A Few New Idea's For The Gravitational Charge

[Aethelwulf]

The Coriolis Field, is defined by Prof. Lloyd Motz as the gravimagnetic field, which can be found as the result of a cross product.

 

[math]\frac{2(\omega \times c)}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

 

This field I found, was equivalent to the force divided by the gravitational charge [math]\frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M}[/math].

 

The force is connected is connected to the coupling of the gravitomagnetic forces in a rotating frame of reference found by through the use of a cross product [ref 1.].

 

The force is also by definition inertial.

 

I shall show quickly how to arrive at the situation where

 

[math]\frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = \frac{2(\omega \times v)}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

 

You simply notice that the force is

 

[math]F = 2 M(\omega \times v)[/math]

 

You get the definition above by dividing this equation on both sides by the gravitational charge [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math].

 

You can write the cross product as

 

[math]\frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = \epsilon_{ijk} \frac{2\omega_j c_k}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

 

Lloyd explains that the coupling is found between the gravitmagnetic field through the means of a cross product

 

[math]\sqrt{G}M \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{2\omega \times c}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

 

Since we know that

 

[math]\frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = \frac{2\omega \times c}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

 

The coupling can be also seen equivalently as

 

[math]\sqrt{G}M \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M}[/math]

 

Cancelling terms we find that this results in a ''force'' which would be the force connected to the three components of the magnetic field

 

[math]\sqrt{G}M \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = F_{gravitomagnetic}[/math]

 

The cross product term gives rise to an angular momentum component in the motion of the particle which is of order [math]2mr^2\omega[/math] (see ref 1.) but is discussed by Sciarma [Ref 2.].

 

It should be pointed out, that if the definition of the electric field

 

[math]\mathbf{E} = \frac{F}{e}[/math]

 

has an analogue for the gravitational, it probably would be

 

[math]\frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = \epsilon_{ijk} \frac{2\omega_j c_k}{\sqrt{G}}[/math]

 

seen as a cross product on the right.

 

Because our system is considered fundamental, the angular component has strong vectorial relationships in the idea of spin coupling to magnetic field lines (and those connected by the source of the gravitational field ie. the gravitational charge (mass)).

 

To describe spin directionality, you can involve chiralty. I found in previous work how to describe the gravitational charge and the Planck charge as a set of matrices, and found that they can be interpreted in the usual gamma matrices and their respective properties.

 

If this:

 

[math]\sqrt{G}M \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = F_{gravitomagnetic}[/math]

 

Then we might ask, is the motion of a particle with charge [math]e[/math] what we mean when talking about mass itself, are the two the same thing? Using certain units, the statement

 

[math]e = \sqrt{G}M[/math]

 

Is a true prediction of the relationship between the elementary charge and what Motz called the true definition of mass, the gravitational charge. The coupling of the classical gravitational force then with the magnetic field itself could be the reason why particles obtain chirality by aligning themselves with the magnetic field lines. It becomes an intrinsic property since generally-speaking, the magnetic field is never zero since there is always a spin component.

 

Charge and mass certainly appear the same in theory, but there are doubters since neutrino's have a very small mass but appears to have no charge since they move with ease through matter. But I believe charge is directly proportional in this sense, having a vanishingly small mass might imply that they actually have vanishingly small charges, meaning they would appear within limits, to move through matter without hindrance. Also, they may possess very small magnetic dipole moments because they are allowed to interact with magnetic fields. The magnetic field then inside of a particle is coupled to the particle through it's motion, the force experienced

 

[math]\sqrt{G}M \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{F}{\sqrt{G}M} = F_{GM}[/math]

 

becomes connected to the idea of mass itself through the definition of the gravitational charge. The interesting thing is that we can actually assume the gravitational constant [math]G = \frac{\hbar c}{M^2}[/math] takes on an extremely large value inside of the particle. I have added to this that it may also be allowed to become negative and act as a pseudo-Poincare Stress, the force which is argued by many physicists must exist to actually hold a particle together due to electrostatic repulsion. There is of course a fine tuning argument concerning such a natural function of nature if it is true. The gravitational charge is also related to the product of the energy of the system and it's radius.

 

[math]\sqrt{Er_s} = \sqrt{G}M[/math]

 

This would be an inertial energy by definition and also the energy inside of the particle acting as it's gravitational charge. It can be implemented into the gravitomagnetic force equation, so we can understand it as a force-energy relationship from the same cross product which coupled the magnetic and gravitional fields

 

[math]\sqrt{Er_s} \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{F}{\sqrt{Er_s}} = F_{GM}[/math]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ref 1.]

 

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

 

[ref 2]

 

''On the origins of inertia.''

Edited April 10, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

When I looked back on this work, I realized how simple the equation I found [math]\sqrt{Er_s} = \sqrt{GM^2}[/math] really was but how many implications it had when you are readjusting this for [math]r_s = R = \frac{e^2}{Mc^2}[/math] which is known as the classical radius. Not so much that we not only talk about internal fields of a particle which I have attempted to explain in the OP using the classical gravitational charge relationships, but it had massive implications for dynamical classical explanations for relativistic effects.

 

Say, for instance, we are talking about a relativistic particle, we know that performing a binomial expansion on

 

[math]E^2 = (Mc^2 + pc)^2[/math]

 

produces the well-tested theory that as particles increase with velocity their energies increased as well. (This conversation actually has some strong ties with another theory I presented for the origin of inertia, but I'll talk about this in the next post). Understanding that particles ''become more massive'' because energy is a function of velocity as thus predicted by special relativity, we understand that in the gravitational charge-energy relationship

 

[math]\lim_{E \rightarrow \infty} \sqrt{Er_s} \propto \Delta \sqrt{GM^2}[/math]

 

(Notice though if the limit approached infinity then it cannot purport to a physical quantity)

 

for the limit of increasing energy indefinitely directly effects ''the gravitational charge'' which as we should all know now, is the definition of the mass of the system. Equally, energy can decrease,

 

[math]\lim_{E \rightarrow 0} \sqrt{Er_s}[/math]

 

But notice if it does approach zero, this means we cannot be talking about a particle. For a very long time, I have disputed the idea that particles are truly pointlike, the idea does not settle well with me. I believe they only appear this way because there is a special ''cut-off'' we are yet to understand - but I can understand it, because there is a similar ''special kind of limit'' on the measurement of strings because it has to deal with them being one-dimensionally extended objects.

 

This means, to keep with the dynamical predictions, if energy is zero, the mass will also be zero naturally. Perhaps that part could have gone without saying, but I am just keeping track of how energy and the radius and mass described as a charge is like from the simple equation

 

[math]\sqrt{Er_s} = \sqrt{GM^2}[/math]

 

Which I take as a ''prediction that particles cannot be fundamentally pointlike,'' because if they reach a ''point state'' then there cannot be an energy content.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

Now I said I would make some comments on inertia. I realized that the definition of inertia would be intrinsically and fundamentally the same about talking about the

resistence to changes in energy kinematically instead of the classical Newtonian definition where it is a resistence to changes in motion. I wasn't saying that

inertia was not about motion, but rather if you have changed in motion then inertia appears about the energy of the system not the motion per se because energy is a function

of velocity. In the theory of innert mass, we have described it as a charge on the system - so when we talk about the inertial mass, what we really are talking about is

the gravitational charge [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math]. The origins of inertia as described by Sciama

 

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1953MNRAS.113...34S&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

 

 

Does not conflict with this definition at all. Not many will understand the full implications of the paper because scientific papers are very obtuse. But I have spent a lot

of time myself understanding the in's and out's of the papers work, which was what gave me some of my insights into the postulations I have made on Planck Particles and

gravitomagnetic field effects. To give a quick summary of his famous paper, he is inferring on is a thought experiment, concerning a particle in a gravitationally-smooth

universe sitting at complete rest to the universe but accelerates towards another body and how the classical fields allow them to couple. Not only this,

be he found that they connected to gravielectric and gravitmagnetic fields.

 

Before going into that properly, he does go onto explain the consequences of some of his equations, one of these beings that his equation (6) implies that the gravitational

and inertial associated by the energy of the system would be zero. He says that can be experimentally varified in a number of ways. Recently we have been able to make

particles go below absolute zero but this was through of a process of ''tricking'' nature if like. Anyway, so far this idea cannot be disputed since no particle is ever

truly at rest. This is why in general speaking for every fundamental particle (except any kind of Higgs boson) that the magnetic field is not generally zero because it's

angular momentum is non-zero.

 

Going back to his equation, a more important note he makes is that the gravitational constant is actually determined by the gravitational potential. This would mean that in

the gravitational charge, mass really comes about from a gravitational potential. But perhaps more importantly than even that(!), that inertial induction arises from

the term [math]\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}[/math] making it an electromagnetic effect, or as he calls it the ''radiation field of the universe.''

 

My idea concerning how to describe mass when thinking about the gravitational field speculated that mass was actually ''provided'' from a potential. I was aware of Motz's work

but had never investigated Sciarma's paper originally, so I had independently came to the conclusion that mass was really something ''given'' to the system from the gravitational

field potential. Using the conventional units satisfying [math]e = \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon GM^2}[/math] that the contribution of mass to a system would be

 

[math]M(\phi) = \frac{1}{2}\frac{4\pi \epsilon GM^2}{r_s c^2}[/math]

 

In Sciarma's example, you could directly infer that if he is taking inertia and electromagnetic effects as being two sides of the same coin, then the equation above is

the equivalent of similar electromagnetic theories of mass which already exist and has a similar ''contribution'' equation as described above, except in the case above we

are describing it in terms of the gravitational charge itself. Notice the mass depends on the potential [math]M(\phi)[/math]. Someone could possibly describe the equation

in fancier terms and not let [math]\epsilon[/math] be the permittivity but it could be reconfigured to describe the gravitational permittivity.

 

The idea that inertia could be just an electromagnetic effect, also does not go against my redefinition that inertia is the resistence to energy. The inertial effects in

Sciarma's examples are using accelerating systems. Velocity is directly related to the energy so we could very well be talking about where the energy comes from which is

the reason for inertia. Let's just reflect on this question of inertia:

 

 

“Why does matter have inertia? When asked this question, many learned people

say: ‘In accord with Newton’s first law of motion, a material body will continue

in a state of rest or uniform motion unless compelled by some external force to

change that state.’ However, this is about the same as saying: ‘Matter has

inertia because matter has inertia.’ In other words, Newton’s first law is merely

a precise description of a natural phenomena without the slightest understanding

of why it exists. Much to his credit, Newton confessed that he could not explain

why a material body obeys the law he himself annunciated.” —Wm. VanDeusen

[Rade]

[math]\sqrt{Er_s} = \sqrt{G}M[/math]

 

This would be an inertial energy by definition and also the energy inside of the particle acting as it's gravitational charge. It can be implemented into the gravitomagnetic force equation, so we can understand it as a force-energy relationship from the same cross product which coupled the magnetic and gravitional fields

 

[math]\sqrt{Er_s} \frac{\vec{V}}{c} \times \frac{F}{\sqrt{Er_s}} = F_{GM}[/math]

I have a question. On internet I found this:

"Albert Einstein seemed to view Mach's Principle as something along the lines of:...inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies..."

 

Concerning your mathematical approach to inertial energy of a "matter particle", and looking to see how this can be applied to Einstein understanding of Mach's principle, here I go outside box and wonder how you respond to this situation.

 

Suppose a matter particle of 3 mass units of matter M:

 

[M-{MM}]

 

Now, apply Mach principle such that the inertia of M derives as an "interaction between bodies" such that the 3 matter mass body interacts with a 2 mass ANTIMATTER body [M^M^], with ^=antimatter. Thus, the overall interaction would be:

 

[M-{MM}] <-interaction-> [M^M^]

 

with the outcome being that M gains INERTIA from two types of interactions with other bodies (1) internal magnetic interaction with other matter body {MM} and simultaneously (2) external gravitational interaction with antimatter body [M^M^].

 

We then conclude that the origin of the inertial of [M-{MM}] derives via Mach's Principle as suggested by Einstein, as an interaction between bodies, but perhaps not as Einstein would imagine, the interaction in between one body of MATTER and the other ANTIMATTER !

 

In essence, this interaction involves 5 mass units, 3 from matter and 2 from antimatter, with only the M OBSERVED via experiment, and the remaining 4/5 mass units {MM} + [M^M^] interacting via gravitational force in a virtual reality dimension. Here we see a possibility for anti-gravity and gravity united.

 

Do you see anyway to apply your mathematical approach to this problem by coupling magnetic and gravitational forces involving a 'particle system' composed of mass asymmetrical 3 mass matter with 2 mass antimatter ? I have an application if you can supply the mathematics.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Rade

[Aethelwulf]

You can't say that inertia arises as an interaction between matter and antimatter and then accept to be able to apply the Machian interpretation, because most of our universe prefers matter over antimatter. Not only that, but inertia is independent of the separation of definitions of both matter and antimatter - matter and antimatter always has inertia because it is still made of matter. Consider an electron, it has inertia because it has a rest mass. Positrons are also the same. The Machian definition of ''interaction'' between bodies was made in the sense of the gravitational field and corresponding to the Newtonian idea that all bodies influence all others bodies gravitationally in the universe. Whether this gives rise to inertia itself is questionable. Certainly, we can expect some relativsitic influences between interacting particles which may shed light on what inertia is, and this is exactly what sciarma shows. That an accelerating body may experience inertia because of electromagnetic forces. All I have done is that if you can couple gravimagnetic and gravielectric fields with all other classical fields then inertia could be a property of a mass which is really a charge interacting with the gravielectromagnetic fields. If anyone can explain the origin of inertia, then they are effectively telling us the origin of mass itself, because inertia and mass have not only been predicted the same thing in the weak principle, but also all experiments have shown them to be equal to very high degrees.

[Aethelwulf]

It should be kept in mind it was Motz who first explained that the gravitational charge couples to the gravitational field

 

[math]F = \frac{\sqrt{G}M_{1}\sqrt{G}M_{2}}{r^2}[/math]

 

The gravitational charge is [math]\sqrt{G}M[/math] thus the charge is the source of the gravitational field [math]\frac{\sqrt{G}M}{r^2}[/math]. Since mass and inertia have shown to be the same thing to astounding precision, the redefinition of mass as a gravitational charge tells us what inertia is then. It is an interaction of a particle to the field, not bodies located throughout the universe, but something to do with a coupling of the particle locally to the field itself.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Aethelwulf

[Aethelwulf]

The idea I am challenging is the notion that the charge is not only effected by the field itself but by all fields in the classical Newtonian definition. There is more evidence to assume that inertia is because of mass (which is an innate property) rather than inertia itself being the product of all the gravitational fields by all bodies in the universe.

[Aethelwulf]

The way I would like to proceed from here, is by explaining mass as a contribution from the potential field. This is the same attempt Lorentz and others made when explaining mass as an electromagnetic effect. Or better way to say it, is that mass was ''contributed'' or some of it was ''contributed'' from the electromagnetic field. If the particle intrinsically couples to gravielectromagnetic fields, they may all contribute the energy associated to the mass of the system (inertia).

[Rade]

You can't say that inertia arises as an interaction between matter and antimatter and then accept to be able to apply the Machian interpretation, because most of our universe prefers matter over antimatter. Not only that, but inertia is independent of the separation of definitions of both matter and antimatter - matter and antimatter always has inertia because it is still made of matter. Consider an electron, it has inertia because it has a rest mass. Positrons are also the same.

Thanks for the reply, but it appears I am not making my case clear. So, you make two points which I discuss:

 

(1) It is correct most of our OBSERVED universe is made of matter, that is what is demonstrated with this model from my previous post:

 

[M-{MM}] <-interaction-> [M^M^] = An observed 1 mass particle of MATTER with inertia with 4 mass units in virtual dimension.

 

But, in theory would you not agree our universe could have ended up mostly made of anti-matter, then the picture becomes:

 

[M^-{M^M^}] <-interaction-> [MM] = An observed 1 mass particle of ANTIMATTER with inertia with 4 mass units in virtual dimension.

 

So, in theory my presentation covers all possibilities and thus the Mach Principle must hold true, if the principle is valid. Notice from above the perfect symmetry that results between origin of matter and anti-matter, like two side of a coin, united.

 

But, it also is known that dark mass and dark energy (what is not observed) is much more common in our universe than observed mass and energy. Notice that the model I present shows that dark mass would in theory be ~ 4/5 (80%) of all possible mass in the universe, close to many predictions I have read about.

 

(2) Second, I agree that both matter and anti-matter would have inertia, and it is because both have MASS as shown above.

 

 

The Machian definition of ''interaction'' between bodies was made in the sense of the gravitational field and corresponding to the Newtonian idea that all bodies influence all others bodies gravitationally in the universe. Whether this gives rise to inertia itself is questionable.

What I am saying is that the Machian definition is incomplete because it did not extent to the real physical possibility of stable interactions between matter and antimatter (as shown above), and also the possibility of a symmetrical interactions of gravity and antigravity. It is still an open experimental question if antigravity force is real, that is, if matter reacts differently to a gravity and antigravity field (experiments now being conducted to help answer the question).

 

All I have done is that if you can couple gravimagnetic and gravielectric fields with all other classical fields then inertia could be a property of a mass which is really a charge interacting with the gravielectromagnetic fields. If anyone can explain the origin of inertia, then they are effectively telling us the origin of mass itself, because inertia and mass have not only been predicted the same thing in the weak principle, but also all experiments have shown them to be equal to very high degrees.

OK, and if you look at the two models above I present for matter and antimatter these models are in agreement with your approach. How ?

 

1. They couple gravimagnetic and gravielectric fields. Each M and M^ would have both magnetic and electric potential, So let M = the matter proton {P}, then M^ = antiproton {P^}, both have known magnetic potential. We also know proton {P} has 1 electron {e-} and antiproton {P^} has positron {e-}. Finally, we know that both {P} and {P^} respond to field of gravity (it is unclear at this time how they respond to antigravity if it exists). The model I suggest requires that antigravity is a real field, so here is one way it can be experimentally falsified.

 

2. Concerning origin of mass itself, the model I present above predicts that the origin of mass in the universe is from a stable quantum superposition interaction of matter and antimatter entities with MASS, each with inertia. This interaction can take many possible forms that follow the Feynman 'sum-over-history' approach. I do not see any reason your mathematical approach does not help to explain the model I present ?

 

==

 

I appreciate comments because each one shows me how I must better attempt to explain my thoughts. Finally, recall we are in the Strange Claims area of Forum and I understand that the model I present is strange. My goal is to see if your mathematics helps to explain the model I present, if not, OK, then I look for another mathematical approach. Thank you for your time.