One of them is it would allow one to understand the graviton or the unit of quantum gravity in terms of field properties of the space-time environment defined by Einstein.
The concept of a field was developed when physicists learned that they could simplify the calculations of the forces involved in planetary motion by assuming or imagining the existence of a continuous gravitational field.  They defined this field in such a way that if another planet were put at any point in that field the resulting force between it and any other planet would be exactly the Newtonian one.  This simplified the calculations of planetary motion because it allowed them to isolate and analyze the forces of one planet on another instead of trying to analyze the forces exerted on a planet by all of the others at the same time.

Originally, many thought this was just a trick to simplify calculations.

But Michael Faraday, while researching electromagnetism discovered that a field has real physical properties and therefore was able to convince others that is was more the just a calculating device.

However, the concept of the physical properties of a continuous field being responsible for the propagation of forces is inconsistent with the Quantum mechanical assumption that energy and forces can only exist in discontinuous or quantized particles.

But as mentioned earlier we may be able to define a theoretical connection between the Gravitron and field properties of Einstein’s space-time universe if we redefine them in terms of four *spatial* dimensions.

Einstein give us the ability to do this when he defined the geometric properties of mass in a space-time when he used the equation E=mc^2 to derive the balance between it and energy because by using the constant velocity of light he provided a method of converting a unit of time he associated with energy to a unit of mass we believe he would have associated with space. Additionally because the velocity of light is constant he also defined a one to one quantitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of four *spatial* dimensions.

Some physicists describe the properties of a quantum system such as a Gravitron as being the result of a field quanta or chunked ripples or waves in a continuous field that ‘look like’ particles because waves can only be propagated through a continuous medium.

However the concept of a continuous field must be apply to all quantum systems because the 1927 confirmation by Davisson and Germer of Louis de Broglie theory that they all particles display a diffraction pattern associated with waves when they interact with a crystal lattice.  Therefore, one must conclude that the space between all particles is made up of a continuous field to permit the movement of their wave component through space.

As mentioned one can understand the makeup of the graviton if one redefines Einstein space-time environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions because as was shown in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” Oct 4, 2007 one can understand how the continuous field properties of four *spatial* dimensions can result in them formation of the quantum mechanical system associated with gravity.

There are four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial.

However, the existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.

These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital.  This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.

However, the oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established in four-dimensional space.

These resonant systems in a continuous properties of four *spatial* dimensions are responsible for the quantum mechanical properties of a quantum field.

Earlier the article “Gravity in four spatial dimensions” Dec 15, 2007 showed that one can derive the forces of gravity in terms of a curvature in the continuous field properties of four *spatial* dimensions.

(The curvature is analogous to the space-time curvature Einstein postulated was responsible for gravity.)

However, as was shown in the article “Why is mass and energy quantized?” Oct 4, 2007 all energy is propagated through space in discrete quantized units.

Those two articles show how one can define a theoretical connection the graviton and the continuous field properties of environment  consisting of four *spatial* dimensions or four dimensional space-time in terms of the resonant field properties of space .

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey Oâ€Callaghan 2010

The post The field properties of the Gravitron appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

For example, the wind can blow a stack of papers off a desk into a disorganized pile on the floor but it can also pick up it up and organized them on a desk.

However, common sense tells most of us that we should not open a window and wait for a breeze to come in to pick up our report and reorganize for us even though it is mathematically possible to define such an event.

However, many physicists assume that if mathematics predicts an event can happen it will even if its occurrence does not agree with our common sense understanding of the process it is defining.

For example in Chapter 5 of Kip S. Thorne book Blacks Holes & Time Warps “Implosion is Compulsory” he describes how Oppenheimer and Snyder predicted that a star with a mass of 2.0 times greater that of our sun must implode at the end of their lives to a singularity or a dimensionless point in space based on a solution of Einstein’s field equations.

We do not disagree with the fact that based on Einstein’s field equations it is possible for the mass of a star to implode to form in a singularity however; we disagree with those that say that this must occur.

Common sense is based on humans ability observe the properties of their environment and to conceptually extrapolate them to new ones.

For example, observations of our environment tell most of us that it is highly unlikely that the wind will pick a report up off the floor and reorganize it on a desk for us even though it is mathematically possible.

Similarly, observations of our environment tell most of us that it is unlikely the mass of a star can be concentrated in a one-dimensional point in space even though it is mathematically possible.

Why then do some scientists tell us not only that it can but must happen?

The reason is that many physicists have a tendency to focus only on the mechanistic attributes of mathematical equations defining a theory and not on their conceptual implications.

As mentioned earlier, many physicists believe the implosion of a star into a black hole is possible based on a solution of Einstein’s field equations.  Additionally they tell us the gravitational forces inside of a black hole are so great that they compress its mass to a one dimensional point where the relativistic field equations that the define their creation cannot be apply.

Physicists have never made an observation in any environment that violates Einstein’s laws.  Yet, they use his field equations derived from his theories to predict an environment where his laws do not apply.  Even though Black holes may exist because they do not violate Einstein’s laws common sense should tell us that a singularity probably doesnâ€t in part because the equations that define its formation of cannot be applied to them.

(Please see the article “An alternative to a singularity?” Aug 15, 2008 for a common sense interpretation of what occurs at the center of a black hole based on Einstein’s theories.)

We are not saying that a star cannot collapse to form a black hole but we are saying is physicists should use some common sense and portion of their time looking at the conceptual aspects of a theory instead of only on the mechanistic attributes of its equations before using them to make predictions.

Physicists should remember “just because something can happen does not mean that it must”

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2008

The post Black holes and common sense. appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.

However, there is an alternative conclusion based on its concepts that suggest that a mass cannot, under any conditions form a singularity but must maintain a quantifiably finite volume which is greater than a one-dimensional point.

Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity predicted time is dilated or moves slower when exposed to gravitational field than when it is not.  Therefore, according to Einstein’s theory a gravitational field, if strong enough it would stop time.
In 1915,Karl Schwarzschild discovered that according to it the gravitational field of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass would stop the movement of time if it collapsed to a singularity.  He also defined the critical circumference or boundary in space around a singularity where the strength of a gravitational field will result in time being infinitely dilated or slowing to a stop.

In other words as a star contacts and its circumference decreases, the time dilation on its surface  will increase.  At a certain point the contraction of that star will produce a gravitational field strong enough to stop the movement of time.  Therefore, the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild is a boundary in space where time stops relative to the space outside of that boundary.

This critical circumference is called the event horizon because an event that occurs on the inside of it cannot have any effect on the environment outside of it.

Many physicists believe the existence of a singularity is an inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.

However, it can be shown using the concepts developed by Einstein; this is not true.

In Kip S. Thorne book “Black Holes and Time Warps“, he describes how in the winter of 1938-39 Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder computed the details of a stars collapse into a black hole using the concepts of General Relativity.  On page 217 he describes what the collapse of a star would look like, form the viewpoint of an external observer who remains at a fixed circumference instead of riding inward with the collapsing stars matter.  They realized the collapse of a star as seen from that reference frame would begin just the way every one would expect.  “Like a rock dropped from a rooftop the stars surface falls downward  slowly at first then more and more rapidly.  However, according to the relativistic formulas developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder as the star nears its critical circumference the shrinkage would slow to a crawl to an external observer because of the time dilatation associated with the relative velocity of the star’s surface.  The smaller the circumference of a star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the time dilation predicted by Einstein increases as the speed of the contraction increases until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

However, the time measured by the observer who is riding on the surface of a collapsing star will not be dilated because he or she is moving at the same velocity as its surface.

Therefore, the proponents of singularities say the contraction of a star can continue until it becomes a singularity because time has not stopped on its surface even though it has stopped to an observer who remains at fixed circumference to that star.

But one would have to draw a different conclusion if one viewed time dilation in terms of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

Einstein showed that time is dilated by a gravitational field.  Therefore, the time dilation on the surface of a star will increase relative to an external observer as it collapses because, as mentioned earlier gravitational forces at its surface increase as its circumference decrease.

This means, as it nears its critical circumference its shrinkage slows with respect to an external observer who is outside of the gravitation field because its increasing strength causes a slowing of time on its surface.  The smaller the star gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increase until time becomes frozen for the external observer at the critical circumference.

Therefore, the observations of an external observer would make using conceptual concepts of Einstein’s theory regarding time dilation caused by the gravitational field of a collapsing star would be identical to those predicted by Robert Oppenheimer and Hartland Snyder in terms of the velocity of its contraction.

However, Einstein developed his Special Theory of Relativity based on the equivalence of all inertial reframes which he defined as frames that move freely under their own inertia neither “pushed not pulled by any force and therefore continue to move always onward in the same uniform motion as they began”.

This means that one can view the contraction of a star with respect to the inertial reference frame that, according to Einstein exists in the exact center of the gravitational field of a collapsing star.

(Einstein would consider this point an inertial reference frame with respect to the gravitational field of a collapsing star because at that point the gravitational field on one side will be offset by the one on the other side.  Therefore, a reference frame that existed at that point would not be pushed or pulled relative to the gravitational field and would move onward with the same motion as that gravitational field.)

The surface of collapsing star from this viewpoint would look according to the field equations developed by Einstein as if the shrinkage slowed to a crawl as the star neared its critical circumference because of the increasing strength of the gravitation field at the star’s surface relative to its center.  The smaller it gets the more slowly it appears to collapse because the gravitational field at its surface increases until time becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, because time stops or becomes frozen at the critical circumference for both an observer who is at the center of the clasping mass and one who is at a fixed distance from its surface the contraction cannot continue from either of their perspectives.

However, Einstein in his general theory showed that a reference frame that was free falling in a gravitational field could also be considered an inertial reference frame.

As mentioned earlier many physicists assume that the mass of a star implodes when it reach the critical circumference.  Therefore, the surface of a star and an observer on that surface will be in free fall with respect to the gravitational field of that star when as it passes through its critical circumference.

This indicates that point on the surface of an imploding star, according to Einstein’s theories could also be considered an inertial reference frame because an observer who is on the riding on it will not experience the gravitational forces of the collapsing star.

However, according to the Einstein theory, as a star nears its critical circumference an observer who is on its surface will perceive the differential magnitude of the gravitational field relative to an observer who is in an external reference frame or, as mentioned earlier is at its center to be increasing.  Therefore, he or she will perceive time in those reference frames that are not on its surface slowing to a crawl as it approaches the critical circumference.  The smaller it gets the more slowly time appears to move with respect to an external reference frame until it becomes frozen at the critical circumference.

Therefore, time would be infinitely dilated or stop in all reference that are not on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of someone who was on that surface.

However, the contraction of a stars surface must be measured with respect to the external reference frames in which it is contracting.  But as mentioned earlier Einstein’s theories indicate time on its surface would become infinitely dilated or stop in with respect to reference frames that were not on it when it reaches its critical circumference. 

This means, as was just shown according to Einstein’s concepts time stops on the surface of a collapsing star from the perspective of all observers when viewed in terms of the gravitational forces.  Therefore it cannot move beyond the critical circumference because motion cannot occur in an environment where time has stopped.

This contradicts the assumption made by many that the implosion would continue for an observer who was riding on its surface.

Therefore, based on the conceptual principles of Einstein’s theories relating to time dilation caused by a gravitational field of a collapsing star it cannot implode to a singularity as many physicists believe and must maintain a quantifiable minimum volume which is equal to or greater than the critical circumference defined by Karl Schwarzschild.

This means either the conceptual ideas developed by Einstein are incorrect or there must be an alternative solution to the field equations based on the General Theory of Relativity that many physicists used to predict the existence of a singularity because as has just been shown the theoretical predications made by them regarding its existence are contradictory to the concepts contained in it.

We are not saying that black holes do not exist however we are saying that according to the concepts of Relativity a singularity is NOTan inevitable outcome of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.  In other words the mass of a star greater than approximately 2.0 times a solar mass may not collapse to a singularity but only to a finite volume equal to its event horizon.

Only observations can determine which one is correct because both are based on the validity of the concepts presented in Einstein’s theories and the mathematical equations he developed.

Later Jeff

Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2008

The post An alternative to a singularity? appeared first on Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories.