How gravity works

Yes, see arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/au: … /0/all/0/1, and many more. Keep an ear out for “the trefoil photon”.

What equation in that paper controls the movement of the photon in that curve?

Qui-Hong Hu does not claim that electrons are photons, at least not in the paper you site. Thus it seems that your citation is in error. The second citation is also in error, as the authors in question are working with the interference patterns of many photons, not knots in a single photon, as a quick scan of the actual paper makes plain. Often, when individuals cite popular sources rather than a scientific journal article, it is because that individual is attempting to dishonestly claim that the cited work supports his or her own work when in fact the individual has done no actual research on the citation.

So, again, what is the actual equation that governs the photon and its motion? How does this lead to the production of charge?

Oh my god. Repost, anyone?

First of all, wrong:

Second, give me an equation that shows that all motion slows down at a rate that maintains, just for example, the perceived frequency (i.e. color) of light. Oh wait, it’s time dilation…which means the most plausible answer is that one thing is slowing down, not all things, which is what you maintain.

Third, no one is denying that the speed of light ‘changes’…if you’re observing it in another reference frame.

Agreement with general relativity, it says. Doh.

It is because the speed of light is constant and time varies that this happens, not because time is constant and the speed of light varies, like you profess.

Yes, saying there is no such thing as time is the exact same thing as saying it’s constant.

That won’t do. I give you a whole heap of observable evidence and you say “wrong” then give an expression? Come on Anthem, try harder.

You’re dismissing observable evidence in favour of “one thing slowing down” that has no supporting evidence. You can’t see time slowing down. Nor can you see time flowing. All you can see, is things moving.

Good. Now take it to the next level. Understand that the Shapiro delay is there because the light goes slower. And look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay and ask yourself what that Einstein quote is doing there.

I can show you light. I can show you light moving. Can you show me time? No. Now how do we define time? Using the motion of light.

Huh? Read Time Explained. Time exists like heat exists, being an emergent property of motion. Come on Anthem, put some brain power into this instead of going along with an unthinking conviction that is not supported by scientific evidence.

Actually, no, what he did was exactly right. So far you have given no observable evidence. Observable evidence requires measurements and you have given no measurements. Anthem suggests that what you have said is contrary to an accepted physical law that is supported by a host of evidence. So you either have to undermine that law or you have to demonstrate that your proposal matches the law. This requires showing the measurement predictions of your proposal and showing that they meet the equation in questions.

Again, you have no evidence here. Not only that, but the evidence for time dilation is not seeing things, it is measuring things. And that the relevant difference is one of time rather than differences in the operation of all possible forces is one of reason. I.e.: if all physical processes slow down, then there must be some underlying cause as to why they slow down. So far, you have given no measurement evidence saying that all nuclear processes are electromagnetic processes, so we have no reason to suspect that something that slows down electromagnetic processes will also slow down nuclear processes. Indeed, if you claim that electromagnetic processes slow down, then we should see measurements of nuclear processes that demonstrate an increase in their speed. This suggests that your theory is prima facie incorrect. However, actual measurement evidence could possibly show otherwise.

Cheers, PhysBang :obscene-drinkingcheers:

You know, it’s stuff like this that makes me retire from threads. So I will, after this:

Can you see air? Any fourth grader can ask that question. For christ’s sake. If you only trust your eyes you’re not going to accomplish much. Weren’t you the one showing us the optical illusion? Jebus.

Baloney. You’re dismissing the evidence of the Shapiro delay and the GPS clock adjustment along with NIST fountain clock and the astronauts. And you’re dismissing what Einstein said. You haven’t even read any of it it have you?

Yes, the impedance of space changes. I guess you missed that.

And I guess you didn’t read what I said about proton-antiproton annihilation into pions thence photons. Not very good Physbang. What do I have to do, drip feed it to you piecemeal? Will you ever read it anyway?

Yes, you can see it shimmering on a hot day, and you can feel it blowing through your hair. The air is there, no doubt. Now, can you see time? No. Can you see time moving? Or slowing down? No. All you can see is things moving, and that motion slowing down. That’s the scientific evidence, and if you’d rather ignore it, that’s up to you.

Farsight,

I think I understand what you are saying concerning why, in a variant impedance field, a particle would gravitate toward the mass. Due to higher metaphysics, I can substantiate and agree with your surmise that a particle is an enveloped EM wave which would, of course, be affected by a variant impedance field. Careful logic can derive what cannot be measured by Science (very careful logic).

What is your reasoning as to exactly, physically, why the impedance field varies around mass objects. The fact of it is a given. Please keep in mind that every point in space can only effect an adjacent point. What is, in effect and in your view, gradually extending from a mass such as to cause the impedance of the space around it to be different?

I’d like to describe this in terms of energy rather than mass, using the most ubiquitous “particle” we see, namely the photon. If we consider one wavelength of the archetypal sinusoidal electromagnetic waveform, the electric field amplitude denotes the degree of spatial twist or deformation. If we could freeze-frame a photon in a cubic lattice representing space, the positive peak denotes a maximum twist where a horizontal lattice line has rotated to this disposition: \ . Tracing the waveform with your finger, the midway zero point indicates a rotation back to horizontal: _ , whilst the negative peak denotes a reverse rotation like this: /.

The magnetic field amplitude indicates the rate of the rotation, or “rate of turn”. There is however only one true field involved, which is the electromagnetic field. I have a separate essay/chapter on this, which describes it as a geometrical spatial disposition, essentially a “twist/turn” field.

The sinusoidal electromagnetic waveform is giving us the upper slope of pulse of stress-energy, essentially a pressure pulse. There’s an electromagnetic field variation, but no charge is present. Instead there is a form of current, namely an alternating “displacement” current. The result is rather like a gravitational wave in that there’s a change in distance as it passes through. The displacement rises to 3.86 x 10[SUP]-13[/SUP]m then falls back to zero. This is a distance or extension, and relates to Planck’s constant h in E=hf because action has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. And since this is a pressure pulse in a volume rather than at a surface, we have to consider the pressure to be isotropic, and the slope to be symmetrical in the photon polarization plane. It thus takes the lemon-like outline of a wavepacket. See arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596 figure 2.

This pressure imparts a pressure gradient into the surrounding space. When a significant amount of energy is tied up as the matter of a planet, this pressure gradient measurably alters vacuum impedance or the “strength” of space via a form of compression. Hence permittivity (twistability) and permeability (reciprocal of turnability) are altered, hence c varies. The end product is inhomogeneous space, or a gravitational field.

Not to distract, but for later thought; I think you have made a presumption in the “How Long is a Photon” that invalidates the otherwise logical conclusion. You seemed to have presumed that the energy associated with the wavelength of a photon is equatable to the energy of a sinusoidal EM wave such as to derive the length of the photon from a calculated length of a stand of EM wave of equal wavelength. But back to the subject;

As I feared, I think that I need to reword my question. You are talking about space twisting and turning. Two questions;

  1. exactly what is it that is getting twisted; of what is the space made such that it could be twisted?
  2. exactly what is twisting it; why/how is the twisting accomplished? (the words “energy” or “charge” are insufficient).

Again, remember that each point in the universe can only affect the next adjacent points to it. So my question is, “of what are those points made such that they have the properties you describe and yet maintain that each point only affects the next point over?”

Perhaps if you began with the thought of absolutely nothing at all then added in whatever components were necessary to establish a “twistable space substance” and whatever would be doing the twisting. What essential components would you have added?

This restriction of only being able to post 1 or 2 posts per day is not very tolerable. I wouldn’t think that a forum such as this would have a need to slow traffic down so much. So please contact me email, which I’m certain will be much faster: jamessaint42@yahoo.com and I would also like to discuss your next book.

Thx.
JSS

Noted. There’s a " pulse" issue here wherein one photon is considered to be one wavelength.

Some of what I say next might sound trite, but bear with me:

Space.

Space.

Space.

Consider an analogy where a region of space is a cube of transparent elastic jelly marked through with lattice lines. Insert a hypodermic needle, and inject more jelly into the centre. The centre now exhibits a pressure bulge, where the lattice lines are distorted and are no longer straight. This pressure and distortion diminishes with distance from the centre. The bulge represents a photon, the closest thing to “raw energy” we can envisage. But all you’ve added is jelly, and this jelly is space. This suggests that space and energy are, at the fundamental level, the same thing.

And that next adjacent point affects the next adjacent point, which affects the next adjacent point, and so on.

Space. I can’t describe it in terms of anything else, it’s the most fundamental thing there is. It seems to behave like an elastic “substance”, but it isn’t a tangible substance in the usual sense of the word. Light isn’t tangible either. You can’t “touch” long-wave radio waves. But electromagnetic radiation is a wave in space, IMHO a wave of space in space. And you can make electrons out of photons, and electrons are matter, and you can touch matter. So space isn’t made of anything tangible, but tangible things are made of it.

Distance. Imagine that you are in the vacuum of space. Press your hands together. What’s between them? Nothing. Now separate your hands. What’s between them? A gap. Space. This space has its vacuum energy, and this has a mass equivalence. It isn’t nothing.

I haven’t noticed this myself, but noted.

Thx Farsight,

I think the use of the word “space” when describing of what objects and space are made might run into semantics problems. :wink:

For deeply logical metaphysics reasons, I use the word “affectance” for that “jelly space stuff” from which all other stuff is made.

But now for the challenge;

Why does it move at all (become more dense)?
Why doesn’t the “jelly space stuff”, affectance, just sit still, quiescent?
Why did it ever begin to move?
Why doesn’t it eventually entropy into stillness? - true nothingness.

Even if an affectance knot were maintained without collapsing, why would the space around it be statically altered and not evenly redistribute the density? You seem to be saying that distant bits of jelly must remain at distances and thus any contraction occurring between them causes static density variations. Why wouldn’t the distant bits of jelly/affectance merely move closer toward the knot and relieve all pressures and hence remove all gravity?

If you form a pocket of compressed air or evacuated air space, the air around that space does not form a gradient field aimed toward your pocket, so why would space jelly/affectance do that? The implication is that bits of space jelly are being held in place and thus get stretched. What would be holding them in place?

Noted, James.

I don’t know.

Because the knot maintains itself, just as a knot in a rubber sheet stays tied up.

For the same reason that a wave in water remains a wave. It’s a travelling pressure pulse that appears as a hump, and the hump travels but the water does not. This hump does not collapse because of the nature of water. A wave in space does not collapse because of the nature of space.

Because space isn’t made of particles. Instead, particles are made of it.

More of the same. But it’s all one whole, it isn’t made of bits.

I think I confused you. I am not challenging the persistence of the knot. Note that the “rubber sheet” analogy requires that the edges of the sheet be fastened in place, else there would be no stretching even with a firm knot. The entire sheet would merely wrinkle. A gravity field persists through indefinite time. The “rubber sheet” stays stretched. For the jelly/rubber-space concept to hold true, there must be an reason as to why the “edges of the sheet” are held in place.

Or another way to ask is, “Vibrations in water and air reflect what happens within liquids. Why isn’t the jelly-space liquid rather than jelled?”

It is important to know because we are talking about a “knot” forming which directly implies that the jelly stuff not only moved, but actually got wrapped around itself where jelly point B got into the position of jelly point D while D is still attached to E and B is still attached to A. How could you conceivably tie jelly into a knot resulting in altered densities?

It seems that it would have to be the waves themselves that form the “knot”. But if that is the case (and I’m certain that it is) then why would the surrounding space be affected at all other than the vibrations of the waves within the knot? In effect, you are proposing a scenario of a compression wave of jelly being twisted in such a way that it not only persists in a consistent shape and location that compresses the jelly, but causes the surrounding jelly to be less dense (decompressed) throughout time.

But then why not a knot that decompresses rather than compresses? Wouldn’t such an occurrence cause anti-gravity; a compression of the surrounding jelly-space that pushes other such “objects” away? Wouldn’t the anti-gravity objects adhere and perhaps annihilate the gravity objects? Has there ever been any witness to any actual anti-gravity particle for even the shortest time?

Of course, the bigger question would very soon become, “How did this jelly-space ever come to be?”

The rubber-sheet analogy is back-to-front. Space has stress-energy, and stress and pressure are similar, both being measured in Pascals. It’s a pressure rather than tension, hence a better analogy is a block of pressurised jelly. The edges, if you can call them that, are moving outwards. Since gravity is an additional pressure gradient extending from the centre towards the edge, as the edges recede the slope of the gradient gets shallower, which suggests that the strength of gravity reduces over time as per the Dirac Large Numbers Hypothesis.

Because light is a transverse wave, and waves travelling through the bulk of a liquid are longitudinal waves. See physicsclassroom.com/class/waves/u10l1c.cfm for something on this.

The jelly itself doesn’t get tied into a knot, instead a stress moving through it does. You tie a “ripple” in a knot, not the jelly.

The knots only keep the waves going round and round, and aren’t relevant to gravity. This is why I talked about the photon rather than the electron: energy causes gravity, not matter. And it’s the opposite of a compression wave, it pushes outwards rather than inwards. The surrounding space is affected by the “knot”, but that takes us into electromagnetism rather than gravity.

See above re waves and knots. You never see a wave on the sea that’s a just a trough, and we don’t see negative-energy waves propagating through space. There is nothing real that is negative energy. People talk about holes in this context, but that’s when there’s nothing there, rather than something there. You’d need a “hole in space” for this, and as far as I know, there aren’t any. Hence no anti-gravity. But artificial gravity is feasible. If you can create a strong artificial gravity field above your head, up you go. That’s effectively anti-gravity.

Sorry James, I just don’t know.

The sign of a good man.

You never see a mere positive wave of water either (one of those illusions). And that was my point. Sorry for getting the compression and decompression backwards. But anything that can be compressed, can be decompressed.

I also thought for a while in terms of Einstein’s rubber sheet, but found it to be a tempting but misleading notion. My theory was that it is electric charge that is the compression and decompression (negative = decompression), gravity is due to something entirely different, and the “jelly-stuff” is actually more of a truly homogeneous compressed gas (although no real particles within - I call it “affectance” for metaphysical reasons), thus no inexplicable semi-fixed strands getting stretched, no “rubber sheets”.

Gravity can never have a negative because a reversed 45 degree impedance spiral is still a 45 degree impedance spiral. There is no negative to the existence of a 45 degree impedance spiral. You either have one or you don’t. But that is within a different explanation.

True, there’s always a trough to go with the peak. But the wave conveys positive energy. I don’t know of any waves that convey negative energy.

It is rather unique “stuff”, and we can only clutch at analogies to try to describe it in an intuitively understandable way. I’m confident however that charge isn’t “compression” and “decompression”. Take a pair of charged particles, one positive, one negative, and they still cause gravity.

I agree with your sentiment, though perhaps for a different reason. What’s a 45 degree impedance spiral?

Particles always cause gravity and as you point out, it really is due to the energy spinning within. Inertia, gravity, and magnetism are all aberrant effects of that inner motion. But now how do you propose to support the notion that a static charge field (no particle participation) will cause a gravity field?

Well, this is where pictures would really help.

A photon, for example, has a spin in one plane only, thus allowing free flight along its axle (no forward inertia). But now imagine that you are standing as an extremely small being exactly beside that spinning beast. You would have to sense the effect of a positive wave or peak of EM passing near and then very quickly reversing as the spin led the negative wave near. If you had any charge to you at all, you would no doubt be shaken to bits at the speed of light vibrating and rattling your brains in a gamma frequency.

But now, if you step back just a bit, the sense of the effect lessens of course. Necessarily what you feel in your new position will be slightly delayed from the true position of the waves within the spinning photon. There will be a phase shift. The further out you go, the more shift there will be.

The prior traveling wave (and thus energy) concerns led to the belief that the effect of what you would feel from that spinning could not exist at all else energy would be leaving the photon. But that is where the error was. The wave you would feel does not represent an energy propagation (for more technical reasons). The vibrations that you would feel radiating from the photon (or any particle) will be reversing at the rate of the spin which is at the speed of light in a very tight loop causing a gamma range frequency (detected back in the 60’s). But also they are emerging from the particle at the same speed of light (necessarily exactly identical). What that means is the phase shifting that you sense will be exactly 45 degrees with respect to the distance away from the particle you move.

Visually, if you plot the wave fronts, what you would see is a 45 degree spiral wave pattern centered on the particle.

Now, forgiving the confusion that I haven’t explained yet concerning the energy question, think about the facts that every particle (and every formed mass) is made of that same spinning EMW and every particle is causing that same spiral wave front around it. What happens to the particles as they experience the wave fronts of each other?

Close examination will show that there is an impedance effect that slows the EMW peak within that is closer to the other particle. But there will be less effect on the opposite side (very much like your own explanation). That causes roll and positional shift much like a bicycle tire just beginning to touch the ground as it spins.

The interesting thing is that the wave fronts are at exactly 45 degrees because due to that, the roll and positional shift will be exactly straight toward the other particle - exactly.

It doesn’t matter in which direction the spin might be occurring at any one moment. The spins will shift and compensate due to impedances and always align themselves such as to cause the same positional influenced shift. It doesn’t matter how many different directions the waves are coming from, the particles spin immediately compensates (nothing to prevent it) such as to head the particle toward the averaged field direction, the “center of mass”.

This compensating spin must necessarily take place simply because there is nothing to prevent the EM spin from adjusting to the variance in impedance. Gravity MUST take place, because you cannot stop their spin nor control the direction of their spin while they are under the influence of each other. And trying to reverse the effect is logically impossible. The best you could accomplish would be to magically remove the effect, but there is no reversing of it.

As to the energy question. That is a longer and deeper story and is why metaphysics must be understood before physicists go off wild in their imaginings of “strangeness, bottemness, topness, charm, flavor, colour, strong, weak”, and whatever forces and properties.

Scouts honour James, energy causes gravity, not particles. As an illustration, in The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity on page 185 of Doc 30, Einstein says “the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy”. You don’t need particles to cause gravity. There doesn’t even have to be any motion, all you need is a non-uniform energy distribution.

I don’t quite see the spin like this, but nevermind, I understand what you mean and concur with the sentiment.

Agreed.

Understood. I’ve described the photon as a distortion in a cubic lattice. When you step back the distortion reduces. Step back again, and the distortion reduces further. But distortion is what the photon is. Or if it’s passing you: vibration. Yes, I understand what you mean, and agree with the sense of it.

Their motion is altered.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with this James. I rather feel that this isn’t gravity you’re describing here, it’s electromagnetism.

Agreed. Though I’d say that standard model is relatively benign compared to some other imaginings. With an understanding of the underlying reality, such as “quarks are loops”, IMHO it can be improved and even completed. Whether this would mean it’s no longer the standard model, I can’t say.