JohnSSM Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm sure everyone is familiar with the popularized model of gravity and general relativity that features a "latex grid" with a round object "sitting" on it, presumably being pulled down by gravity, stretching the latex and changing the geometry of the grid. The first question that pops into mind is, if this effect is creating gravity, what effect is pulling the ball down into the latex sheet? It would take gravity to make gravity. The second question would be, What is the latex representing? Or, if you are bending something, what is being bent in space-time? The statement "you cannot bend something without it being some thing" does seem to make sense. So we have a model that takes gravity to make gravity and one which does nothing to discuss the "something" of space-time. I thought on this for many years and always searched for info about gravity and it's causes. The first model I envisioned was more like this. You have a huge chunk of foam and it has grid-lines as well, but they are in 3 dimensions. A big foam block that holds it's own balance of symmetry. Just imagine a 10x10 room filled with memory foam. You've got to make it clear to see the grid running perfectly within it, creating boxes. Now we need a magic balloon that inflates on it's own and starts out insignificantly small. We insert the un-inflated balloon into the center of our foam grid an we hit the magic, remote controlled, inflate button. Our balloon inflates to 1 foot in diameter. What happens to the foam? It compresses, with the area of most compression near the wall of the magic balloon. The compression of the foam would dissipate as you get farther away from the balloon, just as gravity dissipates as you get farther away from massive objects. This really seemed to be a better model for gravity and general relativity in every way. I simply added another dimension to the experiment and came up with a mechanism that would actually bend and change the nature and geometry of space-time. And Im left with why.It seemed that space-time and energy-matter could not "mix" within the same dimensions. Which is to say, in one possible dimensional perspective, they do not mix, and in that dimension, you experience gravity and the effects of general relativity.My ideas on the subject go much farther. Space-time essentially becomes an inherently perfectly uniform dimension, that is interrupted but the occurrence of matter and energy. Energy becomes a different chaotic dimension that bursts into space-time, giving matter a shape and form. E=mc2 tells us how much energy it takes that chaotic dimension of energy to burst through into the space-time foam to create subatomic particles. Creating tiny dents in that foam which result in the nuclear strong force. Imagine cereal in a bowl of milk. What keeps those Cherios together? It's a wave like effect where the slope of both cherios creates a tiny area of strong attraction. On a larger scale, this is the same effect that creates gravity. Space-time really becomes a gel-like database that tracks every piece of energy, which is nothing other than information. Not a crystalline based storage structure, more like plasma with a memory and that memory is time.What makes a black hole? Is it lots of mass? It seems to be lots of mass compressed together very tightly. You can have all the matter in the universe, but you wont have a black hole until it is compressed. Until it mashes down the walls of space-time foam, literally removing time and space from time and space. Which is why light cannot back through it without jumping through some amazing and still unknown hoops. I do believe compression is the key to bending. Since when can you even bend anything without changing it's internal geometry? Even motion seems to be a state of compression. From 10 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour, just keep smashing those miles in. Any thoughts on just the example of the model which ends after the second paragraph? The rest would take much more explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The 'rubber sheet' is atwo dimensional simplification of 4 dimensional space-time. It is presented to the layman as a simplified model for easier understanding. Do not confse the model for the reality. You know what they say about a 'little knowledge', don't you ? I would read an introductory text on Genaral Relativity, inform yourself, then, and only then, should you try and embarass yourself with a new model for GR.Which has worked extremely well and been teted extensively for 100 yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm sure everyone is familiar with the popularized model of gravity and general relativity that features a "latex grid" with a round object "sitting" on it, presumably being pulled down by gravity, stretching the latex and changing the geometry of the grid. The first question that pops into mind is, if this effect is creating gravity, what effect is pulling the ball down into the latex sheet? You are right, this analogy doesn't work. http://xkcd.com/895/ Time to learn what GR is really about! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 I'm sure everyone is familiar with the popularized model of gravity and general relativity that features a "latex grid" with a round object "sitting" on it, presumably being pulled down by gravity, stretching the latex and changing the geometry of the grid. The first question that pops into mind is, if this effect is creating gravity, what effect is pulling the ball down into the latex sheet? It is just an analogy. It is a way to picture the idea of general relativity and is nothing like a substitute for general relativity. And with that in mind I recommend the lecture notes by Carroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Since you already got two comments on your first two sentences, let me add a comment on the third sentence It would take gravity to make gravity. That is, in a sense, absolutely correct. And not really a problem. Consider classical electromagnetism: The motion of electric charges is influenced by an electromagnetic field. What creates the field? Electric charges. So it actually takes electromagnetism to make electromagnetism - at least in the sense you are referring to. The same is supposed to hold true for gravity where the role of the electromagnetic field is taken by the geometry of space (-time). The side that defines how charges (-> objects) move in the field is called the equation of motion (-> geodesic equation). The side that defines how the field (-> geometry of space) looks like as a function of the charge distribution (-> distribution of objects creating gravity) is called the field equation, which in classical electromagnetism is the Maxwell equations (-> Einstein equations in GR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 ! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations. Take a few moments to read rules of the forum and posting guidelines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 My ideas on the subject go much farther. Space-time essentially becomes an inherently perfectly uniform dimension, that is interrupted but the occurrence of matter and energy. Energy becomes a different chaotic dimension that bursts into space-time, giving matter a shape and form. E=mc2 tells us how much energy it takes that chaotic dimension of energy to burst through into the space-time foam to create subatomic particles. You do realize that E=mc2 comes from relativity, right? You were complaining about bootstrapping in an analogy, but here you have it in your purported model. How do you derive E=mc2 in your model? How does the compression model explain time dilation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 E=mc2 would show the relationship between energy and matter. I don't challenge this equation as it has been tested very accurately, I simply use it as the basis for how energy becomes matter. I see it essentially like a single slit experiment where the slit is not there already. The amount of energy required to create a slit and "break into" space-time to become a mass, would be represented by E=mc2. I think I mostly complained that the analogy doesn't really work at all and they still use it. Is this because they have not envisioned it another way? I think it's hilarious that they moved this entry to speculation. Since no one has a complete answer for gravity yet, it would all be speculation at this point.What the compression model does best, aside from just making physical sense, is explain time dilation as well as size distortions. In my theory, while next to a massive, dense object, one would be in a region of compressed space-time. Meaning that there is actually "less" of it in those compressed regions. Less space and less time. If you visualize the spherical compression model well, you will see that the only direction that the grids get smashed is towards the center of the gravitational mass. Only 1 dimension gets compressed and altered. If standing on a gravitational object, that dimension would be the dimension of height. The length of width of your body would remain the same,. Now lets just mention that the same effect happens while traveling in any direction. You shrink in the reverse direction of your motion. It's less talked about than time dilation but just as much a part of Einstein's work. I mentioned "space" dilation or length dilation first because I wanted to make a point. When you encounter time dilation either from motion or from a gravitational force you also encounter space dilation. You cant have one without the other. Its kinda like energy and mass to me. So, while near a massive object, you are existing within a region of spacetime that has less spacetime. It has been compressed by gravity. Clocks run slower as you get closer and you shrink in one dimension. And this also happens during motion. As you go faster through spacetime, you experience less of it. As if your own motion is creating the same compressive effect as a gravitational object. But only in one dimension, just like the gravitational object. The one you are travelling in. Why would this happen? Ive many thought experiments to ration it out well, but the easiest is simply imagining yourself on a highway driving by yellow pylons that are spaced 10 meters apart. If you go faster, the pylons seem to get closer together. Its a relative effect caused by your motion. And the shrinking of space and time is also a relative effect caused by your motion. I hope that does explain it well. I hope I haven't embarrassed myself again. Ha...scientists shall know no embarrassment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Since no one has a complete answer for gravity yet, it would all be speculation at this point. While it is true that we don't have a theory of quantum gravity, we do have a perfectly good theory for gravity so there is absolutely do reason to describe it as "all speculation". What the compression model does best, aside from just making physical sense, is explain time dilation as well as size distortions. Can you show us the maths that confirms your compression model produces results that match experiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 5, 2015 Author Share Posted January 5, 2015 I do have a theory about what is being compressed. The gluon field. Neutrons and protons need those gluons firing away to keep up with their quark swapping demands. What if the gluon field could only support a certain number of quark interactions within a certain amount of spacetime? What if you compressed more and more matter (and more quarks) into a certain amount of spacetime that did not have the gluon field energy to support that many hadron reactions? Perhaps it would rob its neighboring spacetime of it's gluon field energy? and by neighboring, I mean all the space time around it, from all directions...Perhaps the gluon field is what is being changed by the presence of matter. Effectively sucked in by huge energy demands, like huge amounts of compressed matter. That thinking kinda leads right into my theory of spherical compression of spacetime by matter.By the way, we don't need dark energy or dark matter anymore. They aren't going to find it anyway. Because space-time is not homogenous. Whether bent or compressed, it cannot be uniform. IF so, I need to hear that explanation. Light travels only in a straight line and it is spacetime that is warped? If that's true, show me the warping of an object where it's internal geometry is not changed. So many very smart folks cant see around that one at all. The math has already been done. We know about time dilation and length dilation. Have you tried envisioning the model or is your imagination a waste to you? Its pretty strange that one of Einstein's most famous quotes is "imagination is more important that knowledge" and we still have guys thinking that equations can solve these issues without their own creativity. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 There is a very important aspect your missing. First off let's fix this spacetime latex fabric misconception you have. Despite all the pop media articles you read. Space is simply volume. Nothing more it does not have a substance or form of mysterious matter. Space time is any mathematical model that includes the time component. Now when you hear ppl say spacetime warps stretches etc. What they really mean is that gravity has a geometric influence upon particles that occupy spacetime. Remember spacetime is simply volume with the time component in which particles occupy. Including virtual particles. Now energy density per volume is the same as pressure. Different particles exert pressure by different amounts So as gravity influences particles and higher mass regions (denser regions) has more particles per volume. You have regions with effectively greater pressure (note matter does not exert pressure) Space time warping is a distribution descriptive of the gravitational influence upon particles. It Is not stating space itself is made of some mysterious substance. Compression isn't needed as GR and particle physics can already describe space time energy density. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 The math has already been done. We know about time dilation and length dilation. So what is the point? If you don't have an alternative, hopefully better, model you are contributing nothing (imagination or not). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Your basically trying to model a misconception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 The current theories suggest that space is just a feasible mathematical volume. IF they can suggest that dark matter exists with no proof besides holes in their equations, I think Im suggesting that space time does have "substance". That which could be warped. Although electromagnetic fields are not a substance, they are there. But we don't talk about electromagnetic fields warping space-time. But with gravity, it seems, that's exactly what they are talking about. And we can also ration why electro-magnetic fields exist. If we are leaving a world where observation of physical objects is worthless and considered only a mathematical possibility, I wont be much good there...I guess what I ask myself is, did Einstein find mathematical proof for the equivalence principle before or after he thought about the guy free falling in an elevator? It was observations he made in his head about physical objects and how they act and interact...Without a doubt, I know I need to understand the math before I can truly grasp what is going on with general relativity. I have a tough time understanding all the different geometrical models to space. At 45 years old, Im thinking about going back to college to study such subjects. But I understand the effects of general relativity. Space and time are literally mapped out before us, without senses, Newton never could have observed the objects falling at the same speed. We have wickedly deep and powerful tests happening every month and there are a few happening right now that Im dying to hear the results of. Experimental physical tests are what confirms math.Im just really excited to be here, talking about this at all...and some of the harsher comments do make a very valid point. But I only suggested that the latex grid model was essentially ridiculous and they still put it on the front of physics books. I don't question general relativity. Im going for the connection between quantum gravity and general relativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Well now that you mention it... GR is a geometric theory of gravity, and you're right, EM force isn't geometric. It does not warp space-time. And we have a perfectly valid field theory for EM which, by the way, can and has been quantized, unlike gravity. However, in the early 1920s, two gentlemen, Theodore Kaluza and Oscar Klein, decided to extend GR to five dimensions ( four plus time ), and to their amazement ( and Einstein's ), found that, when the field equations are worked out, Maxwell's equations appear along with the usual GR equations. In effect, if there was a use or a need, EM could certainly be modeled as a geometric theory. Again, I urge you not to confuse the model ( geometric, field or rubber sheet ) with reality. Models usually have a limited domain of applicability, and every good scientist should know those limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Well we can definitely help you learn, provided your willing to learn. This is a basic math level textbook free, there is also a paid version for hardcopy http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ it was written by someone I know visits forums so it is also designed to answer numerous misconceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 Here are my points.The energy of momentum and the energy of matter have the same effect on space-time in regards to time and length dilation. What impetus links gravity to motion? IS the same cause, causing that same effect? Must there not be a physical effect in physics? What effect exists without a cause? So im looking for the cause of these two effects and how they may be linked. I guess my points are questions.IF all anyone can tell me is "go read an introductory book on general relativity" or "learn the math" then there must not be anything left to say. If you toy with only what is known and proven about anything, when could you ever create a theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 IF all anyone can tell me is "go read an introductory book on general relativity" or "learn the math" then there must not be anything left to say. If you toy with only what is known and proven about anything, when could you ever create a theory? You got it backwards: if you are ignorant of basic science you will never be able to create a viable theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Here are my points. The energy of momentum and the energy of matter have the same effect on space-time in regards to time and length dilation. What impetus links gravity to motion? IS the same cause, causing that same effect? Must there not be a physical effect in physics? What effect exists without a cause? So im looking for the cause of these two effects and how they may be linked. I guess my points are questions. IF all anyone can tell me is "go read an introductory book on general relativity" or "learn the math" then there must not be anything left to say. If you toy with only what is known and proven about anything, when could you ever create a theory? I did follow your topic and notice you have a model but really have no idea what is compressed. Lately I have been toying with the idea that gravity and time dilation are linked and hence can you think of the compression being time compressed. Gravitational Time dilation is in direct proportion to gravitational strength, which is proportional to mass. So can we think that mass moves into a region of time dilation, and that continual, intensifying movement is the acceleration due to gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't think im ignorant of basic science, although its a good point.I just made a quick read of some of the lightandmatter book. Ive seen and studied much of what they have covered. The math eludes me, but the explanations with the little pictures make sense, almost. It really seems that einsteins spacetime becomes something that could not be modeled. It's ripping and pulling all over the place, in every direction until you find a point in it and create a relative center...And you experience space and time and motion differently from a different relative center. But, the Universe is that model...We all see the same moon doing the same thing...Ill do more reading...I saw more books out there...I really enjoy watching old lectures on youtube...and I think I have learned a lot from watching them...Mostly Feynman....I did come here to see if anyone could answer these questions themselves. Id appreciate any commentary on anything Ive said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 I don't think im ignorant of basic science, although its a good point. I just made a quick read of some of the lightandmatter book. Ive seen and studied much of what they have covered. The math eludes me, but the explanations with the little pictures make sense, almost. It really seems that einsteins spacetime becomes something that could not be modeled. It's ripping and pulling all over the place, in every direction until you find a point in it and create a relative center...And you experience space and time and motion differently from a different relative center. But, the Universe is that model...We all see the same moon doing the same thing... Ill do more reading...I saw more books out there...I really enjoy watching old lectures on youtube...and I think I have learned a lot from watching them...Mostly Feynman.... I did come here to see if anyone could answer these questions themselves. Id appreciate any commentary on anything Ive said. Was that in response to my post? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87227-a-new-model-for-general-relativity/#entry845653 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 My latest idea of what is being compressed, I did discuss for a moment...In my theory, Its the gluon field. The gluon field exists in a vacuum. It is vacuum energy. Spacetime is never void of it. That's what some folks are claiming at this point. The gluon field is the medium for hadron reactions, namely quarks. As I discussed, the gluon field has a certain energy, and when it is excited by the presence of lots of quarks, of lots of protons and neutrons, of lots of matter, is it possible that they gluon energy is used from the surrounding space whish isn't supporting any matter? So, around really massive and compressed objects, the gluon field is being sucked into the massive object, which is really a matter of decreasing values of the gluon wavefield...those descreasing values of the field create regions that not only operate slower...(it seems the speed of everything slows down, to the speed of electron orbits)...and also lose their potential to support space...objects within this field of decreased gluon energies would not take up as much space, just as they do not use as much time...and the same effect occurs when you travel through spacetime...because as you travel though it, you experience less of it...its interesting for the loss of space, because it is always inline with the vector of the motion or gravity...as if its being crushed...time feels the full effect of compression because it only exists on one dimension...and space also feels it only in one dimension.Remember what you're old computer used to do with the graphics card had too much information than could be processed? slow down and loss of information...Im saying the gluon field can only support the reactions between so many hadrons...and as certain areas need more, it is taken from the surrounding areas...the areas that need more are areas of more matter...and interesting point about gravity...the same mass of matter will have a stronger gravitational pull when it is contained in a smaller area of space...indeed, earth, or your finger could be a black hole if you could only smash the particles together tight enough...with massive objects, the effects of gravity build up enough and create the compression from sheer gravitational forces...with your finger, or even earth, we would need some other massive force to smash all that matter small enough to do what? To completey drain the edges of the object from having gluon energy at all...effectively smashed from interacting with the rest of the grid...and a break in the gluon field doesn't exactly explain why light couldn't get out...unless photons interact with the gluon field in ways that we don't know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Your idea of compression isn't that crazy if that helps. Let's try this Before we start though let me explain something many don't think of. I'll use an unrelated analogy Person a, "I have this really cool idea for a new game, will you program it for me? Person b writes the program. Now who has ownership of that game? Person a or person b who did all the actual work programming the game? You have to realize how many posters come into the speculations forum trying to convince others to do their math for their model. Or to fill in the blanks and make their model work. Now that we covered that as xyzt posted learn the basics, then increase your understanding till you can be the programmer and perform your own math. Now to provide some helpful direction. Let's look at compression. When you compress something what increases? What key factors are involved in the observer that he has to account for? Hint say he is looking at a distant object while he is in a high gravity well or he is moving at relativistic speed towards. What factor in GR is invariant (same for all observers.) Now what observer influence is the same for the momentum case or the high gravity case? These questions are answerable using the textbooks I posted Hint forget gluons field its unrelated. Relativity does not require it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 NO robbity, that was for the folks who recommended the book...I answered you above...starting with "my latest idea" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Oh one key question. What is mass? In scientific definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now