# Can a gravitational field be represented as a wave function?

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Richard777, Dec 18, 2018.

1. ### Richard777Registered Member

Messages:
17
If so, the wave function must approximate Newton gravitational acceleration at significant distances from the associated object. The field strength should be finite at the center of the object. The wave amplitude should be related to the Schwarzschild radius.

The “Newton catastrophe” permits infinite acceleration at the center of a massive object. This error may be avoided if the gravitational wave is finite at the center.

Can a gravitational field associated with a massive object, may be represented as a wave function?

Reference; http://newstuff77.weebly.com 06 Gravitational Wave Function

RainbowSingularity likes this.

to hide all adverts.
3. ### mathmanValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,002
Center of massive object? If the object (not black hole) has finite density, then .the force at the center is 0.

to hide all adverts.
5. ### Richard777Registered Member

Messages:
17
Thank you mathman
I believe you are correct.
The problem is easily solved so that the Newton catastrophe can be avoided and the center acceleration is zero.
regards
rich

to hide all adverts.
7. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,378
No a gravitational field cannot be represented as a wave function. A wave function is used to describe the observed wave-like behaviour of matter at the atomic scale, in such a way that observable properties of matter can be derived from it.

A gravitational field is neither wave-like nor matter, so the idea of a wave function does not apply to it.

I can find no references to anything called the "Newton catastrophe". Can you supply any, or have you made this up? As mathman points out, it appears, on the face of it, to be ballocks.

The needle on my crank detector has moved into the amber sector, by the way.

8. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
From beginning to end, claims and equations in your
are mostly nonsensical. Let's see how long it takes for hierarchy here to move it from Physics & Maths to Pseudoscience or Cesspool. Might not even happen.

Last edited: Dec 20, 2018
exchemist likes this.
9. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,378
He rather runs up the Jolly Roger in the last chapter, which is titled: "The Twelfth Dynasty" and seems, incongruously, to be to do with bible history.

10. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
It's both funny and frightening that a search using' biblical exodus a myth' turns up more exodus-as-fact than exodus-as-fiction hits. But it is myth:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_is_there_no_evidence_of_the_Exodus (first two answers in particular)

As an ex-chemist, be prepared to be blown away with an astonishing new way to totally rearrange the periodic table:
https://newstuff77.weebly.com/01-the-pyramid-table.html
I refuse to look at other 'revelations' there - sanity is a precious thing not to be trifled with.

11. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Let's take a closer look at your PDF.
Section "The Space-time Segment;": You define a segment, but the equation gives a coordinate. Did you mean "coordinate" instead of "segment", or did you mean to use $\Delta x$ instead of $x$ (etc.)?

Section "Field Stength;": You define $g_r$ to be a function of $r$. This is (as far as I know) non-standard notation; the usual notation would be $g(r)$.
The derivation of $g_0$ is missing.
The explanation of why "mean field strength" is equal to $.5 g_0$ is missing. Also, I think that's incorrect; there are many many more locations where the field strength would be lower than that.

Section "The Wave Function;": A function is introduced, but an explanation of its significance and the derivation are missing.

Section "The Field Equation;": This section does not contain a field equation; only some arithmetics with field strengths.

Section "The Gravitational Graph;": Some disjointed statements, and no graph.

Section "Newton Acceleration;": A previous equation is given, and $t$ is set to zero. This is nonsense: $t=0$ is whatever time you want it to be; it's not physical. The rest of this section is thus nonsense.

Section "Reciprocal Forces;": A previous equation is given. Some more arithmetics follow, with a conclusion about reciprocal forces $F_r$ and $F_R$ which have not been defined. This result is thus meaningless.

Section "Conclusion;": As others have already pointed out, there is no such thing as a "Newton Catastrophe" in mainstream physics, so it is not clear why it needed to be avoided in the first place.

12. ### Q-reeusBannedValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,695
I wasn't going to list every nonsense in his pdf '06 The Gravitational Wave Function', but a few additions to above may be worth mentioning:

"A segment of space-time (R) is related to components (x,y,z,t); R^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + c^2t^2
R^2 = r^2 + c^2t^2"

So he sort of uses elliptic not hyperbolic geometry. And further it should be expressed in differential form. Then goes on alluding to curved Schwarzschild metric GR-type 'gravity'!

"Maximum field strength (g_0) is co-incident with the center of the object; g_0 = Gm/(c^2t^2)"

So 'maximum gravity' at a fixed physical location presumably r = 0 is inversely proportional to the square of time (with t = 0 anybody's guess)! WOW! Exotic.

I can guess 'Newtonian catastrophe' is his way of saying field strength of a mathematical point mass diverges as r -> 0. This is both not news and irrelevant to real gravitational physics of extended objects.
His 'solution' to an ill-conceived 'problem' is incoherent nonsense. And it's still here in Physics & Maths.

13. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,378
Yes I know: the Exodus story is not thought to be historical.

Re his Periodic Table arrangement, I asked him some days ago what was the point of it, and I have yet to receive a reply.

14. ### Richard777Registered Member

Messages:
17
Thank you for your correction.
The web page has been replaced with something a little more appropriate.
regards
rich

15. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
Your "The Field Equation;"-section still doesn't contain a field equation; it's still just a formula equating two field strengths. Also, I'm quite suspicious about its sign. Looking at: $g_r=-2g_a\frac{a^2 r^2}{a^4+r^4}$
$a$ and $r$ are non-negative by definition, which means $g_r$ must have the opposite sign of $g_a$ (unless they are both zero, which they will not be in general). What does it mean to have a negative gravitational field strength?

16. ### Richard777Registered Member

Messages:
17
The negative sign represents "attractive acceleration" Repulsive acceleration is positive.

17. ### NotEinsteinValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,986
So you are concluding there's a repulsive form of gravity? If so, your model does not match Newtonian predictions, and thus is falsified by your own standards.

18. ### river

Messages:
17,307
frequency of gravity waves

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/247513/gravitational-waves-frequency

Gravity waves as I understand it is an extremely low energy wave .

Extremely low energy waves to the point of flat lining , no frequency nor amplitude .

Hence there is no influence of this wave in and of its self upon anything .

for it to be a gravity wave , this must be able to flow at least two ways , forwards and backwards . The wave flows out , grasps an object and then pulls it back towards its self .

Last edited: Jan 22, 2019

Messages:
18,897
Very no.

20. ### river

Messages:
17,307
Explain " Very no " .

21. ### DaveC426913Valued Senior Member

Messages:
18,897
Which part needs explaining? The 'very' or the 'no'?

22. ### river

Messages:
17,307
Start where ever you like .

23. ### river

Messages:
17,307
My point is that these gravity waves are moving " outward " from the galaxy not inward , towards the galaxy .