Researching Quanitifying Gravity. [Relativity]

Prev: The simplist thing in physics is to explain the Big Bang
Next: Scientific American: Light losing energy! (reposted because SOMEbody omitted alt.astronomy)

From: BURT on 1 Jul 2010 14:28

From: Ken S. Tucker on 4 Jul 2010 00:11

On Jul 1, 11:15 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> On Jun 28, 6:58 am, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...(a)vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> To Fred, Charles, Richard and all.
>
>
>
> > I would say that Gravity, Electricity and Quantum Mechanics are easily
> > unified, (easy is relative) using GR as it stands.
> > We (myself, Grueb, Vanstone and others ), had productive meetings on
> > the
> > problem beginning in the 1970's, Grueb was quite the expert
> > 'geometrist',
> > Vanstone is strongly dedicated to GR and Unified Field Theory, a tough
> > guy.
> > Each is an authority in their own right, here's a link to a co-
> > authorship,
>
> >http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&ha...
>
> > From this point, I'll have to take responsibility: After some slave
> > time we
> > pulled together a brief to provide a simplified snapshot of a
> > Quantized
> > Unified Field Theory as suggested using GR, see Eq.(4) from this link,
>
> >http://physics.trak4.com/GR_Charge_Couple.pdf
>
> > Note the " a*b " in Eq.(4) and then equate that to Plancks "h",
> > using the dimensional Action == Charge^2, then Eq.(4) becomes
>
> > S^2 = X^2 + h . Eq.(4a).
>
> > So that reasoning finds GR 'predicts' Plancks h, by deduction, very
> > pretty and elegant.
> > Now the search is of course is to find experimental evidence (apart
> > from the fact it is in agreement with everything we know) that
> > convinces
> > beyond reasonable doubt.
> > Regards
> > Ken S. Tucker
>
> Of interest is the "h" in Eq.(4a) above as it tends to zero,
>
> As h=>0 , S=>X, G_uv=T_uv => 0 .
>
> IOW's the gravitational field (and of course EM-relations) vanish as
> h=>0, now that leads to a sort of inductive conclusion: we require
> an h > 0 for the requirement G_uv = T_uv > 0, that is the universe.
>
> In view of GR, the existance of a universe requires h >0, now that
> is quite fundamental, GR can only existance in a universe where
> h > 0.
> Regards
> Ken S. Tucker

On Jul 2, 3:17 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...(a)audioimagination.com>
wrote:
> On Jul 2, 3:17 am, "Richard D. Saam" <rds...(a)att.net> wrote:

> > I am still intrigued by a John Baez 1996 article on GRhttp://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/outline2.html
>
> > In which he stated:
> > the "simple geometrical essence of Einstein's equation" is this:
>
> > Take any small ball of initially comoving test particles in free
> > fall. Work in the local rest frame of this ball. As time passes the ball
> > changes volume; calculate its second derivative at time zero and divide
> > by the original volume. The negative of this equals 1/2 the energy
> > density at the center of the ball, plus the flow of x-momentum in the x
> > direction there, plus the flow of y-momentum in the y direction, plus
> > the flow of z-momentum in the z direction.
>
> > Nathan Urban checked my math interpretation of the statement as:
>
> > - (1/Volume) d^2Volume/dtime^2 =
> > 1/2 * K * (Energy/Volume
> > + momentum_x/(time*area_x)
> > + momentum_y/(time*area_y)
> > + momentum_z/(time*area_z))
>
> > constant K is in units of length/mass
> > in the context of 8 pi G/c^2
> > Nathan states: 'This is the Einstein field equation! All of GR is in
> > there if you dig hard enough.'
>
> i think as much is acknowledged by Baez and Bunn in there work "The
> Meaning of Einstein's Equation",specifically:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html
> where they say it's a "state[ment] Einstein's equation in plain
> English". for my money, i think it supports that 4*pi*G is a more
> meaningful quantity to normalize with natural units than either 8*pi*G
> or just G. i see G and c in this, but still no reason to include h or
> hbar.

"i don't think that GR has anything to do with Planck's constant."
> r b-j

Robert I do certainly agree with a healthy scientific skepticism,
and most of us do.
There is a mystery of the universiality of the fundamental charge,
I'm trying to figure that out, but in the meantime I respect that as
a physical fact, without which, the universe we currently know
would be quite different.
GR applies indiscriminately to energy of any form which includes
charge configurations, that in turn renders it's application to "h"
in the known universe.
So in the absence of deeper wisdom, I find (as posted) GR must
apply to electrical energy and produces the conclusion that GR
requires a finite "h".
That's why (and how) I think GR and "h" are inseparable.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

From: eric gisse on 4 Jul 2010 15:35

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
[snip all]

Another rejected post from Ken that gets sent here.

First | Prev |
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The simplist thing in physics is to explain the Big Bang
Next: Scientific American: Light losing energy! (reposted because SOMEbody omitted alt.astronomy)