Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Biology
BiologyBotanyMicrobiologyEntomologyEvolutionPaleontology
Chemistry
General ChemistryAnalytical ChemistryElectrochemistryOrganic Synthesis
Earth Science
GeologyMineralogyOceanographyMeteorologyEarthquakes
Physics
General PhysicsResearchRelativityParticle PhysicsElectromagnetismFusionOpticsAcousticsNew Theories

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / March 2008



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

A Gravitation Theory Based on Common Sense

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Backyalow@gmail.com - 31 Mar 2008 16:06 GMT
As a starter, let us think of an electron in gravity field φ(x).
The energy of the electron
  mc^2 + mφ(x) + (1/2) mv^2
indicates the effect of the gravity is identical with heightening the
surface of the Dirac Sea (reducing the forbidden band gap) by - mφ(x).
The slope of the Dirac Sea surface may cause the gravity.

According to the quantum theory, elementary particles are so described
as to be ceaselessly created and annihilated in the space.
So, the above mechanism can be considered to be a fundamental nature
of the system of the space and elementary particles.

The Dirac Sea is specific to electrons, and is unsubstantial after
all.
So, the coefficient for the forbidden band gap
  c^2 +φ(x)
is the essential factor of the system, where
  ∇^2φ(x) = 4πGρ(x).

Anyway, not that gravitation is to distort the space, but that
gravitation is an attribution of a distortion of space.  And, the
space seems to be more substantial than particles.  Perhaps, there is
no such thing as graviton.

As a matter of course, the mechanism is to apply to self-interactions.
Reduction of wave packet can be attributed to the self-induced dent on
the forbidden band. (The Dirac Sea is supposed to be kind of bubble-
inflated in the vicinity)
And, the renormalization theory needs to be revised accordingly.

Then, am I wrong?

A Happy April Fools Day!

Jim Backyalow
Eric Gisse - 31 Mar 2008 16:42 GMT
On Mar 31, 7:06 am, Backya...@gmail.com wrote:
> As a starter, let us think of an electron in gravity field φ(x).

Fields are not common sense.

> The energy of the electron
>    mc^2 + mφ(x) + (1/2) mv^2

Wrong.

You include a rest energy contribution, but use the Newtonian kinetic
energy formula. If you want the relativistic kinetic energy, use
sqrt( [pc]^2 + [mc^2]^2) - mc^2.

> indicates the effect of the gravity is identical with heightening the
> surface of the Dirac Sea (reducing the forbidden band gap) by - mφ(x).
> The slope of the Dirac Sea surface may cause the gravity.

Except you aren't even remotely close to getting to the point where
you could discuss any possible band gap. You simply wrote down what
you thought was the energy [which is self-inconsistent], and then
declared "Dirac sea!" "band gap!" and thought we wouldn't notice you
didn't actually do anything.

[snip remaining]
srp2inc@gmail.com - 31 Mar 2008 17:26 GMT
On 31 mar, 11:06, Backya...@gmail.com wrote:
> As a starter, let us think of an electron in gravity field φ(x).
> The energy of the electron
>    mc^2 + mφ(x) + (1/2) mv^2
> indicates the effect of the gravity is identical with heightening the
> surface of the Dirac Sea (reducing the forbidden band gap) by - mφ(x).
> The slope of the Dirac Sea surface may cause the gravity.

Well, gravity induces relativistic velocities in any mass but
your equation gives neither the right velocity nor the
right kinetic energy induced.

André Michaud
PD - 31 Mar 2008 18:52 GMT
On Mar 31, 10:06 am, Backya...@gmail.com wrote:
> As a starter, let us think of an electron in gravity field φ(x).
> The energy of the electron
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Then, am I wrong?

The implied Lagrangian doesn't seem to have homolytic closure and so
risks violating absolute horizon thermodynamics. However, you do seem
to have intuitively grasped the fermionic fractional degrees of
freedom, which is unusual in so simple a proposal. I think if you
antisymmetrize everything, you'll lose the loop degeneracies that are
probably plaguing your calculations at the moment.

PD
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.