Slashdot Mirror

Your idea has indeed been considered in the literature; see, for example, page 13 of this review of MOND, which is discussing the TeVeS theory proposed in this paper on relativistic MOND by Bekenstein. It's theoretically possible, but doesn't have a lot of experimental support.

Your idea has indeed been considered in the literature; see, for example, page 13 of this review of MOND, which is discussing the TeVeS theory proposed in this paper on relativistic MOND by Bekenstein. It's theoretically possible, but doesn't have a lot of experimental support.

Links here for related papers:

Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
Galaxy Cluster Masses Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter
Galaxy Rotation Curves Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter


Other Interesting stuff:
The Calphysics Institute and my earlier post about the Calphysics research.

Links here for related papers:

Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
Galaxy Cluster Masses Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter
Galaxy Rotation Curves Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter


Other Interesting stuff:
The Calphysics Institute and my earlier post about the Calphysics research.

Links here for related papers:

Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly
Galaxy Cluster Masses Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter
Galaxy Rotation Curves Without Non-Baryonic Dark Matter


Other Interesting stuff:
The Calphysics Institute and my earlier post about the Calphysics research.

I'm afraid that paper's already been debunked. It seems they accidentally included a thin disk of mass by using an incorrect solution to (of all things) Laplace's equation. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510750 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601191

I'm afraid that paper's already been debunked. It seems they accidentally included a thin disk of mass by using an incorrect solution to (of all things) Laplace's equation. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510750 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601191

I'm afraid that paper's already been debunked. It seems they accidentally included a thin disk of mass by using an incorrect solution to (of all things) Laplace's equation. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508377 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510750 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601191

What are you talking about? The Lorentz transformation has only one degree of freedom in the time dimension. We call it the future or the past. This guy is suggesting that time has more than one degree of freedom. Which is nothing new...

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619

These guys show that dark matter comes from ignoring nonlinearities in general relativity.

--
Brian Sutin
http://skewray.com/

If it makes you feel better. Ed Witten has revised his M-Theory. Through the use of Twistor Geometry he has reduced the number of dimensions to 4, those present in GR.

Peon: We've counted 12 possible events out of 789,567,345,754,234,567,876 (est) neutrinos passing thru the detector.

TS: Hmm, that's as expected, totally useless number of events to draw any inferences from. Keep at it.

Although having said that, I just found this paper:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9702/970208 1.pdf

which tends to break my argument...

...What is the proposed physics of these "properties of space"? Why would they affect the speed of light but not any other details of the radiation passing through?....

Space, like any other medium through which electromagnetic radiation travels has an effect on the propagation thereof. Space has certain measureable electrical and magnetic properties. As the Universe expanded, space expanded with it. There is indeed evidence that light speed has changed over time. The quantized redshift observations is one such evidence. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/00080 26.pdf) Abandoning the belief of the absolute constancy of certain parameters of the Universe makes the job of explaining recent observations a lot simpler. The pioneer space probe (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064) puzzle is easily explained, as is the problem of "dark matter" and "dark energy" if the speed of light and its inverse Planck's constant are not really constant. The properties of space affect not only the propagation of energy, but also the some fundamental properties of every atom contained in that space. Radioactive decay is one of the properties of the atom that will change. When such fundamental parameters vary, the relationships between them can and do remain constant, making it hard to determine what is going on until some abolute quantity can be found to compare each of them against.

...What is the proposed physics of these "properties of space"? Why would they affect the speed of light but not any other details of the radiation passing through?....

Space, like any other medium through which electromagnetic radiation travels has an effect on the propagation thereof. Space has certain measureable electrical and magnetic properties. As the Universe expanded, space expanded with it. There is indeed evidence that light speed has changed over time. The quantized redshift observations is one such evidence. (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/00080 26.pdf) Abandoning the belief of the absolute constancy of certain parameters of the Universe makes the job of explaining recent observations a lot simpler. The pioneer space probe (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064) puzzle is easily explained, as is the problem of "dark matter" and "dark energy" if the speed of light and its inverse Planck's constant are not really constant. The properties of space affect not only the propagation of energy, but also the some fundamental properties of every atom contained in that space. Radioactive decay is one of the properties of the atom that will change. When such fundamental parameters vary, the relationships between them can and do remain constant, making it hard to determine what is going on until some abolute quantity can be found to compare each of them against.

Just read J Moffats paper, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506021, and so i'm not supprised he can
describe correctly the three problems: galaxies, galaxy clusters, and the pioneer anomally. With enough free parameters you can always fit a curve to a data, and STVG has got lots a parameters:

its got ordinary gravity as GR
plus a cosmological constant
plus a repulsive vector field
plus 3 scalar fields

The scale fields describing how the strength of each of the forces varies in space (and time). He then curve fits his new equations with different free parameters for each problem, which you have to do because the strength of the forces varies from place to place. With 3 problems and 3 free variables its not surprising he can fit a solution. This isn't to say STVG doesn't make sense, it does, and fits in well with string theory for example. The problem is with that many free parameters its easy to fit a solution to any problem, but hard to make acturate predictions or disproveable assertions.

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511026

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507222

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506370

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511026

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507222

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506370

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511026

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507222

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506370

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511026

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507222

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506370

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511026

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507222

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506370

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511026
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0511026

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507222
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0507222

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506370
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0506370

Knock yourself out.

I forgot to add this link:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0601/0601055.p df

This one rules out the Pioneer Anomaly resulting from an anomalous force field in the outer solar system (we'd see the effects on planetary orbits).

I've been reading about alternative theories of gravity, including MOND. Every day, there's at least one paper posted on http://arxiv.org/ dealing with MOND and other theories. To me, MOND seems rather ad hoc. At some acceleration a0 gravity acts linearly? Why? There's really no physical reason for it, though the mathematics work out. Dark matter, by comparison, is much less ad hoc, at least in the case of MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects). That at least invokes normal matter, though it can't account for all of the observed effects. I find WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) to be a little more ad hoc since unknown particles are invoked.
Dark Energy also strikes me as rather ad hoc, being the resurrection of Einstein's idea of a cosmological constant. I'm not completely up to speed on the concept, so I could be wrong though (I am not a physicist, but I have a degree in physics). I do find all this interesting, though, because it seems that no one really knows what's going on, which makes for interesting debates. It's like a cage match. MOND vs. general relativity! Two go in, one comes out. We'll have to wait a while before the dust settles on this one.

No. van Flandern is a famous Usenet crackpot. He actually is an astronomer, and has done good work, but he has no understanding of general relativity, which is not his field. The speed of gravity has been measured to be equal to the speed of light (see the 1993 Nobel Prize). For a paper detailing van Flandern's errors, see here; there is a related discussion in this post. You can also Google on his name and "sci.physics.relativity" for archives of Usenet threads in which various physicists and mathematicians have (futilely) attempted to explain his error to him.

Sorry to reply to my own post, but here are, possibly, the scientific papers in question. Doing a search on arXiv for the names of the authors (Joel Brownstein John Moffat) provides a paper entitled "Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly" (warning: PDF).

I'm not an expert in gravitational theory, so I would appreciate others correcting any mistakes I make. The abstract to the paper says: "The theory allows for a variation with distance scales of the gravitational constant G, the fifth force skew symmetric field coupling strength (omega) and the mass of the skew symmetric field = 1/(lambda)."

I think this is quite a departure from what is conventional accepted about gravity. The gravitational constant, G, sets the scale for the force of interaction of gravity. It is normally assumed that this value is constant throughout the entire universe. They seem to be allowing that this value changes with distance, so that the interaction of gravity is different at small and large length-scales. That they are able to come up with a fit to actual experimental data is quite amazing... although so many bits of astronomical data have been computed assuming a particular (and constant) value of G, so to compare with "established facts" they will have to reconsider all of these previous calculations.

Sorry to reply to my own post, but here are, possibly, the scientific papers in question. Doing a search on arXiv for the names of the authors (Joel Brownstein John Moffat) provides a paper entitled "Gravitational solution to the Pioneer 10/11 anomaly" (warning: PDF).

I'm not an expert in gravitational theory, so I would appreciate others correcting any mistakes I make. The abstract to the paper says: "The theory allows for a variation with distance scales of the gravitational constant G, the fifth force skew symmetric field coupling strength (omega) and the mass of the skew symmetric field = 1/(lambda)."

I think this is quite a departure from what is conventional accepted about gravity. The gravitational constant, G, sets the scale for the force of interaction of gravity. It is normally assumed that this value is constant throughout the entire universe. They seem to be allowing that this value changes with distance, so that the interaction of gravity is different at small and large length-scales. That they are able to come up with a fit to actual experimental data is quite amazing... although so many bits of astronomical data have been computed assuming a particular (and constant) value of G, so to compare with "established facts" they will have to reconsider all of these previous calculations.

Now we're going to see the inevitable parade of, "See, I knew dark matter was a stupid idea all along".

First off, dark matter, even if it ultimately turns out to be wrong, is not a stupid idea; it explains a wide variety of independent phenomena (and contrary to the eternal "it's just epicycles" cry among Slashdotters, it is testable, falsifiable, and predictive).

Second, this new work is, well, new. Only one of the three papers (other two: here, here) has passed peer review so far. When a theory like dark matter has amassed evidence in its favor over a period of decades, it takes a lot to overturn it.

Even if their STV theory does ultimately pan out (and there have been many alternate proposals in the past that have ended up failing), it will take years to be hashed out in the literature and subjected to far more tests; so far they have only passed a few of the observational tests that dark matter does, even assuming that their papers are correct, which no one has checked — there are no followup studies by other authors at this point.

Basic lesson: for every revolutionary new theory that works, there are a hundred that don't, and it can take a long time to decide which is which. New Scientist is not doing anyone a service by jumping on the latest unpublished preprint of the month and hyping it as the revolution of the century, as they tend to do.

Now we're going to see the inevitable parade of, "See, I knew dark matter was a stupid idea all along".

First off, dark matter, even if it ultimately turns out to be wrong, is not a stupid idea; it explains a wide variety of independent phenomena (and contrary to the eternal "it's just epicycles" cry among Slashdotters, it is testable, falsifiable, and predictive).

Second, this new work is, well, new. Only one of the three papers (other two: here, here) has passed peer review so far. When a theory like dark matter has amassed evidence in its favor over a period of decades, it takes a lot to overturn it.

Even if their STV theory does ultimately pan out (and there have been many alternate proposals in the past that have ended up failing), it will take years to be hashed out in the literature and subjected to far more tests; so far they have only passed a few of the observational tests that dark matter does, even assuming that their papers are correct, which no one has checked — there are no followup studies by other authors at this point.

Basic lesson: for every revolutionary new theory that works, there are a hundred that don't, and it can take a long time to decide which is which. New Scientist is not doing anyone a service by jumping on the latest unpublished preprint of the month and hyping it as the revolution of the century, as they tend to do.

Now we're going to see the inevitable parade of, "See, I knew dark matter was a stupid idea all along".

First off, dark matter, even if it ultimately turns out to be wrong, is not a stupid idea; it explains a wide variety of independent phenomena (and contrary to the eternal "it's just epicycles" cry among Slashdotters, it is testable, falsifiable, and predictive).

Second, this new work is, well, new. Only one of the three papers (other two: here, here) has passed peer review so far. When a theory like dark matter has amassed evidence in its favor over a period of decades, it takes a lot to overturn it.

Even if their STV theory does ultimately pan out (and there have been many alternate proposals in the past that have ended up failing), it will take years to be hashed out in the literature and subjected to far more tests; so far they have only passed a few of the observational tests that dark matter does, even assuming that their papers are correct, which no one has checked — there are no followup studies by other authors at this point.

Basic lesson: for every revolutionary new theory that works, there are a hundred that don't, and it can take a long time to decide which is which. New Scientist is not doing anyone a service by jumping on the latest unpublished preprint of the month and hyping it as the revolution of the century, as they tend to do.

First off, this is a dupe from a Slashdot story earlier this year, though I didn't turn it up. Second, as was pointed out in that thread, this isn't a black hole. The paper concerns a dual black hole. Without going into the mathematical details, a "dual black hole" is something that doesn't behave like a black hole, but whose behavior can be mapped into a mathematical "dual space" in which it does behave like a black hole, so that we can use the mathematics of black holes to describe the non-black hole behavior of the actual phenomenon.

You could have just used this link instead....

How about instead of the beeb we get some papers?

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs,grp_physics ,grp_math,grp_nlin/1/all:+AND+Nastase"+"Horatiu/0/ 1/0/all/0/1

Direct link didn't work in the preview so you guys have to copy and paste.

Not all are directly related to the article, but a few are.

No. And that's far from the only comment. Did you even read the thread? (Yeah yeah, I must be new here.) These rebuttals to their (unpublished) paper might help.

This is the actual press release from Dr. Schaefer.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/GRBHD/pressrelease/
It seems that the results are very damning to cosmological
constants.

Unfortunately there are no good web sites talking about
Mannheim's theory the only paper that explains a lot of
it is "Alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy" which
can be accessed at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0505266

Okay, that's an interesting thought, but it takes 2 seconds to read the article and see that the plane of satellites is not in the plane of Andromeda's disk, in fact they are perpendicular, so if anything it contradicts Cooperstock's model.

Interestingly, the Milky Way satellites are also in a plane, which caused a bit of a flap about a year or so ago, as everyone expected the dark matter subhalos (the hosts of satellite galaxies) to be isotropic.

My advisor wrote a paper, however, which demonstrates that the subhalo distribution is anisotropic, and when you select the ones that are likely to be luminous (some are too small to cool and make stars), their distribution is consistent with the Milky Way's satellites. (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502496)

Doug

Might want to do some actual research on the subject. From that list there are no articles in support of the Cooperstock-Tieu model other than a response by the orginal authors. The theoretical arguments and evidence against the model are quite convincing.

Dark matter is just the best model we have right now. It also amazes me how much Slashdot is against the dark matter model. Why is that?

With all this talk of PKI and such, has anyone actually started planning for the collapse of RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and other forms of public-key crypto? We've never had a security proof of these systems (information-theoretic or even computational security), and, since the publication of Shor's algorithm, we now know they can be broken with a quantum computer. Perhaps there's also a classical algorithm for breaking them, but let's assume not. Quantum computers are probably a minimum of ten years away (more like twenty five years, but let's consider the realistic worst case of ten).

I'm guessing many of you have forward security requirements of longer than ten years. Medical records, financial data, and lots of other things probably need to stay secret for longer than that. That means that you need to start now on preparing for the collapse of public-key crypto. Has anyone in IT actually started doing this? Anyone even thought about it?

Disclaimer: IAAQCR (I am a quantum computing researcher).

Here's the peer-reviewed paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0601052

Whether mass changes with velocity depends on how you're defining "mass". The modern definition of mass is the invariant mass (= the rest mass, for massive bodies). The older "relativistic mass" is now equated with "energy", or rather energy/c^2.

If you want to discuss inertial responses to forces, mass becomes a tensor (matrix), which decomposes into longitudinal and transverse masses—it's no longer described by a number.

If you want to describe the source of gravity, that's a tensor (matrix) too: the stress-energy tensor that you mention, of which relativistic mass(-energy) is one component.

Kinetic energy contributes to the relativistic mass-energy and therefore the stress-energy tensor; this issue is discussed in a pedagogical paper.

(The article was about that the classical approximation just wasnt good enough, the mass came out correct without dark matter with general relativity.)

(The article was about that the classical approximation just wasnt good enough, the mass came out correct without dark matter with general relativity.)

• First and foremost, this is most likely not a life form. Such a finding would be the greatest discovery in fundamental biology since pinning down the function and structure of DNA. The announcement of such discoveries by frauds and the mistaken are much more common than the actual thing. However, it is possible that these are extraterrestrial spores. If the second unpublished paper describing reproduction is accurate (a big "if"), then they most likely are extremeophiles and are possibly extraterrestrial in origin.

• DNA is not a requirement for life, as many commenters here have written. DNA (and/or RNA) is at the core of all life on Earth because all present life forms appear to have a common ancestor that used these molecules for it's genetics. The fundamental mechanism used to replicate oneself is the most likely of traits to be highly conserved in evolutionary biology and this is exactly what we are seeing. However, this does not imply that DNA (or RNA) is the only such mechanism possible, especially when the environment that fostered the transition from inorganic to organic is in a different temperature/pressure regime (300 degrees C!). Just as DNA would be useless as a genetic mechanism in the kinds of environments the paper's authors say they see replication in, a molecule that is useful in that environment would not likely be chemically functional in our relatively frigid and low pressure Earth surface environment.

  Therefore, absence of DNA is not unexpected.

• If this does turn out to be extraterrestrial life, then the possibility that life could drift from world to world becomes a fact. This does not, however, mean that the origin of life here on Earth is due to such transport. Just because it is possible doesn't mean it has happened, let alone is responsible for the modern biosphere.

  The people that make the instant leap from the possibility of interplanetary spores surviving to the assumption that this must be how life began here have always puzzled me. After all, the life in such a scenario had to develop somewhere before traveling to Earth. Why is it so difficult to believe that the life we see today is truly indigenous?

  I think I now realize why these people are so ardent that life came from somewhere else: they continue to be mired in the historical notion that the beginning of life required some unique event to get started. In this way, they have much in common with creationists and the general public. The lesson to take from this if it is real is not that life came from space, but that life springs out of non-life with relative ease.

There is also a delayed rounding (see page 7-8) used in combinatorial compression (enumerative coding).

To world-wide notice, in 2002 the ATHENA collaboration at CERN (in Geneva, Switzerland) announced the creation of order 100,000 low energy antihydrogen atoms. Creation of antihydrogen and its high density storage in magnetic traps is now a reality.

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!

Einstein could clearly see there were problems in the 'interpretation' of the results of the mathematical quantum mechanical equations, especially considering that the Quantum mechanics is really just a statistical model, and tried to derive a theory based on more fundamental physics.

May be this was the correct way after all. Check out the research being done at the Calphysics Institute.

In particular:

  - Nature of Mass
  - Origin of Inertia
  - Gravitation
  - Zero Point Energy

Also some interesting papers:

  - Gravity and the Quantum Vacuum Inertia Hypothesis [pdf]

  - Update on an Electromagnetic Basis for Inertia, Gravitation, the Principle of Equivalence, Spin and Particle Mass Ratios
  - Connectivity and the Origin of Inertia
  - Inertial mass and the quantum vacuum fields
  - Stochastic nonrelativistic approach to gravity as originating from vacuum zero-point field van der Waals forces [pdf]
  - Zero-point field induced mass vs. QED mass renormalization
  - Inertial Mass and Vacuum Fluctuations in Quantum Field Theory

It may be possible that Gravity is not a fundamental force after all. It may be derived from the three fundamental quantum forces: Strong, EM, and Weak.

Mass may be derived from these forces. Hadrons (comprised of quarks) which feel the Strong force (and also the Weak and EM forces) have a stronger opposing force from the Zero Point Field (ZPF) and therefore have a high induced mass (i.e. have a higher measured mass). Electrons don't feel the Strong force - only the EM and Weak force - and so feel a lesser force from the ZPF and thus have a smaller induced mass. And finally, neutrinos only feel the Weak force and so have a tiny induced mass.

Furthermore, as Gravity is not a fundamental force, but is a derived force along with its equivalent derived force - inertia, then the ZPF can be real, without producing infinite curvature of space. The gravitational force actually comes from an anisotropic ZPF caused by the scattering of the ZPF off local matter. In flat space though far from any masses, the ZPF is on average isotropic causing only microscopic jiggling of Strong, EM, and Weakly charged particles leading to the normal quantum uncertainty and heisenburg uncertaintu principal.

Of course this is only a rough overview, there is a lot more in the links above. Check them out for a fuller understanding!