Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

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] https://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2007/11/14/glast-calibration/

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

It is interesting, to say the least, the way some of the constants of physics mix and match.  There are lots of examples of this in text books and on web sites, including this one, so there is no point in reiterating any now which do not relate specifically to this entry.

Some constants, nevertheless, turn out not to be constants, including the permittivity of free space, termed ε₀.  At the surface of the earth, and at any point not far enough away to discern a difference, we have ε₀ = 8.85 x 10^-12 C²/(N-m²) when measured in a vacuum.  One of the ways in which the permittivity of free space relates to other physical entities is in the makeup of the Coulomb constant, k = 1/(4πε₀), which is then also not really a constant in all locations, the difference relating to the local density of gravitons.

The speed of light in a vacuum can be written as: c = sqrt(k/k_m) = 1/sqrt(ε₀ µ₀) = 2.998 x 10⁸ m/s, which is a constant throughout the universe.  One may be tempted to say then that µ₀ is an inverse function to ε₀ when evaluated at a given point, except that this is so unlikely with present understanding so as to be unimaginable.  Along with the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum in any reference frame, the fact that it equals 1/sqrt(ε₀ µ₀) in our locale can remain somewhat of a mystery.

In Thomas’ Calculus we find the definition: “If F is a vector field defined on D and F = del f for some scalar function f on D, then f is called a potential function for F.” ([1], pg 921)

Kaplan states that the “gravitational field is the gradient of the scalar f = kMm/r” ([2], Prob. 4, pg 180), which for General Relativity is indeed the case.  With gamma ray energy exchange however, the scalar is f = k₁M/r, in form much like the scalar potential k₂q/r with electrodynamics.  This tells us that both gravitational and Coulomb forces are of independent action, and the corresponding fields are gradients of scalar potentials, which can be considered as more evidence for unification.

The vector fields we are looking at have units of N/kg for gravity, and of course E = N/C for an electric field.  A gravitational field calculation is most applicable when the object in the field is small compared to, or far away from, the source of the field, such as Jupiter compared to the sun.

Aside from the King James Version of the Bible, Wilfred Kaplan’s Advanced Calculus is still my favorite book.  By the way, we used Thomas’ Calculus book at the University of Wisconsin in 1976 and 1977.

[1] Thomas, George B., as revised by Weir, Maurice D. and Hass, Joel, Thomas’ Calculus, Twelfth Edition, Addison-Wesley of Pearson Education, Inc., 2010, 2005, 2001

[2] Kaplan, Wilfred, Advanced Calculus, Fifth Edition, Addison-Wesley of Pearson Education, Inc., 2003

There is a graph of Brightness vs. Energy (GeV) at the lower left of the image at the following NASA Fermi web site, relating to the same discovery I have been writing about recently, and one that has been fascinating to a great number of scientists:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/498886main_DF4_bubbles_graphs.jpg

I just thought it was interesting to see that the “Bubble spectrum” in magenta color has a pointer at what could be 313 MeV.  The brightness rises markedly from that point which is where we would expect gravitons to reside.  Once peaked in brightness, the spectrum rises to much higher energies which, if it were not that we are very far away from the bubbles, could indicate that energies are adding.

We know from laser calculations and uses that energy from coherent light waves do add.  As an example, the gravitons coming off the sun, at the surface of the sun, would be so concentrated so as to create somewhat of a laser field.  The earth, of course, is of a size and at a distance from the sun where the gravitons help sustain life rather than damage biological function.

It seems I suggested to the GLAST people at one point, when the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope was still in a pre-launch test phase, that they try pointing the telescope straight up into the sky and turn the instrument on to see what they could read.  As long as the anti-coincidence shield did not activate, there would be a gamma ray fog from the earth’s atmosphere, considerably stronger than the diffuse background that is found with the telescope now in space and pointing away from the earth.  With a planned schedule already at the time, they probably did not try it.

As far as new equipment goes, another way to test whether or not our atmosphere emits gamma rays is to send a gamma ray telescope up as the payload of a high altitude balloon.  The instrument would point at an acute angle to the vertical so as to keep the balloon itself out of the picture.  As the balloon ascends to high altitude there should be a gradually decreasing flux density of gamma rays.  The energies to look for are centered on 312.76 MeV.

The suggestion would otherwise be to place the instrument looking out an opening of a high altitude engine propelled aircraft as it ascends, except that vibrations may at times affect the readability.

Any middle school student in the free world with a true interest in science, and proper resources to learn, has noticed from diagrams in books or on the web, or with iron filings on a piece of paper with a magnet beneath, that magnetic field lines have curvature.  A local electric field between and surrounding two point charges also has curvature in the near space, except for on a line pointing directly away from the other charge.  Dr. Schombert gives us a good diagram of this on the web. [1]

The lines of a gravitational field, on the other hand, have no curvature in any instance, and “the gravitational force is entirely radial”. ([2], pg 616)  So, what is going on here?

Earlier it was mentioned that the Coulomb force may transmit “through the gravitational field in wave packets at group velocity, by phase shift and chirality” [3].  This could otherwise be stated as by phase shift and parity and, as physicists know, group velocity can be faster than the speed of light.

To extend on this concept and compare then, if a rotational component is developed in a free graviton, it is due only to Coulomb field production, and though free gravitons always travel in a straight line, neglecting lensing, when there are no charges present the rotational component of a free graviton would be zero. 

[1] http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec04.html

[2] Kline, Morris, Calculus, An Intuitive and Physical Approach, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967, 1977; Dover (1998) unabridged republication.

[3] https://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2010/06/15/muonic-states/

Received an email back from Doug Finkbeiner with a reference and a calculation.  I did have to look up the definition of a parsec and multiply by 180/pi to get his parsecs per degree factor and understand better.  In any case, lensing does not need to be considered with the gamma ray bubbles of the Milky Way.

The answer was detailed, informative, and polite.  Could be enough encouragement for me to continue contacting scientists again.  Emails sent out Friday and Saturday were the first in over two years; for a long time I was too discouraged to even click a send button.