guardian

Yes, perhaps there would be no absolute correlation but my point is that we have detected other particles including the evasive neutrino and that which pervades all (graviton) is still just a speculation. But all-in-all if the graviton was something like the neutrino, Planet A obstructing Planet B would still take the hit of gravitons and leave planet b with less and therefore less gravity during the eclipse. I think Swansont is correct in saying that my proposal (or more correctly - my understanding) of how gravitons are exchanged during gravity is not correct. But how is the correct way (with a graviton in mind) that this is achieved will lead us into even more speculation.

And I agree, so how does it interact? I guess this is still a grey area? But the strange thing is that we have all these models how other gauge bosons interact only to make an exception to the graviton. Seems like Occam would be turning in his grave. There is something fundamental missing in the picture. If this was so, then we'd have clues to the graviton in existing particle colliders however, AFAIK, they're building a collider that should be able to detect them in higher E levels. I'm just going by memory here and it's not the best nowadays.

I think I get what Parden is trying to say although the point may have gotten lost in the confusion (and perhaps some unneeded terms). And I concur unless someone can explain in QM terms not GR terms what is happening. Here goes my hopefully clearer example of what Parden brought up... Say we have a sun and two planets orbiting - planet A is closer than planet B and every now and then planet B is eclipsed by planet A. IFF there is such a 'virtual' particle as a graviton (which BTW has not been found or observed) and by QM, gravity is the exchange of this graviton particle between non-massless particles THEN during the eclipse planet B would not be exchanging the same amount of gravitons because the sun (the source of most of the gravitons) would be blocked by planet A. If this graviton is truly the cause behind gravity would a drop in gravity not be already observed on earth during a lunar eclipse? And yes, it can easily be explained using GR etc. but that is not the point here, I am questioning the reasoning behind a graviton when we have already come to the conclusion that gravity is caused by space-time curvature.

Another way to put it is - you're using 2 reference frames to come to the conclusion that both clocks are slow. You're mixing reference frames. If you pick one reference frame though you'll find that the clock (that's not with you) is slow and yours is just fine and vice versa (from the other reference frame). SO from 1 reference frame both clocks ARE NOT SLOW.

...that's the problem right there, most will stop at imagining a particle - that's not all that is going on IMHO. If you imagine anything moving you automatically assume space but the way we imagine space may not be entirely representative of reality

I too find visualisation a very helpful and powerful tool in modelling reality. And I beg to differ in that it could be used to model the quantum world 100%. The problem however lies in understanding and consequently being able to visualise (and model in your mind) that which the quantum world inhabits - space and more precisely dimensionality. Einstein was on the right track and his preoccupation in the famous 1905 paper was with space and how it could be geometrically modelled to represent reality (I recently re-read the 1920 translation for the umpteenth(?) time). Einstein was a great 'visualisation' expert and that no doubt led to his relativity theorems however I believe he was not correct in assuming that space cannot be geometrically modelled and still completely and unequivocally represent reality. Although approximatelly correct his model is not complete. This approximation makes little difference when relativity is applied on the macro scale but as we know it falls apart in QM. This to me suggests that either one (relativity) or the other (QM) are only approximations or both are. Not being able to visualise and subsequently model space correctly has led to the problems we have found ourselves dealing with. Of course this makes a big difference when one tries to visualise particle-wave duality - we and all particles exist in space - if we have that part only approximately right then no wonder we can't visualise what's happening on the quantum level.

Conceptual, very interesting to say the least - I have not looked into all the detail though. This however has made me think ...what about all the 1st generation particles created in accelerators, do they also decay/'not last as long' as the same particles not created in accelerators? I'd be interested to know whether this is really true, I mean it makes sense for 2nd & 3rd generation particles to decay but what about stable 1st generation ones from accelerators.

Exactly Conceptual, very well put!

Yes, it would seem that perception of 'simpler' has a lot to do with how one analyzes in this case. It is not a bad thing, merely an approximation. If the approximation works for a problem at hand - it's good. The atom here may seem less complex if you take it as being fundamental because you have approximated the particles/interactions within it (some aspects of it are 'hidden' in such a view). If I were to model an atom (not as fundamental) by mapping and considering all particles and interactions within it - it would neccessarily be more complex than each of its constituents (alone?), IMO. String theory is merely a figment of our imagination until proven - which it hasn't done for 20 odd years *sigh*.

Perhaps Severian, but more elegant does not neccessarily translate to simpler. Take the Newtonian gravitation formula as compared to Einstein's relativistic one, as slow as my eyes may move they still see that one is more complex than the other. And I agree, relativity is very elegant.

...I agree, *feels unpopular*. I have great respect for mathematics but as you say it does not neccessarily reflect reality. As mentioned previously, it may very well be the case that some of our current mathematical representations of reality/observation are mere approximations that in itself hinder us to plug up the holes that they themselves have created.

Vanitas, I guess it may be interpreted as rhetorical(?). There is a degree of error in ANY measurement so really no one can say with absolute certainty only with increasing precision (with increasingly better techniques) what the true speed of light is. Although the uncertainty is small - compare it to pi the certainty is only as good as the number of decimal places. I hope I worded that right. Thanks to BigMoosie though (no sarcastic overtones), that part of my post should really be ignored it has little or no bearing really on the theme of the post. My bad. Thanks for the input & I'll check your link out shortly.

Yes BigMoosie, that is what you'd imagine would happen but this effect would only be prominent on a very small scale, on the order of atomic/quantum scale perhaps where this curvature is extremely high and 'strong' for the lack of a better word (could this be why energy is somewhat 'locked' as mass in particles? - just thinking out loud). As the spatial dimensional wave radiates outward its strength diminishes on the order of 1/(r^2)...starting to see a resemblance? and the curvature starts to be less prominent as r increases, obviously. Have a lot of mass in relatively close proximity (ie. mass of the earth) and the spatial dimensional waves stack and interfere to create, hmm, curvature on a larger scale ie.gravity...perhaps. As I mentioned it is not a theory. My point was to question something that everyone has taken for granted (x,y,z space interpretation) and substitute with something that seems a little more logical (although for some this would seem counter-intuitive). I've only plucked this spherical dimensional geometry out because it makes more sense than what we currently have and it's the next best thing. I only hope that physics/science has room for logic. It may well be that it is also an approximation to something even simpler but for the time-being that's what I am hoping to start making computer simulations of. Although I am afraid at the quantum scale this would take perhaps millions of spherical dimensional interactions to start getting any results that we can correlate to 'observation'. And it is not random, it seems the best logical model considering spherical 'tendency' observed in the universe. Re-read my original post and you will see there's method to the madness, not randomness. It seems though (from the lack of input to a rather simple question) that not many here are willing to admit that our interpretations of something like space (dimensionality) could be askew. And BTW, I tried to stay away from saying that we have been 'wrong' with our interpretations (although it may have slipped) rather I claim that we are approximating. Thanks again BigMoosie

I guess I've asked for it. Although it would stand better as a separate post this theory that you've come accross assumes that space and time 'existed long before our universe exploded into physical reality'. Is this string theory or a variation of it or completely new theory. Care to post a reference/link? Personally, I don't support the brane-collision (M-Theory?) myself or string theory in general. It's been going too long with no real testable/falsifiable predictions but then again...fads do eventually fade away But to keep my topic going and with reference to 'String Theory' as far as I understand the 'strings' are one-dimensional open-ended/closed-loop energy vibrations. Could these possibly be what I am describing as a vibrating 'spherical' dimension? *post feels somewhat hijacked*

At first glance it would seem so and 'spherical' is a little misleading. 3d space is traditionally interpreted as (for example) an x-y plane stacked in increasing z direction (or whichever planes you want to pick) each 2d plane is infinate and flat however, what I am describing is the surface of a sphere as being a finite dimensional plane (that's where the 'spherical' comes from) for an increasing r. As you stack these similarly to the traditional interpretation you will finish up with a sphere and the traditional x,y,z can be interpreted as fitting within it hence our traditional views may be quite a good approximation to it. The perplexing part may be that there is not 1 of these (ie. emanating from some central point in the universe which clearly is not so - there is no central point as far as we know) but from every particle/energy origin. Does that clear it up a little? Thanks for taking the time - I was starting to think I'm re-inventing the wheel (although I may still be )

Ok, still not the discussion I was after really but no skin off my back. Perhaps I've buried the question in the long post, or perhaps it does not seem important, or perhaps you may feel it is too ridiculous(?) to discuss so let me 'rephrase' the question: Is it not possible that we have the wrong interpretation of space (dimensionality) itself? We interpret space as infinate x,y and z directions and most of physics uses this premise. In fact I am pretty sure ALL of physics uses this premise BUT we know (from relativity) that mass, energy and SPACE (3d or otherwise) is intimatelly related. Space is not a stand alone uniform property of the universe as it has been proven time and time again to be affected (curvature) by mass/energy. My point and the reason for my post in the first place is that to me space (or dimensionality really) is more fundamental than anything else that we try to explain away yet we take it at face value to be x,y,z directions, leave it at that and then go basing everything else off of it. That's why I bring up the spherical (geometry) dimension that all matter (and to some much weaker extent energy) 'creates' dimensionality for itself. However this type of dimensional system is NOT the same as spherical polar coordinate system because even this system is preoccupied with x,y,z directions - it just represents coords. as (r,angle). Some other questions you are welcome to discuss that are related to my probing... - Was space here before the universe ? ie. did the universe expand into space (already dimensional) or was space (dimensionality) 'created' during the creation (big bang or otherwise) of the universe? - If you believe space (dimensionality) was 'bourne' out of the universe how can you imagine it expanding in x,y,z directions (really resembling a cube) rather than all directions in increasing r(adius) - ie. spherical. Note I am talking about space and dimensionality not the other contents of the universe (particles/energy). - Also, similar to the bolded question, is it not possible that if we have the wrong interpretation of this all-permeating property of the universe ie. dimensionality that a cascading effect of wrong interpretations (although as mentioned approximately correct) of all else will ensue? Something else to consider for those that can 'visualise' the concept of spherical (1-dimensional) space, I suggest that a flat x-y plane for example is an APPROXIMATION to the surface of a curved spherical dimension when viewed from large distances of the dimensionality-generating particle/energy. Did I confuse yet? Something else that strikes me as odd. We have been trying so hard (and so far in vain) to explain away gravity (perhaps not worded right but I hope you get my drift) yet no-one tries to explain dimensionality which is even more mysterious, in my opinion. Some input would be greatly appreciated

Klaynos, spherical polar is not quite what I have in mind. Spherical polar is essentially built on the same concept of 3 dimensional space. The spherical geometry coord. system 'concept' I have in mind is built on a 1 spherical dimension increasing in r essentially from every energy point/particle. This way you could somewhat 'visualise' energy radiation as energy 'riding' the spatial (spherical) dimension at c. The overlapping (or interference if you like)of these dimensional spherical waves when enough are stacked could start adding up to gravity. Does that make any sense? BigMoosie, point taken.

BigMoosie, that is quite obvious Clearly, as stated, one has nothing to do with the other, I am merely pointing out the similarity. I can make r = 3*10^8 (approx. of course) and I can make m = 3.14..... etc. It is equally pointless because as stated the units will NOT match. One is clearly E(nergy) and the other A(rea). I am just pointing out a similarity in the form of the 2 equations. Perhaps with some type of well formulated spherical geometry coord. system a connection can be drawn - but then again maybe not.

yes, I am quite aware of that one too but if the GR model is yet another approximation (although we have not found to my knowledge a significant or any deviation) then my 'thesis' may well still be on the right track. I suppose if this WAS a theory one could look for a deviation to GR (however small). Or one could look to derive the same from a spherical geometric coord system.

very true, I did generalise that one a little too much. What would the electron cloud (assuming 1 electron) resemble around a nucleus? And do we have a physical(?) model of a quark or is that too indeterminate?

I believe I am posting this in the correct section. This is not a theory rather just a perhaps not-so-simple question regarding our understanding of space. If you feel this belongs better in pseudo-science, so be it, please move it. I'd like a nice discussion of the points brought up and if anything is misleading/incorrect please let me know. Observing how physics is unravelling and dwelving deeper into the fundamental building blocks of our universe I can't help but see how more complex theories/models/formulae etc. are getting to describe what should be ever more simpler building blocks (particles/energy at fundamental level) and their interaction. As physicists try to unify the four forces in one model we get ever more bizzare models like string theory, quantum gravity and from pseudo-scientific (or fringe-scientific) sources even stranger models. To me this seems a little odd. To describe fundamental particles and their interactions it should stand to reason that ever more simpler models should suffice not the other way around. Eventually, this reduction should lead to a handful or less of simple 'phenomena' (for the lack of a better word) and interactions that spawn everything else in increasing complexity. Anyway, what I believe is happening is that although heading in the right direction (towards modelling the fundamental particles/interactions as best as we can for now) we have boarded the wrong train (of thought) and are on the wrong track. This DOES NOT mean that all the work that has been done up to now (and has been proven to correlate with observations) is wrong, it is not, but rather just an approximation based on a perhaps innaccurate starting point. This is similar to the Newtonian gravity equations - they were merely an approximation that worked quite accurately for massive objects but had quite large error domains for quantum/micro interactions - enter Einstein with relativity and voila the approximation gets even more accurate but is it the final cut? Perhaps and perhaps not. - this is not my question however. Enter space-time and the way we have modelled it and based almost all our work on. My point is this, although accurate for most intents and purposes our representation of space-time as 3 spatial dimensions (x,y,z directions) + time may well be ONLY AN APPROXIMATION that was bourne out of our rather 'primitive' (again words fail me) observation of our surroundings. Sure it is easy to say (looking at an object) it has height, width & breadth hence the cartesian coordinate system and various other geometrical derrivatives (can't remember the names now) BUT is that how space was formed (presumably during + post the big bang). Can we really say with absolute certainty that somehow a point of 0 dimension in nothing expanded in x,y & z directions. Well, for MOST intents and purposes yes, this is good enough & off we go modelling reality/equations etc with x, y, z coordinates & the complexity begins. Instead of getting simpler, to try to unify, we have added extra spacial dimensions (calabi-yau & string theory & derrivatives) as if things weren't complex enough as it is. Now to the crunch. What if we have the wrong view of space itself. Being innaccurate with would make a rather HUGE difference because almost everything is modelled on our perception of it. Notice how universally everything has a 'tendency' to be spherical (or close enough) ie. astronomical objects (planets, suns, large non-shrapnel moons), solar systems (although planar they were formed physicists theorise from spherical cosmic dust clouds), galaxies, atoms, particles?, waves of energy (propagate spherically from point of origin), probability waves etc. Now something else that struck me as little peculiar (& I KNOW THEY'RE DIFFERENT UNITS AND ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER) BUT nevertheless do you see a similarity (& similarity only in form): E=m*c^2 AND A=pi*r^2 ...both have a constant that cannot be known precisely ie. pi can only be approximated and I believe c is the same (although measured, to what precision is it?). Thinking about this (and perhaps too much - ouch) space may not be 3 dimensional (although it can be interpreted as such) but rather 1 dimensional. How? - you ask. Simple. Consider an expanding sphere. The surface of the sphere is the PLANE - as in for example x-y plane BUT this plane is curved and is NOT infinate like x,y,z directions only r is infinate(?). Start from a tiny sphere and stack ever increasing r(adius) spheres - and you have SPACE. Just like with an x-y plane for an ever increasing z direction we have space. This is where I believe our geometrical representation of the 'universe'/space may be fundamentally flawed. Although approximatelly correct (and good enough) the more detail we want to understand the more erroneous our current view will get. Now instead of adding dimensions to unify, perhaps the dimensions (and resulting models) should be reduced to a 1 dimensional spherical geometry system and all (well most because some are already in the form - especially the ones that deal only with radius as compared to x,y,z distances) equations be transformed into this spherical coordinate system. Then we may see how our current formulae reduce to perhaps a simpler form. Sorry about the length but there is no simpler way to explain without compromising understanding. Your thoughts on the above would be greatly appreciated. As said this is only a question and in summary: Is it not possible that we have the wrong/innaccurate understanding of space and its dimensions? I am at your mercy

The high energy charged particles (electrons) appear to travel faster than light and in the Cerenkov radiation will beat light from A to B but this is due to light appearing to travel slower in any medium (air, glass, water etc.). Light travelling through a medium like water still travels at c but the photons of the light are being absorbed and re-emitted as they travel - this takes additional time and makes the light appear to travel slower. The highly energetic charged particles (in your reference) do not undergo this absorption/re-emission like the light does and with enough energy can actually beat the photons of the light. Someone may want to expand more (if needed) or correct me if I've garbled something up. Cheers

Time - not a particle. As pointed out by others, it's a dimension but, IMO, only by convention. By convention because it is the effect of change and inherently energy by which change propagates. Gravitons are mere predictions but as Severian pointed out to propagate at c they would have to be massless. Has this propagation of gravity (at c) been confirmed yet? And there is a Time magazine but has nothing to do with physics. ...my first post on SFN, so please, take it easy