This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

gravitational field unification, first attempted by Faraday, without success, in 1849. Mathematical models devoted to the achievement of this unification invariably founder on problems related to the relative strengths of the forces involved, without discovering a way around this conceptual barrier. It may be that responsibility for this situation lies in the seductive similarities between the laws governing electromagnetic and gravitational forces and potentials where only static sources are considered. It may be that accelerated sources represent a more practical starting point for the unification process. The Equivalence Principle underpins the Theory of General Relativity and Special Relativity but stands apart from both. Special Relativity deals with unaccelerated frames of reference, General Relativity with scenarios in which acceleration has been transformed away with the action of gravity, as a force (force implies acceleration of mass, acceleration implies force is acting on mass) but the Equivalence Principle presupposes the equivalence of all accelerations and is of prime importance to relativity. There has been little incentive to test the equivalence of the acceleration of mass in general, associated with the concept of inertia and leading to the definition of inertial mass via Newton’s Second Law of Motion, and the acceleration of mass by the gravitational force. The standard tests involve only otherwise static masses in free fall, not masses already accelerating in one, two, three or more dimensions (after all, the current paradigm favours ten dimensions) prior to, or simultaneous with, acceleration by gravity. Perhaps the foregoing is forgivable. After all, the gravitational force between two static masses is notoriously difficult to measure compared with the electric force between static charges so it is hardly surprising that the equations for accelerated states were discovered much later than those for the unaccelerated ones. Starting with the case of two charged masses, ‘m1‘ and ‘m2‘, separated by a small distance ‘r’, and proceeding to consider the same masses in an uncharged condition uncharged, the relevant equations are: Coulomb’s Law 1(a) Fe = k q1 q2 r2 where k = 1 . 4 π ε0 1(b) Newton’s Law Fg = G m1 m2 r2

k is the electric constant, G the Newtonian constant of gravitation.

2 r m2 α a m1 s s = the distance, at closest approach, of m2 to m1 r = the distance between m1 and m2 for the purpose of calculating Fe and Fg α = the angle between the acceleration and distance vectors, a and r

Figure 1 Where ‘r’ is small and there is a low relative velocity between the masses, even when associated with relative acceleration, the situation reduces mathematically to the static one. The case is quite otherwise where ‘r’ is large: 2(a) Fe = k q1 q2 a sinα c2 r 2(b) Fg = G m1 m2 a sinα c2 r

Although the two forces bear the same relationship to one another with regards to their relative strengths, the adjustment of both of them by the factor c-2 clearly presents a considerable experimental challenge when it comes to measuring the forces involved. There is, of course, more than one type of acceleration to be considered. Rotation always involves centripetal acceleration. As G. Nordström’s letter to Einstein (1912) suggested and Einstein himself confirmed, Special Relativity (SR) must be taken into account where an extended spinning mass is involved. Although acceleration is invariably associated with General Relativity (GR), due to the importance of the Equivalence Principle (EQ) to the latter, the accelerated point mass on the edge of an extended mass, spinning with constant velocity, is evidently in a different frame of reference from the one at the centre of gyration and this has implications for the validity of the EQ, deriving from the application of SR to the situation. This became known as the Nordström Theory. Professor Alex Harvey submitted an analysis of one example of the problem to ‘Annals of Physics’ in 1964. He was able to show that, due to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald time dilation, the time measured at the centre of a spinning dumbbell would only match that measured at either end of it in terms of their proper times, i.e. the times measured at those points. The time at either end of the dumbbell as measured from the centre, or coordinate time, appears to be dilated. This scenario involves a conflict with the Equivalence Principle (EP), according to which the inertial mass of an object, such as a ball at one end of a spinning dumbbell, treated as a point mass, would fall at the same rate as one at the centre of gyration. However, he was able to show that, on paper at least, the Nordström Theory applied and therefore the time of fall as measured at each point on the dumbbell (the ‘proper time’ for each point’s frame of reference) might be the same, but the time of fall for a point mass on the ball as measured at the centre of gyration (the ‘coordinate time’) would be greater. To put it another way, the point mass on the ball would be subject, effectively, to a lower gravitational acceleration when the dumbbell was rotating than when it was not.

3 Professor Harvey drew a distinction between what he termed the ‘weak’ EP, in which all inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent, regardless of whether they are point or extended masses and of the relative motions of different parts of the extended masses, and the ‘strong’ EP. According to the latter principle, Einstein’s own, only point masses are mutually equivalent with respect to inertia and gravity. The matter can only be resolved by designing practical tests of Prof. Harvey’s theoretical analysis of the Nordström Theory. This is because, unfortunately, the relativistic aspects of the dumbbell experiment render it impractically difficult to implement with any hope of obtaining observable results. Before proceeding to a consideration of the effects of accelerated charges and masses upon one another, it is worthwhile examining the similarities between the equations relating the electric and gravitational potentials to their sources. The equation for the electrostatic field, Gauss’ Law, also the first of Maxwell’s Equations (Maxwell I) is, in its differential form, known as Poisson’s Equation: 3(a)

2

**V = −4πρe (Gaussian units)
**

2

Or

V = −ρe /ε (SI units),

where V is the electric potential and ρe the electric charge density. The equation for the gravitostatic case is: (b)

2

Φ = 4πGρm-e,

where Φ is the Newtonian gravitational potential and ρ m-e the mass-energy density or, as it is sometimes termed, the mass charge density. These equations reveal the functional equivalence of the constants of proportionality involved, namely, ε, the electric permittivity and G, the Newtonian gravitational constant. Equation 3(a) is clearly more suggestive in Gaussian units and suggestiveness is always at a premium among unification theorists, but the SI units version is more important because of those units’ role in the unity of physics. Turning to the case of accelerated charge and the lesser known consequences of accelerated mass, these are seen to involve radiation with a power output that depends on the principle distinguishing factors of the force equations referred to here as 1(a) and 1(b): The Larmor ’luminosity’/ power radiated by accelerated charge ‘q’: 4(a) Le-m = 2 k q2 a2 , 3 c3

where a = the acceleration of ‘q’ and k = 1/4πε

4 The gravitational ‘luminosity’/ power radiated by a binary pulsar (co-rotating neutron stars): 4(b) L grav. = 128 G M2 r4 ω6 5 c5

where the centripetal acceleration of each star a = ω2 r, ‘ω’ being the angular frequency of the co-rotation and ‘r’ its radius. M = the mass of each star. Of course, the example used is no different, in principle, from the general case. However, it is a good deal more practical, as the relatively huge mass of a neutron star, the large distances between stars in binary pulsars (on terrestrial scales) and angular frequency of co-rotation make it possible to conceive of measurable observations resulting from this example whereas a useful laboratory equivalent is currently inconceivable. As a hypothetical example, consider the following. A particle collider experiment succeeds in creating a Planck scale binary pulsar with a view to demonstrating the unification of electromagnetism and gravitation at the quantum level. Each mini neutron star should therefore have a mass of one Planck mass or 22 μg and a density of ρ = 5 × 10 10 kg m -3. A thin shell of iron on each star, with a mass of 0.5 μg and a rate of co-rotation and therefore a spin rate per star of 600 r.p.s., would cause the 1.7 mC of drift electrons (q) circulating about the equator of each star to produce a magnetic dipole of 1T. The radius of each star would be rn = 6.39 × 10 -7 m and their common radius of gyration (radius of co-rotation) I choose to set at 2 rn. The situation is pictured in Figure 2: ω rn M 4rn M rn ω Figure 2 The resultant electromagnetic (e-m) radiation should be: 5(a) Le-m = 2 k q2 a2 per star, 3 c3 or 2 × 5.51 × 10 -14 W 4 So the total Le-m = 2.76 × 10 -14 W.

5 5(b) L grav. = 128 G M2 r4 ω6 5 c5 = 128 G MP2 (2rn4)ω6 5 c5 L grav = 2.61 × 10 -63 W The 49 orders of magnitude between the results for 5(a) and 5(b) indicate that the differences of scale that are prevalent on the macro scale apply at the Planck scale also. Continuing to take account of the variations in the static field values introduced by rotation I next consider the Barnett Effect. A small but measurable magnetic field is generated when an object spins, regardless of any pre-existent field, provided it is below magnetic saturation for that object. The effect is, of course, more obvious in ferromagnetic materials and involves the spin coordination of the intrinsic and, to a lesser extent, orbital spins of the electrons in the material’s atoms, bringing their magnetic dipoles and those of their atoms into a common alignment. For a cylinder or rod rotating about its axis of symmetry: The gyromagnetic ratio ρ = µ/L in A kg -1, where µ is the magnetic moment, in A m 2, produced by the angular momentum L, in kg m 2 of the cylinder or rod about its axis of rotation. The Earth’s field was at one time thought to derive from a similar source but it was later established that its core consisted of molten iron, heated above the Curie temperature and therefore not capable of sustaining a field. It is now thought to derive from the electric charge carried in cooler, slow, ionised eddies about that liquid core. This means that the Earth acts more as a solenoid than a bar magnet. Rotation is still essential to the preservation of the field but in a different way from that which might reasonably have been expected. At the quantum level, the gyromagnetic ratio of the electron is: 6(a) The Bohr magneton, γ = µ/ Le, where Le is the angular momentum of the electron. (b) Also, γ = µ0 e/ me, where µ0 is the magnetic permeability of the vacuum.

6 Turning to the impact of rotation on a mass, m, symmetric about its axis of rotation, it is found that gravity acts on it in two explained ways, but also that angular momentum overcomes gravity in an unexplained way. The rate of precession of a gyroscope about its vertical axis is: Ωp = τ / L = 2πf rads s-1, where f = the frequency of precession, τ = the torque due to gravity acting on the mass ‘m’ at the angle of precession θ and: τ = mg sinθ l, where l = the distance along the axle from the mass to the supporting fulcrum. The action of gravity upon a gyroscope’s wheel may be understood from this example. It pulls the wheel down from the ‘sleeping top’ position, as would be expected. However, the fact that the wheel is sustained at its angle of precession against the continuing pull of gravity has never been explained, any more than has the rise of a motorised gyro against gravity, as its spin rate is increased. The fact that the ratio of the spin rate to the precession rate alters in keeping with the principle of the Conservation of Momentum does not explain the observation that the gyro axle maintains itself at the angle of precession, let alone the wheel’s rising motion. Were it not observed, the phenomenon would be impossible to predict from conservation principles. The direction of precession is plausibly explained by comparing the action of gravity, at a given moment, against the mass in the rising side of the wheel to the frictional effect of a surface placed against it, causing the wheel to move as if pushed away from that side. As a result, the direction of precession matches the direction of spin when viewed along the axis that is the vertical with respect to the angle of precession. For the purpose of consistency with what follows I include here the definition of the gyro’s spin angular momentum: L = I ωs, where I = the gyro wheel’s moment of inertia and ωs = its spin angular frequency. There is also a secondary precession, associated with a continuous change in θ, due to a continuous change in the spin frequency. This rotational motion in the vertical plane has a frequency of: νsec = τ / 2πLp Here the angular momentum Lp is associated with the precessional rotation rather than the spin of the gyro. As the gyro inverts (assuming it has sufficient degrees of

7 freedom to do so) the potential energy of the ‘sleeping top’ position becomes the kinetic energy of the inverted position. The energy of the inversion process is: E = 2τ / 2π = 2Lp νsec For a spinning electron, which also precesses about an axis and inverts in response to the interaction between an external magnetic field and its magnetic dipole, this inversion energy is: E = 2Lp ν In this case, the precessional angular momentum ‘Lp’ yields the quantum of angular momentum, because: 2Lp = h, where h = Planck’s constant. Substituting for ’2Lp’ in the previous equation gives E = h ν, Einstein’s Equation. This situation illustrates, in its simplest form, the deep connection between spinning mass and spinning charge, likewise that between macroscopic and quantum scale phenomena. The above examples highlight two fundamental features of matter. One is angular inertia, which is another conserved quantity and an aspect of the Conservation of Energy Principle. The other is the electromagnetic nature of the atom, the basic constituent of all matter. Although obvious in one sense it would be easy to suspect that the positively charged atomic nuclei were composed of something other than charge if the quark had not been discovered. Indeed, Einstein, trying to determine which had primacy in the composition of matter, concluded that it was gravity rather than charge. He did so before the discovery of the quark, or even that of the neutron in 1932, though the latter would have seemed to support his contention that charge was an acquired feature of uncharged nucleons. Once it was established that both the proton and neutron comprised three charged particles apiece, the indivisible quarks, it became apparent that charge was as much of a defining characteristic of the atomic nucleus as it was of the electron. The name baryon, applied to nucleons, effectively means ‘charge-bearing’. The other defining characteristic of the atom, mass, could either be regarded as the source of the gravitational force that affects all other mass or the source of space-time curvature, simulating a force of attraction that causes mass to follow space-time geodesics. Strangely, Einstein had already arrived at the conclusion that the gravity concept could be disposed of in this manner, a requirement for the mathematics of General Relativity, even as he arrived at the idea that the gravitational force rendered non-existent by his mathematical transformation actually represented the origin of mass. Thus he entered into a conceptual vicious circle. As Saint Augustine might have put it in response to the question ‘What did God do before he made time?’, ‘He was creating a hell of self-confusion for those who pry too deeply into the nature of things before the relevant data is available.’

8 Einstein’s development of the General Theory of Relativity permanently changed ideas about the relationship between gravity and mass and introduced a new one. Hitherto the rotation of a planet had been thought of as a feature independent of its gravitational field so that the latter was not thought to communicate its motion to objects on the periphery of that field. The Special Theory of Relativity conferred a new property on every point mass in space, an inertial frame of reference. From this position every observation was circumscribed by the finite nature of the speed of light, c, and adjusted to account for the relative velocity of every other inertial frame of reference (f.o.r.). The impact of gravity on a point mass would therefore affect its f.o.r., partly because it would redirect light in its vicinity and partly because it is possible to place that mass in such a position that it is only peripherally affected by the field. As a field rotates with a planet’s f.o.r. it interacts with the point mass’ f.o.r., rather in the manner of a vast rotating gear wheel with miniscule teeth meshing with and rotating a miniscule gear wheel. The phenomenon is referred to as framedragging and intitled the Lense-Thirring Effect. Due to the equivalence of mass and energy revealed by E = mc2 and expressed in the term mass-energy, even a massless form of energy such as light can represent the source of a gravitational field, though the concentration of light energy would have to be at the very limits of those currently achievable to produce measurable results. The impracticality of the use of light energy as a gravitational field source should be set against that of placing a spinning object in a near Earth orbit and attempting to measure the perturbations in its spin due to frame-dragging, a project as expensive as its results would be questionable. All the best and most defensible experiments take place under controlled laboratory conditions. In the case of a light-energy based test the correct equipment is a ring laser, Figure 3 being a diagram of a square path version. L r 0 mirror

Laser He-Ne Figure 3.

9

In this design, the time of transit of a light beam about the ring is: t = 4L/c L being the side length, as shown. Considering first the case where the ring laser itself rotates, representing a ring laser gyroscope, the distance moved in time ‘t’ is: d = Ω rt, where Ω is the angular frequency of rotation, in the same direction as the light, and r the radius of motion, whereby ‘Ω r’ becomes scalar value of the mirrors’ constant velocity of rotation. The change in path length S (= 4L) with respect to the light’s inertial f.o.r. is: δS = 2 Ω L2 /c In order for the maximum amount of light energy to be concentrated in the gyro, the path length needs to be an integer number of wavelengths of the light, whereby each circuit traced by the beam is in phase with the last and next. So, S = nλ and the change in wavelength is: δλ = δS /n and δλ/ λ = δS/ S Because νλ = c, δλ/ λ = δν/ ν, an increase in wavelength representing a decrease in frequency and vice-versa. Now consider the case of two laser beams, oppositely directed about the ring, each with the same source frequency ν. The one moving with the direction of motion of the gyro’s spin will undergo a decrease in frequency δν, the one in the opposite direction an increase in frequency of the same amount. This produces a beat frequency f, the difference in the beam frequencies ν1 and ν2 : f = ν2 – ν1 = ν + δν – (ν – δν) = 2 δν. The output is therefore visible and measurable. From the above: f = 2 δν = 2 ν δλ/ λ f = 2 ν δS/ S = 2 ν 2 Ω L2 /cS. As ν = c/λ, f = 4 c Ω L2 λ cS 10

7(a)

Ω= f λS 4 L2

For example, if f = 2 × 105 Hz, L = 10 cm and λ = 500 nm, Ω = (2 × 105) (5 ×10-7 ×0.4)/ 4 × 0.01 = 1 rad s-1, The formula has been tested and found to be a reliable way of determining Ω. A design for an experimental test of the Lense-Thirring Effect features a static ring laser and a spinning particle, probably a neutron, situated at its centre. This approach has the advantage of permitting the replacement of a single beam circulating about a square path with four phase locked beams of identical frequency, two in parallel and two orthogonal to these, allowing the path about the neutron to be much smaller than would be possible using the mirror design. The objective is to find out the amount of precession of the laser gyro produced for a given light energy linear density (in Wm-1) so that the closer the energy was brought to the particle, the greater the influence it would have on the neutron’s spin direction. The light energy can be concentrated by an indefinite amount by reducing the size of the laser. The rate of change of spin direction, i.e. the rate of precession, of the particle is: dS / dt = ΩP × S where ΩP is the particle’s angular frequency of precession and S “ “ “ rate of spin. If the layout of the design is referred to a Cartesian coordinate system, so that the laser occupies the x-y plane, with the particle precessing about the z-axis, the components of the particle’s precession rate are: ΩPx = ΩPy = 0, ΩPz = √2 (ckρ)/ πL, where k = 8πG/ c4 and ρ = the laser’s linear radiation density. (b) Therefore ΩPz = 8√2 (Gρ)/ L c3

For example, if ρ = 10W cm-1and L = 1cm, ΩPz = 2.80 × 10-30 rads s-1 So not readily observable, then. Anyway, the above example serves to show that the mass-energy that creates gravity/space curvature can take a purely immaterial form. Also, that electromagnetism produces gravitation whereas the reverse is not the case. The massenergy of spinning heavenly bodies not only produces gravity but also a modification of gravity by the inertial force associated with spin, wrongly termed ‘centrifugal force’. In the case of the Earth this effect at least is readily measurable, in the form of a pendulum’s lateral deflection with respect to the planet’s gravitational force, in the opposite direction to that of its spin. 11

The deep electromagnetic nature of matter implies that the deflection of light by a star and, to a much smaller extent, by a planet, due to the masses involved, represents the deflection of electromagnetism by electromagnetism. Thus massenergy is seen to be electromagnetic. Moreover, de Broglie’s matter wave hypothesis, a development of early quantum mechanics theories, building on the photon concept, depicts the sub-nuclear particle as a wavepacket. Therefore, gravity could be described as the non-electromagnetic influence of one array of wavepackets on another. But can it truly be non-electromagnetic? In any case, the realm of particle physics has no need of gravity scientists. An astronomically large number of wavepackets is required to exert a gravitational influence on one wavepacket. This fact of itself gives rise to the possibility that gravity can be dispensed with as a separate force. Indeed, the application of Special Relativity (S.R.) Theory to moving charge (drift electrons) in the form of LorentzFitzgerald length contraction, producing charge concentration that only simulates the interaction of magnetism with the field produced by other electric currents, so that only an electric force actually exists between them, eliminating the magnetic field concept, is irrational. Any explanation of gravity in electrical terms would look good compared with this ad hoc explanation for magnetism. Gravitational modification (g.m.) involves a unification of gravity and electromagnetism termed gravitomagnetism. Pete Skeggs, Douglas Torr and Ning Li, of the University of Alabama, replicated an experiment in which weight loss appeared in a sample mass placed above a spinning superconductor, designed and carried out by Yevgeny Podkletnov of Tampere University in 1992. Podkletnov withdrew his report on the experiment, under illegal official pressure from the Finnish authorities, working for the U.S.A. Fortunately, Douglas Torr and Ning Li did not withdraw their report and their findings confirmed such data as had been leaked to the scientific community from the Podkletnov experiment. According to Giovanni Modanese’s article ‘Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment’, Podkletnov and his team spun superconducting disks, 15 to 30 cm in diameter, at 5,000 r.p.m., recording a weight loss of 0.5% in a sample placed above the disk. They then reduced the spin rate to 3,500 r.p.m. and the weight loss increased to between 1.9% and 2.1%, depending on the sample’s position w.r.t. the disk edge. Ning Li and Douglas Torr’s report uses an extension of the Lorentz Force Law, Fe-m = q(E + v × B), which gives the force exerted by an electric and a magnetic field on a charge q. Substituting what might be termed a gravitational charge, mass, for the electric charge, the report’s authors came up with an expression for the combined electromagnetic and gravitomagnetic forces. Maybe it could be termed a complete version of the Lorentz Force Law: 8. F = q(E + v × B) + m(Eg + v × Bg)

E and Eg are the electric and gravitoelectricfields, respectively. B and Bg are the magnetic and gravitomagnetic fields, respectively. 12

For the purposes of these experiments, the mass m and charge q are the mass and charge of a Cooper pair (of drift electrons). Drift electron pairing, with its synchronised, phase-locked motion, is held to be responsible for the phenomenon of superconduction. The report assumes that no anomalous weight loss would have appeared if the gravitomagnetic interaction had not been invoked by superconducting material in motion. In other words, the interaction would not have appeared for conductors possessing a measurable amount of resistance, let alone insulators. The individual fields applied to the superconductor appear in the report as: 9(a) E =− Φ − ∂A, ∂t

where Φ = the scalar e-m potential and A = the vector e-m potential. (b) Eg = − Φg − ∂Ag, ∂t

where Φg = the gravitoelectric scalar potential and Ag = the gravitomagnetic vector potential Similarly, the magnetic components are given as: 10(a) (b) B = Bg = ×A × Ag

One important difference between the standard situation concerning a static superconductor and the rotating version was found to be that, whilst the former consistently repels all external magnetic fields, leaving it unmagnetised, the latter is left with both a residual magnetic field and a gravitomagnetic one. The disk was rotated by pulsed electromagnets, generating a field that supported and rotated the superconductor, due to the Meissner Effect. The residual fields were determined to be: 11(a) B(z) ~ − m2 μg B0 − m Bg q2 μ q (b) Bg(z) ~ Bg,0 + μgm B0 μq B0 = the internal magnetic field. Bg,0 = the magnetically induced gravitomagnetic field ~ 1011 × B0 μ = the superconductor’s magnetic permeability. μg = the superconductor’s gravitomagnetic permeability. 13

The discovery of a vast difference between the gravitomagnetic field associated with the superconductor and the magnetic field was to be replicated in different experiments involving superconductors but with other objectives. The Lorentz Force Law can be adapted to provide the components of an electromagnetic (e-m) field, the mass-energy in Einstein’s General Relativity Field Equations can be expressed in the form of these components and then this representation can be used to provide the field characteristics of an experiment designed to generate gravitational waves. These are the essence of gravitational modification and complete the set of characteristics which show gravity to be the analogue of electromagnetism and vice-versa, being the equivalent of e-m waves. If the law is written as: F = ma = e(E + v × B), where m = the mass of an electron e = the charge on an electron and a = the acceleration given to an electron to replicate its path in spacetime under the influence of E and B, where the scalar value of its velocity is a constant. The Faraday e-m field tensor, F, is the Lorentz Force in explicit component form, also termed the Maxwell Field Tensor. It is a double-acting force permeating space, i.e. a bisor, consisting of 16 components Fji in 4 equations and can be represented in matrix form. The components Fji feature superscripts i = 0, 1, 2, 3 and subscripts j = 0, 1, 2, 3 where time and the Cartesian coordinates are indicated by the numbers thus; t = 0, x = 1, y = 2, z = 3. The i superscripts denote row number in the matrix, the j subscripts the column numbers: F00 F10 F20 F30 Fji = F01 F11 F21 F31 F02 F12 F22 F32 F0 F13 F23 F33 Applying the Lorentz Force Law to each component: 3

12.

0 Ex Ey Ez Fji = Ex 0 Bz −By Ey −Bz 0 Bx Ez By −Bx 0 14 In Einstein’s General Relativity Equations, termed the Field Equations: Gij = k Tij

or, verbally, Space Curvature = 8πG × Mass-energy c4 The mass-energy of an e-m field, termed the Maxwell energy-momentum tensor, Tij, can be expressed as a matrix: 13. T00 T01 T02 T03 Tij = T10 T11 T12 T13

T20 T21 T22 T23 T30 T31 T32 T33 It is called a symmetric four-tensor. The components of the two matrices, 12 and 13, are related by an equation that expresses the Tij in terms of the Fji but using substitute components that employ the dummy indices k and l, which are contracted out by the multiplication process. There is also a permutation bisor, ηij, which equals 0 if i = j. Otherwise ηij = −ηji. Tij = 1 Fik Fjk − 1 ηij Flm Flm 4π 4 The components of the symmetric four tensor are best presented in list form: T00 = ε E·E + 1 B·B 2 2μ T10 = T01 = −i (Ey Bz − EzBy) μc T20 = T02 = −i (Ez Bx − ExBz) μc T30 = T03 = −i (Ex By − EyBx) μc T11 = ε (Ex2 − Ey2 − Ez2) + 1 ( Bx2 − By2 − Bz2) 2 2μ T12 = T21 = ε Ex Ey + 1 Bx By μ 15 T13 = T31 = ε Ez Ex + 1 Bz Bx μ T22 = ε (Ey2 − Ez2 − Ex2) + 1 ( By2 − Bz2 − Bx2) 2 2μ

T23 = T32 = ε Ey Ez + 1 By Bz μ T33 = ε (Ez2 − Ex2 − Ey2) + 1 ( Bz2 − Bx2 − By2) 2 2μ The T00 represents the energy density of the e-m wave and the rest of the first row and first column of the matrix the value of the Poynting vector N = E × B μ Since e-m waves can simulate the mass-energy of material objects for the purpose of developing a gravitational field it is time to consider their potential as sources of gravitational waves. These so-called ‘ripples in space-time’ possess an extremely low energy and frequency with a correspondingly large wavelength, typically in kilometres, as would be expected from Einstein’s equation E = hν. Although an asymmetric rotating mass or one rotating with its axis of symmetry orthogonal to that of its rotation, generating a continuously changing gravitational field strength w.r.t. an observer in the plane of rotation, would seem suitable, they are not. A notorious example is that of the mass M = 490 Mg steel beam, length, l, = 20m, rotating at angular frequency, ω = 28 rads s-1. This would produce an output of: Gravitational wave power LGW = 2/45 (M2 l4 ω6) = 2.2 × 10-22 erg s-1, an immeasurably insignificant quantity compared with the motive power required. Therefore, an e-m equivalent seems a plausible starting point for examining alternative possibilities for laboratory sources. Gasperini and Venzo de Sabbatta worked out (1985) a design for a system that could, though only in theory, generate gravitational waves from e-m waves and static e-m fields, represented in Figure 4. The electric, E, and magnetic, H, fields indicated are static. emerging g.w. y E plane polarised e-m wave l Figure 4 16 The magnetic field strength H is directed into the paper. H is the standard substitute for B, where B = μH. The e-m wave components of the plane polarised e-m wave introduce a variation on equation 12: H . l0 x z g.w. emerging e-m wave y E

0

emerging g.w. energy density z = Wp H0 emerging e-m wave

Hz (wave) = aik(x – ct) and Ey (wave) = aik(x – ct) , where a = the maximum amplitude of the wave, k = ω/c, ω being the wave’s angular frequency. The field components for the combined static and wave fields were depicted by the Sabbattas as: F11 F12 F13 F14 F21 F22 F23 F24 F F32 F33 F34 F41 F42 F43 F44 Here, the µ, ν = 1, 2, 3, 4 = x, y, z, t.

31

Fµν =

They were evaluated, using the Lorentz Force Law, to give: 14(a) . 0 (Hz + aik(x – ct) ) Hy Ex

Fµν = (Hz = aik(x – ct) ) 0 Hx (−Ey − aik(x – ct) ) Hy −Hx 0 −Ez Ez (Ey + aik(x – ct) ) −Ez 0 The mass-energy of these components, with the introduction of dummy variables, contracted out by multiplication, is: Tµν = 1 Fµα Fνα − 1 δµν Fαβ Fαβ 4π 4 where δµν, the Kronecker delta/ substitution bisor, = 0 for µ ≠ ν and 1 otherwise.

17 kT41 = G l2 a2 [(Hy + Ez )2 + (Ey + Hz ) 2] 4πc4 To simplify evaluation of the output consider the case where only H fields are present. The energy density of the emerging gravitational wave (g.w.) cannot be measured directly but the e-m wave emerging from the second static field region can be, provided it is of sufficient intensity and would possess the same energy density, Wf. 15. Wf = G2 l2 l02 [(Hz Hz0 + Hy Hy0 ) 2 + (Hz0 Hy − Hy0Hz) 2]ergs s-1

c8 The incident e-m wave’s energy density, Wi = a2 ergs s-1, 4π G2 = 6.82 × 10-89 s4 kg-2m -2, so, for unit lengths and field strengths (A m-1) c8 So Wf = ~10-88 ergs s-1, indicating that only one graviton would be generated by ~10 photons per A m2.

88

Even allowing for currently available maximum values for l, l0 and H, it is obvious that the 66 orders of magnitude separating this and the already impractically small output from the rotating 490 Mg steel beam cannot be breached, on Earth. The de Sabbattas, therefore, confirmed the complete uselessness of this model for use as a laboratory source of gravitational waves (g.ws.) However, the extremely intense magnetic field of a neutron star, typically 108 Teslas, astronomically large distances for l and l0 and the likelihood of a g.w., from a binary pulsar, perhaps, interacting with the star, would improve the probability of obtaining a measurably large observation up to a practical level. This indirect method of observing a g.w. may yet prove to be the only method possible, in spite of all the uncertainties the astrophysical scale of the experiment would introduce. The energy density of the e-m wave associated with the g.w. would be: 16. We-m = ~10-70 ω2µ2 S,

where ω = the angular frequency of the observed g.w. µ = the neutron star’s magnetic dipole moment and S = the energy flux of the incident g.w. There is an alternative prospect for gravitational modification (g.m.) to those presented by Y. Podkletnov or P. Skeggs, D. Torr and N. Li with their spinning superconducting disks. V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin of the Russian Academy of Science designed a version of the Searl Effect Generator (SEG). John Searl’s original design featured three layered concentric rings acting as a stator and three 18 interconnected sets of layered rollers, rotating in circles about the rings, acting as a rotor. The layers, going from the outermost to the innermost, were of titanium, iron, nylon and finally neodymium. Searl claimed that the SEG, after activation by a ‘starting motor’, generated more electrical power than had been put into it, the surplus being extracted from the cosmic vacuum. Roschin and Godin’s SEG comprised only one layered ring as a stator and one set of layered rollers acting as a rotor but it was a substantial model. The mass of their assembly was 350 kg of which the rotor, judging from clues in the report, represented m =~ 175kg. Using the dimensions featured in a diagram that depicts an anomalous permanent magnetic field associated with the SEG the diameter of the rotor (2r) was ~ 2.5m. Given that the rotor’s mass distribution

approximated that of a hoop gyroscope, the frequency, f, of the rotation being 600 r.p.m. or 10 r.p.s. at the maximum output of the SEG when acting as a generator, the maximum angular momentum of the rotor, L max, would have been: 17. L max =~ m r2 ω, where the rotor’s angular frequency ω = 2π f rads s-1 ω = 2π 10 rads s-1 So L max =~ 175 × 1.252 × 20π = 17,440 kg m2 Roschin and Godin found an apparent weight loss in the complete SEG assembly, as measured by the induction displacement meter below the assembly platform of 35% of the total, representing 122.5 kg, in association with the above angular momentum. If accurately recorded, these results certainly make those from the spinning superconducting disk experiments look sad. Anything that modified gravity to such an extent would have the potential to generate the elusive gravitational waves. Roschin and Godin’s graph of rotation rate against overall recorded weight loss as a percentage of the total reveals the following. There is a straight line portion of the graph between weight loss, ΔG =~ 10%, for N = ~ 510 r.p.m., and ΔG =~ 29%, for N = 550 r.p.m. Extrapolation of that portion back from ΔG =~ 10% to ΔG = 0%, gives a starting value of N = ~ 500 r.p.m. The angular frequency for this rotation rate is ω = 2π 500/60 rads s-1. We may assume that the stator loses no weight in the process, which has insufficient parallels with Podkletnov’s static sample weight loss experiment, there being no superconductors in the SEG. Therefore, the rotor, which appears, from clues in the text, to have a mass approximately equal to that of the stator, must experience a weight loss of, at most, 2 × 29% = 58% for the linear portion of the graph, up to N = 550 r.p.m.. Comparing like with like, we may therefore determine the ratio of the change in the rotor’s centripetal/inertial force to the change in its apparent reduction in weight. The ‘starting motor’ was turned off at some arbitrary point between N = 200 r.p.m. and 500 r.p.m., according to the report, the linear graph being associated purely with the action of the SEG as a generator. The is why the starting value from the extrapolation of the graph is required, acting as a projection to account for the output that could be expected if the SEG had been operating as a generator for N = 500 r.p.m. The centripetal/ inertial force, of the rotor is: 19 Fc = mω2r N Its weight Fg = mg N The maximum change in the rotor’s weight, ΔGr = 58%, so its maximum reduction in weight is Fgr2 = 0.58 mg N, with the minimum being Fgr1 = 0. This makes the relative change in centripetal/ inertial force w.r.t. recorded weight, kr: kr = ΔFc/Δ Fgr = m(ω2 2 − ω 12)r/( Fgr2 − Fgr1)

= m(ω2 2 − ω12)r/ 0.58 mg = 4π2(f2 2 − f 12)r/ 0.58g, where ω2, ω1 are the angular frequencies corresponding to Fgr2, Fgr1 and f2 = 550/60 r.p.s., f1 = 500/60 r.p.s. the associated rotation frequencies. So kr = 4π2((550/60)2 − (500/60)2) × 1.25/ 0.58 × 9.81 kr = 126.48. It is now possible to evaluate the rotation rate, f3 r.p.s., equating to the condition under which ΔG = 50% so that ΔGr =~ 100%, and the weight reduction Fgr3 = mg : ΔFc = kr Δ Fgr m(ω3 2 − ω 12)r = kr (Fgr3 − Fgr1) 4π2 m((f3)2 − (f 1)2)r = kr (mg − 0), 4π2 (f32 − f 12)r = kr g f32 − f 12 = kr g/4π2r f32 = 126.48 g/4π21.25 + (500/60)2 f 3 = 9.7257 r.p.s. The corresponding value of N is therefore 9.7257 × 60 = 583.54 = 584 r.p.m. to 3 s.fs. How is the appearance of weight loss to be explained? Think of the rotor as a restrained hoop gyro, unable to precess due to its degrees of freedom being restricted to rotation in a single plane. Normally, the angle of precession reduces, the centre of mass rising visibly, with increase in rotation rate, but here the gyro is fixed in the ‘sleeping top’ position so the only detectable effect is a slight shift in the centre of mass, detected as a weight loss. Notably, the Equivalence Principle, which equates the rest condition with constant motion, i.e. a constant velocity, or, for accelerated frames 20 of reference, being at rest in a gravitational field with constant acceleration, does not apply to cases of non-linear acceleration, as when a point mass is subject to both centripetal and gravitational acceleration. It would clearly be worthwhile to find out what the rest condition for these cases is. Anomalous results, if authenticated by replication, always point to extensions to the Standard Model and a change in the Equivalence Principle would automatically represent such an extension. Apart from the weight loss, Roschin and Godin noticed a number of electromagnetic anomalies as the rotation rate of the SEG rotor went from 200 r.p.m. to 600 r.p.m. Blue-pink glowing luminescence with white yellow discharge strips

appeared around the SEG but ‘the characteristic sound for arc discharges was not audible’ and ‘erosive damage induced by arc discharges (was) not present on any surfaces of the stator or rollers’. A permanent magnetic field comprising a concentric vertical set of field vectors parallel with the rollers’ field vector. They noted that the ‘border of each layer has a sharp shape, the distance between layers (increasing from) 50 (to) 80 cm’ moving away from the centre of the SEG. This sounds rather like a low frequency standing wave. There was also a 6-8°C drop in temperature recorded within the ~30 m diameter of the magnetic field, suggesting that the SEG might also be a form of heat engine, converting atmospheric energy into motive power. Summing up, it would seem that a practical approach to the problem of finding a complete set of gravitational field analogues to the electromagnetic field characteristics, including the waves, must be predicated upon discovering which field is the more fundamental feature of space-time or the false vacuum or the aether, depending on your choice of plenum (cosmic medium). So far, only one nonnegotiable property of such a medium has been discovered. If a background medium is not involved in foreground activity, such as classical mechanics or particle play, then the physical system is termed background dependent. If it relies on the universal medium being involved with the foreground then the physical system is termed background independent. In order for General Relativity to represent a reliable theory, as astronomical evidence suggests it is, then any physical system adopted as part of the Standard Model must be background independent, because otherwise there would be no space-time curvature by the mass-energy contained within space-time. The principle difficulty in determining which field comes first in terms of causality. i.e. which field is responsible for the other one, is that both act at the same speed, that of light. The electric solar wind blows a comet-tail away from the Sun whilst the relatively static electromagnetic solar mass draws the comet towards it, along the space-time geodesic the mass has created. The electric and gravitational force equations are mutual analogues, since substituting the electric constant and charges of material objects for the gravitational constant and their masses in the equation that determines the gravitational force between them produces the electric force between them, as shown by equations 1(a) and 1(b), also 2(a) and 2(b). Likewise, the dipole e-m Larmor radiation from accelerated charges (as represented in equation 4(a)) converts to an expression giving the weak dipole component of the gravitational Larmor radiation from accelerated masses when that the same substitution is performed in reverse order. In Venzo and Gasperini de Sabbattas’ 21 design for a g.w. generating experiment, a light wave entering an unfeasibly large electric/magnetic field produces gravitational quadrupole radiation, represented by the energy equations 14(a) and 14(b). Similarly, a gravitational wave entering such a field would produce a light wave (equation 15). At present it seems reasonable to suppose that a charge-independent gravitational field is an unsustainable concept whereas a gravity independent electric field does not seem so. This is because of discoveries concerning the fundamental role of charge in the constitution of atoms, the source of gravity. Furthermore, the principle advantage of this approach is that it allows for an explanation of the fixed,

finite value of the speed of light. The persistence of Newtonian Relativity, with its insistence on a background dependent physical system, the fixed background being like an immovable metric comprising a permanent grid or lattice, and the concept of universal time, as if there was only one clock in the universe that could be relied upon (a God clock?) was largely due to the intuitive attraction of a system in which velocities are always additive. Einstein’s Special Relativity did away with this concept, no velocities can add to a quantity greater than the speed of light which is, as the word ‘speed’ implies, constant in all directions. What it does not do is explain the reason for this counterintuitive phenomenon. A universal electromagnetic field, polarisable by the concentrated energy in photons radiated by electrons falling from one energy level to another, would respond to the presence of ‘pure energy’ as light is sometimes referred to, by producing the vast series of electromagnetic waves crossing space at the rate of ~3 × 108 m s-1 as well as causing the wave motion to be helical, the default characteristic for unpolarised light, termed circular polarisation. Given that helical motion does not appear obey the Lagrangian Principle of Least Action, according to which the unconstrained movement of any entity is that which involves the least expenditure of energy, it is an open question whether the nature of the universal medium determines the most efficient method and speed of light transmission. There is also the issue of non-locality to consider. This existence of this phenomenon, whereby photons influence each other at a rate faster than light speed, was confirmed by Alain Aspect, in 1984, when he demonstrated duplication of motion in photons at distances which, relative to the wavepackets, were astronomically large. Only tachyonic, or faster-than-light particles, should be able to achieve this rate of transmission. A tachyonic aether would automatically solve this problem by ensuring that all action was local, i.e. time is illusory (already acknowledged, by Aristotle, no less) and space is illusory as well. This also explains why universal spatial ‘expansion’ can take place when there is no space to expand into. The explanation must be that it doesn’t, but there is no way of perceiving this in a tardyonic (slower than light speed) frame of reference. Furthermore, such a medium allows for the existence of fully relational, background independent universe, the hypothesis promoted by physics philosopher David Bohm. He supported the idea that a hidden variables theory could be used to find the deterministic reality beneath the random nature of the quantum mechanical theory that appears to govern the nature of spacetime. Find the hidden variables and you find the hidden equations governing reality. In 1932 the accomplished mathematician John Von Neumann published a proof that valid hidden variable theories could not exist. However, in the early 1970s Bohm proved that they could, by publishing a valid hidden variable theory. 22 The scenario outlined above would not be possible if the gravitational field proved to be more fundamental than the electromagnetic one. In spite of his belief in hidden variables Einstein thought gravity was the primal force. In his ‘Sidelights on Relativity’, published c.1920, he wrote: ‘If we consider the gravitational field and the electromagnetic field from the stand-point of the ether (sic) hypothesis, we find a remarkable difference between the two. There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials; for these confer upon space its metrical qualities, without which it cannot be imagined at all. The existence of the gravitational field is inseparably bound up with the existence

of space. On the other hand a part of space may very well be imagined without an electromagnetic field; thus in contrast with the gravitational field, the electromagnetic field seems to be secondarily linked to the ether, the formal nature of the electromagnetic field being as yet in no way determined by that of gravitational ether. From the present state of theory it looks as if the electromagnetic field, as opposed to the gravitational field, rests upon an entirely new formal motif, as though nature might just as well have endowed the gravitational ether with fields of quite another type, for example, with fields of a scalar potential, instead of fields of the electromagnetic type.’ Electromagnetism is a vector, expressed by the vector potential A. The preference for a gravity based universe over an e-m one may properly be attributed to the physics paradigm obtaining in the scientific community before the discovery of the quark. Einstein’s rejection of an electromagnetic aether may also be due to the fact that such an aether would automatically be luminiferous. He claimed that he was unaware of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he wrote his ‘Theory of Special Relativity’ in 1905. Nonetheless, he told Abraham Pais, at some later date, that he had indeed heard of the 1887 experiment in 1892 and took account of it in the development of his cosmic system. This experiment had two prominent weaknesses. It assumed a value for the aether’s density, a hotly contested subject in the 1880s, which just happened to be Albert Michelson’s own value and it required that a cosmic luminiferous aether be centred upon the Sun. Otherwise, consistent results could not be obtained, nor, probably, a non-zero result. At his death, in 1931, Michelson, like the good Catholic he was, confessed to his priest that, although he did not observe, in his interferometer’s graticule, the expected fringe displacement of ~0.4 of a fringe, which would suggest non-existence of an aether, he did observe a shift of ~0.001 of a fringe on a regular basis, after allowing for all identifiable forms of error. By then, the experiment had been ‘retrospectively reconstructed’ so that it seemed to be good evidence for the constancy of the speed of light. Who did Michelson hold responsible for his suppression of this vital data? Einstein and his relativity theories, in which the speed of light is required to be an absolute, in order to avoid all sorts of unsettling consequences. One of these would be that Maxwell’s pre-relativistic equations of 1856, with their relativistic consequences, would have to be redrafted in a more complex form, if ‘c’ varied. There seemed to be no point in enforcing such a requirement. Make of that what you will. The aether and Special Relativity are not, in any case, mutually incompatible. As Frank Close put it, in ‘The Void’:‘…..relativity does not imply that there is no ether (sic), only that any stuff in that ether must behave in accordance with the principles of relativity!’ 23 The aether also needs to behave in accordance with the requirements of Quantum Mechanics (Q.M.), i.e. it must be composed of quanta, fundamental particles. This condition was satisfied by introducing the concept of the aetheric quantum, the aetheron (© Harold Aspden). There is one certainty about the universal medium. It was assumed dead and buried c. 1925 but has stalked the scientific world ever since. It has been called the fabric of space-time, the Field, the Grid (in a nod to Newton?), the false vacuum and even the Aether. The habit of describing the latter as ethylene oxide or Ether appears hard to break.

The saddest suggestion to enter the debate about the foundations of reality was that the fabric of space-time was composed of cosmic superstrings. This was inspired by Roger Penrose’s creative geometry, specifically his quasi-crystals with five-fold symmetry. These display a capacity for duplicating rotation in a plane at a distance from the source within in a superficially regular, but in reality, a non-repeating pattern. This phenomenon, non-locality, which I referred to earlier, was found to occur in real developing quasicrystals, causing incoming atomic groups to take account of the overall pattern of the whole crystal. A more challenging example of such behaviour is the non-locality of Q.M., discovered by Alain Aspect, in 1984, when he found that the motion of photon pairs involved duplication at relatively large distances, a long time after the two had parted. Superstrings offered to solve these mysteries but exhibited fundamental flaws, not one of which has ever been overcome. The hypothesis makes no unique predictions which, by their appearance/ nonappearance, would serve to confirm or falsify it. The latter is the vital scientific test of all potential theories so string ‘theory’ (as it is credited with being) is unscientific. Prospects of a testable prediction for string theory rely on multiverse theory; they require extra unseen dimensions, up to seven, into which our 4D (3 + 1) universe randomly transforms. On the other hand, evidence for an 11D multiverse would not, of itself, make string theory valid. It would still be surplus to requirements, making it doubly unscientific. After three decades during which the theory has not produced any testable predictions some of the string theorists are trying to change the rules by which theories qualify as scientific, so that string theory will not have to pass the usual tests. This renders the string theorists themselves unscientific. None of which has dampened the enthusiasm of Yank undergraduates for studying the hypotheses as a means of advancement within the Yank physics community, or sociology. It has enough believers among the academic staff who are in a position to hold the gift of promotion, so why would the students not subscribe to it? Some day it might materialise as a real theory but nobody is in a position to judge Yank culture anyway, whether in terms of its scientific content or otherwise. An anecdote illustrating this presumption is referred to by Lee Smolin in his ‘The Trouble with Physics’. It concerns a visit paid by Subramanyan Chandrasekar to Princeton in the 1980s to attend a dinner given in recognition of his having recently received the Nobel Prize for Physics. It so happened that he was sat next to a young theorist who clearly did not recognise him and, on being informed of his field of study, advised him “to drop what he was doing and switch to string theory or risk becoming… obsolete”. “Young man,” Chandra replied, “I knew Werner Heisenberg. I can promise you that Heisenberg would never have been so rude as to tell someone to stop what they were doing and work on quantum theory. And he certainly would 24 never have been so disrespectful as to tell someone who got his PhD fifty years ago that he was about to become obsolete.” It is hard to imagine such an exchange taking place at a British university. Yank graduates accept the recommendations of their favoured peers, regardless. Consequently, their generalised use of retrospective justification led string theorists to believe they would prevail in the struggle for the privilege of writing physics history. Smolin observes that they ‘seem to have no problem believing that string theory must be right while acknowledging that they have no idea what it really is. In other words, string theory will subsume whatever comes after it.’ He adds that ‘Even Nathan Seiberg, who is a celebrated theorist at the

Institute for Advanced Study, was quoted in a recent interview as saying, “If there is something [beyond string theory], we will call it string theory.” Fortunately string theorists are losing their leaders. Ed Witten, who introduced non-commutative geometry into the field, has not contributed to it at all in recent years and the godfather of string theory, Roger Penrose, was quite scathing about it in a recent interview for New Scientist magazine: ‘“My main objection is all those extra dimensions, which don’t make any sense,” he says. Witten aside, says Penrose, string theorists are not facing up to their problems. “I don’t see string theory converging on anything. In fact, it’s diverging: it has got wilder and wilder.” Nevertheless, the sheer numbers of adherents attracted to what, for want of evidence, has turned into a belief system and nothing more, indicates the truth of the observation that ‘Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first drive mad.’ String theory remains, in effect, an unsustainable hypothesis, the pursuit of its Theory of Everything an act of faith and its axioms mere doctrines. When a theory’s scribes have to keep re-writing the prophecies in the hope of discovering the experimentum crucis, the miracle demonstration of concept that will rescue the theory, their belief system has become a religion. Now that its founders are ready to perform the funeral rites over its remains string theory may remain dead and buried. Unfortunately, it is equally likely that it will self-resurrect as a persistent illusion and plague science in a classic example of zombie physics. The alternative? Any candidate for cosmic medium must resolve the dichotomy between background dependent Quantum Mechanics and background independent Special Relativity? In the beginning of this dichotomy was the agent of all perception, light. And Einstein saw that the light was a good way of resolving the conflict between Maxwell’s e-m theory and Galilean Relativity, using the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations. But then he introduced the impossible concept of a baryonic (slowerthan-light) observer riding a light wave in order to argue for adjustments in the way we perceive motion, length and time at velocities below light speed. LorentzFitzgerald contraction and dilation would be better applied to the aether, as their originators suggested they could be, than to objects in different frames of reference. Originally regarded as a fix, this idea makes sense because General Relativity asserts that there is a universal medium which cannot be ignored. Consider two light beams approaching one another. A leptonic measuring daemon rides each one and, according to Galilean/ Newtonian Relativity, should record a relative velocity of approach of 2c. 25 However, it is commonly accepted that the daemons would record a light speed of c, the non-tachyonic upper speed limit for anything and everything. Why? Energetic water waves cannot outpace their bow-wave, the interface between moving waves and (relatively) static water. As the water is compressed with increases in wave speed it reaches a limit beyond which it is incompressible, depending on its purity and temperature. Similarly, the aether, which has a universal temperature and, presumably, universal consistency, must reach a limit, with the increasing speed of

any mass-energy penetrating it, beyond which it is incompressible. This feature must also govern the effect of gravity in extreme conditions, such as the compression of everything, including the aether, to a singularity, within a black hole. Like a river, the aether is full of activity, though at the subnuclear rather than the molecular level, so any grid or lattice structure imposed on a given arrangement of aetherons would be impermanent. It is both random and relativistic. The circular polarisation impressed on the aether’s field elements by light energy (immaterial/pure energy) is equivalent to a spinning plane wave in its effects. Spinning material objects, such as the SEG rotor, motorised gyros, spinning ring magnets supported by their fields and tops, whipped till they jump, all demonstrate gravitational modification. They can only do so by approximating their motion to that of e-m energy in a light wave, probably.

References: McGraw-Hill: ‘Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology’ Misner, Thorne & Wheeler: ‘Gravitation’ A. Pais: ‘Subtle is the Lord’ W.J. Duffin: ‘Electricity and Magnetism’ Alex Harvey: ‘The Principle of Equivalence’ Annals of Physics,

vol.29 (1964) pp.383-90. Zakharov: ‘Gravitational Waves in Einstein’s Theory’ Thomas & Raine: ’Physics to a Degree’ W.Rohlff: ‘Modern Physics from α to Ω’ S.Weinberg: ‘Gravitation and Cosmology’ Bleaney & Bleaney: ‘Electricity and Magnetism’ J.Yarwood: ‘Atomic Physics, Vol. II’ Physics World, Vol.23, no. 3, March 2010, p.5. Dr. James H. Sharp: ‘Laser Gyroscopes’ Ronald Mallett: ‘The Time Traveller’ Ronald Mallett: ‘Weak Gravitational Field of the Electromagnetic Radiation from a Ring Laser’ In Physics Letters A, vol.269, 8 May 2000, p. 214-17. Giovanni Modanese: ‘Updating the Theoretical Analysis of the Weak Gravitational Shielding Experiment’. In the ‘arXiv’ facility at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/suprcom/9601001. A Los Angeles Library of Science Article, publ. 9 Feb 1996. Jim Wilson: ‘Taming Gravity’. In Popular Mechanics, no.10, 1999. Jim Read: ‘Skeggs & Ning Li on Gravitational Modification – Superconductors, varying magnetic fields’. In the website ‘Allan’s Time’ at: http://www.allanstime.com/UFT_discussion/00000019.htm N.Li and D.G. Torr: ‘Effects of a gravitomagnetic field on pure superconductors’. In Physical Review D, vol.43, no.2, 15 Jan, 1991, pp 457-59. C. Clarke: ‘Elementary General Relativity’ R. d’Inverno: ‘Introducing Einstein’s Relativity’ Gasperini and Venzo de Sabbatta: ‘Introduction to Gravitation’ 1985 V.V. Roschin and S.M. Godin: ‘Experimental Research of the Magnetic-Gravity Effects. Full Size SEG tests.’ Website article by members of the Russian Academy of Science at http://www.searleffect.com/free/russianseg/russianseg.htm A. Einstein: ‘Sidelights on Relativity’. From ‘A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion’, collected articles by Einstein, ed. Hawking. Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: ‘The Golem’ Rev. F. Polkinghorne: ‘The Quantum World’ Lee Smolin: ‘The Trouble with Physics’ 2006. Roger Penrose, in interview with Michael Brooks for the New Scientist, March 2010, p.28-9 Frank Close: ‘The Void’ J-P Luminet: ‘Black Holes’ Harold Aspden: ‘Physics without Einstein’

- THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT α AND G
- THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT α AND G
- The Coupling Strength (Gr-e-m) Compared With the Field to Mass-Energy Ratio
- A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields
- A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields
- A Comparative Study of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

- Relativity's New Revolution
- Gravity Magnetism
- The Meaning of Force
- Gravitaional Field and Potential
- Lecture 2
- Notes 01
- Chapter 02-1 Newton's Law
- Mauricecotterell Com
- Chapter 2 Force and Motion (Answer)
- 12jun
- navodya
- Woodward Effect Article
- Exact Value of Hubble Constant
- CAP - 2003e
- Physics_Definitions_updated_4_Jul.pdf
- Experiment 5
- NewtonWorksheet(1)
- Graphs and Equations
- Maximum Operating Temperature for Thermoplastic
- notes1 physics importantsajbfkjaschkjas
- 11 Physics Unsolved 03 New
- Preview Week
- Physics Notes.pdf
- Torsion Field Physics and Communications
- Clp
- Answer
- Friction
- Laplace
- Relativity and Emptiness by Laurent Nottale - Oxford-4!3!10
- Physics Class 9th Notes (Iqbalkalmati.blogspot.com)

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd