Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

For those of us who are not anywhere close to being experts on black holes, we can still use our imaginations and think about such things when news comes up.  Evidently, two more super massive black holes, said to be billions of times more massive than the sun, have been found [1].

As far as black holes being black, it is because light entering does not escape them.  Within black holes, and for great distances without, not only would extremely intense magnetic fields change the direction of light travel, it may be that black holes are able to absorb a very high percentage of all incoming electromagnetic energy, utilizing it to maintain and increase structure.  We know from Griffiths and others that “magnetic forces do no work” [2], therefore the energy required to do the work to maintain all aspects of a black hole must come from internal currents and absorbed energy from outside.

If permitted, we can imagine a black hole as a lattice made up of neutron stars.  This does not mean that all neutron stars are the same size, or that all black hole lattices are built the same way.  Each black hole ‘crystal’ structure may be unique.  Spectral distribution of available incoming electromagnetic energy and the sum total of this energy over a period of time are two factors that may come into play.  Most of the electromagnetic energy coming into a black hole at the center of a galaxy cannot escape out the other side, which would contribute to the accelerated expansion of the galaxy.  Entropy may be decreasing for a time within a black hole, seemingly violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics, though the entropy of the entire galaxy, including the black hole, would be increasing.

It may be that as a black hole is concerned, there is very little gravity acting on objects outside the black hole, or none at all.

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/12/two-largest-black-holes-in-universe-discovered/

[2] Griffiths, David J., Introduction to Electrodynamics, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999, pg 236

As a comet approaches a neutron star, areas of an intensely strong magnetic field can dissolve parts of the comet.  A comet on a direct path that actually collides with the neutron star may penetrate into the neutron lattice, first as a tidal disruption, and then passing through the neutron star and smashing much of it into pieces of a neutron star, along with free neutrons, as it goes.  Each free neutron would decay into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino, around 15 minutes after gaining its freedom.  In the case of the sustained gamma ray burst which reached earth on December 25, 2010 from the direction of the Andromeda constellation, before which “a comet or asteroid crashed into a neutron star” [1], antineutrinos would have been among the electromagnetic waves reaching the NASA Swift Burst Alert Telescope [2].  This particular gamma ray burst lasted about one half hour.

Gamma rays emitted as antineutrinos from free neutron decay are often between 15 and 340 keV in energy [3].  The gamma rays that BAT read were in the keV range and have nothing to do with gravity at 313 MeV.  The collision would likely have been due to a coincidence of independent path and time since a neutron star that is made up only of neutrons would have no gravitational pull.

[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1130/The-mystery-of-the-humongous-Christmas-space-explosion

[2] http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/about_swift/bat_desc.html

[3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7122/abs/nature05390.html

A prize to be distributed amongst three individuals was announced this month, for the discovery in 1998 that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

According to gamma ray energy exchange, one of the places the cause of this is explained is in the February 2008 YouTube interview.  Many gravitons escape into deep space and seldom or never encounter mass.  Those that do encounter mass can often serve as conjugate wave gravitons and then continue on in their paths.  The concept of dark energy to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe is therefore not needed.

Many articles are available for reading news on the prize.  Here is just one:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/04/nobel_prize_physics_2011/

With the Fermilab Tevatron shutting down this month, I wonder if its magnets could be used for a space debris vacuum.  The problem pops up in the news periodically, and did again today: 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/story/2011-08-31/Solutions-sought-for-growing-space-junk-problem/50207662/1

Whether we are looking at nuclear fission or the results of scattering experiments, the way spin-parity assignments are often kept in order in nature would be similar to the cause of a de Broglie wavelength.  Rotational states ratchet through the gravitational flux, with potential wells rising and falling in one of the most fundamental of quantum phenomenons that exist.

During and shortly after high flux, high velocity hadron collisions at Fermilab or the CERN LHC nevertheless, some of the scattering resonances seen may be due to a blitz through the gravitational field, not organized very well in a manner, for example, such as an electric field.  The static we typically see in Goldhaber plots generated from hadron colliding experiments may in part be due to a cascade of momentum generated through the gravitational field.

Another evidence of the gravitational field is the Bohm-Aharonov effect.  As Ryder puts it, “the Bohm-Aharonov effect owes its existence to the non-trivial topology of the vacuum, and the fact that electrodynamics is a gauge theory.  In fact, it has recently been realized that the vacuum, in gauge theories, has a rich mathematical structure, with associated physical consequences,” ([1], pg 101).

Astronomically, and for the sake of history, it is somewhat reminiscent of the luminiferous aether.

Another concept related here is that “the configuration space of the vacuum is not simply connected.” ([1], pg 102)  When we speak of ‘one loop’ consequences, we can liken it to the Cauchy integral, which Greiner calls “The surprising statement of the integral formula (4.16), namely, that it is sufficient to know a function along a closed path to determine any function value in the interior,” ([2], pg 109).  For those more willing to trust the mathematicians for pure math, the Cauchy integral formula is presented in Brown and Churchill:

f(z) = (1/2πi) ∫ (1/(s-z)) f(s) ds                     ([3], pgs 166 and 429)

With “the gauge invariance of electrodynamics” ([1], pg 97), the perfect balance of charge that exists in the near universe, – possibly the entire universe, and the quantum steps of the Coulomb force by phonon transmission, the Bohm-Aharonov effect does indeed show us that there are physical consequences to the vacuum that are non-trivial, relating to the gravitational field in which the Bohm-Aharonov test and other tests are set up and run.

As a final thought, it is probable that planar electromagnetic waves would not turn into spherical electromagnetic waves were it not for traveling through a gravitational field.

[1] Ryder, Lewis H., Quantum Field Theory, Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 1996

[2] Greiner, Walter, Classical Electrodynamics, First German edition, Klassische Elektrodynamik, 1991 Verlag Harri Deutsch. 1998 Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.

[3] Brown, James Ward and Churchill, Ruel V., Complex Variables and Applications, Eighth Edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2009

The Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope is currently the best instrument available for mapping gravitational sources in the universe.  With the recent update of the LAT catalogue, we can be sure the information will be put to good use.  As far as “unidentified” and “entirely new cosmic objects”, most would be comprised of conventional mass.

Also, according to Steven Ritz: “It’s very important to understand that the gamma-ray sky is not static, it’s changing all the time,” *  Naturally, there would be many very distant gamma ray sources that are moving relative to the earth at various radial and angular velocities, just as the other solar system planets are doing closer by. 

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13793469, by Jason Palmer, Science and technology reporter, BBC News

Internal conversion is likely due to a missed spin flip signal from the nucleus, when one or more currents internal to the nucleus are disrupted at an inappropriate time.  One of the places a description is found is in Krane section 10.6.

Looking to the same book, and while it refers to the complete spin-orbit interaction, and not just spin flips, a useful quote here is “the nucleus produces a current loop, which gives rise to a magnetic field at the location of the electron; this magnetic field interacts with the spin magnetic moment µ_s of the electron …” *.  When it comes to internal conversion then, synchronous timing of a spin flip signal is critical to holding an electron in a quantum orbital, and loss of the signal due to nucleus disruption can allow the electron to take off on a short or long trip to an atmospheric atom, to another planet, to the Andromeda Galaxy, or to be captured in a Van Allen Belt just for a few possibilities.

The higher the principle quantum number, the higher the kinetic energy an electron will have in this process as it takes off.

* Krane, Kenneth, Introductory Nuclear Physics, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1988, Chapter 16, pg 611

It occurred to me only today, while studying from Kenneth Krane’s Introductory Nuclear Physics, that it would take pulsed magnetic fields to focus gravitons on space debris or an enemy satellite.  The way magnetic field lines fan out from a pole of a dipole magnet would make the concept otherwise unworkable.  Since protons in the CERN LHC travel very close to the speed of light, that part of the technology would already be available.  There is no cross product in this case, apart from creating the magnetic field pulses.  As far as aiming and tracking accurately and effectively from the ground, one in my position can only guess that this technology is available also.

In an earlier entry it was lamented how some physicists seem to make a transition from special to general relativity as though the two are somehow linked.  I don’t know if the Wikipedia article on Albert Einstein was written by a physicist, however it goes one step further and gets relativity completely mixed up.  It calls Einstein “a German born theoretical physicist who discovered the theory of general relativity effecting a revolution in physics.” [1]

For young people studying math and science, please note that it was special relativity that advanced physics by a giant leap, not general relativity.  In a recent article on CERN’s startup of the Large Hadron Collider after a 10-week shutdown, Robert Evans of Reuters, and the Toronto Sun, got it right when it was said:

“New Physics, the motto of the LHC, refers to knowledge that will take research beyond the “Standard Model” of how the universe works that emerged from the work of Albert Einstein and his 1905 Theory of Special Relativity.” [2]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

[2] http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2011/02/21/17353401.html

The “Fermi Sky Blog” can be reached from the Fermi main web page [1], though I guess it doesn’t hurt to note the direct link here [2].

In the “Fermi LAT weekly report N. 138 … 2011.January.24 – 2011.January.30”, we find the following:  “3C 454.3 fairly bright for all the week, with daily flux between 2.5e-6 and 6.4e-6.”  This type of report has been a fairly common format in the Fermi Sky Blog, with flux levels often being very low, from sources so far away that it leaves one quite impressed with the technology and analysis methods whatever they may be.

Noteworthy is that “Fluxes are in the unit of photons/cm²/s above 100 MeV. All errors are statistical only.”  Gravity is at 313 MeV and, as has been said many times before, the LAT seems designed to measure gravity as one of its main purposes.  The designers would not have had to know how gravity works; they would only have had to know the typical frequency range of sources from past data and experience.

Steady sources said to be “fairly bright for all the week” are encouraging to see, because gravity at a given relative location and time period is normally a steady field.  Most sources above 100 MeV are indeed steady, and let us be reminded that even the closest celestial body to the earth, the moon, is “an object with an absolutely known gamma-ray output” [3], and a stunning image [4].

[1] http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[2] http://fermisky.blogspot.com/

[3] http://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2007/11/14/glast-calibration/

[4] http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html