INTRODUCTION

Any theory of gravitation which can be even tenuously related to the standard model of quantum mechanics; which could explain both the attraction of masses and inertia in consistent terms, and would not be expressly forbidden by any real physical fact, should be considered a contender in the endless task of perfecting a model of nature.

The Standard Model itself seems to have a flaw. It cannot account for the mass in the universe without postulating a kind of energy filling all of space, called the Higgs Field. Particles traveling through the HF would experience a drag which would translate into inertia, and establish the particle's mass. This Higgs mechanism is not well understood and still nascent in its development, but even in its broad outlines, as the following essay hopes to show, is sufficient for crafting a satisfying alternate theory of gravity.

I. Gravity's Engine

The Standard Model of particle physics, despite its great success, cannot account for the existence of mass in the universe without postulating the Higgs Field. Building a theory of gravity on a hypothetical is necessarily speculative, but should the Higgs field ever gain solid acceptance, it would account for mass, and certain implications would naturally follow. It is currently theorized that the interaction of matter and the HF would define not only mass but also inertia. Since gravity is intrinsically related to inertia, (the Principle of Equivalence holds that they are mostly indistinguishable), it can be expected that a new theory of gravity should emerge when implications and facts surrounding inertia are joined in a proper relationship.

One implied possibility stemming from the postulated HF, is the formation of an energy field which would envelop any particle of matter having mass. This field may be thought of as a "clustering" of the HF in the vicinity of matter, or as a local regimenting effect that matter would have on the HF. The intensity of the clustering would be proportional to the mass of its source particle, and as with any field, the source particle would rest at the center of its field where it would resist any force tending to displace it from that center. The field would naturally have its focal point and greatest strength at the center of the particle, and gradually taper off with distance from that center in accordance with the Law of Universal Gravitation. In the event that two or more massive particles are found in sufficient proximity that their fields co-mingle, they will be forced toward their mutual center of influence, accelerating toward that center with an attracting force derived from the combined strength of their fields. This would result from the above mentioned requirement that a mass must rest at the center of its field, in this case a mutual center created by overlapping fields. Each accelerating particle will also experience a retarding inertial force. This inertia is here proposed to be the result of acceleration tending to displace a particle from the center of its own field, as if space was exerting a drag on that field. Any acceleration would immeadiatly result in a countervailing force (inertia) working to retain the particle at its own field's center, this again, following from the same requirement that a mass must rest at the center of its field.

When two objects fall toward each other, they are gravitating not toward each other's center, but toward a 'common center of gravity' which is distinct from their centers of mass. This is most readily apparent in the case of binary stars circling around a central point which lies quite outside their corporeal boundaries. They are being impelled toward the center of their common gravity field. Thus, under any circumstances, gravitation can be described as a force seeking the center of a field, or simply as a 'center-seeking force'. If inertia is also a center-seeking force, as described in the preceding paragraph, then both forces will be seen as being of one nature.

It was Einstein's unfulfilled hope that his General Theory of Relativity could establish just such a single identity for the two forces. In the end, he had to settle for equivalence.

A ten-pound ball is accelerated toward the ground by a force (gravity) ten times as great as the force on a one-pound ball. The force resisting the heavier ball's displacement from the center of its own field (inertia) is also ten times greater because its own associated field is ten times stronger due to its tenfold greater mass. The well known result is both balls falling at the same rate. Whether displacing or resisting displacement, it is the same force acting from two focal points to keep a massive particle at the center of its own field, and simultaneously pulling it away toward a mutual center of gravity when in the vicinity of another mass. Herein lies the elusive reason for the proportionality of gravity and inertia. Both are manifestations of the same force acting on a mass in opposite directions.

The "hypothetical" field just described is merely the prosaic gravity field of everyday experience. Setting aside the question of just how, or whether, this field imparts mass to matter, it is enough for the present purpose to observe that it is associated with any particle having mass, and that space (or the Higgs field energy of space) has no appreciable effect on it, so long as the source particle is at rest or in uniform motion. Put another way, the field does not experience any drag from the "fabric" of space while in uniform motion, for such a drag would cause a reduction in the velocity of the source particle violative of the First Law of Motion. Without any drag on the field, the particle will remain at the field's center whether at rest or in uniform motion, both field and particle moving together through space as a unit--the field perfectly entrained through a perfect fluid aether.

INERTIA EXPLAINED

When an outside force is applied, however, the inertial resistance exhibited by the particle must now be attributed to a drag on its field. Such a drag will only exist in the case of non-uniform motion (acceleration). It will compress the field ahead of the particle in the direction of motion, and extend it in the opposite direction, in effect, displacing the particle from its center. The field would not be infinitely compressible, therefore any accelerating force would meet with an ever more steeply increasing resistance to any continuing increase in force. The effect would be what is conventionally interpreted as an increase in inertial mass, although its cause would now be acceleration rather than velocity. Rest mass would depend on the intensity of the field's "clustering." When the accelerating force ceases, drag also ceases, and the field reconfigures itself, with the speed of light, to its normal symmetry around the particle. During a condition of asymmetry, there exists a tension between a body and its field equal to the applied force, as that body and field strive to regain their field-centered equilibrium. It is that tension which is called inertia, and the circumstances creating it may rightly be called the Higgs mechanism.

The proportionality of gravitational and inertial mass has been known since Newton, but has never been accounted for because inertia has never been fundamentally explained before. Einstein's equivalence principle is a statement about equivalence, but not a real explanation. Directly stated, the field associated with any massive particle is a gravitational field and is hardly hypothetical. What has been missing is the notion of field-centrality and cosmic drag which, together, can describe with immediacy--gravity, inertia, and their identical nature.

The Higgs mechanism and its associated particles create the clustering which is identified here as a gravitational field. Such an interpretation places gravity squarely within the Standard Model.

LOOKS LIKE TROUBLE AHEAD

A theory of gravitation based on the field-centrality of matter must remain a speculation until the Higgs field is verified experimentally. In that event, its compelling simplicity and its relatedness to the Standard Model will make it a formidable rival to General Relativity, which defies all efforts to be integrated into quantum theory. It would then be natural to suspect Special Relativity because of its common ground with the general theory, and because it too is incompatible with the concept of field-centrality.

II. Incompatibility with Special Relativity

A brief examination of the mechanics of electromagnetic wave propagation will show that the Addition of Velocities hypothesis for the speed of light is not precluded by anything in that process, but first it will be helpful to analyze the effect of uniform motion on a field being generated by an electromagnet. It will be made obvious that the conflict between SR and a theory of gravitation based on field centrality exists because Field Centrality requires a (c + v) model.

Field centrality describes the relation of a field to its source mass while that mass is in motion. Accordingly, any field, whether magnetic, electric, or gravitational, must move through space as a unit with its source while the source is in uniform motion, or violate the First Law of Motion as explained above. For example, if an ordinary natural magnet is placed in motion, its magnetic field slides unimpeded through space in a kind of convective flow at the same speed as the magnet, and in unison with it. The configuration of the field, with the magnet at its center, remains indistinguishable from that of a stationary magnet.

Now consider an electromagnet. At the instant it is energized, a magnetic field spreads outward from its surface at the speed of light. The mechanism by which this occurs remains a matter of conjecture. All that can be safely said is that the field simply spreads out to some appreciable inherent distance--its strength determined by the inverse square law--and remains static, meaning here that neither its initial surge outward, nor its continued maintenance, is constituted by any wave-like radiation. Any assumptions about particles, waves or rays as being agents of a spreading field are merely assumptions, and may be dispensed with to give coherence to the remainder of this essay. Radiation is a function of the electromagnetic field; not of magnetic or electric fields in isolation. Without emitted rays or particles, the issue of the speed of a spreading magnetic field while its source is in uniform motion, will not be subjected to the historical difficulties associated with the speed of electromagnetic waves. The speed of its propagation was determined to be c long ago, but the manner of its propagation is still unknown.

If the electromagnet happens to be in uniform motion at the moment that power is applied to it, the speed of its spreading magnetic field, c, will be enhanced by the velocity of its source, v, so that the speed of the spreading magnetic field will be c + v. This maintains field centrality for the magnet, and also satisfies the First Law of Motion. Because a spreading magnetic field does not consist of radiating waves the way a light beam does, there is no basis for objecting to a (c + v) addition of velocities here. (Any objections based on SR theory should be temporarily suspended since the purpose here is to suggest an alternate theory).

If the speed of the magnetic field were not to increase by the amount, v, that would indicate drag on the field, resulting in a gradual decrease in the magnet's speed, and thereby violate the First Law. The field around its magnet would resemble one in an accelerating state rather than in uniform motion: the magnet would not be at the center of its field because the field would be compressed in the direction of motion, and extended in the opposite direction--the very picture of a field experiencing drag in space, and decidedly not the picture that field centrality requires for uniform motion.

Light, an electromagnetic wave, is basically a continuous succession of static electric and magnetic fields. The waving result from the cumulative effect of the growth and demise of these static fields as they alternately succeed one another outward into space at the speed of light. A field spreads to its limit, and as it begins to wane, it simultaneously causes the growth of the next field in a continuing inductive chain reaction. It should be realized that no single individual field in this progression moves from its point of origination, but simply creates another field ahead of it as it shrinks out of existence: a waning magnetic field creates an electric field; the waning electric field then creates a magnetic field, and so on ad infinitum, at 186,000 miles per second. This waxing and waning of successive stationary fields outward along their "line of march" creates the perception of waves while nothing is actually waving. The process has a periodicity which expresses itself in a sine-wave pattern due to the growth, demise and extinction of each field in series. A series of individual events--the blinking in and out of existence of stationary fields--can be roughly compared to the blinking lights on a movie marquee which create the illusion of spots of light traveling in a line.

When light from a distant star reaches the eye of a person on Earth, strictly speaking, it has not traveled across the intervening distance. The wave front striking the eye has just been newly created. It is only the final, stationary spreading field of a chain of such distinct events stretching all the way back to the star. Somewhat simplified, this is the conventional description of radiation, although the "illusion" aspect seems to have been completely overlooked. That they have missed it, is clear from the phrasing used by various expositors such as "ripples in the electromagnetic field," as if there mysteriously appears some pre-existing matrix for EM waves to wave about in.

The point to emphasize here is that during their unimaginably brief existence, the individual electric and magnetic fields remain stationary relative to their source, regardless of the speed of that source while in uniform motion. If it were otherwise, it would be possible, at least in principle, to distinguish uniform motion from a stationary state. Denying absolute motion, the situation must be described as c + v from the point of view of an observer in a relatively moving frame of reference, just as was the case with the moving electromagnet and its field. The spreading field of the electromagnet (the instant that power is applied), and the spreading magnetic fields from a light source are identical entities. They are both governed by the same physics. In both situations, if the source is put in uniform motion, the velocity of that source must be added to c, or violate the First Law of Motion. Naturally, the electric fields within a wave would be similarly affected, each field acquiring its velocity from its antecedent field.

This model of light propagation allows Galileon relativity to apply to electromagnetism as well as kinematics, and that is as it should be. It may be remembered that establishing this Galileon connection was Einstein's stated purpose for inventing SR.

Einstein correctly believed that the old-fashioned relativity of motion should also apply to electromagnetism. The problem was that this idea could not be reconciled with the old-fashioned, universally held concept of waves which must always travel at some set speed, and independently of their source. Sound waves and water waves provided the only examples for his time. Einstein's solution to this problem was his Special Relativity theory, and it was completely unnecessary as the above analysis of electromagnetic wave action shows. Nothing in this model constrains light waves to a particular, unvarying speed the way sound vibrations are constrained by their medium, the air. The speed of light waves is allowed to vary with the speed of their source, so there is nothing to reconcile here. Galileon relativity and a varying speed of light are both inherent in the mechanics of the electromagnetic wave. Locally (from the perspective of a generating source), light will always be seen as traveling at the same speed, c, but to an observer in a different frame of reference, it will be measured as c + v.

Two observations may be made here. First, it should be obvious that no mechanical aether is necessary for such "inductance waves"--at least not in the classical sense of an undulating medium such as water or air. Without a mechanical aether, there is nothing else known which can prevent these esoteric "waves" from varying their speed in unison with their source. Secondly, It may be noted that Special Relativity was, in part, constructed to surmount the aether problem, a problem which would never have existed if electromagnetic wave mechanics had been properly understood by the early investigators of electromagnetism. Thus, electromagnetic wave mechanics, sans aether, shows that the variability of wave speed is not forbidden, while Newton's First Law requires it. This is in direct contradiction to the bedrock of Einsteinian relativity--the postulate that the speed of light is absolute, and will not be affected by the speed of its source.

If space is made up of an energetic substance, like a Higgs field, upon which other fields are imposed, those fields must necessarily be of the same substance as the Higgs. They glide through space unhampered like an ocean current through an endless ocean until acted upon by some force. They need no mechanical aether or extraneous postulates to facilitate their passage.

In conclusion, field centrality requires that electromagnetic waves whose source is put in uniform motion, being a combination of electric and magnetic fields, should move through space with the same convective flow that describes the motion of their individual constituent fields in isolation. The addition of velocities makes this flow possible, and without it, gravity and inertia must remain enigmatic.

Epilogue

As stated in the introduction, a theory's credibility is conditional upon its conforming to real physical facts as best they can be determined. The focus placed here on the Addition of Velocities hypotheses requires that at least some attempt be made to counter the general belief that its falsity is just such a fact.

The best known, and still often proffered evidence for the constancy of light speed, was the argument made by de Sitter in 1913. He concluded that light received on earth from a double-star system would be hopelessly confused if light speed could vary throughout its long journey earthward. The error in de Sitter's reasoning is convincingly disclosed by Herbert Dingle in his Science at the Crossroads, London (Martin Brian & O'keefee 1972) p.205. More Recently, Robert Fritzius, making use of research done by V.I. Sekerin in 1987, argues that the periodic light variation of Cepheid variable stars may be caused by a variable speed of light (VSL), by which he means 'the addition of velocities'. This is something quite different from the idea proposed by Joao Magueijo and John Moffat. From (http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/binaries.htm).

Dimitri Nanopoulos, Texas A&M University, 2001, along with Nikolaos Mavromatos of King's College in London, and John Ellis of CERN in Geneva has discovered that measurements made over cosmic distances show a correlation between light speed and frequency. "The speed of light is frequency-dependent." Though he does not infer (c + v) for light speed from his observations, such a correlation is necessary to the (c + v) model. From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/02/010212075309.htm.

In 1969, Brian G. Wallace published his analysis of the first Venus radar contact data, and determined that the best fit to the data was a (c + v) model. His difficulties in promulgating his findings make for lively reading. From http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html.

These few examples should at least be enough to allow the discussion to continue.

Replacing the relativity theories would not happen without a great deal of retrospection, not to mention the abandonment of much of modern physics. For example, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment could be reinterpreted to support a variable speed of light: aetherless light, traveling within a uniformly moving frame of reference (the interferometer), would exhibit a classical addition of velocities which would account for the experiment's null result. An apt analogy would be a ball bouncing around inside a moving boxcar.

This was essentially how Henri Poincare explained it at the time. Walter Ritz, the earliest, or at least the most famous exponent of (c + v) probably agreed, or should have.

Maxwell's definitive field equations established that light waves propagate with speed c. Since these equations had been developed in the context of a stationary aether, initially it was thought that c must be measured relative to that aether. Today, with the benefit of hindsight, and without the "benefit" of an aether or Special Relativity, the equations need not be interpreted as before. Disentangled from a spurious aether, their meaning becomes clear: the speed of light is always c relative to the only remaining possibility--the source producing the waves, and that is just another way of saying that light's speed must vary with the speed of its source.

Plainly and simply, when a luminiferous aether does not have to be accommodated, light is isotropic to its source for all observers in all reference frames.

A textbook illustration for the dilation of time shows a light-clock passing by an extended mirror. A light pulse is emitted by the clock, reflected by the mirror, and received by the clock some distance from where the clock began its journey. The light pulse has traveled a longer path to reach the moving clock than if the clock had been standing still, but has not taken any longer to do so. If light speed is absolute, a stationary observer must conclude that time has passed more slowly within the clock's moving frame of reference. The non-relativistic, straightforward, and intuitivlely satisfying explanation is that the light pulse has simply increased its speed rather like a rubber ball being thrown against a wall from a moving vehicle, and returned directly to the thrower's hand, without any need to invoke time dilation.

The same principle is evinced by a phenomenon called the 'aberration of starlight', although here, it is the receiver rather than the source which is moving. Without the concept of time dialation, one would use the (c + v) model to conclude the isotropy of starlight for all observers in order to explain the aberration. In this, can be seen how SR becomes a "second-order" explanation, introducing additional concepts (time dialation), when explanations which are more readily received by the mind would suffice.

A final example of the adequacy of non-relativistic descriptions of light-wave phenomena is provided by the doppler shift of sound waves which results from a well understood mechanical action. The frequency shift of sound waves requires a medium such as air upon which the periodic vibrations of a sound source will be deposited. These vibrations will occur with greater frequency in front of a moving source, meaning in the direction of its travel, and with lesser frequency behind it. The point being made here is that the frequency shift is an absolute event, occuring even if an observer fails to perceive it, should he be traveling at the same speed as the source. A Doppler shift is attributed to light waves, but only as a loose analogy to sound, because in the case of light, there is no undulating medium--at least not in any objectively real sense. According to SR, Doppler shift does not occur unless there is relative motion between a light source and its observer. Frequency shifting of light in the SR scheme is not an absolute event as is the case with sound waves. By implication, whatever it is that carries the wave-form in SR, only exists when there is relative motion between a light source and an observer. This is like saying that the air only exists when a sound source is moving relative to a listener. The analogy between sound waves and light waves breaks down, and light is left without an explanation for its Doppler shift.

Without an unambiguous aether, electromagnetic Doppler shift has no clear mechanism in relativity, whereas a varying speed of electromagnetic waves will account handily for shifting wave frequencies when source velocity changes: waves traveling faster will pass a point with greater frequency without any change in wavelength.

When any receiver such as a radar apparatus or the human eye is impacted by a stream of electromagnetic waves, it can only measure the frequency with which each wave crest follows the one before it. This gives no information about the wavelength. Wavelength can only be computed given the frequency, and this is correctly done when there is no relative motion between the sender and receiver. With relative motion, frequency changes, but it must not be assumed that wavelength also changes. If, in fact, the wavelength does not change as here maintained, the explanation is c + v. The resulting Doppler-like effect might, more appropriately, be called the Ritz effect when the reference is to light waves as opposed to sound waves.

Such common-sense corollaries to relativity abound. The spurious mechanical aether, sometimes consciously factored, most often hidden, has always been the common denominator in creating a confusion which, it seemed, could only be resolved by the transformations of Lorentz, and later, Einstein.

These representative examples support the expectation that any number of such ambiguities could be resolved by a variable speed of light. The Mossbauer effect and gravitational red-shift immeadiatly come to mind. In these situations it would be the pull of gravity causing light waves to travel slower and register the observed frequency shifts. Similarly, atomic clocks whose vibrational frequencies have been used to demonstrate time dilation, may only be demonstrating VSL when their vibrations are observed to slow down in a stronger gravity field.

Special Relativity requires that wavelength should vary directly with the speed of its source. This allows light speed to be invariant in the calculation. An experiment which would measure the actual wavelength produced by a moving source, and compare it to the wavelength from that source while it is stationary, would be dispositive.

The Author's article, 'Inertia Equals Gravity' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A1085285) offers a lighter analysis of the 'center-seeking force' and its relation to other so-called pseudo forces.

Your comments are welcome...
Talk to my machine, (732)828-8625, or
contact me by mail:

Raymond Graudis
333 So. Main Street
Milltown, NJ 08850

email: perfectfluid@yahoo.com