Atlantis Online
May 17, 2022, 03:36:39 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Were seafarers living here 16,000 years ago?
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Tachyonic Gravity

Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: Tachyonic Gravity  (Read 164 times)
Full Member
Posts: 22

« on: February 25, 2007, 01:05:04 pm »

An Hypothesis on Superluminal Quantum Gravitation

Gravity is the first natural phenomenon to be recognized as a field of force by classical physicists, to be investigated experimentally by them, and to be described correctly using the language of physics; mathematics. 
In particular, Isaac Newton gave us the very useful formula;
F  =  GM1M2/r2  ,
where F is the force of gravitational attraction a body of mass M1 exerts on a distant body of mass M2, the two bodies separated by a distance r.
G, of course, is Newton's constant [G ~ 6.67 x 10-11 N x m2 / kg2].
This formula, known as the "classical" or "Newtonian" gravity formula (NG), works well when applied to ordinary objects, such as baseballs, and local orbiting bodies, such as communications satellites; i.e., from distances as small as the radius of a molecule, up to distances on the order of the radius of the solar system. 

However, for larger interstellar distances, such as the radius of the Milky Way Galaxy, and greater, the modern-day understanding of gravity, Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR), provides a more accurate description of the effects of the gravitational fields surrounding massive bodies (although GR involves much more highly advanced mathematics).  It was, for instance, GR that astronomers used to theoretically predict the existence of Black Holes in space, which have by now been observed in vast numbers; are believed to be at the centers of most galaxies; and are used to explain much of what astronomers see happening out in the universe. 
Indeed, GR has become so successful that it is the formal basis of the most current version of what astronomers call the "standard model" of cosmology.

On the other hand, how gravity works at subatomic distances is not as well known.  And, for all of their usefulness, the NG and GR formulations only describe the overall macrocosmic effect of gravity, not how gravity does what it does microcosmically. 
In other words, we previously did not have a theory that explained how gravity works at subatomic distances that was entirely supported by unbiased experimental evidence; a "quantum theory" of gravity, compatible with the quantum theoretical formulas used to describe and explain the other three "known" forces of nature (electromagnetism, the weak-nuclear force, and the strong-nuclear force).

There was, as any physicsts can confirm, the long-held and reasonable desire to cast gravity in analogy to electromagnetism  -  but instead of being a two-pole field (as is the electromagnetic field), gravity would have to be a quadrupole field.  Thus, in analogy to the virtual photons that constitute the electromagnetic field, and which are spin-1 massless bosons, the assumption was that there must likewise exist analogous bosons, but of spin-2, that constituted the gravitational field. 
These particles were called "gravitons", and they remain part of that version of the standard model of cosmology that logically, though arbitrarily, attaches to the field-equations of GR this quadrupole analog of electromagnetism as the first quantum theory of gravity. 

Unfortunately, gravitons have never been detected, despite the fact that conventional calculations indicate that they should exhibit exceedingly obvious and easily recognized indicators in particle-detection equipment (bubble-chambers, accelerators, etc.). 
Unconventionally, String Theory "explains" that gravitons are not observed by saying that gravity is too weak for our instruments to detect them; if they exist at all.  And this is alleged to be supported by experiment, in that gravity is the weakest of all the natural forces at subatomic distances (which is a circular argument). 

However, the latest reincarnation of String Theory, called "Membrane Theory" (or M-Theory) [also "Brane-World Theory", or simply "Brane Theory"], explains gravity as an aspect of spacetime itelf  -  suggesting that it involves no quanta of any kind.  And, because M-Theory has become so popular, this assumption is being widely touted as an alternative to finding some point-like particle to explain quantum gravity.
The need now, it is then contended, is to cast everything that was once the province of Quantum Theory (QT) in terms of a formulation based on M-Theory. 

The problem therein is that we are required to conclude that QT, as it stands, is too incomplete to be of much use in making predictions any more, and that M-Theory is coming to the rescue.
But I say:  "Hogwash!" 
QT is the most successful of all theoretical physics endeavors to-date, and has explained a great deal about the subatomic realm, chemical reactons, astronomical ovservations, and a host of other natural phenomena.  There is no valid reason to abandon QT in favor of anything else.  It works quite well, for the most part, in nearly every way in which it has been applied.

I am not, however, saying that QT is perfect, or complete.  It has many shortcomings, acknowledged by all, but it remains the preferred methodology to be employed in understanding natural processes that are known to involve detectable quantities recognizable as indicative of "particles", for lack of a better label for entities understood by experimental data which clearly show that such entities' characterizations must involve masses of certain verifiably indivisible amounts (such as electron mass), and the emission or abosrption of energy in measureably discrete amounts (such as the energy of a photon).

M-Theory has certainly found a place in mainstream theoretical physics, but it is not, and will never be, the end-all be-all to our understanding of natural processes.  It can be used successfully, it seems to me, to describe conditions at distances smaller than those encountered in the QT of subatomic particle interactions (i.e., smaller than the Planck length).  And its acceptance of the notion of alternate dimensional membranes coexisting with our detectable membrane (our standard spacetime framework) can be used even to explain where cosmology's Big Bang came from.  M-Theory also has an explantion for why gravity is so weak at subatomic distances; saying gravity is weak in our brane, but stronger in an adjacent alternate-dimensional brane, at those distances.

M-Theory too, because it is based on String Theory, accepts the notion of tachyons (particles that always travel faster-than-light), because the mathematics of String Theory requires at least an open-ended suggestion that such particles could exist (among an infinite number of other particles, of many kinds).  I am amazed, therefore, that some highly-educated, more broadly-experienced, and professionally-respected physicist has not seen fit to hypothesize what I, a nobody, have been saying for many years now; that the search for tachyons and the search for the quanta of gravity could be one in the same search.

But in case anyone cares, I am a student of physics, and have been for a long time (I was an actual student for a while, at an accredited university, but am currently only a student member at-large in a physics society).  I was not allowed to obtain a Bechelor's Degree in that field (although I had spent 4.5 years full-time in college pursuing it, with good grades, and perfect attendance, and was only 9 semester-hours away from completing course requirements in the major), which degree, I was once told, would have given me the wherewithall to continue my education, and reach for a higher degree.  So, at the end of my college days, while I was economically forced to return full-time to the workforce (as an engineer, in the electrical generator industry), I continue to engage in research in physics as a "hobby", which I had long been doing beforehand (since age 18, though I am now 51).

Why I was denied my Bachelor's Degree is a sad story.  The physics department-head hated me, and my ideas, and made it impossible for me to complete my degree program by having my funding (student loans) terminated; knowing that I depended on it.  But I mention the formal education I did acquire to suggest only that I am not wholly ignorant of the subject.  I am just an amateur, as it were.  Yet, I am of the opinion that amateurs, in the past, have made many valuable contributions to our understanding of nature.  And I am hoping (beyond any reasonable measure of hope), that acceptance of my ideas will be taken based upon the merits of the ideas, and not rejected because of my lack of credentials (which is all too common a practice in the physics community).

This is also the reason I post to message-boards like this one, at Atlantis Online.  Most readers here, I would wager, will be open-minded enough to allow me to post my ideas here without giving me a lot of grief about it.
I have, quite often, posted my ideas on purely physics-oriented forums (, for example, among several others), but I always encounter such vehement opposition, far out of proportion to objective counter opinions, that I have grown weary of attempting to justify myself to people, calling themselves "scientists", who, more like religious zealots, refuse even to allow for the possibility of the correctness of any unorthodox ideas in physics  -  such as the notion that a valid theory of quantum gravity could take any other form than what mainstream physicists promote.

That said, I would like to present my thesis on the hypothesis that gravity is faster-than-light, of which I have published a condensed version, called "Tachyonic Gravity", at my main website,

The full version of the thesis, a 7-webpage treatment entitled "Tachyonics Links Quantum Theory to General Relativity", can be read at the following URL;

In my thesis, I suggest that gravity is faster-than-light, and is therefore a tachyonic force.

Readers are invited to consider my ideas on gravity and post questions, comments, criticisms, etc., as desired. 
You can also correspond with me personally by e-mailing

For more on tachyons, the new theoretical endeavor of Tachyonics, and information on the investigation of all superluminal phenomena, you will find a wealth of material, and numerous online sources, at my site;

« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 04:01:14 pm by HKurtRichter » Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy