## The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

This is a very detailed and long article, but written in a very simple language, as it seems to me, describing such concepts as; the basis of expectations of “Quantization of Gravity with other forces” which is colloquially known as Einstein’s dream of GUT — or, Grand Unified Theory, and whether such is possible or not and what we may be missing.

This article also describes briefly Pseudo Forces — check a detailed description here. (web-link)

In detail the basis of Physics Formalism — check a discourse here (web-link) and

What are waves and particle — (a link to an extensive discussion will be provided, upon further review), the discussion is in terms of a Formal POV of Physics — ‘slightly”, but much can be based and expanded on such.

This would be one of the most well written article by me as I would think.

So lets get back to the discussion of our original topic of interest.

The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

I like to speak first; about a development of Physics, in this article, that follows a chronological path, rather than, how we look at the cumulative understanding, in modern times, upon which we base our statements and help ourselves be inconsistent, because we forget or rather are oblivious; to the deeper framework, in which things were developed.

— Today I want to focus on Gravity. But before I talk about Gravity; I would like to speak something, on Physics itself.

read more The basics of Physics — is Gravity amenable to Quantization?

## 3 anomalies in 3 weeks.

This article tries to put on record exactly why OPERA neutrino anomaly, FLYBY of Galileo anomaly and PIONEER anomalies are not at-all anomalies, based upon my research from late 2011. On 25.11.2013 I sat for couple hours and reviewed the article written from 2011 and added contents. Since I am reading after couple of years I reminded myself exactly why these are not anomalies: and here is why.

Anomaly from OPERA experiment involving neutrino base line:
The mass of elementary particles is equivalent to a proper-time and in another way to the Compton-wavelength. Compton wavelength is defined as $latex \lambda_{Compton} = \frac{h}{mc}&bg=ffcccc&fg=cc00ff&s=1$ where c is the speed-of-light in appropriate units, m is the mass of a given particle, note that h is the Planck’s constant, not the reduced Planck’s constant, usually found in quantum mechanical treatments.

So in case of the OPERA experiment, the neutrino howsoever it challenged the physical validity of the sanctity of proper-time of photon — that proper time of photon is always zero and minimum among all elementary particles, because its a tiny little smurf with hardly any-mass, it could not run faster, because it has mass.

Again the energy uncertainties of the experimental detector would equivalently add mass to the neutrino, a fact completely over-looked by OPERA experiment collaboration.

Photon proper-time is defined to be least, because its mass is zero, hence neutrino must always take more time than photon, for traversing the same distance, but OPERA claimed otherwise. All in all Relativity + Quantum Mechanics restores the anomaly to its nemesis.

Anomaly from FLYBY of Galileo and PIONEER satellites:
For an explanation of the anomalies while equivalence or relativity of mass, momentum, energy, wavelength etc are not needed here, whats simply needed is mass. This mass is a Newtonian concept but rather refined by Einstein’s theory known as Theory of Relativity which branches into two aspects 1. special theory and 2. general theory.

read more 3 anomalies in 3 weeks.

## The relation between 3 anomalies of OPERA, FLYBY and Pioneer.

The very nature of earth-based gravitational effects is, at-least a fallout in the order of mm/second and application of Quantum Mechanics in case of OPERA apparatus brings out this inherent truth clearly.

One would see at minimum a (+ or -) mm/second order excess beyond speed-of-light = 1, no matter what. On the other hand flyby “anomaly” (which is rather a puzzle) is consistent with basic Relativity without need of Quantum Mechanics. The OPERA “anomaly” (which is basically a puzzle created out of carelessness) is based on an observation or more correctly a “misinterpretation” of 7.5 km/second but using Quantum Mechanics one sees that one should only observe ~5 mm/second given we have a fixed uncertainty on time-measurement to 1 nano-second level.

read more The relation between 3 anomalies of OPERA, FLYBY and Pioneer.

## I claim that, OPERA has lost; it’s claim of superluminal neutrino.

My finding was thus, as you see in the equation described in the above analysis (image), if OPERA finds it’s neutrino with energy-error in the order of 1 eV such that its time-error is in the order of 1 nanosecond it will see speed excess (or anomaly) in the order of 7.5 km/second consistent with theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics taken together.

In other words OPERA-experiment must fit energy-time uncertainty relation del(E).del(T) = a.h-cross and if it gets a = 0.75 eV-nanosecond, it’s claim of superluminal neutrinos vanish ideally. For a 1 nanosecond time accuracy this means 0.75 eV energy accuracy. All they need to do is see if they have this accuracy in energy, in their experimental detector.

And new INSIGHTS (26.11.2013)

And whats use of saying additional constraint? Theory of Relativity or Einstein’s work centers about whats called the equivalence principle. Here is what its all about. When a contribution to variable A comes from B, C, D, E …, F and so on, we say A is equivalent to all those variables. But it would be mathematically inconsistent to replace the equivalence with a sign of equality. Because only a part of eg B comes into A and we need to know what part, exactly. Or else we would be mathematically inconsistent and therefore Physics: Laws of nature will be wrong or rather incorrect.

The laws of nature or laws of Physics are nothing but a mathematical statement of the constraints on a Physical system. So once we know what exact part of A is contributed by say B, we say (this part of ) A comes exclusively from B. So its only partly A that comes exclusively from B and that part is equal to B with addition of Physics Unit-and-Dimension scheme.

Similarly A is contributed exclusively by C, D and so on. If you add Quantum Mechanics here that would mean there has to be a finite or infinite set of variable that only contribute to the variable A. So whats equivalent is a Physical Attribute that a particular variable contributes to another. But whats equal is a mathematical constraint or equation and when its available for a Physical System we say its a Law of Nature.

read more I claim that, OPERA has lost; it’s claim of superluminal neutrino.

## Update to: I solved Flyby anomaly of Galileo-I !!

This article is a compilation of technical results that I obtained through my research. The ideas of this article thus will be comprehended mostly perhaps by only an expert of satellite technology and/or a general Physicist, nevertheless only after he/she also goes through preceding analysis and descriptive-content, the last one is linked below.

Flyby-Anomaly for Galileo-I, solved.

I had missed one unit earlier (– see below) in the computations I had carried out, this anomaly is explained by Theory of Relativity contrary to what was claimed so-far.

read more Update to: I solved Flyby anomaly of Galileo-I !!