Mordred Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 Also, the detection of "unseen" entities by the effect they have on other things has a long history and is not that surprising. A notable example is Neptune (which I have seen referred to as "the original dark matter") which "was mathematically predicted before it was directly observed" (1). So Neptune was made up because the equations don't work without it. It took 65 years from the original suggestion befoire Neptune was identified. A similar story with neutrinos. Conservation laws led to the suggestion that there were unseen particles. It, again took a few decades to detect these. Implausibly, they could travel through several light years of lead without any effect. Obviously such ridiculous particles can't exist. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune Today we understand how neutrinos can pass through lead without interactions. The SO(10) model with the Higgs field holds some promise on solving both dark matter and energy. Mathematically it's plausible. Just need more data Here is a small collection of related material. DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 First two articles deal with possible detection of dark matter via xray interactions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 We've had this discussion before AJB. While the EM field can be modeled on a flat background stage, and work perfectly well, the field equivalent in GR is space-time, with no background stage, and gravity ( or more exactly, curvature ) as a property of space-time. And while I suppose its just a 'point of view', I was implying that these are the commonly used models, and alternate models are possible, but may be more 'cumbersome' to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 6, 2015 Author Share Posted January 6, 2015 I wanna thank everyone who took the time to post on this subject. This biggest issue that bugged me about GR was that there was no physical description of what space time is. How can nothing be curved to influence the acceleration of physical objects like the sun, or a planet? We say that spacetime is curved, and then we also say it is nothing. Maybe I would have to ask Einstein himself. "How can the curvature of nothing, effect the physical path of something?"...What is creating the influence? What is causing the curve, and what about the curve is causing an effect on matter? And what about matter is causing spacetime to curve? All other fields and particles are effects of energy and they do exist in some type of physical state and can be detected. But space-time seems to be this thing which can be manipulated, but still, has no physical properties. It just seems unlikely to impossible. For something to be effected by something, there must be communication between the 2 somethings. What is the communicating force between my body and the earth? Gravity? through what medium does it communicate? Are little particles of gravity radiating onto my body and telling it which way to be accelerated? Waves need something to wave through...Fields need energy to create them, so it seems they do have a physical property of at least energy.When encountering the issues with lack of mass in the universe to account for our current expansion, or to deal with gravitational measurements of galaxies, I thought it more feasible that gravity was acting in ways that we did not understand rather than to create the need for more unknown mass. The possibility that gravity grows between objects, the closer they are to each other, it seems possible that to measure the gravitational influence of an entire galaxy took more than simply adding up the individual gravitational influences of the individual masses. Possibly, gravity becomes much stronger in these cosmological settings, just as the influence of gravity is much less in quantum settings. I dreamt up compressive foam because it does give a physical impetus to create curves and waves. I kinda used the yin yang model for inspiration. The universe being the whole, it is made up of 2 elementary dimensions...One being space-time and the other being mass-energy. As the yin yang suggests, these 2 dimensions cannot mix. It occurred to me that our physical universe is the place where those 2 dimensions meet, and the forces of the universe are simply the ways that they attempt to interact. Space-time finds ways to deal with the intrusion of mass-energy, and mass energy finds ways to exist within space-time. And all of it is dictated by the rules and forces. Alas, I am no mathematician...I have no math to back up these notions and I do see how that is an issue. It was all a big thought experiment. thanks again to those who took the time to consider anything I said...I understand why my posting may be trashed and I do not take it personally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 AJB asked me a couple questions and I wanted to address them.I did my best to explain my theory earlier in the post, but it doesn't alter GM in many respects. It's just a different way of seeing it, a different MODEL...It explains things like time dilation, length dilation and black holes. I was also trying to unify the forces and give quantum gravity an explanation. I don't know if you read it, but the nuclear strong force is seen as quantum gravity. I have no idea if someone else has proposed that idea. It may be too ridiculous for those who know about the strong force. Gravity does seem to work a bit different from quantum to cosmological models, and it seemed possible to assume that GR works differently at certain mass proportions...It seems to me that GR doesn't work for quantum gravity and it also doesn't work for cosmological models. Why is it that GR works fine in solar systems without the need for dark matter and dark energy? But needs a majority of dark energies to figure for galaxies? While in the search for dark matter and dark energy, I assumed they were not factual findings yet. So yes, it does reduce to GR almost completely, and it seems very compatible with observational cosmology. As far as I can tell from GR, no one has ever thought to care about HOW and WHY it exists. Most energies have a cause. I was seeking a cause for why spacetime is being bent. Why does it curve spacetime in the first place? I was never arguing with the results of those curvatures and how they dictated gravity until it got to galactic and universal models where is doesn't seem to work as well. So really, all I was trying to do was add to GR to help it through its troubles...namely, dark matter and quantum mechanics...So I had to make spacetime into some type of field and I had to show a way that the field could be effected by the presence of mass...Since the field was actually changing in geometry, I found that spacetime was not homogenous in this view, and dark matter and dark energy would no longer be needed to explain universal cosmology. it was desperate, but beautiful...I was pretty proud of myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Ok I had more sleep plus it's not 2 am. First off you need to look at the strengths and range of each force. Then you need to learn that not all particles are influenced by the 4 forces. Gravity strong weak and electromagnetic. Strong range 10^-15 metres. Strength 1. Force carrying boson gluon Electromagnetic range infinite str 1\137 roughly force carrying boson photon K Weak range 10^-18 meters, str 10^-6, Force carrying boson w-,w+,z_0 Gravity infinite, str 6*10^-36 force carrying boson hypothetical graviton. Now let's look at a neutrino. Neutrinos are weakly interactive. It's only interactions is the weak force and gravity it does not interact with the strong force or the electromagnetic. So how does it have mass? It gains mass from the Higgs field. now dark matter Is also weakly interactive. The main difference between it and the neutrino is we haven't confirmed a weak force interaction. (Latest theories is that it may be a right hand neutrino =type of antineutrino). Key note based on SO(10) particle physics model mass from the Higgs field is primarily restricted to quarks and neutrinos. mass of other particles is due to the strong force. Although gravity has infinite range its strength quickly falls of the further you go from the source. There is plenty of regions between large scale structures that have little to no matter. These areas also have very little gravity. This is where the cosmological constant has the most influence. Think of matter and radiation as positive vacuum. Think of dark energy as negative vacuum. As there is more regions with extremely weak gravity the cosmological constant can cause expansion. In regions of strong gravity the cosmological constant has no known influence. (The energy density per volume of the cosmological constant is 6*10^-10 joules per cubic meter.). This is easily overpowered by localized gravity. The FLRW metric that describes how our universe evolves uses the ideal gas laws. I mentioned energy density and its relation to pressure. The equations of state show this relation. See here for details http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) I already explained that gravity can only influence particles. As well as explaining that space time is a descriptive of coordinates. Relativity is a coordinate dependant model As you look like someone truly interested in learning I'd like to recommend these articles ( the first two is written by me and checked over by several undergrads to professors in Cosmology). The rest are officially peer reviewed with the exception of the balloon analogy page but it's also been looked over by some of the same people that reviewed my two articles. The site does not show anything beyond textbook models Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What'sin a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh Ps yes there Is there is brief info on each subject. That's due to the number of questions and misconceptions on your last post. I highly recommend breaking down your individual questions to multiple threads. I guarantee you will learn more,as well as generate a larger body of posters to assist. Besides it's far more fun lol. I myself love learning By the way the shared reviewer of my articles and Phinds balloon analogy is a professor of philosophies of Cosmology Brian Powell. Lol he and I have years of history in debates. His current specialty is in inflation One of his articles Is included on the list I have a copy of his dissertation in my files, little over 1200 pages. Helped with proof reading Edited January 7, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) It is the 'communication' between masses that you refer to in post #78, JohnSSM, which Einstein detested. In Newtonian gravity, what tells a test mass that it is in the influence of the gravitational field of another mass ? Einstein did not like this 'action at a distance' ( even in later years when dealing with the EPR paradox and entanglement ), so GR takes away that need for 'communication' between the gravitating mass and the test mass. The test mass is not being told what to do by the gravitating mass, but is simply following geodesic paths in space-time. Now, you being fairly perceptive, have noticed that this is simply a moving of the goalposts. There is no longer a need for 'communication' between the masses as the test mass is just following space-time curvature. But how is the gravitating mass 'communicating' with local space-time to 'tell' it how to curve ? We understand the causes, the magnitudes and propagation speed of space-time curvature ( gravity ), but unfortunately, not the mechanism. Maybe a quantum field theory of gravity will give some insight into a mechanism for the 'bending' of space-time. P.S. Its been refreshing discussing this with you. A lot of people who post in Speculations don't take too well to criticism of their pet theory. Hope you stick around, learn, teach, and make some friends. Edited January 7, 2015 by MigL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 In all honesty I always hated the terms bending twisting creation of space time. These terms always misconstrued a non existent fabric. When the model is specifically discussing relativity influences upon 4d geometric relations upon particles that reside in the geometric volume of space. Gravity influences mass. P.S. Its been refreshing discussing this with you. A lot of people who post in Speculations don't take too well to criticism of their pet theory. Hope you stick around, learn, teach, and make some friends. I fully agree with this it is incredibly irritating to spend considerable time and energy on those with no desire to learn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 In all honesty I always hated the terms bending twisting creation of space time. These terms always misconstrued a non existent fabric. When the model is specifically discussing relativity influences upon 4d geometric relations upon particles that reside in the geometric volume of space. Gravity influences mass. .... Do you think we could ever get to say "Mass causes time dilation" and "time dilation results in gravity" instead of saying "Gravity influences mass"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 By the way I gave you rep +1 when you mentioned my mistakes due to too long a day. ( just finished crunching a 120 hour work two week pay period into one week, 40 km from North pole) Do you think we could ever get to say "Mass causes time dilation" and "time dilation results in gravity" instead of saying "Gravity influences mass"? Interesting question. Let me think on that Ps gotta give my wife some attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 That is a lot of info! Since I only study different aspects of physics as I need to look for them myself, its cool to have a handpicked reading list from someone else...But I must tell you, I know practically everything you mentioned above. The problem is, I don't agree with it all. I did learn about General relativity and the standard model of physics and have kept up with the higgs boson and what they have found out and what they still do not know. You may be rushing it a bit with some of your statements.Gravity being infinite is one I question. Ive looked for tests and such. Its still a hypothetical in my viewpoint. Of course, after so many years, I think of it all in terms of my foam...ha...but truly, when gravity is created by a spherical radiation of compression within a substance that can be compressed, the substance will find its way back to being unaffected and smooth again. In my theory, the only curves in space have axis around an object, which means the curves don't go on forever, they go round and round...the compression is what dissipates into space and eventually, depending on how much displacement, or gravity you begin with, the foam of space finds its own neutral again...Its one place where I disagree with GR and I realize how big that difference is. Could make a big difference in those cosmological numbers, eh? How can we test is gravity is truly infinite to whatever barriers spacetime may or may no provide...a sloped line is sloped forever...compressing is allowed to decompress...I always tied the energy needed to regain the "resting" nature of spacetime to the cosmo constant...So I actually agree more with original GR more than most...maybe it wasn't his biggest blunder...The idea that the nuetrino gets its mass from only the higgs field does not sit well with me as fact. I assume "the mass of other particles" means protons and neutrons? So youre saying that the quarks that make up protons get their mass from the higgs field...and protons and neutrons, although being made of quarks gets mass from the strong interaction? That would be totally new info for me. And if factual, I would want to find a really good reference...Ill go looking soon. But we are still waiting on lots of test info to come back about higgs bosons and mass, As far as I know.The final bit I have a little fuzziness on is saying "gravity can only influence particles"...IM not so much a particle junky...I still believe in waves that have a beginning and end, or front and back...having a front and back is all you really need in QM to be a particle...In my mind, its like calling a tsunami a particle...it came and it stopped...front, back, particle...and its a wave...most definitely...The gravitron really seems way off...I kinda don't feel like all quantum mechanics or gravity at any scale is based on particles...I know a bunch of people will smack me, but im not comfy calling photons a particle...even if they come in a little packet..and I cant, because it doesn't gel with my spacetime foam theory...I can talk and argue from the point of standard GR...I simply don't agree with it all...The biggest thing I don't understand is how they get the geometry from space-time and why it cannot be modeled, in 3d, on a computer...Its modeled right here in our universe...im just not sure we have the model right...and who cares, cuz im not a formally educated guy with an upper level math skills or understanding...its the things that I don't understand, I suppose...and that doesn't make them true or false...Im looking for them to make more sense to me in terms of GR, but cmon...do you really think Einstein took the last step in major revisions to gravity theory? What we know now is what we will always know? It seems all theories undergo these changes until they are laws...and it aint all that often we find a law... Alas...I shall read... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This is where I stress the importance of muliple theads. TOO MANY QUESTIONS too answer accurately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This is where I stress the importance of muliple theads. TOO MANY QUESTIONS too answer accurately. Don't answer the question and I'll look at starting a thread for the first time on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Many thanks mate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 I suppose this is becoming a thread of many deep subjects...One of the fellas mentioned having an experiment or test for my theory and I have one. I don't know where to find the elements needed for the test. but here it is...I need two massive objects, mostly alone in space...a Binary system..."mostly alone in space" means far enough away from other gravity sources that they would not effect the results....One of the traits of the foam space model is that 2 areas of compression can add together to create changes in time and length dilation out in the middle of empty space...Why? the compressed space time region of one star hits the compressed space-time region of another star, and the compressive product is more than both alone. So, I suppose we would need to get into a spaceship and fly from one star to the next...through this journey, we would reach a point, in space-time, between the stars where the gravitational influence from the one in front of us is growing larger than the one behind us...the gravitation should make a smoothe slope from one to the other in this transition...in between 2 stars with the correct masses and distance apart, there should be a region of spacetime where the time dilation and length dilation increase but the gravity does not increase, simply changes the direction of acceleration.My version of a wormhole would take place in the empty space between 2 or more massive objects...like galaxies...where the cumulative compression of one galaxy mixes with the cumulative compression of the other or other galaxies, the create an area in empty space where the grid of spacetime has been smashed almost to the point of being a black hole...and you can travel through the "tunnel" created by the merging gravitational fields faster with less energy...space time is already compressed here...as if you were moving fast through space, or standing next to a massive object...to find these regions you would need very accurate knowledge of where the Gfields combine to create this effect...and with the correct vector, could travel right through it very fast...So there ya go...a test...All I need to figure out is how gravity propagates away from massive objects...what is the rate of dispersal? I know with gravity, that you must take the entire force of gravity and divide it by the amount of square footage on your given sphere...then you make the sphere larger, divide again, and the value of gravity has now shrunk simply because it has been spread thin as the sphere increases in size...But I really need to know...at what distance does gravity lose 25 percent of its energy? 50, 75, 100...I need to realize that scale before I knew how far apart planets of a certain mass have to be to make the additive compressive effect actually show up in time dilation and not gravitational force...Then I need a spaceship and a team of mathematicians to figure the results....anyone got a spaceship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 This biggest issue that bugged me about GR was that there was no physical description of what space time is. This is no different to lots of things in physics. For example, electromagnetic theory does not really tell us what the electromagnetic field 'is'. It tells us how to mathematically model electromagnetic phenomena and allows us to make predictions of such phenomena. So in general relativity you really have to adapt a similar way of thinking. We know how to model gravitational phenomena using mathematical models that use space-time without really telling us what space-time 'is'. I did my best to explain my theory earlier in the post, but it doesn't alter GM in many respects. It's just a different way of seeing it, a different MODEL...It explains things like time dilation, length dilation and black holes. Okay, so you don't actually have a new model of gravity, really you have an attempt at an interpretation of general relativity. You will need a mathematical framework to construct a model or a theory. I was also trying to unify the forces and give quantum gravity an explanation. I don't know if you read it, but the nuclear strong force is seen as quantum gravity. I have no idea if someone else has proposed that idea. It may be too ridiculous for those who know about the strong force. Now, there are some nice links between the strong force and quantum gravity; MHV amplitudes and twistor sting theory. So people have thought a lot about using ideas from QCD in quantum gravity. It seems to me that GR doesn't work for quantum gravity and it also doesn't work for cosmological models. For sure perturbative quantum GR is not well-defined, but it is of course okay as an effective theory. Also, it maybe possible that quantum GR or something close to it exhibits asymptotic safety, which means that it is well-defined as a quantum theory just not perturbativley. So yes, it does reduce to GR almost completely, and it seems very compatible with observational cosmology. Well, without a proper model we cannot really discuss this. As far as I can tell from GR, no one has ever thought to care about HOW and WHY it exists. This is more the scope of philosophy. I was seeking a cause for why spacetime is being bent. Why does it curve spacetime in the first place? The best I can really say is that 'because the field equations say so'. I cannot imagine a much better answer than that. Maybe you could try to argue something following the path from special to general relativity and some arguments about the gauge principal, but really this is in hindsight. So really, all I was trying to do was add to GR to help it through its troubles.. Again you will need to do some mathematics to help at all. The idea that the nuetrino gets its mass from only the higgs field does not sit well with me as fact. I assume "the mass of other particles" means protons and neutrons? So youre saying that the quarks that make up protons get their mass from the higgs field...and protons and neutrons, although being made of quarks gets mass from the strong interaction? Indeed, for composite particle the major contribution to the mass comes from the binding energy. The Higgs field is responsible for the mass of elementary particles. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 1. At least with EM, youre using a defined field and we know the field is there because of EM sources interacting with each other...Even the gluon field makes easy sense in a way. They have detected a constant energy there...I have very little info about the higgs field and what cool geometrical things happen to it...but it seems they just use spacetime as a field for GR which leaves it less understandable...Im not even asking what space time is truly...Im asking the impetus that spurs it. I know what spurs the EMF, I know what spurs the gluon field...I think you know what im asking, and I think I get your answer...but it does leave something still hungry...There has to be an actuality and not just a theory guiding these things....doesn't there? It gets really wacky when you say "no".2. Yes, an attempt at an interpretation, noting issues along the way. I do feel you on the need for equations to show that these ideas COULD actually explain our universal cosmology. 3. More to read about. Its good that someone else has thought of a link between the strong force and QG...its the ideas that no one else has considered that worry me 4. "Ok as an effective theory" doesn't sound glorious...One day it will fit like a glove...when we find and compute enough data, or change the theory in little ways...5. We can kinda discuss how Spacefoam theory could create a universe much like ours...Thought experiments have to be valuable tools for the physicist, right?6. How and why being the actual physical world reasons...not the godly derivative reasons...once again, the impetus...7. "because the field equations say so" is not gonna do it...before the field equations existed, this effect was still happening...I mean, the field mechanics have been operating however they operate way before field equations, or humans ever existed...right? There is a power and force that drives gravity...it exists separate from the field equations...If I figure out how a car runs with math and someone asks me why the pistons go up and down, I don't say "because my engine equations say so"...Once again, I think we see each other's point and have nowhere to go...ha...but I certainly won't stop looking for the mechanics that create the reality of the field equations...I truly believe there is no effect without a cause...I just find it so amazing that not even Einstien tried to model how the geometry appears...wouldn't creating a physical model be one of the first things you did after figuring out the math? It must be beyond 3d modelling and that really interests me and makes mewant to know how it works and how it "appears"...But itll be at least 5 or 6 years before I could understand the math if I start studying it now...and even then, maybe not at all...thanks for confirming that bit about elementary vs composite mass...there's lots to consider in just realizing that...I hope you get the chance to look at the entry about "my experiment" to test the presence of spacefoam compression...Im really glad one of you challenged me to think of an experiment...it really helps one focus even closer... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) 1. At least with EM, youre using a defined field and we know the field is there because of EM sources interacting with each other... But how is this fundamentally different to gravity? I know that there is a gravitational field (i.e. local space-time geometry) as I can see two massive objects interacting with each other. (Mod actually knowing what a field 'is', however I know how to mathematically describe it) 6. How and why being the actual physical world reasons...not the godly derivative reasons...once again, the impetus... I don't think that physics can really answer that. 7. "because the field equations say so" is not gonna do it...before the field equations existed, this effect was still happening...I mean, the field mechanics have been operating however they operate way before field equations, or humans ever existed...right? Right, gravity worked before people discovered that they could mathematically model gravity. We have to be a little careful not to confuse physics as the mathematical modelling of nature and nature itself. The best I think we can do is look for mathematical reasons within our model. Outside of that we are talking about philosophy and metaphysics. I hope you get the chance to look at the entry about "my experiment" to test the presence of spacefoam compression...Im really glad one of you challenged me to think of an experiment...it really helps one focus even closer... I am not sure I can say much about experimental tests. What you should be aware of is that general relativity has been extremely well tested to some large degree of accuracy, compatible to that of the standard model of particle physics. So far neither has really given us any clues as to 'what next'. Edited January 7, 2015 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I found the best sources for how the Higgs behaves in geometric terms is via looking at the SO(10) Model. Good articles include the SO(10) GUT models. Keep in mind though the Higgs sector is full of speculation. This speculation is specifically related to how many Higgs bosons are there? We have found and confirmed the 126 Gev Higgs. There is supersymmetry predictions of others of different masses. The Higgs also has a metastability at high temperature that affects its field strength in a Mexican hat potential. This is the seesaw mechanism. This is exciting as this seesaw mechanism may explain inflation, dark energy and dark matter. Without adding exotic particles such as the inflaton. Earlier in the thread I already posted the related articles. Unfortunately they are tricky to read as they include lie algebra. I'm still hunting for good instructional articles on lie algebra to add to my site. Just a side note all particle interactions are described involving a form of geometry. If you can afford a textbook. One of my favourites for taking the complexity out of the geometry is "Roads to Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. He covers a wide range of models in Cosmology string theory and particle physics fields such as QCD QED QFD. and quantum geometrodynamics (gravity specific) Not too many ppl are familiar with quantum flavor dynamics. QFD. The four fields cover the four forces. Collectively they are all part of QFT. I point out the above to make you aware just how large the field is on describing particle interactions. No one can claim to understand every aspect of particle physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 OK...so there's no way to describe the curvature of space without using math? Cuz I can describe and draw the curvature of an EM field...Its has a physical form we can estimate visually and view perfectly if we model the math...it seems. I can do it in two dimensions, showing a slice of the curve, or I can do it in three dimensions and show the entire formation of curves. Why not with gravity?If we just had the earth and the moon, we cannot at all describe the curvature of the spacetime between them aside from using math? Shapes have physical forms, even if only in theory, but also typically, in reality... If we draw a grid between the earth and moon, we cannot then draw the curvature of spacetime onto that grid? It cannot be done? GR models curve space but leaves no clues to what angles and slopes define the curves in regards to the positions of the two objects? nothing? We have the formulas to derive the curves, yet still they are totally unknown, by shape, to us?So if I asked, which way does spacetime curve in order to create gravity between the earth and moon, there is no answer in terms of a physical description of those curves? none? We can totally figure out the curves in GR, but have no chance in describing them? The only answer is, "there are some curves out there that make the earth and moon accelerate towards each other but we have no idea which way those curves run, no idea of the slope, no idea what form those curves take"...? You must know how wacky that sounds...you must have dealt with some of the same conflicts before understanding it and after...and even after learning the math and how it works, you can add nothing to your knowledge of curved spacetime from the period before you understood the equations? Its just curved and that's all we can hope to get? crazy If the earth and moon were just magnets and I sought only to describe their EM attraction, this could easily be done...why is this impossible with gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 What is an image? Any image is merely a representative tool to aid in understanding. Any image can be described by mathematics. Those mathematical details is where the discoveries are often found. Take for example the rubber sheet 2d coordinate image used for gravity. How many misconceptions does it cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yes...many misconceptions...this post was originally about making that model more in tune with describing the actual effects of gravity... Does GR at all describe a series of parabolas at every point around an object? Instead of a full on education....do yall know anyone who is willing to tutor on these subjects? I wanna see it all happen in front of me...the equations and how they unfold... This morning, Ive been diving into calculus and differential equations...If math is the tool to begin "seeing" and making sense of GR, I am truly blind and ignorant right now...this, my apparent frustration...I feel like Feynman described feeling...like a dumb ape who cannot make sense of something I know has been proven to make sense... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 OK...so there's no way to describe the curvature of space without using math? Cuz I can describe and draw the curvature of an EM field. Only because the maths tells you what shape the curve is. One challenge with space-time is that it requires 4 dimensions, which is quite hard to draw. It is also intrinsic curvature which may be impossible to draw. But there are various representations which are more realistic than the "rubber sheet" analogy. Halfway down this page, for example: http://www.universetoday.com/87983/astronomy-without-a-telescope-a-photons-point-of-view/ Or this, using the less well-known Gullstrand-Painlevé metric: http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 +1 I'll hunt down some good study aids. There is a series of YouTube lectures on GR with math. I'll look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnSSM Posted January 7, 2015 Author Share Posted January 7, 2015 STRANGE! That picture of the earth within a filed of grid lines that bend in twords the earth is EXACTLY what is describe in my first entry and is the vision I had of spacetime geometry many years ago...holy snoopy! My heart jumped when I saw it...now im all excited again that my vision was worth something...although from my own thoughts, it did align with something real...Maybe im getting to excited about this...but you just showed me my vision, drawn by someone else...I mean...if you read what I said about compression, that is it...WOW Mordred, did you know about this drawing? You knew that I had something with my ideas about compression...you alluded to it a few times...I have to tell you something, I did it all without an ounce of math...how could I possible come up with that out of pure thought without math if math is truly backing that model... It may be hard to understand...but to me, seeing that drawing was getting my nobel peace prize...im very excited right now... My vision of black holes inclubes parabolic patterns at the 2 axis points...this stuff is blowing my mind Here's how I feel...back to the future...marty shows up and shows the doc his own vision of the flux capacitor...that's it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yes I knew about that image that was why I tried explaining aspects where compression can be an accurate descriptive. However I wanted you to also relate compression to energy/mass density As well as being clear on what is compressing. Ie space time coordinates. Or wavelengths of light that the observer measures 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