Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
P. 1
Cosmic Everything Charts Compared

Cosmic Everything Charts Compared

Ratings: (0)|Views: 60|Likes:
Published by Richard Benish
Standard ideas about gravity need to be questioned for many reasons. The most important reason is the gap in our empirical knowledge of gravity for the insides of material bodies. This gap could be filled in by doing a simple laboratory experiment. In the course of expounding on many of the other reasons, this essay often refers to a pair of charts that plot the mass, radius, density and acceleration of the whole range of objects in the physical universe on logarithmic scales. The Standard version is bound by an "edge of the world" corresponding to the alleged horizon of black holes. The other version, based on the Space Generation Model of gravity and cosmology (SGM), differs in that the black hole candidates are placed beyond (within) the horizon because in this model there are no black holes. Subjects covered include the dimensionality of space and the possibility that understanding gravity requires four, instead of three spatial dimensions. Current work on quantum gravity (much of which also appeals to hyper-dimensional space) is compared with the SGM. Cosmological implications are also discussed in detail. 90 references; 19 Figures.
Standard ideas about gravity need to be questioned for many reasons. The most important reason is the gap in our empirical knowledge of gravity for the insides of material bodies. This gap could be filled in by doing a simple laboratory experiment. In the course of expounding on many of the other reasons, this essay often refers to a pair of charts that plot the mass, radius, density and acceleration of the whole range of objects in the physical universe on logarithmic scales. The Standard version is bound by an "edge of the world" corresponding to the alleged horizon of black holes. The other version, based on the Space Generation Model of gravity and cosmology (SGM), differs in that the black hole candidates are placed beyond (within) the horizon because in this model there are no black holes. Subjects covered include the dimensionality of space and the possibility that understanding gravity requires four, instead of three spatial dimensions. Current work on quantum gravity (much of which also appeals to hyper-dimensional space) is compared with the SGM. Cosmological implications are also discussed in detail. 90 references; 19 Figures.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Richard Benish on Sep 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/30/2011

pdf

text

original

 
GravitationLab.com
Cosmic Everything Charts Compared: General Relativity vs.theSpace Generation Model of Gravitation and Cosmology
R. Benish
(
1
)
(
1
)
Eugene, Oregon, USA, rjbenish@teleport.com 
Abstract.
Using logarithmic scales, it is possible to compactly show on a graph how the massesand sizes of all known physical objects in the universe relate to one another. Suchgraphs are necessarily skeletal. By filling in more detail than usual (e.g., Kraus, [1]Barrow, [2] and Hartle [3])and by adding density and gravitational acceleration tothe axes, the meaningfulness of these relationships becomes more strikingly per-ceptible. Organization of the first chart (Figure 1) is entirely consistent with thestandard paradigm, with data obtained from the standard literature. The secondchart (Figure 2) is organized the same way. It uses the same data for mass, but itdiffers in that nine objects are placed
inside
the Schwarzschild horizon line, whichthereby reflects the absence of black hole horizons and singularities. A new modelof gravity, the Space Generation Model, is presented in support of the second chart.Most importantly, a relatively simple laboratory experiment is proposed whose re-sult would decisively refute either general relativity or the new model, and therebyindicate which chart is closer to the truth.PACS 04.80.Cc – Experimental tests of gravitational theories.
1. – Introduction
One of the most well known predictions of Einstein’s theory of gravity, general rela-tivity (GR) is that sufficiently large and compact bodies of matter form
black holes
. Agraph that plots mass vs.radius on logarithmic scales so as to include a wide range of masses and sizes, shows such bodies lying on a straight line—as seen for nine points inFigure 1 (Chart 1). Figure 2 (Chart 2) is essentially the same graph except that thesenine points have been moved to the left of the black hole line. This essay concerns thereasons why the latter placement of these points makes more sense, which is tantamountto proposing a new model of gravity.For reasons that will be explained in detail, I call this the Space Generation Modelof gravitation and cosmology (SGM). A simple laboratory experiment would be the bestway to decide between GR and the SGM. The difference in predictions is not subtle;
c
Richard Benish 2010
1
 
2
R. BENISH
it is dramatic. Even the weak field regime of Newton’s theory of gravity is challenged.The SGM is thus radical in many ways. Yet it is consistent with all physical factsthat I know of. In what follows the SGM’s prediction for the proposed experiment willbe supported 1) by a critical assessment of not only GR, but of various foundationalconcepts of physics and 2) by showing that certain alternative concepts are logicallymore coherent. By developing these new concepts we will see that some of the persistentenigmas of contemporary physics disappear. We will venture far and deep and wide. Weseek to discover whether Chart 1 or Chart 2 serves as a better map of the world.Therefore, we’ll begin by pointing out a few general features of the charts. (Notethat, to facilitate printing or viewing at a larger size, they are available as stand-alonedocuments. [4,5]) The charts may be thought of as “globes” that allow the whole worldto be seen at a glance, rather than having to mentally piece it together with scattered bitsof information. We immediately notice that human beings are located near the middle.Familiar bodies of atomic matter surround us along an orderly arrangement of points.Since the density of atomic matter has a fairly narrow range, masses increase very nearlyas the cubes of the radii of physical bodies. The mass vs.radius slope in this region of the charts is thus
3, the density vs.radius slope is
0, and since the acceleration dueto gravity varies by the inverse square law, its slope is
1.Moving toward the microcosm along our trail of points, measurements are no longerso straightforward as they are for bulk atomic matter. With sophisticated machinerythe sizes and masses of molecules, atoms, nuclei and particles can be deduced. Thelightest thing whose mass has been reliably measured is an electron. The measurementsare tricky, but at least they yield a definite result for an electron’s
mass
. The
size
of an electron, on the other hand, is best thought of as more of a theoretical thing thana physical thing. Without going into the reasons for this, suffice it to say that, thoughthe two electron radii shown on the graphs are widely recognized as being of theoreticalimportance, it would be erroneous to think of one electron as having such a definite size.If we include the approximate size of an electron cloud in a ground state hydrogen atom,then these three radii are related to one another by powers of the
fine structure constant 
,
α
, and the
Bohr radius
, a
0
.A hydrogen atom without an electron is a proton, whose mass is nearly the same as aneutron. For the purposes of the charts (which take no account of electric
charge
) bothprotons and neutrons are essentially indistinguishible
nucleons
. Muons have the sameelectrical charge as electrons, but are
207 times heavier. Though rare, atoms whoseelectrons are replaced by muons have been created in laboratories. Thus we include
muo-nium 
(which lies between the electronic hydrogen atom and the lone proton [nucleon]).With the exception of the lightest elements, nuclei in atoms have nearly the same den-sity, known as
nuclear saturation density 
. Thus we find another region where the massvs. radius slope
3, the density vs. radius slope
0, and the slope of the accelerationdue to gravity is
1. Note that on these charts the radius and density of one nucleonare derived from the radii and densities actually measured from
collections
of them. Wewill find that nuclear saturation density bears a curious relation to atomic density andother key densities when we consider their occurrence in astrophysical phenomena.Which brings us, then, to the opposite direction along our scale of size. In the realmof planets and stars, because of gravity, we get two branches in the pattern: Unlike thecase of smaller bodies of atomic matter where gravity’s role seems negligible, in thisregion, along one branch gravity causes bodies to be more compressed; adding massactually makes the objects get smaller. Along this branch we encounter brown dwarfs,white dwarfs, neutron stars and finally, extremely compressed stellar objects commonly
 
COSMIC EVERYTHING CHARTS COMPARED: GR vs.SGM
3
Planck AccelerationM32Nucleon& NucleiElectron(classicalradius
α
2
a
0
)HydrogenAtom (a
0
)Electron(barred Comptonwavelength
λ 
c
=
α
 
a
0
)J0917+46J1650-5003C 66B Galaxy CoreOJ287 Galaxy Core
55504540 35302520151050-5-10-15-20-25-30-3555504540 35302520151050-5-10-15-20-25-30-35
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
PlanckMass
Copyright © Richard Benish 2010. With this copyrighttag in place, free unaltered distribution is encouraged.
Note that the gravitational accelerations corresponding to objectson the Schwarzschild horizon were calculated using
Newton’s
equation. Whereas, according to general relativity, the accelerationof a stationary body at the horizon would be
infinite
. (See, e.g.,Rindler,
Essential Relativity, 2nd Ed 
., Springer-Verlag, 1977; p. 149.Or Hartle,
Gravity 
, Addison-Wesley, 2003; p. 435.)Also, the
densities
of these objects were calculated as an average—as though the mass were distributed throughout a sphere of radius= 2
GM
 /
c
2
. Whereas, according to general relativity, the matter wouldquickly collapse to a central singularity of
infinite
density.An alternative treatment of these extreme and undesirable conse-quences is presented on the otherwise identical graph:
CosmicEverything Chart (SGM).**
This alternative is physically morereasonable—at least insofar as the Post-Newtonian accelerations anddensities are all
finite
; there are
no singularities
. See also
CosmicEverything Charts Compared**
which gives a more thoroughcomparison.**Documents referred to immediately above are accessible atGravitationLab.com or at Scribd.com, under Benish.To minimize clutter, many points are not labeled—especially thosefor acceleration. But everything is labeled at least once. Identi-fication may require finding the point corresponding to a differentquantity along the same vertical line. Moon, Earth, Sun, Milky Wayand Milky Way Core have been colored to facilitate finding theseparticular points.
*
   l  o  g
     ρ
    (   3
    M
   /   4
     π
   r
   3
   )   (   k  g  m
  –   3
   )   l  o  g
   g
   (
     G    M
   /
   r
   2
   )   (  m  s
  –   2
   )
log
(meters)
   l  o  g
   m
    (   k  g   )
Coma ClusterVirgo ClusterEarthSunOJ286 Galaxy CorePlanetary NebulaElectron(classicalradius
α
2
a
0
)NeutronStarsNucleon& NucleiMuonium
VISIBLEOBJECTSIZE GAP
Osmium
    A    S    T    E    R   O    I    D    S
3C 66B Galaxy CoreSirius BSirius BWhite Dwarf (Typical)J0917+46Sirius BMilky Way CoreMilky WayN3379M87Nearby GroupM32 NucleusN4486-BM32Omega CentauriGiant Molecular CloudsM31 NucleusShapley SuperclusterBok GlobulesM31Planck Density is wayoff the Chart: at log
ρ
 
96.7Brown DwarfsRadiation
÷
 
c
2
within Cosmic
R
c
=
c
 /
Radiation
÷
 
c
2
withinCosmic 
R
c
=
c
 /
Electron(classicalradius
α
2
a
0
)EarthCenter of M15Center of G1Center of Omega CentauriCenter of M15HLX-1HLX-1Center of G1Center of Omega CentauriSun & Other MainSequence StarsJupiterRed Giants & Planetary NebulaeBetelgeuseRigelBetelgeuseRed GiantRigelNeutronStarsJ1650-500IC 10 X-1HLX-1EXO 0748-676J0437-4715Supra-NuclearDensity StarsSupra-NuclearDensity StarsBrown DwarfsWhite Dwarf
 
sMoonMoonCeres16 Psyche433 Eros1999 KW2000 UGHydrogen AtomOxygen AtomHelium AtomHydrogen Atom (a
0
)Nucleon(radius derived fromnuclear saturation density)MuoniumBuckyball (C60)BacteriumSand GrainBlueberryElephantHumanMelonVirusIronOsmiumShapleySuperclusterComaClusterComaClusterNearby GroupM87N3379M31M31 NucleusOmega CentauriOmega CentauriMilky WayMilky WayN4486-B3C 66B Galaxy CoreMilky Way Core
NUCLEAR SATURATION DENSITY
  S  C   H   W  A   R   Z  S  C   H   I   L   D    H  O   R   I   Z  O   N   (    E  d  g  e   o  f   t   h  e    W  o  r   l  d   )
WATER DENSITY
OJ287 Galaxy CoreM32M32 NucleusM32 NucleusM31 NucleusGiant MolecularCloudsGiant Molecular CloudsBok GlobulesBok GlobulesVirgo ClusterMass withinCosmic 
R
c
=
c
 /
Electron(barred Comptonwavelength
λ 
c
=
α
 
a
0
)Electron(barred Comptonwavelength
λ 
c
=
α
 
a
0
)
DensityofBubbles,Atmospheres&Giant Stars
Gases at STP(radii derivedfrom densities)UraniumCalciumAtomic NucleiCarbonComplex MoleculeGrape SeedMass withinCosmic
R
c
=
c
 /
 
COSMIC EVERYTHING CHART (standard*)
Fig. 1. – Chart 1. Logarithmic scales of mass, radius, density and gravitational acceleration of objects spanning the range of size of the known universe. Due to the fuzziness of some objects,deviations from spherical shape and uncertainties of measurement, some values are rougherapproximations than others. Being on a logarithmic scale, all quantities shown are neverthelessfairly accurate. This chart is thus a generally reliable representation of key physical magnitudesin our universe, with the possible exception of objects on the Schwarzschild horizon line.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->