Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Another "gravity mystery could soon be solved" with help from new theoretical model

#1
C C Offline
https://thedebrief.org/gravity-mystery-c...cal-model/

INTRO: Gravity is a common feature of life on Earth that all living creatures experience on a daily basis. Yet it is subtle enough that, for the most part, it goes unnoticed.

That is, until we drop an egg, spill our coffee, or an expensive vase falls off a shelf in our homes, reminding us that even the weakest of the four fundamental interactions known to physics, while hidden in plain sight, still exerts a significant influence on everything around us.

Some 1029 times weaker than the appropriately named weak force, which governs the radioactive decay of atoms, gravity is so subtle that it has virtually no effect at the subatomic level. Yet at the scale where interactions between objects are observable to us, gravity is the force that literally commands the motions of planets, as well as that of stars and galaxies. Even light, which universal laws govern to be the fastest thing in existence, cannot escape the influence of gravity.

Despite its ubiquity, gravity also remains one of the great mysteries of modern physics. While there remains no complete or perfect theory as to how gravity works, the best description of it remains the one Einstein gave us in 1915 with the publication of his general theory of relativity. To Einstein, gravity can be thought of not so much as a force acting on objects, but instead as a way to observe the curvature of spacetime itself that results from variances in the distribution of mass throughout the universe.

For example, a large solar body will curve spacetime around it such that a smaller planet will be drawn into orbit around it. In a similar fashion, even smaller objects will also be attracted to the gravitational influence of that planet, and may thereby enter an orbit around it, becoming a moon.

Today, physicists continue to work toward expanding on Einstein’s fundamental ideas to resolve the question of gravity in a way that also works harmoniously with our knowledge of quantum mechanics. A quantum gravity theory, in essence, would be significant to scientists because it would not only unite our macroscopic and subatomic perspectives of reality, but would also potentially allow gravity to be incorporated mathematically along with the other three fundamental interactions into a long-sought “theory of everything” the likes of which physicists currently aspire to formulate.

Several theories have been advanced over the years, aimed at helping physicists get a better handle on what gravity and its relationship to other phenomena in our universe may represent. However, one problem that has arisen from past attempts at resolving the lingering questions about gravity is that they often fail to account for all of the theoretical components required for a true theory of quantum gravity.

Matthew Edwards, who has worked for years at the University of Toronto Library, is also a longtime independent researcher of theoretical topics that include gravitation physics. This interest led him to edit the volume Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage’s Theory of Gravitation, which drew from the work of the 18th-century Genevan physicist Georges-Louis Le Sage, who posited that there were mechanical forces at work behind the mystery of gravity.

According to Edwards, modern attempts at creating an all-encompassing quantum theory of gravity “are plagued by the weak theoretical foundations of quantum physics,” which he believes has led to hypotheses that “gain more respectability than perhaps deserved.”

“The huge gap between gravity and quantum physics cannot have left other fields unaffected,” Edwards recently wrote, proposing the novel idea that “the solution to these issues comes from general relativity—or, more precisely, an optical analog of it.”


In a new paper entitled “Optical gravity in a graviton spacetime” (Optik, Volume 260, June 2022), Edwards puts forward a novel theory of gravity based on past observations which have hinted at there being an optical medium of spacetime that not only serves as an analog for the observable effects of gravity, but which could also provide a physical means that might potentially help account for it. Such observations include the way light is deflected as it passes by mass, which as Edwards notes is “mathematically equivalent to the refraction of light in an optical medium with a density gradient.” This is not mere happenstance to Edwards, who further argues that the explicit correlation between these two observations has proven useful in recent explorations of things like gravitational lensing, the effect where light is bent as a result of the distribution of matter between an observer and a far distant light source.

The Debrief recently caught up with Edwards, who in addition to discussing the origins of his unique perspectives on an optical analog for gravity, also provided several insights about the role gravity waves and hypothetical particles like gravitons play in his theory, and what this could all mean in terms of resolving one of the greatest questions in modern physics... (MORE - details, the interview)
Reply
#2
Kornee Offline
Managed to track down a non-paywall version of his inevitably doomed from the start theory paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02776
Wrong in too many ways to bother explaining.
Edward's hybrid push/refraction novel idea is to model his 'gravitons' as filaments joining all elementary particles. Lot's of hand-wavy. Too man hurdles it won't jump over.

Feynman pointed out many years ago why traditional inherently dissipative Le Sage push-gravity couldn't work.
An alternate form of push gravity that evidently overcame Feynman's objection was put out many years ago by Nigel Cook, who at least had a decent grasp of QM:
https://nige.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/test/
However when I pressed him as to whether his theory could account for LIGO observations of GWs, he had no answer.

Not that reigning champ GR is free of problems. I'm still waiting for someone over at another forum to offer any counterarguments to my own multi-point critique. Yawn.
Reply
#3
MattEdwards Offline
(Jun 27, 2022 05:19 AM)Kornee Wrote: Managed to track down a non-paywall version of his inevitably doomed from the start theory paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02776
Wrong in too many ways to bother explaining.
Edward's hybrid push/refraction novel idea is to model his 'gravitons' as filaments joining all elementary particles. Lot's of hand-wavy. Too man hurdles it won't jump over.

Feynman pointed out many years ago why traditional inherently dissipative Le Sage push-gravity couldn't work.
An alternate form of push gravity that evidently overcame Feynman's objection was put out many years ago by Nigel Cook, who at least had a decent grasp of QM:
https://nige.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/test/
However when I pressed him as to whether his theory could account for LIGO observations of GWs, he had no answer.

Not that reigning champ GR is free of problems. I'm still waiting for someone over at another forum to offer any counterarguments to my own multi-point critique. Yawn.

Perhaps it would be more useful to readers if you detailed some of your criticisms of the model, not simply use words like "hand-wavy", "doomed from the start", etc.  You can't simply apply Feynmann's outdated critique of Le Sage models here.  My model is a bit like Le Sage's, in that a shielding effect does cause gravity, but the shiielidng is not at the level of nucleons.  Instead, it is the graviton arrays linked to a mass which shield out other gravitons passing by the mass at great distances.

I had some pleasant communication with Nigel Cook years ago.  I'm glad he published some of his stuff and will check out these links.  As I recall, he was a big subscriber to Big Bang cosmology, and in that way falls way short.  But he does have some of the right ideas.
Reply
#4
Kornee Offline
(Jun 27, 2022 04:19 PM)MattEdwards Wrote:
(Jun 27, 2022 05:19 AM)Kornee Wrote: Managed to track down a non-paywall version of his inevitably doomed from the start theory paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.02776
Wrong in too many ways to bother explaining.
Edward's hybrid push/refraction novel idea is to model his 'gravitons' as filaments joining all elementary particles. Lot's of hand-wavy. Too man hurdles it won't jump over.

Feynman pointed out many years ago why traditional inherently dissipative Le Sage push-gravity couldn't work.
An alternate form of push gravity that evidently overcame Feynman's objection was put out many years ago by Nigel Cook, who at least had a decent grasp of QM:
https://nige.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/test/
However when I pressed him as to whether his theory could account for LIGO observations of GWs, he had no answer.

Not that reigning champ GR is free of problems. I'm still waiting for someone over at another forum to offer any counterarguments to my own multi-point critique. Yawn.

Perhaps it would be more useful to readers if you detailed some of your criticisms of the model, not simply use words like "hand-wavy", "doomed from the start", etc.  You can't simply apply Feynmann's outdated critique of Le Sage models here.  My model is a bit like Le Sage's, in that a shielding effect does cause gravity, but the shiielidng is not at the level of nucleons.  Instead, it is the graviton arrays linked to a mass which shield out other gravitons passing by the mass at great distances.

I had some pleasant communication with Nigel Cook years ago.  I'm glad he published some of his stuff and will check out these links.  As I recall, he was a big subscriber to Big Bang cosmology, and in that way falls way short.  But he does have some of the right ideas.
Wow. Hello Matthew. Out of curiosity - how did you manage to find this thread? Someone tap you on the shoulder? Or you just regularly scour for any web references to your theory?

But regardless, you ask a fair question. Let's start with one of my own. Maybe I missed something basic, if so - please explain where your push/refraction theory accounts for time-dilation. Notice I said time dilation not 'tired light' redshift. Which notion utterly fails to explain why a clock would run slow wrt a distant observer, when centered within a thin shell of matter.
GR as a 4D metric theory naturally incorporates time dilation ab initio.
Reply
#5
MattEdwards Offline
(Jun 28, 2022 05:14 AM)Kornee Wrote: Wow. Hello Matthew. Out of curiosity - how did you manage to find this thread? Someone tap you on the shoulder? Or you just regularly scour for any web references to your theory?

But regardless, you ask a fair question. Let's start with one of my own. Maybe I missed something basic, if so - please explain where your push/refraction theory accounts for time-dilation. Notice I said time dilation not 'tired light' redshift. Which notion utterly fails to explain why a clock would run slow wrt a distant observer, when centered within a thin shell of matter.
GR as a 4D metric theory naturally incorporates time dilation ab initio.

Yes, you missed something pretty basic, because I addressed time dilation right in my article!  It's not too surprising though - I didn't have the idea that you had studied my paper carefully.  This is my basic issiue with you.  You feel so qualified to publicly dismiss other people's work without taking the time to actually read it.  You obviously never read my whole section on cosmology.

I don't wish to discuss my work further here.  I don't participate in forums like this anymore.  If you are others here are interested, I wrote a little online essay about my theory.  It covers geology and some other topics more than this news story did.

https://sciencex.com/news/2022-06-optica...ology.html
Reply
#6
Kornee Offline
(Jun 29, 2022 03:01 PM)MattEdwards Wrote: ...Yes, you missed something pretty basic, because I addressed time dilation right in my article!  It's not too surprising though - I didn't have the idea that you had studied my paper carefully.  This is my basic issiue with you.  You feel so qualified to publicly dismiss other people's work without taking the time to actually read it.  You obviously never read my whole section on cosmology.

I don't wish to discuss my work further here.  I don't participate in forums like this anymore.  If you are others here are interested, I wrote a little online essay about my theory.  It covers geology and some other topics more than this news story did.

https://sciencex.com/news/2022-06-optica...ology.html
Where in that heuristic presentation do you explain gravitational time dilation? Refraction is talked about, but refraction as per your analogs has nothing to do with gravitational time dilation. A denser dielectric optical medium does not change the frequency of a photon entering or leaving such. You know that, right? One can model space as a gravitationally modified refracting medium sure, and it's been done by various authors. M G Bowler iirc comes to mind. But it's working from an established metric theory. Where time dilation is already a given in such a treatment.
You are claiming a theory of some sort which is radically different. You can't just cherry pick bits and pieces from GR and stitch them in to a fundamentally different paradigm.

So again, where in any of your articles, do you establish gravitational time dilation from theoretical first principles? Your theory's first principles?
.
Reply
#7
confused2 Offline
I kind'a skimmed through a lot of MattEdward stuff and couldn't see any time dilation. I even almost had a diagram ready (a cliff) but Kornee got there before me.
Reply
#8
MattEdwards Offline
(Jun 30, 2022 01:39 AM)confused2 Wrote: I kind'a  skimmed through a lot of MattEdward stuff and couldn't see any time dilation. I even almost had a diagram ready (a cliff) but Kornee got there before me.

Hi confused2 and Kornee,

First, my apologies to Kornee.  He had mentioned gravitational time dilation.  As I had talked about the time dilation seen in supernovae in my article, I misread your query as being about that kind of time dilation.  So I had concluded that you hadn't read my whole paper thoroughly.

That said, I find it a bit odd that you would ask me specifically about gravitational time dilation.  That time dilation arises straight from Einstein's principle of equivalence, and he actually predicted it well before he formulated GR.  I imagine there are few if any new theories of gravity that are questioning the principle of equivalence.  I believe that would be universally assumed.  So in that case, it is not a difficult feat to attain gravitational time dilation, by merely following the 1907 thought experiment by Einstein.

What would be desirable, though, is to have gravitational time dilation appear in a theory with a physical basis even more fundamental.  After all, why should the principle of equivalence necessarily hold?  I have a glimmer on how this could be attained in my model, but it would be complicated to explain and would garner me few points with you I suspect.  There has been at least one other paper which tried to tackle this using the optical approach.  It should be recognized that researchers working in the optical-mechanical analogy of GR come at it with a variety of approaches.  There is not any kind of unified view on it yet.  The perihelion advance of Mercury also needs explaining.  My model at least can readily account for gravitational waves, without adding anything more to it.

The thing to realize is that GR cannot successfully account for gravity or the Hubble redshift as it stands.  My model, however, can accomplish both.
Reply
#9
confused2 Offline
Hi Matt,
Thanks for getting back to us - we on this forum are few and (mostly) humble. Most (all?) physics is a mathematical model which (I find) gains a sort of 'reality' through familiarity. To challenge the equivalence principle would involve a major(time consuming) deprogramming effort. If/when you have a suitable glimmering I'd be pleased to see it if you would be kind enough to post a link - in truth our newshounds are second to none and may well find it anyway. Of course I can't speak for Kornee.
Best wishes, C2.
Reply
#10
MattEdwards Offline
Thanks, C^2, I'll let you know at that time. It seems that this board is a little bit quiet. Humble works!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Research Controversial new theory of gravity rules out need for dark matter C C 0 27 Mar 11, 2024 07:31 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article 'Unbelievable': Astronomer claims 'direct evidence' of gravity breaking down C C 1 96 Aug 12, 2023 04:07 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Gravity "hum" pervades cosmos + Mars life killed? + Expanding universe: a mirage? C C 0 94 Jun 28, 2023 05:39 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Einstein’s theory of gravity supported by map + Agreement helps study of metal worlds C C 0 74 Apr 13, 2023 02:19 PM
Last Post: C C
  The galaxy cluster that broke modified gravity + Do we live in a rotating universe? C C 1 81 Feb 8, 2023 11:15 AM
Last Post: Kornee
  Standard model of cosmology survives a telescope’s surprising finds C C 0 74 Jan 22, 2023 10:36 PM
Last Post: C C
  A new study confirms that gravity has remained constant for entire age of universe C C 0 87 Aug 29, 2022 08:35 PM
Last Post: C C
  MOND gravity strongly favored over DM in new review Kornee 2 126 Jul 16, 2022 02:20 AM
Last Post: Tony2022
  Universe could stop expanding 'remarkably soon' + Galactic center signals explained? C C 0 74 May 3, 2022 03:46 PM
Last Post: C C
  New type of dark energy could solve Universe expansion mystery C C 0 79 Sep 18, 2021 08:56 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)