**This Text Has Now Been Updated In Late May, 2003**

**The Original Form Of This Paper Was Presented At: CONGRESS–2000**

**“Fundamental Problems Of Natural Sciences And Engineering”**

**St.-Petersburg, Russia**

**Held From July 3 to July 8, 2000**

**Text Was Published In The Proceedings**

**Cosmic Long-Wavelength Photons And A Fundamental Understanding Of Gravitation**

**A Quantum Gravitational Proposal**

**The Gravitational Constant Equation For Wave Gravity Revealed**

**Forces, Wave And Particle Are Unified By The Newtonian “G” Equation—Plus Additional Consequences And New Wave Units For “G” Derived**

BY: John K. Harms

© Copyright, 1998

Updated: Late May, 2003

**Abstract**: The text proposes that the machinery for gravitation is positive radiation pressure, which is an allowable mechanism as described by the general theory of relativity. Although it is a relatively weak effect, pressure generates a gravitational field. It is predicted that mass, although it is also a mechanism for space-time curvature in general relativity, is not the actual cause of gravity in the Universe. In this proposal, the primary mechanism for gravity is positive radiation pressure which is a form of energy. This proposal is also a possible two-fold linkage of gravity with electromagnetism (quantum mechanics). The text explores the idea that ordinary (as opposed to virtual) cosmic long-wavelength photons exist at a very high density in the vacuum of space-time. Such cosmic quanta are likely to be a leftover background from the Big Bang, red-shifted light from distant galaxies and/or long-wavelength quanta from our own galaxy. All bodies above absolute zero emit long-wavelength radiation. Indeed, such radiation is abundant at long-wavelength radio frequencies. According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum is seething with energy. In the quantum picture which will be discussed here, the machinery for gravitation can be thought of as a long-range Casimir force carried out by long-range ordinary long-wavelength photons. The imbalance of radiation pressure is due to the reflection of this background radiation by matter particles. This generates a positive pressure applied to the surface of the matter particles and, hence, a curvature of space-time according to general relativity. In this scenario, gravity is driven by the absence of radiation pressure within material bodies causing a positive pressure on the matter particles driven by ordinary vacuum quanta. This concept is related to Casimir forces which demonstrate the existence of a negative vacuum. Casimir forces have been examined in detail by the experimentalist S. K. Lamoreaux and more recently (and precisely) by U. Mohideen and A. Roy. The Casimir force has been shown to be an absence of vacuum radiation pressure between two metal plates. Positive radiation pressure from the vacuum pushes the plates together proving the existence of a negative radiation pressure force. The quantum view of the gravitational field is described with incoming long-wavelength radiation being attracted to the radiation void within all matter. The radiation void has either a particle or wave description; both models are examined and pictured as equivalent. The particle description is based on the spin of the particles. A symmetrical comparison is demonstrated with both radiation pressure and meteorological examples. Additionally, the prediction is put forward that gravitation is due to the surface-area, and not the mass, of a matter particle. In the author’s other work (also available on this site) concerning quantum space, there is a somewhat different picture of gravity. The quantum space outlook is closely related to this model of gravity. This gravity model leads to eight possibly falsifiable consequences or predictions. This new May, 2003 update includes a Newtonian gravitational constant equation (forwarded to the author by David Ford of Australia) that may unify particle and wave viewpoints via gravitation. Gravity and electromagnetism are also unified by Newtonian gravity by understanding the constant “G” in wave terms. New units for “G” are also derived. In the author’s opinion, these unifications are a significant advance in thinking concerning gravity–this should be noted. The author has created his own unique wave model for gravity concerning David Ford’s insights.

**Key Words**: Photon, Quantum Gravity, Casimir Effect, Radiation Pressure, Long-Wavelength Photons, Vacuum Energy, Unification, Surface Area, Negative Gravity, Antigravity, Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), Wave Gravity, Spin, Quantum Space, Photon Holes, Shielding, Gravitational Constant Wave Equation, Variable “G”

**Introduction:**

Any theory that can successfully combine common electromagnetic photons with the underlying cause of curved space-time, automatically qualifies as a twofold unification of electromagnetism (quantum mechanics) with gravitation. Such theories are known among physicists as “already unified”. Attempts to unify gravity have all failed mostly due to a lack of understanding at fundamental levels. The underpinnings of the gravitational attraction described so well in Einstein’s theory, are still not that well understood (Puthoff, 1998).

In 1968, the Russian physicist Andrei Sakharov published a paper suggesting that gravity might be induced by changes in zero-point energy. He said that gravity might be caused by vacuum energy changes due to the presence of matter (Puthoff, 1998; Sakharov, 1968). This in turn might be responsible for the curvature of space and time (Harms, 1992). Vacuum energy is predicted by the quantum theory and is presently understood to be fluctuations of the vacuum itself. In this idea, short-range virtual particles and antiparticles arise from the vacuum at a variety of frequencies.

This text proposes that there are ordinary long-wavelength electromagnetic photons that occur naturally in the vacuum of space-time. Indeed, there must be such ordinary radiation. There is no upper limit to the wavelengths of ordinary long-wavelength quanta. Quanta lower than 0.01 hertz would likely be low-level “noise” to detection devices. Such a background may be dense and largely invisible to us (Yam, 1997). The Casimir experiment in 1997, demonstrates the existence of this invisible vacuum energy. R. Feynman and J. Wheeler once calculated that there is enough vacuum energy in, for example, a coffee cup to evaporate all the world’s oceans (Puthoff, 1996). Vacuum energy is, hence, brighter than the Sun.

The proposed underlying dynamics of gravitation is based upon ordinary long-wavelength quanta and the absence of radiation pressure within matter particles. The Casimir effect, which has been examined in-depth by S. K. Lamoreaux and others, is a closely related effect to the gravitation idea proposed by this model.

Einstein’s general relativity says in essence that mass, energy and pressure warp space-time. It is the approach of this model that only “pressure” (a form of energy) is relevant for gravity throughout the Universe. According to general relativity, a positive pressure creates an attractive gravitational field (Guth, 1997). It is proposed that matter has an internal negative radiation pressure causing a positive pressure on the particles themselves. This generates the gravitational field of curved space-time around the matter particles.

This paper will focus on positive radiation pressure as the exclusive machinery of gravitation, and in the process unify gravity with electromagnetism. In this text, unification is not the primary focus, but a side-effect of the proposed model. That unification can be accomplished, demonstrates the correctness of this approach to gravity. This model is a quantum gravitational description. In this updated text, the gravitational constant might be understood to be the unifying factor, not only between gravity and electromagnetism, but also between particle and wave. More about this subsequently.

**Are There Ordinary Cosmic Long-Wavelength Quanta In Space-Time?**

Ordinary long-wavelength photons in the fluctuating electromagnetic field are zero rest mass and spin one photons that compose an energy background. According to quantum mechanics, there is not any reason that ordinary long-wavelength photons should not exist in the vacuum. Ordinary photons should be present at all available wavelengths. Indeed, there is no upper limit to long-wavelength radiation. Such electromagnetic radiation is not more obvious because of its extremely low energy and very uniform density. The bombardment by low energy photons can be very uniform, thus, the net force acting upon any object is essentially zero (Yam, 1997).

If there are a large number of photons at long-wavelengths, how did it come to be that way? If one assumes that there was a hot Big Bang with the observed black body radiation curve and this was followed in-turn by a space-time expansion, it follows that there must be ordinary photon energy at long-wavelengths. In the hot fires of the Big Bang, many microwaves and radio waves were produced. After the expansion of the Universe, these shorter wavelengths were red-shifted, resulting in a background of radiation at much longer wavelengths. This process, which is also the present explanation for the cosmic microwave background at the even higher energies of the Big Bang, describes in a reasonable fashion how the density can be very high at these long-wavelengths.

Moreover, the red-shifted light of the distant galaxies must also contribute to the background of ordinary long-wavelength radiation. Indeed, present cosmological theories predict a high energy density of this cosmic-based background radiation. In addition, as discovered by Karl Jansky in 1932, the central regions of our own galaxy (the Milky Way) are a strong source of long-wavelength radio waves (Thorne, 1994). Thus, as radio telescopes demonstrate, there is an abundant supply of long-wavelength radiation in the Universe.

More locally, all objects with temperatures above absolute zero, emit a significant amount of long-wavelength radiation. Matter may be a swarm of long-wavelength radiation from all these sources. Every electron throughout the Universe is oscillating and producing radiation. Any particular particle can be caught in these oscillating radiation fields causing more back and forth (jiggling) motions and, if these particles are electrically charged, more radiation fields are produced (Puthoff, 1996).

Gravity, as far as can be determined, appears to go out forever inversely as the square of the distance. Gravity dominates the Universe on the large scale. In a similar manner, both gravity and light obey the inverse square law as the distance diminishes from the source.

This text espouses the viewpoint that positive radiation pressure on the matter particles is the exclusive “cause” of gravity. This effect curves space-time by creating a negative radiation void within matter and a non-uniform background. As described below, high and low air pressure systems in the Earth’s atmosphere are similar to this model. The quantum approach to the gravitational field can be pictured this fashion.

Gravity is due to negative radiation pressure causing a positive pressure on the matter particles themselves. This attractive effect obeys the inverse square law. Since all ordinary electromagnetic radiation regardless of its spectral distribution obeys the same inverse square relation, so does cosmic-based negative radiation pressure. A symmetrical comparison with meteorology may clarify this statement.

**Is Gravity Similar To Meteorology?**

The cause of gravitation as described by this text is similar to that of meteorology. For example, one can compare gravity with high and low pressure systems in the Earth’s atmosphere. In this analogy, gravity is very similar to a low pressure system i.e., it attracts only. Low pressure atmospheric systems are caused fundamentally by the absence of air pressure (relatively speaking) in the atmosphere, whereas the cause of gravity in this model is due to the absence of radiation pressure. A low pressure system contains fewer molecules of air, whereas a radiation void contains fewer photons, relatively speaking (Allaby, 1977).

Two low pressure systems can, similar to massive bodies, attract each other if they are in close proximity. Both lows can be caught in each other’s force fields competing for the same molecules of air, leading to a mutual attraction. Gravity can be pictured in a similar fashion, as if massive bodies are competing with each other for photons.

In high pressure systems, similar to radiation pressure from our Sun, all nearby objects are pushed away and eventually into low pressure systems. The Sun and other stars appear rather confusing in this regard because, on these glowing gaseous bodies, both forces of attraction and repulsion are taking place simultaneously. In most normal situations, the force of attraction (gravity) is, on most stars, the vastly stronger force at work.

However, in the unusual case of a supernovae explosion, where the outer regions of the star are blown off, the repulsive force of radiation pressure very quickly overcomes a star’s own gravitation. Hence, in such an explosion, all nearby objects are blasted far away and out into space. Two high pressure atmospheric systems, similar to two supernovae close together, always repel each other. One might picture this as a sort of antigravity, although this is somewhat technically inaccurate because this phenomenon is actually only ordinary radiation pressure. According to general relativity, this positive pressure also generates a gravitational field.

Although the low pressure systems in the atmosphere tend to be smaller in size than highs as a general rule, one can deduce from this analogy that low and high pressure systems are opposite processes. In the cosmic setting the opposite tends to be true, gravity i.e., a low pressure phenomena, generally overpowers ordinary radiation pressure. Thus, gravity, in the form of negative radiation pressure, dominates the Universe.

Gravity can be pictured as a shower of photons traveling inward toward the Earth attracted to the radiation void within matter. Indeed, this might be a superior method of visualizing the gravitational field. This viewpoint is subsequently discussed.

Although due only to short-range virtual particles, the Casimir force demonstrates without any doubt that the absence of radiation pressure does indeed generate an attractive force by positive pressure and it operates by the fundamental principles as described above.

(This Paragraph Was Added Early November 2005) Whilst the Casimir force affects bodies at a distance in a four dimensional space (equivalent to Kant’s noumenal space), the effect we call gravity may only be felt at the three dimensional levels where we exist. This might be equivalent to Kant’s phenomenal level. Hence, gravity is in essence noumenal, but its effects can be felt largely phenomenally. So, what we think of as dimensionality may in fact be essentially Kant’s noumenal / phenomenal effect. Further study of the author’s other texts concerning Kant might be helpful in better understanding these concepts. Kant, in the author’s opinion, has been a key figure in the history of science (for example, here his work has been applied to gravity).

**The Machinery Of Gravitation**

The Casimir effect was first predicted by H. B. G. Casimir in 1948. Casimir calculated that two closely spaced parallel metal plates, if brought sufficiently close together, will very slightly attract each other. It is presently claimed by the experimentalists U. Mohideen and A. Roy that Casimir’s theory is now verified to within one percent of Casimir’s original 1948 calculations (Mohideen et al., 1998).

The primary reason for the attraction is that the narrow distance between the plates reflect long-wavelength vacuum quanta. A photon can exist between the plates only if its wavelength is less than twice the distance between the plates. As a consequence, long-wavelength quanta are missing from the gap between the plates. In simple terms a force is created, the Casimir force, which is actually the result of ordinary radiation pressure.

This was demonstrated by S. K. Lamoreaux in 1997 and more precisely in 1998 by Mohideen and Roy. There is more vacuum radiation to push the plates together than to push them apart. Like gravity, the Casimir force is attractive (Milonni et al., 1988). A photon can occur in the space between the plates only if their wavelengths (the distance between the crest of one wave and the next) fit a whole number of times into the gap (Hawking, 1996). The Casimir effect proves without a doubt that the negative vacuum exists.

Radiation pressure was first demonstrated by the Russian physicist Peter Lebedev. He observed that under some conditions radiation pressure could be “more important than gravitation”. Lebedev also noticed the similarity between gravity and radiation pressure. He noted that gravity was caused by mass, but radiation pressure was due to an object’s surface (Gillispie, 1973). As is predicted by this gravity model, it is surface area, and not mass, that is responsible for gravity. Mass is, therefore, not responsible for gravity. These important points are discussed subsequently.

As Maxwell showed, the equation for the radiation pressure of reflected photons is given by:

P = 2U/C

Where:

P = Momentum delivered to massive object

U = Energy of photon

C = Speed of light

The above equation demonstrates that the energy of each individual photon is an important component of the momentum necessary to create pressure for gravity to be possible (Halliday et al., 1988). In the particle approach to gravity, the difference in the radiation pressure of the vacuum verses that allowed within the protons, neutrons or electrons should be closely related to the equation given above. This difference creates a positive pressure on the particles of matter, which generates a gravitational field as described by general relativity.

Casimir forces are induced by the “absence” of radiation pressure. In this picture, gravity is fundamentally a disturbance of the vacuum energy due to the presence of matter. Matter keeps ordinary cosmic-based vacuum energy continuously disturbed or unbalanced (Harms, 1992). There is gravity in the Universe because the radiation pressures of the vacuum are non-uniform. According to general relativity, where pressure is non-uniform, there is a gravitational field created. Hence, matter causes a non-uniformity in the vacuum radiation (Guth, 1997).

As Galileo showed, all objects fall with the same acceleration. Mass is a measure of inertia or resistance to a change in motion. When we step on bathroom scales, we are in fact determining the force that gravity exerts on our bodies. More massive objects require a bigger force in the same proportion as its mass is bigger than a less massive object. Or stated differently, gravity pulls on a more massive object with a greater force in just the right amount to give it the same acceleration (Wolfson, 1997).

This amazing fact is the principle of equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass. It is widely known (and proven by E. Rutherford) that atoms are mostly empty space. Cosmic long-wavelength quanta are reflected by the protons, neutrons and electrons in the interior of atoms. Otherwise long-wavelength quanta, due to their long-wavelengths, do not interact with atoms. The interior of the Earth has gravity because long-wavelength quanta mostly pass straight through (and penetrate deeply) without much interaction with atomic nucleons at all. What interaction there is, is due to a direct impact and reflection by the constituents of the atom.

Reflection (hence, a pressure) may be an absorption and re-emission of these long-wavelength photons. Matter with electrical conductivity can block long-wavelength radiation. However, all “warm” matter particles also emit long-wavelength quanta, if their temperature is above absolute zero. Matter may, therefore, be a swarm of long-wavelength quanta (as mentioned above). The more dense the substance, the bigger the chance a long-wavelength photon will collide and be reflected by an atomic nucleus. This is how gravity “knows” how much matter (which really may be a measure of surface area) is contained in a substance.

The ideas of general relativity are somewhat proved by the Casimir force. The Casimir force, however, is not responsible for gravity, because the Casimir experiment demonstrates that the force is only short-ranged. Very likely, this is because virtual vacuum quanta (what the Casimir experiment actually measures) only have a short-range before being reabsorbed by the vacuum. The Casimir force is thought only to be affected by virtual vacuum quanta. Again, the Casimir force is not the same as gravity, because while gravity obeys the inverse-square law, the Casimir force acts as a (1/distance)^4th through 7th. (Puthoff, 1996). Therefore, gravity is the “long-range” Casimir force.

Ordinary long-wavelength photons should exist and have the same effect upon the metal plates as do virtual quanta. That is, ordinary long-wavelength quanta cannot be allowed within the matter making up the plates which results in a longer-range Casimir force. This long-range force and gravity are indistinguishable.

Perhaps, if the wavelengths of the incoming radiation are very long, the nucleons within the atom are simply ignored by the radiation. This, again, creates a difference in pressures, a non-uniformity of the vacuum radiation. Gravity, hence, may be a characteristic of the interaction (or lack thereof) of long-wavelength quanta with matter. Therefore, a region that is ignored is equivalent to a radiation void, the driving force behind gravity. This is an alternative (but equivalent) picture to that of the “reflection” idea given earlier.

Thus, when we measure the gravity of an object, we are in fact also determining its negative radiation pressure relative to the surrounding vacuum radiation environment. In the Casimir experiment, the long-range Casimir force (the gravity of the plates) is factored-out to yield only the short-range force. This force is due only to virtual long-wavelength photons.

Because radiation from the Sun has only a small outward pressure upon orbiting planets, ordinary long-wavelength quanta at low energies in the vacuum must be vastly more dense than the solar radiation output to account for the underlying dynamics of gravitation. Therefore, a dense sea of fluctuating electromagnetic radiation at long-wavelengths must exist for this theory of gravity to be valid. This sea must contain ordinary cosmic-based long-wavelength photons, which can roughly be defined as quanta of wavelengths of perhaps 0.05 meters or longer, an approximate figure based upon the findings of the Casimir experiment.

There are good reasons to believe that gamma-rays are the smallest wavelength (highest frequency) quanta possible due to their emission from small atomic nuclei. However, there does not seem to be an upper limit on the wavelengths of ordinary quanta from space. The difficulty of detecting photons below the frequency of 0.01 hertz means that it is very difficult to estimate the residual density (difference between positive and negative energy) of cosmic long-wavelength radiation (Hewitt, 1981).

Under normal circumstances, according to general relativity, the contributions of pressure to gravity is negligibly small. One can get a feel for this by comparing the outward radiation pressure from the Sun, with its gravitational attraction. The Sun’s gravity vastly overpowers its outward radiation pressure. However, this cannot be the case where the density and energy of the background radiation is extremely high. That is the scenario proposed here. As we will see, the radiation background may be variable, thus, changing somewhat the Newtonian gravitational constant.

A competing long-wavelength photon theory proposed by the physicist John Kierein suggests that this reflection by matter may be Compton scattered and generate a weak radiation void or shadow surrounding the matter particles. Kierein’s model is a “push gravity” theory suggesting that shadows are cast by the absence of radiation between material bodies. When two bodies interact, they exchange shadows on each other’s surfaces and positive radiation pressure from the opposite side (being stronger) pushes the bodies toward each other. This is also what fundamentally takes place in the Casimir experiment, although not with Compton scattering. Such a model also leads to an inverse square relation between the particles.

“Push gravity” theories do not adequately address the radiation “void” that exists within the particles themselves (and indeed there is no radiation pressure within the atomic nuclei or the electrons). Hence, push gravity models ignore the absence of radiation pressure within the particles and focus primarily on the radiation void between (and surrounding) the particles. Moreover, if the reflection of the long-wavelength radiation is not a Compton scattering interaction, then there is no shadowlike void produced around the matter particles.

The Compton effect works predominantly on medium energy photons of about 0.5 to 3.5 MeV (Giffin, 1996). In the laboratory, long-wavelength photons have not been found to scatter electrons because their energies are not high enough to exceed the electron’s binding energy. So, such photons are also too low in energy to scatter atomic nuclei (which have an even higher binding energy than an electron does). In any event, the inability of long-wavelength photons to be Compton scattered appears to eliminate long-wavelength radiation “push gravity” as a viable gravitation model.

Are there indications that the density of cosmic long-wavelength quanta can be this high; brighter than the Sun? The Casimir force itself demonstrates that there is a significant density of long-wavelength quanta. In addition, the Lamb shift is thought to take place because of vacuum long-wavelength photons. Moreover, such photons may be responsible for certain types of inescapable low-level “noise” in optical and electronic equipment. Indeed, according to quantum mechanics the vacuum is seething with energy (Puthoff, 1998).

Quantum theory allows the energy density to be negative in some places (such as within matter particles), if it is made up for by the existence of positive energy in other places so that the total energy is balanced and is positive. The Casimir effect demonstrates the existence and “taps in” to this negative energy in the vacuum. If the energy density between the plates in the Casimir effect is less than the energy density far away, it must be negative (Hawking, 1996). This negative energy must be vastly greater than the flux of solar radiation because the gravity from the Sun itself is far greater than its own radiation pressure. Perhaps, this high density of radiation is “hidden”, and canceled-out, because of the large negative energy density of the gravitational field itself.

The machinery of gravitation is in essence the radiation pressure from all the ordinary red-shifted long-wavelength quanta emitted by all the objects in the Universe and residual radiation leftover from the Big Bang. Such leftover cosmic radiation was created originally as microwave and short wavelength radio waves that were red-shifted due to the expansion of space-time after the Big Bang. This is how the large amount of long-wavelength radiation came to exist and why gravity, caused by radiation pressure, must presently dominate the Universe on the large scale. Mass can roughly be pictured as those material particles that can reflect long-wavelength cosmic quanta.

Atomic nuclei of perhaps 10^-15 meters across and all other matter particles reflect long-wavelength photons. This takes place even at microscopic levels. Such nuclei cannot be completely tightly-packed, because this would result in the shielding of the various protons and neutrons from cosmic-based long-wavelength quanta. Surprisingly, shielding may increase (and not decrease) the strength of gravity.

At the scales of long-wavelength photons, the constituents of the atomic nuclei are relatively far apart from each other due to the repulsion caused by the exclusion principle, thus, there is no shielding effect (Hawking, 1996). Moreover, long-wavelength quanta are continuously absorbed and reemitted by “warm” protons and neutrons. In conditions where condensed matter exists, some shielding may take place.

**The Gravitational Field As Negative Energy**

The idea that the gravitational field is actually negative energy has been observed by S. W. Hawking where he states: “…the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the energy of the universe is zero. ” Hawking states also that the gravitational field contains negative energy because: “Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together” (Hawking, 1996). Hawking suggests that the gravitational field is negative energy, and this gravity model is in general agreement.

In the quantum space description given subsequently, particles of space are “photon holes”; these are the ultimate negative energy particles. Photon holes are essentially subtractions from the vacuum energy that migrate to gravitational fields because they are attracted to matter. Two negative pressure particles attract each other. One can see why the gravitational field is indeed negative energy (because it quite literally is!)

**A Quantum Picture Of The Gravitational Field**

General relativity is a classical (non-quantum) theory. To raise general relativity up to a quantum model, one might demonstrate that such a quantum description yields the identical predictions as general relativity. Perhaps, in some cases, for somewhat different reasons.

In the quantum description, ordinary photons are utilized. It is agreed in this description that the gravitational field behaves as if it were composed of negative energy. This picture above also suggests that the gravitational field is, in essence, a shower of incoming long-wavelength photons attracted to the radiation void, as are air molecules in the meteorological model. These incoming photons impart force-type impulses (or pressures) to objects that enter the field on their backsides. If these incoming photons are canceled by matter as is suggested in the “wave” gravity concept shortly to follow, one can see how the gravitational field (and incoming radiation) can be negative. Hence, gravitational radiation cancels (or dampens) wavelike matter, in the same way as if the long-wavelength photon (gravitational radiation) were composed of negative energy.

Gravitational energy can be stored by lifting a weight in the gravitational field. This energy is stored in the gravitational field (Guth, 1997). This can be pictured mathematically as an inverse relationship between the number (and energies) of incoming photons absorbed–the energy of the radiation pressure of the incoming photons (absorbed incoming photons = AIP), with the stored gravitational energy (gravitational energy potential = GEP). Hence, AIP x GEP is equal to a constant, the value of which varies based upon the strength of the gravitational system examined.

Therefore, the higher-up in the gravitational field is the incoming object, the fewer incoming photons that can be absorbed by the object (hence, the less radiation pressure), but the higher is the gravitational energy potential of the object (stored in the gravitational field). Therefore, an object lower in the gravitational field has a greater number of photon’s imparting impulses to it (and more gravitational attraction toward the massive body), but less gravitational energy potential. Both of these energies are conserved quantities, and when combined, must always be a constant in the gravitational field.

The inbound shower of long-wavelength (or other) photons are attracted to the radiation void of the Earth. Similar to (as discussed above) a low pressure system in the Earth’s atmosphere which attracts air molecules, the void of the Earth increases the tendency for incoming radiation to be directed into the radiation void. Moreover, since the radiation void attracts photons, the starlight around a massive body, in agreement with general relativity, should be bent by gravity; but in this case for a slightly different reason than that proposed by Einstein. However, Einstein’s picture of curved space-time caused by pressure is equivalent.

As a small object “falls” to Earth, the density of this long-wavelength radiation increases, thus, constantly accelerating an object toward the Earth. In other words, the closer a small body is to the Earth’s surface, the more dense is the field of incoming quanta i.e., there are an increased number of impulses on the object’s side-opposite the Earth. This is why the Earth’s gravity is stronger at the surface than higher-up. As in ordinary radiation fields, the density of the long-wavelength radiation diminishes as the square of the distance from the attractive source; the radiation void of the Earth.

More dense matter is, hence, given a bigger push toward the Earth (in just the right amount) in the gravitational field, because the incoming photons mostly pass straight through and are not absorbed. Where matter is more dense and massive, there is a bigger push given because a more massive body needs a bigger push to have the same acceleration as a less massive body i.e., F = ma. A more dense and massive body absorbs more incoming photons (and more impulses toward the Earth) than a less massive body does. This is why all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their masses, as Galileo found.

What we feel as gravity are minute impulses imparted to our bodies due to incoming radiation attracted to the radiation void of the Earth. These impulses can be thought of as quantum gravity. This is because each impulse also represents a quantum of curvature, since such radiation also creates a positive pressure on matter which curves space-time creating a gravitational field. Hence, each impulse-type force in the gravitational field has an identical space-time curvature associated with it. Since a photon’s impulse-type force comes only in an energy-packet known as a quantum, curvature must therefore also be quantized. The bending of starlight takes place as a result of the attraction of long-wavelength radiation to the radiation void of a massive body, as well as the curvature of space-time due to differences in radiation pressure. Thus, both of these descriptions are identical.

(Mid July 2003 Update Paragraph): The author’s work on plant growth leads him to believe that the two phenomena known as phototropism (why plants turn toward or away from a light source) and gravitropism (why a plant “knows” which way is up against gravity) may be identical effects. That is, both effects might be related to the direction of incident radiation on a plant. It is proposed here that further research into this biological phenomena might reveal a unification of gravity with electromagnetic forces, the proposal given here. Indeed, if substantiated, this could add weight to this gravity hypothesis. See the “Wave Biology” text at the link below for further details.

Because photons are attracted to the void, photons that are emitted by the Earth lose energy as they rise in the Earth’s gravitational field. This is a red-shift of the light emitted by the Earth working against the force generated by the radiation void. To someone high up, it appears as everything is taking longer to happen, hence, time runs slower the closer one is to the surface of the Earth (Hawking, 1996). Indeed, time-dilation in a gravitational field is also a prediction of general relativity, although (as in the bending of light) for a different reason than that given by Einstein. Again, the curvature of space-time is an identical (but only a “classical” non-quantum) description.

The correct way to picture the attraction between bodies (in the quantum viewpoint) is that the deviation of the paths of photons into the radiation void leads to the attraction of one body for another. This is because there is competition by massive objects for the same long-wavelength photons. Since all photons have a momentum of their own, as do air molecules in the case of atmospheric low pressure systems, the competition for particles is the essence of the attraction between massive bodies or low pressure systems (in the atmosphere) for each other.

Hence (and this is the point of primary importance), it is the attraction of photons by the radiation voids present within matter, and the competition for these photons (in the gravitational field) by the matter particles themselves, that leads to the attraction of massive bodies for each other! This is an identical conception, as in atmospheric studies, of the attraction of low pressure systems for each other in our atmosphere.

The other “quantum” method of picturing the gravitational field is accomplished via quantum space. It is subsequently discussed.

**Negative Radiation Pressure And Space-Time Curvature**

The main premise of general relativity, that the laws of physics are the same in accelerated frames of reference, is very likely to be valid. The predictions of general relativity appear also to be true in the large-scale Universe. This gravitational model based upon pressure only (ignoring mass) leads to a general relativistic description of the Universe. Einstein’s field equation states that mass and pressure warp space-time. So, pressure is a form of energy (Thorne, 1994).

An Einsteinian gravitational interpretation i.e., both the bending of light and slowing of clocks in gravitational fields, is due to the warping of space-time from the radiation energy pressure differential within matter particles. In the quantum description, a shower of incoming photons in the gravitational field can be pictured as the carriers of the gravitational force, the normal role of the graviton. Hence, gravitons are photons, and these photons can be pictured as negative energy when interacting with matter. One can picture this also as gravitons being photon holes (or backward-in-time photons) emitted outward by a massive body granting negative impulses to objects in the gravitational field. Curvatures of space-time, therefore, are quantized because space-time curvature responds directly to the pressures (or negative pressures) of the space-time vacuum.

Einstein’s approach says, in effect, that matter, just by its presence alone, tells space-time how much to curve. It is space-time then that tells matter how to move (Elton, 1997). It is proposed, therefore, that the incoming long-wavelength radiation “measures” the amount of matter contained in a body, by assigning a definite pressure to each particle of matter. These pressures curve space-time, a force differential (in the quantum picture) between the matter and the space-time around it. It will be seen in other texts that forces may be associated with space-time curvatures.

Radiation pressure determines the strength of gravity on all planets by “telling” space-time how much to curve or warp. How much curvature produced by a given object, is closely related to the spectral makeup of the cosmic vacuum radiation. Thus, radiation pressure “measures” how much matter a body contains (perhaps, by its surface area) and affects (warps or bends) space-time accordingly.

Forces affect the curvature of space and time. It is well established that when a force acts, space-time curvature is affected. As S. W. Hawking notes: “Space and time are now dynamic quantities: when a body moves, or a force acts, it affects the curvature of space and time–and in turn the structure of space-time affects the way in which bodies move and forces act” (Hawking, 1996). Such distortions of space-time can be regarded as those due to another force. Hence, the small impulse-type forces in the gravitational field are also equivalent to a space-time curvature, similar to a quantum of curvature.

**Gravity Due To Surface Area**

Peter Lebedev noted that radiation pressure is different than Newtonian gravitation due to the mass of an object. That is, radiation pressure affects objects due primarily to their surface area (Gillispie, 1973). Lebedev pointed-out that gravity was similar to the opposite of gravity, however, he had no knowledge of the Casimir force which has only recently demonstrated the reality of negative radiation pressure in the vacuum. Hence, as is seen in the quantum picture, the absence of radiation pressure creates an attractive force.

With the relatively large objects in our everyday world (like apples or planets), gravity due to a massive body and radiation pressure would appear very different. However, when we are speaking about long-wavelength ordinary cosmic vacuum energy at the scales of protons, neutrons and electrons, it becomes more difficult to believe that only mass is important for gravity. Do we know precisely the surface area of a proton or a neutron? The surface areas of these very small objects might not be small perfectly-round spheres as is usually portrayed by textbooks, but may have quite a different “structured-like” surface differing drastically from that of a sphere. Present existing evidence suggests that the nuclei (the protons and neutrons themselves) are in the shape of a prolate (“American football” shaped) (Wheeler, 1998). A prolate has a different surface area than that of a sphere.

Even if we can closely estimate the surface area of a proton, do we know if this figure and the associated vacuum energy differential are fundamentally different than the mass of a proton? It appears obvious that it is the surface area of the proton (and not its mass) and the amount of associated negative vacuum energy i.e., spectral makeup of the cosmic radiation background, that may actually determine a protons very weak gravitational attraction. That gravity is due to surface area, and not mass, is a powerful and undeniable prediction of the particle approach to this gravitational model. With better technology in the coming century, perhaps a suitable test of this falsifiable prediction can be devised. Perhaps, an object’s mass and its surface area are exactly equivalent i.e., they are in a direct proportion.

It is ironic that in the subsequent “wave” picture of gravity, that surface area may not be important.

**Quantum Gravity Fluctuations**

Since the amount of gravity is due to the imbalance of radiation pressure (a radiation void or shadow) inside matter, perhaps, there are materials that might block such incoming long-wavelength quanta. Such materials formed into a hollow shell devoid of air inside could generate a long-wavelength radiation void (absence of radiation) within. This might generate a gravitational force where there is no matter, hence, the object would be heavier in the Earth’s gravitational field than the amount of matter it contains. Thus, the object weighs more than the sum of its parts separately.

The Italian scientist Majorana has measured a decrease in gravity inside spherical shells of mercury. This is not generally explained by the conventional view of general relativity (Radziyevskiy and Kagal’nikova, 1960). In the picture of gravity presented here, this might be explained as a decrease in the internal “void”, meaning that the element mercury is somehow more transparent to incoming long-wavelength radiation. Thusly, the radiation is not reflected as much by the substance mercury. If this experiment is true, perhaps, there is a quantum mechanical explanation for this transparency phenomenon.

In general relativity, when pressure rises, so in direct proportion does the strength of gravity. In this model, the shielding of incident radiation has the same effect. Hence, when a massive dead star gravitationally collapses inward, according to general relativity, a drastic increase in the pressure increases gravity and may cause a black hole to form (if the collapse continues). Thus, black holes are evidence that the general theory is correct and that pressure increases the strength of gravity. However, it must also be true that gravitational collapse should increase the strength and size of the void by increasing the shielding of incoming radiation. So, one might ask the question: since an increase in pressure is also an increase in shielding, are pressure and shielding absolutely identical? It appears that this is yet another aspect of Einsteinian gravity that can be explained by the negative radiation pressure model.

Shielding forms the basis of the “Space Portal” text at the link below. See this text for details.

**The Newtonian Gravitational Constant “Wave” Equation And Two-Fold Unification—Gravity Update–Late May, 2003**

In the author’s opinion, a recent advance was sent to me as an email dated May 18, 2003 by the scientist David Ford of Australia. That equation inspired this present update. This insight largely concerns the wave picture of the Newtonian gravitational constant. In Ford’s proposal, the constant “G” is given in precisely wavelike terms. Surprisingly to the author, Ford’s numerical values for “G” accurately match the presently accepted measured numerical value. “G” has always been an integral (and often somewhat mysterious) aspect of Newtonian gravity. Firstly, Newton’s well-known gravity equation is given to be:

F = G x (M1 x M2) / d^2

So, the term “G” has a constant value as determined by experiment (at least at our distance from the Sun) of: 6.671281904 x 10^-11. Ford had the insight to understand this value in “wavelike” terms in the following way:

He basically envisioned “G” as equal to: Equation A): (1/f) / (W / 0.02) —which is extremely simple indeed!!

Where: f = the frequency of a photon within the background, And: W = the wavelength of the same background photon

While the units of “G”: Newton’s x m^2 / kg^2 can probably never be matched by the Ford equation, it appears that Ford may have replicated only the numerical value of “G”. Perhaps, it is the case that N x m^2 / kg^2 (units of force, length and mass) might have some hitherto unknown relationship with cycles per second (Hertz) and with length in meters as well as with the dimensionless number 0.02. However, this relationship is now somewhat clear. The author will now endeavor to derive the new units for “G” in the wave picture of gravity:

Let us now set the conventional constant “G” Newton’s x meters^2 / kilograms^2 equal to Ford’s wave equation A) (1/frequency) / (Wavelength / 0.02) to derive some different units for the wave picture. If N x m x m / kg^2 = (1 / f) x (0.02 / W) and given that N x m (Newton’s x Meters in length) is equal to units of energy, we can then see by inserting Planck’s equation for quantized energy Energy = h (Planck’s constant) x frequency (or E = hf) that the wave modified units may then take the form:

hf x meters / kg^2 = (1 / f) x (0.02 / W)

If meters (in length) is then linked to frequency, the measure of it can be understood to be equal to c, the speed of light [since frequency x wavelength = c (or wave speed)]. The equation can then be rewritten to read: hc / kg^2 = (1 / f) x (0.02 / W). When we then condense the result, we derive: (W x f x hc) / (0.02 x kg^2). Given again that W x f = c, we see the final simplified result as: hc^2 / 0.02 kg^2

These are the new units for the wave picture of gravity. Henceforth, we can now understand the new “G” to be:

6.671281904 x 10^-11 with the units hc^2 / 0.02 kg^2

So, Newton’s equation then becomes: 6.6671281904 x 10^-11 hc^2 / 0.02 kg^2 x (m1 x m2 / d^2). Or, one might simply drop the dimensionless quantity 0.02 (since it is not a unit at all) to yield the final result: 6.6671281904 x 10^-11 hc^2 / kg^2 x (m1 x m2 / d^2).

But, one might wonder, indeed, about this other constant that arises: 0.02? Yes, what is the essence of this number and why does it have precisely this value? As a unit it is quite dimensionless, but why does it yield such a precise numerical value for “G”? How does this arise?

It is the author’s contention (and the working hypothesis within this text) that 0.02 might be the relationship between the local density of a piece of matter and that of the local background radiation. It should be stated that this is not Ford’s hypothesis, but rather that of this author (along with the unit derivation). That is, 0.02 might be understood (according to this author) to be the ratio of the local radiation density to the local matter density, or in more precise mathematical terms; 0.02 is the: The Local Radiation Density / The Local Matter Density Of A Given Piece Of Matter.

Therefore, at our distance from the Sun, the ratio of local radiation to matter density is only about 0.02. So, the radiation density is a very small number and matter (which is vastly more dense) is an extremely large one by comparison. Therefore, radiation is 0.02 as dense as matter (protons, neutrons and electrons) at our distance from the Sun! This remains a prediction of this model.

Henceforth, to summarize (and condense) this hypothesis a bit by combining both Ford’s and this author’s ideas, the numerical value of “G” may found to be equal to: [1 / The Frequency Of A Given Background Photon] / [The Wavelength Of The Same Background Photon / (The Local Radiation Density / The Local Matter Density) ]. And, the units of “G” again are given to be: hc^2 / 0.02 kg^2.

Indeed, as Paul Dirac once suggested, “G” might be a variable quantity. That might be a conclusion suggested by this situation as well. Yes, “G” may be completely locally determined by the variable radiation density at various distances from the Sun’s radiation output. Thusly, matter density might be (in local cases) less of a variable (if any at all locally) than is the radiation background. Hence, closer to the Sun, 0.02 may grow to 0.05 or far greater, so, the strength of “G” (hence the force of gravity) might tend to locally increase.

Indeed, this solution is in generalized agreement with general relativity, where gravity fields may become stronger than in Newtonian gravity as one approaches a very massive body. In this case, however, gravity fields only get stronger as one approaches a source of increasing radiation such as a star. But, in all other non-radiating massive bodies, this may simply not be the case! The widely discussed orbit of Mercury (one of the well-known confirmations of Einstein’s theory), has a somewhat different orbit than conventional (non-wavelike) Newtonian gravity predicts.

Yes, the orbit of Mercury may vary from Newton’s theory essentially because the radiation emitting Sun can increase the local radiation environment, thus, 0.02 might rise to a somewhat higher value. Therefore, the orbit of Mercury might differ slightly from that of Newtonian gravity because the value of “G” has in turn increased. Thusly, when the wave picture is added to Newtonian gravity, Newton’s theory becomes a bit closer to general relativity and might yield somewhat similar predictions.

Furthermore, the calculated extreme density of Mercury compared to that of the Moon, which is largely based upon calculations using “G”, might be explained better with a variable “G”, a value that is rising closer to the Sun than with current (G as a constant) methodologies. The present ad hoc hypothesis (in the author’s opinion) fabricated by planetary scientists concerning the high density of Mercury (using a strange geologic history) could be avoided simply by making the gravitational constant “G” increase nearer to the Sun. Indeed, one might even approximate the value of “G” closer to the Sun, simply by setting the density of Mercury roughly equal to that of the Moon and working backward again to compute the value of “G”.

The suggestion that only radiation emitters can increase the value of “G”, therefore, holds only in the case of stars, which are the dominant bright features in the Universe. Therefore, this modification sets certain particular restrictions on the already confirmed predictions of general relativity! So, the gravity close to the Sun or any star will be found to be stronger. As one might expect, the farther out away from the Sun a planet lies, the more also that 0.02 will tend to decrease. This might be the reason that searches for the so called “planet X” beyond the orbit of Pluto have all failed. While conventional Newtonian gravity (with “G” constant) may predict a rather large body to exist out in that region of space (which after many years of searching appears to be incorrect), conventional Newtonian gravity does not take into account the lesser local background radiation out at that distance from the Sun. So, our astronomers in essence may have been searching for ghosts out there! Therefore, 0.02 in the outer reaches of the solar system may drop to an even lower value! Yes, so it does appear that we can indeed be fooled by Newtonian gravity, unless we include the above wave factors as a more complete picture of the gravitational constant.

Therefore, it can be understood that the wave picture might appear to replicate in an essential way the already confirmed predictions of general relativity; given a few slight but necessary qualifications. This might be the next bold step in understanding gravity. In addition, this new equation may join the wave and particle picture together (combining mass, frequency and wavelength all in the same equation!). Essentially, this happens by describing gravity in more wavelike terms.

Furthermore, gravity and electromagnetic phenomena may also be unified when the gravitational field is described in terms of photons and background radiation i.e., when both photon, wave and matter characteristics are taken into account. Therefore, since gravity and electromagnetism are both factors present in the new modified particle / wave Newtonian gravity picture, the somewhat deeper and more subliminal aspects of the relationship between particle and wave might be better understood and clarified as they relate to the gravity situation. That subtle relationship remains the primary purpose of this document.

**More About “Wave” Gravity–The Cause Of Gravity In Strictly Wave Terms**

Perhaps, Louis de Broglie’s techniques are a better way to picture this process–matter and radiation both as waves! As is suggested by quantum mechanics, matter and radiation may also have a wave interpretation. Can this gravity model only be pictured as waves i.e., waves of matter interacting with waves of radiation? The answer is yes. Slightly different than the above approach, the “wave gravity” interpretation might also be as follows: long-wavelength wave radiation creates a void or shadow if it is exactly canceled-out (or dampened) by identical long-wavelength matter waves. Gravity is, therefore, an effect of the dampening of the electromagnetic field by a piece of matter.

This can take place if matter and radiation are waves that are precisely 180 degrees out-of-phase with each other. Thus, when a matter wave encounters a wave of radiation of the same frequency, they cancel-out each other. Hence, all matter waves (that do respond to gravity) must have a wave component that is of a long-wavelength with the incoming long-waves of radiation. Since the incoming long-waves are canceled-out, a radiation shadow or void is created within the matter particles at long-wavelengths. In this case, also, the pressures of the vacuum become non-uniform and this occurs only where matter is present.

This creates curvature in the gravitational field, as described by general relativity. The void created is always attractive and is equivalent to the “particle” description used above. Therefore, a disturbance of the vacuum energy is generated (and a gravitational field), by the canceling-out of long-wavelength background radiation due to the presence of matter waves of the same frequencies. This describes the cause of gravity strictly using waves.

This wave interpretation of gravity has the advantage that it overcomes the possible difficulty (in the particle description) that long-wavelength photons may only interact with matter which is of a size that is an appreciable fraction of its wavelength. Moreover, in this wave description, it is easier to picture long-wavelength photons as a type of negative energy (as Stephen Hawking suggests) if photons of radiation exactly cancel identical components of matter waves. Indeed, how could such incoming photons be called otherwise?

In the “Symmetry” text, it can be understood that particle spin is similar to differences in-phase i.e., waves in-phase or waves exactly out-of-phase. The spin of a particle, either right-handed or left-handed, hence, is equivalent to a wave being in-phase or 180 degrees out-of-phase. This being the case, where an incident long-wavelength photon meets a particle of matter and their spins are opposite each other, they can have the effect (as in the out-of-phase waves above) of cancellation. Thus, it may be the differences in spin of the long-wavelength radiation with the spin of matter particles that causes gravity!

In the gravitational field of incoming photons, the problem of where incoming photons finally end-up, is resolved by their complete cancellation by the matter waves with which they interact. In the particle picture, the spins of the incoming photons cancel-out the spin of the matter particles.

If this were not the case, one might have to assume that the void at the center-of mass of a body are essentially a singularity and the incoming photons are entering hyperspace and leaving our region of the Universe. In this case, the incoming gravitational radiation is, therefore, funneled-into a singularity, which is assumed to be present at the center of a body. A singularity is defined, in this case, as a path through space-time of any light ray that comes to a complete stop and cannot continue.

At the end of this path, the incoming radiation has reached the edge of space-time. Hence, gravitational radiation “disappears” from the Universe (Barrow, 1994). Hence, the particle model of the quantum gravitational field, without the spin hypothesis, may be somewhat more complicated. The idea that singularities (and wormholes) such as this may exist at the cores of planets is discussed in greater detail in the “Space Portal” text at the link below.

It might also be the case that the photons are merely deposited at (and absorbed by) the cores of the planets. This might lead to planetary expansion. This idea is explored in the quantum “Gravity-Growth” text. See the link provided below for further details.

Henceforth, the second simplest overall description of gravity via negative radiation pressure is that incoming long-wavelength photons are absorbed by a planet (and may cause mass growth) and a void (or wormhole) is created that surrounds the core. The void is rather like a potential well; the electromagnetic field is essentially zero in the void. The void, then, attracts all other available vacuum radiation granting impulse-type forces to any bodies entering the gravitational field. This, in the author’s opinion, is the second simplest version of negative radiation pressure as gravity. Overall, the simplest possible picture of gravity is that matter “itself” is composed of photon holes. That idea is explored in the “GTR” text at the link below or in the text: Matter As Photon Holes” also available in the links below.

Since, in the above picture, it is photons that carry the force of gravity, one can understand why there must be a connection between gravity and electromagnetic forces. The singularity idea might be related to the center-of-mass “point”, upon which Newtonian gravity is based. Newton labored for many years to prove this aspect of his model was true. If there are singularities at the center-of-mass of a massive body, does this verify Newton’s work?

It is worthy of mention, in this view of gravity, that photons do not have a gravitational attraction of there own. Technically speaking, photons carry the gravitational force. While they are attracted to the void within matter, this is because photons are attracted to where pressure is absent–similar to air molecules. While photons do not have a gravitational attraction of there own; photon holes do. Thus, in this view, photon holes have similar characteristics to matter (and, perhaps, photon holes are matter!).

Again this is the picture provided by the “Matter As Photon Holes” text at the link below. Perhaps, it is the case that matter is composed of photon holes and either: 1) Photons are attracted to the holes (as air is attracted to where it is absent), or: 2) Photon holes (or backward-in-time photons) are emitted by the holes’ themselves. It can be understood that statement # 1 and # 2 are absolutely equivalent. This is because an “absence” particle emitted outward can create a negative pressure attraction upon impacting a body in the gravitational field is equivalent to a positive pressure inward on the same body (from the opposite side). In other texts, matter may emit photon holes outward, while antimatter emits photons. See the “Antimatter” text for further details at the link below.

So, one might ask, what is the evidence that any of this “wave picture of gravity” is valid? In fact, there is some quite recent work by the Brazilian physicist Fran De Aquino that does appear to verify this picture of wave gravity. Dr. De Aquino was able to demonstrate that what we call gravitational mass was reduced by means of the incident long-wavelength radiation shown on a piece of matter. While gravitational mass became canceled-out and was, therefore, reduced (which is precisely what is proposed here), what this author is proposing in this text as gravity i.e., negative radiation pressure, increases at the same time that the gravitational mass becomes reduced. Hence, the gravitational mass of a body decreases as its radiation void increases or remains constant. De Aquino’s work appears to be a demonstration that radiation and matter of the same wavelengths do appear to cancel each other, which has been an ongoing theme of the author’s other texts (De Aquino, 2000).

The “quantum space” viewpoint may be a superior way to picture the gravitational field and its relationship to matter. Below is a summery of this proposal.

**Quantum Space And Gravity**

If one pictures space itself as discontinuous and being composed of particles, a somewhat different view of gravity emerges. In the quantum space text (see the link below), it is proposed that space are essentially “photon holes”, voids subtracted from quantum vacuum energy whenever ordinary photons are emitted. This view was the conclusion of the author’s work on photons (see the “Photon Emission” link below for a further description).

If space is fundamentally composed of photon holes, a particle of space may be attracted to a particle of matter, since two radiation pressure voids will attract each other (as described above in the meteorology section). Thus, the gravitational field would have a somewhat compressed quantity of space in it. These space particles would essentially be radiation voids (negative energy) and, therefore, have an effect upon bodies or radiation passing through them. It can be understood also why the gravitational field is proposed to be negative energy, because it quite literally is! In our dimension, the paths of such bodies or radiation may appear to be deflected or bent by the compression of space particles near a body. Thus, the compression of space particles warps space!

This description (again) sounds very much indeed similar to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, except here it is assumed that space are “photon hole” particles, and each quantum of which has its own internal negative pressure (and corresponding negative energy). In addition, it is proposed throughout this text that matter has its own internal radiation void. Hence, particles of space and particles of matter must accompany each other, always occurring together. They are both radiation pressure “lows” and must attract each other. See the “Quantum Space And The General Theory Of Relativity” link below for a further description of this quantum space as gravity concept.

This idea also works well if it is matter itself that is composed of the photon holes. See the “Matter As Photon Holes” text at the link below for more about this idea.

**Kant’s Picture Of The Universe And Gravity (Added Mid June 2004)**

“One might, therefore, propose a picture of gravity where gravity arises from the noumenal aspects of a given body in question. That is, whatever matter consists of in the noumenal realm (the author has proposed “photon holes” to be the noumenal “things-in-themselves” objects), this may be where gravity essentially originates. This might be the primary reason that the cause of gravity has been so very illusive to all types of investigations.

Furthermore, this may also be the reason why when a star collapses into a black hole that its gravity can be left behind. Yes, whilst the phenomenal aspects of the body may have exited our Universe into a singularity, the noumenal characteristics such as its gravity has not! Noumenally speaking, the star may exist as it always has. However, from the standpoint of our senses, we can never know about it—it’s gone! And so, gravity being fundamentally a noumenal characteristic cannot ever actually disappear from our phenomenal realm. Gravity, therefore, is a remnant quality of matter.

So, to answer the fundamental question of the cause of gravity becomes exceedingly difficult, largely because we are dealing here with wave-like pre-actualized noumenal qualities that all pieces of matter do contain. Essentially, gravity leaves its effects in our Universe, but its cause is not apart of our Universe! Therefore, our view of gravity will always be somewhat limited in scope (although the author has tried his best in this manuscript).

Hence, perhaps it is the case that what has been called dark matter is essentially noumenal matter in our Universe. It weighs, but has no measurable presence to speak of to our instruments and / or to our senses. While this seems a bold proposal at first glance, dark matter has over time become a firm reality (as well as has the illusiveness of the cause of gravity). Indeed, these proposals can encompass these natural riddles both at once.”

**Gravity And The Flat Universe**

The recent discovery that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up (accelerating) was predicted only by cosmological models where there was a positive cosmological constant, an anti-gravitational force. The cosmos is expanding ten to fifteen percent more slowly in the past than can be accounted for without a cosmological constant (Cowen, March 1998).

According to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, it is the density of matter and energy that determines the geometry and fate of the Universe. A flat Universe must have neither too much nor too little density, an amount equal to the critical density. In fact, measurements show that the total density of matter is about forty percent of the critical density (Cowen, December 1998). Therefore, either we live in a negatively-curved Universe or there is a missing energy component (Cowen, February 1998). It was just this energy component (a cosmological constant) that led to the prediction of a Universe that is speeding up. The net effect of the cosmological constant is the antigravity which ultimately accelerates the expansion of the Universe (Cowen, December 1998).

It is desirable that the Universe is indeed flat because the theory of inflation in the early Universe logically follows from a flat Universe. Measurements suggest that the geometry of the Universe is as flat as the inflation theory predicts (Cowen, December 1998). Moreover, inflation predicts not only that the Universe is flat, but also solves two cosmological conundrums. Inflation explains why the Universe looks the same in all directions on the cosmic scale and tells how the Universe evolved from a smooth soup of particles into a lumpy collection of galaxies, galaxy clusters, and super-clusters (Cowen, February 1998). Inflation does explain these riddles, but most inflation model’s work properly only in a flat Universe scenario. Thus, a flat Universe is the most desirable, but the missing energy problem is still a mystery because sixty percent of the critical energy density is missing (Cowen, February 1998).

The leads us to the suggestion that was made previously that for gravity to work, due to the absence of radiation pressure, the density of vacuum radiation must be vastly greater than the solar radiation output. The missing energy in the form of radiation, may in-fact be cosmic long-wavelength ordinary quanta leftover from the Big Bang (or many other sources) as previously described.

David N. Spergel of Princeton University has said that “the evidence for vacuum energy has gotten much stronger over the past few years”. Spergel says that “the data from the recent “Two Degree Field Galaxy Red Shift Survey” helps confirm that vacuum energy solves the problem of the missing mass”. According to Spergel, “the data fits well with a Universe that is two-thirds vacuum energy and one-third matter” (Bennett, 2000). Hence, the missing mass in the Universe which makes it appear flat, may be largely ordinary vacuum energy.

The contribution of pressure in general relativity is normally very slight. Only if the density and energy of the background can be found to be very high is this a viable model. As described above, this fits with present observations. As allowed by quantum mechanics, negative energy could balance with this radiation which may be hiding in the gravitational fields of all the matter in the Universe. If space are photon holes, is the missing mass being canceled by space itself?

This is closely related to the “Cosmological Constant problem” i.e., the problem of the vacuum energy density; one of the outstanding problems in particle physics (Guth, 1997). Hence, why do our current theories predict that the vacuum energy density is so high and, thus, curves-up the Universe, when the Universe is observed to be so flat? When the cosmological constant problem is solved, this should finally solve the mystery of gravity. If space is pictured as a photon hole, the mystery of gravity and also the Cosmological Constant may be explained. See the “Quantum Space And Cosmology” link below for more information. Perhaps, a more Newtonian view is closer to the actual case, but essentially a modified Newtonian equation using the wave descriptions of “G” as described in previous sections.

So, gravity may be the result of the imbalance created by the radiation void as demonstrated by the Casimir effect experiment. This results in a difference in the radiation pressures from one place to another. The sum of the positive energy with the negative energy both balance so as not to be noticeable, resulting in a flat more Newtonian Universe. Therefore, the missing energy (above) is not actually missing. It is a part of the energy density of the vacuum in the form of cosmic long-wavelength quanta, which is in absolute agreement with the present observation of a flat (Newtonian-like) Universe.

**Conclusion**

The late physicist Richard Feynman in his famous lecture series made the following statement concerning gravity: “No machinery has ever been invented that “explains” gravity without also predicting some other phenomena that does not exist” (Feynman, 1995). If Feynman was correct this suggests there is something fundamentally “flawed” with radiation pressure as the machinery for gravitation. However, Feynman’s statement of the 1960′s may no longer be valid.

This gravitation model proposes eight probable predictions:

1) Demonstrating that ordinary long-wavelength quanta are not plentiful (and dense) in enough quantities to cause gravity is a quick way to disprove this model, although negative energy would balance with the positive making detection difficult. Observations of this only measure the difference between positive and negative energy. Otherwise, pressure cannot be a viable force in the Universe–the primary cause of gravity. The missing mass in the Universe may be ordinary vacuum radiation.

2) In our Universe, only pressure (a form of energy) is responsible for gravity. Mass is not the actual cause for the curvature of space-time and the generation of the gravitational field. Mass is important in this sense; mass, in the particle picture, has a surface area (as in prediction # 3 below).

3) At the scale of protons and neutrons, it is the “surface area” and not “mass” that may determine the gravitational attraction of objects. Background radiation “measures” the quantity of matter based upon its surface area. The greater the surface area of the particles contained in a body, the greater is the bodies gravitational attraction for all other massive bodies. Perhaps, larger particle accelerators will better describe the surface areas of individual protons or neutrons. In the wave approach, however, the notion of surface area is not as clear.

4) The quantum-approach to the gravitational field requires that a shower of photons might transfer forces-type impulses to objects within the field. Such forces also may impart quantum-type space-time curvatures to bodies within the gravitational field, because such photons increase the pressure on individual matter particles.

5) In the quantum viewpoint, there can be no fundamental difference between gravity due to the curvature of space-time and that from negative radiation pressure. This statement becomes more clear by the wave description of “G”, the gravitational constant. Thus, when an object’s gravity is measured, so its relative negative radiation pressure i.e., a long-range Casimir force.

6) In the wave picture, matter may cancel incoming radiation yielding zero. The incoming radiation at long-wavelengths, therefore, disappears. In the particle approach, the incoming photons may fall into a wormhole-like singularity. Particle and wave are joined by the new Newtonian wave gravity equation. So, the incoming radiation has a place to go; to hyperspace (another place and time in the Universe?). The wormhole (perhaps, what the radiation void actually is!) may be a singular point (a space-time tunnel) perhaps located at a bodies center of mass. See also the “Space Portal” text at the link below.

7) Another view of this is that the cause of gravity may be due to a difference in the spins of the incoming photons with the matter particles. Where a right-handed spin meets a left-handed spin, they may cancel. This mutual cancellation results in a radiation void within all matter at long-wavelengths. The logic here is identical to that of the wave approach above. All matter particles must, therefore, have identical and opposite particle spin components compatible with the spins of long-wavelength photons.

8) The gravitational field can be understood to be negative energy because space is composed of photon holes; photon holes are negative energy by definition. Photon holes are attracted to other radiation voids like massive bodies, hence, space particles and matter occur together defining both a body and its surrounding gravitational field.

9) “G” may be variable and change with regard to the radiation background. So, gravity can be viewed in wave terms, which might explain strong gravity close to the Sun, the extreme density of Mercury as well as weak gravity (the pointless search for planet X) in the outer solar system. Thusly, the Sun (or any star) has an effect upon the radiation environment and, therefore, the value of “G”. Hence, only the stars affect the gravitational constant. See the discussion above for further details.

10) The density ratio of radiation to matter is about 0.02 at this distance from the Sun. See the Ford equation above.

11) This model might be proved through the study of plants. See the updated paragraph above or the “Wave Biology” link below for further details. If no substantial link can be found between gravitropism and phototropism, then this model might be shown to be incorrect.

12) The cause of gravity may be so illusive because it essentially is a noumenal quality of matter. Our senses do not have access to the cause of gravity. See above for a deeper explanation. Also, “Matter As Photon Holes” at the link below.

With these twelve probable consequences or predictions, the model should be falsifiable.

Einstein has often said that general relativity was just a beginning in attempting to better understand gravitation (Elton, 1997). In the author’s opinion, he was correct. Since this quantum model looks at Einstein’s theory in a different way and is an “already unified” model, perhaps this model is the next logical next step beyond general relativity to a quantum description of gravity.

Perhaps, such a quantum description is a new more precise model describing events near a singularity (Thorne, 1994). A singularity is a situation where the laws of general relativity break down, but where a model based upon negative radiation pressure might not. Singularities are discussed in more detail in the author’s “Black Holes” text. See link below.

That gravity and electromagnetism (and particle and wave) are easily unified by this approach is a strong indicator of the correctness of this model.

**Acknowledgments**

I wish to thank Dennis Anthony, John Kierein and Terry James Boling for their contributions to this text. David Ford sent me email alerting me to the gravitational constant wave equation. Much thanks to him for sending it! I’m in complete agreement.

**Related Links**

The author suggests these related manuscripts:

Quantum Space And The General Theory Of Relativity (More About Gravity And Its Possible Unification With Electromagnetism): http://www.johnkharms.com/GTR.htm

The Push-Pull Gravity Model: http://www.johnkharms.com/gravityholes.htm

Matter As Photon Holes: http://www.johnkharms.com/matter.htm

Quantum Space: http://www.johnkharms.com/space.htm

Color And The Wave Theory Of Matter (Also Contains “Wave Gravity” And “Particle Spin” Section) at: http://www.johnkharms.com/color.htm

Photon Emission: http://www.johnkharms.com/photon.htm

Black Holes; Bold New Conclusions Using Quantum Gravity (The Gravity Model Proposed Here): http://www.johnkharms.com/blackholes.htm

Mach’s Principle: Inertia, Gravity And Frame Of Reference: http://www.johnkharms.com/reference.htm

Quantum Gravity-Growth As The Basis Of Planetary Expansion: http://www.johnkharms.com/gravity-growth.htm

Electricity And Magnetism (And Matter Waves): http://www.johnkharms.com/eandm.htm

Are Matter And Radiation Opposites? at: http://www.johnkharms.com/decay.htm

Interesting Symmetries: http://www.johnkharms.com/symmetry.htm

Inertia And Special Relativity Unification at: http://www.johnkharms.com/inertia.htm

The Space Portal: http://www.johnkharms.com/portal.htm

Antimatter: http://www.johnkharms.com/antimatter.htm

Wave Biology (Proof Of Gravity Concept?): http://www.johnkharms.com/wave-biology.htm

**References**

Allaby, M., 1977, Tornadoes, Facts On File Inc., New York, P. 11

Barrow, J. D., 1994, The Origin Of The Universe, Basic Books, New York, P. 41

Bennett, R., June 10, 2000, Science News, Vol. 157, Science Service Publication, P. 374

Cowen, R., February 28, 1998, Science News, Vol. 153, Science Service Publication, P. 139

Cowen, R., March 21, 1998, Science News, Vol. 153, Science Service Publication, P. 185

Cowen, R., December 19 & 26, Science News, Vol. 154, Science Service Publication, P. 393-394

De Aquino, F., 2000, Possibility Of Control Of The Gravitational Mass By Means Of Extra-Low Frequencies Radiation, See Dr. De Aquino’s Website: http://www.elo.com.br/~deaquino/

Elton, S., 1997, Future Star, Galacticon Press, P. 14, 93

Feynman, R. P., 1995, Six Easy Pieces, Addison-Westley Co., P. 109

Gillispie, C. C., 1973, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Scribners, Vol VIII, P.106

Guth, A. H., 1997, The Inflationary Universe, Perseus Books, Reading Massachusetts, P. 10-11, 172-173, 289

Halliday, D., Resnick, R., 1988, Fundamentals of Physics, Third Ed. Extended, J. Wiley and Sons, P. 852

Harms, J. K., March 1992, The BASRA Journal: The G-photon Concept: Different Thoughts on the Photon and Gravity

Hawking, S. W., 1996, A Brief History of Time, Tenth Anniversary Edition, Bantam Books, P. 33- 34, 86, 133, 164-165

Lamoreaux, S. K., January 6, 1997, Physical Review Letters, Vol 78, P. 5

Milonni, Cook, Goggin, August 1,1988, Physical Review A, Vol 38, P. 1621

Mohideen, U., Roy, A., November 3, 1998, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 81, P. 4549

Puthoff, H. E., 1998, Quantum Fluctuations of Empty Space: A New Rosetta Stone in Physics?, http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/free/zpe1.html

Puthoff, H. E., 1996, Pamphlet: Zero-Point-Energy Research, Planetary Association For Clean Energy, Inc., P.A.C.E. European Secretariat, Germany, P. 7, 49

Radzievskii, V. V., Kagalnikova, 1960, I.I. Bull. Vsesoyuz. Astronomo. Geol. Obshchestva. (Moscow) 26, 3

Sakharov, A. D., 1968, Vacuum Quantum Fluctuations in Curved Space and the Theory of Gravitation, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Sov. Phys-Dokl., Vol 12, P. 1040

Thorne, K. S., 1994, Black Holes And Time Warps, W. W. Norton And Company, New York, P. 85, 118, 323

Wheeler, J. A., 1998, Geons, Black Holes And Quantum Foam, W. W. Norton And Company, New York, P. 194

Wolfson, R., 1997, Einstein’s Relativity And The Quantum Revolution, Part II, Lecture 9 and 10, Video, The Teaching Co., Springfield, VA

Yam, P., December 1997, Scientific American, Vol 277, No. 6, P. 82

Reader’s Note: Proper References And/Or Acknowledgments To This Text Are Appreciated.

© Copyright

X- Copyright: J. K. Harms, 1998