What is the Correct Formula for G?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Mini-presentation by Alexander Unzicker and discussion in Bonn, 2024.
In the Machian Gravity Meeting held in Bonn, Alexander Unzicker, Jonathan Fay, Dennis Braun and Jan Preuss discussed about how to deal with Dennis Sciama's 1953 groundbreaking discovery of linking inertia and gravity.
See also Fay's paper: relativemotion...
Sciama's paper: academic.oup.c...
See also: www.amazon.com...
See also:
www.amazon.com...
Mind also my backup channel:
odysee.com/@Th...
My books: www.amazon.com/Alexander-Unzicker/e/B00DQCRYYY/
Rupert Sheldrake has some great lectures on YT about the constants in physics and how they're measured and dictated throughout the scientific community. Interestingly, it's a little known fact that the "constants" aren't actually fixed and they fluctuate. I recommend people look into Sheldrake's videos for an in depth description of this topic.
But sheldrake never makes any sense. That is a real pseudoscientist. He uses very ill-defined concepts.
Is the universe expanding? If you all agree that it is then you must also agree that G is time dependent. It says so right in your index of refraction. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Why do you always pretend that mass isn't related to the speed of the electric force? The concept of the speed of light and your definitions yields a problem. The force vector between two particles can never have the correct direction.
There is no material expansion, just light spreads.
@@TheMachian That's intuitively difficult... like turning the lights on in a dark room and not asking how the furniture was arranged.
The perihelion problem, may be it is not such a problem since Einstein assumes the sun has no distortion in its structure, hasn't it?, Gerber 1898 solves this problem in an alternative way, also according to Robitaille the Sun could have indeed a more complex structure.
Thank you Unzickar , we have enjoyed your board note in Fay 's mini presentation on invariant. A good debate among you for the factor value. Your's problem is ours in the same spirit I can tell that factor 4 is very natural even I have found it my various mathematical system of natural process when it evolved naturally .
I also found some recent experiments results few months ago by Eric I found the real problem out side my note book and equation.
After few thousand of equation I penned down for different related facts I have now the details in various derivation I could conclude that inertia is the key to the problems.
Irrespective to the size and scale
[Inertia (action planck's unit)× Interactions boundary of event] / time of action has a constant 4.
4 is contribution of a inner resistance results.
Recently I found Sir Penrose is also have a factor problem called Guth anamoly for CMB data analysis.
The complex problem of Machian hypothesis is nicely covered by three of you for previous generations after Newton. Yes nature has own debates without representative. Time and the Newton's constant G is your's philosophy for evolution, and canceling exactly.
In a very interesting way, J. Macken explains not only gravity. Including calculations.
The Universe is Only Spacetime by John A. Macken
Spacetime-based Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity by John A. Macken
downloadable on his websites
What are the implications for using this method opposed to other methods? What benefit is there?
P.S. I don't natively read this notation used on the board. Computer math notation is native to me.
Gravitational constant G arises by chance, it is not universally valid. Every system in which the force of nature arises through interaction has its own G.
There is no absolute constant for G as a terran manifestation - as gravity varies from sea level to high mountains, and from the equator to more northerly/southerly latitude difference.
There are 6 different gravity objects, forces, fields, and waves in the 6 space-time fabrics.
There are as such no singular constant. There are 6 energy level Gs.
19:10 perihelion shift? really? more please.
What is a measurement?
Penrose has the right idea, and let me invoke the indic parrable about blind men touching different parts of an elephant.
Here's something that really bothers me - symmetry breaking, what is that? Let's think about something for a second what is spin, I hope people know about diracs belt trick. So spin zero is just a flat straight line with no twist if you want to visualize it. That is the spin of the higgs, the spoteanous gauge symmetry breaking particle.
Wait a second... what about Elitzurs theorem? The proper explanation of the higgs mechanism is the Fröhlich-Morchio-Strocchi mechanism. Gauge invariance is a mathematical fact... why are we still thinkimg about this mass acquiring phenoma in the naive terms of broken symmetry proposed by Anderson which we know can't quite be right because it doesn't make mathematical sense?
If you read the papers on symmetry brrakimg scalar fields by Goldstone and Higgs you'll realize these spin zero fields are timelike... hmmmmmm...
The real motivation for string theory is a idea called regge behavior. That is allowing for spin to take imaginary values. The infampous tachyon field of bosonic string theory is a product of that. The tachyon has infinte momentum, no energy, and no spin. From that it has imaginary mass. In more intuitive terms all of these concepts are basically being abstracted to points on a reimann sphere.
All me to point something out - matter consist of fermions with half integer spin. Where might you have ever heard about a connectiom between the number 1/2 and imaginary numbers?
If you what to see what the implications of what I'm saying are I recommend reading Ashoke sens papers on how we may physically intepret tachyons and kasputin and wittens work on geometric langlands and s duality.
We measure time in terms of the cycles of vibrations of the hyperfine structure of the atom.
Noether's theorem does not apply to discrete quantites, only continous ones. Well the atomic forces in the atom which create the hyoerfine structure are quanitzed, i.e discrete. The implication? time is discrete! (I invoke penroses CCC model)
Imagine a a steam of running clear water in a smooth trough. Imagine poking a finger in it and seeing the ripples...
We need to define a unit for the fundamental disrete metric of time. The tachyon field is likely that, but I don't like the sci fi implication of faster than light as that'a not whats happening, rather the universal speed limit is a consequence of a sort of a drag (think about the goldstone and higgs mechanisms) in some sort of "superluminal" medium, which is what is used by people discussing this concept in academia right now. But we can call ot what ot is on youtube, ether.
"the hyperfine structure are quanitzed, i.e discrete. The implication? time is discrete" 🥲
chill man. Measuring something by discrite method doesn't mean that measurable quantity is discrete. Or continuous. Especially considering that there are only 9 billion transitions per second. Not even close to the Planck time.
Measuring time by tachyon field means you have mechanism to detect tachyons with high precision. I don`t know any.
@@LinkenCV you misunderstand. The exact value of the hyperfine transtion frequecy of cesium is not important, that the internal forces of the atom tick (or really oscilate) like a clock however is. The strong force and the electroweak interaction are both quantized. That's not an arbitrary thing we humans imposed, we've empiraclly proven energy comes in discrete packets or quanta. Thats quite old news.
Time dialation on the large scale no making any sense with QM has been recognized by theoreticians very early on, the assumption of most esrly in the history of QM was just that Einstriens QR wasn't as important a theory and would be superceeded quickly, by the 1960s at least people like Dirac were beginning to see that their assumptions may've not been correct. Zicker is basically just championing Diracs late position that the full omplocations of GR are strange and not yet fully understood.
We have to measure things in respect to something, a meter, or gram, which we define in terms of fundamnetal constants.
Think about rotations around a circle, once you reach 2 pi radians you're essentially back at zero and if we abstract further with a reimann sphere then we clearly see the cointerintuitive relationship between 0 and infinite that has emerged to be important in giving rise to the seemingly different behavior of strong and weak coupling.
Keep in a mind the issue with the qunatum gravity problem is that we beleive mass comes from higher dimensions likely (including dirac), but to date no one's been able to make correct predictions about the masses of fundamental particles with that century old idea. Meanwhile if you read the work of goldstone and higgs about symmetry breaking fields that create mass, you'd see for yourself there's a strong implication that mass is timelike, and that's further confirmed by the fact that "spoatneous gauge symmetry breaking" as waa sorta nebelouspy thrown around by higgs (though he was aware he was arguing gauge invariance was perserved despite that language) isn't a real possible thing at all. The u(1) circle group is always going to be protected somehow, I was invoking penroses ccc to see what I'm getting at here for a reason.
If you dive into the literature you'd see that that people figured it out the in the 1970s that the tachyon field doesn't necessarily violate causality or special relativity, and it bares a lot of similarites with other hypothetical spinless particles like the goldstone boson or the higgs, which we know know exist.
We know mass is acquired as a sort of drag in field. Why is the speed of light not set in a similar way?
Let's stop kidding ourselves . . . G is 2/3 . . . that's all it has to be.
Good to see some core concepts discussion... but I sense that time as a topic needs more investigation. My thoughts suggest that the speed of time varies not only due to G effects, but due to the expansion of the Universe. That would imply that the speed of entrophy is greatly different across the Universe; indeed I prefer not to use time but to discuss local rate of entropy. My model suggests that there is no past or future but a consistant now, with localised speed of entropy effects (essentially the "speed of ticks").
:( how does that mess up calculations rooted in our mundane frame (Earth and local spacetime)? Ie how does that impact "speed" and other expressions of dynamics, given many diverse frames must be "passed through" to span the Universe? Is there potential to suffer from frame and observer effects (ie bound to our frame, we cannot see things which only others outside can see) so are limited to a particular view - naively wrong for the greater Universe?
Another loose thread is the conservation of energy issue. Do we conserve (across the universe) from Sigma=Zero or Sigma=large fixed value? Both seem reasonable... but can there be any other reserve of latent, unexpressed energy (perhaps bound in spacetime)? At the root of this is - what is expanding space? And in such expanded space, entropy must run... faster? slower? How is conservation of energy met assuming spacetime has a non-zero energy, but expansion means there is ever more space?
So many questions!
Tachyon (look up regge theory), perhaps the current interpetation is some sort of superluminal or temporal aether (tachyons have imaginary mass rather than being faster than light casuality breakers)
Physica and number theory are related as string theory research hss I think convincingly shown, can you think of anything in number theory where how imaginary parts relate to a real part a the half integer 1/2?
Think about how we measure time, its the cycle of the hyperfine transition frequency of the atom, i.e it's related to the atomic forces, which are quantized or discrete. We need a quanta for time!
Then G= G! What is gravity?
I was hoping for some clarification of why G has the value it does; perhaps my knowledge of physics is insufficient
The Universe is build as every normal structure - The foundation is most massive, stronger and stable, follow by midsection and on top is the lightest structures. The foundation is Space. In 1cm^3 is more energy than the energy content of the entire Universe (see Wikipedia "Vacuum Energy"). That's why in the center of atoms is the Strong Nuclear Force, follow by Electromagnetism and on top is the weakest force of Gravity. This configuration assure that the physical processes and interactions will not destroy the foundation of matter and Universe. Gravity is a "leaking" Strong Nuclear Force and is strictly related to the amount of Mass. If you really like to understand the world I can suggest the book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe"
I would like to attend the next meeting virtually (is that possible?) and present a very short discussion paper,
I calculate the gravitational constant to be
G = τ/ (16.πc)
With τ set to 1 in the default case. This value is accurate to within 99.4% of the experimental value (and better depending on the significant figures of π)
Is that Pi? Why do you propose the constant G as an irrational number, and what benefit does this have over a rational number?
Yes pi. No I’m not proposing that it is, that’s why I am referring to significant figures. π arises from derivation using full symmetry group. If you use Babylonian measure of pi 25/8 (3.125), the accuracy is better than 0.05% of experimental value
@@ralphhassall4707 That seams very problematic to use such an inaccurate method for calculating Pi in the first place. Then rounding to a rational number also feels like heresy in this context.
>
Sorry but that feels akin to "guessing" values. I would definitely not recommend presenting or asserting that to any physics forum. :)
That’s funny ;) since you haven’t asked for my derivation, we have proof that it is you who is the guesser of the two of us. I’ve offered to provide my findings to a group of people who may find it interesting, curious, or whatever. Good luck Mr Sour Grapes
@@ralphhassall4707 It's nothing to do with sour grapes. If you want to claim 3 as a concise measurement of Pi to a physics an math platform that is your choice. I doubt there is any one in the world who would accept Pi as that value. It just seams completely outside of any concept of Pi.
If you are using spherical coordinates then I guess I have to ask why you would choose that value out of the infinite options between Zero and 3.14... that are available.
Mentions speed of light thrice.
Mentions speed of gravity zero times.
Nothing to see here.
Me myself i am the only person to have explained the problem with our measurements of big G.
We've experimentally tested this gravitational waves propogate at the speed of light, the singals arrice at the same time as photoelectric ones from the same bodies.
@@randomchannel-px6ho
Gravity propagates at at least 20 billion c (Van Flandern).
LIGO & Co will proov to be a farce when more come on line in next few years.
@@randomchannel-px6ho Space-time is a gravity?
@@axle.student think about that on the planck scale though...
Science is about understanding nature with number, weight, and measure. Today we underarand there's a profound connection between physics and number theory, the later of which is basically the universe's final boss is terms of complexity so..., weight, well thats gravity acting on mass but the quantum gravity problem is famously so simple, and QM has the measurement problem...
Needing to rethink how we see nstured constant and spacetime in the context of GR and dimensions being an abstraction was a point dirac championed. Today we have string theorist doing a great job building a geometric understanding of QFTs and the yang mills equations but have not had so much success physically intepretting that.
Einstein himself realized something wickedly weird was going on with the nature of time, now I think physcist need to do the hard work of heding that, and I think I great place to start is with the concept of regge behavior or allowing spin to take imaginary values (think points on a reimann sphere) which is what gave us string theory in the first place. The exciting observation that set off the field in 1967 was that regge behavior revelead that the s matrix was equivalent to eulers beta function... except that's specifically for the tachyonic string...