Fruechte Gravity Theory Blog

Dan Fordice sent me two articles about newer experiments that were set up to measure the gravitational constant.  One of the articles referenced a paper by Tino et al. where the constant is determined using one mass type of hundreds of kilograms of tungsten, and the other being laser cooled rubidium atoms.  The apparatus involving the tungsten masses looks like it may be the same apparatus as was used for the Schwarz et al. experiment from 1998 [1].  The Tino et al. value for G is given as 6.667 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 [2] with statistical uncertainty and systematic uncertainty given in the paper.

When we have a macroscopic mass where atoms are chemically bonded, and masses are held together by various means, a gravitational field acting on one atom can have a component of force on another atom that is chemically bonded to it.  A single atom free of bonding to other atoms, on the other hand, has fewer instantaneous electron orbital path vectors than a macroscopic mass of several kilograms when we consider it as a whole.  Therefore one would expect that the value of G when measured on individual atoms would be lower than a conventional value of 6.672 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 [3].

The gravitational constant based on one third the mass of the proton is 6.6807 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2, but does it ever get this high in reality?  Planets in orbit around the sun would get close to this value.

G = 6.672 x 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 is probably still a good value to use when considering macroscopic masses on the surface of the earth, or in the atmosphere, or in orbit around the earth.

[1]  Schwarz, Robertson, Niebauer, Faller, “A Free-Fall Determination of the Newtonian Constant of Gravity”, Science, 282, 2230-2234; 1998: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/BigG/bigg.html

[2]  G. Lamporesi, A. Bertoldi, L Cacciapuoti, M. Prevedelli, G.M. Tino, “Determination of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant Using Atom Interferometry”, http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1580, 2013

[3]  Tipler, Paul A., Physics, Worth Publishers, Inc., 1976, inside back cover

In the news is quantum entanglement, or what Einstein called spooky action at a distance.  Here is one of the articles:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/science/scientists-report-finding-reliable-way-to-teleport-data.html?_r=0

This works by phonon transmission through a gravitational field, which is transmission that is faster than the speed of light.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

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

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

In a Scientific American article about the electron, the perspective from the piece seems to maintain the electron as “an infinitesimally small point of charge”, and says “it actually drags a cloud of virtual particles around. These fleeting particles pop in and out of existence, and contribute to the electron’s mass and volume.” *

For calculation purposes in quantum mechanics, the electron is sometimes thought of as dimensionless, nevertheless this cloud of virtual particles, popping in and out of existence, can be visualized as conjugate wave gravitons, which do indeed contribute to mass and volume of not only electrons, but also of protons and neutrons.

The research seems to indicate then that a free electron may be a perfect electric monopole.

* http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=electron-perfectly-round-to-one-part-in-million-billion-experiment-finds

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.

For an electron in an atomic orbital the magnetic part of the Lorentz force [1], F = q[E + (v x B)], deflects the electron’s path so that the electron cannot head directly toward the nucleus.  Magnetic fields produced by the nucleus essentially fight off the electron’s direct path which is due to the electrostatic part of the force.  This is one of the aids in assuring that atomic collapse does not occur.  In the vicinity of an electron orbital turn where gravitons are emitted from an electron, a planar electron arc can be assumed [2], however this is only in the tangential limit relatively far from the nucleus and there are no complete arcs in electron orbitals that are geometrically planar. 

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

[2] https://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2008/07/20/spread-of-a-fermion-wave-function/

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/

After seven years of study, five involving gravity, and pretty much getting ostracized by the physics community in 2010, I have started to ramp down my math and physics study time.  Helping students is still a fairly common occurrence and I am hoping this, with the engineering also, will be enough to keep me sharp.

One thing that I may not get to in the near future then is the concept of the Coulomb force by phonon transmission through a gravitational field, similar to phonon transmission in a crystal.  It was alluded to earlier with the phrase “shouldering through the gravitons in a highly relativistic sense” *, and the mathematics, I suppose, would utilize that already existing within quantum mechanics relating to phonon transmission.

In areas of deep space where the gravitational field is very weak, the Coulomb force may not transmit effectively.  Nevertheless, it is irrelevant because protons and electrons cannot exist without enough gravitational pressure. 

* https://www.fruechtetheory.com/blog/2009/03/15/electric-charges/

When a PhD researcher in Finland found in the early 1990’s that a gravitational field is altered by a strong magnetic field, he lost his job and sort of went into hiding, – no mathematical proof that gravity is electromagnetic at the time.  On this web site is mathematical proof, and I did not know about the Finland experiment until around January 2006.