7 NOV 14 - CASIMIR-GRAVITY. I think the major part of gravity is due to the Casimir effect. I wrote out the logic of this an hour ago, on this blog, where I had several tabs open. I was asked to "quit" a tab - with no option to cancel - and my new text disappeared. Will the world ever see my conclusive theory on gravity?
...So - after a short rest; here it is again.
Casimir 1909-2000 noted that two totally flat plates brought together, stuck together. He introduced tiny studs between the plates and they continued to stick together. (The separation is very, very small - so don't try this at home). The Dutch scientist, Casimir concluded that the glue was in fact the force of the universal electromagnetic field waves outside the plates being stronger than the waves between the plates. They were being pressed together by "light" waves because the tiny space between them excludes larger waves, thus there is more pressure outside, than inside.
In the above diagram, you can ignore the nonsense phrase "vacuum fluctuations", which comes from stubborn old physicists who still insist that the universe is mostly "empty" space. It isn't. Having realized that there is no such thing as empty space they dreamt up miraculous non-existent waves and particles that pop-in and pop-out of nothing. What they are really referring to is the basic stuff of the universe - the pure energy field of electromagnetism in which matter emerges. The waves are electromagnetic waves (and particles) that exert force in so called "empty" space. The waves are everywhere, at every scale, and their field is the universal energy, which is continually in-formed and re-formed by every energetic event in the universe - however large or small. It is the persistently coherent (inertia) broadcasts of all events that enables us to "see" phenomena - from sub-atomic particles, to each-other, to the observable-universe. Every-thing broadcasts it's identifiable existence:
This same Casimir effect can be seen acting between two large ships alongside each other at sea. The ocean waves outside the ships are far larger than the waves in the calm area between the ships. The pressure outside pushes the ships together, overcoming the weaker waves between the ships. Casimir Glue is in fact a force that pushes rather than pulls; although both forces occur.
If we take two pieces of matter, say hydrogen or carbon molecules, drifting in space, the pressure of electromagnetic light waves acts on them equally. But when they drift close to each other, the Casimir effect acts to exclude long /large wavelengths between them, reducing the separating forces. They are pushed together by the universal "outside" waves.
Now add many millions more molecules or pieces; as they come together they exclude more light, creating interior darkness - smaller internal waves and less internal pressure. The pressure outside remains at full force. As new pieces of matter "fall" onto the conglomeration, the surface grows while the interior blocks more wavelengths - and darkness reigns internally. The deeper inside the material - the more waves are excluded - the more insistent the outside pressure seems.
If we anthropomorphise the process, it seems that all particles are willful creatures intent on getting to the centre (of gravity). The centre is constantly changing as the masses move and more matter "falls" on the surface. At a certain size of mass, matter and energy join the incessant "in falling"; the centre gets ever darker - and we enter the mathematics of Black Holes. Counter-intuitively, large masses, such as the Sun, which blaze into radiating light and heat, are in their centres very dark; excluding most wavelengths.
Around such large shining stars, both particles and energy waves are pressed and pulled to the surface by the Casimir forces and we observe light "bending" close to the objects. This is Einstein's curved space-time.
My realisation that gravity could or might be, mostly, Casimir forces, does not preclude the logic that the matter and energy that "falls" onto a planet, star, or galaxy is either matched by growth of the object or by an equal outflow. All material objects are dissipative phenomena.
Between large, well separated objects such as planets, the electromagnetic waves manifest equal pressure - and the objects stay separate for eons. But, for example the Sun, a massive object compared to its planets, does shield the planets' orbital areas from universal waves - and exercises a push-pull Casimir force. The other 3 fundamental forces almost certainly are woven into the congregrations of matter, and add to the cohesion - but those 3 can be shielded, whereas gravity cannot be shielded.
What this implies is that there are no gravitons and no gravity waves, other than the familiar electromagnetic /light waves - which is the basic stuff or pure energy of the universe.
My previous essay, lost in Google space, was more elegant - but this will have to do for now. I think it is shaping up to be THE answer to many of gravity's mysteries. But - I would say that, wouldn't I.
DOES CASIMIR-GRAVITY MEET THE CRITERIA?
1) Newton's laws - including force diminishes by the square of the distance. There is no reason why these rules would not apply. Casimir-Gravity may show how this happens. 1a) Force acts from centre to centre of planets etc - This is what triggered my attention to Casimir - why do all the particles seem intent on getting to the centre? The cloaking effect inside as pieces of matter aggregate, and the constant external, universal pressure outside, will act like an ever self-tightening knot. The centre will become ever denser. It has always baffled me why all the bits make for the centre instead of loosely holding hands in a lattice - Casimir cloaking provides a mechanism - I think.
2) Curved Space-Time - I touch on curved light above. I think this theory can explain Einstein's construct - in due course. More on this.
3) The smaller the particles of matter, the more homogenous and equal will be the the "sea" of electromagnetic waves around and between the particles - reducing the attraction between them.
4) This Casimir-Gravity force cannot be shielded. It is the shielding of electromagnetic waves that manifests the force.
(I am (still) sneezing & coughing badly this morning - my usual November reaction to the onset of winter. So will take a break and return to this in a day or so. More to follow).
4 NOV 14 - ELECTRON SPIN - My EIG TOE presumes that light rushes "in" to partially evacuated spheres which are being expanded by Hubble Expansion, which is attenuating the basic stuff of the universe, requiring energy (light) to move in (at the speed of light) to balance the momentary partial void created by Hubble Expansion. I speculate that the light moves in from all directions; that some in-falling light waves sometimes collide in the attenuated sphere; that the collisions sometimes are at such wavelengths and angles to create a spinning vortex; that the vortex is a primary particle - perhaps a quark; that there is no-thing to inhibit the spin of the vortex; and that two colliding light waves meeting in a frictionless medium multiply their momentums to spin at C2 (the speed of light squared) 300,000 x 300,000 km per second = 90 billion km per second; that this immense, forbidden speed creates a surface and a particle with mass within the surface; E=MC2. Thus are primary particles or fractals with mass formed from pure massless energy. They do spin straw into gold.
HOWEVER - investigating the Spin of electrons and other sub-atomic particles, the obscure 1, 1/2, 1/3 or 2/3 "spin" which rarely specify any units, I read that it is not a "real" spin and is not intended to convey any real properties of real particles. BUT, digging down into less obscurantist, less reverent and more radical websites,
I see that to account for its electro-magnetic charge the electron must have a real spin, like a spinning top, of 1.117967846C or 1.1 times the speed of light.
This is then taken as a standard - ascribed as 1/2 spin, implying that 1 spin is 2.2 times the speed of light. BUT, all physicists know that nothing exceeds the speed of light - so the measured spinning electron is said to be measured incorrectly and cannot be spinning at 2.2 times light speed. This must be one of the rare instances when oft repeated observational data is deemed to be less reliable than man-made mathematical rules. If a dot painted on the equator of an electron passes by at 1.1C - then the rule that nothing moves faster than light is, in these particular, peculiar spinning circumstances, not applicable.
It is fundamentally important because if primary particles /quarks are spinning vortices of the basic stuff or energy of the universe, like whirlwinds and typhoons, then such spinning entities can be UP or DOWN and can attract or repel each other depending on orientation. They are too small and fundamental for any other particle to disturb their spin - except disturbance by another of their kind. The real spin creates the familiar electro-magnetic properties; the necessary constant winding in of "free, pure" energy creates an endless in-falling akin to gravity (the in-falling energy being balanced dissipatively by the outgoing magnetic field); and these vortices can combine to manifest the other sub-atomic forces - and to form stable long lived protons. It is written (by Paul Davies) that quarks are never found alone, outside of protons and neutrons, Maybe, if they are not in combinations of say, 2 UP and 1 DOWN or vice-versa, these vortices of pure energy unwind and disappear from our sight.
NB - Space or space-time is never empty, it is never no-thing; it is always some-thing. No-thing may have existed before the alleged Big-Bang. Bring back the Aether!
NB - 31 JULY 14 - Is gravity the ability to compress energy (& gain & retain identity)? Continuing the dissipative phenomena idea - does the continuous inflow, the falling in, of mass/ energy equate to the faint tug of gravity? Matter somehow emerges from "pure" energy (light) and makes particles - which fall onto or into each other (gravity) and form objects. These objects, every-thing in the universe, by definition are identifiable, they have identity - and thus we can name and study them. To have identity they presumably form following rules, patterns, templates. To maintain an identifiable shape and size (even if size changes) the inflow must be balanced by an equivalent measurable storage and/or outflow - as in humans - or stars - or trees. Given the extraordinary example below of a bacteria "eating" electrons, is that eating/ absorbing process the basis of gravity? If so - there is nothing "dead" in our universe of identifiable things; all are busy eating or being eaten - at a rate which defines their gravity? Maybe?
UPDATE 30 JULY 2014
I am also fascinated by the idea of templates, which order the energy into the shape and identity of the phenomena. Human templates have been tracked back to DNA, but non-living (as defined by us) objects also form into predictable shapes - and sizes; while the dissipative processes continue. The Sun is such an object - which inarguably has gravity and which is probably continually dissipative. Is gravity the same force as absorption? These electron "eating" bacteria absorb energy which we can measure in electrons - are they mini-Suns? Could we measure their gravitational attraction? Would it match the mass of the consumed electrons?
More information on these immaterial bacteria and more pondering required.
Meet the electric life forms that live on pure energy
UPDATE 8 JULY 2014.
My holiday reading: Both these books claim to have found a new Standard Model and the fundamental building blocks of the universe:
In THE SPEED OF MASS - A new look at relativity - Philip J Morgan claims to create a new Standard Model and says among his other ideas that (7) Gravity is the same as the electromagnetic force that holds an electron around the nucleus of an atom; it is not caused by the bending of space time. (8) Black holes far from being the mass eating monsters of current theory are the mothers of galaxies. Galaxies are formed from vacuum fluctuations in pairs of matter and anti-matter galaxies (9) I paraphrase - Hubble expansion is actually galaxies shrinking as they lose mass, thus increasing the distance between them. I had great difficulty following the author's logic and in dealing with the lack of punctuation.
In EVERYTHING IS PHYSICS - Book 3 - Particle physics and the quarks revealed - the author Dr Andrew Worsley, Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, is lyrical about the beauty, elegance, obviousness and natural symmetry of the mathematics underlying the aesthetic universe and particle physics. He lifts "the shrouds of mystery" which surrounds his subjects, by taking us back to "first principles" and by positing a fundamental unit /particle that is 100 billion billion times smaller than Planck's smallest unit. Dr Worsley then multiplies this tiniest of units by a "harmonic quintessence" of the speed of light - and with clear mathematical logic, printed throughout the book, he shows that all phenomena are built with these tiniest of units, dubbed "Quintessential Mass Quantum". Sadly, my maths is not up to the standard required to assess his workings, but I soldiered on through the book which I found quite readable and it has some neat histories of physics - including of quarks - with interesting quotations and anecdotes. He links his harmonics and quintessence to musical scales and hence to String Theory (which he sees as failing). All is focused on the electron as the central and primary particle - from which all other matter is made or derived (I think). All is harmonics and wavelengths. Although unable to follow his arguments I quite liked the idea of his tiny Quintessential Mass Quantum, which at times seem to be behaving like the fundamental particles that I speculate about in my EIG concept, where colliding light waves spin into vortexes to form matter - perhaps quarks. He devotes chapter 8, Vortex Harmonics, to this topic. It would help, as it is the foundation of the book, if I knew what a "harmonic quintessence of the speed of light" means.
I was not able to comprehend either of these two radical books sufficiently to amend my own theory. I might re-visit some paragraphs in Dr Worlsey's well informed, wide ranging work.
UPDATE - 29 May 2014. - "THE HIGGS FIELD DOES NOT CREATE GRAVITY"
Picking the bones out of the Royal Society, Pall Mall, UK - Lecture 20th May 2014 - Professors Ben Allanach, John Ellis, Tara Shears, Terry Watts - Chairman Alok Jha.
Q1 - I assume that Higgs Bosons do not exist today and only existed briefly just after The Big Bang?
Q2 - So there were no Higgs Bosons (snowflakes) with us in the hall last night?
Q3 - But the Higgs Field (snowfield) did and does suffuse the hall and the entire universe - somewhat like the CMB?
About F4 below:
What I thought I heard last night that was new to me was:
F1). The colliding protons impact at about 280,00 kps
F2). Vacuum quantum fluctuations might add mass to the CERN-made Higgs Bosons (and other particles).
F3). The LHC has collected only 1% of the available (now or in the near future) data.
F4). You are doubling the power of CERN.
F7). Dark Matter and Dark Energy most probably do exist.
F8). The Higgs field adds mass only to the force carrier particles. Human mass includes a "fingernail-full" of Higgs-enhanced particles.
F9). An uneasy cooperative symbiotic truce exists between airy theorists and solid engineers.
You most probably know of the Imperial College 2014 plan to collide high power lasers to create matter - electrons and positrons; originally postulated in 1934? For me this could resurrect that great free radical, Professor Fred Hoyle and his Steady State Theory.
In the early 90's I met (now Sir) Tim Berners Lee on the Oxford-Heathrow bus and he told me of his hyper-links project at CERN.
Finally - do you take turns to pedal the CERN dynamos to power the LHC?
Thank you again for a most illuminating, stimulating and enjoyable lecture.
UPDATE - 19 May 2014. WOW! - HOW ON EARTH DID I MISS THIS VITAL EIG MATTER? - in 1934 Gregory Breit and John Wheeler worked out that photons could collide with sufficient energy to make electron-positron pairs, which have mass and are therefore matter. In 1997 the idea was tested using powerful lasers at the Stanford Linear Accelerator, albeit including a massive beam of electrons from "outside" the creation zone that collided with "green laser light" and changed its nature. And this year it is being re-tested at Imperial College, London by a team led by Oliver Pike, using very much more powerful colliding lasers - and a speck of prepared gold - called a Huhlraun (German for empty space). It seems that a Huhlraun is a man-made tiny tube or perhaps a sphere, with a tiny opening that focuses the beam/s. Such devices were used in the first A-Bombs to direct the initial forces that triggered the secondary stage/s. This gives a mechanism for my EIG colliding photons (which I was not previously aware of) that in turn make primary particles - fractals of matter - spinning straw into gold - that form quarks - that form protons and neutrons - that form stable atoms. EIG - Expansion is Gravity
If photons can be spun into electrons-positrons, it begs the question "are electrons material? do they have mass?" It seems that science is unanimous in agreeing that electrons have mass and are particles and emit waves of energy - electrons are wavicles. This modest, anonymous scientific commentator, argues that quarks are not merely constructed from electrons-positrons but indeed are electron-positrons - and make protons. He speculates that his construct explains the missing mass-energy from protons and neutrons. Protons are the solid building blocks of atoms that have a lifetime far longer than we think and calculate (by winding back Hubble Expansion) that the universe has existed. In human terms we can regard protons as (almost) immortal spheres-waves of matter. It would seem, as I have long puzzled over and suspected - that electrons are photons within matter. Release electrons from the grip of matter and they fly off as photons (or propagate at the "speed" of light).
And what about the disgraced, despised, silenced, gagged theories of the Electric Universe? Coming round full circle to gravity, at the macro level - in our search for the theory of gravity; it is calculated from astronomical observations and measurements that galaxies are missing 80% to 90% of the mass /gravity required to hold them together. And we do not of course know what causes gravity or how it is transmitted. Is it indeed, an unshielded aspect of the electrical forces that we know so well - and which the bound, gagged and expelled scientists who dare raise the possibility that weak and feeble gravity is a minor factor in creating galaxies etc. compared to electromagnetic forces.
And wherefore The Impenetrable Higgs Boson? Isn't it dubbed the God Particle that "confers mass" onto particles? More explanation please Professor Higgs.
And what does this imply for Hoyle's Steady State Theory? For his idea that particles are constantly created in the vast empty vacuums of space? Can we revive Fred Hoyle from his premature sleep and ask him to comment? Did the Big Bang really bang?
Any road up - you can imagine how pleased I am as a non-scientist observer of science to find that one of my central speculations - how to spin straw into gold - to compress energy into matter has since 1935 been on the respectable scientific agenda and been demonstrated by applying one of our new fangled inventions - lasers (once called a technology looking for an application). Having been ignorant of these 80 year old developments, in spite of looking diligently for such information, my suggestion to scientists is do more for "intelligent cooperation".
UPDATE - 17 May 2014. BOOM! - New Scientist 17 May 2014 "There at the birth" ...of the Big Bang Theory - Jim Peebles recounts witnessing the formation of the Big Bang Theory from 1964. It eventually replaced Fred Hoyle's Steady State Theory - demonstrating a single point of matter creation (a single White Hole) and energy dispersal instead of Hoyle's idea that particles of matter are created in the voids in all locations at all times - in a Hubble expanding universe. The Big Bang Theory - supplemented by the necessary theory of "Inflation" was largely driven by the discovery of the ubiquitous Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) at 2 degrees Kelvin (2 degrees above absolute zero - minus 232 degrees Celsius - TV screen snow).
Although not crucial either way - Big Bang or Steady State Continual Creation - to my EIG theory, my suspicious, doubting and cynical nature which was triggered aged 6 by resisting illogical but infallible Catholic indoctrination, still leaves room for Hoyle and questions The Big Bang (with Inflation). Perhaps when science finds a sense of direction pointing to The Universal Center, whence the Big Bang emerged, I will be more believing of the impenetrable, reverse engineered Big Bang mathematics and be able to join the One True Faith. Until then - we should keep open minds.
If, as in my EIG, the universal essence suffusing all space-time is the Aether-Matrix - holographic spheres at every point, scale and location that mirror the entire universe (intersecting light-waves reflecting the whole universe wherever we place an eye or an observing instrument), then the Aether-Matrix would also glow with a background temperature. Philosophers of science, like 1950's Jesuits, "must work harder" to prove they are infallible.
More thoughts in the endless search for the causes of gravity. I've been reading GRAVITY by Brian Clegg, 2012 (links below), a book for non-scientists which I can almost completely follow - with an unaccustomed stretch of my concentration.
...Done that. Stuart Clark further explains what the BICEP2 Polar instruments data might mean for "Gravity Waves" and he raises more doubts about the basis assumptions. Did the Big Bang happen? If so - when? Do gravity waves exist?
My EIG ascribes gravity to attenuation of the stuff of the universe due to constant Hubble expansion, which in turn allows or enables or attracts light to fill the attenuated spheres. As such, science should be searching for the absence of something, not for ghostly waves and "carrier" particles labelled "gravitons". Though such partially evacuated spheres would perhaps draw universal energy inwards, in waves. EIG also sketches explanations for Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Three for the price of one. Buy now to avoid disappointment.
I will revisit this blog after re-reading the books below.
FUSION, GRAVITY, INERTIA, LIFEFORCE.
DISSIPATIVE PHENOMENA (2)
INDEX - HIGGS BOSON
INDEX - LIFE, UNIVERSE, EVERYTHING - JAN - DEC 201...
BRIAN COX AND TALES OF DOOM
FUSION, GRAVITY, INERTIA, LIFEFORCE.
GRAVITY AND IMMORTALITY
GRAVITY - by Brian Clegg http://www.brianclegg.net/gravity.html
Everything we know is governed by four physical forces, but there is only one of them that is immediately obvious - gravity. Although ludicrously weak compared to the other forces (a tiny magnet can hold up a piece of metal against the gravitational attraction of the whole Earth), gravity permeates our everyday life and being. We begin with humanity's earliest ideas of how we remain stuck to the ground - a significant consideration when you realize that despite the myths, educated people have known the Earth was a sphere since the time of the Ancient Greeks.
Along the way we'll see how the Arabic scholars explained the force of gravity, why Galileo didn't need to drop balls off the tower of Pisa, exactly how Newton came to his conclusions and why he refused to 'frame hypotheses' about gravity.
We will explore the concept of action at a distance, and see how Einstein transformed our understanding of gravitation with general relativity and consider whether the graviton will ever be discovered. We will see how birds, bees and rockets seem to defy gravity, and whether the concept of anti-gravity can move from pure science fiction to possible fact.
Gravity never fails to fascinate...
that the maximum pressure that spacetime can exert for a particular size object is the limiting factor