GRAVITY and INERTIAREDEFINED as theConsequences of the Centrality of Matter within the
|
Any theory of gravitation which can be even tenuously related to the Standard Model of quantum mechanics; which could explain both the attraction of masses and inertia in consistent terms, and would not be expressly forbidden by any real physical fact, should be considered a contender in the endless task of perfecting a model of nature. |
The Standard Model of particle physics is said to have a flaw. It cannot account for the mass in the universe without proposing a kind of energy filling all of space called the Higgs Field. Theory has it that particles traveling through this HF would experience a drag which would translate into inertia, and establish a particle's mass. The Higgs mechanism is not well understood and still nascent in its development, but even in its broad outlines, as the following essay hopes to show, is sufficient for crafting a satisfying alternate theory of gravitation.
Einstein's theory of general relativity (GR) has had undeniable success as a new way to look at gravitation. According to the theory, gravity is produced by the curvature of spacetime. The problem is that we have no comprehensive theory of spacetime, and therefore by extension, no comprehensive theory of gravity. Another clue that something is missing is the incompatibility of general relativity with the Standard Model of quantum mechanics. The nature of the relationship of gravity and inertia continues to elude us, and the reason for the equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass remains an intractable mystery. In GR, gravitation is not a force. Because the Laws of Motion are as much about force as about motion, they cannot apply to the apparent "attraction" between the Earth and the Moon, nor to the motion of the heavens in general, since these are all ruled by gravitation. This dilution of Newton's laws by GR is yet another red flag.
There is a deep hidden connection between gravity and inertia. Observation and experiment suggest that they may somehow result from a single mechanism, but beyond the Equivalence Principle, there has been little progress in discovering their true relation. One way to realize this supposed unity is to tentativly set Einsteinean relativity aside, and speculate that both gravity and inertia are produced by one and the same field. According to this view, a massive particle would be forcefully held at the center of its field by the center-seeking force that is gravity. As in GR, the field, not the particle would be the agent of the gravitational effect. Unlike GR, the field would be an inward-acting force. This gravitational force would result from the interaction of matter and an all-pervasive energy filling the universe called a Higgs Field.
When two or more particles are in sufficient proximity, their gravitational fields will coalesce and acquire a common center of gravitation which will naturally lie at the center of mass for the entire system. For example, the gravitational center for the solar system would be at the center of a single compound field formed from the individual fields of the Sun and planets. Because of the sun's relatively large mass, this gravitational center would be located somewhere within the Sun, but it needn't be. If we are considering only two particles with similar masses, the system's center of mass (gravitational center) will be found somewhere on a straight line between them. This center of mass would exert an attracting force on both particles since a single compound field surrounding them would now be gathering all mass into its center. The particles will, consequently, be forced toward that center, giving the illusion that their masses are attracting one another.
Inertia becomes evident when any massive particle is accelerated. Apparently its grvitational field does not immediately accelerate with it, but tends to "drag" (stream out) behind its source particle due to an acceleration-dependent friction between the gravittional field and a ubiquitous Higgs field. This results in a slight displacement of the particle from its field's center of mass, and a corresponding apparent drag on the particle. The particle's center of mass and the field's center of mass are momentarily incongruent, at which point the gravitational (center-seeking) force acts to draw the particle back into its field's center. A re-alignment of the two centers of mass occurs the moment acceleration ceases. Thus, any acceleration is always accompanied by a restricting gravitational force which is observed as the particle's inertia, or inertial force. In this model, gravitational force and inertial force are not merely equivalent; they are identical. A particle's gravitational field is also responsible for its inertia. There is no longer any mystery why gravitational mass should always equal inertial mass.
The speculation that a gravitational field doubles as an inertial field is grounded in the theoretically strong, conventional expectation that there exists a ubiquitous Higgs Field. In 1964, Peter Higgs and others theorized that the entire universe is filled with a vacuum energy which allows matter to have mass and creates inertia. Matter causes the quantum energy of this Higgs field to "cluster" around any particle imbueing it with mass, and creating a drag on the particle when it is accelerated. This is the genesis of inertia, according to the theory.
Because of the Equivalence Principle, any exposition of inertia should also explain gravity. Following this reasoning, the Higgs field becomes a most likely source for the gravitational force. The proposition can be made that a gravitational force field results from the clustering of the HF around any mass, and is responsible for both gravitation and inertia, as briefly outlined above. In this scenario, gravity regains its status as a force, thereby becomming subject to Newton's third law. The universality of Newton's laws of motion is restored, as befits a comprehensive theory of gravitation.
The Standard Model of particle physics, despite its great success, cannot account for the existence of mass in the universe without postulating the Higgs Field. Building a theory of gravity on a hypothetical is necessarily speculative, but should the Higgs field ever gain solid acceptance, it would account for mass, and certain implications would naturally follow. It is currently theorized that the interaction of matter and the HF would define not only mass but also inertia. Since gravity is obviously related to inertia in some elusive way, (the Principle of Equivalence holds that they are mostly indistinguishable), it can be expected that a new theory of gravity should emerge when implications and facts surrounding inertia are joined in a proper relationship.
One implied possibility stemming from the postulated HF, is the formation of an energy field which would envelop any particle of matter having mass. This field may be thought of as a "clustering" of the HF in the vicinity of matter, or as a local concentrating effect that matter would have on the HF. In turn, this clustered HF would become a center-seeking force, tending to force its source matter into the field's center of mass. The intensity of the clustering would be proportional to the mass of its source particle, and the source particle would rest at the center of its field where it would resist any force tending to displace it from that center. (Acceleration always tends to displace an object from the center of its field, as is explained below). With the particle lying at the field's center, the field would naturally have its focal point and greatest strength within the body of the particle, and gradually taper off with distance in accordance with the inverse square law. In the event that two or more massive particles are found in sufficient proximity that their fields begin to merge, some area of the field between the particles would become reinforced to form a common center of mass for the system. The particles would be forced toward that mutual center of influence, accelerating toward that center with a convergent force derived from the combined strength of their fields. This would result from the above mentioned requirement that a mass must rest at the center of its field, in this case, a mutual center created by overlapping fields.
Each accelerating particle will also experience a retarding inertial reaction, or force, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the accelerating force. This suggests a unification of inertia and Newton's third law of motion. This inertial force is here proposed to be the result of acceleration tending to displace each particle from the center of its own respective field, as if space were exerting a drag on their fields. Assuming such a drag from space--or whatever space is filled with-- the fields would be distorted into eliptical shapes, their source particles, in effect, now forced somewhat off center in the direction of travel. Thus, acceleration immediately produces an inertial reaction or countervailing force working to retain a particle at its own field's center; this again, following from the same requirement that a mass must rest at the center of its field.
When two identical objects fall toward each other, (imagine two planets on a collision course in space) they may not be gravitating toward each other's center, but rather toward a common center of gravitation--the mutually shared center of their conflated fields--which is distinct from their individual centers of mass, and lies midway between them. This is most readily apparent in the case of binary stars circling around a central point which lies quite outside their corporeal boundaries. They should be seen as being impelled toward the center of their common gravity field instead of circling each other. The kinematics is equivalent in either case. Thus, under any circumstances, gravitation can be described as a force seeking the center of a field, or simply as a 'center-seeking force'.
When two objects differ greatly in their masses, such as the Earth and Moon, the center of their mutual field will be nearly at the center of the object having the greater mass. A body is always forcefully held captive at the center of its field (where else should it rest?), and any lesser bodies placed in its vicinity will also find themselves being forced (gravitating) toward that approximate center. If inertial force is also a center-seeking force--seeking to re-establish a particle's central locus within its field as described above--then both forces will be seen as having an identical nature: an object's gravitational field would also become an inertial field when the object is being accelerated. The experimentally proved equality of gravitational and inertial mass would no longer be just an amazing coincidence because both GM and IM would be manifesftations of the same field.
It was Einstein's unfulfilled hope that his General Theory of Relativity could establish some such single identity for gravity and inertia beyond just their "numerical equality".
We have proposed that inertia is caused by the tendency of an object's gravitational field to contain it within the center of that field. That this is actually happening may be illustrated by a thought experiment where we consider what happens to an object falling down a shaft which extends completely through the Earth, if such a shaft were possible. In falling, the object will overshoot the center, and after oscillating back and forth, will finally settle at the center where it will remain suspended and weightless. This is due to the symmetry of the gravitational field which now impacts equally on the object from all directions. An attempt to push it out of the center will immediately cause a counteracting force, because any dislacement from the center will result in an imbalance of gravity upon the object. It will react to any accelerating force with a resistance that will mimic inertia, and may in fact be inertia. The crucial point here is that this seeming inertial resistance is actually gravity pulling the object back into the center. A gravitational field is forcefully holding the object in its center.
An object in deep space, removed from the gravitational influence of the Earth or any other mssive bodies,* will still be immersed in its own gravitational field, and at rest in the field's center. When the object is given an accelerating push, it will react with an inertial force (inertia), just as it did in the shaft through the Earth. If inertia is indeed inherent in gravity as the "shaft" example suggests, we may conclude that the object's inertia is due to a resistance to being displaced from the center of its gravitational field. This would clearly mean that the same force is responsible for botlh gravitation and inertia. The equivalence principle, and the equality of gravitational and inertial mass support such a conclusion. Gravity equals inertia.
*Mach's principle has never been successfully incorporated in any theory of gravitation, so its verity is doubtful. In any case, it is not credible that any gravitational influence from massive bodies many light years distant would be strong enough to account for the inertial mass of any object in deep space.
Imagine an experiment where two massive wooden blocks are standing on a frictionless surface with a compressed coil spring between them. When the spring's tension is released, it expands uniformly exerting an equal force on both blocks, and sending them sliding in opposite directions. Even if the blocks differ in their respective masses, the force on each is the same.
The spring expands more slowly than if it were allowed to fly open unhindered, because it must overcome the inertia of the stationary blocks.
The Third Law of Motion states that any force is accompanied by an equal and opposite force. We have already seen that the inertia of the blocks is pushing back on each end of the spring, restricting its expansion. It must be concluded that when force results in motion, the reacting force that the Third Law speaks of is an inertial reaction, or inertial force.
The spring will be seen as creating two forces--one at each of its ends. These forces are then paired with two reacting (inertial) forces. The initial two forces that the spring created are a continuum, so each block bears the same amount of force. Lets say the spring produces a force of 10 newtons. Both blocks will then receive a push of 10 newtons simultaniously. The total reacting force must equal the total initial force in any Newtonian system. This means that only 5 newtons of force are available for each block to push back with. The spring provides a net force of 5 newtons on each block allowing them to accelerate apart.
In this thought experiment, the combined inertial resistance of both blocks is equal to the force of the expanding spring, and is oposite to the direction(s) of the spring's expansion. This satisfies the requirements of the Third Law completely.
The principles demonstrated by this experiment will later be applied to show the mechanics of gravitational attraction for large bodies in space.
We will now turn the above experiment around, and use contraction rather than expansion.
If the blocks in the experiment are sufficiently massive, and the spring is eliminated, there will be a discernable gravitational attraction between them. Both blocks will be accelerated toward each other.
Acceleration always produces an inertial reaction, and this reaction, as Einstein illustrated with his famous elevator thought experiment, is equivalent to a gravitational force. We have already given a theoretical basis for seeing gravitational and inertial force as being not merely equivalent, but the same force.
As both blocks are being forced toward each other by their gravitational interaction, another gravitational force (inertial reaction) is acting on both blocks to impede their convergence.
Inertial force and gravitational force are of the same nature. Einstein would have liked that.
Newton's third law of motion states that forces come in pairs. A force exerted by one object upon another, immediately elicits an equal force from the object being acted upon, and directed back against the first object. Thus, in the classical action-at-a-distance version, the Earth is said to exert a pull on the Moon, and the Moon reciprocates with an equal and opposite pull on the Earth. The problem is that neither body has any inherent power to attract the other. Even Newton considered such a notion absurd. Lacking any explanation for the tendency of masses to converge, it was convenient to retain the terminology of attraction.
If,in fact, no force is being exerted by either body, it is clear that the Third Law cannot be applied here--or at least not the way it is being applied conventionally.
Gravity, as currently understood, does not fit the standard definition of force which requires that there be an object acting upon another object. In the modern view, gravitational force is attributed to the field rather than its source mass. Any object placed within a gravitational field is subject to an accelerating force directed toward the center of that field. An object "attracting" another object may be responsible for the existence of its field, but its role is otherwise passive. It is the field which creates the force and imparts the movement.
A conceptual problem now arises because there is no easy fit in conventional theory between a force-generating field and the Third Law of Motion. There is no interaction between two field-driven objects seperated by distance, therefore, Newtonian action and reaction cannot be applied as though the objects could exert some kind of inherent force. It must be applied to each object separately as the object reacts to the field which is exerting force upon it. The conventional description of gravitation which has one object pulling on another by means of a mediating field is unsatisfactory. It is also in conflict with general relativity which states that gravitatiion results from the curvature of spacetime rather than some mysterious power of objects to attract each other.
To realize the correct application of the Third Law to two non-interacting objects, consider again, two identical planets gravitating toward one another along a single straight path. Between them there is only one gravitational force.* As they accelerate inward, each is restricted by a second force directed outward. Allow that the sum of the two outward forces represents Newton's third law reacting force, and is, therefore, equal to the single inward force. (See section above titled, 'Action and Reaction'). When the system is considered as a whole, the two outward forces amount to one force reacting with an equal and opposite magnitude to the inward gravitational force. Because it is acting on two separate objects, the strength of the outward force is reduced by half as it affects each planet. This leaves a net force for gravitation, allowing the planets to converge despite the quantitative equality of the opposed inward and outward forces. As the gravitational force on each planet increases with diminishing separation distance, the outward force on each also increases proportionally in order to maintain the 1:1 ratio for the strength of the inward and outward forces. Conventional theory cannot explain the source of this proportionality of which we shall say more later. We will presume the outward force to be an inertial reaction dictated by the Third Law.
*While there is only one gravitational force, it is manifest in two distinct places as the acceleration of two widely seperated bodies. We have seen this before in the demonstration of the spring and blocks, where one source of energy (the spring) creates two forces at each of its terminals.
As the Moon revolves around the Earth, it is in a constant state of acceleration toward the Earth. If it is true that acceleration tends to displace a mass from the center of its own gtavitational field, it would be immediately evident that the Moon is being affected by a second force working to retain it at its field's center. It now becomes clear that this second force would be none other than the familiar centrifugal ( inertial ) force always counteracting the centripetal force with an equal and opposite magnitude. The centrifugal/inertial force acting on the Moon is caused by the Moon's acceleration in the direction of the approximate center of the Earth, but this is not to say that the Earth is, in any way, exerting a force on the Moon. They are both being drawn toward the center of their common gravitational field.
We may now generalize, and properly say that it is an inertial force which is countering the gravitational force with an equal and opposite magnitude. The reacting force of Newton's third law may now be identified with an inertial reaction, not only for the Moon, but for all situations involving accelerated motion (Newtonian force). The Earth appears to be pulling against the Moon, while the Moon appears to be pulling against the Earth with equal force, when it is actually gravity pulling against inertia--the pull of a common gravity field for both bodies being resisted by their individual inertial fields.
The mechanism for both forces is the same. It is the tendency of a gravitational field to gather masses into its center: the Moon toward the center of the Earth-Moon gravity field, and simultaneously, the Moon toward the center of its own local gravity field.
If symmetry is a signpost of reality in physics, the symmetry here is made even more compelling because the relation between Newton's first law, the law of inertia, and his third law is clarified. Centrifugal/inertial force, seen as a third-law reaction, refines our understanding of planetary motion. We also see that gravitational and inertial forces are real forces having the same nature. They are produced by the same ethereal mechanism--only their directional vectors are different when both forces are acting together on the same object.
Contrast this hypothesis with the curved spacetime of general relativity which cannot account for either inertial reaction or centrifugal force, and must continue to view them as "pseudo forces". Astronomer, Tom Van Flanders even argues that there is nothing in the concept of curved spacetime which would impell one object toward another. Some mysterious, external gravitational force must still be invoked to induce motion along the curved spacetime gradient.
The source of inertial reaction has been described here as a kind of acceleration-dependent drag of space against an object's gravitational field. A very similar concept has been developed by B. Haisch, A. Rueda, and H. Puthoff, where the authors speak of a zero point field (ZPF) instead of a Higgs field, but in either case, the reference is to the vacuum energy of space: "In the ZPF-inertia theory, mass is postulated to be not an intrinsic property of matter, but rather a kind of electromagnetic drag force (my emphasis) that proves to be acceleration dependent by virtue of the spectral characteristics of the ZPF," and later, "The principle of equivalence then implies that gravitational mass will need to undergo an analogous reinterpretation." From: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023. The authors originally published their hypothesis in 1994 (Phys.Rev. A, 49, 678, 1994).
Messrs. Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff go on to state that, as yet, they have not been successful in achieving the desired "reinterpretation" of gravity. In the present essay, we have gone beyond the ZPF-inertia theory, and improved upon it by the simple expedient of describing space drag as an interaction between vacuum energy and an object's gravitational field rather than drag on the object itself. This seemingly minor departure from the ZPF-inertia hypothesis allows the necessary "reinterpretation" of gravity. It also allows us to unify the gravitational and inertial forces, account for the curious equality of gravitational and inertial mass, and apply Newton's third law to the Earth/Moon interaction without being forced to accept an oblique reliance on action-at-a-distance, as conventional theory must.
In the event that the Large Hadron Collider should fail to detect the Higgs boson when it becomes operational in 2007, such failure should not be fatal to the gravity theory being introduced here. The concept of a Higgs Field is indispensable to the Standard Model. One need only to shift reference to the ZPF or the more general quantum vacuum, and anticipate the verification of the HF at some future time.
The concept of a common center of gravitation lying outside the physical boundaries of several proximate massive objects raises an intriguing possibility. A cluster of masses such as a galaxy of stars would have innumerable such disembodied gravity wells sprinkled throughout the spaces between the stars. They could easily be misconstrued as a mysterious 'dark matter' pervading a galaxy. This would explain why dark matter does not form a highly concentrated central region within a galaxy as simulations predict. Instead, it forms a stable halo consistent with the above scenario.
A cluster of galaxies known as CL0024+1654 was recently mapped by an international team using the Hubble Space Telescope, and led by Dr. Jean-Paul Kneib. This team found that the dark matter is tightly linked in a pattern with the ordinary luminous matter. It appears as distinct "knots and lumps" within the halo, each one corresponding to visible matter such as a smaller clump of galaxies. Of course, the dark matter was not directly observed, but only inferred from the observed gravitational effects.
Dark matter may not be matter at all. It would be more like a lumpy gravitational fog enveloping any grouping of objects. The lumpiness would appear in those areas where individual gravitational fields would be reinforced at points of overlap to form countless areas of enhanced gravity within galaxies. The result would be an apparent mass distributation consistent with the observed high velocities of stars in the outer orbits of galaxies. Might not the presence of these "lumps" of gravity in empty space affect the rotational velocity of stars just as if putative invisible matter was exerting its gravity on them?
It is now known that every galaxy has a massive black hole at its center, yet the true nature of these black holes remains a mystery. If dark matter turns out not to be matter at all, then the same might be true for black holes. We may come to realize that they are nothing more exotic than the centers of gravity for all the massive objects revolving about them.
A ten-pound ball is accelerated toward the ground by a gravitational force ten times as great as the force on a one-pound ball. The inertial force resisting the heavier ball's displacement from the center of its own field is also ten times greater because its own associated field is ten times stronger due to its tenfold greater mass. The well known result is both balls falling at the same rate. Herein lies the elusive reason for the proportionality of gravitational force and inertial mass: an objects's gravitational field does double duty as an inertial field. Both fields are one and the same physical entity, therefore, the strength of an object's gravitational field determines equal values for both its gravitational mass and its inertial mass. Proportionality necessarily follows when gravitational interactions occur between that object and other massive objects. Field Centrality explains the strange equality of gravitational mass and inertial mass, and accounts for the Universality of Free Fall.
The "hypothetical" field described earlier as a clustering of the HF in the vicinity of matter is merely the prosaic gravity field of everyday experience. Its reach into space need not be considered infinite because it would not result from any radiating force particles (gravitons) as envisioned by conventional theory. Setting aside the question of just how, or whether, this field imparts mass to matter, it is enough for the present purpose to observe that it is associated with any particle having mass, and that space (or the Higgs field energy of space) has no appreciable effect on it, so long as the source particle is at rest or in uniform motion. Put another way, the field does not experience any drag from the "fabric" of space while in uniform motion, for such a drag would cause a reduction in the velocity of the source particle violative of the First Law of Motion. Without any drag on the field, the particle will remain at the field's center whether at rest or in uniform motion, both field and particle moving together through space as a unit--the field perfectly entrained by its source particle as it moves through a perfect fluid aether.
When an unbalanced force is applied, however, the inertial resistance exhibited by the particle must now be attributed to a drag on its field. Such a drag will only exist in the case of non-uniform motion (acceleration). It will compress the field ahead of the particle in the direction of motion, and extend it in the opposite direction, in effect, displacing the particle from its center. The field would not be infinitely compressible, therefore any accelerating force would meet with an ever more steeply increasing resistance to any continuing increase in force. The effect would be what is conventionally interpreted as an increase in inertial mass. Rest mass would depend on the intensity of the field's "clustering". When the accelerating force ceases, drag also ceases, and the field reconfigures itself, with the speed of light, to its normal symmetry around the particle. During a condition of asymmetry, there exists a tension between a body and its field equal to the applied force, as that body and field strive to regain their field-centered equilibrium. This tension ( inertial force ), and the circumstances creating it, may rightly be seen as part of the Higgs mechanism.
The proportionality of gravitational force and inertial mass has been known since Newton, but has never been accounted for because the causes of inertial reaction had remained hidden. Einstein's equivalence principle is a statement about equivalence, but not a real explanation. Directly stated, the field associated with any massive particle is a gravitational field and is hardly hypothetical. What has been missing is the notion of 'field centrality' and cosmic drag which, together, can describe with immediacy--gravitational force, inertial force, and their identical nature.
The Higgs mechanism, devolving as it does from quantum theory, creates the clustering which is identified here as a gravitational field. Such an interpretation places gravity squarely within the Standard Model.
Einstein's unsuccessful dream to unify electromagnetism and gravity also seems likely to be fulfilled in the framework of field centrality: The gravitational field is a structure created out of the electromagnetic quantum vacuum, meaning the field's substance is also electromagnetic.
According to Newton's second law of motion, each time an object is accelerated with a particular amount of force, it will gain the same amount of speed with each successive acceleration no matter how long the process is continued. It should eventually be possible to surpass the speed of light, applying no greater force for the final push than for the first.
This happy state is denied by Special Relativity which says that as the object gains speed, it also gains mass, so an ever greater amount of force is required to achieve a given increase in speed. This failure of the second law is supposably demonstrated by the increasing difficulty with which subatomic particles are accelerated to near light-speed within cyclotrons. It is hard to see how the cyclotron accelerations demonstrate the point at issue since the subatomic particles are subjected to a constantly increasing, seamless acceleration rather than a series of accelerations of equal force.
If the second law is to be saved from being compromised by SR, then the apparent increasing mass phenomenon must be accounted for with a non-relativistic explanation: A particle being accelerated at an increasing uninterrupted rate will strain against its dragging gravitational field, but cannot do so indefinitely. Just as a stretching rubber band requires more and more force the farther it is stretched, the particle's resistance will increase exponentilally while it is subjected to increasing force (as in a cyclotron). When the accelerating force is removed, the particle's center of mass realigns itself with its field's center of mass, and it continues to travel at whatever speed it has attained. Now, in uniform motion, with no forces acting upon it, its mass is the same as that of an identical stationary particle. It may be accelerated further using no greater amount of force than was required the first time.
According to this scenario, a particle of any mass may be accelerated in increments, up to and beyond the speed of light. Newton's second law reigns supreme, and science fiction buffs should be pleased with the prospect of faster-than-light travel.
It should not be surprising that 'Centrality of Matter', the same theoretical device which accounts for gravity and inertia, would illuminate the Laws of Motion as well.
A theory of gravitation based on the field-centrality of matter must remain a speculation until the Higgs field is verified experimentally. In that event, its compelling simplicity and its relatedness to the Standard Model will make it a formidable rival to General Relativity, which defies all efforts to be integrated into quantum theory. It would then be natural to also suspect Special Relativity because of some common ground (time dialation) with the general theory, and because it too is incompatible with the concept of field centrality.
A brief examination of the mechanics of electromagnetic wave propagation will show that the Addition of Velocities hypothesis for the speed of light is not precluded by anything in that process, but first it will be helpful to analyze the effect of uniform motion on a field being generated by an electromagnet. It will be made obvious that the conflict between SR and a theory of gravitation based on field centrality exists because Field Centrality requires a (c + v) model for an electromagnetic field in motion.
Field centrality describes the relation of a field to its source mass while that mass is in motion. Accordingly, any field, whether magnetic, electric, or gravitational, must move through space as a unit with its source while the source is in uniform motion, or violate the First Law of Motion as explained above. (See section titled, 'The Proportinality Puzzle', 2nd para.). For example, if an ordinary natural magnet is placed in motion, its magnetic field slides unimpeded through space in a kind of convective flow at the same speed as the magnet, and in unison with it. The configuration of the field, with the magnet at its center, remains indistinguishable from that of a stationary magnet.
Now consider an electromagnet. At the instant it is energized, a magnetic field spreads outward from its surface at the speed of light. The mechanism by which this occurs remains a matter of conjecture. All that can be safely said is that the field simply spreads out to some appreciable inherent distance--its strength determined by the inverse square law--and remains static, meaning here that neither its initial surge outward, nor its continued maintenance, is constituted by any wave-like radiation. Michael Faraday speculated, without any great confidence, that a magnetic field might spread by means of vibrations along rays or lines of force. Faraday rejected the aether, so his concept held no inherent prohibition against the speed of propagation varying with the speed of the source. In any case, his model does not hold any currency today. Any assumptions about particles, waves or rays as being agents of a spreading magnetic field are merely assumptions, and may be dispensed with to give coherence to the remainder of this essay. Radiation is a function of the electromagnetic field; not of magnetic or electric fields in isolation. Without emitted rays or particles, the issue of the speed of a spreading magnetic field while its source is in uniform motion, will not be subjected to the historical difficulties associated with the speed of electromagnetic waves. The speed of the propagation of a magnetic field was determined to be c long ago, but the manner of its propagation is still unknown.
If the electromagnet happens to be in uniform motion at the moment that power is applied to it, the speed of its spreading magnetic field, c, will be enhanced by the velocity of its source, v, so that the speed of the spreading magnetic field will be c + v. This maintains field centrality for the magnet, and also satisfies the First Law of Motion. Waves are always limited to some constant velocity. Because a spreading magnetic field does not consist of radiating waves the way a light beam does, there is no basis for objecting to a (c + v) addition of velocities here. (Any objections based on SR theory should be temporarily suspended since the purpose here is to suggest an alternate theory).
If the speed of the magnetic field were not to increase by the amount, v, that would indicate drag on the field, resulting in a gradual decrease in the magnet's speed, and thereby violate the First Law. The field around its magnet would resemble one in an accelerating state rather than in uniform motion: The magnet would not be at the center of its field because the field would be compressed in the direction of motion, and extended in the opposite direction--the very picture of a field experiencing drag in space, and decidedly not the picture that field centrality requires for uniform motion.
Light, an electromagnetic wave, is basically a continuous succession of static electric and magnetic fields. The waving result from the cumulative effect of the growth and demise of these static fields as they alternately succeed one another outward into space at the speed of light. A field spreads to its limit, and as it begins to wane, it simultaneously causes the growth of the next field in a continuing inductive chain reaction. It should be realized that no single individual field in this progression moves from its point of origination, but simply creates another field ahead of it as it shrinks out of existence: A waning magnetic field creates an electric field; the waning electric field then creates a magnetic field, and so on ad infinitum, at 186,000 miles per second. This waxing and waning of successive stationary fields outward along their "line of march" creates the perception of waves while nothing is actually waving. The process has a periodicity which expresses itself in a sine-wave pattern due to the growth, demise and extinction of each field in series. A series of individual events--the blinking in and out of existence of stationary fields--can be roughly compared to the seriate blinking light bulbs on a movie marquee which create the illusion of spots of light traveling in a line.
When light from a distant star reaches the eye of a person on Earth, strictly speaking, it has not traveled across the intervening distance. The wave front striking the eye has just been newly created. It is only the final, stationary spreading field of a chain of such distinct events stretching all the way back to the star. The substance out of which the fields are formed must be the vacuum energy of space--the new aether. The conventional description of radiation is invariably muddled because it tries to model after true waves rather than a "leap-froging" of alternate magnetic and electric fields as described above. For example, some expositors use phrasing like "ripples in the electromagnetic field", as if there mysteriously appears a pre-existing matrix for EM waves to wave about in. The incoherence is striking because an EM field is synonymous with EM waves, so they seem to be saying, "waves waving in waves".
The point to emphasize here is that during their unimaginably brief existence, the individual electric and magnetic fields remain stationary relative to their source, regardless of the speed of that source while in uniform motion. If it were otherwise, light would not be locally isotropic. It would be possible, at least in principle, to distinguish uniform motion from a stationary state because an observer stationed at the light source would measure different speeds of light depending on his direction of motion which, of course, he does not. Light spreads out evenly away from him in all directions, always. An observer in an outside inertial frame would agree with the observations of the inside observer for he would "see" the first observer at the center of concentric spheres of radiating waves, always. Denying the possibility of detecting absolute motion, the situation must be described as c + v from the point of view of an observer in a relatively moving frame of reference, just as was the case with the moving electromagnet and its field described earlier. The spreading field of the electromagnet (the instant that power is applied), and the spreading componential magnetic fields within a beam of light are identical entities. They are both governed by the same physics. In both situations, if the source is put in uniform motion, the velocity of that source must be added to c, or violate the First Law of Motion by creating what would appear to be drag on the fields. (Since the addition of velocities is always and everywhere at work, no such violation can ever occur; absolute motion can never be detected). Naturally, the electric field component within a wave would be similarly affected, each successive field acquiring its velocity from its antecedent field.
This model of light propagation allows Galileon relativity to apply to electromagnetism as well as kinematics, and that is as it should be. It may be remembered that establishing this Galileon connection was Einstein's stated purpose for inventing SR as expressed in the 1st and 2nd postulates of his 1905 Paper.
Einstein correctly believed that the old-fashioned relativity of motion should also apply to electromagnetism. The problem was that this idea could not be reconciled with the old-fashioned, universally held concept of waves which must always travel at some set speed, and independently of their source. Sound waves and water waves provided the only examples for his time. Einstein's solution to this problem was his Special Relativity theory, and it was completely unnecessary as the above analysis of electromagnetic wave action shows. Nothing in this model constrains light waves to a particular, unvarying speed the way sound vibrations are constrained by their medium, the air. The speed of light waves is allowed to vary with the speed of their source, so there is nothing to reconcile here. Galileon relativity and a varying speed of light are both inherent in the mechanics of the electromagnetic wave. Locally (from the perspective of a generating source), light will always be seen as traveling at the same speed, c, but to an observer in a different frame of reference, it will be measured as c + v or c - v.
Two observations may be made here. First, it should be obvious that no mechanical aether is necessary for such "inductance waves"--at least not in the classical sense of an undulating medium such as water or air. Without a mechanical aether, there is nothing else known which can prevent these esoteric "waves" from varying their speed in unison with their source. Secondly, It may be noted that Special Relativity was, in part, constructed to surmount the aether problem, a problem which would never have existed if electromagnetic wave mechanics had been properly understood by the early investigators of electromagnetism. Thus, electromagnetic wave mechanics, sans aether, shows that the variability of wave speed is not forbidden, while Newton's First Law requires it. This is in direct contradiction to the bedrock of Einsteinian relativity--the postulate that the speed of light is absolute, and will not be affected by the speed of its source.
If space is made up of an energetic substance, like a Higgs field, upon which other fields are imposed, such quantum fields must necessarily be of the same substance as the Higgs. They glide through space unhampered like an ocean current through an endless "quantum ocean" until acted upon by some force. They need no mechanical medium or extraneous postulates to facilitate their passage through a perfect fluid aether.
In conclusion, field centrality requires that electromagnetic waves whose source is put in uniform motion, being a combination of electric and magnetic fields, should move through space with the same convective flow which describes the motion of their individual constituent fields in isolation. The addition of velocities makes this flow possible, and without it, gravity and inertia must remain enigmatic.
As stated in the introduction, a theory's credibility is conditional upon its conforming to real physical facts as best they can be determined. The focus placed here on the Addition of Velocities hypotheses requires that at least some attempt be made to counter the general belief that its falsity is just such a fact.
The best known, and still often proffered evidence for the constancy of light speed, was the argument made by de Sitter in 1913. He concluded that light received on earth from a double-star system would be hopelessly confused if light speed could vary throughout its long journey earthward. The error in de Sitter's reasoning is convincingly disclosed by Herbert Dingle in his Science at the Crossroads, London (Martin Brian & O'keefee 1972) p.205. More Recently, Robert Fritzius, making use of research done by V.I. Sekerin in 1987, argues that the periodic light variation of Cepheid variable stars may be caused by a variable speed of light (VSL), by which he means the 'addition of velocities'. This is something quite different from the idea proposed by Joao Magueijo and John Moffat. From (http://www.ebicom.net/~rsfl/binaries.htm).
Dimitri Nanopoulos, Texas A&M University, 2001, along with Nikolaos Mavromatos of King's College in London, and John Ellis of CERN in Geneva has discovered that measurements made over cosmic distances show a correlation between light speed and frequency. "The speed of light is frequency-dependent." Though he does not infer (c + v) for light speed from his observations, such a correlation is necessary to the (c + v) model. From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm.
In 1969, Brian G. Wallace published his analysis of the first Venus radar contact data, and determined that the best fit to the data was a (c + v) model. His difficulties in promulgating his findings make for lively reading. From http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html.
These few examples should at least be enough to allow the discussion to continue.
Replacing the relativity theories would not happen without a great deal of retrospection, not to mention the abandonment of much of modern physics. For example, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment could be reinterpreted to support a variable speed of light: Aetherless light, traveling within a uniformly moving frame of reference (the interferometer), would exhibit a classical addition of velocities which would account for the experiment's null result. An apt analogy would be a ball bouncing from wall to wall inside a moving boxcar.
This was essentially how Henri Poincare explained it at the time. Walter Ritz, the earliest, or at least the most famous exponent of (c + v) probably agreed, or should have.
Maxwell's definitive field equations established that light waves propagate with speed c. Since these equations had been developed in the context of a stationary aether, initially it was thought that c must be measured relative to that aether. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, and without the "benefit" of an aether or Special Relativity, the equations need not be interpreted as before. Disentangled from a spurious aether, their meaning becomes clear: The speed of light is always c relative to the only remaining possibility--the source producing the waves, and that is just another way of saying that light's speed must vary with the speed of its source.
Plainly and simply, when a mechanical aether does not have to be accommodated, light is isotropic to its source for all observers in all reference frames.
A textbook illustration for the dilation of time shows a light-clock passing by an extended mirror. The clock is moving uniformly, and sees its reflected image constantly. A light pulse is emitted by the clock, reflected by the mirror, and received by the clock some distance from where the clock began its journey. The light pulse has traveled a longer path to reach the moving clock than if the clock had been standing still, but has not taken any longer to do so. If light speed is absolute, a stationary observer must conclude that time has passed more slowly within the clock's moving frame of reference. The non-relativistic, straightforward, and intuitivlely satisfying explanation is that the light pulse has simply increased its speed rather like a rubber ball being thrown against a wall from a moving vehicle, traveled a v-shaped course, and returned directly to the thrower's hand without any need to invoke time dilation.
The same principle is evinced by a phenomenon called the 'aberration of starlight', although here, it is the Earth rather than the source, a distant star, which is moving. (In relative terms, it makes no difference whether it is the Earth or the star which is moving). Without the concept of time dialation, one would use the (c + v) model to explain how the aberrant starlight takes the same amount of time to travel an apparently longer distance to the Earth. Thus, the addition of velocities affirms the universality of Galileon relativity in explaining everything from the workings of imaginary light clocks to bouncing rubber balls to starlight.
A final example of the adequacy of non-relativistic descriptions of light-wave phenomena is provided by the doppler shift of sound waves which results from a well understood mechanical action. The frequency shift of sound waves requires a medium such as air upon which the periodic vibrations of a sound source will be deposited. These vibrations will occur with greater frequency in front of a moving source, meaning in the direction of its travel, and with lesser frequency behind it. The point being made here is that the frequency shift is an absolute event, occuring even if an observer fails to perceive it, should he be traveling at the same speed as the source. A Doppler shift is attributed to light waves, but only as a loose analogy to sound, because in the case of light, there is no undulating medium--at least not in any objectively real sense. According to SR, Doppler shift does not occur unless there is relative motion between a light source and its observer. Frequency shifting of light in the SR scheme is not an absolute event as is the case with sound waves. By implication, whatever it is that carries the wave-form in SR, only exists when there is relative motion between a light source and an observer. This is like saying that the air only exists when a sound source is moving relative to a listener. The analogy between sound waves and light waves breaks down, and light is left without an explanation for its Doppler shift.
Without an unambiguous aether, electromagnetic Doppler shift has no clear mechanism in Relativity, whereas a varying speed of electromagnetic waves will account handily for changing wave frequencies when source velocity changes: Waves traveling faster will pass a point with greater frequency without any change in wavelength.
When any receiver such as a radar apparatus or the human eye is impacted by a stream of electromagnetic waves, it can only measure the frequency with which each wave crest follows the one before it. This gives no information about the wavelength. Wavelength can only be computed given the frequency, and this is correctly done when there is no relative motion between the sender and receiver. With relative motion, frequency changes, but it must not be assumed that wavelength also changes. A shift in the wavelength of radiation being emitted from a moving source has never been experimentally demonstrated. If, in fact, the wavelength does not shift as here maintained, the explanation for a perceived change in frequency must be c + v. The resulting Doppler-like effect might, more appropriately, be called the Ritz effect when the reference is to light waves as opposed to sound waves.
Such common-sense alternatives to Relativity abound. The spurious mechanical aether, sometimes consciously factored, most often hidden, has always been the common denominator in creating a confusion which, it seemed, could only be resolved by the transforms of Lorentz, and later, Einstein. How likely is it that SR could be a true representation of reality while co-existing with so many parallel, non-relativistic, and perfectly satisifying descriptions of electromagnetic phenomena?
These representative examples support the expectation that any number of such ambiguities could be resolved by a source-dependent variable speed of light (VSL). The Mossbauer effect and gravitational red-shift immeadiatly come to mind. However, in these situations it would be the pull of gravity rather than source velocity causing light waves to travel slower and register the observed frequency shifts. Similarly, atomic clocks whose vibrational frequencies have been used to demonstrate time dilation, may only be demonstrating VSL when their vibrations are observed to slow down in a stronger gravity field.
The centrality theory of gravitation requires that light speed should vary with its source (c+v). In that sense, it predicts the variability of light speed. Special Relativity,by contrast, requires that wavelength should vary directly with the speed of its source. This allows light speed to be invariant in the calculation. An experiment which would measure the actual wavelength produced by a moving source, and compare it to the wavelength from that source while it is stationary, would be dispositive. Such an experiment would find that frequency changes, but wavelength never changes. The only explanation would be a variable speed of light.
The Author's article, 'Inertia Equals Gravity' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A1085285) offers a lighter analysis of the 'center-seeking force' and its relation to other so-called pseudo forces.
Your comments are welcome... Posted 3/17/03Last modified 05/27/09 |
