Mechanisms for the lack of gravitational deceleration at large redshifts (i.e., between gravitational charges – masses – which are relativistically receding from one another)

Gravity gets weaker than the inverse square over massive distances in this universe.  This is because gravity is mediated by gravitons which get redshifted and thus the quanta lose energy when exchanged between masses which are receding at relativistic velocities, i.e. well apart in this expanding universe, which would reduce the effective value of G over immense distances.  Additionally, from empirical facts (see the calculations in this blog post),  the mechanism of gravity depends on surrounding recession of masses around any point. This means that if general relativity is just a classical approximation to quantum gravity (due to the graviton redshift effect just explained, which implies that spacetime is not curved over cosmological distances), we have to treat spacetime as finite and not bounded, so that what you see is what you get and the universe may be approximately analogous to a simple expanding fireball.

Masses near the real ‘outer edge’ (the radial distance in spacetime which corresponds to the time of big bang, i.e. 13,700 million light-years distance) of such a fireball (remember that since gravity doesn’t act over cosmological distances due to graviton redshift when exchanged between receding masses, there is no spacetime curvature causing gravitation over such distances) get an asymmetry in the exchange of gravitons: exchanging them on one side only (the side facing the core of the fireball, where other masses are located).

Hence such masses tend to just get pushed outward, instead of suffering the usual gravitational attraction, which is of course caused by shielding of all-round graviton pressure.  In such an expanding fireball where gravitation is a reaction to surrounding expansion due to exchange of gravitons, you will get both expansion and gravitation as results of the same fundamental process: exchange of gravitons. The pressure of gravitons will cause attraction (due to mutual shadowing) between masses which are relatively nearby, but over cosmological distances the whole collection of masses will be expanding (masses receding from one another) due to the momentum imparted in the process of exchanging gravitons. This prediction was put forward via the October 1996 Electronics World, two years before evidence from Perlmutter’s supernovae observations which confirmed that the universe is not decelerating contrary to the standard predictions of cosmology at that time (i.e., that the expansion of the universe looks as if there is a small positive cosmological constant – of predictable magnitude – offsetting gravitational deceleration over cosmological distances).  This accurate fact-based physical theory, is censored out, despite its success scientifically, by a failed 11/11 dimensional theory called string, which is getting ever more and more powerful.  According to Dr Woit’s latest blog post on Not Even Wrong:

“The string theory hype machine remains in overdrive, putting out nonsense press releases at an unparalleled rate. This week’s string theory hype is from Japan, where KEK has put out a press release claiming Interior Structure of a Black Hole Computed Using Superstrings, which tell us that:

It is expected that superstring theory will develop further and play an important role in solving interesting problems such as the evaporation of black holes, the state of the early universe and the creation of everything.

“The actual calculation behind the hype is a numerical simulation of a supersymmetric quantum mechanics system, which is described here.”

Those old stringers think that when they calculate the entropy of a particular unobserved black hole, they’re doing physics. (Similarly, Ptolemy thought he was doing physics when he calculated epicycle orbits of planets and stars going around the Earth.)

The first thing people should know about black holes is that:

  • Schwinger’s threshold electric field for pair production is 1.3*10^18 volts/metre. So at least that electric field strength must exist at the event horizon, before black holes emit any Hawking radiation! (This is the electric field strength at 33 fm from an electron.) Hence, in order to radiate by Hawking’s suggested mechanism, black holes must carry enough electric charge so make the eelectric field at the event horizon radius, R = 2GM/c^2, exceed 1.3*10^18 v/m.
  • Schwinger’s critical threshold for pair production is E_c = (m^2)*(c^3)/(e*h-bar) = 1.3*10^18 volts/metre. Source: equation 359 in or equation 8.20 in
  • Now the electric field strength from an electron is given by Coulomb’s law with F = E*q = qQ/(4*Pi*Permittivity*R^2), so
  • E = Q/(4*Pi*Permittivity*R^2) v/m.
  • Setting this equal to Schwinger’s threshold for pair-production, (m^2)*(c^3)/(e*h-bar) = Q/(4*Pi*Permittivity*R^2). Hence, the maximum radius out to which fermion-antifermion pair production and annihilation can occur is
  • R = [(Qe*h-bar)/{4*Pi*Permittivity*(m^2)*(c^3)}]^{1/2}.
  • Where Q is black hole’s electric charge, and e is electronic charge, and m is electron’s mass. Set this R equal to the event horizon radius 2GM/c^2, and you find the condition that must be satisfied for Hawking radiation to be emitted from any black hole:
  • Q > 16*Pi*Permittivity*[(mMG)^2]/(c*e*h-bar)
  • where M is black hole mass. So the amount of electric charge a black hole must possess before it can radiate (according to Hawking’s mechanism) is proportional to the square of the mass of the black hole. This is quite a serious problem for big black holes and frankly I don’t see how they can ever radiate anything at all.
  • On the other hand, it’s interesting to look at fundamental particles in terms of black holes (Yang-Mills force-mediating exchange radiation may be Hawking radiation in an equilibrium).
  • When you calculate the force of gauge bosons emerging from an electron as a black hole (the radiating power is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law, dependent on the black hole radiating temperature which is given by Hawking’s formula), you find it correlates to the electromagnetic force, allowing quantitative predictions to be made. See for example.
  • You also find that because the electron is charged negative, it doesn’t quite follow Hawking’s heuristic mechanism. Hawking, considering uncharged black holes, says that either of the fermion-antifermion pair is equally likey to fall into the black hole. However, if the black hole is charged (as it must be in the case of an electron), the black hole charge influences which particular charge in the pair of virtual particles is likely to fall into the black hole, and which is likely to escape. Consequently, you find that virtual positrons fall into the electron black hole, so an electron (as a black hole) behaves as a source of negatively charged exchange radiation. Any positive charged black hole similarly behaves as a source of positive charged exchange radiation.
  • These charged gauge boson radiations of electromagnetism are predicted by an SU(2) electromagnetic mechanism, see Figures 2, 3 and 4 of
  • For quantum gravity mechanism and the force strengths, particle masses, and other predictions resulting, please see

In the blog post below dated 21 April 2007, I set out some chapter titles for a book. Some of the tricky problems have since been explored and solved in subsequent blog posts here, so I think the time is right to compile and edit the book from the basic material drafted in posts here. Obviously a lot of compression, omission of less relevant material, and improvement to the draft material on this blog is needed. Looking back at the list of 10 chapters suggested in the earlier post, my feeling is still that this structural organization will produce a readable book from the material I have. It is necessary in a complex area to ensure that complex problems are tackled by several different approaches and from several different directions (this is not overlap or repetition, but consolidation). For example, the content of chapter 2 is going to be a discussion with diagrams, to give an overview of what string theory is about. We don’t need to discuss the technical mathematics of Ptolemy’s epicycles when I discuss what is wrong with it, and so neither do we need to that when dismissing mainstream string ‘theory’ for failing to address any real physical facts in a useful manner. I intend to write the book on paper and then type it in, instead of typing direct on a computer. (The extra time spent this way will improve the quality level way over that in this blog.)

One important thing I mentioned in the last post, which (apart from the nature of the electron as trapped negative electromagnetic field energy; see Electronics World, April 2003), is fairly comprehensive, is the first major comfirmed prediction. This is the lack of gravitational retardation on the big bang at large redshifts, i.e., great distances. There are several mechanisms behind this fact. See calculations here and here which need to be consolidated with the more recent blog post results and with more detailed calculations and turned into a concise book chapter.

Update: there’s a discussion in the comments about abusive censorship from fascist charlatans like Edward Witten who misleadingly and ignorantly claimed:

String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ – Dr Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 1996.

It turns out that Witten is going to Stockholm in April to receive a share in an alternative to the Nobel Prize, because of his amazing self-hype and the fact that his papers are not being censored off without being read.  Hitler as of 1933 is a similar example: he didn’t personally gas millions of people, he was democratically elected for making misleading statements that were popular despite being (like string) not based solidly upon factual evidence like the fundamental force mechanisms. I’ve written in two previous posts (here and here) about the harm that string ‘theory’ is doing to physics.  Fascism all about hyping lies using the argument that so many people can’t be wrong, Hitler/Witten is a genius because so many people worship him, etc., etc.  There is no decency from these people.  Their inhumanity is pretty clear to see.  They have power, so they use it ruthlessly to achieve what they want, prizes.  Their crackpotism isn’t the harmless variety, it’s the Hollywood star type: they’re charlatans who prosper by being abusive to others and by holding up scientific progress with stupid ideas which are complete failures.  The media worship these people:

Sent: 02/01/03 17:47
Subject: Your_manuscript LZ8276 Cook
{MECHANISM OF GRAVITY WITH QUANTITATIVE PREDICTIONS OF GRAVITY STRENGTH AND COSMOLOGY FEATURES, made in 1996 and confirmed by Perlmutter’s CCD observations on supernovae in 1998}
Physical Review Letters does not, in general, publish papers on alternatives to currently accepted theories [i.e., mainstream charlatan string theories] Yours sincerely, Stanley G. Brown, Editor, Physical Review Letters

That’s just one trifling example I can give for the effects of lies/spin/delusion hype due to Witten in destroying the prestige of physics (for other people whose work is censored within seconds and before being read, see ), and it is not new that the dictatorial suppressor and censor is the one who actually gets praised just for being a ‘hardworking’ leader – a fact that even occurred when Winston Churchill wrote of Hitler in his 1935 book Great Contemporaries:

‘The story of [Hitler’s] struggle cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities or resistances which barred his path…. Thus the world lives on hopes that the worst is over…’

– Winston Churchill, ‘Hitler and His Choice’, a chapter of Churchill’s book Great Contemporaries, 1935, quoted online here.

‘Of course the date is key, 1935. The Manchester Guardian newspaper reported the first concentration camps in Germany for Jews and many others deemed unworthy, if I recall correctly, a year later, in 1936. So Churchill was writing at a time just before the worst of the Nazi abuses, although of course they had begun with brownshirts raiding Jewish premises as early as 1933.’

‘The problem is clearly there in Churchill’s 1935 essay on Hitler: until a dictatorial political leader commits genocide, you can’t tell what he/her might do for certain, but you can pick up clues about her/his intentions regarding other cultures, and neighbours.’

‘Hitler’s fascism is based on the false concept that diversity leads to weakness, and purity leads to strength. Of course purity leads to a cloning, orthodox mentality at some stage, which suppresses dissent.’

‘Fascism is not a doctrinal creed; it is a way of behaving towards your fellow man. What, then, are the tell-tale hallmarks of this horrible attitude? Paranoid control-freakery; an obsessional hatred of any criticism or contradiction; the lust to character-assassinate anyone even suspected of it; a compulsion to control or at least manipulate the media … the majority of the rank and file prefer to face the wall while the jack-booted gentlemen ride by.’ – Frederick Forsyth, Daily Express, 7 Oct. 05, p. 11.

Witten’s abuse of the media is shown in his letter to Nature:

‘The critics feel passionately that they are right, and that their viewpoints have been unfairly neglected by the establishment. … They bring into the public arena technical claims that few can properly evaluate. … Responding to this kind of criticism can be very difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts. A direct response may just add fuel to controversies.’ – Dr Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Nature, Vol 444, 16 November 2006.

By refusing to respond to critics of the mainstream, very little criticism can get published, because the media is interested in the mainstream string theorists more than in the (non-mainstream) critics: the mechanism behind getting discussion in the media is that string theorists must be willing to stand up and defend their thesis in public (only then will a journalist have a ‘controversial story’ to print).  If they are unwilling to defend themselves without being elitist, that adds to their sense of failure.  They’re prepared to hype and spin-promote nonsense to non-physicists, but they’re unable or unwilling to do so to fellow physicists who are unable to publish because of their Nazism.  The fear Witten has of adding ‘fuel to controversies’ is precisely the fear that by responding to criticism, the mainstream will give a fair airing to the failures of string theory.  Witten’s claim that ‘it is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts’ is an admission of the failure of string theorists to respond scientifically and factually to charges of the failure of string theory.

It’s hard to respond scientifically without resorting to elitism, precisely because string ‘theory’ isn’t scientific.  Hence, the only way string ‘theorists’ can respond to criticism is by elitism.  I.e., by fascist sneering at other people.  Witten doesn’t want that to occur.  Hitler similarly in 1932 ducked out of a meeting Churchill wanted at the last moment, when Churchill asked an intermediary, ‘Why is your chief so violent about the Jews … How can any man help how he is born?’  The mechanism behind the fascism of Edward Witten’s fans towards those with factual physics is equally transparent.  They are just abusive fascists with no regard for physical fact.  So can we any longer believe the claim that mainstream string theory is driven by ignorance or fantasy?  It may be a better model to propose that it’s more likely driven by a fanatical misanthropy, a fascist religion of bigotry; similar to Nazism as of 1933 or maybe similar to the 9/11 terrorists while in preparation before their main attacks.  Of course, because there are a lot of fascists around, anyone criticising them is made (by the media) to look like the misanthropic person.  If you cut the bigoted mysticism, gloss and spin out of religion, Christianity is a pretty simple story in which Jesus gets crucified by the fanatism of the charlatan leaders of his own (Jewish) religion who refuse to listen to what he says, and just assume he’s a dangerous quack without first bothering to listen to the message.  When Jesus gets a bit angry and overturns some tables in the Temple, that confirms he is a danger to status quo, instead of making anyone listen.

If you compare the reception of Jesus (12 disciples, including 1 doubting Thomas and 1 betraying Judas) to Hitler, you see a deep rooted problem in human nature:

Q: Was Hitler democratically elected as Chancellor of Germany in 1933?

A: Yes. Of course he was.

However, because the office of Chancellor was not filled by popular election, it might be more accurate to say that Hitler was constitutionally chosen to be the Chancellor of Germany, a democratic nation. The point is, there was nothing about Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor (30 Jan. 1933) which violated the Constitution of Germany. President Hindenburg legally selected the leader of the largest party in Parliament to head up a coalition government. It has happened hundreds of times throughout history without being considered undemocratic.

Only in light of later events does it become obvious that this was the beginning of the end of democratic rule in Germany. If Hitler had suddenly died in office before the Reichtag Fire (27 Feb. 1933) gave him the excuse to crush the opposition, history would record the uninterrupted flow of democracy in Germany in 1933. Granted, the window of opportunity for Hitler to leave a legacy as a proper democrat was only open for a single month, but that could have been enough.

The myth that Hitler slipped into power by way of an illegal backroom deal which bypassed the constitution is more comforting than considering that maybe laws and democratic constitutions are not foolproof safeguards against the emergence of tyrants. If a constitutionally valid plurality want tyranny, they’ll get it.

Democracy = power of the majority = mob rule.  Worse, real democracy was a daily referendum in the Ancient Greek city states at which all citizens could vote on policies, whereas what is today called ‘democracy’ in the West is a complete travesty of democracy, a choice every four years between two spin and hype ‘political parties’, offering trivial democracy.  It’s quite possible for the few parties to all have similar policies on important issues, so there is no democracy at all on offer.  Even if the best form of democracy on offer was available, i.e., the Ancient Greek model (perhaps through daily online internet voting for policies by citizens), it is still subject to mob culture (e.g., Socrates was murdered as a result of a democratic vote in Athens, for the crime of exercising freedom of speech).

What people don’t grasp is that it is vital to have a clear sense of perspective on the benefits and the failures of current scientific and political systems.  What happens instead is that anybody delivering the facts is subject to abusive attacks and false claims: ‘Shoot the messenger.’  You can support democracy without having to worship it religiously.  Likewise, you can work on string theory without having to claim falsely that it makes amazing predictions about quantum gravity.  You don’t have to be fanatically fascist towards other people just because they are trying to deal with facts that you prefer to pretend don’t exist!


9 thoughts on “Mechanisms for the lack of gravitational deceleration at large redshifts (i.e., between gravitational charges – masses – which are relativistically receding from one another)

  1. copy of a comment:

    I think the non-mechanism based Copenhagen Interpretation and the M-theory multiverse consisting of a landscape of 10^500 metastable vacua are retreats of mysticism within modern physics. Both are “not even wrong”.

    The hatred directed towards mechanisms that are successful by most modern physicists – including relatives of mine who graduated in physics and believe religiously that physics is purely abstract mathematics and had no underlying physical dynamics, no underlying mechanisms, no underlying reality, etc. – is due to religious bigotry.

    Those people abuse modern mainstream physics by believing in it as an alternative to a religion. They change the definition of science so their understanding of science becomes religious orthodoxy, the authority of so many people, the groupthink which says that having a large number of supporters to help censor critics is the same thing as being scientifically right.

    “… He also discusses how organisms feed on negative entropy (order) in their environment. …”

    I read that Schroedinger book ages ago and it was really awful. Anyone who quantifies order as “entropy” by numbers, is a bit crazy (it seems to me), because quantifying order is not so important: order is a qualitative attribute, not really a numerical one. I.e., what counts is whether the thing that is ordered is important or not.

    As far as I’m concerned, it simply doesn’t matter how ordered a pile of dirty laundry is. It’s far more important that a computer database search engine is well ordered so you can find what you’re looking for, than that you can easily locate a particular item of dirty laundry.

    I don’t like the idea of using one standard definition of entropy and using it to produce numerical calculations of the amount of disorder in different systems. There are not only issues about the relative value of different types of disorder, but there are also too many ways to define what disorder is even if all types of disorder were equivalent in value. E.g., I can order atoms according to the number of protons or according to the atomic weight (which will be a different order, because of isotopes with different numbers of neutrons per proton in the nucleus). So you get ambiguity. Entropy is just not a natural way to count things: things can be ordered according to too many different criteria to make it a useful concept generally. In thermodynamics it has some uses but I’d make the case that it causes more confusion and side tracks physicists into calculating useless stuff about black hole entropy which they can’t check experimentally. (They then claim they’re doing physics, when it’s just religion.)

  2. copy of a comment:

    “It is not the mountains that we conquer but ourselves”

    This commment refers to self-discipline, I guess? Most human failures are down to a lack of self-discipline. The roots of a lack of self-discipline are probably repetitive failure and a lack of belief in the possibility of achieving something. If you keep trying and failing at something, you can either end up more determined than ever (especially if you believe that you came very close to success, and the failures were due to factors that probably won’t be a problem next time), or you can end by giving up.

    In the case of gambling, where no real work or effort is required, the more they lose, the more determined people become to win. So they gamble everything.

    In the case of mountain climbing, from my very limited experience, failure (especially repetitive failure) makes me want to give up. The whole thing is pretty futile. What’s the point? I don’t exactly know what motivated Sir Edmund Hillary, presumably it was to get to the top before anybody else. There is quite a difference between doing that and being a laggard who tries to copy something already done by many people. If you try something that nobody has ever succeeded at doing, it’s not a terrible failure if you don’t succeed. It’s a lot worse for your self-confidence when you try doing something that many people have succeeded at before, and you fail. Therefore, if you lack self-confidence, it makes sense to try things which are extremely difficult so you have ready-made excuses if you fail, rather than risk being depressed by failing at something others have already done (which there is no point in attempting anyhow).

  3. copy of comment (in case accidentally deleted):

    Troublemaker Says:

    January 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pm

    One way to gain some funds is to win a prize. I’m glad Edward Witten is going to Stockholm in April to receive a share of the $500,000 Crafoord Prize for string theory:;jsessionid=59E4E00784D91259F240D56CE76592AA

    ‘String theory implies that “elementary particles” such as electrons and photons are just manifestations of a more fundamental layer of nature described by 1D strings 10^{–35} m in length.’

    It’s a pity nobody can fabricate some evidence to support this conjecture (then they could get Nobel prizes as well). Saying that ‘string theory implies that particles are such and such’ won’t satisfy everyone. Flat earth crackpot theory implied such and such. So what. Unless there’s some evidence for the theory being real, who cares what it ‘implies’. (But of course, many science journalists are just out to hype up the facts until they are misrepresenting everything and people will gasp in amazement.)

  4. Troublemaker,

    Please no more abuse of charlatans going to Stockholm to gain prizes after claiming falsely:

    ‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ – Dr Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 1996.

    Remember, the prize such people get are a lot of dollars, so they could easily afford to spend the money on assassins to wipe out real physicists who prove annoying, but because arXiv is already censoring them out efficiently he might not bother. Anyhow, I don’t want my blog used to host comments which are in any way hostile to those big mouthed shi*s who support arXiv and thus censorship and who make fact abusing claims that string theory ‘predicts’ gravity. Think of Hitler, who never personally shot a Jew or signed a document ordering such a thing: it’s impossible to prove guilt in law so you can only imply guilt by the harm done to civilization by the false orthodoxy of science which Hitler’s crackpot racism was based on. It’s the same with string theory. You can’t prove that the inventor of string theory deliberately is trying to wipe out modern physics, and the propaganda machine will certainly tell you the very opposite. In reality, however, string theory by helping to deflect attention from reality is a destructive force against physics and is harmful to progress. Any hold up of scientific progress has harmful knock-on effects, see in particular:

  5. I don’t think you should be drawing an analogy between string theory and Hitler’s false racist eugenics. Both were scientifically unfounded on fact, both were very popular with bigoted morons who were relatively “mainstream” scientists, and both eventually caused problems for society.

    Someone without a brain might get confused and think you are saying that string theorists are dictatorial elitist morons with no scientific ethics.

    By the way, Hitler was also a great soldier who won the Iron Cross in 1914:

    “One of the most famous holders of the 1914 Iron Cross 1st Class was Adolf Hitler, which was unusual as very few holders of the 1914 Iron Cross 1st Class were enlisted soldiers; Hitler held the rank of Gefreiter, or Corporal.”

    Please, Nigel, don’t compare someone of Hitler’s propaganda skills (excepting the gas chambers) to a lowly string theorist.

    Hitler’s relatives may be upset.

  6. Troublemaker,

    The lumping together of dictators with propaganda skills, such as Witten and Hitler, doesn’t suggest or imply that that the morality of each is similar. If they are abusing the world by hyping false claims, the thing to do is not to wait until a large number of people suffer, but to act while the new dictator is still nearer the 1933 democratically elected Hitler, than the 1940s gas chamber Hitler: you want to limit damage.

    Everyone who called attention to Hitler in 1933 was deemed an evil war monger who hated democracy and didn’t want peace (Hitler was elected democratically, as if that means anything in a shoot-first-ask-questions-later lynch-mob society).

    This situation is not just limited to Hitler’s crackpot eugenics. Anything which gets a lot of citations and draws a lot of praise and interest is treated the same way. People aren’t interested in dull facts about nature, they want lying hype. That’s the problem with string theory: everybody likes it because it’s overhyped. Facts which aren’t able to compete with big bucks propaganda and spin are ignored. That’s the danger. People liked Hitler and Chamberlain had tea with him at Munich in September 1938, and everyone left with signed bits of paper (more lying hype).

    I’m not trivilising the experience of the Jews or disabled or many other groups who were gassed, when I draw analogies to Hitler’s policies. You’re right that he didn’t personally kill millions or even sign a lot of documents for gas chambers: but it is all the more sinister that the terrible effects were not direct, that the evil was done by many people who had been brain-washed by propaganda.

    The brane-washing of string ‘theory’ propaganda, such as

    ‘String theory has the remarkable property of predicting gravity.’ (Dr Edward Witten, M-theory originator, Physics Today, April 1996)

    is a very fascist statement when you look at the plight of alternative ideas which are founded on solid facts not 10/11 dimensional tripe ( ), make confirmed predictions, are really are predictions of gravity:

    SU(2)xSU(3) particle physics based on solid facts, giving quantum gravity predictions

    Galaxy recession velocity: v = dR/dt = HR => Acceleration: a = dv/dt = d[HR]/dt = H*dR/dt = Hv = H*HR = RH^2. 0 < a < 6*10^-10 ms^-2. Outward force: F = ma. Newton’s 3rd law predicts equal inward force (via gravitons), but since non-receding nearby masses don’t cause this, there’s an asymmetry, predicting gravity and particle physics. In 1996 it predicted the lack of deceleration at large redshifts.

    Professor Witten doesn’t lose any sleep over the consequences of his false claims about quantum gravity in leading to millions of zombies censoring myself and many other people. I do lose a lot of sleep over this worry, caused by him and his millions of string theory fans (calling them brownshirts would probably please them) who at the least obstruct the path for alternative ideas to obtain any discussion. The millions of Witten zombies are the problem, he certainly isn’t directly asking them to censor out alternatives, he can afford to be more subtle and his millions of zombie fans will get the message and ‘peer-review’ negatively any alternative papers from real scientists which discredit Witten’s gravity prediction claim.

  7. Copy of a comment to:


    Electromagnetism and gravity do have a certain amount in common; the inverse square law. What’s also interesting is that the electromagnetic force between a proton and electron is 10^40 times stronger than gravitation. Also, magnetism is dipolar; nobody has discovered even a single magnetic monopole in nature. You get attraction of unlike poles and repulsion of like poles. Gravitation is a monopole force field; yet it is always attractive no matter what the electric charge of the mass/energy.

    I wrote an article in Electronics World April 2003 which leads to the conclusion that the distinction between gravity and electromagnetism is a result of a simple physical difference: the charge of the gauge bosons being exchanged. This predicts the 10^40 coupling constant difference between electromagnetism and gravity, and it explains why gravitation is always attractive (over non-cosmological distances; get too far and the net effect is repulsion because the theory predicts the small positive cosmological constant which is accelerating the universe), and why unlike electromagnetic charges attract while like electromagnetic charges repel.

    Gravity is due to electrically uncharged gauge bosons are exchanged between all mass/energy in the universe. Net gravitational forces arise due to asymmetry, the Lesage shadowing effect, due to the way the exchange process works.

    In order for two masses to exchange gravitons, they must be receding from one another at a relativistic velocity in accordance with the Hubble law, v = HR. This gives them an outward acceleration from one another of a = dv/dt = d(HR)/dt = Hv = RH^2. As a result of this acceleration, they have a force outward from one another of F = ma = mRH^2. Simple!

    Newton’s 3rd law (action and reaction are equal and opposite) then tells us that the outward forces of each of the receding masses must result in an equal inward reaction force. This force – by elimination of all other possibilities – is carried by gravitons.

    Hence, gravitation causes distant receding masses to forcefully fire off gravitons at each other, so the relativistically receding masses end up exchanging gravitons and being repelled apart. Impulses and recoil forces when gravitons are exchanged between relativistically receding masses causes those masses to go on accelerating as they recede from one another. This gives the cosmological acceleration normally attributed to dark energy (the Lambda term).

    Now examine what happens when two masses (say me and the planet Earth) are not relativistically receding relative to one another! There is no forceful exchange of gravitons between me and the Earth! This is because the acceleration of me away from the Earth is zero, so the force of me away from the Earth is zero, and the reaction force of gravitons from me towards the Earth is zero.

    In other words, I’m not exchanging gravitons with the Earth in a forceful way, simply because I’m not receding from the Earth. So the Earth and I are unable to exchange gravitons efficiently! This is a shielding effect, because the Earth and myself are both exchanging gravitons with the distant, receding galaxies in the universe.

    The only direction in which I’m not able to efficiently exchange gravitons is downward, because some of the tiny fundamental particles in the Earth are exchanging gravitons with distant receding masses in that direction from me, but are unable to then exchange those gravitons with me because there is no graviton exchange between myself and the Earth. Hence, the fundamental particles in the Earth are shielding or shadowing a small portion of the graviton force from distant receding galaxies in the downward direction from me!

    So the net graviton force on me is the excess of gravitons pushing downwards over that coming upward through the planet below me.

    Now this is a very simple geometric effect: gravitons are electrically uncharged exchange radiation with spin-1, like photons. For electromagnetism, the only way to get a physical understanding is to change Feynman’s QED U(1) Abelian theory. There are lots of problems with U(1): it only has one type of charge (hence the 1 in U(1) symmetry), so negative and positive charges have to be treated as the same thing moving in different directions through time. But there is no evidence that anything goes backward in time. Also, there are other problems with the mainstream U(1) electromagnetism. It doesn’t predict or explain physically what the mechanism for electromagnetic forces is; it has to use a photon with 4-polarizations instead of the normal 2, so that it can include attraction and not just repulsion. It’s a very unsatisfactory physical description.

    My argument here is that electromagnetism and gravity are actually an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, with charged massless gauge bosons. SU(2) gives rise to two types of charge and three types of gauge boson: neutral, positive and negative. I’ve worked out that charged massless gauge bosons can propagate in the vacuum despite the usual objection to the charged massless radiation (infinite magnetic self-inductance): what happens is that in exchange radiation, there is an equilibrium of exchange of radiation travelling in two directions at once, so the clockwise magnetic curl of say leftward travelling charged radiation will exactly cancel out the relatively anticlickwise curl of rightward travelling charged radiation. The cancellation of the magnetic curls in this way means that the magnetic self-inductance is no longer infinite but zero!

    Next, the exchange of charged massless gauge bosons between electromagnetic charges has more possibilities than gravitation. The random arrangement of fundamental charges (positive and negative) relative to one another throughout the universe means that all of the positive and negative electric charges in the universe will be linked up by their exchange of charged gauge bosons, like a lot of positive and negative charged capacitor plates separated by vacuum dielectric. Because the arrangement is random, they won’t add up linearly. If the addition was linear with positive and negative charges arranged in a long line with alternating sign at each charge, then the result would be like a series of batteries or capacitors in circuit, and electromagnetism would be stronger than gravitation by about a factor of 10^80 (the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe).

    Because the arrangement is random, and charged gauge bosons of one sign are stopped by half the charges in the universe, the actual addition is non-linear. It’s a drunkard’s statistical walk, like the zig-zag path of a particle undergoing Brownian motion. The vector sum can be worked out by doing a path integral calculation. It’s approximately the square root of the number of hydrogen atoms in the universe, times stronger than gravity. I.e. 10^40.

    This model also explains repulsive forces and attractive forces in electromagnetism, as a correspondent (Guy Grantham) has pointed out to me. Because you have two types of charged gauge boson, two protons have overlapping force fields composed of positively charged massless gauge bosons.

    As a result, the protons exchange positively charged gauge bosons and get repelled away from one another, rather like two people firing machine guns at one another will be forced apart both by the recoil impulses when firing each round, and by the strikes when receiving each round! (The incoming positively charged exchange radiation from distant masses in the universe to the far side of each of the protons being considered is severely redshifted and thus carries little energy and hence little momentum.)

    In the case of dissimilar charges, the positive charge and negative charge (or north pole and south pole in the case of two magnets) suffer the problem that the opposing fields cancel each other out instead of adding up. So there is no forceful exchange of radiation between them; they shield one another just like the Lesage shadowing gravity mechanism, and so opposite charges get pushed together by the exchange radiations coming from the distant receding galaxies in the universe.

    The fact that the electromagnetic attractive force between a proton and an electron is identical in strength but opposite in sign (i.e. direction) to the repulsive force between either two protons or two electrons, is explained by the energy balance of exchange radiation with the surrounding universe during the period that the force is acting, as proved graphically in my April 2003 Electronics World article.

    When two particles repel or attract due to electromagnetism, they are converting the potential energy of the redshifted incoming exchange radiation energy (from distant charges in the receding universe) into kinetic energy. The amount of energy available in this way per second (i.e., the power used to accelerate charges) to just two charges (whether they are proton and electron, proton and proton, or electron and electron) is the same because each charge has a similar cross-section for interactions with exchange radiations!

    Hence, when two protons or two electrons repel, they are being repelled by a similar power of radiant exchange radiation supplied externally by the surrounding universe as in the case of the attraction of one proton and one electron.

    The diagram in the April 2003 Electronics World article makes this energy summation clearer: the resultant of all the exchanges is that unit similar charges repel at the same force that dissimilar charges attract.

    I agree with you that light is a particle and has mass: saying light has “no rest mass” which the literature is fond of announcing, is pathetic because light is not at rest anyway,

    “The fact that photons have no rest mass isn’t a problem because … they can never be at rest anyway …”

    – page 21 of P.C.W. Davies, The Forces of Nature, Cambridge University Press, London, 2nd ed., 1986.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s