The unbearable lightness of being... Gravity.
Discussion
As promised we need to take a look at Gravity.
We have to detach our thoughts about gravity as we experience it every day, this is not about falling apples, shattered cups, planets orbits or Black holes.
I'm going to try to explain the various Hypotheses that abound and dedicate a single post to each over the coming days/weeks.
The first thing that I have to tell you right from the outset that there is no definite answer to why gravity is how it is, so everything here will be a step into uncharted waters.
For this first post I'll try my best to show you how I as a Theoretician sees gravity, but we start with Electromagnetism, because Gravity and EM to be closely related, but in a very intriguing way.
EM is bi-polar, it has a +ve and a -ve and this is well understood but Gr is mono-polar, it is always +ve, we can find no -ve gravity anywhere and we've tried, we've really tried.
We've considered Einsteins Cosmological Constant as being some form of negative gravity only for it to not be so and countless others have tried to find a -ve gravity somewhere in the Cosmos.
All to no avail.
So it is looking increasingly likely that we have to accept that there really is no -ve gravity.
We have to seek understanding in that light alone.
That means fundamentally we have to look at gravity as a 'different' type of field to those we understand today.
I've mentioned before that a field can be seen in the minds eye as an infinite number of infinitely fine wires that fill the cosmos and there are dozens of these structures occupying the same space, they all have behavioural traits some follow rules of probability we give names to others follow other more general rules of probability and the coincidences of these probabilities of various fields give rise to particles, but at this level the particles are as much giving realisation to the fields as the other way 'round.
I have described these peaks in probabilities as simply 'kinks' in the wires, that worked for the basic idea of fields to lodge in your mind, but we have to now give a fuller picture of these kinks, they are not 'dimensional' at all, the kinks are simply a number.
For simplicity think of those wires as being made of a series of zeroes and occasionally they increase to (say) 1 to 9 (the real numbers would be far more complex) the zeroes don't interact and the 1 to 9 have the opportunity to.
Now, if you think of this dense network of wired zeroes in 3d you can see that you can get an infinite or near infinite line of zeroes in any direction so it is as if there isn't a single series of wires but more like a fluid.
This is the next step in comprehension, to see a field as a 3d infinitely granular construct, that in 'free space' (say the space between you are the monitor you're reading this on) is made of largely zero probability.
At this point you are a bit lost, I'll try to help you...
When you are looking at these words on your screen the photons from the screen travel to your eyes in straight lines and suffer little degradation, think of Photons as being zero mass items, they too are a type of zero and they encounter only zeroes between your eyes and the screen, but if between you and your screen someone is sitting to your right looking out the window that is to your left, they see perfectly well what is outside, their view is not 'corrupted' by the images hitting your eyes, there is no 'blurring' of their image and there is no 'blurring' of your image of the screen because they are looking across your stream of photons.
It is important to realise the importance of the 'zero' probability landscape of vision and the zero mass of the photon.
I'll stop there to allow anyone to gain any needed clarification, try not to jump ahead and just concentrate on what we have so far... we have a long way to go...
We have to detach our thoughts about gravity as we experience it every day, this is not about falling apples, shattered cups, planets orbits or Black holes.
I'm going to try to explain the various Hypotheses that abound and dedicate a single post to each over the coming days/weeks.
The first thing that I have to tell you right from the outset that there is no definite answer to why gravity is how it is, so everything here will be a step into uncharted waters.
For this first post I'll try my best to show you how I as a Theoretician sees gravity, but we start with Electromagnetism, because Gravity and EM to be closely related, but in a very intriguing way.
EM is bi-polar, it has a +ve and a -ve and this is well understood but Gr is mono-polar, it is always +ve, we can find no -ve gravity anywhere and we've tried, we've really tried.
We've considered Einsteins Cosmological Constant as being some form of negative gravity only for it to not be so and countless others have tried to find a -ve gravity somewhere in the Cosmos.
All to no avail.
So it is looking increasingly likely that we have to accept that there really is no -ve gravity.
We have to seek understanding in that light alone.
That means fundamentally we have to look at gravity as a 'different' type of field to those we understand today.
I've mentioned before that a field can be seen in the minds eye as an infinite number of infinitely fine wires that fill the cosmos and there are dozens of these structures occupying the same space, they all have behavioural traits some follow rules of probability we give names to others follow other more general rules of probability and the coincidences of these probabilities of various fields give rise to particles, but at this level the particles are as much giving realisation to the fields as the other way 'round.
I have described these peaks in probabilities as simply 'kinks' in the wires, that worked for the basic idea of fields to lodge in your mind, but we have to now give a fuller picture of these kinks, they are not 'dimensional' at all, the kinks are simply a number.
For simplicity think of those wires as being made of a series of zeroes and occasionally they increase to (say) 1 to 9 (the real numbers would be far more complex) the zeroes don't interact and the 1 to 9 have the opportunity to.
Now, if you think of this dense network of wired zeroes in 3d you can see that you can get an infinite or near infinite line of zeroes in any direction so it is as if there isn't a single series of wires but more like a fluid.
This is the next step in comprehension, to see a field as a 3d infinitely granular construct, that in 'free space' (say the space between you are the monitor you're reading this on) is made of largely zero probability.
At this point you are a bit lost, I'll try to help you...
When you are looking at these words on your screen the photons from the screen travel to your eyes in straight lines and suffer little degradation, think of Photons as being zero mass items, they too are a type of zero and they encounter only zeroes between your eyes and the screen, but if between you and your screen someone is sitting to your right looking out the window that is to your left, they see perfectly well what is outside, their view is not 'corrupted' by the images hitting your eyes, there is no 'blurring' of their image and there is no 'blurring' of your image of the screen because they are looking across your stream of photons.
It is important to realise the importance of the 'zero' probability landscape of vision and the zero mass of the photon.
I'll stop there to allow anyone to gain any needed clarification, try not to jump ahead and just concentrate on what we have so far... we have a long way to go...
I love theoretical physics and the endless possibilities that it presents us with.
I really do wish I could understand it all a bit better and I have to admit, I enjoy Genes posts on the subject.
A good friend of mine got a 1st at Durham in the subject and he has tried to explain various theories to me and I still struggle!
Back on topic, I have read that gravity may not totally exist in our dimension. I believe that this is because gravity is one of the weakest 'forces' and we think this may be because it exists in more than one 'dimension'. How true this is I don't know but I find it fascinating.
What makes up these other 'dimensions'? Where and how do they exist? I expect this is going completely off topic but I do enjoy discussing it.
I really do wish I could understand it all a bit better and I have to admit, I enjoy Genes posts on the subject.
A good friend of mine got a 1st at Durham in the subject and he has tried to explain various theories to me and I still struggle!
Back on topic, I have read that gravity may not totally exist in our dimension. I believe that this is because gravity is one of the weakest 'forces' and we think this may be because it exists in more than one 'dimension'. How true this is I don't know but I find it fascinating.
What makes up these other 'dimensions'? Where and how do they exist? I expect this is going completely off topic but I do enjoy discussing it.
bob1179 said:
Back on topic, I have read that gravity may not totally exist in our dimension. I believe that this is because gravity is one of the weakest 'forces' and we think this may be because it exists in more than one 'dimension'. How true this is I don't know but I find it fascinating.
In this thread I will devote an entire post to that very subject of 5th dimension for gravity to reside, I don't think it is right, but it does have some fairly persuasive arguments at first sight.Gene Vincent said:
bob1179 said:
Back on topic, I have read that gravity may not totally exist in our dimension. I believe that this is because gravity is one of the weakest 'forces' and we think this may be because it exists in more than one 'dimension'. How true this is I don't know but I find it fascinating.
In this thread I will devote an entire post to that very subject of 5th dimension for gravity to reside, I don't think it is right, but it does have some fairly persuasive arguments at first sight.Ah noooooo.... when topics are about more than 3 dimensions my head hurts!
I can view time as the 4th as it can be 'measured', but not as a spacial dimension, which to me is what defines a 'dimension'.... ie. something that can be measured as a distance with units of metres etc.
I still have problems visualising a hypercube! .... and this is supposed to be step 1 in accepting more than 3 spacial dimensions. (In mathematical terms).
I am still to read any text that sufficiently describes how to view anything more than 3 spatial dimensions.....or may be its just my brain rejecting it every time (I just don't know).
Just to add, thanks to GV for continual additions to the Science section of the forum, always an enjoyable and insightful read.
I can view time as the 4th as it can be 'measured', but not as a spacial dimension, which to me is what defines a 'dimension'.... ie. something that can be measured as a distance with units of metres etc.
I still have problems visualising a hypercube! .... and this is supposed to be step 1 in accepting more than 3 spacial dimensions. (In mathematical terms).
I am still to read any text that sufficiently describes how to view anything more than 3 spatial dimensions.....or may be its just my brain rejecting it every time (I just don't know).
Just to add, thanks to GV for continual additions to the Science section of the forum, always an enjoyable and insightful read.
PRTVR said:
Gene Vincent said:
bob1179 said:
Back on topic, I have read that gravity may not totally exist in our dimension. I believe that this is because gravity is one of the weakest 'forces' and we think this may be because it exists in more than one 'dimension'. How true this is I don't know but I find it fascinating.
In this thread I will devote an entire post to that very subject of 5th dimension for gravity to reside, I don't think it is right, but it does have some fairly persuasive arguments at first sight.Eric Mc said:
Is GV a theorethical physicist - or just an idle speculator?
I am a Theoretical Mathematician, or Theoretician.What I've posted above is not 'scientific explanation' as that is mostly pure maths and barely comprehensible to 99.9999999999% of the population, so I'm packaging up what is known/strongly suspected in ways that make sense to people not in the discipline.
For example, I have made all the probabilities here positive and non-cancelling, the reality is that some are, but that is detail.
This a sketch, not a photograph.
To explain what a 'field' is in a way that makes sense of what is somewhat non-sensical I find a challenge, I fail, I try again from a different angle, if anyone can do a better job of it, I'll bow to their superior powers of interpretation... and shamelessly use it.
We started with it being like infinitely fine wires with kinks, now we see it as a 'fluid' with those kinks as just increased probabilities and in 3d... I hope.
Sorry - I'm obviously part of the 99.999999999% of the population you refer to.
I love science and technology - but I tend to develop large yawns when people start theorising about the incomprehensible. No doubt, I might havve said the same to Einstein or Heisenberg too. Even Steven Hawking leaves me behind after two or three sentences.
I love science and technology - but I tend to develop large yawns when people start theorising about the incomprehensible. No doubt, I might havve said the same to Einstein or Heisenberg too. Even Steven Hawking leaves me behind after two or three sentences.
Honestly, this subject is not beyond your comprehension, if you are working then your mind won't be clear, if you have a cuppa and a clear mind away from work it's a mere bagatelle, my aim is to make it something you can grasp.
Non-sensical does not make it incomprehensible, just a bit... difficult.
This thread is about gravity and that bit will be hypothecated, but we aren't there yet... but the fields are not, they work and add to our net scientific understanding, so understanding this bit is important.
Non-sensical does not make it incomprehensible, just a bit... difficult.
This thread is about gravity and that bit will be hypothecated, but we aren't there yet... but the fields are not, they work and add to our net scientific understanding, so understanding this bit is important.
OK, 24 hours has gone by and we move on...
I have mentioned in the interim that some probabilities can 'cancel' others out, this is a very simplistic way of putting it, because each field has properties of behaviour in the maths and the way they interact, for ease we are ignoring these intricacies of interaction and just taking all the probabilities as positive.
This positive is not the same as the +ve mentioned in EM or gravity and 'accumulative' will be used from now on as it better conveys the actions.
So, we now know that in the fields (and we are going to simply accept that there are 20 of them) in free space are simply zero probability areas, so Zero raised to the power of 20 is still zero.
The 21st field in this explanation is gravity. we'll call this QGF, and we're going to ignore it for a while...
If we look at the other end of the Cosmological extreme, a Black Hole star (not the event horizon, but the star that forms it), is 10 to the power of 20 (there are 10 probability states 0 to 9 in each field and 20 fields) so a BHS is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 it's just an arbitrary number but think of it as a density value... free space '0'... so even at the event horizon where there is no mass entering the black hole the free space state is '0'.
Photons have only one effect to deal with at the event horizon and it is gravity.
Now lets look a little closer at the space between us and the monitor we are viewing, it will contain gases and bits of dust, pollen etc.
Gases, for the most part (there are exceptions) can be considered to simply hold a value of '1' and only in a couple of fields are they active, so with a value of '1' they hold a probability value of '2' and interact in usually just 2 fields so have a density value of just '4'. (2 to the power of 2)
At first this seems to tell us that photons are stopped in there tracks by our atmosphere and we should see nothing... but gases are huge (in scale to fields) and the space between even the most dense gas molecules is immense in comparison to our field scale.
So the little lumps of '4' density are few are far between and this is why the photons come to you without much interference, some photons are absorbed and re-emitted and play no further part in your view of the screen and are just scattered.
So how does gravity fit into this...
The first thing to understand is just how weak an effect it is, at this level the gravity of each molecule of gas (assuming it has this novated value of '4') adds to that density by....
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000004 that's 41 zeroes followed by a 4.
So right at an event horizon the 'atmosphere' is less dense than that you encounter in your sitting room.
Interesting fact... if you calculate the density of a Black Hole and its star as a whole it is less dense than a cup of tea and the bigger they get... the less dense they become.
I will continue this shortly...
I have mentioned in the interim that some probabilities can 'cancel' others out, this is a very simplistic way of putting it, because each field has properties of behaviour in the maths and the way they interact, for ease we are ignoring these intricacies of interaction and just taking all the probabilities as positive.
This positive is not the same as the +ve mentioned in EM or gravity and 'accumulative' will be used from now on as it better conveys the actions.
So, we now know that in the fields (and we are going to simply accept that there are 20 of them) in free space are simply zero probability areas, so Zero raised to the power of 20 is still zero.
The 21st field in this explanation is gravity. we'll call this QGF, and we're going to ignore it for a while...
If we look at the other end of the Cosmological extreme, a Black Hole star (not the event horizon, but the star that forms it), is 10 to the power of 20 (there are 10 probability states 0 to 9 in each field and 20 fields) so a BHS is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 it's just an arbitrary number but think of it as a density value... free space '0'... so even at the event horizon where there is no mass entering the black hole the free space state is '0'.
Photons have only one effect to deal with at the event horizon and it is gravity.
Now lets look a little closer at the space between us and the monitor we are viewing, it will contain gases and bits of dust, pollen etc.
Gases, for the most part (there are exceptions) can be considered to simply hold a value of '1' and only in a couple of fields are they active, so with a value of '1' they hold a probability value of '2' and interact in usually just 2 fields so have a density value of just '4'. (2 to the power of 2)
At first this seems to tell us that photons are stopped in there tracks by our atmosphere and we should see nothing... but gases are huge (in scale to fields) and the space between even the most dense gas molecules is immense in comparison to our field scale.
So the little lumps of '4' density are few are far between and this is why the photons come to you without much interference, some photons are absorbed and re-emitted and play no further part in your view of the screen and are just scattered.
So how does gravity fit into this...
The first thing to understand is just how weak an effect it is, at this level the gravity of each molecule of gas (assuming it has this novated value of '4') adds to that density by....
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000004 that's 41 zeroes followed by a 4.
So right at an event horizon the 'atmosphere' is less dense than that you encounter in your sitting room.
Interesting fact... if you calculate the density of a Black Hole and its star as a whole it is less dense than a cup of tea and the bigger they get... the less dense they become.
I will continue this shortly...
Gene Vincent said:
Honestly, this subject is not beyond your comprehension, if you are working then your mind won't be clear, if you have a cuppa and a clear mind away from work it's a mere bagatelle, my aim is to make it something you can grasp.
Non-sensical does not make it incomprehensible, just a bit... difficult.
This thread is about gravity and that bit will be hypothecated, but we aren't there yet... but the fields are not, they work and add to our net scientific understanding, so understanding this bit is important.
I'll leave it to you lot to work it all out and then for Brian Cox to explain it to me using a salt cellar and a torch.Non-sensical does not make it incomprehensible, just a bit... difficult.
This thread is about gravity and that bit will be hypothecated, but we aren't there yet... but the fields are not, they work and add to our net scientific understanding, so understanding this bit is important.
Hilts said:
Gene Vincent said:
Tango13 said:
So is it possible to build an anti-gravity engine or not?
No, but we might be able to utilise its weakness in a novel way... but anti-gravity per se... no.There is a common thought about that we can't dismiss anything, no matter how outlandish, and this is to a large extent true, but it is the extent that matters, I can 'invent' a type of -ve gravity that could conceivably fit some of what we know today, but it wouldn't fit rather a lot too, rather too much.
This corruption of the maths seems innocent enough and it often is just a mind exercise, but it is not in any sense based on Physics, it is based on a mathematical deceit or deception... a fantasy.
If you wish to put stock into such then go ahead, but I do this for a living and such flights of fantasy are worthless, if the maths takes you somewhere 'weird' or outrageous then that is legitimate avenues for research, if it starts from a deceit you're wasting your life and energy.
If we ever observe either in the maths or through observation verifiable -ve gravity as distinct fully repeatable entity, I will be down that road faster than a w
e with her knickers on fire heading for the canal.The stuff of dreams is in reality here in the mix already, we don't need to add more that is based on nothing but hot air.
Gene Vincent said:
OK, 24 hours has gone by and we move on...
I have mentioned in the interim that some probabilities can 'cancel' others out, this is a very simplistic way of putting it, because each field has properties of behaviour in the maths and the way they interact, for ease we are ignoring these intricacies of interaction and just taking all the probabilities as positive.
This positive is not the same as the +ve mentioned in EM or gravity and 'accumulative' will be used from now on as it better conveys the actions.
So, we now know that in the fields (and we are going to simply accept that there are 20 of them) in free space are simply zero probability areas, so Zero raised to the power of 20 is still zero.
The 21st field in this explanation is gravity. we'll call this QGF, and we're going to ignore it for a while...
If we look at the other end of the Cosmological extreme, a Black Hole star (not the event horizon, but the star that forms it), is 10 to the power of 20 (there are 10 probability states 0 to 9 in each field and 20 fields) so a BHS is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 it's just an arbitrary number but think of it as a density value... free space '0'... so even at the event horizon where there is no mass entering the black hole the free space state is '0'.
Photons have only one effect to deal with at the event horizon and it is gravity.
Now lets look a little closer at the space between us and the monitor we are viewing, it will contain gases and bits of dust, pollen etc.
Gases, for the most part (there are exceptions) can be considered to simply hold a value of '1' and only in a couple of fields are they active, so with a value of '1' they hold a probability value of '2' and interact in usually just 2 fields so have a density value of just '4'. (2 to the power of 2)
At first this seems to tell us that photons are stopped in there tracks by our atmosphere and we should see nothing... but gases are huge (in scale to fields) and the space between even the most dense gas molecules is immense in comparison to our field scale.
So the little lumps of '4' density are few are far between and this is why the photons come to you without much interference, some photons are absorbed and re-emitted and play no further part in your view of the screen and are just scattered.
So how does gravity fit into this...
The first thing to understand is just how weak an effect it is, at this level the gravity of each molecule of gas (assuming it has this novated value of '4') adds to that density by....
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000004 that's 41 zeroes followed by a 4.
So right at an event horizon the 'atmosphere' is less dense than that you encounter in your sitting room.
Interesting fact... if you calculate the density of a Black Hole and its star as a whole it is less dense than a cup of tea and the bigger they get... the less dense they become.
I will continue this shortly...
I thought a black hole by definition was a point of infinite density? I have mentioned in the interim that some probabilities can 'cancel' others out, this is a very simplistic way of putting it, because each field has properties of behaviour in the maths and the way they interact, for ease we are ignoring these intricacies of interaction and just taking all the probabilities as positive.
This positive is not the same as the +ve mentioned in EM or gravity and 'accumulative' will be used from now on as it better conveys the actions.
So, we now know that in the fields (and we are going to simply accept that there are 20 of them) in free space are simply zero probability areas, so Zero raised to the power of 20 is still zero.
The 21st field in this explanation is gravity. we'll call this QGF, and we're going to ignore it for a while...
If we look at the other end of the Cosmological extreme, a Black Hole star (not the event horizon, but the star that forms it), is 10 to the power of 20 (there are 10 probability states 0 to 9 in each field and 20 fields) so a BHS is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 it's just an arbitrary number but think of it as a density value... free space '0'... so even at the event horizon where there is no mass entering the black hole the free space state is '0'.
Photons have only one effect to deal with at the event horizon and it is gravity.
Now lets look a little closer at the space between us and the monitor we are viewing, it will contain gases and bits of dust, pollen etc.
Gases, for the most part (there are exceptions) can be considered to simply hold a value of '1' and only in a couple of fields are they active, so with a value of '1' they hold a probability value of '2' and interact in usually just 2 fields so have a density value of just '4'. (2 to the power of 2)
At first this seems to tell us that photons are stopped in there tracks by our atmosphere and we should see nothing... but gases are huge (in scale to fields) and the space between even the most dense gas molecules is immense in comparison to our field scale.
So the little lumps of '4' density are few are far between and this is why the photons come to you without much interference, some photons are absorbed and re-emitted and play no further part in your view of the screen and are just scattered.
So how does gravity fit into this...
The first thing to understand is just how weak an effect it is, at this level the gravity of each molecule of gas (assuming it has this novated value of '4') adds to that density by....
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000004 that's 41 zeroes followed by a 4.
So right at an event horizon the 'atmosphere' is less dense than that you encounter in your sitting room.
Interesting fact... if you calculate the density of a Black Hole and its star as a whole it is less dense than a cup of tea and the bigger they get... the less dense they become.
I will continue this shortly...
It's interesting that you should mention -ve gravity as just the other night in bed my mind was keeping me awake thinking about the cosmos as it often does, sad I know.
I can't remember exactly what I was thinking about but it led to me asking myself " Why does gravity pull? Can it repel? Is negative gravity possible?"
Simple questions often lead down the most interesting roads as I wasted away several hours researching ideas online.
Edited by Laplace on Wednesday 12th September 00:03
Laplace said:
I thought a black hole by definition was a point of infinite density?
No, you are perhaps thinking of the Singularity and although the term singularity is often applied to a Black Hole, it is a misnomer.Infinite density applies to the original Singularity (note capital letter) the point of the start of this Cosmos any other singularity doesn't get the capital letter to denote what we're talking about.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff