Thursday, December 8, 2016


← Previous ( Bohmianism ) ( Phononics ) Next →

(Recorded: 10/22/2016) (Published: 12/6/2017)

Randy talks to Jim about gravitoelectromagnetism. Based on the similarity between Newtonian gravity and electrostatics, there should be a second gravitational field,the gravitomagnetic field. What are the implications of the existence of such a field, and how large are those effects?

1. The books referred to in this podcast:

(A) Mirror Matter by Robert Forward, a book about antimatter.
(B) Collective Electrodynamics by Carver Mead, a book arguing for the primacy of the vector potential in electromagnetism.
(C) Quantum Paradoxes by Aharonov and Rohrlich, which uses the pseudo-paradoxes of quantum physics to explore the meaning of the quantum world. In it, it discusses the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

2. Physics Frontiers episodes related to this one:

The previous episode we referred to:
(A) Physics Frontiers 1: The Gravitational 4-Vector of Carver Mead

An episode where we discuss the papers by Robert Forward we referred to here:
(B) Physics Frontiers 6: General Relativity for the Experimentalist
(C) Physics Frontiers 25: Graviational Field Propulsion

Other related episodes:
(D) Physics Frontiers 12: A Gravitational Arrow of Time
(E) Physics Frontiers 31: The Parameterized Post-Newtonian Framework

3. The Quantum Paradoxes episode referred to in this episode was Quantum Paradoxes 4: Phases and Gauges, about the Aharonov-Bohm effect.

4. Our subreddit

← Previous ( Bohmianism ) ( Phononics ) Next →

Transcript (Rough Draft; added 2020/07/06)
07:16:42 Alright, well this week on physics frontiers, we will be talking about Vito electromagnetism, which is kind of an exotic sub topic that people rarely get into when they talk about general relativity. 07:16:55 You might have heard of it as frame dragging, or the lens during effect. But it was a prediction that was made by General Relativity, which is only recently been tested. 07:17:06 was this prediction made by General Relativity, or was it something that people were looking at before general relativity. 07:17:13 Well, the idea, at least in its general contours was originally discovered by all of our heavy side who wrote the equations for grip Vito electromagnetism. 07:17:25 Back in 1893. 07:17:27 And I believe that his equations where the week field approximation that the predicted the, the effects in their general qualitative character, but later on when Einstein developed general relativity, his cancer is cancer calculus equations yielded the 07:18:00 at them. But, I suppose, in the most general sense groovy to electromagnetism, is a parallel to electromagnetism, where it's no more complicated than this, instead of dealing with moving electrical charges like we do with electromagnetism. 07:18:20 We're dealing with moving mass charges, where you look at the magnitude of the mass as a form of charge, and you can get the same forms of induction. In the same, same type of fields that resemble the shape of a magnetic field, but instead of acting on 07:18:39 electrical charges they act on matter charges. 07:18:42 Okay now I think it's important, if for anybody who might not know this, that people understand that mass does act like a charge at least classically does act like a charge it has two aspects, the charge aspect, the gravitational charge, and it also has 07:19:00 the inertia aspects, the resistance to acceleration. 07:19:04 So those two things happened to coincide. And it's a major point in general relativity, that these are the same sort of thing. So as soon as you write down Maxwell's equations, and you have these four equations, Two of them are directly applicable to 07:19:20 gravity, do anything with gravity, that's more complicated than two point charges attract each other, you're probably going to be using Dallas's law. Okay. 07:19:30 And the other electrical equation is Faraday's law, the difference in the way you look at it is the 13th law without the magnetic field with even a constant magnetic field is is just saying that there are no vector, sources, 13th law is saying there are 07:19:46 no vector sources to be electrostatic field, just like Dallas's laws saying there are point sources to the electrostatic people, and until you have a second field that magnetic field. 07:19:58 There's no way to get a vector source into the electric field. 07:20:02 The only vector sources for the electric field are changes in the magnetic field. 07:20:07 So you start off on day one, with two equations. 07:20:12 Galaxies law and fair day's law that basically are exactly the same for gravitational field and and and electrostatic field. Okay. The other two Maxwell's equations, say just the opposite for the magnetic field, let's just say it that way, and peers law 07:20:27 which says that if you have an electric current. That creates a magnetic field. Right. 07:20:33 And then there's one more. That doesn't really have a name, and basically says there are no magnetic monopoles. 07:20:41 Or another way to say that is there are no magnetic point sources, and they apply to to compete electromagnetism as well, I would imagine because there's no such thing as a group Vito magnetic monopole. 07:20:53 Yeah, so as soon as you have Maxwell's equations, and you already have, you know, Newton's law universal gravitation and the, all that stuff, you look at these and you say, Okay, well, I've got these two things that already. 07:21:07 Apply shouldn't these other to apply somehow to, can I construct that second field. Now, whether or not you have a second field is really an experimental question. 07:21:17 That's a question for the world, not a question for the theory, but somebody like Oliver heavy side who was really great mathematician and physicist who was very well known as functions and theories and all sorts of things named after him would look at 07:21:32 that parallel and say, Is there something more I can do with it. 07:21:36 Right, because anybody that looks at physics can see that the basic equation for the interaction of two charges is identical and form to the interaction of two gravitational masses. 07:21:51 And that really gets your head going because, although the, the equations are the same form. 07:21:57 There is a difference in the sign interaction with, with the gravitational charge, or I guess you could call it a mass charge likes attract and dislikes repel, but in electricity it's just the opposite. 07:22:11 But other than that, other than that sign in the front. The form is identical. And so, I like the fact that he was thinking, well ahead of, I guess the rest of the rest of the physics community in the 19th century and started exploring this idea of well, 07:22:30 If it. If it behaves like if it looks like an electrical phenomenon, then maybe it will also have these induction style effects and that's where the idea of thinker Vito magnetism was originally born in something I was wondering, was, you understand the 07:22:49 relativistic connection between the electrical magnetic fields right. Sure. What happens in special relativity is that if you have, say two things moving, and you're just watching them. 07:23:03 Then, To understand how they interact with each other. 07:23:07 You have to consider one is a source of the interaction and one of the object of the interaction. Now, you know, you know, Newton's third law is going to have both of them react to each other, right but when you're looking at things it's easiest to look 07:23:20 at one as a source and look at the other one. As the sort of affected object. 07:23:26 Right, you could pick pick either one, and then say that it's a rest, and then apply to Lawrence Transform to the velocity of the other body right. What you have to do to compute the interaction, would be to transform into one frame then transform into 07:23:42 other and so forth. So, probably the simplest thing you can do with it, say a magnetic interaction is to look at how a point particle moving charged particle interact with a wire, right. 07:23:58 You made a current in a wire. 07:24:01 Current in a wire, so you have a current in a wire and going, you know, a little bit off the wire but going a little too It is a charged particle and figure out how that charged particle is going to react if you don't want to use magnetism. 07:24:22 You just want to look at how the charges are doing these things, but you have to do is you have to transform into the frame where the current is right, so that there is no current Right. 07:24:37 What that's going to do, even if you have with the current a neutral wire. If you transform into the frame where the current is not running two wires no longer neutral. 07:24:50 And so now you have this charged wire, you just have this charge wire with no current running through it. 07:24:57 And you calculate the electromagnet or you calculate the electrostatic field from the charge wire, but that's not really what the particle feels right so what you have to do is you calculate the electric field in the wires frame. 07:25:12 But to apply a force you have to be in the same frame as the particle. Right. The thing that's actually being moved around pushed around. So then you have to transform the field into the particles frame of reference. 07:25:26 Right. And then you apply the field, see which way the force is going to go and all that other stuff. And then what you have to do is you have to transform everything back into your own reference range. 07:25:37 Right. 07:25:38 So it's a it's a fairly tedious process to do something like that because you have to go, Lawrence transform Lawrence transform Lawrence transform do everything right and turns out you have to do two things right every time you do a little bit annoying. 07:25:55 But when you, when you do that entire process, you find that in addition to what you thought was going to be an electric phenomenon. Right, yeah. 07:26:08 You have some additional force. 07:26:10 And that additional force, basically needs to make that additional coursework you basically need to construct this imaginary field that we call the magnetic field. 07:26:22 It's not really imaginary but it's the relativistic effect of electromagnetism, the relativistic effective electricity between these two objects. As you observe them, you know, they have what you know they have all these things moving around Europe in 07:26:38 your reference frame, and that relativistic effect requires you to have some sort of thing that we call the magnetic field. So you're looking you're thinking about this in terms of veto magnetism. 07:26:49 Yeah, so the first thing is is. 07:26:52 Well, the question is, is how does that relate to how this second field and what do they call that second field, set the veto magnetic field. Yes, if you've got a moving, if you gotta move mass current, you've got out you're going to have the magnetic 07:27:05 field. Okay, so this will veto magnetic field. I was wondering if that is derived in the same way or is it usually just assume I would assume that it would be identical because all the physical characteristics are going to go through the same Lorenz transform 07:27:22 right before a mass current coming in your direction you're going to have a Lawrence transform that gives you a compressed sense of a higher density right, just like you'd have a higher charged density for electrons moving in your direction right i mean 07:27:37 that's what I assume no I'm not completely sure about that, because when you have an electric field in a relativistic setting or an electromagnetic field in a relativistic setting the whole thing is just one tensor so they don't separate the two fields 07:27:51 they're one symbol, and now it's a four by matrix basically it's a four by, it's a rank to for tensor, so it's like a four by four matrix tensor. 07:28:02 Oh no wait, the discrepancy factor in the gravitational field is the second order stress. Stress energy tensor, as opposed to the source of the electromagnetic field, which is a first order for current cancer. 07:28:15 resolve that I don't know how he did it, yeah yeah we might have to think about that a little bit. That might be leading me into the next thing which is in a general relativistic interpretation of this, what would happen so if we said, originally, that 07:28:33 we had this field attacking just like the magnetic field in special relativity. 07:28:40 But then we have to move all this stuff into general relativity, which is this, you know, highly nonlinear regime, which is mucking around with this metric tensor and all that other fun stuff. 07:28:51 So that, so that always Lorenz transforms aren't really what's going on anymore you have more complicated transforms is ever more complicated metric, how does that modify how you're looking at what's going on with the veto magnet magnetic field is that 07:29:06 just the fact that now you have to use the stress energy tensor, rather than this, for current that he's talking about the four current being a rank one tensor, where the time element is your charge density, and each one of the three space elements, our 07:29:26 currents. So the three space elements together constitute a vector curve when Carver mead was talking about it g for V. It sounded like he was, he had formulated a solution for group veto electromagnetism, that echoed the electromagnetic field in that 07:29:44 way. But there must be some kind of cross coupling. There must be some kind of interdependence of those vector potentials that doesn't exist in the electromagnetic regime in order to get these non linearity so that's what I'm thinking. 07:29:58 Because the week field approximation for grito magnetism, for example, it completely perfectly reflects Maxwell's equations. But when you get to higher gravitational fields and higher velocities, that it deviates you know in crew with increasing significance 07:30:14 from those predictions so there must be some kind of interdependence of the factors that isn't applicable to electromagnetism right. That is what my sort of naive you could set because I haven't done any real deep thinking about this sort of mathematical 07:30:27 level so that's it's sort of just a naive. Thinking of mine. Yeah, he well he hasn't published his complete set of equations for for that approach, which looks beautiful, but he hasn't published is complete treatment of yet, and I've been thinking maybe 07:30:42 maybe we could take a look at it and see if we could back engineer it based on the talk that he gave, but in the meantime I'm just, I just kind of put that as a placeholder and thinking that. 07:30:53 Okay, so, these effects are real, you can get a good initial ballpark estimate from these equations, but if you start going to relativistic velocities and significant redshift and the gravitational field you probably get a much more intense effect. 07:31:06 Was there anything else you'd like to talk about as far as this stuff in the general relativistic interpretation of electromagnetism. 07:31:14 Well, I think that what we should probably mention that the way that it's usually discussed in qualitative terms trying to give people an appreciation for how it works, is often space time is described as like a syrup. 07:31:31 And when an object like say the Earth is spinning. Then it drags that that space time syrup around with it so that the coordinates get sort of shifted around in gr space time itself becomes twisted in the direction of spin. 07:31:49 There's a hydrodynamic model for it in gr, which is fascinating and kind of surreal to think about space time getting twisted around that way. And especially when you start thinking about binary systems or try nary systems. 07:32:03 I mean the the warping of of the space time metric gets pretty exotic under those conditions, but there is an alternative way now looking at it, where you can can think of spaces space time is always being Euclidean, but there are actual forces acting 07:32:21 on light that will curve its trajectory acting on matter that will influence, its trajectory. 07:32:28 And that's that's what Carver me developed as g4 v so I'm really eager to see that. Get flushed out. 07:32:34 So you're saying that this g4 v thing. 07:32:38 Rather than saying that you have a curve spacetime says, you start with your Euclidean space on and then you do something to the light or something somehow. 07:32:50 How does that translate into this graffiti electromagnetism. 07:32:54 Well, frankly, it's much more in line with our theory of electromagnetism and electromagnetism, we don't think of space and time bending, in order to give us the fields that were talking about. 07:33:06 So I think that we can look at it in a similar way that we can still, I think that the mathematics of special relativity will still apply. Although its interpretation, may change under the g4 v model, because even in special relativity you're talking 07:33:22 about compressed time and compressed space and these kind of ideas that the geometry of space time is changing. But those effects can also be understood in terms of particles, being affected by the influence of potential fields and gradients, and it just 07:33:41 creates the illusion that space and time are compressed, because what we observe with light or moving matter will be following these potentials which create the illusion that there's a change in the metric. 07:33:56 Basically with the g4 v would cover meet is done. I think we talked about this couple of episodes ago is he's introduced a vector potential, so the vector potential is this thing that works with magnetism normally, and it's something that's complicated 07:34:12 to use it's complicated to understand it's something that doesn't show up in your freshman e&m, and it shows up in your junior, senior level and then book just long enough so that you can do it put two problems at the end of the chapter and then you don't 07:34:28 worry about it anymore. You don't use it until you're stuck trying to get for all the second Jackson, as a graduate student, so it's not something that has a lot of very practical application. 07:34:41 You can only choose when you're a graduate student, because it's so important in quantum mechanics. That's really how I see it is that in quantum mechanics, the vector potential is how you couple magnetic fields to your situation. 07:34:56 And it actually comes into the momentum of the Schrodinger equation, but the vector potential is how you couple that magnetism into your equation, you don't do it with a magnetic field right you deal with that potential right it's charges acting in potentials 07:35:10 potentials rather than using an electrical and magnetic field, like I did the substitution right, it's a different way of calculating the the same motions. 07:35:26 The electrical and magnetic fields are sort of really density because it's overcharge a fourth density, right, density of force, whereas the potentials vector potential or the scalar potential, those are sort of like a density, energy, like an energy 07:35:35 gradient right. It's like an energy density, the gradient is what creates the field, and in quantum mechanics you don't use forces, because it's all Hamiltonian formulation and Hamiltonian formulation is completely energy based formulation. 07:35:52 So, you have to use this Becker potential and like in the main podcast we said at one point people didn't think there was a really interesting aspect of this, but it turns out that there is something physical to this vector potential previously people 07:36:06 would just thought that it was a mathematical abstraction of this magnetic field and the magnetic fields, the thing that's doing all the pushing and pulling, and you just abstract this into this vector potential that doesn't have any analog anywhere else 07:36:37 and physical theory which is a very strange thing, and uses abstraction, to get you some numbers, and then you go back to the real world, until you have people like her on up actually creating experiments that can do this sort of thing for thought experiments 07:36:39 that show that there's an actual physical effect of this Becker potential in the real world. 07:36:45 Except it looks to me now. And this is, I think what he was saying in his one of his talks, was that if we could go back now and teach quantum mechanics, and apparently now gravity as well, using the language of scalar and vector potentials and the equations 07:37:04 that we use in quantum mechanics. 07:37:07 Now, at that level that we could do away with the entire electrical magnetic field. The way that we teach it from the classical method right there because those are, I guess the second order derivatives, right. 07:37:22 So, we could sort of relearn the entire way that we look at the universe and and teach it that way and although there will always be a usefulness for electrical and magnetic potentials, we don't need to have them, that we can get the same results using 07:37:38 this. 07:37:39 this, this, the collective electrodynamics formulation that he has in this book, well collective electrodynamics from his book is really just arguing for the premise of the vector potential so electromagnetism, but he's also applying the exact same approach 07:38:02 to gravity and Corvino magnetism, at least as far as teaching is concerned, you're never going to get away from teaching the field, right, the field is analogous to the force and the students won't be ready for the kind of mathematics. 07:38:09 Oh that's true think you need to do to use these, the operators Hamiltonian, well you don't have to worry too much about the operators. When you learn him at Hamiltonian mechanics, you're not really too worried about the operator theory that shows up 07:38:25 when you get into the quantum mechanics, but you can do this just by looking at the differential equations and saying, okay, I set up my problem this way. 07:38:35 And then I take some derivatives and everything's okay and the setting up the problem with the Hamiltonian formulation with conservation of energy, but you need to have. 07:38:44 I shouldn't say take some derivatives because you need to actually solve differential equations with. So it's not a simple way to learn something and it's not, it's not a kinesthetic theory, you don't have any experience in the world of energy. 07:39:00 Unless you're taking the right drugs. 07:39:04 But, you have a experience in the world of forces I'm pushing something, something's pushing me, I'm running into the wall, those sorts of things, that's where your experience lies. 07:39:15 And if you're trying to learn something you have to start with what you already know, you can't just jump into the middle or the end you can't get into the deep end without learning to swim. 07:39:26 Let's move on to them into the realm of some of the effects that we've seen in nature, involving Corvino magnetism, and some of some of the astronomical evidence that we've seen for it so the experiments that have done, we've done in order to confirm 07:39:41 it so that we know that it's real. I remember talking about this the friend A while back, who was studying material science, and he didn't think that it had been confirmed. 07:39:47 He was like what Corvino magnetism that's not just a theory that we've got evidence for that. 07:39:56 So that's, that's news to a lot of people. 07:39:59 I guess for a long time there was an inference from astronomical circles that grew Vito magnetic effects were happening and gravitational waves would explain decaying orbits of binary systems and that kind of thing. 07:40:14 So that's another interesting thing is that with Vito electromagnetism. 07:40:19 We've also got radiation. It's not electromagnetic radiation like light that we're used to, but it's it's a it's analogous to it. And, and it works in a similar way, right, you'd expect something like that No I don't remember exactly how to build gravity 07:40:37 waves, out of general relativity, but you know you'd expect something similar to happen. Although, what we're really saying that general relativity is a quadruple radiation. 07:40:48 That's right. Gravitational waves or quadruple radiation so all of a sudden we're seeing a difference already between what you get with gravity and what you get with electromagnetism, is that major difference. 07:41:00 So, maybe, maybe there's some interesting thing in there that can explain why this is a little bit different. but even so I mean if you had to, if you had to electrical charges that are orbiting each other around a common access, and you were looking 07:41:14 at it at them head on that a 90 degree angle to the axis, then you would you would see electromagnetic radiation field right yeah but it's going to be quadruple radiation of it, the main thing about that is that the radiation is going to drop off at a 07:41:31 much quicker rate, then the dipole radiation. Oh, right. That's true. Yeah. So there's a physical difference right there and that may simply be the fact that you don't have the other charts, right, you just have. 07:41:47 There's only one charge for mass, right, positive. You only have positive charges for message to everyone, you only have positive charge that might be just a bad effect. 07:41:57 I think you were saying something about the size of these effects too, because I was just thinking about it. The, the size difference between your electric and magnetic effects are something like depending on what we're looking at one oversee or one over 07:42:13 c squared, and that usually makes the magnetic effects very, very small. So for a electromagnetic wave, the ratio of the magnitude of the electric field of the magnitude of the magnetic fields that are perpendicular to each other well the way propagates, 07:42:31 that's one oversee. So this is that means that that magnetic field is often. 07:42:39 Well that magnetic field is always very very much smaller than that electric. 07:42:47 So I think there was something in the notes that you sent me. 07:42:51 That was talking about the actual magnitude of the graphical magnetic effect. And do you know anything about exactly how much smaller, it is compared to the gravitational effects that was. 07:43:06 I believe that we were talking about the. There's a G over to C squared term. When you're calculating the magnetic effect. So I think, I think you're talking about it's a second order effect right that's that's sort of what I was thinking would happen. 07:43:23 I'm, but I'm not completely sure. 07:43:25 Right. I think there was a calculation in a Robert forward paper that I was looking at earlier. 07:43:33 Robert forward did a calculation in a wonderful paper from 1961 called general relativity for the experimentalists, where he talks about the magnitude of the gravitational force between two pipes that are that are filled with a moving fluid spinning through 07:43:59 them. 07:44:01 And then they grew Vito magnetic effects. And there was an enormous difference that I think that, as I recall the gravitational effect was some size 10 to the minus fourth and the veto magnetic effect was something like 10 to the minus 16 and and we and 07:44:24 we at that point I maybe was 10 to the minus four times or something really small like that. 07:44:27 But here it is Newton's per meter of pipe. 07:44:30 Ah, yeah. The pinching effect would be right 10 to the minus 15th Newton's per meter of pipe contrasted to the gravitational attraction which would be three times 10 to the minus forth Newton's per meter of pipe. 07:44:47 So you can tell you know it's it's another. 07:44:52 It's like 10 orders of magnitude 11 orders of magnitude smaller. 07:44:58 So you're talking about really small forces, which is why if you wanted to do some engineering with these effects. 07:45:04 And he talks about this little bit later on and that paper and, and the subsequent paper. 07:45:11 You'd need either extremely dense materials degenerate matter or super imposed both Sonic tetra neutrons, or rich are extremely high relativistic velocities are both in order to get anything measurable. 07:45:29 It was either one also that was talking about finding something like an iron with a high. Guess he called a gravitational permeability. 07:45:37 That's right. That was a, he was the, he was a brilliant guy and he mean he would write these papers, he was a he would write fiction he's he, he wrote some fictional science fiction novels. 07:45:48 Well I mean I did tell you how I got into physics right. I don't think you did. Okay, well I mean, basically, I was in the Marine Corps at one point, and I was wandering around virginia beach or someplace, very like it like Newport News or something like 07:46:02 that. And I went into a bookstore and to this little mall bookstore, and there was a book there by Robert forward, called mirror map. 07:46:14 And at that point, I had been under the impression that anti-matter was something that was made up by Gene Roddenberry Hmm, so that he could have a plot point in every other Star Trek episode. 07:46:25 Of course. And so I read the book and I was fascinated by it and ended up going to school and getting three things like that. Rubber for one was actually the reason why I ended up going to school in the first place. 07:46:40 Oh, that's great. He's so sort of a modern like a, like your Isaac Asimov I think Isaac Asimov had a similar effect on people because these are people that have that rare genius to be able to think creatively and dream up and think of new possibilities 07:46:57 but also the scientific acumen, to really discuss them technically and plausibly Robert forward. In addition to writing science fiction books is also got a publishing history that's fascinating he would he did work for military defense contractors. 07:47:17 The paper on one of my favorite papers guidelines to anti gravity. He wrote for Hughes research laboratories. I mean these are heavy hitting scientists, and he was way out there at the bleeding edge, he was, he was thinking about these ideas on how to 07:47:33 experiment in the lab with Vito magnetism. 07:47:38 Long before you heard about it and any other the Academic Press. 07:47:43 And who knows, maybe, maybe some of that research has made advancements and you know it's locked away somewhere, but he who discussed at the end of that paper, the need to research to find materials that would have the same effect that iron has with a 07:48:02 magnetic field so I think there's a very high nonlinear gravitational permeability. And he discusses at one point that with atomic matter. 07:48:14 The magnetic moments, and the inertial moments are coupled. 07:48:18 And he suggests that it may be possible. Therefore, to convert an electromagnetic radiation, a changing electromagnetic field into a changing gravitational field. 07:48:31 So, he was really thinking he was way out there. I think that maybe if you have a really high angular momentum and an atomic nucleus that you might have the capacity to couple to grow Vito magnetic effects more strongly that you talked about that at one 07:48:46 point in the notes it said just had a really high permeability was he looking for something just something with the high permeability like iron has iron has a high Transformers permeability. 07:48:58 What was he looking for something that's actually historic which is another property of parents magnetism, that is to say that it can reverse polarity without you know reversing its orientation in certain directions, and it's in sort of the directions, 07:49:13 between the directions where it can reverse polarity that has that high permeability. 07:49:19 Well he talks about looking, and he describes a procedure to find materials that have an anomalously large or nonlinear properties that can be used to enhance time varying gravitational fields. 07:49:33 And I suppose if you had both like in the case with iron. 07:49:37 Then, then you'd be, you'd be well poised to start exploring that technology, right. 07:49:44 He talks about Let me see intersperse in wedges and material between gravitational wave generators and detectors. 07:49:54 And he does, and he mentions those described by Jay Weber. 07:49:59 And then he says that, then look for a change in the attitude and direction of the propagation of the gravitational radiation so I'm just saying that sounds like a really good candidate, by itself, for an episode of physics frontiers. 07:50:13 That'd be a really difficult subject but I'd love to do it. 07:50:16 We'd have to delve into it. 07:50:19 All right, Jim. Yeah, I wanted to ask you is what was Mira matter that was that talking about anti matter, because he also talks, he also talks about negative, negative mass and exotic matter. 07:50:31 That's some of his other papers, where he explores. You know what would happen if you had a type of material that had an intrinsic repulsive gravitational field, and that's really fun I've read about, I think, because I haven't seen that book for years. 07:50:47 I think that was at least one of the chapters in the book so I mean it was a very interesting book because what he do is he'd illustrate, whatever he was going to talk about by first writing a little story about it so we had some little story about some 07:51:03 guys with their spaceship going somewhere right right. 07:51:08 And each chapter would start with tiny little story about these guys in their spaceship. 07:51:14 And then he talked about the physics for however long so maybe a 10 page story about, you know, something going wrong with the reactor and a 20 page story explaining why that would happen, or something like that. 07:51:32 It's fun. 07:51:33 But I think he did, he did talk about that in one of those chapters, I think that's, that was actually an open question for a long time and it may still be an open question for about anti-matter, it is, they still haven't settled that one although there 07:51:48 are strong theoretical reasons to think that anti-matter has positive gravitational mass. They still haven't been able to perform the sensitive experiments to actually detect which direction anti hydrogen falls, and a gravitational field, that in itself 07:52:04 is an interesting problem. 07:52:07 Well, some of those things are extremely interesting, right, we read papers about people trying to build anti anti hydrogen, Hydrogen or anti anti hydrogen I'm confused. 07:52:18 Yeah, well they're trying to build anti anti hydrogen, which is just hydrogen, right, but they want to figure out how to build in. 07:52:26 And I think probably they have but at one point, it was it was an open thing, you know, how do you take a bunch of protons and a bunch of electrons, and make hydrogen, and they wanted to figure out how to do that because you got lots of protons you've 07:52:40 got lots of electrons running around, and if some of them get loose you don't blow anything up. And so you can just toss a bunch of those things together, and, you know, get your hydrogen, and then modify conditions and reduce the numbers that you, you 07:52:54 actually have and see what's going on and try to figure out how to actually build it, whereas you know with the anti hydrogen lease for a long time, you just had all these things wandering around. 07:53:09 You had your anti protons and your positron, but trying to get large numbers of them together was itself, challenging the shore, and then just, if you just start off trying to get you know a bunch of protons are positive, a bunch of positrons a bunch 07:53:26 of anti protons, turn into into hydrogen, without any real idea about how to do it. It just keeps failing. 07:53:35 Right. 07:53:36 So you're actually takes some took them a long time to be able to get to a point where they could build something like anti hydrogen right and then I guess it's really hard to hold on to once you've got it because yeah because now you've got a neutral, 07:53:51 Adam. Right. Yeah, you can't use magnetism to confine it anymore. Well, you might be able to use magnetism but you can't use electricity can't use an electrostatic field it's a lot easier to create. 07:54:02 Oh, right, because there's still a small magnetic moment right there should be yeah I think so, it only has one electron, possibly the Nuclear Magnetic woman cancels out. 07:54:12 I think not. I'm not sure I can think so far that they found it to have the same, the same properties like magnetic moment as hydrogen and short. Yeah, at least the same intensity I don't know if the sign is any different. 07:54:26 Well, um so yeah we should talk about negative matter, at some point, and negative mass and all the weird things that can happen if you have type of matter, which has an intrinsically negative gravitational field. 07:54:40 He even talked about in one of his papers that if a way to collect it from the universe that if there was a charged particle of negative mass that there'd be a way to harvest it from the universe if you know it existed 07:54:57 was kind of interesting. I think we've got everything we need to say about this right. Yeah, we've done a PR I think we've covered pretty much all the basics for Greta electromagnetism and hopefully someday we'll, we'll see some of these experiments in 07:55:08 the lab. You know, there was an interesting paper written just about a year or two ago that talked about the prospect for generating grow Vito magnetic field, small one, using some kind of, I don't know like almost like a pinch generator or something. 07:55:25 I'll have to look that up, but apparently with the same kind of investment that we put into the Large Hadron Collider, these physicist published a paper which shows that you could generate gravity Alex gravitational waves in the lab. 07:55:39 All you have to do is put in as much investment as the Large Hadron Collider. 07:55:44 Maybe you can make your own gravitational waves. Right. Well, we just need to find the right billionaire. 07:55:50 So, I'll put together a little paypal account. 07:55:54 And if you're a billionaire. 07:55:57 You know, go ahead and send us the cash and we'll, we'll get that work and pay, you know, there's probably a Nobel Prize in there for somebody, could you think the first people to make a laboratory grab gravitational wave, especially if you were able 07:56:09 to make it before the guys saw the first one they did see one right oh yeah they detected one at the Lego observatory right here in Houma Louisiana. So, I mean, it might be too late and might not be a Nobel Prize thing anymore but if you'd have done it 07:56:24 before then probably wouldn't work. I don't know, maybe there's a difference between detecting one, and then making one in the lab, of course, the problem is, is that the Nobel Prize I think only comes with, you know, 100 grand. 07:56:36 I think it would cost like several billion to create this thing. Yeah, but that's the whole point of like the X Prize and all that other stuff is you give you give a little prize, that really doesn't cover the cost of the development. 07:56:49 Otherwise, you know, you could just develop it yourself, but everybody wants to have the prestige of, you know, being the person who funded the team that did whatever it was, I think the same thing was true with sort of the prize for, you know, the longitude 07:57:03 longitude problem. Yeah, it's all it's all about the prestige Right, yeah. If you're a multi billionaire, you need to have you know something to brag about when you go to your parties with all the other multi billionaires. 07:57:15 Yeah you know it can't be, you know, I made 500 million this morning. Oh, sort of, well, right, generating the first gravitational wave in the laboratory would totally shoot down every guy that climbed Everest and then sailed a bungee jumped off the Eiffel 07:57:31 Tower or whatever. 07:57:37 Yeah, what did you do this one. 07:57:40 Exactly. Oh, this came from the gravitational lab where we're manipulating space and time. All right. Well, that sounds awesome. 07:57:48 All right, Jim, thanks for your time and we'll have to meet again next week to talk about something else fascinating. 07:57:55 I'm sure there's another fascinating thing out there, by now.


← Previous ( Bohmianism ) ( Phononics ) Next →

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

← Prevous ( G4V ) ( Gravitoelectromagnetism ) Next →

Recorded: 2016/10/15 Published: 2016/11/15

Jim talks to Randy about the pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics, which separates the particle and wave behavior of a non-relativistic quantum particle into that of a particle moving in and exciting a quantum mechanical medium.


(1) Related Episodes of Physics Frontiers:
(2) Also check out the related PhysicsFM episodes:
  • Quantum Paradoxes 9: Quantum Cats
    which talks about various interpretations of quantum mechanics in light of Schrodinger's Cat, and the need for an interpretation of quantum mechanics.
  • Quantum Paradoxes (Intermission): Quantum Metaphysics,
    which discusses a categorization of quantum interpretations based on the work of Anthony Sudbery's excellent text, Quantum Mechanics and the Particles of Nature. [Amazon]
  • Weekly Electronic Podcast 3: The Machine in the Ghost,
    which discusses Bohmian quantum cosmology.

(3) David Bohm's Quantum Mechanics [Amazon], published just before the papers where Bohm introduces his pilot wave interpretation of the wavefunction.

(4) A Veritasium video on pilot wave hydrodynamics which shows the dynamics of the "oil droplets" that we're talking about in the podcast, which shows the physical analogy at the heart of David Bohm's interpretation. This video came out after we recorded the episode and before I started editing it, and we discuss it in PF0005. As mentioned in the notes to PF0005, the interpretation of this experiment has subsequently been deemed to be in error.

(5) Discuss this episode in the comments, on our subreddit, or our Facebook page.

← Prevous ( G4V ) ( Gravitoelectromagnetism ) Next →

Transcript (Rough draft; added 2020/07/02)

11:42:42 Well this week on physics frontiers we're going to be talking about the Brierley bomb pilot wave theory, most people aren't even aware that that quantum mechanics has sort of an alternative theory or an alternative interpretation, I think, I think if this 11:42:56 is an entirely different theory, but it's been looked at as in a different interpretation because experimentally it makes the same predictions is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is all of the stuff that drives people crazy about 11:43:12 quantum physics, the Copenhagen interpretation. 11:43:17 Looks to me like a collection of equations which are very functional at replicating and predicting experimental results because it was basically designed upon experimental results. 11:43:30 And it sort of hobbled together conceptually, to make that math makes sense. 11:43:35 And so you get stuck with ideas like a superposition. And you get cats that are simultaneously alive and dead, until you look inside the box. 11:43:46 You get stuck with paradoxes. 11:43:48 And I think that that's largely because there wasn't really an effort made to make a comprehensible theory. There was a almost a tyranny I think of the mathematical approach to physics at that time, led by bore and Heisenberg and Polly to, to come up 11:44:07 with a purely elegant mathematical description of microscopic nature. 11:44:15 And there was sort of a disregard for the idea that being readily comprehensible as if only pedestrian mouth breathers would need to have a model that they could visualize and into intuitively comprehend, there was kind of this can see for physical credibility. 11:44:35 And so we ended up with ideas. 11:44:47 In quantum physics which don't appear anywhere else and. In our experience. And that was kind of its boasting point was this we're so advanced now that you can't even make heads or tails out of what we've got. 11:44:49 There's a particle wave particle duality, and so even even particles themselves don't have a classical under interpretation that you can't get your mind around. 11:45:04 Now, deploy early, early on in 1927 was a brilliant physicist, and he came up with a way of describing the effects that they're observing in quantum physics, using a combination of a particle and wave that he called a pilot wave theory. 11:45:27 And it was surprisingly well received at the time, but very quickly, the, I guess the establishment, the academics, decided they didn't like it and just kind of turn their back on it for until 1952. 11:45:43 The pilot wave theory, gives you a model where the, the particle has a wave like almost like a wave like field that surrounds it, which guides its motion through space between one point in the next. 11:46:03 And whereas in Copenhagen interpretation, the electron doesn't exist in any specific point, or in any specific trajectory between point A where it's admitted, and point B where it's detected in the pilot wave theory, the electron has a definitive position 11:46:22 and momentum and trajectory from point A to point B, the whole time, whether you're looking at it or not, you don't need to make any measurements. 11:46:31 But, but its movement is is guided by this wave function. 11:46:37 And the wave function creates kind of an counterintuitive trajectory from point A to point B. 11:46:43 So, I guess, in a nutshell, that's the idea is that particles in in deploying these thinking, which was later elucidated by David boom in 1952 and onward. 11:46:56 There is a, there's a there's a particle that's constantly interacting with a field of its own creation its wave function, which is coupled to the entire universe. 11:47:08 So, It's a non local theory, because all of the other way functions of the universe, have an effect upon the, the way function of the particle and its trajectory. 11:47:19 But, um, but it is deterministic and a lot more sensible and we're going to talk about the oil. The oil drop experiments which, I think, brilliantly illustrate the idea. 11:47:30 You're saying you want to talk about the oil drop experiments that are really classical experiments people dropping little drops of oil onto a vibrating table with oil on it. 11:47:56 Researchers in Paris, who had come up with this kind of experiment, if they had had this demonstration available in 1927 to show the leading minds in physics I think that we would have seen a completely different trajectory for quantum physics, I think 11:48:05 it would be teaching pilot wave theory in schools. And I think that people would find it a lot more intuitive. 11:48:08 Like I said in my email, I'd like to do a completely separate podcast on the oil drop because I think they're interesting in their own right, and I think it's an interesting thing to try to get to. 11:48:18 I would like to at least put a link down below so that people can see the oil drop experiment, footage, and you can really see that system can particle aspect, and the wave aspect, and you can actually just see that working in a little video clips of 11:48:33 the oil drop experiments, and you can see how they're coupled. So the we're taught conventionally in quantum physics that you can only observe a wave aspect or a particle aspect, depending on what your measurement is, but there's this idea that they can't 11:48:48 both be true simultaneously and what I love about the oil drop experiment is it shows you that. No, this one system can have both aspects, it doesn't have to be mystical, you know, that's the appeal but the the broken a bone interpretation is had right 11:49:05 is that by separating out those two aspects, by having a pilot wave, and the particle itself, which is supposed to be bouncing around, now all of a sudden you have something that's a little more practical, you can look at that and you can have some sort 11:49:21 of intuition about what's going to happen and and in different situations, based on your, your experience, rather than based on a complicated series of equations, actually not that complicated the equations, but implications of those equations aren't 11:49:35 always readily apparent because they don't quite apply to things in the same in the sort of normal whale this beyond that, I think that there's a there's a philosophical position where we can get started. 11:49:49 I mean, it seems like in the late 20s and 30s when quantum mechanics was being developed. There was a rejection of the idea that we needed comprehensible model to explain and visualize what was happening in the microcosm and, and that whole idea that 11:50:10 you need something that you could, you know, really, you could get your classical intuition around that got thrown out. I think it actually got a kind of looked down upon by the academics. 11:50:22 And honestly, I think that Einstein and a lot of a lot of other physicists that I find myself relating to feel like that's a betrayal of the entire point of physics. 11:50:33 I mean there's more to physics then predicting the correct outcome of an experiment because like Carver mead said, if you're a good enough mathematician, you can mathematically describe almost any system, but doesn't have any relationship to what's really 11:51:00 It's true to that primary mission I think a physics, which is to get a deeper understanding of the processes happening in nature, and where, where the math isn't completely divert divorced from the factors that you're manipulating in the lab, but rather 11:51:19 tell you something about those factors and help you understand them. 11:51:23 So that's why I think we need an interpretation of quantum mechanics, is that ultimately physics is a very special kind of conceptual art, and there is something to be said for having a model that can be grasped by the mind, that isn't just purely a mathematical 11:51:44 object and. 11:51:47 And I think the boy he was on the right track with giving us something that we could get our head around. Are there any particular phenomena that gave this idea track you saying we have this prospect that we have this group of three people, which would 11:51:59 be bore Heisenberg and Pauly who are, you know, pretty much giants in the field at that point but, I mean, I don't think that's quite enough. If you don't have any reason why people would be attracted to that idea when you know they wouldn't do the same 11:52:17 thing and say electromagnetism or in thermodynamics, people wouldn't be attracted to that in fact people really hated that idea in those in those two cases, right, and it made it very very difficult for science to progress because people hated that idea. 11:52:28 Are there any particular experiments particular effects possibly that were so counterintuitive or so strange. People were willing to look at this interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is basically, we have a set of equations, and so whenever we do 11:52:48 an experiment we prepared as close as we can to the same state. We're going to have an electron we try to get the electron in as close to the same state as we can, by doing exactly the same things every time. 11:52:54 Then we wander over to the output of the experiment, and we just measure it, and then we sort of see it, the histogram of results matches probabilities based on this equation when this rule for calculating possibilities. 11:53:08 Right. you're talking about the double slit experiment, right, it's every equation basically but one way to look at the double slit experiment is you say okay I prepare my electrons with this electron gun I'm just going to leave it at the same voltage 11:53:18 it's going to have the same temperature it's going to eject the same number of electrons going to reject them at the same rate, and they're going to have same kinetic energy, and they're going to go through this double slit right where I got partitions 11:53:32 blocking the electrons, and then they're going to go hit some sort of screen or some sort of photographic plate or whatever it is that it's going to be when they first did the experiments that I observed these light and dark fans which make them look 11:53:44 like a wave phenomenon, and then I'm going to just calculate, where I think these bands are going to be and how bright they are based on these equations and not going to worry about whether or not this electron went through this lead or that slit. 11:53:58 I'm just going to say possibility of going through either one of those splits or possibly both at the same time or whatever it is, because I don't really want to think too much about this, all I really care about the only thing I give any ontological 11:54:11 validity to is this way function, I don't give the electron any ontological validity. The only thing I care about is I have this wave function which is a square root of a probability basically it's a complex field, which means that it's a complex number 11:54:25 of that has a different value at different points. Right, so every point in space has a complex number associated with it and when I square that every point in space has a probability of where that electrons going to be well yeah you're talking about 11:54:41 the, the Copenhagen interpretation, which is, which is popularized because basically with the double slit experiment. When scientists, put photons through the double slit. 11:54:51 And they discovered that even when you put one photon at a time. through a grading with two, two slits in it, and it's still produced an interference pattern that pretty much blew everybody's mind and everything was up for grabs at that point. 11:55:07 So the whole idea of the physicality of reality and all of it was secondary to the crisis of how do we explain this. You've got if you got something which is a particle, you're sending it through one at a time. 11:55:18 How do you get an interference pattern on the other side, because there's no clear and intuitive way to do that if you've got one object like a bullet, that's going through two holes in a screen, you should just see two regions of intensity, right on 11:55:32 the other side of those two slits on the background, where they get detected but instead you get this range. So all those these ideas came out in the Copenhagen interpretation was maybe that photon is going through both slit simultaneously and interfering 11:55:47 with itself. Before the wave function collapse is when it hits the screen on the other side and we detect it. 11:55:54 That's not a necessity of the situation. That's just one potential explanation, and the pilot wave theory gives you a way of looking at it where. Well, maybe the particle itself goes through one slit or the other, but the wave function associated with 11:56:11 the particle can go through both at the same time and interfere with itself and basically create troughs of probability or troughs of low energy where the particles more likely to go. 11:56:21 That's intriguing. The idea there's ripples, you end up with a model. 11:56:26 There was I was watching a brief interview with I think his name is basil Healy, he's a. 11:56:33 He was a physicist who worked with David Boehm. 11:56:38 I'll believe on this theory for quite a while, and I think they worked on the book, The and divided universe together. 11:56:44 And he was saying that the new model. The, we have is that particle and wave particle is really the right way of looking at it but rather, every particle is a process you there's something going on there. 11:56:59 And although it has certain properties which are constant in time. 11:57:03 It's cycling, and it's like a standing wave. And so you could have just like a photon transforms itself constantly from an electrical charge to a magnetic field to a to an opposite electrical charge to an opposite leaf oriented magnetic field, you can 11:57:21 have a particle that's doing the same thing, it's this is a point, and then it oscillates into a field condition in that field condition interacts with his environment. 11:57:31 And so you get the pilot wave, and that shapes trajectory. 11:57:35 One thing I'm interested in finding out about this is what sort of ontological status, does the broccoli, boom, interpretation give to both this particle and this way, when you look at your oil drop thing, you know your particle is just this drop of oil 11:57:52 that's bouncing on top of some vibrating oil and so the wave is the vibrating oil, as I understand it, and the oil drop is part. So the question is, is, is there any deeper meaning as far as the Berkeley, boom, and possibly Healy or whoever it is that's 11:58:13 carrying on this sort of creation right now, is there any idea about what those two things are I assume that the particle when you talk about the particle is the electron. 11:58:23 Sure. Well, that's true of I think any body of matter to boil the was, was the introduced us to the idea that really any fundamental particle has a wavelength associated with it. 11:58:34 And although these, these new wave particle duality is only easily experimentally evident in small very lightweight particles like protons and electrons that there's a wave function associated with all matter, right. 11:58:48 I think that the ontological significance is that's tricky because I don't know, can we detect the wave aspect of a particle at a distance. That seems like there was the main problem is that maybe if you can only detect the, the wave function. 11:59:05 That's the pilot wave, if the system is coupled to that particle, because the way isn't the pilot way but an aspect of the particle that moves along with it, that I'm not really sure about. 11:59:18 And you also end up with all that non linearity stuff we were talking about earlier. 11:59:23 I was wondering if the pilot wave was decoupled or not. So, you know, the way I would understand it, keen about it would be to look at the pilot way as not just being a pilot way but being something out there, interacting with something. 11:59:42 I mean I don't really know what 11:59:47 I do. I'd expect you know something, doing something with the electromagnetic field or something like that with the proton field where the electron would be bouncing around on that. 11:59:57 But you're saying that what we're looking at is really we can only detect the bouncing around a bit too little part of the lead from the, you cannot detect the pilot wave. 12:00:10 So, do we really know anything about that pilot wave. Yeah, I mean that's that's really what I want to know is what would that pilot wave be not necessarily whether or not we can detect it because obviously we can't because if we could detect a separate 12:00:23 pilot wave or even disproved there was a separate pilot way, we wouldn't have to worry about it right. 12:00:29 Because now all of a sudden, it wouldn't be an interpretation would be a theory. Right. But the question is, is, is there any relevance or is there any. 12:00:40 What I mean, what I mean by ontological relevance is, is there anything about this pilot way that the theory postulates that tells us what it is being different than its interaction with the particle interaction, being different with its and then its 12:00:56 interaction with the electron, or with a full time or with the core, or whatever it was, I mean, consider this came out came about long before corks but still. 12:01:13 Is there something that would give it some sort of meaning that we could actually grasp on yeah well in recent years you've seen the week measurement experiments, I believe that error on of came up with. 12:01:24 to. to do a sort of a statistical experiment where you could move your detection the screen on the other side of double slit experiment to various distances, and you could reconstruct the path that the particles must have taken in order to get to the 12:01:43 screen and that, in that configuration, and it fits in and matched perfectly with the predictions of pilot wave theory that showed the trajectory of the particle through the through the slits as it was influenced by the interference pattern of the wave 12:02:01 function of the particle, so you get these there's these beautiful trajectories that come out both of the slits that aren't straight lines they there are. 12:02:12 They have a ripple to them. And that's kind of weird to think of it that way. But apparently, if you use a week measurement technique you can sort of infer that the path of photons or electrons through those slits takes this really interesting kind of 12:02:30 meandering ripple trajectory from the slit down to the screen. 12:02:34 So by doing the week measurements you're saying we can take a peek at what these trajectories actually look like. That's right, which which which kind of illustrates those trajectories kind of illustrate the interference pattern of the quantum potential, 12:02:48 which is. 12:03:00 Okay, that makes it sound a little more like the field is something that the electrons or whatever, bouncing around off of. 12:03:10 Then something that's sort of falling around with electron. 12:03:14 It sounds like some the field ends up being something they're interacting with, I really have to think about that. 12:03:21 So, what we're seeing here then is that there's something that these electrons are interacting with. 12:03:28 And they have these trajectories that are based on that thing that they're that they're interacting with so a particles interacting with another thing, it looks like. 12:03:38 And that, especially, and that's what these interpretation. That's what this interpretation says, and then they go off and they do things, however this interpretation doesn't really make any different predictions than standard quantum mechanics. 12:03:57 So, this is an interpretation of non relativistic quantum mechanics, and it makes no significantly different predictions that we could actually look at than regular quantum mechanics, based on the showrunner equation. 12:04:11 And just sort of eliminating any ontological status to the particles between their the preparation of the experiment and the measurement afterwards. One question that I was really interested about and I'm not sure if you know the answer to this is what 12:04:34 would the explanation for quantum tunneling be in the, the Broadway boom theory. Do you know them well i think that there's I think that the. 12:04:39 There's a relationship between the particle and its pilot wave, which, if we look at the oil drop experiment, it could be, could show that there is almost a cycling, a level of energy, depending on its position. 12:04:56 So maybe I know that there's a, there's an experiment where they they had the, they called the walkers, these little oil droplets bouncing across the surface, and the surface is energized. 12:05:08 When the timing is just right when the when the particle bounces. 12:05:14 I guess it just the right moment when the pilot wave can give it a little more energy than usual, it'll have a probability function for getting enough height to jump over barrier. 12:05:28 And I guess it just quantum tunneling is just a matter of energy. So if the particle has enough energy to to move through with through a barrier, then it'll do so. 12:05:43 And I guess there's a time function associated with a way of equation, that, you know, if the particle arrives at the barrier at the right moment when there's the high energy contribution from the, from the, from the wave function that it can tunnel right 12:05:58 through. But um, it's hard to visualize that, because in reality and electron isn't bouncing particle on a surface on a Friday on its own plane wave right. 12:06:11 It's doing something else in a three dimensional sense. And we need sort of a better analogy to really understand what's happening, the real relationship between the wave aspect and the political aspect, I think, partially. 12:06:27 The reason why I was asking that was, because in the oil drop experiment. It was hard for me to try to get an idea of what tunneling would be other than randomly bouncing all over a wall, which is what a potential barrier would look like and obviously 12:06:42 you can't send that backwards into quantum mechanics right because quantum mechanics you know you have that wave function or in the Copenhagen interpretation at least you have that wave function. 12:06:53 And that wave function tells you that if you have a potential barrier, then something that hits that potential barrier, even if it would be classically disallowed that if that potential is too high and the and the speed of the electron is too low to jump 12:07:12 over that, or to pass over the barrier doesn't have that much energy. 12:07:35 There still is that probability that the electron or the particle of whatever, whatever particle you want will end up on the other side and so I was wondering whether whether or not that would be something really, really interesting. 12:07:34 In, such as the particle being absorbed temporarily and showing up on the other side or if it was just the sort of bouncing over the wall, sort of thing. 12:07:45 I think what we're, I think what we're seeing is that the energy of the particle is. Although the energy on it's on a time average basis, maybe insufficient to penetrate a barrier that requires a certain amount of energy to get through that, that in any 12:08:05 given instance there's a possibility that the, there will be a higher, a higher energy level than the time average energy level. And I guess if you're if if that happens if that if that peak in energy happens it just the right under the right circumstances 12:08:24 where the trajectory is correct and all everything, then a particle can move through right i mean if if you've got an electron, and it's needs to penetrate a body of matter. 12:08:36 It's going to be facing basically an upward hill of potential energy created by the electron charged field of all the matter, that it needs to get through. 12:08:47 But there are pathways, right where there's lower energy. And if the electron has enough. 12:08:54 Enough velocity momentum. It just the right moment and at the at the mouth of one of those trajectories, it can get through it right. Isn't it just a matter of having enough energy to get to get by. 12:09:05 Yeah, just has to sort of get over but you know the idea of quantum tunneling is this electron does not have the kinetic energy to the speed to get over a potential barrier classically has a probability of passing passing through it. 12:09:22 So all I see here is just one more argument that there's some extra logical status that we have to give to that pilot way that it's not really just a part of that electron, it has to be something else that has that kinetic energy or at least you know 12:09:39 has the ability to, you know, have this some sort of temporary account balancing, like taking on a negative kinetic energy which would be sort of crazy but not crazier than anything else and you know when you're dealing with some of these things. 12:09:53 Well, there is. We know, we know that the there is a vacuum fluctuation field right there's a quantum fluctuation field of virtual particles. 12:10:03 Isn't that what we're. Isn't that the, the analog for the energized oil, and that experiment. Is it that there's a background of energy, and that part in that a particle can borrow temporarily energy from that field and get excited if it gives it back 12:10:18 right within a certain time. So the balancing oil drop doesn't have to give that energy back, it ends up someplace weird right it doesn't necessarily go back into that field now I'm not sure with this silent wave, whether it's possible to not give that 12:10:34 back, right, but it wouldn't probably give that back in the tunnel and that's not the thing that I'm thinking about the thing I'm thinking about is if the particle can pull energy out of the pilot way, then it seems to me that the pilot wave and the particle 12:10:51 have to in some way he separate entities. They can't be the same entity, right, because the pilot way would have move along with the particle, and it would have similarly limited amount of energy. 12:11:04 And then you also have to think about, well, how does the pilot way to get to the other side of the potential barrier, just seems to me to look like this pilot wave has to have this separate ontological status, and in some way be one of these all encompassing 12:11:20 weird things like an electric field or something like that. 12:11:23 Well, it seems like it might be some kind of interaction. Right. I mean maybe the maybe the pilot wave is the product of the interaction between the field of the particle 10 the field of all of the other particles that it's a couple to in that face been 12:11:36 entire universe but certainly it's nearest areas, and maybe it's a it's an interesting interdependency maybe if you had one electron in alone in an empty universe, maybe then you kind of have a pilot way because it wouldn't have any other fields to interact 12:11:50 interact with. And again, that would go on to this whole idea that there's something there now. I mean you can keep adding more things right so you say there's this field that's independent. 12:12:03 And then, maybe there's this pilot wave that is sort of in that field, and then that's what's actually interacting with the electron, but that doesn't get you away from having this sort of feel from everything else. 12:12:15 So you still end up with this sort of all encompassing thing all out there, it's not too much of an issue as long as you're wandering around talking about electric fields and temperature gradients and things like that you can still talk about something 12:12:28 like that. But at some point you really do have to sort of figure out what it is. 12:12:33 And the right now I know that I don't have a really good idea about what that thing is. 12:12:38 And it sounds like probably nobody has a really good idea what it is. It's something that, as far as I recall, people say you just can't in principle measure it, which it's always a little bit scary. 12:12:50 Yeah, but you know, I think they, they would have said the same thing about the vector potential until her on off boom came up with that effect where they can detect it without, you know, a magnetic or, or an electrical field. 12:13:06 The Toronto Film effect that we talked about in quantum paradoxes right, so maybe there's some way that we haven't figured out yet to interact with the pilot way with the quantum potential that will prove that it has a physical existence right there could 12:13:22 be, but I mean just have to figure out what that would be. Right. Okay, I think we've done a reasonably good introduction at least to that. Okay. All right, James. 12:13:33 Are All right, Well, thank you very much. All right, James. 12:13:36 Thanks for your time.

← Prevous ( G4V ) ( Gravitoelectromagnetism ) Next →

Monday, October 31, 2016

G4V: The Gravitational 4-Vector Formulation of Gravity

[First Episode] ( Bohmianism ) Next →

Recorded: 2016/10/08 Published: 2016/10/31

Randy talks to Jim about Carver Mead's G4V, a formulation of gravitation combining the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass with a vector potential formulation of gravitation (a 4-vector form, with the usual gravitational potential in the temporal component).


Carver Mead's Lecture that we discuss in this episode.

Carver Mead's book Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism, which is an interesting argument for the fundamentality of the vector potential in electrodynamics. [Amazon]

Clifford Will's Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics, which discusses the theories of gravitation still considered viable at the time of its publication and the ways in which they are tested. This book is also referenced in the discussion. [Amazon]

PhysicsFM our main podcast.

Our subreddit.

[First Episode] ( Bohmianism ) Next →

Transcript (Rough Draft)

Randy This is our premiere episode of Physics Frontiers and we've got something really special for you. In fact, this is something I've been looking for since I was 10 years old and alternative theory to gravitation expressed in the language of engineering and quantum theory, rather than the tensor calculus equations of Einstein's general theory relativity, and yet it makes nearly identical predictions Dion Stein's revolutionary theory, with some subtle exceptions, live just beyond our finest astronomical observations, though else we'll see that's about to change. The theory is called G4V — 4-vector potential gravitation — and it's discover is Dr. Carver meet the Gordon and Betty Moore professor emeritus of Engineering and Applied Science at Caltech. Jim let's start there. What do we know about Carver Mead?
Jim I don't know anything about Carver Mead.

Or, rather, I didn't realize what I knew about Carver Mead until, at the end of the talk you sent me, he held up a book, and I'm pretty sure that book was Collective Electrodynamics [Amazon], which is a book that he had written to try to express the fundamental reality of the vector potential in the theory of electrodynamics, and he did that basically by talking about quantum mechanics and the vector potential in superconductor theory. At least that's what I recall from reading it, but it's been at least a year and probably about three since I did.
Randy I'm glad you read it because I've only kept my toe in it, and it's a pretty fascinating way to reconceptualize electrodynamics, we're so used to looking at it from the classical Maxwellian perspective of electric potentials and magnetic fields that to have him go and reinterpret the entire thing was pretty interesting. And I think, really elegant.
Jim I mean I didn't really see that as too great a reinterpretation. When I was reading it at least it seemed to me that it was mainly just putting one thing at the forefront, which probably isn't too bad. I mean, considering what we've been looking at in the main podcast physics with the Aharonov-Bohm effect and so on.
Randy Yeah, except them that vector potential is very very important. It's the way that electricity and magnetism get put into quantum mechanics.
Jim Yes, and therefore should have a very very strong claim for centrality. I mean, I think that's a pretty reasonable thing for him to do. The main problem I have with an idea like that, with the centrality of the vector potential, is just that I don't really know how to say that this is the vector potential right at such and such a point.

I know how to say this is going to be the scalar potential at some point. When I'm doing something like an electromagnetic calculation, I know that I just assign the potential the value I want it to be at different points, because I control that with your equipment. You know, this is a ground, so that's zero volts, this has to be at 25 volts and you know all those other things you can sort of control all that, then you can figure out where all the fields are.

But as far as controlling that vector potential that I don't have any real idea how to do.

I do know that it will make the magnetic field, and then I can sort of figure out something like that vector potential based on that. 07:28:09 I think a lot of people don't do very much with it because it doesn't really do the same thing that the scalar potential does right does it give you a simple force relationship. 07:28:19 Well yeah, what yeah what it doesn't do is doesn't make everything simpler for you. Alright, so the scalar potential can be used to find an electric field, you have this number in space, and then you can take some derivatives and you can get a vector 07:28:34 in space. That makes it extremely useful, you basically taken three differential equations and turn them into one and now you're very very happy. Now of course the vector and scalar potentials aren't separate, I mean the only separate in in classical 07:28:49 in relativistic physics they're all part of the same sort of number of the same tensor. So, this guy's you calling his thing g4 V, right, I think that think that sentence stands for gravity and for vector, or something like that. 07:29:05 Yeah, for vector potential yeah so that for vector potential has as its time component, the scalar potential of electricity magnetism. 07:29:17 Probably scaled if everything's in units of a it's probably scaled by See, if you've got everything in terms of the scalar potential I think you divide by C for the vector potential I'm not quite sure about that. 07:29:31 c squared c squared. Okay, so, so that would work out fairly well. 07:29:38 Well, you know, we're going to be discussing I guess primarily a carver needs discussion that he gave called g4 V and engineering approach to gravitation, which you can find on YouTube. 07:29:52 Yeah, we'll put that in the show notes, wherever we have children, right wherever they will be hopefully right underneath Whatever you're looking at it now. 07:29:59 And so he went back and he looked at Weinstein's papers. 07:30:04 And I didn't even know about these papers from 1907 and 1912. After he did his work on is actually the discovery basically a quantum theory with the photo photo electric effect. 07:30:21 He went on to gravity, and there were these papers that I'd never even heard of before. And he became fascinated with them, because he was building a theory of gravitation. 07:30:32 Using the engineering language of physics. From that time. 07:30:35 And he was able to basically complete the work that Einstein was doing from 1911 and it and 12, and show that Einstein might have been on the right track for a working model of gravitation. 07:30:50 Long before he discovered the general theory of relativity, which is more intuitive and speaks the exact same language as the work that we see in his book collective electrodynamics which speaks the language of quantum theory and engineering, so it's 07:31:05 it's a fascinating. Talk lecture about a 65 minutes that he gave at Caltech. And it's really got my mind on fire, because I've always wanted to see if there was another way to make the predictions that we see in general relativity, using the different 07:31:22 language, mathematically, one that didn't require very sophisticated and in many ways opaque tensor calculus equations. And this, in this model appears to me to be a lot more intuitive, but it makes a totally fundamental film fundamentally different approach 07:31:41 to the problem because general relativity talks about gravitation as a distortion in the space time metric, in order to preserve the postulate that the speed of light is always constant. 07:31:55 So you guys basically twist reality in order to make our observations fit with his theory, but Carver made his throwing a wrench into that entirely. And he's actually saying that the speed of light, physically varies within a gravitational field, and 07:32:11 he describes phenomena like gravitational waves which are normally modeled as ripples in space time he's expressing them as potential fields that simply move matter around. 07:32:23 So instead of a gravitational wave passing through the Lego and causing space time to distort the length of the laser pathways. 07:32:34 He says that no there's actually a trans transmission of a field which causes the matter, like a force on the matter. And it causes matter to move relative to other matter in the area and the vicinity, so that you can measure it. 07:32:51 And it just said, I'm a Mustang astounded that he's got accurate accurate mathematic predictions out of this theory is fairly interesting that first of all, of course you should just go ahead and make a day trip to like, because you've got that up on 07:33:06 the other side of the way. Yeah, you know, get a couple of two goals to drive you and I'm sure they'll invite you back. Now you remember I showed you a book once I think I was actually trying to set that up as the next book for the main podcast, which 07:33:22 would have been theory and experiment and gravitational physics by a guy named clipper will it was a green book, I don't remember seeing that. yeah so I think, while we were still cruising on that pretty well. 07:33:34 I was thinking that maybe we could try that one. So I mean I had had that with me and this guy was talking about the Shapiro effect and stuff like that. 07:33:43 What was the name of the Shapiro delay. Yeah, so, Mead was talking about Shapiro delay, and I wanted to see more or less what that was all about and so forth. 07:33:57 And all that's actually covered in that book, especially because he's got maybe a decade's worth of experiments. And so it turns out that's a really important thing for a theory of gravity a look. 07:34:11 Yeah, but that's the reason why I went there, but the things that I found there I found a couple of different things. One is this 1911 paper, had been used over and over and over again by people and I'm not sure the quality of those people as far as they 07:34:30 are, as far as theoretical physics goes from reading his chapter on testing these theories will seems to imply that people go back to those over and over and over again to try to shoot, try to show different things about general relativity, like joined 07:34:49 the deflection just from the equivalence principle, well right but the 1911 paper which was titled on the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light in that paper, Einstein hadn't had made the wrong prediction for the deflection of starlight 07:35:03 around the gravitational body, he only got a value that was one half of the actual value. 07:35:10 And it wasn't until his. 07:35:13 I guess 1912 paper where he gets close enough that Carver made points out that he with one extra step. 07:35:19 If you'd taken the equation one step further than that he's been he had it in the paper. Einstein would have realized at that point that he had been off by a factor of two, and he could have had the deflection of starlight prediction that he had got from 07:35:33 general relativity. Well, well yeah i mean he's, he's saying that that 1912 paper, where he starts talking about the, I guess gravitational that True Potential says that when he combines that 19 pool paper with that 1911 paper. 07:35:54 He can double that to make it sort of math. 07:35:56 The 1912 papers called Is there a gravitational effect, which is analogous to electro dynamic yes yeah so so I mean, that's kind of interesting because that seems to be sort of a beginning for gravity magnetism in some way. 07:36:06 But it doesn't really seem to be that way because this car for me doesn't seem to know anything about it when somebody asks, At the very end about gravity magnetism, he answers a completely different question about general relativity. 07:36:18 Yeah, but he does explain in his talk that the 1912 paper predicts frame dragging, which, in he talks about the gravity pro be. 07:36:29 He talks about how there's a gravitational an analogy to a charge, like an electrical charge within a spherical shell, a charge, and how, if you move that sphere, that it induces motion in the charge with him, and he talks about how if you rotate the 07:36:50 sphere in a graph is a gravitational model now where you've got a shell of mass and you've got a test body in the middle, if you rotate it, the mass will rotate with the shell. 07:37:01 So he does seem to understand the concept of frame dragging. 07:37:05 Yeah, what I'm saying is that it looks like need has worked out, you know basically that kind of theory, but, but it doesn't look like he's heard about it from other people. 07:37:15 It doesn't look like he's spent a lot of time looking at what other people have done with it. It looks like he had this idea he just went off and work it all out by by himself, which is awesome. 07:37:26 But it doesn't look like he's looked at all of the different issues that might arise because of that. I think most of it sounds like most of what he's got from as far as checking this out, comes from taking Kip Thorne to lunch. 07:37:42 Well, on the other hand he's all he's saying that this model of gravity is perfectly analogous to the electro dynamic model of that he describes in his book, come on collective electrodynamics. 07:37:54 He seems to intuitively understand that you can do everything with gravitational effects that you can do with electric dynamic induction. Yeah, I think that's right i think that's the basis of what he's talking about and that amazes me I didn't realize 07:38:09 I remember one time we discussed this a little bit because, as most, most people familiar with physics are aware, the Newtonian equations for electrical electromagnetism, or rather I should just say electrostatic charge interactions is identical to the 07:38:27 Newtonian math for gravity. 07:38:31 And if you can actually take this a step further, you can see that there is a veto electromagnetic analogy to electromagnetic magnetism, full of with everything with current mass currents that are equivalent to electrical currents and all the rest, but 07:38:46 the parallel only seems to hold true in the week field limit where the gravitational field is very strong and emotions aren't anywhere near the speed of light. 07:38:56 Carver means saying that using his formulas that you get the exact correct predictions, the same ones that general relativity gives you. 07:39:06 So I don't know how that the problem of the non linearity of the electromagnetism of general relativity gets resolved in his theory, but it seems to have something to do with his use of the mocks principle, and how the inertia of body is dependent upon 07:39:26 the other masses in the area and how they're moving, but I know that he's working on a full treatment of his theory. He seems to already have, have it all worked out far as I can tell, but because he's making numeric predictions, he's testing them against 07:39:40 things like binary stars and and their gravitational radiation and the amount of energy they're decaying away and getting very fine predictions out of that. 07:39:49 Yeah, well I think that's what he has to do the stuff that he's talking about with the binary stars, the stuff that he's talking about with the slowing down of light, with the Shapiro delay, those are apparently the classical tests for a gravitational 07:40:06 theory. I should have marked them off made a little table or something, but it seems to me that he's actually hit all of those tests. Yes, so there should be something where all this is published by now, but I'm not sure. 07:40:20 I don't think that he's published anything on the, on the general expression of the theory but he has published a paper. 07:40:26 What is it called gravitational waves in chief for ve published that last year. So he goes into the specific mechanics of gravitational radiation, and how his prediction is very distinctly different than the prediction of general relativity, not in magnitude 07:40:43 as much although there is a slight deviation there, but in the polarization in the way that the radiation works, we've, we've picked up one gravitational wave signal detection so far from the Lego experiment here in Louisiana and. 07:40:59 And what we don't know is the orientation of the star system on the apparently a black hole ate something and send us a big gravitational wave. 07:41:11 We don't know what the orientation of that system was relative to the earth. So we don't know which one of these theories is correct. 07:41:19 In gr. Apparently, the gravitational radiation is strongest along the rotational access of two bodies that are spiraling into each other, or even orbiting in his theory, the gravitational radiation is strongest in the plane of that orbit. 07:41:37 So it's off by a 90 degree angle. 07:41:54 Plus he talks about. 07:41:56 And I did a little reading online about it too, they're opening up a new, a new Lego experiment in Italy, and apparently using the one in Italy with one of with the ones that we have in the United States, they'll be able to settle this question as to 07:42:13 which theory is predicting the right polarization for gravitational wave. It was, was that what he was looking at the filters yet, he had the filter graphs at the end right he did there was a few ways to to filter the data, so that to make them more sensitive 07:42:26 for either gr or G for V, and I believe there's a hybrid method, they could have used, but it requires a second observatory so that you can detect what the polarization with radiation is. 07:42:39 And he showed some graphs on his in the lecture that you'll see on YouTube about this. 07:42:50 And frankly, it looks to me like the graphs for gravitational radiation and G for V are far more elegant in shape than the, the graphs that model the predictions of general relativity, did you notice that. 07:42:59 No, not really. There were these in G for V there's the magnitude of gravitational radiation along different angles, creates a three dimensional map of like basically like four spheres around, around the origin, and in general relativity, it's kind of 07:43:18 a distorted misshapen 07:43:22 volume that is all long like it rotated along and, like 90 degrees out of plane, relative to g4 V in those looked kind of labored to me. I don't know if there is kind of beauty, I think to the mathematical predictions that he's making, or it could be 07:43:42 Mathematica just like his equations better. Yeah, he was doing that with all that weird stuff with the little point masses going up and down along the detector is Look how much more beautiful those, those graphs are, Angie for V then they aren't gr. 07:43:54 Look at the one on the upper right hand corner. What kind of bizarre distorted shape is that, and that's just plotting the, I guess the magnitude of the, of the field energy at any given orientation to the bodies right yeah I'm not really sure if the 07:44:13 are very difficult for me to tell exactly what they are. And, you know, the labels on the P for V things sort of makes sense, but they aren't the same labels, as jr jr has something like cross sensitivity g4 be as why sensitivity, right. 07:44:28 It's hard to really compare them if they have their different labels. 07:44:32 I don't know enough about them. Yeah, and he is talking about not just the wave itself but it's interaction with the detector, the detector consists of two arms at a 90 degree angle. 07:44:42 And so, you're going to get this kind of hybrid mathematical product of theory with the detector and that configuration, it but it just, it does seem like you've got a simple geometry for detector, and you've got n g for these cases pretty simple theory, 07:45:00 which describes gravitational radiation perfectly analogous to electromagnetic radiation. There was a question after the lecture where somebody raised the question about spin to waves. 07:45:10 And I didn't really understand his answer about that because conventionally physicists say that general relativity gravitational waves, they predict a spin to radiation. 07:45:29 Whereas electromagnetism is what a spin one, the photon is a spin one particle, and they say that the gravity would have to be a spin to part of it. Yeah, I don't know if he's if he's if he's modeling is radiation has the same characteristics, it seems 07:45:38 seems like he seems to think they're, they're going to be perfectly analogous to electromagnetism, which would indicate a spin one, but he might only need a spin one if he doesn't have the strange background so he know the whole thing about this theory 07:45:50 that he's putting forward as far as I can tell is that it's all on a flat background, right, it's, it's on a Euclidean space time that he puts all this stuff into right and so he might not need to spend too because he doesn't need that. 07:46:01 He doesn't need a matrix right so. 07:46:09 So you might only need to spend one particle. I don't know what more we have to do with that right because there are only so many things you can characterize your particle with so how would his gravitas differ from a photon, other than what it interacted 07:46:23 with, right. so yeah it doesn't seem like he's making really any fundamental distinction there at all, if you look at that frame at 51 minutes where he's got the gravitational wave passing by the test particles right. 07:46:35 Isn't that exactly what a photon, or an EM wave would do To test charges that are placed near the beach I think so, I mean, they look like classical radiation pattern. 07:46:47 Yeah. 07:46:49 I mean I haven't studied them in detail enough to be certain about that but when I looked at them I just looked like classical radiation patterns. Yeah, I'm really thrilled with this. 07:46:58 One of the things that fascinated me that I was hoping to get some clarification on so if you could help me with here. Is he talks about in this is what he, he does with his book collective electrodynamics to is he goes to the superconducting solenoid 07:47:12 a coil of superconducting wire, like an inductor, and he talks about he runs the calculation on the inertia of each electron within the wire, and he talks about how the each electron in the wire because it's interacting so strongly basically as a single. 07:47:31 It's coupled completely with all the other electrons and the solenoid behaves as if its mass is a billion times greater than an electron in free space so far from all other electrons. 07:47:43 So that makes me wonder if it's got a billion times more inertial mass. When it also have a billion times more gravitational mass than an original mass, he comes from it sort of interactions with other things really all it's really it's sort of the crazy 07:48:01 particle top, the real particle there it's sort of the electron, plus other things. 07:48:08 And it's this way function, and you have a collective way function and you have some probability of seeing something here there but you don't really have anything else. 07:48:19 So, if all of that has a lot to do with transfers of crystal momentum and stuff like that so I don't, I wouldn't be worried too much about it as being another extra mass, another extra gravitational mass. 07:48:35 Well see that's where I'm, that's where I get mixed up because when he talks about the mass of a body, say anybody in our universe. He's, he's saying that, that it's inertial mass is created by its interaction with all of the other mass in the universe, 07:48:53 Right. 07:48:53 So, so basically if you increased the mass density of the universe. Two times, you would expect the inertial massive any given body within that universe to also increase two times right or mother be some kind of mathematical relationship but it would 07:49:09 increase right because there's more, because there's more coupling. So I'm just thinking that maybe. So what did that mean that that body would have twice as much. 07:49:19 Grab gravitational field. I'm really not sure it probably would not because it's all going into this vector potential instead of the scalar potential, you know, the general way that you're thinking about the effect of mass is that you're no longer really 07:49:33 looking at an electron when the electron is in the material. What you're looking at is sort of this electron. Plus, you have a pretty good idea that you can follow this one electron around, but it's also got little bits of other things that's connected, 07:49:50 it's connected to. Yeah, he likes to say that the momentum of an electron includes the momentum of every other electron in the universe, kind of, mostly the momentum. 07:50:00 Bernie electron or any repair in a superconductor is connected to every other electron or Cooper pair in this that superconductor, that's where this, this really comes in all these other things are not going to be connected in any in any way close to 07:50:18 that stuff that's actually going on the material, so I mean I would look at that and I'd say that he's probably looking at something like the effectiveness, but I'm actually, I'm sure it's exactly the effectiveness that I can understand that that same 07:50:31 thing has something to do with that retardation. You know he's saying that he's got a spear. Right. 07:50:39 And he's got this perfectly symmetrical sphere. That's hollow on the inside and he puts a little.of something on the in the middle. Now classically if you don't have that vector potential. 07:50:51 If you just have a classical gravitational field, a Newtonian gravitational field you don't get any induction of motion. You don't get any yeah there's no net field on anything inside that sphere there's no net force on anything inside of that sphere. 07:51:09 But if he has the veteran potential. Then when you have the motion that motion breaks that symmetry. And there's a coupling through that vector potential into the momentum of directly into the momentum of particle. 07:51:24 And that's what moves it around. I mean, that's one of the things we also looked at in the main podcast is that this vector potential doesn't get the vector potential does not go into the potential energy part of the Hamiltonian, it goes directly into 07:51:39 the advocate of the kinetic energy and modifies the momentum by saying there's some sort of background something that's going on. 07:51:47 And in this case, and in both cases, right, it's really the background, everything in the universe, right it is actually affecting the momentum that's some sort of. 07:51:57 I'm not sure if that average is the best word but it's some sort of average of everything else making the kind of reference to the rest of the universe in any emotion that you actually have be unless I'm beginning to think of it this way I was just thinking 07:52:10 thinking that the shore if you move if you have a spherical shell of gravitational matter. And there's a test body in the somewhere inside of it, it could be anywhere because there's a net zero field static, all, all inside that sphere. 07:52:24 and then you move the sphere you get this induction of motion of the particle inside. But now I'm thinking in terms of inertia, and if you look at the universe as basically a series of spherical shells of uniform density, and then you you move the particle 07:52:42 inside. 07:52:44 Then, there will also be that vector potential interaction with all of the shells of matter around you. 07:52:51 So that would perhaps account for the large inertial mass that we see with matter, because you're interacting with the whole universe when you move this this test body right, something like that, possibly yeah and I'm not sure how that actually works 07:53:04 out because the sorts of equations and things he gives are for very specific situation, he's just going over the experimental evidence for gr and he's showing how g4 v predicts all of it using that the mathematics of that case right yeah so he's got this 07:53:20 stuff it for very specific instances and he doesn't have this stuff for more general cases are dying to see that. 07:53:27 I want to see the whole treatment. Right. Yeah, so I'm not exactly sure how this sort of works I guess you could try to figure it out by saying okay let's say I have a big sphere of charge, right and that data. 07:53:42 Charged Particle in the middle, and I move that big sphere of charge, what happens that charged particle in the middle, in which case it's going to do something kind of weird. 07:53:51 It's hard to tell, but, you know, it should shift. Yeah, but it's not going to have the same kind of effect because you're going to have the charged mass ratio which you know you know it's going to show up because now you know the mass and the charge 07:54:07 are different things, rather than what we have in classical physics, where the universal mass and mass charge, or this are the same thing. So for a particular right for a particular gravitational problem that charged the mass ratio is one, because they're 07:54:26 the same thing. And I think that stays this way so when he's talking about the inertia here, he's talking about this effective mass, which is talking about moving that entire collection of things that crazy particle moving the crazy particle shifting 07:54:43 around that way function, rather than actually moving around a particle. 07:54:48 But in this model isn't it the same thing isn't the isn't the coupling between a body that your, your test body and the universe around you. 07:54:58 Isn't that also an effective mass basically because of the interactions because of the vector potential. 07:55:05 I think there's something in there, right, because I think part of what he's trying to say is that it's like the ultimate mathematical validation of mocks principal. 07:55:14 He's saying that he has this higher inertia. 07:55:19 And that's by taking the propagation vector and dividing by the speed of the electrons in the material, which is very very slow. Right. So, by have a beam of electrons I'm looking at, you know, I've got an electron beam and an electron to like an old 07:55:36 car key. 07:55:37 You know they're running around, I don't know. 07:55:44 10 to the 50. meters per second or something like that, maybe more. 07:55:45 And if I have them running around in the copper wire, moving about four millimeters per second. Right. Again, that's really interactions in the material, but he's saying that there's something here. 07:56:00 On top of that, that's, that's doing that, but I don't I'm not, I'm not sure if I putting that h bar k propagation back, he hasn't already done everything he needs to do to switch it into a crazy particle actually pretty sure that he has switching from 07:56:17 MVKHRK you've already decided you're going to look at the way function in this complicated system that he's got a XRD, it looks like prop possibly some other thing but it looks like an XRD photograph, while he's doing that and the whole point to do that 07:56:33 is to say, you know, we've, we've got this electron moving in a periodic structure and that periodic structure is giving an extra momentum, or a given X ray and ownership. 07:56:46 I just thought I thought that that inertia, that extra inertia was entirely from the coupling between the electrons, because it's not. 07:56:55 I don't know how, what kind of coupling us, the electrons and a superconductor have with the material that it's moving through but the resistance is zero. 07:57:04 So, I assumed that it was like a frictionless fluid and your electrons would were only acquiring this higher mass because of their because when you push basically when you push one Cooper pair you're pushing them all and they're very densely back and 07:57:16 so there's this this large scale, I mean he's definitely doing something, doing something where he's integrating over all of the current, right. 07:57:26 He's adding up all of the current and dividing by the distance between this little bit of current and the little bit of current you care about. 07:57:34 And. 07:57:36 And so there's got to be something going on there actually, he's actually integrating over the entire path of the coin all the way around, but I'm not really sure how that all gets set up at some point and I think even when he's gone to that each parquet 07:57:50 already chosen to move into this realm of the periodic structures, so it's hard for me to figure out how to get rid of this especially since I've seen the same, the same idea approached based on those periodic structures, you know he's saying we've got 07:58:09 a couple of ensemble. And it's true. You do have a couple of ensemble, but it's just really difficult to figure out what he's talking about with this higher inertia coming from anything except that macroscopic wave function that he was talking about the 07:58:26 macroscopic way function doesn't really exist without the periodic structure. Well, this is where I'm, this is where I'm going with this is, I'm looking at the stars in our galaxy, as basically test charges mass, you know mass charges. 07:58:43 And the way that the our spiral galaxy is spinning, we've got these vector potentials, all in relating because everything's in, you know, in movement, relative to each other, relative to the center and all the rest. 07:58:58 Is it possible that, that there's a coupling going on with the stars in our galaxy because of their motion that could explain the flat galactic rotation curves that we're seeing could our sun, for example, have a higher inertia. 07:59:15 Because of its coupling all of the other stars in the, in the galaxy, and could that model is basically uniform velocity of stars in our rotating spiral galaxy. 07:59:27 Isn't that something that he was claiming. I don't know if he I don't think he talked about that he didn't talk about galaxies or stellar. 07:59:34 But I think he was trying to say that there's no need for the dark matter that you get all that extra mass, somehow, from, no no that's that's where I was going with it, what he was saying is there's no need for dark energy at the very end, he gives this 07:59:47 teaser. He says that with g4 v. It eliminates the need for dark energy, but he never explains it. 07:59:55 And I did a little bit of looking online to see what the heck he was talking about that you know anybody knew. And somebody said that something about g for V causes the starlight of distant galaxies to appear slightly dumber than general relativity predicts, 08:00:15 which would explain the appearance of, I guess greater distances or accelerations or maybe it was maybe they were greater, there's a slightly greater redshift at a greater distance, but there was a perceptual artifact that created the, the appearance 08:00:30 of dark energy and his theory according to the people discussing it on like the physics Stack Exchange, but he never talked about dark matter, but it does seem like there might be something there. 08:00:41 I don't know why he didn't talk about dark matter, but maybe his theory explains both. Well, I mean it might, but I think you were saying something about have been economic model that's oh no he was talking about being gnostic about what kind of matter 08:00:59 have in the universe. His theory. I think he was talking about that and very broad cosmological terms. He I don't think he was, he was referring to the specifics of the Dark Matter problem. 08:01:07 He was just talking about the total mass energy content creates, is it, you know, is only is the relevant factor. Doesn't matter what form it takes, he said, doesn't matter, kind of, what kind of matter you have put in my theory, but I don't think he 08:01:20 was implying that get that his theory gets sort of dark matter because I never came came across that online yet, but maybe it does my saying that was just me not remembering that he said dark energy that was just me Miss remembering something I'm not 08:01:32 trying to put anything into his mouth. I just remit Miss remember what dark thing, he didn't have to worry about. All right, he did mention both he mentioned dark matter in the in the context of that is something about his theory out and he's talking 08:01:44 about it in a very global sense that it didn't matter what kind of matter you had in the universe to change the, I guess the mathematics is theory but at the very end there's a there's a slide or something which which says that g4 via eliminates the need 08:01:59 for dark energy also. 08:02:01 So that was really fascinated by this theory. And that's what I would have been talking about because that's what I have written down here, mocks principal and no dark matter. 08:02:11 Yeah. 08:02:11 If you look at the video at 57 minutes and 13 seconds that are somewhere there abouts yeah 57 minutes there abouts, you'll see that his theory. He has a few things that he shows you the differences between the predictions of G for V and gr. 08:02:28 And then he shows. Down below that it says naturally encompasses mocks principle and cosmology without dark energy. but he never explains that last line is I would really like this guy to he's, he's very bright, obviously, but he's very humble and very 08:02:44 you know he's a very gentle guy he's in his 80s right. So, he's had this incredibly honored life, apparently he's been a bastion of progress in semiconductor physics. 08:02:58 I believe that he coined the term Moore's law for the, for the rate at which semiconductors get faster or CPUs get faster, and in here he is in his 80s coming up with an alternative interpretation of of gravity, new math for gravity based on signs early 08:03:17 work is just loving sky. 08:03:19 Now I wish I went to Caltech because I just love to interrogate him right now about his theory more, but I do believe that he's going to be coming out with some more work on this. 08:03:31 I think he. 08:03:32 Maybe he was in his other lecture. 08:03:33 Let me see what was that called. It was called the universe and Deus and integrated theory of electromagnetic and gravitation which also came out last year about a month earlier than this lecture where I think he made mention that he's working on expanded 08:03:46 treatment of the theory. 08:03:48 Okay. Have you gotten everything that you thought you were looking for. Yeah, I'm good. Awesome. I'm really interested to see where this goes. It seems to me like he's got gravitation. 08:03:59 And electrodynamics all worked out. Mathematically, that speaking the exact same language. So if this isn't the key to a unified field theory, I don't know what we'll do, because the problem with unifying quantum theory with general relativity, in the 08:04:15 past was always that they spoke two completely different mathematical languages, you're talking about tenses and Kristoff old symbols and there's all this distinctive geometrical language in general relativity. 08:04:27 There was totally incompatible with quantum theory right. Well, now we've got an engineering approach to gravitation. So we can really, I think we're going to see some kind of major strides. 08:04:39 Maybe we'll even understand fundamental questions like the nature of charge, and be able to come up with an equation that unites electrodynamics with gravitational physics right. 08:04:50 I'm not sure how this. 08:04:53 This does that, um, but it's it's the doorway, we've we've never been able to talk about the two theories in the same language before. Yeah, I mean they do spend a lot of time getting pretty close. 08:05:04 I think there's just a couple of things that they haven't figured out how to push together, you know, the deeper you delve into that stuff, the closer it looks like the we've actually gotten the more mathematical the treatment you see the closer it looks 08:05:18 like they've actually got me if you if you want, if we wander through and looked at Stacy's discussion of the whole thing, it looks like there's a pretty good pace that they make up till some point and then everything goes bad, and maybe they can't fix 08:05:37 But, you know, they've gone pretty far with what they have and that's the reason why somebody can get up and talk about the spin to Bowser. I even though nobody's seen extend to bows on and so forth and so on. 08:05:53 You know he's, he can get up and say this is sort of the thing that has to happen. 08:05:59 So why don't you see that is that what you're going to see or something like that. Well right but that only has to happen if you take the geometric approach to gravitation and you end up with these mind bogglingly mathematical and incomprehensible theories. 08:06:14 I mean, the only really hope that we've seen for unification of gravitational with quantum mechanics is super string theory right where you summon like 11 spatial dimensions or something or, and you've got to deal with things that a Planck scale that 08:06:31 are doing imponderable emotions through a multi dimensional universe them. And there's all have to and we have to figure out what topology. All of these extra dimensions are rolled up into I mean it's just a total nine job to try to reconcile the two, 08:06:46 right, and or this quantum loop gravity right. 08:06:48 And, again, you've got the most brilliant minds on the planet racking their brains for decades, trying to get these some kind of useful results out of these theories, or at least get them to be consistent with our observations and make predictions right 08:07:03 and it's never really happened. So I just feel like this would be this would be a great step in that direction. 08:07:09 I want to see that full treatment of this theory, because maybe there are engineering implications for this so we just haven't seen before because we weren't looking at it the right way. 08:07:18 Now you can, we can start looking at fairly simple equations and a problem solving for a gravitational engineering. If we want to do experimental gravitational work, this looks to me to be the portal where applied physicists can say, Okay, well, we know 08:07:37 what the vector potentials are we've got our mass currents we've got, you know, and this is what we were hoping to accomplish what will it take to get where we need to go. 08:07:45 Maybe this will help us figure out the gravitational analogy, or analog to to like have like feral magnetism, like if we can figure out how to amplify the magnetic field, just like a electrical current does with iron, I mean who knows where this is going 08:08:06 to lead but i really i want to i can't wait to see where it goes. All right, well, sounds good. 08:08:13 Well thank you so much, Jim, I always a pleasure to watch somebody like carbon meet talk about stuff so I don't know how well this is actually going to work out but he definitely does look at things in his own way and it's always refreshing to see somebody 08:08:27 talk about things that somebody knowledgeable and competent, talk about things that I should say, Yeah, he's very relaxed when he talks about a lot of physics when he talks about the specifics of quantum his theory in history, and the characters involved 08:08:43 and the arguments that they've had I mean, he's just so casually familiar with the material because he's been teaching at Caltech for 40 years and is vastly knowledgeable guy, and there's no pretense he's not trying to impress anybody. 08:08:57 He just kind of plods through it and you just get the sense of a very earnest guy trying to solve some really interesting problems, and his love of Einstein and these, these early papers is is contagious.
Jim All right, Randy well thanks for setting this up, why don't we end this here.
RandySounds good.


[First Episode] ( Bohmianism ) Next →