Re: Might there be a simpler explaination for the force of gravity?

Many physics formulas have second solutions that are deemed "unphysical" because the interpretation of the solution involves such unappealing concepts like: backward in time, negative mass and energy, or advanced knowledge before an event happens. Often these reverse solutions can be ignored and explained as just a mathematical curiosity. Let me go on a wild tangent to explain some of the reason this is so, even today.

Science has long embraced the simplest theories that explain a phenomemon. When give a choice between theories, the simplest is often preferred until proven incomplete. This stems from religious and philosophical beliefs of the mid 17th century that science is a quest to discern the mind of the creator through the workings of his universe. Many of the prominent scientists and philosophers were religious men. And if you consider that the religious orders sponsored much of the academia and produced many of the books, it seems only natural that the strongest voices of science were also religious. So until probably the 19th century, the profession of science was not far removed the religious life. While, it was quite possible the creator could create things that were to difficult to understand, a benevolent deity, it was believed, would not create that way. In the end, if something could not be explained, it was taken on faith.

Sir Isaac Newton's greatest work The Principia, published in the late 1600's (1686, first printing) and revised in the early 1700's, contained the first proof of the one over distance squared law of gravity to show that Kepler's laws were in fact derived from another law of nature. His theory did an outstanding job of explaining and predicting astronomical observations. Of course, the were things is did not explain very well. For example, Newton struggled to model the motion of the moon to within acceptable accuracy. For more information, I recommend the book Newton's Clock: Chaos in the Solar System by Ivars Peterson. The success and simplicity of the formula and theory had great appeal. It is often credited as the beginning of modern science because it does not explicitly rely on mysticism or belief in god.

A theory in physics has to stand up to refutation (i.e. testing). So despite the theory having a strange interpretation, if it works at describing the reality of observation, the theory cannot be dismissed. A theory involving a mysterious force field is not unprecendented in physics, but many do not hold up to testing. For example, it was believed until 1887 that a luminiferous ether existed everywhere. This ether was invisible and used to explain the transport of light because it was believed at the time that light could not travel in a vacuum. The ether was never found, and in fact the team of Michelson and Morley performed experiments that proved it did not have an effect (i.e. it might not exist). It wasn't until Einstein really pressed the issue with relativity some 20 years later that the science community pondered new solutions.

Now on to your idea of a force field that mass some how blocks. There is a similar field theory developed by Wheeler and Feynmann that has become popular in quantum field theory. As simply as can be stated, it is an investigation of a mathematical solution to a simple problem that has been discounted for years because it reverses everything. The hard part to swallow with it is that instead of starting from a point source it starts at infinite and works its way back to a point. For more information look at:

An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation

As a physicist, I initial balk at a theory that seems unphysical or that tries to explain something that has been so well explained by the likes of Newton and Einstein. Does this theory mathematically explain all the observations that fall out of gravitation/relativity? Is there an experiment that can be done to yield a result that cannot be explained with the standard model of gravitation/relativity? In otherwords, is there a way to test this theory?

If a theory can be tested and demonstrated to answer testable observation then the theory cannot be discounted. The problem I have with a force field like the one you mention for gravity is that would have to contrived to explain the conditions in the case of many bodies involved. For example, suppose I have three planets. What would happen if the planets were all lined up? How much of the force field is allowed to go through the planet in the middle so that the two outside planets see each other? Is this passing amount related to mass? If it is, then how is this better than the current model of gravity?

So have these other theoried been proven false? Actually many have been proven false, and a most have proven to be more cumbersome.

For more information on testing gravity, I recommend a net search or a MadSci search on the Cavendish experiment or perhaps looking into black holes.

I hope this long winded answer helps give an appreciation for gravity and science theories in general.

Sincerely,

Tom "Draw String" Cull