How gravity works

A.Findlay, P. Haenggi
2013
Abstract
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation 15.8.2013

Einstein proposed that spacetime is curved by matter and that free-falling objects are moving along locally straight paths in curved spacetime. These
straight paths are called geodesics. Like Newton's first law of motion, Einstein's
theory states that if a force is applied on an object, it would deviate from a geodesic. For instance, we are no longer following geodesics while standing because the mechanical resistance of the Earth exerts an upward force on us, and
we are not in an inertial frame when standing on the ground as a result..
When standing on the earth (in a gravitational field) still we are no longer
following geodesics. Forces cause acceleration Einstein's theory states
that if a force is applied on an object, it would deviate from a geodesic.
Therefore when standing still on earth we are accelerating away from the
geodesic. Therefore the geodesic is accelerating in the opposite direction
to a person standing still on the earth.
Therefore the geodesic is a line of movement , the movement (accelerating) towards the center of the earth.And the closer it gets to the center
of mass the faster it accelerates.
The maximum acceleration is proportional to the mass of the body, and
the maximum achievable velocity is the speed of light.
By what process could a an object be accelerated along a geodesic? By
what process can Matter curve space time? What process limits the velocity to the speed of light? We attempt to find a solution

What is not described and what we will try and show here is how a mass
interacts with space to curve it.

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Section 1 Mathematical analysis .............................................................................................. 13
The expansion of the universe Increased kinetic energy of the masses in the expanded
universe, whilst the total energy of the universe remains constant. ..................................... 13
Dark energy ............................................................................................................................... 15
Dark matter ............................................................................................................................... 15
Section 2 - Specific calculations ............................................................................................... 17
To calculate the mass of the smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed by a
particle ....................................................................................................................................... 17
For a cubic meter of Space, in 1 second, ................................................................................. 19
For the universe ........................................................................................................................ 19
Proof of compatibility with General Relativity ...................................................................... 22
Proof of compatibility with Quantum Electrodynamics............ Error! Bookmark not defined.
How can we experimentally verify this theory? ..................................................................... 25
About constants......................................................................................................................... 26
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 27

So let us start.
First we will define the universe as being the sum of everything. Therefore
there can be no interaction with anything outside the universe.
Lets make a sketch of the universe to help us understand this
Diagram 1

Time T1
Diameter D1

At a certain time which we will call T1 it

has a certain size.At a later moment in time, lets call it T2 it has expanded.
Diagram 2

Time T2
Diameter D2
4

What can we say about these the universe at these two different times?
They contain the same amount of energy.
Of course inside the universe things are going on and types of energy are constantly changing form, like chemical energy changing to heat, but still, the sum
of all types of energy in the universe remains constant.
So lets have a look at both again after a certain amount of time has passed . At
time T1. And lets have a particular look at two arbitrary objects with mass, a,
and b.
Diagram 3

Distance apart d1,

Relative velocity to
each other

v1

b
Time T1
Diameter D1
Total energy E1

Now these objects could be anything, and we can assume that they are not stationary so they will have a kinetic energy, a measure of their energy of movement, initially at a distance apart of d1 for our arguments sake we assume they
are traveling apart at a velocity of v1.
5

Lets now look at them again at time T2. As the universe expands, they have
now receded away from each other.
Diagram 4

d3, v3
b

a
Time T2 such
that T2>T1
Diameter D3
Total energy E3

As we have observed that objects further away (distance d3) recede faster (velocity v3) , we can say that at any particular later moment in time the sum of the
kinetic energy of all these objects will be greater than at the time T1. ie d3>d1
and v3>v1.
So where does this energy come from?

What has changed? Well let us assume that between time T1 and T2 they have
not come into contact and therefore not interacted with anything, then the only
other change is that the universe has expanded. Or in other words the volume
of space has increased. However the volume by which the universe has increased is less than the volume by which it would have increased without mass.
Diagram 5

d3 > d1
v3 > v1
a

b
Time T2 such that T2>T1
Size D3
Total energy E3 = E2 = E1

Diameter D3
Diameter D2 > D3 >D1

Therefore the universe without mass will have extra volume whilst the universe
with mass will have a lower volume but extra kinetic energy such that the total
energy of both universes remains the same.
Therefore we think the differences in the volume of space must have something
to do with the increased kinetic energy of the two objects.
So lets make an assumption. For a given volume of space there is a given
amount of space vacuum energy at any time T. An increase in the volume
without energy being added or subtracted would cause a decrease in the density
of the energy per unit volume. If you would take energy out of a certain volume
of vacuum, you would either decrease the energy density, or, decrease the volume or more probably a combination of both.
So in a universe with mass in it, such as ours which is expanding with tme, on
the one hand there is an increase in kinetic energy of the masses and a reduction
in the increase in the volume of the universe as compared to an equivalent universe without mass in it.
Missing space (and hence missing vacuum energy) on the one side and additional kinetic energy on the other side?
Can we presume that the increase in kinetic energy of an object with mass
comes from the object with mass absorbing energy from space? Later, we will
show mathematically that under certain conditions, the missing vacuum energy
and the additional kinetic energy ae equal.
If this was the case, what would be the consequences?
The first consequence would be that if all of space has vacuum energy and this
vacuum energy is evenly distributed, then as the energy density of space tries to
reach zero as time goes on, in order to obey Newtons second law of thermodynamics, the volume of space would have to increase.
So if there is some type of local quantum interaction such as the exchange of a
graviton between empty space and a mass at the edge of the two, then the space
next to the mass would lose energy and get smaller. Does the mass then gain
8

kinetic energy if it gains velocity relative to space, even though it is gains velocity relative to space in all six directions, up, down, left, right, forward and
backwards? Relative to a stationary point in space such as perhaps the middle
point of the universe, yes.

Y
axis
Z
axis

X
axis

.
Would anyone living on an object with mass notice this? Probably at first not,
because gaining velocity in all 6 directions effectively leads to a zero change in
apparent velocity, making the observer think he is stationary. However as the
velocity has increased relative to the surrounding space there would be a relative acceleration. And again the relative acceleration of the object to the surrounding space would be in all 6 directions all towards the centre of the object.
This acceleration towards the centre of an object with mass is indeed felt by
humans when the object is large enough. We have given this acceleration a
name, Gravity.
Not only that, but as the object withdraws energy from the surrounding space,
the energy density of the surrounding space decreases, drawing in energy from
the next piece of space and so on. This then is how space is curved by any
mass. Spaces then flows into mass resulting in
a) moving geodesics
9

b) accelerating of mass along geodesics

c) Maximum acceleration being proportional to the maximum inflow rate
which is propotional to the mass.

Y axis
Z axis

X axis

10

Y axis
Z axis

X axis

How does an object with mass absorb energy from the vacuum? Here we speculate that this is via a graviton, but that the entire process is over the Planck
length and time, making the capture of a graviton experimentally for us humans
very difficult. However it does make gravity a local quantum phenomenon, finally linking quantum theory with General relativity. Not only this, it explains
the expansion of the universe and explaining dark energy, and by giving a certain volume of space mass (energy) it provides a candidate for certainly a part
of the missing dark matter.
11

Note: Although these thoughts are based on a universe the same analysis
could be done for an arbitrary sphere of space, providing that the masses in the
second sphere where very small and the distance between the masses was
very large so that their gravitational attraction (and hence gravitational potential
energy) would be irrelevant. Therefore even if we live in a multiverse or the
universe is infinitely large the same results occur.

12

Section 1 Mathematical analysis

The expansion of the universe Increased kinetic energy of the
masses in the expanded universe, whilst the total energy of the
universe remains constant.
First, for simplicity let us assume an idealised universe. Let us say that the universe is a sphere and the edges of the sphere are a distance away from the centre. We observer any two arbitrary masses a and b with combined kinetic energy of Ek and mass energy of Em. We ignore Gravitaional potentially energy by
assuming the masses are very small and are very far away.
The vacuum energy of cold dark spacetime also has some energy. It could be
positive or negative or even zero, but to ensure completeness we need to include it.
Lets call the vacuum energy of cold dark spacetime Est
Let us look at the total energy of this theoretical universe.
Let us call the total energy of this theoretical universe Et
Total Energy Et = Est + Em + Ek
At time T1
Et1 = Est1 + Em1 + Ek1
And at time T2
Et2 = Est2 + Em2 + Ek2
Then, as the total energy does not change,
Et1

= Et2
= Est1 + Em1 + Ek1
= Est2 + Em2 + Ek2
13

In the case that we choose T2 and the velocities such that any gain in
mass from the increased velocity is negligible we can then set Em1 = Em2
And conclude that the change in Vacuum Energy = Change in Kinetic Energy
Est1 - Est2 = Ek2 Ek1

Conclusion based on the analysis of the whole universe:

The point we are making here is that any increase in kinetic energy must come
from the vacuum itself.
Where does space time contract (or expand) because of these changes?
How fast does spacetime contract or decrease its density?
If the rate at which the vacuum energy of space time between the particles was
transferred to the particles in form of kinetic energy was at a constant rate, then
there would appear to be AN ACCELERATION between the particles.
But this is exactly what we observe. This is what we call gravity.
This energy is supplied by the vacuum energy. This energy is absorbed at a
constant rate at all times by a mass dependent only on the mass of the object
It gives the object the property of mass! The rate of acceleration is however
proportional to the local energy density of the spacetime at the particle.
Nearest the particle the energy density is lowest. Further away from the particle
are areas with higher density. The second law of thermodynamics dictates that
different energy densities will tend to cause a flow of vacuum energy from regions of higher density towards regions of lower density. (From which the
flatness of the universe arises)
This will cause the local regions of space time to change size and shape depending on their local vacuum energy densities, which would have the effect of mass
14

causing local bending of space time. The fact that space time remains bent
around a mass infers that there is a constant transfer of energy of space time to
the mass. The path of any particles in spacetime due to such an effect and the
rate of change of velocity of the particles would be identical to what we call
gravity. But there is no actual attraction between the masses, they absorb the
vacuum energy at a constant rate and hence spacetime next to them and thus the
effect would be that they accelerate towards each other.
So what would happen if as we suggest, the vacuum energy of spacetime was
transferred to the particles? Then the particles would start to move towards each
other and the space time between them decreases. If this was a constant process
it would look like a force of gravity attracting the two particles, causing them to
accelerate towards each other. So we would have the same effect as a force of
gravity. However there is no gravitational force acting at a distance between
the two particles, and the two particles would be just absorbing energy locally
from its spacetime surroundings.
An objection might be But particles would heat up if they constantly absorbed
energy? No, they would speed up and gain kinetic energy.
Why have we not noticed this change in velocity? It is not obvious but this simple analysis shows that all masses constantly accelerate and change velocity.
We know that our universe is expanding. And we know that mass in our universe should cause a slowing down of this expansion.
Dark energy
If the vacuum energy density decreases over time, but the entire energy of the
universe remains constant, then the volume of the universe must increase. This
would then also explain the dark energy causing the measured expansion of the
universe. This would follow from the second law of thermodynamics.

Dark matter
15

In areas of high mass (such as around galaxies) the stress caused by the bending of space time due to the mass absorbing energy and increasing their kinetic
energy would result in a net gain of energy around the mass, such that it would
appear that the (energy and hence) mass of the region had increased. So this
would also explain at least a part of the dark matter and the dark matters halo
like distribution around mass.
If this is true and as it seems to logically follow then we should be able to calculate some real values.

16

Section 2 - Specific calculations

To calculate the mass of the smallest possible volume of space

that can be absorbed by a particle
We know that Newtonian mechanics is a good approximate at low speeds and
over short periods, so, assuming two identical masses (A and P) initially at rest
are attracting each other mutually by gravitation, and there are no other forces
acting on them. (Idealised situation)
Kg
Mp = Mass of P
Ma = Mass of A
Kg
Fp = Force acting on P
N
G = Gravitational constant
m3/Kgs2
R = Distance between A and P
m
Sp = Distance travelled by P
m
Vp = Velocity of P
m/s
Ap = Acceleration of P
m/s2
T = an amount of time
s
Kg
Ms = Mass of smallest amount of space
Vps =Velocity of P by itself due to absorption of vacuum energy m/s
Then the force acting on the mass P is given approximately by
Fp = GMp Ma/R2
1
And is also given by
Fp = Mp Ap
2
Therefore the acceleration is
3
Ap = G Ma/ R2
Therefore the velocity is
4
Vp = G MaT/ R2
And the distance travelled is
Sp = G MaT2/2 R2
5
Assuming the smallest amount of space would be a cube with sides the size of a
Planck length then,
17

at the Planck distance where R = Sp

Vp= G MaT/Sp
And
Sp = G MaT2/2Sp 2

12
13

The above equations are based on the acceleration of two identical particles
with mass
It follows then that the acceleration of a single particle will then have to be adjusted
When there is only one particle and the acceleration continues anyway, it follows that the total mass in the space is given by
21
Ms = (Ma)/2 which can be written Ma = 2Ms
The mass of space can then be calculated as follows
Ms = Sp 3/ GT2
22
Generalising equation 22 we have
M= R3/GT2

23

This is the generalised gravitation equation for any single mass.

Putting in Planck units to work out the maximum rate at which the mass of this
smallest possible volume of space that can be absorbed, we have the mass of
space as:
M = (1.6616x10-35)3/ (6.674x10-11 x (5.391x10-44) 2)
M = 2.18x10-08 Kg
This is the Planck Mass.!!!
This is the mass of the smallest quantum of space time that can be absorbed by
a particle in a Planck second. Therefore the (quantum of) energy in the smallest
volume of space that can be absorbed is 1.93x109 J. This is of course the Planck
energy

18

Therefore gravity is a local quantum phenomenon, of the constant transfer of a

quantums of vacuum energy of spacetime proportional to the mass of a particle
to the particle which increases its kinetic energy.
From Wikipedia
Significance of the Planck mass
The Planck mass is an idealized mass that is thought to have special significance for quantum gravity when General Relativity and the fundamentals of
quantum physics become mutually important to describe mechanics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass
The Planck energy is not only the energy needed (in principle) to probe the
Planck length, but is probably also the maximum possible energy that can fit
into a region of that scale.

For a cubic meter of Space, in 1 second,

M1 = 13 / (6.674 x10-11 x 12)
=1/G = 1.498 x1010 Kg
Thus the universal gravitational constant G is not just an arbitrary constant, but,
(Actually 1/G) is the maximum amount of mass available (in the form of vacuum energy) in one cubic meter of space that can be made available to a body
with mass within one second at the present time.
For the universe
Mu = Ru3/G Tu2
(Estimates from Wikipedia)
Ru= 46.5 billion light years = 4.4x1026 m
Tu= 13.8 Billion years = 4.35x1017 s
19

Therefore the vacuum energy mass equivalent of the universe is

Mu = 6.73x1054 Kg
Eu = 6.05 x 10 71
Vu = 1.14 x 10 80
Energy density = 5.33 x10-9 J/ m3
Mass density = 5.93 x 10 -26 kg / m3
As the estimates are within three orders of magnitude, (volume is three orders
of magnitude due to the radius being approximate to one order of magnitude)
the mass density is then
Between 5.593 x 10 -23 kg / m3 and 5.93 x 10 -29 kg / m3
From Wikipedia
Here is how we got the numbers. Using the -CDM model, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe estimates that &Lambda = 0.726 0.015. This means
that the energy density of the vacuum is about 0.726 times the critical density.
The critical density, in turn, is defined to be
c = 3H2/8G
where H is the Hubble constant and G is the gravitational constant. The WMAP
data estimate the Hubble constant at 70.5 1.3 kilometers per second per megaparsec, and the gravitational constant is known much more accurately, at
6.67384 .00008 10-11 meters3 per kilogram second2. This puts the critical
density between 9.0 10-27 and 9.7 10-27 kilograms per cubic meter, and the
energy density of the vacuum between 6.4 10-27 about 7.2 10-27 kilograms
per cubic meter. Please check our math, and our data!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html
Plausibility check:

20

The mass of visible matter is estimated to be about Mv = 3.0x1052 Kg estimate

presumed to be within 1 order of magnitude (Estimate - from Wikipedia)
Thus 3x1051 Kg <Mv<3x1053
Making the visible mass between
0.05 % to 5% of the total mass of the universe
And the mass density calculate done on the basis of WMAP data is in the
middle of the calculation limits set
5.5 x 10 -23 kg / m3 < 6.4 10-27 about 7.2 10-27 27 kilograms per cubic meter < 5.93 x
10 -29 kg / m3
Again, from Wikipedia
However, as noted in the "matter content" section, the WMAP results in combination with the Lambda-CDM model predict that less than 5% of the total
mass of the observable universe is made up of visible matter such as stars, the
rest being made up of dark matter and dark energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

An analysis showing that the new theory is consistent with all existing experiments.
As far as we are aware General Relativity is consistent with all existing experiments. General Relativity is a theory of fields. By assuming the energy distribution properties of the vacuum are compliant with the energy distribution of
the fields of general relativity such that the results would be identical to that of
general relativity as a must criteria for any detailed calculations, this theory
would then be consistent with general relativity and therefore consistent with all
existing experiments relating to space time.

21

Proof of compatibility with General Relativity

In General relativity there is a POSTULATE that the speed of light is the maximum velocity attainable and hence remains the same maximum in every reference frame no matter how the reference frame is moving. We use our theory to
show that the speed of absorption of the vacuum energy is limited to a maximum, and we calculate this theoretical maximum.
Under the assumption that this calculated theoretical maximum turns out to be
the speed of light we see that it is proven that our theory is compatible with GR.
Further, we then do not need just a POSTULATE for GR we, then have the
reason why this postulate is true.
We start by looking at the formula for escape velocity
V= Sqrt of 2GM/R
Where
V is the escape velocity in m/s
G is Newtons Gravitational constant (or at least its current value)
M is the mass of the escaping object and R is the distance between the escaping
object and the centre of gravity. Of the mass the object is escaping from
As mentioned above (equation 21) as we are not dealing with 2 masses, but one
mass and the energy of space, then just as above we need to modify this equation for the velocity at which space is absorbed (which equals the escape velocity with opposite sign) by dividing the term 2GM/R by 2.
We have the new formula that the velocity at which the vacuum is absorbed Vv
= -sqrt of GM/R
Where
Vv is the velocity of the vacuum being absorbed.
22

Now as the maximum amount of energy in vacuum space is limited to the

Planck energy in Planck space time, we can then say the maximum mass (energy) of vacuum space that can be absorbed is the Planck mass in the Planck time.
Now, if this mass is absorbed in the shortest possible time, the velocity of absorption will be a maximum. The minimum time is the Planck time, which
equates to a distance of the Planck length. Therefore we have all the variables to
find Vvmax.
Inserting the amounts in our equation of the velocity of absorption, we get, using
-11

G = 6.673 84 x 10

m3 kg-1 s-2

-8

M = 2.176 51 x 10 kg
-35

R = 1.616 199 x 10

Vvmax = 299 792 533 ms

-1

Comparing this to the Codata measured value of C

C= 299 792 458 ms-1
We find that the results agree. The difference is a function of the accuracy of
which we know the values of the physical constants, especially G. Therefore the
maximum velocity attainable in our universe is a constant independent of any
frame of reference, and this velocity is c, proving that our theory is compatible
with the conclusions and experiments of General Relativity
We know that the value of G is not known experimentally to a very good degree of precision, so working from the Codata measured values we can predict a
more accurate value of G
G= RV2/M
We therefore predict a more accurate value of G would be G = 6.6738366 x 1011
m3 kg-1 s-2 vs the Codata value of 6.67384 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 which is within
the measured discrepancy to which G has been found by experiments to date.
23

This therefore implies that if G increases every year then C will increase every
year and we calculate the increase per year to be 0.011m/s or 11mm/s per year.
This will then be easier to find experimentally than the change in G.
Now you may be sceptical about this because it is commonly thought that relativity demands that C is constant but;
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsteins_constant
About constants
The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the
stress-energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it
appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate
would be violated.
However since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based
on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be
unvarying constants themselves, but that the only absolute constant is their ratio:

Of course we as humans can always decide we like the idea of defining the
speed of light as a constant because that makes many things a lot easier
.
Unfortunately we would then have to live with the consequence that we then
have to accept that the total energy of the universe is increasing, and we are
creating the increase in energy artificially by deciding to define the speed of
light as being constant
As much as we would like to keep the definitions of the fundamental measurement quantities in physics as they currently are based on a constant speed of
light, the consequence mentioned above unfortunately leads us to to the conclusion that the cost of this would be too high a price to pay.

24

How can we experimentally verify this theory?

1) By measuring G more accurately to see if it is our predicted value of
G = 6.6738366 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 vs the current the Codata value of
G = 6.67384 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

2) G may change over time. By calculating the change in G with time and
comparing it observed change.
Assuming
Mu = Ru3/G Tu2
Therefore = Ru3 = Mu G Tu2
As Eu = Mu c2
Then Ru3 = G Eu Tu2 /c2
Thus G = Ru3 c2 / Eu Tu2

This makes sense, as our reasoning suggested 1/G should be the current energy
density of the vacuum As the universe expands, the density must decrease so
1/G must get smaller with time. Therefore G must get bigger with time and G
must be proportional to T squared
As Eu and G/c2 are constants then R3 must be proportional to T2.
Therefore the universes expansion must be accelerating.
25

Therefore we make the prediction that if we found an accelerated expansion of

the universe, this would be an experimental proof for our theory.
Further, as we can defne gravitational waves as moving changes in energy density of the vacuum, we should be able to detect such waves by noting the
changes in G caused by such waves.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsteins_constant
About constants
The Einstein field equation has zero divergence. The zero divergence of the
stress-energy tensor is the geometrical expression of the conservation law. So it
appears constants in the Einstein equation cannot vary, otherwise this postulate
would be violated.
However since Einstein's constant had been evaluated by a calculation based
on a time-independent metric, this by no mean requires that G and c must be
unvarying constants themselves, but that the only absolute constant is their ratio:

Of course we as humans can always decide we like the idea of defining the
speed of light as a constant because that makes many things a lot easier
.
Unfortunately we would then have to live with the consequence that we then
have to accept that the total energy of the universe is increasing, and we are
creating the increase in energy artificially by deciding to define the speed of
light as being constant
As much as we would like to keep the definitions of the fundamental measurement quantities in physics as they currently are based on a constant speed of
26

light, the consequence mentioned above unfortunately leads us to to the conclusion that the cost of this would be too high a price to pay.

REFERENCES
Please note. Although we are aware that papers submitted for publication in

research journals should be placed in the context of current research, with appropriate citations to the literature, we have not used any such information directly. All the information we have used from external sources is referenced
below
[1] Wikipedia as mentioned in the text
[2] http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/index.html

27