1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \setlength{\textheight}{8in} % 11.0 - 1.125 - 0.875
3: \setlength{\textwidth}{5.5in} % 8.5 - 1.375 - 1.125
4: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5in}
5: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0.5in}
6: %\pagestyle{myheadings}
7: %\markright{ R.T. Cahill}
8: \def\baselinestretch{1.0}
9: %\usepackage[textures]{graphicx} % Mac version
10: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx} % XXX archive version
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: \title{\bf
14: Gravitation, the `Dark Matter'
15: Effect
16: and the Fine Structure Constant}
17:
18:
19:
20: \author{{ \bf Reginald T. Cahill}\\
21: School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences\\
22: Flinders University \\
23: GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, Australia \\
24: Reg.Cahill@flinders.edu.au \\ \\ \\physics/0401047\\\\
25: Published in {\it Apeiron} Vol. 12, No. 2, April 2005, 144-177.}
26: \date{}
27:
28:
29: \maketitle
30:
31:
32: \begin{center} Abstract \end{center}
33: Gravitational anomalies such as the mine/borehole $g$
34: anomaly, the near-flatness of the spiral galaxy rotation-velocity curves, currently interpreted as the `dark
35: matter' effect, the absence of that effect in ordinary elliptical galaxies, and the ongoing
36: problems in accurately determining Newton's gravitational constant $G_N$ are explained by a generalisation of
37: the Newtonian
38: theory of gravity to a fluid-flow formalism with one new dimensionless constant. By analysing the borehole
39: data this new
40: constant is shown to be the fine structure constant $\alpha \approx 1/137$. The spiral galaxy
41: rotation curve effect and
42: the globular cluster central `black hole' masses for M15 and G1 are then correctly predicted.
43:
44:
45: \vspace{10mm}
46: \noindent Keywords:
47: Gravity, in-flow, fine structure constant, dark matter, spiral galaxies, globular clusters, $G$ measurements
48:
49: \newpage
50:
51: \tableofcontents
52:
53: \vskip12pt
54: \section{Introduction\label{section:introduction}}
55: \vskip6pt
56:
57: Gravity has played a key role in the history of physics, with first the successes of the
58: Newtonian theory and later the putative successes of
59: the Einsteinian theory, General Relativity.
60: However there are numerous gravitational phenomena which are inexplicable
61: within both the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories of gravity,
62: including the mine/borehole
63: $g$ anomaly \cite{Stacey,Holding,Greenland}, the almost flat rotation-velocity curves of spiral galaxies \cite{URC}, the
64: absence of that effect in ordinary elliptical galaxies \cite{Elliptical}, and an ongoing lack of convergence in measurements
65: of the Newtonian Gravitational constant $G_N$ over the last 60 years \cite{Gvariations}, and other anomalies not discussed here. The spiral
66: galaxy effect has been interpreted as being caused by an unknown form of `dark matter' \cite{Freeman}.
67:
68: It would at first appear highly unlikely that a new theory of gravity
69: could supersede General Relativity by passing the same tests and yet explaining also
70: the various anomalies. However this is the situation that is now unfolding.
71: The decisive tests of General Relativity were in
72: situations where the external Schwarzschild metric was applicable,
73: namely external to a spherically symmetric matter distribution. A critical insight is that the gravitational anomalies involve either a
74: non-spherical matter distribution, as in spiral galaxies, or are internal to a spherical matter distribution, as for the borehole anomaly.
75: It turns out that the Newtonian theory can
76: be exactly re-written in the language of a `fluid in-flow' system. Historically the Newtonian theory
77: was based on observations within the solar system, in which small test `objects', planets, are in orbit about a large
78: central mass - the sun. This led to Newton's famous inverse square law, where the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of
79: the distance. In the new theory of gravity this law turns out to be only valid under special conditions. In other cases the
80: gravitational force is different to that from Newtonian gravity. The evidence is that there exists a non-Newtonian aspect to gravity
81: even in the non-relativistic limit.
82:
83: The new generalised `fluid in-flow' formalism involves one new dimensionless constant, so that now gravity involves
84: two constants, this new constant and the familiar $G$. The surprising discovery reported herein is that this new
85: constant is none other than the fine structure constant $\alpha=e^2/\hbar c= 1/137.036$. This discovery suggests
86: that space has a quantum structure, even though the flow equation is itself a classical equation, i.e., the quantum
87: effects are apparent at the classical level. The occurrence of $\alpha$ does not necessarily imply that it is
88: Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) that is playing a role. In QED $\alpha$ plays the role of the probability of charged
89: particles to emit/absorb a photon, and it is probably this role which is being now revealed as a generic role for
90: $\alpha$, namely that it is a generic measure of randomness at a very fundamental level. If this interpretation is valid then it
91: suggests that the gravitational anomalies were then really quantum gravity effects. In gravity theories involving only $G$ it was
92: expected that quantum gravity effects would only show up at the scale of the Planck length, ${\it l}_P=\sqrt{\hbar G/c^3}\approx
93: 10^{-35}$m, and time, ${\it t}_P=\sqrt{\hbar G/c^5}\approx 10^{-44}$s , but this may now turn out to have been an incorrect
94: conjecture. Quantum gravity effects may in fact be relatively large and easily observed, just as they are in atomic systems. Indeed as
95: discussed herein the Cavendish-type laboratory experiments have revealed systematic discrepancies of the order of
96: $\alpha/4$, and so now a new analysis of data from such experiments is capable of giving the value of
97: $\alpha$ via purely laboratory gravity experiments.
98:
99: One new implication of the theory is that it successfully predicts the masses of the `black holes' that
100: have recently been reported
101: at the centres of globular clusters, and this phenomenon also involves the value of $\alpha$. So it
102: turns out that both the Newtonian and
103: Einsteinian theories of gravity are only valid in very special cases, and it was from these cases that
104: these theories were incorrectly judged to offer an explanation of gravitational phenomena.
105:
106:
107:
108:
109: Here we derive the `in-flow' theory of gravity, which
110: involves a classical velocity field and the theory exhibits the `dark matter'
111: effect, with strength set by the fine structure constant.
112: This flow theory is apparently the classical description of a quantum foam substructure to space , and the `flow' describes
113: the relative motion of this quantum foam with, as we now show, gravity arising from inhomogeneities and time variations in that
114: flow. These gravitational effects can be caused by an in-flow into matter, or even produced purely by the
115: self-interaction of space itself, as happens for instance for the new `black holes', which do not contain in-fallen
116: matter.
117:
118: \vskip12pt
119: \section[Gravity and the `Dark Matter' Effect]{\bf Gravity and the `Dark Matter' \newline Effect}
120: \vskip6pt
121:
122: The apparently most successful theory of gravity is the Einstein General Relativity (GR) which supposes a 4-dimensional
123: differential manifold with a metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}(x )$ which specifies the proper time interval according to
124: \begin{equation}
125: d\tau^2= g_{\mu\nu}(x )dx^\mu dx^\nu.
126: \label{eqn:A0}\end{equation}
127: Trajectories of test objects are determined by extremising the proper time $\delta \tau/\delta x_\mu=0$, giving the
128: geodesic equation in terms of the usual affine connection, constructed from $g_{\mu\nu}(x )$,
129: \begin{equation}
130: \Gamma^\lambda_{\mu\nu}\frac{dx^\mu}{d\tau}\frac{dx^\nu}{d\tau}+\frac{d^2x^\lambda}{d\tau^2}=0.
131: \label{eqn:geodesic}\end{equation}
132: However all direct tests or observations of the GR formalism have used only the external Schwarzschild metric, for which
133: (\ref{eqn:A0}) takes the well-known form
134: \begin{equation}
135: d\tau^2=(1-\frac{2GM}{c^2r})dt^{ 2}-
136: \frac{1}{c^2}r^{ 2}(d\theta^2+\sin^2(\theta)d\phi^2)-\frac{dr^{ 2}}{c^2(1-\frac{\displaystyle
137: 2GM}{\displaystyle c^2r})}.
138: \label{eqn:A1}\end{equation}
139: external to a spherical mass $M$. However by way of the change of variables
140: $t\rightarrow t^\prime$ and
141: $\bf{r}\rightarrow {\bf r}^\prime= {\bf r}$ with
142: \begin{equation}
143: t^\prime=t+
144: \frac{2}{c}\sqrt{\frac{2GMr}{c^2}}-\frac{4GM}{c^2}\mbox{tanh}^{-1}\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{c^2r}},
145: \label{eqn:37}\end{equation}
146: (\ref{eqn:A1}) may be written in the form
147: \begin{equation}
148: d\tau^2=dt^{\prime 2}-\frac{1}{c^2}(dr^\prime+\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r^\prime}}dt^\prime)^2-\frac{1}{c^2}r^{\prime
149: 2}(d\theta^{\prime 2}+\sin^2(\theta^\prime)d\phi^{\prime 2}),
150: \label{eqn:PG}\end{equation}
151: with $r^\prime$ is the radial distance, and
152: which involves the radial in-flow velocity field
153: \begin{equation}
154: {\bf v}({\bf r})=-\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}\hat{\bf r}.
155: \label{eqn:A2}\end{equation}
156: So in all cases the explicit tests of GR actually involved a velocity field. Cases where the metric is not equivalent to
157: (\ref{eqn:A1}) or (\ref{eqn:PG}) have not been experimentally tested.
158: This and other experimental evidence, see below, suggest that gravity may be in fact a consequence of a flow field, and
159: that the metric formalism may have been misleading. A form for the proper time for a general velocity field ${\bf v}({\bf
160: r}(t),t)$, that generalises (\ref{eqn:PG}), is
161: \begin{equation}
162: d\tau^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu dx^\nu=dt^2-\frac{1}{c^2}(d{\bf r}(t)-{\bf v}({\bf r}(t),t)dt)^2.
163: \label{eqn:PGmetric}\end{equation}
164: Then the geodesic equation (\ref{eqn:geodesic}) is explicitly computed to give the acceleration of the test object
165: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:A3}
166: \frac{d {\bf v}_0}{dt}=
167: \left(\displaystyle{\frac{\partial {\bf v}}{\partial t}}+({\bf v}.{\bf \nabla}){\bf
168: v}\right)+({\bf \nabla}\times{\bf v})\times{\bf v}_R-\frac{{\bf
169: v}_R}{1-\displaystyle{\frac{{\bf v}_R^2}{c^2}}}
170: \frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{{\bf v}_R^2}{c^2}\right),
171: \end{equation}
172: where ${\bf v}_0$ is the velocity of the test object, and ${\bf v}_R({\bf r}(t),t)={\bf v}_0-{\bf v}({\bf r}(t),t)$ is the
173: velocity of the test object relative to the local `substratum' that actually is flowing, according to the frame to which
174: positions and speeds are referenced. To be explicit the frame defined by the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) could be used,
175: though this does not imply any special local privilege to the frame. Eqn.(\ref{eqn:A3}) is exact for metrics of the form in
176: (\ref{eqn:PGmetric}), which are known as Panlev\'{e}-Gullstrand metrics. Of course (\ref{eqn:A3}) is independent of the mass of the
177: test object, which is the equivalence principle. Eqn.(\ref{eqn:A3}) is particularly revealing. The first term is the well-known Euler
178: `total derivative' fluid acceleration, and involves the explicit time-dependence as well as the convective fluid acceleration
179: component, the 2nd term is the Helmholtz fluid acceleration component caused by vorticity in the flow, while the last term is the
180: relativistic effect, which causes precession of elliptical orbits, event horizons, etc. This form then suggests that the phenomenon
181: of gravity is caused by time variations and inhomogeneities of some flow, and that the curved spacetime manifold mathematics was
182: essentially concealing that observation. This of course suggests a critical reassessment even of the Newtonian gravity formalism.
183:
184:
185: The Newtonian
186: theory was formulated in terms of a force field, the gravitational acceleration
187: ${\bf g}({\bf r},t)$, and was based on Kepler's laws for the observed motion of the planets within the solar
188: system. Newton had essentially suggested that
189: ${\bf g}({\bf r},t)$ is determined by the matter density
190: $\rho({\bf r},t)$ according to
191: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:g1}
192: \nabla.{\bf g}({\bf r},t)=-4\pi G\rho({\bf r},t).
193: \end{equation}
194: However the acceleration in (\ref{eqn:A3}) implies that a velocity field formalism is more fundamental, as clearly the
195: acceleration cannot be re-constructed from the velocity field. Only the terms in (\ref{eqn:A3}) independent of the
196: test object velocity can be dynamically associated with the flow dynamics itself, and so the Euler fluid acceleration
197: should be used in (\ref{eqn:g1}) in place of ${\bf g}({\bf r},t)$, giving
198: \begin{equation}
199: \nabla.\left(\frac{\partial {\bf v} }{\partial t}+({\bf
200: v}.{\bf \nabla}){\bf v}\right)=-4\pi G\rho,
201: \label{eqn:CG1}\end{equation}
202: with ${\bf g}$ now a derived quantity given by the Euler fluid acceleration
203: \begin{equation}{\bf g}({\bf r},t)=\displaystyle{\frac{\partial {\bf v}}{\partial
204: t}}+({\bf v}.{\bf \nabla}){\bf v}\equiv\displaystyle{\frac{d{\bf v}}{dt}},
205: \label{eqn:CG2}\end{equation}
206: the last expression defines the total Euler fluid derivative.
207: External to a spherically symmetric mass $M$ the solution to (\ref{eqn:CG1}), is (\ref{eqn:A2}), and then from
208: (\ref{eqn:CG2}) we get the usual inverse square law
209: \begin{equation}
210: {\bf g}({\bf r})=-\frac{GM}{r^2}\hat{\bf r}, \mbox{\ \ }r>R.
211: \label{eqn:InverseSqLaw}\end{equation}
212: \index{inverse square law}
213: It must be emphasised that the velocity field formalism in (\ref{eqn:CG1})-(\ref{eqn:CG2}) is {\it mathematically}
214: equivalent to the acceleration field formalism (\ref{eqn:g1}); they both always give the same acceleration field. However
215: there are two reasons for believing that the velocity field is {\it physically} more fundamental: (i)
216: (\ref{eqn:CG1})-(\ref{eqn:CG2}) permit a generalisation that leads to an explanation of the so-called `dark matter'
217: effect, and to numerous other effects, discussed in later sections, whereas (\ref{eqn:g1}) does not permit that
218: generalisation, and (ii) the velocity field has been directly observed. The experimental evidence for the velocity field
219: has been extensively reported in \cite{Cahill2,RGC}, where the velocity field is apparently associated with galactic
220: gravitational effects, but most significantly a smaller component of the velocity field flowing past the earth towards the
221: sun has been recently extracted from the Miller data from 1925/26, and has a value consistent with (\ref{eqn:A2}) where
222: $M$ is the mass of the sun.
223:
224: However there is one immediate insight into gravity that arises from (\ref{eqn:CG1}), and that is that the inverse square
225: law for gravity is now seen to be a consequence of the inhomogeneity part of the Euler fluid acceleration, namely
226: $({\bf v}.{\bf \nabla}){\bf v}$, which for zero vorticity has the form ${\bf \nabla}({\bf v}^2)/2$. In turn the form of
227: this inhomogeneity is determined by the requirement that the acceleration in (\ref{eqn:CG2}) be Galilean covariant.
228:
229:
230: One consequence of the velocity field formalism (\ref{eqn:CG1})-(\ref{eqn:CG2}) is that it can be generalised to
231: include a new unique term
232: \begin{equation}
233: \frac{\partial }{\partial t}(\nabla.{\bf v})+\nabla.(({\bf
234: v}.{\bf \nabla}){\bf v})+C({\bf v})=-4\pi G\rho,
235: \label{eqn:CG3}\end{equation}
236: where
237: \begin{equation}
238: C({\bf v})=\displaystyle{\frac{\alpha}{8}}((tr D)^2-tr(D^2)),
239: \label{eqn:Cdefn1}\end{equation} and
240: \begin{equation}
241: D_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\partial v_j}{\partial x_i}\right).
242: \label{eqn:Ddefn1}\end{equation}
243: Eqn.(\ref{eqn:CG3}) has the same solution (\ref{eqn:A2}) external to a spherically symmetric mass, because
244: $C({\bf v})=0$ for that flow, and so the presence of the $C({\bf v})$ would not have manifested in the
245: special case of planets in orbit about the massive central sun. So (\ref{eqn:CG3})-(\ref{eqn:CG2}) are consistent
246: with Kepler's laws for planetary motion in the solar system, and including the relativistic term in
247: (\ref{eqn:A3}) we obtain as well the precession of elliptical orbits. Here
248: $\alpha$ is a dimensionless constant - a new gravitational constant, in addition to the Newtonian
249: gravitational constant
250: $G$. From (\ref{eqn:CG2}) we can write (\ref{eqn:CG3})) as
251: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:g2}
252: \nabla.{\bf g}=-4\pi G\rho-4\pi G \rho_{DM},
253: \end{equation}
254: where
255: \begin{equation}
256: \rho_{DM}({\bf r})=\frac{\alpha}{32\pi G}( (tr D)^2-tr(D^2)),
257: \label{eqn:DMdensity}\end{equation}
258: which introduces an effective `matter density' onto the RHS of the Newtonian formalism in (\ref{eqn:g1}), phenomenologically
259: representing the flow self-interaction dynamics associated with the
260: $C({\bf v})$ term. However the dynamical effect represented by this new term cannot be included, in a closed form, in
261: the gravitational acceleration dynamics formalism of (\ref{eqn:g1}) because it cannot be expressed in terms of the
262: gravitational field ${\bf g}$. This dynamical effect is shown here to be the `dark matter' effect. The main theme of
263: this paper is the determination of the value of $\alpha$ from experimental data, and then the computation of various
264: observed effects that then follow.
265:
266:
267:
268: We apply the new gravity theory to an earth based experiment to determine the value of $\alpha$. However we know that
269: earth in-flow is a small component compared to the total flow, as given by the experimental data discussed in
270: \cite{Cahill2, RGC}. For completeness we would then need to demonstrate that the results for this experimental situation
271: are unaffected by the larger `background' flow. This has been done, but requires a much more detailed analysis then given
272: herein. Then for a zero-vorticity stationary flow, and ignoring any background flow, (\ref{eqn:CG3}) may be written in the form of a
273: non-linear integral equation
274: \begin{equation}\label{eqn:integraleqn}
275: {\bf v}^2({\bf r})=2G\int d^3
276: s\frac{\rho( {\bf s})}{|{\bf r}-{\bf s}|}+
277: 2G\int d^3
278: s\frac{\rho_{DM}( {\bf v}({\bf s}))}{|{\bf r}-{\bf s}|},
279: \end{equation}
280: as $\nabla^2 \frac{1}{|{\bf r}-{\bf s}|}=-4\pi\delta^4({\bf r}-{\bf s}) $.
281: In particular when the matter density and the flow are both
282: spherically symmetric and stationary in time (\ref{eqn:CG3}) becomes, with $v^\prime \equiv dv/dr$, the non-linear
283: differential equation
284: \begin{equation}
285: 2\frac{vv^\prime}{r} +(v^\prime)^2 + vv^{\prime\prime} =-4\pi G\rho(r)-4\pi G \rho_{DM}(v(r)),
286: \label{eqn:InFlowRadial}
287: \end{equation}
288: with now
289: \begin{equation}
290: \rho_{DM}(v(r))= \frac{\alpha}{8\pi G}\left(\frac{v^2}{2r^2}+ \frac{vv^\prime}{r}\right).
291: \label{eqn:dm1}\end{equation}
292: Then (\ref{eqn:integraleqn}) gives a non-linear radial integral form for (\ref{eqn:InFlowRadial}), on
293: doing the angle integrations,
294: \begin{eqnarray}
295: v^2(r)&=&\frac{8\pi G}{r}\int_0^r s^2 \left[\rho(s)+\rho_{DM}(v(s))\right]ds
296: \nonumber \\&&+8\pi G\int_r^\infty s
297: \left[\rho(s)+\rho_{DM}(v(s))\right]ds,
298: \label{eqn:integralEqn}\end{eqnarray}
299: It needs to be emphasised that with $\alpha=0$ (\ref{eqn:InFlowRadial}) is completely equivalent to
300: Newtonian gravity.
301:
302: First consider solutions to (\ref{eqn:dm1}) and
303: (\ref{eqn:integralEqn}) in the perturbative regime. Iterating once we find,
304: \begin{equation}
305: \rho_{DM}(r)=\frac{\alpha}{2r^2}\int_r^\infty s\rho(s)ds+O(\alpha^2),
306: \label{perturbative}\end{equation}
307: so that in spherical systems the `dark matter' effect is concentrated near the centre, and we find the total `dark
308: matter'
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: M_{DM}&\equiv& 4\pi\int_0^\infty r^2\rho_{DM}(r)dr=\frac{4\pi\alpha}{2}\int_0^\infty
311: r^2\rho(r)dr+O(\alpha^2)\nonumber \\
312: &=&\frac{\alpha}{2}M+O(\alpha^2),
313: \label{eqn:TotalDM}\end{eqnarray}
314: where $M$ is the total amount of (actual) matter. Hence to $O(\alpha)$ $M_{DM}/M=\alpha/2$ independently of the matter
315: density profile. This turns out be be directly applicable to the case of globular clusters, as shown later, and also
316: implies that the theory of stellar structures needs to be reconsidered, as this central `dark matter' effect changes
317: the central $g(r)$ considerably. This may have some bearing on the solar neutrino problem.
318:
319: \vskip12pt
320: \section{\bf Borehole $g$ Anomaly}
321: \vskip6pt
322:
323: When the matter density $\rho(r)=0$ for $r\geq R$, as for the earth, then
324: we also obtain, to $O(\alpha)$, from
325: (\ref{eqn:dm1}) and (\ref{eqn:integralEqn}), and then (\ref{eqn:CG2}),
326: \begin{equation}
327: g(r)=\left\{ \begin{tabular}{ l}
328: $\displaystyle{-\frac{(1+\displaystyle{\frac{\alpha}{2}}) GM}{r^2}, \mbox{\ \ } r > R,}$ \\
329: $\displaystyle{-\frac{4\pi G}{r^2}\int_0^rs^2\rho(s) ds
330: -\frac{2\pi\alpha G}{r^2}\int_0^r\left(\int_s^R s^\prime\rho(s^\prime) ds^\prime\right) ds}$,\\$\displaystyle{
331: \mbox{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } r
332: < R}$,\\
333: \end{tabular}\right.
334: \label{eqn:ISL2}\end{equation}
335: which gives Newton's `inverse square law' for $r > R$, but in which we see that the effective Newtonian gravitational constant
336: is $G_N=(1+\frac{\alpha}{2})G$, which is different to the fundamental gravitational constant
337: $G$ in (\ref{eqn:CG1}). The result in (\ref{eqn:ISL2}), which is different from that of the Newtonian theory
338: ($\alpha=0$) has actually been observed in mine/borehole measurements \cite{Stacey,Holding,Greenland} of
339: $g(r)$, though of course there had been no explanation for the effect, and indeed the
340: reality of the effect was eventually doubted.
341: The gravity residual \cite{Stacey,Holding,Greenland} is defined as
342: \begin{eqnarray}
343: \Delta g(r)&\equiv & g(r)_{Newton}-g(r)_{observed}\\
344: &=&g(r)_{Newton}-g(r).
345: \label{eqn:deltag1}\end{eqnarray}
346: The `Newtonian theory' assumed in the determination of the gravity residuals is, in the present context,
347: \begin{equation}
348: g(r)_{Newton}=\left\{ \begin{tabular}{ l}
349: $\displaystyle{-\frac{G_N M}{r^2},\mbox{\ \ } r > R,}$ \\
350: $\displaystyle{-\frac{4\pi G_N}{r^2}\int_0^rs^2\rho(s) ds}$,$\displaystyle{\mbox{\ \ } r < R,}$\\
351: \end{tabular}\right.
352: \label{eqn:earthg2}\end{equation}
353: with $G_N=(1+\frac{\alpha}{2})G$. Then $\Delta g(r)$ is found to be, to 1st order in $\alpha$ and in $R-r$, i.e.
354: near the surface,
355: \begin{equation}
356: \Delta g(r)=\left\{ \begin{tabular}{ l}
357: $\displaystyle{\mbox{\ \ }0, \mbox{\ \ } r> R,}$ \\
358: $\displaystyle{-2\pi\alpha G_N\rho(R)(R-r),\mbox{\ \ } r < R,} $\\
359: \end{tabular}\right.
360: \label{eqn:deltag2}\end{equation}
361: which is the form actually observed \cite{Stacey,Holding,Greenland}.
362: So outside of the spherical earth the Newtonian theory and the in-flow theory are
363: indistinguishable, as indicated by the horizontal line, for $r>R$, in Fig.\ref{fig:Greenland}. However inside the earth the
364: two theories give a different dependence on $r$, due to the `dark matter' effect within the earth. Even though the `dark matter'
365: effect is concentrated near the centre in this case, there is still a small effect just beneath the surface.
366:
367: \begin{figure}[t]
368: \hspace{35mm}\includegraphics[scale=0.9]{Cahill_fig1.eps}
369: \caption{{ The data shows the gravity residuals for the Greenland Ice Cap \cite{Greenland} Airy measurements of the
370: $g(r)$ profile, defined as
371: $\Delta g(r) = g_{Newton}-g_{observed}$, and measured in mGal (1mGal $ =10^{-3}$ cm/s$^2$), plotted against depth in km. Using
372: (\ref{eqn:deltag2}) we obtain $\alpha^{-1}=139 \pm 5 $ from fitting the slope of the data, as shown.}
373: \label{fig:Greenland}}\end{figure}
374:
375: Gravity residuals from a borehole
376: into the Greenland Ice Cap were determined down to a depth of 1.5km \cite{Greenland}. The ice had a measured density of
377: $\rho=930$ kg/m$^3$, and from (\ref{eqn:deltag2}), using $G_N=6.6742\times10^{-11}$ m$^3$s$^{-2}$kg$^{-1}$, we obtain from a
378: linear fit to the slope of the data points in Fig.\ref{fig:Greenland} that
379: $\alpha^{-1}=139\pm 5$, which equals the value of the fine structure constant $\alpha^{-1}=137.036$ to within the errors, and
380: for this reason we identify the constant $\alpha$ in (\ref{eqn:Cdefn1}) as being the fine structure constant.
381:
382: To confirm that this is not a coincidence we now predict the spiral galaxy `dark matter' effect and the globular cluster
383: `black hole' masses using this value for $\alpha$, and also indicate the likely origin of the unexplained systematic discrepancies
384: apparent in the ongoing attempts to measure $G$ with increased accuracy.
385:
386:
387:
388:
389: \vskip12pt
390: \section{\bf Spiral Galaxies}
391: \vskip6pt
392:
393: Consider the non-perturbative solution of (\ref{eqn:CG3}), say for a galaxy with a non-spherical matter
394: distribution. Then numerical techniques are necessary, but beyond a sufficiently large distance the in-flow will
395: have spherical symmetry, and in that region we may use (\ref{eqn:InFlowRadial}) and (\ref{eqn:dm1}) with
396: $\rho(r)=0$. Remarkably then the pair (\ref{eqn:InFlowRadial}) and (\ref{eqn:dm1}) has an exact
397: non-perturbative two-parameter analytic solution,
398: \begin{equation}
399: v(r) = K\left(\frac{1}{r}+\frac{1}{R_S}\left(\frac{R_S}{r} \right)^{\displaystyle{\frac{\alpha}{2}}} \right)^{1/2},
400: \label{eqn:vexact}\end{equation}
401: where $K$ and $R_S$ are arbitrary constants in the $\rho=0$ region, but whose values are determined by matching to
402: the solution in the matter region. Here $R_S$ characterises the length scale of the non-perturbative part of this
403: expression, and $K$ depends on $\alpha$ and $G$ and details of the matter distribution. The galactic circular orbital velocities of
404: stars etc may be used to observe this in-flow process in a spiral galaxy and from (\ref{eqn:CG2}) and
405: (\ref{eqn:vexact}) we obtain a replacement for the Newtonian `inverse square law' ,
406: \begin{equation}
407: g(r)=\frac{K^2}{2} \left( \frac{1}{r^2}+\frac{\alpha}{2rR_S}\left(\frac{R_S}{r}\right)
408: ^{\displaystyle{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}
409: \right),
410: \label{eqn:gNewl}\end{equation}
411: in the asymptotic limit. From (\ref{eqn:gNewl}) the centripetal
412: acceleration relation for circular orbits
413: $v_O(r)=\sqrt{rg(r)}$ gives a `universal rotation-speed curve'
414: \begin{equation}
415: v_O(r)=\frac{K}{2} \left( \frac{1}{r}+\frac{\alpha}{2R_S}\left(\frac{R_S}{r}\right)
416: ^{\displaystyle{\frac{\alpha}{2}}}
417: \right)^{1/2}.
418: \label{eqn:vorbital}\end{equation}
419: \begin{figure}[t]
420: \hspace{15mm}\includegraphics[scale=1.4]{Cahill_fig2.eps}
421: \caption{{ Spiral galaxy rotation speed curve plots, with $x=r/R_{opt}$. Solid line is the Universal Rotation Curve
422: (URC) for luminosity
423: $L/L_*=3$, using the URC in (\ref{eqn:URC}), Ref.\cite{URC}. Short-dashes line is URC with only the matter
424: exponential-disk contribution, and re-fitted to the full URC at low x. Long-dashes line, essentially overlaying the upper solid line
425: for $x>1.5$, is the form in (\ref{eqn:vorbital}), for $\alpha=1/137$ and
426: $R_S=0.01R_{opt}$.}
427: \label{fig:URCplots}}\end{figure}
428:
429: \noindent Because of the $\alpha$ dependent part this rotation-velocity curve falls off extremely slowly with $r$, as
430: is indeed observed for spiral galaxies. Of course it was the inability of the Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity theories to explain these
431: observations that led to the notion of `dark matter'. It is possible to illustrate the form in (\ref{eqn:vorbital}) by
432: comparing it with rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Persic, Salucci and Stel
433: \cite{URC} analysed
434: some 1100 optical and radio rotation curves, and demonstrated that they are describable by the empirical
435: universal rotation curve (URC)
436: \begin{eqnarray}
437: v_O(x)
438: &=&v(R_{opt})\left[\left(0.72+0.44\mbox{Log}\frac{L}{L_*}\right)\frac{1.97x^{1.22}}{(x^2+0.78^2)^{1.43}}\right.\nonumber \\
439: &&\left.\mbox{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }+1.6\mbox{e}^{-0.4(L/L_*)}
440: \frac{x^2}{x^2+1.5^2(\frac{L}{L_*})^{0.4}}\right]^{1/2}
441: \label{eqn:URC}\end{eqnarray}
442: where $x=r/R_{opt}$, and where $R_{opt}$ is the optical radius, or $85\%$ matter limit. The first term is the
443: Newtonian contribution from an exponential matter disk, and the 2nd term is the `dark matter' contribution.
444: This two-term form also arises from the in-flow theory, as seen in (\ref{eqn:integraleqn}).
445: The form in (\ref{eqn:vorbital}) with
446: $\alpha=1/137$ fits, for example, the high luminosity URC, for a suitable value of $R_S$, which depends on the luminosity,
447: as shown by one example in Fig.\ref{fig:URCplots}. For low luminosity data the observations do not appear to extend far enough
448: to reveal the asymptotic form of the rotation curve, predicted by (\ref{eqn:vorbital}). The non-Keplerian rotation curve
449: effect from the new theory of gravity is shown for the spiral galaxy NGC3198 in Fig.\ref{fig:NGC3198}.
450:
451: \begin{figure}%[ht]
452: \hspace{28mm}\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{NGC3198Plot.eps}
453: \caption{ {Data shows the non-Keplerian rotation-speed curve $v_O$ for the spiral galaxy NGC3198 in km/s plotted against radius
454: in kpc/h. Lower curve is the rotation curve from the Newtonian theory or from General Relativity for an exponential disk,
455: which decreases asymptotically like $1/\sqrt{r}$. The upper curve shows the asymptotic form from (\ref{eqn:vorbital}), with the decrease
456: determined by the small value of $\alpha$. This asymptotic form is caused by the primordial black holes at the centres of
457: spiral galaxies, and which play a critical role in their formation. The spiral structure is caused by the rapid in-fall
458: towards these primordial black holes.}
459: \label{fig:NGC3198}}\end{figure}
460:
461: But the general form in (\ref{eqn:vexact})
462: leads to a key question. Why is it that $R_S$ is essentially very large for the earth, as shown by the borehole data, and also for
463: elliptical galaxies as shown
464: by the recent discovery \cite{Elliptical} that planetary nebulae in ordinary elliptical
465: galaxies, serving as observable `test objects', have Keplerian or Newtonian
466: rotation-speed curves, whereas spiral galaxies have small values of $R_S$ compared to their $R_{opt}$ values, and that furthermore
467: their
468: $R_S$ values are related to their luminosity. The answer to this question is that the in-flow equation actually has a
469: one-parameter class of matter-free non-perturbative exact solutions of the form
470: \begin{equation}
471: v(r) = \frac{\beta}{r^{\alpha/4}},
472: \label{eqn:attractor}\end{equation}
473: where the $1/r$ term in (\ref{eqn:vexact}) is inadmissible because it does not satisfy the matter-free in-flow equation at $r=0$.
474: These solutions correspond to a novel feature of the new theory of gravity, namely the occurrence of these gravitational attractors.
475: These attractors presumably were produced during the big-bang, and since they can coalesce to form larger attractors, it is most
476: likely that it is such an attractor that leads to the formation of spiral galaxies. Attractors appear to form a cellular network, with
477: the attractor form in (\ref{eqn:attractor}) only valid for a single attractor. Attractors with large $\beta$ values, and so large
478: regions of influence, will attract greater quantities of the original post-big-bang gas. As well because these have large in-flow
479: velocities the matter will end up with high angular momentum, resulting in a spiral galaxy. Then the magnitude of $\beta$ is related
480: to the total amount of matter in the galaxy, which manifests eventually as its luminosity. Smaller attractors will form galaxies with
481: lower in-flow speeds and so are less likely to have large amounts of angular momentum. These new `gravitational
482: attractors' are the `black holes' of the new theory of gravity, and their properties are determined by $\alpha$, and not
483: by $G$.
484:
485:
486: \vskip12pt
487: \section{\bf Black Holes}
488: \vskip6pt
489:
490: At the center of matter distributions
491: the new theory of gravity also has attractor phenomena, namely the occurrence of
492: `in-flow singularities' which, in this case, are induced by the matter, as seen in the borehole analysis. Such in-flow
493: singularities, and the `dark matter' effect in general, are mandated by the in-flow and are not contingent phenomena. These
494: attractor in-flows singularities have an event horizon, where the in-flow speed reaches the speed of light. Hence they are a new
495: form of `black hole'. This phenomenon is different to that in general relativity where black holes arise from the past in-fall of
496: matter.
497:
498: Recently it has been reported that globular clusters
499: \cite{GlobularM15,GlobularG1} have central `black holes', which now appears to be merely an interpretation of the
500: central `dark matter' gravitational attractor effect. Again here the spatial structure of these `black hole' in-flow effects is
501: determined by
502: $\alpha$ - they are presumably intrinsically quantum-space processes, and the effective `mass' of this central attractor is
503: computable within the new theory. Numerical solutions of (\ref{eqn:InFlowRadial}) for typical cluster
504: density profiles reveal that the central `dark matter' mass is accurately given by the perturbative result in (\ref{eqn:TotalDM}),
505: $M_{DM}/M=\alpha/2=0.00365$. Then the $M_{DM}/M$ mass ratio is
506: independent of the density profile, as noted above. The clusters M15 and G1 then give an excellent opportunity to test
507: again the new theory. For M15 the mass of the central `black hole' was found to be \cite{GlobularM15}
508: $M_{DM}=1.7^{+2.7}_{-1.7}\times10^3$M$_\odot$, and the total mass of M15 was determined \cite{M15Mass} to be
509: $4.9\times10^5$M$_\odot$. Then these results together give $M_{DM}/M=0.0035^{+0.011 }_{-0.0035}$ which is in
510: excellent agreement with the above prediction. For G1 we have \cite{GlobularG1} $M_{DM}=2.0^{+ 1.4 }_{-0.8 }\times
511: 10^4$M$_\odot$, and $M=(7-17)\times10^6$M$_\odot$. These values give $M_{MD}/M= 0.0006-0.0049$, which is
512: also consistent with the above $\alpha/2$ prediction.
513: There is a singularity at $r=0$ where the in-flow speed becomes unbounded, and an event horizon where $v=c$, the speed
514: of light. The radius of this event horizon depends on $\alpha$. This implies that the globular cluster central
515: `attractor' is a manifestation of the non-Newtonian in-flow, that is, an in-flow different to the form in
516: (\ref{eqn:A2}). Hence the globular cluster observations again indicate the role of the fine structure constant in
517: gravity.
518:
519: \begin{figure}
520: \hspace{20mm}\includegraphics[scale=1.1]{Cahill_fig3.eps}
521: \caption{{Results of precision measurements of $G_N$ published in the
522: last sixty years in which the Newtonian theory was used to analyse the data.
523: These results show the presence of
524: a systematic effect not in the Newtonian theory.
525: {\bf 1:} Gaithersburg 1942,
526: {\bf 2:} Magny-les-Hameaux 1971,
527: {\bf 3:} Budapest 1974,
528: {\bf 4:} Moscow 1979,
529: {\bf 5:} Gaithersburg 1982,
530: {\bf 6-9:} Fribourg Oct 84, Nov 84, Dec 84, Feb 85,
531: {\bf 10:} Braunschweig 1987,
532: {\bf 11:} Dye 3 Greenland 1995,
533: {\bf 12:} Gigerwald Lake 1994,
534: {\bf 13-14:} Gigerwald Lake 1995 112m, 88m,
535: {\bf 15:} Lower Hutt 1995 MSL,
536: %{\bf 17:} Braunschweig 1995 PTB,
537: {\bf 16:} Los Alamos 1997,
538: {\bf 17:} Wuhan 1998,
539: {\bf 18:} Boulder JILA 1998,
540: {\bf 19:} Moscow 1998,
541: {\bf 20:} Zurich 1998,
542: {\bf 21:} Lower Hutt MSL 1999,
543: {\bf 22:} Zurich 1999,
544: {\bf 23:} Sevres 1999,
545: {\bf 24:} Wuppertal 1999,
546: {\bf 25:} Seattle 2000,
547: {\bf 26:} Sevres 2001,
548: {\bf 27:} Lake Brasimone 2001.
549: The upper horizontal line shows the value from the 1991 ocean measurements \cite{Ocean}, while the dashed line shows the
550: current CODATA $G_N$ value based on a statistical analysis of the indicated measurements. The
551: lower line shows the value of $G$ after removing the `dark matter' effect within the
552: earth on the Ref.\cite{Ocean} $G_N$ value.}
553: \label{fig:GData}}\end{figure}
554:
555: \vskip12pt
556: \section{\bf Measuring $G$}
557: \vskip6pt
558:
559: Finally it is now possible to explain the cause of the longstanding variations \cite{Gvariations} in the
560: measurements of the value of
561: $G_N$, shown in Fig.\ref{fig:GData}. Note that the relative spread $\Delta G_N/G_N \approx O(\alpha/4)$, as we would now
562: expect. Essentially the different Cavendish-type experiments used different matter geometries, and as we have seen, the
563: geometry of the masses has a `non-Newtonian' effect on the in-flow, and so on the measured force between the masses. In these
564: experiments the asymptotic form in (\ref{eqn:vexact}) is not relevant as the test masses are always close, and the data indicates
565: non-Newtonian effects of relative size $\alpha/4$. These effects are caused by both a `polarisation' of the central `dark
566: matter' effect, caused by the presence of the other test mass, and by a `dark matter' region forming essentially between
567: the two masses.
568:
569: Only for the
570: borehole-type experiments do we have a complete analytic analysis, and an ocean Airy measurement of
571: $g$ is in this class, and
572: \cite{Ocean} gives $G_N=(6.677\pm 0.013)\times 10^{-11} $ m$^3$s$^{-2}$kg$^{-1}$, shown by the upper horizontal line in
573: Fig.\ref{fig:GData}.
574: From that value
575: we may extract the value of the `fundamental gravitational constant' $G$ by removing the `dark matter' effect:
576: $G=(1-\frac{\alpha}{2})G_N+O(\alpha^2)= (6.6526 \pm 0.013)\times 10^{-11} $ m$^3$s$^{-2}$kg$^{-1}$, compared to the current CODATA
577: value of
578: $G_N=(6.6742 \pm 0.001)\times 10^{-11}$ m$^3$s$^{-2}$kg$^{-1}$, which is contaminated with `dark matter' effects.
579: Then in the various experiments, without explicitly
580: computing the `dark matter' effect, one will find an `effective' value of $G_N>G$ that depends on the geometry of the masses.
581: A re-analysis of the data in Fig.\ref{fig:GData} using the in-flow theory is predicted to resolve these apparent
582: discrepancies. The discrepancies in measuring $G$ are then presumably quantum gravity effects and, if so, then quantum gravity may be
583: easily studied in laboratory Cavendish experiments.
584:
585:
586: \vskip12pt
587: \section{\bf What Flows?}
588: \vskip6pt
589:
590: The evidence here is that the velocity field explanation for gravity is more encompassing of gravitational phenomena then either the
591: `acceleration field' theory of Newton, in the non-relativistic regime, or the `curved spacetime formalism' of Einstein. Indeed in all
592: cases where these two theories were successful they could be exactly recast into the velocity field formalism. But the velocity
593: formalism permits a unique and natural generalisation, not possible in either of these theories, and which then immediately explains
594: numerous so-called gravitational `anomalies', as shown herein for several examples.
595:
596: Given that, the fundamental
597: question is then: what is {\it flowing}? In \cite{Cahill2,RGC,PSS} it is suggested that space has a quantum substratum, that space
598: is a quantum system undergoing ongoing classicalisation. As well this quantum-foam system was argued to
599: arise from an {\it information theoretic} model of reality. But what experimental evidence is there that what flows is not some
600: material moving through some space, but some very exotic and new phenomenon? That evidence appeared when analysing the experiments
601: of Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), and DeWitte (1991), as discussed in detail in \cite{Cahill2,RGC}. The first two
602: experiments were gas-mode Michelson interferometer experiments which only in 2002 were finally understood \cite{Cahill2}. Then using
603: this first {\it post}-relativistic effects analysis it was shown that the non-null rotation-induced fringe shifts could be understood
604: as arising from the combination of three effects: (i) the usual geometric path difference effect from motion through a substratum, that
605: Michelson had used in the design
606: of his interferometer, (ii) the physical Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction of the arms of the interferometer, also from that motion,
607: and (iii) the effects of the gas in the light paths which slightly slows the speed of light. In vacuum, that is with no gas present,
608: (i) and (ii) exactly cancel, but
609: in the presence of a gas this cancellation effect is only partial and a small residual effect occurs, which we now know explains
610: why the gas-mode interferometer experiments, from 1887 onwards, have always shown small rotation-induced fringe shifts.
611:
612: This
613: explanation was confirmed by analysing data from three other interferometer experiments, by Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930) and by
614: Jaseja {\it et al} (1964), that used He in the first two, and a He-Ne gas mixture in the last, allowing the effect of the
615: gas, in terms of its refractive index, to be demonstrated by comparison with the air-mode data. To show that this analysis of the
616: gas-mode interferometer was correct the results of the analysis were compared with the results from the 1st order in $v/c$ RF
617: travel-time coaxial cable experiments of Torr and Kolen (1981) and DeWitte (1991).
618:
619: The key relevant aspect that arises from these
620: interferometer experiments is that of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction of the arms. Here that is a real physical effect, as
621: originally proposed by Fitzgerald and Lorentz in the 19$^{th}$ century. In contrast in the spacetime ontology interpretation by
622: Minkowski and Einstein this contraction is merely a perspective effect, depending on the `viewpoint' of an observer. But the above
623: experimental data has being showing all along that the contraction was physical with its magnitude determined by the speed of motion
624: of the arms through a physically existing 3-space, where as usual the contraction is in the direction of motion only. Such a uniform
625: speed of itself has no connection with gravity. The observed speed is simply that of the apparatus through space, and in principle the
626: experimentalists could choose that speed. So the contraction effect is caused by motion relative to a substratum, with apparently the
627: contraction arising from the interaction between the atoms forming the arms being affected by that uniform motion.
628:
629: So the argument is
630: that a 3-space exists, and has structure, although we have as yet no measure of the size or nature of that structure, and that the
631: amalgamation of the geometric models of time and 3-space into a four dimensional spacetime was not mandated by experiment. As well
632: the velocity field formalism in (\ref{eqn:CG3}) is Galilean covariant, which means that observers in relative motion may transform
633: the velocity field using a Galilean transformation. This is not in contradiction with the Lorentz transformation; these two
634: transformation rules relate the same data but in different forms. Hence the above suggests that the observed motion and the
635: contraction effect are the consequence of a substructure to space itself, and not some flowing particulate matter. But then gravity
636: turns out to be merely a consequence of the space itself being non-static and non-uniform, that is when its structure is in relative
637: motion, This means that the structure in one region of space is moving relative to the structure in a different region of space, so the
638: motion as such is only ever a differential motion, never a motion relative to some global background, whereas with a particulate
639: interpretation of the flow, the motion would have to be relative to some background geometry, and we would be back to the original
640: dualistic aether theories.
641:
642: The relative motion of space itself is dramatically illustrated by the so-called Lense-Thirring effect. This is really the consequence
643: of vorticity in the flow, that is, one region of space is rotating relative to a neighbouring region of space \cite{GPB}. This is to be
644: detected by the gyroscopes aboard the Gravity Probe B satellite experiment. There the spin direction of the gyroscopes is simply
645: carried by the locally rotating space, with that rotation measured by comparison with distant space using light from
646: a distant star. This vorticity or `frame-dragging' effect, as it is called in General Relativity, does not require any dynamical
647: calculation as would be the case if the vorticity was caused by some particulate matter moving through
648: space. This vorticity is produced by the earth by means of its rotation, and as well its linear motion, upon the
649: local space. The smaller component of the space-vorticity effect caused by
650: the earth's rotation has been determined from the laser-ranged satellites
651: LAGEOS(NASA) and LAGEOS 2(NASA-ASI) \cite{Ciufolini}, and the data is agreement with the vorticity interpretation to within
652: $\pm10\%$. However that experiment cannot detect the larger component of the vorticity induced by the
653: linear motion of the earth
654: as that effect is not cumulative, while the rotation induced component is
655: cumulative.
656:
657: Miller didn't use the above theory for the interferometer, but used the changes in the observed velocity over a
658: year to calibrate the instrument; that is, he detected the motion of the earth about the sun in a purely laboratory experiment. Of
659: course in doing so he also detected the rotation of the earth about its own axis, but not relative to the sun, rather relative to the
660: fixed stars; that is he saw a sidereal and not a solar day effect. A re-analysis of that data
661: \cite{Cahill2,RGC} using the above interferometer theory has shown that the data reveals not only the orbital speed of the earth about
662: the sun but an in-flow component towards the sun, in agreement with (\ref{eqn:A2}).
663:
664: So the evidence is that space has a differentially moving substructure, but that this motion has no absolute meaning, that is the
665: motion of space is just that, and not the movement of some constituents located in a space. So it is space itself that {\it flows}.
666: A simple analogy to help visualise this is to think of space as an abstract network of connected patterns, where the connections have
667: an approximate embedding in a geometrical 3-space, but that embedding does not imply that the 3-space is a separate entity;
668: rather it is an approximate coarse-grained description of the connectivity of the patterns. Then as these patterns evolve in time, as
669: a real process, by older connections disappearing, and new connections forming, we can talk about the motion of one part of the pattern
670: system moving relative to other parts, so long as there is sufficient continuity, over time, of the pattern connectivity. These
671: patterns in turn may be explained as internal informational relations, as discussed in \cite{PSS,CahillBook}.
672:
673: \vskip12pt
674: \section{\bf Conclusion}
675: \vskip6pt
676:
677: Historically the phenomenon of gravity was first explained by Newton in terms of a gravitational acceleration field.
678: Later Einstein proposed a geometric theory which explained gravity in terms of curvature of a four-dimensional manifold.
679: However as shown herein, both these formalisms, in the cases where they have been explicitly tested, may be re-written in
680: terms of a velocity field formalism, with the acceleration field given in terms of the Euler `fluid' acceleration, though
681: with vorticity and relativistic corrections. That by itself is remarkable, and shows that the nature of gravity may have
682: been misunderstood all along. But even more significant is that a unique generalisation to that velocity field formalism
683: introduces a dynamical effect that successfully explains a variety of known `gravitational anomalies', the most
684: dramatic being the so-called `dark matter' effect seen in spiral galaxies. The strength of the new spatial
685: self-interaction dynamics is found from experimental data to be determined by $\alpha$, the fine structure constant, at
686: least to within experimental errors.
687:
688: The new theory of gravity is able to explain various gravitational anomalies.
689: The theory describes gravity as an inhomogeneous in-flow, whether into matter or into a central `attractor' which is a
690: purely dynamical quantum-space effect, and essentially reveals space to be a quantum-foam process, with the strength of the
691: self-interactions in this process set by the fine structure constant, while
692: $G$ specifies the strength of the effect of matter in producing the spatial in-flow.
693: As reported in \cite{Cahill2} there is
694: experimental evidence that the in-flow velocity field
695: is now evident in older experimental data, although not recognised as such by the experimentalists involved. Both the in-flow
696: past the earth towards the sun, and also past the earth into the local galactic cluster are evident. As well the in-flow equations display
697: turbulence, and this also is evident in older experimental data. This of course amounts to the discovery of a new form of gravitational wave,
698: which is unlike that predicted by the Einstein theory. Hence there is in fact a great deal of experimental and
699: observational evidence that demonstrates the success of the new theory of gravity.
700:
701: Given that there is then considerable evidence that the velocity field formalism represents a significant development
702: in our understanding of gravity, the question then arises as to what interpretation we might consider. This new theory of
703: gravity has been shown to involve the fine structure constant, but this does not mean that the flow equations are
704: themselves quantum-theoretic. Nevertheless that the fine structure constant arises in both the phenomenon of gravity and
705: also in atomic, molecular and elementary particle systems, suggests that we are seeing, for the first time, suggestions
706: of a grand unification of the, so far, disjointed phenomena that physicists have uncovered. As discussed in \cite{PSS,CahillBook} a
707: new {\it information-theoretic} modelling of reality is under development, and there space and matter arise as
708: self-organising informational patterns, where the `information' here refers to internal information, and not to observer
709: based information. There we see the first arguments that indicate the logical necessity for quantum behaviour, at both the
710: spatial level and at the matter level. There space is, at one of the lowest levels, a quantum-foam system undergoing
711: ongoing classicalisation. That model suggest that gravity is caused by matter changing the processing rate of the
712: informational system that manifests as space, and as a consequence space effectively `flows' towards matter. However this
713: is not a `flow' of some form of `matter' through space, as previously considered in the aether models or in the
714: `random' particulate Le Sage kinetic theory of gravity, rather the flow is an ongoing rearrangement of the quantum-foam
715: patterns that form space, and indeed only have a geometrical description at a coarse-grained level. Then the `flow' in
716: one region is relative only to the patterns in nearby regions, and not relative to some {\it a priori} background
717: geometrical space. The classical description of that flow necessarily involves the Euler `fluid' acceleration, as only
718: that construction has the required covariance property, but then that requirement immediately requires Newton's inverse
719: square law in the special case of small test objects external to a large central spherically symmetric mass, as was the
720: case for the solar system. So not only does the new theory of gravity explain numerous anomalies, it also explains the
721: origin of Newton's famous law for gravity. But also, significantly, it shows that this law, even in the non-relativistic
722: limit, is not always valid. The assumption that the inverse square law was `universally' valid in the non-relativistic regime, of
723: course, led to the fruitless search for `dark matter'. Even more significant is that the dark matter effect is not within General
724: Relativity; this is most easily seen by noting that the GR formalism contains only one parameter, namely $G$, and certainly not the
725: fine structure constant. This happened because GR was constructed to agree with Newtonian gravity in the non-relativistic limit, and
726: that theory is now seen to be deficient even in that limit.
727:
728: Theories must be tested by experiment, and a whole new field of experimentation is now
729: possible in which laboratory Cavendish experiments can be used to extract the value of $\alpha$, and as discussed herein
730: there is ample evidence that this is possible, and indeed is the explanation for the long-standing problem in accurately
731: measuring $G$. The new theory is then suggesting that these laboratory experiments are essentially
732: quantum gravity experiments, and that they are revealing highly significant signatures of a deep unification of physics,
733: namely the unification of gravitational theory with the quantum theory, and to do that we have to abandon not only
734: Newtonian gravity, but also General Relativity and its curved spacetime formalism, the latter being a highly mathematical
735: disguise for the classical description of an underlying processing quantum-foam system. This implies that quantum
736: gravity effects do not set in at the extremely small scales of the Planck length and time, but manifest already in
737: numerous laboratory experiments. As well, because $\alpha$ now occurs in both atomic and gravitational physics it is
738: presumably necessary to consider that
739: $\alpha$ is a fundamental dimensionless quantity, characterising in both cases a common deep random process, for that is
740: the role that
741: $\alpha$ plays in QED, and that there the electronic charge is given by $e=\sqrt{\alpha\hbar c}$.
742:
743: Further results from the new theory of gravity are in \cite{CahillDM}.
744:
745:
746:
747:
748: \vskip12pt
749: \section{\bf Acknowledgements}
750: \vskip6pt
751:
752: Thanks to Peter Morris and David Roscoe for valuable comments and suggestions.
753:
754: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
755:
756:
757: \bibitem{Stacey} F.D. Stacey {\it et al.}, {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 23}, 2683(1981).
758:
759: \bibitem{Holding} S.C. Holding, F.D. Stacey, and G.J. Tuck {\it Phys. Rev.} D{\bf 33}, 3487(1986).
760:
761: \bibitem{Greenland} M.E. Ander {\it et al.}, {\it Test of Newton's Inverse-Square Law in the Greenland Ice
762: Cap}, {\it Phys.Rev.Lett.} {\bf 62}, 985(1989).
763:
764: \bibitem{URC} M. Persic, P. Salucci, F. Stel, {\it The Universal Rotation Curve of Spiral Galaxies: I The
765: Dark Matter Connection}, {\it Mon.Not.R.Astronom.Soc.} {\bf 281}, 27(1996).
766:
767: \bibitem{Elliptical} A.J. Romanowsky, {\it et al.}, {\it A Dearth of Dark Matter in Ordinary Elliptical
768: Galaxies}, {\it Science} {\bf 301}, 1696(2003).
769:
770: \bibitem{Gvariations} G.T. Gillies, {\it The Newtonian Gravitational Constant: Recent
771: Measurements and Related Studies}, {\it Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 60}, 151-225(1997).
772:
773: \bibitem{Freeman} K.C. Freeman, {\it The Hunt for Dark Matter in Galaxies}, {\it Science} {\bf 302}, 1902(2003).
774:
775: \bibitem{Cahill2} R.T. Cahill, {\it Absolute Motion and Gravitational Effects}, {\it Apeiron}, {\bf 11}, No.1, pp. 53-111(2004).
776:
777:
778: \bibitem{RGC} R.T. Cahill, {\it Quantum Foam, Gravity and Gravitational Waves}, in {\it Relativity,
779: Gravitation, Cosmology}, pp. 168-226, eds. V. V. Dvoeglazov and A. A. Espinoza Garrido (Nova Science Pub., NY,
780: 2004)
781:
782: \bibitem{Ocean} M. Zumberge {\it et al.}, {\it Submarine Measurements of the Newtonian Gravitational
783: Constant}, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 67}, 3051(1991).
784:
785: \bibitem{GlobularM15} J. Gerssen,{\it et al}, % R. P. van der Marel, K. Gebhardt, P. Guhathakurta,
786: %R.C. Peterson and C. Pryor, {\it Hubble Telescope Evidence for an Intermediate-Mass
787: %Black Hole in the Globular Cluster M15 II. Kinematic Analysis and Dynamic Modelling},
788: {\it Astron.J.} {\bf 124}, pp. 3270-3288(2002); Addendum {\bf 125}, 376(2003).
789:
790: \bibitem{GlobularG1} K. Gebhardt, R.M. Rich and L. C. Ho, {\it A 20 Thousand Solar Mass Black Hole
791: in the Stellar Cluster G1}, {\it Astrophysical J.}, {\bf L41}, 578(2002).
792:
793: \bibitem{M15Mass} B.W. Murphy, H.N. Cohn, P.N. Lugger and J.D. Dull, {\it Dynamical Models of
794: the Globular Clusters M15}, {\it Bulletin of the Am. Astron. S.}, {\bf 26}, No.4, 1487(1994).
795:
796: \bibitem{PSS} R.T. Cahill, {\it Process Physics}, {\it Process Studies Supplement}, Issue 5,
797: 1-131(2003).
798:
799:
800: \bibitem{CahillBook} R.T. Cahill, {\it Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter}, (Nova Science Pub.,
801: NY, 2005).
802:
803:
804: \bibitem{GPB} R.T. Cahill, {\it Novel Gravity Probe B Frame-Dragging Effect}, physics/0406121.
805:
806: \bibitem{Ciufolini} I. Ciufolini and E. Pavlis, {\it A Confirmation of the General
807: Relativistic Prediction of the Lense-Thirring Effect}, {\it Nature},
808: {\bf 431}958-960(2004).
809:
810:
811: \bibitem{CahillDM} R.T. Cahill, {\it `Dark Matter' as a Quantum-Foam In-Flow Effect} in {\it Trends in Dark Matter Research}, ed. J.
812: Val Blain, (Nova Science Pub., NY, 2005), physics/0405147.
813:
814:
815:
816: \end{thebibliography}
817:
818: \end{document}
819:
820:
821:
822: