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.
Transcript (Rough Draft)
|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?
| 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.
|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.
|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.
|Yeah, except them that vector potential is very very important. It's the way that electricity and magnetism get put into quantum mechanics.
| 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.
|All right, Randy well thanks for setting this up, why don't we end this here.