The Fundamentality of Gravity by Richard J Benish

Hello Richard J. Benish! You have done a deep analysis to show The Fundamentality of Gravity. Я тоже много думал о тяжести на основе the principle of the identity of space and matter of Descartes and came to the conclusion that there are only two forces: the pressure of the universe and the centrifugal force of the rotation of space. I know that you will not agree with this. Look at my essay, FQXi Fundamental in New Cartesian Physics by Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich Where I showed how radically the physics can change if it follows this principle. Evaluate it according to your fundamental concept and leave your comment there. Then I'll give you a rating. Do not allow New Cartesian Physics go away into nothingness.

Sincerely, Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich.

What's Not Fundamental About Modern Physics and Cosmology? I would say a lot of: inflaton fields, Big Bangs, black holes, dark matter, dark energy,... are not fundamental; and ideas as multiverse are pure nonsense.

I have always enjoyed the insistence of some physicsts to pretend that gravity is curved spacetime, when we can formulate gravity without a curved spacetime.

The model of gravitons has the same problems than the model of photons, but adds some new problems exclusive to the gravitational interaction. You are correct on that the model of gravitons "make no physical sense".

About your proposed experiment, I will accept what Nature has to say, of course, but I expect the measured motion will be neither the "Newton & Einstein" nor "Benish", but a combination of both.

Dear Richard J Benish,

FQXi.org is clearly seeking to confirm whether Nature is fundamental.

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Hi Richard,

I completely agree that any feasible test of gravitation should be carried out. Experimental techniques have evolved remarkably, but testing the idea of Galileo's cannonball must still present a challenge to experimentalists. It is certainly unexplored territory as you point out, and so all the more tantalizing.

We are in accord on a lot - we both have space in motion, and we both consider a model of constant acceleration. I have a way to overcome Bergmann's criticism of GR, but it leads to a different escape velocity, or speed of space associated with gravity. As my essay points out, the Newtonian/GR speed could be faulty because it has not been derived relativistically to account for gravitational redshift. I would welcome any comment on this point.

I thoroughly enjoyed your essay for its innovation, and not just because it resonated strongly with my own beliefs.

Cheers,

Colin

Dear Richard J Benish,

I'm glad your essay finally landed. As you note, we both have high regard for Tom Phipps' contributions to physics, despite certain disagreements with his approach. You further point out something I believe often goes unnoticed:

"...understanding a theory about gravity (i.e. GR) is often confused for understanding the physical phenomenon of gravity itself."

As you say with reference to "matter tells space time how to curve, and space-time tells matter how to move", no academic physicist bothers point out that we have no idea how these orders are carried out. You extend this line of criteria to "quantum gravity", and to how "gravitons" work, in that they make no physical sense. Just part of quantum field theorists attempt to force the universe into a bookkeeping scheme.

The experiment you point out has never been done, yet, like other 'gedanken' experiments, it is typically accepted as reality. It's not quite clear to me why achievable experiments that question the status quo are not performed.

My own perspective is that "curved space-time" outside matter is equivalent to energy density distributions in flat space. As you probably know, Weinberg, Feynman, and others have shown that iterated flat space approaches lead to Einstein's field equations in "curved space" so my inclination is to reject "curved space-time" (incapable of dealing with "density" or with "self-interaction energy") and this bias extends to rejecting higher dimensional theories of physics. You identify the motion as not through space, but of space, and view this as curvature in (4+1)D. My perspective on the gravito-magnetic ('C') field is analogous to electromagnetic circulation, i.e., circulation of the field with characteristic angular momentum. Circa 2006 Martin Tajmar used accelerometers to measure gravito-magnetic field circulation. I reject higher dimensions of space, from 4 to 11, however it might be possible to interpret circulation in space as a fourth dimension.

In your appendix, you ask why disturbances in the gravitational field should travel at the speed of light. Because of a factor of four in Einstein's field equations, some suggested it should be c/2. But the months-old detection of gravity and light from colliding neutron stars seem to settle the question - gravity and light at c. You mention this, and then you question it. As you point out, the predicted number of neutron star collisions could answer this question in a year or so.

My best wishes and good luck in the contest. I would appreciate your comments on my essay.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Colin:

Many thanks for your kind comment.

In response, I'll refer to your essay that I have now read and intend to briefly comment on in your section of this forum.

Happy as it surely is that we agree about some things, our disagreements are not insignificant. Your essay appeals to "three relativities." Galilean relativity facilitated some primitive (local, low-speed) characteristics of uniform motion. The ultimate falsity of the notion of relativity nevertheless began to emerge with Maxwell and became poignantly obvious with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation.

To illustrate, it would be patently absurd for an observer moving near the speed of light---to whom the Universe would be hotly, bluely bunched up in the direction of motion and coldly, redly spread out in the opposite direction---to claim he or she is at rest and the observed effects are due to the motion of the whole rest of the Universe in the redward direction. It is the same kind of absurdity reflected by Einstein's bizarre assertion that uniformly rotating observers are justified to think of themselves as being "at rest" (as the whole rest of the Universe revolves around them).

Contrary to the spirit of relativity, the question becomes: what is really moving and how so? As implied by my essay, I recognize the deceptiveness of our eyes and minds and defer to the readings of motion-sensing devices: accelerometers and clocks. Minds come into play, I must say, when it becomes necessary to decompose the motion into components of motion through space, as distinct from motion OF space.

If I understand it properly, your essay attempts to sort this all out by appealing to the notion of gravitational potential. I hasten to point out two things: 1) Potential is not a measurable physical quantity; it is an abstract accounting device. And 2) Useful as the concept may be outside matter, it has never been tested inside matter. Your interpretation of "moving space" evidently appeals to the river flow black hole model. If clock rates are affected by "relative" motion with respect to the "river," what happens at the center, where the flow must surely be canceled by symmetry?

This reasoning clearly implies that the rate of a central clock should be a maximum---not a minimum. On this basis, I think, the concept of gravitational potential goes to hell and the logic of my prediction for the result of Galileo's experiment becomes almost obvious. (See Gravitational Clock.)

Turning to cosmology, we both doubt the big bang, but our respective alternatives differ, for example, in their treatments of the cosmic redshift. You write of "exponential decay" of light from distant sources. Whereas the cosmology emerging from my gravity model regards the apparent decay of the energy of distant light as the actual increase in energy of matter along its path. Light is not timelike, but matter is. Light retains the energy it had upon emission, whereas all matter ticks in tune with the global increase of energy, which is gravity.

Curiously, as you also appear to do, I appeal to a fundamental feature of quantum theory to derive my model's redshift law. The deBroglie relation relates frequency to mass.

[math]f=\frac{mc^2}{h}

[/math]

My model assumes that cosmic density remains constant. Massive bodies regenerate themselves as they generate a proportional amount of space (gravity). The global increase of mass with time is therefore in the same proportion as the increase of volume, i.e., to the third power of the increase in length.

The idea actually bears some resemblance to the celebrated deSitter cosmology, whose "deSitter effect" has sometimes been described as a decrease in clock rate with distance. For example, Lubin and Sandage write:

"The formal feature of a redshift in the deSitter metric was called the deSitter effect... Clocks that are farther from the observer's origin in the three-space manifold would appear to tick more slowly than clocks at that origin. This effect would give an apparent redshift that would vary with distance." --- Tolman Surface Brightness .

In a strict deSitter Universe, the mass-density is zero. In my model, the density is a constant: both matter and space increase at the same rate. In other words, since mass increases as a cubed power of r and frequency is (by the deBroglie relation) directly proportional to mass, as mass increases so do clock rates:

[math]z = e^{3r/R} - 1.

[/math]

Conceptual agreement with the deSitter effect thus arises in a grossly non-empty Universe. These ideas are discussed in more detail in Light and Clocks and SGM & Cosmic Numbers . Another point of common ground is the exponential character of the global increases predicted by my model.

Finally, though it is true that a laboratory or satellite version of Galileo's Small Low-Energy Non-Collider experiment presents some non-trivial technical challenges, they are tiny compared to many experiments that have already been done, are ongoing, or have been proposed in the literature. I think it is a crime against science to keep Galileo waiting any longer.

Cheers,

Richard Benish

Richard J. Benish

I think your essay is very interesting and important (one of the best I know so far) and therefore rate after reading it with great intention, Since it profoundly attacks most of current problems in physics. It really gives me a good answer about the questions related to prioritizing problems I faced.

To address all problems and to put new forward going Idea are two very important actions, but I sometimes wonder which one is most important to focus on first?.

Here is my essay in current contest; https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3143

Please feel free and comment, discuss, approve, disapprove or ... Truth is only important thing for all and ever

According to your essay, some points I really understand are;

"How far into the foundations, when it comes, must the revolution penetrate?" [1]-- Thomas E. Phipps, Jr.

"One of the current essay contestants, Edwin Kling-man, echoes some of Phipps' ideas by suggesting that the course of physics would benefit by rethinking the foundations back to Hertz and Maxwell. [2]".

I absolutely agree with it and woold like to comment, that at least some department of physics namely Theoretical Physics should go back 19th century by recombining to Natural Philosophy, in order to setup it's foundation and recover fundamental problems, or minimum point to 1932 and cancel Coulomb's charge statement and all fundamental interpretation Quantum Mechanics namely Nuclear force and hypothetical boson particles with its massles terms and profoundly rearrange everything.

On the other hand the impact of above mentioned statements gives that the question of Fundamental Physicality would be incomprehensible without setting up its basics by addressing all problems in Physics (comprehensive environment).

additionally Paul Dirac very few Physicists that have been worrying about this case since 1928.

"2 . What's Not Fundamental About Modern Physics and Cosmology?".

I think the Interpretation of Modern Physics (Quantum Mechanics) is Fundamental.

Regarding to history of scientific development It has been something normal that scientists at time conclude their work and generalize to equation, based what they so far but second generations must be aware it's validity and if there is new discovery immediately must be profoundly interpreted while taking into account it Philsophical aspect, other wise misinterpretation may lead chain of misconceptions. A best example is tremendous situation of the separation (due to matter of misinterpretation) between Classical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics.

Linking them to the Fundamental nature of Gravity, there is 232 years old PUZZLE namely Coulomb's Law which have no valid reason last 85 years (1932 last nucleon discovery), but I m not quite sure if today's Scientists are aware to it and it's consequences. I think the appropriate and inspiring question is;

Regarding to Coulomb's law a statement that says "same type of charge repell and different type of charge attracts". How Coulomb would conclude his law, if he know that nuclei has protons that same type of charge are attracting each other and with the neutrons? and they can be divided into fractions of charge?.

I agree many points of your conceptual explanation and would like to discuss it later. If you find more relevant essays/topics please share with me.

The fundamental concept physics is based on three basic units Mass, Space and Time ( matter plus two related basic effects) which isn't interchangeable but their effects (derived) as energy, force an so are interchangeable since it agrees with our everyday experience.

What is the difference between Fundamental and elementary?

What is the name of fundamental particle?.

The case of mass energy equivalence, I have quantized that mass of elementary particle (photon) but I have experienced that there is great misunderstanding due to confusion of terms over last hundred years, since photon is the first hypothetical boson

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/794

Mass of photon m=E/c^2 = 1.782x10^-36kg.

Wavelength = 1.2398ﾃ--10^-8

These results and perhaps more are also in Wikipedia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt

We are incoherently talking same thing in diffrent name. I would be thankful if one can comment.

Another amazing fact is that I have noticed that it agrees with Einstein's proposed photon as particle with energy of 1eV.

What means to answer the question of Nature's Fundamental in such kind of environment? In other word the real meaning of the term elementary energy/particle?.

Sincerely.

Bashir.

I wonder if your objection is not to classical gravitational potential, but rather to the Schwarzschild interior solution. Classical gravitational potential is maximum at the center, where time would not be dilated and clocks would tick at their maximum rate. The force is supposed to increase (in the downward direction) linearly from the center (where it is zero) to the surface, and then fall off as the inverse square of the radius. Integrating force gives the potential which is zero at the center, decreases as the negative of the square of the radius until it reaches a minimum at the surface, and then increases to zero at infinity.

There is some thought that the ether is a compressible fluid. Some years ago, I was working on a design for a device that would produce a constant tension using a vacuum, and was toying with syringes. As long as there is a vacuum in the syringe, the force on the plunger is determined by atmospheric air pressure and the force will be the same no matter how far the plunger is drawn out. Going the other way, the plunger can compress air to many times atmospheric. So I thought, if I release the plunger it will pop out of the syringe. After all, there should be a force from air pressure pushing it out all the way. Instead, the plunger went back to its starting point with no overshoot or oscillation. Bring on Galileo's experiment!

Colin

Hmm. Going over an old textbook, I can see your objection. My statement above is not consistent with the text. Gravitational potential energy is not supposed to be zero at the center according to the text. That really does seem wrong. It is a very interesting problem.

Colin

Dear Richard J Benish

You are exactly correct about Gravity....."After the physicality of existence, gravity's role in the Universe is the most fundamental thing. This role has various manifestations which, it is argued, have been largely misinterpreted by modern physics. ....."

I hope you will not mind that I am not following main stream physics...

By the way...Here in my essay energy to mass conversion is proposed................ yours is very nice essay best wishes .... I highly appreciate hope your essay ....You may please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Richard,

Newton did not suggest a mechanism of gravity and did it correctly, because in any case it would be a mistake. Einstein also did not offer a specific mechanics of the curvature of space-time, and this is probably also correct. Before doing this, we need to make sure that the curvature of space-time takes place, since other approaches to gravity are also possible, for example, as presented in the essay "Double foundation of gravity". In relation to special relativity, Phipps' doubts are fully justified. In my opinion, special relativity can be replaced by a single theory of gravity. When assessing the essay "The Fundamentality of Gravity", I stopped at 9 points. I believe that among all the sections of physics, gravity is the most fundamental.

Best wishes,

Robert

Hi Richard, I enjoyed reading your skeptical essay and finding out about your views on gravity. I do agree with some of your reservations.

About your experiment. I have been thinking that in order for you to test the gravity in the centre , you are proposing making a hole through the centre. That will remove gravitational mass, so the object being tested is not the same as one that is intact. Do you see this as a problem? Or is it irrelevant as your proposal is that the force comes from outward acceleration and not a consequence of the distribution of the mass?

I think the accelerometer that would read zero in free fall is being stopped by the ground and so experiencing an opposing force, interpreted as an acceleration. I don't think it is literal going up but more of a compression. Kind regards Georgina

Dear Richard

If you are looking for another essay to read and rate in the final days of the contest, will you consider mine please? I read all essays from those who comment on my page, and if I cant rate an essay highly, then I don't rate them at all. Infact I haven't issued a rating lower that ten. So you have nothing to lose by having me read your essay, and everything to gain.

Beyond my essay's introduction, I place a microscope on the subjects of universal complexity and natural forces. I do so within context that clock operation is driven by Quantum Mechanical forces (atomic and photonic), while clocks also serve measure of General Relativity's effects (spacetime, time dilation). In this respect clocks can be said to possess a split personality, giving them the distinction that they are simultaneously a study in QM, while GR is a study of clocks. The situation stands whereby we have two fundamental theories of the world, but just one world. And we have a singular device which serves study of both those fundamental theories. Two fundamental theories, but one device? Please join me and my essay in questioning this circumstance?

My essay goes on to identify natural forces in their universal roles, how they motivate the building of and maintaining complex universal structures and processes. When we look at how star fusion processes sit within a "narrow range of sensitivity" that stars are neither led to explode nor collapse under gravity. We think how lucky we are that the universe is just so. We can also count our lucky stars that the fusion process that marks the birth of a star, also leads to an eruption of photons from its surface. And again, how lucky we are! for if they didn't then gas accumulation wouldn't be halted and the star would again be led to collapse.

Could a natural organisation principle have been responsible for fine tuning universal systems? Faced with how lucky we appear to have been, shouldn't we consider this possibility?

For our luck surely didnt run out there, for these photons stream down on earth, liquifying oceans which drive geochemical processes that we "life" are reliant upon. The Earth is made up of elements that possess the chemical potentials that life is entirely dependent upon. Those chemical potentials are not expressed in the absence of water solvency. So again, how amazingly fortunate we are that these chemical potentials exist in the first instance, and additionally within an environment of abundant water solvency such as Earth, able to express these potentials.

My essay is attempt of something audacious. It questions the fundamental nature of the interaction between space and matter Guv = Tuv, and hypothesizes the equality between space curvature and atomic forces is due to common process. Space gives up a potential in exchange for atomic forces in a conversion process, which drives atomic activity. And furthermore, that Baryons only exist because this energy potential of space exists and is available for exploitation. Baryon characteristics and behaviours, complexity of structure and process might then be explained in terms of being evolved and optimised for this purpose and existence. Removing need for so many layers of extraordinary luck to eventuate our own existence. It attempts an interpretation of the above mentioned stellar processes within these terms, but also extends much further. It shines a light on molecular structure that binds matter together, as potentially being an evolved agency that enhances rigidity and therefor persistence of universal system. We then turn a questioning mind towards Earths unlikely geochemical processes, (for which we living things owe so much) and look at its central theme and propensity for molecular rock forming processes. The existence of chemical potentials and their diverse range of molecular bond formation activities? The abundance of water solvent on Earth, for which many geochemical rock forming processes could not be expressed without? The question of a watery Earth? is then implicated as being part of an evolved system that arose for purpose and reason, alongside the same reason and purpose that molecular bonds and chemistry processes arose.

By identifying atomic forces as having their origin in space, we have identified how they perpetually act, and deliver work products. Forces drive clocks and clock activity is shown by GR to dilate. My essay details the principle of force dilation and applies it to a universal mystery. My essay raises the possibility, that nature in possession of a natural energy potential, will spontaneously generate a circumstance of Darwinian emergence. It did so on Earth, and perhaps it did so within a wider scope. We learnt how biology generates intricate structure and complexity, and now we learn how it might explain for intricate structure and complexity within universal physical systems.

To steal a phrase from my essay "A world product of evolved optimization".

Best of luck for the conclusion of the contest

Kind regards

Steven Andresen

Darwinian Universal Fundamental Origin

"... astrophysicsts and cosmologists will pile on more dark matter ..." Are dark matter particles merely dubious hypotheses?

Kroupa, Pavel. "Galaxies as simple dynamical systems: observational data disfavor dark matter and stochastic star formation." Canadian Journal of Physics 93, no. 2 (2014): 169-202.