Peter Dunn
07-23-03, 10:23 AM
There are, at present, very serious problems besetting classical gravitational theory. The first of these problems, ie the one that has been around the longest, is critical density: if there were not just the right amount of matter (and, therefore, mass) generating just the right amount of gravitational force then the Universe could not exist because too much mass present would have caused it to collapse; there wouldn't have been any expansion in the first place - conversely if there had been too small an amount of matter created then the Cosmos would have flown apart and no structures would have formed. The parameters between too much and too little mass are so narrow that the continued existence of the Universe has been likened to a knife balanced upon its tip with, if the knife were to topple, the abyss awaiting us on every side.
This problematic situation has been further compounded by the discovery that galaxies rotate faster at their rims than ought to be the case as there is more matter concentrated at the galactic cores which should, therefore, mean that rotational speed at the centres should be higher than out on the spiral arms. This, in turn, has led to the conclusion that there must be vast amounts of matter out there there that we cannot see. Some calculations as to the amount of this missing or 'dark' matter have concluded that up to a staggering 96% of the Universe's mass is invisible!
The latest challenge to the validity of current gravitational theory comes in the form of dark energy. It had been thought, previously, that the expansion rate of the Cosmos would be slowed by gravity as a prelude to the big crunch. Observations of distant supernovae have, however, proven that the expansion rate of the Universe is actually accelerating exponentially; this has led some to conlcude that there will come a point when the very fabric of space-time itself will be torn asunder.
The present model, first formulated by Newton and, later, modified by Einstein, cannot provide us with answers to these conundrums because it is based upon an assumption: and that is that gravity is generated by mass - it isn't and, if the reader of this message will bear with me a little longer, I'll prove it.
Let's consider the Earth's escape velocity: 6.94 mile per second - this is the speed at which a spacecraft must travel if it is to break free of the Earth's gravitational embrace. We can now perform a simple calculation to work out the corresponding escape velocity for the Sun which has a mass 333,400 times that of the Earth. 6.94 multiplied by 333.400 gives us a speed of two million, three hundred and thirteen thousand, seven hundred and ninety six miles per second or, to put it another way, a velocity that is a little under twelve and half times the speed of light. Material entities cannot travel at such velocities because their inertial mass would increase to infinite values. There is, though, material: in form of the solar wind (calculated at 400 mps) and coronal mass ejections (calculated at 600mps), streaming outward from the Sun all the time. If gravity was simply generated by mass this wouldn't occur.
Then there is the proposed carrier of gravitational force: the graviton. There are attempts being made, with huge water tanks being situated deep underground, to capture this rather elusive little beast. Its discovery is crucial to the future viability of not only gravitational theory, but also of particle theory as all forces must be coupled together with their transmitter particles. If it were proven that the graviton doesn't, indeed couldn't, exist then the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.
So let's, first of all, ask - where is it? Where does it reside? In order to achieve all that it does in the Universe: bringing structure out of chaos and holding celestial bodies firmly in their orbits, it would have to be one of the most abundant entities in the Cosmos. It would also have to possess mass; how else could it have any effect? So why can't we detect them when we should be, quite literally, tripping over them at every turn?
There is, also, their behaviour to consider. How do gravitons transmit gravity across astronomical distances? Do they remain in situ and project their force across the intervening distances? If so where are they to found? Within atoms? At the molecular level? Or is it the case that they actually make the trip themselves? Are they emitted by one celestial body to zoom across space and impact upon and, presumably, attach themselves to another body and attempt to drag their target back from whence they came? Surely this would imply that they would have to possess some form of memory and so could 'remember' their where they came from or that they carried a signature that made them unique to their point of origin.
Then there is the problem of their mass. If gravitons possess mass (if it was suspected that they didn't scientists would not be employing water tanks to trap them) then any body emitting them would have to give up some of its own mass in the process in accordance with the conservation law. This would mean that, over time, planets and stars would evaporate and that, over the eons, the Universe would become populated by a single species of entity: the graviton!
Lastly there is the sad fact, from the graviton's point of view, that it was recently calculated that gravitational effects propagate at (as Einstein predicted) the speed of light thus making it impossible for propagation to be effected by a material particle.
All that can be safely said, then, with regard to gravity is that its effects can only be observed in the presence of mass.
I am now going to put before the reader a simple postulate.
All things exist at their ground state and, after being disturbed by some outside agency, will always return to that ground state. What we perceive to be gravity is actually the physical manifestation of this cosmological imperative applied at the universal scale. Put simply the Universe has an in built tendency to return to the original zero energy ground state extant before the big bang.
I have used this simple postulate to articulate a complete theory of quantum reality and the forces that both create and shape it.
If there are any bona fide physicists, cosmologists (including advanced ie university, students) etc reading this that would like to learn more please feel free to e-mail me.
This problematic situation has been further compounded by the discovery that galaxies rotate faster at their rims than ought to be the case as there is more matter concentrated at the galactic cores which should, therefore, mean that rotational speed at the centres should be higher than out on the spiral arms. This, in turn, has led to the conclusion that there must be vast amounts of matter out there there that we cannot see. Some calculations as to the amount of this missing or 'dark' matter have concluded that up to a staggering 96% of the Universe's mass is invisible!
The latest challenge to the validity of current gravitational theory comes in the form of dark energy. It had been thought, previously, that the expansion rate of the Cosmos would be slowed by gravity as a prelude to the big crunch. Observations of distant supernovae have, however, proven that the expansion rate of the Universe is actually accelerating exponentially; this has led some to conlcude that there will come a point when the very fabric of space-time itself will be torn asunder.
The present model, first formulated by Newton and, later, modified by Einstein, cannot provide us with answers to these conundrums because it is based upon an assumption: and that is that gravity is generated by mass - it isn't and, if the reader of this message will bear with me a little longer, I'll prove it.
Let's consider the Earth's escape velocity: 6.94 mile per second - this is the speed at which a spacecraft must travel if it is to break free of the Earth's gravitational embrace. We can now perform a simple calculation to work out the corresponding escape velocity for the Sun which has a mass 333,400 times that of the Earth. 6.94 multiplied by 333.400 gives us a speed of two million, three hundred and thirteen thousand, seven hundred and ninety six miles per second or, to put it another way, a velocity that is a little under twelve and half times the speed of light. Material entities cannot travel at such velocities because their inertial mass would increase to infinite values. There is, though, material: in form of the solar wind (calculated at 400 mps) and coronal mass ejections (calculated at 600mps), streaming outward from the Sun all the time. If gravity was simply generated by mass this wouldn't occur.
Then there is the proposed carrier of gravitational force: the graviton. There are attempts being made, with huge water tanks being situated deep underground, to capture this rather elusive little beast. Its discovery is crucial to the future viability of not only gravitational theory, but also of particle theory as all forces must be coupled together with their transmitter particles. If it were proven that the graviton doesn't, indeed couldn't, exist then the whole house of cards would come tumbling down.
So let's, first of all, ask - where is it? Where does it reside? In order to achieve all that it does in the Universe: bringing structure out of chaos and holding celestial bodies firmly in their orbits, it would have to be one of the most abundant entities in the Cosmos. It would also have to possess mass; how else could it have any effect? So why can't we detect them when we should be, quite literally, tripping over them at every turn?
There is, also, their behaviour to consider. How do gravitons transmit gravity across astronomical distances? Do they remain in situ and project their force across the intervening distances? If so where are they to found? Within atoms? At the molecular level? Or is it the case that they actually make the trip themselves? Are they emitted by one celestial body to zoom across space and impact upon and, presumably, attach themselves to another body and attempt to drag their target back from whence they came? Surely this would imply that they would have to possess some form of memory and so could 'remember' their where they came from or that they carried a signature that made them unique to their point of origin.
Then there is the problem of their mass. If gravitons possess mass (if it was suspected that they didn't scientists would not be employing water tanks to trap them) then any body emitting them would have to give up some of its own mass in the process in accordance with the conservation law. This would mean that, over time, planets and stars would evaporate and that, over the eons, the Universe would become populated by a single species of entity: the graviton!
Lastly there is the sad fact, from the graviton's point of view, that it was recently calculated that gravitational effects propagate at (as Einstein predicted) the speed of light thus making it impossible for propagation to be effected by a material particle.
All that can be safely said, then, with regard to gravity is that its effects can only be observed in the presence of mass.
I am now going to put before the reader a simple postulate.
All things exist at their ground state and, after being disturbed by some outside agency, will always return to that ground state. What we perceive to be gravity is actually the physical manifestation of this cosmological imperative applied at the universal scale. Put simply the Universe has an in built tendency to return to the original zero energy ground state extant before the big bang.
I have used this simple postulate to articulate a complete theory of quantum reality and the forces that both create and shape it.
If there are any bona fide physicists, cosmologists (including advanced ie university, students) etc reading this that would like to learn more please feel free to e-mail me.