[coldcreation]

The Physical Mechanism of Gravity - The Spatiotemporal Ground-State




This is an attempt to explain the physical mechanism behind the gravitational interaction and how the knowledge of this mechanism will help understand a wide range of observational data. It will be shown that this mechanism provides the key to many problem in physics, one of which explains why gravitating systems remain stable for time-scales exceeding several billion years, i.e., why objects remain in quasi-stable orbits without collapsing towards the center of mass of the system under consideration, and, why objects tend not to escape the gravitational potential well of the system: the topic of the thread linked below.

Another objective of this study is to initiate quantitative studies on the rather unique features of the cosmological constant that appear to be an extension of Einstein’s general principle of relativity, GR. New to the overall picture here is the exposition of the boundary condition (the local minima) operational in GR, something the function or mechanism of which was missing from both GR and Newtonian gravitation (viz the physical mechanism responsible for gravity) prior to this paper, yet observationally had been present all along, and without the need for fine-tuning (an exact cancelation of gravity with centrifugal force, dark matter or dark energy).

The main intention of this work is to elucidate (to describe) the physical mechanism behind the gravitational interaction. At the same time, the physical mechanism for Einstein’s cosmological constant (lambda: originally identified by Einstein to provide static solutions to the field equations of GR) is also illuminated in physical terms. At the same time, the postulated physical mechanism describes a 4-dimensional surface that induces a natural symmetry (one of the properties of the vacuum state) that enforces the importance of a vanishing gravitational field (in juxtaposition with gravity itself) while remaining consistent with physical laws.

The original role assigned to lambda of allowing static homogeneous solutions to Einstein's field equations in the presence of matter can be preserved. By fixing the value of lambda precisely to zero the fine-tuning problem vanishes, along with the unattractive superfluous nature of the parameterized mathematical term (now embedded in modern cosmology). It will be shown that lambda is can be described a geometric property of spacetime curvature (not a measure of the energy density of the vacuum or negative pressure), a boundary condition, where the cosmological constant describes the properties of a zero curvature (relative 'gravity-free') state of the vacuum.

The boundary proposal for general relativity does not invalidate or contradict Einstein’s general principle, nor does it spawn the break down of GR somewhere behind an unobservable event horizon. The boundary condition is primordial if we are to understand gravity in relation to the other so-called forces of nature, in relation to quantum mechanics. The boundary condition is an extension of GR that needs to be incorporated if resolution is to be made in the understanding of gravity and it’s relation not just to massive bodies but also to empty space as a generator of stability, equilibrium and symmetry (not of the field surrounding bodies but in the relation between curvature and flatness), rather than as a fictitious medium or intermediate state (or even ‘nothing’) halfway between two extremes capable of exponential expansion.

The intention of this thread is to present a working hypothesis in order initiate the understanding of the mechanism involved in the formation of systems and stability generation of systems bounded under the sole influence of gravity (e.g., 2-body systems, 3-body systems, N-body systems such as the solar system, but too, the Galaxy and so on up to superclusters and indeed to the formation, stability and longevity of the entire universe).

Ultimately, too, the understanding of lambda (its value, its properties) in relation to gravity itself (via the physical mechanism proposed here) is central to the unification of general relativity and quantum theory, and thus to the understanding of the ‘origin’ and evolution of the universe (and too, of conscious life itself), as well as many other related aspects of physics.


For an introductory discussion regarding the mechanism responsible for the maintenance of stability (equilibrium) of self-bounded gravitating systems refer to the thread Dynamic Equilibrium of the Universe and Subsystems. There, it was introduced the relation to this concept via a discussion on the gravitational potential energy at Lagrange points (at L1 in particular). Some of those ideas will be recapped here for convenience (at least those dealing with equilibrium), including the change that had to be made regarding the value of potential energy at Lagrange points, whereby it is the value of field curvature (the local minima) which is fundamental, as opposed to the global minima (at infinity).

There, it had been argued by Coldcreation that there is a fine-tuning problem intrinsic in the standard view, in which an exact cancelation between the gravitation tendency to attract ('inward') and a centrifugal force (in an 'outward' direction) is required by the standard model. This problem has been known since (at least) the time of Newton, and has been left unexplained.

It had been argued, too, by Coldcreation, that something else has to be responsible for the observed equilibrium: something intrinsic in nature responsible for the apparent stability. That something is directly related to the physical mechanism of gravity.

Here it will be elaborated upon, how Lagrange points (L1, L2 and possibly L3) possess the same characteristics that describe Einstein's cosmological term, lambda, and are therefor possibly related to the same phenomenon (both have characteristic geometric properties consistent with 'empty' field-free space).

A series of significant and cost-effective tests are proposed (and can also be viewed in the above link) that should offer empirical evidence which will enable us to distinguish between various models. Indeed, that empirical data (in addition to verifying or falsifying the claims made here) will provide the answers to several crucial and profound questions - not least of which is the identification of the physical mechanism for gravity.

I chose the Astronomy and Cosmology section to post, rather than Physics and Mathematics, for the reason that observations needed to test such a description of nature should be carried out in the solar system, and too, because much of the observational data that does not concord with the standard model (e.g., galactic rotation curves) are the domain of astronomy. Finally, I chose not to post this thread in the Alternative Theory section of Hypography, as it is not really an alternative model, but one that explains phenomena that did not, prior to this study, address the issues at stake without the introduction of elements that 'themselves' are at the very fringe of physics, e.g., nonbaryonic cold-dark matter, dark energy, and so on. There is no new physics in this interpretation of observational data.


Key words: Cosmology, gravitational mechanism, spacetime curvature, cosmological constant, lambda, celestial mechanics, Lagrange points, quasi-stable equilibrium configurations, the vacuum, Minkowski space, gravitational potential energy.




CC

[coldcreation]

This is an overview (and more) of some of the points discussed here: Dynamic Equilibrium of the Universe and Subsystems


The following is a variant of the well-known Lagrange system, showing a contour plot of the effective potential of a 2-body system, e.g., the Sun and Earth or binary stars, but it could just as well be the contour plot of two co-orbiting galaxies, one of which is less massive than the other. This schematic view represents a system seen in the equatorial plane (viewed from 'above') in a rotating reference frame. A number of things should be noted. The oval shape of each gravitational well has been slightly exaggerated to show that these wells are not round, or spherically symmetrical. Most representations of this geometric structure illustrate a more rounded well - such as here. But note, even in the latter there is markedly a non-spherical potential around the smaller, less massive object (Earth). And the deviation manifests itself increasingly as one tends towards L1.

Too, in the following illustration, the contour lines have been omitted in the field directly surrounding the objects, for simplicity, since they would be tightly packed and increasingly concentric towards the massive bodies. In that space, there are observed some lens flares, which can be disregarded (yes, I used a little artistic license). I have not labeled the Lagrange points.

Let's begin close to home, and from here we shall work our way to larger scales. Note that because the field surrounding each individual body (M1 and M2) is elliptical in shape, the actual gravitational force on the surface of each object varies depending on location. Along the L1-M1-L2 line the gravitational force is weaker. This means it would require less energy to send an object from Earth to L1 or L2 than to any other location off the line and to the same distance out. Here we see why tidal acceleration (or Tidal Force) does not require orbiting or the rotation of massive bodies. And we see why the Newtonian gravitational force of the Moon is not pulling on the ocean. This is indeed a general relativistic effect.

Aside from the shape of the field surrounding each body, this Lagrangian geometric field configuration is truly astounding. In this labeled illustration of the same system, it is indicated the gravitational slopes around the five Lagrange points: downhill toward (in red) or away from (blue) the Lagrange points. This, coupled with the fact that the gravitational force (curvature) attains a zero value directly at L1, does not at first glance appear to be all that remarkable. However, note that because the value of gravity is zero, and not any other value (positive or negative), it can be shown that there exists a kind of surface tension between the massive bodies and field-free space (or point). See here, for example: Surface Tension where it is written:

Surface tension is caused by the attraction between the molecules of the liquid by various intermolecular forces. In the bulk of the liquid each molecule is pulled equally in all directions by neighboring liquid molecules, resulting in a net force of zero. (...) As a result of surface area minimization, a surface will assume the smoothest shape it can (mathematical proof that "smooth" shapes minimize surface area relies on use of the Euler-Lagrange Equation). Since any curvature in the surface shape results in greater area, a higher energy will also result. Consequently the surface will push back against any curvature in much the same way as a ball pushed uphill will push back to minimize its gravitational potential energy.

Notice that the horizontal components of the field (the red arrows) in the Wiki illustration point in opposite directions (toward the massive bodies, away from L1). Thus the space directly surrounding L1 is represented by Hyperbolic Geometry. The geometry of the space surrounding L1 can be viewed, at least along the collinear M1-L1-M2 direction (from the perspective of L1) as repulsive, since a test particle will tend to drift towards M1 or M2 with the slightest perturbation.

A couple of additional remarks: The Lagrange point L1 would exist even in a non-rotating, static or inertial system. The zero value for gravity (i.e. field-free space) acts as a surface. This surface represents the local minima for gravity of the system under consideration. All L1 points throughout the universe carry the same value for curvature (zero). Though the gravitational potential energy of combined fields at these points in space is variable, the actual curvature remains at a fixed value for L1 points in the field (again equal to zero). So, what we have in any (and all) two- three- or N-body systems are a series of gravitational wells, each with its own gravitational potential (or depth) depending on mass, and a series of points (or peaks or hills) that all carry the same characteristics: They are flat, curvature-free, Minkowski-like a pseudo-Euclidean space,

Minkowski space (or Minkowski spacetime) is the mathematical setting in which Einstein's theory of special relativity is most conveniently formulated. In this setting the three ordinary dimensions of space are combined with a single dimension of time to form a four-dimensional manifold for representing a spacetime. Source

This is why I use the term 'surface' to describe the manifold represented by Lagrange L1 points. Indeed, if we were to connect all L1 points in the universe and draw a plane (disregarding the potential wells of each massive object) in reduced dimension, we would be left with a Minkowski-like surface where the value of curvature would be zero at all L1 points but where the actual gravitational potential energy would be variable. I had originally suspected that this plane would be flat, Euclidean, i.e., that all points on this plane would have the same value of gravitational potential energy (PE) equal to zero (the value of PE at infinity). That is not the case and it does not need to be, in order to demonstrate that there exists in nature a fundamental property, which corresponds to a minima (both locally and globally) of spacetime curvature. That is, this plane, though undulated as far as absolute gravitational PE is concerned, remains an ultimate limit beyond which spacetime cannot be less curved. This plane is to be contrasted against the plane (again, in reduced dimension) connecting the center of every massive object in the universe, which would represent the maxima (both locally and globally) of gravitational potential energy.

[Edited to add:] Thus the absolute zero gravitational potential energy (the value at infinity) is unattainable. This in itself indicates that (like the absolute zero of temperature, 0 K) there exists in nature a fundamental limit, or spatiotemporal ground-state, with a fixed value of curvature equal to zero.


More on this soon...




CC

[UncleAl]

1) Quantitatively predict Mercury's perihelion precession.
2) Compare vacuum free fall of light to that of massed bodies.
3) Quantitatively predict GPS satellite corrections for relative velocity and position in Earth's gravitational well versus ground observers.
4) Rationalize anomalous contraction of s-orbitals in gold (creating its color) and mercury (lowering its melting point).

You have nothing.

[modest]

It does seem like GR can explain everything you describe that has been observed, and as UncleAl points out, it has a good record of validated predictions.

What would be interesting is finding a set of equations GR-like that remove the need for dark matter. That would mean adjusting the field in some areas and some scales, but not others. While I've thought a bit about that, I find my knowledge and skill are woefully lacking.

You do have me thinking about it though.

-modest

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by modest

It does seem like GR can explain everything you describe that has been observed, and as UncleAl points out, it has a good record of validated predictions.

What would be interesting is finding a set of equations GR-like that remove the need for dark matter. That would mean adjusting the field in some areas and some scales, but not others. While I've thought a bit about that, I find my knowledge and skill are woefully lacking.

You do have me thinking about it though.

-modest

Richard P. Feynman, certainly one of the most prominent personalities in the history of 20th century science, wrote with due reason that “All we have done is to describe how the earth moves around the sun, but we have not said what makes it go. Newton made no hypotheses about this: he was satisfied to find what it did without getting into the machinery of it. No one has since given any machinery.” We use mathematics to describe nature without knowing what mechanism is operating, though many have been suggested. Feynman continues, “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomenon that does not exist.”(Feynman, P. R. 1994, Six Easy Pieces, 107-110).

The points should be made: It is very probable that if we are to gain knowledge of the physical mechanism of gravitation, we will be able interpret correctly a wide range of phenomenon that have otherwise been attributed to things such as cold dark (nonbaryonic) matter (and possibly, too, dark energy).

Spacetime curvature in and of itself is not the physical mechanism of gravity. GR is not the problem. Though note, GR does not explain why galactic rotation curves are nearly flat. I think it could (and should) describe the dynamics of galaxies without external artifice (e.g., CDM). Obviously a new theory of gravity is not required. GR has passed every test

The problem is understanding the relationship between ponderable bodies and their intrinsic gravitational wells, the field structure (and intensity) at all points in the combined field (throughout the manifold) and space itself (the relative minima of gravitational potential per system).

Indeed, slight variations such as pointed out above in the simple two-body system), become large when scales and complexity are increased (to those of galactic proportion, and so on up the scale.

GR is not lacking, it is our interpretation of it, coupled with the lack of a solid gravitational mechanism, that leaves something to be desired. Once the former has been corrected, and once the latter has been clarified, I believe that nonbaryonic dark matter (to explain galactic rotation curves) will no longer be required. And that is just the beginning.

This is why it is so important to identify the physical mechanism of spacetime curvature.

To be continued...


CC

[UncleAl]

You have nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, bupkis. You don't even have a testable equation.

[coldcreation]

My primary concern is to evaluate the geometric organization(s) of large self-gravitating systems that are bonded in quasi-stable equilibrium configurations. The key question is whether the same pattern is observed in star clusters (and galaxy clusters) as is observed locally, i.e., within the solar system (see the 2-body illustration above). It turns out the answer is unequivocally and resoundingly yes!

The geometrical Lagrangian scheme, so often observed is the solar system, partially observed in the Galaxy and seen in the intrinsic features of other galaxies, is reproduced in stable associations of galaxies on the scales of galactic clusters. It is a known fact that habitually symmetrical clusters are found to be those where galaxies are close together, i.e., those with the shortest crossing time: these galaxies are expected to be in statistical equilibrium configurations bound in physically associated groups. The visible patterns reflect the same conclusion attained by Lagrange in 1772 for the three-body problem: Three bodies must always be arranged on the same straight line, [or] the three bodies must form an equilateral triangle, if and when the distance between three bodies is constant, or maintained in constant rapport.

Here is an optical image of Pleiades M45 (slightly enhanced): Note the geometric configuration, where L4 and L5 are occupied at their respective positions - at the third corners of the two quasi-equilateral triangles, and in the plane between two masses. The general configuration was discovered by Lagrange in work on the 3-body problem.

Here is a map of the Pleiades system. Astronomers believe that, due to gravitational interactions with the Galaxy, M45 will subsist for approximately 250 million years. However, in my opinion the stability of such configurations here in the solar system, and elsewhere, suggest that this system may survive intact (with slight modifications) for several Gyrs.


It is remarkable that the overall observational data shows this clear characteristic pattern: on all scales and in a wide variety of gravitating systems, such as galaxy clusters (e.g., on either side of the bright central active galaxies (Seyfert, BL Lac, strong X-ray and radio sources) are often located high-redshift compact objects (quasars), the distribution of which are aligned in an apparent ‘string’ formation. In another way, the configurations are linearly distributed, i.e., the brightest low-redshift galaxies are centrally located on a line surrounded on both sides by objects that are often connected by material filaments visible in the X-ray spectrum. It is exceedingly improbable that these are chance arrangements (Arp 1998). Note that this is the same pattern seen in the bar of barred spiral galaxies (to be discussed further). Let's, for now, look at the Einstein Cross.

The Einstein Cross: This was originally a Hubble Space Telescope image (enhanced by Coldcreation), in false color, at wavelength of redshifted hydrogen Lyman alpha emission. Note the connecting material between the quasars and the central galaxy.


The Einstein Cross is generally believed to be due to a gravitationally lensed quasar (the four surrounding objects, quadruply imaged) that sits directly behind a central lensing galaxy (ZW 2237+030) forming a cross.
The quasar is thought to be approximately 8 billion light years from Earth. The lensing galaxy is thought to be about 400 million light years away.

Compare this image of the Einstein Cross with Einstein Rings. It will be noticed that the circular shape of the quasar(s) associated with the Einstein Cross is (are) not consistent with a what would be expected of the bending of light by a gravitating object (the deformation of the light from a massive source, e.g., a galaxy or star). The ring shape (partial ring, or cresant) typical of lensed objects is not observed in the Einstein Cross (where the quasar(s) display spherical structure). It is therefore exceedingly improbable that the Einstein Cross is due to gravitational lensing of background objects.

The frequency of this type of configuration suggests that these cannot represent accidental projections of background objects. These patterns are the unmistakable signature of both the stable and unstable (occupied) L-points and their corresponding zero-velocity equipotential Roche surfaces. To gain some insight into the physical mechanism of these quasi-stable equilibrium configurations, let us call to mind that in order to ensure the stability of a system, the configuration needs to have zero escape velocity at its limiting radius, which in turn satisfies the boundary conditions imposed by the tidal field so that the effective potential vanishes at that given radius (Gómez-Flechoso & Domíniguez-Tenreiro 2001).

An important note: The same patterns are also observed within cluster-to-cluster relations, e.g., four bright Abell clusters “running down the spine of the Virgo cluster” (Arp 1998). There are also examples where two of the brightest galaxies occupy the central region of a cluster (CenA and M83, see also M49 and M87, Arp 1998)). The key is first to see the objects and connections between them, then to recognize the particular way in which the formations are organized. It is a way of perceiving the world.

It may be wondered why objects fall along the central line of a cluster, and why is it so important. These relationships clearly demonstrate that the Lagrange design is not a restricted phenomenon that crops up only in special cases of two-body (star-star, planet-star, satellite-planet) or three-body systems. It is a wide-ranging, general phenomenon that takes place on all scales and between all bodies that are found to be gravitationally associated. This is extremely important because it shows that the same physical mechanism responsible for local stability between massive bodies is also operational on scales compatible with larger and more complex gravitating systems.


The physical mechanism is that of gravity (spacetime curvature) itself. Though before moving on to the actual mechanism behind the gravitational interaction, there are still a few points to make.



To be continued...




CC

[PhysBang]

Originally Posted by UncleAl

You have nothing. Zero, zilch, nada, bupkis. You don't even have a testable equation.

He trots out the same BS on board after board. This board doesn't really have any moderation, so he doesn't get summarily dismissed for outright lying that he will do some actual science.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by PhysBang

He trots out the same BS on board after board. This board doesn't really have any moderation, so he doesn't get summarily dismissed for outright lying that he will do some actual science.

It has nothing to do with moderation. If you see something wrong with his post, then point it out, ask questions. The mods here do not give infractions for being wrong. The best approach is to try to shed some understanding, that way everyone benefits.

[Thunderbird]

When observing the universe as an emergent structure, and gravity as an organizing force in this structure. The universe can best be described as dissipative structure. Instead of dissipating heat however it dissipates time creating higher levels of order within its field. Then gravity would be described as a field of increasing entropy debt cycling back to the singularity. All particle then could be seen as holographic points of the singularity seeking an equilibrium to its ground state as one original point.

DISSIPATIVE STRUCTURE
A "SYSTEM.html" that exits far from thermodynamic equilibrium (see "THERMODYNAM.html"), hence efficiently dissipates the heat generated to sustain it, and has the capacity of changing to higher levels of orderliness (see "SELF-ORGANI.html"). According to Prigogine, systems contain subsystems that continuously fluctuate. At times a single fluctuation or a combination of them may become so magnified by possible "FEEDBACK.html" that it shatters the preexisting "ORGANIZATIO.html" At such revolutionary moments or "bifurcation points", it is impossible to determine in advance whether the system will disintegrate into "chaos" or leap to a new, more differentiated, higher level of "order". The latter case defines dissipative structures so termed because they need more energy to sustain them than the simpler structures they replace and are limited in growth by the amount of heat they are able to disperse. ("Kripp.html")