Image: Illustrations by Barron Storey
In Brief
- Stephen Hawking’s work on black holes and the origin of the universe is arguably the most concrete progress theoretical physicists have made toward reconciling Einstein’s gravitation and quantum physics into one final theory of everything.
- Physicists have a favorite candidate for such a theory, string theory, but it comes in five different formulations, each covering a restricted range of situations.
- A network of mathematical connections, however, links the different string theories into one overarching system, enigmatically called M-theory: perhaps the network is itself the final theory.
- In a new book, The Grand Design, Hawking and Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow argue that the quest to discover a final theory may in fact never lead to a unique set of equations. Every scientific theory, they write, comes with its own model of reality, and it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is. This essay is based on that book.
A few years ago the city council of Monza, Italy, barred pet owners from keeping goldfish in curved fishbowls. The sponsors of the measure explained that it is cruel to keep a fish in a bowl because the curved sides give the fish a distorted view of reality. Aside from the measure’s significance to the poor goldfish, the story raises an interesting philosophical question: How do we know that the reality we perceive is true?
The goldfish is seeing a version of reality that is different from ours, but can we be sure it is any less real? For all we know, we, too, may spend our entire lives staring out at the world through a distorting lens.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
88 Comments
Add CommentPlata called. He wants his cave back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe also said spell my name correctly next time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho says there HAS TO BE just one theory for everything?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe two or three (or more) theories are necessary.
The fundamental problem is that quantum theory predicts the interactions of quantum particles extremely well, except that it does not include the presumed particle property of mass, the cornerstone of general relativity. As I understand, when mass is included in particle theory, all particles simply collapse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, as I understand, the fundamental property of mass is omitted from quantum physics and unexplained in general relativity. Without reconciliation of the two, each is incomplete.
While Hawking's claim to fame is that his proposed Hawking Radiation (if I understand correctly, antiparticles leaking mass from black holes) links quantum theories and general relativity. IMO, that supposed linkage is extremely flimsy at best...
I have my own ideas in which quantum mass is the stationary particle's manifestation of potential emission energy...
Now let me see if I understand. The Universe did not need God to be created but instead of there being one ultimate rule for creation there are several which just happened to be lying around waiting for the right moment. Aren't we fortunate?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, you don't understand. God simply has not revealed to us how he did it. Why don't you ask 'Him', and let 'us' know. That would prove everything, wouldn't it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe whole problem stems from the simple fact that mass, like time is a perception that physicists - being human beings who have studied /what we understand/ of physics - can't let go of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no such thing as a particle, therefore no such thing as mass.
It's all insane amounts of energy compressed into insanely small packages warping space into what appears to be solid until you look at it in three dimensions and realize it's a wave of energy in a medium of energy.
Hawkins hasn't really done much of anything for a long time. Add his name to the latest trend and it is suppose to enhance credibility....sell a few books, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat Hawkins says may be interesting for speculation but that's all it is. He puts no new meat on the bone.
Meanwhile we researches doing actual science just shlog away without a lot a fanfare.
I like that: "it's a wave of energy in a medium of energy."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI empathize with your assertion that "There is no such thing as a particle, therefore no such thing as mass," although I have to point out that there would then be no mostly stationary atoms 'wiggling' around as they occasionally manifest as an energy wave. Certainly the established view that matter is particles is intermittently incorrect.
I think that mass is alternatingly reconfigured potential emission energy. IMO, matter is certainly more than just a particle...
I see the points above, but when I say "matter" I mean anything we perceive as solid. Whether it's subatomic matter or a planet, it's all energy. Like visible light and radio waves - we see VL, so we think we get it, but it's all radiant energy. Some is pretty colors, some is deadly. All energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhysicists are playing 'matter' like its a different animal altogether, but it's just a variation on a theme.
There is no real solidity, only the understandably confusing appearance of matter, because as dense as you pack it, there are still spaces in between the "particles" making it /still/ not a solid.
And...lowering the energy of a particle so much that it no longer registers as energy to our equipment doesn't make it solid. It just sucks energy out faster than the 'particle' can replace it, making it look cold and slow from the outside.
Well put "JTDwyer". I love your comments here. Keep it up......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I recall, in general terms, applying linerally directed pressure to a boulder, energy is not lost but converted to motion and increased effective mass. I think the relationship between the potential energy of stationary particle mass and the self propagating motion of wave energy is one of self transformation: matter vibrates at quantum intervals between particle and wave states.
As fundamentally an information systems analyst, I do not comprehend particle physicists' abstraction of conceptual information. I find little information in the states of particle mass, charge and spin characteristics and think that too much is imagined for it. I don't accept that particles contain the temporal state of the universe in those few bits of information only contained in matter. Of course, I could be wrong about 'information', but I don't understand how the interrelationship of mass, energy and motion can possibly be so easily dismissed in favor of some glorified concept of information.
I think material spatial displacement or 'volume' you refer to is the energy of spacetime, locally contracted by mass to produce the external force of gravitation, compressed to provide resistance to it. I think this also occurs at quantum scales: it is the energy of spacetime that fills the volume of the atom.
I am convinced that the perceived requirements for dark matter and dark energy are erroneously based on simple misconceptions. I'll spare everyone that discussion for now.
Sorry there seems to be so little we agree on right now. Certainly I'm just developing my own ideas about these matters...
Thanks so much for your support! I certainly haven't figured everything out, but I'm still thinking about it...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI still believe there will be a single theory of everything in the end. I also think it will take a few more decades at least to find it because today's science and tech (especially computer power) still not enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, could Einstein come up w/ String theory? I think not because it was too early for his time.
I also think when TOE found its discoverer probably will be ridiculed at first for years, because that's what happens for every breakthrough in science. (^_^)
Candide is a comedy but it is usually funnier than this: Of course, the prejudice is in favor of the simplest explanation is the true one, but it has to be meaningful, so it can't be just any old word name like God, god, ot allah.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiss
I am no physicist and I am no Theologian. I have come to no conclusion in regard to the "existence", or the "non-existence", of an intelligent designer. But, I have noticed that Grand Design has elicited lots of comments on the web, addressing the question that the boom apparently answers: "why is there something if there could have been nothing". A few of the commentators explained that with the "discovery" of gravity, Isac Newton provided an answer to the question some 200 years ago."Something" can be created from "nothing" by the physics of gravity.Hence, there is no need for an "intelligent designer".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is where my lack of mathematical prowess gets me stuck. Do the equations also give the answer as to how gravity itself was "created"?
These Italians sound a bit like those Kentucky* legislators who decided that the value of pi (3.142 ...) was a bit too difficult for the average student (fish) to remember. Their solution was to pass a law to the effect that the value of pi should be 3.000 ... precisely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve it or not, this solution was well advanced to becoming the law in Kentucky*. That was until somebody without a sufficiently warped sense of humor decided to disabuse the politicians of their ignorance and encourage them to avoid serious embarrassment by colliding with the walls of a fish tank.
*My apologies to Kentucky if I have the wrong state. But it happened in one of the Eastern States - and it all happened in the early 20th century. At the time, most people in the Eastern States assumed that Einstein meant one mug of beer.
In the classic words of Jethro Bodine from one of the Eastern States, "pi are not squared, pi are round". The fish in Italy need some lessons from Jethro.
In "The Grand Design" Stephen Hawking postulates that M-theory may be the Holy Grail of physics...the Grand Unified Theory which Einstein had tried to formulate, but never completed. It expands on quantum mechanics and string theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my e-book on comparative mysticism is a quote by Albert Einstein: <i>“…most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and most radiant beauty – which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive form – this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of all religion.”</i>
E=mc², Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, is probably the best known scientific equation. I revised it to help better understand the relationship between divine <b>E</b>ssence (Spirit), <b>m</b>atter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and <b>c</b>onsciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). Unlike the speed of light, which is a constant, there are no exact measurements for consciousness. In this hypothetical formula, basic consciousness may be of insects, to the second power of animals and to the third power the rational mind of humans. The fourth power is suprarational consciousness of mystics, when they intuit the divine essence in perceived matter. <i>This was a convenient analogy, but there cannot be a divine formula.</i>
Unless and until there is a formal proof than there are 'n' theories needed to accurately describe reality, and which theories they may be, we may still take solace in knowing that we do not yet know all that may be known.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake heart! The voyage of discovery is itself pleasant.
Patience, we are taught, is a virtue.
Candide: This is all beyond me. I was just a lowly philosopher! As far as I know, things just happen and I perceive something as I am equipped to have my bells rung.I have no idea if the universe in itself is chiming C!, or also Q as well as creating c0olors and ultra violet and infra reds. And I'm sure it doesn't matter what I believe. Things are what they are even if they are much different than anything I could perceive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRotweiller (sorry, I missread, thought it said "Dog Out" but I see, you are still here: And here I thought speaking of or for God was above me. BUT GOD ONLY MAKES SENSE THROUGH hAWKINGS AND OTHER SMART SCIENTISTS WHO DON'T HAVE THE ARROGANCE TO PRETEND TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR gOD.oNLY THE HIGHEST HUMAN INTELLIGENCE CAN SPEAK FOR gOD!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of the universe as a hologram may find support from the mysterious noise of the German-British GEO600, if it is, in fact, the necessarily scaled-up planck length. As such, the machine has accidentally probed subatomic scales, revealing the limits on the fabric of space-time. Or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead more: http://www.astroengine.com/?p=3189#ixzz10lyQHOzo
Then why are you speaking for God, proclaiming who is qualified to speak for God? Fortunately, nobody is so intelligent that they can speak for everyone!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy in the world did H and M use antiquated arguments of Anlselm, Aquinas and Descarte? Are they pandering to the mean? All arguments put forth before Hubble (the man) are of insufficient evidence. Even now, evidences of how and what the universe is puny at best; but at least it is currently semi-rational and mathematically based. If you want to see right brained irrational reasoning, read Steve Gould.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Final Theory of everything" ?? We exist as human being and not as god because we are imperfect. We can only seek perfection but not able to be perfect. Every system in the universe exists because it is in imperfect disequillibrium state and in a flux of change. Once this system reaches equillibrium, it is dead. The act of in search of a perfect theory in itself is already a pursuit of failure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDismissing most of your argument as irrelevant, you do address an important general misconception: IMO what is being discussed is what Einstein referred to as his Grand Unification Theory. Even achieving that would not predict how long we each live, the price of peanuts or the meaning of life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I consider a unification of the theories of particle physics and relativity to be quite natural and necessary, I don't in any way imagine that as single equation can predict all events within the universe.
The idea of a 'God' particle that mediates interactions of mass among particles is in my opinion
an unfortunate hyperbolic extrapolation of some over-exuberant particle physicists: particles are not everything; there are separate wave states of matter and the long awaited Higgs boson does not exist.
I do not believe that any single theory can integrate everything, explaining and predicting the complexity of the entire universe. Integrating the nature of mass into a theory explaining the manifestations of matter and the fundamental physical force will be a quite satisfying leap for mere mortals.
Thanks, and my apologies to Candide, et al. I do not see this question as a challenge to philosophy or an assault on religion. It's just an overblown physics problem.
All I'm saying is nothingness is when everything is perfect and in a state of equillibrium and we humans don't have the brains to theorize that let alone put that into equations because equate to what. Know your limits that is all there is to it in that post.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the reason why people have said "why settle with one theory" is because we can not simply beleive or disbeleive that we are the only universe that exists and that every universe exists with the same properties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a question, What happens at the time of "google"(sp?)Does the black holes left over simply die like a bag of air, or do black holes produce a new universe? Is this possible? Or do we think like Hawking and accept the inevitable of THE END. I find it hard as a human to accept the end of everything, I want to find hope in something that I am a literal blip of.
Also, if time is a product of matter and is only subject to lifeforms (does a tree make a sound if no one is around to hear it). Is matter infinite? Or does time only exist because we use it as a measurement, thus opening a gateway for matter to end.
If time is not infinite and is a product of matter would this not allow for time travel created by humans.
I said I was dismissing it, not that I didn't understand it. The only thing I hadn't understood is that many of the completely naive commentators thought that GUT/TOE was the "search of a [singular] perfect theory", a thought that hadn't even occurred to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I tried to explain, GUT/TOE actually refers only to the integration of relativity (gravitation) and particle physics (no mass). I wonder if anyone here understands what I'm saying. It's much easier on the reader if you simply repeat what is already understood.
Identifying the Higgs Boson will orient physicists, and their Physics TOEs, differently than if the Higgs Boson cannot be identified.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCERN has a tool which should be able to answer that question.
Either way, Quantum Mechanics will be extended.
David, you did open my eyes a bit with your statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I think what we call mass may be a measurement of total information that a particle can hold. The obvious problem is that there is no static point of reference so mass is variable based on velocity/acceleration. But the point of matter existing is that it exist in forms we recognize at very low temperatures. We exist about 400 degrees F above Absolute Zero and from what I have seen as matter heats up it quickly ionizes and becomes plasma in form. At high enough temperatures the nucleus comes apart and eventually with enough heat the system collapses into constituents. "
I'd like to integrate some of your statements into my conceptual model:
- Matter originally condensed in the hot and dense rapidly cooling and expanding universe to form a super-hot/dense plasma of fundamental elements (particles/waves).
- Initially the background thermal density prevented emitted energy waves from being either propagated or reabsorbed. As a result, their motive energy was reconfigured into a stationary particle form, configured such that enveloping external, centrally directed energy opposed its own expression. It persisted in this state as unexpressed potential energy (mass) until it could again propagate in energy wave form. This produced material particles that vibrate between particle and wave states. The duration of particle and wave states determine the element's characteristic properties. These can range from high mass/short propagation quarks to low mass/long propagation photons.
- The temporally diminishing thermal density of the universe produced elements of diminishing mass and increasing propagation duration. This process effects the 'particle selection' function assigned to the proposed Higgs Field, assigning differing mass to different 'particles'.
- As the energetic universe expanded it necessarily also cooled, further condensing matter into atoms as thermal density was diminished.
We occupy a comfort zone of about 400F degrees above Absolute Zero, localized in our particular environment on Earth. At universal scales, thermal density continues to generally diminish as the universe expands. However, gravitational clusters of locally dense matter continue to be increasingly isolated as the universe expands.
There is no theory for anything, only events. A theory is simply a map that our limited senses can understand. The map is essentially the goldfish bowl we peer through to perceive the particle world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Every scientific theory comes with its own model of reality, and it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course. Reality is a subject of metaphysics and properly belongs to philosophy. Physics deals only with observations, measurements, experiments, calculations, the tangibles. To the extent that observations, measurements, experiments and calculations are consistent with one another and replicable, that defines a scientific theory, which describes a physical phenomenon that we think is reality.
In short, physics only deals with things that are knowable through the scientific method. Reality outside that scope is metaphysics. Of course skeptics would argue that what is unknowable, even in principle, is non-existent. The unknowable is indistinguishable from fantasy. And when two things are indistinguishable, they are one and the same. Thus, metaphysics is pure fantasy. Perhaps.
So much for string theory, M-theory, multiverses, 11-dimensional hyperspace and the final theory of everything. We can’t even observe the things they are describing. Either they are too small for our scientific instruments or they are completely cut off from our universe. Physics or metaphysics?
Mass is apparently localised energy, see www.vixra.org/abs/1007.0055
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find your paper extremely interesting. There seems to me to be some alignment between our conceptions of particles, although I also have stuck on a particle/wave state transition as a key element in describing the mechanical processes producing particle characteristics. Please refer to my post #33 above for an example of my miscellaneous ramblings on the subject. Very interesting!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHawking's and Mlodinow's article reminded me of the aymptotic relationship we seem to enjoy with our individual definitions of reality. It is hard to imagine that we are still arguing the validity of the destination as opposed to the validity of the journey but that seems to be the case. I may not be the first to suggest a vision of reality anchored on the intersection of the axes of physical/cognitive and active/passive components (of which science represents the physical/passive path) but I am the first, to my knoweledge, to express the idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion, sports, and politics are the current titles of the remaining paths and all four must seemingly rest securly in order for there to be meaningful life defining activities. We may never agree on an "M-theory's" descriptors but that is not the point. It is the ongoing act of describing that differentiates our organic nature from that of the simply mineral.
With apologies for previous spelling:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHawking's and Mlodinow's article reminded me of the asymptotic relationship we seem to enjoy with our individual definitions of reality. It is hard to imagine that we are still arguing the validity of the destination as opposed to the validity of the journey but that seems to be the case. I may not be the first to suggest a vision of reality anchored on the intersection of the axes of physical/cognitive and active/passive components (of which science represents the physical/passive path) but I am the first, to my knowledge, to express the idea.
Religion, sports, and politics are the current titles of the remaining paths and all four must seemingly rest securely in order for there to be meaningful life defining activities. We may never agree on an "M-theory's" descriptors but that is not the point. It is the ongoing act of describing that differentiates our organic nature from that of the simply mineral.
As I understand, mass should be considered to as the intermittent localization and potentiation of kinetic propagation energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this way, the resistance to motion of an object imparted by mass is proportional to the maximum acceleration that can be imparted by a given external force. The intermittent particle state manifestations of matter absorb applied external kinetic energy, while wave state manifestations apply external kinetic energy to acceleration. These applications of external energies occur proportionally to the distribution of material particle/wave state manifestations.
I also envision that the potential energy of mass must be an external particle field, encompassing the particle, directed internally such that it effectively opposes its own kinetic expression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that particle state spin alters the direction of eventual wave state propagation. This long spin-short propagation cycle for high mass elements produces the randomly directed 'wiggle' characteristic motion of atoms.
Doesn't Godel's Incompleteness Theorem necessitate that a TOE cannot exist (other than the ten at the ends of my feet)? Doesn't non-linear nature of reality also suggests this? Because we are in a non-linear universe, can we expect to completely describe its state (past, present or future) with something smaller than the universe itself?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not to say that I don`t see value in this research. After all, refining our models of the world around us and unification of seemingly unconnected theories have put people in space, given unprecedented access to knowledge around the globe, and allowed us to communicate freely beyond the confines of our previously tiny communities.
To those who work in theoretical physics, keep dreaming; and to those in experimental physics: keep smashing things together and building bigger lenses. :-)
Of negative gravity of the earth and high gravity in space-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA revisit to Newton’s law of Universal gravitation.
M. Kesavamani, M. V. R. Krishna Rao, R. M. C. Prasad,
V. Vidyasagar, C. Ramachandran.
214, Star Shelter Apartments, Saidabad Colony,
Hyderabad- 500 059, A. P., India.
E. mail: manikesava@rediffmail.com
kesavamanimangalampalli10@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Considerable confusion and debate exists in the literature on the subject of gravity right from the geophysical definition of the gravity field to standardization of gravity reduction and corrections as well as geodetic versus geophysical perspectives of the “gravity anomaly”. A common belief is that the gravity field decreases with height just because the distance factor is in the denominator of the equation of the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation. Contrary to this idea, the physicists deal with high gravity fields in space and the geophysicists with negative gravity field for mass distribution on the surface of the earth. The physicists and the geophysicists use the scalar gravity to compute the energy and gravity field for theoretical models respectively. We analyze and present here our perception of the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation and show that gravity increases with height.
The Newton’s law of Universal gravitation states that the mutual force of attraction between two point masses M and m is proportional to the product of masses and “inversely proportional” to the square of the distance Z between them. Then, k as the constant of proportionality, the gravitational force
[F = k m M/ Z2
But, in practice in a more general form, the gravitational attraction (F) exerted by M of the earth on m, is [F =- G m M/(R) 2 R] --- (B)
Here, R is a unit vector in the direction of increase of coordinate of radius of earth R, which directs away from the centre of reference at the mass M. The negative sign in the equation indicates that the force F acts in the opposite direction, towards the attracting mass M of the earth and G, the constant of universal gravitation. Thus, there are two equations, one with minus sign and the other with positive sign, for the Newton’ law of universal gravitation to compute the gravity field.
A cursory glance at the equations reveals that the gravity decreases as the distance increases because the distance factor is in the denominator. However, the negative sign in equation (B) results in a negative gravitational force away from mass M, as if the smaller mass m attracts mass M. It suggests that a similar large mirror image mass as that of M should exist at the same distance in the opposite direction (invisible mass above the surface of the earth?). However, the force F, masses M and m cannot be negative. Therefore, only the distance factor R can be negative. However, what we deal in practice is negative gravity field of the earth, which decreases with height. Now let us examine what this negative gravity field actually means.
Analyzing the Newton’s law of universal gravitation for a general case when M=m, the forces of attraction will be in opposite direction and the effect of the mutual attraction of the two masses is maximum at the mid point of the two masses.The effect of each mass on the other reduces as the distance increases away from the mid point of the masses. The forces vary inversely with the square of the distance from the mid point. When M is larger than m, the force of attraction is always towards the mass M because it attracts mass m. The mass M by virtue of its size exerts its influence over a large distance as compared to the mass m. Hence, the distance at which the maximum force occurs shifts away from the large mass to-wards the small mass. We can better visualize if we consider another mass Q smaller than that of M and m located between the two the mass then, Q experiences force of attraction of mass M or mass m depending upon its location and size. It is at this point of intersection, the acceleration due to gravity changes its direction towards the attracting masses. The mutual attraction between two bodies results only due the interaction of the excess and deficit masses of the two bodies respectively.
However, here, we consider two unequal masses and discuss about attraction of mass M on m. It is unidirectional in the case of two unequal masses. Therefore, it follows that the direction of force and the distance measurement are positive in the same direction towards the attracting mass M. We can measure the distance between the two masses from any direction, as it is a square term in the denominator. Therefore, it is apparent that the difference between the two equations is only the reckoning of the distance factor. In addition, gravity field is a vector quantity and the direction of force and measurement are in the same direction towards the attracting mass. This is implicit in the Newton’s law of universal gravitation, but requires a more correct mathematical expression for the words “inversely proportional”. Therefore, we emphasize that the gravity increases as the height increases. The equation without minus sign actually indicates the gravity field vector. Differentiating the gravity force with distance vector results in the change in signature in opposite direction.
Therefore, we show that this negative gravity with height is actually a mirror image of the gravity field of the earth obtained from the Newton’s law without the minus sign and is proportional to vertical gradient of gravity field vector as a change in sign as that observed in equation with minus sign. Consequently, the vertical gradient of gravity, which indicates the density of the body, decreases and the gravity increases with height. Therefore in space at the intersection of planets and galaxies high gravity fields occur. In addition, gravity decreases to zero towards the centre of the earth. The magnetic field also requires similar understanding.
INTRODUCTION: There has been considerable confusion and debate on the subjects right from the geophysical definition of the gravity field (Hualin Zeng and Tianfeng Wan, 2004) to standardization of gravity reduction and corrections (LaFehr, 1991; William Hinze et.,al, 2005) as well as geodetic versus geophysical perspectives of the “gravity anomaly ” (Hackney and Featherstone, 2003). Of some concern is that the practical realization of gravity anomaly remains open to question despite being the subject of many investigators.
That the gravity field decreases with height is so much ingrained in the minds of the scholars and students of science, it would be difficult to erase and convince with contrary ideas. In physics the field of a force is often more important than the absolute magnitude of the force. In geophysical applications, we are concerned with accelerations rather than forces. Classical theoretical gravity interpretation and modern Bouguer gravity anomaly interpretation differ and use the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation equation with positive and negative signs respectively. The Physicists deal with high gravity black holes in space and the Geophysicists with negative gravity field for mass distribution on the surface of the earth. In spite of, extensive theoretical work in gravity interpretation, the concept of gravity anomaly, is still an enigma. If gravity anomaly reveals the density, it should be proportional to vertical gradient of gravity. On the other hand, if it represents the gravity field, it cannot indicate the density. We analyze and present here our perception of the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation and show that gravity increases with height.
Our perception of Newton’s law of universal gravitation: The Newton’s law of Universal gravitation states that the mutual force of attraction between two point masses M and m is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance Z between them. Then, k as the constant of proportionality, the gravitational force
[F = k Mm/ Z2] …. (A)
However, in practice in a more general form, the gravitational attraction (F) exerted by M of the earth on m (William Lowrie, 1997), presumably for bodies away from earth, is [F =- Gm M/(R) 2 R] --- (1)
where, R is a unit vector in the direction of increase of coordinate of radius of earth R, which directs away from the centre of reference at the mass M. The negative sign in the equation indicates that the force F acts in the opposite direction, towards the attracting mass M of the earth and G, the constant of universal gravitation. Also in geophysical applications, we are concerned in accelerations rather than forces.
Converting the force into acceleration, the force (William Lowrie, 1997) Is
F= mass (m) X acceleration (a)
So, [(F=m*a) or (F= m*g)]…. (2)
Here g is the acceleration due to gravity. The negative sign in equation (1) and distance measurement as that from M results in a negative gravitational force away from mass M, as if the smaller mass m attracts mass M. It suggests that a similar large mirror image mass as that of M should exist at the same distance in the opposite direction (invisible mass above the surface of the earth?). . However, what we deal in practice is negative gravity field of the earth, which decreases with height. Now let us examine what this negative gravity field actually means by converting the force into acceleration. Now, let us consider a general case. When M=m, the forces of attraction will be in opposite direction and the effect of the mutual attraction of the two masses is maximum at the mid point of the two masses.The effect of each mass on the other reduces as the distance increases away from the mid point of the masses. The forces vary inversely with the square of the distance from the mid point. When M is larger than m, the force of attraction is always towards the mass M because it attracts mass m. The mass M by virtue of its size exerts its influence over a large distance as compared to the mass m. Hence, the distance at which the maximum force occurs shifts away from the large mass to-wards the small mass. Another mass Q smaller than M and m, placed between the two the mass, Q experiences force of attraction of mass M or mass m depending upon its location and size.
However, here, we consider two unequal masses and discuss about attraction of mass M on m. Therefore, it is unidirectional in the cases of two unequal masses. Therefore, it follows that the direction of force and the distance measurement are positive in the same direction towards the attracting mass M. We can measure the distance between the two masses from any direction, as it is a square term in the denominator. However, it is the object of mass m, which is affected due to the attraction of mass M a vector and hence important for the direction of measurement of distance and force. Therefore, both are in the same direction towards mass M. Here g is the acceleration due to gravity of the earth M. If we replace m by unit mass, from equations (1) and (2) we have
[g=- G M/R2 ]… (3) which indicates that the gravity field decreases with height.
The Newton’s second law of motion states that the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the force acting upon it and takes place in the direction of the force. It is here the problem lies, which somehow escaped the attention of the doyens of physicists. Following the notation and the negative sign used in equation (1) The acceleration caused by attraction of mass M on mass m should be [(-F) =ma].
So, [(-F) =mg]. ----- (4)
From equations (1) and (4) we have,
[g= G M/(R)2]--- (5) which results in the gravitational acceleration of the earth and the distance are in the same direction towards mass M, as that obtained in equation (A). As force of attraction, acting on the unit mass is always towards the attracting mass and R is a square term in the denominator the gravity field remains the same irrespective of the measurement of distance as height or depth. Comparing equations (3) and (5), we observe only a change in sign that is a mirror image. Now, let us analyze, what actually the negative gravity field indicates.
Then what does the negative gravity field indicate?
Now differentiating equation (5) with respect to R, we get
[Dg/dR=dg/dz= (-2GM)/(R)3]......... (6) that gives the vertical gradient of gravity in the direction of force of attraction of mass M, if z represents depth.
Now differentiating equation (3), we get
[dg/dR= 2GM/(R)3]... (7) that gives the vertical gradient of gravity in the opposite direction of attraction or in the direction of distance measurement. As the distance factor is reckoned from the centre of earth in equation (3) R should be replaced (–R) in equation (7), which gives the same equation as that of (6) that gives the vertical gradient of gravity in the direction of the force of attraction. The change in the sign is evident when the vertical gradient of gravity is calculated. Therefore, equations (3) and (5) are mirror images and indicate the vertical gradient of gravity and the gravity field respectively. The vertical gradient of gravity is proportional to twice the product of masses and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from the attracting mass. The Vertical gradient of gravity, which is a mirror reflection of ‘g’, integrated with respect to height gives the acceleration due to gravity.
Therefore, the negative sign in equation (1) symbolizes a figurative expression that the forces are in opposite direction. Consequently, the vertical gradient of gravity decreases and the gravity field increases with height.
Potential energy and work: Assuming that F is constant through the short distance of the fall of an object, the work expended is (-F) h. This is the potential energy of an object in space before its fall. If the constant force F moves through a small distance dr in the same direction as the force the work done is [dW= F dr]
Therefore, the change in the potential energy (dE) is
[dE=dW= F dr]…. (8)
The gravitational potential is the potential energy of a unit mass in a field of gravitational attraction. If the potential is U, the potential energy of a mass m in a gravitational field is equal to mU. Thus, a change in potential energy [dE=mU].
Equation (8) becomes m dU= F.dr and by use of equation (4)
[m dU=m g dr].
Thus [g= (dU/dr) R]. … (9)
Equating equations (8) and (9) [dU/dr = - G M/ R2], the solution of which is
[U= G M/R]… (10)
CONCLUSION: The negative gravity with height is actually a mirror image of the gravity field of the earth obtained from the Newton’s law with the positive sign and is proportional to vertical gradient of gravity field vector as a change in sign as that observed in equation with minus sign. Consequently, the vertical gradient of gravity, which indicates the density of the body, decreases and the gravity increases with height. Therefore in space at the intersection of planets and galaxies high gravity fields occur. In addition, gravity decreases to zero towards the centre of the earth. The magnetic field also requires similar understanding.
The absolute gravity measurements by Pendulums or by free fall method in one form or other indicate the distance related to height. Therefore, the measured value based on distance reckoned as height is proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity. This is the reason the hitherto calculated absolute value of the gravity is large at the poles of the earth as compared to that at equator. In addition, it leads to the conclusion that the object of attraction has zero potential energy in space. Besides, the gravity anomalies become negative and are proportional to vertical gradient of gravity (Kesavamani, 2001, 2002, Kesavamani et.al. 2005, 2006, 2007). These negative gravity anomalies indicate the density of the body or the negative density contrast there by, indicating the Himalayan heights as negative and ocean depths as positive gravity anomalies.
Therefore, maximum gravity occurs at the mutual attraction of masses in space and decreases towards the centre of masses. We can therefore have two data sets indicating the absolute gravity as well as its vertical gradient of gravity at different station elevations by change in sign in the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation.
REFERENCES:
Hualin Zeng and Tianfeng Wan, 2004. Clarification of the geophysical definition of a gravity field. Geophysics, Vol. no 5(Sept-Oct 2004), pp 1252-1254.
Kesavamani, M. 2001 Bouguer anomalies over the continents and oceans-Notes Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind., 58 466-467(2001)
Kesavamani, M.2002 Bouguer anomalies over the continents and oceans Correspondence, Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind. 60, (2002)
Kesavamani, M., Ramachandran, C., Krishna Rao, M.V.R., Prasad, R.M.C., Venkateswarlu, M. 2005 The Concept of gravity and magnetic anomalies. Notes. Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind. 66 511(2005)
Kesavamani, M., Ramachandran, C., Prasad, R.M.C., Krishna Rao, M.V.R., Reduction of gravity and magnetic data.2005 Notes. Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind. 66, 644. (2005).
Kesavamani, M.,Ramachandran,C,.,Krishna Rao, M. V. R., Prasad, R. M.C.,
Ram Mohan. P. K. The fallacy of Bouguer anomaly in Geophysical exploration and the new concept of the theory of gravity anomaly. Abs.46.Third International Seminar and Exhibition on Exploration Geophysics, AEG, (2006), Hyderabad, India.
M.Kesavamani, V.Vidyasagar, M.V.R.Krishna Rao, R.M.C Prasad, P.K.Rammohan. 2007. Does the gravity increase with the height?. June 2007. GSI SR News Vol.24(1&2)
LaFehr. T.R., 1991. Standardization in gravity reduction. Geophysics, Vol. 56, No.8, pp.1170-1178, 7 figures.
William Hinze, Carlos Aiken, John Brozena,Bernard Coakley,David Dater, Guy Flenagan, Rene Forsberg, Thomas Hildenbrand, G., Randy Keller, James Kellogg, Robert Kucks, Xiong Li, Andre Mainville, Robert Morin, Mark Pikington, Donald Plouff, Dhananjay Ravat, Daniel Roman, James Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Mark Vernneau, Michael Webring, and Daniel Winester., 2005. New standards for reducing gravity data: The north Americal gravity data base. Geophysics, Vol. 70, no.4 (July-August2005) pp 125-132, 1 table
William Lowrie. Fundamentals of Geophysics, Cambridge University Press, UK (1997)
THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL SEMINAR ON EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS, AEG, INDIA. FEB.2009
Of negative gravity of the earth and high gravity in space-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA revisit to Newton’s law of Universal gravitation.
M. Kesavamani, M. V. R. Krishna Rao, R. M. C. Prasad,
V. Vidyasagar, C. Ramachandran.
214, Star Shelter Apartments, Saidabad Colony,
Hyderabad- 500 059, A. P., India.
E. mail: manikesava@rediffmail.com
kesavamanimangalampalli10@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Considerable confusion and debate exists in the literature on the subject of gravity right from the geophysical definition of the gravity field to standardization of gravity reduction and corrections as well as geodetic versus geophysical perspectives of the “gravity anomaly”. A common belief is that the gravity field decreases with height just because the distance factor is in the denominator of the equation of the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation. Contrary to this idea, the physicists deal with high gravity fields in space and the geophysicists with negative gravity field for mass distribution on the surface of the earth. The physicists and the geophysicists use the scalar gravity to compute the energy and gravity field for theoretical models respectively. We analyze and present here our perception of the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation and show that gravity increases with height.
The Newton’s law of Universal gravitation states that the mutual force of attraction between two point masses M and m is proportional to the product of masses and “inversely proportional” to the square of the distance Z between them. Then, k as the constant of proportionality, the gravitational force
[F = k m M/ Z2
But, in practice in a more general form, the gravitational attraction (F) exerted by M of the earth on m, is [F =- G m M/(R) 2 R] --- (B)
Here, R is a unit vector in the direction of increase of coordinate of radius of earth R, which directs away from the centre of reference at the mass M. The negative sign in the equation indicates that the force F acts in the opposite direction, towards the attracting mass M of the earth and G, the constant of universal gravitation. Thus, there are two equations, one with minus sign and the other with positive sign, for the Newton’ law of universal gravitation to compute the gravity field.
A cursory glance at the equations reveals that the gravity decreases as the distance increases because the distance factor is in the denominator. However, the negative sign in equation (B) results in a negative gravitational force away from mass M, as if the smaller mass m attracts mass M. It suggests that a similar large mirror image mass as that of M should exist at the same distance in the opposite direction (invisible mass above the surface of the earth?). However, the force F, masses M and m cannot be negative. Therefore, only the distance factor R can be negative. However, what we deal in practice is negative gravity field of the earth, which decreases with height. Now let us examine what this negative gravity field actually means.
Analyzing the Newton’s law of universal gravitation for a general case when M=m, the forces of attraction will be in opposite direction and the effect of the mutual attraction of the two masses is maximum at the mid point of the two masses.The effect of each mass on the other reduces as the distance increases away from the mid point of the masses. The forces vary inversely with the square of the distance from the mid point. When M is larger than m, the force of attraction is always towards the mass M because it attracts mass m. The mass M by virtue of its size exerts its influence over a large distance as compared to the mass m. Hence, the distance at which the maximum force occurs shifts away from the large mass to-wards the small mass. We can better visualize if we consider another mass Q smaller than that of M and m located between the two the mass then, Q experiences force of attraction of mass M or mass m depending upon its location and size. It is at this point of intersection, the acceleration due to gravity changes its direction towards the attracting masses. The mutual attraction between two bodies results only due the interaction of the excess and deficit masses of the two bodies respectively.
However, here, we consider two unequal masses and discuss about attraction of mass M on m. It is unidirectional in the case of two unequal masses. Therefore, it follows that the direction of force and the distance measurement are positive in the same direction towards the attracting mass M. We can measure the distance between the two masses from any direction, as it is a square term in the denominator. Therefore, it is apparent that the difference between the two equations is only the reckoning of the distance factor. In addition, gravity field is a vector quantity and the direction of force and measurement are in the same direction towards the attracting mass. This is implicit in the Newton’s law of universal gravitation, but requires a more correct mathematical expression for the words “inversely proportional”. Therefore, we emphasize that the gravity increases as the height increases. The equation without minus sign actually indicates the gravity field vector. Differentiating the gravity force with distance vector results in the change in signature in opposite direction.
Therefore, we show that this negative gravity with height is actually a mirror image of the gravity field of the earth obtained from the Newton’s law without the minus sign and is proportional to vertical gradient of gravity field vector as a change in sign as that observed in equation with minus sign. Consequently, the vertical gradient of gravity, which indicates the density of the body, decreases and the gravity increases with height. Therefore in space at the intersection of planets and galaxies high gravity fields occur. In addition, gravity decreases to zero towards the centre of the earth. The magnetic field also requires similar understanding.
INTRODUCTION: There has been considerable confusion and debate on the subjects right from the geophysical definition of the gravity field (Hualin Zeng and Tianfeng Wan, 2004) to standardization of gravity reduction and corrections (LaFehr, 1991; William Hinze et.,al, 2005) as well as geodetic versus geophysical perspectives of the “gravity anomaly ” (Hackney and Featherstone, 2003). Of some concern is that the practical realization of gravity anomaly remains open to question despite being the subject of many investigators.
That the gravity field decreases with height is so much ingrained in the minds of the scholars and students of science, it would be difficult to erase and convince with contrary ideas. In physics the field of a force is often more important than the absolute magnitude of the force. In geophysical applications, we are concerned with accelerations rather than forces. Classical theoretical gravity interpretation and modern Bouguer gravity anomaly interpretation differ and use the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation equation with positive and negative signs respectively. The Physicists deal with high gravity black holes in space and the Geophysicists with negative gravity field for mass distribution on the surface of the earth. In spite of, extensive theoretical work in gravity interpretation, the concept of gravity anomaly, is still an enigma. If gravity anomaly reveals the density, it should be proportional to vertical gradient of gravity. On the other hand, if it represents the gravity field, it cannot indicate the density. We analyze and present here our perception of the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation and show that gravity increases with height.
Our perception of Newton’s law of universal gravitation: The Newton’s law of Universal gravitation states that the mutual force of attraction between two point masses M and m is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance Z between them. Then, k as the constant of proportionality, the gravitational force
[F = k Mm/ Z2] …. (A)
However, in practice in a more general form, the gravitational attraction (F) exerted by M of the earth on m (William Lowrie, 1997), presumably for bodies away from earth, is [F =- Gm M/(R) 2 R] --- (1)
where, R is a unit vector in the direction of increase of coordinate of radius of earth R, which directs away from the centre of reference at the mass M. The negative sign in the equation indicates that the force F acts in the opposite direction, towards the attracting mass M of the earth and G, the constant of universal gravitation. Also in geophysical applications, we are concerned in accelerations rather than forces.
Converting the force into acceleration, the force (William Lowrie, 1997) Is
F= mass (m) X acceleration (a)
So, [(F=m*a) or (F= m*g)]…. (2)
Here g is the acceleration due to gravity. The negative sign in equation (1) and distance measurement as that from M results in a negative gravitational force away from mass M, as if the smaller mass m attracts mass M. It suggests that a similar large mirror image mass as that of M should exist at the same distance in the opposite direction (invisible mass above the surface of the earth?). . However, what we deal in practice is negative gravity field of the earth, which decreases with height. Now let us examine what this negative gravity field actually means by converting the force into acceleration. Now, let us consider a general case. When M=m, the forces of attraction will be in opposite direction and the effect of the mutual attraction of the two masses is maximum at the mid point of the two masses.The effect of each mass on the other reduces as the distance increases away from the mid point of the masses. The forces vary inversely with the square of the distance from the mid point. When M is larger than m, the force of attraction is always towards the mass M because it attracts mass m. The mass M by virtue of its size exerts its influence over a large distance as compared to the mass m. Hence, the distance at which the maximum force occurs shifts away from the large mass to-wards the small mass. Another mass Q smaller than M and m, placed between the two the mass, Q experiences force of attraction of mass M or mass m depending upon its location and size.
However, here, we consider two unequal masses and discuss about attraction of mass M on m. Therefore, it is unidirectional in the cases of two unequal masses. Therefore, it follows that the direction of force and the distance measurement are positive in the same direction towards the attracting mass M. We can measure the distance between the two masses from any direction, as it is a square term in the denominator. However, it is the object of mass m, which is affected due to the attraction of mass M a vector and hence important for the direction of measurement of distance and force. Therefore, both are in the same direction towards mass M. Here g is the acceleration due to gravity of the earth M. If we replace m by unit mass, from equations (1) and (2) we have
[g=- G M/R2 ]… (3) which indicates that the gravity field decreases with height.
The Newton’s second law of motion states that the rate of change of momentum is proportional to the force acting upon it and takes place in the direction of the force. It is here the problem lies, which somehow escaped the attention of the doyens of physicists. Following the notation and the negative sign used in equation (1) The acceleration caused by attraction of mass M on mass m should be [(-F) =ma].
So, [(-F) =mg]. ----- (4)
From equations (1) and (4) we have,
[g= G M/(R)2]--- (5) which results in the gravitational acceleration of the earth and the distance are in the same direction towards mass M, as that obtained in equation (A). As force of attraction, acting on the unit mass is always towards the attracting mass and R is a square term in the denominator the gravity field remains the same irrespective of the measurement of distance as height or depth. Comparing equations (3) and (5), we observe only a change in sign that is a mirror image. Now, let us analyze, what actually the negative gravity field indicates.
Then what does the negative gravity field indicate?
Now differentiating equation (5) with respect to R, we get
[Dg/dR=dg/dz= (-2GM)/(R)3]......... (6) that gives the vertical gradient of gravity in the direction of force of attraction of mass M, if z represents depth.
Now differentiating equation (3), we get
[dg/dR= 2GM/(R)3]... (7) that gives the vertical gradient of gravity in the opposite direction of attraction or in the direction of distance measurement. As the distance factor is reckoned from the centre of earth in equation (3) R should be replaced (–R) in equation (7), which gives the same equation as that of (6) that gives the vertical gradient of gravity in the direction of the force of attraction. The change in the sign is evident when the vertical gradient of gravity is calculated. Therefore, equations (3) and (5) are mirror images and indicate the vertical gradient of gravity and the gravity field respectively. The vertical gradient of gravity is proportional to twice the product of masses and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance from the attracting mass. The Vertical gradient of gravity, which is a mirror reflection of ‘g’, integrated with respect to height gives the acceleration due to gravity.
Therefore, the negative sign in equation (1) symbolizes a figurative expression that the forces are in opposite direction. Consequently, the vertical gradient of gravity decreases and the gravity field increases with height.
Potential energy and work: Assuming that F is constant through the short distance of the fall of an object, the work expended is (-F) h. This is the potential energy of an object in space before its fall. If the constant force F moves through a small distance dr in the same direction as the force the work done is [dW= F dr]
Therefore, the change in the potential energy (dE) is
[dE=dW= F dr]…. (8)
The gravitational potential is the potential energy of a unit mass in a field of gravitational attraction. If the potential is U, the potential energy of a mass m in a gravitational field is equal to mU. Thus, a change in potential energy [dE=mU].
Equation (8) becomes m dU= F.dr and by use of equation (4)
[m dU=m g dr].
Thus [g= (dU/dr) R]. … (9)
Equating equations (8) and (9) [dU/dr = - G M/ R2], the solution of which is
[U= G M/R]… (10)
CONCLUSION: The negative gravity with height is actually a mirror image of the gravity field of the earth obtained from the Newton’s law with the positive sign and is proportional to vertical gradient of gravity field vector as a change in sign as that observed in equation with minus sign. Consequently, the vertical gradient of gravity, which indicates the density of the body, decreases and the gravity increases with height. Therefore in space at the intersection of planets and galaxies high gravity fields occur. In addition, gravity decreases to zero towards the centre of the earth. The magnetic field also requires similar understanding.
The absolute gravity measurements by Pendulums or by free fall method in one form or other indicate the distance related to height. Therefore, the measured value based on distance reckoned as height is proportional to the vertical gradient of gravity. This is the reason the hitherto calculated absolute value of the gravity is large at the poles of the earth as compared to that at equator. In addition, it leads to the conclusion that the object of attraction has zero potential energy in space. Besides, the gravity anomalies become negative and are proportional to vertical gradient of gravity (Kesavamani, 2001, 2002, Kesavamani et.al. 2005, 2006, 2007). These negative gravity anomalies indicate the density of the body or the negative density contrast there by, indicating the Himalayan heights as negative and ocean depths as positive gravity anomalies.
Therefore, maximum gravity occurs at the mutual attraction of masses in space and decreases towards the centre of masses. We can therefore have two data sets indicating the absolute gravity as well as its vertical gradient of gravity at different station elevations by change in sign in the Newton’s law of Universal gravitation.
REFERENCES:
Hualin Zeng and Tianfeng Wan, 2004. Clarification of the geophysical definition of a gravity field. Geophysics, Vol. no 5(Sept-Oct 2004), pp 1252-1254.
Kesavamani, M. 2001 Bouguer anomalies over the continents and oceans-Notes Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind., 58 466-467(2001)
Kesavamani, M.2002 Bouguer anomalies over the continents and oceans Correspondence, Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind. 60, (2002)
Kesavamani, M., Ramachandran, C., Krishna Rao, M.V.R., Prasad, R.M.C., Venkateswarlu, M. 2005 The Concept of gravity and magnetic anomalies. Notes. Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind. 66 511(2005)
Kesavamani, M., Ramachandran, C., Prasad, R.M.C., Krishna Rao, M.V.R., Reduction of gravity and magnetic data.2005 Notes. Jour. Geol. Soc. Ind. 66, 644. (2005).
Kesavamani, M.,Ramachandran,C,.,Krishna Rao, M. V. R., Prasad, R. M.C.,
Ram Mohan. P. K. The fallacy of Bouguer anomaly in Geophysical exploration and the new concept of the theory of gravity anomaly. Abs.46.Third International Seminar and Exhibition on Exploration Geophysics, AEG, (2006), Hyderabad, India.
M.Kesavamani, V.Vidyasagar, M.V.R.Krishna Rao, R.M.C Prasad, P.K.Rammohan. 2007. Does the gravity increase with the height?. June 2007. GSI SR News Vol.24(1&2)
LaFehr. T.R., 1991. Standardization in gravity reduction. Geophysics, Vol. 56, No.8, pp.1170-1178, 7 figures.
William Hinze, Carlos Aiken, John Brozena,Bernard Coakley,David Dater, Guy Flenagan, Rene Forsberg, Thomas Hildenbrand, G., Randy Keller, James Kellogg, Robert Kucks, Xiong Li, Andre Mainville, Robert Morin, Mark Pikington, Donald Plouff, Dhananjay Ravat, Daniel Roman, James Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Mark Vernneau, Michael Webring, and Daniel Winester., 2005. New standards for reducing gravity data: The north Americal gravity data base. Geophysics, Vol. 70, no.4 (July-August2005) pp 125-132, 1 table
William Lowrie. Fundamentals of Geophysics, Cambridge University Press, UK (1997)
THIS PAPER WAS PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL SEMINAR ON EXPLORATION GEOPHYSICS, AEG, INDIA. FEB.2009
Such a distorting lense is the general theory of relativity, according to Vasily Yanchilin. Stephen Hawking should read his book "The Quantum Theory of Gravitation" (2003) and comment p.e the wrong explanation of the red shift of sunlight by Einstein adepts, who think it is both caused by slower time at the sun and by energy loss while overcoming the sun's gravitation (while in reality only one is measured). The main mistake of Einstein, working before there was anything like quantum mechanics, is that he confused time and length. When the unit of length becomes smaller then the distance increases. When however physical processes go faster then the total duration will be shorter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYanchilin develops a better formula based on the everywhere accepted principle of least action and concludes that black holes do not exist. Neither, negative energy, inflation, accelleration of the universe expansion, the cosmological constant. Based on Mach's thinking his main hypothesis is that the total mass of the universe determines the physical laws and that near mass the uncertainty (Heisenberg) gets smaller. Thus gravitation appears as a purely quantum mechanic phenomen. Newton and Einstein only got quantitative description. I can tell a lot more but better is to invite Vasily Yanchilin for an article or interview. Those believing that the Uniting Black Holes will ultimately devour us should send one of a twin geranium plant into outer space. When it is eaten by the forward storming black holes its brother at the window of your house will shiver, which is to be registrated by sensible apparatus. Then just enough time will be left to you for a last short prayer.
There is now considerable compelling observational evidence that even supermassive black holes definitively exist, including the observations of many large stars orbiting a small area in space at very high velocities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, in my opinion, black holes contain no matter. I think that as matter is accelerated to extreme velocities as it is would seem to be 'ingested' by the black hole, matter literally disintegrates into its component fundamental particles and the potential energy of its mass. While the 'ingested' material's potential energy (mass) is incorporated by the spacetime contracted by the singular directional focus of acceleration, the material energy residue (particles and waves) are ejected in the polar jets observed for active black holes. As a result, the 'ingested' potential energy (mass) is retained as gravitational energy, but the black hole contains no matter within its singularity, requiring no special dispensation of material spatial displacement. Only the gravitational energy, directed to the singularity is retained.
I think that this general explanation of observed black hole effects is better integrated with quantum theory than Hawking's proposed black body radiation and the attribution of ejection jets to simple angular momentum.
Newton's equation of Universal Gravitation applies only to two point-masses. A point-mass is defined as a perfectly localized point of mass energy. Newton's Shell theorem provides the proof that perfectly spherically symmetrical distributions of mass can be reasonably treated as as single point of mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, no moon, planet or even star is actually a perfectly spherically symmetrical distribution of mass. It is only the typical distances between planets that allow the Sun and planets to be effectively treated as point-masses in estimating gravitational effects using Newton's equations.
At closer distances, the actual imperfect distributions of mass found on planets and even the Sun become critical, producing significant estimation errors. This can be seen by the path corrections required for spacecraft sent passing near planets to receive the beneficial acceleration of their gravitational velocity.
Personally, I hate tedious mathematics, but it is obviously extremely useful when correctly and appropriately applied to the solution of difficult problems. However, mathematicians must always be careful that the correct equations are appropriately applied to the specific problem conditions at hand.
P.S. How did you enter such much text as a single message?
By the way, the presumption of valid point-masses is critical to Newton's equation, since it allows the use of the virtually universal inverse-square equation (along with the gravitational constant) to estimate the effective attractive force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's well understood that there is actually no physical force of gravitational attraction. IMO attraction vectors represent the intersection of two external gravitational force fields whose aggregated effects effectively simulate an attraction between to object of mass. I'll spare you the remainder of this discussion for now...
By the way, I can't do the math and I don't think it's explicitly stated, but I suspect that general relativity's gravitational equation also presumes that the gravitational effect is produced by a perfectly radial point-mass or a perfectly spherical distribution of mass and is therefore also susceptible to producing errors at near proximities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe now have an energy equation that links the Planck mass and electron mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE1/E2 = E2/E3
E1 = (2/3)^1/2 Planck mass energy = (hc^5/3pi G)^1/2
E2 = 2(electron mass)c^2
E3 = h/(2pi)^2 joule
The value E2 is then required to be:
E2 = (E1)^1/2 (E3)^1/2
E2 = (hc^5/3pi G)^1/4 [h/(2pi)^2]^1/2
The electron mass is E2/2c^2. The electron mass is then predicted as shown:
Electron mass = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG)^1/4 kilogram
This equation links electromagnetic and gravitational forces and should be useful in developing a unified theory.
Don Stevens
An energy equation links the electron mass to the Planck mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisE1/E2 = E2/E3
E1 = (2/3)^1/2(Planck mass)c^2
E1 = (hc^5/3pi G)^1/2 joule
E2 = 2(electron mass)c^2 joule
E3 = h/(2pi)^2 joule
E2 = (E1)^1/2 (E3)^1/2
E2 = (hc^5/3pi G)^1/4 [h/(2pi)^2]^1/2
The electron mass is E2 divided by (2c^2).
Electron mass = (h/4pi c)(c/3pi hG)^1/4 kilogram
This equation that links electromagnetic and gravitational forces should be useful in developing "The
(Elusive) Theory of Everything".
Don Stevens
sciam...i see with the new redesign you got rid of the of 2048 character input limit...please think about putting it back....other wise your going to get people putting books on here...oh wait it already happened twice;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article implies that there may not be a single set of equations to describe reality so that any given set may not apply in all circumstances. This sounds eerily like the problem with quantum mechanics now having one set of equations to describe the wave another to describe the particle. Would like to get a professional opinion on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the stimulating and informative discussion. I felt the article read a bit more like a new brief than a traditional SiAm article. No one has mentioned how the 5 string theories relate to each other mathematically. Is it just different presumed topology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway I'm glad there is still uncertainty so I can imagine black holes as apetures into alternate realities and the expanding universe as an illusion caused by the crumbling fractal edge of the universe's past.
The conundrum presented by having separate equations to represent material energy as a wave or particle presumes that material energy is actually singular state encompassing the characteristics of both particles and waves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is some evidence that particles and waves are separate and unique quantum state manifestations of material energy: self-propagating light is only detectable as wave energy unless its propagation is halted by external material absorption of its momentum, at which time it is only detectable as a particle. Unless, perhaps I've misunderstood something, as my profession did not directly involve physics.
Reality will have a consistent theory - that hasn't changed. Physicists are just realizing (again) that the Multiverse is far more complex than they can possibly imagine! Humans are not remotely close to a real TOE. A very likely scenario is that the human brain will be incapable of comprehending everything. We are smarter than dogs and chimps, but our brain is only moderately more complex than theirs. Why does that imply that we are infinitely intelligent?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore of the stale old neo-Kantian garbage - neo-Kantian garbage from no less than one of the most distinguished of modern physicists, namely Stephen Hawking. Hawking and co-author Leonard Mlodinow make what looks to me like a pathetic last-ditch effort to save string theory (and the still non-existent M-theory) from the ultimate judgement of empirical testability. And I would very much doubt that many string theorists will thank them for it. There is, we are told, no such thing as an 'objective reality' independent of how humans happen to conceive the world and which string theory attempts to describe. In their example of goldfish in a bowl, all we are entitled to say is that, like the fish in their world, we construct 'models' of ours, a world the nature of which can't be shown to have any reality other than of what goes on in our heads. Thus it is supposed to follow that the five different string theories are not really incompatible - i.e., they require no dissolving into one experimentally verifiable M-theory - but simply mirror different mind-dependent 'realities', different worlds through different fishbowls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInevitably, they invoke one of the Thomas Kuhn's relativistic tales, namely, that Copernicus didn't 'really' refute Ptolemy's Earth-centred picture of the cosmos. It was merely that Copernicus' 'model' was 'simpler', insinuating as is standard practice among subjectivists (for insinuation is all it can ever amount to) that the immensity of the knowledge we now have of the physics of the universe is just a much larger dose of the same. And (presumably for us dimmer mortals) we are invited to contemplate the wisdom of the sci-fi film The Matrix, wherein humans are in a virtual environment, computer-controlled by aliens. How would we know (comes the now wearisome question) "that another reality stood behind the simulated one"? Well, we wouldn't would we*. But it is surely a loss to we the unsophisticated that we are not brought to see the profundity of this Hollywood blockbuster, i.e., that Hawking & Mlodinow don't trouble to offer a single line of cogent argument or reason to show that our physical sciences are essentially in the same boat. The only point of philosophical substance we are vouchsafed is that the notion of 'alternative worlds' is something string theory is badly in need of.
*But it should be pointed out to the craftsmen of The Matrix and digested by H&M that, unless the aliens were in possession of a Theory of Everything (the hope for which H&M themselves now advise should be abandoned, and their logic says for any aliens likewise), it would be near-100% certain that the un-omniscient aliens (who anyway must have something like our picture of 'reality' in order to engage with us at all) would sooner or later blunder. Some even miniscule glitch would eventually be pounced upon perhaps by some ambitious earthling post-doc desperate for tenure - and the alien world would suddenly be our world and open for good old-fashioned 'realist' scientific exploration. In short, how many ways round do H&M want it?
What seems not to have occurred to Messrs Hawking and Mlodinow is that even if, as they speculate, our knowledge of the universe is indeed just some kind of huge mental fabrication, impossible to validate 'objectively' from the 'outside' - i.e., is just one of an indefinite number of different 'realities' - it would make not a goddamn iota of difference to anything whatsoever. The sciences would continue to search, just like the goldfish, for confirmation of their theories of their world exactly as if it was 'objective reality'. And so they do, and, entirely consistent with the Hawking/Mlodinow 'philosophy', all they ever will ever do. Humans, even stuck in our 'bowl', just like the goldfish face no "predicament". If it is indeed impossible to get 'outside' of the theories in which we are allegedly trapped, then why dream about the possibility of an 'outside' at all? What precisely is the object - apart from the effort to exempt string theory from the requirement of falsifiable prediction 'inside' this world?
But the fatal objection to any radical relativism or subjectivism is that it can't even be coherently stated. Because you promptly ask: is the proposition "all of reality is just mind-dependent" (or some such) a statement of objective fact? Is it itself supposed to be an element of 'reality' unaffected by the "goldfish bowl" through which humans are said to comprehend the universe? Or is it itself 'relative'? If it is 'relative' (and why not?) then the whole thesis collapses into gibberish. If it isn't 'relative', i.e., is a non-mind-dependent objective fact about how humans relate to the world, then why can't there be an infinite number of such judgements - thus defeating the whole subjectivist enterprise? In short, from what vantage point is the idea of the relativity of human knowledge a view from? "There is", Hawking & Mlodinow opine, "no way to remove the observer -us- from our perception of the world". But, as any good philosophy undergraduate would point out, that claim is itself precisely a 'removal' of "our perception", i.e., is proposition alleging a objective truth universally valid. Of course, as is a platitude, our 'perceptions' influence our understanding of the world in all manner of ways. However, for the blanket statement that there is nothing else but, there isn't a shred of evidence. But of course, and very handily for the subjectivist, there can't be any evidence for it because by the very assumption of relativism all evidence is itself subjective. It is an intellectual's fantasy, a flight purely of the imagination, one philosophically as old as the hills. Today, where there are serious lacunae in our scientific understanding (and indeed there are very many) the religious invoke the Almighty ('the god of the gaps') and the unbeliever, one stuck with an apparently intractable scientific problem, invokes some vulgar version of Immanuel Kant.
Trotted out - yet again - for 'philosophical' purposes are the mysteries of quantum physics (particles having no definite positions or velocities until observed, past and future only a spectrum of possibilities, etc, etc). And indeed, at this particular point in the history of physics, a sort of mystery they certainly are. But our authors need to make up their minds. Are these phenomena part-and-parcel of the real world, i.e., are they the currently known verifiable facts about some fundamentals of the universe, or are they just more of our mental contructs, just what we think is the case, trapped as we are in always "theory-laden" investigation? Certainly it would appear that H&M cleave to the former: "The reality of quantum theory is a radical departure from that of classical physics" [behind the sloppy language is presumably a claim not just about reality of the theory but that what the theory describes is reality.] If this is so then why are quantum phenomena pressed into service to buttress the denial that "an external world exists whose properties are definite and independent of the observer"? Ah no, would come the reply, quantum phenomenon are certainly real, but only for us. The really real [Kant's Ding an sich?] beyond the "theory-laden" we can never know. OK, we might respond, but suppose the entire human race was wiped out. Does the "theory-laden" conception of knowledge entail that, e.g., bodies would no longer obey Isaac Newton's Inverse Square Law of Gravity or that any remaining creatures would no longer have Gregor Mendel's genes? We couldn't possibly say, would come the retort, because "there is no picture- or theory-independent concept of reality". Now all this is supposed to be terribly, terribly deep, and indeed the like has kept some very large philosophical minds gainfully occupied for over 2000 years, not to speak of a plethora of assorted ecclesiastics. Its addition to the sum of human knowledge? Zero. Its role in scientific advancement? When not baleful, minimal (Max Planck, the 'father' of quantum mechanics, was stimulated by the Kantian Ernst Mach but subsequently rejected subjectivism). Is there a world beyond "theory-dependent" consciousness we can't possibly know? Nobody knows what an 'answer' would even look like, and perhaps - anyway in this context - Wittgenstein was right: philosophical problems have their origin in the wilful misuse of ordinary language.
And there's another thing. Mightn't H&M usefully reflect on a little of René Descartes: "I think, therefore I am". Hawking thinks. Does he think with a brain? Or do we have to say that 'brains' are merely 'our' theoretical constructs, themselves merely the products of thought? If not, aren't brains parts of bodies? And aren't our bodies composed of atoms and molecules? And aren't atoms composed of protons, neutrons and electrons? And aren't protons and neutrons composed of...well, and so on and so forth... the origins of the lot (detailed controversy aside) traceable back to the Big Bang. Or has the Big Bang (or whatever cosmic origins scientists finally find) no objective existence? But if not, then neither does Hawking's brain, which the sciences say is physically connected with the Big Bang. Thus, set beside the mystery of the origin of Hawking's thoughts about the non-objective existence of the external world, the mysteries of quantum physics pale into insignificance.
Acknowledging that brevity and some simplification are in order even for readers of Scientific American, H&M's conclusions about the status of string theory are barely intelligible: "...M-theory, like the goldfish example, shows that the same physical situation can be modelled in different ways, each employing different fundamental elements and concepts. It might be that to describe the universe we have to employ different theories in different situations. Each theory may have its own version of reality, but according to [our] model-dependent realism, that diversity is acceptable, and none of the versions can be said to be more real than any other." Earlier in the piece we were advised that the world could be only how the human species perceives it to be. One grants immediately of course that, historically and globally speaking, humans have perceived the world in all manner of different ways. But as two members of the modern scientific community, sharing concepts and practices of near-unplumbable depth, it looks as though H&M believe themselves quite capable of jumping into quite another sort of 'fish bowl' entirely. How? Well, it would seem that all one has to do is to "model" the "same physical situation" in "different ways", so that - presumably - one "models", say, the sub-atomic world through the five different 'fishbowls' of string theory and hey presto! one has five different "realities", none of them any less "real" than any other theory we have (provided, one takes it, that they don't logically contradict one another). Of course these "realities" are not the really real realities, i.e., they have nothing to do with any actual world beyond that which is only 'theoretical' anyway, so that testing them against experimental data drawn from the actual world is not only unnecessary, it is quite impossible. Nice!
It is another platitude that at the frontiers of science have always been, and no doubt will long be, apparently irresoluble conceptual problems. But the giants of conceptual revolutions - Galileo, Newton, Einstein and the many near-equal fellow pioneers - did not resolve the irresoluble by abandoning belief in the objectivity, the non-thought-dependence of the existence of the universe, nor the requirement that the final court of appeal was to predicted evidence. There seems to be a certain sort of arrogance among some scientists that, having at present hit a logjam at the fundamental physical level - that of the apparent irreconcilability of quantum physics and general relativity - it has been given to them now to demolish several centuries of triumphant scientific realism. When, in order to bolster some promoted theory, there is not invented undetectable 'multiverses', or we aren't told by the blatantly tautological 'anthropic principle' that (roughly) if what we observe of the universe wasn't true we wouldn't exist, we are taught that the universe the sciences purport to explore is a wholesale illusion anyway.
String theory, superstrings and the postulated M-theory are perhaps the most exciting developments in contemporary physics, perhaps - so far - the only credible means of resolving today's irresolvable, namely how to unite the world of quanta with the world of gravity. All interested (and taxpaying!) laymen such as I will hope that it is vigorously pursued. But they will hope that it is not enticed way off course by the sirens of a bogus metaphysics, i.e., that it will eventually be declared innocent of the charge levelled by the great Richard Feynman: "String theorists make excuses, not predictions". Greatly honoured though Stephen Hawking rightly is, if a student of mine had handed in an essay of the like of his and Mladinow's it would have been returned with a 3/10 and some sound advice.
And your point is? In future, try to say what you think a little more succinctly, and you'll do better than 3/10.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteadman in reply to Rowan Grigg
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not have "a point". My contribution directly addresses - and offers arguments intended to rebut - the arguments of article, that by professors Hawking and Mlodinow, we are supposed to be commenting upon. My arguments may be mistaken, and if you believe so then I and perhaps other readers would be interested to know your reasons.
I take fault with the author's analogy of the fish bowl, and the comparison of the earth-centered and sun-centered models of the cosmos to support the view that we really need many string theories to explain the very very small (quantum). I still believe they will someday find one theory of everything that does not have to be tweaked at one end or the other. If everything needed to know about physics was placed on a 12 inch ruler, everyday physics would take up 8" in the middle, rules about the very very large would occupy the top 2" of the ruler, and mathematical formulae about the very very small would occupy the bottom 2" of the ruler. The goldfish in the bowl would have a separate ruler, not a modification of our ruler. The fact that physicists need 5 theories to explain the very very small (quantum), each of which needs to be tweaked and is only situation specific, simply means they have not yet found the correct set of rules to create the one theory of everything. Keep looking, guys!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGail
Hi Steadman: You said basically what I was trying to say. You can't have five theories - each of which are tweaked and are situation-specific - to try to explain the very very small (quantum) in bringing together a unified theory of everything. They simply haven't found the right mathematical formulae. In my comment, I was trying to point out that the gold fish bowl model was separate from our model and not a modification of ours, as the article would imply. Good job! Gail
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree. In my opinion, physicists haven't found the right equation because they've settled for fundamentally invalid but useful conceptual models on which to base their theories. That no physical entity is defined for mass or spacetime is a fundamental shortcoming in general relativity. That mass has not been successfully described in quantum theory indicates a fundamental shortcoming in the conception of quantum theory. Both may be very effective and extremely useful, but there is much that is not yet understood or misunderstood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally speaking, when a mathematical representation of a physical process includes functions that represent no known physical function (also known as "fudge factors"), something is fundamentally incorrect in the representation. While the QED may be extremely accurate when applied to its intended purposes, I expect that when applied to some new set of conditions it will eventually fail, just as when gravitational effects (orbital characteristics) specific to the central mass Solar system were inappropriately applied to the enormous axially distributed masses of spiral galaxies, the compensatory mass of undetectable dark matter seemed to be required.
Perhaps there needs to be a Supreme Court to hear appeals to the Laws of Physics, since there are now a lot of bandages accumulating on the body of science.
I was please that Hawking was not quoted saying something foolish again, and that the article put a little more of creation's complexity into words that I could understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGod loves complexity, as explained in my recent book, God's Unintended Consequences (Amazon.com) but He did not make the human brain complex enough to understand all that exists in creation, as He has shown us by the analogy noted above of human vs animal intelligence. But, He wants us to keep working and discover all we can; so everyone who is doing that is doing God's work.
Thanks for explaining to us what God wants and explaining that our discovery is His work. I only wish he had revealed more specifics to you - that would save so much time!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat He didn't should tell us that He wants us to work. That we enjoy discovery so much should tell us the same thing. That this is a joy He will never take from us should tell us: God is Great.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe (Elusive) Theory of Everything is not Elusive if you are not looking for it. For decades Dr. Hawking has represented his belief that “It turns out to be very difficult to devise a theory to describe the universe all in one go. Instead, we break the problem up into bits and invent a number of partial theories. Each of these partial theories describes and predicts a certain limited class of observations, neglecting the effects of other quantities, or representing them by simple sets of numbers. It may be that this approach is completely wrong. If every thing in the universe depends on everything else in a fundamental way” S. Hawking ‘A Brief History of Time’ 1996 pg 11.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Mlodnow in his writing seems to perpetuate this idea that we may have to settle for several scientific theories. “It is argued that the quest to discover a final theory may in fact never lead to a unique set of equations. Every scientific theory, they write, comes with its own model of reality, and it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is.” Scientific American, October 2010 pg. 69.
It has become acceptable to be able to predict an outcome no matter what caused that outcome to occur. A virtual reality, “what it is like”, is presumed to take precedence over the “what it is” question.
Lincoln Barnet quoted Einstein in his book “The Universe and Dr. Einstein” A Bantum Book, 1948, concerning a complete Unified Field Theory is “to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms.” and Mr. Barnett went on to say that “The urge to consolidate premises, to unify the concepts, to penetrate the variety and particularity of the manifest world to the undifferentiated unity that lies beyond is not only the leaven of science; it is the loftiest passion of the human intellect. The Philosopher and the mystic, as well as the scientist, have always sought to arrive at knowledge of the ultimate immutable essence that under girds the mutable illusory world.”
I accept the idea of “difficulty”. The premise that the current work is acceptable which has led to “partial theories describes and predicts a certain limited class of observations, neglecting the effects of other quantities” and “Every scientific theory, they write, comes with its own model of reality, and it may not make sense to talk of what reality actually is.” being the normal perspective is, simply stated, wrong. With all of the undeniable successes of mathematics and physics there is still a problem as stated by Dr. Wheeler “…something is missing.” The something that is missing is to me a clear understanding of the physical process, the reality, that supports the existence of consistent, comparable, change called time. The Constants of Nature having experimental evidence of repeatability exist without support as to why the values are what they are. The Fundamental Forces, 3 to 5 depending on your point of view, have no basis for their existence, propagation, progression, and reaction. The existing cornerstone concepts and theories can not be reconciled as they stand in the purity and isolation of their own definitions. For a leader in the scientific world to speak of the idea that “it does not make sense to talk of what reality actually is” is again, simply stated, wrong. A clear understanding of the physical process that supports the abstract formulations is not only needed but necessary for a complete understanding of the physical process and it is illogical and ludicrous to think otherwise.
One major point to be noted in the idea of multiple models is that models are not of equal status. This is most easily seen in the case of QM where things are described as being in an indefinite state until an observation is made. Restate this bizarre assumption - the universe was in an indefinite state until about 800,000 years ago when the first human predecessor of homo sapiens was born and opened its eyes and made an observation etc. In actuality the collapse of a probability into a single determinate value is a ubiquitous phenomenon not noticeably affected in frequency by the existence of homo sapiens. The claim of the significance of observation is the problem. For most scientific models there are parameters that can be used to determine if any prediction or calculation is going outside the bounds of validity for the theory - Newtonian physics is fine as long as speeds stay well below c and energies well above Heisenberg. Such models are "safe". It is possible to determine within the mathematics of the model that boundaries of validity have not been exceeded. The problem with QM is that there is no way of calculating, from within the theory, whether a probability collapse has happened making the predictions and calculations valueless. Information on this has to come from outside the theory - one can make an observation and force a collapse, or one can note that in practice not only Schroedinger's cat has no difficulty with problems of indeterminacy. The claim about observations arises because advocates of the merits of QM do not wish to admit the serious defect. Basically they have, like Darwinists defined the problem case out of existence by "peer review". Since there are numerous difficulties with QM and the severity of these vary depending on the particular formulation used this "unsafe" characteristic of the theory is hopefully only a matter of an unfortunate choice in the particular formulation used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe main point I want to make is that if one must make do with a set of models of reality in place of a single model one can still retain a notion of a "real", if unknowable, world as long as the models are safe and it is possible from within each model to determine whether one should, in fact, be using one of the other models. If, however, the models are like QM and lack any determinant of point of failure then one will end up with a set of predictions and no way, apart from experiment, to determine the "real" world leaving any "unobserved" events in limbo.
In his latest book, THE GRAND DESIGN, Stephen Hawking propounded what seems to many physicists the
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrevolutionary idea that physical reality is indeterminate. This identical idea was proposed about
ten years ago by Robert L. Schwarz in a book called JOURNEYS THROUGH ALCHERA: MAKING REALITY AS WE GO.
Not another go at philosophical idealism, this work is empirically based and proceeds from strict
analyses of the Einstein field equations, paradoxes of quantum theory and the multidimensionality
of string theory. Based on the proposition that the distinguishable elements of human perception are,
in their interrelationships, indefinitely large, the author shows that it is ipso facto impossible
to construct any theory that would give a complete explanation of the underlying whole. He then
applies this to problems of ethics, aesthetics, religion, historiography and other fields. It is,
in effect, a grammar of human reality-making. Case examples include chapters on how four great
philosophers - Fichte, Kant, Heidegger and Wittgenstein - built their versions of reality and how
each foundered on the shoals of necessary incompleteness. Finally, the author applies his own tenets
to his own theory. Those who are intrigued by Hawking's latest proposals may find it interesting
to contemplate them in an even broader perspective.
This is the third book by Schwarz. The first was a literary study and the second, a survey of the
role of metaphors in intellectual history, both from Bucknell University Press.
In my view contributors so far have either not properly understood or not grasped the significance of the article by Hawking and Mlodinow. This is surprising, since it is quite plainly intended, paradoxically given their employment, as an attack on the very foundations of the sciences, sciences to which I am sure many readers of Scientific American outstandingly contribute and the journal itself outstandingly promotes. Scientists may suppose that their work is that of understanding the natural world. Not so, the authors claim. For there is no such thing as a world other than the one human perception, theories and language happen to represent it to be. Is not one shocked by such an assertion? One ought to be, because it says that the findings of the sciences are incorrigibly arbitrary, are a kind of illusion; that it is not simply a matter that the sciences may make mistakes about the physics of the universe, but that – rehashing Immanuel Kant’s ‘transcendental metaphysics’ – it is logically impossible to know the universe anyway “as it is in itself”. We are, and for ever will be, blind to its actual nature simply in virtue of being human beings, the veracity of our understanding neither more nor less than that of the authors’ goldfish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what then is the object of subjecting theories to confirmation or disconfirmation in the light of evidence? The authors’ logic is that it is only to affirm or not that they hang together consistent with others of our arbitrary theories. But then we are left with a puzzle. How is it possible for, say, Stephen Hawking – outstandingly gifted though he unquestionably is – to “remove” himself from “our perception of the world”? Or, more likely, is it acknowledged that the five string theories, experimentally verified or not, are likewise no less merely the humanly drawn pictures of a world it is totally impossible to know the actual nature of anyway? Or does it not matter in the least what theories we construct, or even how bizarre, given they are guaranteed the status of ‘reality’ whatever they allege?
What Hawking and Mlodinow propose is a philosophical mess, one which carried into practice would be a disaster for the sciences. In my earlier contribution I offered several, philosophically familiar, objections to what the authors (inaccurately) call ‘idealism’. I am sure it would be of great interest to readers of Scientific American if professor Hawking and Dr Mlodinow offered to show how much in error these objections are.
The point of the article is that none of the five versions of string theory work in all situations. This begs the question: is the framework of the five distinct string theories complete, or are there still situations left unresolved? If there are holes left to be resolved, can this framework really be the basis for the TOE?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn an earlier post I stated that The (Elusive) Theory of Everything is not Elusive if you are not looking for it. After over 30 years of trying to communicate with Dr. Hawking et al, I am tired of trying. A Professor in Canada speaks of a monastic society that seeks to support new ideas and ways of thinking…if you are accredited, have consensus, and publish – to this I must agree as I find every door barred and every window shuttered. Standing at the bow, directing the canoe, are the towers of wisdom in the community that pounds cadence to those oarsman of interns, specialists, engineers and a host of others that make the progress that we have all witnessed these past 50 years. We are now witnessing a condition athletes call the wall where all of the strength of will is needed to push through and this leader has given up with the statement “Physicists have long sought to find one final theory that would unify all of physics, Instead they may have to settle for several.” At about the same time that string theory was born I sent a package, an idea, to Dr. Hawking, Dr. Wheeler, Dr. Sagan, and a small group of others and to this day I believe that without accreditation I was denied and ignored. I am saddened by this for I do believe that there is an alternative approach to cracking the code of the physical process. An alternative approach that builds from the bottom up to meet the criteria exposed with the top down methods currently applied in the world of Physics. I asked one fundamental question “could the abstract term energy have a physical, three dimensional, counterpart?” and my answer was YES. With one presumed assumption, that a dynamic energy exists, with three fundamental qualities, I was able to construct a process of Substantive energy, or S’energy, that has seven, simple to complex, levels of definition of a single process called the physical. A single primary wave form, here in called the Prime Wave, made of S’energy and in S’energy, begins the process of consistent comparable physical change called time. Each level consists of a simple unit, at level two, this would be the Prime Wave and expands to include complex interactions of these units to form a new condition that intern becomes the simple component of the next level. This summary reduction at each level reduces the complexity of discussion but all the while it is recognized that each succeeding level is built from the foundation of S’energy in S’energy. What this means is that all that precedes and all that proceeds from any point of reference is understood. Uncertainty is a condition of that which is denied. S’energy can not be created nor destroyed only modified and is more than just the potential to do work as it is the means for work to be done. Physical change occurs in a consistent, comparable manner as a result of the interactions of level two Prime Waves existing in each of the proceeding levels of definition. At level four, the Particle, six zones of interaction are identified. As each Prime Wave can be ideally tracked from its origin, through progression and convergences it is possible to identify each condition or variation of a construct of a specific geometry of a specific Particle and understand whys it has a mass and a charge of a specific value. Convergent Prime Wave portions achieve a threshold density to create a new Prime Wave (specifically in a harmonic set) that is equal in all respects to its parents except where and when in a living Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe details of Prime Wave progressions and convergences when viewed from levels three and above form the foundations for String Theory. The stable harmonic sets of sets of Prime Waves forming Packets form the foundation for the quantum. The sustained Prime Wave output of harmonic sets in Packets and Particles form the foundation for Gravity with the net effect being the gravitational field and the specific effect being the graviton. C- the speed of light is a condition of the newly created harmonic set created in the charge field of a structure that is displaced forward, in the harmonic, towards its own leading edge input. The Fundamental Forces are conditions of the interactions of Prime Waves under specific circumstances of output from a structure and of the influence that that out put causes as an input from a given direction and density value. The Higgs Boson is a dependant set of Prime Wave creations within the core of a specific structure of a Particle and this condition is in effect a time delay of through put that seeks to maintain continuity of the existing structure under conditions of that structure traveling into an source of input or the input traveling into the structure called a Particle with complexity.
The foundation terms used every day in the development of the cornerstone concepts and theories that are in use today would certainly include the following - Ε, T, G, C, ћ, and π and all of these are pure abstractions, meaning without physical counterpart. As these terms are considered fundamental and they are abstractions there is no way to deal with a means or an origin using existing theory. I write of a means, a three dimensional origin, that seems to fulfill the requirement of an alternative approach to understanding the Physical process. Not only does this concept appear to answer all but one of Dr. Hawkings’ own list of criteria for a candidate for a theory of everything but it goes even farther as it appears to represent a physical process that has the ability to support the Views and Perspectives of Newton, Einstein, et al by producing an understanding that each level not previously understood could be envisioned in a different way and still have and support the pure, abstract, successful in prediction, mathematics. The process when understood as a clearly defined physical process is the “…something that is missing” that Dr. Wheeler spoke of. The process that I have defined is so simply stated that it becomes understandable even in the light of such complexity as the writing of this letter. This letter is however an overly simplified set of unsupported statements but hopefully I have given the reader a glimpse of this outsiders point of view. As S’energy and the concept of the Prime Wave builds up from the perceived most fundamental level it must be understood that it is a unique perspective that represents an alternative approach to the Physical aspect of Physics. It is my perspective that the full development of this concept can not begin without support and how can such an effort be made alone, it can not be so, but this is a start that others may wish to explore with me. With this understanding that I have and perhaps I am totally wrong but I find that Dr. Hawking and Dr. Mlidnow in there writings to be very short sighted.
I thought that physicists were at peace with having to use 2 models to account for the behavior of photons as either a particle or a wave. Am I missing something?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObjective Science has all the attributes of a material means set within a self-organizing cosmic structure exhibiting the direction of increasing system complexity. Recently, in cosmic terms, emergent system complexity has advanced to the point where the principle sustaining features of certain systems (an emergent creative agency) depend on aesthetic principles which are generally taken to be subjective rather than objective.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat seems implied is that there is more to natural order than the objective component. Our highly evolved neural faculties have realized that biology ‘reduces’ to chemistry which in turn reduces to physics. This is consistent with the fact that all more complex systems express particulars of more general, more inclusive principles of natural order.
Deeper even than physics is the constraint of symmetry upon every expression of energy (Noether’s theorem). But we know that symmetry ‘reduces’, still deeper, into aesthetics which is a subjective quality. In other words, the deeper and more inclusive reality of natural order than the objective is subjective... may we say a Subject?
Is it so strange that the deeper imperative of natural order not only exists, but sustains the evolution of neural faculties of the human Subject to include both analytic utilities (sciences/means) and aesthetic sensitivities (to beauty/ends) and feelings (love) essential our more creative and constructive choices (such as the symmetry consideration of the Golden Rule, etc. essential to sustaining constructive civil order.)
In other words the sustaining fundamental creative necessity is the aesthetic of the eternal Subject. The physical world and the human agency represent the means and ends in the flight of the Subject from eternal sameness into eternal creative novelty, possible only through the imposition of contrived limits of time and space on perceptions of the subjective agency of the larger cosmic process.
Search for a TOE constrained to the physical misses the deeper natural order, the aesthetics essential to our species survival. Hopefully it is not too late to redirect our priorities from gaining material means (already more than adequate) to exploring and implementing the aesthetics of constructive ends (woefully neglected).
Joe
Joe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Search for a TOE constrained to the physical misses the deeper natural order, the aesthetics essential to our species survival."
Should I not look for a means for the physical to be what it is but rather is it ok to look just don't come up with an answer or even an alternative approach.
"Objective Science has all the attributes of a material means set within a self-organizing cosmic structure exhibiting the direction of increasing system complexity."
Would such an idea be bad or wrong? The creative mind and the search for understanding is of the loftiest of goals, it is said, and to imply that such an understanding would reduce us to stone is certainly not what I believe you mean. In a way you are arguing for and supporting the abstraction above the physical reality and supporting the idea of abstract mathematics as a stand alone determinant and not accept the idea that "something is missing". The implication is that we should not know, should never know, should avoid knowing, how the physical process works but also we should keep looking into every possibility in order to keep our minds muscle from decaying. BTW and within the concept of the Prime Wave there are seven levels with the first being the definition of S'energy at level one and the development of the means for consistent, comparable, change of the physical , the development of structure, forces and fields, and then on at level seven is the reduction of forms of complexity to its fundamental state at level one, like a dragon(if you will) so large as to sustain itself by eating its own tail.
There is certain uncertainty in the details denied.
We have learned to apply time in the abstract without an understanding of a means for consistent, comparable, physical change to be. We have learned that energy is the potential for doing work while denying the means for doing work. We have learned that Fundamental Forces or conditions can exist without a known means for those conditions to exist. We have learned that we can predict an outcome without knowing of the means for that event to occur. We have learned to use repeatable experimental values without an understanding of the means that gives those values the value that they have. Dr. Wheeler was soo right when he spoke of the success of mathematics and physics and commented that with all of the success “…something is missing.” The something that is missing is that clearly defined physical process that is so consistent, so comparable, so able to change, so reliable in that change, that pure, abstract, self isolating, successful in prediction, mathematical formulations can be devised and applied.
There is a need for the purist of abstraction and a need for a clear vision of the physicality of the physical. IMO we have explored the abstract to the exclusion of the physical and I am not satisfied, in any way with settling for what it is like answers. What I am suggesting is that there is a positive answer to the question of "could substantive energy exist" and in answering this question I found a means for Time, C, G, for structures, forces, and fields, and a physical origin of life in a living universe.
I do not believe that I am wrong to suggest that a complex physical process can be understood and that that understanding would be to the detriment of a deeper natural order and the aesthetics essential to our species survival.
Bob
Bob, sorry for confusion over my post. Expanding a bit:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Objective Science has all the attributes of a material means set within a self-organizing cosmic structure exhibiting the direction of increasing system complexity. Recently, in cosmic terms, emergent system complexity has advanced to the point where the principle sustaining features of certain systems (an emergent creative agency) depend on aesthetic principles which are generally taken to be subjective rather than objective.
• This paragraph affirms that natural order is self-organizing, and that the appearance of life is natural and not supernatural. Because choice arises in the creative agent of the cosmic process, then sustaining the creativity requires choices informed by natural order.
2. What seems implied is that there is more to natural order than the objective component. Our highly evolved neural faculties have realized that biology ‘reduces’ to chemistry which in turn reduces to physics. This is consistent with the fact that all more complex systems express particulars of more general, more inclusive principles of natural order.
• This paragraph affirms the hierarchic structure of natural order revealed by our highly evolved neural faculties naturally selected for the simple reason that they reveal this structure and its relevance to constructive, coherent choices.
3. Deeper even than physics is the constraint of symmetry upon every expression of energy (Noether’s theorem). But we know that symmetry ‘reduces’, still deeper, into aesthetics which is a subjective quality. In other words, the deeper and more inclusive reality of natural order than the objective is subjective... may we say a Subject?
• The relevance of objective science is that of “material means.” But this has nothing to do with the kinds of choices essential to sustain social organization; especially of large societies. This is why it is vital to acknowledge the relevance of the deeper structure of natural order underlying physics – symmetry – and its deeper imperative of aesthetics. Further, the path of reduction implies the fundamental reality of the Subject, the author of creation.
4. Is it so strange that the deeper imperative of natural order not only exists, but sustains the evolution of neural faculties of the human Subject to include both analytic utilities (sciences/means) and aesthetic direction (to beauty/ends) and feelings (love) essential our more creative and constructive choices (such as the symmetry consideration of the Golden Rule, etc. essential to sustaining constructive civil order.)
• Civilization and its boundless creative potential cannot be built on simple animal self-interest; hence the vital evolved insight of constructive selfless feelings, Golden Rule, etc. relevant to self-sacrifice in support of the common good – all particulars of the deeper aesthetic principle of natural order.
5. In other words the sustaining fundamental creative necessity is the aesthetic of the eternal Subject. The physical world and the human agency represent the means and ends in the flight of the Subject from eternal sameness into eternal creative novelty, possible only through the imposition of contrived limits of time and space on perceptions of the subjective agency of the larger cosmic process.
• Or, some might say, “Play of the Gods.” Again, more recent science seems to show that time and spaces appear to be ‘contrived’ rather than fundamental. Question: If novel experience is the target product of the cosmic enterprise, is it conserved?
6. Search for a TOE constrained to the physical misses the deeper natural order, the aesthetics essential to our species survival. Hopefully it is not too late to redirect our priorities from gaining material means (already more than adequate) to exploring and implementing the aesthetics of constructive ends (woefully neglected).
• It took nearly a century to get to the bottom of physics. Perhaps it will take another to get to the bottom of aesthetics of sustainable civilization. The information is doubtless already ‘out there.’ In a sense, the Golden Rule is the ‘E=mc^2’ of aesthetic science. The problem will be to give it the universal dignity of a science that all can agree upon. Anyone ready to try? SciAm?
Joe
Joe
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am convinced that this is a beautiful Universe that we live in but it was my belief before your argument.
The purpose for this media is to discuss the merits or faults of a published article and we are now off topic. I took exception to H & M and I take exception to nearly every one of your statements.
I wish you luck and hope you find a wind for your sails.
Bob: primewavenow at gmail dot com
The authors suggest that the five models can be differentiated through observations. But isn't the body also a part of the model?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the models suggest, in my opinion, that the observations will have an error that is there will be a difference between observed value and best predicted value. Thus the models should not be tested based on the predicted value for a parameter but based on the predicted observed value for a parameter. Thus the models imply an anthropomorphic universe. Is my conclusion rational?
Gravitational Spacial Expansion
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarch 3, 2010
Joseph Charles Piskac
Scientific research presents that there is no standard explanation for the weak force action of
gravitation. This paper provides diagrams for the creation of mass, gravity, and the associated
expansion of spacial relationships. The elegant simplicity of the presented gravitational
illustration resolves the quest for a physical unification theory, a resolution for the quest of dark
matter and hoist explanations for such observations such as the heightened temperature of the
solar corona and the extreme heat found in deep space gas plasma formations.
Harmonic STRINGS and Spherical Quanta are envisioned in research and mathematical
definition. Energy hat is isolated and unreactive will annihilate in a spontaneous collapse.
Envision here a quanta sphere that implodes to a perfect vacuum.
Placing the energy quanta spheres in motion provides for spherical distortion such that the
collapse from positive to negative becomes asymmetrical. Asymmetrical distortion is the basis
of time and also accounts for a basis of Perception since energy is responding to the stimulus of
movement or turbulence.
Collapsing high energy states will naturally provide opportunity for reflective impacts at self
adjusting densities such that reflection shock will be added to the distortion field and further
detail the element of Perception. With sufficient and appropriate energy the reflective shock will
envelop the distorted energy quanta resulting in the formation of SPACE with MASS.
SPACE TIME results from energy reflection or in other words dense energy field gaps. MASS
results from energy enveloping quanta. (ELECTRON enveloping PROTON) Anti Energy and
Energy are retained and are balanced by Time. Energy radiating from the envelope surrounding
quanta results in the presence of gravity, the expansion of space and the passage of time. Energy
shocks radiating between quanta envelopes is perceived as light. Fields of quanta envelopes
expanded by impact reflection combined with summary gravitation radiant quanta envelops and
further distorted by background movement provides for the stable expansion and collapse of
Mass Space Time that is permeated with Movement.
PERCEPTION & CREATION = GOD
GRAVITATION EXPANSION SPACE
Fields of energy turbulence of sufficient density will naturally form mass that in turn will expand
space that is balanced by time. Quanta envelopes or hydrogen atoms forming dispersed in a field
of energy will naturally bleed shell energy from the center to the perimeter.
Durgadas Datta published few papers in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 ,2003 namely--Misjudgement by Newton --and Balloon inside Balloon theory of matter and antimatter on opposite entropy path producing GRAVITOETHERTONS at the common spherical boundary by annihilation of matter and antimatter and injected into our universe as what we call ETHER OR DARK ENERGY causing laws,gravity and expansion of our universe. We live in variable density gravitoethertons soup of varying permeability. As such Coulombs law to be imported in Newtons law of gravity bu modifying NEWTON EQUATION AS F=P.G.M.m/R.R WHERE P IS PERMEABILITY OF GRAVITOETHERTON SOUP. iF WE apply this equation then concept of dark matter vanishes but DARK ENERGY REMAINS. So our universe non uniform in laws and constants and EINSTEIN IS WRONG IN HIS POSTULATES. both pillars of physics NEWTON AND EINSTEIN ARE WRONG AND DURGADAS DATTA HAS PROVED THIS IN HIS PAPERS LONG AGO BUT SCIENTISTS NEVER ACCEPTED HIM TO CALL HIM CRANK. HE SAID CONCEPT OF SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM IS WRONG .space and time are separate entropical thermodynamic. Dr. ROGER HAS ACCEPTED DURGADAS DATTA AND DECLARED PHYSICS WRONG AFTER MANY REQUESTS BUT DR. HAWKING NOW CORRECTING HIS OLD IDEAS AFTER READING THE THEORIES OF DURGADAS DATTA. DURGADAS DATTA SAID GRAVITOETHERTONS CONSIST OF FIVE GOD PARTICLES --FOUR FOR FOUR FORCES AND ONE FOR MASS CREATION. GRAVITON IS ACTING ON MOLECULE IRRESPECTIVE OF MASS BUT ON MAGNETIC MONOPOLE STRENGTH SO THAT GALILEO SAW ALL MATTER FALL SAME AND AVOGADROS SAW ALL GASES HAVE SAME NUMBER OF MOLECULE IF PRESS AND TEMP KEPT SAME FOR BOTH. EVEN MENDELEEF FOUND PERIODIC JUMP DUE TO A PHENOMENA OF 1/R.R AS IN BOHRS MODEL OR KEPLERS PLANETARY SYSTEM. THE MAGIC FACTOR OF 1/RR. IS UNIQUE IN OUR GALAXY BUT NOT SO IN OTHER GALXIES CAUSING BARREN CHEMISTRY AND NO LIFE IN MANY OF THEM.MORE I WANT TO SHARE IN MY HOME WORK OF MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS. TAKE CARE AND CALL ME.--e-mail.-durgadas.ddatta@gmail.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoyed very much the article about The Theory of Everything by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, personally I have a great respect for Stephen Hawking and his view of our universe, always he has been ahead of the “models” we agreed upon and tried to explore new borders of science (and philosophy). That is why I wondered why he “accepted” M Theory, a theory that is not as “Magnificent” as it seems , in my opinion it tries to give us like the M in Malt Whiskey to offer a Mixture of Miscellaneous Mathematical Moments, not the Mythical Memorable MERLIN that certain scientists think it is. So the first approach of the goldfish is not a bad one , but anyway it is already 2600 years old, wasn’t it PLATO who reminded us of the cellar we are in , we only see the projections of a world outside the world we can percept , the human kind has always wondered about his perceptible universe, there was always THE ultimate theory of everything called “GOD” our consciousness explains only historical perceptions by our retina, historical means past, which past ? Not the past of Quantum physics, because there everything is one great melting pot of possibilities, personally I think that the problem of gravity will never be put in one line with other “Models”. For that I refer to an article in "Science et Vie" of september 2010 ,that I was very interested in,of another Dutchman ( I am also Dutch but live in France) Eric Verlinde from the Physical Institute of the University of Amsterdam who comes up with a new and fresh viewing point : Gravitation is a force that emerges on the macroscopic scale as the result of microscopic effects” just like “temperature is an effect of the velocity of molecules”, we can observe our Universe as an hologram and see the attraction of the earth as a result from the events that occur on the vast two-dimensional screen that surrounds us and where there is no trace of gravity. And this is only ONE aspect of the models that the human brain thinks about, this is the infinite richness of our quest for the search of understanding our Universe and our own position in it, I hope mankind will go on finding new viewpoints, the ultimate truth will never be found I think because then you have to write it like TRUTH, so I hope also that Stephen Hawking will continue with surprising us with his new visions and not parking his marvellous Mind in a garage he cannot leave anymore, but I have the best expectations because even a black hole radiates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. William de Wilde
LE PLESSIS
41800 MONTROUVEAU
FRANCE
SCA0020645750/2
BEFORE SMILE READ ALL. ACCORDIND TO ME, A CAR DUNA WEEKEND IS AN EXAMPLE OF STRING THEORY. IT IS A CAR, WHICH I HAVE BOUGHT IN SECOND-HAND AT 100,000 KMS AND NOW IT HAS 287,000 KMS. THIS CAR, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE GRAT MISTAKE OF FIAT, ACCORDING TO ME IS 'THE PROTOTYPE OF AN UFO'. AT THE BEGINNING ALSO I HAD PROBLEMS IN DRIVING THIS CAR. BUT I NOTED THAN WHEN THE CARS HAD TROUBLES, SOMETIMES THE CAR MADE "CEAP-CEAP' AS IN THE DAWNS OF NOTH CYRCLE. I BOUGHT A SIMPLE COMPASS AND I NOTED THAT THE NEEDLE OF COMPASS RIPPLED VERY MUCH WHEN THE CAR HAD TROUBLES. I NOTED THAT THE CAR HAS A NORTH POLE FRONT RIGHT AND A SOUTH POLE LEFT BEHIND. LATER I BOUGHT A MAGNETIC FIELDS TESTER AND IT CONFIRMED THE COMPASS, EXPECIALLY NEAR THE HIGHT VOLTAGE LINES, BUT ALSO IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH I DON'T REALIZE ALSO A LITTLE. THE CAR IS SENSITIVE TO THE LIGHT; IF SOMEONE DRIVES THE CAR WHEN IT IS CLOUDY, BUT THE CLOUDS ARE NOT COMPACT BUT ALL SMALL PIECES, THE CAR RIPPLE LIKE A CANOE. THE CAR IS SENSITIVE ALSO TO THE 'SPIN-ENERGY', BECAUSE WHEN AT THE BENDS THE OBJECTS INSIDE MOVE MORE QUICK THAN IN OTHER CARS. WHEN IT IS COLD THE LATERAL GLASSES MIST OVER WITH STRIPS LIKE THE STRIPS WHICH I LOOKED SOME YEARS AGO IN A PICTURE OF THE MAGAZINE 'SCIENCE', STRIPS WHICH REPRESENT ANTIGRAVITATIONAL WAVES. I MISS TO CHECK IF THE WATER IN RADIATOR CONTAINS ISOTOPI (THE ITALIAN TERM, I DON'T KNOW THR ENGLISH FOR ISOTOPI), BECAUSE MY KNOWLEGE OF IS SCIENCE IS LITTLE AND I HAVE NOT INSTRUMENTS. BUT I THINK YES, BECAUSE NEAR THE HIGHT VOLTAGE LINES, THE WATER OF RADIATOR SMOKES MORE, THEREFORE THIS WATER IS MORE SENSITIVE TO MAGNETIC FIELDS. AND ALSO THE PETROL IN THE CARBURETTOR DO THIS. I HOPE TO FOUND MORE INDICATIONS THAT THIS CAR IS AS A CROSS OF UNIVERSAL FORCES. USUALLY I READ A LITTLE AND I READ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC. BUT THIS TIME, BEFORE GOING OUT MY RESIDENCE FORGOT NAIONAL GEOGRAPHIC AND I BOUGHT AT FIUMICINO A NUMBER OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, WHERE THIS MORNING READ THE ARTICLE WHICH REMEMBERED ME THE CAR. ALREADY I WROTE A LITTLE BIT OF THIS CAR IN WWW.HIPPY.COM BUT UNDER AN ANOTHER ASPECT. WITH REGARDS. CAPOTOSTI ROBERTO.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps M-theory because there are five string theories and the letter M also has five points? I would feel most comfortable with the idea of one combined reality, composed of many versions, where each version appears complete to an observer, or on a particular occasion. Reality might have been different in the big bang from now. An occasion may last for a long or short time or space or whatever. Though I have to admit, I don't know what a string theory is!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't it seem logical that the 5 or so different theories that comprise M-theory could simply represent the different states of particles in different dimensions. If a particle is, according to quantum mechanics literally neither here nor there, until it is observed, then being that the same thing is capable of being in multiple dimensions then it may have or display different properties in these different dimensions. It would be foolish, i think, to assume that in different dimensions the same rules apply or are observable. What we may be seeing is the same thing exhibiting different properties due to the dimension it is being observed in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo, Dr. Stephen Hawking
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI calculate the mass of Higgs particle and published book” Complete Unified Theory", ISBN: 81-7643-000-5) in the year 1998. I found that 1650752.075 Mev (Book page No. Page-242) or in terms of mass is 1.65 Tev and it will be the correct mass of Higgs particle. But, 0.126 Tev published in your Scientific American, I am giving thanks to all scientists of this unit those who linked with this valuable work. I want to say that, if the scientists of CERN to measure carefully this Mev, the observed result will bring correct mass of Higgs particle. I find it to do theoretical work and motioned in the book Complete Unified Theory, it is single theory; and applicable to all fields from particle to the Universe. I found that there is no variation between calculated and experimental results done by the scientists. Moreover I find the structure of electron, I calculated the max. mass of the Universe, quantum circulation of Black Hole, birth of particles, stars, galaxies, internal functions of matter during emission of energy from E = mc2. Fission reaction of Uranium, mass of a photon, graviton, energy spent by the sun, stars its mass etc. This is the Theory of Everything. . ----- Nirmalendu Das, Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com , Dated: 14-01-2012.
To, Dr. Stephen Hawking
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI calculate the mass of Higgs particle and published book” Complete Unified Theory", ISBN: 81-7643-000-5) in the year 1998. I found that 1650752.075 Mev (Book page No. Page-242) or in terms of mass is 1.65 Tev and it will be the correct mass of Higgs particle. But, 0.126 Tev published in your Scientific American, I am giving thanks to all scientists of this unit those who linked with this valuable work. I want to say that, if the scientists of CERN to measure carefully this Mev, the observed result will bring correct mass of Higgs particle. ----- Nirmalendu Das, Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com , Dated: 14-01-2012.
To, Dr. Stephen Hawking
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI motioned all in the book Complete Unified Theory, it is single theory; and applicable to all fields from particle to the Universe. I found that there is no variation between calculated and experimental results done by the scientists. Moreover I find the structure of electron, I calculated the max. mass of the Universe, quantum circulation of Black Hole, birth of particles, stars, galaxies, internal functions of matter during emission of energy from E = mc2. Fission reaction of Uranium, mass of a photon, graviton, energy spent by the sun, stars its mass etc. This is the Theory of Everything. . ----- Nirmalendu Das, Email: nirmalgopa@gmail.com , Dated: 14-01-2012.
Dear Mad I think you would like "The Dynamic Ether" which postulates the disturbances we know as mass in a field of pure energy seeking equilibrium.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil I see your name of a physics scientific publication, I will completely disregard what you said right now, and will deem it as pseudo-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this