Dec 04 2007
GRAVITY THEORY BASICS: an interview with Kevin
I have gone over your theory at least a dozen times. It seems very plausible to me that you have figured out what causes gravity. Yet I still don’t really understand every concept. I’m thinking that many people who do not have a PHD in Physics will not understand your theory. Could you explain to me, in the shortest way possible, the main concept of your gravity theory? Maybe use words the average high school physics student can comprehend. I would like to ask you questions to clarify each section of your paper until I understand it.
Thanks, Jeff Fordice DDS
Electrons when in atomic orbitals act as little gravity antennas. They scoop up gravitons as they go and emit them in making turns. Think about how a stretched out 3-d figure eight p orbital was depicted in chemistry class. When the electron makes a turn at one of the ends, it kicks off a graviton like a slalom skier kicks snow as he makes a turn. The momentum of the emitted photon helps balance the momentum of the electron making the turn.
1) How did you come up with the concept of gravitons being caught and released by electrons? 2) What implications does your gravity theory have on quantum orbitals and the Bohr model? 3) Does your theory explain why the electron does not spiral into the nucleus as Maxwells equations predict?
1) There are many places where the problem is documented. In American Prometheus, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, c. 2005 Alfred A. Knopf, Robert Oppenheimer in his postdoc time in Europe is said to have been “very much interested in what he called the “electron problem and relativistic theory.”” (page 75). After seeing one of these documented sources, I just reasoned that if an electron in an atomic orbital must give off radiation and lose mass, why can’t an electron also absorb the radiation from another source?
2) My theory does not have any effect on quantum orbitals or the Bohr model because gravitons are very small, and operate behind the scene in the vast expanse of sub-atomic and inter-atomic spaces. Therefore, gravitons always travel in a vacuum, and at the speed of light in a vacuum.
3) Yes, the energy is simply exchanged.
Energy Exchange questions:
Most people in the physics world are looking for gravity waves with an ultra long wavelength. Your theory says the wavelength is ultra short in the gamma ray wavelength.
1) Why did you use the diameter of the electron as the starting point of your calculation?
2) Was your calculation of a photon’s energy being similar to the gravitational constant important in the discovery of your theory?
3) What was the overall process that you went through to come up with the calculation for gravity?
4) Explain what plane polarization is and why it is needed in the calculation.
5) It sounds like the gravity photon has to have a head on collision with an electron for it’s energy to be converted to mass, and be released again as a photon as it gets past the apex of it’s trajectory. Since an atom is mostly empty space it would seem that head on collisions would not be that frequent. Is that why the force of gravity is so small compared to the strong nuclear force?
1) A lot has been discovered about orbital angular momentum of electrons in atoms, but the spin angular momentum of the electron itself also contains a lot of energy and is more consistent no matter which orbital an electron is in. The diameter of the electron seemed like a good place to start for the wavelength to see if the energy was ‘in the ball park’.
2) Much to my amazement, when the photon energy calculation was done using this wavelength the number came out on the order of the gravitational constant! It was worth going on at that point.
3) To make a full calculation, I utilized the principles of the Planck blackbody radiation law. That took a few days. I focused on how the law was derived.
4) A factor of 2 is in the blackbody radiation law to account for how the energy at a certain wavelength can, and does, double, due to the fact that the electric field of one electromagnetic wave does not interfere with the magnetic field of another wave, and vice versa. They don’t seem to know that each other exist. You can rotate one EM wave ninety degrees in relation to a separate wave and they can co-exist.
5) Yes, the photon must meet the electron head on within a certain conical angle to be absorbed and to become part of the electron. The gravitational force is weak because the electron mass is already only a small fraction of that of a proton or a neutron, and it gains only a small fraction of its mass when it absorbs a graviton. As far as how often the mechanism happens in a given field, I’ll leave that up to the statisticians.
ROTATIONAL ENERGY:.
1) The measured photon energy of the moon as detected by the EGRET telescope is 312 MeV. What is the rotational energy of the electron in MeV? What is the % increase in mass once a photon is absorbed into the electron?
2)It would seem that only an electron being in motion and spinning at about light speed is the logical candidate for photon energy exchange. Am I correct to assume protons and neutrons would not be able to do this?
3)Does the electrons negative charge have some role in graviton absorbtion or is it more the spin?
4)Any thought on were the energy for the graviton originates?
1) If I convert the 1.56 x 10^-9 Joule energy from my physics paper to electron volts, I get around 9,700 MeV as the rotational energy of the electron. It is a little hard to quantify to an accurate value without knowing the exact radius of the electron. If this sounds imprecise, it is because the rotational energy section of my paper is there only to show that there is enough energy to do the job. The frequency of a graviton was determined macroscopically. As far as the percent increase in electron mass with the absorption of a graviton, I would guess that it is a little less than one percent, but I really don’t know.
2) That is a good question. What happens to a graviton that encounters a nucleus before it encounters an electron? The evasive answer: We need a whole team of physicists working on this stuff. The honest answer: I suppose it gets deflected or something.
3) Both the charge of the electron and its spin have a lot to do with absorption of a graviton. The electron is spinning so wildly that it would wrap up both the electric and magnetic fields of the graviton before the graviton knows what is going on.
4) If my theory is correct, energy enough for several gravitons resides in each electron.
Egret (energetic gamma ray experiment telescope)>100MeV:
1)It is amazing to me that your calculated graviton frequency converted to MeV is the same 312 MeV as the measured center frequency Egret found on the moon.Does this observed correlation give you any hope science and the media world will start to understand your theory’s potential impact on science?
2)What is compton scattering of photons?
3)Is the 312 MeV the value of a photon at 0degrees of scatter?
4)The calculations show that as the angle of the incoming photon increases the energy in MeV decreases.At what point does the angle cause the photon to deflect and not be converted to mass?
Radio Wavelengths:
1) How does electromagnetic wave mappings support your gravity theory?
EGRET:
1) As one of its ranges, EGRET was configured to measure photons of energy greater than 100 MeV. With gravitons centered at 312.76 MeV, this was a really nice range to be looking at. Since I don’t know how to access the EGRET data (and even if I did it may not help much without someone explaining it to me), I cannot say that there was a high level at 312 MeV. It would be a good guess that there was though, and that it is the center of the energy that is going to be used to calibrate GLAST “by the light of the moon” (http://today.slac.stanford.edu/feature/2007/the-moon.asp). GLAST is the next gamma ray telescope, which is now scheduled for launch in May 2008.
Yes I do have hope that the science community will get going on this, if only for the incoming freshmen in college and other young people who could use some inspiration to go into fields of science.
2) Compton scattering is when a massless photon (all photons have no mass) runs into a particle of mass, specifically an electron. It pertains only to when an electron is free, rather than in an atomic orbital. The photon imparts some of its energy to the electron, and when a photon loses energy it also lengthens in wavelength. GLAST will also have a gamma ray burst monitor that will be able to measure the gamma ray bursts coming off the earth in the milliseconds before a lightning strike. The gamma ray burst monitor measures gamma rays at a lower energy and longer wavelength than that of gravitons. The gravitons Compton scatter through displaced electrons that are building up for a lightning strike. Gravitons can lengthen by 10,000 times their wavelength and still be gamma rays! That is because gravity is quite high up in the gamma ray range.
3) Yes, I suppose you could say that, but then there is no need to mention scattering. Compton scattering of gravitons does not happen very often I think. A lot of one section of my paper deals with it, and I could get accused of just trying to add some bulk to my paper, however since gamma ray bursts at lower energies come not only from outer space, but also from the earth, the layout of that section may be helpful to some.
4) The energy in this instance does not change. There is no scattering of gravitons against electrons when the electrons are in atomic orbitals. As a graviton approaches an electron in an orbital at an inconvenient angle, – or when it approaches a nucleus for that matter, it is probably deflected by a strong local magnetic field. A strong magnetic field will deflect an electromagnetic wave, but will not change its frequency or momentum. The vector direction of the momentum will change, though statistically the gravitons will still pull a mass toward the direction of the highest flux density since the atoms and molecules are, on average, randomly orientated.
Radio Wavelengths:
1) The gamma rays appear to be coming from all mass in the universe.
Earth,Moon,Planets
1)What does CGRO stand for?
2) You seem to be saying that the gamma ray glow detected by EGRET is simply gravitons emited from these large masses as explained by your theory. Do you have any additional thoughts on this subject?
1) CGRO stands for Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, the space observatory that carried EGRET.
2) Not all gamma rays are gravitons, but yes I am saying that most of those that EGRET measured in the > 100 MeV range were indeed gravitons.
A Space and Astronomy News article from 24 March 2000, entitled “Mysterious new gamma rays found” quotes NASA astrophysicist Dr. Neil Gehrels as saying:
“These are objects we’ve never seen before,” and “We can’t make out what they are yet, but we know they’re strange and, boy, there’s a lot of them.” He goes on to say: “These are very different than the famous gamma-ray burst sources, because the gamma rays shine continuously instead of coming in a flash, like the gamma-ray bursts.” *
Today we know that the continuously shining sources are due to gravity. As far as being mysterious, gravitons may be coming from rock or gas fields that are not near enough to stars that could otherwise reflect light off the mass.
* http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_112919.htm
A Calculated Value of G:
1)I enjoyed going to the website above and seeing that Egret is indeed seeing steady state gamma rays from space as your theory so well explains.
2)Does the near equivalent energy ( 312 MeV) between a graviton and the energy of a quark add validity to your theory?
3)Explain Planck’s blackbody radiation law and why it is needed in your calculations.
4)DO YOU REALIZE YOU ARE THE FIRST PERSON IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD TO CALCULATE GRAVITY! Thanks for being so willing to explain my questions.
5)Could you label what each value in your gravity equation is?
6)What is a simple way to understand the difference in the two ways you calculate G.
7)G=(4/3)hf is a very simple calculation. Does this lend any credibility to the idea this theory will prove correct when it is tested?
8)How close in value is your G calculation using one third the mass equivalent of a proton to the more accurate free-fall constant of gravity?
9)Explain what the Coulomb force is and it’s interconnection with the quark in the proton,the electron, and the incoming graviton.
1) Great! Steady state gamma ray flux can certainly make one think that there must be a purpose for it.
2) The energy of the graviton using a conventional measured value of G and that of one third the proton mass when it is converted to energy through Einstein’s equation E = mc2 was found, four months after the completion of my main equation on gravity, to be within 0.5 MeV of each other. I had found 312 MeV all over the internet and my wife tells me now that she could tell it was a bummer of a week for me. I was lost in a sea of the same energy being written about by many people. It took me a week to figure out why. Since quantum mechanics likes to work in integer and integer fraction ratios, it ended up building my confidence instead.
3) Planck’s blackbody radiation law was a modification of the Rayleigh-Jeans law that provided a mathematical formula for the spectral distribution of the radiant energy of a body at a given temperature. I started out with the same principles, and then took a different direction because we are talking about one center wavelength with a graviton, and temperature is out of the equation.
4) There is a great deal of effort spent still today trying to more accurately measure the gravitational constant. While my value of G = 6.6807 x 10-11 N-m2/kg2 does depend on the accurate measurement of the mass of the proton, it is the first time that G has been calculated instead of directly measured. Measurement of the gravitational constant goes back to 1798 with Cavendish and his torsion balance.
5 and 6) The equation in the Calculated Value of G section is the same as in the earlier Energy Exchange section, except that I had to convert the units of electron volts to the kg-m-s system, and the unknown becomes the value of G instead of photon frequency. Unlike tension in a rope, where the force is the same throughout and at each end, with gravity each of two masses acts on the other independently. Therefore the energy is looked at as being generated on a ‘per mass’ basis, and is multiplied by 2 kg-2. The rest of the equation should be fairly clear based on information given earlier.
7) Several of the major scientific discoveries of history have ended up being represented by very simple formulas. I’m not sure that it adds credibility at this point, however I would rather my equation be simple than hard to understand.
8) My equation, when using one third the mass equivalent energy of the proton, places the value of G up into the lowest quarter of the range of the Schwarz et al. free-fall experiment. A more traditional value of G = 6.672 x 10-11 N-m2/kg2 is just out of the bottom end of the Schwarz et al. range. I am glad to be on the low end of a new range when it is closer to historical values, because it confirms that the best scientists of history were guided by the same light that shines today, and they did it using the mathematical knowledge and technology of their day.
9) Wow, that one would take a whole thesis! I hope you don’t mind if I ask the high school physics students to consult their own resources here.
Free Nucleons, Alpha, and Beta Particals:
1)I understand that an orbiting electron is needed for gravity to exert itself on a mass. I do not understand the source of neutrons coming off the moon. Could you explain in simple terms what was detected by Lunar prospector and how that supports your theory?
Verification:
1)Los Alamos Labs can make cold neutrons. How do they do this? Do the cold neutrons behave in ways that gravity is not affecting them?
2) Do you have a guess on what it would take in cost, time, and equipment to do your test?
3)I think it is awesome that you not only have a logical theory but it is supported by observations of nature. In short it is an observable, calculated, testable theory on how gravity works.Could you give us a summary of what this means to you and to the physics world?
4) If this is correct when it’s tested it will change many things in physics and some things will remain the same. Are you willing to share what you think may happen?
Summary:
1)Thanks for patiently answering my questions. Now that you have been thinking about your theory in simpler terms, is there a summary of your theory you can give to us?
Free Nucleons, Alpha, and Beta Particles:
1) One way free neutrons are produced at the lunar surface is by cosmic ray bombardment. They are also detected coming off the surface of Mars. If you know how gravity works, then it is logical that they can be detected 100 km off the surface, but this is not something you could likely win a debate on, – especially without access to the LANL data. A test must be quantitative like the one described at the end of my paper.
Verification:
1) On the subject of ultracold neutron production, I only know some things that anyone else could learn by searching the internet or doing the research some other way. First, a “proton beam impinges on a Tungsten spallation target producing a high flux of fast neutrons.” * The neutrons are then slowed down in solid deuterium. Sometimes the neutrons are bounced around in a polyethylene moderator as a last step. The polyethylene molecules absorb some of the neutrons’ kinetic energy each time an elastic collision occurs. Since temperature is directly related to kinetic energy, this reduces neutron temperature. As they emerge they are fed into a vacuum chamber. Ultracold neutrons are defined as neutrons moving at 8 m/s or less.
If you look at my blog entry on the Yoshiki et al. experiment from 1992, you can see that free neutrons are just that. They are even free of gravity!
2) Assuming there is equipment already available to run the test, even if it takes turning an existing experiment nose up or something, I estimate that $200,000.00 would reserve the test time and the lab space to get an ultracold neutron test done. The funny thing is, if I had come up with the theory in the 1980’s the current steady state EGRET gamma ray data from the 1990’s may have been considered proof enough.
3 and 4) As far as the physics world goes, a real answer to how gravity works will help clear out some items that are making the field a little too cumbersome. For one thing, it seems that we need only 4 ‘dimensions’: x, y, z, and time. General relativity with 5 dimensions, and string theory with 11 both go too far. I hope that the focus we will have in the coming years will prove to be refreshing and inspiring to the worldwide scientific community.
Summary:
Thanks for asking the questions. They have helped me think in new ways about some things.
* http://www.physics.ncsu.edu/weakint/props/MRI00.PDF, pg. 5