What is gravity?

[shane.mcneil]

I've been reading up on gravity, wondering exactly what it is. I thought it was a simple question but seems it's not.

From what I understand, Newton imagined gravity as a force of attraction of some kind, but he didn't know what exactly.

Einstein "corrected" Newton's physics with relativity and said that gravity is a result of the geometry of the universe and not a force.

But relativity doesn't work on the quantum level and so they believe there must be a quantum explanation for gravity which leads it back to being a force. Hence the graviton.

Am I getting any of this right? Does anyone know exactly what gravity is?

Regards

Shane

[mswhin63]

I was watching a program Catalyst which talk a little about the theory of gravity, mostly though it talks more about confirming Einteins theory of special relativity.

To me it was a basic explanation, take a look;

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2594259.htm

[jjjnettie]

The illusive Unified Theory eh.
I'm just a checkout chick, and it hurts my little button brain thinking about stuff like this.
But doesn't the fact that gravity can bend light, take it down to the quantum level?

[shane.mcneil]

Thanks for that. I did see that story. From what I understand relativity works very well in the universe at large but it fails when applied to the atomic level. So, many believe there is more to it???

[shane.mcneil]

Um I'm not sure. The bending of light is described by relativity. An object bends spacetime (we call that gravity) and so light traveling through that spacetime will be "bent". That's how they confirmed relativity. By looking at star positions during a solar eclipse. They demonstrated that the sun was bending the light from stars that where behind it. Einstein didn't like Quantum Theory.:shrug:

[jjjnettie]

He spent most of his youth as a free thinker, only to end up like all those professors he disliked. Stuck in a rut. Not allowing himself to think outside the square.

[shane.mcneil]

Yeah, maybe that's the problem now. We have dark matter that no one really seems to know what it is. Dark energy that is the same. Relativity almost works. And Quantum Theory though really weird, almost works too.

I can't help but think there is something profound that we are missing, rather than just a simple "we can merge this together".

[multiweb]

Great video. You have to give it to these guys for their tenacity in all their ordeal. Having the technology to make such a precise Gyro system and measurement intrumentation is one thing but what totally blows my socks off is Einstein Theory still being proven right. This bloke had a truly amazing mind. How do you even start thinking about that kind of stuff. Wow.. :eyepop:

[marki]

Right then, whose got a rubber sheet and canon ball :D:D:D. Truth is no one is really sure what causes gravity. It is one of the greatest mysteries of our time. There are lots of theories out there but all they can really conclude is that gravity sucks:P. Where is Carl when you need him, sure he would have lots to say about this.

Mark

[Robh]

There are those more qualified to respond but here's my viewpoint.

Gravity is the name given to the attractive force generated by matter. The more the matter, the greater the force. So, I guess the real question is why does matter produce this force? Gravity is believed to act at the speed of light and possibly be messaged by a particle called the graviton. There are even experiments underway to see if gravity waves exist.
Locally, our measurements of this force say that it varies as the inverse square of the distance from a massive body. So here on Earth, Newton's Laws work fine. Massive bodies bend or warp space-time so that, on a larger scale, the laws need modifying according to Einstein's General Relativity. Observations of the speed of stars on the outer edges of galaxies have led to the dark matter hypothesis. However, dark matter may not exist. It is possible that gravity works differently at distance to what we expect and the equations need modifying (MOND). On a quantum level, we don't know how gravity fits in.
In Physics, theory can be generated from observation and measurement (Newton and the falling apple) and sometimes by modelling and testing predictions (Einstein and GR). String Theory has attempted to produce a quantum theory of gravity without success as yet. Maybe, we just aren't smart enough!

Regards, Rob

[marki]

But which string theory are we talking about Rob:P.

Mark

[renormalised]

I'm right here, Mark:D

Just been offline for a few days:D

I'll make comment on this later, it's getting rather late now. However, I'll leave you with this...speaking about dark matter and energy. Has anyone ever considered that the micro-fluctuations of spacetime at the quantum level, generating virtual particle pairs, is what is causing galaxies and such to have the anomalous rotation curves we see. Remember, these particle, whether they're virtual or not (unless they're force carriers such as photons, gravitons etc), have mass. Now what acts as the carrier particle for mass...the Higgs boson. The Higgs actually is much heavier than the particles it gives mass to (it's some 100-1000 times heavier than a proton). No matter how fleeting the Higgs might last for, it still must interact with spacetime and create an effect. No matter how fleeting the creation of virtual particle pairs is, how fleeting their existence and how fleeting the creation of mass is...you only have to look at how big space is to see that the effects produced are going to add up. These virtual particle aren't just being produced in extreme situations like black hole event horizons. They're a consequence of the "frothy" nature of spacetime, everywhere.

Anyway, it's something I feel they need to consider...that there's a lot more out there that needs to be factored into their equations before they go trying to find something really exotic. The answer to the problem might be sitting right under their noses and they're too busy trying to be smart to see the answer.

More to come later:D

[Robh]

Hi Mark.
I'll pick one ... bosonic string theory. Now I have reached my level of incompetence! :lol:
However, what Carl says is quite interesting. Look forward to the experiments of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN to see if they can confirm the existence of the Higgs boson. Exciting stuff!

Regards, Rob.

[TrevorW]

Simply put it's the force that keeps your bum pointing in the right direction

just imaging the sh.. we'd be in without it

[Kevnool]

Put a beer up to your mouth and pour it in and let gravity take over.

Cheers Kev.

[AlexN]

I would recommend that anyone interested in gravity buy the book "gravity from the ground up" its expensive... It cost me $140.. It was worth every penny.. although it does seem to pose more questions than it answers. For me, I like that... It gives me a start for my own research as opposed to giving me an answer...

Gravity is not the hard part to understand, its getting your head around why gravity is how it is.. and furthermore, Quantum Gravity... Talk about food for thought...

[TrevorW]

What about

Universal
Galactic
Solar
Planetary
Molecular
Atomic
Black Holes

all have different strenghts and interelate

[jjjnettie]

And we'll find out what that "something" is, hopefully sooner than later.
Won't that just rock the foundations of physics. It will open our eyes in so many different ways.:) I hope I'm around when it happens.

[avandonk]

Not to mention quantum entanglement that must be nearly everywhere by now considering all the particle interactions since the big bang. If there is some sort of dying off (inverse square or even fractal law with each interaction) effect in 'strength' of QE after each particle interaction it would explain why it hangs around crowds (galaxies) of 'normal' matter. It may even ultimately explain gravity.

So here we have two proven phenomena open to measurement.

1. Quantum Entanglement.
2. Virtual Particles.

I still find it hard to imagine that all my desires for bright shiny things is governed by the fleeting existence of invisible particles.

By the way the only thing that can explain quantum entanglement is that the bits of separated matter produced after the interaction are still the same entity as far the resultant bits are concerned. This also brings into the whole scenario the concept of time. If you are a bit confused don't worry. It is hard enough to put these esoteric concepts into words let alone understand them.

Bert

[sjastro]

You are only seeing an effect over the period of time the virtual particles are in existence. The effects don't "add up" otherwise the conservation of mass and energy is violated.

The point is that virtual particles pop in and out of existence in very short period of time. (Try calculating the time it takes for a photon traveling at the speed of light to go from one "side" of a proton to the other to appreciate the time frames involved).

The fact is that a vacuum which is in a lowest quantum energy state doesn't gain energy despite the appearance (and disappearance) of virtual particles.

Steven

[AlexN]

Physics governs all that you've listed there Trevor, Unfortunately, the best physicists have been working on understanding all this since the late 1800's.. And as you can imagine, they are still coming up with more questions than answers..

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are a great example. People are trying to tear these theories apart, or figure out how the theories are incorrect, however without these exotic particles in universe, then our understanding of both the universe, and gravity are pretty inaccurate. Gravity controls universal expansion, its speed is a direct result of both the speed at which it was set into motion by the big bang way back when, and the force of gravity upon the matter. Gravity being based on mass, seems to indicate that if the theories on exotic particles like dark matter and dark energy are incorrect, we should be seeing much greater, faster expansion than we are. Clearly, there needs to be more mass in the universe than we are aware of. Even knowing that there is clearly a lot of black holes we're not aware of, and a lot of netron stars etc that do have a lot of mass, and exert a great deal of gravitational force. However, even when allowing for heaps and heaps of these, there is still not enough mass within the universe to have the rate of expansion as it currently is..

There is another problem, if you introduce dark matter and dark energy, then gravity should not be as weaker force as it is. As I mentioned, gravity is governed by mass. if you introduce more mass, there should be a coresponding increase in gravitational presence..

Unless...

How do we all feel about the notion of parallel/alternate universes? the Multivesrse theory?

Lets assume for a moment that gravity is a single constant force divided between, say, 10 different parallel universes. Then, the force of gravity being so week is a lot more understandable. Obviously, the idea of multiple universes, alternate realities and extra dimensions seems a lot like science fiction. Think though, four hundred years ago, the idea that the earth was not the centre of the universe was considered science fiction... the idea of planets orbiting other stars was considered science fiction... Hell, the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun as opposed to the sun revolving around Earth was considered herecy...

[kinetic]

Here's my opinion on trying to understand the universe.:

Maybe we just can't or never will.
Our species is (arguably) the result of evolution getting us to
this point of self awareness and knowing our position in the universe.
Maybe just by pure accident or maybe by divine plan.

We are perfectly comfortable looking at the universe from our
perspective.
Our intelligence allows us that. But we start to look further
and question things.

Whales are supposed to be the next species almost as enlightened
as us.
They perceive their world exactly the same way, to the limit their
intelligence allows them.

But, to a whale, concepts such as spaceflight and molecular
structure would be as foreign as wormholes and a unified theory
are to us....
We seem to know there is something just around the corner waiting
for us to know...but something holds us back from that knowledge.
I reckon it's just our intellect.

In 250(?) million years of life, that little window of self awareness
we are at now only occupies a time window of maybe the last 100 years.
Maybe even a few 1000 even (we don't know how they built the pyramids for example!)
Just a blink of an eye when compared to 250 million years.

Maybe we need another few million years to bridge that gap.

And that gets me to the second point.
Where is everyone else!? Why don't we hear from them?

Maybe a civilisation gets itself to this point of self awareness
in a tiny time window of a few hundred/thousand years and then it snuffs out
due to the instinctive aggressive/survival behaviour it carries along like
baggage from the process of evolution.

For two of those time windows to overlap in even just our neck of the woods
of this galaxy, so that we make contact with that civilisation are
probably impossible odds.

Maybe that's why it's so quiet out there?
And why we should look after the place a bit better :)

Steve

[avandonk]

The Universe gets over infinities by having an indeterminate level at the Heisenberg uncertainty level to bring these concepts into historical perspective. Buckminster was an advocate of this. The concept of an infinitely smooth function as the basis for reality leads to major problems. Fractals can overcome this as it only depends on the number of iterations to get the complexity needed at any scale.

Bert

[avandonk]

We humans have one advantage. We pass on knowledge by non genetic means. Since the printing press even the knowledge of previous generations are accessible to nearly all in an almost unadulterated form.

Whales and dolphins etc have an aural view of the Universe. They see their world in 3D with the equivalent of sonar. Vision in 3D is our major strength. Why the size of brains is large in all of us is the huge amount of processing needed in both aural and visual methods to get a 3D 'view'. The neural connections are so vastly different that we may never communicate in any meaningful way.

Bert

[marki]

Why do I feel this thread is going to end by posing several thousand more questions then anwers :P:):D. Bert your mention of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle had me on the floor in stiches. Imagine if you will an ewok who spoke like donald duck with lips. That was my phys chem lecturer at uni, he could never get that out without us plebs lying on the floor in fits of laughter.

Mark

[Robh]

I hope that this is not the case and that the Universe is not that convoluted. I'm gambling on some simple missing details that are leading scientists into unnecessarily complex solutions.

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

Any sort of Chemistry Lecturer would choke on quoting quantum theory from the thirties. I have worked with many theoretical chemists working on protein structure prediction. They are quite at home with quantum theory as their work is meaningless without it.

If you want to get really pedantic our best calculations can model the hydrogen atom (one proton + one electron) perfectly. We fail with the hydrogen molecule (two protons + two electrons). It is called the multi body problem. With supercomputers the models are better.

The only supercomputer capable of solving protein structure is the molecule itself!

I did not want to elaborate to far as to start to understand the Universe will take every tool at your disposal. Even then you or I will be found to be wanting.
Bert

[marki]

Absolutely, I remember it being a major component of kinetic and thermodynamic units. Protien structure and synthesis is fascinating stuff isn't it . I went back and did a biotech degree in the 90's for fun. Might have to look at doing another one in astronomy me thinks but all this dark matter/dark energy theory pee's me off :).

Mark

[AlexN]

Mark, Im studying physics at the moment and I can tell you, when professors start talking about gravity or astro physics, the dark matter/dark energy stuff comes up.. Its impossible to avoid or ignore apparently...

[shane.mcneil]

Well here I was feeling a bit dumb cos I couldn't get my head around gravity. It seems that nobody anywhere has ever been able too. ;) I feel much better. Thanks everyone for your comments.

So am I right in thinking that relativity is currently the working model of gravity even though it is incomplete? All of the discussion on Quantum Gravity seems to be theories and ideas without any verification. Everyone thinks there is a quantum explanation but nobody knows what.

That being the case, gravity as we currently understand it, is not a force of attraction but rather what happens to an object when it moves through the curved space caused by another object. Until someone proves otherwise that is...

[marki]

Like I said, has anyone got a rubber sheet and a canon ball :D.

Mark

[AlexN]

Relativity is the current working model.. Quantum gravity is still infantile, It has not had the time to establish itself like relativity has.. Who knows what the future will hold for quantum gravity, and indeed, perhaps a unified quantum theory of everything..

[avandonk]

Shane back in 1967 (in year twelve) we had to work out what was the gravitational attraction between a 70kg boy and a 55kg girl using the usual formula. As it turned out it was not much.

Bert

[shane.mcneil]

I would have thought the answer would = love. :) Maybe that's what holds the Universe together.

[marki]

Alex, start asking some curly questions and watch it disappear. You know you have them on the ropes when they duck into the toilet everytime they see you coming down the hall :P. I am hoping there will be some "real" clarification from the experiemnts being conducted at the LHC.

Mark

[kinetic]

Bert , my experience of this attraction force was slightly different.
Between Yr 10 girls and us Yr 10 boys there was no detectable
attraction at all. Only between Yr 10 girls and Yr 12 boys.
It had me puzzled well into my adult years.

Steve

[AlexN]

Indeed - the LHC could be quite the problem solver with regards to much of physics.. I would love to be a part of that project.. I was wondering if you could build a miniature for home use... an SHC if you will... :D

[marki]

Sure, with a bottle of hydrogen, a big piece of ali tube turned into a spiral, a few dozen super magnets and a kick ass power supply. put it all in the freezer and the universe is your play thing :P:D:D:D.

Oh did I mention the oxy? You will need that to ionise the gas on the way in, good luck :P.

Mark

[sjastro]

A lot of post graduates feel dumb struggling with the mathematics but that is another story.:lol:

Newtonian theory is still the major contributor to celestial mechanics. General relativity is used where Newtonian theory fails such as planetary orbits near stars, gravitational potentials of neutron stars, black holes etc.

General relativity provides the framework for cosmology.

General relativity is incomplete with regards to the very early history of the Universe where gravity was unified with the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

This where Quantum Gravity comes into the picture. Unfortunately Quantum Gravity is a theoretical mess as the mathematics produces infinite solutions for basic interactions between objects.

General relativity describes gravity as a "fictitious" force, much like the backward force that pushes you into your car seat as you plant your foot on the accelerator.
Curved space is simply gravitational field lines. An object traveling along the shortest pathway in curved space travels in an inertial frame and doesn't experience gravity as a force.

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

So why did we keep banging together?

bert

[AlexN]

Could that not be easily explained by the uncertainty principle?

You can not predict exactly what will happen when two bodies interact, rather, you can extrapolate a list of likely outcomes with varying probability..

Take two interacting galaxies for example, you could not hope to model exactly how they will interact, however by determining their current trajectory and velocity in space you should be able to extrapolate quite a few likely outcomes. You could not know for certain how it will play out because you do not know the total amount of stars per galaxy or their distribution, black holes and neutron stars who's mass will change the outcome of the interaction, other matter be it dark matter/dark energy/virtual particles etc etc.. There is no certainty in the outcome, however there is many different outcomes of varying probability..

[AlexN]

I'll just stick to my current project... Operation Railgun. :) MMMM electromagnetism...

[Baron von Richthofen]

Gravity is not a force, its a affect caused by the distortion of the universal plain, the larger the mass the larger the distortion the grater the effect

[avandonk]

My boss used to send me to Chicago to collect xray data from protein crystals. This Synchroton is about one kilometer in diameter. It takes 40 min just to walk around the instrument hall.

I have also usd the Synchrotron at Grenoble in France and at Tsukuba in Japan.

If you want to see klystrons bigger than a house!


Bert

[Baron von Richthofen]

What has all these machines contributed to the common man?

[AlexN]

I want one that I can keep in an area about the size of a double garage Bert..

[avandonk]

In your case we invented Relenza. Tamiflu is a ripoff from our work. We have far more in the pipeline.

There is far more that these very expensive machines produce. We are just starting.

If you really want to ask awkward questions. Ask what all the non productive weapons have produced!

Bert

[xelasnave]

The current position as to gravity is lamentable.

Humans know nothing about gravity as if they did GR would be out the door as our best shot.

We can work out what will happen as a result of various gravity "set ups" using GR (or Newton) such that we can say what things will do... fall fly stuff... what but Newton and Dr A avoided was any consideration upon how gravity actually works..
AND before you all cry out DR A knew it all I say this ...no one will take up or answer the following question...

What is general relativity..is it any more than a sum???, and if so where is the briliance if there is no comment upon the way it works..
I saw someplace.. that general relativity is like a pythagarian theorum with a negitive line for time...whatever how else can you think about the universe.... but upon my understanding it does no more than "measure" ..and if it explains gravity then I dare anyone to explain gravity within that theory such to offer commentary upon what is going on .....

What is the premise of GR? why can that not be put in a statement simply explaining why and how gravity works...easy...easy that is if GR does half of what it claims... but explain gravity it does not! We get to think spacer is a mystery with time and bending but it takes away from the fact no one has expalined how gravity works... to much talk such we miss what we ask I feel... assume the sums are right etc..assume I accept the premise without math prove...just tell me...what is the premise of GR..in a sentence or two.

so how does gravirty work...no one knows is the state of science today...but one thing is certain..general relativity is not what makes it work... GR holds no joy and says zip really... so who will venture a consise statement as to what general relativity says.... what?..if space and time is being bent please explain the physical mechanism..it does not happen because a formula says it must.. the formula only gives an insist as to expected results etc.

How does attraction work???... until someone says how it works how can we entertain dark matter...the only reason we need dark maTTER IS BECAUSE WE RELY ON A MYTHICAL FORCE..ATTRACTION..TO EXPLAIN THINGS.. sorry hit caps.. not shouting..
You can add dark matter until the cows come home it wont fix the problems but only makes it worse as the more you add the more you have to add ... think how will dark matter and attraction solve the fast outter star thing..it wont because it can not..


Gravity pushes irrespective of how your sums try to command it and accepting that it does push makes all things reasonable, managable..we dont need matter we that can not see or universes in parrallel or the crap that flows in the absence of a considered assessment of the matter we deal with.

alex

[starlooker]

:thumbsup:

[avandonk]

If we know so little about gravity Alex, how did those ignorant twits at NASA fly their probe through the Cassini division?

Bert

[Baron von Richthofen]

Military madness has contributed to the common man such as high efficient jet engines for air travel just to name one, the space race
has given satellites of all kinds, weather, communications, but what you are doing is science for science sake I Don't mined that to much until it starts costing trillions of dollars which could be spent better ells ware

[avandonk]

If your thought processes are as good as your spelling you are indeed fortunate.

Bert

[Baron von Richthofen]

Sorry if my selling is no up to your standard but I come from a non English speaking country so it a bit harder but if that all you have to say Ha-ha :rofl:

[sjastro]

Hello Alex,

To answer your question requires a brief overview of Quantum Field Theory (QFT) which is the next step up from Quantum Mechanics (QM).
QFT is the interaction of particles in either the electromagnetic, weak or strong fields. Photons are the interaction or carrier particle in the electromagnetic field, W and Z bosons in the weak field and gluons in the strong field.

As you are aware the energy levels of the hydrogen atom are accurately described by QM. If however you stick a hydrogen atom into an external electrical field the energy levels change but remain finite.

Unfortunately QFT predicted the energy levels could become infinite.
To overcome this discrepancy scientists came up with a mathematical sleight of hand known as renormalization.

Renormalization involves subtracting out the mathematical terms which caused the energy levels to become infinite. While this appears to be mathematical trickery and has been criticized by renowned scientists such as Richard Feynman, it turns out that theory agrees quite well with experiment.

Quantum gravity is a variant of QFT. The interaction or carrier particle is the graviton. When a particle interacts in the gravitational field once again you end up with infinite energies according to theory.

Quantum gravity however is a non-renormalizable theory. There is simply no way to remove the infinite terms in the mathematics.

It's for this reason that other theories have evolved to remove the infinities such as string theory or loop gravity theories.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Touche!

[astroron]

quote from Vars

Sorry if my selling is no up to your standard but I come from a non English speaking country so it a bit harder but if that all you have to say Ha-ha

Vars, I don't think it is your spelling as such but as I see it it is you not checking your post before pressing send:rolleyes:

[shane.mcneil]

As I understand physics, there are two aspects. Experimental physics and theoretical physics. Experimental physicists conduct experiments and measure results. Theoretical physicists try and develop mathematical models that match those results and which may in fact predict more things that the experimental physicists can then go try and find.

So Newton developed a mathematical model that predicted very well what was then known from observation about gravity. What he did not do is work out what gravity is, just how to predict its effect.

As data continued to accumulate it was realised that Newton did not match with every observation. So Relativity was developed to mathematical gel with what was now known. But again, as time has gone by Relativity too has been shown to fall short in some areas. So Quantum Gravity models have been developed to try and model what is going on.

So all we do is develop mathematical models that match with what we see in the real world. Maybe they will tell us what gravity is, maybe not. What amazes me is that we can mathematically model the real world and that we expect that the real world can be mathematically modeled some how.

Hooray for maths. Maybe someone forgot to carry the one...

[xelasnave]

Hi Bert nice to "see" you.

You know Bert I often ask myself the same question but I figure it this way.... I can find my way around the city with a street directory and I dont need to know who lives in what house or anything about the city at all...

but as uninformed as I am I simply follow the street directory...

now many folk could marvel at how smart I am to navigate the city??? but in truth I know little about it, the people in it or the function of the city... so as I see it fools can do big things and fools then claim because they have done their small deed they know it all...how presumptious if I were to say I know all about the city simply because I have managed to navigate my way thru it...so on that basis just because NASA did this or that does not impress me..give me their budget and I will impress you of that I am certain...but lets not call them ignorant..for they do the best with what they have at their disposal..and as we have already observed as far as gravity goes that is indeed very little..Saturn would not even require GR I expect just simple sums that need not action at a distance etc..and so we must say they did well because they did in fact do it...but according to their science they made certain predictions as to what their space craft would do when they left the solar system having passed thru the heliosphere...and I point to this because on this point they did not "do it"... they were wrong in their prediction because they held upon a notion that gravity sucked when as we all know it in fact pushes:D..pushing creates a drag environment which will slow the craft which is what they did...If one could not entertain an aether one would never think they would slow..if one saw an aether slowing was inevitable..as it was and is...That was my prediction (I found my notes on it before the event but there was no date but I know what I said before the event and it is on the net someplace.. and although there are those who say without the math such a prediction is meaningless I say this..they did slow...I said they would slow...does that not mean they (NASA) could be wrong and in fact were wrong..that a mug (me) called it right because he saw the reality not the religiously constructed universe or the unrealistic math construction of our universe..were they wrong? were they? and I was right was I not... now I would not call them twits but I do say they got it absolutely wrong using their current science... I got it absolutely right because my universe depends on cause effect realities not mind games of men in lifts where men will never go in a lift... acceleration let in time and it has no place in the mix...
Bert I respect you more than most people..even though we have not met you seem like a cool fella and I marvel at the list of things you have done in your life.. you have my respect of that there is no question but if you still buy the lift thing you cant move forward on this subject... lets face it GR says little and as such leads us nowhere..the forces will not ..will never never never be united until gravity is defined with some realism and tangibility that relates it to a universe that does not depend on a man experiencing forces in a lift...if we are going to go with that mind game why dont we at least place a lift in space and observe the realities not the expectations of someone musing upon the Universe with the travel range and experience of a very very very ordinary man..a wonderful man but a very ordinary man, a man who I admire but a man nevertheless...so why can not another man..an outsider as they would say not come up with something "new"..well there is one reason why there is nothing new..well the answer is nothing..there is nothing to prevent a new and better idea or approach..history tells us that..and to think what we know now is all there is ...is simply stupid..and so I say throw out GR it sucks not gravity...it is the fear those with an idea seek to avoid..fear of ridicuel etc.. fortunately I dont get that it is a benefit of simple approach and simple assessment of matters..Anyone who has a go will get abuse etc so it is not available to those with no heart...I am confident of my ability to see thru the crap and meaningless info..and say that a man riding in a lift will reveal little about the mysteries of the universe... but dont call them guys at NASA twits they are the best of what is on offer it seems ..they get this dribble at school, and uni and with no original ideas science stays put... NASA was wrong I was right... but they are not twits... and nor am I a twit ..opinions deserve no qualification of their owner... ideas do not need verification upon the man who offered them ..they can stand or fall without relating them to the owner..his morals education etc..things hold water for their own merit not the experience etc of those presenting them... my ideas will stand of that
I am confident... I will back my sphere in space speculation against the lift each day every day... the math can not do anything but offer support...and in time I will get that support.

Still you missed my invitation to give a simple statement upon GR or an explanation as to how attraction works... clearing up either of these points I feel will take us futher than otherwise we have ventured to date:D

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Well if you wish to focus upon who costs trillions lets not look to science..try the blood sucking bankers who take everything and give nothing in return except a promise that freedom is not your whilst their loans are being repaid...you miss the horror of a capitalist system that delivers not the promises certainly given via Hollywood movies as to the apple pie and right to be rich stuff..for it delivers folk who are less than comman criminals as they corrupt a workable system and have many crying for a newsystem....science is good it gives us so much..just think it thru..it is the only thing of worth humans can claim... of all the humans that may appear before God only scientists can say theu really did try to save the other suckers... their toil is mostly to see human benefit increase or suffering decrease..nothing wrong if we all did that I expect.
We as humans only do stuff for stuff's sake..so why not science it is less corrupt than other professions and deserves absolute respect...but science unlike banking produces benefit for all the people... scientists are the real heros give them all the cash they ask for..simple.

alex:):):):)

[Peter Ward]

Bravo Bert! :)

But it's obvious. Gravity works by suction! (I know this to be true as the aerofoils I use when at work produce anti-suction)

Plus, any fool can see the state of the Earth sucks at present. (yes, cleaned that old gag up a bit ;) )

[marki]

Thats what I have been saying all along :P. Stuff the Higgs boson, it's simply a partical physicist's phantom. I propose a new search for the "hoover particle" :P:D.

Mark

[AlexN]

hoover particle.. :D I love it... hahaha!

[marki]

Yeah it has a long tube out the front so that would explain the string bit :)

Mark

[xelasnave]

The matter can be put to rest easily....

If gravity sucks let someone step forward and describe the force they call "suck"..let them explain how attraction works...neither of such should be a problem if our science is up to it.but it is not up to explaining attraction...so I say something that can not have a reasonable basis in scientific observation and expalined in a similar manner is a myth..attraction is a myth..if it were not a myth someone would jump forward and expalin it..they wont because they can not...yet as there will be no explanation as to how such works or how attraction works we must consider that just maybe such forces actually are nothing more than an attempt to unite human experience with science..attraction is only a human perception and not a physical reality....

but that is attraction for you..you think it is a reality and yet it simply does not exist for if it did there would many folk here seeking to expalin it ..scientifically...a
alex

[marki]

Alex, I am not sure if you have noticed but I am having a bit of fun here and in no way taking any of this seriously ;). No one can explain what gravity is right now because we don't know, simple. The push theories were eliminated many years ago because there were just too many things they could not answer or predict. If it's your thing go for it.

Mark

[AlexN]

No matter how you look at it or which theory you chose to pursue, nobody has fully explained either push gravity or attraction... Why, because nobody knows for sure. The fact is this.. if someone in the pursuit of proving attraction may stumble across the answer in push gravity, and that would be an advance in science. Alternatively, someone in the pursuit of proving push gravity could well find the answer in attraction, and that too would be an advancement.. at this stage, both theories have merit.. and both hold significance until either can be proven.

[xelasnave]

Mark I too have fun with all of this.
Of course no one can explain gravity yet..but I certainly think it is presumptious of GR to claim it has it all worked out... it has not and can not..
As to push gravity being put to one side that is simply because attraction has confused folk... there is a conspiracy by those against push..just look to see how many words can substitute for push...not one... this has come about by a removal and destruction of words that even suggest push... they fear push because it is the truth...
But dont worry whilst they dont know how push works they will not invent a better atomic bomb like I have;)
alex

[AlexN]

^ LOL..

Keep that secret safe Alex.. That is the last thing the world needs!

[marki]

OK then I will expand my proposed research to include both the hoover and the roger ramjet particles. It should be easy to find as it will have a rocket up it's clacker and be pushing all the other particles around :P.

Mark

[TrevorW]

The particles will be renamed from Gravitons to Grabiton's two Grabiton's working in union will form a Clutch, four will be a Holdon and six will be a Nudge while 8 will form a Suckit and see while the magical 16 Grabiton's will acheive a Push. Unfortunately no one can expalin why Grabitons must be even numbers to work and cannot function in a a prime or singular state, however theorists summise that such even number's hold true to attraction whereas odd numbers cause friction. As too the string theory scientists keep asking the same old question "how long" and keep getting tied up in that.

Suffice it too say that N, GR, GUT, SUT have not yet resolved the issue and no one dares contemplate Grabitons with a negative charge state for fear of being left in the dark.

[shane.mcneil]

Who knew that this thread would end up here??? That's the Uncertainty Principle for you. :lol:

Shane

[avandonk]

Gee I have done well. My putdown was top class. When some years ago I was pulling 8g+ sustained and the cowling and bit of the prop was all I could see, the only action was to back off. The alternative was total blackout.

I backed off!

We will always wonder what reality is. We will never know for certain!

Even that statement is open to conjecture!

bert

[xelasnave]

Bert when you accept that reality is a personal thing unrelated to facts or circumstance you have arrived;).

One step at a time however.

If we are to select a Universe in which we contend certain forces do certain things perhaps we should observe and establish how each force we seek to enlist actually work... so lets start with attraction ...how does it work?

To make it simple lets place two balls in "nothing" and figure what is going on:shrug:...

Does ball one send a message to ball two telling it where it is etc and likewise back the other way??? how is that message conveyed..particles or a wave...how /... simple how???

Not that I can say how a push may work but just bumping into each other will get us by without bending anything:P... we can even do that without an aether if that makes folks happy:).

As to the uncertainty principle it has become the tail wagging the dog it is a rule of exception yet becomes the main point of focus in taking some stuf forward...

I was thinking that we could seek a different approach as to gravity..GR says its just a property of space brought about by the bending of "space time"...

OK again if we are to sound smart lets define "space time"...sounds so neat and so very mysterious... but is it a big deal yet no one can tell exactly why...

I could be convinced with the most simple arguement that could present the premise of GR...but I suspect all will say .."oh you need the math etc...no no no..I need only the premise... what is it? can it not be put forward in a statement explaining the idea and what it does for us...I will trust that the math proof given the number devotees and believers in GR is correct ...but what is the premise that this math seeks to support and built an existence upon.

Also if gravity is due to the bending of "space time" how is it bent..and a reply saying it is matter that does it should contain an explaination as to how the matter communicates with space such to creat this bending....
Still before we get there lets inspect the premise of GR...who feels comfortable with the subject such they can post a short outline of the premise of GR.

AND whilst we are at it and given I have to go bush now and must say it now or miss the opportunity.... if we have no aether what can we really call nothing (as in voids etc) and still keep a straight face. Nothing needs the recognition that it is in fact everything:P.

alex:):):)

[jjjnettie]

So glad you came into this discussion Alex. I thought of you the minute the thread was posted.:)

[xelasnave]

But it will be more efficient and smaller :D...the price should be such that anyone could afford one:)... surely any grasp at morality by keeping it under wraps can be set aside given the jobs and trade created:shrug:.

If we are to be limited to things we need as humans to live happily we would get nowhere... I have a lot of things I dont need, that have little use even if you took them out of the box etc...and sheds are full of stuff no one needs, lives are full of stuff no one needs and so holding off development of a new and more efficient ATD (aether trapping device:D) on that basis would seem contrary to the way humans do things.


alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

Hi Jjjnettie I dont know what it is but so many folk think of me when gravity is mentioned:P which is strange for I have no more interest in gravity than anyone really and it forms only 60% of my conversations with others:rolleyes:...as is the case will all folk I suspect..after all gravity is one of those subjects that everyone loves to talk about:D dont they???

Gravity is natures way of saying to humans they are not as smart as they claim... for if they were as smart as they claim they could answer the simple questions relating to gravity that must pop into most folks minds ...questions such as I have asked above..simple question deserve simple answers...
alex:):):)

[AlexN]

i was thinking the same thing jjj. I had not seen a post from alex in quite some time, i saw this post and thought, if alex is around, he'll post in here for sure. I've really missed some of these in depth science discussions on iis and hope to see more of them.

[Peter Ward]

That's already in the bag. :D

[sjastro]

Alex,

Your repetitious tirades against GR and the role of maths, frankly is becoming quite tiring, and only serves to illustrate you have no understanding of either subject.

I have explained to you on numerous occasions how GR works from a non technical viewpoint. Whether you accept it or not is up to you, but please don't regurgitate the same questions and statements that have been dealt with in the past.

Steven

[shane.mcneil]

:confuse3:What an interesting discussion. I wish I could say that I understand everything that's been said.

However I think I have found the problem. Clearly reality is at fault and needs adjusting. ;)

Shane

[xelasnave]

Hi Steven happy Monday:D.

Your observation that I have no understanding Steven is entirely valid:lol, although I dont like to think of my posts as tirades I have no problem if you like to see them that way:).

I do not understand how gravity works and it seems that is the case for most folk:shrug:.

Now whenever the question is raised "how does gravity work?" GR is offerred as an answer...so if it is the answer it must be able to provide understanding and unfortunately for me I still do not get it:sadeyes:.

No doubt I am the only person on the planet who does not understand and so I feel left out and it is this left out feeling that has me asking the same old questions.. as I asked can the premise be stated succinctly ..if it can someone will do so perhaps they will ..perhaps they can not...
I say this if it is reasonable and follows a flow of logic the premise can be stated relatively simply one would think.

My thoughts are that before getting too involved in the validity of the proof one should consider what it is that the math sets out to establish... in GR's case it seems we need to be satisfied with a notion that leaves a major part of the idea unestablished and unclear....well not for the rest of the world just me I guess....

AND you know Steven I do not hold respect for math if it seeks to become the dog and not remain the tail of an idea... I know it is your profession and as such perhaps you over estimate its role and that is reasonable for you... but math is what it is and as far as GR is concerned I object to the manner math is offerred as the machine that drives the Universe when clearly that is not the case... now that is my opinion..this does not mean it is correct but it is an opinion I have ...now folk here have commented upon the fact that some physics has become a mere math exercise..this makes me feel uncomfortable as I feel the focus moves from what is happening out there to how interesting the complexities and derivations playing with the math lets us enjoy without going outside..as it were.

I see in your request to stop asking the wrong questions as futil as I wont stop asking until everything sits well with me..now I dont care who complains about that, and as much as I dont like to offend you or anyone for that matter simply say this...regurgitating the undigested questions will continue ... and until I can get a technical explaination on the mecahnics of gravity I will not enure a tummy ache for the sake of opting to be a non pain in the arse... but to labour under the belief GR has given us an absolute understanding of gravity is silly..the implication is that the science of GR will last forever and I personally doubt it... there will be things in it that wont be viewed as reasonable a century from now I suspect ..as with many parts of science etc..things progress but gravity will not if we are to content ourselves that GR has answered everything.. I say that would be foolish but no doubt most will not entertain my point let alone consider I may well be on track and more needs to be done on the mechanics of gravity.
If you feel that the statement "gravity is a weak force because it leaks into other dimenions or universes as I have read in accepteable science forums than I feel one is closer to black magic than science..and I remind you it is math tha takes us to these dark regions of imagination but really standing out in the sunlight can anyone really believe the explaination as to why gravity is a weak force based on such dribble...sorry that sounds like a tirade I guess but its just my opinion and you can call it drivel as you are entitled to do..I have no problems there...

ANYWAYS this is general chat ..it is supposed to be fun as some have already admitted.. and that is the way to see it... that is the way I see it... and it is no surprise you find it tiresome..for you know the answers, you have enjoyed receiving education that enables you to look at folk like me and think I could never have a clue..maybe..but does it matter really...

I dont want to make you feel bad reading my stuff and suggest it is not me that makes you feel bad but how you feel about me and my tiresome questions that makes you feel bad...

But look on the bright side.. in the area we discuss you are very knowledgable and presumably you can provide the complex answers...In fact I would call you."an authority on the subject" ..not all of us are or can be ...and I commend you patience with me I sincerley appreciate it.

BUT take this on board..do you think someone could post a question such as started this thread and me not regurgitate questions that have been asked many times before.

ANYWAYS I will look up GR today..there must be some place who offers a simple introduction to the subject which in effect outlines the simple statement..premise..I seek.

Thank you for all you have done for me in the past but never let me get under your skin I count for little and its not worth having even a blink of discontent on this when you are doing real work etc.

Have a great day... When I find the premise I will post it to see what you and others think.
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

From We...........
In physics, spacetime (or space–time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions.
alex

[xelasnave]

from WIKY.....
General relativity or the general theory of relativity is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916. It is the current description of gravitation in modern physics.
alex

[xelasnave]

There is more..........

and (GR) describes gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

[TrevorW]

Maybe one should attack it from the opposite direction, instead of trying to establish what it is, eliminate what it is not, then once you have removed all the other variables you'll have your answer

[marki]

Hmmm :cloudy: :windy: :bashcomp: :argue:


Mark

[xelasnave]

???

There is no arguement all is good.

alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

I agree and it is on that basis one should consider what one will find in nothing ..the answer is of course everything is in nothing...

Anyways All I hope from this sort of thing is..more folk will ask questions simply to understand what is before us now and if a youngster to realise that science is very exciting and there are more questions to answer than have ever been answered and as such the choice of a career in science will be the most rewarding given the discoveries waiting to have your name on them...

I say a lot tounge in cheek but the reality of what I try to pass on is this...education and enquirey are the key to happiness and sucess... but never be happy that what is before you is as far as the subject can go...

alex

[AlexN]

anyone with a firm enough grasp of mathematics can create an equation to explain anything, even make it look very elegant, this does not make the explanation correct or valid. It simply offers a mathematic model that suits the question. You can use mathematics to predict an outcome, or to explain any outcome you have already observed, that in my opinion is not enough. Yes, the math may be well thought through, yes i might understand what the math is trying to say. But i do not accept that as the final answer to a question.

[renormalised]

Maybe the Buddhists got it right in the first place. This reality is an illusion. We've just been kidding ourselves. Nothing actually exists except within our own consciousness...we create the reality we experience and use whatever energy is present to create it. So, in order to experience the truth of existence, we need to understand our minds, consciousness and what they actually are.

How's that for throwing a spanner in the works:P:D

[TrevorW]

Yeah they debunked magic and maybe we all need a little magic in our lives

:D:D

[xelasnave]

With little respect to most in the banking game I say this... one can adjust figures on projected investment returns to say one will see a profit or a loss by minor adjustments to the inputs..a subdivision that shows a profit on paper can show a loss by variations in sales price,time to sell, interest rate etc... I have done this many times .. and observe that even a novice like me can make the numbers obey my commands..

however the spread sheet does not dictate to the market .

The price is dictated by the market not what one chooses to put in the spread sheet... and as infalable as the spread sheet becomes it is not the main game...it records and projects..nothing more... How do you actually subdivide a 5 acre block can not be answered by the spread sheet strangly.
Its like some of the forrest schemes..folk see the math and have no idea the scheme will never work...but it will work the sums say so... yes sure... but they are your sums and do what you wish them to do...

alex

[xelasnave]

I doubt if any two humans see what is before them the same as the other would... we tend to think..I think this way therefore thats how everyone thionks (or should think) and this is not the way of it... reality is personal and adjustable ... reality is often ones definition of ones self and beliefs rather than a broad overview.

There is a God..there is not...two people two realities..does either need to be correct??? That man is a good man or a bad man..who decides these things...
alex

[sjastro]

Alex,

Throwing up a few superficial definitions of GR which at the very best are slightly better than chapter headings doesn't convey what GR is.

A good example of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing....

Your comments on maths is totally incomprehensible. Every major theory in physics uses a mathematical framework and foundation.

For example:

GR uses Riemannian geometry.
Elementary Quantum Mechanics uses Hilbert spaces.
Quantum Field Theory uses Lie algebras.

Take the maths out and the physics is non existent.
(Although QM can sputter along as a physics only subject).

You may be interested in knowing that even though GR and QM are usually associated as Physics subjects, they are in fact branches of Applied Maths. It highlights that it is the maths that drives the physics not the other way.

Steven

[KenGee]

Look just think of gravity as the thing you feel when you not doing anything else....or
It;s the thing that makes straight lines look curved ha,ha
did that help.

[xelasnave]

Steven said "Throwing up a few superficial definitions of GR which at the very best are slightly better than chapter headings doesn't convey what GR is."
Yes I agree but I felt the attempt worthwhile to focus on GR..
AND we certainly agree that the math is the focal point..that was my point.
AND as you point out and I referred to above it is the math that is the subject not the physics..now you see that as a good thing and given your work could you think other wise... no worries there but I simply say it should not be this way...and that does not mean my view is valid..it is a view...
Sorry I could not convey the point I was trying to make as to the math such that you could not comprehend it but thanks for reading it... I do respect the science of math but I know in the wrong hands it can be manipulated to a degree to suit the outcome one is seeking.
AS a professional you will see that in the same bad light as would I.... and again I dont question the math and all I have said was to point to my belief that math is the tail wagging the dog..and you have agreed that is the way it is...
I did find out some stuff today that took me further with my understanding of GR so it has been well worth the time...
AND my point in posting the "headings" (as it were) was in an attempt to draw attention to the references to math and geometry and I suppose that within those definitions an apparent absence of detail as to how space may be bent etc... I did find something however mentioning "particle" interaction so I went away happy.

Thanks for taking the time and hope you have a great day.
alex

[xelasnave]

Yes but if you are "there" the lines seem straight to you even though they are "bent"... :lol::lol::lol:
As to the flute etc I am unfortunately so inoccent of the ways of the world all you say is lost on me;)...
besides being a guitar player I feel drawn to the string theory "hypothisis" ...

Funny thing...a couple of weeks back there was a big day at the Drake Pub..it was around Phil Emmanuel (guitar player to God) but there was a band after..guess what their name was..."PUSH" ...had a great time danced with Phils lady whilst he played for a while and then sat back to be entertained by "PUSH" so I felt to a degree the Universe in falling into place and it will be no time at all until push gravity is elevated to its destined position of respect...

So its back to the bush any moment now.. I left yesterday because the "others" were possibly killing each other and I did not want to become the key witness... I will sneak in tonight get my stuff and head for Sydney, the boat and a bit rate of 30 kb per sec. So life can not get much better.
alex:):):)

[Peter Ward]

Steve...that's a little dangerous. Vis: the old tale, a Physicist is looking to get some dry-cleaning done, and sees a sign "dry-cleaning" in a shop front.

Goes inside, and is greeted by the store owner who and as it turns is a mathematician.
"I need this shirt dry-cleaned" says the Physicist.
"Sorry..I can't help you" replies the owner.
"Why not??"
"We just make signs!" ;)

In short, without the physics, the math can be a little meaningless.

[sjastro]

Alex. It has nothing to do with what I see as being a good thing.
You can't write a book without words. The physics mentioned in this thread is simply an expression of the mathematics. The mathematics are the words so to speak. I cannot make it any clearer than that.

That's a conspiracy theory Alex. Science papers are peer reviewed which minimizes the chances of such nefarious activities.
I've mentioned the concept of renormalization earlier in the thread as an example to indicate that the science community will react to any perceived tampering with mathematics.

Regards

Steven

[g__day]

To your initial post - you have stated our current model correctly, and their (scale) limitations.

I could believe that gravity as we perceive it is more a property of complex geometry than a seperate, distinct force. So that is simply an abstraction that what we percieve as gravity is an indirect occurence of our reality that appears most commonly as a force.

A reason why relativity and quantum mechanics doesn't work well - is that relativity is scale invariant - it makes big assumptions on scale that don't well stand our test at either an atomic scale (or below) or glactic super cluster sizes and above.

Scale relativity is a newer model (under development) that posits that the universe isn't quantised into Planck units, that rather at very small scales spacetime is fractal (e.g. 2.68 not 3 dimensional). Quantum positions and irregularities can be modelled as movement along fractal paths in spacetime (vs movement through an exact grid).

Personally I think the science of this generation will build breakthroughs based on discoveries about the geometry of spacetime, as well as those substances and forces within it. Geometrical construction of the spacetime field may add to our understanding of the universe (and of course pose more complex, fundamental questions to resolve)!

[sjastro]

The sign writer is obviously a pure mathematician instead of an applied mathematician.
Then you would get a dry cleaned sign pressed onto the shirt.:)

Seriously modern day physics has such a voracious appetite for pure mathematics, it has actually become difficult to categorize whether for example String Theory is a branch of theoretical physics or pure mathematics.

Steven

[shane.mcneil]

It's all a bit symbiotic isn't it? Observation leads us to theories and the theories point us in different directions for observation. These either confirm or refute the theories. Which then get modified and sent back for observation...so both happen together. However, I am always amazed at how intricately mathematics is a part of how things work. And how well it predicts what is later observed.

I think the main thing with any body of knowledge is to keep an open mind. Use what tools we have, but always be open to other possibilities.

[xelasnave]

Steven said....That's a conspiracy theory Alex. Science papers are peer reviewed which minimizes the chances of such nefarious activities.
I've mentioned the concept of renormalization earlier in the thread as an example to indicate that the science community will react to any perceived tampering with mathematics...

Sorry Steven I can see why you responded so...the manipulative hands I was hinting at were mine making a subdivision spread sheet say what I wanted it to say....
Still a lot of bad stuff happens but I never see one scientist fudging the books as representative of the profession..in fact as with most things if humans follow the rules we wont have problems.. and liars usually get found out one would like to think.
alex:):):).

[Nesti]

Before you can ask the question "What is Gravity", might I suggest a healthy understanding of curvature first...real curvature.

Next, understand the definitions and the similarities (the links) between the two;
In geometry, curvature may be defined as the mathematical obstruction within a curvilinear coordinate system, so that it cannot be transformed into a flat coordinate system. In the general theory of relativity, gravitation may be defined as the obstruction of tidal forces within a gravitational field, so that it cannot be transformed into a field of flat spacetime.

Then the 'Connection' (The Christoffel symbols), between energy and negative divergence.
ie. Curvature Tensor = Energy Momentum
roughly speaking; The metric must equal the E=mc^2 of all the mass within a given space (3D) and over a given time.

Some Pics for the Geeks are attached

[avandonk]

Gravity could be the 'connections' that are a result of the effect of quantum entanglement.

It is is very suspicious that all galaxies tend to keep their matter to themselves.

Interacting galaxies could be the 'mad uncles'.

Bert

[avandonk]

Valiant effort. Why bring real science into this pathetic discussion. Most people get lost with integrals let alone matrices. They would far more prefer to argue from a totally nebulous basis. It makes hand waving almost acceptable.

Bert

[Nesti]

I do think that coalescence of matter and an inflatory universe are to blame for the aloofness of galaxy matter, the clicky groups of stars, but now that you mention it, I could easily imagine the Cosmological Constant being a reluctance (impedance) across space…but that would be non-local…unless there’s a law behind it.

[Nesti]

LOL, very LOL

[Nesti]

What I find really interesting about gravity, it that Gravity Waves are not included within the Einstein Equation, in that on the left side we have the Einstein Tensor (consisting of the Ricci Tensor, the Metric, and then the Scalar Curvature), then on the right side we have the Energy Momentum (consisting of the 8xPi, the Gravitational Constant, and the Energy Density).

But gravity waves are separate, they run only within the metric tensor, and as such energy within a gravitational field cannot be conserved, unlike electric and magnetic fields.

SO, this means that gravity waves slip underneath the gravitational field (geodesics) without being affected…we see this in Black Holes, where nothing can escape them, not even light, but the mass of a black hole creates gravity waves which can and do escape.

This is totally bizarre, and in some part, conflicts with special relativity. Remember the forces are carried within the geodesic, within the Christoffel symbols. So how can you detect gravity waves when these quadrapole waves radiate out the metric, underneath the field??? :confused: You just can’t because light bends within the geodesic, which again, is governed by the Einstein Tensor, so I don't feel they will be found.

I've said it before, gravity (GR) is a fictitious force, it is mediated by “slippery-trickery mathematics” :lol: and is nothing like the other forces.

It’s as though gravity waves operate through the [dare I say] 'Ether'…:rofl:

[marki]

Mark, can we have a word processed version? My eyes are not so good and I am having trouble reading the scanned pics.

Mark

[avandonk]

I have given you a HW answer about gravity. If you think of all particles that have interacted in the past and they are now 'smeared' across some finite space but still linked by entanglement. I find it hard to put into words but what is going on? I do not understand quantum mechanics. Anyone who claims to is a fool! But I think that human if not all brains work at the QM level. Indeterminism leading to insight!

The only 'proof' for this is the bewildering complexity shown by our abilities for reason and deduction and yes inspiration from 'nowhere'.

Bert

[Nesti]

I've got over 200 pages of these scanned notes. They range from string and particle concepts, to these, GR. I only have the original and their scans.

If you PM me with your email address I can send through high res versions.

[Nesti]

Assume I don't know what HW means...now, don't assume...??? :shrug:

You wrote, "that have interacted in the past and they are now 'smeared' across some finite space but still linked by entanglement"...I really, really want to reply to this statement...but cannot. I PM'd you a request.

You wrote, "I find it hard to put into words but what is going on?"...yes, the itch you cannot scratch...I believe that there is a connection...but not the quantum direction, the relativity path is still not closed.

[sjastro]

The matter energy tensor (the right hand term) is not relevant if one wants to use black holes in the argument. This term is only applied when one is interested in external gravitational and/or electromagnetic fields acting on the field in question. It also applies to extended objects where matter is found in the field.

Gravitational waves are formed by variations of the field itself.

In other words you only need to consider the extension of the field into empty space and the propagation of gravitational waves into empty space.

The Einstein equation simply becomes Ricci Tensor=0.

Gravitational waves are derived mathematically by applying perturbation to the metric components of the Lorentzian metric. The components are time dependent indicating the field varies with time.

This is a solution to the equation.

You have lost me. If a gravitational field varies, the energy in the field is conserved by the radiation of gravity waves. That's the basis behind the existence of gravitational waves.

The mass alone (density) does not create gravitational waves. A static (Schwarzchild metric) black hole doesn't generate gravitational waves. A rotating (Kerr metrc) black hole can be a different matter. Since it rotates, there is centripetal force (with a non vanishing Christoffel) that adds to the field strength. By slowing down the rotation, the loss in rotational energy is taken up by the frequency of the emitted gravitational waves.

There is nothing devious about the maths unlike the manipulations that occur in Quantum Field Theory.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

Hi Steven,

The mass energy tensor is as it says, it can be either energy as energy, or energy in the guise of mass, which is moving through a given spatial region over a temporal period. A black hole still has energy moving through given regions over a given periods, even if the mass energy tensor and [mathematical] dimensions breaks down in this environment. And this is one of my main points; hat breaks down here isn't reality at all, it’s still there, it's our mathematics and our understanding which does. The universe is doing what it has always done and doesn't need the math. This relates to the thread about Math Lingo, where math is manipulated to suit the observation (not necessarily the reality) and thus it is merely a descriptive language, NOT the be-all and end-all. But why do so many people tout it to be an absolute. This really needs to be understood by everyone; Newton was hailed as being correct, now not so correct, Einstein could well be next. My point here is simple; there are mathematical principles which merely describe reality, and there is reality. The two can and do conflict all, the time. The key difference is really simple; reality is what it is, reality. Mathematics is equally simple; it’s a visualization tool, a language, and nothing more!

My tutor spent his entire life working for NASA as an astrophysicist and lecturing at Cambridge, understanding how light is created within stars and logic in mathematics, and you should hear what he has to say about this topic. He was the one who showed me that there is a separation between math and reality that needs to be clearly understood. In one of my scanned notes, I wrote his words, “people these days run around talking about what light is, I’ve spent my entire life trying to understand what is light, and I haven’t a clue”.

Back to gravity: Gravitational waves are linked to the field, I agree, but they behave only in accordance with the [symmetric] metric tensor, and the Ricci and Scalar must be dropped in order to describe these waves (convenience of mathematics again). It takes all three to describe the gravitational field, therefore, gravity waves do not operate through the gravitational field, they have their own and they set-up the gravitational field (probably why we now need a Higgs field). We need to now drop mathematics entirely and look at gravitation as a physical form, two structures are present, a field which spreads out at the speed of light and for all we know, may well set-up of define the metric in some ether of energy, and a field which hold the interplay between energy and curved geodesics (Not curved space and time at all!) brought about from the negative divergence.

Without transferring understanding of gravitation from mathematics across to a physical mental picture, we are forever lost within the “tool”, the “language”.

"you only need to consider the extension of the field into empty space and the propagation of gravitational waves into empty space...the Einstein equation simply becomes Ricci Tensor=0."...yes, exactly!

There can be no conservation in a gravitational field since gravitational waves are radiating [sending out of the system] energy from the massed [energy dense] region where our star, or whatever, is. Again, my point is that gravity waves are a separate structure to the gravitational field, but there are linked. Einstein knew this and accounted for it. This is why he said that there is no background structure with which to measure against; even his evolution equations for quantum measurements hold an “all of universe” solution, “without a fixed background structure”. Ergo the importance of clocks (synchronicity).

I know what you're saying about black holes, and I agree, but there is a separation between the gravitational field and how the field is setup, a separation between math and the reality.

"There is nothing devious about the maths unlike the manipulations that occur in Quantum Field Theory."...yes there is. For example, every mathematician (Gauss, Riemann, Ricci, Minkowski, Christoffel, Einstein, all of them) played around with the math, creating variations in the chain rule for instance, until "hey presto", "that seems to match the observations or what we need". When we get to a black hole, all of a sudden we say that a new type of math needs to be derived in order to describe this region. Yet another variation in the language, yet reality chugs along in the background.

Again, mathematics is merely an aid in understanding what is happening in reality and not the contrary; reality is not the aid to understanding mathematics.


Anyway, I’ve said enough on this topic and I’m sure you get my point.

Cheers
Mark

[xelasnave]

I dont know but it seems all are at the end of a dead end laneway as a result of following incorrect directions and instead of accepting such as the inescapable conclusion those in that dead end lane are content to count the bricks in the wall preventing further progress rather than to back up and seek a lanr way that actually takes one someplace. AND even standing looking at those bricks no one is concerned of their make up or composition... I find that strange.

We have a hypothethic object (a black hole) from which nothing can escape and yet somehow it can advise the rest of the Universe it is there presumably by magic, as any particle via which one could think may be required to form a field is prevented from escape and thereby communicate whatever message it is to communicate..gravity in particular.

I dont care what the math says that does not add up.

We have clear observational evidence that attraction is not the force that holds galaxies together unless we add matter (dark matter) which is only able to be observered by an inference that it has to be there to make any hypothisis based upon attraction work.

What maths predicted the Pioneer would not slow and what maths will be put forward to say we are still in the right lane way. I think Steven offerred the most reasonable explaination some time ago which still seeks to accomodate the rule subject to an exception.

Folk decry my non acceptance of the math and ignorance of the meat of the matter yet I work upon observation of what I see and a reasonable expalination of why it may be so... why that is a problem I do not know.

I predicted that the Pioneer would slow ( as a sticky space must suggest) and yet am told it was a lucky guess because I provide no math for the right answer so I find it frustrating that NASA using the correct math got it wrong are still somehow right on that matter...

I find it frustrating that those who have all the answers are unable to answer the question posted here...what is gravity... I really do not think that question has been answered herein.

Not that such a problem confinded those who read or contribute to this thread for as much as we say we have the answers it is clear we do not ... I am sorry Bert to upset you by saying we no nothing about gravity when you can on behalf of science take pride in the various wonderful things humans have achieved using what we know to date... I am truely no trying to be disrespectful to you or anyone but the fact remains we no nothing about gravity other than how many bricks it takes to make a wall..

Humans have simple sences, sight hearing taste etc and it would be best to recognise that and work within those limits as then we would not be so determined to entertain notions of things we can not see or observe directly to be realities but matters that we still do not understand.

AND why when we have something we do not understand do we insist on calling it black or dark ... I came across "a dark accelorator" and you guessed it ...we dont understand so its dark.

The items one reads about dark matter and black holes leaves me wondering if we are no less superstitious than any other group of humans before us.
Blame the science jounalists if you like but when someone comes up with "black holes may hold the key to time travel" why is there no scientist jumping forward to point out the fanciful nature of such a statement.

Now Bert, Steven and Mark as this is too limited a region to publish all the math supporting current science I say that the answer to the original question has not been answered and the number of bricks in the wall preventing us moving forward are really not going to answer the question presented here.

If the String hypothisis goes anywhere it seeks to find a graviton..which as I understand is the force carrying particle engineered to suit that hypothisis and one would think that no matter what hypothisis we subscibe to we will finally need a particle to carry "the message" so I find it hard to accept a black hole can happily let them (gravitons or whatever thing finally selected for the job) escape and yet the same black hole will grab a photon and never let it go.

I find it hard to imagine how a black hole can have a gravity field (at all given its properties) and that a gravity wave (if they exist) can be seperate..the math may support this approach but I ask you does that really sound reasonable.

Thank you for reading the above now please ignore all of it and move on as if I had not posted and enjoy your day for I am only having a grizzle on this subject when in truth it is other matters that cause my frustration and grumpiness today. If only all my problems were as simple as solving the gravity question I would be happy.
alex
alex

[sjastro]

Mark,

An interesting discussion.

When maths is manipulated to suit the observation that's simply the Scientific Method in process and represents one end of the spectrum.
The other end of the spectrum is when observation verifies the theory.

For example many of the subatomic and carrier particles in particle physics are mathematical inventions which have been subsequently proven to exist in nature.
Does that put mathematics in conflict with reality? No it doesn't.
Mathematics is part of the reality.

On the subject of gravitational waves we will have to agree to disagree.

The driving force behind behind gravitational waves are the time dependent metric components. Not the metric itself but the components.
The metric components are analogous to gravitational potential in Newtonian theory. To move from one gravitational potential in the field to another requires an expenditure or release of energy.
If the field changes in strength (without a gain or loss of the generating mass) then the field is conserved through the emission of gravitational waves.

Astronomers are looking for this phenomena to occur, such as the rotation of 2 massive bodies (black holes) around a centre of mass. The bodies lose energy in the field and gravitational waves are emitted in the process equal to the lost energy.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

Yes, interesting indeed.

I said metric as a general comparison between all components within the Einstein Tensor...but if I must be specific, I would say that it is not the "components" either, I believe it would all come down to variations of the derivative values (1st and 2nd derivatives) held within the metric components. Of course the numbers of values vary depending upon how many dimensions we are talking about. 256 for a spacetime metric.

The "components" of the metric, are the mathematical operators, not the values themselves, true?

...I feel that we still don't have an answer to the question, "What is Gravity?" (causally), we haven't as yet discussed a reason why it exists either...I raise that question with trepidation.

I can suggest a cause...a reason...but I don't think that anyone will like it.

Cheers
Mark

[sjastro]

The number of components is based on the rank of the curvature tensor. For example the Riemann curvature tensor which has a rank of 4 has 4^4=256 components for 4 dimensional space.
The Ricci tensor which is a contracted version of the Riemann tensor has 2^4=16 components in 4 dimensional space. Taking into account symmetry the total number of components is 10.

Thus GR is a gravitational theory for 10 potentials (Newtonian theory has only 1 potential).

The Christoffel symbols in the Ricci or Einstein field equations result in the partial differentiation (1st and second order) of the each metric component. The metric component is the potential.

If the metric components are constant, the Christoffel symbols vanish and the metric is simply a geodesic or straight line in flat space.
Non vanishing Christoffel symbols (metric components are not constant) indicates curved geodesics.

Regards

Steven

[Bassnut]

Yes please :D. I havent got a clue what you guys are on about in the last few posts, so maybe in a way an average dummy can understand ? :P ;).

[sjastro]

"What is gravity" is actually a philosophical or metaphysical question.
Science struggles with "what is" questions. "How" questions are easier to answer.

A person of religious disposition would argue that God created gravity, a philosopher might answer that gravity is part of our consciousness.:)

Steven

[PCH]

Ditto. This thread is currently beyond many peoples' comprehension at the moment IMHO. (Don't flay me alive if I'm wrong !)

It's certainly beyond me anyway :shrug:

[sjastro]

We could be conning you guys and talking complete BS.:D

Steven

[Bassnut]

I once saw an impressive arguement that the "reason" for life, is simply a device to increase entropy. Given entropy is a fundamental universal "pressure", could the reason for the existance of gravity just be as another entropy increasing device?

[multiweb]

Way too technical for me this thread... :shrug: I was always told gravity is what happens to you when you pass the 40 year old barrier?... :whistle:

[Bassnut]

Your right, I dont like it. :lol: :thumbsup:

(come on Mark, you have a go)

[Nesti]

Yes, I agree here.

[Nesti]

Yes, agree here also.
Quote:
... the more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that.
Richard Feynman


I have a philosophical disposition when it come to SR & GR and quantum measurement for that matter, therefore a collective mentality (with suggestions). It's a very long story, currently in manuscript form if you're interested Steven...it will conflict with your beliefs, as sole math/science descriptions conflict with mine, but it does tie-in much of quantum measurement, time symmetry (lack of symmetry perhaps) and it does tackle a cause for SR & GR head-on. I pull no punches near the end.

[Nesti]

An extract from about 3/4 through;

In geometry, curvature may be defined as the mathematical obstruction within a curvilinear coordinate system, so that it cannot be transformed into a flat coordinate system. In the general theory of relativity, gravitation may be defined as the obstruction of tidal forces within a gravitational field, so that it cannot be transformed into a field of flat spacetime. Therefore, might our own destiny, as well as all others’, be defined as the obstruction of freedom of choice within a causal particle universe (the observer influence), so that it cannot be transformed into a purely deterministic reality? If true, then instigating these features, facilitating the diversity of all realities, is the central node. Astonishingly, it may well underpin the structure of mathematics itself.
Author

[Nesti]

Bugger, just turned 40...B-a-s-t-a-r-d-o! :D

[multiweb]

:lol: Mate, I thought you were just a dude holding a yellow plane but now you're scaring the s**t out of me ;)

[Bassnut]

Ive read that about 30 times, carefully, and I think I actually get it, sort of, nice quote.

[Nesti]

Steven is discussing the factual boundaries of GR as we currently understand it, and I can see his angle. I am trying to introduce other aspects which I feel needs to be addressed. It pertains to a reason for gravitation.

It's kind of like Newton's clockwork universe, where god created the universe, would it up, and set it in motion. Deterministic processes carry the evolution from there-on-in. BUT, freedom of choice (free will), consciousness and thought, have not been accounted for in such a system. Even Newton realised these things, and thought it may one day lead to athiesm.

For me, everything, every effect must be attributed to a cause, there is no independent self fulfilling system; everything must pertain to a common purpose or central reality.
All phenomena link together in a mutually conditioning network
Buddha, 500BC

The notion of a self fulfilling prophecy (General Relativity) makes no sense, it must have a purpose and a cause.

There is no mind absolute or free will, but the mind is determined for willing this or that by a cause which is determined in its turn by another cause, and this one again, by another, and so on to infinity.
Benedictus de Spinoza, 1673

[sjastro]

Yes I would like to read the article.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

It's not an article, it's a book that's taken 23 years to put together. Due to be published Dec 2009.

Bomb me an email address and I'll flick it across (8Mb).

Mark

[Bassnut]

Mark. So you think cause and effect can be extended to quantum uncertainty. Its not uncertain, its just we havent havent developed enough to understand it?, or are we fundamentaly designed, intentially, not to be able to, ever, in which case we could never prove either way?

[xelasnave]

Back on topic..what is gravity:lol::lol::lol:

seriously however this is such a great thread and although I grasp little and understrand less just trying to keep up to speed googling each new term that comes in has been wonderful...I thank the distraction this thread has given me on what I call a bad day (personally that is)...

And sorry for being a grump earlier.
alex:):):)

[xelasnave]

How are the tragectories of our space craft calculated? What math is used Is Newtonian sufficient or do they use GR?
alex

[xelasnave]

and if not gr why not?
alex

[shane.mcneil]

Yeah it's also known as furniture disease. It's when your chest drops into your drawers.

Shane

[Nesti]

Absolutely! Newtonian gravity can calculate a spacecraft voyage across billions of kilometers and through a 100m x 100m window. Add relativistic considerations, and it can be much better...the true on-board [relative] time can also be calculated...which is important.

I believe it depends upon what the application is as to whether they use one or the other. Don't forget, GR is calculation intensive.

[xelasnave]

Mark said
For me, everything, every effect must be attributed to a cause, there is no independent self fulfilling system; everything must pertain to a common purpose or central reality.
All phenomena link together in a mutually conditioning network
Buddha, 500BC
Is this the first TOE..???
anyways a Universe that recognises the aether and takes its interaction with matter into account has a chance of sucsess...
alex

[xelasnave]

Thank you, thank you thank you:thumbsup:...may be old hat to you but stuff like this takes me a long ways forward in understanding stuff.
May I ask then to be specific..in respect to the prediction NASA made re the Pioneer..was their prediction based upon Newtonian or GR calculations.
alex

[sjastro]

You don't use GR. For low velocities and low gravity fields, Newtonian physics is used.

In fact for trajectories involving gravitational slingshots, Newtonian physics has it all over GR.

Regards

Steven

[shane.mcneil]

Well to be honest, this thread went over my head several pages ago. Although I asked the question, I didn't expect it to be such an involved or debated subject. It wasn't meant as a philosophical question. Perhaps I should have asked, "How does gravity work?" I'd been reading some books on gravity and it wasn't clear to me if GR was the generally accepted description of gravity (and thus geometric) or if Quantum Physics covered it (and thus the graviton). I see now why the books weren't so clear. No one seems sure.

However, I believe that everything has a "mechanism", including gravity. Even if there is a God who created gravity, it still has to work some how. Or if it is a result of our consciousness, again it works some how. That's why I love science. It tells us how things work. The individual can then ponder, Why?

I think we will work it out one day. I just hope I can understand the explanation:D.

Regards,

Shane

[Nesti]

Google 'Jainism', and have a hunt around for Jainst Cosmology...I bet the level of intelligence 3000 years ago knocks your socks off.

Their TOE must encapsulate everything, including one's soul and Karma.

[Nesti]

I wasn't aware that NASA were discussing the issue...are they???

[xelasnave]

Shane you can not post anything about gravity without a major responce because grav ity is the most interesting topic any human can discuss...
Gravity is the machine that runs the Universe and although specialisation takes our eye off the ball that will be found to be the fact.
I do believe humans have madee a fundamentally incorrect assumption and that is that a force of attraction exists when it does not...yet in an attempt to fit the Universe into human understaqnding attraction is the only tool they seek to use... yet it is clear at a higher level it is not attraction that controls things..even dark matter will prove unworkable..my math tells me that and would tell anyone the same if they reasoned so... but gravity is it..everything comes back to it in my universe it is all the forces in my view... manifested in different forms but all gravity nevertheless...and gravity is no more than the flow of everything creating an infinite energy flow that "runs" everything... can I prove that ..no... it is an opinion based on an overall observation of everything and how it may fit with everything else...in my view gravity is a pressure of everything coming from everywhere... and there is no way one could support such with math as it must be far too complex.

alex

[shane.mcneil]

Thanks Alex. And maybe you are right?? That's why I think science should never be certain that they know it all, because it creates blind spots. Many a thing has been taught in a science class room that was later proved to be wrong. So that's why I try and keep an open mind. What I was wanting to do was understand what the current, generally accepted view of gravity is.

As to the Pioneer craft. Are you talking about how they are slowing down unexpectedly and no one can explain why?

Shane

[xelasnave]

Before the Pioneer left the heliosphere they (NASA) expected certain things I expected other things..My expectations were based on a belief that space was "sticky" as a result of my thinking re push gravity...now my thoughts are simple, crude and unsupported but I expect that for NASA to think the Pioneer would do different to my expectations they may just have used math..they do that and I bet their predictions had a math base... and so I ask... for them to consider what the Pioneer would do when they passed thru the barrier that seperates our solar system from "outter space" did they use Newtonian or GR physics? They must have worked out something and I ask how did they work out their view... sorry to be verbose to get to such a small point... and I already expect that they used Newtoian from what you have said so far... but I doubt that GR would have predicted slowing either.
alex:):):)

[Enchilada]

Good point. It is complicated, but the differences between them is very small - and in especially testing theoretical explanations for the real cause of the anomaly. I.e. It could have been influenced by another gravitational force by an unknown gravitation body. I..e. An asteroid, etc. My thanks for asking what seems as genuine question, Alex. :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Of course I am right Shane my major authority is that I am always right:lol::lol::lol:
Before the Pioneer left our Solar System there was room for consideration and in my case speculation..
For years I followed investigation of gravity and concluded we knew little as to its machinery etc...so I considered how the Pioneer would act in a push Universe... once out of our Solar Sysrtem I believed they would be subject to more "push" in effect and as such must slow..also that their atomic piles if they had any would expire faster..I dont know how or if they have atomic stuff in fact but if they did my view would suggest different to the expectations...anyways they slowed as I thought they would..now that means zip as all sorts of things could be responsible for them slowing but as you can appreciate the fact that they did made me feel as if I was on the money...and so I humbly say I can explain why they slow and the fact that they did really makes me think I could be correct in my view of how the Universe works...now no one will ever know how the Universe works but you probably can understand it gave me some hope that my view of the Universe was more correct than possibly the current view.
I really feel that attraction is a myth and that is so hard to believe..as we see attraction all over but I see all attraction as a mere push misinterpreted... dark energy if it is there suggests that Dr A had some foundation in his cosmological constant....or as I like to call it "push"... push works for me and although at odds with all science that is accepted I "see" universe governed by a push mechanism.
It makes things simple..no dark matter for a start... a simpler explanation for how an atomic bomb works, how electricity works, how magnatism works,..in fact hbow everything works..I see it but no one else can and so I diddle along with feelings and hopes but no math in support of my views...and thats cool ..the neat thing is no money is at stake so what the heck..its a view..an idea... simple..not a big deal.
But it is what I think about and fit everything else into...
alex

[shane.mcneil]

I remember reading some other suggestions about the pioneer craft. One was a gas leak and some others I can't remember, other than as has been said, an unknown body affecting them?

As far as a push universe goes, I would have thought that if that were so the universe would look very different. An object would be pushed away from something until it became close enough to something else and then it would be pushed away from that. It would be like a cosmic pinball machine wouldn't it? Can you describe a curve or an orbit in a push universe?

Shane

[xelasnave]

Enchilada said ....could really take apart some of the ridiculous nonsense stated here - but really who has the time in an amateur forum like this one.
Mate dont get upset it is not that big a deal.

A simple truth must be able to be stated simply..now Dr A said similar but I dont have his specific quote to that effect..Firstly how could one embrace the complexity of the Universe here or anywhere..a lifetime is horribly too short..may I remind you the most wonderful minds humans have put forward, Dr A, Hawking Witten Newton etc (how could one make a comprehensive list and be credible really) still have not grasped all of it or even a small part of it... so it remains that all humans are entited to speculate, to have a view and to believe what they may..who cares if some are wrong.... why look down and say anyone is wrong..what is the point in that..do you think I am really serious when I post.. this is a forum where all folks get to have a go ..most do not project their "real" knowledge because it is a forum after all.......I am only serious if there is money or life involved other wise its a game...as it can be and should be...

Gravity is still the biggest question hanging over humans,,, and if anyone has the answer why dont they come forward..if you think GR or Newtonian physics is the whole deal I suggest you could think further because the fact remains humans know zip about gravity and the rest of the Universe...

As you go thru life you finally realise diffderent folk have diffent views and finally there is no absolute truth..if you say there is then time will put you in the box tagged "idiot"... Nothing is constant or permantly "real"..all there is finally is folks views on stuff...If you want to back everything our science tells us is fact today you are doomed to a humiliating review by folk in the future... as difficult as it is to comprehend we are not at the point where we know everything..now that may not rest easy but take a couple of years to consider what I say before you fix your position on all things...science evolves and will continue to evolve and to fail to recognise that sees one condemded to stupidity and you are well above that I feel.

alex

[xelasnave]

To understand everything start where there is nothing.
Ask what may be there and how it may effect stuff..it is that simple.

If it works by push it will be like a pressure "from everywhere".

Anyways I have tried to communicate my ideas and present my observations upon this and it really boils down to ...you see it or you dont.. I see things different to others I conclude..and I am not trying to be different or stand out for non conformity it the way I "see" things.. I visualise maybe to a higher level that other folk so what I see is easy ... but make other brains "hurt"..others see via math or via illustration etc..I see things perhaps in a complexity that makes it difficult to desciobe... I really try to be like the others and talk as simple as I can to communicate ..that has most folk thinking I am stupid..and thats ok...I have nothing to prove other than I am not a geek anymore.
alex

[xelasnave]

Anyways settle down folks..
are we all not interested in similar things...no one has to stand over anyone else... everything is finally a belief..even our best science is a belief... we believe because we have "the facts" but as humans we grow and learn more facts and as we get more facts our views modify..but it matters not who thinks what here I would like to think... we are all interested in the Universe..can we not rejoice in that...

Male humans are prone to seek domination over other male humans...that is the way of it...but that is a legacy from our animal days.. we are now better..we are now able to live and let live... if you are right or wrong puts no food on your table so nothing is important unless you rank your ego as worthy of prominance in your being.
alex

[xelasnave]

Page 8 ...are we closer to an answer..or closer to a recognition that we know zip about gravity other than being able to move space craft with confidence.... a higher level must be available to us if we recognise we are the past for someone elses future.
alex

[AlexN]

Closer to the recognition that we know zip I would think Alex..

I am sure there is an answer to the question, but whether or not mankind will find this answer in my lifetime.. Thats another question all together. The problem I see is that people hold onto science history so tightly that they lose the ability to consider different options and different approaches to the question... GR was not fully accepted from day one, simply because people held onto Newtonian gravity for so long that the thought of something as radical as GR was hard to come to terms with..

Einstein didn't like the idea of QM at all, even after lengthy debates with plank and bohr, he still did not want a bar of it.. Why? Because it did not always agree with GR, and GR is how he'd come to understand the universe...

[michaellxv]

How did anyone prior to Newton know how to aim a projectile?
We don't have to fully understand something to use it.

I have a couple of theories.

Firstly dark matter/energy are just a place holder that kinda make the maths work for what we see. A bit like calling sqroot(-1) = i - when no such real number exists.

Next, the spacetime continuim is such that all times and places co-exist. Our conciousness just moves from one state to the next (should fit with quantum theory I reckon). Dark matter/energy is just all of that matter and engery which exist at times which are not now hence we cannot see it. All of this should make time travel possible when we do work it all out :D

Unlike 400 years ago we at least acknowledge that we do not know everything. If you look at the increasing rate at which scientific discovery builds on previous work it should only take one more generation to work it out. ;)


Michael

[AlexN]

Michael, I agree completely with regards to dark matter/dark energy being placeholders to make the current mathematics work/suit what we have observed... And that what we observe is dependant on our state in spacetime.

[xelasnave]

Passion can make opponents friends and friends opponents but there is no need for either possition.
It is easy to focus on stuff and get upset and I would ask all who are buring up to settle a little... this thread is like a night at the pub in some respects.. we are all intoxicated with knowledge believe and passion for the achievement of humanity... still there is no need to rip it up.. no one has to stand over anyone so lets us understand all engagingf in this most wonderful thread are of like minds ...maybe different but not as different as someone who believes in ..say..astrology... or other stuff ..we all are of the same ilke... argument upon a question is admirable..personal attacks etc should be leveled at outsiders..eg astrologers, soothsayers etc...
I like a fight but I dont like belting folk who are the same, almost, as me.

I do think it is wonderful that so many get into the subject of gravity when it comes up.
alex

[xelasnave]

Michael I read your post a while back but have been unable to comment and compliment you on your insite.

I hope you are correct and that all knowledge is only a generation away... and I admire your belief there is more to come..that is the way it is... if only humans could understand what you have outlined I feel we could be better set up to embrace new knowledge and understanding.
Those who go before us are resentful that they give us a world we do not understand or appreciate... that is the way it is but the fact is when they are gone it is the new humans who take over.. are they better or worse???those who pass say the new kids know nothing but one wonders if that be so why does humanity move forward as it does..new humans that is why... all views of youth and their inexperience are never respected by those before them and yet it is the new humans that take us forward... That is why GR needs an update... how new humans can settle for science now near a century old is strange to me.. I can not accept that a new DrA can not take us further than that... so understand it is in your hands not those who ran before you...Use Dr A as your guide, your example, as your hero...he was nothing..a little little man... could not have won a pool comp. or flogged two men his better in a fist fight but he was a great and wonderful man who showed us that evfen if you were a complete nobody..a pattents clerk..that is not flash lets face it..you could do great things... someone that today each of us would push aside if he stood in the way of a feed or a pool game ..he went for it.. he achieved..with nothing behind him..a poor pupil and in the work world was only a clerk as low as you could get in the world of work and business..who would think someone so low in the pecking order could do zip ...yet he did stuff.. lots of stuff really... so is that man someone that can inspire you ..to me he is a hero... now think about it..anyone here probably has more going for them than Dr A ..everyone should expect to be more capable than him...he is regarded as brillant but he was a man who simply had a go...they have looked at his brain in a jar (rather stange and horrid and stupid to place him like some sort of human anomoly) etc but that was not where it came from...he simply had a go and was never put off by the fools around him... Irrespective of if GR works or not the man pulled a great act... he still has the audience captivcated so how good is that... I never think of him as brainy but as a man he was so cool.
alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry going a light speed stuff suffers.. I will fix spelling aswap.
alex

[iceman]

I've deleted some posts here.

If you have nothing useful to add to the topic of the thread, just don't reply.

[Baddad]

Hi All, Hi Alex, :)

I watched a program on Steve Hawking last night. His quest to find the Theory for Everything was the main plot.

As his findings went: At the instant of the "Big Bang" Gravity was a powerful force but quickly dissipated into a weak force.

The explanation for this was that the extra six dimensions in "String Theory" is responsible. Meaning that gravity is impeded by the other dimensions. This satisfies the maths behind it. Hawkings hopes that the CERT experiments will provide supporting results for this.

This was mentioned very early in this thread as something along the lines of parallel universes. Something to consider.

The second point I want to bring attention to is the matter of "Gravity Waves":

For waves to exist energy must be available and it needs to behave in such a way that there are both opposing and reinforcing forces. That is to say, electromagnetic waves are changing positive to negative as they pass a point. With the co-existing magnetic wave alternating north and south.

Does this mean that they may be searching for gravity that pushes as well as 'attracting'?

Even sound travels as a series of compressions and rarefactions.

So if gravity does have a negative factor and it can be harnessed it would make things interesting. Yes?

Personally, the nature of gravity, to me appears to be very different to any other forces. I think it does not have a wave nature but elsewhere in the universe there may exist "negative gravity"

Too much speculation to be creditable. I'll sign off.

Cheers Marty

[sjastro]

Gravity and gravity waves are two different animals.

And yes objects effected by gravity waves can be pushed apart or brought closer together.

Steven

[DJDD]

Perhaps I have not read this thread thoroughly enough but it seems that the notion of push gravity is being held up as a credible alternative to GR in the main because we are asked to keep an open mind because that is a necessary condition of doing science. And that if people did not have an open, enquiring mind then many areas of scientific enquiry would not have been pursued partly because of the notion that we "knew it all".

however, there is a significant difference between Push Gravity and GR. Push Gravity does not answer many questions, has not been experimentally verified (except for a faint possibility that the pioneer spacecraft slowed down because of it) and has been discredited. On the other hand, GR has been verified countless times, both terrestrially (including GPS) and astronomically.

of course, we do not know everything, but it is more likely that GR will either be modified in a similar way that newtonian physics or dropped for something radically different, than junked entirely for push gravity. regardless of the passion of the believers. :)

just my $0.02 worth.

[Nesti]

I cannot say for sure myself, but my tutor's words were very exact and match Steven's statement on this exact issue, "A gravity wave with enough intensity would tear your arms and legs off".

Io has a high degree of volcanic activity associated with the 'Tidal Forces' attributed to gravitation (a divergent field). But gravity waves seem to have just as great an impact if sufficiently intense.

Steven, is this the effect of an intense quadrapole, ie, the inflation and deflation of spacetime as the wave passes through a given spatial region...effectively overcoming electromagnetic bonds (tearing molecules apart by spatially and temporally separating the individual particles, maybe even atoms)????

[xelasnave]

Thanks Marty I enjoyed reading your post:thumbsup:.
AND thanks DJDD that was value for money:thumbsup:...I cant argue with anything you raise.

AND to all...sorry I have been ranting again.. I promised myself I would never again do so.

I like to think that (and have said it before) that it is the "push" or the flow of stuff that "bends" the space time grid constructed by GR :D

AND the push gravity thing came out of wondering about DrA's cosmological constant ... I always thought push gravity was my original idea and pursued it in ignorance of Le Sage and all the others after him...

AND I have only recently actually looked in depth at another site covering push gravity and it has good stuff and stuff I cant abide ..for as someone once observed some of those push gravity sites are off beat...and that is how the site Ron built to house my rantings has gone we have things really off beat:screwy:..all that was without my help encouragement or help:eyepop:...
I am not into time travel but on our site we have a time detective who is into time travel, and various threads on stuff I am absolutely at odds with... but as I have preached the open mind thing I have kept my mouth shut and have not bagged anyone for ideas I find impossible to entertain...
So keeping an open mind has come back to bite me:).

But I have done what I set out to do and that was to build my own theory of everything and although it is only speculative and unsupported I can explain to my personal satisfaction how all the forces relate in a push universe:rolleyes:...and it is only an idea so please no one get upset that I dare to have a go...
I really dont think there is anything difficult to swallow with my approach ..it does not need matter that cant be seen, it can handle the outter stars in galaxies exceeding their speed limit, it can hold a galaxy together, it can explain the Universe expansion, the corona, the helioshere, behaviour of light thru a medium, momentum, how an atomic bomb works, how a fission reactor works, how a fussion reactor may work (i dont think they will ever work in truth) why we have lightning elves and sprite etc, why the earths core is hot, how electricity is generated... most things I can fit in the push universe... so I am content with it and remember it is the first Universe I have ever built:lol::lol::lol: ...and with no plans like everyone else gets:D.

But I have done zip in the last 18mths Ron built the site after I had lost interest so I was dragged back sort of...

So what is gravity???
I still dont know after all the years I have read stuff on it.

alex:):):)

[Nesti]

Alex,

"What is Gravity", gravity is a subject far too big to learn from a discussion forum. It needs to be described in detail and systematically. It also pays to know some history, ie, what was Einstein looking for...why did he look toward Poisson's equations first, and what is curvature (I feel this is the biggest piece of the puzzle)?? Start small, what did Newton say, then geometry needs to be included because it's a field of acceleration...there are so many things.

I have posted this link before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbmf0bB38h0

If you cannot understand the math, don't worry, just understand his explanations for the functions.

If you watch this brilliant series (12 parts, 20 hours or so), you WILL have a new appreciation for gravitation, and, how SR fits in.

People pay a lot of money for this type of information, delivered this way.

Unfortunately/fortunately, not much comes from little effort, so take my advice on this, just give it a try...at least until the end of lesson 3.

And it's delivered by Leonard Susskind, what more could you want for free???

Weigh it up, what have you got to loose, against what have you got to gain?

At the end of the day, you might not have all the pieces, or even have them correct (that's me for sure), BUT, you will have an appreciation of what it actually is.

I dare you to put the time in!!!

Mark

[xelasnave]

Thank you Mark:thumbsup:... Was Leonard Susskind one of the guys who came up with inflation theory??? Susskin I think anyways I will look...he has been around and a mate of Whitten I think..probably all are mates in that game.

You may not believe it from the stuff I write but I have read a fair bit on SR, GR and Dr Einstein and I do appreciate the enorminty of the subject a little.

In fact it was reading about Dr Einstein that gave me inspiration... for some reason I felt he was a loner like me he seemed to be treated the same as I was at school... I "invented" an electric motor when 11 yrs but the teachers gave me no recognition for thinking and all I got was you would do better learning what we teach trip... in reflection I could have been encouraged not put down as a day dreamer... I could do leaving certificate chemistry before I went to high school..self taught from books I got from relatives who were teachers... it was easy because I loved chemistry. Topped the trial leaving in combined science 98.5% but the math cost me 1.5 marks... I added something wrong so I always felt math denied me a perfect paper..it was like adding 2 and 2 and writing 5 a simple mistake.... so with that behind me I went into Law an obvious caree choice given my interests...
AND I had before I was into DrA's work applied but missed a job at the pattents office in Sydney ... and his peaceful manner I related as they say.

I took from him that sometimes the rank outsider can win... and I think a lot of new stuff comes from folk who are no in the group and just think different to others someway.
I knew he wanted to unite the forces and that is why I had a go... so for someone who probably sounds at odds with it all I am probably one of his greatest admirers...I think he was on the money when sniffing around the cosmological constant but when Hubble announced the Universe was expanding he seemed to give up on the idea... and that may have had a lot to do with the personalities..Dr A a humble chap and Hubble an x lawyer (they can be pushy and overbearing) and also a contender for the world heavy weight boxing champ... but I see push as an extention of thinking along the lines of a cosmological constant...

But look at the lenght of this thread.. It bears out what I say..gravity is the most interesting topic humans can think upon or discuss:thumbsup:... and if you tell the ladies about it they move you onto other activities real fast;)


I will accept your dare simply because I do like this stuff:thanx:.
alex:):):):):)

[sjastro]

The forces exerted through a gravitational wave have a quadrupole symmetry. Using the the arms and legs analogy, if you held you arms out and the wave tore your arms off, the action of the force perpendicular to the arms would squash your body (assuming you were standing).

The reality however is the amplitude of gravitational wave is so small nothing as graphic as this will ever be observed. Also the electromagnetic and nucleur forces are extremely strong so it extremely doubtful for disruption to occur at a molecular or atomic level.

What I find interesting is if a gravitational wave has an effect at a molecular or atomic level in the same way as electromagnetic radiation.
In other words whether the energy of a gravitational wave can be absorbed by atoms and molecules.

If this can be observed it might be very strong evidence for the graviton.
It would be analogous to photons being emitted by atoms after absorbing electromagnetic radiation.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

No it was Guth and some Russian for the inflation theory...Suskin was a starter in string theory... was spent time alone to come up with the idea and wanted to turn to booze when it was not readily accepted...
alex

[sjastro]

I think his name was Mr Linde.:)

[xelasnave]

Thank you Steven.
alex

[Nesti]

I discussed this with my tutor. He reckon'd that the feature differences between quadrupole and transverse waves were so great, that he sees no reason why the two should be involved with an exchange. Also, that a TOE will never happen since the two cannot be unified, even if the force coupling constants merged at some higher energies, they don't HAVE to unite.

He asked me, why do they need to be combined anyway, so we can feel happier???

It's a good point actually...

Personally, I believe that the fundamental differences reside within each particle...whether that be the spatial/temporal states and values, or, force states and values.

For my belief, I think we don't quite have the full picture. We may be close, or miles away, but I FEEL there is a definite connection between gravitation and principles of matter...beyond GR.

It has been argued that quantum mechanics is not locally causal and cannot be embedded in a locally causal theory … it might be that this apparent freedom is illusory. Perhaps experimental parameters and experimental results are both consequences, or partially so, of some common hidden mechanism.
John Bell, Free Variables and Local Causality, Epistemological Letters, 15, 1977

The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like the ‘genetic’ hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein’s intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous: A vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein’s idea doesn’t work. The reasonable thing just doesn’t work.
John Stewart Bell (1928-1990), author of Bell’s Theorem / Bell’s Inequality, quoted in Quantum Profiles, by Jeremy Bernstein [Princeton University Press, 1991, p. 84]


Can you see what I mean about the possibility of both SR/GR states/values, and Force states/vaules residing with the particles, but somehow these are then transferred into their frames of reference at each and every spacetime position (they naturally evolve within the spacial regions and over whatever time period), whether that be applied to Inertial frames or accelerated frames, if the function values could somehow commute across to the Gravitational Field, we would then have a form of unification in regards to process, so it is not necessarily for the forces to unify.

This would also mean that we would have a type of global reference frame...dare I say, a lattice of Calabi-Yau spaces orchestrating feeding all of the states and values to all particles within the spacetime continuum. It would therefore only be spatially and temporally connected by association, and not embedded. kind of a master field which can stitch together electric, magnetic, gravitational fields etc...This would even account for the consistency of the force laws, conservation laws (eg angular momentum), the homogenous energy density within the continuum. So the particles take with them all that which defines their characteristics..."the photons in those experiments carry with them programs which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave".

And also in the words of Sir David Bohm;
Classical physics says that reality is actually little particles that separate the world into its independent elements. Now I'm proposing the reverse: that the fundamental reality is the enfoldment and unfoldment, and these particles are abstractions from that. We could picture the electron not as a particle that exists continuously but as something coming in and going out and then coming in again. If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.
David Bohm, On Quantum Physics, 1987


And again;
In relativity, movement is continuous, causally determinate and well defined; while in quantum mechanics it is discontinuous, not causally determinate and not well defined. Each theory is committed to its own notions of essentially static and fragmentary modes of existence (relativity to that of separate events, connectable by signals, and quantum mechanics to a well-defined quantum state). One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness.
David Bohm, On Quantum Mechanics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980

Maybe we're missing a tiny little thing, which turns the "reasonable thing" into the 'correct thing'.

This may then give us an answer to the problem of quantum measurement, as this pathway is all but blocked it seems.

For me, I feel the next advances will be made in expanding SR & GR...maybe to include something else...ZR?!

Make sense?

Cheers
Mark

[Nesti]

Alex,

Where did you get the "Push" nature of GR, rather than 'attractive' nature of GR from???

You're not talking about the 'Pressure' are you? ie, the Pressure of the Energy Momentum Density?

That can easily be confused with a type of 'Push', as the Energy Momentum IS the flow, and in a direct/indirect way, does creates the Einstein Tensor values, which in essence IS the curvature...but there is no real pushing involved.

I went hunting for it...took me half an hour, phew!
Discussed [in my bible] at 1:14:00 and runs for about 4-5min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCRG1uzc9xg

Cheers
Mark

[xelasnave]

Mark firstly I dont know what I am taliking about in the context that I can relate anything to GR correctly because I still do not understand GR.

AND whatever view I have is very simple and no doubt misses the real deal... but pressure is a good way to think about it the way I think about it... In fact simply put I guess you could say that my belief is that gravity is basically radiation pressure... or the pressure of all the electro magnetic radiation in the universe, gravity being caused by an imbalance of such due to mass (object) shielding.

Everything I write comes from my thoughts so thats where I got the "push" nature..I dont think anyone else sees it that way. all I am saying is if you see a grid (3d) (forget time at this point) and place a sphere in it I think the grid lines will curve in to the sphere...not like the ball on the blanket which curves grid lines away..(I think the ball on the blanket gives the opposite of what GR suggests) . so if there is the flow or pressure I suggest the sphere (mass) shields so the grid lines go in the direction of the decrease in the pressure... and as a result near the sphere or as we get closer the cubes of the grid will get smaller... or the grid gets smaller as we get closer to our mass...

I suspect that has caused me to lose any credibility left... if you understand what I am saying and more if you dont... I need my hands free to take you see:lol::lol::lol:
alex

[sjastro]

An electroweak theory has shown that the electromagnetic and the weak forces can be unified. The experimental verification of this theory has come through the detection of "neutral currents" as predicted by the theory.

Since we now have two of the four forces unified it would seem to be a logical progression to believe all four forces to be unified.
The conditions in the very early history of the Universe (<10^-43 sec after the BB) would seem to support a single unified force.

I'm not sure whether you're advocating local causality by the implication that the state of a particle in space-time are supplied through a global reference frame.

An obvious question that comes to mind is how do you explain quantum entanglement or better still the status of Bell's theorem (is the inequality violated or not).

For example there are tests with photon pairs (entangled pairs) where if the photons are "separated", the state of a given photon is determined by the state of the other photon. This has been experimentally determined by polarization tests.

This would seem to run counter to what you are advocating.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

It's a nice enough idea, but Grand Unification (QCD-electroweak interactions) will need to be seen. I don't think anybody's come up with a neat Quantum Gravity as yet. What's the closest so far, 'M-theory' ?
And I think both of these suggestions require S-Symmetry in order to predict an energy level for convergence.

"how do you explain quantum entanglement or better...Bell's inequality"
In the mail.

"This would seem to run counter to what you are advocating"
I don't mean to do so; I'm advocating an alternative; a local and non-local system at the same time, without violating SR. Something that also describes the inability for a history vector to come back to the event interaction point through devolution under 'local' law. There's an element missing, a non-local, time asymmetric process which needs (MUST) account for probability and show why freedom of choice is retained (similar to relativity, where a relative viewpoint has affect over spacetime. In this freedom of choice has affect over deterministic processes and can collapse probability). So, it must handle freedom of choice too and GR as I pointed out earlier. Huge call, I know.

I'm not elluding to a 'Relative State' interpretation, nor 'Bohmian Mechanics', or even 'Sum over Paths' postulate (Feynman), but something quite different. I feel you can flip these three ideas up on their heads, and end up with a single mechanism which can determine local events, in full view (so to speak) of a 'whole world' of particle states. Einstein's evolution equations had an aspect of this.

I looked to Aharanov's TSQM (Time Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics) for some background early on.

You can get the documents from here;
New Insights on Time-Symmetry in Quantum Mechanics Yakir Aharonov and Jeff Tollaksen
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/to/Tollaksen

And;
Two-time interpretation of quantum mechanics Yakir Aharonov and Eyal Y. Gruss
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/quant-ph/ah/Aharonov

[netwolf]

Gravity is just a force that is a property of mass. The bigger the mass the bigger the attractive force is. But it does reduce inversly proprtional to the distance squared. Well thats still the common explanation for it. there is Also Einstiesns Priniciple of equivalance that he derived from a "thought experiment" thinking about lifts in space and the bending of light. Making Gravity and Acceleration one and the same.

Is it just me or does it seem like there are more theories now than there were say a 100years ago? It seems to me that the human search for truth is somewhat flawed by the human need to understand and explain things. Can we really observe/understand/know the truth without affecting it?

[xelasnave]

As Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory, once told a colleague: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.”

Dont you just love that.

AND most of all I love from above.... One thus sees that a new kind of theory is needed which drops these basic commitments and at most recovers some essential features of the older theories as abstract forms derived from a deeper reality in which what prevails in unbroken wholeness.
David Bohm, On Quantum Mechanics, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980

AND I love the discussion and the leads it has me running off to investigate and the more I read the more I feel the earlier paragraph is relevant.

Mark I am attending the lectures at Stanford but the travelling is killing me.

It is a priveledge to read your and Stevens discussion here.

alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Fahim you asked.......Can we really observe/understand/know the truth without affecting it?

I doubt if we can.
My gripe with the requirement of prediction is simply that one will look for what is sought ... Big band expects to find background radiation and when they do it is their exclusive property and other explanations as to what has been found are never considered...in my view...and I accept that folk can get upset about my view as it suggests science can be corrupted... science cant be corrupted but certainly humans can.

AND in respect of the background radiation... I think it was a team from the University of Alabama who found that problem existed with the background radiation in so far as some galaxies shielded it and some did not ...and as the finding of background radiation was taken as the nail in the coffin for the steady state model somewhat established big bang as a theory incapable being turned over...faulsified?... now I just have a feeling given the Universities location in the bible belt as it were that most folk around there would be happier with a steady state model for religious conviction... and so at the end of the day we have two truths emerge ... and one can not help but think if you asked your question relating to the situation now of "there is there isnt" the answer can only be two truths do not make one truth someones expectations or beliefs may just have colored the outcome.

I suspect the team at Allabamma found what they set out to find maybe cattering to perhaps a bias unrelated to the scientific opportunities.

If you are expecting to find the higgs bosen do you think for one moment with an investment of 9 billion it will not be found...

alex

[shane.mcneil]

Hi all

Just for what it's worth. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly) is a link to some info on the Pioneer spacecraft and the questions they have raised as mentioned earlier.

Regards

Shane

PS Mark those Youtube lessons are great. Thanks.

[renormalised]

That is the essence of QM...that the observer, just by the act of making an observation, affects the outcome (reality) of that which is being observed. Essentially, there is no such thing as a truly objective observation and that in making the observation you are affecting (and effecting) the reality of what you're observing. This also predicates that the observer and the observed are connected at fundamental level. No matter how small the effect of the observations are, they are still evidence of the interrelatedness of everything. The distinction between the observed and the observer is nothing more than a matter of perspective. It could be argued they are one and the same.

[Nesti]

This is where I knew this discussion would end up...it always does...is there a way, a descriptive mechanism, which can tie-in all of the observed affects?!

Is it possible, that-that mechanism be, not quantum based, but relativity based? And that quantum measurement be rescinded to bits-n-pieces of information lying here and there…in Bohm’s own words “If these various condensations are close together, they approximate a track. The electron itself can never be separated from the whole of space, which is its ground.” Could he be suggesting that relativity holds the promise of our answers?

Can it be interpreted that, quantum measurements contain only pieces of the puzzle – the electron phasing in and out of reality – and that quantum measurements are discontinuous by nature, yet relative aspects tell us that an electron (all particles/energy) must reside, and never be separated from, its grounding – the continuum itself - the Choreographer of the movement and dance of energy?

If so, can relativity be altered is such a way, or perhaps a component be added into it, so that we have a single picture and description of the behavior of matter as it moves and interacts through space.

The speed of light through space depends only upon the properties of the light and the properties of the space.
Lynette T. Wilson

The quantum and relative properties of both light and space must be accounted for, not necessarily unified. This is my whole point, we seek unification, why can't we simply have 'expressed associations'.

Almost everyone can smell the coffee, but what does (would) a coffee machine look like?


Cheers
Mark

[Nesti]

LOL, well if that doesn't kill ya, the bandwidth consumption will. :lol:

[renormalised]

I knew it would end up here too. You can't separate the two and no matter how hard they try, neither can the theoreticians.

Maybe what we need is a theory of Quantum Relativity;):D

[xelasnave]

I am on dial up so I get 5 minutes of it each 30 minutes but for me getting it in small spoonfuls is a blessing.

alex

[Nesti]

BOOM-BOOM-CHING!!!

LOL...took old dopey here a bit, but I finally got it.

[Nesti]

Yeah, I got into one of those, replay it over and over phases, sometimes ya just have to.

[renormalised]

Here's something to consider...What if the appearance of the universe is dependent on the scale from which you view it. So, from a quantum scale PoV, the universe looks random and chaotic. From our "macroscopic" it appears smooth and ordered...but what if it isn't?? Let's say the quantum scale fluctuations are like the "interface between" the higher space from which the universe unfolded and our own perspective. What if from higher space, the universe has the same aspect as what we see on the quantum scale, it's chaotic and random. From that higher space, universes might pop in and out of existence just like virtual particles in "normal" spacetime.

So, you could say one of the postulates of "Quantum Relativity" might be...The perception of the structure of spacetime is relative to your location within spacetime and not dependent on the actual structure.

[xelasnave]

Sounds most reasonable Carl...

The fractal universe approach suggest such would you think???
Not that I subscribe to or reject the fractal universe it does seem to suggest opportunity for what you are prescenting...maybe.

alex

[xelasnave]

I just note the time I am up to and start there rather than the begining each time... and thanks again for the link ... I am really blessed ... as we all are... how good to be able to attend such a wonderful University ...
alex:):):)

[renormalised]

Maybe, Alex. If the universe is indeed fractal, then all things being relative, the higher space from which it unfolded should also be fractal in nature. As you move to smaller and smaller scales in either state, being able to resolve the fine structure of spacetime would become harder and harder (from the perspective of your location within spacetime) until it appeared to become random and chaotic. It would be there that the transition between spaces occurred. Where the spacetime we live in "froze" out of the higher space from whence it sprang. The freezing out of the universe from that higher space would be, in effect, the Big Bang. Whilst universes may come and go in the higher space much like virtual particles out of the quantum froth, when they reach a threshold level of energy, the "universe bubble" "detaches" itself from that higher space by lowering its "degrees of freedom" (if you think of physical dimensions as degrees of freedom of existence or mathematical movement) and expands "outside" that higher spacetime.

[renormalised]

Now, what has all this to do with gravity?? Well, everything. Gravity and the nature of spacetime are intimately connected.

[xelasnave]

I am sure others have said similar;).
alex:):):)

[Nesti]

Like the shore line; land is relatively smooth an regular (spacetime sense), the ocean is wavy but regular, however the interface, the shoreline itself, where the two realms meet, is chaotic, random, and [quantum] foamy.

Maybe then, quantum mechanical behavior comes about from the two separate realms fretting across the division, two separate behaviors within two separate dimensional structures; spacetime, and higher dimensional space...we somehow evolve from pieces of both systems, and are able to affect events within each...therefore spacetime events which contain aspects of higher dimensional space might seem discontinuous, as though we were missing vital pieces of the puzzle, yet spacetime itself is entirely stable.

Black holes...dimensional boundaries???...hmmm, I can feel a bit of deja vu coming up.

[renormalised]

Yes, that is a good analogy.

What we might have is continuum of energy across the quantum boundary, with one set of conditions affecting the other where the two come into direct contact, at that quantum level. It's like icebergs in the ocean...at the interface between berg and water, you have this nebulous area where liquid water and ice become mixed. At this boundary, we get the discontinuous events of spacetime (where higher dimensional space is creeping in) occurring and making everything look random and chaotic. But on the larger scale, everything appears nice and ordered.

In terms of String Theory, this would be where the strings would be vibrating at all possible and probable frequencies and radiate at all wavelengths. Particles in our universe would be where certain harmonic nodes managed to remain stable in the random fluctuations. Spacetime itself, would be a stable harmonic resonance sitting in the quantum sea of energy.

[Nesti]

Hmmmm, have you been doing some reading or something? LOL

[renormalised]

No. I haven't read your book yet. Just my own thoughts and what I understand of the various theories.

[Nesti]

Can't say you'll agree with it, but coming from the angles you do, you're sooooo gonna see it.

[renormalised]

Should be a good read, then:D

[shane.mcneil]

Forgive me if I am sounding really dumb here. I am trying to follow the concepts. :confused2: Is what you are describing here a form of the big bounce universe as opposed to the big bang? Where our universe is expanding from a singularity "interface" from a previously collapsing universe?

Shane

[renormalised]

No, that's another topic altogether. What I was saying there is (amongst other things in previous posts) that the universe we live in "unfolded" from a higher dimensional state...if you follow SUSY (supersymmetry) and String Theory, it's an 11 dimensional "superspace" (a "space of all spaces").

Though, if you follow M-Theory, this superspace contains multidimensional spacetime membranes which float about and periodically collide with one another. It's this collision which generates the Big Bang event within the brane.

When you talk about a big bounce universe, there is no singularity present. The previous universe basically collapses into an indeterminate state where most of the information about that universe is lost. It then re-expands into a new universe with new constants and fundamental values of state. Even with a "normal" big bang universe, there is no singularity. To have a singularity, you have to have zero size and infinite density. Before it even got to that, quantum fluctuations would prevent it from forming. A singularity, by definition, would be an absolute location and frame of reference, simply because of it's dimensional state. That's why Relativity breaks down at that scale, it's equations simply become nonsensical. It's also why QM would prevent it from forming...because it can't become infinitely dense and zero in size as that would violate the Pauli Exclusion Principle, for a start. What would happen is once the universe approached the Planck Scale time/size limit, random quantum fluctuations would smear its existence out into an indeterminate state of probabilities. It would essentially return to the higher dimensional state out of which it first formed. Or just before it went completely back to that condition, a spike in the quantum field would cause another bubble to form and expand into a new universe (the bounce scenario).

[Enchilada]

...I'm not supposed to respond on this thread, but you guys might like to look at this interesting paper on arxiv article "New Class of Dark Matter Objects and their Detection" by C Sivaram and Kenath Arun. Linked at; http://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2306 . They seem to claim the dark matter source might be by so-called "Wimponium" which they examine in various scenarios. (First postulated by March-Russell J and West S M, Phys. Lett. B, 676, 133, 2009)

They conclude;

"In this paper we look at a new class of objects formed by the collapse of dark matter particles and elucidated their various physical properties and observable aspects associated with them. We have analysed the effects of the mass of individual dark matter particles on the mass, annihilation rate, mass loss, etc of these dark matter objects. In a certain range of parameters their life times are comparable to the Hubble age and they could be observable as gamma ray point sources (like Hawking black holes, but with distinctly different signatures). We have also explored the possibilities of star formation and black hole formation from accretion onto and mergers of these dark matter objects."

Although your gravity questions here are interesting, this paper is some really good food for thought to the progression of the missing mass and the gravitational effects additional to the theory properly describing general relativity.

IMO, these two paper are significant to the cutting edge searches to dark energy and dark matter.

I'll comment no more. :thanx:

[shane.mcneil]

Thanks for that Carl. Sorry I realised that you weren't talking about a big bounce, I guess what I was asking if you were saying our universe came from a previous one? Because the other question I'm interested in is how did it all start? It seems that understanding that would answer gravity and everything else, obviously.

So is what you are saying here accepted as science fact? Is there ever an ultimate beginning anywhere? If we popped out from something else, what did it pop out of?

Thanks again,

Shane

[sjastro]

Shane,

It's not even science in the strictest definition of the word. A scientific theory needs to be falsifiable or be able to be proven or disproven.
String theory and it's variants are more of a philosophical than a scientific argument.

Supersymmetry is a scientific theory as it can be proven or disproven on the basis of experiment or observation.

Steven

[renormalised]

It's one of the ideas they've come up with, but whether it becomes a fact or not depends on what they find in the future. Even the Big Bang isn't really a fact....it's a theory. Whilst much of the evidence they have points toward it being the most likely mechanism for the universe's formation, it's still yet to be confirmed for certain.

[shane.mcneil]

OK, so any discussion of say points B C and D are only correct if our initial starting place A is right. But when it comes to these sorts of subjects, we aren't certain that our initial starting point is correct (not that I'm saying they are wrong either). I guess that's why everyone is looking for the TOE. If there is one. I didn't realise how much science and philosophy can over lap.

Thanks again. Shane.

[sjastro]

In the context of this thread perhaps one should substitute the word "correct" with the word "complete".

Newtonian physics is an incomplete theory but it is "correct" in terms of what it has been able to explain. GR is a more complete theory than Newtonian physics but it cannot be considered to be any more "correct".

For example for low velocities and low gravitational field strengths, Newtonian physics and GR give the same predictions. That is not an accident since GR is an evolution of Newtonian physics instead of a replacement.

Similarly the various alternatives mentioned in this thread such as string theory and it's offshoots are not meant to be seen as replacements to GR, but to make GR (and QM) structured into a more complete theory.

Regards

Steven