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 an attempt to describe a simple, rational and plausible cause for the nature of our Universe - something which can be pictured and understood by a layman.

It is about cosmology, the spacial form of things both very very large and very very small - in other words, the nature of spacetime, matter and forces like electromagnetism and gravity.

The result is an apparently successful, simple and powerful alternative cosmology - which may qualify as a "Grand Unified Theory" in admittedly toy form. Once the key concepts are grasped, expect a chain of "Aha!" moments.

You do not need to be a professor to grasp what is going on here - you too can understand what is space, what is time, what causes forces and how they operate. You will know how gravity works and what holds you to the ground - and why time slows down when you move fast.

The model features:

* a 3D-only Universe

* an experienced (virtual) 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 slowing (dilation) of the Arrow of Time

   aka “gravity” in both 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 are 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. are "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.

Feedback, questions and comments are very much appreciated! Really; do have a go - please.

(This is about half of the developed model - more another time.)

Self Criticism of the Model

I have been intrigued for years now by these ideas, which predict a reality 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 arose "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 at the finest scale, each quanta being individually pressurised to boot, causing continual expansion - a continual P => V trade

* the expansion of quanta gives rise to the experience of time

* the physical “laws” that we know likely arise from mass-statistical effects driven by the habits of a far-smaller, dynamic foam-level quantised space

* application of Conservation of Energy in this smaller space gives rise to: particles, charge effects, magnetism and gravity as a macro-cloud of curved spacetime, directly arising from charge cancellation in the atom.

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 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 labelled 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?

Please 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, October 2010

Copyright Asserted