Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Sciama's Curious Paper on Gravielectromagnetism and Inertia

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2018

    Sciama's Curious Paper on Gravielectromagnetism and Inertia

    Please read up on Sciama's ''origin of inertia'' to understand this topic.

    The quantity:

    is usually a dimensionless quantity, often seen in red shift formula but in this instance, this is only true when you have something like

    However, for some reason, Sciama did chose to leave the factor of out of his definition of the potential. You can see this in his equation (1):

    In fact, Sciama has identified the gravielectric field in such a way that it has dimensions

    For clarity

    In cgs units. …And from that we can question, ‘’what if that constant was more fundamentally related to the gravitational vacuum permittivity ?’’ As you can see, under this assumption new constants (may) be seen to enter some of the equations. An example is the gravimagnetic coupling equation:

    We’d get

    In this ‘’special case’’ Sciama’s equation features the gravitational permittivity as the ‘’route connection’’ to the gravielectric field. The reason why I think this is the case, because looking at the primary gravimagnetic coupling equation, if the permittivity sat in the equation where we might expect it, it removes the gravitational interpretation from Sciama’s gravielectric field. So perhaps his ratio is really only an approximate to a gravitational analogy of permittivity. Suppose we define the gravitational permittivity and permeability in the following way:

    so that

    Then they do feature in the gravimagnetic equation;

    In which the permeability and permittivity from identifying like terms:

    Sciama identified the equation

    (or may be also seen as)

    which is very close to the gravitational permeability par it being too large by a factor of . It is surprising that Sciama never made mention of it in his paper, it is very possible he was not aware that he defined the field in such a way that it seems to agree with the definition of a gravitational permeability.
    Last edited by Dubbelosix; 2018-Jun-03 at 11:19 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2018
    For those that may be interested in the neat things related to gravielectromagnetism arises from analogous relationships. For instance, the gravielectric field is

    As opposed to the usual electromagnetic version

    Note this is similar to the equation that Sciama had set - that potential could also allow for a gravitational permittivity analogue of the equation:

    Notice also the formal relationship between the gravielectric field and the Poisson equation:

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Some last neat things. To calculate the curl of the gravimagnetic field, we must first define the curl of the gravielectric field which I calculate as

    This means we can calculate the curl of the gravimagnetic field because it features directly in the gravimagnetic field equation

    Notice all the terms have boiled down to the Coulomb gauge for the current density;

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Dubbelosix View Post
    Please read up on Sciama's ''origin of inertia'' to understand this topic.

    No, if you want to discuss this, the onus is on YOU to give an introduction.
    Nobody is going to go to a library or start to google something, just because you want to show your calculus prowess.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2018
    This is an introduction, if you read more carefully. I just came out of another thread which you say I am not participating and not answering questions. I am seriously considering maybe not coming back. This entire post is an introduction to his paper. I asked you to read his paper, because who knows, that might have been a logical thing?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Clear Lake City, TX
    Dubbleosix, you attitude is in serious need of an adjustment. You have now been openly rude not just to other Members but to Moderators. Tone it down!
    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
    Isaac Asimov

    You know, the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They donít alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit their views.
    Doctor Who

    Moderation will be in purple.
    Rules for Posting to This Board

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2018
    I wonder if I can sum up, why the progression of physics in this area may yield interesting questions about our physics and how we treat gravity. Let's be clear, one mainstream idea is to unify gravity with the rest of the forces - this unified theory is possible by positing there is a quantum nature to gravity. If it is not quantum, what do analogy theories like gravitoelectromagnetism say?

    I found a neat way to discuss this. Let's take a look at electric capacitance,

    with being the dielectric constant. The formula can actually be re-expressed as

    where is the charge and an electric potential potential is,

    where is the dielectric thickness and is the surface charge density. The electric field is related to the voltage

    The permittivity of free space (vacuum) has a capacitance

    where is the permittivity of vacuum () where is the farad per meter. Electric permittivity of course, is related to permeability as

    While it is true, that both the electric permitivity and magnetic permeability are intrinsic characteristics of space, gravitational permeability and permittivity is something related more fundamentally to the fabric of spacetime itself. A true, full analogue of gravity would suggest the existence of gauge spin-2 gravitons (as mentioned not long ago), but I am not fond of this full analogy simply because gravity is not a true force from first principles of relativity (ie. gravity is a pseudo force).

    In relativity, the analogue of electromagnetic radiation [is] the gravitational wave. Einstein predicted this ''radiation'' from his general theory of relativity, but it is still on the face of it, a different kind of radiation since it is not mediated by particles, but is itself, a moving distortion through spacetime, like a ripple in the water: This means, if there is an analogue of a digravity capacitance, then it would be a phenomenon of ''generating gravitational waves.'' Creating gravitational waves in the lab has already been suggested by theorizing the same instruments we use to detect them, could also create them! The questions we must ask is, what kind of instruments, materials, physics... do we require to understand how to generate a gravitational analogue of a conducting capacitor? This I think is a more tough kind of question.

    Since current unified field theories that have attempted to find weak (or strong) couplings between gravielectric and gravimagnetic fields, then it should possible to ''tap into'' the physics of gravitational coupling to electromagnetic fields in which the relationship to spacetime and gravity in terms of capacitors becomes an intriguing possibility. If gravitons do actually exist in nature, then a full analogy would be expected in some way, because then gravitational waves are mediated by particles and so would be in every sense, the analogue of electromagnetic radiation.

    For an analogy to gravity, all we do is replace electric constants for gravitational constants:

    and for two plates:

    And just like for electromagnetism for a vacuum, the gravitational relative permittivity is equal to 1 which will leave

    This is just a demonstration of course, of how far you can take this idea seriously that ''gravity'' has a connection with electromagnetism.
    Last edited by Dubbelosix; 2018-Jun-07 at 05:16 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Oh I also meant to say, while is the suggested ''thickness'' of the dielectric field, there is also, in maybe several topics of literature from respectable scientists, that spacetime also possesses a thickness. I wonder if the analogies lie here... but here reside the monsters of contradiction as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts