Jump to content

Dark Matter


MikeAL

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

The difference is that of one giving rise to the other versus one being the other. It is a subtle difference and I wanted to make it draw your attention toward some properties of space-time. And yes, force lines are illustrative. Obviously we don't have real force lines painted across the sky. That being said, they are not made up either. They are illustrating the direction of a force. This is why the illustration is functioning as an explanation.

Again, I see it as a play on words. Mass changes the geometry of spacetime, thereby exhibiting what we know as gravity. Again, as far as gravity is concerned, field lines are simply an illustrative means associated with the model.

Quote

Ok, that's fine. But you do understand though that what you are saying is that after the object has left, the geometric impression in space-time remains, and this geometric curvature is gravity. There exists therefore an example of the contortion of space-time without matter holding the curvature in place. A bending of space-time creating gravity with no mass at the centre. Gravity is existing independently of matter.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that gravity/space/time, (the same thing) is non linear and that along with the gravity field of a BH being a fossil field, explains how gravity gets out of a BH. Take away the mass, and you take away the gravity. There are no examples of gravity fields without any mass in reality.

Quote

Dark Matter can be evidenced by these things. I am not saying Dark Matter does not exist. Far from it. I am saying Dark Matter does exist and the reason it is dark is because there is nothing there except the gravity caused by the bending of space-time independent of matter, which we just established above occurs. My explanation offers a reason why the gravity is so much greater than the calculated mass without having to invoke other more complicated scenarios. Far from confusing, it seems quite straight forward.

The Bullet cluster observation shows that to be false in my opinion...as does gravitational lensing.

Quote

Dark Energy as described in terms of divergent force lines (the opposite of gravity) would create a bubble like structure in space that would tend toward collapse in terms of its geometric structure. This collapse would be providing an outward push contributing to the expansion of the universe. Furthermore as the bubble collapses the tangent of the slope would become more aligned with the direction of the expansion increasing the rate of expansion. Such a structure would seem to provide all the properties attributed to Dark Energy. The idea is very simple I think.

DE whatever it is, is a property of flat spacetime over the largest scales, overcoming the gravity of curved spacetime over smaller scales such as our galaxy, local group and cluster of galaxies.

 

Let me add to elaborate on my statement,

Quote

 Take away the mass, and you take away the gravity. There are no examples of gravity fields without any mass in reality.

A while ago I did come across a definition of an eternal BHhttp://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/EternalBlackHole.html 

Quote

A massless black hole which is a stable topological structure held together by the nonlinearity of its gravitational field.

This of course though is simply a highly theoretical  idealised solution to Einsteins equations, much as worm holes, white holes, and ERBs are. None are evidenced in the real world.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, but misguided.

Yes, gravity, or more exactly space-time curvature, was there before the symmetry break, and the Higgs mechanism, gave certain particles the property of mass.
These particles had the property of energy, before the symmetry break, and yes, energy gravitates, ie. it causes space-time curvature.
Gravity also gravitates, and it is this self-coupling which makes attempts at a quantum field theory non-renormalizable, ie. plagued with infinities. This has led to the 'ground up' approaches of SString theory and Loop Quantum Gravity theory.

It is impossible for mass-energy to outrun its gravitational field, as that information moves at c, so warped space-time vacated of mass-energy is non-sensical. So, if your suggestion is that high  gravitational energy density itself, is the cause of the increased/modified gravitational field that causes the galactic rotation anomaly, instead of the commonly believed 'dark matter', that is also non-sensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, I see it as a play on words. Mass changes the geometry of spacetime, thereby exhibiting what we know as gravity. Again, as far as gravity is concerned, field lines are simply an illustrative means associated with the model.

I think we established with Strange that mass and the curvature of spacetime are inextricably linked. The two coexist when we look at it from a mass perspective. Wherever we have mass we have gravity. We cannot therefore say that mass gives rise to gravity, anymore than we can say gravity gives rise to matter. Both statements are equally contentious and equally plausible. Having said that, there are examples of gravity existing 'after' mass has been there, as you yourself pointed out. 

Yes, the field lines are illustrative - of a truth associated with the model. Hence the creation of the model.

35 minutes ago, beecee said:
Quote

Ok, that's fine. But you do understand though that what you are saying is that after the object has left, the geometric impression in space-time remains, and this geometric curvature is gravity. There exists therefore an example of the contortion of space-time without matter holding the curvature in place. A bending of space-time creating gravity with no mass at the centre. Gravity is existing independently of matter.

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that gravity/space/time, (the same thing) is non linear and that along with the gravity field of a BH being a fossil field, explains how gravity gets out of a BH. Take away the mass, and you take away the gravity. There are no examples of gravity fields without any mass in reality.

The non-linearity of spacetime is a very interesting phenomenon. Reading through the link: http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity We begin to see that matter's contribution to gravity is indeed non-linear. We find energy is creating gravity. Two energetic gravity waves can create a black hole. Where's the mass in the formation of the black hole?

It may be the argument that the origin of the gravitational waves was matter, but can it be proved that that matter didn't arise from a specific curvature of space to begin with? You see, matter can't move away from its gravity. Space is always curved around it at the same density. To not have the same density or curvature would represent a change in the mass. Gravity, however, does not seem to have such constraint. It can move away from matter and act independently of matter. So one has a dependent spatial relationship and the other independent. If I was to create a hierarchy tree, I would put the dependent phenomenon arising from the independent one, not the other way around.

Next, we can take a look at situations which have no counterpart in Newtonian physics. A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!

Speaking of black holes, the collapse of a star to form such an object is another example where the gravity of gravity becomes important. You might think that during such a collapse, as matter becomes compressed further and further, its contribution to local gravity would become more and more important. But in fact, that is not the case - on the contrary, in the innermost regions of the collapse, close to the black hole's singularity, the gravity of gravity itself is mostly responsible for the structure of space and time (more about this can be found in the spotlight text Of singularities and breadmaking.

 

 

33 minutes ago, beecee said:
Quote

Dark Matter can be evidenced by these things. I am not saying Dark Matter does not exist. Far from it. I am saying Dark Matter does exist and the reason it is dark is because there is nothing there except the gravity caused by the bending of space-time independent of matter, which we just established above occurs. My explanation offers a reason why the gravity is so much greater than the calculated mass without having to invoke other more complicated scenarios. Far from confusing, it seems quite straight forward.

The Bullet cluster observation shows that to be false in my opinion...as does gravitational lensing.

I'm not entirely sure what your objection here is. Can you elaborate for me?

"While the Bullet Cluster phenomenon may provide direct evidence for dark matter on large cluster scales, it offers no specific insight into the original galaxy rotation problem. In fact, the observed ratio of dark matter to visible matter in a typical rich galaxy cluster is much lower than predicted.[15] This may indicate that the prevailing cosmological model is insufficient to describe the mass discrepancy on galaxy scales, or that its predictions about the shape of the universe are incorrect." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter

 

58 minutes ago, beecee said:
Quote

Dark Energy as described in terms of divergent force lines (the opposite of gravity) would create a bubble like structure in space that would tend toward collapse in terms of its geometric structure. This collapse would be providing an outward push contributing to the expansion of the universe. Furthermore as the bubble collapses the tangent of the slope would become more aligned with the direction of the expansion increasing the rate of expansion. Such a structure would seem to provide all the properties attributed to Dark Energy. The idea is very simple I think.

DE whatever it is, is a property of flat spacetime over the largest scales, overcoming the gravity of curved spacetime over smaller scales such as our galaxy, local group and cluster of galaxies.

I want to have a look at the definition of flat spacetime. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotically_flat_spacetime

"An asymptotically flat spacetime is a Lorentzian manifold in which, roughly speaking, the curvature vanishes at large distances from some region, so that at large distances, the geometry becomes indistinguishable from that of Minkowski spacetime.

While this notion makes sense for any Lorentzian manifold, it is most often applied to a spacetime standing as a solution to the field equations of some metric theory of gravitation, particularly general relativity. In this case, we can say that an asymptotically flat spacetime is one in which the gravitational field, as well as any matter or other fields which may be present, become negligible in magnitude at large distances from some region. In particular, in an asymptotically flat vacuum solution, the gravitational field (curvature) becomes negligible at large distances from the source of the field (typically some isolated massive object such as a star)"

That's fine. We have simply zoomed out so we can't see the geometric drivers for the expansion of the universe. Dark Energy could still be operating at a relatively local level.

 

 

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is impossible for mass-energy to outrun its gravitational field, as that information moves at c, so warped space-time vacated of mass-energy is non-sensical.

I'm not suggesting a warped space-time vacated of mass-energy. What I am suggesting is that the warping of space creates energy and beyond a certain point creates mass. Totally sensical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from the fact that 'creating' energy is also non-sensical...

Energy, mass and relative time are all frame dependent quantities, ie. different observers measure different value.
While a section of strongly curved space-time may seem to be highly energetic to a distant observer, it is 'normal' to a local observer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

Aside from the fact that 'creating' energy is also non-sensical...

You are thinking local, not global. The curvature of space in one area would be offset by a flattening or an inverse curvature someplace else. No violation of conservation laws. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, MikeAL said:

I have clearly stated that the premise of my OP for dark matter is that gravity may be arising independently of mass from matter. Now Strange has agreed that mass is not the only thing that gives rise to gravity. 

That doesn't mean I agree with what you claim the source of gravity is (whatever that is, it isn't very clear).

Quote

I have specifically stated that mass and gravity appear inextricably linked. Strange has now parroted those exact words back to me, even after he tried to give me evidence that this was not the case. 

I hope you are not deliberately putting words in my mouth. When did I say that gravity is not linked to mass?

Your seem to be twisting what I said to fit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This disagreement should be happening elsewhere. I am here to defend my OP, not myself. This line of questioning is counterproductive and has taken the OP in a direction it should not be going. I am only entering into this discussion of 'he said he said' based on the instruction of the moderator. After this I will hear no more of it. If your feelings are hurt because I suggested you agreed with me I apologise.

Can we please now get back on track moderator?

 

22 hours ago, MikeAL said:

Let me run a simple thought experiment by you. It is based on a couple of assumptions. Do you agree that matter via mass causes a curvature of space-time, and that such curvature increases the density of space?

If you do, is it possible that the reverse is also true? - that a curvature of space-time increases the density of space, and therefore may create mass which gives rise to matter? In discreet gravity situations, the two are inextricably linked. There is no evidence of one coming before the other - unless you know of one? To me it seems almost a chicken and egg paradox.

21 hours ago, MikeAL said:
21 hours ago, Strange said:

And I don't see how it could create mass.

It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity. But let me try a different approach. I'm sure you're aware of the illustrations of an earth size body sitting at the bottom of a gravitational well. Well, of course the 3D equivalent of that would be happening with force lines going in. The density of the force lines as we approach the center would increase. 

 

20 hours ago, MikeAL said:
21 hours ago, Strange said:
21 hours ago, MikeAL said:

It is no more an elusive concept that mass creating gravity.

Except have good evidence that that is the case.

What evidence is that?

19 hours ago, MikeAL said:
20 hours ago, Strange said:

It's getting a bit late to be going through it, but I'll take a look at the links sometime tomorrow and see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. 

 

19 hours ago, MikeAL said:
19 hours ago, Strange said:
20 hours ago, MikeAL said:

see how it separates the ideas of gravity from matter and matter from gravity. 

It doesn't. They are inextricably linked.

Great to see you finally agreeing with me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

 If your feelings are hurt because I suggested you agreed with me 

Don't be silly.

Quote

Can we please now get back on track moderator?

Then you need to provide some evidence for you claims: such as "curvature of space-time increases the density of space, and therefore may create mass which gives rise to matter". Or that your idea can explain dark matter or dark energy.

For example, you need to show how your idea can reproduce the observed rotation curves in galaxies. Or that it can produce the observed acceleration of expansion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

For example, you need to show how your idea can reproduce the observed rotation curves in galaxies. Or that it can produce the observed acceleration of expansion.

The Dark Matter theory is already out there, Strange. Wherever Dark Matter goes my theory follows. The problem with Dark Matter is that we do not know what can account for the gravity that would be generating the required effects. My solution is that we do not need to fill the Dark Matter space with anything other than gravity itself.

To show this, I have drawn attention toward the relationship between matter and gravity, and demonstrated through argument that gravity can exist independent from matter. 

 

The second theory is on Dark Energy which accounts for an outward expansion of the universe beyond what current calculations suggest possible without it. These descriptions of Dark Energy describe it as anti-gravitational in nature and less dense than other space. I have argued how this is possible by considering the force lines that create gravity in space time. These force lines represent a convergence. As this is the case, then force lines may also be considered to come in parallel or divergent forms as well. The divergent form would diagramatically speaking look like force lines bending outward relative to each other, almost like a bubble.

As space time expands the bubble is stretched flat and the force lines would become parallel once again. The collapse of the bubble, geometrically speaking, could be providing the outward push. The increasing rate of expansion merely reflecting the fact that as the walls of the bubble flatten the vector component of the push would become more in the direction of expansion. 

There is another part to this idea that I have not discussed here yet, but is in my OP - and that is the seeming ubiquity of the force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your suggestion is that the self-gravitation of the gravitational field is the explanation for dark matter, then that is a testable hypothesis. 

I would suggest your first step (as you are not able to calculate the size of this effect - and neither am I) would be to look for any published work on this. I suspect there isn't any because (and this is just a guess) it is such an obvious idea that I would imagine almost every cosmology or astrophysics graduate would have thought of it. They would do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and find it is eleventy-squillion times too small. But who knows.

There are lots of scientists who do public outreach on blogs and twitter. You could try asking one of them - if they think it is interesting (or enough people have asked) they might even write about it. But you need to do this as a "is it possible that" question rather than "my theory is". Otherwise your question will be deleted without consideration. (See Katie Mack's FAQ for a good explanation of why.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

If your suggestion is that the self-gravitation of the gravitational field is the explanation for dark matter, then that is a testable hypothesis.

I agree.  I also agree that it too obvious a solution to have been overlooked. My own prediction is that the value will be too low. One of the reasons for posting here is that I thought someone might be able to give me a value. 

This gravity calculation however will be based on the measurements of the matter in the galaxies. It is for this reason that I have gone to such extreme care to try and show that gravity may be able to operate independently from matter. My process has been thus:

1) Show that the ideas that gravity arises from matter or that matter arises from gravity cannot be teased apart and primacy of one idea given over the other. We have both agreed that matter and gravity (at a discreet level at least) are inextricably linked.

2) To provide examples where possible of gravity acting independently of matter. To this end I have discussed gravity waves, and we have looked at gravity from gravity.

3) To draw attention to the fact that while there are examples of the presence of gravity without matter, there are no examples of the presence of matter without gravity.

4) Using points 2 and 3, I have attempted to show gravity can act as an independent force from matter whereas matter as having a dependent relationship with gravity. This relationship is hierarchical, lending support to the idea that gravity could be creating (or may have created) matter and not the other way around (resolving the paradox of step 1).

5) Realising that in addition to matter, energy can curve/or be a result of the curvature of space we suddenly have a continuum of sorts between energy and matter arising through gravitation. 

6) If you have made it this far it is not therefore unreasonable to suggest that gravity has curved independent of the curvature created by matter. That the curvature of Dark Matter is filled with energy.

The weakness in the argument as I see it is that the evidence for gravity independent of matter has matter at  its source, but counter to this we find that two gravitational waves can create a black hole. By removing matter by this extra degree we lend support to the idea.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MikeAL said:

1) Show that the ideas that gravity arises from matter or that matter arises from gravity cannot be teased apart and primacy of one idea given over the other. We have both agreed that matter and gravity (at a discreet level at least) are inextricably linked.

These ideas can be easily distinguished. There is evidence that gravity is due to the presence of matter (or, strictly speaking, mass). There is zero evidence that matter can be created by gravity. So we do not agree.

4 hours ago, MikeAL said:

2) To provide examples where possible of gravity acting independently of matter. To this end I have discussed gravity waves, and we have looked at gravity from gravity.

Gravitational waves (not gravity waves, which are something different) are created by the interactions of masses.

Gravity from the gravitational field requires some mass to create the gravitational field in the first place.

So these are not independent of matter.

4 hours ago, MikeAL said:

4) Using points 2 and 3, I have attempted to show gravity can act as an independent force from matter whereas matter as having a dependent relationship with gravity. This relationship is hierarchical, lending support to the idea that gravity could be creating (or may have created) matter and not the other way around (resolving the paradox of step 1).

That seems rather contorted logic. And there is no evidence to support your conclusion.

4 hours ago, MikeAL said:

5) Realising that in addition to matter, energy can curve/or be a result of the curvature of space we suddenly have a continuum of sorts between energy and matter arising through gravitation.

Not sure what that means. What is a "continuum between matter and energy"? They are completely distinct things.

4 hours ago, MikeAL said:

we find that two gravitational waves can create a black hole.

Where do you get that from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MikeAL said:

I think we established with Strange that mass and the curvature of spacetime are inextricably linked. The two coexist when we look at it from a mass perspective. Wherever we have mass we have gravity. We cannot therefore say that mass gives rise to gravity, anymore than we can say gravity gives rise to matter. Both statements are equally contentious and equally plausible. Having said that, there are examples of gravity existing 'after' mass has been there, as you yourself pointed out. 

We can say that mass effects the geometry of spacetime which we see and interpret as gravity, as evident and dictated by GR: We certainly cannot say that what we interpret as gravity, (curved spacetime) gives rise to matter...period!

Your last sentence is a misquote> What I pointed out was 

Quote

 This of course though is simply a highly theoretical  idealised solution to Einsteins equations, much as worm holes, white holes, and ERBs are. None are evidenced in the real world

While GR is a highly supportive and powerful predictive model, we do not see evidence of any of the above, and nor do we see evidence of any situation where gravity "magically" makes mass/matter: The eternal BH again is a thought experiment where we "magically" remove the mass/singularity, and reason following GR edict, that no signal can travel back out to inform the EH that the mass/singularity has "magically" disappeared.

16 hours ago, MikeAL said:

We find energy is creating gravity. Two energetic gravity waves can create a black hole. Where's the mass in the formation of the black hole?

 

Where the hell do you get this crazy notion that gravitational waves can create BHs? Gravitational waves, a prediction of GR has now been confirmed 5 times by two different methodologies involving collisions/mergers of BHs and Neutron stars.

The mass in any BH resides at a level where GR breaks down, that being the quantum/Planck realm, and which we consequently call a singularity: Most scientists/cosmologists today do not believe that any singularity of any infinite quantities such as spacetime curvature and density really exists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, beecee said:

Where the hell do you get this crazy notion that gravitational waves can create BHs? Gravitational waves, a prediction of GR has now been confirmed 5 times by two different methodologies involving collisions/mergers of BHs and Neutron stars.

 

5 hours ago, Strange said:
10 hours ago, MikeAL said:

we find that two gravitational waves can create a black hole.

Where do you get that from?

I get it from here. This site is hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.

A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity 

5 hours ago, Strange said:
10 hours ago, MikeAL said:

1) Show that the ideas that gravity arises from matter or that matter arises from gravity cannot be teased apart and primacy of one idea given over the other. We have both agreed that matter and gravity (at a discreet level at least) are inextricably linked.

These ideas can be easily distinguished. There is evidence that gravity is due to the presence of matter (or, strictly speaking, mass). There is zero evidence that matter can be created by gravity. So we do not agree.

 

4 hours ago, beecee said:

We can say that mass effects the geometry of spacetime which we see and interpret as gravity, as evident and dictated by GR: We certainly cannot say that what we interpret as gravity, (curved spacetime) gives rise to matter...period!

I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other.

The idea of matter fields suggests that matter arises from fields (like the Higgs field). Changes in fields are associated with waves. It is the fluctuating wave that creates the matter. The idea of matter fields lends support to the idea of primacy of the wave before the matter.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/fields/chicken-and-egg-matter-and-field/

 

In his book Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physic's Most Fundamental Theory, Art Hobson says (p95) "You'll soon see that both matter and radiation are made of quanta and and that each quantum is extended spatially and must be classified as a wave in a field."

Fields fill the entire universe. So we have a field giving rise to matter.

 

Here is an example of precedence. This is from the University of Cambridge

"From Fields to Particles

If you look closely enough at electromagnetic waves, you'll find that they are made out of particles called photons. The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. 

But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body --- indeed, every particle in the Universe --- is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics."  
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html

 

2 hours ago, beecee said:
Quote

In essence to claim gravity can possibly create matter/mass, is akin to saying  that photons emitted when one turns on a light bulb, create the light bulb!

 

No, it would be akin to saying that the EM field can give rise to photons. I think I've just shown that happens.

**Oh and I might add that saying matter gives rise to gravity would be akin to saying photons create the electromagnetic field.

Edited by MikeAL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

I get it from here. This site is hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity 

Interesting. I would like to see a bit more detail on that. I doubt it is something that can actually happen in reality.

Quote

I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other.

I have given you evidence that mass gives rise to gravity. 

Here, again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/

http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf

(I'm not sure what you mean by the "primacy of matter before gravity". You may be asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist.)

Quote

The idea of matter fields suggests that matter arises from fields (like the Higgs field). Changes in fields are associated with waves. It is the fluctuating wave that creates the matter. The idea of matter fields lends support to the idea of primacy of the wave before the matter.

The idea that fields (not waves) are fundamental is pretty standard. I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion.

But matter doesn't arise from the Higgs field. It arises from the electron field and the quark-related fields.

Quote

Fields fill the entire universe. So we have a field giving rise to matter.

Not all of them. Not just "any old field gives rise to matter".

So you have still provided no evidence that gravitational fields give rise to matter.

Quote

No, it would be akin to saying that the EM field can give rise to photons. I think I've just shown that happens.

Well of course it does because the photon s the quantum of the EM field.

The analogy would be that the gravitational field can give rise to gravitons, not matter particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Strange said:
1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

I get it from here. This site is hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity 

Interesting. I would like to see a bit more detail on that. I doubt it is something that can actually happen in reality.

Yeah it is interesting. Your quarrel lies with the scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics though, not me.

38 minutes ago, Strange said:
Quote

I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other.

I have given you evidence that mass gives rise to gravity. 

Yes, thank you. This information though is about the existence and effects of gravity, not of the primacy of matter over gravity. Perhaps primacy is not the best word. I mean that due to the inextricable nature of matter and gravity co-existing at the same time, without evidence to the contrary it cannot be claimed that matter is 'giving rise' to gravity, any more than it can be said that gravity is 'giving rise' to matter. Claiming it ain't so don't make it ain't so.

46 minutes ago, Strange said:

So you have still provided no evidence that gravitational fields give rise to matter.

Ditto for matter creating gravitational fields.

I have provided theoretical  evidence from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics though of gravity waves creating black holes without it involving the collapse of matter. I have also drawn your attention to the idea of gravity creating gravity. 

I have also cited precedence - that fields give rise to particles, rather than particles giving rise to fields (the idea of particles giving rise to the gravitational field is a little far fetched given today's scientific understanding of the universe). It was Faraday that suggested that the magnet did not create its own magnetic field but instead interacted with a universal field. It was later shown that the electrons which curve this field arise from the field itself.

What is important for the OP is not proving that mass arose from gravity, but that gravity can exist independent of matter - that matter is not giving rise to the field. That matter and gravity interact is not questioned. In showing the independence of matter from gravity we have seen how energy can interact with gravity and there is also evidence that electromagnetism itself interacts with gravity and affects its curvature. https://physics.aps.org/story/v7/st27 

When we have gravity independent from matter we have a candidate for Dark Matter which has been hypothesised to be non-baryonic (thus explaining why we can't see what is causing the gravity). It is gravity without matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MikeAL said:

 

I get it from here. This site is hosted by the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics.

A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole!  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity 

Could??? I doubt it...I doubt it very much. But I do have an astronomer friend who works in this field, and I will certainly put this to him for a reaction and opinion.

I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other.

The idea of matter fields suggests that matter arises from fields (like the Higgs field). Changes in fields are associated with waves. It is the fluctuating wave that creates the matter. The idea of matter fields lends support to the idea of primacy of the wave before the matter.

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/fields-and-their-particles-with-math/fields/chicken-and-egg-matter-and-field/

 

In his book Tales of the Quantum, Understanding Physic's Most Fundamental Theory, Art Hobson says (p95) "You'll soon see that both matter and radiation are made of quanta and and that each quantum is extended spatially and must be classified as a wave in a field."

Fields fill the entire universe. So we have a field giving rise to matter.

 

Here is an example of precedence. This is from the University of Cambridge

"From Fields to Particles

If you look closely enough at electromagnetic waves, you'll find that they are made out of particles called photons. The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. 

But this same process is at play for all other particles that we know of. There exists, spread thinly throughout space, something called an electron field. Ripples of the electron field get tied up into a bundle of energy by quantum mechanics. And this bundle of energy is what we call an electron. Similarly, there is a quark field, and a gluon field, and Higgs boson field. Every particle your body --- indeed, every particle in the Universe --- is a tiny ripple of the underlying field, moulded into a particle by the machinery of quantum mechanics."  
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/whatisqft.html

 

Quote

 

No, it would be akin to saying that the EM field can give rise to photons. I think I've just shown that happens.

**Oh and I might add that saying matter gives rise to gravity would be akin to saying photons create the electromagnetic field.

 

But photons are the EMF.

Quote

I have asked for evidence that shows primacy of matter before gravity. If you have this proof I would like to examine it. Without it, we cannot say that mass gives rise to gravity with any more certainty than we can say that gravity gives rise to mass. Mass and gravity appear simultaneously to each other.

I'm sure you do not believe there is any evidence at all of matter not giving rise to gravity: There is none because matter giving rise to gravity is an everyday occurrence and readily evidenced.

And I'm not sure your "simultaneously" answer is factual. Do gravitational waves appear at the exact moment of BH collision?? Or does the gravitational radiation stem from the source of the collision and the violence/force of the collision.  Does the Lense Thirring effect begin at the precise moment angular momentum starts with a massive body? and does the same Lense Thirring effect speed up as angular momentum increases? No and yes I say, which is more evidence against your proposal.

Quote

This information though is about the existence and effects of gravity, not of the primacy of matter over gravity. Perhaps primacy is not the best word. I mean that due to the inextricable nature of matter and gravity co-existing at the same time, without evidence to the contrary it cannot be claimed that matter is 'giving rise' to gravity, any more than it can be said that gravity is 'giving rise' to matter. Claiming it ain't so don't make it ain't so.

Yes the existence and effects of gravity when mass is present. Let me put it this way...gravity follows mass: eg: two BHs orbiting one another before colliding. Please show me anywhere where you move the gravity, (the spacetime curvature) and having the mass/matter magically follow it. I believe that onus rests on your shoulders.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, beecee said:

Could??? I doubt it...I doubt it very much. But I do have an astronomer friend who works in this field, and I will certainly put this to him for a reaction and opinion.

I would be very curious what he says as well. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it.

47 minutes ago, beecee said:

But photons are the EMF.

Photons arise from the EMF. "The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. "

49 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm sure you do not believe there is any evidence at all of matter not giving rise to gravity: There is none because matter giving rise to gravity is an everyday occurrence and readily evidenced.

Can you give me an example? Is it evidenced in the same way that the magnet 'gives rise' to the magnetic field?

51 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yes the existence and effects of gravity when mass is present. Let me put it this way...gravity follows mass: eg: two BHs orbiting one another before colliding. Please show me anywhere where you move the gravity, (the spacetime curvature) and having the mass/matter magically follow it. I believe that onus rests on your shoulders.

How about when a heavy celestial body passes close to another much smaller celestial body and throws it out of orbit without even touching it?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Does the Lense Thirring effect begin at the precise moment angular momentum starts with a massive body? and does the same Lense Thirring effect speed up as angular momentum increases? No and yes I say, which is more evidence against your proposal.

I suggest this is evidence for my proposal, not against it. If gravity was arising from the massive body we would expect a one to one correspondence between angular momentum and the Lense Thirring effect. The fact that there is a delay suggests that the mass is acting on the gravity, but the gravity is responding slowly. It is its own entity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

I would be very curious what he says as well. If you could let me know I'd appreciate it.

Already E-Mailed him and the reply will be posted when I receive it.

Quote

Photons arise from the EMF. "The ripples of the electric and magnetic fields get turned into particles when we include the effects of quantum mechanics. "

I don't see how the duel nature of light supports your hypothesis.

Quote

I suggest this is evidence for my proposal, not against it. If gravity was arising from the massive body we would expect a one to one correspondence between angular momentum and the Lense Thirring effect. The fact that there is a delay suggests that the mass is acting on the gravity, but the gravity is responding slowly. It is its own entity.

I think you are grasping at straws. If the Sun was magically removed, it would take 8.25 minutes before earth flew off at a tangent. Gravity in GR propagates at a speed equal to "c".

That does not mean that gravity can create mass/matter. Simarilly, when you look at Alpha Centauri system tonight, you are seeing it, as it was 4.5 Years ago. That also does not support what your hypothesis says in any way. It's simply a fact that light/photons have a fixed finite, maximal universal speed.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, beecee said:

If the Sun was magically removed, it would take 8.25 minutes before earth flew off at a tangent. Gravity in GR propagates at a speed equal to "c".

I've said all along there is a relationship between gravity and matter, sure, one of many relationships gravity has. In my OP I describe mass as acting like an anchor point for gravity, giving it stability. Gravity could fold to create matter which then pins gravity in that conformation. Releasing the matter through disintegration and dispersion unpins it.

In a large scale structure such as the sun, this struggle between matter's desire to pin gravity to a certain curvature and gravity's pull against this is reflected in entropy. Entropy causes the loss of mass through energy which weakens the curvature of space around that mass. Even without the Sun magically being removed, left to its own devices and given enough time the system would right itself and gravity could shake off the shackles of matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeAL said:

I've said all along there is a relationship between gravity and matter, sure, one of many relationships gravity has. In my OP I describe mass as acting like an anchor point for gravity, giving it stability. Gravity could fold to create matter which then pins gravity in that conformation. Releasing the matter through disintegration and dispersion unpins it.

In a large scale structure such as the sun, this struggle between matter's desire to pin gravity to a certain curvature and gravity's pull against this is reflected in entropy. Entropy causes the loss of mass through energy which weakens the curvature of space around that mass. Even without the Sun magically being removed, left to its own devices and given enough time the system would right itself and gravity could shake off the shackles of matter.

Speculative stuff at best. Show some empirical  evidence of what you claim, which you have not imo done as yet.....just claims and alternative interpretations.

 

 

PS: Just receieved a reply from Professor Geraint Lewis....

I wrote.......

To: Geraint Lewis <geraint.lewis@sydney.edu.au>
Subject: matter and gravity.

 

Hi Professor, long time since I have asked asked for your time and some expertise. I hope as you have done in the past, you can help me out on this one. It actually concerns itself with a debate about whether gravity can exist without matter/energy and whether gravity can give rise to matter, rather then what I believe most of us accept, that matter gives rise to gravity by altering the geometry of spacetime. An example of gravity giving rise to matter was given with the following link...

where in part it says...."A prime example are gravitational waves, and these are also an example for the gravity of gravity: As such waves propagate, energy is transported through space. But energy is a source of gravity, so when two gravitational waves meet, they do not just pass through each other, they interact. If both waves are weak, the interaction will be almost unnoticeable, but for stronger waves, the consequences can be quite dramatic - in some cases, the collision of two gravitational waves could lead to the formation of a black hole! "

 The relevant part of course is the claim that collisions between gravitational waves could creat a BH, if they were strong enough.

 

He replied....

On 10/29/2017 7:10:40 PM, Geraint Lewis <geraint.lewis@sydney.edu.au> wrote:

 Hi –

The statement is (more or less) correct – Yes, you can have an empty universe with no matter in it – and the space-time in that universe could carry gravitational waves. And yes, colliding waves could create a black hole – but a black hole is not “mass” – it is a structure in space-time.

 

Hope this helps – and that you have bought my book!

 

Cheers - Geraint

 

 

-- 

//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\

Geraint F Lewis,                 

Professor of Astrophysics

Sydney Institute for Astronomy

School of Physics A28 

 The University of Sydney  

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

It has It has certainly cleared up a misconception that I had...I hope it has done so for you too.

 

       

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woo hoo! 

Thanks for sharing the reply.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Speculative stuff at best. Show some empirical  evidence of what you claim, which you have not imo done as yet.....just claims and alternative interpretations.

The empirical data is already there. I'm just giving it ontological meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MikeAL said:

Woo hoo! 

Thanks for sharing the reply.

The empirical data is already there. I'm just giving it ontological meaning.

No probs, I had every intention of sharing the reply. Note carefully, he does not say anything about gravity creating matter, and which I specifically asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.