Process linked to gravity affecting mass-energy

Jun 2017
8
0
Please, better see v2 pdf file attached to message posted june 20


ABSTRACT
The proposal assumes that the distortion of space-time due to relative velocity (Special Relativity), and the distortion of space-time produced by gravitational fields (General Relativity) are linked to changes of state that affect to mass-energy.
The hypothesis proposes the existence of a process linked to gravity, this phenomenon would affect mass-energy. It would be required to add an additional condition (being a more restrictive scenario) keeping the field equations that define space-time curvature, but by adding the condition linked to the proposed phenomenon, the trajectory that would follow mass-energy in that curved space-time, changes with respect to the established by the officially accepted model. The effect is negligible if the distortion of space-time caused by a gravitational field does not have a significant value. The hypothesis proposed allows to calculate mathematically the discrepancy that would exist with respect to the current model. In case of being correct, the proposal would have important implications in diverse areas of science and its effect would be determinant in the study of black holes or questions related to Cosmology.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
2,978
631
On the dance floor, baby!
pdf file attached
if you are interested in the proposed hypothesis, please contact me

ABSTRACT
The proposal assumes that the distortion of space-time due to relative velocity (Special Relativity), and the distortion of space-time produced by gravitational fields (General Relativity) are linked to changes of state that affect to mass-energy.
The hypothesis proposes the existence of a process linked to gravity, this phenomenon would affect mass-energy. It would be required to add an additional condition (being a more restrictive scenario) keeping the field equations that define space-time curvature, but by adding the condition linked to the proposed phenomenon, the trajectory that would follow mass-energy in that curved space-time, changes with respect to the established by the officially accepted model. The effect is negligible if the distortion of space-time caused by a gravitational field does not have a significant value. The hypothesis proposed allows to calculate mathematically the discrepancy that would exist with respect to the current model. In case of being correct, the proposal would have important implications in diverse areas of science and its effect would be determinant in the study of black holes or questions related to Cosmology.
I haven't perused the paper (or, in fact, the abstract) so my comment has nothing to do with the content.

I have deleted the line where you supplied your e-mail address. It's just a bad idea to post them openly. Any members that want to speak to you can do it on the open Forum or in a PM.

-Dan
 
Apr 2017
10
1
North Carolina
Sounds interesting. Thank you for posting about your ideas. I'm reading the paper, and will be glad to offer thoughts if I understand.
 
Jun 2017
8
0
it is an hypothesis but shows very interesting properties. The proposed phenomenon adds an additional condition, a direct consequence is that a free fall observer would undergo a negative acceleration (that effect would be negligible insofar the distortion of time does not change significantly) that means that velocity would be lower than the one predicted by the officially accepted model. Using the equations to calculate that discrepancy for the trajectory of a free fall body between State A (far away from the sun, where gravitational field effect is negligible) and “State B” (the surface of the sun) the discrepancy between the expected value (by the officially accepted model) and the one adding the proposed process is less than 1*10-10 and that discrepancy is considering the whole trajectory (if we compensate the energy required until reach a space-time position closer to the sun and then calculate the value of the discrepancy, it would have a lower value)

Taking into account the uncertainty principle approach:
The proposed process supposes a direct effect on the particle creation and annihilation operators
The value of mass-energy at State B with reference the State A is increased by the factor (dτ/dt) that would be at the expense of Kinetic energy (what produces the negative acceleration). But considering the uncertainty principle, how would it be affected? Now the uncertainty increases by a factor δ(ɸ) which depends on (dτ/dt)
Δ(E) Δ (t)> δ(ɸ)*h/4Π
As you probably know the uncertainty principle is related to the energy required to confine a particle in a region. If that region is hypothetically a sphere, as we reduce the radious of the sphere, increases the energy required to confine the particle on that region. Taking into account the propose process, which implies the adition of the factor δ(ɸ), increasing the uncertainty, that means that if we add mass to that sphere, the energy required to confine the particle increases in particular if that sphere corresponds to a Schawarzschild black hole event (because hypothetically it has been added mass till reach that event or the radious has been reduced until reach that event), then the energy required to get the particle reaching the surface of the sphere (roughly speaking the event horizon) would be infinite. This corresponds to the fact that at the event horizon the value (dτ/dt)mc2 -mc2 would have an infinite value so that the energy required to pass an object from State A to a State B (corresponding to the event horizon) would be ininite.
 
Jun 2016
1,198
565
England
I have had a quick look and at first glance there seem to be some interesting ideas.
However at several points I found it difficult to follow your arguments and eventually gave up.

Some of the steps in your arguments which are unambiguous are stated clearly but then re-iterated sometimes several times, perhaps unnecessarily so at some points.
Other steps seem to be larger leaps, which are much less clearly and unambiguously stated.

Be careful to ensure that any terms you introduce are clearly defined.

Be careful with your English, I am guessing it is not your first language.
In physics certain terms that might be used in casually spoken English take on a more specific meaning.
For example you refer to Energy being "consumed by the process".
This has implications of the energy being used up and lost.
Possibly a better term would be "absorbed by the process".
This has the implied meaning that the energy is only temporarily bound up by the process, and it can be released by the reverse process.

Also I think the use of endothermic and exothermic is not quite right in this context.
In my understanding these terms are specific to Heat (in chemical reactions) rather than energy in general.

I expect that there is terminology in physics for processes that absorb or emit energy,
however I have to admit I don't know it.
Anyone else out there able to help out with this terminology?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jun 2017
8
0
Thank you for your post. You are right, english is not my first language. The paper is the result of years developing those ideas. Originally I chose the english language because it is the standard language for scientific topics, at the end of last year I presented the paper at the physics department of a spanish University and they asked me to translate it to spanish language. For a few months I was using spanish to further develop the hypothesis, they told me that the hypothesis is interesting, but it should be tested, then I translated it again to english. Sure there are probably some gramatic or syntax mistakes, and probably some scientific concepts not using the most suitable word, and that might introduce a bit of confusion. Nonetheless, as those concepts are mathematically expressed or can be easily deduced, I hope that readers get access to the main ideas without too many difficulties. I was considering using the term absorb, maybe it is more suitable as you say. Endothermic term is used as the process would take place at the expense of taking energy from the system (“The term endothermic process describes a process or reaction in which the system absorbs energy from its surroundings; usually, but not always, in the form of heat.”). Note: the term Absorbs is included in this definition of endothermic process.
Your comment is interesting (whether or not the hypothesis is a correct one) because that is a problem that you faces introducing new concepts, you have to use words or terms corresponding to the established model while defining a new phenomenon. For example:
The equations proposed represent an additional condition.
The equation of motion (if there is no external force):
m(d2xμ/dτ2) = fμ - m Γμνλ (dxν /dτ)(dxλ /dτ) (sorry underscripts and superscripts do fail after pasting the text)
That is the equation for the geodesic in the curved space-time
What happens if we add the additional condition proposed. Then the system would not correspond to the equation of motion with no external force.

So adding the proposed process would have an effect like the corresponding to an external force considering the established model, but I do not think that “external force” is the suitable term to describe the proposed phenomenon, because it should be rather considered as an intrinsec phenomenon of nature. That is the equivalent of using the term “free fall”, I had problems using the established concepts and terms to introduce a new phenomenon. Introducing new ideas or phenomena might not only change the equations but also the terms used to describe some established concepts. Altough at the end what really matters is if the hypothesis describes the physical system better that the current model, because then terms can be easily adapted with no major problems.
In relation to reiteration, I would rather prefer a 5-10 pages paper, and indeed tried to summarize it (in fact some issues are not included like the impact on the Heisemberg uncertainty principle or some calculation corresponding with discrepancies), but faced the need to define in detail issues corresponding to new concepts, for example using different references, or the expression that relates both states (that might be a bit reiterative). Certainly if those effects corresponding to the proposed process were already well known issues, less than five pages would be required.
Finally, I would appreciate if you express the issues that are not clear enough or that you consider should be better explainned. I will try to do it, if it is possible for me.
 
Jun 2017
8
0
In relation to reiteration, I would rather prefer a 5-10 pages paper, and indeed tried to summarize it (in fact some issues are not included like the impact on the Heisemberg uncertainty principle or some calculation corresponding with discrepancies), but faced the need to define in detail issues corresponding to new concepts, for example using different references, or the expression that relates both states (that might be a bit reiterative). Certainly if those effects corresponding to the proposed process were already well known issues, less than five pages would be required.
Finally, I would appreciate if you express the issues that are not clear enough or that you consider should be better explainned. I will try to do it, if it is possible for me.
 
Jun 2017
8
0
I was considering using the term absorb, maybe it is more suitable as you say. Endothermic term is used as the process would take place at the expense of taking energy from the system (“The term endothermic process describes a process or reaction in which the system absorbs energy from its surroundings; usually, but not always, in the form of heat.”). Note: the term Absorbs is included in this definition of endothermic process.
 
Jun 2017
8
0
So adding the proposed process would have an effect like the corresponding to an external force considering the established model, but I do not think that “external force” is the suitable term to describe the proposed phenomenon, because it should be rather considered as an intrinsec phenomenon of nature. That is the equivalent of using the term “free fall”, I had problems using the established concepts and terms to introduce a new phenomenon. Introducing new ideas or phenomena might not only change the equations but also the terms used to describe some established concepts. Altough at the end what really matters is if the hypothesis describes the physical system better that the current model, because then terms can be easily adapted with no major problems.
 
Jun 2017
8
0
v2 of the paper “Process linked to gravity affecting mass-energy”

The proposed Hypothesis adds a new condition, so it can not be deduced from the currently established model. This v2 tries to better clarify the reasons or arguments that point towards that additional condition (not need to read v1).
The proposed process is the one that fits the behaviour of the Physical System to the features it shows considering the approach taken at this paper. This approach implies an invariant value: ndt=n´dτ
The consequence of the process will be a force opposed to the free fall, which would be negligible insofar distortion of time does not reach a siginificant value.
 

Attachments