Researching Quanitifying Gravity.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The simplist thing in physics is to explain the Big Bang
Next: Scientific American: Light losing energy! (reposted because SOMEbody omitted alt.astronomy)
From: Ken S. Tucker on 28 Jun 2010 06:53 To Charles, Richard and all. On Jun 28, 3:52 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > Thus spake Richard D. Saam <rds...(a)att.net> > > >On 6/27/10 4:25 PM, Oh No wrote: > > >Yes 'there are many consistent ways > >of constructing a stress energy tensor > >to model different physical systems' > >but can one be constructed to make the grand leap between GR and QM? > > >Currently, unification between GR and QM is unknown > >(although valiantly sought after as something that surely exists) > >but could that unification be explained in part > >by establishing a stress energy tensor > >with Planck's constant(h) explicitly making a dimensional appearance > >along with c and G? > > No. In their standard formulations, GR and QM are conceptually > different, and not amenable to unification simply by writing down an > equation. Unification must come by looking at the conceptual foundations > of both theories (but of course, these days physicists decree that > conceptual foundations are not physics). I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on the problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert 'geometrist', Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough guy. Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- authorship, http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.bams/1183539466 From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave time we pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a Quantized Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link, http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h", using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes S^2 = X^2 + h . So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very pretty and elegant. Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that convinces beyond reasonable doubt. Regards Ken S. Tucker .. > charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and > braces) > http://www.rqgravity.net Cheers
From: eric gisse on 28 Jun 2010 20:46 Ken S. Tucker wrote: > To Charles, Richard and all. Hey look another Ken Tucker post that was rejected from SPF. > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Thus spake Richard D. Saam <rds...(a)att.net> >> >> >On 6/27/10 4:25 PM, Oh No wrote: >> >> >Yes 'there are many consistent ways >> >of constructing a stress energy tensor >> >to model different physical systems' >> >but can one be constructed to make the grand leap between GR and QM? >> >> >Currently, unification between GR and QM is unknown >> >(although valiantly sought after as something that surely exists) >> >but could that unification be explained in part >> >by establishing a stress energy tensor >> >with Planck's constant(h) explicitly making a dimensional appearance >> >along with c and G? >> >> No. In their standard formulations, GR and QM are conceptually >> different, and not amenable to unification simply by writing down an >> equation. Unification must come by looking at the conceptual foundations >> of both theories (but of course, these days physicists decree that >> conceptual foundations are not physics). > > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. And you'd be wrong. > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on > the > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert > 'geometrist', > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough > guy. That you still haven't done it after 40 years suggests that it, perhaps, isn't as easy as you think. > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- > authorship, Except of course Ken Tucker whose claims to 'fame' is the fact he talked with people 20-30-40 years ago. [snip repeated idiocies from the past]
From: xxein on 28 Jun 2010 20:56 On Jun 28, 6:53 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > To Charles, Richard and all. > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > > > > Thus spake Richard D. Saam <rds...(a)att.net> > > > >On 6/27/10 4:25 PM, Oh No wrote: > > > >Yes 'there are many consistent ways > > >of constructing a stress energy tensor > > >to model different physical systems' > > >but can one be constructed to make the grand leap between GR and QM? > > > >Currently, unification between GR and QM is unknown > > >(although valiantly sought after as something that surely exists) > > >but could that unification be explained in part > > >by establishing a stress energy tensor > > >with Planck's constant(h) explicitly making a dimensional appearance > > >along with c and G? > > > No. In their standard formulations, GR and QM are conceptually > > different, and not amenable to unification simply by writing down an > > equation. Unification must come by looking at the conceptual foundations > > of both theories (but of course, these days physicists decree that > > conceptual foundations are not physics). > > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on > the > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert > 'geometrist', > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough > guy. > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- > authorship, > > http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha... > > From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave > time we > pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a > Quantized > Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link, > > http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h", > using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes > > S^2 = X^2 + h . > > So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very > pretty and elegant. > Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart > from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that > convinces > beyond reasonable doubt. > Regards > Ken S. Tucker > .> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and > > braces) > >http://www.rqgravity.net > > Cheers- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: Beware of circular reasoning. You need much more to prove a physic with such a math. For instance. Why can light only circularly orbit a BH at 3M while no passing light can escape a BH if under 3M and it will fall into the Schwarzschild radius (2M) with no escape thereafter? I can make the argument that light only travels in it's orbital path according to a math that says that says it's circular orbital velocity^2 + escape velocity^2 === c^2. You can extend this further into deriving the predicted Newtonian time DELAY to be half the Einsteinian time delay for light's arrival to us during an eclipse occultation (Eddington was an imperfect start). You will find that ANY bending of light will follow the general rule that says that light will slow down (2x Newton's delay) if passing nearby a mass at greater than 3M (distance). But it is nothing Einstein understood beyond Alice in Wonderland. He figured it to have twice the curvature. Einstein had this theory of space-time that is remarkably workable, but he misses the physic of it all in declaring that light always travels at c within his concept. His dx/dt did not (and cannot) account for the actual speed of light. The Newtonian path is probably correct but light slowed down to mimic double the curvature and hence the observed delay in arrival time according to my guess. But my guess has shown itself to be consistent to BH's with 2M and 3M in mind. I can't (and you know it) do the math for non-circular gravitational paths for light. But you can. You're the mathematician. Just don't let it fool you into believing the Newtonian path is wrong and see if you come up with what I got from it. Start with light's circular orbit at 3M around a BH and go from there. You should develop your own program to analyse such things without utilizing any presented theory. Hard work. But I did it for the macro consideration. I still wonder about the micro though. So ask yourself why "3M" around a BH for a circular orbit of light? Why "2M" for the limit of escape for light? Put them together. We cannot observe such things but we can extrapolate from them. At 3M the Keppler circular orbit velocity of light squared is 2.99585059578937E+16 m/s. The escape velocity squared is 5.99170119157874E+16 m/s. Doesn't that sum equal c^2? What a strange coincidence, or not? Learn how to put your math skills into a realizable physic instead of somebody else's magical dream.
From: Ken S. Tucker on 28 Jun 2010 22:04 On Jun 28, 5:56 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Jun 28, 6:53 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: > > > > > To Charles, Richard and all. > > > On Jun 28, 3:52 am, Oh No <N...(a)charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > Thus spake Richard D. Saam <rds...(a)att.net> > > > > >On 6/27/10 4:25 PM, Oh No wrote: > > > > >Yes 'there are many consistent ways > > > >of constructing a stress energy tensor > > > >to model different physical systems' > > > >but can one be constructed to make the grand leap between GR and QM? > > > > >Currently, unification between GR and QM is unknown > > > >(although valiantly sought after as something that surely exists) > > > >but could that unification be explained in part > > > >by establishing a stress energy tensor > > > >with Planck's constant(h) explicitly making a dimensional appearance > > > >along with c and G? > > > > No. In their standard formulations, GR and QM are conceptually > > > different, and not amenable to unification simply by writing down an > > > equation. Unification must come by looking at the conceptual foundations > > > of both theories (but of course, these days physicists decree that > > > conceptual foundations are not physics). > > > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily > > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands. > > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on > > the > > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert > > 'geometrist', > > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough > > guy. > > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co- > > authorship, > > >http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha... > > > From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave > > time we > > pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a > > Quantized > > Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link, > > >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf > > > Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h", > > using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes > > > S^2 = X^2 + h . > > > So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very > > pretty and elegant. > > Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart > > from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that > > convinces > > beyond reasonable doubt. > > Regards > > Ken S. Tucker > > .> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and > > > braces) > > >http://www.rqgravity.net > > > Cheers- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > xxein: Beware of circular reasoning. You need much more to prove a > physic with such a math. > > For instance. Why can light only circularly orbit a BH at 3M while no > passing light can escape a BH if under 3M and it will fall into the > Schwarzschild radius (2M) with no escape thereafter? > > I can make the argument that light only travels in it's orbital path > according to a math that says that says it's circular orbital > velocity^2 + escape velocity^2 === c^2. You can extend this further > into deriving the predicted Newtonian time DELAY to be half the > Einsteinian time delay for light's arrival to us during an eclipse > occultation (Eddington was an imperfect start). You will find that > ANY bending of light will follow the general rule that says that light > will slow down (2x Newton's delay) if passing nearby a mass at greater > than 3M (distance). But it is nothing Einstein understood beyond > Alice in Wonderland. He figured it to have twice the curvature. > > Einstein had this theory of space-time that is remarkably workable, > but he misses the physic of it all in declaring that light always > travels at c within his concept. His dx/dt did not (and cannot) > account for the actual speed of light. > > The Newtonian path is probably correct but light slowed down to mimic > double the curvature and hence the observed delay in arrival time > according to my guess. But my guess has shown itself to be consistent > to BH's with 2M and 3M in mind. > > I can't (and you know it) do the math for non-circular gravitational > paths for light. But you can. You're the mathematician. Just don't > let it fool you into believing the Newtonian path is wrong and see if > you come up with what I got from it. > > Start with light's circular orbit at 3M around a BH and go from > there. You should develop your own program to analyse such things > without utilizing any presented theory. Hard work. But I did it for > the macro consideration. I still wonder about the micro though. > > So ask yourself why "3M" around a BH for a circular orbit of light? > Why "2M" for the limit of escape for light? Put them together. We > cannot observe such things but we can extrapolate from them. > > At 3M the Keppler circular orbit velocity of light squared is > 2.99585059578937E+16 m/s. The escape velocity squared is > 5.99170119157874E+16 m/s. Doesn't that sum equal c^2? What a strange > coincidence, or not? > > Learn how to put your math skills into a realizable physic instead of > somebody else's magical dream. So-called BH's is other peoples theories, if you enjoy that subscription, then good for you. We've run programs on them, fun stuff. We figure we have a Royal Flush against 4 Aces where the physical facts are, but we're not ready to tip our hand yet, especially when there's lot's of Full Houses coming out, makes me laugh. Ken
From: Dono. on 28 Jun 2010 22:25
On Jun 28, 3:53 am, "Ken Sucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote: >snip new idiocies< |