A Mechanism for Inertia or Gravity by Way of Low Energy Light..
Inertia may be related to the idea of low energy photons.
Theorists such as Bernard Haisch who's an astrophysicist at Lockheed Martin in Palo Alto CA and others have proposed that inertia and gravity are both caused by interactions of the common heavy quanta around us with low energy photons.
The idea is simple..
The heavy and a light mass accelerated with the same force move at different speeds because the heavy mass has more surface to interact with low energy photons.
This would also be the cause of the Lorentz contraction by way of pressure from the photons.
Haisch believes that in uniform motion the low energy photons are the same in all directions around you.. however with acceleration they then start to exert the force of inertia..
If this is true I would ask why the photons exert force only on the mass in acceleration and not in uniform motion as we might expect..
If the particles are bouncing off of the heavier mass, it might seem reasonable to say that they would radiate back out and cause things like mass induction or friction.
Another question I'll discuss here is about why the planets would seem to plow through this low energy field and yet show little change of the force exerted by the low energy photons.
In my earlier work I considered that it was possible that light could have the huge snapback by way of the resilient medium Maxwell used with the experiments proving the exact speed of light by way of the degree of the snapback. More particularly I invoked the idea of waves at long distance but at close radius the light has the snapback.. otherwise friction is a major problem with this idea, even while Maxwell, Newton, Feynman, La Sage and others considered particles as a potential method of explaining inertia and gravity by this simple mechanical method.
General Relativity says that gravity and inertia are essentially the same thing so that if inertia certainly has no source we can also say that gravity would have the same events.
So gravity would seem to have the same isotropic field, yet if you take a pendulum and its oscillation will stop towards the center of the Earth, not in any direction..
Another way of looking at this problem is about how if somehow the Earth was removed we might expect that the moon would go on orbiting around where the Earth was unchanged. A source involves a center unlike inertia about uniform motion in the direction of motion when a body moves without a source. Inertia is isotropic but gravity isn't.
on the link as I'll show you also at the end of my post, in a gravitational elevator the two observers falling at different velocities are not equivalent because one is redshifted and one is blueshifted while in the inertial elevator both are red shifted and this is reciprocal.
This is contrary to Einstein's belief that no experiment in either elevator can find any distinction between between gravity and inertia.
You might wonder why this distinction doesn't show up with the Michaelson Morley experiment or other events with light.. my belief this is because as on the link the speed of light doesn't change much in the Earth's gravitational field even while the masses in the elevators have more influence.
This is another way to say that mass and energy are not completely equivalent because for example it's much easier to convert mass to energy than energy to mass and while mass energy are conserved they're not converted..
We would expect them to be converted also if relativity was complete and what converts mass to energy is friction when relativity doesn't have as much value.
One truth here is about the light which relativity describes well and this is about what we see by optics. Certainly looks can control a lot as fashion may have influence! Even so contact forces and friction are common in physics.
If light carries itself and never fizzles out like sound because there's no medium there we could also say that since light doesn't fizzle out, essentially there are no contact forces or friction and nothing will ever wear out or run down by relativity.
But events all around us are wearing out often and centrifugal force is not the same as gravity because centrifugal force only has one mass term in the equation while gravity has two. This would seem to be because gravity is one mass compared to another while inertia or centrifugal force is actually comparing itself mostly to the local field in its immediate vicinity and not another massive body as with gravity by the idea of the comparison of the spin of acceleration of the field to the constant field for inertia.
Newton used two spinning wheels..each has an inertial sensor we might call a weight, a small weight that measures the centrifugal motion of each wheel..
When the inner disc is attached to the outside spinning wheel, it shows the same force, and both of them show the outward motion of the weights..
But if you disconnect the wheels while the inside wheel is spinning and the outside wheel is at rest, only the inside wheel is showing the influence of the centrifugal force. And this would seem to be at short range like my idea about the snapback of light. The inner wheel when it's spinning might only be interacting with the constant field in its immediate vicinity.
There is no mass induction here.. my solution to this problem is about how acceleration is not the same as linear motion.
The constant field which might make up the resilient medium that Maxwell considered about predicting the speed of light, would be the Higgs' field.
Another way of expressing the idea that acceleration is not the same exactly as uniform motion is about the recent discovery that pi shows non-patternacity about repetition of its decimals. For the repetition of a number like 1 the probability of repeating again with an extra round is 60% less..
My belief is that this shows the essence of the idea that acceleration is not the same as uniform motion..
The anti-patternacity of pi might be because the constant field is like a lattice and as it interacts with a spinning mass it's not the same on the sides as the corners.. the corners are somewhat jagged and so when a number in pi tries to land here there is instability and this gives the result as seen.
This is not in any one base but in all the bases they find so mathematicians consider this to be evidence something about this is more fundamental than just the base.
If the quanta bounce off a mass in accelerated motion it's been unsolved in this formulation of inertia about why they also don't just bounce off a mass in uniform motion, and slowing motion of the spin of the quanta by the Higgs particles. This would be because only during acceleration are both the round "wheel" and the constant field interacting.
This, if relativity seems incomplete may be the solution to how inertia actually operates. The distinction between linear and angular motion which relativity really doesn't explain or make distinct would be how and why phenomena like the acceleration of a gyroscope has resistance and not while moving in uniform motion.
A gyroscope shows changes in the force only with changes in acceleration and not uniform motion and this is true if measurement of the angular motion's interaction with the constant field is the most significant event here.
This is one of the reasons I consider relativity to be incomplete because it's only about uniform motion, and my idea is about dynamics and not just about measure of motion without asking why things move, as I'll show you on the link at the end of the page..
If gravity bends light then we say something must be bending it or if light is a wave something must be waving we would presume.
Waves seem to appear by Einstein's realization that there are waves and particles both but if the math is consistent the waves won't suddenly disappear for relativity.
One of the supposed disproof of information traveling faster than light is that it was supposed to be going backwards in time, and with negative mass. Thousands of searches through particle events found no negative mass and this was presumed to have positive energy. But Mass itself is already negative compared to energy, and if angular motion that curves mass is not the same as the linear constant field and the field that holds the mass together is actually more a wave so the gravity of the sun moves inward in a real sense we can say that gravity is going backwards in time by attracting inward to squeeze out the heat of the radiation we receive with each new morning, in order for the gravity to out distance the radiance outward of the quanta of the light we receive. Only if it were faster than light as a wave could it overpower the particles radiating out at the speed of light to cause the gravity.
Of course overall this is not going to violate energy conservation and the result with the quanta that it holds together is that they don't move faster than light, but the received knowledge of relativity seems too simple because the cause of the phase change between the low energy field lines to hold the masses together is also by way of not assuming what we're trying to prove that the particles are all that exist and there is no wave particle duality.
As you move around the room and change your direction it's easy to feel the change of the field and yet we would ask why if you shake around a lot the room doesn't shake with you as much, at any rate not out West!
Like the Feynman diagrams, in my belief, the low energy particles would only be a sort of potential energy. They don't show any influence until they reach the radius of action ROA which is a narrow radius of the quanta inside of which the waves are converted to particles where they have the large snapback as for the light.
That the Feynman particles are fundamentally unlike the heavy quanta is expressed by the evidence that you can't bring the particles to zero radius or they would have infinite mass. It would seem the field will be doing this constantly but the infinite mass is not in evidence.
A related event is about comparison of the round and the constant field. When you plug the equations for Gravity into quantum mechanics you get infinitys
In my belief this is why Einstein and Mach believed that all that counts is the relative motion between masses and not the field between. In order to cause the force like the snapback of light between the plus and minus charges Maxwell considered, the quanta may "anchor down" the waves between without more force of attraction until they reach the radius of action. The low energy waves don't have enough of their own cohesion so when you bring them to zero size they don't show the infinities as we might expect because the low energy field is a superfluid unlike the heavy quanta.
So perhaps the snapback is only inside of the ROA..
The force is exerted by these virtual photons.. You might ask why they don't just bounce off and show the effects like the motion of the planets through the field, used to supposedly disprove Maxwell's idea about the speed of light.
These types of events are all related problems about friction and I think they all may have the same underlying solution.
My belief is that inertia is communicated in it's most fundamental essence at the ROA of events like light or of the heavier quanta.
In essence the quanta or the light might pick up energy from the Higgs field, and borrow it for a while to cause the snapback and then radiate back out but only as a flat Higgs field also..(The internal mass of quanta like an electron has the snapback because of the evidence about deep in elastic scattering experiments and the enormous success of Renormalization one of the most numerically well proven ideas in physics.)
In order to cause the force of the huge snapback nonetheless, my idea is that even while the dark matter is low density it's also at super high speed by my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's method I use. This is because you lighten up to travel faster. The in waves and the out waves as in this way as in renormalization cancel out almost completely.
Dark matter and dark energy make up the main part of the energy of the cosmos so this is a possible way this large energy is all around us and yet we can't see or feel it. I agree with Tesla that the Earth may be absorbing large amounts of energy.. Tesla couldn't explain why we don't see it or feel it.
The in and out waves even if they're huge are subtracted out by the math and the result even with the huge mass internally for the electron is that the external mass is actually quite small by subtracting out the two types of waves.
It's been known that the Higgs' particles don't cause mass but rather the Higgs' field. But if the quanta are heavy then we ask, as with Maxwell's method where's the huge mass of density of the field?
We might ask where is the huge friction of moving through the Higgs field if it's so important, so here again using the Snapback inside the radius of action, that can then be used to cause the external connections like about the light with the plus and minus charge as Maxwell thought, might be a way to solve this if combined with the balancing of the in and out waves.
This would solve the problems about friction of the Higgs field, Maxwell's prediction of the exact speed of light based on the snapback, dark matter and dark energy, and also problems about particles to cause gravity which have some advantages as I'll say on my most recent main physics post below.
My Belief about the Speed of Gravity
Like Newton or Van Flandern I had believed that gravity had huge or or extremely high speed due to its low density by Maxwell's method, and because of events like the zero displacement of gravity which Van Flandern also notes.
His calculation was that the speed of gravity was comparable to what I had believed. My predicted speed was 10 times 10 to the 37 times the speed of light because it's that much "lighter" in energy.
However I now consider that the low energy waves may go between the classic electromagnetic field lines. This is to stabilize both the lines and the gravity and so the true gravity waves would be an acceleration and so they have overlapping changes in both speed and wavelength to cause the acceleration of gravity.
This may allow the waves to not have nearly so much friction or flexing by the quanta on the sides of these field lines to speed them up due to the change of phase and so they may move at much higher speed, perhaps nearer to what Newton believed. (The acceleration is reversed in sign from the uniform motion of Relativity as I say so with lower density the speed increases not decreases as with Maxwell's method about the light.)
The EPR is a low energy connection even so the idea that none of the information would make it through for something like the EPR or tunneling is not probable or we couldn't measure the connections.
(While the classical electromagnetic field lines are obviously there to cause the lines of magnetic induction (seen with the evidence about events like with iron filings and ignored by proponents of relativity)..these lines themselves don't have friction problems because while they're higher energy than the Higgs' field, they would still be virtual and not high enough energy to cause friction..)
If LIGO has found gravity instead of the radiant outward flow of inertia by the classical field lines I would ask why gravity itself doesn't radiate out. Otherwise we should be able to find heating and other events of this type in general or eventually by way of LIGO.
If gravity waves are at the speed of light by Einstein's idea they would actually be particles because they can't be influenced from emission to absorption in order to have constant speed. And certainly if they're particles they'll radiate out. This will have radiant heating or radiation pressure and this is not known for gravity.
If gravity is an acceleration as I believe and it's got an overlapping change of both wavelength and frequency being the opposite of relativity's constant speed of light which only changes wavelength not speed, it will need something to keep it coherent over distance for the acceleration to take place.
I believe that while the speed of gravity may be much higher than the inverse method of simply saying that it's that much lighter it would move that much faster, it's still going to be finite even if really high speed, and the degree to which it will be finite will also measure things like the displacement of gravity for which no change has been found yet..
Also a slight tendency for mass induction might fit well with the idea of dark matter and dark energy of this type, by just these changes of friction which may not be a problem but an opportunity for improved physics which may be of value to our understanding of dark matter and dark energy.
I think the cause of dark energy may be by separation of the low energy electromagnetic field lines over great distance even if the field is mostly inert. In this idea due to its reduced interaction with the low energy electromagnetic field lines, it actually adds more energy of its own as is thought about Dark Energy with cosmic acceleration.
This may be why astronomers have seen galaxies with thousands of times more mass than the stars that light them up.
And once in awhile the dark energy waves may be converted to higher energy particles, because it's been believed that dark energy can create more energy out of itself and these would then exert the force of the cosmic acceleration.
Two separate lines of theory and experiment seem to both show that dark matter and dark energy make up 4/5 of the mass of the universe.
If the Higgs' field if the same as dark matter or dark energy and also is involved with centrifugal and centripetal force might solve the problem about why it's been so difficult to find more evidence for these events. Neither inertia or gravity have shielding as with centrifugal force with metal plates.
In essence by this explanation, the Higgs' field doesn't so much radiate in to cause the snapback of light or the quanta, this may be a field of high potential energy that the quanta then tap into to cause events like the speed of light exactly..
The low energy Higgs' field is constant and so when you weigh it, it's dark matter so it's completely inert by most measures of influence.
Feynman showed that if there were particles for gravity, the Earth would need to gain two Earth masses per second. Others considered how there would be friction problems and mass would have to have enormous permeability if the low energy particles cause gravity by way of the low energy photons.
You might say if you shake a mass there would seem to be scintillation of the quanta of the mass and this should be easy to find and so far this type of event hasn't been found. Even so as you move around the room there's direct evidence for the influence of the constant field.
Or if you're going up the highway and the driver in the opposite lane moves past if they're both going around a hill and accelerating this kind of influence of the mass would seem to imply there might be a wave of that inertia and it would splash you from the other side.
But if both masses are just picking up mass from the constant field with the snapback only at short radius and then reradiating it out as a constant field also, this might allow the snapback without the major friction problems, which many had noted for gravity.
So this idea of the near zero entropy of the Higgs' field and how the field is nonetheless there but also that it has the large snapback inside the Radius Of Action, and how it radiates back out only as a constant field also might be an explanation for both how inertia and gravity have strong influence like centrifugal force yet without the problems of friction that particles might cause this would have otherwise.
For example in General Wave Dynamics my formulation, the speed of light is constant because the light is comparing itself as it radiates out with the constant field and this comparison of the spin of the light with the field gives us our law of radiant energy.
In a way this interaction of the flat field with the acceleration like of the light would be a measure of the quanta of inertia in a "roundabout" way.. it may also be about the geometry of the cosmos.
I would hold that all the fields need to compare themselves to other parts of the field in order for energy to be conserved.. Scientists have always believed since the 1600's it's inconceivable that there could be centrifugal without centripetal force.
Einsteins relativity says there's nothing there to be compared with and therefore a quanta for inertia, like what I call the Low Energy Higgs LEH you'll see on my link below, may be useful for energy conservation..
I identify the Low Energy Higgs' with Einstein's hope to use a low energy particle to solve the uncertainty problem. For example recent so-called low energy quantum experiments seem to show that Einstein was partially correct about Schrödinger's Cat..
The LEH would be important to the mass snapback for the electromagnetic component of inertia because they would resonate in combination with the field like inside of the light quantum. Neither the LEH or the quanta would snap back by themselves because either the light or the LEH wouldn't have the snapback without being combined by resonance. Outside the heavy quanta the LEH are just potential Feynman particles, but actually waves.
So this might solve the problem of why in uniform motion the low energy photons don't slow down a massive body or the spin of quanta. There are no external particles much only the waves that add up to the Feynman probabilities. The snapback that causes inertia with acceleration is only internal to the ROA of the quanta. The waves both store and transfer information about the energy and the information about external field would only be stored not absent.
The huge density problem about how the snapback of light would cause the field to have enormously greater density than steel and yet bodies like planets move through them with no resistance seen might be solved by the flatness of the Higgs' field so the and the out waves cancel.
Certainly I would say my idea would offer a good alternative than most other ideas about dark matter and dark energy at least till it was disproven because it would extend relativity and explain both gravity and centrifugal force. We might say "the huge density of the field" and yet dark matter and dark energy make up 4/5 of the mass of the cosmos.. they may be much nearer to us than people have believed..
As you see on my post link, if you like to read more, I think the LEH may also be integral to the EPR.
Research with the possible influences of dark matter have put a limit on how much its input can jostle the quanta like electrons and yet find no results like Einstein asked if we knew what we were looking for what would we name it?
In my writing here about this the Higgs waves are constant even if of high energy and they are able to change with the motion of the matter really fast and adapt to changes like the motions of the quanta so they seem real smooth like the complete continuity that Einstein claimed for space and time while the low energy field may be with other physics and not continuous at higher speed and over short time duration.
Another question would be why with the large centrifugal force of the atoms, there's not a major amount of radiation outward of the heavy quanta like of the Earth when gravity only seems have influence that's lower energy compared to this.
Gravity wouldn't be like a complete loop because it's based on lower energy and is only attractive.
But for the quanta there are the orbital limits and I believe these are caused by the loops of electromagnetism which are closed loops unlike the gravity or the radiation of the light which are of more unlimited range.
And by this the quantum orbitals limit most of the radiation from making it in or outside of the quantum realm. It's it's well known that the electron orbital in the atom has no centrifugal force. Inside the quanta the field that makes it up is comparing itself more to itself and this is how faster than light motion could take place inside the quanta to give the field tension externally (Newton believed that mass has tension) by way of not comparing itself as much with the outside field. I consider the absence of centrifugal force for the electron in the atom itself is evidence of the cause of inertia about interaction or reduced interaction with the external field. Gravity goes around the quanta on the outside of the atom and connects with other atoms while inertia here would otherwise connect from the inside to the outside.
As I say on my main post on the link below a change of phase will be necessary and at least partial disconnection by way of what I call Line Removal (so gravity doesn't go inside the quanta with huge gravity or shielding or quantum numbers for gravity). Any superluminal motion mostly may be by this change of phase even with a loose connection through the hierarchy of conservation laws.
Gravity energizes and connects up to electromagnetism and then electromagnetism to the Strong Force and then to the Weak Force, so they're all connected by energy conservation. Each higher up force is only loosely connected to the one of lower energy below it like gravity, and this allows the extra conservation laws for each force that the other force doesn't have, so each level of the hierarchy laws is considerably disconnected from the higher energy force it also connected enough to convey the tension of the separation and allowing with it a method of conserving energy.
This loose connection would allow violation of relativity like for the fractional charges of qcd by decoupling from the electromagnetic quanta and lightening up here also to travel faster.
One of the main advantages of both this loose connection and the faster than light spin of the hadrons inside could be that they generate extra tension that relativity with the quanta always spinning at the speed of light would not allow and this causes the tension on the field that Newton believed mass has, and this tension then is transmitted to the light for the large snapback and this might be the mechanism for the tension to be maintained on the field, essentially sort of against energy conservation or against relativity at any rate.
It doesn't violate energy conservation as a given because whatever the cause of rest mass it is indeed conserved but relativity gives us no cause of rest mass like the faster than light spin which might allow the heavy particles more mass than the quantized speed of spin of light or electrons.
In my belief mass is spinning energy and only if the heavy quanta are spinning faster than light can we explain their mass, something relativity can't do.
Nigel Calder in his book, Einstein's Universe holds that gravity works by laying down tracks like for the moon around the Earth. This brings to mind the idea that there is a track all the way around the Earth for the moon but unlike the quantum loop, there's no evidence causing it to continue all the way around or there would be major changes in the orbits of bodys.
One idea about special relativity is that the Lorentz contraction only takes place in the line of motion.. this might be because of the displacement of the constant field whether it's of displacement of the Higgs' or other fields into a sort of tube that doesn't interact as much with the sides because it's polarized like Newton discovered about light. The faster the body moves in orbit the more linear it's path by this displacement against the gravity.
This is essentially my description of why the x and y coordinates of the ballistic arc are completely independent.. the low energy field shows displacement which means the light is coming in with a more linear path towards that body in motion and this is important to inertia.
This will be why in special relativity the Lorentz contraction is only along the x-axis of motion, and relativity would probably seem to hold that if no field is present the Lorentz contraction would seem to be like the compression down of gravity and inertia on a planet and so as you press down on the poles there would seem to be expansion out as of any body with pressure added to to it at right angles and this is not found.. but if the tube of force of this type has sides caused by the displacement of the field is present this would not be much probable if there was no field present as is claimed by Einstein about relativity.
Inertia and gravity would not be equivalent and so the gravity passes right through the tube at another energy with no resistance much. Here again though, the field is measuring the linear motion relative to the angular momentum in a definite way.
The external waves of the Higgs' dark matter field would radiate out as much energy as the gravity or inertia would involve but because of the loop of the quanta they don't radiate out more radiation as they would if they were nonquantum like the moon or the Earth..
This might be because here again gravity is not the same as the quantum of light Einstein promoted so much for relativity. The quanta would have these orbitals that keep it from radiating out a lot of energy but gravity and inertia would still be radiating in and out and so the waves of the constant field about the Higgs are on the outside, because they're long range forces.
CLICK HERE for a site about how scientists are trying to find dark matter and how there's a limit by how much it would jostle different types of mass.
Even so as I say above they're assuming that dark matter is a particle which Maxwell thought of as only a wave because you can weigh a gas but there are no particles if it has no weight.
So perhaps the assumption of so many searches for dark matter are based on incomplete consideration of the evidence..
And perhaps older science like Maxwell's idea which still has the major general evidence for it about the snapback of the light being exactly according to the speed.. contrary to what relativity tells us about light being a quanta and some who assume that all the science is by way of relativity. Maxwell predicted the speed of light exactly based on the resilience of the force between the waves of plus and minus charges.
To me this is about how we might improve relativity. And above all else Einstein assumed that the speed of light is the top speed the events all fit inside.
The essence of Relativity is the Lorentz contraction it's the foundation of "all" a LOT of modern physics, and the closely associated constant speed of light..
Yet relativity gives us no explanation for rest mass, the Lorentz contraction, the speed of light or problems like the heating by gravitational radiation of the quanta.
But if we allow perhaps a phase change of the light with the possibility of dark matter being a superluminal superfluid that only takes place on the outside of the quanta so you don't have problems like gravity becoming super strong inside the quanta or shielding or having quantum numbers, there's no need to assume that dark matter is a quanta. This is because the wave method of light is already well established and may be more about dark matter and dark energy.
It's been said we can fit the waves into the quanta so that they drag them along presumably as in the Bohmian method and so relativity is saved from all the 40 or so wave experiments of classical physics that otherwise seem to be an embarrassment to relativity.
The waves have risen and fallen more than once in the history of science, and they may have use for other physics than relativity, but then so do acoustics and hydraulics.
By Relativity, light being a quanta is uninfluenced from emission to absorption so the speed of light is constant. Light "carries itself"..yet one of Einstein's famous quotes is that it's impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that can emit and absorb a wave.. so eventually the waves may be in for a revival.
Below is one of my favorite links for you to what I consider to be one of my best pages about science.. my ideas have been an ongoing event of about 40 years of improvement and like Einstein says he often went through lots of false leads before he found what he hoped were his best solutions.. I've thought about physics a lot so I consider these to be hopeful improvements.
I thought LIGO initially would measure the higher speed of gravity like Van Flandern believed and I certainly believe that gravity may be much much faster than light..Just one experiment like this is not necessarily a guarantee of the most sound science.. Most futurists are inefficient but eventually they often find solutions!
The evidence is that LIGO has found events about something associated with gravity that travels at the speed of light. By definition this seems not to be gravity, because it would have problems like gravitational radiation pressure and heating or friction if gravity is quantum in nature like this and a quanta at constant speed, because gravity is an acceleration not uniform motion as in relativity..
Click Here For More!
Here's a link to my other post about how the inertial and gravitational elevators are not equivalent as Einstein believed..
.
