Part III of Gravity Beyond Einstein accepted for publication

October 15, 2021Uncategorizedgdaigle

I am pleased to announce that Part III of the paper by Hauser and Dröscher has been accepted for publication by the Max-Planck Journal Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA). The title is “GRAVITY BEYOND EINSTEIN? PART II: FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES, NUMBER SYSTEMS, NOVEL GROUPS, DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER, MOND”. A quick overview of the scope of the article may be found here:

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Gravity-beyond-Einstein/update/60b4c7bb6b95310001503335

I’ve been privileged to edit all three parts of the series for readability and consistency since 2017 and several other articles by the authors over the past decade. Here is a synopsis of the article, which took the authors 30 months to develop:

As a series, the articles attempt to unravel the contradictory results of experiments to determine the neutron lifetime, the contradiction between the predictions of particle physics and experiments concerning the nature and properties of dark matter and dark energy particles.

The novel concepts of both negative and hypercomplex matter (giving rise to the concept of matter flavor) are introduced, replacing the field of real numbers by hypercomplex numbers, which replaces the concept of extra spatial dimensions and which questions the concept of supersymmetry. Hypercomplex matter has a most dramatic consequence because it requires the existence of a second type of gravity, mediated by spin-1 bosons in accordance with the three other fundamental forces.

The authors suggest a dual spacetime, denoted by DdS1,3, in which the dark matter particles that are supposed to be of negative mass reside and therefore are undetectable in our spacetime.

The conversion of electromagnetic into gravity-like fields (as surmised by Faraday and Einstein) should be possible, but not in cosmological gravity, and thus these conversion fields are outside general relativity. In addition, the concept of hypercomplex mass in conjunction with magnetic monopoles emerging from spin ice materials is discussed that may provide the enabling technology for long-sought propellantless space propulsion. The resultant three different gravitational coupling constants predicted would also make possible higher admissible speeds of light at 10^5C and 10^10C.

Here are the section headings:

1. Introduction

2. From Ordinal Numbers to Coupling Constants

3. Hypercomplex Matter from Hypercomplex Numbers

4. Contradictory Physical Experiments

5. MOND Hypothesis Revisited

6. Cosmological Riddles Revisited

7. Space Propulsion by Gravity-Like Fields

8. Conclusions and Technology Outlook for Gravity-Like Fields

Introduction:

The arguments put forth in this article keep in line with Parts I and II, emphasizing the presentation of physical concepts and experimental data. The authors insist on consistency with General Relativity as a model of the universe. Decades after the LHC, concepts of superstrings and higher real spatial dimensions have been starkly questioned by numerous independent experiments. No sign of the predicted Lightest Supersymmetric Particle nor top squark has been detected as of yet and the unfulfilled search for supersymmetric particles to explain the existence of dark matter suggests the lack of validity for these ideas. No evidence of new physics has been found despite novel, sophisticated analysis strategies by CERN’s Atlas collaboration.

If a theory contradicts experiments or cannot be tested, it s not a theory and no mathematical elegance is a replacement for measurable physical reality. Up to now, there does not exist a single experiment that has been able to show the tiniest deviation from Einstein’s predictions. On the contrary, there are several recent experiments that are clearly at odds with both the concept of supersymmetry and superstrings. The long sought unified field theory is as absent as it was at the time of Einstein, a century ago. It appears that string theory and supersymmetry were both false starts, never supported by any experimental evidence.

After the introduction, Section 2 presents an attempt to calculate some of the coupling constants from a set of ordinal numbers employing a numerical calculation scheme, possibly demonstrating a close connection between numbers and physics. The authors claim that the gravitational coupling constants for Newtonian theory GN and Einstein’s theory GE are very slightly different, because in Einstein’s theory spacetime is a dynamic field and any particle moving through the spacetime lattice causes a tiny gravitational interaction with the spacetime grid, that is, GE > GN .

Section 3 discusses the immediate consequences of hypercomplex numbers to physics and shows how this idea leads to so-called hypercomplex matter that substantially extends the current concept of matter and naturally leads to additional particles. Hypercomplex matter requires the existence of a second type of gravity, mediated by spin-1 bosons and is instrumental in the generation of strong gravity-like fields that are outside of (yet not inconsistent with) GR. The theory comprising hypercompex matter is termed Extended Heim Theory (EHT) as a nod to Burkhard Heim who posited the idea of internal gauge space in the 1950s in order to construct a polymetric tensor. However, EHT relies on none of the mathematics of Heim Theory.

Section 4 introduces the concept of “matter flavor” (analogous to quark flavor) and gravity-like fields outside of GR. As shown by E. G. Harris, any claims for production of gravity-like fields through rotating superconductors must be outside GR. The evaluation of experiments reporting conflicting results on the neutron lifetime are considered, with a resolution including the possibility that neutrons first decay into hypercomplex matter, then into a proton, electron and electron antineutrino and which may account for the discrepancies between methods to establish the neutron lifetime.

Section 5 reviews the MOND hypothesis, but despite numerical predictions of MOND being correct the observed acceleration can be described by the existence of two dark energy particles (attractive and repulsive) predicted by hypercomplex matter. The negative particles are attracted by normal matter and are concentrated in the galaxy’s halo, less so in the galaxy. The repulsive particles are repelled by the presence of the galactic matter, resulting in a polarization effect due to dark energy, while dark matter is not present inside galaxies.

Section 6 discusses GR and its difference from the other three forces in that it is mediated by spin-2 bosons that, according to theory, should be comprised of two gluons.

Section 7 discusses W. von Braun’s quest for space propulsion without fuel. B. Heim greatly influenced von Braun’s interest in propellentless propulsion and Heim was prominently mentioned in articles of the day. An outlook of the repercussions of the novel physical concepts on particle physics, cosmology, and technology is discussed.

Part II of Gravity Beyond Einstein accepted for publication

February 5, 2019Uncategorizedgdaigle

UPDATE Apr 11, 2019: The published article is now available for viewing or download from this page: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330997271_Gravity_Beyond_Einstein_Part_II_Fundamental_Physical_Principles_Number_Systems_Novel_Groups_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy_MOND

UPDATE Feb 11, 2019: A preprint of the publication is now available from this page: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/zna.ahead-of-print/zna-2018-0559/zna-2018-0559.xml

I am pleased to announce that Part II of the paper by Hauser and Dröscherhas been accepted for publication by Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A (ZNA). The title is “GRAVITY BEYOND EINSTEIN? PART II: FUNDAMENTAL PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES, NUMBER SYSTEMS, NOVEL GROUPS, DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER, MOND”

Without stealing their thunder, here are some of the more interesting aspects of the paper. I should note that EHT (Extended Heim Theory) is a nod to the original HT theory of Burkhard Heim, but is not dependent upon his math (which has been known for some time to include errors). It is a framework which still includes several speculative assumptions. Until EHT is further developed (a Part III is planned) I look forward to the responses to this innovative framework that goes against the grain of a predominant school of physics beyond the standard model.

One of the major tenets of the framework is the idea that an extra number system can successfully substitute for the idea of extra dimensions posed by string theory, superstring theory and the more general M-theory, which has dominated physics for decades. String theory is thought to predict the grand unification of gravity with particle forces, but EHT predicts that supersymmetric partners do not exist and gravity can not successfully be described in a theory of quantum gravity at the Planck scale (see Principle of duality).

Part II posits certain fundamental principles that help guide our thinking about the cosmos.

1. Principle of duality. This includes that geometry and energy are interdependent entities. They exist as two sides of the same coin. This requires that the spacetime lattice and dark energy to be generated simultaneously and independently. The energy of information and organization (part of the spacetime lattice) are separate but related to the energy of mass (mass being derived from dark energy).

2. Principle of extra systems of numbers. The rationale for the extra higher space dimensions of superstring theory and its superset M-Theory can be satisfied by extra number systems, such as the hypercomplex quaternion and octonion numbers. Mathematician Cohl Furey has shown that quaternions can represent the charge of quarks and leptons in the standard model. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m64_DCQmzF8&index=11&list=PLNxhIPHaOTRZMO1VjJcs7_3dgyJ2qU1yZ EHT predicts additional particles not currently part of the standard model.

3. Principle of optimization. Meaning that Nature is perfectly optimized. This leads to the assumption that the total energy of the Universe was, is and will be zero and leads to the evolution of the cosmos with dark energy and the spacetime lattice generated simultaneously and in balance.

4. Principle of quantization. There are no continuous physical quantities, only discrete quantities. Therefore no infinities or singularities. For example, no worm holes.

5. Principle of dual energies. Information possesses energy and the energy to create a single bit is the same to destroy that bit.

Other principles are included for quantum fluctuations, finite existence time, causality, energy conservation, dual Universe, self-interaction and organization. In addition, a series of “No-Go Theorems” are formulated that describe constraints on the limits of the physical features of the Universe. For example, no Big Bang, no Open Universe, etc.

The principle of extra systems of numbers means that without the need for extra dimensions there is no basis to speculate on multiple universes (aka the multiverse) and no allowing for the infinities found in “worm holes”. Extra spatial dimensions were devised, in part, to resolve the “hierarchy problem”, which has also been interpreted as a basis for the “holographic effect” (see work by Erik Verlinde).

String theory predicts supersymmetric particles, which has been much of the focus of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. However, recent experiments to measure deviations from the perfectly spherical orbit of the electron have further reduced the possibility of supersymmetric particles (see: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0599-8). If string theory is replaced with hypercomplex numbers, then supersymmetric particles are not required to complete the standard model of physics and new tools such as the next generation collider (Future Circular Collider) is therefore unnecessary. (See https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/nightmare-scenario-why-this-theoretical-physicist-fears-we-wont-find-any-more-elementary-particles-and-the-new-proposed-collider-may-be-a-10-billion-mistake/)

EHT resolves some mysteries as well. Under EHT dark matter exists as two particles at -80.77 GeV/c2 and a neutrino (“dark neutrino”) at −3.23 eV in a dual deSitter spacetime (in contrast to the anti de Sitter spacetime predicted by advanced string theory). Both particles exist in a fourth family of leptons possessing negative mass. Since negative mass can not be observed in our spacetime dark matter is thus not observable, though its gravitational effects are felt and the its decay products might be detectable in our spacetime. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03071v1. Notions of negative mass are not unique to EHT and have been proposed recently in theories of a dark fluid to explain dark energy and dark matter. See Farnes: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/12/aa32898-18/aa32898-18.html

EHT predicts hypercomplex-gravity fields (extreme gravitomagnetic fields), making possible the generation of gravity-like fields independent of the gravitation of cosmology. The complex number system employed gives rise to additional gravitational particles, gravitomagnetic (attractive and repulsive forces) and quintessence (repulsive force). The extreme gravitomagnetic fields, group SU(2), are mediated by three gravity bosons that are like other mediator bosons from particle physics, and thus are completely different from the Einstein cosmological gravity fields. Each particle is millions of times weaker than normal gravity, but because of an interaction with electromagnetic force, it may result in the generation of gravity-like fields orders of magnitude greater than Newtonian gravity. This would allow for a type of controlled gravitational propulsion and design of gravitational products.

The paper also discusses the balance between two types of dark energy, one attractive to matter and repulsive for spacetime, and the other repulsive to matter and attractive to spacetime. Inside galaxies there is a “gravitational polarization” due to the presence of matter and these cancel out, but not in intergalactic space. Their interaction also gives rise to the magnitude of the MOND acceleration but without the explanation given by the originators of MOND. Each type of dark energy has their own corresponding cosmological constant and in a universe without matter the combined constant should be zero. In our era the value is positive, leading to expansion, but in a future era it should lead to contraction of the universe.

The speed of light, c, and time, t, requires an extension of Einstein’s spacetime when descriptive maths go from real to complex number systems. Each of these new gravitational particles is associated with its own unique speed of light. This was established in their seminal 2004 paper which forecast the possibility of traveling in a dual spacetime at many multiples of the speed of light.

The concept of the Big Bang is also replaced by the Quantized Bang through a process more closely resembling a “fizz” rather than a “bang”. Not specifically mentioned in the paper, but still a part of EHT is that dark energy must increase over time. See Risaliti and Lusso for a similar view of dark energy increasing over time. The expansion of the Universe requires the generation of additional atoms of space, and since the potential energy of the spacetime lattice transforms into dark energy, and dark energy is a precursor of matter, it must also increase. As it does, the potential energy of the spacetime grid decreases.

Recap of Gravity Beyond Einstein? Part I

November 10, 2018Theorygravity, Heim, higher dimensions, octonion, quaterniongdaigle

In Gravity Beyond Einstein? Part I: Physics and the Trouble with Experiments, Hauser and Dröscher review the latest experimental results in quantum physics and astrophysics, pointing out how unfulfilled predictions and contradicting experimental results have repercussions on the advanced physical theories that go beyond both the standard model of particle physics and cosmology.

I have previously made reference to Part I (published April of 2017) and am providing this recap since Part II is now being readied for publication. As promised by the authors, Part II goes deep into the fundamentals behind their framework, enumerating its theorems and impact on competing theories extending the standard model. For both papers I had the honor of engaging in numerous e-mail discussions and literature hints with Jochem Hauser, as well as making edits to improve the style, clarity, and contents of the papers.

In Part I the authors argued that fundamentally novel ideas are needed to be in accordance with all of the experimental findings representing efforts to discover new particles. In Part II the physical model EHT (Extended Heim Theory) is presented employing three completely novel and alternative concepts, namely, Heim space H8, an internal eight-dimensional gauge space and a classification scheme for all existing particles and fields. Heim space is proposed in conjunction with an extra system of numbers (replacing the concept of extra dimensions) from real to complex, quaternionic, octonionic, and sedenionic in order to set up a much larger class of physical symmetries. These concepts are then combined with the extension of four-dimensional (Minkowski) spacetime by a so-called dual space (imaginary time coordinate) to explain the location and nature of both dark matter and dark energy.

This recap serves as a prelude to Part II, which details replacing the extension of spatial dimensions by an extension of the field of numbers, postulating a relationship between numbers (those beyond real and imaginary numbers) and physics.

In Part I, the authors divide the experiments to be reviewed into three classes. The first are those that question the fundamental concept of these theories, namely, missing particles and the existence of extra spatial dimensions. The second are those whose results appear to contradict each other. The third are those rare experiments that hint at the existence of additional gravitational fields.

The first class of experiments include those with null results in the detection of either predicted particles or higher dimensions. These include:

LHC found no new matter particles up to mass 1.6 TeV/c2
This is significant since supersymmetry (SUSY), a major part of the “super theories,” is used to unify the two different concepts of matter and force. Yet nothing has been observed in this range. No supersymmetry particle in the range of 750 GeV has been detected. This lack of stable superpartners impacts the proposed stability of particles in the standard model. The Supersymmetric Model posits that heavy subatomic particles influence the electron to alter its perfectly spherical shape. In 2014 the electric dipole moment of the electron determining the shape of an electron’s charge was confirmed to be perfectly spherical (and improved methods this year increased the accuracy of those findings an order of magnitude). Since the electron’s charge is perfectly spherical it disproves the prediction of supersymmetry.
Dark matter wanted
The concept of dark matter was invented by the Caltech astronomer Zwicky in 1933 to explain the missing matter in the Coma cluster. Dark matter is the glue that is holding galaxies together, yet no dark matter particle has been found. The proposed neutralino with a mass of about 1 TeV/c2 was not found by the LHC, nor have other leading candidates for dark matter particles been found.No evidence for dark matter has been found within 4 kpc above or below the galactic plane, confirming the absence of dark matter in the solar neighborhood. Dark matter appears to be missing within galaxies, suggesting that if it is a particle it has unusual characteristics.Finally, the total absence of dark matter particles is not in accordance with the hot Big Bang concept. The hot Big Bang requires an unphysical event, namely the existence of a very high-energy density concentrated in an exceedingly small volume. The assumption of an initial false vacuum will not solve this problem. The fundamental question, how such a configuration (enormous amount of energy trapped in a small volume) should have come to exist at all, still remains.
Higher dimensions challenged
Extra dimensions are supposed to provide the means of escaping the physical constraints imposed by the three spatial dimensions of our perceptible four-dimensional spacetime. If the leading theories of particle physics including string theory, supersymmetry and supergravity are to be correct our Universe must be higher-dimensional. That is, more than three real spatial dimensions must exist, as postulated by T. Kaluza in a letter to Einstein in 1919. In 1921, Kaluza’s extension of Einstein’s GR was finally published utilizing a five-dimensional theory. Later, in 1926, Klein postulated a curled up microscopic fifth dimension in order to be in agreement with quantum mechanics.The hierarchy problem is the large discrepancy between aspects of the weak force and gravity. There is no scientific consensus on why, for example, the weak force is 10²⁴ times stronger than gravity. If curled up, the curvature of spacetime in the fifth dimension would account for electromagnetism, unifying the weak force and gravity. However, experimental constraints known since then put a stringent limit on the size of the microscopic fifth dimension and is inconsistent with quantum electro-dynamics. Therefore, a five-dimensional world is now experimentally ruled out down to the microscale.As the authors note, “According to EHT, physics cannot be constructed from pure geometry (e.g. spacetime), because this goes against the governing fundamental physical principles… This means nothing less that the principle of duality is at the foundation of the entire Cosmos (order), governing the physical world, and therefore the two most basic, but complementary (dual) physical entities, namely, spacetime and dark energy both have to be generated at the same instant of time. The most general aspect of duality is represented by symmetry formation and symmetry breaking.” Duality is a key construct of EHT and may doom attempts for the unification of all forces.

The second set of questions involves contradictions and gravitational phenomena. Two different types of experiments are presented that are independent on the existence of higher dimensions, but whose results are totally unforeseen and cannot be explained by either the SM of particle physics or any of the so-called advanced physical theories.

The outcomes of the first experiment might be explained by utilizing quaternions developed over 150 years ago by Hamilton to extend complex numbers. The second experiment might indicate new forms of symmetry breaking at low temperatures in conjunction with novel types of gravitational bosons.

Protons of different sizes
Depending upon the method employed (whether muonic hydrogen where the electron is replaced by the much heavier muon particle, or by scattering measurements) different values are found for the radius of the proton. EHT proposes that the physics going into the precision measurements of the proton is not complete. By extending the system of numbers from real to quaternionic or octonionic, the solutions of the equation of the Planck mass will allow for material particles that may have positive real, negative real, or quaternionic masses.
Neutrons of different lifetimes
The two different measurement techniques, the bottle (counting the number of the remaining neutrons) and the beam (counting the number of the resulting protons) methods, have measured a difference in the neutron lifetime of eight seconds, which is significantly larger than the measurement uncertainty. It seems that some of the protons have disappeared, not obeying the normal decay scheme of the neutron. The influence of a new particle has been ruled out since none in the mass range have been found by the LHC, but the difference might be influenced by hypercomplex matter (matter flavor) derived from octonionic algebra.

Part I also reviews the completeness of General Relativity and novel physical phenomena in the form of extreme gravitomagnetic fields.

Completeness of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity
So far, GR has passed all experimental tests and observations. This, however, does not mean that novel physical phenomena cannot exist beyond the scope of GR. Any valid theory of relativity must give the same predictions as Einstein’s GR. Consequently, any modification of the gravitational law (e.g. the MOND hypothesis, employed to match observed rotational velocities of star systems about the galactic center) has to be rejected. Nevertheless, it is correct to state that the numerical predictions of the debated MOND hypothesis have been confirmed by the recent measurements of McGaugh. If not MOND, what is the gravitational phenomenon responsible for the MOND acceleration as measured by McGaugh?
Challenge for Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity: CDT
A very comprehensive discussion on the topology of the Universe can be found in the recent comprehensive book by Ringström. The CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) model of quantum gravity is non-perturbative (i.e., can be calculated by known procedure rather than by successive approximation). These computer simulations have revealed that spacetime in the absence of matter possesses a de Sitter topology and thus is that of a simply connected manifold with only one direct path for a light ray to travel from a source to an observer. That is, there are no holes representing short cuts through spacetime. Thus faster than light motion in GR via wormholes is ruled out by CDT and topologies do not seem to allow traversable wormholes.
Unruly Gravitational Constant G_N
Another mystery is discussed, namely the contradictory measurements of the gravitational constant. Measured results of the gravitational constant have failed to converge and different measurement procedures are delivering substantially different numerical values. Recently, several new experiments have been reported to measure Newton’s gravitational constant G_N by applying different measuring techniques. These experiments have resulted in widely different numerical values for G_N, which means that a deviation occurs as early as the third decimal place. EHT proposes that G_N is the sum of both a gravitational constant for hadrons plus a gravitational constant for leptons (a further gravitational constant needs to be introduced for the interaction of luminous matter with the vacuum field).

One of the most significant proposals of EHT is the interaction between gravity and electrodynamics through bosons carrying gravity-like forces (most recently termed “e-gravity”). During the past two decades, several experimenters have reported on the generation of extreme gravitomagnetic or gravity-like (acceleration) fields in the laboratory up to 18–20 orders of magnitude larger than predicted by the Lense-Thirring effect of GR. There are three different possible experimental sources for extreme gravitomagnetic experiments.

From 2006-2011 Tajmar et al. published a series of experiments claiming to have observed extreme gravitomagnetic and gravity-like acceleration fields produced by rotating cryogenic Nb rings. The strength of these fields was up to 18 orders of magnitude larger than predicted by GR and would be equivalent to the gravitational field produced by a white dwarf star. In 2007, a similar experiment was published by Graham et al. utilizing a rotating cryogenic lead disk. Subsequent papers by Tajmar altered the experimental configuration of the apparatus, but with each modification a smaller effect was achieved. Graham’s study was not conclusive because the sensitivity of the laser ring detector was too low to provide a satisfactory statistical result.

The third study, Stanford’s Gravity Probe B (GP-B) experiment, produced anomalous results defying predictions and delaying the evaluation of the final data for several years. GP-B was launched into a 640-km low earth orbit (LEO) in 2004. It was not devised for the detection of extreme gravitomagnetic or gravity-like fields but might have inadvertently generated these fields in the cryogenic ambience of space as its Nb spheres were spun at high rates. Such fields require the existence of additional gravitational bosons not disallowed by GR, and despite not being predicted in the string theories, they were predicted in 2004 by the physical model of EHT.

The section Advanced Theories and Retarding Experiments reviews how recent experimental data and astronomical observations most likely contradict the underlying concept of extra spatial dimensions, which are at the root of all the advanced physical theories beyond the standard model. Yet particles predicted by the super theories, as the authors state, “…have not been found, nor does it seem that the underlying concept of extra, curled up spatial dimensions holds up to physical reality. Hence, the physical concepts of, e.g., superstring theory (10 dimensions) … appear to be mathematical entities only.” They continue, “The existing extensions of the SMs for particle physics and cosmology in the form of string theory, supersymmetry, higher dimensions, Anti-de Sitter space, moduli spaces, loop quantum gravity, and much discussed wormholes are suggested to not reflect physical reality but, rather, are only mathematical constructs not realized by Nature.” Alternative physical principles that could replace advanced physical theories in higher dimensions would suggest more than four fundamental forces in Nature. The mere belief of the existence of four fundamental forces is not sufficient. That being said, the question therefore arises whether there are any additional fundamental physical interactions? If so, might they include gravity-like forces?

The next section on Gravitational Engineering covers how two proposed additional gravitational forces could couple with electromagnetism to generate propulsive forces for spacecraft and other uses, and how the extreme gravitomagnetic fields generated would have far reaching consequences for technology. Yet it does require novel physics. In EHT there exist three different gravitational constants termed G_p, G_gp, G_q, where G_p is defined as the gravitational hadron-hadron coupling constant, contrasted with the gravitational hadron-lepton interaction denoted by G_gp. The gravitational interaction between two atoms is given by Newton’s constant G_N = G_p+ G_gp. If the interaction with the spacetime field is included, then the gravitational constant is named after Einstein G_E = G_N + G_q which is discussed in greater detail in Part II.

Discussion continues on the Physical Reality of Extra Dimensions. The authors suggest that the concept of extra real dimensions could be replaced by the idea of extra number systems. Recall that extra real dimensions are part of superstring theory. Superstring theory is a shorthand for supersymmetric string theory because unlike bosonic string theory, it’s the version of string theory that accounts for both fermions and bosons and incorporates supersymmetry to model gravity (i.e., supergravity). Yet no predicted supersymmetric (SUSY) particles (e.g. neutralino, squark, antisquark) have been found. None of the physical features that are based on the existence of extra spatial dimensions have been confirmed.

Before their brief Conclusions, the authors finally explore an extension of the Fundamental Laws of Physics proposed by EHT. They recap that:

The standard model of four-dimensional spacetime has been confirmed
Observations question the presence of dark matter within galaxies
The model of cold dark matter (CDM) is in agreement with the observed large structures of the Universe …
… but on the small scale, namely on the galactic scale, the model is not capable of reproducing the angular momentum of galaxies, according to observations.
CDT suggests that wormholes do not exist and spacetime is simply connected (i.e., no wormholes) and has a de Sitter topology (not Anti-de-Sitter),
No infinities or singularities in physics
Total energy must be equal to zero (which has implications for the Big Bang)
The duality of nature (particle/antiparticle, wave/particle, spacetime/dark energy) is the guiding principle

The authors conclude by saying that, “… a paradigm shift in our understanding of the Cosmos should be considered… concerning the nature of matter as well as physical reality.” They believe that Nature has chosen a different path than utilizing extra dimensions and that an extension of the system of numbers is proposed as an alternative, as extensively discussed by Sir Roger Penrose, leading to both different types of symmetries (groups) and suggests additional types of matter.

Author’s note: The notion of extended number systems as predictors of physics has been considered by Penrose and also by others. For example, mathematician Cohl Furey built on the work of Murat Günaydin on the relationship of fundamental physics to pure math and suggests that the forces and particles that comprise reality spring logically from the properties of eight-dimensional octonions algebra. Furey has written how use of octonions in Gunaydin and Gursey’s early models show quarks and anti-quarks, but that extending those models results in a set of states behaving like the eight quarks and leptons. This mirror’s EHT’s eight-dimensional “Heim space” to describe every group of particles and forces through its derivation of physics from quaternionics, octonionics and sedenionic (to explain coupling constants). Hauser and Dröscher use octonions to lead to the novel concept of matter flavor and explain the different measured lifetimes of the neutron (as will be reviewed in Part II).

AMS-02 findings are consistent with EHT

May 30, 2017Theorydark matter, GeV, hauser, WIMPgdaigle

As reported in TrendinTech and in other sources, papers published in Physical Review Letters on experiments using the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS-02) on the ISS have given an indication of the mass of dark matter particles. The original article can be found here: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.191102

Two papers posit that WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) are dark matter (DM) particles and that their annihilation produces antiprotons detectable by the AMS-02. After eliminating those cosmic rays originating from other sources both teams formulated the resulting mass of the DM particles.

The team led by Alessandro Cuoco analyzed data of a DM signal that would match a dark matter particle with a mass of 80 GeV, 85 times the mass of a proton or an antiproton. Another team gave a similar result, estimating their results from a different premise but calculating that the mass of a dark matter particle would be 20-80 GeV.

The results have similarly been reported from PhysicsWorld:

“Writing in Physical Review Letters, Alessandro Cuoco and colleagues at RWTH Aachen University in Germany describe how they analysed antiproton, proton and helium cosmic-ray detection rates by AMS – which is located on the International Space Station – and other experiments. They found that the creation of antiprotons by the annihilation of dark-matter particles with masses of about 80 GeV/C2 provided the best explanation for why AMS has detected more antiprotons than expected to be created by conventional astrophysical process.”

How do these results compare to those projected in the book by Hauser and Dröscher on Extended Heim Theory in 2015? Here are some outtakes from their book regarding calculations from Extended Heim Theory about dark matter particles:

“… dark matter is assumed to be of negative mass existing in the form of a heavy particle with mass m_dm approximately -80.77 GeV, and a dark matter neutrino with a negative mass m_vdm approximately -3.2 eV.”

They continue, “…because of the negative mass of the dark matter particles, they should neither be present in the reactions of the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] experiments, nor be found in any dark matter experiment… since dark matter particles are supposed to carry negative energy and cannot be generated in an accelerator…”

I asked Prof. Hauser about these findings. He made several points:

1. At 80 GeV LEP, Fermilab, and LHC should have detected such a particle a long time ago. There has been no detection at these facilities.
2. If we take the AMS data seriously, we are forced to conclude that a dark matter particle can decay from the dual de Sitter space time, appearing as a proton-antiproton pair in our de Sitter spacetime.

The dual space would act as a source of energy for our spacetime. Assuming that energy is conserved over cosmic time scales, there should exist an equilibrium between dark energy (DE) and dark matter (DM) as already suggested in their book. At some point over cosmic time that equilibrium between mass in de Sitter space and mass in the dual de Sitter space may shift (see previous articles on DM and DE) and cosmic expansion may reverse itself.

Dr. Hauser poses the question of how our spacetime and the dual spacetime interact. Is there a slow progression from DE to DM to baryonic matter (BM)? If the equilibrium shifts from DE to DM to BM might our universe’s expansion eventually reverse and begin to contract? If so, would energy slowly be squeezed back into the dual de Sitter space?

Gravity Beyond Einstein

January 15, 2017Theorygravity, hauser, MOND, verlindegdaigle

It is interesting that in recent months two new theories have been proposed that run counter to conventional theories of dark matter that depend upon exotic baryonic matter.

One such paper on dark matter has arisen from M-Theory, suggesting that dark matter is not a particle in our spacetime but rather is in a hidden sector. B.S. Acharaya, et al. in The lightest visible-sector supersymmetric particle is likely to be unstable, suggests that what has been known as dark matter is not a particle with Standard Model quantum numbers, such as a WIMP, but rather is due to hidden sectors that interact with our visible sector via gravitational interactions only.

As quoted in PhysOrg,”In the proposed scenario, dark matter consists of particles in the hidden sector that communicate through a portal from the hidden sector to the visible sector, and in this way exert the gravitational effects that scientists have long observed.”

Also in PhysOrg, string theorist Erik Verlinde’s theory of emergent gravity is another outlier theory that runs counter to more traditional view of dark matter. As described in PhysOrg by the Netherlands based Delta Institute for Theoretical Physics, “Emergent gravity, as the new theory is called, predicts the exact same deviation of motions that is usually explained by invoking dark matter… In 2010, [Prof] Erik Verlinde surprised the world with a completely new theory of gravity. According to Verlinde, gravity is not a fundamental force of nature, but an emergent phenomenon.” In his paper, Verlinde states that, “the standard gravitational laws are modified on galactic and larger scales due to the displacement of dark energy by baryonic matter”. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02269

The first test of Verlinde’s theory of emergent gravity has been found to agree with his predictions. As also mentioned in PhysOrg, “A team led by astronomer Margot Brouwer (Leiden Observatory, The Netherlands) has tested the new theory of theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde (University of Amsterdam) for the first time through the lensing effect of gravity. Brouwer and her team measured the distribution of gravity around more than 33,000 galaxies to put Verlinde’s prediction to the test. She concludes that Verlinde’s theory agrees well with the measured gravity distribution. The results have been accepted for publication in the British journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.” See https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03034

Yet these theories are not the first claimants to pose such alternatives to explaining dark matter without exotic baryonic matter. The first was Extended Heim Theory and its proponents Walter Dröscher and Jochem Hauser. Two years ago Walter Dröscher published Reality of Gravity-Like Fields? Part I: Recents experiments that challenge conventional physics and made a similar proposal about the nature of dark matter and its relationship to dark energy.

A year later in their book “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields,” Dröscher and Hauser detailed a discussion in Secs. 9.10.4 Dark Energy and Dark Matter and 9.10.5 MOND Acceleration (pp. 366-374) where they talk about the polarization effect of baryonic (visible) matter on the distribution of dark energy. Such polarization is similar to one of the claims made by Verlinde.

Brouwer’s paper supporting Verlinde’s theory of emergent gravity found that “the lensing profile of apparent [dark matter] in [emergent gravity] is the same as that of the excess gravity in MOND…” The MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) hypothesis, proposed by Milgrom in 1983, correctly describes the dynamics of stars and gas within galaxies, without providing any physical argument. The numerical predictions of MOND are correct, but in the meantime dark matter has been discovered, so that the original intention of MOND is no longer valid. However, any valid theory of gravity must be able to match the MOND predictions, because they reproduce the observed data, including the most recent data by S. S. McGaugh.

A new paper in preparation by Hauser and Dröscher, Gravity Beyond Einstein? Part I: Physics and the trouble with experiments, provides a review of the latest experimental results in quantum physics and astrophysics, discussing their repercussions on the advanced physical theories that go beyond both SMs (standard models) of particle physics and cosmology.

In their paper they address a series of papers S. S. McGaugh, et al. that found corroboration of MOND. McGaugh found that the distribution of dark matter, characterized by its radial acceleration value (toward the galactic center) gdm, follows directly from the baryonic mass (stars and gas), reflecting a strong coupling between dark and baryonic mass, but is independent of dark halo models.

Hauser and Dröscher’s paper states,

Their (McGaugh, et al.) data are based on the Spitzer Photometry and Accurate Rotation Curves (SPARC) database of 175 galaxies of widely different type and show only very little scatter. That is, the connection between baryonic mass and rotation velocity is pronounced and no adjustable parameters were used. Indeed, the one-to-one correspondence between the acceleration resulting from the baryonic mass, gbar, and the observed acceleration gobs, may be considered as a hint that the baryons only are the source of the gravitational potential. In this case, the laws of dynamics need to be altered, replacing the dark matter concept. However, according to EHT, this is not the case, Newtonian dynamics prevails, but, instead, dark matter particles, which are of negative mass, do reside in the so-called dual space (imaginary time coordinate, see above) rather than in four-dimensional spacetime. Only their gravitational potential is experienced in our spacetime, but there are no dark matter particles present.

They continue, “The deviation from Newton’s law of gravitation as observed by McGaugh et al. may be explained by the polarization effect on the dark energy distribution by the high matter density within galaxies …”

So in one statement, Hauser and Dröscher suggest not only a mechanism for MOND, but also give an alternative explanation to Verlinde’s proposal that baryonic matter impacts the displacement of dark energy (see previous blog postings in this website on the relationship with dark matter according to EHT) and that, similar to B.S. Acharaya, dark matter interactions with our spacetime occur only through gravitational interactions. The question therefore remains: what is the gravitational phenomenon responsible for the MOND acceleration as measured by McGaugh? For that insight the discussion will be resumed in their subsequent companion paper.

Here is the conclusion of their paper (which addresses much more than reported here):

Weighing the experimental evidence presented, we think that a paradigm shift in our understanding of the Cosmos is mandatory, paving the road to a different age (as pointed out in Chap. 11 of [their book]), marked by an overthrow of the present Weltbild of physics, in particular, concerning the nature of matter as well as physical reality.

Before the next collider generation actually is being built, the relatively simple gravitational experiments discussed above should be repeated at several laboratories applying much more sophisticated equipment. If the results of these experiments can be confirmed, then it is evident that Nature has chosen a different path than utilizing extra dimensions.

The physical alternative proposed to the extension of spatial dimensions could be the extension of the system of numbers, first suspected by Pythagoras and extensively discussed by Sir Roger Penrose in his comprehensive œvre, e.g. [“The Large, theSmall and the Human Mind“] etc. As will be presented in [their upcoming paper] this approach should be leading to both different types of symmetries (groups) and matter.

In 1946, the U.S. government funded a comprehensive feasibility report, prior to any hardware activities, termed Preliminary Design of an Experimental World-Circling Spaceship by F. H. Clauser et al., Douglas Aircraft Company that marked the beginning of the era of spaceflight. Given the current theoretical and experimental hints, we seem to be in a similar situation today regarding the preliminary design of a gravitational-field propulsion device. Whether the success story will turn out to be similar cannot be decided at the moment. On the other hand, it is evident that for a risk averse society the chance of success is close to zero.

Novel physics — incomplete physics

May 29, 2016Theorygdaigle

In their book “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields”, authors Drs. Jochem Hauser and Walter Dröscher posit what they believe to be shortcomings of several mainstream ideas in physics.

Below are selected outtakes from the book positioned as a brief listing of what EHT considers as incomplete or incorrect mainstream ideas in physics and what EHT offers as novel ideas in physics that often runs counter to mainstream thinking. Each of these ideas are explored in depth in the book, so I won’t even attempt to represent the evidence provided to back up these discussions since each could take pages of citations and calculations, which have already been offered by the authors.

Finally, I am certain that there are several novel proposals made by the authors of EHT which I have glossed over or missed completely, such is the wide ranging impact of the EHT model.

What EHT identifies as incomplete or incorrect ideas in physics:

There is no experimental basis for supersymmetry and superstring theory as extensions of the standard model of particle physics.

CDT (Causal Dynamical Triangulation) computer simulations reveal a spherical spacetime topology (de Sitter space), and thus the viability of wormholes and time travel now seems exceedingly unlikely.

There are neither singularities, nor infinities in physics. All physical quantities must remain finite.

There is no multiverse. All other potential universes cancel out.

The Universe must be closed, but might be cyclic.

There is no continuous spacetime. At the Planck length, all of spacetime is discrete.

There are no extra real spatial or real time dimensions greater than four when above the Planck length.

There exist no genuine static states in physics, and no static Universe. Everything in the Universe must be in motion.

Dark matter cannot be made of superpartners, WIMPS or super-WIMPS.

There is no neutralino particle that can explain dark matter.

Novel physics proposed by EHT:

EHT is an approach to geometrize physics but not completely, as envisaged by Einstein or later by Heim. Geometry alone is not physics.

EHT provides a classification scheme for particle families and physical interactions, but is not a genuine physical theory of elementary particles or gravitation.

EHT is a polymetric tensor theory, in contrast to Einstein’s monometric tensor theory of general relativity (GR). EHT is a super set of GR.

EHT postulates the existence of six fundamental forces, including three gravitational forces along with the known electromagnetic, weak and strong forces.

EHT should be considered as a phenomenological model to explain the existence of the six fundamental forces.

EHT employs quaternionic and octonionic complex number calculations to derive its predictions for particles and subspaces. This allows for negative masses and energies.

Spacetime is discrete or quantized at the Planck level.

One new gravitational interaction (force) is the gravitophoton interaction (particles are both attractive and repulsive).

Another new gravitational interaction (force) is the quintessence interaction (particles repulsive), responsible for the interaction with the spacetime field (de Sitter space).

Each of the two new gravitational interactions have their own associated gravitational constant resulting in different speeds of light (c): G_gp (gravitophoton) is 158,000 times c. G_q (quintessence) is 25,000,000,000 times c.

The existence of spacetime is the cause of dark energy (precursor of matter) and vice versa.

The structure of spacetime and the field of dark energy were generated at the same instant, being inextricably linked together and entangled.

There is no inflation field. It is dark energy.

There are two dark matter particles, both possessing negative rest mass and existing in a dual de Sitter space, making them undetectable by the LHC facility.

Dark matter, being outside our spacetime, can not be detected but its gravitational interaction with ordinary matter can be felt in our spacetime.

Significance of the Detection of Gravitational Waves published by the LIGO Team in February 2016

February 21, 2016Uncategorizedgdaigle

It is with great pleasure that I post this article by Dr. rer. nat. Jochem Hauser, Scientific Director of HPCC-Space GmbH on the significance of the recent discovery of gravitational waves. Dr. Hauser is the co-originator of Extended Heim Theory along with Dr. Walter Dröscher.

On 11 February 2016 the LIGO and VIRGO Collaboration groups reported on the detection of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein’s GR in 1916. The signals were actually measured in September 2015, but the teams took time to verify their results, most likely to avoid the embarrassment of the BICEP2 experiment.

However, the gravitational wave detection was hailed by numerous journals and newspapers as a revolution in physics, providing much incorrect information, not to say hype. For instance, read the partly unscientific language used in Scientific American about this effect.

It should be noted that there was already a Nobel prize for the indirect detection of gravity waves in 1993 (Hulse & Taylor) based on the orbital period of a binary star system. Hence, their direct measurement is not a surprise at all. The energy radiated (narrowing the joint orbit) from the binary pulsar PSR 1913+16 has been calculated from linear theory and exactly matches the observations.

In the first edition of this book it was already stated that Einstein’s GR is the only answer to gravitational fields in the cosmological realm and all competing theories are more or less ruled out. But this does not mean that extensions to GR are impossible or unnecessary.

According to EHT any gravitational theory predicting gravity must be fully compatible with Einstein’s GR, except for predictions of physical processes that take place inside a black hole. Even for very small accelerations it seems unlikely that GR will fail. It should be noted, however, that according to the late German physicist B. Heim, gravitational attraction disappears (is zero) at distances comparable to the Schwarzschild radius r_S. Is this were the case, there would be no gravitation inside a black hole, and matter within the black hole would enjoy some kind of asymptotic freedom, similar to quarks in a proton or neutron.

It is important to note that gravitational plane waves (reducing the degrees of freedom in the metric tensor) are predicted by the linearized Einstein equations that are similar to the Maxwell equations. However, GR is a nonlinear theory. In order to confirm Einstein’s non-approximated GR, one must first ascertain that the nonlinear field equations of Einstein allow for waves also. They do. This is not trivial as there is, in principle, graviton-graviton interaction. The graviton particle as the mediator boson for gravity follows from the duality between the metric field h_μν and the particle picture, that is, this concept of quantum mechanics is introduced into GR. Because photons do not carry electric charge themselves they are not subject to this kind of nonlinear interaction. The metric field is a second rank tensor and it can be shown that gravitons must have spin 2. The proof is difficult because this must hold in the relativistic case, too, see E. Wigner 1939, while the photon has spin 1.

The crucial point therefore is: can the gravitational signals detected be interpreted with Einstein’s linearized equations or are the full nonlinear equations needed? It seems, from the black hole masses involved (about 29 and 36 solar masses), that the linear theory may not match the measured data (this needs still to be confirmed). Relativistic (nonlinear) effects become spectacular, when GM/rc2 ≈ 1. The merger of these two black holes is assumed to have taken place at half the speed of light with a final orbital period of about 250 Hz. The two black holes are then supposed to have coalesced into a single black hole with the equivalent of about 62 solar masses. This scenario is the accepted physical interpretation for the time being – provided of course that no other, more plausible, alternatives can be found. If, however, these two black holes, supposed to have generated the gravitational waves, possess an extension similar to the diameter of the Sun, the magnitude of the relativistic gravitational effects becomes about 6 − 8 × 10⁻⁵ on the surface of the black hole, and the linear theory should be correct. On the other hand, astronomers have, for the first time, measured the radius of a black hole in September 2012 and are claiming that it is about 5.5 ×r_S , where r_Sis the Schwarzschild radius (light cannot escape from the black hole if it is closer than r_S). For the Sun r_S≈ 2.95 km. In general, it is believed that black holes have a Schwarzschild radius r_Sabout 100,000 times smaller than the Sun. If this were the case, then the gravitational waves detected would be a confirmation of the validity of the nonlinear field equations, provided of course, that the underlying assumption of two merging black holes as the source for gravitational waves is correct.

If the effect can be explained by the linearized field equations, then any gravitational theory that gives the same linearized equations as Einstein’s theory would have passed the test, too.

There is, however, another principle to detect gravitational waves of low frequency – which cannot be measured by LIGO – based on the usage of compact gravity pulsars that are also emitting radio waves. The goal is to measure the changes in the distances between the Earth and the pulsars caused by the spacetime distortion created by the emitted gravitational waves, when they are passing over the Earth. This change in distance is causing a delay or advance in the radio pulse arrival time. Because this effect is extremely small, M. Kramer et al. at MPI Bonn, Germany are searching for the most rotationally stable pulsars, known as millisecond pulsars.

In conclusion, the experiments seem to have found gravitational waves, but this effect might be explained by a linearized gravitational theory. Moreover, if Einstein’s nonlinear equations turn out to be necessary to explain these results (more likely), we are talking about the science of November 1915.

The much more important question remains unanswered, as pursued by Einstein from 1915 till the end of his research activity: is there an interaction between gravity and electromagnetism? This means are there gravitational fields that are not cosmological fields, that is, whose source are not static or moving large masses? Hints for the existence of these gravitational fields may be found in the recent experiments by Tajmar, Graham and Gravity Probe B experiment as discussed in detail in Sec. 8 of “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields.”

Theory, in the form of EHT, is predicting such a conversion from electromagnetism to gravitation, induced by the phenomenon of symmetry breaking (not known at Einstein’s time), and GR consequently needs to be supplemented by these so called conversion fields, i.e., those gravitational fields resulting from electromagnetic fields. This means that three additional gravitational particles (bosons) are proposed, allowing the generation of gravity-like fields similar to the generation of magnetic fields.

From an experimental point of view, however, the LIGO measurements are extremely sophisticated. The teams claim to be able to see distance changes in the range of 10⁻¹⁹m that is much less than the radius of a proton!

A polarized gravitational wave traveling in one direction acting on a circle of particles is leading to an oscillatory motion, compressing and elongating the diameter of the circle, forming an elliptic shape, but also does rotate the axis of the ellipse. Hence, a signal in both arms of the laser interferometer should be detected.

As a next step, the space antenna LISA Pathfinder from ESA will begin operating in March 2016. We may expect to see a confirmation of gravitational waves by the full scale experiment eLISA, planned for 2028.

Jochem Hauser, 18 February 2016

edited 29 Feb 2016 – GD

Extreme fields, dark energy and MOND

February 14, 2016Uncategorizedgdaigle

In the recent book by Dröscher and Hauser, mention is made of upcoming experiments by Martin Tajmar to test the Heim experiment. Tajmar is the Professor and Chair, Institute of Aerospace Engineering Technische Universitåt Dresden where he has published on a wide range of propulsion-related topics. As such it may be useful to review recent revisions to EHT including the dropping of the gravitophoton, v_gp (composed of positive and negative components) as the cause of an attractive and repulsive gravitational effect. Instead, another composite particle is suggested as the source.

In EHT there are three carrier particles for gravitation: the graviton, the gravitophoton and the quintessence particle. Collectively they are known as “gravions.” The graviton for Newtonian gravity is represented in the listing of ordinary matter (OM) as v_GN in row H₀, and is the boson mediating forces between gravitational fields in the cosmos, “GN” being the indicator of Newtonian gravitation. Its analog in non-ordinary matter (NOM) is the strong graviton, represented in row H₁ as ṽ_G. The tilda (~) above the v denotes an extreme gravitomagnetic or gravity-like field. The bosons with the tilda above (ṽ) are the “cold” or “conversion” particles ṽ_G, ṽ_gp, and ṽ_q which are not generated by mass but by delayed symmetry breaking, similar to the cryogenic symmetry breaking that leads to superconductivity.

The second cosmological gravitational particle is the gravitophoton, designated as v_gp. The cosmological version of this gravitational boson mediates the gravitomagnetic field B_GN as predicted by general relativity. The cold version of this boson is generated during delayed symmetry breaking when a photon “γ” representing the electromagnetic force becomes an imaginary photon “γ_I” of imaginary mass but real charge, and converts to the cold gravitophoton ṽ_gp which decays to produce extreme gravity-like fields.

The decay paths for the v_gp cosmological gravitophoton and the ṽ_gp cold gravitophoton are indicated in the H₉ hermetry form. The cosmological gravitophoton decays to a very weak gravitational field via v_GN and an extremely small expansion of spacetime denoted by the quintessence particle ṽ_q, which is shown in hermetry form H₁₀. In short v_gp → v_GN + v_q. The cold gravitophoton decay path ṽ_gp → ṽ_G + ṽ_q does so with gravity-like fields with much greater magnitude due to predicted changes in the gravitational coupling constant.

The third cosmological gravitational boson is termed “quintessence” v_q and is responsible for the interaction of dark energy and spacetime. How do the quintessence particles v_q and ṽ_q interact with spacetime? EHT proposes that they are responsible for the interaction between the dark energy field v_de and the spacetime lattice, neither of which have hermetry forms but which indirectly causes spacetime to expand.

The cold gravitophoton decay path ṽ_gp → ṽ_G + ṽ_q is the first stage of the decomposition of the cold quintessence particle. It also undergoes a decay to constituent particles ṽ_q → ṽ⁺_q + ṽ^–_q. The quintessence particle is thought to be a composite particle make of attractive and repulsive components. The v_q boson mediates the repulsive interaction between the spacetime field and dark energy, v_de. EHT theorizes that v_de is also a composite particle composed of two dark energy component particles (v⁺_de + v^–_de), one attractive and one repulsive. Each of the components (ṽ⁺_q and ṽ^–_q), in turn, influences its corresponding dark energy component (v⁺_de and v^–_de), and this interaction mediates the spacetime lattice producing either an expansion or contraction. As we will see later, this is a likely mechanism for the “parity violation” results observed by Tajmar. See the table below.

It could be said that dark energy is a direct consequence of spacetime. In EHT the formation of the spacetime lattice (negative energy density, possessing information and structure) is invariably accompanied by the formation of the dark energy field (positive energy field, negative pressure) in order to satisfy energy conservation.

Might the interaction between the spacetime field and dark energy which is mediated by the quintessence particle play a role in the distribution of dark matter inside and outside of a galaxy?

According to EHT particles are not observable in de Sitter space (our spacetime) when they possess a negative resting mass. Particles of dark matter are suggested to possess negative resting mass, therefore they must exist in a dual spacetime — a “dual” de Sitter spacetime designated DdS^3,1. Those particles of dark matter v_dm and v_dm are not directly observable by us, but their gravitational interactions with ordinary matter are felt in our spacetime.

The de Sitter spacetime of general relativity (GR) is not replaced, but is extended by the concept of dual spacetime. De Sitter dual spacetime is required to account for the different types of matter that might exist outside GR. The two spaces, de Sitter space and dual de Sitter space, are entangled and share the same spatial coordinates, but are separated by their time coordinates. Dual spacetime also differs from our de Sitter spacetime by employing an imaginary speed of light “i c” as well as an imaginary time coordinate “– i t”. Those imaginary attributes of dual spacetime open avenues to attaining speeds greater than the speed of light (c). This is the “parallel space” referred to in the original award-winning paper by Dröscher and Hauser.

As Dröscher and Hauser suggest in their book, “… dark matter is assumed to be of negative mass existing in the form of a heavy particle with mass m_dm approximately -80.77 GeV, and a dark matter neutrino with a negative mass m_v_dm approximately -3.2 eV.” They continue, “…because of the negative mass of the dark matter particles, they should neither be present in the reactions of the LHC [Large Hadron Collider] experiments, nor be found in any dark matter experiment… since dark matter particles are supposed to carry negative energy and cannot be generated in an accelerator…” EHT forecasts that direct detection of dark matter particles by the LHC and other groups, is impossible.

We know that dark matter appears only in the halo surrounding galaxies, so EHT would have to account for not only dark matter’s presence in galactic halos, but also its lack of detection within a galaxy. However, the attractive nature of dark matter alone would not appear to be sufficient to account for its distribution outside of galaxies. That leaves only attractive ordinary matter and repulsive dark energy to explain the observations about dark matter’s distribution. MOND theory seeks to explain why spinning galaxies do not fly apart. Its proponents posit that Newton’s law is modified for accelerations below 10^-10 m/s². MOND gives the correct value required for this low acceleration value. Can EHT also give an equally correct solution in solving for dark matter? Dark matter appears only in the halo surrounding galaxies, so EHT would have to speculate on not only the degree of gravitational attraction in the halo, but also why it does not occur within a galaxy.

One possibility is that the predicted dual nature of dark energy (attractive and repulsive) may influence the distribution. If dark energy, which causes the accelerating expansion of the universe, is a composite of two particles then how it interacts with normal matter might explain dark matter’s distribution. Assume that dark energy is composed of a repulsive v^–_de particle causing spacetime expansion and a second dark energy particle v⁺_de causing spacetime contraction. Observed dark energy would be the sum of the two different types of dark energy. How would visible matter within a galaxy interact with the components (v⁺_de + v^–_de) of dark energy?

It is proposed that Einsteins cosmological constant “⋀” (often considered equivalent to dark energy) is the summation of components ⋀_— + ⋀₊ where ⋀_—, associated with dark energy particle v^–_de , causes spacetime to expand (positive energy density) and ⋀₊, associated with dark energy particle v⁺_de , causes spacetime to contract (negative energy density). Each component may have a large value, but because they are nearly equal (there being a slight expansion of the universe) the difference between the two can be quite small. If the cosmological constant represents the current balance between ⋀_— and ⋀₊ , then in the present era where spacetime is expanding, the cosmological constant is balanced at ⋀_— >0, which means that ⋀₊ <0.

It is already known that the acceleration within a galaxy points toward its center, and that it is the same acceleration that exists for all galaxies. One difference within galaxies, as contrasted with intergalactic space, is the density of visible matter. The density of matter (but not dark matter) inside of a galaxy increases by a factor of ten million. The authors postulate that a surplus of v^–_de particles associated with a slight excess of ⋀_— is collected in the halo and, to a lesser extent, inside the galaxy. However, the ⋀₊ is neutralized inside a galaxy due to the fact that a galaxy contains a large amount of ordinary matter. Overall this increases the acceleration toward the center of the galaxy may be the basis for the MOND acceleration, one alternative theory to explain gravitational effects around cluster galaxies.

Gravity Pollution – an Exploration of Terms and Roles

December 17, 2015Uncategorizedgdaigle

If the generation of gravity-like fields can be accomplished, should we consider its unencumbered usage as a potential source of pollution?

What is pollution? A human-centric description of pollution would be the “introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that causes adverse changes to our lifestyle making the environment unsafe or unsuitable”. Polluting elements can be either natural or foreign. Oil is naturally occurring, but when accidentally released into the open sea it is considered a pollutant. The same can be said of waste from mining operations. When in their natural state, asbestos, coal, chromium and other heavy metals are deposits. When released into the environment either in massive amounts or small amounts close to populated areas, they qualify as pollutants.

In addition to chemicals and minerals, pollutants may also be energy such as noise, light, heat, etc. but usually not of a natural origin. Noise pollution is an excess of sound that impinges upon the activities of others and is undesirable, destructive or dangerous. It is primarily man-made. In contrast, thunder is noisy and disturbing but it is natural and not considered pollution. Astronomers and amateur star gazers disdain urban light pollution at night. The rising sun also obscures the stars, but it is not considered pollution because it is natural. Light pollution may be excessive or intrusive, but is always artificial.

These examples suggest that though naturally occurring gravity is not considered as pollution, man-made gravity-like fields may be considered so if they alter or interfere with the lifestyle or present a danger. One more point to make is that when contained at a point source, materials and energies that lead have a limited extent, making them easier to control or contain. So arsenic in the environment is a pollutant – and when found leaking from a metal drum the point source may be abated. Noise, when attenuated or enclosed at the source also reduces its impact as a pollutant. Therefore if a gravity-like field can be effectively nullified or attenuated, it becomes a potentially manageable environmental pollutant.

Another point to explore is how we measure the strength or concentration of a pollutant. Noise can be measured in decibels. Light can be measured in lumens. Radioactivity can be measured in rads or curies. How would we best measure gravity-like fields, particularly when the fields might be either attractive or repulsive? An attractive field might be measured in comparison to the known (and natural) gravitational constant “g” where a fraction of g is known as “microgravity” and a strength greater than g is known as “hypergravity”. Would the same apply to repulsive gravity-like fields? Would a simple change of sign (-) be sufficient or useful to describe repulsive microgravity or repulsive hypergravity?

The force of naturally occurring gravity between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of their distance. Calculating the gravitational effects on bodies a known distance from an asteroid or moon is know by calculating the mass of each celestial body. Until a gravity-like force can be generated it remains unknown if its force is inversely proportional to the distance, or to the square of the distance, or some other mathematical relationship. In addition, it is unknown whether the strength of the field (which is independent of mass) increases solely by the rotational velocity of the materials generating the field or if it is also influenced by other variables such as the power applied to (in the case of the EHT bench test designs) the solenoidal coils, the number of turns of the coils, the presence of nearby masses above the axially produced field, etc.

Experiments performed by Martin Tajmar and published in 2006 measured strong gravity-like fields in close proximity to spinning superconductors. In fact, the force measured for one published paper was equivalent to a similarly dense material on the surface of a white dwarf star. Despite Tajmar’s subsequent revisions to his apparatus resulting in negligible results, it is possible that with even relatively small samples of matter the gravity-like force generated could be quite high, though possibly very local.

Extended Heim Theory (EHT) posits that gravity-like fields might be generated and sustained by the spinning of superconducting materials at a constant rotational velocity. It proposed the generation of fields rather than the shielding of naturally occurring gravity. Other than opposing one repulsive gravity-like field with another repulsive field, the theory does not give a prediction of strength over distance. This will have to be determined by experiment. Even if fields can be opposed, or shaped by the presence of other nearby fields, can they be confined? Is there a way to “cap” them, much as a magnetic field can be confined by “capping” the magnetic poles with a ferrous material. With magnetic fields, the lines of forces can be constrained within a thin shell of steel that surrounds it. Could there be an analogy for similarly constraining gravity-like fields?

Once we have a positive result in the generation of gravity-like fields, next will be the terminology we employ to describe and measure them, and the methods used to constrain and control these effects. That will likely be a role shared by the first gravity engineers and the gravity designers.

A third possible contender in new physics for energy generation

December 15, 2015Uncategorizedgdaigle

A hypothesis is just a hypothesis until it has some observational or experimental confirmation. So it is with great interest that I recently read that Prof. Martin Tajmar, known for his testing of the EmDrive, has set his laboratory upon the task of performing experiments featuring a different potential energy generation technology that like Steorn and LENR also is an outlier in the realm of “new physics”.

You may recall that Tajmar is the Professor and Chair for Space Systems at the Dresden University of Technology’s Institute of Aerospace Engineering who confirmed some of the initial positive results of the EmDrive device for propellantless propulsion, as described in the International Business Times. Dr. Tajmar has also published other studies this year attempting to replicate previous research involving propellantless propulsion including experiments by E. Podkletnov and G. Modanese and Henry Wallace in the 1970s. However, in one replication he found only an anomaly ascribed to vibrational artifacts, and in the other found inconclusive results due to mechanical vibration, acoustic effects and unexpected destruction of the apparatus support structure.

So what does this have to do with energy generation? Tajmar himself published several articles beginning more than a decade ago that reported generation of a gravitational anomaly (see the listing at the conclusion of this article). These studies led to Tajmar filing a patent on a gravity generator, which if it ever worked might have been used to generate electricity: (WO/2007/082324) METHOD FOR GENERATING A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AND GRAVITATIONAL FIELD GENERATOR.

One notable aspect of any gravity field generator employing rotational components and producing an axial gravity-like force would be a second force component in an azimuthal direction (tangential in the plane of rotation) producing torque on the rotor. In such a configuration energy need not to be supplied to keep the angular velocity constant. In other words, it becomes a generator suitable for electrical power production. Unfortunately, in his original experiments Tajmar’s configuration was designed to produce a field acting in the circumferential direction of the rotating ring, opposing its origin, not an axial field. However, there is an axial design soon to be tested by Tajmar that could be a candidate for a power generator.

Enter the work of Jochem Hauser and Walter Droescher’s models expanding general relativity to include two additional gravity-like forces that interact with electromagnetism to produce gravity-like fields. Jochem Hauser is a computer simulation consultant to ESA and professor emeritus in Germany. He and Martin Tajmar, who have been in communication with each other since about 2005, have agreed to collaborate on a “bench test” of Hauser’s designs involving the rotation of selected materials to produce an axial gravity-like field. A grad student has been assigned to it and will be performing tests in the next few months.

Just weeks ago a new book by Hauser and his collaborator Walter Droescher entitled, “Introduction to Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology of Gravity-Like Fields,” became available and in it those upcoming tests are mentioned. Their book is the most complete presentation of their work to date. If Hauser is correct, one outcome of generating an axial gravity-like field would be a tangential force on the rotating components that could generate a self-sustaining rotation. This secondary force would be the gravitational analog of a homopolar electric motor by translating axial and radial flows of current into an azimuthal rotation of a magnetic rotor. The force in the case of a homopolar motor is called the Lorentz force. In the case of this bench test it has been termed the Heim-Lorentz force, a nod to Burkhard Heim on whose foundation (but not the mathematics) the work of Hauser and Droescher are based.

As Hauser admits, he could be wrong and none of this might work (though I hope that is not the case after having written a book about him and his efforts). He has proposed two versions of the experiment for producing axial fields. The first is the older approach described in his and Droescher’s early papers. That version comprises a superconducting Pb coil with a rotating Nb disk operating at the temperature of liquid He (4-6º K). The second is a much simpler experimental configuration consisting of an external ring, comprising a mixture of two elements, and an embedded disk of special nonmetallic material. The rotating ring-disk assembly should have the advantage of working at the temperature of liquid N (75º K).

If positive results are obtained this spring, then both the E-Cat (with results due out early in 2016) and Steorn (independent confirmations also expected in early 2016) may have some competition.

Publications on gravity field generation by Tajmar. Although his earliest studies indicated significant anomalous results, later studies show lesser effects.

M. Tajmar and C. J. de Matos. Gravitomagnetic field of a rotating super- conductor and of a rotating superfluid. Physica C, 385:551–554, 2003.

C. J. de Matos and M. Tajmar. Gravitomagnetic London moment and the graviton mass inside a superconductor. Physica C, 432:167–172, 2005. Doi: 10.1016/j.physc.2005.08.004

M. Tajmar and C. J. de Matos. Extended analysis of gravitomagnetic fields in rotating superconductors and superfluids. Physica C, 420:56–60, 2005. Doi: 10.1016/j.physc.2005.01.008.

M. Tajmar, F. Plesescu and K. Marhold. Measurement of gravitomagnetic and acceleration fields around rotating superconductors. AIP Conf. Proc. 880, p. 1071-1082 (2007).

Gravity Modification – GMOD

Creating the discipline of gravity design