Report of the Recent Development

Email letter from Dr. Herbert Pfister upon the Request of Copy of his Paper “On the History of the So-Called Lense-Thirring effect”.


Dear Dr. Jeong,

In the attachment you receive my paper on the history of the so-called
Lense-Thirring effect, as published in General Relativity and Gravitation.
I have also talked about this topic at the Erice Summer School (in honour
of John Wheeler) in June 2006, whose Proceedings should appear soon at
Springer. In 3 weeks from now there will be a conference "Beyond Einstein"
in Mainz, where I again will speak about this, and about more recent
extensions (quasiglobal principle of equivalence, cosmological aspects of
dragging). These conference proceedings should later appear as a volume in
the Einstein Studies at Birkhaeuser.

Concerning the papers you attached to your mail, I should say that I
disagree with most of your arguments. I may disclose (after more than 10
years) that I have been referee for your papers submitted in 1996/97 to
Phys.Rev.Lett. and Class.Quant.Grav.. So you know most of my
counter-arguments, i.e. the coordinate dependence of your dipole moment
results. From this time I also know that other referees had similarly
negative arguments.

In contrast, my "solution of the centrifugal force problem" in
Class.Quant.Grav. 2(1985)909, and in my article in the book "Mach's Principle"
(Tuebingen Conference, ed. by J.Barbour and H.Pfister, 1995) is approved by
most experts in the field (C.Will, K.Nordtvedt, J.Ehlers, W.Bonnor, D.Brill,
I.Ciufolini, W.Rindler et al.).

I am sorry that my opinion of your work is not more positive. (I have not
read your attached articles in detail because their content seems to be
very similar to the articles, I rejected in my function as referee.)

Sincerely,
Herbert Pfister


Response by E. Jeong


Dear Dr. Pfister,

I appreciate your email and the attached file. After reading your paper, one
question that I may have is, at some point, all the calculations have to be
based on a certain coordinate system to make any sense out of the general
covariant formulation. I think the linearized theory of general relativity
is one of such attempts where the theory of dipole gravity is based. At
least it succeeded in reproducing the Newtonian gravity.

Regarding your statement, "any physically realistic, rotating object will
suffer physical deformation, in orders omega^2 and higher". I agree with
your point that there will be a deformation due to the centrifugal force.
But is it possible to exactly quantify the degree of deformation?

I think the rigidity of the matter is a relative concept. Most importantly,
depending on the tensile strength of the material, the degree of deformation
will differ by a vast magnitude. If we assume that there is a thin spherical
mass shell of the black hole density, it won't deform until it reaches the
rotation at the surface very close to the speed of light. So, to my humble
opinion, it is possible to postulate that the rigidity of the matter can be
assumed to the highest level without the loss of generality. In fact, the
formulation of dipole gravity didn't require the fast rotation of the
spherical shell, because the shift of the center of mass starts from the
point zero. We only have to assume that the material is strong enough to
withstand the given rotational speed without deformation. In fact, the
general deformation will be certainly destructive in such a way that the
shell no longer can be considered spherical or any known form, if it is
possible, beyond a certain rotational speed.

I think dipole gravity transcends general relativity. The cosmological
evidences for its existence are overwhelming. Please remember that we had
Newtonian gravity before we knew there is general relativity. I tend to
think that if general relativity is really a correct theory of the universe,
it should have predicted the presence of dipole gravity as it did. But
dipole gravity can also exist without general relativity as a separate
entity. In my opinion, general relativity only facilitated the hint on the
presence of dipole gravity in a cryptic way.

Sincerely,
Eue J Jeong



Email Response from Herbert Pfister,


Dear Dr. Jeong,

Concerning the deformation of my shell, I should say the following:
a) The shell is deformed in a prolate form, and this is an invariant
result, because I have calculated the invariant equatorial and polar
circumferences. In the collapse limit the form becomes spherical,
as already proven by de la Cruz, Israel (my ref. 15).
b) However, my shell does not consist of "normal material" which you can
order in a workshop. The shell was defined by the (non-material) condition
that its interior is flat, in order to fulfil Mach's demand for
"relativity of rotation" (correct Coriolis and centrifugal forces in its
interior).

Concerning your "dipole gravity", I may repeat that in GR a dipole moment
of an isolated system is a coordinate dependent statement (you can always
make the dipole moment zero by transforming to an appropriate coordinate
system). If you go beyond GR, this statement is of course no more true.
However, to go beyond GR, you have to have very strong arguments which I
do not share: GR is, on one hand, experimentally tested in so many
different regions, and in some of them with very high precision. On the
other hand, GR has overwhelming inner consistencies which rival theories
usually do not have. E.g.: equations of motion follow from the field
equations; positive energy theorem (GR is the only theory which allows to
fix the zero of energy, in contrast e.g. to Kaluza-Klein-theories, as I
could prove with Dieter Brill in Phys.Lett. B228(1989)359).

Sincerely,
H. Pfister



Email Response from E. Jeong,


Dear Dr. Pfister,

It seems to me you decided to cut the legs and arms of a child to make
him/her fit into an old cloth. General relativity is a brand new theory,
very sophisticated, diverse, correct and full of potential and surprise. I
don't know why anyone would want to impose a flatness condition on inside a
rotating shell to make it fit the old Machian demand for "relativity of
rotation". Basically, you artificially imposed an old condition to get the
desired solution you intended. So, in the process, no new knowledge is
gained.

Also, your statement "any physically realistic rotating body" in your paper
seems to contradict the next statement in your email, "my shell does not
consist of "normal material" which you can order in a workshop". I think
"any physically realistic material" should be considered "a normal
material". But I don't know if you can consider a neutron star as composed
of a normal material. For a cosmological consideration, I would consider
neutron star as consists of a normal matter which would be the most rigid
known material in the universe next to the black hole.

The kinetic energy which is equivalent to mass obviously increases in a
rotating mass shell. The farther from the axis of the rotation of the mass
component, the more increase of the mass. So, a rotating hemisphere develops
a dynamic shift of the center of mass while this can not be said to be true
for a rotating spherical mass shell. Is this phenomenon coordinate
dependent? If it does, what makes the rotating hemisphere different from the
rotating sphere? If we use the same coordinate transformation to make the
shift to disappear for the rotating hemisphere, it will reappear for the
rotating sphere, whatever the transformation may be.

I already discussed this problem in 1995 with Dr. Kip Thorne of Caltech, one
of the authors of the book "Gravitation", and he said "the concept of the
gravitational dipole moment makes sense...." after a lengthy debate over the
email. But I don't think I need his confirmation to know this observation is
correct.

Since the spin rotation is a separate degree of freedom of motion relative
to the linear motion, this phenomenon of the relativistic center of mass
shift for a rotating hemisphere represents a very unusual mechanical system.
It violates Newtonian mechanics straight on because you can displace an
object just by rotating it by giving it a slight impulse on the rim
perpendicular to the direction of the linear displacement. But the key
reason for the violation is special relativity, not general relativity. In a
way, general relativity clarified its property by identifying it as the
major second order term(diagonal) in the linearized theory. So we have
dipole gravity.

The simplicity of explaining the jets and the dark matter problem at the
same time using dipole gravity will be the most spectacular success of the
theory. No other theory has shown such a feat.

Plasma and magnetic field theory proposed by Blanford "explained" jets but
not the dark matter problem, on the other hand, Mondian cosmology explained
the dark matter problem but not the jets. But I always knew instinctively
that there must be a purely mechanical theory for both of the problems since
I was a graduate student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

It basically fulfilled the dream of general relativity, as it supposed to
be. That is, the problems in the large scale universe can be explained by
general relativity. However, until 2007, I didn't notice the sign error in
the Lense-Thirring force and it impeded the explanation of the dark matter
problem. But then suddenly there came the Copernican change of the view,
what if the signs of the Lense-Thirring force were reversed?

Instantly, everything became crystal clear. The attractive radial component
of the Lense-Thirring force is only a tiny manifestation of the (medium) long
range attractive dipole gravity force and the repulsive axial component of the
Lense-Thirring force is at the core of the driving force of the jets in both
directions of the poles. The dark matter halo is a matter distribution due
to this dipole gravity force lines all around the rotating neutron stars and
the black holes. You may recall that the astronomers observed jets from the
neutron star where people do not expect the plasma will be present and the
neutron stars do not have the horizon. The theory of the jets proposed by
Blanford et al already started to crumble.

We can insist the Mach's view inside of the rotating mass shell and forget
about the jets and the dark matter problems, but if we change our
perspective and open our eyes, we can see the grandeur beauty of general
relativity, the beauty that Einstein would have loved to see in his life
time.

Sincerely,
Eue J Jeong


I havn't received response since Sept 4 2008.

I still think Herbert Pfister's book is an excellent reading for a complete historical review of the Mach's principle and the Lense-Thirring force before dipole gravity. Of course, his book is a living proof of how badly we have been lost in the mystery of the Lense-Thirring effect. The detailed rendition of the discussions on the subject by the numerous prominent gravitational physicists with Dr. Pfister is truly a fascinating reading.

Academic Professional's Misconduct

The following is a part of the article in the handbook related to the academic professionals misconduct in research and searching for the truth and I found it alarming yet very interesting.

"A climate must be maintained at the University where creativity and productivity in research are promoted in an atmosphere of high ethical standards. It is essential that the integrity of research be maintained at all times, since long-standing, often irreversible damage can result from breach of academic commitment to truth in investigative activities. Misconduct in research is herein defined as gross lack of integrity in conducting basic or clinical investigations involving dishonesty, knowing misrepresentation of data, and/or violation of accepted standards. Academic misconduct or fraud can destroy public trust in the academic community as a whole and in our own institution in particular; it can shatter individual careers; it can undermine sensitive relationships between investigators, students, and the public.

In modern collaborative research, the implications of academic misconduct or fraud go far beyond the individual; they also affect collaborators whose own work has been committed to objective search for truth. The specter of guilt by association may lurk in the background for many years to come. Therefore, joint authorship requires joint responsibility; each author claiming credit for the entire work must also be aware of joint discredit. Investigators in collaborative research projects each must make reasonable and periodic inquiry as to the integrity of and processes involved in gathering and evaluating data. It should be understood that overall responsibility for the integrity of collaborative research rests with the principal investigator. Senior investigators cannot be allowed to escape the consequences of the discovery of misconduct or fraud committed under their supervision."

Regarding the professionals at the institutions of teaching the theory of gravity, I wonder how can they teach their students without having a guilty conscience that the gravitational dipole moment doesn't exist after being informed of the theory of dipole gravity. It will take a second to realize that there is a serious mistake in the books of gravitation. They should know they are lying when they teach that faulty concept in their classes. The excuse of an honest mistake, or having not been informed, no longer applies here. I think it is basically the same as academic cheating, because it is an act of knowingly misleading the students. Is this the way the scientists of today should conduct in the University where we expect the people to have the highest ethical standard?

I'm interested in the widest dissemination of the important scientific truth for the benefit of mankind. If it requires to dragging em into the court for the criminal academic misconduct, although I sincerely hope it doesn't have to go that far, I may have to consider it as an option.

Conservation Law of Energy

Although, according to Noether’s theorem, the time translation symmetry of the Lagrangian is directly related to the conservation of energy of the system, the crucial point of the importance of the energy conservation is what is the range that the law specifically covers? Does it cover the entire universe or only the local system?

To elaborate the point of the argument, here is a suggested Gedanken experiment. For an example, suppose there is a test mass in a thermally isolated container. One decided to influence the energy of the test mass inside the container from outside and moved a heavy mass back and forth to change the gravitational force on the test mass. Following the external influence, the test mass initially set at rest started to oscillate and gained a definite kinetic energy delta E.

Of course, one will argue that the applicable range of the total energy of the system has to be extended beyond the closed container where the test mass is located. But suppose that the heavy mass outside of the container is located so far away from the test mass that the existence of the heavy mass’ external influence is not verifiable. Now one can see that the boundary of the local conservation of the energy law has to be stretched to the infinity which is the practical range of the force of gravity.

Therefore, in general, it can be stated that the local conservation of the energy law can not be respected for the long range forces. One can always try to reformulate and enforce the law but when the boundary is infinite, what is the purpose of such an enforcement? There are always possibilities that one can devise a system that the local energy is practically gained at the expense of the energy loss from somewhere else in the universe.

The mentioned influence of the external force can be initiated by manipulating the specific local configuration of the test mass, for example, by the rotation of the longitudinally asymmetric object which produces the dipole gavity effect.

After all, general relativity and Maxwell’s equation are the theories describing how the matters are interacting with each other within their own principles of interactions in the universe, and they are not about acting like a watchdog for the local conservation of the energy. The inherent nature of the long rangedness (infinity) of those forces makes the local conservation of the energy within these principles meaningless.

However, the strong force which is extermely short ranged and holds the nucleus together and also subsequently the atoms and molecules will definitely conserve the local energy as proven to be correct abundantly in the kinetic theory of gases.

Possibility of Non Existing Gravitational Waves

The fundamental postulate of general relativity is that one can not tell the difference between the gravitational field and the uniform acceleration, which is called the equivalence principle. So according to this postulate, the gravitational field is basically the same as the source of the acceleration of the matter itself. Now, for there to be a gravitational wave, this acceleration field must be disturbed in such a way that it changes its magnitude depending on time. However, in general mechanics, the time derivative of an acceleration is not defined. That is to say, there is no da/dt, which is the time derivative of an acceleration.

If the gravitational waves were found, it means that the general equation of motion can be a third order differential equation instead of being a second order one. It breaks down the fundamental principle of Newtonian mechanics in a strange way since there is no such thing as the rate of change of the acceleration defined in the Newtonian laws of the mechanics. But then so was dipole gravity, in a different way, since an object can be physically displaced without the external force in the direction of the displacement, which occurs in the rotating hemispherical objects.

And without the detailed investigation of this effect, it was easy to dismiss dipole gravity as non existent physical entity from the start. Now with the gravitational quadrupole radiation, no one seems to pay attention on how it may violate Newtonian mechanics and the equivalence principle. For the sake of fairness, it is far more imperative to investigate dipole gravity experimentally. It won't be too late to test the quadrupole radiation effect later.

While an electric charge in circular motion around a positively charged ion loses energy by electromagnetic radiation, although the electron keeps its stable orbit around the proton due to the quantum effect, the satellite matters orbiting around the heavy condensed stars do not lose energy by radiation. Therefore, the constantly accelerating mass due to its circular motion around a host stellar object does not produce the gravitational waves.

This is the fundamental physical difference between the electrodynamics and the gravity. If the gravity is the same as the acceleration field of an object, the gravitational radiation must be a time derivative of the acceleration field itself, which is not defined in mechanics, although, this point may need more serious debate.

The energy loss observed from the fast rotating binary stars has been considered an evidence of the gravitational radiation. However, the space debris that being attracted by the two mass pole star system will see the center of mass of the two stars as the focal point of the gravitational attraction when viewed from the far distances. The impact of the debris with the two massive stars will be perpendicular to the rotational motion of the individual stars. This will create enough losses of the angular momentum and could account for the major energy loss. Therefore, this observation can not be considered an ultimate proof of the existence of the gravitational waves.

What it fundamentally suggests is that the gravitational wave may be harder to produce than one would imagine, if not impossible.

One possible application of dipole gravity may be that one can easily change the geometrical configuration of the rotating hemispherical object by using many layers of independently rotating discs or rings. This can be made to produce a longitudinal(directional) dipole gravity pulses like a pulsating beam of light which can be used to remotely pull or push objects where the pulsed dipole gravity beam may be pointed at.

Still, in this case, the pulsating beam of a directional dipole gravity is fundamentally different from the quadrupole gravitational radiation typically understood in the field of gravitation and general relativity.

Possible Future Projects

Using the dipole gravity model, it is possible to catalog the entire collection of the observed galaxies by their mass, rotational speed, geometrical shape of the individual cores and the dark matter density per unit radial distance. The luminosity near the galactic center may depend on the combinations of the intrinsic parameters listed above. This is a massive project that will need to be done eventually. The differences in the minute details of the rotational velocity curve will provide the necessary information to help understanding the structure of the core of the galaxies.

The problem with the concordance model was to explain the cause of the pattern of the distribution of the dark matter and the questions of what caused it and why. Of course, within the dipole gravity model, these are few of the natural consequences of the model itself. The jets and the dark matters are made of the same material.

Copy of 1997 Journal Referee Reports

I was able to dig up some of the old documents related to the dipole gravity paper. Looking back, it is interesting to see how the journal referees view the content of the paper. It was revised before the submission to the other journal Physica Scripta which accepted the paper for publication, but I believe the basic point of the article was the same. This may have some historical values and one can also have a glimpse into the minds of the researchers in the field. The anonymity of the referee's name is a rule of the most of the journals and I don't think I have to reveal the name of the journal either.





So, according to these referee's report, the gravitational field in and around the rotating spherical mass was completely understood until 1997, but still we didn't have a clue on the jets and the dark matter problems. Instead, those problems were "solved" and "explained" using the theories that have nothing to do with general relativity.

The conventional gravitomagnetism, even in the weak field limit, fails to predict the fundamental mechanism of producing the repulsive gravity as one would expect a gravito"magnetism" should. The Coulomb potential analogy of the Newtonian gravity is fundamentally flawed and, moreover, it is against the equivalence principle of general relativity. A uniformly moving mass does not create a magnet like gravity, only the accelerating mass creates an additional gravity like force.

What is Dipole Gravity and What It isn’t?

The Dictatorial Power of the Scientific Truth

The Darwinian principle of the theory of the evolution of the origin of the species and its subsequent archaeological proof left us little choice for an alternative explanation. Naturally, this has caused a great concern for the future of humanity among the philosophers in the field of anthropology. Due to the lack of the resources or the uncontrollable catastrophe, like that happened to the dinosaurs, human species will be extinct at certain point of time in the future and we have to do something about it, they theorized.

However, it must be noted that this kind of doomsday philosophy has already assumed that there are limited resources and there will be no other technology available for the change of the situation in the remote future. So when a certain scientific doctrine is used allegedly to protect the future of the human species, one can go a great distance to a morally horrifying scenario. Any theoretical attempt or plan for the global population reduction, therefore, is flawed because it was contemplated based on the wrong premises that there will be no advanced technology that will alleviate the current situation of the earth’s civilization. For a typical example, Ted Turner’s avid support for this kind of program is appalling.

Human society should spend substantial amount of time and energy on the development of this future technology and seriously think about going out of the earth’s surface to the far distant stars because the earth is not going to be the ultimate resting place for the human species. Somehow the relative location of the solar system in our galaxy makes it vulnerable to the frequent bombardment of the asteroids. And whenever it happens, the living organisms on earth suffer a great damage.

We may have to find a much stable and quiet star system inside the galaxy that all of the human species can migrate into. When people draw conclusions following the Darwinian theory of evolution, the inherent danger is there. We don’t know the full secret of the laws of the nature and what will be its possible benefits for the mankind.

What scares people especially in the field of cosmology about the theory of dipole gravity is that it deprives them of the freedom to be wrong. It must be emphasized that the scientific truth is not determined by a popular vote. Either it is correct or it is a false. What determines the ultimate fate of it is, of course, repeated experimental measurements and/or the existing observational confirmation. There are cases that a theory is partially correct. In general, in the field of science, even when a certain theory is correct, it always has a limited scope of its applicable domain. A lot of the researchers in the field already knew MOND can’t be a correct theory of the universe. However, in the absence of any alternative theory, MOND flourished because of its correct predictions of a lot of the rotational velocity curves. We enjoy and thrive in our freedom to be wrong. But like in any business decisions, being wrong means the loss of time, energy and resources.

We feel we are deprived of our freedom when a teacher came out say you can’t do those immoral things, and show proofs. We would rather stone or crucify him/her. This kind of pattern has been repeated many times in the history of mankind.