What is gravity?

[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 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 (Carl)]

Can we really observe/understand/know the truth without affecting it?

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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


alex

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Nesti

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

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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

BOOM-BOOM-CHING!!!

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

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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

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

[renormalised (Carl)]

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]

Originally Posted by Nesti

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

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 (Carl)]

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 (Carl)]

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

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

I am sure others have said similar.
alex

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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