Particle Physics and the Intermediate GraviField
(c) Robert Neil Boyd


Shipov sent me a paper of his two years ago denouncing Mach's principle as untenable. He might have a point. Unless gravity has a propagation velocity very much greater the light speed. Tony Smith's graviphotons are superluminal. Jefimenko has said on this forum, or the forcefieldpropusion egroup, that gravity has an infinite velocity. You may recall that, at first, I questioned this. Then, when I realized he was right, I issued a public apology to him.

Yes, the Wallace patents are interesting. I brought them up to the group about 2 years ago. Didn't get much response at the time...

Sometimes I want to dispense with particle physics, because it has so many hypothetical components in it. I can admit to those particles which are routinely and reproducibly observable, such as mesons, and muons, and electrons. I find large confusions where hypothetical particles are involved. In some cases, these are only due to the limitations of our methods to observe the subatomic, as for example, when Dirac postulated by a mathematical demonstration that there should be electrons traveling backward in time resulting in the inversion of the sign of the charge of the electron. (We ought to look at electron-positron pair production mechanisms some more. By the way, the Dirac sea is a sea of "virtual", that is to say, "potential" particles that live in a hypervolume, as I understand it.)

In other cases, the particle theories are based on a series of assumptions. As Bohm said to Paul Davies, "...progress in science is usually made by *dropping* assumptions". I want to drop the assumptions about quarks and neutrinos and gravitons, until these are further substantiated by observations. So, if we get rid of those conceptual particles, which are rarely, if ever, observed, what does gravity then look like? Can we have gravity without "gravitons"? Hmmm... It worked for Newton! "Gravitons" were born out of the attempt to quantize gravitation. Gravitation may not be quantizable. I think that Einstein's curvatures of space-time are due to phenomena involving superluminality. I agree with Shipov here. Either Mach's principle is wrong, or there is no upper limit to velocity. I am completely convinced of the latter. Now, we can still have gravity waves that have infinite velocity of propagation without the requirement for "gravitons". On the other hand, there are processes of convection which can easily attain superluminal velocities. What this brings to mind is that subquantum particles could transmit gravitational waves by convective means.

Perhaps the "dark matter" and the "missing mass" of cosmology are just the subquantum particles. Now, we are involving particles again with gravity, except that they are subquantum in size and superluminal in velocity.

Now, as to the interactions between time and gravity, Finkelstein has shown that there must exist both mass infinitesimals and time infinitesimals. (Put that in your pipe and smoke it...) We are talking about masses smaller than the Plank Length and time shorter than the Plank Time. Important!!! NOT QUANTIZABLE. Which brings me back to my subquantum particles...

On to other topics: The "advanced" (backward in time) solutions to the Maxwell equations are interesting. The little known, "reversed form" (negative solution) of Maxwell's 4th equation, states that a magnetic field can be produced without current flowing in a wire! This negative solution has been used to create a new kind of antenna, known as a "crossed-field" antenna. (See: )

Regarding Craven's comments, there is also a property called spin resonance and another property known as non-linear resonance. And the combination of the two is also feasible as a "non-linear spin resonance".

Berkant, I think we are collecting enough threads to make a good fabric, once we can see how all these threads weave together. I have noticed that in situations where a phenomenon is given several different names, that there is always something really interesting to be found there. The "intermediate field" is one of those "many-named" observations. Could the "intermediate field" be the process of conversion of energy from one form to another, through the subquantum media?

Let us not care so much about what it is called. Let us focus on how it behaves, on what is does. Labels are just intellectual bookmarks so that we can have our attention on the same thing as the other person. When we get our attention on the thing itself, without attention on the label of the thing, then we can really study it first-hand. This is like, someone says, "Isn't that a remarkable looking tree?", which causes the other person to look over there and study it for themselves to see what is so remarkable looking about that tree. At that point, the exploration has left the realm of the abstract (the label "tree") and has gone into the realm of the real, the empirical, the reproducibly observable. (I look away. I look back again. The tree is still there.) I want to use the abstract only to direct my attention to what is actual. Then I want to explore what is actual, what is observable.

We should not let the "boxes" of quantum physics and relativity limit our explorations. Both theories are internally consistent, but incomplete. (Godel's Law raises it's beautiful head again.)