An Alternative View of Gravity by Steve Broderick (c) August
2009
"The real voyage of discovery consists
not in seeking new landscapes but in having
new eyes."
— Marcel Proust
Introduction
This is a hobby effort yielding an apparently
successful, simple and powerful alternative
cosmology - which may qualify as a "Grand
Unified Theory" - in toy form. Once
the key concepts are grasped, expect a chain
of "Aha!" moments.
The model features:
* a 3D-only Universe
* an experienced virtual 4th D aka an “Arrow
of Time”
* charge and magnetic effects
* simple charged particles
* in-atom interactions of + and - charge lead to:
=> curved space with flow
of space to mass plus dilation of the mentioned
Arrow of Time
aka “gravity” in
attractive and repulsive modes
* gravity => acceleration providing a
“universal force model” (not
described herein)
- resulting in an overall model similar to
that which Einstein sought in his later years,
being:
space is not empty and has but one field
in which geometric deformations occur, these
distortions being what we call electric charge,
magnetism and gravity.
To this list I add an overlooked style of
distortion which gives: Time.
The model suggests that all particles, hence
all matter is made of "compressed space"
- intense localisations of the "stuff
of spacetime". These are seen as dynamic
structures i.e. "trapped waves".
Other feathers in the cap of the approach
include:
* predicts slowing of velocity of light
in media vs. vacuum
* predicts variations in radio wave propagation
night vs. day
* predicts Pioneer effect, Fly-by effect,
Mars signal effect
and
* predicts Guth's early inflationary
period.
Plus more - while remaining pretty simple.
Note that at present this is a mechanistic/functional
model, not a mathematical model.
I apologise for the unwieldy nature of some
of the prose; this is all "off of my
own bat". Feedback, questions and comments
are very much appreciated! Really; have a
go - please.
Self Criticism of the Model
I have been intrigued for years now by these
ideas: how complete a model they form, so
similar to our Universe. Thus the single greatest issue is -seeing myself
reflected in the work and becoming attached
to it. I try to remain detached and to challenge
it, as far as I can.
Much of known physics arises within the model,
for example Lorentzian contraction, time
dilation and GR analogues. These were unsought
- an outcome of intrinsic model properties.
I was shocked then elated when gravity "came
out of charge" without prompting; I
was doing something else entirely. The model
seemingly wants to mimic our Universe.
This is a hidden variables approach arising
from a hunt to find the simplest building-block
of our Universe. The focus is phenomenological,
a broad-sweep analysis looking at relationships
and how things tie together - a toy model
of everything.
More (new) physics is suggested - an inverse
phenomena to time dilation, an arrow of time,
the idea that anti-matter is not common and
much more. Can these be true? Is this really
an extension of known physics, able to fill
missing sections, or just co-incidence born
of wishful thinking?
The ideal critique would be proof these ideas
to be intrinsically wrong as a whole, not just because they are maths-free and
unconventional (which says more about the
author then the ideas) or possess various
flaws. These are to be expected for no-one
is perfect.
At each step simplicity plus conformance
to known physics was mandatory. I strove
to find a common denominator, a common building-block
for all - and think I have found it in the
"mote", my version of quantised
spacetime. How real this is - is unknown;
all that can be said is that the model not
only gives known behavioral physics but also
fill gaps in a sensible and useful manner.
At very best, new and fertile ground has
been broken.
Here are the key enablers of the model:
** most importantly: the net energy bound
in the Universe is some arbitrary, high fixed
value - not zero.
* Space is quantised
* the expansion of quanta gives rise to
the experience of time, a virtual 4th D
* application of Conservation of Energy gives
rise to: particles, charge effects, magnetism
and gravity as a macro-cloud of curved spacetime,
directly arising from charge cancellation
in the atom.
In this model gravity is derivable from charge.
The remaining (many) details arise courtesy
of the invisible hand of physics: Conservation
of Energy.
I note the model has ended up surprisingly
close to modern ether concepts. This was
not sought and came about simply because
- that's what worked. The intent at all
stages was to actively minimise complexity
yet retain the full richness of (all) known
phenomena. The work was always a voyage of
discovery with no specific destination. Being
labeled an ether model may damn the concept.
(Aside about Einstein moving away from his early,
dogmatic anti-ether stance. From 1916 he
found he had to give ground and admit to
a version of the concept.)
The model presented is background independent
and testable (falsifiable); a rarity in these
days. The final comment must come from Nature
herself. If these ideas were tested, what
would the results be?
Again, do note that the arrow of time and
gravity were discoveries, found as latent
in the model. They were not contrived or
sought out.
Weaknesses? It uses no maths in this form;
it describes a Universe which can suffer
“death by running-down” (over
very long periods) and gravity is seen to
do work, provided by truly colossal reserves
of energy in the form of a pervasive “pressure
of space”. Conservation however applies;
as always no net gains or losses can occur
- just trades. If anything, average energy-density
must drop "uniformly".
The model needs to be tested. Do I believe
it? Hm, not till then! Of course I'd
like at least something here to be right...
my opinion is that this model suggests a
useful new direction, likely needing much
detailed correction in the light of experimentation.
A little about me: my background is electrical
and electronic engineering, software and
systems engineering - and poker. Too much
Horizon and popular phys books. Aspergic,
of course.
:)
Steve Broderick
England
August 2009
Copyright Asserted
