Re: maybe gravity IS a good topic - Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

From: Eugene Stefanovich (eugenev_at_synopsys.com)
Date: 10/13/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:23:08 -0700

Evgenij Barsukov wrote:
[...]
>
>
> Let me give you a new line of reasoning that you might find interesting.
> Maybe you _should_ discuss gravity, but for completely different
> reasons as suggested in this tread.
> We already discussed before some possible experimentaly
> measurable manifestations of the corrections offered by your theory.
> But we always looked at something "lab scale". This unvoidably limit
> us to small distances and energies, which makes corrections unmeasurably
> small. It appears however obvivous, that corrections should also
> manifest themselfs in large scale events. And the largest theater to
> play out the theories is obviously the observable universe.
>
> Now, here is a curious idea. The reason why Einstain was never able
> to derive "quantum gravity" is because there is no differences whatsoever
> between relativistic quantum behaviour of single particle, or huge bunch
> of them, so there were no way to derive why this huge bunches will attract
> to each other.
> But (unnoticed in this tread!) this restriction is resolved
> in your theory! You DO have effect from interaction on the way how
> groups of particles will be Lorenz-transformed. What it means on large
> scale
> that for any non-interacting observer space time will look different in
> areas where there is a lot of interacting particles as compared to areas
> where there is few interacting particles (specialy if this areas are
> moving in
> relation to observer). But that is the way to have distortion of space-time
> by mass (e.g. groups of interacting particles) _without making any
> a-priory assumptions that
> such distortion exists!

I don't think I understood your idea. Are you suggesting that gravity
  may be somehow derived from EM phenomena? Besides, in my theory,
I do not have a
notion of spacetime or any kind of background continuum or manifold.
I talk only about positions (and other observables) registered by
measuring apparatuses. My personal view is that "quantum gravity" can be
formulated in the way similar to "dressed particle" QED. Though
I've never attempted to do that.

> This appears like a open door into deriving gravitation constant
> directly from KM, and it is a possibility to directly
> resolving "dark mass" and "dark energy" paradoxes just because different
> types of matter (such as neutron matter, or quark matter for example) will
> have different way of interaction compared to traditional neutron-proton
> matter
> and therefore different gravitation effect from the same available
> energy (those breaking m*c^2
> relation). There is no experimental data whatsoever that prooves
> matter independent gravity and that for example Fermi condensate has same
> gravity as traditional matter, and whole problems with "dark mass" can only
> support the idea that something about the assumption of matter independent
> gravity is not right.
> Having interraction effecting relativity relations opens a whole new
> way to look at gravity and maybe we should grab this oportunity,
> both for experimental confirmation of your theory and just for the
> heck of it.

It seems that you have a lot of potentially fruitful ideas.
I don't think I can keep up with such a rapid pace. Good luck in
your studies.

Eugene
www.geocities.com/meopemuk

>
> Regards,
> Evgenij
>
>

Relevant Pages
Loading