Everybody knows there are problems formulating a quantum theory of
gravity, but what are those problems? Could someone please recommend
a text or article that discusses them in detail?
Brian Greene's latest book discusses this problem in some detail. The
essential point is that in regimes where you need to consider both
(black holes or the universe at the time of the big bang), the
analytical results are nonsensical.
essential point is that in regimes where you need to consider both
(black holes or the universe at the time of the big bang), the
analytical results are nonsensical.
Let's paint with a broad brush. It is straightforward
incompatiblity:
General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially
separable into independent components. Systems of three or more
particles require cluster separability (macroscopic locality).
When the system is separated into subsystems, the overall
mathematical description must reduce to descriptions of the
subsystems. This is vital in scattering problems with two or more
fragments.
Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of
product states) that require a fundamental irresolvable
connection within readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit
diffraction, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox). Macroscopic
locality is violated: Measuring the state of one slit in a double
slit experiment alters the observed diffraction pattern to single
slit patterns (quantum eraser experiments). Relativistic and
quantum views are in conflict.
Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth
coordinate transformations - general covariance (the
stress-energy tensor embodying local energy and momentum) -
resisting quantization. General Relativity is invariant under
transformations of the diffeomorphism group. General Relativity
predicts evolution of an initial system state with arbitrary
certainty.
Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about
conjugate variables in a system state, disallowing exact
prediction of its evolution. Covariance with respect to
reflection in space and time is not required by the Poincare
group of Special Relativity or the Einstein group of General
Relativity.
Loop quantum theory, brane/string/M-theory, and Lorentzian
lattice quantum gravity all fail at being testable by prediction
vs. observation. They are formulated to be parity-even, (x,y,z)
and(-x,-y,-z) giving identical answers. If the were an empirical
gravitational parity anomaly, of the three only a small piece of
M-theory would survive. That alone is powerful incentive to
perform the parity Eotvos experiment.
incompatiblity:
General Relativity's physical systems are always spatially
separable into independent components. Systems of three or more
particles require cluster separability (macroscopic locality).
When the system is separated into subsystems, the overall
mathematical description must reduce to descriptions of the
subsystems. This is vital in scattering problems with two or more
fragments.
Quantum mechanics allows entangled states (superpositions of
product states) that require a fundamental irresolvable
connection within readily demonstrated physical systems (two-slit
diffraction, the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox). Macroscopic
locality is violated: Measuring the state of one slit in a double
slit experiment alters the observed diffraction pattern to single
slit patterns (quantum eraser experiments). Relativistic and
quantum views are in conflict.
Relativity models continuous spacetime, going beyond conformal
symmetry (scale independence) to symmetry under all smooth
coordinate transformations - general covariance (the
stress-energy tensor embodying local energy and momentum) -
resisting quantization. General Relativity is invariant under
transformations of the diffeomorphism group. General Relativity
predicts evolution of an initial system state with arbitrary
certainty.
Quantum mechanics' observables display discrete states.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle limits knowledge about
conjugate variables in a system state, disallowing exact
prediction of its evolution. Covariance with respect to
reflection in space and time is not required by the Poincare
group of Special Relativity or the Einstein group of General
Relativity.
Loop quantum theory, brane/string/M-theory, and Lorentzian
lattice quantum gravity all fail at being testable by prediction
vs. observation. They are formulated to be parity-even, (x,y,z)
and(-x,-y,-z) giving identical answers. If the were an empirical
gravitational parity anomaly, of the three only a small piece of
M-theory would survive. That alone is powerful incentive to
perform the parity Eotvos experiment.
I went to a talk by t'Hooft that addressed this question. This isn't
my area, so I may get things wrong, but I haven't seen what he said
mentioned anywhere else so I'll mention it here anyway.
In order to get around all the inconsistencies that plague the
perturbation expansions of quantum field theories, it's good to
use quantum field theories that are renormalizable (especially
since all the predictions come from perturbation expansions, and
if you have a non-renormalizable quantum field theory, there's no
way of getting reasonable perturbation expansions from it).
Unfortunately, people can show that there are no renormalizable
3+1 dimensional quantum field theories containing a spin-2 graviton,
which is the elementary particle you need to carry the force of
gravity. Now, t'Hooft decided to look at perturbation expansions
anyway, and discovered that in the first order perturbation expansion
for quantum gravity, there's only one free constant. And for low
order expansions, there are only a small number of extra free
constants. Of course, for the full theory, you still have an
infinite number of free constants rather than the finite number you
find in renormalizable quantum field theories, which is somewhat
disturbing; but he seemed to think this might be a useful approach
nonetheless.
I'd be happy if somebody who really knows what they're talking
about elaborates on this.
Another fundamental difficulty of unifying quantum mechanics and gravity
is that quantum mechanics has as one of its most fundamental assumptions
that the universe is unitary, so no information is ever fundamentally lost.
General relativity seems to say that when you toss something in a black
hole, the only information about that something that survives is its
mass, its charge, and its angular momentum (and of course, any classical
records that mention it). And it says this pretty convincingly, so,
barring Hawking's lecture next week, nobody has come up with a convincing
mechanism for getting information out of a black hole, a necessary
prerequisite for reconciling GR with QM.
String theorists are absolutely convinced that the universe is unitary,
but none of them has been able to convince me that it's impossible for
the universe to be non-unitary at the Planck scale and still look very,
very close to unitary at experimental scales. A couple of them have
tried to, but these attempts generally involve a lot of waving of hands
and words like "in the generic case," and arguments along the same lines
would seem to imply that quantum error correction is impossible, and
that's something I know is wrong.
I'll be very interested to hear reports of Hawking's lecture next week.
Peter Shor
my area, so I may get things wrong, but I haven't seen what he said
mentioned anywhere else so I'll mention it here anyway.
In order to get around all the inconsistencies that plague the
perturbation expansions of quantum field theories, it's good to
use quantum field theories that are renormalizable (especially
since all the predictions come from perturbation expansions, and
if you have a non-renormalizable quantum field theory, there's no
way of getting reasonable perturbation expansions from it).
Unfortunately, people can show that there are no renormalizable
3+1 dimensional quantum field theories containing a spin-2 graviton,
which is the elementary particle you need to carry the force of
gravity. Now, t'Hooft decided to look at perturbation expansions
anyway, and discovered that in the first order perturbation expansion
for quantum gravity, there's only one free constant. And for low
order expansions, there are only a small number of extra free
constants. Of course, for the full theory, you still have an
infinite number of free constants rather than the finite number you
find in renormalizable quantum field theories, which is somewhat
disturbing; but he seemed to think this might be a useful approach
nonetheless.
I'd be happy if somebody who really knows what they're talking
about elaborates on this.
Another fundamental difficulty of unifying quantum mechanics and gravity
is that quantum mechanics has as one of its most fundamental assumptions
that the universe is unitary, so no information is ever fundamentally lost.
General relativity seems to say that when you toss something in a black
hole, the only information about that something that survives is its
mass, its charge, and its angular momentum (and of course, any classical
records that mention it). And it says this pretty convincingly, so,
barring Hawking's lecture next week, nobody has come up with a convincing
mechanism for getting information out of a black hole, a necessary
prerequisite for reconciling GR with QM.
String theorists are absolutely convinced that the universe is unitary,
but none of them has been able to convince me that it's impossible for
the universe to be non-unitary at the Planck scale and still look very,
very close to unitary at experimental scales. A couple of them have
tried to, but these attempts generally involve a lot of waving of hands
and words like "in the generic case," and arguments along the same lines
would seem to imply that quantum error correction is impossible, and
that's something I know is wrong.
I'll be very interested to hear reports of Hawking's lecture next week.
Peter Shor
Hi All,
I would like you all to remember that Gravity is NOT incompatible with Quantum Theory. It is the mathematical models and theories that are incompatible.
It needs a fresh look! Remember that to see if it is right it needs to be testible.
Cheers
I would like you all to remember that Gravity is NOT incompatible with Quantum Theory. It is the mathematical models and theories that are incompatible.
It needs a fresh look! Remember that to see if it is right it needs to be testible.
Cheers
Hi all,
I agree with good elf. It is the understanding of the mathematics and explanations of the two theories that needs reworking.
One must come to a new view of what the mathematics and ideas of both theories are saying and how these actually apply to the concrete physical universe.
for example:
What do superposition and entanglement actually mean in terms of the energy/momentum/angular energy/angular momentum and other actual physical properties of a superposed quantum system?
Is space/time really curved or are there other explanation for the effects of GR?
z
I agree with good elf. It is the understanding of the mathematics and explanations of the two theories that needs reworking.
One must come to a new view of what the mathematics and ideas of both theories are saying and how these actually apply to the concrete physical universe.
for example:
What do superposition and entanglement actually mean in terms of the energy/momentum/angular energy/angular momentum and other actual physical properties of a superposed quantum system?
Is space/time really curved or are there other explanation for the effects of GR?
z
Hi,In the spirit of Good Physics, I will retract my explanation and lack clarity due to confusion to the reader! For this I apologize!
Best regards,
yquantum
Seems to me the theories all have some intrinsic problems.
1. Time is treated as if it were a real thing. Better to recognize it as a measure of occurrences (changes in state) relative to other occurrences. A convenient metric for organisms with memory. Not real; no past, present or future: only memory compared and anticipated.
2. Space is treated as if it has several real dimensions. Better to recognize that it has only one dimension: volume. Space (volume) cannot be reduced to area, distance or position. A coordinate system is convenient, perhaps even necessary, for modeling of identites by organisms capable of recognizing self.
3. Waves are treated as real entities. Better to recognize a wave as a manifestation of one or more objects in motion.
4. Energy is treated as a real thing. Better to recognize that this is a term describing any of several (potential) manifestations of changes in state of an object.
5. Attraction is treated as if there were some connecting thing pulling two objects together. Better to recognize that the only force we know is the push: the displacement of one discrete object by another. Better to look for attraction as a manifestation of a push. Perhaps from an object onto an object, both having a specific angular rotation and orientation.
6. Particles are treated as singular objects. Usually modeled as a sphere or spheroid. Better to consider that particles dispalying properties of multi-object systems may be binary (or more complex) structures.
Did I leave anything unquestioned?
1. Time is treated as if it were a real thing. Better to recognize it as a measure of occurrences (changes in state) relative to other occurrences. A convenient metric for organisms with memory. Not real; no past, present or future: only memory compared and anticipated.
2. Space is treated as if it has several real dimensions. Better to recognize that it has only one dimension: volume. Space (volume) cannot be reduced to area, distance or position. A coordinate system is convenient, perhaps even necessary, for modeling of identites by organisms capable of recognizing self.
3. Waves are treated as real entities. Better to recognize a wave as a manifestation of one or more objects in motion.
4. Energy is treated as a real thing. Better to recognize that this is a term describing any of several (potential) manifestations of changes in state of an object.
5. Attraction is treated as if there were some connecting thing pulling two objects together. Better to recognize that the only force we know is the push: the displacement of one discrete object by another. Better to look for attraction as a manifestation of a push. Perhaps from an object onto an object, both having a specific angular rotation and orientation.
6. Particles are treated as singular objects. Usually modeled as a sphere or spheroid. Better to consider that particles dispalying properties of multi-object systems may be binary (or more complex) structures.
Did I leave anything unquestioned?
I am guessing, did anyone try to quantize the interval s= c^2*t^2-x^2?
For me it looks like, if the interval is quantized in the Nature, and because the interval is the same for any observers, then a very interesting (discrete) geometry may be derived from that fact.
For me it looks like, if the interval is quantized in the Nature, and because the interval is the same for any observers, then a very interesting (discrete) geometry may be derived from that fact.
Kind of related, can anyone tell me why a photon doesn't comply with the equation e=mc^2? is it because it's a force carrier or something? then, why does something like gravity (if it is propagated by a force carrier) comply with it?
Hi everyone,
We have been talking about this in a different section of the Forum.
Waiting for the next generation of N. Bohr, w. Heisenberg, Einstein's, and Feynmans to come up with a clearer approach. For this reason, the Quantum theory of the gravitational field calls for a novel conceptual approach that was not required in the past.
Best regards,
yquantum
We have been talking about this in a different section of the Forum.
Waiting for the next generation of N. Bohr, w. Heisenberg, Einstein's, and Feynmans to come up with a clearer approach. For this reason, the Quantum theory of the gravitational field calls for a novel conceptual approach that was not required in the past.
Best regards,
yquantum
Holy crap did you people just throw a bunch of physics terms into a Madlib generator and post the results? I've never seen so much misinformation condensed into such a small space.
Hi and good hunting,
Comment on last page of this subject!
Best regards,
yquantum:( 
Comment on last page of this subject!
Best regards,
yquantum:(
QUOTE
I think you mean Mathcad but then you might be making a very good point, but I respect your view, and QM can do that to a person. My apologies ammesia.
No I meant a Madlib generator. "Madlibs" are basically stories or phrases with a lot of blanks where words would go - for example "The ____ in Spain is _____ on the ______". You feed a bunch of random words and it plugs them into the blanks, so it might end up being "The fermion in Spain is purple on the hamster". If you are a child, this is highly entertaining.
This is what a lot of these posts look like to me - people are confusing their terms and regurgitating information that they only have a vague understand of from 10 minutes of googling.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in anything and I'm not meaning to be condescending to anyone here - I'm just making a casual observation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I think you mean Mathcad but then you might be making a very good point, but I respect your view, and QM can do that to a person. My apologies ammesia. |
No I meant a Madlib generator. "Madlibs" are basically stories or phrases with a lot of blanks where words would go - for example "The ____ in Spain is _____ on the ______". You feed a bunch of random words and it plugs them into the blanks, so it might end up being "The fermion in Spain is purple on the hamster". If you are a child, this is highly entertaining.
This is what a lot of these posts look like to me - people are confusing their terms and regurgitating information that they only have a vague understand of from 10 minutes of googling.
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in anything and I'm not meaning to be condescending to anyone here - I'm just making a casual observation.
Your right about something else, you could not use Mathcad or an equivalent Math program for research, and make such a mess, it will not let you if you use good M/theory, at least if I could do that then maybe I would not make such a mess. It
Thank you for providing such a good example in your next paragraph
Basically you are saying that if I use good m-Theory in Mathcad it won't let me make mistakes. I can't even begin to describe all of the things wrong with this proposition. I'm still not even clear as to what m-Theory has to do with the error-checking routines of a mathematical modeling software.
QUOTE
Would love to know what you think as misinformation! Always open to learning! Help us on this please.
Actually I started to, but there is so much bogus information in this thread the task is far too daunting for one man alone. I would simply recommend that everyone who posted to this thread go back and re-read your sources and learn a little bit more about what you are discussing. My guess is that most people in this forum are reading and trying to interpret higher-level physics without first having a solid understanding of the basics. It's like trying to learn assembly language programming without first learning basic computer usage. You are prone to a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would love to know what you think as misinformation! Always open to learning! Help us on this please. |
Actually I started to, but there is so much bogus information in this thread the task is far too daunting for one man alone. I would simply recommend that everyone who posted to this thread go back and re-read your sources and learn a little bit more about what you are discussing. My guess is that most people in this forum are reading and trying to interpret higher-level physics without first having a solid understanding of the basics. It's like trying to learn assembly language programming without first learning basic computer usage. You are prone to a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding.
Math is so abstract, many would love it to be more on a concrete footing do you agree to on this?
I agree and disagree. Mathematics is just a language, like English or C++. In that sense, it's abstract because its syntactically defined by us (in many cases, not very well). However, mathematics is the language of nature, and in that sense it's very concrete because it describes our observable reality.
Good point amnesia,To summarize, maybe no one on this page really knows what the question is, and that can cause a mess. I will not as you said be condescending, thank you for that because you sound like you have been through the system as I have and even my colleagues, (did it again) do not agree on most things but we understand the laws believe it or not, but there is a premise which we all do agree on and that is "LESS IS BEST," I temporarily had a brain fog or misunderstood, this is plain, and again I apologize if I have cause you any frustration.
Besides I should stay in my own back yard of work, and let the others deal with it in there point of reference.
I would be a fool (please be kind on that last statement), if I said I understood all the dynamics of or understood Quantum Mechanics. But the laws are in place and philosophy will not be the end result. Yes, Mathematics is a tool and language that is very clear in most work, but you know as well as I do we must keep searching.
Best regards and keep us honest, for that I thank you!
yquantum
QUOTE
colleagues, (did it again) do not agree on most things but we understand the laws believe it or not, but there is a premise which we all do agree on and that is "LESS IS BEST," I temporarily had a brain fog or misunderstood, this is plain, and again I apologize if I have cause you any frustration.
No frustrations here - I'm a very laid back individual. Everybody has brain fogs - even Einstein violently disagreed with a lot of things that we now know to be true (and he had to admit he was wrong on several occasions). However, being able to admit that you were wrong or have acted foolishly is a sign of great intellegence, and I commend you for it! It doesn't take a lot of brains to say foolish things, but it takes a great deal of intellegence (and guts) to recognize and admit when you have done so.
And yes, LESS is always BEST. The more succinctly we can break down complex problems, the easier they will be to understand. I suspect a lot of what I'm seeing in the forum is more of an ego-centric phenomenon though. It's a common human trait to try and mask one's own lack of understanding by overcomplicating the issue and confusing the listener/reader (lawyers use this tactic quite a lot - so do auto mechanics). In other words, I may not have a solid understanding of partical mechanics, but if I through a bunch of terms at you that you likely are not familiar with (whether I use them correctly or not), you will be inclined to believe that I know what I'm talking about just because I appear to be familiar with terminology that you are not. It's only when a third observer comes in who actually DOES know what the terms mean that the chain of deception is broken.
If you can not explain something in simple terms, you do not really understand it.
Hi amnesia,
Sorry, I was away form my desk; come to think about it I should stay away more often!
Your very kind amnesia.
"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made in a very narrow field." (We know who said that.)
I wish many times, I could take some of the misunderstandings that I have postulated in my time line back, but that would be impossible. (Let us agree not to go in to time travel.) OK!
I have not been offended quite the contrary, I believe I am a victim of being in this - Discipline - to long, I actually think I know something, WELL I DO NOT!!!
Thank you for collapsing my "wave packet."
Best regards,
yquantum
Need to go back to work,, and work analytically, we can never go wrong with-GOOD PHYSICS?>.
I will correct the page, just principle, I want good Physics in this Forum. )
Sorry, I was away form my desk; come to think about it I should stay away more often!
Your very kind amnesia.
"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes, which can be made in a very narrow field." (We know who said that.)
I wish many times, I could take some of the misunderstandings that I have postulated in my time line back, but that would be impossible. (Let us agree not to go in to time travel.) OK!
I have not been offended quite the contrary, I believe I am a victim of being in this - Discipline - to long, I actually think I know something, WELL I DO NOT!!!
Thank you for collapsing my "wave packet."
Best regards,
yquantum
Need to go back to work,, and work analytically, we can never go wrong with-GOOD PHYSICS?>.
I will correct the page, just principle, I want good Physics in this Forum. )
Hi,
Will removed myself from this thread, the more I read the less I seem to know! It seems that you can know (but you should be silent, if wise) and understand with clarity some of the laws of Quantum Mathematics dealing with QG to the best of your ability, yet become and without intention obfuscate the interpretation of the laws of Quantum Gravity as we understand them at this time, but explaining it well, that should be left to the great Professors of our world, for it is an art. (Feynman we miss you! I do!!)
I will stay within the box with the CAT in a superposition state? Not wanting to be perceived as ESOTERIC.
"In some sort of crude sense, which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."
~J. Robert Oppenheimer~
My very best wishes in Good QM,
yquantum
Will removed myself from this thread, the more I read the less I seem to know! It seems that you can know (but you should be silent, if wise) and understand with clarity some of the laws of Quantum Mathematics dealing with QG to the best of your ability, yet become and without intention obfuscate the interpretation of the laws of Quantum Gravity as we understand them at this time, but explaining it well, that should be left to the great Professors of our world, for it is an art. (Feynman we miss you! I do!!)
I will stay within the box with the CAT in a superposition state? Not wanting to be perceived as ESOTERIC.
"In some sort of crude sense, which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose."
~J. Robert Oppenheimer~
My very best wishes in Good QM,
yquantum
yquantum,
Whatever you're smoking, I want some!
Whatever you're smoking, I want some!
Hi amnesia,
I have tried to show professional dignity and respect as well keeping this Forum in good taste.
I retract what I said, I will not fall into this trap. Better amnesia, thanks!
Best regards,
yquantum
I have tried to show professional dignity and respect as well keeping this Forum in good taste.
I retract what I said, I will not fall into this trap. Better amnesia, thanks!
Best regards,
yquantum
Eh? You need to relaaaax! (and stop appologizing)
Hi amnesia,
Deal!
Truly Best regards,
yquantum
Deal!
Truly Best regards,
yquantum
Hi,
Introduction not important, deleted it. When I think of GRAVITY, G.R. comes to mind if this is not the question then please ignore! There is so much out there on the subject, I just hope it is solved in my life time.
Many theory's and nothing in stone as you know, we cannot even bring Gravity into the family of E.M., S.N.F. and W.N.F.. - Goal G.U.T or T.O.E. -
So what is the problem with gravity, I am using G.R.as a starting point and Q.M. coming together.
1. Q.M. explains why atoms are stable and do not instantly fall apart. Just keeping it simple like someone said, remember it deals with atoms, matter & radiation, etc., It quantizes the Newton and Classical Physics of the large objects in our world.
2. Now G.R. comes from cosmology, space and time, and gravity effects due to mass, etc., but it breaks down when you have to explain the behavior of particles and atoms but the same can be said with QM, is does not become compatible with the view of time and space, solar system, etc.
Problem, you cannot just bring them together and have the math work side by side, the two math's will not form a single theory that will explain the infinitesimal to the large universe.
You cannot just have a theory, it must be compatible with forces, atoms, mass, energy from micro to macro, so it has to be so much more. And they are working very hard on the subject ask any lab working on the problem.
Yes, there is a much better way to explain this problem, I did not say anything new, you can read it almost anywhere, so here is a start Quantum Gravity by Claus Kiefer - ISBN: 0198506872.
Chilled and best regards,
yquantum
Introduction not important, deleted it. When I think of GRAVITY, G.R. comes to mind if this is not the question then please ignore! There is so much out there on the subject, I just hope it is solved in my life time.
Many theory's and nothing in stone as you know, we cannot even bring Gravity into the family of E.M., S.N.F. and W.N.F.. - Goal G.U.T or T.O.E. -
So what is the problem with gravity, I am using G.R.as a starting point and Q.M. coming together.
1. Q.M. explains why atoms are stable and do not instantly fall apart. Just keeping it simple like someone said, remember it deals with atoms, matter & radiation, etc., It quantizes the Newton and Classical Physics of the large objects in our world.
2. Now G.R. comes from cosmology, space and time, and gravity effects due to mass, etc., but it breaks down when you have to explain the behavior of particles and atoms but the same can be said with QM, is does not become compatible with the view of time and space, solar system, etc.
Problem, you cannot just bring them together and have the math work side by side, the two math's will not form a single theory that will explain the infinitesimal to the large universe.
You cannot just have a theory, it must be compatible with forces, atoms, mass, energy from micro to macro, so it has to be so much more. And they are working very hard on the subject ask any lab working on the problem.
Yes, there is a much better way to explain this problem, I did not say anything new, you can read it almost anywhere, so here is a start Quantum Gravity by Claus Kiefer - ISBN: 0198506872.
Chilled and best regards,
yquantum
Thinking on this one.
(And anyone who knows what they are doing will just have to learn to ignore me.)
As a one time electronics tech (the age of vacuum tubes was somewhat like the age of dinosaurs) I could see that a photon of light (or smaller wavelength) was going to have a different description than the long wave burst of static from a spark-gap radio transmitter.
But, that is the same phenomena.
At the very small (protons or less) size, the mediating particle for information exchange (call it a graviton) might be out of bounds size wise for detection or interpretation.
For purpose of silly mental image, measuring the mass of three BB shot by striking them with a beach ball.
As far as the math goes, well I suppose that will eventually become twisted enough to describe the beach ball/BB example, but I suspect it will be a kludge.
(And anyone who knows what they are doing will just have to learn to ignore me.)
As a one time electronics tech (the age of vacuum tubes was somewhat like the age of dinosaurs) I could see that a photon of light (or smaller wavelength) was going to have a different description than the long wave burst of static from a spark-gap radio transmitter.
But, that is the same phenomena.
At the very small (protons or less) size, the mediating particle for information exchange (call it a graviton) might be out of bounds size wise for detection or interpretation.
For purpose of silly mental image, measuring the mass of three BB shot by striking them with a beach ball.
As far as the math goes, well I suppose that will eventually become twisted enough to describe the beach ball/BB example, but I suspect it will be a kludge.
Hi icecycle,
Do not worry about it. Been there and done that. If you read the treads you will know I missed a few important laws and up in smoke - lesson get out the chalk or a good mechanical pencil before you type. eh!
Good point in what you said, if you are talking about QM and gravity, you are safe no matter what someone (unless, but then you will know) tells you, because no one has the answer and we I hope are looking for "CAT" in a very unintuitive world.
So join the club of lost souls. I just left my self wide open on that last statement. I cannot speak for a source if you have access to the web, maybe but if you really want a good book even if it is old, try Feynman's Vol. 3 on QM. It will be a start. The other is very tech. hey maybe not for you look up the ISBN and check it out if you have a friend who has it already. I am ordering it for my library. Looked at it and it is up to speed now, but things will change.
Have fun, this is not my backyard and I should not be here. There I go again. I will say ouch now!
Best regards,
yquantum
Do not worry about it. Been there and done that. If you read the treads you will know I missed a few important laws and up in smoke - lesson get out the chalk or a good mechanical pencil before you type. eh!
Good point in what you said, if you are talking about QM and gravity, you are safe no matter what someone (unless, but then you will know) tells you, because no one has the answer and we I hope are looking for "CAT" in a very unintuitive world.
So join the club of lost souls. I just left my self wide open on that last statement. I cannot speak for a source if you have access to the web, maybe but if you really want a good book even if it is old, try Feynman's Vol. 3 on QM. It will be a start. The other is very tech. hey maybe not for you look up the ISBN and check it out if you have a friend who has it already. I am ordering it for my library. Looked at it and it is up to speed now, but things will change.
Have fun, this is not my backyard and I should not be here. There I go again. I will say ouch now!
Best regards,
yquantum
It's much simpler than all of that:
42
42
Just got back to my desk,Wondering when you would show up, hope we do not agree on something then it would not be anymore fun.
Gravitation Attraction/Electrical Repulsion= 1/4.17x10^42
Please say it is not so!
y
Icecycle:
You are correct on all counts. Essentially you just described quantum uncertainty. We measure things with photons, which intrinsicly limits us to measuring things significantly bigger than photons. Until we can come up with a new way of viewing things, we are stuck.
yquantum:
Oh, but it is so.
Just remember that one cannot know the ultimate answer and the ultimate question about the same universe at the same time.
You are correct on all counts. Essentially you just described quantum uncertainty. We measure things with photons, which intrinsicly limits us to measuring things significantly bigger than photons. Until we can come up with a new way of viewing things, we are stuck.
yquantum:
Oh, but it is so.
Just remember that one cannot know the ultimate answer and the ultimate question about the same universe at the same time.
QUOTE (amnesia+Mar 29 2005, 03:31 PM)
Holy crap did you people just throw a bunch of physics terms into a Madlib generator? I've never seen so much misinformation condensed into such a small space.
This is simply the natural consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in action.
Any attempt to pin down the scientific content of a thread more accurately will result in the wave function of the thread size spreading out into phase space.
This is simply the natural consequence of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in action.
Any attempt to pin down the scientific content of a thread more accurately will result in the wave function of the thread size spreading out into phase space.
In reference to a space field, where you have a grouping of planets, in a planetary field, I say mass-gravity as the effect on space-time.
I have then, do now and always will.
I have then, do now and always will.
Quantum gravity is an quite simply a very elusive concept because many concepts embedded in GR are quite different from QM. General Relativity makes extremely percise perdictions with no wiggle room. Quantum mechanics makes very percise measurements to a point.... beyond that wiggle room is the cornerstone of QM. The theory is routed in probability with when combined with the classical nature of General relativity often times ends in a nonsensical perdiction. Such as a probability over 100%. If something is 100% going to happen.... 120% isnt anymore certain.... its simply a similar situation as gettin infinity as an answer. Black holes were the entities and theoretical obstacle that really forced the issue for a unified theory thta included gravity....... Black hole has extreme mass which makes it fall in relativity arena.... but the collapsed matter condenses into the quantum realm...... effectively requiring both theories to perdict aspects of a black hole within the horizon.
Ignorblis had said> collapsed matter condenses into the quantum realm...... effectively requiring both theories to perdict aspects of a black hole within the horizon.
Phil replies Igono said, perdict ______________________PER-DICT????????????????????
Help please quantify, this does not tabulate, please, this would shall mean per, as per measured, dict, as told to come to fru-it-ition, this does not quantify.
This paradigm shall mean that space is preplanned, this does not compute, Fourier, please, there is a problem here?????!!!!
Please insert greatly modified prolog effort please?
>Oh I got it now Ron the Texan, here-tis.
Whut he-mean, is that is predict.
Ya' know, like how it's gonna be, not how it is?
Got it?
Oh I have it now, but is time space part of a plan.
If variables happen in time-space them every event is a planned variance of a random cartage of numbers sets within a confused unfolding?
There is not planned series of events if every event, has its own meaning.Therefore time-space is illogical and
Phil replies Igono said, perdict ______________________PER-DICT????????????????????
Help please quantify, this does not tabulate, please, this would shall mean per, as per measured, dict, as told to come to fru-it-ition, this does not quantify.
This paradigm shall mean that space is preplanned, this does not compute, Fourier, please, there is a problem here?????!!!!
Please insert greatly modified prolog effort please?
>Oh I got it now Ron the Texan, here-tis.
Whut he-mean, is that is predict.
Ya' know, like how it's gonna be, not how it is?
Got it?
Oh I have it now, but is time space part of a plan.
If variables happen in time-space them every event is a planned variance of a random cartage of numbers sets within a confused unfolding?
There is not planned series of events if every event, has its own meaning.Therefore time-space is illogical and
eh.. mayb i wasnt clear enough, certainly possible. When the black hole collapses past its critical circumference there is no force in the universe that will overcome gravity. This means one of 2 things... (well, i mean current theory perdicts two plausible outcomes)
1) the collapsed star crushes beyond the critical cicumference and continues to crush to a singularity, a nondimensional point in space, infinitely small. This would imply that within the horlizon the black hole would have infinite tidal gravity as u approach the singularity, since u can get infinitely close to a nondimensional point.
2) the collapse star crushes to a planck size nugget, effectively possibly the smallest unit of space, assuming that space cannot be ever divided into a fraction of the previous measurement.
Regardless of which hypothesis is true (astrophysicists are more fond of the planck size nugget approach, since infinite anything is an irritating perdiction) the center of a black hole is obviously very massive and require general relativity, and extremely small, def. within the realm of quantum mechanics. Prior to the 1960's many physicists were content to keep QM and GR isolated, using one here and one there when needed, black holes forced the issue on unification and a search for a "theory of everything."
As stated before, the theories crap out when put 2gether because GR is very classical with extremely percise perdictions, effecively build around the premise that accuracy of perdiction can get as percise as technology will allow. QM on the other hand makes extremely accurate perdictions but clearly states that their is a limit to accuracy, beyond a certain point the mere act of observing nature causes the experimental results to be contaminated by the act of observation itself.
Anyway, hope that shed some light on the confusion
1) the collapsed star crushes beyond the critical cicumference and continues to crush to a singularity, a nondimensional point in space, infinitely small. This would imply that within the horlizon the black hole would have infinite tidal gravity as u approach the singularity, since u can get infinitely close to a nondimensional point.
2) the collapse star crushes to a planck size nugget, effectively possibly the smallest unit of space, assuming that space cannot be ever divided into a fraction of the previous measurement.
Regardless of which hypothesis is true (astrophysicists are more fond of the planck size nugget approach, since infinite anything is an irritating perdiction) the center of a black hole is obviously very massive and require general relativity, and extremely small, def. within the realm of quantum mechanics. Prior to the 1960's many physicists were content to keep QM and GR isolated, using one here and one there when needed, black holes forced the issue on unification and a search for a "theory of everything."
As stated before, the theories crap out when put 2gether because GR is very classical with extremely percise perdictions, effecively build around the premise that accuracy of perdiction can get as percise as technology will allow. QM on the other hand makes extremely accurate perdictions but clearly states that their is a limit to accuracy, beyond a certain point the mere act of observing nature causes the experimental results to be contaminated by the act of observation itself.
Anyway, hope that shed some light on the confusion
btw u totally lost me in the second half of your post.... once more with feeling if i failed to address the issue yet again lol
Sometimes you can overcomplicate an idea by trying too hard.
Gravity is already 'quantized', even in the Newtonian version.
Although Newton (the co-inventor of calculus) liked the continuum as much as anyone, the fact is, his Sphere Theorem is bogus, and his Centre of Mass Theorem is at best a weak approximation when the masses are so distant that they virtually *ARE* particles.
In the real case (which everyone can acknowledge) of a sphere made of atoms, no matter how regularly and finely you space them you have no continuum, but a case of 'quantized' concentrated point-masses separated by vast spaces. The result is the failure of the Sphere Theorem, and the impossibility of a 'zero' or balanced field potential inside a hollow sphere of uniform density and negligible thickness.
The real 'field' for a sphere is like a wild and woolly golf-ball, not a quiet enclosure. There is no stable area at all inside the sphere. All particles will accelerate outward toward the inside surface. Even the exact origin is an unstable point waiting for a symmetry break.
Not only was Newton's argument for the 'flat' field inside a hollow sphere wrong, his theory for solid spheres is also a flop. Instead, any test-particle fired along an axis of the sphere will be randomly skewed and have a scattering-matrix completely unlike anything that Newtonian Gravitational theory could propose.
Now the kicker: General Rel, being a continuum theory like Newtonian gravity, fails equally dismally, and is equally inaccurate. The only thing one can say about the gravity field down near an atom or molecule is that it is insanely complex and unstable. This alone would predict the unpredictability of nuclei and electrons without any need for quantum mechanical gobblety gook.
Surprisingly, although no one seems to have noticed, is that Newtonian Gravity properly viewed predicts gravitational waves as strongly as Gen Rel, and so this is not a test of Gen Rel at all. For instance, take your hammer flying through the air and rotating about it's 'centre of mass'. It also oscillates as it spins, because the actual distribution of mass causes variations in the field and gravitational pull upon nearby objects. That's right. It radiates at the frequency of its spin. If forces are fluctuating, then energy must also be exchanged.
Gravity is already 'quantized', even in the Newtonian version.
Although Newton (the co-inventor of calculus) liked the continuum as much as anyone, the fact is, his Sphere Theorem is bogus, and his Centre of Mass Theorem is at best a weak approximation when the masses are so distant that they virtually *ARE* particles.
In the real case (which everyone can acknowledge) of a sphere made of atoms, no matter how regularly and finely you space them you have no continuum, but a case of 'quantized' concentrated point-masses separated by vast spaces. The result is the failure of the Sphere Theorem, and the impossibility of a 'zero' or balanced field potential inside a hollow sphere of uniform density and negligible thickness.
The real 'field' for a sphere is like a wild and woolly golf-ball, not a quiet enclosure. There is no stable area at all inside the sphere. All particles will accelerate outward toward the inside surface. Even the exact origin is an unstable point waiting for a symmetry break.
Not only was Newton's argument for the 'flat' field inside a hollow sphere wrong, his theory for solid spheres is also a flop. Instead, any test-particle fired along an axis of the sphere will be randomly skewed and have a scattering-matrix completely unlike anything that Newtonian Gravitational theory could propose.
Now the kicker: General Rel, being a continuum theory like Newtonian gravity, fails equally dismally, and is equally inaccurate. The only thing one can say about the gravity field down near an atom or molecule is that it is insanely complex and unstable. This alone would predict the unpredictability of nuclei and electrons without any need for quantum mechanical gobblety gook.
Surprisingly, although no one seems to have noticed, is that Newtonian Gravity properly viewed predicts gravitational waves as strongly as Gen Rel, and so this is not a test of Gen Rel at all. For instance, take your hammer flying through the air and rotating about it's 'centre of mass'. It also oscillates as it spins, because the actual distribution of mass causes variations in the field and gravitational pull upon nearby objects. That's right. It radiates at the frequency of its spin. If forces are fluctuating, then energy must also be exchanged.
Ya but the big diff with newtonian gravity and GR is that the former travels instantaneously and the later travels at the speed of light. The perdictions they make are similar under many circumstances by the propagation varies like night and day.
Btw this point is more of a clarity for others, not rogue physicist, i can tell u have more formal education in such matters then i But starting this fall... my formal quest for the secrets of the universe starts!!! with fundamental mechanics... lol
not to discredit fundamental mechanics..... gotta crawl before u can sprint.
Btw this point is more of a clarity for others, not rogue physicist, i can tell u have more formal education in such matters then i
But starting this fall... my formal quest for the secrets of the universe starts!!! with fundamental mechanics... lol not to discredit fundamental mechanics..... gotta crawl before u can sprint.
QUOTE
the collapse star crushes to a planck size nugget, effectively possibly the smallest unit of space, assuming that space cannot be ever divided into a fraction of the previous measurement. (Ignorance(Isn't)Bliss)
A nugget though lumpy sounds too static to me. I imagine great turbulance that can cause distributed disruptions in the 'surface' of the 'nugget' and can even overcome gravity to create momentary localised ragged voids inside the nugget. The whole thing is in the constant process of causing rips in its substance and reforming.
I also see a nugget as being small and I think the amount of contained energy in a black hole would be enough to keep the thing bigger than full compression of the substance would allow. Compared to matter it would be exceptionally smaller but not as small as it could be if the energy could be removed which never could.
The more you hold down energy the more it builds up (as long as energy is continually supplied) and wants to burst out.
Forum,
Gravity cannot be easily unified with the other forces because it is different. It is different and superior.
Think about the Big Bang. The instant it starts we have two very powerful and distinct properties that we can name, and one we cannot. They are:
1. Time.
2. Gravity
3. Unknown force causing the inflationary period.
Please note that there is no mention of the near, far or electromagnetic forces. These (unified) forces didn't come into being until the universe expanded and cooled enough to allow the formation of normal particles.
So, we can say that gravity is independent of the other forces and it always has been. Therefore, you can't unify them.
Time, gravity and the unknown "inflationary" force allowed the three unified forces to come into existence, but the unified forces have no other relation with gravity. Simply put, gravity doesn't need them.
We already think that the unified forces coalesced out of the Big Bang after a certain period of expansion. What we don't understand is how gravity and time began to begin with, nor what happened to the inflationary force.
Is the inflationary force still with us in the form of the current universe's accelerating expansion? This is doubtful because it is apparent that the current expansion started relatively recently (as opposed to the initial expansion). So, where'd the inflationary force go?
Might it be possible that the inflationary force transformed into the three unified forces? Who knows? It's doubtful though, because combined they don't have enough energy to break up a singularity.
Eric
Gravity cannot be easily unified with the other forces because it is different. It is different and superior.
Think about the Big Bang. The instant it starts we have two very powerful and distinct properties that we can name, and one we cannot. They are:
1. Time.
2. Gravity
3. Unknown force causing the inflationary period.
Please note that there is no mention of the near, far or electromagnetic forces. These (unified) forces didn't come into being until the universe expanded and cooled enough to allow the formation of normal particles.
So, we can say that gravity is independent of the other forces and it always has been. Therefore, you can't unify them.
Time, gravity and the unknown "inflationary" force allowed the three unified forces to come into existence, but the unified forces have no other relation with gravity. Simply put, gravity doesn't need them.
We already think that the unified forces coalesced out of the Big Bang after a certain period of expansion. What we don't understand is how gravity and time began to begin with, nor what happened to the inflationary force.
Is the inflationary force still with us in the form of the current universe's accelerating expansion? This is doubtful because it is apparent that the current expansion started relatively recently (as opposed to the initial expansion). So, where'd the inflationary force go?
Might it be possible that the inflationary force transformed into the three unified forces? Who knows? It's doubtful though, because combined they don't have enough energy to break up a singularity.
Eric
Ubavontuba,
One aspect of your response here - there is no time in the fundamental sense. It is a convenient man made measure to measure the motion of objects in relation to another object (eg the second hand on the clock). If you dismiss or reject the notion of time from the fundamentals of the universe, it will be clear, very clear to you that everything is driven by an endless source of energy, which keeps the universe in motion. This could explain the absolute zero temperature encountered in cryogenic experiments. What about the superfluid nature of liquid helium? It very closely mimics the nature of the aether - a fluid that wets everything and allows EM to propagate through it.
Gravity also does not require an energy source to keep it going. It is like a perpetual motion engine. Gravity, in my perspective, is a field force imparted on matter, causing them to have potential difference, which allows them to be attracted to the source of this potential, as maintained by the aether.
True the 3 unified forces are explained, however they require the erroneous concept of time... The universe never had a clock on the wall to record how long its been existing for... lol
One aspect of your response here - there is no time in the fundamental sense. It is a convenient man made measure to measure the motion of objects in relation to another object (eg the second hand on the clock). If you dismiss or reject the notion of time from the fundamentals of the universe, it will be clear, very clear to you that everything is driven by an endless source of energy, which keeps the universe in motion. This could explain the absolute zero temperature encountered in cryogenic experiments. What about the superfluid nature of liquid helium? It very closely mimics the nature of the aether - a fluid that wets everything and allows EM to propagate through it.
Gravity also does not require an energy source to keep it going. It is like a perpetual motion engine. Gravity, in my perspective, is a field force imparted on matter, causing them to have potential difference, which allows them to be attracted to the source of this potential, as maintained by the aether.
True the 3 unified forces are explained, however they require the erroneous concept of time... The universe never had a clock on the wall to record how long its been existing for... lol
Zapper,
My point was that time was a measurable property, not that it is a force. Time might be considered to be similar to "centrifugal force" in that you can experience it, but mathematically it isn't real (so to speak) except as a measure of change.
Liquid (superfluidic) helium exhibits lots of interesting properties. Unlike the supposed aether though it has mass and acts like mass is supposed to at those temperatures.
All sorts of solid super conductors conduct EM perfectly. Does that mean the aether is a solid?
Gravity IS potential, but I still don't believe in an aether that "makes" gravity happen. One must ask, why would the aether be attracted to matter, thus providing the supposed push? Why aether and not normal matter?
Lastly, gravity and force aren't energy and therefore they aren't a form of perpetual motion. Force is merely potential.
Eric
My point was that time was a measurable property, not that it is a force. Time might be considered to be similar to "centrifugal force" in that you can experience it, but mathematically it isn't real (so to speak) except as a measure of change.
Liquid (superfluidic) helium exhibits lots of interesting properties. Unlike the supposed aether though it has mass and acts like mass is supposed to at those temperatures.
All sorts of solid super conductors conduct EM perfectly. Does that mean the aether is a solid?
Gravity IS potential, but I still don't believe in an aether that "makes" gravity happen. One must ask, why would the aether be attracted to matter, thus providing the supposed push? Why aether and not normal matter?
Lastly, gravity and force aren't energy and therefore they aren't a form of perpetual motion. Force is merely potential.
Eric
QUOTE
My point was that time was a measurable property, not that it is a force. Time might be considered to be similar to "centrifugal force" in that you can experience it, but mathematically it isn't real (so to speak) except as a measure of change.
I see what youre getting at now.
Ive read that the latest aether theory asserts that it is a superfluid (like helium) yet rigidifies when solid matter moves through it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My point was that time was a measurable property, not that it is a force. Time might be considered to be similar to "centrifugal force" in that you can experience it, but mathematically it isn't real (so to speak) except as a measure of change. |
I see what youre getting at now.
Ive read that the latest aether theory asserts that it is a superfluid (like helium) yet rigidifies when solid matter moves through it.
All sorts of solid super conductors conduct EM perfectly. Does that mean the aether is a solid?
Yes and no. Aether carries electrical potential through the wire (i think), which accounts for certain metals having a high conductivity. I may be wrong here
Yeah sorry i was wrong on the gravity issue. Im saying that gravity could be the result of aether moving through matter in a particular dynamic fashion. Even i might be wrong since its a theory
Hi Zapper! Hi ubavontuba!
As you probably have heard me say early on, when I first began the TOE project, I am waiting for our project to come to the relevant stages before getting involved too deeply in the various interesting (eg, about time and/or gravity etc.) discussions on other threads (like this one). However, I am still allowing myself the necessary/healthy occasional brief contribution here and there if I feel that my input is appropriate for the sake of objective 'balance' in the discussion in question.
ZAPPER....To date, NO-ONE is either 'right' OR 'wrong' when it comes to the nature/cause/mechanism of GRAVITY....so if I were you, I wouldn't be too hasty in conceding that you are 'wrong' in this respect, because there's no way yet to tell whether you are or not, hehehe. And besides, superconductivity/superfluidity in MACRO scale constituents of pseudo-bulk (or as some call it, misleadingly I think: 'space-time') phenomena may be even LESS subtle than any superconductivity/superfluidity and interaction effects in the INFINITESIMAL scale constituents of 'pseudo-bulk' dynamics. So hang in there, at least until we see what our TOE project throws up about gravity/inertia and 'matter', heh? Ciao!
UBAVONTUBA.....Much of what you say is quite OK...HOWEVER, just because you yourself have not yet identified a 'sink-hole' mechanism associated with 'matter' processes which might cause pseudo-bulk constituents to flow towards matter-occupied sites, it does not mean that NO-ONE ELSE HAS or that NO-ONE ELSE EVER WILL...who knows? Certainly NO-ONE has yet been able to ABSOLUTELY AND DECISIVELY rule out the possibility of such a pseudo-bulk-constituents 'draining/negating' flow (and hence, GRAV-INERTIAL DRAG) mechanism. Let's keep an open mind, I say, uba! Who knows what our TOE will throw at us, heh? Ciao!
Your friend in science: RealityCheck.
.
As you probably have heard me say early on, when I first began the TOE project, I am waiting for our project to come to the relevant stages before getting involved too deeply in the various interesting (eg, about time and/or gravity etc.) discussions on other threads (like this one). However, I am still allowing myself the necessary/healthy occasional brief contribution here and there if I feel that my input is appropriate for the sake of objective 'balance' in the discussion in question.
ZAPPER....To date, NO-ONE is either 'right' OR 'wrong' when it comes to the nature/cause/mechanism of GRAVITY....so if I were you, I wouldn't be too hasty in conceding that you are 'wrong' in this respect, because there's no way yet to tell whether you are or not, hehehe. And besides, superconductivity/superfluidity in MACRO scale constituents of pseudo-bulk (or as some call it, misleadingly I think: 'space-time') phenomena may be even LESS subtle than any superconductivity/superfluidity and interaction effects in the INFINITESIMAL scale constituents of 'pseudo-bulk' dynamics. So hang in there, at least until we see what our TOE project throws up about gravity/inertia and 'matter', heh? Ciao!
UBAVONTUBA.....Much of what you say is quite OK...HOWEVER, just because you yourself have not yet identified a 'sink-hole' mechanism associated with 'matter' processes which might cause pseudo-bulk constituents to flow towards matter-occupied sites, it does not mean that NO-ONE ELSE HAS or that NO-ONE ELSE EVER WILL...who knows? Certainly NO-ONE has yet been able to ABSOLUTELY AND DECISIVELY rule out the possibility of such a pseudo-bulk-constituents 'draining/negating' flow (and hence, GRAV-INERTIAL DRAG) mechanism. Let's keep an open mind, I say, uba! Who knows what our TOE will throw at us, heh? Ciao!
Your friend in science: RealityCheck.
.
RealityCheck,
Sorry, I just don't believe in a traditional aether. Things that flow like that tend to create eddies and vortices. Even if the aether is undetectable itself, we'd see the effects of these eddies and vortices.
These eddies and vortices must be apparent due to the motion of mass in the universe. As a large mass progresses, the aether would naturally create a "low-pressure" gradient behind it, and a "pressure wave" in front of it.
Also rotation of mass is an inertial effect, so the aether must be affecting and be affected by this rotation.
These variances would be detectable and noticeable. In fact, they would cause orbits to decay in noticeably different ways than we know they do.
Maybe you have an idea that would behave as statically as gravity appears to behave, but I'd have to know more about it to even begin to entertain the hypothesis.
Besides all that, you'd have to explain why gravity isn't getting stronger or weaker over time as the universe expands. Entropy of the aether should surely have such an effect.
Gravity doesn't seem to suffer from entropy, so it must originate from the mass that exhibits it, not from an outside source.
Eric
QUOTE
UBAVONTUBA.....Much of what you say is quite OK...HOWEVER, just because you yourself have not yet identified a 'sink-hole' mechanism associated with 'matter' processes which might cause pseudo-bulk constituents to flow towards matter-occupied sites, it does not mean that NO-ONE ELSE HAS or that NO-ONE ELSE EVER WILL...who knows? Certainly NO-ONE has yet been able to ABSOLUTELY AND DECISIVELY rule out the possibility of such a pseudo-bulk-constituents 'draining/negating' flow (and hence, GRAV-INERTIAL DRAG) mechanism. Let's keep an open mind, I say, uba! Who knows what our TOE will throw at us, heh? Ciao!
Sorry, I just don't believe in a traditional aether. Things that flow like that tend to create eddies and vortices. Even if the aether is undetectable itself, we'd see the effects of these eddies and vortices.
These eddies and vortices must be apparent due to the motion of mass in the universe. As a large mass progresses, the aether would naturally create a "low-pressure" gradient behind it, and a "pressure wave" in front of it.
Also rotation of mass is an inertial effect, so the aether must be affecting and be affected by this rotation.
These variances would be detectable and noticeable. In fact, they would cause orbits to decay in noticeably different ways than we know they do.
Maybe you have an idea that would behave as statically as gravity appears to behave, but I'd have to know more about it to even begin to entertain the hypothesis.
Besides all that, you'd have to explain why gravity isn't getting stronger or weaker over time as the universe expands. Entropy of the aether should surely have such an effect.
Gravity doesn't seem to suffer from entropy, so it must originate from the mass that exhibits it, not from an outside source.
Eric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 31 2005, 02:30 AM)
Sorry, I just don't believe in a traditional aether. Things that flow like that tend to create eddies and vortexes. Even if the aether is undetectable itself, we'd see the effects of these eddies and vortexes.
Good insights, indeed... The Aether wave theory describes a whole new concept of quantum Aether. The energy spreads across it in longitudinal waves like the ones onto water surface.
For example, the materialization of cosmic rays by the vacuum can be explained as the result of vorticity of vacuum. From this point of view, all the elementary particles are a oscillating vortexes of Aether. The common particle annihilation can be modeled as the vortex collisions, too.
I would recommend You to read my previous submissions first, they're very pictorial and - as I hope - sufficiently illustrative.
Good insights, indeed...
The Aether wave theory describes a whole new concept of quantum Aether. The energy spreads across it in longitudinal waves like the ones onto water surface.For example, the materialization of cosmic rays by the vacuum can be explained as the result of vorticity of vacuum. From this point of view, all the elementary particles are a oscillating vortexes of Aether. The common particle annihilation can be modeled as the vortex collisions, too.
I would recommend You to read my previous submissions first, they're very pictorial and - as I hope - sufficiently illustrative.
Zephir,
Those are pretty pictures, but I don't see an argument to my basic assumption. That being; mass that is traversing in or near a vortex would be disturbed by that vortex (if it existed).
I didn't see anything on this in your link either.
"Longitudinal waves like the ones onto water surface" means nothing. Longitudinal waves are compression waves, like sound waves in the atmosphere.
Regardless of the wave structure, noticeable effects should be detectable. Water waves cause floating things to bob up and down, and move about. Compression waves cause things to distort, vibrate and oscillate.
In an aether, a rotating mass should have noticeable effects at its equator that are different than at its poles (poles wouldn't drag the aether around). In other words, satellites in a polar orbit would behave differently than satellites in an equatorial orbit.
Also, satellites traversing the wake would behave differently than satellites traversing the bow of a mass in motion.
If all of your vortexes are quantum, then you have nothing to offer but the quantum theory that already exists (more or less). In quantum theory each "particle" is a packet of energy, and that's all you'd be saying.
This is why we have "wave/particle duality."
I really think the issue here is a failure to think three dimensionally.
Eric
Those are pretty pictures, but I don't see an argument to my basic assumption. That being; mass that is traversing in or near a vortex would be disturbed by that vortex (if it existed).
I didn't see anything on this in your link either.
"Longitudinal waves like the ones onto water surface" means nothing. Longitudinal waves are compression waves, like sound waves in the atmosphere.
Regardless of the wave structure, noticeable effects should be detectable. Water waves cause floating things to bob up and down, and move about. Compression waves cause things to distort, vibrate and oscillate.
In an aether, a rotating mass should have noticeable effects at its equator that are different than at its poles (poles wouldn't drag the aether around). In other words, satellites in a polar orbit would behave differently than satellites in an equatorial orbit.
Also, satellites traversing the wake would behave differently than satellites traversing the bow of a mass in motion.
If all of your vortexes are quantum, then you have nothing to offer but the quantum theory that already exists (more or less). In quantum theory each "particle" is a packet of energy, and that's all you'd be saying.
This is why we have "wave/particle duality."
I really think the issue here is a failure to think three dimensionally.
Eric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
..mass that is traversing in or near a vortex would be disturbed by that vortex (if it existed)...
Gravitational vortex aren't disturbed by its vorticity - on the contrary, they're are formed by it! The vortex can be considered as the spacetime fluctuation, which generates a gravity force by such way, these vortices are pulled to its center to the singularity (search "geon" keyword to the web for more info about its behavior). The spacetime waves or vortices ("deformations") behaves like the common massive particles, forming a gravity. For example, superstring theory string are vortices, too.
Gravitational vortex aren't disturbed by its vorticity - on the contrary, they're are formed by it! The vortex can be considered as the spacetime fluctuation, which generates a gravity force by such way, these vortices are pulled to its center to the singularity (search "geon" keyword to the web for more info about its behavior). The spacetime waves or vortices ("deformations") behaves like the common massive particles, forming a gravity. For example, superstring theory string are vortices, too.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
...Longitudinal waves are compression waves, like sound waves in the atmosphere...
Sorry, my mistake - I've ment the transversal waves, instead. Nevertheless, I believe, the real Aether waves are mixture of both types, like Rayleigh waves.
Sorry, my mistake - I've ment the transversal waves, instead. Nevertheless, I believe, the real Aether waves are mixture of both types, like Rayleigh waves.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
...noticeable effects should be detectable...
Of course, for example if some energetic waves passes through vacuum, a Cooper pair of vortexes (fermion-antifermion pair) appears, so it can be separated by the EMG field, having the opposite charge (so called energy materialization). Do u know about such experiments?
Of course, for example if some energetic waves passes through vacuum, a Cooper pair of vortexes (fermion-antifermion pair) appears, so it can be separated by the EMG field, having the opposite charge (so called energy materialization). Do u know about such experiments?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
...In an aether, a rotating mass should have noticeable effects at its equator that are different than at its poles (poles wouldn't drag the aether around)...
It was confirmed, the gravity field are dragged by tho Earth rotation by the gravity Probe B, like liquid.
It was confirmed, the gravity field are dragged by tho Earth rotation by the gravity Probe B, like liquid.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
...In quantum theory each "particle" is a packet of energy, and that's all you'd be saying....
No, it gives a lot of info about internal topology of such "pocket". It's formed by the toroidal oscillation, being a closed loop of energy. It explains the spin behavior, for example and its orientation with respect a relative motion - the particles are obviously moving across Aether like the vortex rings of pipe smoke.
No, it gives a lot of info about internal topology of such "pocket". It's formed by the toroidal oscillation, being a closed loop of energy. It explains the spin behavior, for example and its orientation with respect a relative motion - the particles are obviously moving across Aether like the vortex rings of pipe smoke.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
...This is why we have "wave/particle duality."....
Its just theoretical concept till know, as it doesn't explains, why the massive objects are behaves like wave, sometimes like particle. But Aether theory explain this very simple way - at the higher energies the vortex-like nature of Aether vibrations seem be more pronounced, so that the energetic bosons behaves like the massive particles. No Higgs fields are necessary.
[SIZE=14][SIZE=14][SIZE=14]i totally agree with you
Its just theoretical concept till know, as it doesn't explains, why the massive objects are behaves like wave, sometimes like particle. But Aether theory explain this very simple way - at the higher energies the vortex-like nature of Aether vibrations seem be more pronounced, so that the energetic bosons behaves like the massive particles. No Higgs fields are necessary.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2005, 09:01 AM)
...I really think the issue here is a failure to think three dimensionally.....
But the Aether IS the multidimensional environment, like the water surface. It contains the hidden dimension concept in situ. The whole problem of understanding is, the Aether is environment which forms the massive bodies and light waves, like the water is environment for the surface waves.
It doesn't interact with it directly, like the water stream doesn't interract with the surface waves. Both they can have a different propagation speed or direction, for example.
But the Aether IS the multidimensional environment, like the water surface. It contains the hidden dimension concept in situ. The whole problem of understanding is, the Aether is environment which forms the massive bodies and light waves, like the water is environment for the surface waves.
It doesn't interact with it directly, like the water stream doesn't interract with the surface waves. Both they can have a different propagation speed or direction, for example.
[SIZE=14][SIZE=14][SIZE=14]i totally agree with you
An interesting observation
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.