactions among celestial bodies notwithstanding, so far there is no evidence of gravitons or waves in the field of space-time geometry. Why and how matter warps space and time are left unexplained!
Milne 2 (c. 1935) holds that “geometry can be selected primarily by the nature of underlying phenomenon and the convenience of representing and analyzing that phenomenon; and transformations of coordinates alone are but translations of language and have not necessarily much to do with phenomena.” Coordinate systems are not a part of the laws of nature.
A few recent theories 3, 4 (c. 1994 – 2012) explain the initial predictions of general relativity in flat space-time geometry.
The strong, the weak, and electromagnetic interactions are mediated respectively by the strong, the weak, and electromagnetic fields associated respectively with the color, the weak, and electrical charges of matter and antimatter. These ‘charges’ and associated ‘currents’ (that is, charges in motion) are respectively static and dynamic properties of matter and antimatter. The strong and the weak interactions are mediated at only microscopic levels; electromagnetic interactions occur at both microscopic and macroscopic levels; and gravitational interactions are known to be effective at only macroscopic levels. (At microscopic levels, fields are quantized; at macroscopic levels, fields are continuous with values at each space-time point.)
The model will be developed in three parts:
- In this first, classical part, gravitational interaction between entities will be similarly reformulated in terms of their pertinent properties and associated fields at the macroscopic level without coordinate systems and observers. Special relativity will be postponed. Quantum theory will be invoked elementarily.
- In the second, still classical part, Lorentz covariant gravitational interaction and field equations will be formulated.
- In the third part, quantum gravitational field theory will be formulated.
For quick referencing, the salient symbols and representative concepts are listed in an Appendix.
We begin the model with two assumptions:
(a) Matter has an envelope of intrinsic mass field.
(b) Motion creates an envelope of momentum field.
Mass is a static property of matter. The range of mass field is infinity. (The origins of matter and mass are not important at the macroscopic level.)
Momentum is a dynamic property of mass-in-motion. Momentum field is effective within a momentum field range, which is proportional to the momentum.
SEE THE PDF DOCUMENT FOR THE REST OF THIS PAPER.
13.3 Centrifugal force
A force normal to a body’s uniform velocity keeps the body in a circular orbit; that force is called centripetal force.
A satellite around the earth is under the centripetal force of the earth’s gravity. The centripetal force is being ‘used up’ in keeping the satellite in orbit; a body in it gets no reaction force and feels weightlessness.
A body on a merry-go-round must have three reaction ‘agents’ to keep it in balance: a seat to push it up against the downward gravity; a backrest to accelerate it to the needed uniform tangential velocity; and a side rest to push it toward the center providing centripetal force to keep it along the circle. When the centripetal force is turned off, the body moves along the tangent with the current velocity.
It is convenient but not necessary to invent pseudogravity (centrifugal force) to cancel the centripetal force in order to avoid radial motion. Centripetal force is real; centrifugal force is fictitious.
We address the primary criticisms of the model. With all due respect to General Relativity and its rich mathematical structure, this model is simply meant to add to the literature, to the need for more theories and experimentation to help decipher gravity further as a force (fundamental or other), and to use it even beyond the solar system.
1. The model contradicts special relativity.
This new model begins in classical physics, as any brand new theory should. The model not being Lorentz covariant implies approximation. Inclusion of special relativity will enrich the model and improve accuracy with experiments but will turn the equations unnecessarily mathematically complex in this first part at the cost of physical insight. Moreover, as the present-day u/c = 0.4, special relativity may be postponed for now. Special relativity will be considered in later parts.
[We note that covariance with respect to transformations in (x, y, z, ibt) coordinate systems may have to be explored.]
2. The model contradicts general relativity.
The model makes no predictions directionally contradictory to general relativity. Besides, the issue is moot, because the model and general relativity are mutually independent.
A new theory should not be judged by an older theory. A new theory is initially judged by whether: it is internally, physically consistent; it re-discovers older predictions; and it discovers at least one new prediction. The model meets these criteria. Only observations and experiments may falsify a theory. A theory confirmed yesterday could be falsified tomorrow.
[Physics must wait for the experimental evidences on the structure, speed, polarization, and quantum of gravitational radiation to reveal as to which theory (this model, general relativity, hidden dimensions, supersymmetry, or other) nature has been hiding.]
3. The theory does not predict Mercury’s orbital precession rate.
This just appears to be the case. This classical model simply repeats the classical steps of Price and Rush 9 and arrives at the 572 arc-secs/century orbital precession rate. The rest 43 arc-secs/century rate can be obtained by special-relativistic correction to the classical part in flat space-time geometry. 4 (There are additional, albeit infinitesimal, hard-to-detect contributions to the precession rate.)
4. The primordial point violates the principle: “Absolute position and absolute time are never essential initial conditions.”
The universe is said to have begun as a Big Bang at a physical space-point, where the universe’s internal time began as well. The model names that point Primordial Point. The Primordial Point is the sole space-time reference point in the universe. (It is not clear as to whether the universe itself is in motion relative to an external point.) The said principle holds within the universe as a closed system, whose total internal energy, momentum, and angular momentum remain conserved.
5. There are too many adjustable parameters!
The model has only three constants: b, σ, and Gd . The first two are Nature’s (non-adjustable) constants. All other parameters and ‘constants’ are derivable from b, σ, and Gd .
SEE THE PDF DOCUMENT FOR THE REST OF THIS PAPER
1. A. Einstein, The Meaning of Relativity, Princeton, 1955.
2. E. A. Milne, Relativity Gravitation and World-Structure, Oxford, 1935.
3. T. Biswas, Special Relativistic Newtonian Gravity, Foundations of Physics, v24n4, 1994.
4. D. Barwacz, Orbital Precession without GR [General Relativity], General Science Journal, 2012.
5. E. Freundlich, H. v. Klüber, and A. v. Brunn; Zs. f. Astrophys., 3, 171, 1931.
6. A. Isaacs, Oxford Dictionary of Physics, Oxford, 2003.
7. C. L. Poor, The deflection of light as observed at Total Solar Eclipses, JOSA, v20n4, 1930.
8. R. Adler, M. Bazin and M. Schiffer, Introduction to General Relativity (129, 193), McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1965.
9. M. P. Price and W. F. Rush, Nonrelativistic contribution to Mercury’s perihelion precession, Am. J. Phys., v47n6, 1979.
10. R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr., Apparent Weight of Photons, Phys. Rev. Letts., 4 (337), 1960.
11. M. S. Longair, High Energy Astrophysics, Cambridge, 1981.
12. R. P. Singh, Inertia, General Science Journal, 2011.
13. P. G. Bergmann, The Riddle of Gravitation (136), Dover Publications, 1992.
© Raghubansh P. Singh; April 24, 2012.
SEE THE PDF DOCUMENT FOR THE REST OF THIS PAPER