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

From: Evgenij Barsukov (e-barsoukov2_hate_spam_at_ti.com)
Date: 10/13/04 

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:20:10 -0500

Eugene Stefanovich wrote:
>
>
> 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?

The approach would not assume gravity or space as such from start,
but just look how particles interact, only considering their positions
_relative to each other_ considering interaction dependent Lorenz transformation.
It would not require any definition of space-time beforehand.

    Because groups of particles will have higher interaction correction to the
transformation compared to separate particles, the resulting "space" near interacting
particles will be different compared to particle-less space, e.g. distorted.

     Imagine that we are talking not about 2 particles, but about whole planet or
star - distortion to the space/time caused by this huge interacting group
can also be astronomical. But this could be the same amount of space-time
distortion as gravity is causing for example in Minkovsky space. When we have
the same resulting space-time from your relativistic KM without specificaly
assuming gravity as with assuming gravity from start, we can build correspondence between two
systems and from it describe gravity quantitatively in terms of KM.
      Eventualy it allows to get rid of gravity concept altogether as its formalism becames
only correct in certain limits of approximation (for example it would became
dependent on the kind of matter, because of different level of interactions
in different types/densities of matter).

>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.

I think such approach does not contradict what I am suggesting. The interaction
of particles itself creates all the relations that are needed, and "space/time"
is derived out of this relations. You will need to derive your new space/time anyway
as is obvious from your discussions in this thread, because interaction dependence
of L-transformation causes some unusual behaviour of mater dependent on its density.
"Diluted" matter will be transformed traditionaly, while concentrated matter will
show corrections from your approach. So you get matter-dependent space time,
which I say is a good thing as it corresponds to experimental evidence. We can
consider Minkovsky space/time as interpolation of experimental data, that we
can use to compare with predictons of your theory and get the parameters of
this "interpolation" (such as gravitaton constant) ab-initio from your theory.

Of cause there is a litle bity thing that is left - to create integral
version of your theory, that is practicaly (e.g. with reasonbably
calculation time, or better analytically) applicable to integral objects such
as an atom, a planet or even a Cu rod.

>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.

That would be a different story as you would need to asssume gravity
and its properties (such as grav. constant) from scratch. I feel your theory
gives hope of eliminating the need for
such assumption.

Regards,
Evgenij 

-- 
__________________________________________________
*science&fiction*free programs*fine art*phylosophy:
http://sudy_zhenja.tripod.com
----------remove hate_spam to answer--------------

Relevant Pages