# Causal Mechanism for Gravity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by RJBeery, May 13, 2017.

1. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
Looking for feedback and criticism. Try to keep it constructive and polite!

A Causal Mechanism for Gravity

Summary
In this paper we examine a possible physical mechanism for gravitational attraction via time dilation. We appeal, by analogy, to the correlation between a mass moving through a gravitational field and light moving through a material with a graded refractive index. We then suggest that any form of EM mass residing in a graded time dilation field would exhibit similar gravitational attraction behavior.

Layered Media
The refractive index n of a material determines the extent to which light is bent when entering it. The value is simply determined by

where v is the speed of light as it traverses the medium. When transitioning from one medium to another (through a horizontal boundary in this case) the induced refraction angle is simply

where 1 is the light ray’s incident angle from the vertical and 2 is the departing angle.

It’s important to recognize that the equalities

show that the absolute angle of refraction in a given medium is not dependent upon the path (i.e. the number or nature of previous media layers) that a given light ray traverses.

We now take a medium with a smoothly graded refractive index which adheres to the formula:

Suppose that an incident light ray at

travels at an angle of

from the vertical. We want to calculate the depth of the material, r, that will refract the light ray to an angle of

Through some shuffling we know that r in terms of nr is

And nr in terms of the known values is

With r in meters we would expect our light ray to be at a refracted angle of pi/6 at twelve millimeters from the bottom of our graded medium. The general path of this light ray would be hyperbolic, with infinite curvature approached as it nears nine millimeters. This hyperbolic curve is relevant as will be shown in the following section.

danshawen likes this.

3. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
Time Dilation in General Relativity
The formula for gravitational time dilation is

where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass, r is the distance from the center of that mass, t0is the local proper time rate experiencing such time dilation, the right-hand side of the equation gives the conversion to the clock rate of tf which is an infinitely distant clock unaffected by such dilation effects. Another way to write this is

where rs is the Schwarzschild radius of the mass. The Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is approximately nine millimeters so, if we consider the Earth to be compacted to this size, the time dilation effects at a distance of r could be described as

Now we again consider the definition of n in optics, which is the velocity of light in a vacuum over the velocity of light through a refractive medium. This is functionally equivalent to the velocity of an object experiencing no time dilation over the velocity of that object while under dilation.

We note that the hyperbolic curve of a light ray depends on a single parameter -- the local “time dilation” as manifested by the permittivity and permeability of the media being traversed. This suggests that gravity does not cause time dilation, but rather gravitational phenomena would be predicted in the presence of a graded time dilation field.

Hyperbolic vs Parabolic
Projectile motion due to gravity is well understood, of course, and it isn’t hyperbolic.

In fact, Einstein’s original prediction of the bending of light as it passes our Sun used a simple, Newtonian, approach which would have represented a parabola -- and it would also have been off by a factor of two [1]. He corrected this before real-world experimentation would bear results.

There are a few ways to explain the reason for this. The qualitative explanation is that a material object’s x-component vector is unaffected by changes in its y-component vector while under gravitational acceleration, whereas a light ray is moving at constant speed.

A more informative, visual, explanation relies on the simple postulate of EM mass [2]. Since it is only the transverse components of a photon’s path which are affected by gravitational attraction we would expect that any sort of cyclic path with directional symmetry would be affected by gravity half as much as a light ray moving in a purely transverse fashion.

This is only true for a stationary molecule, however. Speaking in terms of units, the photon in figure 4 has moved six units total before returning to its cyclic starting point, while four of those were subject to transverse movement through a gravitational field. Since this particle has progressed two units to the right it corresponds to a velocity of ⅓ c.

A bit of thought reveals that as v increases so does this transverse motion to a potentially present gravitational field. This results in

Where vtrans is the transverse component of the relative motion between M and m. This would suggest that projectile motion gradually transforms from a parabolic to a hyperbolic curve as relative transverse velocity increases, and that such attractive forces are doubled for light. This is indeed a prediction made by relativity, and its description is relativistic mass, although we have predicted such behavior without invoking a warping of spacetime fabric.

Conclusion
In this paper we have used our knowledge of optics to predict gravitational bending of light in a graded time dilation field. Additionally we have shown that if mass were to possess an electromagnetic nature moving in a cyclic fashion (i.e. “EM mass”, of which there are many models [3][4]) then we are able to precisely predict the gravitational behavior of that mass in the model of general relativity without the spacetime mechanism of that theory.

References

[1] Don Edwards, 2007: http://home.fnal.gov/~syphers/Education/Notes/lightbend.pdf

[2] Rhoderick J Beery, Null Space Framework and EM Mass, 2016: https://goo.gl/uJWO4n

[3] J.G. Williamson and M.B. van der Mark. 1997. Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 22, no.2, 133. http://home.claranet.nl/users/benschop/homepg2/electron.pdf

[4] Sumana Bhadra, Electromagnetic Mass Models in General Theory of Relativity: https://arxiv.org/abs/0710.5619

(online paper here: https://goo.gl/bWtqwT)

Last edited: May 13, 2017
danshawen likes this.

5. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
I'm onboard with any theory of gravity that uses time dilation in the analysis as opposed to "spacetime" curvature, or theories of gravity that include assumptions of the origin of a coordinate system, a flexible rubber sheet, or a sliding board planted firmly in inertialess space and guiding other falling masses that possess inertia.

Sylwester just suggested an SST approach. That's supersymmetric Higgs gravity, in case you missed it. Nice. That could actually go somewhere.

Any theory of spacetime curvature that tries to use Minkowski hyperbolic rotation and/or the speed of light as a foundation for understanding the basis of time is going to get failing marks for resurrecting absolute space. The Lortentz relationship for time dilation, however, is conceptually close enough to physical reality to actually work. Absolute time (the instant of 'now') actually does work, even if everywhere else, time proceeds at different rates based on relative motion or proximity to gravitating bodies.

By all means, reason forward. What causes the time dilation? Oh. The Principle of Equivalence, of course.

You don't get a causal mechanism for gravity without explaining the derivation of the Universal Gravitational Constant, you know. I don't think relativity can do that quite yet, but patience is a virtue.

Hate even to suggest it, but "Alternative Theories" would probably be a better place to work this out than "Physics and Math", RJBeery.

Last edited: May 15, 2017

7. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
Gravity is caused by time dilation, then what about time dilation? Time dilation itself is effect of something. So you are not reaching at the fundamental level.

ajanta and danshawen like this.
8. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
Exactly.

The God likes this.
9. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
Don't leave Newton's "divine hand of God" to shoo stray bits of celestial flotsam to fall into or toward the geometric centers of black holes. Tell us the mechanism that operates in empty space that makes things with or without inertial mass behave that way without instrumentation or a degree in higher mathematics or physics.

Make the universal gravitational constant from scratch. Don't measure it directly; tell us what it's made of.

10. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
On first blush I would agree with you but there's actually nothing really controversial in the paper, it's just a logical progression of established physics and a novel conclusion.
Agreed 100%. Perhaps we should give G some thought...

danshawen likes this.
11. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
Actually what should be able to be derived from fundamentals wouldn't be G but the dimensionless constants like the gravitational coupling constant and the fine-structure constant. My first impulse is to say that the latter is a result of the amount and distribution of matter in the Universe which means that it's possible it cannot be derived without taking measurements.

danshawen likes this.
12. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
F=ma is something that is 100% tangible. You can feel a force when it comes in contact with something you are holding. Likewise, if you try and move something that is much more massive than you, with or without gravity, that just makes sense from everyday experience. And likewise acceleration, and the acceleration due to gravity, is about as visceral as it gets in this universe.

If you wish to say that G is just like any other acceleration (as Newton and Einstein did), that's fine.

A mechanical spring can apply a force to something, either as it compresses or retracts.

A chemical reaction can apply a force to counteract gravity, and we get rockets, or mechanical energy from our own muscles.

Belief in the force of gravity should not have the same quality as a belief in a superstition or an invisible force in the empty space betweeen gravitating objects, if it is really science, that is.

Same argument applies to electrical and magnetic fields, and it is really the same situation. What exactly is different about the intervening space that attracts or repels things endowed with these fields? At least in those cases, the science we know gives use some control over the intensity, direction and shape of those fields. Gravity doesn't really give us that, in any practical respect.

13. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
How should we define "in contact with" specifically?

danshawen likes this.
14. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
Like the seat of the chair you are sitting in.

15. ### RJBeeryNatural PhilosopherValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,136
I know but that's a colloquial definition - there's still space between me and my chair. EM interaction in the form of electron repulsion prevents me from sinking any lower. How is that different from EM interaction at greater distances?

danshawen likes this.
16. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
For one thing, the atoms in your bottom and in the chair are electrically neutral because of the balancing charges in atomic structure arranging themselves that way.

17. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
611
Yeah, and different energetic photons generate different gravitational force but..what about the time dictation on their reference frame

18. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
611
Yeah, and different energetic photons generate different gravitational force but..what about the time dictation on their reference frames !

danshawen likes this.
19. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,525
dd

I get a feeling that you are of the opinion that G is variable.

Yes, IMO it is.

I want to ask a question to all who understand Gravity and strong force/interaction etc, why strong force/interaction cannot be gravity by suitably changing G? say G is of the order of 10^39 (or so, can be found out empirically) between quarks and reduces as the energy density of matter reduces. Whats wrong with this proposal? Can anyone give plausible flaw in this?

danshawen likes this.
20. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
Duplicate post there. "Time dilation". I just hate it when a spell checker does that.

You also might have meant "boson" instead of "photon", which would be consistent with the graviton of the Standard Model. Photons are bosons also, but have no mass, whereas gravitons are supposed to have tiny masses. The SM in that respect makes no more sense about the boson responsible for gravity than what RJBeery proposes.

Sylwester's. SST with super massive Higgs gravity; now there's a theory of gravity with the gravitas to produce a hyper massive black hole. Strong enough for sure. No weakling photons or gravitons to mess with. His theory is ready to crush all others into a singular singularity.

21. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,950
Well, for one thing, this might mean that when something was pulled away from a strong enough gravitational field, more mass / energy would be produced than was there to begin with. I'm not saying this might not happen; the Big Bang would be an example. Too bad about conservation of mass / energy, unless the BB was really a collision. In that case, it would make perfect sense. Explains matter/antimatter disparity too.

Of course, I am referring to the property of the strong force that if you break a nucleus apart by force, more particles result than were in the original mass.

So, your idea is that gravity might be some form of strong nuclear force leftover, or in the case of a black hole, degeneracy? That would pretty effectively destroy information on a quantum level in a black hole singularity. So, what boson for gravity? Gluons? Some new meson? Pentaquarks?

Last edited: May 16, 2017
22. ### ajantaRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
611
sorry for duplicate post, I was busy and found it after 2 hours.

I have another problem about time and gravity...

Photons climbing out of a gravitating object become less energetic. This loss of energy is known as a "redshifting", as photons in the visible spectrum would appear more red. Similarly, photons falling into a gravitational field become more energetic and exhibit a blueshifting. ... Note that the magnitude of the redshifting (blueshifting) effect is not a function of the emitted angle or the received angle of the photon—it depends only on how far radially the photon had to climb out of (fall into) the potential well.

So photon exhibits a blueshifting when it is falling into a gravitational field and then it(photon) can generate more gravitational force than before, and this gravitational force will travel more distance from photon than before. But on imaginable photon's reference frame, time duration is always 0 second. Now it seems that gravitational force travels faster than light speed on photon's reference frame. Why ? What kind of physics out there ? Note that nothing can travels faster than light speed.

danshawen likes this.
23. ### The GodValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,546
So, we dump something inconvenient and agree that there is no rest frame for photon.