Stowe Cause Gravity Em Qm

The cause of Gravity, EM, and QM

By Paul Stowe, 95 Larkspur St., American Canyon, California 94589,

11 Feb 1998 14:24:13 GMT

 From: Stowe)
 Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,
 Subject: The cause of Gravity, EM, and QM


This article is to present an overview discussion for a conceptual model which is based on basic kinetic theory, and Maxwell's model of atomic vortices. It also encompasses gravitation and its Newtonian derivation, Quantum Mechanic & Planck's constant, and EM (as well it should, being based on Maxwell's model). The model does specifically predict certain differences that are not currently covered in the standard physics models as they exist today. These include:

  • A thermal emission component that is directly related to the gravitational field of a material body.
  • A drag component for any mass with translational motion in free isotropic space.
  • Distorted orbital rotation velocities for very large gravitating mass distributions and bodies.
  • An acceleration field results from any E field gradient.
  • The actual value of elemental charge is not constant, and depends on the permitivitty and permeability of the region of space in which it occupies.

Now the actual model is the ultimate in simplicity. It assumes that there are individual entities that have a distinct amount (Quantum) of linear momentum, that they occupy a non-zero volume, and cannot occupy the same space at the same time. The actual volume (size) and momentum (and equivalent mass) of same is not discernable based on matter interactions. This is because this "field" of particles (covered by simply kinetic theory) approximates an ideal "fluid" or superfluid, and constitutes the foundation of Maxwell's atomic vortices & vortex sponge state.

Each of these vortices has a permanent existence in an ideal perfect medium, and cannot be destroyed. They therefore can be considered individual entities, which will in turn interact with each other in complex but predictable fashions. Thus the vortices can be considered quasi-particles but have the added complexity of circulation interactions (action at a distance forces) and string like vibrational modes which radiates waves and permits transmission of same. It is at this level, and NOT the basic particle level mentioned in the previous paragraph, that EM & QM occurs.

Gravity on the other hand is seen in this model as the transfer of basic field energy from the "random walk" kinetic field into the vibration/circulation energy within the vortices. That is to say, the underlying field constantly feeds energy into the vortices, which converts to vibrations and ring circulation. Now it is quite clear that if this were a "one way" affair, the entire system energy would soon all be tied up in this form. However, entropy is never zero, and thus there is constant "dissipation" back into the randomized state. Thus we have what I've come to call the fundamental feedback triad.

                     Random motion
                  _  Of Base Field
                  /|    Quantum     \
                 /                   \
        (Hubble's Term)         (Gravitation)
               /                       \
              /                         \
             /                           _|
       (Light) <---------- EM <-- (Quantum Mechanic)

Thus, in this model, no big bang or expansion is necessary. We have instead a form of the "tired light" hypothesis.

The model therefore encompasses LeSage's idea that "field" energy is dissipated in matter resulting in large scale directional "momentum/energy gradients that "pushes" bodies together. The Newtonian force equation is a direct consequence of this. However, this also means that there is a real energy dissipation occurring in matter, which in turn must be transformed into an EM form (thermal radiation). For this to be true, a large gravitating body must "heat up" and radiate black body radiation proportional to the gravitational field created. This is the first test of this concept, namely, can this be correlated and confirmed or falsified (like a lawy er, never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to: yes the thermal emission can, with high correlation, be linked to the gravitational potential of the body)?

Moreover, as Feynman pointed out (Volume 1 Chapter 7, page 9-10 of the "Lectures") this process must also produce a "drag" component on any matter that is in translational motion relative to the underlying "field". The magnitude of which is easily calculated and, at first glance, spells the death knoll for this concept. But the key to this is the phrase "that is in translational motion RELATIVE to the underlying field". For the earth, like all solar planetary bodies, the system is "assumed" to have formed from a co-rotating solar nebula. The underlying "field" thus would be also co-rotating, therefore there is no relative motion between the planetary bodies and the underlying field. However, rouge stars and large wandering bodies not in such a co-moving state, should experience this drag. This will have real consequences in astrophysics

Since gravitation in this model is an attenuation of "field" energy in bodies, there is a cumulative "loss" of intensity as it passes through subsequent bodies. Given sufficient attenuation, this effect will "weaken" the resulting interaction of any bodies that are "shielded" by such outer shells. This means that their predicted orbital speed will diverge from the standard model and will be progressively slower than would otherwise be expected. In the case of this model's gravitation, the sun's attenuation factor is 2GM/rc^2 and is on the order of 1E-06. The standard attenuation equation is:

 dFee = Fee_o(1 - e^-ux)  Where Fee is the field flux, and ux is the attenuation factor

When ut is much less than one, e^-ux simplifies to (1 - ux) and thus in the above equation we get:

 dFee = Fee_o(ux)

and x is the travel distance through the attenuator and is directly related to the radius (r) of the spherical bodies. We find therefore that for such a weak solution, this effect is a direct function of the sum of all radii encountered. For a system such as a galaxy, this is directly correlated to the stellar density and galactic "depth dR = R_t - R. We also so know that galactic orbital velocity is, in Newtonian gravitation, a = V^2/R = GM/R^2 and thus V^2 = GM/R, which is a linear function of 1/R. Since the weakening is a linear function of dR and V^2 is a linear function of 1/R we find that, for a given density, these effects can cancel, resulting in a "flat" or constant rotation profile. This could resolve the "dark matter" issue related to such observed "flat" rotation profiles.

Since we can treat the vortices as quasi-particles, given a sufficient density, this system can also be consider a complex form of standard kinetic theory, as modified to account for interactive forces extending from the vortices. Thus this system will also have a form of pressure, density, temperature and fundamental action. It is this fundamental action term on which we will focus next. Action, as defined in kinetic theory is the mean interaction parameter. This function leads to the concept or idea of "least action". This parameter is very easy to define, it is the scalar quantity of the magnitude of the "least" momenta that can in fact "interact" multiplied by the mean distance between such interactions. To have an "interaction" we need two entities which each having a quantum of momentum (p). L can designate the average [mean] distance between such interactions, thus mathematically action (h) can be defined as:

 h = 2pL and the unit are (in MKS) kg-m^2/sec

Planck did not overlook this similarity when he discovered that light was divided into quanta. He called this term the "Quantum of Action (h)"

If, for the vortices, we define the quantum of momentum p as 5.15E-27 and the Mean Free Path [MFP] L as 6.43E-08 we get:

 h = 2(5.15E-27)(6.43E-08) = 6.63E-34

or Planck's constant. Now I have left out the full rigorous derivation of p & L. To obtain this, contact me and ask for my paper "Simply Beauty" or simply search the web for this title, since it is published at several locations.

It is important to note that the MFP of the vortices is 6.43E-08 meters. This corresponds to the so-called UV edge (onset of ionization). In this model, this is interpreted as the point at which the vortices alone can no long directly support wave propagation (since the wavelength drops to less that their mean spacing) and the underlying "field" must predominantly assume this role. This causes a distinctly different characteristic for radiation with wavelengths shorter than this value.

As can be seen by the definition above, for field action to be non-zero, L must be non-zero. This means that by definition, within the bounds of basic continuum mechanics, the field must be compressible. Any compressible field has the following mathematical characteristic:

 Div v > 0

where v represent the velocity "field" of a differential volume element. Since linear momentum p = mv, and assuming a conservative field, then:

 Div p > 0

and must be a fundamental property of the field.

Given that the definition of Divergence is:

 Div = (d/dx + d/dy + d/dz)

Div p will then become:

 (dp/dx + dp/dy + dp/dz) = e where e > 0

taking the simplest case where dp/dy = 0 and dp/dz = 0, we can one dimensionally say:

 e = dp/dx = 2p/L = 1.602E-19 kg/sec

The consequence of this definition is, to say the least, fascinating. Let look at Coulomb's equation:

 F = (1/4pi[eps])e^2/r^2 ->

Given the definition above, we find that eps (permitivitty) resolves to units of kg/m^3 or ordinary density.

Thus given that:

 c^2 = 1/mu[eps]  (c is light speed)

we find that this corresponds to the basic thermodynamic equation:

 c^2 = xP/rho

Where P is pressure and rho is density.

If this is fact the relation, we can define permitivitty based on the defined parameters of p, L, and c. Simply put, permitivitty should be proportional to p/cL^3. Therefore eps should be:

 eps = ?(p/cL^3)

We find that, to get the proper value, the unknown term (?) must be 137, or the fine structure constant.

In other words, we now have a one to one correlation of a standard fluid medium to all EM properties, as Maxwell surmised.

The consequence of this shows us that the vector quantity E (electric field) is a velocity term, having within this model, units of m/sec. Thus the gradient of velocity with respect to time would produce an acceleration, m/sec^2. This is easily testable, all one has to do is create a "shaped" asymmetrical electric field and place any neutral object within the field an look for an imposed acceleration.

To close the triad proposed above, we must provide a mechanism by which EM radiation is dissipated. This can be thought of as a resistance, and on a per unit distance basis, must have the form:

 dE/dx = kg-m/sec^2 = dp/dt = (dp/dx)(dx/dt)

and would be the "resistance", or dissipation "force" acting on wave motion through space. Now Hubble's term is estimated to be between 50 & 100 km/sec-MPC and we will use the mean difference between these values (75,000 m/sec-MPC) in this discussion. Inspecting the equation above we see a dp/dx, which can be related in the model to elemental charge e. The dx/dt term would then become E, the inherent electric field intensity. Thus we get:

 dE/dx = eE-> = h(dnu/dx) = (p/c)a   
 Where p/c is the mass equivalence of a photon with momentum p, & a is acceleration.

We know that a is (75,000)^2 / (2(9.46E+21)) or -2.97E-18 m/sec^2 based on published values. So we can quantify this effect, but at this point, not prove its existence.

Clearly, as I showed in "Simply Beauty", we can define all the QM/EM constants in terms of p, L, c, and the fine structure constant. So, in this regard, the model is both internally consistent and fully compatible with existing data. Moreover, it encompasses gravity, defines elemental charge, and predicts new aspects of known processes that can in fact be tested. So, I now comes the question, "is there something in this model that is incompatible current observations"? If so, specifically what & why. If not, is there any other single model that encompasses as much and is equally simple in its foundation?

Paul Stowe

On Wed Mar 04 10:30:12 PM PST 1998, "J.J. Gauch" < Physicsgod@technologist.coOm > asks:

What, pray tell, doest your aether theory predict?

Paul Stowe responds .....

The aether model has a lot going for it including:

  • derivations of Planck's constant, elemental charge, Boltzman's constant, Rydberg's term, Permeability, Permitivitty from standard fluid properties
  • Derivation of Newtonian Gravitation and a definition of the physical properties that create the gravitational constant G
  • A foundation for Quantum Mechanics and a simple link to gravitation
  • An explanation for the pure transverse nature of light
  • Derivation of the 2.8 degree K background radiation
  • A consistent framework for all physical phenomena
  • An explanation for the distorted rotation profile of galaxies without invoking "dark matter"
  • Explanation of Galvantic potential

And does so from a simply, single common basis. These are not pie in the sky descriptions but full mathematical derivations and definitions. So its kind of hard to argue with math since these a not arbitrary. Two "isolated" (that is to say no attempt is made in this post as to explain their origin) examples are illustrated below.

Boltzman's constant k in MKS is:

 k = ue/2a  = h/ec


 h = Planck's constant
 u = permeability
 e = elemental charge
 c = light speed
 a = fine structure constant

Paul Stowe

E-Mail: (Paul Stowe)