Possible Disparity between the Inertial and Gravitational
Masses in Einstein’s Formulas, according to Professor Jose Alvarez Lopez, PhD.
Can this Lead to the Possibility of Self-Propulsion and the Interpenetration of
Integral Theory's Quadrants?
By
Giorgio Piacenza Cabrera
Are two equal masses completely equivalent if
one is at rest and the other is accelerating or perhaps in a rotational
movement? Is the Gravitational Constant really a true constant and unchanging?
In this article, I inform that by correcting the Gravitational Constant and
then introducing it to Lagrange’s equations for planetary motion Jose Alvarez
Lopez PhD, apparently came up with Einstein’s correct equations for planetary
motion. Thus, G at motion or changing position (applicable to inertial mass)
would not be equivalent to G at rest (as gravitational mass).This would allow
the possibility of self-propulsion which, in turn, might be linked to the Subtle
Realm relational logic that would allow characteristics of opposite quadrants
to interpenetrate. In this case the intelligence of the left quadrants in Ken
Wilber’s “Integral Theory” might be able to organize objective, physical
structures under what is known as “autopoiesis.”
Professor Jose
Alvarez Lopez (1914-2007) held PhD’s in mathematics, Physics and Chemistry from
the University of La Plata, Argentina. In 1956 he personally published in
Cordoba, Argentina “The Time Concept in
Special Relativity,” “The Concept of
Mass in General Relativity,” “The
Principle of Variational Homogeneity” and “The Meaning of the Clock Paradox.” In 1961 he published “Relativistic Dimensional Analysis.”
Then in 1968, Alvarez Lopez published “Gravitational
Interference in the Einstein Effect” and “La Thesis Electromagnetique de Poincaré-Cremieux” (with the Faculty
of Sciences at the University of Röen). In 1972 was published “Relativistic Space Propulsion” (also in
Cordoba, Argentina) and in 1976 “About
the Non Existence of Electronic Inertia in Metallic Conductors” (with the
Real Academia de las Ciencias, Madrid, Spain).
This
Professor was keenly aware of the epistemological issues raised by modern
physics and didn’t hesitate to tackle them as an experimentalist, a deductive
physicist, a mathematician and even by adventuring into less scientifically
orthodox areas of knowledge. For instance, besides orthodox works in physics,
he also wrote about more speculative matters such as Yoga, Cybernetics,
Archeology, and about the profound but unappreciated mathematical, engineering
and astronomical knowledge apparently possessed by the ancient Hebrews and
Egyptians. As expected in a scientifist world, this got him in trouble with
many of his colleagues.
Many years
ago, during a series of interviews I enjoyed with Professor Alvarez Lopez in
Miami, Florida in Icho Cruz, Cordoba, Argentina, Professor Alvarez Lopez told me that he had conducted research under
the direction of Professor Giorgio Piccardi at the Laboratory of the Institute
of Chemistry and Physics in Florence, Italy. He also told me that he had
conducted research at the Electrophysical Technical Institute under the
direction of professor Köning in Munich, Germany; at the Institute for Advanced
Studies, directed by professor James Mc Connell in Dublin, Ireland; and in the
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, in Berkeley, California, where he had been
invited by professor Luis W. Alvarez in 1975 to research the “Behavior of Joule’s Law in Electrical
Coronas.” He also informed me that he had received positive commentaries
from Albert Einstein (shortly before his death) and met in Paris with Count
Louis de Broglie. There also were favorable personal or letter exchanges with
scientists like Alexander Wilkens, Burnington Brown, David Bohm, William R.
Corliss, Kiril Stanjukovich, J.L. Synge and Dr. de Puymorin, former director of
France’s Space Commission.
I’m not an
accredited physicist but, basically possess a well-informed layman’s concern
and -in reporting on some of my conversations with Professor Jose Alvarez Lopez-
I’m trying to bring up ideas which may still be important to the physics
community and, subsequently, to science, metaphysics and philosophy in general.
Perhaps the ideas were too controversial during the Professor Alvarez Lopez’s
lifetime but nowadays a paradigm like the “Equivalence
Principle” is being questioned. Professor Alvarez Lopez did manage to
publish some of his ideas in Argentina and non-English speaking countries but,
while recognized by some, was (perhaps due to his metaphysical and
epistemological interests) also considered to be too extravagant by others who
didn’t have the time or the inclination to carefully read his work and review
it. However, perhaps the Professor’s
work could still nowadays add to our knowledge of the possibility of
manipulating how objects respond to gravity or exert gravitational forces. For instance, I ask (hoping not to venture
into the nonsensical) whether the General Relativity formulas (under a modified
Gravitational Constant) allow for an asymmetry between inertial and
gravitational masses so that now a Coulomb
Effect in rotational masses might become a self-propulsive distortion of
space-time. Perhaps some kind of directional space-time torsion field
producing an effective vector force could be generated.
There were
interesting reports of alleged discoveries. For instance, during some personal meetings,
Professor Alvarez Lopez told me that he and his group of experimentalists in
Argentina had developed a micrometer
that had shown that electrons didn’t possess mass in electrical conductors.
He had also apparently found that the atomic constants were coordinated by the
non- dimensional ‘atomic constant’ “alpha,” also known as the “Fine Structure
Constant.” Moreover, after learning about a strange experimental effect in
Argentina in which (after pumping DC current for several days along an
‘antenna’ aligned with the local geomagnetic field) the total output of energy
seemed greater than the input, and Alvarez Lopez allegedly conducted a
partially related experiment at Lawrence Livermore under the auspices of Dr.
Luis W. Alvarez.
Certainly,
I’m not a physicist but for several decades I’ve been pondering and gradually
learning about a few relevant issues in philosophy of science and have read a
broad range of popular books on quantum physics and cosmology. I hope that, in
reporting on some of these conversations with Professor Jose Alvarez Lopez,
I’ll bring to the attention of suitable academics ideas which –if confirmed true- could be
fundamentally important to science, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy and
humanity in general.
I would
like to present some of Professor Alvarez Lopez’s alleged findings that also
seem to connect Einstein’s Special and General Relativity. I’m would like to
see knowledgeable physicists review the Professor’s works (like “Relativistic
Dimensional Analysis”) and verify or discard if he was correct in concluding
that Einstein overlooked a certain disparity between Inertial Mass and
Gravitational Mass. The 1961 publication titled “Relativistic Dimensional
Analysis" explains much better than I many of his ideas in relation to the
issues raised. It is a matter of finding this and other works to carefully
review them.
Here I also want to make reference to research papers
dealing with the possibility that orthodox concepts about gravity and the
Equivalence Principle can be modified, complemented or challenged. For
instance, an article written by Japanese physicists Hideo Hayasaka and Sakae
Takeuchi titled “Anomalous Weight Reduction on a Gyroscope’s Right Rotations
about the Vertical Axis on the Earth” published in the December 18, 1989 issue
of Physical Review Letters. Seems to
show that charged rotating masses alter
the gravitational field.
I also found that the results reported by Hayasaka and
Takeuchi had been questioned in 1990 by Dr. S.H. Salter, a mechanical engineer
at the University of Edinburgh who, (while not trying to replicate the original
findings with a similar amount of magnetic material also used) proposed that
vibrations in the ball bearings of the rotating gyro could explain the effects.
Reference: S. H. Salter, Nature, (February 4, 1990).
Nevertheless, a few years later, Hideo Hayasaka et al.
wrote an article after conducting experiments that seem to back support the results
published in 1989. It is titled “Possibility
for the Existence of Antigravity: Evidence from a Free-Fall Experiment Using a
Spinning Gyro” and was published in Speculations
in Science and Technology, 20 (173-181) (1997). The online link is http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/tajmar/papers/Hayasaka%20-%20Possibility%20for%20the%20Existence%20of%20Anti%20Gravity_Evidence%20from%20a%20Free-Fall%20Experiment%20using%20a%20Spinning%20Gyro.pdf
Moreover, some other
experiments seem to corroborate Hayakawa and Takeuchi’s basic results, thus
bringing to question the Equivalence Principle. For example, “The Phenomenon
of Weight Reduction of a Spinning Wheel,” written by R. Waite for Mechanica: An International Journal for
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics Volume 42, Number 4, 359-364, presents an
alleged general validation of the original results.
Then again
(and still related to these issues) another article appearing in Physical Review Letters makes the case
that the Equivalence Principle may be violated by the action of the still mysterious
“Dark Energy.” The reference is “Dark Energy as a Born-Infeld Gauge Interaction
Violating the Equivalence Principle” by A. Füzfa and J.M. Alimi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 061301 (2006). The online link is: http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v97/i6/e061301
Then, can
information be the source for space, inertia and gravity? Read Erik P.
Verlinde’s plausible and original work 'On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws
of Newton' 6 January 2010, at http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785 Apparently, the entropy differences among
parts in the universe would generate the gravitational force by distributing
matter to maximize overall entropy according to the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. A stronger force would be related with a higher entropic
probability.
Could physical
information be modified by human intention interacting with an information
field? According to the former Stanford University Professor emeritus in
Material Science and Engineering, William A. Tiller PhD, the gauge symmetry of
space can be modified like this. Perhaps this would affect information and, if
information is the primary source, then –perhaps- space, time, gravity and
inertia as emergent phenomena would also be modified. Read the “white papers”
and the “Tiller Model” or watch an interesting interview at http://www.tillerfoundation.com/
The
Gravitational Coupling (adimensional) Constant (GCC) comes to mind as
it pertains to how charged particles with mass attract. It is the
square of the electron mass in Planck units of mass while alpha is the
square of the electron charge in Planck units of charge. The parallels with alpha
are interesting but GCC links gravity to charge and should be
crucial in the more recent investigations on the origin of mass.
These
'constants' (which as 'pure numbers' can be seen as 'stable' and
'prior' in relation to constants using units of measurement) may be conceived
not as 'true constants' but as modulators of those constants.
Their change would also modify the Gravitational Constant.
Interestingly, Alvarez Lopez also proposed that G could be relativistically corrected dividing it
by 1 - v square/c square. If I'm interpreting this
correctly, this could mean that the
equivalence principle for two objects in relative motion with each other would
have to be modified. Professor Alvarez Lopez then placed the
corrected G into a Lagrange equation and arrived at Einstein's equation
for planetary motion. He then wrote that "this showed that
Einstein correction consisted exactly in transforming the Constant of
Gravitation into a Lorentzian invariant." Here again we see Alvarez
Lopez´s search for the interplay between a 'prior' factor and a 'dependent'
factor.
In "Relativistic
Dimensional Analysis" there’s a claim that by modifying G (dividing it by 1- v2/c2 and placing this modified G in
Lagrange equations) we arrive to Einstein's equations for planetary motion.
Alvarez Lopez also proposed that Eötvoss' experiments testing the Equivalence
Principle focused upon a relation that could qualify as 'masses at rest'. He
claimed that Eötvoss' experiments say
nothing in regards to the relativistic behavior of masses in relative motion.
Professor Alvarez Lopez
told me that Einstein’s General
Relativity Theory was “a perfect theory based upon two errors: 1. The
equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass, which he tacitly assumed
and 2. The constancy of the Gravitational Constant, which he also tacitly
assumed.” Then he asserted that “the
error about the Equivalence Principle corrects the error about the
Gravitational Constant.”
G0
(corrected Gravitational Constant) =
G/(1-v^2 〖/c〗^2 ) Then, according to Alvarez Lopez, if G0
is utilized in Lagrange’s formula we obtain Einstein’s formula for planetary
motion, a formula that took Einstein 20 pages of tensorial calculus to obtain.
Professor Alvarez Lopez also said that “this shows that it is easier to arrive
to the same results by starting from Electrodynamics and moving to General
Relativity because √(1-v^2 c^2 ) is obtained from Special Relativity which
pertains to Electrodynamics. Einstein achieved the formulas but not the
theory.”
Thus, Professor Alvarez
Lopez also discovered that Einstein was using two kinds of masses: The relative
mass of Special Relativity, where mass is a function of velocity and the
absolute mass of General Relativity, in which the mass is constant and,
therefore, independent of velocity.
Regarding Length, if
L = length at rest L_0= Length during movement L = L_0 √(1-v^2/c^2 ) L< L_0
Regarding Time
(alternative equation) T= T_0 √(1-v^2/c^2 )
Also, if G were
constant, the formula for the gravitational force would be equivalent to the
formula of the centrifugal force so that F = G (m M)/r^2 = m w^2 r
Jose Alvarez Lopez’s
work delves into a distinction between
universal and empirical constants and goes into a relativistic dimensional
method for arriving (through a method and deduction) to a list of values very
closely corresponding to the atomic constants. Moreover, by setting the simultaneity of Space or of Time when using Lorentzian
transformations, two sets of indeterminate or ambivalent relativistic results
for time and for length result. In relation to this ambivalence in
relativistic formulas and in a personal conversation with Count L. de Broglie, Professor
Alvarez Lopez was told that it was important to distinguish between the "time of waves" and the "time of corpuscles." In my
layman's understanding this seems to connect aspects of General Relativity with
Quantum Physics.
I think that, since Professor Alvarez Lopez admired
Tolman's “Principle of Similitude” and used his own (also quite interesting)
“Principle of Variational Homogeneity” and had the courage to delve into some unclearly
settled aspects of physics, his work was only privately well-regarded by a few
distinguished scientists. For instance Professor Alvarez Lopez was interested
in the role of the adimensional 'constant' alpha and of invariant principles
connected to the epistemological possibility of carefully developing an a priori, Platonic, rational method that
would complement the empirical approach.
Also,
Professor Alvarez Lopez claimed that by introducing in the practice of Dimensional
Analysis his “Principle of Dimensional
Homogeneity” the possibility of determining a priori the constants of nature comes up. Due to this recognition of the possibility of an aprioristic, deductive
physics based on general principles, some of Professor Alvarez Lopez’s work
seems adequate to explore the role of an intelligent interiority in Physics,
typically limited to be a “hard science” mostly focused on structured, stable,
and objective Exteriority. Perhaps aspects related to an intelligent, physical
autopoiesis, to information and, eventually, to the fundamental role of
consciousness in the physical universe would relate with this exploration. In
relation to a more complex phase of Integral Theory, the importance of considering
Interior, Intelligent aspects hiding (or existing in potential states) in the
obvious Physical, Exterior, Objective aspects of the Kosmos (rather than
expressing as correlated but distinct quadratic perspectives) arises.
In Jose Alvarez Lopez’s
1961 work titled Relativistic Dimensional Analysis (p.58) we read:
“Tolman proved that
with his Principle of Similitude the aprioristic qualitative determination of
all the laws of Nature was possible. He also pointed out that this was not the
case for Newton’s law of gravitation; and the main objection against Tolman’s
Principle of Similitude was that with its help the aprioristic determination of
Newton’s law of gravitation was impossible. Owing to this circumstance the
Principle of Tolman was rejected as a physical principle. It is surprising to
observe that nobody, at that time, considered the other possibility: that the
“constant” of the gravitational law were not a real constant of Nature.
The equivalence
between gravitational mass and inertial mass, implicit in the Newton law of
gravitation, has always appeared as demonstrated by the existing isochronism of
penduli formed out of different materials. Later on, Eötvoss confirmed the
result of the isochronal experiments with the help of the famous balance,
demonstrating that the relationship existing between masses of different
substances in regard to the gravitational and inertial actions was invariant at
the poles and at the equator. Taking into account that at the equator the
action of the gravitational force is somewhat opposed by the centrifugal action
due to the rotation of the Earth, this experimental demonstration was
considered sufficient proof for the statement of a “Principle of Equivalence”
of the gravitational and inertial masses.
All these experiments
and analyses have been so amply discussed in the scientific literature that it
is surprising that nobody observed that the experiments of Eötvoss –regardless
of their extreme accuracy- were performed under conditions we could qualify as
static ones: i.e. the relationship between the masses (terrestrial mass and the
mass in the balance) is referred to masses
at rest. This is the reason why Eötvoss’ experiments say nothing in regard
to the relativistic behaviour of masses in relative motion (as, for instance,
the masses of a planet and the Sun). In face of such facts -I have analyzed at
full length in a previous paper (24) – it is hardly dubious that a
physicist will not qualify the relativistic applying of such experiments as
“illegitimate extrapolations of experimental results.”
We arrive at the
conclusion that nobody has demonstrated the “constant” of the gravitational law
is really a constant of Nature, and that in spite of this lack of experimental
evidence the constancy of such an entity is an accepted fact of modern physics.
Let us think of the methodological mistake involved in the rejection of the
Principle of Similitude on the basis of its inability for determining a
“constant” that nobody has yet shown to be a constant of Nature.”
The English abstract
of Jose Alvarez Lopez’s 1957 work El Concepto de Masa en Relatividad General
reads:
“In trying to
transform trajectories of a configuration space into geodetic lines of a
Riemannian space-time, the author has been led to the discovery of an essential
requirement
dm/dt=0
(where m represents
coordinate mass) which he calls “Principle of Identity.” Its name suggests it
to be a generalization of the Newtonian “Principle of Equivalence” that allows
the discussion of dynamical conditions hitherto not taken into account in the
analysis of the quoted Newtonian principle.
In section c the
author shows –with the help of the well-known “Einstein elevator” - that unless
we accept a principle of identity it will be possible to distinguish between gravitational
and inertial forces.”
Professor Alvarez Lopez
was one of the first scientists able to understand Albert Einstein’s theories. While
he was recognized by some important established scientists, as a Latin American
scientist working independently against prevailing dogmas didn’t allow him to
be recognized in earnest. In Relativistic Dimensional Analysis, El
Concepto de Masa en Relatividad General, The Principle of Variational
Homogeneity and Self-Propulsion: A New Flying Technique (some of which
may be available through Borderland Sciences, Amazon and Google Books) there
are carefully detailed, cogent explanations with step by step mathematical
demonstrations that serious scientists willing to learn plausible important corrections
to Einstein’s theories can find.
I’m aware that
according to Erik P. Verlinde, Phd, gravity
can be thought of as a derived entropic force linked to information and
probability as the statistical behavior of ‘degrees of freedom’ which can be
pictured as encoded (minus one spatial dimension) within the concept of a
‘holographic screen’. Thus gravity would originate in a difference on how
much entropy and information is found in the space between two masses in
relation to its surroundings: More
entropy, more gravity and the more bits of information are required to
unscramble and to explain this entropy (because more bits of information have
been ‘lost’) would be equivalent to a greater ‘gravitational pull’. Here
inertia, gravity and space would be emergent and information primary.
Whether –from another
perspective- this pull is also accompanied by a distortion of space-time and to
a concentration or dispersal of elementary ‘information space-time units’ this
may also be plausible. To me this suggests that the level of reality capable of
modifying how much information is required in order to obtain a practical
description is more fundamental. Could this be a higher symmetry level which we
can tap into through our awareness and perhaps our very capacity to describe a
certain space based on information influences how we modify thermodynamically
free information? Can our consciousness connected with quantum non locality
decrease entropy? Hopefully physicists knowledgeable of these matters will see
if Professor Alvarez Lopez’s work is still useful to current discussions in
physics.
For a stimulating
read find Erik P. Verlinde’s 'On the
Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton', at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
If Professor Alvarez Lopez’s
works establish genuine discoveries, they may have many implications. For
instance, it may not be possible to adequately define General Relativity in a
Riemannian four dimensional space. Perhaps his works agree with the possibility
of finding practical ways to increase the disparity between inertial and
gravitational masses and therefore of creating unique dynamic effects. Can movement, the Coulomb Effect and vibrational
information states be intentionally imprinted/programmed and used to decrease
inertia and to tap into zero-point energy potentials in order to manifest controlled
self-propulsion? Might the General
Relativity formulas (modified by the inclusion of the non-equivalence of the
inertial and gravitational masses) now thus relate with Special Relativity and
with Quantum Electrodynamics perhaps allowing an asymmetrical Coulomb Effect to become a self-propulsive distortion
of space-time?
Some
relevant formulas:
Alvarez Lopez’s
Corrected Gravitational Constant
G/√(1-v^2 /c^2 )
G= √(1-v^2-c^2 )
L = length at rest L_0= Length during movement
L = L_0 √(1-v^2/c^2
) L< L_0 L = f (v) dL/dt≠0
Alvarez Lopez’s
alternative equation L=L_(0 )/ √(1-v^2/c^2 ) L>L_0
M=M_0/√(1-v^2/c^2
) dM/dt≠0
dG/dt≠0
T = T_0/√(1-v^2/c^2 ) T >T_0
Alvarez Lopez’s
alternative equation T= T_0 √(1-v^2/c^2
) T< T_0
F= G(m M)/r^2 F= m w^2 r F= G(m M)/r^2 = m w^2 r
Dimensions of the
Equivalence principle = (Gravitational Mass)/(Inertial Mass) = 0
Coulomb’s Formula F=
(Q_(1 ) Q_2)/(r^2 )
Sources
Alvarez Lopez, Jose
(1957). El Concepto de Masa en Relatividad General. Cordoba: Imprenta de
la Universidad de Cordoba.
Alvarez Lopez, Jose
(1961 ). Relativistic Dimensional Analysis. Cordoba: Instituto de
Estudios Avanzados.
Wilber, Ken (2006). Integral
Spirituality. Boston: Integral Books.
