|Views: 50
|Likes: 0

Published by Richard Benish

A new model of gravitation is based on the assumption that accelerometers and clocks are trustworthy motion sensing devices. Though seemingly "at rest" at Earth's surface, these devices say that the essence of matter and gravity is perpetual motion. The gravity model and its cosmological implications follow from taking the indications of these instruments at face value. The resulting Large Numbers--ratios of various constants derived from both micro and macro physics--could not be simpler; and they agree exceptionally well with observations. One key result is that Newton's constant, G, is simply related to the density ratio between the cosmic background radiation and nuclear matter, the mass of the electron, the Bohr radius and the speed of light. Most importantly, the model as a whole lends itself to a relatively easy laboratory test.

A new model of gravitation is based on the assumption that accelerometers and clocks are trustworthy motion sensing devices. Though seemingly "at rest" at Earth's surface, these devices say that the essence of matter and gravity is perpetual motion. The gravity model and its cosmological implications follow from taking the indications of these instruments at face value. The resulting Large Numbers--ratios of various constants derived from both micro and macro physics--could not be simpler; and they agree exceptionally well with observations. One key result is that Newton's constant, G, is simply related to the density ratio between the cosmic background radiation and nuclear matter, the mass of the electron, the Bohr radius and the speed of light. Most importantly, the model as a whole lends itself to a relatively easy laboratory test.

See more

See less

GravitationLab.com

Space Generation Model of Gravitation and the Large Numbers Coincidences

Richard Benish

Eugene, Oregon

rjbenish@teleport.com

The basis for a new model of gravitation is presented, as are its basic cosmologicalconsequences. Gravity is conceived as a process of outward movement of matter andspace whose cumulative e

ﬀ

ect is the exponential expansion of the Universe. In thecosmological extreme the model thus resembles Masreliez’s Expanding SpacetimeTheory.[1] Unlike the latter theory, the new model predicts novel e

ﬀ

ects that can betested in a modest laboratory. The next most noteworthy feature of the model is thatit gives new meaning to the well-known “large numbers coincidences.” This new ap-proach encompasses a broader range of physical reality than usual, including now thecosmic background radiation and the density of atomic nuclei.

1 Introduction

It has sometimes been suggested that the mechanism of grav-ity involves the expansion of matter. The purpose of the pres-ent paper is primarily to show how this idea might arise in theﬁrst place, provide a minimum of justiﬁcation and then delveinto the cosmological consequences. Common objections tothe idea of “expanding matter” are summarily addressed inanother paper.[2] The possibility of testing the model with alaboratory experiment and indirect support from astrophysi-cal observations are also discussed in that other paper.In

§

2 I argue that regarding gravity as a process of out-wardmovementstemsfromaliteralinterpretationoftheread-ings of accelerometers and clocks. The Space GenerationModel’s (SGM’s) redshift-distance relation is derived in

§

3.This leads to a prediction for the average cosmic matter den-sity — assumed to be a

bona ﬁde constant

— expressed as aparticular value of the density parameter,

0

.

§

4 is concernedwith the COBE satellite’s measurement of the absolute tem-perature of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR). In

§

5the value of the Hubble constant, another bona ﬁde constant,is predicted. We begin generating the SGM-based “largenumbers” in

§

6. More large numbers arise in

§

7 by includ-ing the density of nuclear matter. Finally, in

§

8 we discussimplications and leave a few questions unanswered.

2 Accelerometers and clocks

In our everyday experience, acceleration arises for three dis-tinct reasons: 1) forces directed linearly, such as from motor-ized vehicles or bodily muscles; 2) rotation; and 3) gravita-tion. The case of rotation is of particular interest because itis curiously analogous to the case of gravitation. It is well-known that Einstein used this analogy in the course of build-ing his General Theory of Relativity (GR) [3] [4]. Imagine abody such as a large, wheel-like space station uniformly ro-tating in outer space. Accelerometers and clocks are ﬁxed tovarious locations throughout the body. Upon inspecting theirreadings and comparing their rates (in the case of the clocks)we would ﬁnd, 1) negative (centripetal) accelerations varyingdirectly as the distance

r

, from the rotation axis, and 2) clock rates varying as

f

@

r

Aa

f

0

r

I

r

2

!

2

c

2

;

(1)where

!

is the angular velocity,

c

is the speed of light and

f

0

is the rate of a clock at rest with respect to the rotation axis.Since the accelerations and velocities of a uniformly rotatingbody are constant in time, such systems are often referred toas being

stationary

[5] [6] [7].On a spherically symmetric gravitating body we also ﬁndnon-zero accelerometer readings and clocks ticking atreduced rates. The

range

of acceleration and time dilationwould become more evident by having numerous accelerom-eters and clocks ﬁxed to extremely tall rigid poles ﬁrmlyplanted on the body. We’d then ﬁnd that the accelerationvaries as

I

=r

2

and that clock rates vary as

f

@

r

Aa

f

0

r

I

P

GM rc

2

;

(2)where

G

is Newton’s constant and

M

is the mass of the body.Having the idea that such a body and its ﬁeld are ut-terly static things, Einstein took this to mean that rotating ob-servers are entitled to regard themselves as being

at rest

. Thisapproach is tantamount to a

denial

that accelerometer read-ings and clock rates are reliable indicators of motion. Thisseemstohavehappenedsomewhatsubconsciously, evenpriorto Einstein. The Newtonian concept of force and its relationto acceleration is unambiguous if it is applied to rotation orto non-gravitational forces. In these cases the

direction

of theacceleration indicated by an accelerometer is the same as thedirection of the force. But in the case of gravity, thought of as a “body force,” a positive accelerometer reading is now in-terpreted as the

negative

of the acceleration a body

would

ex-perience if it were allowed to fall. And a zero reading means

c

Richard Benish August 2007 1

GravitationLab.coma falling body is accelerating with the local value of the force(divided by the body’s mass).The potential for confusion only increases when GR isbrought into the picture. For here a positive accelerometerreading is thought of as indicating an acceleration with re-spect to a nearby

geodesic

(free-fall trajectory). Hence, instandard texts one sometimes ﬁnds expressions as “acceler-ation of a particle at rest” [8] [9]. Of course this expres-sion has a degree of consistency within GR’s mathematicalscheme; but with regard to the common meaning of the word,

acceleration

, it is contradictory. This becomes especially ev-ident when we note that the “resting” particle is referred to assuchbecauseitisatrestwithrespecttoa

static

Schwarzschildﬁeld. According to GR everything “at rest” in a static grav-itational ﬁeld is also accelerating. According to Newton apositive accelerometer reading means “trying” (but failing)to accelerate in the negative direction. Is this the best we cando?One of the core motivations of the SGM is to explorethe consequences of eliminating this confused state of a

ﬀ

airsby maintaining a simple and consistent interpretation of themeaning of motion sensing devices. We now assume that

accelerometer readings and clock rates are utterly reliableindicators of motion

. It follows that,

since a body undergo-ing uniform rotation is a manifestation of absolute stationarymotion, so too, is a gravitating body

. In the case of gravita-tion both the velocity and the acceleration are positive, beingdirected radially outward.This implies that both matter and space are involved in aperpetual process of self-projection and regeneration. Spacegeneration proceeds according to an inverse-square law; butdue to the resulting local inhomogeneities, it is impossible toconsistently model or visualize in three-dimensional space.If this interpretation is correct, it would thus require anotherspace dimension to accommodate and to maintain the integ-rity of the inhomogeneous expansive motion. A natural con-sequenceofregardinggravitationasaperpetual

manifestation

of motion instead of as a static

cause

of motion, is the appar-ent spacetime curvature of our seemingly three-dimensionalworld.However radical the SGM may seem to be, it is simplybased on the assumption that the readings of accelerometersand the rates of clocks are

telling the truth

about their stateof acceleration and velocity. In principle, the model can beeasily tested. An important consequence is that a clock lo-cated at the

center

of a large gravitating body will have thesame maximum rate as a clock “at inﬁnity.” Unlike GR’sinterior and exterior Schwarzschild solutions, clock rates inthe SGM do not indicate the

potential

for motion, they in-dicate the

existence

of motion. The centrally located clock has a maximum rate because, just as the acceleration dimin-ishes “by symmetry” and goes to zero at the body’s center,so too, does the velocity. It follows that inside a gravitatingbody a radially falling test object would not pass the centerand oscillate through it. Rather, after reaching a maximumapparent downward speed, the object would only asymptoti-cally approach the center. An experiment designed to test thispredictionandastrophysicalevidencetendingtosupportitarediscussed in another paper [2]. Novel predictions also arise inthe SGM for the behavior of light and clocks near and beyondthe surfaces of large gravitating bodies. These predictionsdeviate strongly from those of GR for

one-way

light signalsand for rates compared between ascending and descendingclocks. Due to the

two-way

nature of experiments designedto detect these e

ﬀ

ects, the SGM actually agrees with their re-sults. This is demonstrated for the Shapiro-Reasenberg timedelay test and the Vessot-Levine falling clock experiment in athird paper [10]. Presently, we assume that the model has notbeen refuted by empirical evidence and move on to explorethe cosmological implications.

3 Cosmic redshift and average matter density

Newton’s constant,

G

, can be thought of as representing an“acceleration of volume per mass.” The idea that gravity isan attractive force means the

energy

of gravity is a

negative

quantity. In the context of standard cosmology an obviousconsequence is that the global e

ﬀ

ect of gravity is to

eliminatespace

. Gravity’s negative energy acceleratively reduces theamount of space in the Universe. If the density of the cosmoswere su

ﬃ

cient (and there were no “dark energy” having theopposite e

ﬀ

ect) gravity would negate the Big Bang’s expan-sive e

ﬀ

ect and eliminate all space (Big Crunch).In the present scheme, by contrast, the energy of gravityis a

positive

quantity, as it represents not only the generationof space but of the massive bodies themselves that space is ul-timately continuous with. This continuousness suggests thatspace is not a passive background that can be sucked out of existence or be disproportionately increased by any means. Inother words, it implies that the average density in the universeshould be a fundamental constant. This assumption plays apivotal role in what follows.The ﬁrst step in exploring the cosmological consequencesof these assumptions is to deﬁne the scale of gravity’s do-main, i.e., to identify a characteristic linear “size” of the Uni-verse. We assume the most reasonable possibility to be

R

c

a

GM

c

c

2

;

(3)where

M

c

is the mass within a sphere of cosmic radius

R

c

.Before using this deﬁnition of

R

c

to predict the average cos-mic matter density, it will be useful to ﬁrst establish ourredshift-distance law.Although the local e

ﬀ

ects of gravity are complicated bythe inhomogeneities of the expansion, our assumption of con-stant cosmic matter density justiﬁes regarding these inhomo-geneities as being smoothed out on a cosmic scale. The cu-mulative e

ﬀ

ect would thus be an exponential expansion

2 3 Cosmic redshift and average matter density

GravitationLab.comwhose e

ﬀ

ect on a given length is

r

a

r

0

exp@

¡

t

A

;

(4)where

r

0

is some initial cosmic distance,

r

is

r

0

’s expandedlength (the change of which could only be directly perceivedby an imaginary being who is una

ﬀ

ected by the global expan-sion),

¡

t

is a time interval and

is a constant, to be deter-mined below.Another assumption of SGM cosmology upon which theredshift-distance law depends, involves the distinctionbetween what is and what is not a clock. In the SGM, thatwhich travels slower than light, i.e., matter, is clock-like; thatwhich travels at the speed of light is not. (This is, of course,consistent with Special Relativity, according to which “timestands still for the photon,” but ticks along at one rate or an-other for everything else.) The importance of this distinctionarises in the SGM because the energy of matter increases withtime. Whereas, energy in the form of light maintains only theenergy it had at the moment it was emitted. A useful compar-ison would be with the Steady State models of Hoyle, BondiandGold, [11]inwhichthecosmicdensityisheldconstantbythe perpetual creation of new particles of matter. The newerSteady State models of Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar and others,[12] posit “creation events” on a larger scale, which involveexpansive e

ﬀ

ects that keep the average cosmic density at leastapproximately constant. In the SGM, the density remains ex-actly constant, because the matter increase is not due to thediscontinuous appearance of new particles, but to the contin-uous increase in mass of all particles that already exist.Light’s non-clock status in this scheme results in a kindof source-and-sink relationship: it’s not that anything reallygoes down the drain, but that, as the sink’s “basin” ﬁlls up,so does the material of which it is made; the basin (matter)expands to exactly accommodate what is ﬁlling it (radiation),so the level remains constant. In other words, what makes thetimeless things appear to get smaller (lose energy) is all theclock-like things getting larger (gaining energy) around them.Since lengths change as

exp@

¡

t

A

and the density of ourcosmos is constant, volumes and therefore masses change as

exp@Q

¡

t

A

. ThedeBroglierelationinQuantumTheorygivesthe frequency of a “matter wave” (clock) as

f

a

mc

2

h ;

(5)where

m

is the mass (typically, of an elementary particle)and

h

is Planck’s constant. Being proportional to mass, theobservable frequency of distant clocks is given by

f

SGM

a

f

0

exp@Q

¡

t

A a

f

0

exp@Q

r

0

=R

SGM

A

;

(6)where we have now identiﬁed

as

c=R

SGM

and

¡

t

as thetime for a light signal to travel the distance

r

0

. The rates of clocks increase with cosmic time. Similar to the “deSittere

ﬀ

ect” arising in deSitter’s GR-based cosmological solution,this means distant clocks would be observed to be runningslow.[13] The redshift law that follows is:

z

aexp@Q

r

0

=R

SGM

A

I

:

(7)Note that for small

z

(relatively nearby galaxies) we thenhave

z

%

Q

r

0

=R

SGM

. Whereas in standard cosmology, thecorresponding equation is

z

%

H

0

r

0

=c

a

r

0

=R

H

, where

R

H

a

c=H

0

is the Hubble radius and

H

0

is the Hubble con-stant. The characteristic length,

R

SGM

is thus three timeslarger than the characteristic length in standard cosmology.From (3) we get the mass contained within the cosmicradius,

M

SGM

a

R

SGM

c

2

=G

. Dividing this mass by thevolume gives the equation for the average matter density,

SGM

a Q

c

2

R

GR

2

SGM

:

(8)In standard cosmology the parameter

0

represents a densityratio which, for a

ﬂat

Universe (such as those required by

inﬂation

) equals unity. The denominator in this ratio, knownas the

critical density

, is given by

CRIT

a Q

H

2

V

G

a Q

c

2

V

GR

2

H

:

(9)If (3) is used to get a corresponding density ratio, using

R

H

would give

a

CRIT

aP

:

H

:

(10)On the other hand, since

R

SGM

aQ

R

H

, the SGM densityparameter is

SGM

a

SGM

CRIT

aH

:

PPPP

:

(11)Most every measurement of

M

within the last 10–15 yearshas error margins within which

SGM

comfortably ﬁts ([14][15][16]). Thisisstilloneoftheleastwell-knownparameters(or constants, as the case may be) however. So let’s now turnto the next one.

4 Cosmic background temperature

The exact temperature of the CMBR is not im- portant for cosmology, since every other cosmo-logical constant is more poorly determined.

[17]In standard cosmology the background temperature is actu-ally not a constant. Nor is the Hubble “constant,” nor thescale length, nor the matter density, etc. These parametersall change with time, so that, although there may be somemeaningful relationships among them, this meaningfulness ishardlyprofoundduetohowveryadjustablethewholeschemeis. The above quotation clearly makes sense if one accepts theassumption that the temperature started extremely high and ison its way to zero. For then its exact value at any given epochwould be more incidental than fundamental. By contrast, in

c

Richard Benish August 2007 3