We often hear that gravity is curvature of space-time.
But how does gravity look like/act at the very smallest lengthes of the universe?
Can we quantisize the gravity? If yes, then what does it consist of?
dktekno -
You have asked what Americans historically refer to as a "$64,000.00 question". The sage Elvish one, yQ, or mattweston are all likely better equipped for this one than I. Gravity is an acceleration (a force), classically speaking, of 2 bodies toward one another, governed by:
Fg = Gm1m2/r^2
Where G is a constant. Note that the effects of gravity depend on the inverse square of the distance b/t the 2 masses, and that all bodies accelerate at the same rate (recall Galileo's experiments).
Below a certain particle size (or de Broglie wavelength for protons, neutrons, electrons), gravity does not appear to have any appreciable effect, which is why the Law of Gravity is a misnomer. QM has absolutely no term for gravity, and there is only a postulated particle (the graviton) as far as physicists are concerned - note that it has never been found, either. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) facilities have been set up around the world to look for gravity waves, but to date have not found any.
-ss
You have asked what Americans historically refer to as a "$64,000.00 question". The sage Elvish one, yQ, or mattweston are all likely better equipped for this one than I. Gravity is an acceleration (a force), classically speaking, of 2 bodies toward one another, governed by:
Fg = Gm1m2/r^2
Where G is a constant. Note that the effects of gravity depend on the inverse square of the distance b/t the 2 masses, and that all bodies accelerate at the same rate (recall Galileo's experiments).
Below a certain particle size (or de Broglie wavelength for protons, neutrons, electrons), gravity does not appear to have any appreciable effect, which is why the Law of Gravity is a misnomer. QM has absolutely no term for gravity, and there is only a postulated particle (the graviton) as far as physicists are concerned - note that it has never been found, either. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) facilities have been set up around the world to look for gravity waves, but to date have not found any.
-ss
Fg = G * M1 * M2 / d^2
M1 = M2 = 2.176 × 10-8 kg
d = 1.616*10-35 m
YOU do the math - my shift just ended.... NOW
M1 = M2 = 2.176 × 10-8 kg
d = 1.616*10-35 m
YOU do the math - my shift just ended.... NOW
I asked my physics proff once what was gravity made of? he said he didn't know. Its not like anything else. you can't isolate yourself from it like a electronic field.
Hi dktekno, solidspin, a_ht and Asimov,
The "ultimate" answer to this question may not be "on the table" yet. I have said this before but though it "appears" that gravity is proportional to acceleration due to mass it is clearly not the case. The curvature of spacetime is the primary "motive" since even massless particles (photons) are affected by curvature and probability other "massless" particles as well. What this is saying is spacetime is curved due to acceleration. This is due to possibly mass or possibly "simple" acceleration as in a rocket when the engines are firing. We know the "identity" of these two types of "force" are identical in every way that can be tested. So far no quantization of gravity has been detected and indeed it has been shown that attempts to quantize it are incompatible with current mathematical techniques and "fundamentally" at odds with Einstein's Theory of Gravitation. This is the reason behind the alternative approach through String Theory.
for your understanding. You can remove the force of gravitation in every possible scenario by an appropriate transformation of the frame of acceleration into a "rest frame". Some of these frames are "inconvenient" to say the least but the possibility always exists showing that there are There is something I contribute to the argument of preferred frames where the "force" of acceleration disappears. For instance if you jump off a building the force of gravity literally disappears. In your vicinity spacetime is now flat... literally. The relative motion around you is not due to "force " on you but the impending "geodesic" path you are taking will probably smack you into the ground where force will surely catch up to you.
Remember to measure a "force" you will need to completely understand the Principle of Equivalence where inertial and gravitational forces are said to be equivalent. What it effectively says is the force of gravity you feel inside an elevator is identical in all respects to the force of acceleration due to gravity. Cut the elevator cable and there will be no force on you at all. Try it out by standing on a bathroom scales. This is the same situation as being in free fall around the Earth as in the International Space Station. The strange thing is and you must accept it as an experimentally proven fact is that light is affected in the same way.
Though you cannot "weigh" light and it would weigh nothing if you could find some way to do it. Light will follow the same path in spacetime as a material object traveling at the speed of light provided it was massless. That is gobbledygook but it is verifiable as an experiment. So while gravity cannot be "shielded" (apparently) it can be "removed" by a suitable transformation of the frame of reference. This would only occur if gravity is a pseudo-force and not a true force at all.
The next point I would like to state is that there is only one rest frame in orbit around the Earth where it is truly at rest this is in "geostationary" orbit. When there is differential movement between the surface of the earth and an object in orbit there is a higher order effect that can result in "inertial frame dragging" on the object. What this tends to do is change the orientation of an axis of rotation and in the case of a gyroscope causes the axis to precess around this extra "apparent" component of gravity (acceleration). Think of gravity on the surface of the Earth "undulating" in a sine wave as you travel above the equator due to changes in density or mass below the object in orbit. There is a tendency for this gear-toothed wave of gravity peaks and wells to slightly drag the object in orbit above the earth around in the direction of the disturbance as if the "teeth had some invisible grip on the object. If gravity responds "perfectly" this undulation would not have any tangential effect at all but this effect has been predicted and has been seen in some preliminary examples. Gravity Probe B is currently testing this effect to a high level of precision.
Alternatively the curvature of spacetime can be used to "tow" particles around in spacetime like a man with a dog on a leash or tidbit of food, always staying ahead, causing the dog to follow.
Both these effects indicate how the velocity of propagation of light and gravity leads to slight "imbalances" in the general effect. Obviously if gravity acted with infinite speed this effect would not appear.
Now to think further about the nature of gravity at the level of the quantum. It could be there are levels of quantization at that scale. What if gravity is purely a pseudo-force and is the result of some acceleration in the "bulk" or even in higher spaces. We also know that gravity is dependent on the primary existence of mass. That is the curvature of spacetime depends on the property of mass. Consider that fact that photons that have no mass are not able in themselves to "bend" spacetime at all. That mass is necessary to curve spacetime. This cannot be true since we have the principle of Equivalence. We see mass curving spacetime and this is equivalent to acceleration. Well the converse must also be true that acceleration must be the source of mass which in turn curves spacetime. This is not explicitly stated in the literature but if "equivalence" really means what I and the rest of the world thinks it is it must be true.
I will state this again... that the Corollary of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of accelerated frames of reference or the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force implies that the curvature of spacetime usually reserved for the provenance of "mass" also means that acceleration is the "source" of mass. Think about that.
This must also mean that mass in all things is the result of some continuous acceleration that is invisible to us. It is the inevitable consequence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and it's Principle of Equivalence. We have already established that Einstein stated that Gravity is the same as acceleration so once again acceleration is linked to gravity too. Now we have also linked acceleration to mass.... at least logically.
The conclusion now is that mass is also a pseudo-property like gravity due to a property of "intrinsic" acceleration. We know mass is not a vector like acceleration so as I have mentioned before in previous posts, mass is more likely to be a tensor of rank 3. However since we have demonstrated that mass is dependent on acceleration it must also depend on the second derivative of time (acceleration) so it will have a hidden dimension of "time". Hence actually a tensor of rank 4.
This is evidence for a higher dimensional explanation for mass since this acceleration is not seen in our three dimensional space but must manifest in "higher dimensions". If anyone would like to comment intelligently please do. I would appreciate that.
Cheers
QUOTE
We often hear that gravity is curvature of space-time.
But how does gravity look like/act at the very smallest lengths of the universe?
Can we quantize the gravity? If yes, then what does it consist of?
But how does gravity look like/act at the very smallest lengths of the universe?
Can we quantize the gravity? If yes, then what does it consist of?
The "ultimate" answer to this question may not be "on the table" yet. I have said this before but though it "appears" that gravity is proportional to acceleration due to mass it is clearly not the case. The curvature of spacetime is the primary "motive" since even massless particles (photons) are affected by curvature and probability other "massless" particles as well. What this is saying is spacetime is curved due to acceleration. This is due to possibly mass or possibly "simple" acceleration as in a rocket when the engines are firing. We know the "identity" of these two types of "force" are identical in every way that can be tested. So far no quantization of gravity has been detected and indeed it has been shown that attempts to quantize it are incompatible with current mathematical techniques and "fundamentally" at odds with Einstein's Theory of Gravitation. This is the reason behind the alternative approach through String Theory.
for your understanding. You can remove the force of gravitation in every possible scenario by an appropriate transformation of the frame of acceleration into a "rest frame". Some of these frames are "inconvenient" to say the least but the possibility always exists showing that there are There is something I contribute to the argument of preferred frames where the "force" of acceleration disappears. For instance if you jump off a building the force of gravity literally disappears. In your vicinity spacetime is now flat... literally. The relative motion around you is not due to "force " on you but the impending "geodesic" path you are taking will probably smack you into the ground where force will surely catch up to you.
Remember to measure a "force" you will need to completely understand the Principle of Equivalence where inertial and gravitational forces are said to be equivalent. What it effectively says is the force of gravity you feel inside an elevator is identical in all respects to the force of acceleration due to gravity. Cut the elevator cable and there will be no force on you at all. Try it out by standing on a bathroom scales. This is the same situation as being in free fall around the Earth as in the International Space Station. The strange thing is and you must accept it as an experimentally proven fact is that light is affected in the same way.
Though you cannot "weigh" light and it would weigh nothing if you could find some way to do it. Light will follow the same path in spacetime as a material object traveling at the speed of light provided it was massless. That is gobbledygook but it is verifiable as an experiment. So while gravity cannot be "shielded" (apparently) it can be "removed" by a suitable transformation of the frame of reference. This would only occur if gravity is a pseudo-force and not a true force at all.
The next point I would like to state is that there is only one rest frame in orbit around the Earth where it is truly at rest this is in "geostationary" orbit. When there is differential movement between the surface of the earth and an object in orbit there is a higher order effect that can result in "inertial frame dragging" on the object. What this tends to do is change the orientation of an axis of rotation and in the case of a gyroscope causes the axis to precess around this extra "apparent" component of gravity (acceleration). Think of gravity on the surface of the Earth "undulating" in a sine wave as you travel above the equator due to changes in density or mass below the object in orbit. There is a tendency for this gear-toothed wave of gravity peaks and wells to slightly drag the object in orbit above the earth around in the direction of the disturbance as if the "teeth had some invisible grip on the object. If gravity responds "perfectly" this undulation would not have any tangential effect at all but this effect has been predicted and has been seen in some preliminary examples. Gravity Probe B is currently testing this effect to a high level of precision.
Alternatively the curvature of spacetime can be used to "tow" particles around in spacetime like a man with a dog on a leash or tidbit of food, always staying ahead, causing the dog to follow.
Both these effects indicate how the velocity of propagation of light and gravity leads to slight "imbalances" in the general effect. Obviously if gravity acted with infinite speed this effect would not appear.
Now to think further about the nature of gravity at the level of the quantum. It could be there are levels of quantization at that scale. What if gravity is purely a pseudo-force and is the result of some acceleration in the "bulk" or even in higher spaces. We also know that gravity is dependent on the primary existence of mass. That is the curvature of spacetime depends on the property of mass. Consider that fact that photons that have no mass are not able in themselves to "bend" spacetime at all. That mass is necessary to curve spacetime. This cannot be true since we have the principle of Equivalence. We see mass curving spacetime and this is equivalent to acceleration. Well the converse must also be true that acceleration must be the source of mass which in turn curves spacetime. This is not explicitly stated in the literature but if "equivalence" really means what I and the rest of the world thinks it is it must be true.
I will state this again... that the Corollary of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of accelerated frames of reference or the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force implies that the curvature of spacetime usually reserved for the provenance of "mass" also means that acceleration is the "source" of mass. Think about that.
This must also mean that mass in all things is the result of some continuous acceleration that is invisible to us. It is the inevitable consequence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and it's Principle of Equivalence. We have already established that Einstein stated that Gravity is the same as acceleration so once again acceleration is linked to gravity too. Now we have also linked acceleration to mass.... at least logically.
The conclusion now is that mass is also a pseudo-property like gravity due to a property of "intrinsic" acceleration. We know mass is not a vector like acceleration so as I have mentioned before in previous posts, mass is more likely to be a tensor of rank 3. However since we have demonstrated that mass is dependent on acceleration it must also depend on the second derivative of time (acceleration) so it will have a hidden dimension of "time". Hence actually a tensor of rank 4.
This is evidence for a higher dimensional explanation for mass since this acceleration is not seen in our three dimensional space but must manifest in "higher dimensions". If anyone would like to comment intelligently please do. I would appreciate that.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 29 2005, 01:53 PM)
Hi dktekno, solidspin, a_ht and Asimov,
The "ultimate" answer to this question may not be "on the table" yet. I have said this before but though it "appears" that gravity is proportional to acceleration due to mass it is clearly not the case. The curvature of spacetime is the primary "motive" since even massless particles (photons) are affected by curvature and probability other "massless" particles as well. What this is saying is spacetime is curved due to acceleration. This is due to possibly mass or possibly "simple" acceleration as in a rocket when the engines are firing. We know the "identity" of these two types of "force" are identical in every way that can be tested. So far no quantization of gravity has been detected and indeed it has been shown that attempts to quantize it are incompatible with current mathematical techniques and "fundamentally" at odds with Einstein's Theory of Gravitation. This is the reason behind the alternative approach through String Theory.
for your understanding. You can remove the force of gravitation in every possible scenario by an appropriate transformation of the frame of acceleration into a "rest frame". Some of these frames are "inconvenient" to say the least but the possibility always exists showing that there are There is something I contribute to the argument of preferred frames where the "force" of acceleration disappears. For instance if you jump off a building the force of gravity literally disappears. In your vicinity spacetime is now flat... literally. The relative motion around you is not due to "force " on you but the impending "geodesic" path you are taking will probably smack you into the ground where force will surely catch up to you.
Remember to measure a "force" you will need to completely understand the Principle of Equivalence where inertial and gravitational forces are said to be equivalent. What it effectively says is the force of gravity you feel inside an elevator is identical in all respects to the force of acceleration due to gravity. Cut the elevator cable and there will be no force on you at all. Try it out by standing on a bathroom scales. This is the same situation as being in free fall around the Earth as in the International Space Station. The strange thing is and you must accept it as an experimentally proven fact is that light is affected in the same way.
Though you cannot "weigh" light and it would weigh nothing if you could find some way to do it. Light will follow the same path in spacetime as a material object traveling at the speed of light provided it was massless. That is gobbledygook but it is verifiable as an experiment. So while gravity cannot be "shielded" (apparently) it can be "removed" by a suitable transformation of the frame of reference. This would only occur if gravity is a pseudo-force and not a true force at all.
The next point I would like to state is that there is only one rest frame in orbit around the Earth where it is truly at rest this is in "geostationary" orbit. When there is differential movement between the surface of the earth and an object in orbit there is a higher order effect that can result in "inertial frame dragging" on the object. What this tends to do is change the orientation of an axis of rotation and in the case of a gyroscope causes the axis to precess around this extra "apparent" component of gravity (acceleration). Think of gravity on the surface of the Earth "undulating" in a sine wave as you travel above the equator due to changes in density or mass below the object in orbit. There is a tendency for this gear-toothed wave of gravity peaks and wells to slightly drag the object in orbit above the earth around in the direction of the disturbance as if the "teeth had some invisible grip on the object. If gravity responds "perfectly" this undulation would not have any tangential effect at all but this effect has been predicted and has been seen in some preliminary examples. Gravity Probe B is currently testing this effect to a high level of precision.
Alternatively the curvature of spacetime can be used to "tow" particles around in spacetime like a man with a dog on a leash or tidbit of food, always staying ahead, causing the dog to follow.
Both these effects indicate how the velocity of propagation of light and gravity leads to slight "imbalances" in the general effect. Obviously if gravity acted with infinite speed this effect would not appear.
Now to think further about the nature of gravity at the level of the quantum. It could be there are levels of quantization at that scale. What if gravity is purely a pseudo-force and is the result of some acceleration in the "bulk" or even in higher spaces. We also know that gravity is dependent on the primary existence of mass. That is the curvature of spacetime depends on the property of mass. Consider that fact that photons that have no mass are not able in themselves to "bend" spacetime at all. That mass is necessary to curve spacetime. This cannot be true since we have the principle of Equivalence. We see mass curving spacetime and this is equivalent to acceleration. Well the converse must also be true that acceleration must be the source of mass which in turn curves spacetime. This is not explicitly stated in the literature but if "equivalence" really means what I and the rest of the world thinks it is it must be true.
I will state this again... that the Corollary of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of accelerated frames of reference or the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force implies that the curvature of spacetime usually reserved for the provenance of "mass" also means that acceleration is the "source" of mass. Think about that.
This must also mean that mass in all things is the result of some continuous acceleration that is invisible to us. It is the inevitable consequence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and it's Principle of Equivalence. We have already established that Einstein stated that Gravity is the same as acceleration so once again acceleration is linked to gravity too. Now we have also linked acceleration to mass.... at least logically. The conclusion now is that mass is also a pseudo-property like gravity.
If anyone would like to comment please do. I would appreciate that.
Cheers
Did someone actually understand the above post? Come on, raise your hand!
Nobody? really?
Well, off course not! (it's nonsense). (I'm not sure Good Elf knows what is talking about).
Dktekno, the answer to your question is: NOBODY KNOWS. (but keep looking for an answer in an experimental way).
See, the problem is, some scientists believe that it's best to give a weird answer with confusing terms/vocabulary than to give no answer at all.
There is a saying that goes: "What is well understood can be easily explained". Obviously, the post above is nonsense, since it makes NO SENSE to pretty much everybody.
Next time you hear someone raising the "string theory" to give you an answer, my advice is: run as fast as you can! String theory is the new religion for some scientists. String theory is not even a science since there is NO WAY to make experiments to prove it. (One would need a collider the size of the solar system to prove the String Theory, so as you can see it's a very convenient way to "explain it all" in one theory without actually having to prove anything...like religion).
My friend, science can not explain EVERYTHING, only religious people pretend to be able to do that.
QUOTE
We often hear that gravity is curvature of space-time.
But how does gravity look like/act at the very smallest lengths of the universe?
Can we quantize the gravity? If yes, then what does it consist of?
But how does gravity look like/act at the very smallest lengths of the universe?
Can we quantize the gravity? If yes, then what does it consist of?
The "ultimate" answer to this question may not be "on the table" yet. I have said this before but though it "appears" that gravity is proportional to acceleration due to mass it is clearly not the case. The curvature of spacetime is the primary "motive" since even massless particles (photons) are affected by curvature and probability other "massless" particles as well. What this is saying is spacetime is curved due to acceleration. This is due to possibly mass or possibly "simple" acceleration as in a rocket when the engines are firing. We know the "identity" of these two types of "force" are identical in every way that can be tested. So far no quantization of gravity has been detected and indeed it has been shown that attempts to quantize it are incompatible with current mathematical techniques and "fundamentally" at odds with Einstein's Theory of Gravitation. This is the reason behind the alternative approach through String Theory.
for your understanding. You can remove the force of gravitation in every possible scenario by an appropriate transformation of the frame of acceleration into a "rest frame". Some of these frames are "inconvenient" to say the least but the possibility always exists showing that there are There is something I contribute to the argument of preferred frames where the "force" of acceleration disappears. For instance if you jump off a building the force of gravity literally disappears. In your vicinity spacetime is now flat... literally. The relative motion around you is not due to "force " on you but the impending "geodesic" path you are taking will probably smack you into the ground where force will surely catch up to you.
Remember to measure a "force" you will need to completely understand the Principle of Equivalence where inertial and gravitational forces are said to be equivalent. What it effectively says is the force of gravity you feel inside an elevator is identical in all respects to the force of acceleration due to gravity. Cut the elevator cable and there will be no force on you at all. Try it out by standing on a bathroom scales. This is the same situation as being in free fall around the Earth as in the International Space Station. The strange thing is and you must accept it as an experimentally proven fact is that light is affected in the same way.
Though you cannot "weigh" light and it would weigh nothing if you could find some way to do it. Light will follow the same path in spacetime as a material object traveling at the speed of light provided it was massless. That is gobbledygook but it is verifiable as an experiment. So while gravity cannot be "shielded" (apparently) it can be "removed" by a suitable transformation of the frame of reference. This would only occur if gravity is a pseudo-force and not a true force at all.
The next point I would like to state is that there is only one rest frame in orbit around the Earth where it is truly at rest this is in "geostationary" orbit. When there is differential movement between the surface of the earth and an object in orbit there is a higher order effect that can result in "inertial frame dragging" on the object. What this tends to do is change the orientation of an axis of rotation and in the case of a gyroscope causes the axis to precess around this extra "apparent" component of gravity (acceleration). Think of gravity on the surface of the Earth "undulating" in a sine wave as you travel above the equator due to changes in density or mass below the object in orbit. There is a tendency for this gear-toothed wave of gravity peaks and wells to slightly drag the object in orbit above the earth around in the direction of the disturbance as if the "teeth had some invisible grip on the object. If gravity responds "perfectly" this undulation would not have any tangential effect at all but this effect has been predicted and has been seen in some preliminary examples. Gravity Probe B is currently testing this effect to a high level of precision.
Alternatively the curvature of spacetime can be used to "tow" particles around in spacetime like a man with a dog on a leash or tidbit of food, always staying ahead, causing the dog to follow.
Both these effects indicate how the velocity of propagation of light and gravity leads to slight "imbalances" in the general effect. Obviously if gravity acted with infinite speed this effect would not appear.
Now to think further about the nature of gravity at the level of the quantum. It could be there are levels of quantization at that scale. What if gravity is purely a pseudo-force and is the result of some acceleration in the "bulk" or even in higher spaces. We also know that gravity is dependent on the primary existence of mass. That is the curvature of spacetime depends on the property of mass. Consider that fact that photons that have no mass are not able in themselves to "bend" spacetime at all. That mass is necessary to curve spacetime. This cannot be true since we have the principle of Equivalence. We see mass curving spacetime and this is equivalent to acceleration. Well the converse must also be true that acceleration must be the source of mass which in turn curves spacetime. This is not explicitly stated in the literature but if "equivalence" really means what I and the rest of the world thinks it is it must be true.
I will state this again... that the Corollary of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of accelerated frames of reference or the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force implies that the curvature of spacetime usually reserved for the provenance of "mass" also means that acceleration is the "source" of mass. Think about that.
This must also mean that mass in all things is the result of some continuous acceleration that is invisible to us. It is the inevitable consequence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and it's Principle of Equivalence. We have already established that Einstein stated that Gravity is the same as acceleration so once again acceleration is linked to gravity too. Now we have also linked acceleration to mass.... at least logically. The conclusion now is that mass is also a pseudo-property like gravity.
If anyone would like to comment please do. I would appreciate that.
Cheers
Did someone actually understand the above post? Come on, raise your hand!
Nobody? really?
Well, off course not! (it's nonsense). (I'm not sure Good Elf knows what is talking about).
Dktekno, the answer to your question is: NOBODY KNOWS. (but keep looking for an answer in an experimental way).
See, the problem is, some scientists believe that it's best to give a weird answer with confusing terms/vocabulary than to give no answer at all.
There is a saying that goes: "What is well understood can be easily explained". Obviously, the post above is nonsense, since it makes NO SENSE to pretty much everybody.
Next time you hear someone raising the "string theory" to give you an answer, my advice is: run as fast as you can! String theory is the new religion for some scientists. String theory is not even a science since there is NO WAY to make experiments to prove it. (One would need a collider the size of the solar system to prove the String Theory, so as you can see it's a very convenient way to "explain it all" in one theory without actually having to prove anything...like religion).
My friend, science can not explain EVERYTHING, only religious people pretend to be able to do that.
Gravity is a relative vacuum of wave density in the "electromagnetic sea" that we think of as empty space. Just as two boats alongside one another in a choppy sea will accelerate toward one another (as a result of harmonics), objects having mass do the same. One sees this same phenomenon in the "Casimir effect" (although this, to my knowledge, has never been measured outside earth's gravitational field and is thus beleived to be "weaker.") There are no "gravitons." The "vacuum" can be "engineered" through field effects (eg rotating/precessing em field) to achieve buoyancy or to accelerate in any direction, including "up." If one's mass is effectively "zero" (due to such effects), he can accelerate to any velocity, up to and beyond the "speed of light." Looking for "gravitons" is like searching for unicorns. There aren't any.
Hi I love strings,
QUOTE (I love strings Posted on Aug 29 2005+ 02:38 PM)
Did someone actually understand the above post? Come on, raise your hand!
Nobody? really?
Well, off course not! (it's nonsense). (I'm not sure Good Elf knows what is talking about)
Einstein once said to the effect that...
Nobody? really?
Well, off course not! (it's nonsense). (I'm not sure Good Elf knows what is talking about)
Einstein once said to the effect that...
QUOTE (Albert Einstein+)
"The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." often paraphrased as "Everything should be explained as easily as it is possible... but not more so".
The argument is based entirely on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the "very well known" Principle of Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Acceleration. There is no maths so it should be ‘relatively” easy to understand. From your criticism you must have missed everything following the word "Hi" since you have no questions and you state that "String Theory" was used in this exposition proves you understood nothing of the argument. No matter you quoted as much. It shows that not only are you woefully uninformed in matters related to Physics, you wish to remain so.
I invited “If anyone would like to comment intelligently please do. I would appreciate that." Please note that you even changed my direct statement to hide that fact. You changed it to...
something to which I completely agree on:
At the turn of the twentieth century, the special and general theories of relativity were developed to reconcile the extraordinary mathematical derivations of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory with the experimentally observed properties of light and gravity. The Michelson and Morley interferometer experiments demonstrated that light has an apparent constant velocity independent of any particular frame of reference. Lorentz and Einstein took this one observable characteristic of light, and, treating it as an absolute characteristic, developed a theory by which motion slows time and contracts length, and velocities no longer add in a common sense way. Combining this new model with Newton's laws of conservation of energy and momentum then required also that mass increase with velocity. This set an upper limit on attainable velocities at c, the speed of light, since reaching this speed would require infinite energy. Generalization of the special theory to the case of free-fall in a gravitational field produced the theory that gravity curves space and time. The end result is a universe that is not only counterintuitive, but is practically beyond the bounds of reason to the lay-person.
Taken from http://renshaw.teleinc.com/intro.stm
The argument is based entirely on Einstein's General Theory of Relativity and the "very well known" Principle of Equivalence of Inertial and Gravitational Acceleration. There is no maths so it should be ‘relatively” easy to understand. From your criticism you must have missed everything following the word "Hi" since you have no questions and you state that "String Theory" was used in this exposition proves you understood nothing of the argument. No matter you quoted as much. It shows that not only are you woefully uninformed in matters related to Physics, you wish to remain so.
I invited “If anyone would like to comment intelligently please do. I would appreciate that." Please note that you even changed my direct statement to hide that fact. You changed it to...
QUOTE (I love strings Posted on Aug 29 2005+ 02:38 PM)
If anyone would like to comment please do. I would appreciate that.
Obviously you agree that you do not want to comment intelligently on the matter... so why did you bother? I have made no alteration to my statement but you have presumed to do so to mine without my consent. People who quote others then change quotes to their own fancy are "liars"…. since this is no accident. I leave others to form their own opinions.
The offer still stands about comments, negative if they like, but it is conditional on people forwarding an ‘argument’ rather than this ad hominem whingeing. I stand bye the fact this is one of the most "deeply profound" thoughts that "Good Elf" has expressed on this Forum.
Cheers
PS: I advise you to change your "quote" pronto or I will notify the moderators.
Obviously you agree that you do not want to comment intelligently on the matter... so why did you bother? I have made no alteration to my statement but you have presumed to do so to mine without my consent. People who quote others then change quotes to their own fancy are "liars"…. since this is no accident. I leave others to form their own opinions.
The offer still stands about comments, negative if they like, but it is conditional on people forwarding an ‘argument’ rather than this ad hominem whingeing. I stand bye the fact this is one of the most "deeply profound" thoughts that "Good Elf" has expressed on this Forum.
Cheers
PS: I advise you to change your "quote" pronto or I will notify the moderators.
Good Elf,
notify the moderators or your mum if you want...
I didn't change your sentence at all, I just clicked on "quote" and the text came like that.
Believe it or not, frankly I don't care AT ALL.
It is either a bug in the quoting protocol (which I doubt) or you changed the text WHILE I WAS WRITING AN ANSWER or you are lying.
Dude, I know A LOT about physics. Actually, I seems that I am the only one in this forum who is able to notice that your post about gravity is nonsensical (in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to anyone with... common sense)...but since your post is made of very complicated words, people think that It might mean something (priests used to talk in Latin during the mass during the dark ages so that people could not understant them, that's basically what your are doing is the same).
It seems that you have acquired some kind of Priest-like status on this forum...so I just wanted to let you know that you can't fool everybody all the time. (you know how the saying goes...)
Back to my point now since you have troubles understanding my argument: science has a lot of answers BUT nobody knows what gravity is YET. (of course it's easier to talk about "curvature of space-time" and "vibration of the strings").
If you keep talking like that about science, two things will occur: 1) people will think that science is not understandable or worse that they are not smart enough to grasp it. (and that's very bad) 2) you will become very popular (like priests basically)...
To those reading this thread and who would like to understand physics, I recommend you should read something like: 'Asimov's New Guide to Science' (5$ on amazon) and remember one rule: when you don't understand an explanation there are 2 only reasons for that:
1) there is missing information in the explanation.
2) the one giving you the answer doens't know what is he talking about.
Cheers
I like strings.
notify the moderators or your mum if you want...
I didn't change your sentence at all, I just clicked on "quote" and the text came like that.
Believe it or not, frankly I don't care AT ALL.
It is either a bug in the quoting protocol (which I doubt) or you changed the text WHILE I WAS WRITING AN ANSWER or you are lying.
Dude, I know A LOT about physics. Actually, I seems that I am the only one in this forum who is able to notice that your post about gravity is nonsensical (in the sense that it doesn't make any sense to anyone with... common sense)...but since your post is made of very complicated words, people think that It might mean something (priests used to talk in Latin during the mass during the dark ages so that people could not understant them, that's basically what your are doing is the same).
It seems that you have acquired some kind of Priest-like status on this forum...so I just wanted to let you know that you can't fool everybody all the time. (you know how the saying goes...)
Back to my point now since you have troubles understanding my argument: science has a lot of answers BUT nobody knows what gravity is YET. (of course it's easier to talk about "curvature of space-time" and "vibration of the strings").
If you keep talking like that about science, two things will occur: 1) people will think that science is not understandable or worse that they are not smart enough to grasp it. (and that's very bad) 2) you will become very popular (like priests basically)...
To those reading this thread and who would like to understand physics, I recommend you should read something like: 'Asimov's New Guide to Science' (5$ on amazon) and remember one rule: when you don't understand an explanation there are 2 only reasons for that:
1) there is missing information in the explanation.
2) the one giving you the answer doens't know what is he talking about.
Cheers
I like strings.
something to which I completely agree on:
At the turn of the twentieth century, the special and general theories of relativity were developed to reconcile the extraordinary mathematical derivations of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory with the experimentally observed properties of light and gravity. The Michelson and Morley interferometer experiments demonstrated that light has an apparent constant velocity independent of any particular frame of reference. Lorentz and Einstein took this one observable characteristic of light, and, treating it as an absolute characteristic, developed a theory by which motion slows time and contracts length, and velocities no longer add in a common sense way. Combining this new model with Newton's laws of conservation of energy and momentum then required also that mass increase with velocity. This set an upper limit on attainable velocities at c, the speed of light, since reaching this speed would require infinite energy. Generalization of the special theory to the case of free-fall in a gravitational field produced the theory that gravity curves space and time. The end result is a universe that is not only counterintuitive, but is practically beyond the bounds of reason to the lay-person.
Taken from http://renshaw.teleinc.com/intro.stm
Hi I love strings and dktekno.
"I love strings" I still see no argument. You do not place a single scientific point forward in defense of your "abuse".
"I love strings" I still see no argument. You do not place a single scientific point forward in defense of your "abuse".
QUOTE (I like Strings Posted on Aug 30 2005+ 08:17 AM)
If you keep talking like that about science, two things will occur: 1) people will think that science is not understandable or worse that they are not smart enough to grasp it. (and that's very bad) 2) you will become very popular (like priests basically)...
Prove your point.... If not... this is just abuse. I care little about people who say they know science but do not use any at all. Put up now... If General Relativity is not your area of knowledge then go to other threads with smaller words in them... try thinking one up for yourself. Gravity is not an easy subject but it does need some explanation. I make no apology if I can't do it in shorter form.
If you had any point at all you would have stressed it by now other than that claptrap about Relativity just being wrong. I have made my point and it is open to scientific discussion... that is the point. It is not about "stealing" my whole post and repeating it. It is not your work and copyright allows you to quote only 10%. At best what you did was not legitimate quoting... at worst you changed it to something that was unintended by me. You did what you did without my permission. You have set yourself as that "high priest" you mentioned above around here and asked people to believe what you are saying without any legitimate justification.
If I have a reputation as you suggest, it is because I have "earned" it. You have not even earned my respect yet. I call that a twisted jealousy... The kind that takes a spray can to someones else's artwork. Do your own work... figure your own ideas genius.... stop "copying mine" and then mouthing off.
I suggest that regarding the ideas that you espoused in this latest post of yours ...
Good Elf
Are you saying that the theory of Gravity you exposed was yours?
If you are saying that, then it's a lie. And if you are not, then your are using someone else material, exactly what you are accusing me of doing...What's that crap about copyright now? Are you saying it's illegal to quote more than 10% of a post on forums? Where u got that from? Quoting a full post is made on usenet since the 80's, do you thinks someone complained about that before?
Besides I never said I could come up with a theory about Gravity...did you?
I thought you were explaining Einstein's point of view...(which nobody understands, you included).
Anyway, let's go back to my point again: That theory you exposed is nonsense. You want a real theory about gravity/light that explains it all in a way that everybody can understand? here we go: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/
Don't need to thank me for the enlightment that this theory will bring to you...off course you can still think that the Einstein/string theory mix explain something.
I have wasted enough time with you.
bye
Prove your point.... If not... this is just abuse. I care little about people who say they know science but do not use any at all. Put up now... If General Relativity is not your area of knowledge then go to other threads with smaller words in them... try thinking one up for yourself. Gravity is not an easy subject but it does need some explanation. I make no apology if I can't do it in shorter form.
If you had any point at all you would have stressed it by now other than that claptrap about Relativity just being wrong. I have made my point and it is open to scientific discussion... that is the point. It is not about "stealing" my whole post and repeating it. It is not your work and copyright allows you to quote only 10%. At best what you did was not legitimate quoting... at worst you changed it to something that was unintended by me. You did what you did without my permission. You have set yourself as that "high priest" you mentioned above around here and asked people to believe what you are saying without any legitimate justification.
If I have a reputation as you suggest, it is because I have "earned" it. You have not even earned my respect yet. I call that a twisted jealousy... The kind that takes a spray can to someones else's artwork. Do your own work... figure your own ideas genius.... stop "copying mine" and then mouthing off.
I suggest that regarding the ideas that you espoused in this latest post of yours ...
QUOTE (I like Strings Posted on Aug 30 2005+ 08:17 AM)
1) there is missing information in the explanation.
2) the one giving you the answer doesn't know what is he talking about.
I apologise for the bad english but a quote is a quote. Once again you have no supporting argument.
Alternatively you can show us your great wisdom with some ideas of your own for once. Back them up with some lucid argument instead of "decrees".
Cheers
PS: If you are going to "block quote" Mr. Renshaw you should fully acknowledge it and not keep pillaging other peoples ideas. Write something yourself.
2) the one giving you the answer doesn't know what is he talking about.
I apologise for the bad english but a quote is a quote. Once again you have no supporting argument.
Alternatively you can show us your great wisdom with some ideas of your own for once. Back them up with some lucid argument instead of "decrees".
Cheers
PS: If you are going to "block quote" Mr. Renshaw you should fully acknowledge it and not keep pillaging other peoples ideas. Write something yourself.
Good Elf
Are you saying that the theory of Gravity you exposed was yours?
If you are saying that, then it's a lie. And if you are not, then your are using someone else material, exactly what you are accusing me of doing...What's that crap about copyright now? Are you saying it's illegal to quote more than 10% of a post on forums? Where u got that from? Quoting a full post is made on usenet since the 80's, do you thinks someone complained about that before?
Besides I never said I could come up with a theory about Gravity...did you?
I thought you were explaining Einstein's point of view...(which nobody understands, you included).
Anyway, let's go back to my point again: That theory you exposed is nonsense. You want a real theory about gravity/light that explains it all in a way that everybody can understand? here we go: http://renshaw.teleinc.com/
Don't need to thank me for the enlightment that this theory will bring to you...off course you can still think that the Einstein/string theory mix explain something.
I have wasted enough time with you.
bye
String Theories I've read appear to support the power of mathematics, spread by two dimensional "press", that threads of strings have to ways at the least of connecting to other "dots" [say here flat areas of uncertainty, part because our apparent finite extents).
The dots I found are related to the conjected "Higgs" particles, once read decades ago some 10 to the 58th power connections.
Dot pairs, triplets, yes, visually the threads are so small, dense (are there 26 dimension maximum?) and each dimension apparently contains much energy.
Four elementary forces to travel along these threads, e-m transversely maybe in helical "static" form, gravitation force maybe the tension of a number of dimensions. The Higgs particles I guess can be sort of a "static" structure.
Traveling from dot to dot, I guess both directions along, say gravity, longitudinal, 20 to 40 times the speed that the threads can move transversely.
Add to this the "sociograms", for N dots, some N(N-1)/2 Links.
That's it, works at both phases, the macro and the macro.
May model same as brain's chromosome spindals for conjectured Roger Penrose spindal connections for brains cells.
Take it from there brothers and sisters.
Best, rmuldavin
The dots I found are related to the conjected "Higgs" particles, once read decades ago some 10 to the 58th power connections.
Dot pairs, triplets, yes, visually the threads are so small, dense (are there 26 dimension maximum?) and each dimension apparently contains much energy.
Four elementary forces to travel along these threads, e-m transversely maybe in helical "static" form, gravitation force maybe the tension of a number of dimensions. The Higgs particles I guess can be sort of a "static" structure.
Traveling from dot to dot, I guess both directions along, say gravity, longitudinal, 20 to 40 times the speed that the threads can move transversely.
Add to this the "sociograms", for N dots, some N(N-1)/2 Links.
That's it, works at both phases, the macro and the macro.
May model same as brain's chromosome spindals for conjectured Roger Penrose spindal connections for brains cells.
Take it from there brothers and sisters.
Best, rmuldavin
Hi I like strings,
Hello to all in this forum who wish to debate physical theory/observation WITHOUT bringing to it religious ferver or personal rancour.
Like WaterBreath, I too, for similar reasons, am hesitant to enter the ‘fray’. Moreover, being a ‘loner’ type, I am doubly wary of dipping into a forum wherein ‘transient’ participants (this means you, “I like/love strings”) think it acceptable behaviour to cast personal aspersions on ANY OTHER participant (in this case the one on the receiving end being “Good Elf” [...and for your information "I like/love strings", I understood all, and disagreed only in 'kind' with what "Good Elf" posted]).
Now, getting back to‘respectfully and dispassionately’ considering/replying-to the matters “Good Elf” put on the table before we were so rudely interrupted...
Good Elf: Your observe CORRECTLY that the principle of equivalence dictates certain inescapable conclusions, the ‘obverse’ argument you put being one of those inescapable conclusions. And I might add that, having for 40 years closely and dispassionately followed the progress of ALL (objective Physical) theory and practice insofar as THE Universal Phenomenon is concerned, I for one accept that your claim to ORIGINALTY for your conclusion is also TRUE and warranted---with this proviso: your conclusion is correct and original ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF EINSTEINIAN / RELATIVISTIC MODELLING. I support this assessment by referring you to an example where a similar conclusion was arrived at via a different model of the cause / mechanism of Gravity...on this website:
earthlingclub.com
You will note that thereon, among other things, Explanatory Paper No.1 (From Direction To Gravitation) also describes how:-
1) ‘Empty’ regions of the Grav-Inertial Fluid ocean (that is, any space volumes UNOCCUPIED BY MATTER) contain HIGH pressure G-I Fluid (the absolute pressure value being a function of the NET DIFFERENCE between the RATES of GENERATION and NEGATION of its G-I Fluid constituents).
2) A MATTER-BODY’s convoluted ‘flow structure’ creates a ‘standing-pattern’ of turbulence in this Grav-Inertial Fluid (in and from which structures aggregate and back to which they eventually de-aggregate). This ‘localised’ turbulence in effect CATALYSES a HIGHER RATE of G-I Fluid NEGATION compared to the RANDOM-AVERAGE RATE applying in the surrounding ‘empty space’ between one body and any other body.
3) The effect of a HIGHER rate of NEGATION at a body’s location is to DECREASE the ‘local’ G-I Fluid pressure, thus creating a ‘PRESSURE GRADIENT’ BETWEEN EMPTY SPACE AND ANY BODY---a gradient which BOTH individual the G-I Fluid constituents, AND ANY OTHER BODY WITHIN EFFECTIVE RANGE that is immersed within it, IS IMPELLED TO FOLLOW; so creating a ‘standing inflow’ pattern.
4) The ‘INWARD DRAGGING’; consequences of such standing inflow patterns, which are distributed essentially SYMMETRICALLY about a body, is what would in that model be called GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION ‘DRAG’.
5) In the second-last paragraph, the paper goes on to point out that INERTIAL ACCELERATION ‘DRAG’ results from NON-SYMMETRICAL or ‘lopsided’ G-I Fluid flow-patterns. [When one goes to the Book:: THEORY & WORKS, which this paper draws upon for its brief explanations, it is stated that ANY MOVEMENT IN AND/OR OF THIS FLUID has the EFFECT of INCREASING MASS/TURBULENCE, which in turn leads once more to HIGHER RATES OF FLUID NEGATION compared to static/undisturbed fluid regions. In such moving/inertial cases, increased mass/turbulence causes a NON-SYMMETRIC ‘inflow gradient’ between the site of the moving body or the fluid stream in question...IN ESSENCE SAYING THAT the ACCELERATIONS involved with ‘RELATIVELY STATIONARY’ STRUCTURED G-I Fluid Flows in MATTER-BODIES cause SYMMETRIC (‘gravitational’) INFLOW ‘drag’ forces; whilst those ACCELERATIONS involved with UNSTRUCTURED G-I Fluid flows caused by‘RELATIVELY MOVING’ STRUCTURED (matter-body) Flows OR EVEN BY ‘LINEAR’ G-I FLUID STREAMS IN ISOLATION, cause NON-SYMMETRIC (‘inertial’) INLOW ‘drag’. Of Course, the NEWLY-INDUCED INFLOW DRAG would represent the ENTIRE ‘MASS/DRAG’ force associated with any newly-impelled STREAMFLOW; whereas in the case of a MOVING BODY, the MOVEMENT-INDUCED NON-SYMMETRIC inflow INERTIAL ‘MASS /DRAG’ would be ADDED TO a body’s ORIGINAL NON-MOVING SYMMETRICAL-inflow GRAVITATIONAL‘MASS/DRAG’ effects.
So the paper not only identifies and co-relates MECHANISMS involved with BOTH gravity AND inertia ‘mass/drag’ effects...it also identifies the EQUIVALENCE between ‘G-I Fluid inflow ACCELERATIVE-TURBULENCE in BOTH CASES as ONE AND THE SAME mechanism for‘catalysis’ of the ‘pressure-lowering’ processes which create in each case the tendency for all things to move towards ANY source of such pressure-lowering turbulence, be that source a stationary/moving body WITHIN the fluid, or be that source an inertially-accelerated stream of the fluid ITSELF.
As to the rest of the post which prompted some to respond in that unacceptable manner, I wish only to say (as politely as one can be perceived to do so at this remove) that I cannot quite agree with the whole of your exposition/explanation, mainly because I have come to realise----after 40 years of digesting/contemplating ALL other objective physical theories---that neither the concepts nor terminology you employ are STRICTLY necessary for the proper understanding of the phenomena under discussion. Unlike some, though, I don’t dismiss lightly your right to put your views in whichever way you wish; because, regardless of how you say it, what you DO have to say has, as far as I have seen, only contributes to, rather than detracts from, rational discussion (something I for one am appreciating despite the occassional interruption which I have learnt to‘filter out’).
I sincerely hope, Good Elf, that I myself at least have herewith contributed to the discourse in a more humble/gentlemanly manner than some have yet to learn to do. Rest assured that anything you have to say in response will be treated just as objectively/curteously by this intellect as I have noted you scrupulously treat those by other intellects.
Smiling and positive regards from: RealityCheck.
Hello "gadfly".
The 'fly in the ointment' as it were, for what you suggest, is that even if one starts off in that direction, one inexorably finds themselves coming full circle back to the question: "What is the nature/source/substance of electro-magnetic entities"; which in turn begs the question: "What is the energy/matter that makes up these entities"; from which it is then but a skip and a jump to the question: "What makes electro-magnetic entities having a base-state energy-matter content producing base-state 'physical effects' change those base-state effects when aggregated to densities which (in the case of black hole entities) can 'shred' those same electro-magnetic entities?".
Obviously, that last question is what leads to the logical surmise that "some entity/force/processes" more fundamental than electro-magnetic entities/forces/processes are at work when it comes to gravitation.
And of course, it might turn out that those more fundamental entities/forces/processes that manifest the gravitation phenomena might in the end ALSO underly and provide the mechanism for the electro-magnetic and all other phenomena! Now that IS a stretch, eh?
But that's only my view. I am open to being shot down in flames (in a gentleman-like/lady-like manner I hope).
Regards from: RealityCheck.
QUOTE (I like strings Posted on Aug 30 2005+ 12:32 PM)
Are you saying that the theory of Gravity you exposed was yours?
If you are saying that, then it's a lie. And if you are not, then your are using someone else material, exactly what you are accusing me of doing...What's that crap about copyright now?
You are beneath contempt. I did not come up with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity but I did come up with that Corollary. That is "all my own work" and I did it myself. Go look for it elsewhere. I do not lie. I do not have to.
I quote nobody on that point because that idea is mine and only mine. The argument is also mine. It is an "original" thought. I do not and will not apologize for my own work. I have had many original thoughts and the way I arrange them is up to me but I do quote where I have used others ideas. The ideas may not ultimately be right but they are no fraud.
So when you attack me in this way I am upset because you not only insult me but you insult those who read this post leading them to think what I say is a fraud. You are totally without any character and say things without exhibiting any personal morality.
If you are saying that, then it's a lie. And if you are not, then your are using someone else material, exactly what you are accusing me of doing...What's that crap about copyright now?
You are beneath contempt. I did not come up with Einstein's Theory of General Relativity but I did come up with that Corollary. That is "all my own work" and I did it myself. Go look for it elsewhere. I do not lie. I do not have to.
I quote nobody on that point because that idea is mine and only mine. The argument is also mine. It is an "original" thought. I do not and will not apologize for my own work. I have had many original thoughts and the way I arrange them is up to me but I do quote where I have used others ideas. The ideas may not ultimately be right but they are no fraud.
So when you attack me in this way I am upset because you not only insult me but you insult those who read this post leading them to think what I say is a fraud. You are totally without any character and say things without exhibiting any personal morality.
Hi rmuldavin,
I see that you are accepting the idea of a "pure" string theory derivation for gravity with Higgss particles. What if the Higgs is not able to be found? To this point in time it has not. There has been a couple of false alarms though. It does beg the question... what are these strings made of that can "conduct" all four forces in nature? They are certainly not material as we know it and it's properties cannot be determined by laboratory experiment.
My thoughts on this point are that it relies too much on properties that are unable to be determined. My suspicion is that the Higgs will not be found. There will be some "explanation" ultimately proposed to save the "particle" model of the Standard Model. This does not mean that particle theories are "wrong". What it means is the paradigm cannot be extended to include the Higgs. This is a failure that might have been predicted because the Standard Model does not incorporate higher dimensions. If higher dimensions do indeed exist then even the Standard Model must change.
I have taken the opposite point of view here and postulate that the origin of gravity and now mass are due to "acceleration". The former (gravity) is a measurable "extrinsic" acceleration as can be seen with a rocket and to a less obvious extent in spacetime curvature resulting from the "distant" influence of mass. Mass curves space and the "distant" curvature of spacetime tells "distant" particles how to move from the local effect in place where the particle physically presently is situated.
The latter (mass) is acceleration that is "intrinsic" and hidden. If a particle exhibits mass it is "intrinsically" accelerating and it is not necessarily "extrinsically" accelerating. Could be both but not necessarily. Hold an ball in your hand and note it has "mass". I am exerting a force on it. Even though it is "apparently" stationary relative to the earth it is accelerating at the rate of 1 gee. The less obvious statement is that the ability of that ball to curve spacetime is an intrinsic property called mass rather than the response of the ball to the external influence of curved spacetime. That This is due to an "internal" acceleration we are not able to presently see. If I had placed this ball in space, freely falling, it would still exhibit mass but no "force of gravity" because it is in an inertial frame. There would be a tiny "self gravity" due to it's own mass though.
What I have said is that it is known that light follows a geodesic path in spacetime just like a high speed particle. It has a "special" trajectory ... that of light. What is important is that the photons which have no rest mass "fall" along geodesics just like you or me and even tennis balls. The difference is they are "thrown" at the speed of light ©. The difference is the light suffers "extrinsic" acceleration due to the curvature of spacetime (gravity) but cannot suffer the "intrinsic" acceleration (mass) because photons are massless. This also means light has no "self gravity" either.
Now quantization of gravity has been proposed but what if gravity is not quantized and is the result of acceleration in higher dimensions. The idea that gravity must be quantized comes from the analogy of light quanta being quantized and other phenomena being quantized as well. The question is do we need a special particle to exchange a "force" to create mass or to attract objects together? It is possible to have a consistent cosmology without quantized gravity. Gravity could be due solely to this concept of "acceleration" and dropping the idea of mass being "primary" altogether.
In fact if the Universe was spinning in higher dimensions but not "obviously" in the "Bulk" of 3D + T dimensions of Spacetime then what would we see? Now th "Bulk" could be spinning but lets say the "bulk" of the Universe spun at one revolution per million years. If the radius of the Universe was 15 Billion Light Years across then the linear speed would be then equal to...
v = r*
A "quick" calculation shows if the Universe was 15 billion light years in diameter and was rotating once every 50 Billion years, the edge would be "spinning" at almost the speed of light tangentially. This is the maximum possible velocity. This would be enough to "close" our Universe through length contraction. It would not be enough to be noticed in the bulk. However this would lead to a slight extra force between points in the Universe that is larger the greater the distance between those points becomes and might explain the "dark force". This is sort of similar to a Merry-go-Round which spins "apparently" slower near the middle but the further our toward the edge you go the greater the tendency to be thrown out further and faster. Naturally to keep all this together you need to have gravitational frame dragging or "stuff" would get stuck up on the "wall" of our Universe.
A single plane of rotation is insufficient to close the universe. It would need to spin in at least three orthogonal directions. This would need extra dimensions to be able to do this trick. Lets say this happened. Our entire universe would have an "intrinsic" spin that every atomic particle would have "picked" up by being carried along by the Universe. Spin is just the sort of thing needed to apparently "quantize" many parameters in our Universe and lead to quantum numbers we see and may lead to the assumption that it was of a sub-quantum origin and not of a "global" impressed spin phenomenon. This effect would be carried by T-Duality in String Theory. n the large scale it might account for the excess spinning of Galaxies.
As to your String Theory and particles resulting in Gravity... could you explain more please.
Cheers
I see that you are accepting the idea of a "pure" string theory derivation for gravity with Higgss particles. What if the Higgs is not able to be found? To this point in time it has not. There has been a couple of false alarms though. It does beg the question... what are these strings made of that can "conduct" all four forces in nature? They are certainly not material as we know it and it's properties cannot be determined by laboratory experiment.
My thoughts on this point are that it relies too much on properties that are unable to be determined. My suspicion is that the Higgs will not be found. There will be some "explanation" ultimately proposed to save the "particle" model of the Standard Model. This does not mean that particle theories are "wrong". What it means is the paradigm cannot be extended to include the Higgs. This is a failure that might have been predicted because the Standard Model does not incorporate higher dimensions. If higher dimensions do indeed exist then even the Standard Model must change.
I have taken the opposite point of view here and postulate that the origin of gravity and now mass are due to "acceleration". The former (gravity) is a measurable "extrinsic" acceleration as can be seen with a rocket and to a less obvious extent in spacetime curvature resulting from the "distant" influence of mass. Mass curves space and the "distant" curvature of spacetime tells "distant" particles how to move from the local effect in place where the particle physically presently is situated.
The latter (mass) is acceleration that is "intrinsic" and hidden. If a particle exhibits mass it is "intrinsically" accelerating and it is not necessarily "extrinsically" accelerating. Could be both but not necessarily. Hold an ball in your hand and note it has "mass". I am exerting a force on it. Even though it is "apparently" stationary relative to the earth it is accelerating at the rate of 1 gee. The less obvious statement is that the ability of that ball to curve spacetime is an intrinsic property called mass rather than the response of the ball to the external influence of curved spacetime. That This is due to an "internal" acceleration we are not able to presently see. If I had placed this ball in space, freely falling, it would still exhibit mass but no "force of gravity" because it is in an inertial frame. There would be a tiny "self gravity" due to it's own mass though.
What I have said is that it is known that light follows a geodesic path in spacetime just like a high speed particle. It has a "special" trajectory ... that of light. What is important is that the photons which have no rest mass "fall" along geodesics just like you or me and even tennis balls. The difference is they are "thrown" at the speed of light ©. The difference is the light suffers "extrinsic" acceleration due to the curvature of spacetime (gravity) but cannot suffer the "intrinsic" acceleration (mass) because photons are massless. This also means light has no "self gravity" either.
Now quantization of gravity has been proposed but what if gravity is not quantized and is the result of acceleration in higher dimensions. The idea that gravity must be quantized comes from the analogy of light quanta being quantized and other phenomena being quantized as well. The question is do we need a special particle to exchange a "force" to create mass or to attract objects together? It is possible to have a consistent cosmology without quantized gravity. Gravity could be due solely to this concept of "acceleration" and dropping the idea of mass being "primary" altogether.
In fact if the Universe was spinning in higher dimensions but not "obviously" in the "Bulk" of 3D + T dimensions of Spacetime then what would we see? Now th "Bulk" could be spinning but lets say the "bulk" of the Universe spun at one revolution per million years. If the radius of the Universe was 15 Billion Light Years across then the linear speed would be then equal to...
v = r*
A "quick" calculation shows if the Universe was 15 billion light years in diameter and was rotating once every 50 Billion years, the edge would be "spinning" at almost the speed of light tangentially. This is the maximum possible velocity. This would be enough to "close" our Universe through length contraction. It would not be enough to be noticed in the bulk. However this would lead to a slight extra force between points in the Universe that is larger the greater the distance between those points becomes and might explain the "dark force". This is sort of similar to a Merry-go-Round which spins "apparently" slower near the middle but the further our toward the edge you go the greater the tendency to be thrown out further and faster. Naturally to keep all this together you need to have gravitational frame dragging or "stuff" would get stuck up on the "wall" of our Universe.
A single plane of rotation is insufficient to close the universe. It would need to spin in at least three orthogonal directions. This would need extra dimensions to be able to do this trick. Lets say this happened. Our entire universe would have an "intrinsic" spin that every atomic particle would have "picked" up by being carried along by the Universe. Spin is just the sort of thing needed to apparently "quantize" many parameters in our Universe and lead to quantum numbers we see and may lead to the assumption that it was of a sub-quantum origin and not of a "global" impressed spin phenomenon. This effect would be carried by T-Duality in String Theory. n the large scale it might account for the excess spinning of Galaxies.
As to your String Theory and particles resulting in Gravity... could you explain more please.
Cheers
Hey Good Elf and solidspin. Long time no see. I've been refraining from comment due to the unfortunate perponderance of theist vs. atheist arguments going on. Maybe there have been real, good, physics discussions going on, just drowned out by all the "noise"? I don't know. But it seems I've managed to catch one nonetheless. It's good to see some of the "veterans" are sticking it out and staying focused. Kudos!
Good Elf -- I have some questions, though they may require mathematical insight I don't currently possess.... Why would three orthogonal directions of rotation be required to "close off" the universe? And why does this necessitate "extra" dimensions? Furthermore, when you speak of the intrinsic spin imparted by such a rotation, are you indeed equating it with the traditional quantum "spin" characteristic, or introducing something new and orthogonal to that, but similar in function?
Good Elf -- I have some questions, though they may require mathematical insight I don't currently possess.... Why would three orthogonal directions of rotation be required to "close off" the universe? And why does this necessitate "extra" dimensions? Furthermore, when you speak of the intrinsic spin imparted by such a rotation, are you indeed equating it with the traditional quantum "spin" characteristic, or introducing something new and orthogonal to that, but similar in function?
Hello, Goodly Elvish One -
"I like Strings" is obviously a bit of a megalomaniac. Talk about a blowhard. You can never trust somebody who says "I know a lot about physics" and has his mug plastered all over his website. I looked at his site and all his articles are at least 8 years old, most are older. Also, and most specifically, his RCM theory is neither adequately proved nor thoroughly explained. He nevertheless makes pretty darn grandiose claims w/ no mathematical or empirical evidence.
I enjoyed your explanation, and while I would need a lot more convincing regarding your treatment of mass, it's damned intriguing.
Hey, WB
Theocracy now seems to be the rule of law, rather than the exception on this website. I've been hanging more and more at www.physicsforums.com. I have no affiliation w/ either site, but there's no religion crap over there.
- angrily spinning solids - the proton amplifier is blown and I'm stuck w/ fixing it!
"I like Strings" is obviously a bit of a megalomaniac. Talk about a blowhard. You can never trust somebody who says "I know a lot about physics" and has his mug plastered all over his website. I looked at his site and all his articles are at least 8 years old, most are older. Also, and most specifically, his RCM theory is neither adequately proved nor thoroughly explained. He nevertheless makes pretty darn grandiose claims w/ no mathematical or empirical evidence.
I enjoyed your explanation, and while I would need a lot more convincing regarding your treatment of mass, it's damned intriguing.
Hey, WB
Theocracy now seems to be the rule of law, rather than the exception on this website. I've been hanging more and more at www.physicsforums.com. I have no affiliation w/ either site, but there's no religion crap over there.
- angrily spinning solids - the proton amplifier is blown and I'm stuck w/ fixing it!
correction: dots connect micro, organized dots, say layers or topological shapes, the imortant problems with stringing between dots appears too be whether an N dimensional graphic when projected on a flat surface, two dimensional, even if the suface is a membrane, is this:
Can the threads connect between manifords (baines?), stay only in a manifold, or both?
The manifolds themselves are three dimensional appearing on our two dmensional "still frame" media.
George Gamov "Gravity" draws two flat membranes stretched to a convex shape connected, one above the other.
I prefer to connect dots between the micros in my macro world, the difference is that the coordinate system seems to reduce the number of scales when the "geodesic" is the physical N-1 projection on to the N-1 mulitdimensional surface.
Let me write this again. The single four-force string connects dots in micro space to micro space, and the VOLUME, say, of the total string length is constant, thus two dots do follow the inverse square laws that Newton proposed, and the Inertia of the dot or collection of dots, micro neucleons or macro black hole dot areas, is accounted for by Newton's universal gravitional constant G.
Einstien's GR appears to use the dimensional goal of being unity, measures over some 20 years oscillated around unity, converging to unity.
I guess the oscillation was the time it takes to understand and do the experiments to commicate with others in society.
The univerals constant speed of light, although stated in many of the essays above often use a notion that the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference, I'd like to give my understanding because it seems to fit the topological notion of a surgical looping of the micro string, forming a loop, the loop is separated from the now larger diameter strings linking electrons-dots, a torus is formed, that is the beta electron released from the necleon.
That torus is written as swriinking to a "point" were it not for some sping keeping it from collapsing.
Spining tends to flatten.
Now catch this: two loops connecting, would their rotating charges cancel, thus ejecting away as a transverse e-m of opposite spins, presenting a low cross section that is like, if not, the neutrinos? (They are not "charged" thus are much less slowed down as are charged particles in tranversing other e-m fields.
The universal time clock, the flat triplet electron, proposed by Dehmelt (1998) and getting him the Nobel Prize, after measuring a positron in a Pennings like trap oscilating at some 60 MegHz for two months, showed that the gyromagnetic ratio, the mechanical spin force to the magnetic force (spining 1/3 charge subquarks at the dot vertices of an equalteral trangle must add up to a unit charge, the absolute energies of the three is some 30 billions times the at-a-distance 1/1800th the mass of the neucleus of the hydrogen atom).
I'm trying to state that the frame of reference for the constancy of the speed of light is the triplet subquark structure of the electron in your instruments.
Thus above comments of previous posts that I read today and in the past seem to be confused on this, and thus, comment about contradictions and the like are proper without shifting to the subquark triplet electron, or some "graphic" explaination.
Recently for molecular triplets, the three unitary electron molecular triplets must have two unitary charges opposite spins, and the third the opposite spin. Called "frustration" in forming crystals.
The two opposite unitary spins take less space, being drawn close, the other is not, and m(see physorg.com) on recent research stated that ittook 40 years to get some clarification.
No, the speed of light is constant because the gyromagnetic ratio is accurate, equal to 2.000..... to some 16 places. That's the universal clock. It in our lab instruments.
Enough for now, any comments?
Best, rmuldavin
Can the threads connect between manifords (baines?), stay only in a manifold, or both?
The manifolds themselves are three dimensional appearing on our two dmensional "still frame" media.
George Gamov "Gravity" draws two flat membranes stretched to a convex shape connected, one above the other.
I prefer to connect dots between the micros in my macro world, the difference is that the coordinate system seems to reduce the number of scales when the "geodesic" is the physical N-1 projection on to the N-1 mulitdimensional surface.
Let me write this again. The single four-force string connects dots in micro space to micro space, and the VOLUME, say, of the total string length is constant, thus two dots do follow the inverse square laws that Newton proposed, and the Inertia of the dot or collection of dots, micro neucleons or macro black hole dot areas, is accounted for by Newton's universal gravitional constant G.
Einstien's GR appears to use the dimensional goal of being unity, measures over some 20 years oscillated around unity, converging to unity.
I guess the oscillation was the time it takes to understand and do the experiments to commicate with others in society.
The univerals constant speed of light, although stated in many of the essays above often use a notion that the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference, I'd like to give my understanding because it seems to fit the topological notion of a surgical looping of the micro string, forming a loop, the loop is separated from the now larger diameter strings linking electrons-dots, a torus is formed, that is the beta electron released from the necleon.
That torus is written as swriinking to a "point" were it not for some sping keeping it from collapsing.
Spining tends to flatten.
Now catch this: two loops connecting, would their rotating charges cancel, thus ejecting away as a transverse e-m of opposite spins, presenting a low cross section that is like, if not, the neutrinos? (They are not "charged" thus are much less slowed down as are charged particles in tranversing other e-m fields.
The universal time clock, the flat triplet electron, proposed by Dehmelt (1998) and getting him the Nobel Prize, after measuring a positron in a Pennings like trap oscilating at some 60 MegHz for two months, showed that the gyromagnetic ratio, the mechanical spin force to the magnetic force (spining 1/3 charge subquarks at the dot vertices of an equalteral trangle must add up to a unit charge, the absolute energies of the three is some 30 billions times the at-a-distance 1/1800th the mass of the neucleus of the hydrogen atom).
I'm trying to state that the frame of reference for the constancy of the speed of light is the triplet subquark structure of the electron in your instruments.
Thus above comments of previous posts that I read today and in the past seem to be confused on this, and thus, comment about contradictions and the like are proper without shifting to the subquark triplet electron, or some "graphic" explaination.
Recently for molecular triplets, the three unitary electron molecular triplets must have two unitary charges opposite spins, and the third the opposite spin. Called "frustration" in forming crystals.
The two opposite unitary spins take less space, being drawn close, the other is not, and m(see physorg.com) on recent research stated that ittook 40 years to get some clarification.
No, the speed of light is constant because the gyromagnetic ratio is accurate, equal to 2.000..... to some 16 places. That's the universal clock. It in our lab instruments.
Enough for now, any comments?
Best, rmuldavin
Goodly Elvish one -
Question - I've been thinking about your treatment of mass. Mass is the result of internal quark motion, no? Could one consider this asymptotic motion to be your souce of acceleration? Acceleration over short distances w/ such asymptotic freedom should be high, but obviously bounded.
Does this make any sense?
- curiously spinning solids
Question - I've been thinking about your treatment of mass. Mass is the result of internal quark motion, no? Could one consider this asymptotic motion to be your souce of acceleration? Acceleration over short distances w/ such asymptotic freedom should be high, but obviously bounded.
Does this make any sense?
- curiously spinning solids
Wow,
This is why I visited this site in the 1st place.
Good Elf, I really dig the equivilence principle. It keeps my understanding of GR in check.
rmuldavin {I guess the oscillation was the time it takes to understand and do the experiments to commicate with others in society.} This sort of statement sounds just like it could have come out of "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Dr. Einstien would be proud.
Solidspin, I wish I had your job!
Keep up the good thread guys, I'll try to keep up.
Thanks,
Ron
This is why I visited this site in the 1st place.
Good Elf, I really dig the equivilence principle. It keeps my understanding of GR in check.
rmuldavin {I guess the oscillation was the time it takes to understand and do the experiments to commicate with others in society.} This sort of statement sounds just like it could have come out of "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Dr. Einstien would be proud.
Solidspin, I wish I had your job!
Keep up the good thread guys, I'll try to keep up.
Thanks,
Ron
I am not a physicist but have an undergraduate degree in mathematics.
In this discussion about gravity, I wonder why physicists still use mechanical mass rather than electrical inductance in their search for unification of the four forces. The strong and weak forces have been related to electromagnetism. Any discussion of mass with these forces is most often done in terms of electron Volts.
Harrie AC Tilmans “Equivalent circuit representation of electromechanical transducers: I. Lumped-parameter systems” [1996, J Micromech. Microeng. 6 359] relates mechanical to electrical parameters in Table 2 of this work, found in part at: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0960-1317/6/3/009
The bottom line is would it not be easier to use all electrical parameters?
In this discussion about gravity, I wonder why physicists still use mechanical mass rather than electrical inductance in their search for unification of the four forces. The strong and weak forces have been related to electromagnetism. Any discussion of mass with these forces is most often done in terms of electron Volts.
Harrie AC Tilmans “Equivalent circuit representation of electromechanical transducers: I. Lumped-parameter systems” [1996, J Micromech. Microeng. 6 359] relates mechanical to electrical parameters in Table 2 of this work, found in part at: http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0960-1317/6/3/009
The bottom line is would it not be easier to use all electrical parameters?
Hello to all in this forum who wish to debate physical theory/observation WITHOUT bringing to it religious ferver or personal rancour.
Like WaterBreath, I too, for similar reasons, am hesitant to enter the ‘fray’. Moreover, being a ‘loner’ type, I am doubly wary of dipping into a forum wherein ‘transient’ participants (this means you, “I like/love strings”) think it acceptable behaviour to cast personal aspersions on ANY OTHER participant (in this case the one on the receiving end being “Good Elf” [...and for your information "I like/love strings", I understood all, and disagreed only in 'kind' with what "Good Elf" posted]).
Now, getting back to‘respectfully and dispassionately’ considering/replying-to the matters “Good Elf” put on the table before we were so rudely interrupted...
Good Elf: Your observe CORRECTLY that the principle of equivalence dictates certain inescapable conclusions, the ‘obverse’ argument you put being one of those inescapable conclusions. And I might add that, having for 40 years closely and dispassionately followed the progress of ALL (objective Physical) theory and practice insofar as THE Universal Phenomenon is concerned, I for one accept that your claim to ORIGINALTY for your conclusion is also TRUE and warranted---with this proviso: your conclusion is correct and original ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF EINSTEINIAN / RELATIVISTIC MODELLING. I support this assessment by referring you to an example where a similar conclusion was arrived at via a different model of the cause / mechanism of Gravity...on this website:
earthlingclub.com
You will note that thereon, among other things, Explanatory Paper No.1 (From Direction To Gravitation) also describes how:-
1) ‘Empty’ regions of the Grav-Inertial Fluid ocean (that is, any space volumes UNOCCUPIED BY MATTER) contain HIGH pressure G-I Fluid (the absolute pressure value being a function of the NET DIFFERENCE between the RATES of GENERATION and NEGATION of its G-I Fluid constituents).
2) A MATTER-BODY’s convoluted ‘flow structure’ creates a ‘standing-pattern’ of turbulence in this Grav-Inertial Fluid (in and from which structures aggregate and back to which they eventually de-aggregate). This ‘localised’ turbulence in effect CATALYSES a HIGHER RATE of G-I Fluid NEGATION compared to the RANDOM-AVERAGE RATE applying in the surrounding ‘empty space’ between one body and any other body.
3) The effect of a HIGHER rate of NEGATION at a body’s location is to DECREASE the ‘local’ G-I Fluid pressure, thus creating a ‘PRESSURE GRADIENT’ BETWEEN EMPTY SPACE AND ANY BODY---a gradient which BOTH individual the G-I Fluid constituents, AND ANY OTHER BODY WITHIN EFFECTIVE RANGE that is immersed within it, IS IMPELLED TO FOLLOW; so creating a ‘standing inflow’ pattern.
4) The ‘INWARD DRAGGING’; consequences of such standing inflow patterns, which are distributed essentially SYMMETRICALLY about a body, is what would in that model be called GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION ‘DRAG’.
5) In the second-last paragraph, the paper goes on to point out that INERTIAL ACCELERATION ‘DRAG’ results from NON-SYMMETRICAL or ‘lopsided’ G-I Fluid flow-patterns. [When one goes to the Book:: THEORY & WORKS, which this paper draws upon for its brief explanations, it is stated that ANY MOVEMENT IN AND/OR OF THIS FLUID has the EFFECT of INCREASING MASS/TURBULENCE, which in turn leads once more to HIGHER RATES OF FLUID NEGATION compared to static/undisturbed fluid regions. In such moving/inertial cases, increased mass/turbulence causes a NON-SYMMETRIC ‘inflow gradient’ between the site of the moving body or the fluid stream in question...IN ESSENCE SAYING THAT the ACCELERATIONS involved with ‘RELATIVELY STATIONARY’ STRUCTURED G-I Fluid Flows in MATTER-BODIES cause SYMMETRIC (‘gravitational’) INFLOW ‘drag’ forces; whilst those ACCELERATIONS involved with UNSTRUCTURED G-I Fluid flows caused by‘RELATIVELY MOVING’ STRUCTURED (matter-body) Flows OR EVEN BY ‘LINEAR’ G-I FLUID STREAMS IN ISOLATION, cause NON-SYMMETRIC (‘inertial’) INLOW ‘drag’. Of Course, the NEWLY-INDUCED INFLOW DRAG would represent the ENTIRE ‘MASS/DRAG’ force associated with any newly-impelled STREAMFLOW; whereas in the case of a MOVING BODY, the MOVEMENT-INDUCED NON-SYMMETRIC inflow INERTIAL ‘MASS /DRAG’ would be ADDED TO a body’s ORIGINAL NON-MOVING SYMMETRICAL-inflow GRAVITATIONAL‘MASS/DRAG’ effects.
So the paper not only identifies and co-relates MECHANISMS involved with BOTH gravity AND inertia ‘mass/drag’ effects...it also identifies the EQUIVALENCE between ‘G-I Fluid inflow ACCELERATIVE-TURBULENCE in BOTH CASES as ONE AND THE SAME mechanism for‘catalysis’ of the ‘pressure-lowering’ processes which create in each case the tendency for all things to move towards ANY source of such pressure-lowering turbulence, be that source a stationary/moving body WITHIN the fluid, or be that source an inertially-accelerated stream of the fluid ITSELF.
As to the rest of the post which prompted some to respond in that unacceptable manner, I wish only to say (as politely as one can be perceived to do so at this remove) that I cannot quite agree with the whole of your exposition/explanation, mainly because I have come to realise----after 40 years of digesting/contemplating ALL other objective physical theories---that neither the concepts nor terminology you employ are STRICTLY necessary for the proper understanding of the phenomena under discussion. Unlike some, though, I don’t dismiss lightly your right to put your views in whichever way you wish; because, regardless of how you say it, what you DO have to say has, as far as I have seen, only contributes to, rather than detracts from, rational discussion (something I for one am appreciating despite the occassional interruption which I have learnt to‘filter out’).
I sincerely hope, Good Elf, that I myself at least have herewith contributed to the discourse in a more humble/gentlemanly manner than some have yet to learn to do. Rest assured that anything you have to say in response will be treated just as objectively/curteously by this intellect as I have noted you scrupulously treat those by other intellects.
Smiling and positive regards from: RealityCheck.
Hello "gadfly".
The 'fly in the ointment' as it were, for what you suggest, is that even if one starts off in that direction, one inexorably finds themselves coming full circle back to the question: "What is the nature/source/substance of electro-magnetic entities"; which in turn begs the question: "What is the energy/matter that makes up these entities"; from which it is then but a skip and a jump to the question: "What makes electro-magnetic entities having a base-state energy-matter content producing base-state 'physical effects' change those base-state effects when aggregated to densities which (in the case of black hole entities) can 'shred' those same electro-magnetic entities?".
Obviously, that last question is what leads to the logical surmise that "some entity/force/processes" more fundamental than electro-magnetic entities/forces/processes are at work when it comes to gravitation.
And of course, it might turn out that those more fundamental entities/forces/processes that manifest the gravitation phenomena might in the end ALSO underly and provide the mechanism for the electro-magnetic and all other phenomena! Now that IS a stretch, eh?
But that's only my view. I am open to being shot down in flames (in a gentleman-like/lady-like manner I hope).
Regards from: RealityCheck.
Forget the Higgs Boson, the likelyhood of it being found are rapidly diminishing.
We need a new mechanism to explain mass.
Only after that can we truly begin work on gravity.
We need a new mechanism to explain mass.
Only after that can we truly begin work on gravity.
buirsearch -
A post-doc in the Physics dept. here would very much disagree w/ you, considering he's gearing up to look for the Higgs at the much-ballyhooed LHC, slated to replace the equipment at CERN very soon - not to mention the hot chicks on the Swiss/French border!
gadfly -
the treatment of mass and particles as such in general is mostly due to convention. I recommend you sit in on a solid-state physics class. It's really very funny: the prof. talks about particles and particles and particles but you NEVER see mass. It's ALWAYS in terms of Bloch periodicities and k-space wavefunctions! Mass is a passing fancy - very strange. Also, since the physicist is almost always about the electron, eV is always the convention used. It's used ubiquitously in the semi-conductor industry to represent the Fermi energy at the band gap, so...
- gleefully spinning solids - if I could get the proton amplifier to behave today...
A post-doc in the Physics dept. here would very much disagree w/ you, considering he's gearing up to look for the Higgs at the much-ballyhooed LHC, slated to replace the equipment at CERN very soon - not to mention the hot chicks on the Swiss/French border!
gadfly -
the treatment of mass and particles as such in general is mostly due to convention. I recommend you sit in on a solid-state physics class. It's really very funny: the prof. talks about particles and particles and particles but you NEVER see mass. It's ALWAYS in terms of Bloch periodicities and k-space wavefunctions! Mass is a passing fancy - very strange. Also, since the physicist is almost always about the electron, eV is always the convention used. It's used ubiquitously in the semi-conductor industry to represent the Fermi energy at the band gap, so...
- gleefully spinning solids - if I could get the proton amplifier to behave today...
If/When they find I'll cheer and raise the champagne with everyone else... but the most likely energies have already been exhausted withy narry a ghost of the god particle.
We await the LHC.
Question: What happens to the standard model if Higgs is never found?
We await the LHC.
Question: What happens to the standard model if Higgs is never found?
buirsearch -
I agree that we should entertain all possible mechanisms for the treatment of mass -that is particularly why I find the Goodly Elvish One's explanation intriguing, and why I want to hear what he thinks of my suggestion.
As far as the HB, the boson that imparts mass to matter will likely change the standard model by introducing what I have to assume would be a quasi-gauge boson to the Standard Model. By doing this, and exploiting the known properties of bosons (spin, coupling, etc.), gravity would finally be inserted as the fourth force.
- gleefully spinning solids (now that we're talking science and not G_d!)
I agree that we should entertain all possible mechanisms for the treatment of mass -that is particularly why I find the Goodly Elvish One's explanation intriguing, and why I want to hear what he thinks of my suggestion.
As far as the HB, the boson that imparts mass to matter will likely change the standard model by introducing what I have to assume would be a quasi-gauge boson to the Standard Model. By doing this, and exploiting the known properties of bosons (spin, coupling, etc.), gravity would finally be inserted as the fourth force.
- gleefully spinning solids (now that we're talking science and not G_d!)
Hi Waterbreath,
Hi Waterbreath, long time no see. You are very welcome. I am sorry about all the "religious/non-religious" stuff. It is a little boring between good questions.
Just a general statement first... I am away for only one day and this thread is "full". Please forgive me for my recent irritation and I will need to answer you all in sequence. This may take a couple of days.
Hello "Good Elf" et al.
Good Elf, your posts represent (to me at least) an intriguing mixture of 'clarifying' original insights compounded with 'obscuring' excerpts of others' theories. I am awaiting the moment when your thoughts 'gel' into one consistent whole, as I think what you will arrive at ON YOUR OWN will be well worth the wait!
Meanwhile, skirting much of the 'excerpted bits' in your recent posts above, I will 'home in' on some of the points I feel will impact more on your own 'original' observations than otherwise....
OBSERVATION: Regarding the 'Bulk', it may be worth mentioning that there can be only ONE 'bulk' concept in reality, as any and all OTHER 'bulks' represent RELATIVE/LOGICAL SUB-DIVISIONS within that ABSOLUTE BULK frame of reference in which ALL theoretically/mathematically modeled frames of reference are ultimately 'imbedded/embedded' (something which you yourself alluded to when mentioning Roger Penrose's TWISTOR modeling of relative 'features' embedded in an overarching 'bulk' context).
Which brings me to the implications of TWISTOR mathematical modelling for the concept of so-called HIGHER DIMENSIONS...
OBSERVATION: In my own progressive use of (first) TENSORS, then SPINORS and most recently TWISTORS to mathematically model various Relativistic, Quantum Mechanical and Aether constructs, one thing has become apparent: THE PROGRESSION FROM-TENSOR-TO-SPINOR-TO-TWISTOR treatments represent a progression of attempts to ELIMINATE AT EACH STAGE MORE AND MORE SUPERFLUOUS AND ULTIMATELY RELATIVE 'HIGHER DIMENSIONS' in order to mathematically 'home in' on the ABSOLUTE NUMBER OF IRREDUCIBLE 'ACTUAL DIMENSIONS' of the 'bulk'...by at each stage constraining the 'free-for-all' that ensues for theoretical modeling when 'anything goes' (dimension-wise) in order to make one or other theory 'work'. In other words, it is not 'dimensions' which are treated by the various fashionable theories requiring a large number of them, but arbitrary 'relative subdivions' of 'imbedded/embedded FEATURES' that are being unnecessarily overlain with 'relativistic/quantum mechanical descriptors' when more 'elegant' and 'less-dimensionally-needy' descriptors will do once it is recognized that the features being described are just that: LOCAL, TOPOLOGICALLY-DIFFERENTIABLE('CURVED') FEATURES IMBEDDED/EMBEDDED IN A TOPOLOGICALLY-UNDIFFERENTIABLE('FLAT') BULK dimensional set from which all other dimensional-subset 'bulks' may be distinguished...it only remains to be discovered which mathematical tools will eventually help in pinning down that ultimate bulk.
OBSERVATION: In resorting to 'higher dimension' terminology when merely describing 'variations', 'gradients' and 'boundary conditions' applicable to whatever 'construct' is being considered can only serve to 'factionalise' and 'isolate' observers into one camp or another, depending on the 'perceived' number of dimensions their particular theories require to work.
OBSERVATION: Your observation that 'electron shells' exist independently----that is, whether the shells are occupied or not----due to some 'frame dragging' phenomenon, IS CORRECT, and VERIFIABLE by observing that the 'flux toruses' around a magnetic dipole exist as independent 'topological sub-features' extended from and anchored to the parent dipole 'topological feature' whether or not any other electro-magnetic 'entity' enters into or interacts with the flux toruses. Your further observation that these sub-feature toruses (shells) are due to some 'frame-dragging' phenomenon is ALSO supported by the observation that even photons must follow the 'localised curvatures' which these 'flux-toruses' entail. These observations lead to one inescapable conclusion regarding the 'bulk context' in which this 'frame-dragging' phenomena occurs: REGARDLESS OF THE 'RELATIVE LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY' BEING DESCRIBED BY ONE OR OTHER MATHEMATICAL TREATMENT OF SAID PHENOMENA, IT REMAINS TRUE THAT IT MUST OCCUR IN SOME 'BACKGROUND' MEDIUM WHOSE 'LOCALISED CURVATURES' MAY BE ABSOLUTELY DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT 'FLAT' BACKGROUND MEDIUM USING A 'MINIMUM' OF 'ABSOLUTE DIMENSIONAL TERMS INSTEAD OF THE 'UNBOUNDED NUMBER' OF POSSIBLE 'RELATIVE DIMENSIONAL TERMS' (...in respect to that last assertion, it will bear pointing out that the "TIME" dimension which certain theories use in their modeling is a 'relative' dimension dependent for its definition/function on more fundamental absolute-bulk-descriptors like 'distance/direction' in which ABSOLUTE movement occurs REGARDLESS of whether there exist RELATIVE observational constructs to MEASURE such movement in 'relation' to any other movement so as to describe an EVENT in that relative construct.
In short, modelings of this ultimately-inescapable 'imbedded-in-a-bulk' REALITY are merely SEMANTICALLY different treatments of relative, localised topograhical 'features/events' occurring within a SPACE that, effectively, acts as a PASSIVE absolute 'global-bulk' fabric from which can be 'extracted for bounded study' some PART of some 'local-events' SPACE-TIME-like 'fabric' construct---all without resorting to unwarranted higher-than-absolutely-necessary numbers of dimensions [just as fluid-dynamicists do not need to invoke 'unseen' dimensional 'escape hatches' in order to describe the various pressure/flow gradients etc. when observing localised 'Topographical Soliton' features arising, moving, interacting and eventually subsiding back to to the 'pseudo-bulk' medium in which they are imbedded/embedded at 'our level' of observable reality.
OBSERVATION: Yes, the scenario for 'universal expansion' due to global spin in three orthogonal spatial dimensions is self-consistent ONLY if it purports to describe a 'bounded-UNIVERSE' FEATURE imbedded and exhibiting GYMBAL-LIKE rotation on three axes within a 'bulk' IN RESPECT TO WHICH IT 'SPINS'...for it cannot be used to describe the behaviour of the WHOLE 'bulk' unbounded-UNIVERSE.
OBSERVATION: I strongly agree with you in the other important point you make, Good Elf, that any and all 'spin' and such 'differentiable' phenomena are INDEED due to 'interactive properties' rather than 'inherent structure'.
That's all the time I have for now, mate! Hope to 'talk' with you again soon. I hope I haven't come across as 'carping', I'm just trying to help by doing what my 'moniker' requires that I do!
Smiling regards to you and everyone from: RealityCheck.
Hello Good Elf.
Not a bit of it...you under-estimate the 'store' of knowledge/insights you have obviously accumulated (at least obvious to me 'looking in'; it may not be obvious to you ON THE INSIDE OF YOUR 'MIND-SPACE', hehe...I hope you don't mind my appropriating and paraphrasing one of your oft-used contextual descriptors ...only it seemed SO apt for what I wanted say!).
As to your 'unease' regarding 'particle-transport'/'energy-exchange' across those 'transition'-/'boundary-layers' representing the INTERFACE REGION (or as you say, the 'mixing zone' or 'skin' between 'relative' imbedded-TWISTOR and 'absolute' remaining-BULK states, it may be worth looking at the situation NOT from the point of view of one who is trying to INVENT the mechanism/process WHICH ACTUALLY ALREADY OCCURS IN REALITY WHETHER OR NOT ONE CAN DESCRIBE IT, but rather from the point of view that THE TWO CONTEXTS MUST LOGICALLY BE CONTIGUOUS IN PRACTICE, and THAT 'PARTICLE'/ENERGY-FLOWS' MERELY CHANGE 'PROPERTIES/STATE SO AS TO FOLLOW WITH 'LEAST ACTION' THE 'GRADIENTS'/'CURVATURES' WHICH SUCH INTERFACES LOGICALLY INVOLVE (just as the particles/fluid in a 'Venturi' tube continually 'juggle' their static/dynamic-pressure 'property profiles', or their temperature/density property profiles). In short, the 'BULK' fluid going down the tube interacts 'seamlessly' with the 'boundary layer' conditions of the 'throat' (representing a pseudo-soliton topography) as it approaches/passes the 'mixing-zone/skin' of that 'imbedded' relative structure (as it were). So you see, their is no discontinuities implied in having a 3-D twistor-soliton imbedded as a localised feature in a globalised 'bulk' (the feature-and-bulk may obviously co-exist in observationally separate-yet-contiguous state DEPENDING ONLY ON THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE OBSERVER). All of which means that there MUST BE a 'mathematical solution' for that phenomena IN THE SAME VEIN AS FOR THE 'FLUID DYNAMICAL' SOLUTIONS...so, nil desperandum Good Elf...we'll get there in the end!
Basically, Good Elf, I am of the view that 80 years of COMPLEXIFYING hasn't really worked except to 'diversify' theories to a number which is become more a hindrance than a help to clear perspective; that is why I am trying SIMPLIFYING, I have nothing to lose except my confusion!
Gotta go now...I have to eat sometimes.
Best of lucky regards from: RealityCheck.
Hi Waterbreath, long time no see. You are very welcome. I am sorry about all the "religious/non-religious" stuff. It is a little boring between good questions.
Just a general statement first... I am away for only one day and this thread is "full". Please forgive me for my recent irritation and I will need to answer you all in sequence. This may take a couple of days.
QUOTE (WaterBreath Posted on Aug 30 2005+ 05:08 PM)
Why would three orthogonal directions of rotation be required to "close off" the universe? And why does this necessitate "extra" dimensions? Furthermore, when you speak of the intrinsic spin imparted by such a rotation, are you indeed equating it with the traditional quantum "spin" characteristic, or introducing something new and orthogonal to that, but similar in function?
Ooooh... good question. First point is that I am not taking the "easy" path in TOE's. It is not popular at the moment to take the quantum out of things that have been traditionally quantized. I am a "practical" elf and I take some points up because I see a more immediate benefit from this approach than some others. Consider for one moment that "String Theory" does not start out with strings of 23 or 24 dimensions anymore. This is not because they do not have those 23 or 24 dimensions. The reason is it is "easier" to deal with 10 or 11 dimensions. Will the Theory of Everything be any worse for that "simplification"... probably not since the concept is these "excess" dimensions are more tightly curled up than the others and are definitely in a range of energies too high to reach by human engineering .... forever. I say that quite confidently.
In the same way it may be possible to deal with gravity and mass as a particle theory and quantize those quantities but knowing the practical limits of quantum gravity I would be very surprised to find any measure of quantum "levels" in our measurable part of the Universe. There is a theory that these effects may be visible at about 1/10th millimeter dimensions if gravity is able to "penetrate dimensions" as postulated in one of those theories on quantum gravity. I somehow doubt it... if a "differential" effect was observable at this level of the Universe it would have affected "other" experiments by now. So I am "happy" with the idea that we can deal with Gravity "safely" as a non-quantized phenomenon. This means that it will be incompatible with quantum phenomena.... we have almost always known this. So I have taken a "look ahead" and believe that quantum phenomena will not be the ultimate solution to the Universe but the Universe has a hidden state we have known about for quite a long time. This state is when the "quantized" particle is unable to be observed for significant periods due to some peculiarity of the means of observation.
You will be well aware of "Bohmian Mechanics" if you have been following me. What this says is that the quantum particle is unobserved and is somewhere else for much of its travels. For instance light quanta which travel at © cannot be observed unless you destroy the qubit. This action drags the "particle" from out of some "higher space" where it is not being observed and then it is able to be "scattered". Good Elf does not say this is any of his ideas because it has been "developed" in the years since Bohm has passed away. I am convinced by the argument that this is one paradigm that may work. It will not be the only paradigm that can work but it is "ready" and "willing" to mount the "bull" and try to hold on by its horns.
The spaces of quantum physics and "real" linear space are not the same beast and this is where the problem occurs. You need a "configuration space" as an intermediate to map the quantum events into our spacetime of 3D + T. The reason this is required is because there are more dimensions. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not have enough dimensions to describe our Universe. The theory can be made to work but while the particle... a quantum of any sort... is out of view "mankind" is going to have to come to grips with the sad fact that it will be out of range of our observation. What happens is that the particle's trajectory are described by "simple" kinematics familiar to all (well mostly). The actual positions where observations are made represent points on that trajectory. This observation mostly destroys the game though it is not necessarily the case.
The important point is that particles becoming invisible is not the "end". If the particle is big enough it may carry a probe and make observations in the frame of reference of the quantum process (from within the quantum). This will mean that after the 'trip" clocks and times and positions may be compared to determine the Physics is still OK.
We can make macroscopic quanta even now such as a BEC. This is a single quantum state. A "probe" could potentially be inserted inside this "cloud". The logical place to do this sort of experiment is in free fall. I will not elaborate here.
How can "rotation" close off a space like our Universe. Firstly I interpret the length contraction of Einstein/Lorentz as a rotation "out" of 3D + T spacetime. It can be shown (see numerous texts) that in stereoscopically derived visualizations of length contraction the contracted object is rotated "away" from all bystanders... even on both sides of the observed phenomena. This is mathematically provable and is actually standard theory. What I would like to say is this "phenomena" is effectively a "projection" of a particle traveling partially in "Uberspace"... those extra dimensions spoken of in String Theory. The partial "removal" of the particle from our visible Universe is accompanied by be Broglie Wavelength and "length contraction" which is like the moving particle "going around an invisible hyperdimensional corner". This you see from all vantage points in 3D spacetime. This two dimensional projective surface of a brane is spoken of by Ed Witten in the Geometric Langlands Program that I have recently been discussing on this forum. It is also the projective "surface" that is the only expression of the higher dimensional neutral EM "spiral" is traveling in, and it is the "shadow on the wall" that we see as the "charges" and the electric and magnetic oscellating fields associated with it. Waterbreath... you were following this idea earlier this year.
What it is all saying is that Special Relativity, General Relativity, Electromagnetism, and the Quantum are all facits of the one thing.... this one thing is "higher dimensions". That is what all those theories lack... too few dimensions to describe reality. So if you accept this idea... that there is a need for more dimensions... is it any wonder why we cannot observe everything happening in our Universe by simple observation? We are banging our "metaphysical" brains out against a wall trying to fit the Universe into only 4 dimensions. To do it everything had to be "banged flat" with a hammer to fit into the Universe we "think" we know.
And what of "closure" for our Universe? If length contraction is a rotation into a higher space it is a "curl" in those extra dimensions it is moving into. These "non bulk" dimensions "apparently" are curving very near to us in our 3D + T braneworld (flatland) we inhabit. These dimensions are only the slightest distance "away" from our "flatland" of 3D + T. All 6 extra dimensions "touch" the empty spaces of our bosonic "bulk" ... everywhere (the empty space). This is the 6D surface of our universe. Actually there are nine spatial dimensions and they "all" ultimately curl up. We can't touch it but if we had any "thickness" at all we could climb out of it into higher spaces... right where you are sitting now "onto the outside of our Universe". You would move via a brane connection through a 2D surface, leaving your "flattened" image on its surface as you went. There may be more than one way to do this... you can start to do this with sheer speed near © and Special Theory of Relativity, but it will not allow you to escape. Or you can just "pop out" as a quantum. To do this just increase your de Broglie wavelength...
= h/mv where m can approach 0. Then you will quantum tunnel into higher dimensions.
Once on the "outside" of our "petal" Universe you will see our Universe which is spinning in six or more dimensions in a scale that boggles the mind... as a tiny quantum "boson". The rotation of the Universe on the "inside" causes the periphery to "spin" nearly as fast as light and could shrink to almost zero diameter. See that former post above with the simple calculations about rotation of our Univese to cause it to "wrap up" like a cosmic lotus flower. On the "inside" the "bulk" is a huge 3D + T "flatland" called a braneworld we are inhabiting. This is observed through the 2D surface of the brane on the outside of our Universe. A "ball"... more correctly a Calabi-Yau Space object. The information about the entire "interior" is "stored" as a dynamic energetic "string" on the surface of that 2D "ball".... "electromagnetically" as a layer of "impulse" h whose "parametric thickness" is in "reciprocal frequency".... a two dimensional fourier hologram of our entire Universe on the inside of that higher dimensional space. This is beautifully and simply expressed as...
E = hf.
The Universe and all other Universes are "holographic". They are other "smaller" ones "inside " our Universe as well (they look smaller to our perspective). Not just quarks but there are many types of branes probably some we have not even begun to understand yet and they are not all the same dimensionality either.
Ed Witten speaks of a Black Hole being a D-Brane and the information of the interior of the Black Hole is stored on the surface as an energetic string. In fact this is repeated on both sides of these surfaces everywhere they occur. Bubble Universes. But true to form, being bosonic the information is "quantum" and invisible... he he he!
Those higher dimensions we can't see but we know they spin since we know quarks spin... is a repeated "motif" for other bosons such as our Universe (we are inside that one) and the "radiation pattern" of radio antennas. This is a lower (broken) dimensional equivalent of what is happening in atoms and their Bosonic supersymmetric partners... the "so called" electronic shells of atoms. I have previously expressed in other posts Schrodingers Equation in purely Electromagnetic Terms (not my idea though but fits the bill). These shells exist even when you do not have electrons. They are the "shadow companion" of the particles in the Nucleus... a mixing if you will (supersymmetric s-particles). This naturally results in the Schrodinger Equation if you had all those assumptions and projected everything happening there onto a 3D "flatspace". The truth is the Bosons are "rich" higher dimensional objects, a place for other "bosons" and quantum particles (electrons) to "hide" as they do in our Universe.
Now about all that spin.... In three spatial dimensions you can only spin in one plane at a time. If you have six spatial dimensions you can spin in three planes all at once... this is not something you can do in only 3D + T without "disruption". For instance an object can be doing all that in 6 dimensions but in 3D + T you would not notice anything going on at all. Alternatively it can fall or accelerate "linearly" into those directions while it sits on your table "looking at you" and doing apparently "nothing at all". It is "intrinsic spin" or acceleration that is "invisible" but it will result in relativistic effects since this is potentially a reflection of the "outside of our Universe" traveling at near the speed of light. Because it is invisible it is a quantum process. There is a long story associated with this and fourier transforms... frequency domains and time domains are part of it. Suffice to say go watch "Dr Who" and brush up on your Time and Relative Dimension in Space (TARDIS) Travel... he he he!
Is this global spin of the Universe a quantum spin?.... yes through T-Duality properties. The spin of the Universe is reflected in every tiny particle (separately I hope). The scales are mapped as "inverse". The property of curvature of Spacetime is the same property that curves and closes sub-atomic particles. One produces gravity in the extrinsic Universe and the other leads to mass in the intrinsic Universe. It is "all" curvature... just differing levels of it.... mixed with "acceleration" or "spin".
Humans have intuitively "discovered" all this before and now all this is happening again... this time it is happening to 'Good Elf". (Apologies to James M. Barrie).
I think this is all I have time for tonight. Thanks for listening.
PS: If you want to catch up on what I have been doing... this trick is a good one. Click on my Name to the top left of the post then when you see my window under my name click on "Find all posts by this member". This shows a reverse sequence listing of all my posts ... nearly 1000 of them. Obviusly the later ones are more important to catch up on this but I suspect it will be too much to bear.
Cheers
Ooooh... good question. First point is that I am not taking the "easy" path in TOE's. It is not popular at the moment to take the quantum out of things that have been traditionally quantized. I am a "practical" elf and I take some points up because I see a more immediate benefit from this approach than some others. Consider for one moment that "String Theory" does not start out with strings of 23 or 24 dimensions anymore. This is not because they do not have those 23 or 24 dimensions. The reason is it is "easier" to deal with 10 or 11 dimensions. Will the Theory of Everything be any worse for that "simplification"... probably not since the concept is these "excess" dimensions are more tightly curled up than the others and are definitely in a range of energies too high to reach by human engineering .... forever. I say that quite confidently.
In the same way it may be possible to deal with gravity and mass as a particle theory and quantize those quantities but knowing the practical limits of quantum gravity I would be very surprised to find any measure of quantum "levels" in our measurable part of the Universe. There is a theory that these effects may be visible at about 1/10th millimeter dimensions if gravity is able to "penetrate dimensions" as postulated in one of those theories on quantum gravity. I somehow doubt it... if a "differential" effect was observable at this level of the Universe it would have affected "other" experiments by now. So I am "happy" with the idea that we can deal with Gravity "safely" as a non-quantized phenomenon. This means that it will be incompatible with quantum phenomena.... we have almost always known this. So I have taken a "look ahead" and believe that quantum phenomena will not be the ultimate solution to the Universe but the Universe has a hidden state we have known about for quite a long time. This state is when the "quantized" particle is unable to be observed for significant periods due to some peculiarity of the means of observation.
You will be well aware of "Bohmian Mechanics" if you have been following me. What this says is that the quantum particle is unobserved and is somewhere else for much of its travels. For instance light quanta which travel at © cannot be observed unless you destroy the qubit. This action drags the "particle" from out of some "higher space" where it is not being observed and then it is able to be "scattered". Good Elf does not say this is any of his ideas because it has been "developed" in the years since Bohm has passed away. I am convinced by the argument that this is one paradigm that may work. It will not be the only paradigm that can work but it is "ready" and "willing" to mount the "bull" and try to hold on by its horns.
The spaces of quantum physics and "real" linear space are not the same beast and this is where the problem occurs. You need a "configuration space" as an intermediate to map the quantum events into our spacetime of 3D + T. The reason this is required is because there are more dimensions. Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do not have enough dimensions to describe our Universe. The theory can be made to work but while the particle... a quantum of any sort... is out of view "mankind" is going to have to come to grips with the sad fact that it will be out of range of our observation. What happens is that the particle's trajectory are described by "simple" kinematics familiar to all (well mostly). The actual positions where observations are made represent points on that trajectory. This observation mostly destroys the game though it is not necessarily the case.
The important point is that particles becoming invisible is not the "end". If the particle is big enough it may carry a probe and make observations in the frame of reference of the quantum process (from within the quantum). This will mean that after the 'trip" clocks and times and positions may be compared to determine the Physics is still OK.
We can make macroscopic quanta even now such as a BEC. This is a single quantum state. A "probe" could potentially be inserted inside this "cloud". The logical place to do this sort of experiment is in free fall. I will not elaborate here.
How can "rotation" close off a space like our Universe. Firstly I interpret the length contraction of Einstein/Lorentz as a rotation "out" of 3D + T spacetime. It can be shown (see numerous texts) that in stereoscopically derived visualizations of length contraction the contracted object is rotated "away" from all bystanders... even on both sides of the observed phenomena. This is mathematically provable and is actually standard theory. What I would like to say is this "phenomena" is effectively a "projection" of a particle traveling partially in "Uberspace"... those extra dimensions spoken of in String Theory. The partial "removal" of the particle from our visible Universe is accompanied by be Broglie Wavelength and "length contraction" which is like the moving particle "going around an invisible hyperdimensional corner". This you see from all vantage points in 3D spacetime. This two dimensional projective surface of a brane is spoken of by Ed Witten in the Geometric Langlands Program that I have recently been discussing on this forum. It is also the projective "surface" that is the only expression of the higher dimensional neutral EM "spiral" is traveling in, and it is the "shadow on the wall" that we see as the "charges" and the electric and magnetic oscellating fields associated with it. Waterbreath... you were following this idea earlier this year.
What it is all saying is that Special Relativity, General Relativity, Electromagnetism, and the Quantum are all facits of the one thing.... this one thing is "higher dimensions". That is what all those theories lack... too few dimensions to describe reality. So if you accept this idea... that there is a need for more dimensions... is it any wonder why we cannot observe everything happening in our Universe by simple observation? We are banging our "metaphysical" brains out against a wall trying to fit the Universe into only 4 dimensions. To do it everything had to be "banged flat" with a hammer to fit into the Universe we "think" we know.
And what of "closure" for our Universe? If length contraction is a rotation into a higher space it is a "curl" in those extra dimensions it is moving into. These "non bulk" dimensions "apparently" are curving very near to us in our 3D + T braneworld (flatland) we inhabit. These dimensions are only the slightest distance "away" from our "flatland" of 3D + T. All 6 extra dimensions "touch" the empty spaces of our bosonic "bulk" ... everywhere (the empty space). This is the 6D surface of our universe. Actually there are nine spatial dimensions and they "all" ultimately curl up. We can't touch it but if we had any "thickness" at all we could climb out of it into higher spaces... right where you are sitting now "onto the outside of our Universe". You would move via a brane connection through a 2D surface, leaving your "flattened" image on its surface as you went. There may be more than one way to do this... you can start to do this with sheer speed near © and Special Theory of Relativity, but it will not allow you to escape. Or you can just "pop out" as a quantum. To do this just increase your de Broglie wavelength...
= h/mv where m can approach 0. Then you will quantum tunnel into higher dimensions.Once on the "outside" of our "petal" Universe you will see our Universe which is spinning in six or more dimensions in a scale that boggles the mind... as a tiny quantum "boson". The rotation of the Universe on the "inside" causes the periphery to "spin" nearly as fast as light and could shrink to almost zero diameter. See that former post above with the simple calculations about rotation of our Univese to cause it to "wrap up" like a cosmic lotus flower. On the "inside" the "bulk" is a huge 3D + T "flatland" called a braneworld we are inhabiting. This is observed through the 2D surface of the brane on the outside of our Universe. A "ball"... more correctly a Calabi-Yau Space object. The information about the entire "interior" is "stored" as a dynamic energetic "string" on the surface of that 2D "ball".... "electromagnetically" as a layer of "impulse" h whose "parametric thickness" is in "reciprocal frequency".... a two dimensional fourier hologram of our entire Universe on the inside of that higher dimensional space. This is beautifully and simply expressed as...
E = hf.
The Universe and all other Universes are "holographic". They are other "smaller" ones "inside " our Universe as well (they look smaller to our perspective). Not just quarks but there are many types of branes probably some we have not even begun to understand yet and they are not all the same dimensionality either.
Ed Witten speaks of a Black Hole being a D-Brane and the information of the interior of the Black Hole is stored on the surface as an energetic string. In fact this is repeated on both sides of these surfaces everywhere they occur. Bubble Universes. But true to form, being bosonic the information is "quantum" and invisible... he he he!
Those higher dimensions we can't see but we know they spin since we know quarks spin... is a repeated "motif" for other bosons such as our Universe (we are inside that one) and the "radiation pattern" of radio antennas. This is a lower (broken) dimensional equivalent of what is happening in atoms and their Bosonic supersymmetric partners... the "so called" electronic shells of atoms. I have previously expressed in other posts Schrodingers Equation in purely Electromagnetic Terms (not my idea though but fits the bill). These shells exist even when you do not have electrons. They are the "shadow companion" of the particles in the Nucleus... a mixing if you will (supersymmetric s-particles). This naturally results in the Schrodinger Equation if you had all those assumptions and projected everything happening there onto a 3D "flatspace". The truth is the Bosons are "rich" higher dimensional objects, a place for other "bosons" and quantum particles (electrons) to "hide" as they do in our Universe.
Now about all that spin.... In three spatial dimensions you can only spin in one plane at a time. If you have six spatial dimensions you can spin in three planes all at once... this is not something you can do in only 3D + T without "disruption". For instance an object can be doing all that in 6 dimensions but in 3D + T you would not notice anything going on at all. Alternatively it can fall or accelerate "linearly" into those directions while it sits on your table "looking at you" and doing apparently "nothing at all". It is "intrinsic spin" or acceleration that is "invisible" but it will result in relativistic effects since this is potentially a reflection of the "outside of our Universe" traveling at near the speed of light. Because it is invisible it is a quantum process. There is a long story associated with this and fourier transforms... frequency domains and time domains are part of it. Suffice to say go watch "Dr Who" and brush up on your Time and Relative Dimension in Space (TARDIS) Travel... he he he!
Is this global spin of the Universe a quantum spin?.... yes through T-Duality properties. The spin of the Universe is reflected in every tiny particle (separately I hope). The scales are mapped as "inverse". The property of curvature of Spacetime is the same property that curves and closes sub-atomic particles. One produces gravity in the extrinsic Universe and the other leads to mass in the intrinsic Universe. It is "all" curvature... just differing levels of it.... mixed with "acceleration" or "spin".
Humans have intuitively "discovered" all this before and now all this is happening again... this time it is happening to 'Good Elf".
(Apologies to James M. Barrie).I think this is all I have time for tonight. Thanks for listening.
PS: If you want to catch up on what I have been doing... this trick is a good one. Click on my Name to the top left of the post then when you see my window under my name click on "Find all posts by this member". This shows a reverse sequence listing of all my posts ... nearly 1000 of them. Obviusly the later ones are more important to catch up on this but I suspect it will be too much to bear.
Cheers
oh,
If the HB is never found, then it becomes yet another hypothesis thrown on the heap of gazillions of hypotheses that have been disproven.
ss
If the HB is never found, then it becomes yet another hypothesis thrown on the heap of gazillions of hypotheses that have been disproven.
ss
Hi solidspin,
Just a quick one... the HB probably will never be found (guess). This will be because the explanation of mass will be in the pseudo-property of spin. This theory presumes never to find the HB. It is without gravitating interacting particles. A Purely geometric description (Geometrodynamics) of reality.
Still the paradigm of particle is still working... just. I suspect we need to move beyond it to get anywhere.
Just a quick one... the HB probably will never be found (guess). This will be because the explanation of mass will be in the pseudo-property of spin. This theory presumes never to find the HB. It is without gravitating interacting particles. A Purely geometric description (Geometrodynamics) of reality.
Still the paradigm of particle is still working... just. I suspect we need to move beyond it to get anywhere.
Thanks very much for expounding Good Elf. I'm still foggy on some parts of your theory, but each time you post something gets cleared up. At the moment I'm particularly enamoured of the idea that this is a purely geometric explanation, and am quite excited by the possibility of the holographic method by which it may tie together the gravitic and inertial mass phenomena despite their scale separation.
Good Elf -
If the mass of a particle is due to the motion of quarks, and we know that this motion is asymptotically bounded, couldn't this be responsible for your suggestion (corollary) that mass results from an acceleration? I grant you it's a strange type of acceleration and quarks are spinless, yet the particle(s) they make up do(es) have spin. Any thoughts?
-ss
If the mass of a particle is due to the motion of quarks, and we know that this motion is asymptotically bounded, couldn't this be responsible for your suggestion (corollary) that mass results from an acceleration? I grant you it's a strange type of acceleration and quarks are spinless, yet the particle(s) they make up do(es) have spin. Any thoughts?
-ss
Hi solidspin and waterbreath,
I will answer everyone soon but these questions are too good. I am "wagging it" at work at the moment so I will be brief.
What is spinning are not "particles" but "properties" of those particles. It is a necessary convention to enable the quark descriptors to be done at all. Some of the recent success of QCD simulations have shown this spin. What I "suggest" and this could be the real reason why quarks are unable to be dragged out of particles... is a quark is actually a 'dimension", in these particle three make them up. A twistor is a 3D "embedding" in our higher dimensional space (invented by Roger Penrose). Check out the Geometric Langlands Program and what Ed Witten has been saying. But these are twistor related. It takes two standard linear dimensions at a time to make up one "spinning" dimension. So six dimensions is 'just right". In our "bulk" we see "only three dimensions" (plus time). The "Uberspace" is six spatial dimensions which equals one "complex" three space which is spinning in all three complex dimensions. If you were able to "jump ship" and 'board" this higher dimensional object spinning like that it would "appear" inside of that "frame dragged" space to look like a normal 3D space with almost infinite radius (like our Universe) and once again the spin is not noticeable due to radius... but the spin in our own previous adjoint space now is in six "apparent" dimensions and has an "external" small radius. It is "supersymmetric" you see. This is often called "braneworld". An updated form of a 3D 'flatland".
Each time we are viewing the other "ghost Universe" from the rest frame of the "bulk" of the Universe we are inhabiting (the 3D + T part we are so fond of). This results in "fictitious" accelerations in the attached 6D hyperspace (Uberspace). This is the same as an ice skater drawing in her arms and thus spinning faster, conservation of angular momentum. Thus we see all those properties of "mass" and "gravity". It is in the same "Universe" to us on the same manifold of the bulk but it looks quite different due to T-Duality... really small in comparison to our apparent Universe's internal "very large" size.
Einsteins Theory of Relativity keeps it altogether. Once you get too big it is actually now very small and if you get too small everyhing is actually very big (T-Duality ... all © limited and "wrapped up" in a package... lots of packages and at all scales ... Holographic).
Cheers
I will answer everyone soon but these questions are too good. I am "wagging it" at work at the moment so I will be brief.
What is spinning are not "particles" but "properties" of those particles. It is a necessary convention to enable the quark descriptors to be done at all. Some of the recent success of QCD simulations have shown this spin. What I "suggest" and this could be the real reason why quarks are unable to be dragged out of particles... is a quark is actually a 'dimension", in these particle three make them up. A twistor is a 3D "embedding" in our higher dimensional space (invented by Roger Penrose). Check out the Geometric Langlands Program and what Ed Witten has been saying. But these are twistor related. It takes two standard linear dimensions at a time to make up one "spinning" dimension. So six dimensions is 'just right". In our "bulk" we see "only three dimensions" (plus time). The "Uberspace" is six spatial dimensions which equals one "complex" three space which is spinning in all three complex dimensions. If you were able to "jump ship" and 'board" this higher dimensional object spinning like that it would "appear" inside of that "frame dragged" space to look like a normal 3D space with almost infinite radius (like our Universe) and once again the spin is not noticeable due to radius... but the spin in our own previous adjoint space now is in six "apparent" dimensions and has an "external" small radius. It is "supersymmetric" you see. This is often called "braneworld". An updated form of a 3D 'flatland".
Each time we are viewing the other "ghost Universe" from the rest frame of the "bulk" of the Universe we are inhabiting (the 3D + T part we are so fond of). This results in "fictitious" accelerations in the attached 6D hyperspace (Uberspace). This is the same as an ice skater drawing in her arms and thus spinning faster, conservation of angular momentum. Thus we see all those properties of "mass" and "gravity". It is in the same "Universe" to us on the same manifold of the bulk but it looks quite different due to T-Duality... really small in comparison to our apparent Universe's internal "very large" size.
Einsteins Theory of Relativity keeps it altogether. Once you get too big it is actually now very small and if you get too small everyhing is actually very big (T-Duality ... all © limited and "wrapped up" in a package... lots of packages and at all scales ... Holographic).
Cheers
Hello "Good Elf" et al.
Good Elf, your posts represent (to me at least) an intriguing mixture of 'clarifying' original insights compounded with 'obscuring' excerpts of others' theories. I am awaiting the moment when your thoughts 'gel' into one consistent whole, as I think what you will arrive at ON YOUR OWN will be well worth the wait!
Meanwhile, skirting much of the 'excerpted bits' in your recent posts above, I will 'home in' on some of the points I feel will impact more on your own 'original' observations than otherwise....
OBSERVATION: Regarding the 'Bulk', it may be worth mentioning that there can be only ONE 'bulk' concept in reality, as any and all OTHER 'bulks' represent RELATIVE/LOGICAL SUB-DIVISIONS within that ABSOLUTE BULK frame of reference in which ALL theoretically/mathematically modeled frames of reference are ultimately 'imbedded/embedded' (something which you yourself alluded to when mentioning Roger Penrose's TWISTOR modeling of relative 'features' embedded in an overarching 'bulk' context).
Which brings me to the implications of TWISTOR mathematical modelling for the concept of so-called HIGHER DIMENSIONS...
OBSERVATION: In my own progressive use of (first) TENSORS, then SPINORS and most recently TWISTORS to mathematically model various Relativistic, Quantum Mechanical and Aether constructs, one thing has become apparent: THE PROGRESSION FROM-TENSOR-TO-SPINOR-TO-TWISTOR treatments represent a progression of attempts to ELIMINATE AT EACH STAGE MORE AND MORE SUPERFLUOUS AND ULTIMATELY RELATIVE 'HIGHER DIMENSIONS' in order to mathematically 'home in' on the ABSOLUTE NUMBER OF IRREDUCIBLE 'ACTUAL DIMENSIONS' of the 'bulk'...by at each stage constraining the 'free-for-all' that ensues for theoretical modeling when 'anything goes' (dimension-wise) in order to make one or other theory 'work'. In other words, it is not 'dimensions' which are treated by the various fashionable theories requiring a large number of them, but arbitrary 'relative subdivions' of 'imbedded/embedded FEATURES' that are being unnecessarily overlain with 'relativistic/quantum mechanical descriptors' when more 'elegant' and 'less-dimensionally-needy' descriptors will do once it is recognized that the features being described are just that: LOCAL, TOPOLOGICALLY-DIFFERENTIABLE('CURVED') FEATURES IMBEDDED/EMBEDDED IN A TOPOLOGICALLY-UNDIFFERENTIABLE('FLAT') BULK dimensional set from which all other dimensional-subset 'bulks' may be distinguished...it only remains to be discovered which mathematical tools will eventually help in pinning down that ultimate bulk.
OBSERVATION: In resorting to 'higher dimension' terminology when merely describing 'variations', 'gradients' and 'boundary conditions' applicable to whatever 'construct' is being considered can only serve to 'factionalise' and 'isolate' observers into one camp or another, depending on the 'perceived' number of dimensions their particular theories require to work.
OBSERVATION: Your observation that 'electron shells' exist independently----that is, whether the shells are occupied or not----due to some 'frame dragging' phenomenon, IS CORRECT, and VERIFIABLE by observing that the 'flux toruses' around a magnetic dipole exist as independent 'topological sub-features' extended from and anchored to the parent dipole 'topological feature' whether or not any other electro-magnetic 'entity' enters into or interacts with the flux toruses. Your further observation that these sub-feature toruses (shells) are due to some 'frame-dragging' phenomenon is ALSO supported by the observation that even photons must follow the 'localised curvatures' which these 'flux-toruses' entail. These observations lead to one inescapable conclusion regarding the 'bulk context' in which this 'frame-dragging' phenomena occurs: REGARDLESS OF THE 'RELATIVE LEVEL TOPOGRAPHY' BEING DESCRIBED BY ONE OR OTHER MATHEMATICAL TREATMENT OF SAID PHENOMENA, IT REMAINS TRUE THAT IT MUST OCCUR IN SOME 'BACKGROUND' MEDIUM WHOSE 'LOCALISED CURVATURES' MAY BE ABSOLUTELY DISTINGUISHED FROM THAT 'FLAT' BACKGROUND MEDIUM USING A 'MINIMUM' OF 'ABSOLUTE DIMENSIONAL TERMS INSTEAD OF THE 'UNBOUNDED NUMBER' OF POSSIBLE 'RELATIVE DIMENSIONAL TERMS' (...in respect to that last assertion, it will bear pointing out that the "TIME" dimension which certain theories use in their modeling is a 'relative' dimension dependent for its definition/function on more fundamental absolute-bulk-descriptors like 'distance/direction' in which ABSOLUTE movement occurs REGARDLESS of whether there exist RELATIVE observational constructs to MEASURE such movement in 'relation' to any other movement so as to describe an EVENT in that relative construct.
In short, modelings of this ultimately-inescapable 'imbedded-in-a-bulk' REALITY are merely SEMANTICALLY different treatments of relative, localised topograhical 'features/events' occurring within a SPACE that, effectively, acts as a PASSIVE absolute 'global-bulk' fabric from which can be 'extracted for bounded study' some PART of some 'local-events' SPACE-TIME-like 'fabric' construct---all without resorting to unwarranted higher-than-absolutely-necessary numbers of dimensions [just as fluid-dynamicists do not need to invoke 'unseen' dimensional 'escape hatches' in order to describe the various pressure/flow gradients etc. when observing localised 'Topographical Soliton' features arising, moving, interacting and eventually subsiding back to to the 'pseudo-bulk' medium in which they are imbedded/embedded at 'our level' of observable reality.
OBSERVATION: Yes, the scenario for 'universal expansion' due to global spin in three orthogonal spatial dimensions is self-consistent ONLY if it purports to describe a 'bounded-UNIVERSE' FEATURE imbedded and exhibiting GYMBAL-LIKE rotation on three axes within a 'bulk' IN RESPECT TO WHICH IT 'SPINS'...for it cannot be used to describe the behaviour of the WHOLE 'bulk' unbounded-UNIVERSE.
OBSERVATION: I strongly agree with you in the other important point you make, Good Elf, that any and all 'spin' and such 'differentiable' phenomena are INDEED due to 'interactive properties' rather than 'inherent structure'.
That's all the time I have for now, mate! Hope to 'talk' with you again soon. I hope I haven't come across as 'carping', I'm just trying to help by doing what my 'moniker' requires that I do!
Smiling regards to you and everyone from: RealityCheck.
Hi RealityCheck et al,
Thank you for your intelligent reply and extremely helpful at that. You are well named and I am well overdue for a "reality check". I will read very carefully what you have said. You have also put your finger on the fact that this is definitely NOT a mature Theory yet. There are quite a lot of personal bits in there and I have taken freely from existing theory. I think that all the pieces will fit (in the end) but how this actually "works" still eludes me. I am unable to do it all by myself and I need the work of others to supplement my own ideas. Unfortunately some of those other theories apply different paradigms and I am very much a believer in keeping it real with examples from the World we actually see and I hope that this Theory will be very easy to test. I doubt if we will need the SSC to prove it right or wrong since it will deal equally with the macroscopic way way down to the sub-microscopic. There will be something new in there that will be testable somewhere. Actually it is not so much "String Theory" but a symmetry theory. String Theory is a very good paradigm to use to bring the threads together. I guess that makes it "String Theory" regardless of the fact I do not like that.
I must say you did put your finger on one point I have been worrying about... that is how the different bulks "connect". I know that there is the view that there is one bulk universally in all sub and superspaces. I confess that I find this... to say the very least... "unnerving". The Direchlett and Neumann boundary conditions that connect branes together is indeed a very complex problem and I have recently said as much in a recent post of mine. I know that this feature remains "unresolved" and I have given insufficient time to investigating it. The bulk "could" be just another brane with very different boundary conditions. For the Universe to be "Holographic" somehow this must be so if the "conjecture" is correct (that is... the Universe is Holographic). For instance the Universe is said to be, by a number of sources, a D-Brane, similar to a black hole or indeed a sub-atomic particle. At the edge of a black hole our "bulk" is not seamlessly connected to our Universe "on the flat". It has a geometry that superficially appears just "highly curved" but I have been wondering about this feature as the one practical example of what must be occurring "in miniature".
You are right to say that spin must be localized to one bulk "at a time" through a kind of "closure".. that spin is then transferred to all particles within the bulk. The local bulk may be connected to other "external" or "internal" bulks seamlessly but those "difficult" boundary conditions ensure that a parallel transport of a particle from one bulk to another will not be an easy one owing to that "spinning" boundary. You are right that it is affected by a possibly parameterized time which will also be "periodic"... a frequency if you like. It is a kind of 2D "fourier transform". If this was a "radio transmitter" the matching of the boundary conditions will be effectively equivalent to matching the impedience of the "load" to the "line". Without that match the "systems" cannot mix and exchange energy. I think that mixing zone... a "skin" on the boundary of the 3D twistor which is two dimensional roughly spherical surface, is a phenomena that connects the two regions through a "flatspace" (well it is "flat" in small segments ). Here the "flatter" maths already available in 3D may work on either side of that region. At least it rids us of that problem you pointed out in your post. While you can observe the activity of the boundary (well sort of... since a boson itself is actually "invisible" eh!) an appropriately configured soliton might be "encouraged" onto that surface and that might connect the two regions together via a "node". Well I think they call them "instantons". This would wrap itself onto the "hypersurface" and connect the two. This instanton potentially could be generated by radio frequency emission on or near the boundary. I am now putting on a "Radio Tech Hat" and speaking of "plumbing". Since we can produce these bosonic phenomena on demand and to any size we want... an experiment could be performed. I do not want to dwell on it but a probe may be sent through. There is a need to do an experiment to convince others this stuff is "real". Do not ask about these details... I have none. It is only a gedanken experiment just now.
I will be giving your observations A LOT more consideration. Feel free to comment more.... please. friend!
Oh... that does not mean the rest of you are not friends and I will be talking with you all as well very soon.
Cheers
Thank you for your intelligent reply and extremely helpful at that. You are well named and I am well overdue for a "reality check". I will read very carefully what you have said. You have also put your finger on the fact that this is definitely NOT a mature Theory yet. There are quite a lot of personal bits in there and I have taken freely from existing theory. I think that all the pieces will fit (in the end) but how this actually "works" still eludes me. I am unable to do it all by myself and I need the work of others to supplement my own ideas. Unfortunately some of those other theories apply different paradigms and I am very much a believer in keeping it real with examples from the World we actually see and I hope that this Theory will be very easy to test. I doubt if we will need the SSC to prove it right or wrong since it will deal equally with the macroscopic way way down to the sub-microscopic. There will be something new in there that will be testable somewhere. Actually it is not so much "String Theory" but a symmetry theory. String Theory is a very good paradigm to use to bring the threads together. I guess that makes it "String Theory" regardless of the fact I do not like that.
I must say you did put your finger on one point I have been worrying about... that is how the different bulks "connect". I know that there is the view that there is one bulk universally in all sub and superspaces. I confess that I find this... to say the very least... "unnerving". The Direchlett and Neumann boundary conditions that connect branes together is indeed a very complex problem and I have recently said as much in a recent post of mine. I know that this feature remains "unresolved" and I have given insufficient time to investigating it. The bulk "could" be just another brane with very different boundary conditions. For the Universe to be "Holographic" somehow this must be so if the "conjecture" is correct (that is... the Universe is Holographic). For instance the Universe is said to be, by a number of sources, a D-Brane, similar to a black hole or indeed a sub-atomic particle. At the edge of a black hole our "bulk" is not seamlessly connected to our Universe "on the flat". It has a geometry that superficially appears just "highly curved" but I have been wondering about this feature as the one practical example of what must be occurring "in miniature".
You are right to say that spin must be localized to one bulk "at a time" through a kind of "closure".. that spin is then transferred to all particles within the bulk. The local bulk may be connected to other "external" or "internal" bulks seamlessly but those "difficult" boundary conditions ensure that a parallel transport of a particle from one bulk to another will not be an easy one owing to that "spinning" boundary. You are right that it is affected by a possibly parameterized time which will also be "periodic"... a frequency if you like. It is a kind of 2D "fourier transform". If this was a "radio transmitter" the matching of the boundary conditions will be effectively equivalent to matching the impedience of the "load" to the "line". Without that match the "systems" cannot mix and exchange energy. I think that mixing zone... a "skin" on the boundary of the 3D twistor which is two dimensional roughly spherical surface, is a phenomena that connects the two regions through a "flatspace" (well it is "flat" in small segments
). Here the "flatter" maths already available in 3D may work on either side of that region. At least it rids us of that problem you pointed out in your post. While you can observe the activity of the boundary (well sort of... since a boson itself is actually "invisible" eh!) an appropriately configured soliton might be "encouraged" onto that surface and that might connect the two regions together via a "node". Well I think they call them "instantons". This would wrap itself onto the "hypersurface" and connect the two. This instanton potentially could be generated by radio frequency emission on or near the boundary. I am now putting on a "Radio Tech Hat" and speaking of "plumbing". Since we can produce these bosonic phenomena on demand and to any size we want... an experiment could be performed. I do not want to dwell on it but a probe may be sent through. There is a need to do an experiment to convince others this stuff is "real". Do not ask about these details... I have none. It is only a gedanken experiment just now.I will be giving your observations A LOT more consideration. Feel free to comment more.... please.
friend!Oh... that does not mean the rest of you are not friends
and I will be talking with you all as well very soon.Cheers
Hello Good Elf.
Not a bit of it...you under-estimate the 'store' of knowledge/insights you have obviously accumulated (at least obvious to me 'looking in'; it may not be obvious to you ON THE INSIDE OF YOUR 'MIND-SPACE', hehe...I hope you don't mind my appropriating and paraphrasing one of your oft-used contextual descriptors ...only it seemed SO apt for what I wanted say!).
As to your 'unease' regarding 'particle-transport'/'energy-exchange' across those 'transition'-/'boundary-layers' representing the INTERFACE REGION (or as you say, the 'mixing zone' or 'skin' between 'relative' imbedded-TWISTOR and 'absolute' remaining-BULK states, it may be worth looking at the situation NOT from the point of view of one who is trying to INVENT the mechanism/process WHICH ACTUALLY ALREADY OCCURS IN REALITY WHETHER OR NOT ONE CAN DESCRIBE IT, but rather from the point of view that THE TWO CONTEXTS MUST LOGICALLY BE CONTIGUOUS IN PRACTICE, and THAT 'PARTICLE'/ENERGY-FLOWS' MERELY CHANGE 'PROPERTIES/STATE SO AS TO FOLLOW WITH 'LEAST ACTION' THE 'GRADIENTS'/'CURVATURES' WHICH SUCH INTERFACES LOGICALLY INVOLVE (just as the particles/fluid in a 'Venturi' tube continually 'juggle' their static/dynamic-pressure 'property profiles', or their temperature/density property profiles). In short, the 'BULK' fluid going down the tube interacts 'seamlessly' with the 'boundary layer' conditions of the 'throat' (representing a pseudo-soliton topography) as it approaches/passes the 'mixing-zone/skin' of that 'imbedded' relative structure (as it were). So you see, their is no discontinuities implied in having a 3-D twistor-soliton imbedded as a localised feature in a globalised 'bulk' (the feature-and-bulk may obviously co-exist in observationally separate-yet-contiguous state DEPENDING ONLY ON THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE OBSERVER). All of which means that there MUST BE a 'mathematical solution' for that phenomena IN THE SAME VEIN AS FOR THE 'FLUID DYNAMICAL' SOLUTIONS...so, nil desperandum Good Elf...we'll get there in the end!
Basically, Good Elf, I am of the view that 80 years of COMPLEXIFYING hasn't really worked except to 'diversify' theories to a number which is become more a hindrance than a help to clear perspective; that is why I am trying SIMPLIFYING, I have nothing to lose except my confusion!
Gotta go now...I have to eat sometimes.
Best of lucky regards from: RealityCheck.
Hi RealityCheck,
What is your "take" on this point. Was that a comment on the way quantum theory removes the thinking part of our inquiring mind and replaces it with "probability densities"?
What would you prefer to see as a simplifying "principle"? Personally I think that ultimately the theory must become "human understandable" and regardless of "paradigm" must be able to "grasp" the truth about the Universe (whatever that means). I have seen so many statements in this forum that show a hopelessness about how the Universe works and this probably removes "great minds" from the debate leaving the field open to us "pixies and elves". Man is at the crossroads and he has one chance to find his place in a future that he is able to understand and not leave it entirely up to "quantum computers" chugging along "at the speed of light" attempting to find some meaning that man cannot grasp.
Like Newton after such great heights in discovering Calculus, the Theory of Light and Gravitation he fell into despair and spent the latter half of his life in a "religious loony bin" of his own making. Newton is one of the great shoulders all Science stands upon but it shows how easy it is to become "morose" and allow despair to seep in.
Scratch the surface and underneath even the "elves" are human after all. Beneath the surface there is a little madness in us all and unless we make sense of all this we are heading for a “Krystal Nacht’ for the human race....
Any philosophical comments ... from anyone!
Cheers
QUOTE
Basically, Good Elf, I am of the view that 80 years of COMPLEXIFYING hasn't really worked except to 'diversify' theories to a number which is become more a hindrance than a help to clear perspective; that is why I am trying SIMPLIFYING, I have nothing to lose except my confusion!
What is your "take" on this point. Was that a comment on the way quantum theory removes the thinking part of our inquiring mind and replaces it with "probability densities"?
What would you prefer to see as a simplifying "principle"? Personally I think that ultimately the theory must become "human understandable" and regardless of "paradigm" must be able to "grasp" the truth about the Universe (whatever that means). I have seen so many statements in this forum that show a hopelessness about how the Universe works and this probably removes "great minds" from the debate leaving the field open to us "pixies and elves". Man is at the crossroads and he has one chance to find his place in a future that he is able to understand and not leave it entirely up to "quantum computers" chugging along "at the speed of light" attempting to find some meaning that man cannot grasp.
Like Newton after such great heights in discovering Calculus, the Theory of Light and Gravitation he fell into despair and spent the latter half of his life in a "religious loony bin" of his own making. Newton is one of the great shoulders all Science stands upon but it shows how easy it is to become "morose" and allow despair to seep in.
Scratch the surface and underneath even the "elves" are human after all. Beneath the surface there is a little madness in us all and unless we make sense of all this we are heading for a “Krystal Nacht’ for the human race....
Any philosophical comments ... from anyone!
Cheers
There are two types of Gravity.
Inert Gavity, and gyrotic Gravity. Inert Gravity is best demonstrated by filling a bucket full of water and swerling it round and round over one's head. Inert Gravity keeps the water in the bucket at all times, and both the water and inert gravity cannot escape.
Gyrotic gravity(Universal Gravity) can escape. This type of gravity is made up of a number of objects spinning in different directions within the principal. The Principal in all cases is each Galaxy. Let's look at Gyrotic gravity created by our own Solar system.
The Milky Way is turning, and from where we are, 30,000 light years from the Galactic centre, is taking our Solar system with it at half a million miles per hour in the first direction to establish stage one of the formation of Gyrotic Gravity.( the Gyro)
Within this system, the planet Earth is speeding in orbit around the sun at 78,000 miles per hour in a different direction to make up stage two, and within both these systems, the Earth is spinning on its own axis at 1,000 miles per hour in yet another direction to make up the final stage of the gyro and produce Gyrotic Gravity. Gravity that not only holds together those heavenly bodies, but gravity that escapes.
It can escape because it is being continually produced.
With all the nine planets contributing with their own individual piece of gyrotc gravity, our entire Solar system, and the billions of other Solar systems which contribute theirs, create a massive Gyrotic gravitation field, not only within the confines of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the Universe, but well into the dark matter that surrounds them.
Glactus
Inert Gavity, and gyrotic Gravity. Inert Gravity is best demonstrated by filling a bucket full of water and swerling it round and round over one's head. Inert Gravity keeps the water in the bucket at all times, and both the water and inert gravity cannot escape.
Gyrotic gravity(Universal Gravity) can escape. This type of gravity is made up of a number of objects spinning in different directions within the principal. The Principal in all cases is each Galaxy. Let's look at Gyrotic gravity created by our own Solar system.
The Milky Way is turning, and from where we are, 30,000 light years from the Galactic centre, is taking our Solar system with it at half a million miles per hour in the first direction to establish stage one of the formation of Gyrotic Gravity.( the Gyro)
Within this system, the planet Earth is speeding in orbit around the sun at 78,000 miles per hour in a different direction to make up stage two, and within both these systems, the Earth is spinning on its own axis at 1,000 miles per hour in yet another direction to make up the final stage of the gyro and produce Gyrotic Gravity. Gravity that not only holds together those heavenly bodies, but gravity that escapes.
It can escape because it is being continually produced.
With all the nine planets contributing with their own individual piece of gyrotc gravity, our entire Solar system, and the billions of other Solar systems which contribute theirs, create a massive Gyrotic gravitation field, not only within the confines of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the Universe, but well into the dark matter that surrounds them.
Glactus
huhhh?
Glactus, you described centripetal acceleration w/ the swinging bucket example - not 'inert gravity' whatever that is. And 'gyrotic' isnt even a word in the dictionary.
Static objects have gravity - this was very precisely confirmed way back in the 18th century by Cavendish's famous 2 body experiments:
F = Gm1m2/ r^2
As Good Elf mentioned, it is a function of mass and GE's suggestion that mass is a pseudoacceleration founded as a tensor of rank 3 is an interesting idea.
-gleefully spinning solids!
Glactus, you described centripetal acceleration w/ the swinging bucket example - not 'inert gravity' whatever that is. And 'gyrotic' isnt even a word in the dictionary.
Static objects have gravity - this was very precisely confirmed way back in the 18th century by Cavendish's famous 2 body experiments:
F = Gm1m2/ r^2
As Good Elf mentioned, it is a function of mass and GE's suggestion that mass is a pseudoacceleration founded as a tensor of rank 3 is an interesting idea.
-gleefully spinning solids!
Hi Solidspin and Glactus,
Time marches on Solidspin.... I have upped the dimensions of mass to include time.
Sorry about that.... I guess it does show a little flakiness to my ideas but I hope they get better rather than worse.
Time marches on Solidspin.... I have upped the dimensions of mass to include time.
Sorry about that.... I guess it does show a little flakiness to my ideas but I hope they get better rather than worse.
The conclusion now is that mass is also a pseudo-property like gravity due to a property of "intrinsic" acceleration. We know mass is not a vector like acceleration so as I have mentioned before in previous posts, mass is more likely to be a tensor of rank 3. However since we have demonstrated that mass is dependent on acceleration it must also depend on the second derivative of time (acceleration) so it will have a hidden dimension of "time". Hence actually a tensor of rank 4.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=24243
Please comment on it some more... is this better or worse?
Cheers
Gravity is an energy field created by all things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxies together.
~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Gravity is an energy field created by all things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxies together.
~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Cute.. :}
Actually, gravity appears to be more of a gradient in the surrounding metric frame of space surroundsing matter; to use an ultra-simplified anology, if the metric frame is represented by a stretched rubber sheet, then gravity would be the dents set into the sheet when particles represented by ball bearings are placed upon the surface. Now, this is a 3-dimensional representation of a 10-dimensional phenomenon, of course.
QUOTE
As Good Elf mentioned, it is a function of mass and GE's suggestion that mass is a pseudoacceleration founded as a tensor of rank 3 is an interesting idea.
Time marches on Solidspin.... I have upped the dimensions of mass to include time.Sorry about that.... I guess it does show a little flakiness to my ideas but I hope they get better rather than worse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As Good Elf mentioned, it is a function of mass and GE's suggestion that mass is a pseudoacceleration founded as a tensor of rank 3 is an interesting idea. |
Time marches on Solidspin.... I have upped the dimensions of mass to include time.Sorry about that.... I guess it does show a little flakiness to my ideas but I hope they get better rather than worse.
The conclusion now is that mass is also a pseudo-property like gravity due to a property of "intrinsic" acceleration. We know mass is not a vector like acceleration so as I have mentioned before in previous posts, mass is more likely to be a tensor of rank 3. However since we have demonstrated that mass is dependent on acceleration it must also depend on the second derivative of time (acceleration) so it will have a hidden dimension of "time". Hence actually a tensor of rank 4.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=24243
Please comment on it some more... is this better or worse?
Cheers
Here is a link into a more detailed look into what Good Elf is talking about.
I think it called the Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT). Also it gives some hyperlink references to other papers.
I think it called the Causal Dynamical Triangulations (CDT). Also it gives some hyperlink references to other papers.
Hi Good Elf
I have a question regarding speed and mass.
At relativistic speeds a partical's time clock is slower than the observer's time clock.
The partical only changes direction and or speed using its own time clock and force per unit time to make the changes. Could we the observers equate the extra time we observe for the partical to change direction or speed to extra mass?
I have a question regarding speed and mass.
At relativistic speeds a partical's time clock is slower than the observer's time clock.
The partical only changes direction and or speed using its own time clock and force per unit time to make the changes. Could we the observers equate the extra time we observe for the partical to change direction or speed to extra mass?
okay, this is all well and good.
now how do we use it to fly?
worldpeace,
ben
now how do we use it to fly?
worldpeace,
ben
QUOTE
What is gravity?
Gravity is an energy field created by all things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxies together.
~Obi-Wan Kenobi
QUOTE (a_ht+Sep 5 2005, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE
What is gravity?
Gravity is an energy field created by all things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxies together.
~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Cute.. :}
Actually, gravity appears to be more of a gradient in the surrounding metric frame of space surroundsing matter; to use an ultra-simplified anology, if the metric frame is represented by a stretched rubber sheet, then gravity would be the dents set into the sheet when particles represented by ball bearings are placed upon the surface. Now, this is a 3-dimensional representation of a 10-dimensional phenomenon, of course.
Hi Guest_Tony and Montec (et al),
Thanks for that article on Causal Dynamical Triangulations. I have never considered that approach but it is very interesting. It does attempt to deal with a lot of the big questions. The non-linear nature of Spacetime and even worse... that of branespaces is a bit off putting to those who are trying to follow. I am receiving a little "flack" from RealityCheck (quite rightly). I apologize for all for this being a fairly jargonistic discussion. I see that I need to "clarify" a bit. I apologize for the length of this and the fact it is incomplete and that it does not contain maths. There are good reasons for all these points... he he he!
I would like to point to the paper here as a great insight into particles that I can highly recommend...
Electron is close-looped photon?, Any further work in semi-classical?
It deals with the idea of charge in electrons and to intrinsic acceleration producing other phenomena including quantum numbers. It is incomplete only in that it has chosen to work with too few dimensions. Otherwise "brilliant".
That paper you have there Tony ("The Universe from Scratch") misses a fairly "nasty" aspect of all my discussions in that it is more "classical" than most and tries not to "quantize spacetime". I take the view that spacetime is actually not "fundamentally" quantized but it is only the quanta that are quantized and this is probably caused by "truncation" in time of 'waves". I also do not subscribe to the idea (in general) that there is a quantum limit where everything becomes "chaos" at the Planck Length. This liberalism allows the Universe to be "Holographic" and this actually supports the idea of T-Duality by having really small things having their "duals" as being very large (at the same time). Then there is the concept of "supersymmetry" where there two entities are descriptions of the same thing but one is a "boson" and the other is a "fermion"... simultaneously (wave and particle descriptions).
This is no repudiation of the quantum and of quantum phenomena. I just object to the apparent need to view all as quanta, including spacetime, and this as being fundamental. I see that quanta have a wave and a particle/packet "mode". This is equivalent to a "frequency" and "impulse" domain of Fourier Theory. These two views of the Universe are "equivalent" and co-exist depending on the way we choose to interpret them. While it is in wave mode it is not involved in "particle interactions" which involve particle to particle "contact" interactions. When it is a "particle" it is reacting as a particle and is involved with Fermi-Dirac Statistics that are in our "bulk" 3D + T Spacetime. While a wave it is like "light" that exhibits 'spreading" and all those properties classical waves and bosons have such as Bose-Einstein Statistics. Electromagnetism is the "shadow on the wall" of Spacetime of the quanta, which are moving in higher dimensions.
With photons these "shadows' are the electric and magnetic fields and are representations of something more fundamental and uncharged. When a quantum is in "wave" mode it is actually moving in a separate quantum space (coined "Uberspace") and is dependent on the kind of "brane" it is supposed to be. These extra spaces are "compactified dimensions" of our 10 dimensional Universe that is all around us and is separate from the 3D + T Spacetime (4 dimensional). They are "highly" flexible and "local"... unlike Spacetime which is more rigid than "steel" and apparently "global". The geometry is dependent on the boson or de Broglie particle it is supposed to be. This ensures that the particle is at least partially shielded from our part of the Universe and "hidden" in that state (above our 3D + T "bulk").
The surfaces of these branes and usually interpreted in our Universe as 3D "Twistors". These have a 2D surface that is 'connected" to our 3D space. These entities "spin" in higher dimensions. The 2D surfaces embody the concept of the "string" and are far more complex than just this and vibrate with many degrees of freedom. The string 'encodes" the higher dimensions on the "other side" of the object as a flatspace "hologram". You could argue from now to the end of the world what this "string" really is. I have no idea.
Any "object" that need to move from one brane to another need to negotiate the boundary conditions there. The 3D + T spacetime is a special sub-space of our 10 dimensional Universe. The other six dimensions are equivalent to a "spinning" higher dimensional "complex" 3 space (my interpretation). Being compactified it is "usually" smaller than our Universe. The "bulk" 3D + T Spacetime connects with those "interior" spaces but for the purpose of simplification we can choose to deal with the 3D Twistor and the 2D surface of that Twistor. This means that normal 4D maths can potentially be used "over" that region. All that is not a "done deal" though. I need the crutch of thinking about those higher dimensions at this stage. RealityCheck would like me to drop all that extra dimension stuff but I still need it because I am certain that "all is not well" yet. I am picking my way very slowly about all this "connection" stuff.
This thread has already discussed the problems of Gravity. I propose a "slight simplification" here. As I see them I will mention them. Still picking my way very slowly. This was a corollary of Einsteins principle of equivalence that states that Mass is a property that is due to "intrinsic" acceleration. This spin is not the normal spin in 3D but in those 6D of Uberspace. This exhibits mass quite strongly. There is also "planar" spin in our Universe but this has little or no effect on us since it is of order of one planar rotation in 50 billion years, this is not noticeable usually. It is however very noticeable in our Universe's compactified dimensions where they are spinning close to the speed of light with smaller "external" dimensions.
That paper mentioned by Guest_Tony deals with these highly curved spacetimes where tensors will break down. It is more "efficient" to deal with the small 3D + T "bulk" "Spacetime Curvature" using Tensors. If these other dimensions are mapped as Braneworlds (3D + T equivalents to Abbot's "Flatland") within those frames the maths will be correct but from an external point of view the space appears highly curved and the time is a parameter on the boundary. We cannot interpret this geometry from our parallel point of view. Information is "lost" in this mapping. I suggest that this does not map across the boundary in any way that makes any sense... like so many 'folded caustics". That spacetime will appear "non-affine" but within the transformed frame will appear "affine-like" using the internal equivalent of our external "bulk".
That is where Bohmian Mechanics comes in. There are hidden variables in there (higher dimensions) and unless something goes into that region and records these events from the point of view of the rest frame of the quantum event they may be forever beyond our ken. It is not "hopeless" just "impossible" He he he!
There are also a number of issues related to that Fourier Transform aspect of these two connected but separate realities. I will let you think about that.
Thanks for that article on Causal Dynamical Triangulations. I have never considered that approach but it is very interesting. It does attempt to deal with a lot of the big questions. The non-linear nature of Spacetime and even worse... that of branespaces is a bit off putting to those who are trying to follow. I am receiving a little "flack" from RealityCheck (quite rightly). I apologize for all for this being a fairly jargonistic discussion. I see that I need to "clarify" a bit. I apologize for the length of this and the fact it is incomplete and that it does not contain maths. There are good reasons for all these points... he he he!
I would like to point to the paper here as a great insight into particles that I can highly recommend...
Electron is close-looped photon?, Any further work in semi-classical?
It deals with the idea of charge in electrons and to intrinsic acceleration producing other phenomena including quantum numbers. It is incomplete only in that it has chosen to work with too few dimensions. Otherwise "brilliant".
That paper you have there Tony ("The Universe from Scratch") misses a fairly "nasty" aspect of all my discussions in that it is more "classical" than most and tries not to "quantize spacetime". I take the view that spacetime is actually not "fundamentally" quantized but it is only the quanta that are quantized and this is probably caused by "truncation" in time of 'waves". I also do not subscribe to the idea (in general) that there is a quantum limit where everything becomes "chaos" at the Planck Length. This liberalism allows the Universe to be "Holographic" and this actually supports the idea of T-Duality by having really small things having their "duals" as being very large (at the same time). Then there is the concept of "supersymmetry" where there two entities are descriptions of the same thing but one is a "boson" and the other is a "fermion"... simultaneously (wave and particle descriptions).
This is no repudiation of the quantum and of quantum phenomena. I just object to the apparent need to view all as quanta, including spacetime, and this as being fundamental. I see that quanta have a wave and a particle/packet "mode". This is equivalent to a "frequency" and "impulse" domain of Fourier Theory. These two views of the Universe are "equivalent" and co-exist depending on the way we choose to interpret them. While it is in wave mode it is not involved in "particle interactions" which involve particle to particle "contact" interactions. When it is a "particle" it is reacting as a particle and is involved with Fermi-Dirac Statistics that are in our "bulk" 3D + T Spacetime. While a wave it is like "light" that exhibits 'spreading" and all those properties classical waves and bosons have such as Bose-Einstein Statistics. Electromagnetism is the "shadow on the wall" of Spacetime of the quanta, which are moving in higher dimensions.
With photons these "shadows' are the electric and magnetic fields and are representations of something more fundamental and uncharged. When a quantum is in "wave" mode it is actually moving in a separate quantum space (coined "Uberspace") and is dependent on the kind of "brane" it is supposed to be. These extra spaces are "compactified dimensions" of our 10 dimensional Universe that is all around us and is separate from the 3D + T Spacetime (4 dimensional). They are "highly" flexible and "local"... unlike Spacetime which is more rigid than "steel" and apparently "global". The geometry is dependent on the boson or de Broglie particle it is supposed to be. This ensures that the particle is at least partially shielded from our part of the Universe and "hidden" in that state (above our 3D + T "bulk").
The surfaces of these branes and usually interpreted in our Universe as 3D "Twistors". These have a 2D surface that is 'connected" to our 3D space. These entities "spin" in higher dimensions. The 2D surfaces embody the concept of the "string" and are far more complex than just this and vibrate with many degrees of freedom. The string 'encodes" the higher dimensions on the "other side" of the object as a flatspace "hologram". You could argue from now to the end of the world what this "string" really is. I have no idea.
Any "object" that need to move from one brane to another need to negotiate the boundary conditions there. The 3D + T spacetime is a special sub-space of our 10 dimensional Universe. The other six dimensions are equivalent to a "spinning" higher dimensional "complex" 3 space (my interpretation). Being compactified it is "usually" smaller than our Universe. The "bulk" 3D + T Spacetime connects with those "interior" spaces but for the purpose of simplification we can choose to deal with the 3D Twistor and the 2D surface of that Twistor. This means that normal 4D maths can potentially be used "over" that region. All that is not a "done deal" though. I need the crutch of thinking about those higher dimensions at this stage. RealityCheck would like me to drop all that extra dimension stuff but I still need it because I am certain that "all is not well" yet. I am picking my way very slowly about all this "connection" stuff.
This thread has already discussed the problems of Gravity. I propose a "slight simplification" here. As I see them I will mention them. Still picking my way very slowly. This was a corollary of Einsteins principle of equivalence that states that Mass is a property that is due to "intrinsic" acceleration. This spin is not the normal spin in 3D but in those 6D of Uberspace. This exhibits mass quite strongly. There is also "planar" spin in our Universe but this has little or no effect on us since it is of order of one planar rotation in 50 billion years, this is not noticeable usually. It is however very noticeable in our Universe's compactified dimensions where they are spinning close to the speed of light with smaller "external" dimensions.
That paper mentioned by Guest_Tony deals with these highly curved spacetimes where tensors will break down. It is more "efficient" to deal with the small 3D + T "bulk" "Spacetime Curvature" using Tensors. If these other dimensions are mapped as Braneworlds (3D + T equivalents to Abbot's "Flatland") within those frames the maths will be correct but from an external point of view the space appears highly curved and the time is a parameter on the boundary. We cannot interpret this geometry from our parallel point of view. Information is "lost" in this mapping. I suggest that this does not map across the boundary in any way that makes any sense... like so many 'folded caustics". That spacetime will appear "non-affine" but within the transformed frame will appear "affine-like" using the internal equivalent of our external "bulk".
That is where Bohmian Mechanics comes in. There are hidden variables in there (higher dimensions) and unless something goes into that region and records these events from the point of view of the rest frame of the quantum event they may be forever beyond our ken. It is not "hopeless" just "impossible" He he he!
There are also a number of issues related to that Fourier Transform aspect of these two connected but separate realities. I will let you think about that.
QUOTE (Montec Posted on Sep 4 2005+ 11:07 PM)
Hi Good Elf
I have a question regarding speed and mass.
At relativistic speeds a particle's time clock is slower than the observer's time clock.
The partical only changes direction and or speed using its own time clock and force per unit time to make the changes. Could we the observers equate the extra time we observe for the particle to change direction or speed to extra mass?
I am not 'absolutely" sure with this statement but I think what you are asking is can we "know" to a sufficient level of understanding the internal nature of the time progressing inside that relativistic object to "map" it fully into our 3D + T Spacetime?
While the path the particle is taking is a vector the loss of time is not a vector but a scaler. Since it is actually carrying a "clock" and this clock potentially could have been synchronized initially... we can 'observe" that clock with a number of independent (synchronized) observers who would then record the raw data about position an the other measurables of the system. These separate readings made "locally" in the "vicinity" of the fast moving particle may be collected and tell a story about the history of the particle. But the question is who is able to collect and collate this information? It is not in "real time" and it is difficult to interpret. What is recorded is not necessarily what is happening. All this is suffering "distortions" of observations.
For instance in the case of a particle accelerator, the particle is traveling confined to a circle and is non-inertial. We have no 'record" of any "internal clock". Clocks are not synchronized We can measure some parameters but not a precise knowledge of where and when. We will always interpret things as "events" and these "propagate" correcting causal anomalies in Spacetime. This is what we understand as "time". he he he... Sort of like the words "item", "teim", "imet" all being corrected to read 'time" by a "cosmic spell checker". However all these "corrected" values has some missing information that we are blind to.... the order. They do not represent different words though (not in this case). Our universe is "tachyon" adverse.
Does this "extra time" equate to "extra mass"? Well the particle actually "loses time" but ages less. The acceleration is "gravity" and not "mass". I know that we have relativistic mass but this is really not "rest mass". This acceleration is "extrinsic" and represents external spacetime curvature not intrinsic internal curvature which is my definition on mass. Of course within those bosonic and fermionic "Universes" that we are measuring "mass" from... might exhibit extrinsic acceleration internally to "stuff" in there but we will never know will we?
I am afraid this is only scratching the surface and simplification will need to wait for more "details". There is also that "Bohmian" aspect that is saying there are Laws that may prevent us from knowing the inner workings from external points of view. You need to ask yourself how much of this "interior" knowledge do we need? I am convinced in a specific situation we may not fully know the dynamics of a quantum particle but we may know the Laws that govern it. "How far does a dog run into the forest?" You can only go half way on this. You may even get 3/4 way. But going all the way... I dunno!
Cheers
I have a question regarding speed and mass.
At relativistic speeds a particle's time clock is slower than the observer's time clock.
The partical only changes direction and or speed using its own time clock and force per unit time to make the changes. Could we the observers equate the extra time we observe for the particle to change direction or speed to extra mass?
I am not 'absolutely" sure with this statement but I think what you are asking is can we "know" to a sufficient level of understanding the internal nature of the time progressing inside that relativistic object to "map" it fully into our 3D + T Spacetime?
While the path the particle is taking is a vector the loss of time is not a vector but a scaler. Since it is actually carrying a "clock" and this clock potentially could have been synchronized initially... we can 'observe" that clock with a number of independent (synchronized) observers who would then record the raw data about position an the other measurables of the system. These separate readings made "locally" in the "vicinity" of the fast moving particle may be collected and tell a story about the history of the particle. But the question is who is able to collect and collate this information? It is not in "real time" and it is difficult to interpret. What is recorded is not necessarily what is happening. All this is suffering "distortions" of observations.
For instance in the case of a particle accelerator, the particle is traveling confined to a circle and is non-inertial. We have no 'record" of any "internal clock". Clocks are not synchronized We can measure some parameters but not a precise knowledge of where and when. We will always interpret things as "events" and these "propagate" correcting causal anomalies in Spacetime. This is what we understand as "time". he he he... Sort of like the words "item", "teim", "imet" all being corrected to read 'time" by a "cosmic spell checker". However all these "corrected" values has some missing information that we are blind to.... the order. They do not represent different words though (not in this case). Our universe is "tachyon" adverse.
Does this "extra time" equate to "extra mass"? Well the particle actually "loses time" but ages less. The acceleration is "gravity" and not "mass". I know that we have relativistic mass but this is really not "rest mass". This acceleration is "extrinsic" and represents external spacetime curvature not intrinsic internal curvature which is my definition on mass. Of course within those bosonic and fermionic "Universes" that we are measuring "mass" from... might exhibit extrinsic acceleration internally to "stuff" in there but we will never know will we?
I am afraid this is only scratching the surface and simplification will need to wait for more "details". There is also that "Bohmian" aspect that is saying there are Laws that may prevent us from knowing the inner workings from external points of view. You need to ask yourself how much of this "interior" knowledge do we need? I am convinced in a specific situation we may not fully know the dynamics of a quantum particle but we may know the Laws that govern it. "How far does a dog run into the forest?" You can only go half way on this. You may even get 3/4 way. But going all the way... I dunno!
Cheers
The law of motion given by Sir Newton and the gravity that we are trying
to understand with the same does not make any connection. It is easy to
Understand the law of motion completely but the law of gravity is
Only being understood by equation and the proof of its physical existence
Has not been proved by any Scientists till date.
To understand the counter clock wise revolution of planets is not being
Understood by the law of Sir Kapler or Sir Newton. If gravity would have
been proved as 100 % existing then the revolution of planets with the
position Of motion in its center Direction could have been clear.
As we are aware that the Diameter of our Galaxy is approx. 1,00,000
Light Year, Looking to this its radius can be 50,000 Light Year. From
Galaxy's center, the planet those are 50,000 Light Year away is
gravitationally affected which Is seems to be confusing.
The rotation of Galaxy’s center is clock wise and Galaxy's Arms also
revolves Clock wise which is not clear. If gravity would have been
existing then it could have maintained equal distance and
would have been revolving clockwise and not counter clock wise
'Gravitational force exists between two Galaxy's'. This cannot be
clearly Stated by Scientists. They consider this to be their mutual
understanding.
The revolving motion of Solar System Planets is reduced when distance
Is created between them. This is not being understood by the law of
Gravity. Also according to any gravitational law, statistical equation is
Not getting proved. Moreover, mass between them is different.
As we see that even though the massive planet that is far
from sun has slow Revolving Motion whose examples can be taken
from our 9 planets. Same example Can also be considered from the
planets of Milky Way and cluster too.
Our Solar System consists of many small planets having low mass who
are not being supported by anything and is not even related to either sun
or planets but getting least effected by this, it revolves at 220 km/sec
around the Galaxy because it travels in space. Though it is far away
from Galaxy,it keeps the direction of Galaxy's Center in mind and
not the rotating Direction of the neighbor planets.
The sphere shape of planets is not being understood by gravitational law.
However, Is it correct to understand that the sphere of planets is due to its
Rotation? If yes, then the Law of gravity is being deviated.
Why Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, & Neptune have satellite more than other
planet, this is the very strong evidence of pulling by center’s rotation ,
and this is also alternate of gravity we are aware that sun has only 9
planet because it’s rotation speed is Near 2.04knm/sec when above
4 plane’s rotation speed is more than sun, mass doesn’t matter here
because all of above 4 plane’s density nearly sun’s density
The direction in which center is rotating and the rotation of satellite
Into the same direction is against the gravitational law. If gravity
would have been existing then it could not have considered the rotating
Direction of center.
Rotation of mass can only be the reason of pulling for which, I cannot
provide evidence but it can be surely said that mass remains same
between North and South Pole and between hills and valley but
weight differs.
Can the planet rotate whose shape is not round but is uneven? If not then
what could be the reason behind the rotation of round planets and non
Rotation of uneven ones. If this is due to rotation of planets in the center,
then The law of gravity creates confusion.
When huge planets are round in shape and tiny planets are uneven in
shape, Then can it be said that the round shapes of huge planets
are due to its rotation?
When gravitational law cannot prove the round shape of planets and the
same gravity of round planets can be measured with the help of the
Theory of gravitational constant.
THe law of gravity is based on mass, diameter and distance. If this is
True then moon should have been the satellite of sun. Why is it the
Satellite Of earth? Also the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune should Have been the satellites of sun as they maintain
similar distance from sun.
Also, the mass and diameter of Pluto planet may be similar to any
moon of Jupiter which has been learnt from geographical data,
even though Pluto is the satellite of Sun. From Gravitational law
it can be learnt that the moon of Jupiter is being gravitationally affected by Jupiter
planet and Pluto Planet is being affected by Sun. Why is this so?
If we believe the result of gravitational law as 100% gravity then the
appearance of our existing Universe should have been different then
The way it is at present. As we know, most of Galaxies are round
in shape And our Solar system is also round in shape. Gravitational
law believes that This round shape may be due to gravitational
pulling. Why do planets are Round in shape? If their shapes are
round because of gravity, then why other Planets are not round?
Also, the reason of roundness of planets is not being
Proved by gravitational law.
If, based on gravitational law, the pulling of two objects or mass
can be known then Venus and Mercury does not have even
a single moon When Earth and other Planets have one or more
then one moon. Based on Geographical data, Pluto has a satellite
that is “6 times lighter” then Pluto.
Specifically, the gravitational pulling of Pluto can be known through
gravitational law but the method of pulling of its satellite that
is “6 times lighter” and is approximately 20000 kilo meter away from it
is still unknown. If this gravitation law is proved, then too, the
confusion still arises because in that case, Pluto, instead of being
the satellite of sun, should have been the satellite of those neighboring
Planets of Sun who are enormous.
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune have more than one moons when
they are Very little massive as compared to Sun. The reason behind this
is not being Proved by gravitational law. As we are aware that by
considering the diameter of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, their rotation
speed is more Than Sun. The planets whose rotation speed is
more have more moons. Based on these facts, can the rotation
of planets be considered to be an Alternative of gravity?
to understand with the same does not make any connection. It is easy to
Understand the law of motion completely but the law of gravity is
Only being understood by equation and the proof of its physical existence
Has not been proved by any Scientists till date.
To understand the counter clock wise revolution of planets is not being
Understood by the law of Sir Kapler or Sir Newton. If gravity would have
been proved as 100 % existing then the revolution of planets with the
position Of motion in its center Direction could have been clear.
As we are aware that the Diameter of our Galaxy is approx. 1,00,000
Light Year, Looking to this its radius can be 50,000 Light Year. From
Galaxy's center, the planet those are 50,000 Light Year away is
gravitationally affected which Is seems to be confusing.
The rotation of Galaxy’s center is clock wise and Galaxy's Arms also
revolves Clock wise which is not clear. If gravity would have been
existing then it could have maintained equal distance and
would have been revolving clockwise and not counter clock wise
'Gravitational force exists between two Galaxy's'. This cannot be
clearly Stated by Scientists. They consider this to be their mutual
understanding.
The revolving motion of Solar System Planets is reduced when distance
Is created between them. This is not being understood by the law of
Gravity. Also according to any gravitational law, statistical equation is
Not getting proved. Moreover, mass between them is different.
As we see that even though the massive planet that is far
from sun has slow Revolving Motion whose examples can be taken
from our 9 planets. Same example Can also be considered from the
planets of Milky Way and cluster too.
Our Solar System consists of many small planets having low mass who
are not being supported by anything and is not even related to either sun
or planets but getting least effected by this, it revolves at 220 km/sec
around the Galaxy because it travels in space. Though it is far away
from Galaxy,it keeps the direction of Galaxy's Center in mind and
not the rotating Direction of the neighbor planets.
The sphere shape of planets is not being understood by gravitational law.
However, Is it correct to understand that the sphere of planets is due to its
Rotation? If yes, then the Law of gravity is being deviated.
Why Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, & Neptune have satellite more than other
planet, this is the very strong evidence of pulling by center’s rotation ,
and this is also alternate of gravity we are aware that sun has only 9
planet because it’s rotation speed is Near 2.04knm/sec when above
4 plane’s rotation speed is more than sun, mass doesn’t matter here
because all of above 4 plane’s density nearly sun’s density
The direction in which center is rotating and the rotation of satellite
Into the same direction is against the gravitational law. If gravity
would have been existing then it could not have considered the rotating
Direction of center.
Rotation of mass can only be the reason of pulling for which, I cannot
provide evidence but it can be surely said that mass remains same
between North and South Pole and between hills and valley but
weight differs.
Can the planet rotate whose shape is not round but is uneven? If not then
what could be the reason behind the rotation of round planets and non
Rotation of uneven ones. If this is due to rotation of planets in the center,
then The law of gravity creates confusion.
When huge planets are round in shape and tiny planets are uneven in
shape, Then can it be said that the round shapes of huge planets
are due to its rotation?
When gravitational law cannot prove the round shape of planets and the
same gravity of round planets can be measured with the help of the
Theory of gravitational constant.
THe law of gravity is based on mass, diameter and distance. If this is
True then moon should have been the satellite of sun. Why is it the
Satellite Of earth? Also the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and
Neptune should Have been the satellites of sun as they maintain
similar distance from sun.
Also, the mass and diameter of Pluto planet may be similar to any
moon of Jupiter which has been learnt from geographical data,
even though Pluto is the satellite of Sun. From Gravitational law
it can be learnt that the moon of Jupiter is being gravitationally affected by Jupiter
planet and Pluto Planet is being affected by Sun. Why is this so?
If we believe the result of gravitational law as 100% gravity then the
appearance of our existing Universe should have been different then
The way it is at present. As we know, most of Galaxies are round
in shape And our Solar system is also round in shape. Gravitational
law believes that This round shape may be due to gravitational
pulling. Why do planets are Round in shape? If their shapes are
round because of gravity, then why other Planets are not round?
Also, the reason of roundness of planets is not being
Proved by gravitational law.
If, based on gravitational law, the pulling of two objects or mass
can be known then Venus and Mercury does not have even
a single moon When Earth and other Planets have one or more
then one moon. Based on Geographical data, Pluto has a satellite
that is “6 times lighter” then Pluto.
Specifically, the gravitational pulling of Pluto can be known through
gravitational law but the method of pulling of its satellite that
is “6 times lighter” and is approximately 20000 kilo meter away from it
is still unknown. If this gravitation law is proved, then too, the
confusion still arises because in that case, Pluto, instead of being
the satellite of sun, should have been the satellite of those neighboring
Planets of Sun who are enormous.
Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune have more than one moons when
they are Very little massive as compared to Sun. The reason behind this
is not being Proved by gravitational law. As we are aware that by
considering the diameter of Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, their rotation
speed is more Than Sun. The planets whose rotation speed is
more have more moons. Based on these facts, can the rotation
of planets be considered to be an Alternative of gravity?
Hi Guest_Pradeep(pra0007@yahoo.com),
The questions you ask are not answered by gravity because gravity is not the theory to ask those questions of. It is only a small part of the "equation". These questions are targeting cosmologists. Mankind knows very little about a great many things. That is what science is all about. It is a process of gradual "enlightenment". I never expect science to answer all the questions, but when the answers come I want to know the proof as well. Quite frankly I hope that this situation lasts "forever" with humans just chipping away at the edifice of the unknown. That edifice is like an iceberg, with only the tip showing above water line and the great unknown "bulk" hidden unseen below. That is what I think is the "human condition". There are many who believe they know or believe they know all the answers but I do not belong to that camp of "true believers". Still... I am hopeful. We know enough to get bye and to achieve some goals in our lives... perhaps.
This is not to say that I think that the questions you pose are not important. I think they are of the utmost importance. However I would like to say that "importance" is a relative concern depending on needs and imperatives of the individual. For instance the needs and imperatives of those suffering in New Orleans are in a different realm to mine. The difference being the great separation in space and in the level of "distress" those poor folk are being subjected to at this time to even survive. I am comfortable and only slightly troubled by that distress so far away. I am not proud of that... but I am presently helpless against that "immensity".
The Butcher and the Beaver wrestling with a "problem"
The Hunting of the Snark: an Agony in Eight Fits
I am the beaver or the butcher engrossed in personal problems of a "technical" nature while the "Snark" wanders about taking the lives of others. Yet all of life is just such an exercise. There is barely a place on this Earth free of trouble. That is why many seek a resolution to all questions otherwise this stay here on this planet will appear not fruitful. In the midst of plane crashes, terrorists, earthquake and famine I will go and watch "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"... who can blame me? I am sure with all this happening someone will.
So what is gravity? It is what is holding us here to all of "this"... the Planet Earth. There is no escape even if we were to know the secrets of the Universe and the ability to nullify the force of Gravity... we are held here by a "force" that commands our attention. Yet it is something to contemplate and to consider as the next frontier... not in space but in a "global village" getting smaller all the time and apparently ready to "implode".
Still it was a "good" movie and I will be seeing other movies equally as trivial very soon.
That kid in "Charlie" (Freddie Highmore) was the same kid in "Finding Neverland" and Johnny Depp starred in both. Small world isn't it. It must be gravity?... or is it a "golden ticket"? Not all is just "chance" is it? Oops... my brain is out tonight please call back when "Elf" is home... this is a pre-recorded message.
Cheers
The questions you ask are not answered by gravity because gravity is not the theory to ask those questions of. It is only a small part of the "equation". These questions are targeting cosmologists. Mankind knows very little about a great many things. That is what science is all about. It is a process of gradual "enlightenment". I never expect science to answer all the questions, but when the answers come I want to know the proof as well. Quite frankly I hope that this situation lasts "forever" with humans just chipping away at the edifice of the unknown. That edifice is like an iceberg, with only the tip showing above water line and the great unknown "bulk" hidden unseen below. That is what I think is the "human condition". There are many who believe they know or believe they know all the answers but I do not belong to that camp of "true believers". Still... I am hopeful. We know enough to get bye and to achieve some goals in our lives... perhaps.
This is not to say that I think that the questions you pose are not important. I think they are of the utmost importance. However I would like to say that "importance" is a relative concern depending on needs and imperatives of the individual. For instance the needs and imperatives of those suffering in New Orleans are in a different realm to mine. The difference being the great separation in space and in the level of "distress" those poor folk are being subjected to at this time to even survive. I am comfortable and only slightly troubled by that distress so far away. I am not proud of that... but I am presently helpless against that "immensity".
The Butcher and the Beaver wrestling with a "problem"
The Hunting of the Snark: an Agony in Eight Fits
I am the beaver or the butcher engrossed in personal problems of a "technical" nature while the "Snark" wanders about taking the lives of others. Yet all of life is just such an exercise. There is barely a place on this Earth free of trouble. That is why many seek a resolution to all questions otherwise this stay here on this planet will appear not fruitful. In the midst of plane crashes, terrorists, earthquake and famine I will go and watch "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"... who can blame me? I am sure with all this happening someone will.
So what is gravity? It is what is holding us here to all of "this"... the Planet Earth. There is no escape even if we were to know the secrets of the Universe and the ability to nullify the force of Gravity... we are held here by a "force" that commands our attention. Yet it is something to contemplate and to consider as the next frontier... not in space but in a "global village" getting smaller all the time and apparently ready to "implode".
Still it was a "good" movie and I will be seeing other movies equally as trivial very soon.
That kid in "Charlie" (Freddie Highmore) was the same kid in "Finding Neverland" and Johnny Depp starred in both. Small world isn't it. It must be gravity?... or is it a "golden ticket"? Not all is just "chance" is it? Oops... my brain is out tonight please call back when "Elf" is home... this is a pre-recorded message.
Cheers
Is there any known way of violating the law/s of gravity?
Hi jtlove,
QUOTE (jtlove Posted on Sep 28 2005+ 02:12 PM)
Is there any known way of violating the law/s of gravity?
This has connotations of some kind of "sexual assault".... this is not the case. Force is not necessary. You do not need to "violate" anything. You whisper sweet thoughts of "anarchy" into the ear of God and you get his "attention"... he he he!.
There are no "Laws" of Gravity. What we have are Theories and they will be forever subject to revision. Wait for the "Late Edition" and see if any laws are repealed by then?
The answer you want is "sure" you can "break the bonds of Gravity" but you will need to engineer some things in more than three dimensions. If you look back over my "history" you will see this has been discussed a couple of times. Look on page one of this thread for starters.
Now a quote that will save me typing any more...
This has connotations of some kind of "sexual assault".... this is not the case. Force is not necessary. You do not need to "violate" anything. You whisper sweet thoughts of "anarchy" into the ear of God and you get his "attention"... he he he!.
There are no "Laws" of Gravity. What we have are Theories and they will be forever subject to revision. Wait for the "Late Edition" and see if any laws are repealed by then?
The answer you want is "sure" you can "break the bonds of Gravity" but you will need to engineer some things in more than three dimensions. If you look back over my "history" you will see this has been discussed a couple of times. Look on page one of this thread for starters.
Now a quote that will save me typing any more...
QUOTE (Ben Franklin+)
In the time of Shakespeare (1500s), the average life-expectancy of the aristocracy was about 29 years. Undoubtedly, that of the commoners was much less. One hundred years later in the time of Hobbes (1600s), the average life-expectancy of the aristocrats increased to about 33 years. Another one hundred years later, in the time of Benjamin Franklin, it rose to about 35. Infant and adolescent mortality remained high and only a few reached advanced age.
Franklin, who lived to age 84 and who existed at the beginning of the technological era, could see where things were headed. In his letter of 1780 to Joseph Priestley (who was to discovered oxygen), he wrote the following prediction.
"I always rejoice to hear of your being still employ'd in Experimental Researches into Nature, and of the Success you meet with. The rapid Progress true Science now makes, occasions my Regretting sometimes that I was born so soon. It is impossible to imagine the Height to which may be carried in a 1000 Years the Power of Man over Matter. We may perhaps learn to deprive large Masses of their Gravity & give them absolute Levity, for the sake of easy Transport. Agriculture may diminish its Labour & double its Produce. All Diseases may by sure means be prevented or cured, not excepting even that of Old Age, and our Lives lengthened at pleasure even beyond the antediluvian Standard. O that moral Science were in as fair a Way of Improvement, that Men would cease to be Wolves to one another, and the human Beings would at length learn what they now improperly call Humanity."- Reference. Oberg, B (Editor) The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Vol 31, page 455-456, Yale Univ. Press 1995.
Cheers
Franklin, who lived to age 84 and who existed at the beginning of the technological era, could see where things were headed. In his letter of 1780 to Joseph Priestley (who was to discovered oxygen), he wrote the following prediction.
"I always rejoice to hear of your being still employ'd in Experimental Researches into Nature, and of the Success you meet with. The rapid Progress true Science now makes, occasions my Regretting sometimes that I was born so soon. It is impossible to imagine the Height to which may be carried in a 1000 Years the Power of Man over Matter. We may perhaps learn to deprive large Masses of their Gravity & give them absolute Levity, for the sake of easy Transport. Agriculture may diminish its Labour & double its Produce. All Diseases may by sure means be prevented or cured, not excepting even that of Old Age, and our Lives lengthened at pleasure even beyond the antediluvian Standard. O that moral Science were in as fair a Way of Improvement, that Men would cease to be Wolves to one another, and the human Beings would at length learn what they now improperly call Humanity."- Reference. Oberg, B (Editor) The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, Vol 31, page 455-456, Yale Univ. Press 1995.
Cheers
Hi everybody...
i've been thinking... if we have no explanation for the phenomena gravity... then is it not possible that gravity is created by oxygen? for example, there is no oxygen in outer space that we know of, and there is no gravity. what do you think?
Matt
i've been thinking... if we have no explanation for the phenomena gravity... then is it not possible that gravity is created by oxygen? for example, there is no oxygen in outer space that we know of, and there is no gravity. what do you think?
Matt
Hi youngscientist,
Oooh... Philosophy. When I close my eyes... everything "disappears", who are you that intrudes into my dreams?
Sorry... but there is gravity "everywhere" even when "I" am not there. If space did not exist then your conjecture may be right? While there is space and mass there will be gravity (somewhere). Perhaps even without "mass". Who will be the observer? Where will he sit to judge?
Gravity is matters' wake through time ~esin.bad the sailor
Oooh... Philosophy. When I close my eyes... everything "disappears", who are you that intrudes into my dreams?
Sorry... but there is gravity "everywhere" even when "I" am not there. If space did not exist then your conjecture may be right? While there is space and mass there will be gravity (somewhere). Perhaps even without "mass". Who will be the observer? Where will he sit to judge?
QUOTE (youngscientist Posted on Sep 29 2005+ 01:17 PM)
i've been thinking... if we have no explanation for the phenomena gravity... then is it not possible that gravity is created by oxygen? for example, there is no oxygen in outer space that we know of, and there is no gravity. what do you think?
If I had a thought for every thought I had... I would suddenly have an infinity of thoughts....
If I "lost" a thought for every thought I had... I would suddenly never have thought at all.
Cheers
If I had a thought for every thought I had... I would suddenly have an infinity of thoughts....
If I "lost" a thought for every thought I had... I would suddenly never have thought at all.
Cheers
Sorry my english sucks!
Could this conclusion be correct ???
Gravity does not bend light, heat does. Actually there is no such thing as gravitational force, only the planets core heat could have the power to keep matter in position. Lets call this force the heat attractive force.
A solar / atomic comparison.
In nuclear physics there are two main forces, strong interactive and weak interactive forces holding nucleus together. One force pulls, one pushes.
On a solar level lets not stray from this theory, but use it. Should we say that on the solar scale these two forces will be called the heat attractive force and a light repulsive force. With the heat of the sun / planets pulling, and suns light emmission pushing planets away holding them in a orbital rearrangment managment.
If the sun cooled down planets orbits would rearrange to there harmonically required energy consumption. Note how the atmosphere also occurs at an harmonic heat frequency relative to earths core heat.
Also note the big cooler planets futher away from the sun. The pulling of cores
and pushing of light this may explain why planets are perfectly round.
Words of thoth, "AS ABOVE SO BELOW"
thks bee
Could this conclusion be correct ???
Gravity does not bend light, heat does. Actually there is no such thing as gravitational force, only the planets core heat could have the power to keep matter in position. Lets call this force the heat attractive force.
A solar / atomic comparison.
In nuclear physics there are two main forces, strong interactive and weak interactive forces holding nucleus together. One force pulls, one pushes.
On a solar level lets not stray from this theory, but use it. Should we say that on the solar scale these two forces will be called the heat attractive force and a light repulsive force. With the heat of the sun / planets pulling, and suns light emmission pushing planets away holding them in a orbital rearrangment managment.
If the sun cooled down planets orbits would rearrange to there harmonically required energy consumption. Note how the atmosphere also occurs at an harmonic heat frequency relative to earths core heat.
Also note the big cooler planets futher away from the sun. The pulling of cores
and pushing of light this may explain why planets are perfectly round.
Words of thoth, "AS ABOVE SO BELOW"
thks bee
Gravity is matters' wake through time ~esin.bad the sailor
Hi bee,
QUOTE (bee Posted on Oct 3 2005+ 11:24 AM)
Could this conclusion be correct ???
Gravity does not bend light, heat does. Actually there is no such thing as gravitational force, only the planets core heat could have the power to keep matter in position. Lets call this force the heat attractive force.
The pull of gravity is mutual... so why would "cold" bodies such as comets orbit the sun? Why does Charon (a moon) orbit Pluto? both relatively small and bitterly cold to their core (-228 to -238 C, 35 to 45 K). Or indeed the Planet Xena and it's moon Gabrielle. All bodies obey gravity according to mass not their heat content.
I have what I think a good explanation of gravity and for mass. Prejudiced of course but I think "interesting". See above...
Good Elf on Gravity and Mass
Cheers
Gravity does not bend light, heat does. Actually there is no such thing as gravitational force, only the planets core heat could have the power to keep matter in position. Lets call this force the heat attractive force.
The pull of gravity is mutual... so why would "cold" bodies such as comets orbit the sun? Why does Charon (a moon) orbit Pluto? both relatively small and bitterly cold to their core (-228 to -238 C, 35 to 45 K). Or indeed the Planet Xena and it's moon Gabrielle. All bodies obey gravity according to mass not their heat content.
I have what I think a good explanation of gravity and for mass. Prejudiced of course but I think "interesting". See above...
Good Elf on Gravity and Mass
Cheers
Hey All -
Have a question for you guys relating to the nature of gravity.
I am a senior high school student and I would like a better understanding on gravity (its true nature). I have done physics and it has taught me heaps of wonderful stuff, even though it may have gaps in its knowledge.
I know that gravity is not a defined aspect but seen as 'gravitational force' eg acceleration 9.8 m/s/s. For example whenever I plug in "what is gravity" on a search engine, it comes up with websites that explains what effect gravity has on objects and a reference to newtons theory of gravitation. It does not answer the nature of gravity as an entity in itself. And to make it even worse these websites are often directed at children, which make them believe what they're saying is plausible. This is evidence of redundant information circulating through the Internet and in textbooks (even high school ones) without really answering the question : 'what is gravity?' because it is easier to quote from someone else.
Pardon my cynicism but I needed to vent frustration for the lack of information evident in textbooks that claim the matter is closed after a long winded response that does not answer the question on what gravity is. Even Einstein's theory of gravity (space time curvature) does not seem explanatory because it is related to the mass of an object, as gravity (on Earth) causes all objects to fall at the same rate towards its surface.
I have come up with my personal response to the question on what gravity could be:
1. It causes objects to fall to the Earth (in reference to the Earth frame)
2. Objects, no matter what their weight is, they all fall towards the Earth at the same rate, which gives the hint that gravity may not have originated from the center of the Earth.
3. As mentioned earlier, this gravitational force may have originated from space surrounding the Earth, acting on objects causing them to fall at the same rate towards the surface. (The infamous moon experiment involving the hammer and feather validates that observation as well.)
4. Gravity weakens in strength (or intensity) at the square of distance (something like that) which can possibly be related to magnetic, electric and electromagnetic fields as they all drop off at the square of distance.
If you believe any of my ideas are flawed, please respond. It would be alot easier for me to understand your responses if you would please keep the jargon to a minimum as possible.
Cheers Zapper
Have a question for you guys relating to the nature of gravity.
I am a senior high school student and I would like a better understanding on gravity (its true nature). I have done physics and it has taught me heaps of wonderful stuff, even though it may have gaps in its knowledge.
I know that gravity is not a defined aspect but seen as 'gravitational force' eg acceleration 9.8 m/s/s. For example whenever I plug in "what is gravity" on a search engine, it comes up with websites that explains what effect gravity has on objects and a reference to newtons theory of gravitation. It does not answer the nature of gravity as an entity in itself. And to make it even worse these websites are often directed at children, which make them believe what they're saying is plausible. This is evidence of redundant information circulating through the Internet and in textbooks (even high school ones) without really answering the question : 'what is gravity?' because it is easier to quote from someone else.
Pardon my cynicism
but I needed to vent frustration for the lack of information evident in textbooks that claim the matter is closed after a long winded response that does not answer the question on what gravity is. Even Einstein's theory of gravity (space time curvature) does not seem explanatory because it is related to the mass of an object, as gravity (on Earth) causes all objects to fall at the same rate towards its surface.I have come up with my personal response to the question on what gravity could be:
1. It causes objects to fall to the Earth (in reference to the Earth frame)
2. Objects, no matter what their weight is, they all fall towards the Earth at the same rate, which gives the hint that gravity may not have originated from the center of the Earth.
3. As mentioned earlier, this gravitational force may have originated from space surrounding the Earth, acting on objects causing them to fall at the same rate towards the surface. (The infamous moon experiment involving the hammer and feather validates that observation as well.)
4. Gravity weakens in strength (or intensity) at the square of distance (something like that) which can possibly be related to magnetic, electric and electromagnetic fields as they all drop off at the square of distance.
If you believe any of my ideas are flawed, please respond. It would be alot easier for me to understand your responses if you would please keep the jargon to a minimum as possible.
Cheers Zapper
Hi to all,
Thanks for the response good elf.
Theories are not sound without through skepticism, scrutinies and proof.
Before I start, everyone should know that nothing that I have brought forward on these forums should be taken as fact or to be thought of as true or proved in anyway. I merely state these theories to be thought about and juggled with. Without curiosity and thought there would be no knowledge or wisdom!
“AS ABOVE SO BELOW” is the answer to your question. Relate gravity to the same forces that hold particles in orbits on an atomic scale as u do on a solar scale. Say every atom that makes the big picture is independently affected.
“So why would "cold" bodies such as comets orbit the sun?” because gravity affects atomic radius's (atomic forces) and atomic densities at different distances and speeds respectively. If cold objects lose all energy then I would surrender my theory. Note helium floats not because its lighter, low atomic weight (4 u) and big atomic radius (128 pm) relative to its weight.
Gold’s atomic weight (196.9 u) atomic radius (144.2 pm)
Hydrogen’s atomic weight (1 u) atomic radius (37.3 pm)
Why does ice float? Quoted from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Water reaches its maximum density at 4°C (40°F). As it cools further and freezes into ice, it actually becomes less dense. On the other hand, most substances are most dense in their solid (frozen) state than in their liquid state. Water is different because of hydrogen bonding.
Quote ends.
Hydrogen has a low atomic weight relative to its atomic density.
Higher atomic densities with lower atomic radius's are relative to their higher atomic gravitational attraction at relative distances. Take a dime and a quarter throw each up with equal amount of energy and the heavier one lands first. Helium will never drop at the same speed as Iron.
When we heat atoms of e.g. air we expand atomic radius's causing them to rise. What is happening here? Heat is affecting the atomic forces, expanding atomic radius's till the heat becomes to great, annihilates one atom to many of lower elementary substances, still high atomic radius's for those elements causing them to rise. When we heat or cool atoms we alter the spin state of the particles or atomic radius's, cooling atoms constricts particles orbits, proof may lay in the expansion and contraction of matter due to heating or cooling. I am not sure if the weight stays the same during the processors of slight heating (without atom annihilation) and slight or high cooling (superconductivity).
Is it wrong to say, “heated air violates gravity even when thrusting to gravity or vice versa, it rises without being emitted upwards” eg. Turn your lighter upside down, light it, please notice how not only does the hot air rise but note how the flame itself rises. Try taking two lighters and lighting both, before attempting to join the flames, now notice there is a point just before they bond where they actually push each other away.
All criticism is welcome and appreciated!
THKS bee
Thanks for the response good elf.
Theories are not sound without through skepticism, scrutinies and proof.
Before I start, everyone should know that nothing that I have brought forward on these forums should be taken as fact or to be thought of as true or proved in anyway. I merely state these theories to be thought about and juggled with. Without curiosity and thought there would be no knowledge or wisdom!
“AS ABOVE SO BELOW” is the answer to your question. Relate gravity to the same forces that hold particles in orbits on an atomic scale as u do on a solar scale. Say every atom that makes the big picture is independently affected.
“So why would "cold" bodies such as comets orbit the sun?” because gravity affects atomic radius's (atomic forces) and atomic densities at different distances and speeds respectively. If cold objects lose all energy then I would surrender my theory. Note helium floats not because its lighter, low atomic weight (4 u) and big atomic radius (128 pm) relative to its weight.
Gold’s atomic weight (196.9 u) atomic radius (144.2 pm)
Hydrogen’s atomic weight (1 u) atomic radius (37.3 pm)
Why does ice float? Quoted from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.
Water reaches its maximum density at 4°C (40°F). As it cools further and freezes into ice, it actually becomes less dense. On the other hand, most substances are most dense in their solid (frozen) state than in their liquid state. Water is different because of hydrogen bonding.
Quote ends.
Hydrogen has a low atomic weight relative to its atomic density.
Higher atomic densities with lower atomic radius's are relative to their higher atomic gravitational attraction at relative distances. Take a dime and a quarter throw each up with equal amount of energy and the heavier one lands first. Helium will never drop at the same speed as Iron.
When we heat atoms of e.g. air we expand atomic radius's causing them to rise. What is happening here? Heat is affecting the atomic forces, expanding atomic radius's till the heat becomes to great, annihilates one atom to many of lower elementary substances, still high atomic radius's for those elements causing them to rise. When we heat or cool atoms we alter the spin state of the particles or atomic radius's, cooling atoms constricts particles orbits, proof may lay in the expansion and contraction of matter due to heating or cooling. I am not sure if the weight stays the same during the processors of slight heating (without atom annihilation) and slight or high cooling (superconductivity).
Is it wrong to say, “heated air violates gravity even when thrusting to gravity or vice versa, it rises without being emitted upwards” eg. Turn your lighter upside down, light it, please notice how not only does the hot air rise but note how the flame itself rises. Try taking two lighters and lighting both, before attempting to join the flames, now notice there is a point just before they bond where they actually push each other away.
All criticism is welcome and appreciated!
THKS bee
Hi Bee,
Hmmm... equal amounts of kinetic energy. That is because they travel different paths in space. There is a difference if two matched cars have a race and one has to travel twice as far as the other to finish. That is no surprise. What is surprising (well.... might be!) is that both coins will travel the same path through space if they were initially allowed to fall freely in a gravity field both starting from the same point and from rest. They have different potential energies but they are now "matched" in a fair race. The "moving orders" comes directly from the space-time not from their masses. They both experience the same "moving orders" and so they "move" the same. Actually it wouldn't matter if the particle was a neutron or a ton of steel they will "fall" the same (in a vacuum).
Cheers
QUOTE
Take a dime and a quarter throw each up with equal amount of energy and the heavier one lands first.
Hmmm... equal amounts of kinetic energy. That is because they travel different paths in space. There is a difference if two matched cars have a race and one has to travel twice as far as the other to finish. That is no surprise. What is surprising (well.... might be!) is that both coins will travel the same path through space if they were initially allowed to fall freely in a gravity field both starting from the same point and from rest. They have different potential energies but they are now "matched" in a fair race. The "moving orders" comes directly from the space-time not from their masses. They both experience the same "moving orders" and so they "move" the same. Actually it wouldn't matter if the particle was a neutron or a ton of steel they will "fall" the same (in a vacuum).
Cheers
dkteno and everyone here -
Some things for everyone to really think about gravity - here are some outlines that may help understand more about gravity in reality.
1. Gravity falls off in strength with the inverse square of distance. (So do magnetic fields, electric fields, electromagnetic radiation, and sound waves)
2. Gravity cannot be shielded (unless stated otherwise in exceptions)
3. All objects fall towards the 'gravitational centre' at the same speed and rate. (unless stopped in their path, for example the Earths surface or a table etc...)
There seems to be an interesting similarity in {1.}. That is, all the fields or waves mentioned require a medium to travel through (if taken into account the existence of the aether. Dont refute that arguement with Michelson Morley experiment because that experiment was flawed. It only accounted for a moving frame of aether in which the Earth propagated through. Maybe there were other flaws. If so post them here.)
I hope that answered your question.
Cheers Zapper.
Some things for everyone to really think about gravity - here are some outlines that may help understand more about gravity in reality.
1. Gravity falls off in strength with the inverse square of distance. (So do magnetic fields, electric fields, electromagnetic radiation, and sound waves)
2. Gravity cannot be shielded (unless stated otherwise in exceptions)
3. All objects fall towards the 'gravitational centre' at the same speed and rate. (unless stopped in their path, for example the Earths surface or a table etc...)
There seems to be an interesting similarity in {1.}. That is, all the fields or waves mentioned require a medium to travel through (if taken into account the existence of the aether. Dont refute that arguement with Michelson Morley experiment because that experiment was flawed. It only accounted for a moving frame of aether in which the Earth propagated through. Maybe there were other flaws. If so post them here.)
I hope that answered your question.
Cheers Zapper.
Hi Zapper,
What you said was said by Newton hundreds of years ago. You need to tell us something new. I quite frankly do not see any link between what Newton said and the Michelson-Morley Experiment (all of them). I thought the "ether" was ruled out. Lets call "ether" C2H6O... deal! You first need to do more than just state that there are flaws in "classic" experiments that are still accepted as fact.
I have no desire to turn back the clock to Newton thank you. I do not burn Witches at the stake anymore either.
Cheers
What you said was said by Newton hundreds of years ago. You need to tell us something new. I quite frankly do not see any link between what Newton said and the Michelson-Morley Experiment (all of them). I thought the "ether" was ruled out. Lets call "ether" C2H6O... deal! You first need to do more than just state that there are flaws in "classic" experiments that are still accepted as fact.
I have no desire to turn back the clock to Newton thank you. I do not burn Witches at the stake anymore either.
Cheers
hello, Good Elf -
Desperately wondering whether you got my email on my "3 o'clock in the morning" idea. Any feedback? I can't seem to find it anywhere on my HD and it came up as not sent under the message board - help!
S
Desperately wondering whether you got my email on my "3 o'clock in the morning" idea. Any feedback? I can't seem to find it anywhere on my HD and it came up as not sent under the message board - help!
S
Hi Solidspin,
He he he... I did answer it from the thread you referred to. Try here...
Gravity, Why haven't we figured it out?
The "gravity" of the matter has gotten too much for all of us.
Sorry about that. Last thing I would want is for you to miss that sort of thing. I have given it a lot of thought
I will be waiting to hear from you friend.
Cheers
He he he... I did answer it from the thread you referred to. Try here...Gravity, Why haven't we figured it out?
The "gravity" of the matter has gotten too much for all of us.
Sorry about that. Last thing I would want is for you to miss that sort of thing. I have given it a lot of thought
I will be waiting to hear from you friend.
Cheers
Look I like simple things... I can only get to grips with GR and string theory by visualising in some abstract part of my brain! I have no interest in mathematical proofs per se only that they have been proved! So what I would like someone to explain if they could is this..
How does gravity propagate and from where does it emanate?
Any interesting visualisations from you would be greatly appreciated....
How does gravity propagate and from where does it emanate?
Any interesting visualisations from you would be greatly appreciated....
Hi ourmanflint,
Big ask there. A few decisions to make. You want the high school level of description?... the standard University level description?... or the wild wacko theories of an "Elf"?
Keeping it "real simple" string theory is not proven. Most string theorists haven't even taken it "walkies" to show the neighbors. Yet "if anything is strings then everything are strings" (Susskind). That is the key. In the end even photons are "strings". Not half strings... not just a little bit stringy... they are fully fledged strings and the theory is able to deal with it.
String Theory is the only theory that is capable of mathematically handling the complexity of our Universe. It is a theory of up to 23 (real) dimensions (including time). What is useful to know is it is possible to deal with it in only ten dimensions. Not every bit of the theory is to be found in only ten dimensions but enough to get real results.
These ten dimensions "split" naturally the Universe into six plus four. The "four" are the four dimensions of space-time which includes time. The "six" are spatial dimensions only... like three of the four dimensions of space-time and are just "linear dimensions" we all understand. They are usually curled up and rather small. They also include that time dimension as well but in not the same way. Time is obviously different.
String Theory incorporates Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Most want to retain the connection with the Standard Model of Particles that is the current "Theory of Everything" (except gravity). It is not actually a Theory but a "Model". Everything except gravity and stuff that we have not found yet. When we find "it" we just tag it on.
The Standard Model
By adjusting a large number of parameters you are able to create every known particle but it has no capability of inclusion of Gravity or outright reliable prediction. It has been shown that inclusion of "Quantum Gravity" is not analytic. There is still work being done on these lines of approach but there is a basic "flaw" in the design. Not in Einstein's Theory but something is wrong at the level of the quantum theory. The approaches differ. The standard approach is to consider a particle only view of this "menagerie" with a couple of new contenders the Higgs Particle (when in doubt you just put in a couple of extra particles). It "looks" good but is not entirely compatible with Special and General Theory. One of the biggest problems of Quantum Theory is that is not built "on" the Space-time manifold so any maths derived for the real world does not "fit". Most Quantum Physicists will say "shut up and calculate". You are not supposed to actually "visualize" this stuff.
Visual Quantum Mechanics
In the particle theory of strings gravity is not confined to the dimensions and interpenetrates multiple dimensions getting weaker all the time. Sounds weird to me. The strings exist "below the level of the Planck Length" far away from any future testing. Convenient for those who like to bury "secrets" and entrench their own positions. Real Physicists have Theories that are able to be tested. All the rest is just a "religion". I am sure there is a lot of Politics in there too.
A little common sense will tell you more than all this authoritative wisdom you will ever see because everybody's knowledge is "compartmentalized" and there are too many secrets. You see there are all those wonderful applications and they do not want to share.
Back to the main theme... Gravity in Einsteins Theory is simply the curvature of Space-time. This curvature is "acceleration"... they are identical. Mass curves space-time and the total curvature tells that mass which way to move. This is a "geodesic". You can see a geodesic if I throw a ball to you from a distance.. the path it takes through space is the geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest path in space-time (a straight line drawn in 4 dimensions). In the frame of the freely falling ball it is and appears as a straight line. All other inertial frames (freely falling with different initial velocities) see a straight line path for the ball too. Accelerated frames see different geodesics with different curvature for different regimes of acceleration. These are the Theories of Special and General Relativity. Just add ONE fact... the speed of light is constant in all frames. The rest is mind boggling maths.
Since particles get their moving orders from where they are in Space-time you can think of gravity and acceleration as a "block" of elastic "material" in higher dimensions (three) in which everything is embedded and moving freely. In the case of planets a suitable choice of co-ordinates (sun centered) leads to a two dimensional sheet of rubber stretched in the plane of the orbits of the planets (the planets and the sun are like ball bearings on it's surface)... all in motion without appreciable friction. They all curve that sheet every "particle" getting their moving orders from where they are and taking into account their initial velocity.
This is almost the end of the simple discussion. This view does not have gravity "propagating" at all. It stays put and linked strongly with the matter. Consider though if instead of just allowing the ball bearing to "roll around" I drop it on to the sheet from a height. They will cause "ripples" to spread out on the sheet. That is gravity "propagating" in the simple view of things. This is in the form of quadrupolar motion in space-time (see link below). The gravity equivalent of propagating light. The particle that is supposed to be involved is the graviton. The energy is so small that it will be difficult to ever detect one but it is within human capabilities to detect the "ripple" of large numbers but not a single individual graviton particle alone. The existence of the graviton is not mandatory with Einsteins Theory but it is with all particle theories. Everything must have a particle so you invent one.
Here are lots of pretty movies that will show you quadrupolar motion (not quite). It is very similar to electromagnetic radiation (only different).
Movies from the Edge of Space-time
Try these as well...
Relativity Visualization Websites
Remember they are "visualizations". That is it at this level of the story. Now that you "all" know "everything you need to know" about the Universe you can all go back to the sports channel and watch the game... he he he! But what are you going to do tomorrow???
Cheers
Big ask there. A few decisions to make. You want the high school level of description?... the standard University level description?... or the wild wacko theories of an "Elf"?
Keeping it "real simple" string theory is not proven. Most string theorists haven't even taken it "walkies" to show the neighbors. Yet "if anything is strings then everything are strings" (Susskind). That is the key. In the end even photons are "strings". Not half strings... not just a little bit stringy... they are fully fledged strings and the theory is able to deal with it.
String Theory is the only theory that is capable of mathematically handling the complexity of our Universe. It is a theory of up to 23 (real) dimensions (including time). What is useful to know is it is possible to deal with it in only ten dimensions. Not every bit of the theory is to be found in only ten dimensions but enough to get real results.
These ten dimensions "split" naturally the Universe into six plus four. The "four" are the four dimensions of space-time which includes time. The "six" are spatial dimensions only... like three of the four dimensions of space-time and are just "linear dimensions" we all understand. They are usually curled up and rather small. They also include that time dimension as well but in not the same way. Time is obviously different.
String Theory incorporates Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Most want to retain the connection with the Standard Model of Particles that is the current "Theory of Everything" (except gravity). It is not actually a Theory but a "Model". Everything except gravity and stuff that we have not found yet. When we find "it" we just tag it on.
The Standard Model
By adjusting a large number of parameters you are able to create every known particle but it has no capability of inclusion of Gravity or outright reliable prediction. It has been shown that inclusion of "Quantum Gravity" is not analytic. There is still work being done on these lines of approach but there is a basic "flaw" in the design. Not in Einstein's Theory but something is wrong at the level of the quantum theory. The approaches differ. The standard approach is to consider a particle only view of this "menagerie" with a couple of new contenders the Higgs Particle (when in doubt you just put in a couple of extra particles). It "looks" good but is not entirely compatible with Special and General Theory. One of the biggest problems of Quantum Theory is that is not built "on" the Space-time manifold so any maths derived for the real world does not "fit". Most Quantum Physicists will say "shut up and calculate". You are not supposed to actually "visualize" this stuff.
Visual Quantum Mechanics
In the particle theory of strings gravity is not confined to the dimensions and interpenetrates multiple dimensions getting weaker all the time. Sounds weird to me. The strings exist "below the level of the Planck Length" far away from any future testing. Convenient for those who like to bury "secrets" and entrench their own positions. Real Physicists have Theories that are able to be tested. All the rest is just a "religion". I am sure there is a lot of Politics in there too.
A little common sense will tell you more than all this authoritative wisdom you will ever see because everybody's knowledge is "compartmentalized" and there are too many secrets. You see there are all those wonderful applications and they do not want to share.
Back to the main theme... Gravity in Einsteins Theory is simply the curvature of Space-time. This curvature is "acceleration"... they are identical. Mass curves space-time and the total curvature tells that mass which way to move. This is a "geodesic". You can see a geodesic if I throw a ball to you from a distance.. the path it takes through space is the geodesic. A geodesic is the shortest path in space-time (a straight line drawn in 4 dimensions). In the frame of the freely falling ball it is and appears as a straight line. All other inertial frames (freely falling with different initial velocities) see a straight line path for the ball too. Accelerated frames see different geodesics with different curvature for different regimes of acceleration. These are the Theories of Special and General Relativity. Just add ONE fact... the speed of light is constant in all frames. The rest is mind boggling maths.
Since particles get their moving orders from where they are in Space-time you can think of gravity and acceleration as a "block" of elastic "material" in higher dimensions (three) in which everything is embedded and moving freely. In the case of planets a suitable choice of co-ordinates (sun centered) leads to a two dimensional sheet of rubber stretched in the plane of the orbits of the planets (the planets and the sun are like ball bearings on it's surface)... all in motion without appreciable friction. They all curve that sheet every "particle" getting their moving orders from where they are and taking into account their initial velocity.
This is almost the end of the simple discussion. This view does not have gravity "propagating" at all. It stays put and linked strongly with the matter. Consider though if instead of just allowing the ball bearing to "roll around" I drop it on to the sheet from a height. They will cause "ripples" to spread out on the sheet. That is gravity "propagating" in the simple view of things. This is in the form of quadrupolar motion in space-time (see link below). The gravity equivalent of propagating light. The particle that is supposed to be involved is the graviton. The energy is so small that it will be difficult to ever detect one but it is within human capabilities to detect the "ripple" of large numbers but not a single individual graviton particle alone. The existence of the graviton is not mandatory with Einsteins Theory but it is with all particle theories. Everything must have a particle so you invent one.
Here are lots of pretty movies that will show you quadrupolar motion (not quite). It is very similar to electromagnetic radiation (only different).
Movies from the Edge of Space-time
Try these as well...
Relativity Visualization Websites
Remember they are "visualizations". That is it at this level of the story. Now that you "all" know "everything you need to know" about the Universe you can all go back to the sports channel and watch the game... he he he! But what are you going to do tomorrow???
Cheers
Thanks Good Elf
Perhaps I didn't quite explain correctly, I understand the simplified high school and university models and have read "the elegant universe" and many other books on "high" science and have no problems comprehending and comparing the relative pros and cons for the Quantum model and String Theory.
The problem I'm having is this: If gravity is a force like EM then how does it propagate, in EM it is the creation and destruction of "virtual" particles that propagate the forces involved is it not. So is the generally accepted theory that Gravitons propagate the force of Gravity?, and that these Gravitons exist in our 3 dimensional space? This is the problem as I see it, surely if the effect of gravity is instantaneous at all points of the universe, then these Gravitons can't be present in our 3d space at all ( they would have to obey GR )so they must reach out from a dimension that is a microscopic distance from all points in the universe. One of the so called folded dimensions.
Perhaps I didn't quite explain correctly, I understand the simplified high school and university models and have read "the elegant universe" and many other books on "high" science and have no problems comprehending and comparing the relative pros and cons for the Quantum model and String Theory.
The problem I'm having is this: If gravity is a force like EM then how does it propagate, in EM it is the creation and destruction of "virtual" particles that propagate the forces involved is it not. So is the generally accepted theory that Gravitons propagate the force of Gravity?, and that these Gravitons exist in our 3 dimensional space? This is the problem as I see it, surely if the effect of gravity is instantaneous at all points of the universe, then these Gravitons can't be present in our 3d space at all ( they would have to obey GR )so they must reach out from a dimension that is a microscopic distance from all points in the universe. One of the so called folded dimensions.
Hi ourmanflint,
Good to see that you are open to some ideas and are not a high school student (no offense to high school students). You were just being modest.
This is where it get a little "hairy". If it is like EM then it probably does have some "gravitons". On balance gravitons are similar to photons. These would have some similarity to photons including their properties so indeed the forces will be attended by "virtual particles". Mind you nobody has ever seen a virtual particle (not even for photons) and these will be in a near-field region of their absorption target. It would be a superficial similarity since photons propagate as anti-symmetric disturbances in Space-time whereas gravity waves are symmetric disturbances in Space-time. The problem is gravitons are incredibly feeble as a particle. 10^-40 weaker than photons of a similar de Broglie wavelength.
The subtlety is the force of gravity would always be "attractive" and never "repulsive". No actual anti-gravity there as far as we know (not naturally anyway).
The next point is the force of gravity is not conventionally instantaneous. It propagates at the speed of light. This should be the case since a mismatch will result in unbalanced properties in Space-time. On balance it should propagate at the Speed of Light. What this is actually saying is that there is an underlying relationship between Gravity and Light or Electromagnetism. You see if this was not so gravity would indeed be a "rogue force" since all other forces are indeed related. Recently Kopeiken did an experiment which estimated the speed of gravity through gravitational aberration of radiation from a quasar by the planet Jupiter. The result was as expected and confirmed the speed to be C within the experimental error. There are others that said that the experiment "begs the question"... nevertheless there is no counter experiment to disprove this premise.
Obviously those long baseline interferometer experiments to detect gravity waves will eventually be able to say "look a black-hole just swallowed a star" and we see the "shimmy" at the same time in the interferometer coming from the same sector of the sky. Interferometers can be "tuned" to "point" in any direction (even if it is after the event as long as we are "recording"). This "shimmy" will be of the order of 1/200th the diameter of the nucleus of an atom. It will be a technical achievement indeed.
Once again I will restate for most things gravity does not propagate. The earth's gravity field is analogous to a bar magnet or a statically charged sphere. It is the "abnormal" event that causes propagation causing a gravitationally coupled system to "ring". For the most part it is "inductive".
Cheers
Good to see that you are open to some ideas and are not a high school student (no offense to high school students). You were just being modest.
This is where it get a little "hairy". If it is like EM then it probably does have some "gravitons". On balance gravitons are similar to photons. These would have some similarity to photons including their properties so indeed the forces will be attended by "virtual particles". Mind you nobody has ever seen a virtual particle (not even for photons) and these will be in a near-field region of their absorption target. It would be a superficial similarity since photons propagate as anti-symmetric disturbances in Space-time whereas gravity waves are symmetric disturbances in Space-time. The problem is gravitons are incredibly feeble as a particle. 10^-40 weaker than photons of a similar de Broglie wavelength.
The subtlety is the force of gravity would always be "attractive" and never "repulsive". No actual anti-gravity there as far as we know (not naturally anyway).
The next point is the force of gravity is not conventionally instantaneous. It propagates at the speed of light. This should be the case since a mismatch will result in unbalanced properties in Space-time. On balance it should propagate at the Speed of Light. What this is actually saying is that there is an underlying relationship between Gravity and Light or Electromagnetism. You see if this was not so gravity would indeed be a "rogue force" since all other forces are indeed related. Recently Kopeiken did an experiment which estimated the speed of gravity through gravitational aberration of radiation from a quasar by the planet Jupiter. The result was as expected and confirmed the speed to be C within the experimental error. There are others that said that the experiment "begs the question"... nevertheless there is no counter experiment to disprove this premise.
Obviously those long baseline interferometer experiments to detect gravity waves will eventually be able to say "look a black-hole just swallowed a star" and we see the "shimmy" at the same time in the interferometer coming from the same sector of the sky. Interferometers can be "tuned" to "point" in any direction (even if it is after the event as long as we are "recording"). This "shimmy" will be of the order of 1/200th the diameter of the nucleus of an atom. It will be a technical achievement indeed.
Once again I will restate for most things gravity does not propagate. The earth's gravity field is analogous to a bar magnet or a statically charged sphere. It is the "abnormal" event that causes propagation causing a gravitationally coupled system to "ring". For the most part it is "inductive".
Cheers
hi all,
I Know gr is a constant relative to distance, things fall at the same speed. Falling objects then should also accelerate speeds closer to the source of gr. Merely stating that to test gr think opposite, two different weights thrusting with the same energy opposite gravity is a better experiment or just weighing them. Conclusion is gravity is made up of more than one force, more weight more second force. If they drop at the same speed this is simple to say then.
I saw a program on TV, space travel by constant bombardment of light pushing their spaceship. If this is true why don't the planets get pushed away.
Thoughts from bee.
1.Could gravity then directly be associated with aging of matter relative to distance?
2.Or, could it be the constant velocity of all matter on or round the earth dragged through space. So if earth traveled faster would we age faster. Maybe traveling at the speed of light wont take u back in time... ha ha, only make u age faster.
BYE
I Know gr is a constant relative to distance, things fall at the same speed. Falling objects then should also accelerate speeds closer to the source of gr. Merely stating that to test gr think opposite, two different weights thrusting with the same energy opposite gravity is a better experiment or just weighing them. Conclusion is gravity is made up of more than one force, more weight more second force. If they drop at the same speed this is simple to say then.
I saw a program on TV, space travel by constant bombardment of light pushing their spaceship. If this is true why don't the planets get pushed away.
Thoughts from bee.
1.Could gravity then directly be associated with aging of matter relative to distance?
2.Or, could it be the constant velocity of all matter on or round the earth dragged through space. So if earth traveled faster would we age faster. Maybe traveling at the speed of light wont take u back in time... ha ha, only make u age faster.
BYE
Hi Good Elf
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 13 2005, 02:13 PM)
The next point is the force of gravity is not conventionally instantaneous. It propagates at the speed of light. This should be the case since a mismatch will result in unbalanced properties in Space-time. On balance it should propagate at the Speed of Light. What this is actually saying is that there is an underlying relationship between Gravity and Light or Electromagnetism.
Hmm! Is that so? (stroking chin!) I wish I knew why this would be true... can you elucidate?
I'm still in the process of designing a thought experiment to test wether mass has more effect on space or time and which is it that creates gravity! Or is it equal...
Hmm! Is that so? (stroking chin!) I wish I knew why this would be true... can you elucidate?
I'm still in the process of designing a thought experiment to test wether mass has more effect on space or time and which is it that creates gravity! Or is it equal...
Hi ourmanflint,
The subtlety is the force of gravity would always be "attractive" and never "repulsive". No actual anti-gravity there as far as we know (not naturally anyway).
Hi Good Elf, I like the way you think. Personally, I think physics is in a state of crisis, and a hundred years from now, none of our present ideas will be accepted.
For instance, there is very good evidence that anti-matter has anti-gravity, and that jets of anti-matter are ejected out of the poles of quasars and other black holes. It is an observed fact that there is a unexplained fountain of positrons coming out of the North pole of our own galaxy. I predict that a careful analysis of the jets from quasars could reveal the telltale gamma rays of 511 KEV and 1.05 TEV, suitably red-shifted.
Zounds, Cebrakon
QUOTE (ourmanflint Posted on Oct 14 2005+ 06:49 PM)
I wish I knew why this would be true... can you elucidate?
I can't say why it is true but I can venture an opinion as to if it is true. You would need the Mind of God to answer "why"... he he he! All the forces of the the Universe except possibly gravity propagate at the speed of light and the forces rely on the propagation time of light to express themselves. Why would gravity be the exception. How would you then propose how that gravity is "transmitted" at infinite speed? I have proposed a basis for this force but aside from that it is probably not an infinite speed since owing to the nature of "cause and effect" if something like gravity could precede the visible phenomena traveling at the speed of light the actual "applied" forces would still need to be "electromagnetic" in origin such as the stresses in materials etc. . If gravity propagated instantly what force could it then produce in the material of the Earth. That force is ultimately electromagnetic in nature.
The other argument is we understand that light and gravity "propagate" as inverse square law forces. Our theories of Space-time suggest the same medium is used by both to transmit their influence. We have experimental basis for Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and the General Theory of Gravitation. Indirectly this is a strong argument that the velocity is "C". Why would light travel slowly when gravity is unlimited using the same underlying mode of transport? Needs to be tested but it is not easy.
Cheers
I can't say why it is true but I can venture an opinion as to if it is true. You would need the Mind of God to answer "why"... he he he! All the forces of the the Universe except possibly gravity propagate at the speed of light and the forces rely on the propagation time of light to express themselves. Why would gravity be the exception. How would you then propose how that gravity is "transmitted" at infinite speed? I have proposed a basis for this force but aside from that it is probably not an infinite speed since owing to the nature of "cause and effect" if something like gravity could precede the visible phenomena traveling at the speed of light the actual "applied" forces would still need to be "electromagnetic" in origin such as the stresses in materials etc. . If gravity propagated instantly what force could it then produce in the material of the Earth. That force is ultimately electromagnetic in nature.
The other argument is we understand that light and gravity "propagate" as inverse square law forces. Our theories of Space-time suggest the same medium is used by both to transmit their influence. We have experimental basis for Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and the General Theory of Gravitation. Indirectly this is a strong argument that the velocity is "C". Why would light travel slowly when gravity is unlimited using the same underlying mode of transport? Needs to be tested but it is not easy.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 13 2005, 02:13 PM)
The subtlety is the force of gravity would always be "attractive" and never "repulsive". No actual anti-gravity there as far as we know (not naturally anyway).
Hi Good Elf, I like the way you think. Personally, I think physics is in a state of crisis, and a hundred years from now, none of our present ideas will be accepted. For instance, there is very good evidence that anti-matter has anti-gravity, and that jets of anti-matter are ejected out of the poles of quasars and other black holes. It is an observed fact that there is a unexplained fountain of positrons coming out of the North pole of our own galaxy. I predict that a careful analysis of the jets from quasars could reveal the telltale gamma rays of 511 KEV and 1.05 TEV, suitably red-shifted.Zounds, Cebrakon
Hi Cebrakon,
OK... I really do not see the tie in. The force of gravity compared with electromagnetism is the ratio of 10 ^-40. The electromagnetic effects will certainly "dominate" in any visible gravity effect no matter what in a distant "spectrum" of particles produced by a quasar or black hole??
If the "source" is "anti-matter" where is the symmetric twin electrons produced? The black-hole will have an unbalanced charge if they are retained and "suck" the "positrons" back. If we can't determine this effect in the laboratory it is going to be all the more difficult to detect it in such distant sources.
Could you point me at the reference and I will have a good look. Sounds interesting though... must be something that prompted your comment. You are right about physics though... it must change and it always will. I don't think it will ever reach an "end". It will probably reach meta-stable states depending on how the "authorities" can control the paradigms. It takes a huge change in the affairs of physics to "begin" change. Almost everyone knows there are extra dimensions "out there" but nothing is able to dislodge the "rock" from the "hard place". I would also like to make the comment about the "religious revival" and "irrational concepts" based on personal views about the people not about the physics. As they say "Whom the gods wish to destroy... they first send mad". You are right Cebrakon, the answer is out there.
Cheers
QUOTE
For instance, there is very good evidence that anti-matter has anti-gravity, and that jets of anti-matter are ejected out of the poles of quasars and other black holes.
OK... I really do not see the tie in. The force of gravity compared with electromagnetism is the ratio of 10 ^-40. The electromagnetic effects will certainly "dominate" in any visible gravity effect no matter what in a distant "spectrum" of particles produced by a quasar or black hole??
If the "source" is "anti-matter" where is the symmetric twin electrons produced? The black-hole will have an unbalanced charge if they are retained and "suck" the "positrons" back. If we can't determine this effect in the laboratory it is going to be all the more difficult to detect it in such distant sources.
Could you point me at the reference and I will have a good look. Sounds interesting though... must be something that prompted your comment. You are right about physics though... it must change and it always will. I don't think it will ever reach an "end". It will probably reach meta-stable states depending on how the "authorities" can control the paradigms. It takes a huge change in the affairs of physics to "begin" change. Almost everyone knows there are extra dimensions "out there" but nothing is able to dislodge the "rock" from the "hard place". I would also like to make the comment about the "religious revival" and "irrational concepts" based on personal views about the people not about the physics. As they say "Whom the gods wish to destroy... they first send mad". You are right Cebrakon, the answer is out there.
Cheers
next step...
why is Gravity associated with mass?? You may think this a very simple question, but it's simplicity hides a truth, which everyone seems to be avoiding! In Fact, this is a question that every single reply to the question of gravity I have read so far on these forums avoids! Why?? What does the " amazing" Aether theory say as to why gravity is associated with mass? I really would like to know....
Or isn't gravity associated with mass!!? I obviously have many more questions and theories about why..
Cheers
why is Gravity associated with mass?? You may think this a very simple question, but it's simplicity hides a truth, which everyone seems to be avoiding! In Fact, this is a question that every single reply to the question of gravity I have read so far on these forums avoids! Why?? What does the " amazing" Aether theory say as to why gravity is associated with mass? I really would like to know....
Or isn't gravity associated with mass!!? I obviously have many more questions and theories about why..
Cheers
Hi ourmanflint,
QUOTE (ourmanflint Posted on Oct 20 2005+ 01:05 PM)
why is Gravity associated with mass?? You may think this a very simple question, but it's simplicity hides a truth, which everyone seems to be avoiding! In Fact, this is a question that every single reply to the question of gravity I have read so far on these forums avoids! Why??
Good question... I have given you a "short answer" in the thread What is Gravity - Good Elf. Gravity is a "force" equal to mg where g is the local acceleration due to the attraction to the nearest mass object the Earth (roughly). The equivalent to F= ma. Now is the longer answer that "holds your hand" as it were. It is a "bit patronizing" but I hope you will forgive me when I do this. Higher dimensions are often "difficult" for anyone. I use the word "seeing" this is a license I have taken to explain this issue. You actually do not see anything... this all needs measurements in the context of a laboratory experiment.
This relates back to the principle of Equivalence.
Good question... I have given you a "short answer" in the thread What is Gravity - Good Elf. Gravity is a "force" equal to mg where g is the local acceleration due to the attraction to the nearest mass object the Earth (roughly). The equivalent to F= ma. Now is the longer answer that "holds your hand" as it were.
It is a "bit patronizing" but I hope you will forgive me when I do this. Higher dimensions are often "difficult" for anyone. I use the word "seeing" this is a license I have taken to explain this issue. You actually do not see anything... this all needs measurements in the context of a laboratory experiment.This relates back to the principle of Equivalence.
QUOTE (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/glossary.html+)
principle of equivalence: core principle of general relativity declaring the indistinguishably of accelerated motion and immersion in a gravitational field (over small enough regions of observation). Generalizes the principle of relativity by showing that all observers, regardless of their state of motion, can claim to be at rest, so long as they acknowledge the presence of a suitable gravitational field.
or...
or...
QUOTE (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/principle%5Fof%5Fequivalence+)
principle_of_equivalence
(physics) the principle that an observer has no way of distinguishing whether his laboratory is in a uniform gravitational field or is in an accelerated frame of reference
According to an extension of general relativity m (mass) will be the result of an acceleration as well but within a "Universe" or "system" where the laws are internally confined. In this idea mass is seen externally as a "stress" because light will "apparently" behave "non-inertially" and no longer travel in a straight line. If you are in such a reference frame then you will be able to measure a "mass". This is simply "acknowledging" the existence of a self-energy in the vicinity of the "mass" particle.
Put another way... "gravity" is the curvature of the space-time "between" objects in our universe. This leads to a "sum" in the vicinity of any nominated particle. This is a local gradient in space-time that particles then sense in the context of it's own velocity and kinetic and potential energy and we can use this property to calculate where that particle is now going to move (conservation of momentum and energy). Mass is the internal curvature of space-time (we "see") that allows a single particle to curve space-time. Particles will then all move in space-time according to the laws of kinematics.
To my way of thinking gravity and mass are both "pseudo-forces". They are both due to acceleration alone. The former (gravity) is acceleration that is essentially "removable" by picking an appropriate "accelerated" frame of reference. In that frame the particle will fall along a geodesic which may or may not intersect another particle. Throw a ball between two people (on Earth) and you will see it curve, that is a geodesic. That is NOT because the ball is "accelerated" it is because "you" are accelerated the ball is inertial. Pick any other inertial frame (freely falling set of co-ordinates) nearby, possibly with a boost relative to the ball's frame. Observations from within that system will show the ball to be traveling in a straight line (over short distances). "You" will still see the curve due to your acceleration. If you take the freely falling frame of reference and subject it to uniform acceleration observations from it will now show the ball to be falling along a curve. A transformation between that newly accelerated system and "your" accelerated system shows this to be "equivalent" but with different vector accelerations.
Take this one more step. A particle with mass is freely falling in deep space (distant from other objects) and you are observing it at a "smallish" distance. In order that your frame of reference is stable relative to that particle you will need to fall along a curve (orbit). You can observe this to be "peculiar" because the distant stars appear to be "rotating around you". So you think "aha! I am accelerating". You do a calculation and it is equivalent to a "mass" exerting an "acceleration" on you. Where has this "mass" come from? Assume it is from an acceleration... You observe the particle and it is motionless relative to you (you are in a geosynchronous orbit). Close examination show no fluids flowing or mass flows in the bulk of the object. This acceleration is totally unobservable to you so where is this acceleration coming from?... higher dimensions. The object is not accelerating in 3D + T (Space-time) so if you could see it... it must be accelerating in the other 6 unseen dimensions and time (Uberspace). So you then "guess" this acceleration is coming from that background of rotating starfields... Mach's Principle... the "brane" of our Universe. Different size mass particles will describe different angular rotation rates (apparently) for geosynchronous orbit. There are three separate geosynchronous orbits for any particle in which the star-fields have different rotations in the background. They form a "basis" set. Say... one equatorial and two polar orbits (at right angles) for a particle that is not rotating relative to the background of stars in it's own right. The faster the stars "move" the greater the acceleration and hence the perceived mass.
The spin is due to the spin of the Universe... all particles inside our Universe must be internally spinning with a spin we cannot detect in normal observations. One plane of spin is insufficient to explain the true nature of this spin. It is in six dimensions (three orthogonal planes) and it can be shown that this is the source of the spin quantum numbers of quantum theory.
Principal Quantum Numbers
To do that I will leave for another time... he he he!
Cheers
(physics) the principle that an observer has no way of distinguishing whether his laboratory is in a uniform gravitational field or is in an accelerated frame of reference
According to an extension of general relativity m (mass) will be the result of an acceleration as well but within a "Universe" or "system" where the laws are internally confined. In this idea mass is seen externally as a "stress" because light will "apparently" behave "non-inertially" and no longer travel in a straight line. If you are in such a reference frame then you will be able to measure a "mass". This is simply "acknowledging" the existence of a self-energy in the vicinity of the "mass" particle.
Put another way... "gravity" is the curvature of the space-time "between" objects in our universe. This leads to a "sum" in the vicinity of any nominated particle. This is a local gradient in space-time that particles then sense in the context of it's own velocity and kinetic and potential energy and we can use this property to calculate where that particle is now going to move (conservation of momentum and energy). Mass is the internal curvature of space-time (we "see") that allows a single particle to curve space-time. Particles will then all move in space-time according to the laws of kinematics.
To my way of thinking gravity and mass are both "pseudo-forces". They are both due to acceleration alone. The former (gravity) is acceleration that is essentially "removable" by picking an appropriate "accelerated" frame of reference. In that frame the particle will fall along a geodesic which may or may not intersect another particle. Throw a ball between two people (on Earth) and you will see it curve, that is a geodesic. That is NOT because the ball is "accelerated" it is because "you" are accelerated the ball is inertial. Pick any other inertial frame (freely falling set of co-ordinates) nearby, possibly with a boost relative to the ball's frame. Observations from within that system will show the ball to be traveling in a straight line (over short distances). "You" will still see the curve due to your acceleration. If you take the freely falling frame of reference and subject it to uniform acceleration observations from it will now show the ball to be falling along a curve. A transformation between that newly accelerated system and "your" accelerated system shows this to be "equivalent" but with different vector accelerations.
Take this one more step. A particle with mass is freely falling in deep space (distant from other objects) and you are observing it at a "smallish" distance. In order that your frame of reference is stable relative to that particle you will need to fall along a curve (orbit). You can observe this to be "peculiar" because the distant stars appear to be "rotating around you". So you think "aha! I am accelerating". You do a calculation and it is equivalent to a "mass" exerting an "acceleration" on you. Where has this "mass" come from? Assume it is from an acceleration... You observe the particle and it is motionless relative to you (you are in a geosynchronous orbit). Close examination show no fluids flowing or mass flows in the bulk of the object. This acceleration is totally unobservable to you so where is this acceleration coming from?... higher dimensions. The object is not accelerating in 3D + T (Space-time) so if you could see it... it must be accelerating in the other 6 unseen dimensions and time (Uberspace). So you then "guess" this acceleration is coming from that background of rotating starfields... Mach's Principle... the "brane" of our Universe. Different size mass particles will describe different angular rotation rates (apparently) for geosynchronous orbit. There are three separate geosynchronous orbits for any particle in which the star-fields have different rotations in the background. They form a "basis" set. Say... one equatorial and two polar orbits (at right angles) for a particle that is not rotating relative to the background of stars in it's own right. The faster the stars "move" the greater the acceleration and hence the perceived mass.
The spin is due to the spin of the Universe... all particles inside our Universe must be internally spinning with a spin we cannot detect in normal observations. One plane of spin is insufficient to explain the true nature of this spin. It is in six dimensions (three orthogonal planes) and it can be shown that this is the source of the spin quantum numbers of quantum theory.
Principal Quantum Numbers
To do that I will leave for another time... he he he!
Cheers
Hi Good Elf
How far does the Suns gravitational force span?
How far does the Earths gravitational force span?
If the sun has 333,000 times the mass of the earth, is the calculation to determine the suns gravitational distance 333,000 * the distance of the earths gravitational span?
Thanks bee
How far does the Suns gravitational force span?
How far does the Earths gravitational force span?
If the sun has 333,000 times the mass of the earth, is the calculation to determine the suns gravitational distance 333,000 * the distance of the earths gravitational span?
Thanks bee
Hi Bee,
Most excellent question. There is the "short dismissive" answer and then there is the much longer "philosophical" answer. I will not do either. I will try to keep this "short" but not "too short". I am also going to be a "little naughty" and answer a much wider question...
This relates back to the principle of Equivalence.
Most excellent question. There is the "short dismissive" answer and then there is the much longer "philosophical" answer. I will not do either. I will try to keep this "short" but not "too short". I am also going to be a "little naughty" and answer a much wider question...
QUOTE (bee Posted on Oct 22 2005+ 07:45 AM)
How far does the Suns gravitational force span?
How far does the Earths gravitational force span?
I will compare and contrast this with the phenomenon of light and this will look at both of these phenomena together so that you truly see what is happening here. Some of this will not be in text books.
Gravity is an inverse square law process. Light is an inverse square Law Process. The really short answer is both of these phenomena have an infinite range. They "appear" to behave according to a 1/r
function. Technically this extends to "infinity".
Light and Gravity use the Space-time Continuum "superficially" to "propagate". I am certain this is the confusion of what is occurring here. Light does "propagate" as waves and gravity is a "static" potential. The analogy would be if the Universe was "empty" and contained a large "elastic" membrane both of these "effects" use it as a means to connect "stuff" together. In the case of light emitted from a central source the surface of Space-time is not curved into the characteristic 1/r "figure" what is happening is the transverse amplitudes of the electromagnetic waves that compose the packets of the photons are being "diminished" according to the inverse square law relationship. The surface of Space-time remains "flat" overall as a function of time but in "fine detail" the "surface" carries "ripples" in space-time whose amplitude is decreasing according to an inverse square law. This is called "antisymmetric" in the way it disturbs space-time. There is one anomaly with this... this transverse "motion" as seen on the surface of space-time is quite large relative to what might be thought of as a very inflexible elastic membrane. This "suggests" that what we are looking at is not space-time curvature but something else. The other point is that electromagnetism is propagated as a pure tensor. This is based on a very strict set of mathematics where "deformations" in the medium must be very tiny to allow this maths to work. It actually works "brilliantly" indicating that space-time itself is only deformed at the smallest scale. Bear that in mind and I will return to this point later.
Gravity also deforms space-time but in a "symmetric" sense. That is it is not a wave phenomena (except in the case of very traumatic gravity events) but a depression in the surface of space-time. Like the influence of a "force" of unlike charges on each other (uses similar mathematics) only we seem not to have "bi-polar" gravity. It is "one sided" in the way it deforms space-time. It too bends space-time in such a very "feeble" way it is exceedingly hard to detect. It also conforms to the laws of tensors and appears not to have any non-linear effects even for quite large masses. The "figure" of this force is according to the 1/r relationship. The difference being is instead of a propagating and spreading ripple it is as though this huge elastic sheet has a ball bearing at it's center that gives an ever so slight "warp" in space-times surface.
Remember how light propagates... here is a gif animation... please wait while it loads.
This is "dipole" radiation into the volume of three dimensional space but seen as a slice that is in the same plane as the dipole radiator. The "warped circles" you see are electric field lines whose directions are changing (circulating) clockwise to anticlockwise alternatively in each cycle. Notice the "anomalous" behavior near the point of origin of the waves this is the near-field and is very interesting behaviour... totally different to the far-field and cannot fully be illustrated in this "simple" illustration. Magnetic field lines run perpendicularly through these loops (concentrate on the electric fields).
In 3D space these form expanding tori (donut shapes). The radial thickness of the donuts is a constant and you understand it as the wavelength of the "wave". The circumference of the "wave" is the circumference of a circle but the energy of the wave is found on the surface of a sphere and this is divided into "wavelengths" the energy in each of these spherical "shells" remain constant but is "spread" according to the surface area of a sphere (inverse square), since the thickness of the "shell" remains constant (wavelength). Individual photons occupy the volumes of those entire loops you see and subtend large solid angles from the dipole source in the radial direction. This grows rapidly with time. Seen on that expanding surface these look a bit like ever growing "pancakes" of roughly circular outline and constant thickness (wavelength). Photons obey "Bose-Einstein" statistics so vast quantities of photons are able to exist in the same volumes of space and are immune to "space quantization" that particles are subjected to with Fermi-Dirac Statistics. This is the difference between "Bosons" and "Fermions". The "power" of a radio wave is derived from having "more photons" than a "less powerful" beam.
Consider a photon that has been traveling for several millions of years as a wave... the size of the "pancake" will encompass thousands of galaxies and that whole solid sector of space according to the geometry defined by that animation. When the photon finally interacts with our "telescope" and is detected by the photographic plate, the wave becomes a particle and is "seen" as a small "flash". The particle is absorbed. To do this that the wave function collapses and the particle is then localized in space (on that photographic plate). That entire pancake... no matter how large (it could be the size of a galaxy) all it's energy is found now in that absorbed "particle".
Gravity is wholly different. Other than the rearrangement of "mass" it is relatively "static". The speed at which the influence "redistributes" itself is "classically" the speed of light. The difference is that is not "propagated" as pancakes of energy. It is just a slight "warp" in the surface of space-time. It is "tiny"... exceedingly "tiny" yet this is enough to cause particles on the surface-of space-time to be "attracted" by seemingly following the mutual curvature. Just like ball bearings on a sheet metal surface that has the barest of warps in it's surface will cause them to move in the frictionless environment of smooth surfaces ... so too do mass particles appear to be attracted to each other in frictionless space-time. They are not actually influence by any force but by "geometry" of the surface where the particle actually is and it "falls" along a geodesic (path of least action). Sometimes these paths intersect other particles and sometime they end up falling along "conic sections"... often orbits.
So light does not put a permanent "warp" in space-time but "ripples" it... leaving no permanent warp. The amplitudes of the ripples are "anomalously" large and if tensors were used in the processes involved in the mega-ripples of that amplitude they would violate the first premise of tensors... that is the "deformations" in space-time must be exceedingly small otherwise you would record non-linear effects of these processes. It is known that at the top end of energy there are such non-linear effects experimentally. In the realm of normal photon propagation we do not see this phenomenon. Photons also have "infinite" range.
With gravity its warp also extends to infinity so this effect also has "infinite" range. However the surface of space time is very "still" when gravity is found there. No "rippling" waves (except at the top end of the scale of energy once again). Close examination of this surface would show that this character is similar to deformation into a higher dimension by "spin" not unlike a vortex you would see in water (only frictionless). The difference is the "flow" is not disturbed by ripples or waves. It is exceedingly "smooth flow" in and around the mass particle. This "bends" space-time in a plane perpendicular to the normal volume of flat Minkowski space-time into a Riemann Surface. Seen from our scale in the Universe it is a relatively motionless warping of that medium. A little reflective thought on the preceding you will ask if Gravity and Light are moving in space-time and Gravity warps space-time into higher spaces (right angles to the three normal directions) why doesn't light do the same thing and warp space-time into higher dimensions too? The answer is it does.... it is just that it is incredibly weak effect because of the enormous "tension" in space-time after the inflation of the Universe. So why can we see this "wave" effect at all if it is so small? That is because what we are apparently seeing is not originating from space-time but from those higher dimensions we are speaking of (I call it Uberspace). The rotation is in the 3D + T part of space-time but it is able to curve "something" in higher dimensions that is far more flexible that space-time itself because these dimensions are not normally "inflated" as is our Space-time but can be (temporarily) with a little energy. This is also the reason why the Universe does not have those dimensions "still inflated" since any energy in those dimensional branes leaked back into our Universe soon after the initial inflation event by interacting by quantum demolition processes with all the matter here in "space-time". This was a vast "symmetry breaking" event that left the brane of our Universe (3D + T) with most of the energy and all the mass particles inside.
What we are mapping in Space-time is a "shadow" on the surface of space-time... there are "ripples" on the actual space-time but they are so small we cannot measure or see them... even smaller than the amount that space-time is bent by gravity (think of the energies involved). Space-time is very flat locally except in the vicinity of black holes and such. Remember that this behavior is what we call "quantum" behavior. It is normally "unobserved"... you cannot see quantum's traveling. If you interrupt their journey you may be able to read where they are but that process will "damage" the quantum. While in that "realm" we think of this as "waves" propagating. Regarding gravity... there are no waves but some "circulation" in space-time (electromagnetic curl) resulting in a permanent "vortex" that warps space-time permanently. Naturally this warping must be in higher dimensions (the complex planes) since gravity is seen in all directions from a particle these "surfaces" are only "crutches" to help you understand the concept.
I have discussed why gravity and mass are related through General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence previously...
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"? Good Elf
The "spin" comes from the brane of our Universe and Mach's Principle.
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"? Good Elf
Now you can see how all this hangs together and why things are as they are. Why we need higher dimensions to fully explain a Theory of Everything and how gravity and electromagnetism are related on the surface of space-time and in higher dimensions. With this information you could "almost" work "miracles" if you knew a few little "plumbing tricks"... he he he!
Cheers
How far does the Earths gravitational force span?
I will compare and contrast this with the phenomenon of light and this will look at both of these phenomena together so that you truly see what is happening here. Some of this will not be in text books.
Gravity is an inverse square law process. Light is an inverse square Law Process. The really short answer is both of these phenomena have an infinite range. They "appear" to behave according to a 1/r
function. Technically this extends to "infinity".Light and Gravity use the Space-time Continuum "superficially" to "propagate". I am certain this is the confusion of what is occurring here. Light does "propagate" as waves and gravity is a "static" potential. The analogy would be if the Universe was "empty" and contained a large "elastic" membrane both of these "effects" use it as a means to connect "stuff" together. In the case of light emitted from a central source the surface of Space-time is not curved into the characteristic 1/r
"figure" what is happening is the transverse amplitudes of the electromagnetic waves that compose the packets of the photons are being "diminished" according to the inverse square law relationship. The surface of Space-time remains "flat" overall as a function of time but in "fine detail" the "surface" carries "ripples" in space-time whose amplitude is decreasing according to an inverse square law. This is called "antisymmetric" in the way it disturbs space-time. There is one anomaly with this... this transverse "motion" as seen on the surface of space-time is quite large relative to what might be thought of as a very inflexible elastic membrane. This "suggests" that what we are looking at is not space-time curvature but something else. The other point is that electromagnetism is propagated as a pure tensor. This is based on a very strict set of mathematics where "deformations" in the medium must be very tiny to allow this maths to work. It actually works "brilliantly" indicating that space-time itself is only deformed at the smallest scale. Bear that in mind and I will return to this point later.Gravity also deforms space-time but in a "symmetric" sense. That is it is not a wave phenomena (except in the case of very traumatic gravity events) but a depression in the surface of space-time. Like the influence of a "force" of unlike charges on each other (uses similar mathematics) only we seem not to have "bi-polar" gravity. It is "one sided" in the way it deforms space-time. It too bends space-time in such a very "feeble" way it is exceedingly hard to detect. It also conforms to the laws of tensors and appears not to have any non-linear effects even for quite large masses. The "figure" of this force is according to the 1/r
relationship. The difference being is instead of a propagating and spreading ripple it is as though this huge elastic sheet has a ball bearing at it's center that gives an ever so slight "warp" in space-times surface.Remember how light propagates... here is a gif animation... please wait while it loads.
This is "dipole" radiation into the volume of three dimensional space but seen as a slice that is in the same plane as the dipole radiator. The "warped circles" you see are electric field lines whose directions are changing (circulating) clockwise to anticlockwise alternatively in each cycle. Notice the "anomalous" behavior near the point of origin of the waves this is the near-field and is very interesting behaviour... totally different to the far-field and cannot fully be illustrated in this "simple" illustration. Magnetic field lines run perpendicularly through these loops (concentrate on the electric fields).
In 3D space these form expanding tori (donut shapes). The radial thickness of the donuts is a constant and you understand it as the wavelength of the "wave". The circumference of the "wave" is the circumference of a circle but the energy of the wave is found on the surface of a sphere and this is divided into "wavelengths" the energy in each of these spherical "shells" remain constant but is "spread" according to the surface area of a sphere (inverse square), since the thickness of the "shell" remains constant (wavelength). Individual photons occupy the volumes of those entire loops you see and subtend large solid angles from the dipole source in the radial direction. This grows rapidly with time. Seen on that expanding surface these look a bit like ever growing "pancakes" of roughly circular outline and constant thickness (wavelength). Photons obey "Bose-Einstein" statistics so vast quantities of photons are able to exist in the same volumes of space and are immune to "space quantization" that particles are subjected to with Fermi-Dirac Statistics. This is the difference between "Bosons" and "Fermions". The "power" of a radio wave is derived from having "more photons" than a "less powerful" beam.
Consider a photon that has been traveling for several millions of years as a wave... the size of the "pancake" will encompass thousands of galaxies and that whole solid sector of space according to the geometry defined by that animation. When the photon finally interacts with our "telescope" and is detected by the photographic plate, the wave becomes a particle and is "seen" as a small "flash". The particle is absorbed. To do this that the wave function collapses and the particle is then localized in space (on that photographic plate). That entire pancake... no matter how large (it could be the size of a galaxy) all it's energy is found now in that absorbed "particle".
Gravity is wholly different. Other than the rearrangement of "mass" it is relatively "static". The speed at which the influence "redistributes" itself is "classically" the speed of light. The difference is that is not "propagated" as pancakes of energy. It is just a slight "warp" in the surface of space-time. It is "tiny"... exceedingly "tiny" yet this is enough to cause particles on the surface-of space-time to be "attracted" by seemingly following the mutual curvature. Just like ball bearings on a sheet metal surface that has the barest of warps in it's surface will cause them to move in the frictionless environment of smooth surfaces ... so too do mass particles appear to be attracted to each other in frictionless space-time. They are not actually influence by any force but by "geometry" of the surface where the particle actually is and it "falls" along a geodesic (path of least action). Sometimes these paths intersect other particles and sometime they end up falling along "conic sections"... often orbits.
So light does not put a permanent "warp" in space-time but "ripples" it... leaving no permanent warp. The amplitudes of the ripples are "anomalously" large and if tensors were used in the processes involved in the mega-ripples of that amplitude they would violate the first premise of tensors... that is the "deformations" in space-time must be exceedingly small otherwise you would record non-linear effects of these processes. It is known that at the top end of energy there are such non-linear effects experimentally. In the realm of normal photon propagation we do not see this phenomenon. Photons also have "infinite" range.
With gravity its warp also extends to infinity so this effect also has "infinite" range. However the surface of space time is very "still" when gravity is found there. No "rippling" waves (except at the top end of the scale of energy once again). Close examination of this surface would show that this character is similar to deformation into a higher dimension by "spin" not unlike a vortex you would see in water (only frictionless). The difference is the "flow" is not disturbed by ripples or waves. It is exceedingly "smooth flow" in and around the mass particle. This "bends" space-time in a plane perpendicular to the normal volume of flat Minkowski space-time into a Riemann Surface. Seen from our scale in the Universe it is a relatively motionless warping of that medium. A little reflective thought on the preceding you will ask if Gravity and Light are moving in space-time and Gravity warps space-time into higher spaces (right angles to the three normal directions) why doesn't light do the same thing and warp space-time into higher dimensions too? The answer is it does.... it is just that it is incredibly weak effect because of the enormous "tension" in space-time after the inflation of the Universe. So why can we see this "wave" effect at all if it is so small? That is because what we are apparently seeing is not originating from space-time but from those higher dimensions we are speaking of (I call it Uberspace). The rotation is in the 3D + T part of space-time but it is able to curve "something" in higher dimensions that is far more flexible that space-time itself because these dimensions are not normally "inflated" as is our Space-time but can be (temporarily) with a little energy. This is also the reason why the Universe does not have those dimensions "still inflated" since any energy in those dimensional branes leaked back into our Universe soon after the initial inflation event by interacting by quantum demolition processes with all the matter here in "space-time". This was a vast "symmetry breaking" event that left the brane of our Universe (3D + T) with most of the energy and all the mass particles inside.
What we are mapping in Space-time is a "shadow" on the surface of space-time... there are "ripples" on the actual space-time but they are so small we cannot measure or see them... even smaller than the amount that space-time is bent by gravity (think of the energies involved). Space-time is very flat locally except in the vicinity of black holes and such. Remember that this behavior is what we call "quantum" behavior. It is normally "unobserved"... you cannot see quantum's traveling. If you interrupt their journey you may be able to read where they are but that process will "damage" the quantum. While in that "realm" we think of this as "waves" propagating. Regarding gravity... there are no waves but some "circulation" in space-time (electromagnetic curl) resulting in a permanent "vortex" that warps space-time permanently. Naturally this warping must be in higher dimensions (the complex planes) since gravity is seen in all directions from a particle these "surfaces" are only "crutches" to help you understand the concept.
I have discussed why gravity and mass are related through General Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence previously...
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"? Good Elf
The "spin" comes from the brane of our Universe and Mach's Principle.
What is gravity?, What is gravity "made of"? Good Elf
Now you can see how all this hangs together and why things are as they are. Why we need higher dimensions to fully explain a Theory of Everything and how gravity and electromagnetism are related on the surface of space-time and in higher dimensions. With this information you could "almost" work "miracles" if you knew a few little "plumbing tricks"... he he he!
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 20 2005, 03:29 PM)
This relates back to the principle of Equivalence.
QUOTE (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/glossary.html+)
principle of equivalence: core principle of general relativity declaring the indistinguishably of accelerated motion and immersion in a gravitational field (over small enough regions of observation). Generalizes the principle of relativity by showing that all observers, regardless of their state of motion, can claim to be at rest, so long as they acknowledge the presence of a suitable gravitational field.
Hi Good Elf
Yes I can see why the principle of equivalence is relevant in relating mass to gravity certainly, but according to Mach's Principle (which I don't necessarily agree with), even a free falling body in a locale, immune to the local effect of gravity, still having mass must be affected by Mach's Principle, and is still affected by the gravity in the rest of the universe, so the answer is only partially right, when you use the equivalence principle. There must be a deeper reasoning why mass is affected by gravity..
Imagine this.. a single atom in an atomic bomb, can be affected by gravity, it manages to warp the fabric of spacetime, even though it is fantastically small, now imagine the energy released during an atomic explosion, the effect of all that energy released does not ripple spacetime, energy does not have any interactions with gravity and spacetime... WHY?
This is what I am trying to get at, why mass, however small can affect spacetime, but energy cannot!!
Cheers
Hi Good Elf
Yes I can see why the principle of equivalence is relevant in relating mass to gravity certainly, but according to Mach's Principle (which I don't necessarily agree with), even a free falling body in a locale, immune to the local effect of gravity, still having mass must be affected by Mach's Principle, and is still affected by the gravity in the rest of the universe, so the answer is only partially right, when you use the equivalence principle. There must be a deeper reasoning why mass is affected by gravity..
Imagine this.. a single atom in an atomic bomb, can be affected by gravity, it manages to warp the fabric of spacetime, even though it is fantastically small, now imagine the energy released during an atomic explosion, the effect of all that energy released does not ripple spacetime, energy does not have any interactions with gravity and spacetime... WHY?
This is what I am trying to get at, why mass, however small can affect spacetime, but energy cannot!!
Cheers
Hi ourmanflint,
QUOTE (ourmanflint Posted on Oct 23 2005+ 09:53 AM)
according to Mach's Principle (which I don't necessarily agree with), even a free falling body in a locale, immune to the local effect of gravity,
Good questions. Just a quick answer here... I will answer more fully if required. Mach's Principle (for me) has no perceptible influence on gravity. It does have influence on mass. Through mass this can affect the gravity. This is through my interpretation of the General Relativity Equivalence Principle as interpreted in my Corollary in the reference cited above.
Good questions. Just a quick answer here... I will answer more fully if required. Mach's Principle (for me) has no perceptible influence on gravity. It does have influence on mass. Through mass this can affect the gravity. This is through my interpretation of the General Relativity Equivalence Principle as interpreted in my Corollary in the reference cited above.
QUOTE (ourmanflint Posted on Oct 23 2005+ 09:53 AM)
There must be a deeper reasoning why mass is affected by gravity..
Well for me it is the other way around... Gravity is affected by mass. The mass is a property of the higher dimensional "intrinsic spin matrix". So this is the view I take of Mach is that the brane of the Universe is spinning and through spin it endows the mass through the property of "acceleration".
Well for me it is the other way around... Gravity is affected by mass. The mass is a property of the higher dimensional "intrinsic spin matrix". So this is the view I take of Mach is that the brane of the Universe is spinning and through spin it endows the mass through the property of "acceleration".
QUOTE (ourmanflint Posted on Oct 23 2005+ 09:53 AM)
Imagine this.. a single atom in an atomic bomb, can be affected by gravity, it manages to warp the fabric of space-time, even though it is fantastically small, now imagine the energy released during an atomic explosion, the effect of all that energy released does not ripple space-time, energy does not have any interactions with gravity and spacetime... WHY?
I would point to the fact that a single atomic nucleus hardly affects the surface of space-time at all for the reasons I gave above (incredibility "stiff"). Though I said "warp" I really meant a teeny-weeny warp. In the case of an atomic explosion the high energy particles released do not appreciably affect the surface of space-time at all since all we are dealing with is a few pounds of material and a lot of photons. Individually a photon... even an energetic gamma ray... will not "curve" space-time since it affects it anti-symmetrically so all the photons individually produce no "lopsided" influence on space-time. The matter is just 4.4 Kg of Plutonium hardly anything to worry about. The energy (photons) do "ripple" space-time but because of that "stiffness" it is a very slight ripple and is antisymmetric conforming to Bose-Einstein Statistics.
Cheers
I would point to the fact that a single atomic nucleus hardly affects the surface of space-time at all for the reasons I gave above (incredibility "stiff"). Though I said "warp" I really meant a teeny-weeny warp. In the case of an atomic explosion the high energy particles released do not appreciably affect the surface of space-time at all since all we are dealing with is a few pounds of material and a lot of photons. Individually a photon... even an energetic gamma ray... will not "curve" space-time since it affects it anti-symmetrically so all the photons individually produce no "lopsided" influence on space-time. The matter is just 4.4 Kg of Plutonium hardly anything to worry about. The energy (photons) do "ripple" space-time but because of that "stiffness" it is a very slight ripple and is antisymmetric conforming to Bose-Einstein Statistics.
Cheers
Hi good elf
Thanks good elf, i did read your reply, trying to comprehend. Sorry if these ? are explained there or just stupid.
In atomic physics should we not show all particles containing a gravitational field?
(look like particles but act like waves)
Could all falling objects fall at the same speed because these forces exist. The more mass / energy the object has the more forces they contain, counteracting the acceleration of heavier falling objects. The Like forces repelling each other and the Masses attracting each other, or something like that.
I don't know if this is correct, take the moon and earth for example their gravitational forces never enter each others forces, or do they?
Thanks bee
Thanks good elf, i did read your reply, trying to comprehend. Sorry if these ? are explained there or just stupid.
In atomic physics should we not show all particles containing a gravitational field?
(look like particles but act like waves)
Could all falling objects fall at the same speed because these forces exist. The more mass / energy the object has the more forces they contain, counteracting the acceleration of heavier falling objects. The Like forces repelling each other and the Masses attracting each other, or something like that.
I don't know if this is correct, take the moon and earth for example their gravitational forces never enter each others forces, or do they?
Thanks bee
Hi Bee,
All objects (which are small relative to the mass of the main accelerating body) fall at the same "rate" if they start off with the same velocity (as a velocity vector and a position vector). This is why a feather and a hammer fall at the same speed on the moon.
All objects (which are small relative to the mass of the main accelerating body) fall at the same "rate" if they start off with the same velocity (as a velocity vector and a position vector). This is why a feather and a hammer fall at the same speed on the moon.
QUOTE (bee Posted on Oct 23 2005+ 07:05 PM)
I don't know if this is correct, take the moon and earth for example their gravitational forces never enter each others forces, or do they?
Hmmm... I am sorry, I may have lost you in that stuff. Any "particle" moves in space-time the same way. Even a massless particle travels in space-time the same as a mass particle. The only difference is....
(1) light is traveling faster (at the speed of light)
and
(2) has no contribution to make to the actual permanent curvature of space-time due to gravity.
Otherwise it "behaves" identically to particles with mass and travels along a "geodesic". Sure it travels faster than other particles but this only affects the dynamics "slightly" (straightens out the curve due to gravity a bit). It doesn't curve space time with a permanent "one sided" warp like a particle with mass. As ourmanflint was asking... what about an atomic bomb... shouldn't it affect space-time? Clearly you would "intuitively" think it would... but actually since photons have no mass there is no contribution to even a short term large local warp in the space-time continuum. Because photons do not easily "see" each other due to Bose-Einstein statistics (they inter-penetrate each other freely as if they were "ghosts") their "ripples" do not even "add up" to mega-ripples but effectively locally and mutually "cancel out" because they are "antisymmetric" (the waves go both sides of the zero value positive and negative) only for it to "return" outside this zone of interaction (mutual cancellation). People used to say "destructive interference"... actually nothing is "destroyed"... the wave crests would be "suppressed" only in a very local sense. All the energy is still there but "energy" is not a fluid - it is simply a capacity do do work. What they do produce is a powerful Electromagnetic Pulse for other reasons.
A mass particle actually contributes to the mutual force of "Gravitation". When you consider an atomic particle and the size of the earth it's motion is "indistinguishable" to a massless particle traveling at the same speed. The other point is "most" mass particles are "fermions" so they obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics and they "bump into each other".
The interesting case is a question around this area which asks what about two atomic particles that are in very close proximity? Indeed this is significant... especially when the particles are very close to each other for long periods of time (in an atom for instance). Valid question about the two particles moving about the center of mass of the "system". For large number of electrons this problem is "insoluble" and this "problem" is only currently soluble for one electron atoms despite our greatest computers. Anyway quantum physics does not use space-time to calculate with... it is a special probability space which is "non-physical" and relates only "superficially" to real space. We are "encouraged" not to think too hard about this. We know that an atom will be subject to classical forces as well as quantum effects... we usually ignore them.
In the case of the Earth-Moon System these are two considerably heavy objects in relative proximity (quarter of a million miles). Their individual masses individually curve space-time and collectively (with the other planets) curve space-time more. Their "self-mass" which I say is caused by "internal acceleration" within the internal space of these solar bodies which is made up of a large number of atomic particles each of which has internal acceleration (thus mass). This gives each individual atomic particle the ability to "slightly" curve space-time. The moon's "gravity environment" is different from that of a massless photon at the same radius from the Earth because it is able to curve space-time itself and "contribute" to the attraction between the Earth and the Moon system... significantly.
So when the Moon is "checking it out" which way to move next... it only looks right where it currently is and this curvature is the "sum" of a "curve" due to the Earth, a "curve" due to the Sun, a curve each for every body in the solar system, a teeny curve each for every galaxy in the sky and the self curve due to the Moon itself. In terms of relative effect "the Moon's Mass" is probably second only to the effect of the Earth because it is so "close". The moon will move down the gravity "slope" which is the sum of all of these "where it is" and this differs all the time wherever it continually moves since it is significantly moving it's "own influence" around with it.
I hope you are able to "get this" concept. For smaller bodies it becomes a "competition" between what is tugging on it and it's own mass becomes a secondary effect..
Thus with the eagle feather and the hammer the Moon "wins" due to it's great proximity, and both will fall at the same rate to the surface. This would be the same if the feather was pitted against 100,000 Tonnes of a rock too... in a vacuum.
Cheers
Hmmm... I am sorry, I may have lost you in that stuff. Any "particle" moves in space-time the same way. Even a massless particle travels in space-time the same as a mass particle. The only difference is....
(1) light is traveling faster (at the speed of light)
and
(2) has no contribution to make to the actual permanent curvature of space-time due to gravity.
Otherwise it "behaves" identically to particles with mass and travels along a "geodesic". Sure it travels faster than other particles but this only affects the dynamics "slightly" (straightens out the curve due to gravity a bit). It doesn't curve space time with a permanent "one sided" warp like a particle with mass. As ourmanflint was asking... what about an atomic bomb... shouldn't it affect space-time? Clearly you would "intuitively" think it would... but actually since photons have no mass there is no contribution to even a short term large local warp in the space-time continuum. Because photons do not easily "see" each other due to Bose-Einstein statistics (they inter-penetrate each other freely as if they were "ghosts") their "ripples" do not even "add up" to mega-ripples but effectively locally and mutually "cancel out" because they are "antisymmetric" (the waves go both sides of the zero value positive and negative) only for it to "return" outside this zone of interaction (mutual cancellation). People used to say "destructive interference"... actually nothing is "destroyed"... the wave crests would be "suppressed" only in a very local sense. All the energy is still there but "energy" is not a fluid - it is simply a capacity do do work. What they do produce is a powerful Electromagnetic Pulse for other reasons.
A mass particle actually contributes to the mutual force of "Gravitation". When you consider an atomic particle and the size of the earth it's motion is "indistinguishable" to a massless particle traveling at the same speed. The other point is "most" mass particles are "fermions" so they obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics and they "bump into each other".
The interesting case is a question around this area which asks what about two atomic particles that are in very close proximity? Indeed this is significant... especially when the particles are very close to each other for long periods of time (in an atom for instance). Valid question about the two particles moving about the center of mass of the "system". For large number of electrons this problem is "insoluble" and this "problem" is only currently soluble for one electron atoms despite our greatest computers. Anyway quantum physics does not use space-time to calculate with... it is a special probability space which is "non-physical" and relates only "superficially" to real space. We are "encouraged" not to think too hard about this. We know that an atom will be subject to classical forces as well as quantum effects... we usually ignore them.
In the case of the Earth-Moon System these are two considerably heavy objects in relative proximity (quarter of a million miles). Their individual masses individually curve space-time and collectively (with the other planets) curve space-time more. Their "self-mass" which I say is caused by "internal acceleration" within the internal space of these solar bodies which is made up of a large number of atomic particles each of which has internal acceleration (thus mass). This gives each individual atomic particle the ability to "slightly" curve space-time. The moon's "gravity environment" is different from that of a massless photon at the same radius from the Earth because it is able to curve space-time itself and "contribute" to the attraction between the Earth and the Moon system... significantly.
So when the Moon is "checking it out" which way to move next... it only looks right where it currently is and this curvature is the "sum" of a "curve" due to the Earth, a "curve" due to the Sun, a curve each for every body in the solar system, a teeny curve each for every galaxy in the sky and the self curve due to the Moon itself. In terms of relative effect "the Moon's Mass" is probably second only to the effect of the Earth because it is so "close". The moon will move down the gravity "slope" which is the sum of all of these "where it is" and this differs all the time wherever it continually moves since it is significantly moving it's "own influence" around with it.
I hope you are able to "get this" concept. For smaller bodies it becomes a "competition" between what is tugging on it and it's own mass becomes a secondary effect..
Thus with the eagle feather and the hammer the Moon "wins" due to it's great proximity, and both will fall at the same rate to the surface. This would be the same if the feather was pitted against 100,000 Tonnes of a rock too... in a vacuum.
Cheers
Hi good elf
Sorry if i am messing you around, my lack of education restricts my elaboration, i am not a scientist, nonetheless find these topics interesting.
example only:
X = earths gravity(constant @ distance)
particle A = 10Ev (gravity of particle A e.g. = 5)
particle B = 20Ev (gravity of particle B e.g. = 10)
If we drop particle A and particle B at the same velocity and distance, could they fall at the same speed because:
X repels particle A's gravity @ 5 units
X repels particle B's gravity @ 10 units
Therefore both fall at the same speed.
Thanks
Sorry if i am messing you around, my lack of education restricts my elaboration, i am not a scientist, nonetheless find these topics interesting.
example only:
X = earths gravity(constant @ distance)
particle A = 10Ev (gravity of particle A e.g. = 5)
particle B = 20Ev (gravity of particle B e.g. = 10)
If we drop particle A and particle B at the same velocity and distance, could they fall at the same speed because:
X repels particle A's gravity @ 5 units
X repels particle B's gravity @ 10 units
Therefore both fall at the same speed.
Thanks
Hi Bee,
Gravity is a "symmetric" influence on space-time. This really means that there is no known "repulsion" due to gravity. All gravity known attracts. There may be "something" else but it will not be called gravity if it exists at all (...the "dark force" for instance due to ".Dark Energy"). On the contrary the two particles will attract each other... but a little thought about this will show this "force" of acceleration toward each other will be exceedingly tiny. The particles may have opposite electric charges and repel for that reason. This is not gravity though even though the maths is very similar to gravity. The force of charges and the forces of gravity will not match up for atomic or any other charged particles.
The two particles will fall at the same rate simply because they "see" the same "gravity slope" to "slide" down. Their individual masses (provided they are small relative to the size of the earth) make "no difference". A neutrally charged neutron will fall at the same rate as Mt. Everest provided we remove the effects of the atmosphere
Gravity is a "symmetric" influence on space-time. This really means that there is no known "repulsion" due to gravity. All gravity known attracts. There may be "something" else but it will not be called gravity if it exists at all (...the "dark force" for instance due to ".Dark Energy"). On the contrary the two particles will attract each other... but a little thought about this will show this "force" of acceleration toward each other will be exceedingly tiny. The particles may have opposite electric charges and repel for that reason. This is not gravity though even though the maths is very similar to gravity. The force of charges and the forces of gravity will not match up for atomic or any other charged particles.
The two particles will fall at the same rate simply because they "see" the same "gravity slope" to "slide" down. Their individual masses (provided they are small relative to the size of the earth) make "no difference". A neutrally charged neutron will fall at the same rate as Mt. Everest provided we remove the effects of the atmosphere
Hi ourmanflint,
I wonder if you remember this question...
What is Gravity - Question...
I wonder if you remember this question...
What is Gravity - Question...
QUOTE (ourmanflint Posted: Oct 14 2005+ 06:49 PM)
QUOTE (Good Elf+Oct 13 2005, 02:13 PM)
The next point is the force of gravity is not conventionally instantaneous. It propagates at the speed of light. This should be the case since a mismatch will result in unbalanced properties in Space-time. On balance it should propagate at the Speed of Light. What this is actually saying is that there is an underlying relationship between Gravity and Light or Electromagnetism.
Hmm! Is that so? (stroking chin!) I wish I knew why this would be true... can you elucidate?
A tie in between "force" and light can be seen in the phenomenon of twisted light...
Twisted Light Good Elf References
In particular you can see the expression of a tangential force on particles without the need for charge. You could well imagine that this "force" is indeed due to "acceleration stress" in light. It would not be hard to conceive of a "photonic manipulator" that can move particles at a distance and perhaps remotely "sample" or "retrieve" small quantities of matter using appropriate phase and refractive properties from localities humans cannot access. A true "Remote Sensor" from Star Trek perhaps...
Here is an excellent illustration of Berry Phase (Java Required)...
Parallel Transport
This is the phenomenon of vector parallel transport on the spherical surface. A little play will reveal "wonders" in solid geometry eh?
Cheers
Hmm! Is that so? (stroking chin!) I wish I knew why this would be true... can you elucidate?
A tie in between "force" and light can be seen in the phenomenon of twisted light...
Twisted Light Good Elf References
In particular you can see the expression of a tangential force on particles without the need for charge. You could well imagine that this "force" is indeed due to "acceleration stress" in light. It would not be hard to conceive of a "photonic manipulator" that can move particles at a distance and perhaps remotely "sample" or "retrieve" small quantities of matter using appropriate phase and refractive properties from localities humans cannot access. A true "Remote Sensor" from Star Trek perhaps...
Here is an excellent illustration of Berry Phase (Java Required)...
Parallel Transport
This is the phenomenon of vector parallel transport on the spherical surface. A little play will reveal "wonders" in solid geometry eh?
Cheers
Ok i'm no mathmatician or physicist but I was wondering if someone could answer this for me to help broaden my understanding:
According to our current theories on gravity, in the universe, does every object with mass act upon every other object with mass? i.e. what role does distance play on the force of gravity in regards to its strength of effect?
Cheers
According to our current theories on gravity, in the universe, does every object with mass act upon every other object with mass? i.e. what role does distance play on the force of gravity in regards to its strength of effect?
Cheers
Hi Tim,
The force of gravity follows the inverse square rule: F=G(m1)(m2)/r2 where F is the force of gravity (in Newtons), G=gravitational constant(6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2), m1 & m2 are the masses of the bodies (in Kg) and r is the distance between the bodies (in meters).
hope this helps
Ron
The force of gravity follows the inverse square rule: F=G(m1)(m2)/r2 where F is the force of gravity (in Newtons), G=gravitational constant(6.67300 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2), m1 & m2 are the masses of the bodies (in Kg) and r is the distance between the bodies (in meters).
hope this helps
Ron
Hi TimJ and Ron,
Ron is right... There is a possible exception with standard theory where you have foliations in space-time at different velocity regimes. This hides objects from us. Research the concept of Rindler Space. There are a couple of posts with some references here...
The impossibility of something faster than light
Packing Universes in...
These foliations will lead to areas of the Universe where "influence" cannot reach from other regions.
Cheers
Ron is right... There is a possible exception with standard theory where you have foliations in space-time at different velocity regimes. This hides objects from us. Research the concept of Rindler Space. There are a couple of posts with some references here...
The impossibility of something faster than light
Packing Universes in...
These foliations will lead to areas of the Universe where "influence" cannot reach from other regions.
Cheers
Good Elf,
Maybe you can answer something that has always puzzled me. How is Light able to travel as fast as it does? From my understanding light is BOTH a particle and a wave. Is the "particle" portion of light without mass? Or do we really know what light is?
-Mike-
morg2625@msn.com
Maybe you can answer something that has always puzzled me. How is Light able to travel as fast as it does? From my understanding light is BOTH a particle and a wave. Is the "particle" portion of light without mass? Or do we really know what light is?
-Mike-
morg2625@msn.com
Hi Guest_Mike,
QUOTE (Guest_Mike Posted on Oct 26 2005+ 03:17 PM)
How is Light able to travel as fast as it does? From my understanding light is BOTH a particle and a wave. Is the "particle" portion of light without mass?
There is an easy answer and there are hard answers. First the easy answer...
Light is a particle that has zero rest mass. In the real world the "mass" of a photon is really just an accountants view of "energy equivalent" through...
E = MC
... and light can impart an "impulse" through it's momentum. This mass is not going to cause any physically measurable properties but are properties conferred on it by "our" state of motion and is a highly variable quantity. If I said that your mass relative to a distant quasar at nearly the speed of light was a thousand million tonnes... would you believe me?
It must be the fact that light has no rest mass is the chief reason why it can travel at the speed of light. Even a tiny rest mass would limit it's speed instantly. The same fact also means that any "force" or "impulse" impressed on the photon at all... even the smallest "force" or "impulse" would result in infinite acceleration and it would then "instantly" travel at the speed of light ... the maximum permissible speed. No faster... no slower... The Energy...
E = hf
... for photons is where h is Planck Constant and is an impulse "scaled" linearly by the frequency. So photons are "turned out" by this equation... all light travels at © but differs in frequency only.
The speed of light is actually a "parameter" in our Universe and it is not a "true" particle because of it's lack of locality. Photons "spread"... this is unlike ordinary particles and when they are interacted with matter they "collapse" to a particle interaction.
See this link for more on how light propagates
The speed of light is equal to this relationship...
where... The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (ε0) in SI units as:
and... The permeability of free space (μ0) is not dependent on c and is defined in SI units as:
This is an effective "number" (3 X 10
m/s) by which light is limited to a maximum.. You should not be too surprised that the number pi related to the figures of circles and spheres and is part of the mix and is also sheer "geometry". . In the case of refractive media this is only slightly modified and the ratio of the speed of light in a medium and in a vacuum is a measure of the refractive index. Where the subscripts "0" and the "r" indicates the two different media such that..
One more point... light does not "speed up" or "slow down" through various media it simply is a propagation change due to the electric and magnetic properties as you see above. In this way there is no "losses" in this processes.
A wider reference to the speed of light is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
If you have a more specific question please ask a really tough one here. I will give it a go.
PS: I have put a bit more advance stuff here where you asked this question again...
What is light?, Can It be clearly defined
Light is the "Exchange Force Carrier" in the Universe.
Cheers
There is an easy answer and there are hard answers. First the easy answer...
Light is a particle that has zero rest mass. In the real world the "mass" of a photon is really just an accountants view of "energy equivalent" through...
E = MC
... and light can impart an "impulse" through it's momentum. This mass is not going to cause any physically measurable properties but are properties conferred on it by "our" state of motion and is a highly variable quantity. If I said that your mass relative to a distant quasar at nearly the speed of light was a thousand million tonnes... would you believe me?
It must be the fact that light has no rest mass is the chief reason why it can travel at the speed of light. Even a tiny rest mass would limit it's speed instantly. The same fact also means that any "force" or "impulse" impressed on the photon at all... even the smallest "force" or "impulse" would result in infinite acceleration and it would then "instantly" travel at the speed of light ... the maximum permissible speed. No faster... no slower... The Energy...
E = hf
... for photons is where h is Planck Constant and is an impulse "scaled" linearly by the frequency. So photons are "turned out" by this equation... all light travels at © but differs in frequency only.
The speed of light is actually a "parameter" in our Universe and it is not a "true" particle because of it's lack of locality. Photons "spread"... this is unlike ordinary particles and when they are interacted with matter they "collapse" to a particle interaction.
See this link for more on how light propagates
The speed of light is equal to this relationship...
where... The value of c defines the permittivity of free space (ε0) in SI units as:
and... The permeability of free space (μ0) is not dependent on c and is defined in SI units as:
This is an effective "number" (3 X 10
m/s) by which light is limited to a maximum.. You should not be too surprised that the number pi related to the figures of circles and spheres and is part of the mix and is also sheer "geometry". . In the case of refractive media this is only slightly modified and the ratio of the speed of light in a medium and in a vacuum is a measure of the refractive index. Where the subscripts "0" and the "r" indicates the two different media such that.. One more point... light does not "speed up" or "slow down" through various media it simply is a propagation change due to the electric and magnetic properties as you see above. In this way there is no "losses" in this processes.
A wider reference to the speed of light is...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
If you have a more specific question please ask a really tough one here.
I will give it a go.PS: I have put a bit more advance stuff here where you asked this question again...
What is light?, Can It be clearly defined
Light is the "Exchange Force Carrier" in the Universe.
Cheers
Hi good elf
The moons orbit increases by 3cm/year, this is not caused by the earth gaining more mass from meteorites (1000's per day), contributing to earths mass. With current theories should the moon not be coming closer, because of more mass?
thanks
The moons orbit increases by 3cm/year, this is not caused by the earth gaining more mass from meteorites (1000's per day), contributing to earths mass. With current theories should the moon not be coming closer, because of more mass?
thanks
Hi Bee,
QUOTE (bee Posted on Oct 28 2005+ 08:40 AM)
The moons orbit increases by 3cm/year, this is not caused by the earth gaining more mass from meteorites (1000's per day), contributing to earths mass. With current theories should the moon not be coming closer, because of more mass?
The mass of all those meteorites is "nothing" compared with the huge bulk of the Earth. It is true that if the Earth gained enough mass through this process this would indeed happen.
I may need to be corrected on this point but it is my understanding that tidal forces and their mutual action on the Earth-Moon system is slowly "boosting" the Moon into an ever higher orbit (through the transfer of this angular momentum) and eventually we will lose this "life giving" satellite forever. It may also be that the orbit of a "free" Moon may cross the orbit of the Earth and thus eventually end life on this world as well. We may once again all be united in "death"... he he he!
At the time the Moon was "withdrawn" from the body of the earth by a cataclysmic event, the period of our day was about 15 hours. That was nearly 5 Billion years ago. Today the rotation of the Earth has slowed to 24 hours and the Moon has retreated from a very close orbit to 280 thousand miles. Continued tracking of the Moon's orbit and distance facilitated by the corner reflector array left there by Apollo Moon Missions... can measure the distance by interferometry down to centimeters. This investigation coupled with an investigation of the isotope composition of the Moon from samples collected from there, indicate that the Moon had originated from the body of the Earth and that we are slowly losing her. The Mother is leaving her nest and the chicks must seek their own destiny.
Cheers
The mass of all those meteorites is "nothing" compared with the huge bulk of the Earth. It is true that if the Earth gained enough mass through this process this would indeed happen.
I may need to be corrected on this point but it is my understanding that tidal forces and their mutual action on the Earth-Moon system is slowly "boosting" the Moon into an ever higher orbit (through the transfer of this angular momentum) and eventually we will lose this "life giving" satellite forever. It may also be that the orbit of a "free" Moon may cross the orbit of the Earth and thus eventually end life on this world as well. We may once again all be united in "death"... he he he!
At the time the Moon was "withdrawn" from the body of the earth by a cataclysmic event, the period of our day was about 15 hours. That was nearly 5 Billion years ago. Today the rotation of the Earth has slowed to 24 hours and the Moon has retreated from a very close orbit to 280 thousand miles. Continued tracking of the Moon's orbit and distance facilitated by the corner reflector array left there by Apollo Moon Missions... can measure the distance by interferometry down to centimeters. This investigation coupled with an investigation of the isotope composition of the Moon from samples collected from there, indicate that the Moon had originated from the body of the Earth and that we are slowly losing her. The Mother is leaving her nest and the chicks must seek their own destiny.
QUOTE
"Earth is the cradle of civilization, but humanity cannot live in the cradle forever."
-- Konstantin Tsiolkovski
-- Konstantin Tsiolkovski
Cheers
Hi good elf
If light contains particles, there is a constant rush of light particles from the sun. How do we see the light particles from stars, because the suns particles would collide against the incoming star’s light particles?
(Like particles colliding in particle accelerators)
Is it like frogs trying to cross a busy highway, sum make it, others become victims of my sick experiment?
Causing the twinkle of stars.
And
When a spaceship leaves the earth is the spaceship already traveling at the earth’s speed of 72,360 km/h?
Thanks
If light contains particles, there is a constant rush of light particles from the sun. How do we see the light particles from stars, because the suns particles would collide against the incoming star’s light particles?
(Like particles colliding in particle accelerators)
Is it like frogs trying to cross a busy highway, sum make it, others become victims of my sick experiment?
Causing the twinkle of stars.
And
When a spaceship leaves the earth is the spaceship already traveling at the earth’s speed of 72,360 km/h?
Thanks
Hi Bee,
QUOTE (bee Posted on Oct 28 2005+ 11:47 AM)
If light contains particles, there is a constant rush of light particles from the sun. How do we see the light particles from stars, because the suns particles would collide against the incoming star’s light particles? (Like particles colliding in particle accelerators)
Light is a special type of particle called a Boson. Bosons are particles that deliver "forces" in the Universe. I do not like the term particle for light photons but it is appropriate nevertheless. As you have pointed out light does NOT exhibit particle to particle interactions when the two particles are both photons. It is a massless boson and obeys different kinds of laws to what you are thinking of as particles called Bose-Einstein Statistics. This means that an infinity of these particles (photons) can exist in the same spot at the same time and they just "add" and "subtract" their phases giving interference patterns. After they pass through each other there is no residual effect.
You can see this if you take two torch beams and adjust them at right angles to each other and allow them to pass through each other. What you will find is they have no "mutual" effect. Each beam operates as if the other beam never existed. They do not scatter each other as you may expect (as if they were made up of small hard balls). Yet close examination would reveal that in the region where they "interfere" or cross the waves are adding and subtracting chaotically with no final lasting effect. Energy is totally conserved. If these light beams were two garden hose "jets" then the "beams" of water mutually scatter each other and you end up with a mess. This is because the atoms and particles that make up the water are obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics. No two particles can occupy the same space at the same time. That is the notion we think holds for everything ... this is incorrect.
There is a third possibility... when a boson meets a fermion or a group of fermions what happens? Well the Boson "penetrates" the region with all the fermions (possibly a brick wall) depending on the wavelength of the light (bosons). This is called tunneling. Under the right conditions bosons can pass through solid objects without effect. Under other conditions the photons (bosons) are "absorbed" or scattered. A complex set of rules apply. The photon obeys these laws and even high speed fermions will obey these laws under certain circumstances because high speed fermions begin to have bosonic properties which increase with their velocity. In a subtle way these two different particles can behave like each other. This links to the magical properties of EIT or Electromagnetically induced Transparency... where a solid object can be made to be "transparent" to a band of light frequencies and, indeed, a beam of light can then pass through a brick wall totally unaffected, and to the topic of "stopped light". The consequences of this are far more subtle than what I have explained here but it starts the ball rolling for you on this topic.
Cheers
Light is a special type of particle called a Boson. Bosons are particles that deliver "forces" in the Universe. I do not like the term particle for light photons but it is appropriate nevertheless. As you have pointed out light does NOT exhibit particle to particle interactions when the two particles are both photons. It is a massless boson and obeys different kinds of laws to what you are thinking of as particles called Bose-Einstein Statistics. This means that an infinity of these particles (photons) can exist in the same spot at the same time and they just "add" and "subtract" their phases giving interference patterns. After they pass through each other there is no residual effect.
You can see this if you take two torch beams and adjust them at right angles to each other and allow them to pass through each other. What you will find is they have no "mutual" effect. Each beam operates as if the other beam never existed. They do not scatter each other as you may expect (as if they were made up of small hard balls). Yet close examination would reveal that in the region where they "interfere" or cross the waves are adding and subtracting chaotically with no final lasting effect. Energy is totally conserved. If these light beams were two garden hose "jets" then the "beams" of water mutually scatter each other and you end up with a mess. This is because the atoms and particles that make up the water are obeying Fermi-Dirac Statistics. No two particles can occupy the same space at the same time. That is the notion we think holds for everything ... this is incorrect.
There is a third possibility... when a boson meets a fermion or a group of fermions what happens? Well the Boson "penetrates" the region with all the fermions (possibly a brick wall) depending on the wavelength of the light (bosons). This is called tunneling. Under the right conditions bosons can pass through solid objects without effect. Under other conditions the photons (bosons) are "absorbed" or scattered. A complex set of rules apply. The photon obeys these laws and even high speed fermions will obey these laws under certain circumstances because high speed fermions begin to have bosonic properties which increase with their velocity. In a subtle way these two different particles can behave like each other. This links to the magical properties of EIT or Electromagnetically induced Transparency... where a solid object can be made to be "transparent" to a band of light frequencies and, indeed, a beam of light can then pass through a brick wall totally unaffected, and to the topic of "stopped light". The consequences of this are far more subtle than what I have explained here but it starts the ball rolling for you on this topic.
Cheers
hi good elf,
If the average gravitational strength on earth's surface distance is e.g. 10 units.
At the earth's average orbit distance from the sun, what would you say the sun's gravitational strength would be?
thks
If the average gravitational strength on earth's surface distance is e.g. 10 units.
At the earth's average orbit distance from the sun, what would you say the sun's gravitational strength would be?
thks
Hi bee,
It is hard to say anything that is "meaningful". If you were "fixed" on a "steel" rod 93 million miles long that was "embedded" in the Sun (locked to its rotation)... you would be subjected to negative centrifugal forces since it rotates about it's center once every 25 days quite rapidly over about a month. The worst carousel ride you ever had. As it is we are weightless in orbit around the Sun at the moment (we take 12 months for the same "ride"... economy class) that is if we were far away from the earth in space .. all other things equal. That is the "true" answer.... no aceleration at all.... zero gee.
I did a quick "mythical" calculation if we were "stuck" rigidly in space (relative to the distant stars) at the distance of the earths radius (150 X 10^9m) from the Sun (while the Sun rotated under us) of mass 2 X 10^30 kg, and this would result in an acceleration of about 1/150 m/sec^2. This would then be about 1/1500 the acceleration due to gravity on earth (ball park). You would hardly notice it. This is more than enough to keep all the planets in the solar system in orbit etc. The center of mass of the entire solar system is still well within the surface of the Sun... he he he!
Cheers
QUOTE
If the average gravitational strength on earth's surface distance is e.g. 10 units. At the earth's average orbit distance from the sun, what would you say the sun's gravitational strength would be?
It is hard to say anything that is "meaningful". If you were "fixed" on a "steel" rod 93 million miles long that was "embedded" in the Sun (locked to its rotation)... you would be subjected to negative centrifugal forces since it rotates about it's center once every 25 days quite rapidly over about a month. The worst carousel ride you ever had. As it is we are weightless in orbit around the Sun at the moment (we take 12 months for the same "ride"... economy class) that is if we were far away from the earth in space .. all other things equal. That is the "true" answer.... no aceleration at all.... zero gee.
I did a quick "mythical" calculation if we were "stuck" rigidly in space (relative to the distant stars) at the distance of the earths radius (150 X 10^9m) from the Sun (while the Sun rotated under us) of mass 2 X 10^30 kg, and this would result in an acceleration of about 1/150 m/sec^2. This would then be about 1/1500 the acceleration due to gravity on earth (ball park). You would hardly notice it. This is more than enough to keep all the planets in the solar system in orbit etc. The center of mass of the entire solar system is still well within the surface of the Sun... he he he!
Cheers
All of the greatest minds contemplating Gravity have had trouble grasping the concept, first so named by Newton who gave us F=Gxm1xm2/rsquared..this formula works locally(Earth) and for most of the neighborhood (solar system) but doesn't work exactly re the orbit of Mercury. Big E resolved the deficiency by fine tuning his General theory which took him 8 years of doubt, mental turmoil and personal stress. It is clear from the ongoing discussion in this forum concerning G, available perhaps nowhere else on the web, that G is still causing mental turmoil.
I can understand what Mr. G Elf is saying re acceleration. it seems quite clear that mass attraction is related to acceleration. The apple "falls" accelerating toward the center of the Earth and the Earth is accelerating toward the center of apple. We notice the apple's acceleration, we don't perceive the acceleration of the Earth toward the apple.
Acceleration implies an increase in velocity, either from rest or from existing motion, and that requires vector. If velocity is a constant, acceleration is a change in that constant. Even my old '73 Buick LeSabre accelerates and this produces a change from rest mass to velocity, which the passengers can sense in several ways, and which is calibrated, sort of, on the speedometer.
Feynman was not successful in his attempt to quantize gravity (i.e. graviton) and no G-wave has been detected. IF G-wave is so very long, we cannot tell if we are in the trough or at the crest or somewhere in between. IF G is a wave it must have a frequency and amplitude. Is G the same at the crest as in the trough and at all points in between?
In realtime, I have considerable experience sailing on the open ocean...when you are on the helm in a following sea, waves appear behind you, overtake you, carry you for a time and then move on. The waves are moving faster than your vessel. Your strategy as helmsman is to anticipate the crest of the next oncoming wave and you do this by steering into the trough ahead. By the time you get to the trough, it has moved on and the next crest overtakes you and the trough, the hole in fluid ahead, fills up. The following wave crest has replaced it, carrying your vessel onward with an increase in acceleration, good for making better passage, especially if you are racing.
Right now I am at the helm of my Inspiron laptop. I have Simon Singh, Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose at my elbow as navigators and the nature of spacetime and gravity seems very much like a trough into which I am "falling" yet, somehow, common reality fills the trough before I get there. My vessel accelerates, but does not exceed the velocity of spacetime.
I can understand what Mr. G Elf is saying re acceleration. it seems quite clear that mass attraction is related to acceleration. The apple "falls" accelerating toward the center of the Earth and the Earth is accelerating toward the center of apple. We notice the apple's acceleration, we don't perceive the acceleration of the Earth toward the apple.
Acceleration implies an increase in velocity, either from rest or from existing motion, and that requires vector. If velocity is a constant, acceleration is a change in that constant. Even my old '73 Buick LeSabre accelerates and this produces a change from rest mass to velocity, which the passengers can sense in several ways, and which is calibrated, sort of, on the speedometer.
Feynman was not successful in his attempt to quantize gravity (i.e. graviton) and no G-wave has been detected. IF G-wave is so very long, we cannot tell if we are in the trough or at the crest or somewhere in between. IF G is a wave it must have a frequency and amplitude. Is G the same at the crest as in the trough and at all points in between?
In realtime, I have considerable experience sailing on the open ocean...when you are on the helm in a following sea, waves appear behind you, overtake you, carry you for a time and then move on. The waves are moving faster than your vessel. Your strategy as helmsman is to anticipate the crest of the next oncoming wave and you do this by steering into the trough ahead. By the time you get to the trough, it has moved on and the next crest overtakes you and the trough, the hole in fluid ahead, fills up. The following wave crest has replaced it, carrying your vessel onward with an increase in acceleration, good for making better passage, especially if you are racing.
Right now I am at the helm of my Inspiron laptop. I have Simon Singh, Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose at my elbow as navigators and the nature of spacetime and gravity seems very much like a trough into which I am "falling" yet, somehow, common reality fills the trough before I get there. My vessel accelerates, but does not exceed the velocity of spacetime.
Hi herbo21k,
The quantization of space-time is truly a fruitless task. I agree with what you are saying there... The answer to gravity lies elsewhere (IMHO....I think!).
For a short version of my ideas on gravity and the origin of mass based on Einstein's Equivalence Principle look here...Good Elf earlier in this thread
Cheers
The quantization of space-time is truly a fruitless task. I agree with what you are saying there... The answer to gravity lies elsewhere (IMHO....I think!).
For a short version of my ideas on gravity and the origin of mass based on Einstein's Equivalence Principle look here...Good Elf earlier in this thread
Cheers
Hi Good_Elf and Herbo21k,
Quoting the Good_Elf from earlier
the Corollary of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of accelerated frames of reference or the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force implies that the curvature of spacetime usually reserved for the provenance of "mass" also means that acceleration is the "source" of mass.
The options would seem to be that matter either eats a certain amount of space-time and refuses to give it back OR it continuously eats space time which looks kind of promising as a mechanism for sort of sailing along with space.
But, I think the e=mc^2 sort of drops out naturally when you look at the energy of a moving mass and then stop moving it - it looks very much like 'static' curve to me - not proof but difficult to account for with 'acceleration' as the origin of the curvature.
Best wishes,
Confused2
Quoting the Good_Elf from earlier
the Corollary of Einstein's Principle of Equivalence of accelerated frames of reference or the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force implies that the curvature of spacetime usually reserved for the provenance of "mass" also means that acceleration is the "source" of mass.
The options would seem to be that matter either eats a certain amount of space-time and refuses to give it back OR it continuously eats space time which looks kind of promising as a mechanism for sort of sailing along with space.
But, I think the e=mc^2 sort of drops out naturally when you look at the energy of a moving mass and then stop moving it - it looks very much like 'static' curve to me - not proof but difficult to account for with 'acceleration' as the origin of the curvature.
Best wishes,
Confused2
Hi Confused2,
He He he... I hardly think that E = MC is immediately obvious from riding a Merry-Go-Round. The Corollary of the Principle of Equivalence is stating that it is "Space-time" curvature that is the source of the mass ... fundamentally... as well as primarily. It's curvature is dependent on the frame of reference. The "apparent" increase in "force" on a Merry-Go-Round does not translate to Mass... it translates to local "Gravity". The "bit" about the mass is a property of the internal "systems" of particles with mass that make up a hunk of matter. I will not attribute that to Einstein since I doubt that he had thought along those lines. That does not mean that he was not it's author though. The intrinsic difference is the fact that mass is a "source" of this property.... in the case of Gravity while mass is important it is not a "source". A photon and a steel hammer "fall" the same in a "gravity field". It is just that you need to take into account the fact that light has a very high initial velocity. The other point is the light does not need "mass" as an internal source to be affected by "external" gravity... a point lost by many other commentators in the history of this question. I think this is the "core" point. Mass is an internal source and I think is subject to the Principle of Equivalence.
I would like to say in defense of my point of view... there is no experiment in the Universe I know of that can disprove this. I will also say that the General Theory of Relativity is as proven a Theory as you can get and is used as commonly by the man in the street as the ubiquitous hand-held GPS. As a piece of technology it is literally "bursting" with proof of both Theories of Einstein's Relativity including the effects of the Curvature of Space-time and the Principle of Equivalence.
It is the belief in the "solidity of matter" that is at the heart of this quandary. I say let the experiments speak for themselves. Lets not deal with "philosophy" just the "facts".
Cheers
He He he... I hardly think that E = MC
is immediately obvious from riding a Merry-Go-Round. The Corollary of the Principle of Equivalence is stating that it is "Space-time" curvature that is the source of the mass ... fundamentally... as well as primarily. It's curvature is dependent on the frame of reference. The "apparent" increase in "force" on a Merry-Go-Round does not translate to Mass... it translates to local "Gravity". The "bit" about the mass is a property of the internal "systems" of particles with mass that make up a hunk of matter. I will not attribute that to Einstein since I doubt that he had thought along those lines. That does not mean that he was not it's author though. The intrinsic difference is the fact that mass is a "source" of this property.... in the case of Gravity while mass is important it is not a "source". A photon and a steel hammer "fall" the same in a "gravity field". It is just that you need to take into account the fact that light has a very high initial velocity. The other point is the light does not need "mass" as an internal source to be affected by "external" gravity... a point lost by many other commentators in the history of this question. I think this is the "core" point. Mass is an internal source and I think is subject to the Principle of Equivalence.I would like to say in defense of my point of view... there is no experiment in the Universe I know of that can disprove this. I will also say that the General Theory of Relativity is as proven a Theory as you can get and is used as commonly by the man in the street as the ubiquitous hand-held GPS. As a piece of technology it is literally "bursting" with proof of both Theories of Einstein's Relativity including the effects of the Curvature of Space-time and the Principle of Equivalence.
It is the belief in the "solidity of matter" that is at the heart of this quandary. I say let the experiments speak for themselves. Lets not deal with "philosophy" just the "facts".
Cheers
Just reading Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene, and I am happy to report that my thoughts on Gravity are no less valid than anyone elses it seems...
My view has been changing though as I go through a multiplicity of imagined experiments, and now I am convinced that many if not all of the current problems within cosmology and physics are only going to be satisfactorily answered when we take into account those hidden sub-dimensions ( not higher dimesions- I think our 3 spatial dimensions are the highest) of our universe.
And this certainly includes gravity! Though how we seek proof from outside of our comfortable 3d universe, I have no clue.
My view has been changing though as I go through a multiplicity of imagined experiments, and now I am convinced that many if not all of the current problems within cosmology and physics are only going to be satisfactorily answered when we take into account those hidden sub-dimensions ( not higher dimesions- I think our 3 spatial dimensions are the highest) of our universe.
And this certainly includes gravity! Though how we seek proof from outside of our comfortable 3d universe, I have no clue.
Hello Good_Elf,
What is gravity made of?
I'm sorry if we have a misunderstanding here - my intention was develop your point in a constructive way rather than dispute it. My suggestion that mass eats space was not in the least frivolous, I have no better way to describe my concept of curved space. If the volume within is less than the enclosed volume then something has.. eaten?.. it. I hope that at another time we will find ourselves looking at possible mechanisms for the reverse process. As far as I am concerned 'gravitational lensing' and other effects are proven beyond reasonable doubt and I am here on this thread (and other threads) to share and develop theories based on the best (shared) experimental data available to us. When experimental evidence fails I think it is reasonable to introduce 'thought experiments' which may clarify a point made by me or anyone else. If I have a 'philosophy' then there you have it in it's entirety - when I fail in this I fail - it will happen. I hope this is acceptable, it is the best I can do.
To justify posting to do anything more than explain my 'philosophy'..
I can only find rather painful references to the derivation of e=mc^2 so as a matter of possibly general interest I will reproduce this rather simple 'demonstration' from Atomic and Nuclear Physics by Littlefield & Thorley (1966 - it was quite old when I bought it, honest) - sorry I can't format it any better..
Relativity predicts that for body in motion we have
m = m0 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Binomial expansion (just a way of expressing the rather opaque equation in a more transparent form ) gives
m = m0(1+ 1/2*v^2 /c^2 + 3/8 * (v^4/c^4) . more increasingly small terms.)
multiply by c^2
m*c^2 = m0*c^2 + 1/2 * m0 * v^2 + . more increasingly small terms
We know 1/2 * m0 * v^2 is the kinetic energy of a mass moving at velocity v
so it looks like mc^2 is the energy of a mass with velocity v
which leaves us (hopefully) concluding that m0 * c^2 is the energy of a mass with no velocity.
Best wishes,
Confused2.
What is gravity made of?
I'm sorry if we have a misunderstanding here - my intention was develop your point in a constructive way rather than dispute it. My suggestion that mass eats space was not in the least frivolous, I have no better way to describe my concept of curved space. If the volume within is less than the enclosed volume then something has.. eaten?.. it. I hope that at another time we will find ourselves looking at possible mechanisms for the reverse process. As far as I am concerned 'gravitational lensing' and other effects are proven beyond reasonable doubt and I am here on this thread (and other threads) to share and develop theories based on the best (shared) experimental data available to us. When experimental evidence fails I think it is reasonable to introduce 'thought experiments' which may clarify a point made by me or anyone else. If I have a 'philosophy' then there you have it in it's entirety - when I fail in this I fail - it will happen. I hope this is acceptable, it is the best I can do.
To justify posting to do anything more than explain my 'philosophy'..
I can only find rather painful references to the derivation of e=mc^2 so as a matter of possibly general interest I will reproduce this rather simple 'demonstration' from Atomic and Nuclear Physics by Littlefield & Thorley (1966 - it was quite old when I bought it, honest) - sorry I can't format it any better..
Relativity predicts that for body in motion we have
m = m0 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Binomial expansion (just a way of expressing the rather opaque equation in a more transparent form ) gives
m = m0(1+ 1/2*v^2 /c^2 + 3/8 * (v^4/c^4) . more increasingly small terms.)
multiply by c^2
m*c^2 = m0*c^2 + 1/2 * m0 * v^2 + . more increasingly small terms
We know 1/2 * m0 * v^2 is the kinetic energy of a mass moving at velocity v
so it looks like mc^2 is the energy of a mass with velocity v
which leaves us (hopefully) concluding that m0 * c^2 is the energy of a mass with no velocity.
Best wishes,
Confused2.
Hi confused2,
QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Nov 18 2005+ 11:58 PM)
I'm sorry if we have a misunderstanding here
Nah.... do not worry about any of that. We must stay as "light" as we possibly can here. I thought it was "humorous"
Your analysis is fine but it has limited application. Unless you have a piece of antimatter around you will never be able to tap the bulk of the energy in the Universe. The binding energy in matter is like a wound up spring... it is a form of potential energy. It is also internal to the nuclei of atoms. If you remove that binding energy (ever so slowly) the combined remaining mass curves the internal geometry that little bit less and thus is unable to confine the nucleus anymore. While this is not a large amount of "external" space-time curvature... it does constitute a great deal of "intrinsic" curvature within the nuclear "environment". This constitutes a "source" of mass. The "extrinsic" space-time curvature is of minor consequence and is probably what you think I am referring to. Not so in this case. So the acceleration in that case is inside the particle and I am not worried too much about the acceleration (due to space-time curvature) externally.
Nah.... do not worry about any of that. We must stay as "light" as we possibly can here. I thought it was "humorous"
Your analysis is fine but it has limited application. Unless you have a piece of antimatter around you will never be able to tap the bulk of the energy in the Universe. The binding energy in matter is like a wound up spring... it is a form of potential energy. It is also internal to the nuclei of atoms. If you remove that binding energy (ever so slowly) the combined remaining mass curves the internal geometry that little bit less and thus is unable to confine the nucleus anymore. While this is not a large amount of "external" space-time curvature... it does constitute a great deal of "intrinsic" curvature within the nuclear "environment". This constitutes a "source" of mass. The "extrinsic" space-time curvature is of minor consequence and is probably what you think I am referring to. Not so in this case. So the acceleration in that case is inside the particle and I am not worried too much about the acceleration (due to space-time curvature) externally.
QUOTE (Confused2 Posted on Nov 18 2005+ 11:58 PM)
But, I think the e=mc^2 sort of drops out naturally when you look at the energy of a moving mass and then stop moving it - it looks very much like 'static' curve to me - not proof but difficult to account for with 'acceleration' as the origin of the curvature.
The curvature of space-time can be illustrated if I stand on a field and throw a ball to another person. It describes a curve in space. This is space-time curvature due to the accelerated frame of reference of the Earths Surface. While this looks "static" to you... I would remind you that a freely falling observer will see the ball moving on a "geodesic". This will appear to be almost a straight line. In that situation the curvature of space-time has "disappeared"... It all depends on the frame of reference you are observing the motion from. Obviously a different observer who is independently accelerated, he will observe quite a different "curvature" for the ball.
Mind you... what you have said about general matters is quite fine. Gedanken Experiments are acceptable and in some cases (because of our mutual poor financial positions )... necessary.
Cheers
The curvature of space-time can be illustrated if I stand on a field and throw a ball to another person. It describes a curve in space. This is space-time curvature due to the accelerated frame of reference of the Earths Surface. While this looks "static" to you... I would remind you that a freely falling observer will see the ball moving on a "geodesic". This will appear to be almost a straight line. In that situation the curvature of space-time has "disappeared"... It all depends on the frame of reference you are observing the motion from. Obviously a different observer who is independently accelerated, he will observe quite a different "curvature" for the ball.
Mind you... what you have said about general matters is quite fine. Gedanken Experiments are acceptable and in some cases (because of our mutual poor financial positions )... necessary.
Cheers
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.