Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: paradigm on 08/03/2011 12:22:56
-
Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?
-
I must offer my usual disclaimer – I am not a scientist, so I don’t really know.
There seem to be two ways of looking at gravity. G R says it is not a force, it is a distortion of spacetime. Q T says it is a force, mediated by a theoretical particle, the graviton. Yer pays yer money an’ yer takes yer choice.
Then there are questions like: If it’s a force, what is its origin, and why does it seem to be inexhaustible? The following is a product of some of my thoughts on the subject.
Given a situation in which an enormous mass, such as the total mass of the Universe, is compressed into an unthinkably small “speck”, with a diameter no greater than the Planck distance, we might just be forgiven for referring to the resulting curvature of spacetime as “infinite”. This, we are told, approximates to the state of the Universe at the instant of the Big Bang. If this is the case, it follows that every particle of matter and energy in the Universe, at the start of its life – or of this cycle of its life – occupied the same point in spacetime. The energy, whatever its source, that caused this infinitesimal, primordial speck to expand, transforming itself into billions of light years of spacetime would also have caused the curvature of spacetime to expand, and to “soften”, but, it would always remain curved, thus it would always tend to return to its original condition, like a rock falling back to Earth when it has been picked up and dropped. This would mean that the energy which drives gravitational attraction is the potential energy imparted to every particle in the Universe by the Big Bang. Thus, there is sufficient potential energy within the Universe to bring every particle back to an infinitesimally small speck. In this scenario every particle in the Universe contains enough potential energy to bring it back into contact with every other particle.
Just a thought.
-
Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?
Mass splits up grains of an ether and throws away them. Shared grains slip through other mass and do not touch it. The return stream of large grains of an ether touches mass and pushes it to the big mass. Shared grain of an ether gradually incorporates in the whole. [:I]
-
Hei. :)
My thought is that mechanism of gravity is only matter-density-balance system.
Without matter-existing if object is in the pure emptyness then object dont has any motion-energy to any direction.
When object is in the matter-existing then object (object which dont have engine) like air-balloon or moon example goin that balance-point where it's density and matter round of it is same density-level.
-
I see gravity, like all attraction, as being caused by the absorption of emission. This is presented in the essay "Beyond the Abstractionist Paradigm of Physics" which is located at: link removed
-
Hi paradigm,
I've removed your link as it's a violation of the acceptable use policy of the site to post links to your external websites to promote a theory. If you are interested in discussing non-mainstream science theories, there is a sub-forum on new theories, located here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=18.0
But again, please keep your posts as questions or discussion, rather than links to off-site essays.
Thanks,
JP (moderator)
-
Then there is Mark McCutcheon!!! He believes there is no gravity. He believes that all the matter in the Universe is expanding. If we drop something, what we perceive is not that object falling to the ground, it is the ground coming up to meet the object.
-
My thought, gravity is simple thing,,matter-density.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0EWsw.jpg&hash=1f7b4c79648124989166bf75ee8c54d2)
It's all about how much you have had to eat, and whether you need to sleep some off before its safe to jump off the table.
-
The warp of space-time is a mathematical description of the effect of gravity, claiming that it is the cause is like saying that curvy lines on a topographic map are the cause of mountains. Space-time is curved because gravity bends the path of light in Euclidean space, and Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light.
The gravitons of QT merely quantifications of the effect of gravity. No one has every observed quantification of gravity.
I believe gravity, and all the other forces of nature, result from exchange of momentum between regular energy and dark energy. I'd explain more deaply, but then I'd be accused of "evangelizing".
-
I think it's fair to say that the precise mechanism that causes bodies to attract each other remains a matter of some conjecture.
(In other words, we really don't know at the moment [;D])
-
Space-time is curved because gravity bends the path of light in Euclidean space, and Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light.
Perhaps;
Space-matter is curved because it's density is not same all point of space,, near planets density is higher,,and therefore,,,
-
I think Bill S got the closest.
Consider the universe big bang as a big explosion. It can't expand more than the energy that went in to it. Ultimately gravity will reverse that.
Energy, mass, time, gravity acceleration and entropy are all related. I believe that gravity is the deformation of space time by mass:-
1) in trying to reach the lowest energy level
2) in trying to reach the highest entropy level
3) in trying to reduce the universe to its minimum size
4) in trying to reduce the rate of flow of time to a minimum
Each of the above are equivalent and are saying the same thing but in different ways.
Mike
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0EWsw.jpg&hash=1f7b4c79648124989166bf75ee8c54d2)
It's all about how much you have had to eat, and whether you need to sleep some off before its safe to jump off the table.
A truly sublime truth Bill, that one made my day :)
-
Let's pretend there is no gravity. The Earth carries E numbers of proton and E numbers of electron. The moon carries M numbers of proton and electron. The distance is r.
We have 4 forces at work.
1. all positive charges in mass 1 attract all negative charges in mass 2. F1=k x EM/r^2
2. all positive charges in mass 2 attract all negative charges in mass 1. F2=K x EM/r^2
3. all positive charges in mass 1 repell all postive charges in mass 2. F3=K x -EM/r^2
4. all negative charges in mass 1 repell all negative charges in mass 2. F4=K x -EM/r^2
Because the geometry shape of the body, the r is changed in some way, end up the foure net forces an attraction force, which falls off at 1/r^2 as gravity.
-
Not according to your arithmetic, which shows zero net force for any value of r.
-
Not according to your arithmetic, which shows zero net force for any value of r.
Right, I don't know how to put R Earth and R moon to the equation, I wish I could. But you should get the point.
There are only four forces that we kind of know of. Why is electrostatic force and gravity falls off same as 1/r^2? We know that M1=Charge1, M2=charge2.
It seems fit perfectly to me, that gravity is the net electrostatic forces between matters. If you can make it an equation, you might get N prize.
-
All other fields have force carrying particles so there is no reason to think that gravitation is any different. Field particle dispersion over distance via the inverse square law is the reason for the drop in overall field strength. However the force carrying particles still have to be able to keep planets in orbit. This is the puzzle. If you consider the orbits of the various comets and how the sun can still exert a pull strong enough to preserve their orbits is a testimony to the strength exerted by the individual particles when dispersed so sparsely.
-
I wonder if to calculate the forces is even possible. Seems too complicated to me. What kind of math tool able to solve it?
Each charge in mass 1 acts with every charge in mass 2 at various distance, we have as many as 4 x E x M forces to deal with.
But all in all, if the calculation can be done and proof that the net electrostatic force between two bodies always end up attraction and follows f=m1m2/r^2=kq1q2/r^2, the mystery of gravity will be cleared.
I wish Newton is still alive!
-
I wonder if to calculate the forces is even possible. Seems too complicated to me. What kind of math tool able to solve it?
Each charge in mass 1 acts with every charge in mass 2 at various distance, we have as many as 4 x E x M forces to deal with.
But all in all, if the calculation can be done and proof that the net electrostatic force between two bodies always end up attraction and follows f=m1m2/r^2=kq1q2/r^2, the mystery of gravity will be cleared.
I wish Newton is still alive!
Firstly, gravity is not electrostatic, secondly, there are equations in general relativity formulated by Einstein. Whilst these equations do describe observations it is yet to be determined if Einstein was completely correct in all his assumptions.
-
Firstly, gravity is not electrostatic, secondly, there are equations in general relativity formulated by Einstein. Whilst these equations do describe observations it is yet to be determined if Einstein was completely correct in all his assumptions.
[/quote]
Your two comments seems conflict.
Mass 1 and 2 both carries same number of positive and negative charges, they are electrically nurture, We think the net attraction force and pushing force is zero,
But in reality, every charge in mass 1 acts with every charge in mass 2 at different distance, the net force might not be zero. I suggest that the net force will be always attraction and follows f===>m1m2/r^2===>charge1change2/r^.
Seems logically sound.
-
Let me try to explain. my English is poor.
If we use thin line to hang two magnets in the air, give a distance, they will attract to each other. The N pole in M1 pushes N pole in M2 but attracts S pole with same strength, the net force should be zero in theory. But in reality, the poles will induce each other to move position to create attraction force.
In matter, let's say two atoms at r distance, the charges in each atom is equal, but in reality/space, induce will adjust distance/position between charges to create unbalanced force which is attraction.
Induce might not be the right word. What I mean is, same charges pushes each other, so the two magnets will adjust their position as same poles has largest distance, different poles has smallest distance. Therefore, net force is attraction.
-
Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?
Nobody knows the answer to that question yet. All we know is that matter creates a gravitational field and when matter is in that field it acclerates. Why it happens is something that nobody knows. Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity doesn't describe such a mechanism. I.e.
Gravitation and the Principle of Relativity by A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36
The purpose of Einstein’s new theory has often been misunderstood, and it has been criticized as an attempt to explain gravitation. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and it does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravitation and a distortion of space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed for our measures.
Perhaps if someone creates a quantum theory of gravity it will contain the description of such a mechanism.
-
There seem to be two ways of looking at gravity. G R says it is not a force, it is a distortion of spacetime.
Hi Bill. It’s nice to see your posts again. I haven’t been here for some time.
GR doesn’t say that GR is not a force. It says that the gravitational force is an inertial force. For those who are unfamiliar with that term please see
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/inertial_force.htm
Some physicists think that inertial forces aren’t “real” and it’s for that reason some people to think that there’s no force in GR. It’s still incorrect to think of gravity as a distortion in spacetime. It’s a curvature in spacetime, not a distortion. Distortion means something quite different. The surface of a sphere is curved. However if you were to tell someone that the surface of a basketball is distorted they’d have no idea what you’re talking about. The term “distorted” doesn’t really mean that anyway. “distorted” doesn’t refer to a state of something. It refers to a change from something. I.e. to say that a surface is distorted is to mean that it was altered from its original shape. Therefor a flat surface could actually be a distored spherical surface. Perhaps you’re thinking that flat spacetime is “natural” and that anything different from flat spacetime is unnatural thus a distortion?
In anycase its quite possible for the gravitational force to be non-zero in a non-curved spacetime such as a uniform gravitational field.
-
Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?
Mass splits up grains of an ether and throws away them. Shared grains slip through other mass and do not touch it. The return stream of large grains of an ether touches mass and pushes it to the big mass. Shared grain of an ether gradually incorporates in the whole. [:I]
Is this a joke or something?
-
My thought, gravity is simple thing,,matter-density.
That's wrong. Matter is the source of gravity. It's not the mechanism. The source of a field is quite different than the mechanism that generates it.
-
The warp of space-time is a mathematical description of the effect of gravity, …
I assume by ”warp” that you really mean “curvature”. The term “warp” as defined at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warp
is not a synonym for curvature.
And curved spacetime is not a mathematical description of the effect of gravity. It’s the description of gradients in the gravitational field. It’s what Newton would have called a tidal force. Gravity and tidal forces are not the same. They are merely related to each other. As I explained above you can have a gravitational field with no spacetime curvature. I fact that was the very first gravitational field that Einstein himself considered.
Space-time is curved because gravity bends the path of light in Euclidean space, and Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light.
Actually you have it backwards. Spacetime is not curved merely because gravity bends light. You can bend light in flat spacetime as a matter of fact. You made a serious mistake here. Spacetime is not Euclidean. For a space to be Euclidean it has to use the metric that is used in Euclidean space. Flat spacetime is not Euclidean because the metric is non-Euclidean. Also Minkowski did not redefine ”straight line.” Mathematicians such as Gauss and Riemann came up with the idea of how to generalize the concept of straight line in a curved space by introducing the concept of the geodesic. But the assertion that Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light is quite wrong.
I believe gravity, ….
Why? A belief without a good reason for it is absolutely useless.
and all the other forces of nature, result from exchange of momentum between regular energy and dark energy.
Quite wrong. Absolutely no justification for such an assertion. Nobody knows anything about Dark Energy so making such a claim is wishful thinking, not physics.
-
Then there is Mark McCutcheon!!! He believes there is no gravity. He believes that all the matter in the Universe is expanding. If we drop something, what we perceive is not that object falling to the ground, it is the ground coming up to meet the object.
I heard this back in the sci.physics newsgroup many years ago. I explained to that person why he was wrong (i.e. what observations of the world around him contradict his claim) and I was promptly ignored. :D
Suppose he was right. Then the earth would be getting larger and larger and larger while the same thing would be happening to the sun. Since, according to him, there’s no gravitational force both the earth and the sun move in straight lines. If what he said were actually true then both the earth, moon and the sun would be getting larger and larger with time. That means that the surface of all three of those heavenly bodies would be getting closer and closer to each other. Since observation tells us that this is not the case it follows that Mr. McCutcheon is quite wrong. However I doubt he’d admit it.
People like that must truly think that each and every physicist in the world is an absolute moron.
-
You forgot to give me a bullet. [xx(]
-
You forgot to give me a bullet. [xx(]
Sorry. Here you go. |==>
-
Massless bullet?
-
Massless bullet?
Considering the fact that I have no idea what you're talking about with this whole bullet thing you shouldn't complain and be happy with what you got.
-
I meant you debunked many posts in this thread. Why not mine?
I suggested a mechanism to explain gravitation. What's your thought about it? Thanks
-
Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?
Mass splits up grains of an ether and throws away them. Shared grains slip through other mass and do not touch it. The return stream of large grains of an ether touches mass and pushes it to the big mass. Shared grain of an ether gradually incorporates in the whole. [:I]
Sounds like quantum gravitation theory. Cheers!
-
I meant you debunked many posts in this thread. Why not mine?
Because I had no idea that was what you wanted. All this totally irrelevant stuff about a bullet didn't help me understand what you wanted. I can’t even imagine why you thought I’d understand that.
I suggested a mechanism to explain gravitation. What's your thought about it? Thanks
Your problem is one of electrostatics, not gravity. There are certainly classical arrangements of charges where there are an equal number of positive and negative charges in each body making each body having a total charge of zero but for which the net force is not zero. A simple example is two electric dipoles. The net force between them is not zero. However when the force is proportional to charge and not mass and therefore the rate at which they accelerate towards each other will depend on the mass of the accelerating body. However gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass so therefore this can’t be viewed as gravity.
-
Your problem is one of, not gravity. There are certainly classical arrangements of charges where there are an equal number of positive and negative charges in each body making each body having a total charge of zero but for which the net force is not zero. A simple example is two electric dipoles. The net force between them is not zero. However when the force is proportional to charge and not mass and therefore the rate at which they accelerate towards each other will depend on the mass of the accelerating body. However gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass so therefore this can’t be viewed as gravity.
Thanks for the reply.
I am confused. Isn't mass proportional to its total charges? If 1 kg of gold carries 10^27 electrons, 2 kg of gold should carry 2 x 10^27 electrons.
Put those two gold balls R from Earth, the net electrostatic force between Earth and two balls is proportional to their charges, therefore 1:2. The mass ratio is 1:2, F=Ma=Mg, therefore gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass.
-
Thanks for the reply.
You’re very welcome.
I am confused. Isn't mass proportional to its total charges?
No. For example; if you have an atom that is electrically neutral then its charge to mass ratio is zero. If you have the same atom and remove an electron then it becomes charged. The atom now has a non-zero charge to mass ratio. If you now remove another charge then the charge to mass ratio will change once again.
If 1 kg of gold carries 10^27 electrons, 2 kg of gold should carry 2 x 10^27 electrons.
That’s correct. But not relevant to the current problem.
Put those two gold balls R from Earth, the net electrostatic force between Earth and two balls is proportional to their charges, therefore 1:2.
Actually the net electrostatic force will be zero. On each body, i.e. golf ball and earth, there are exactly the same number of electrons as there are protons making each body electrically neutral. When that happens the force between the body is exactly zero.
The mass ratio is 1:2, F=Ma=Mg, therefore gravitational acceleration is independent of a body’s mass.
That’s quite incorrect. Consider a positively charged spherical body of total charge Q with uniform mass distribution whose center is located at the origin of the coordinate system. This charge configuration has the same electric field as a point charge located at the origin. Take a negatively charged particle of mass m and charge q and place it on the x-axis at x = r. Then the force on the particle is
F = kQq/r^2 = kQq/x^2
Since F = ma we have
ma = kQq/x^2
or
a = (q/m)kQ/x^2 = CkQ/x^2
The value C = q/m is the charge to mass ratio that I was talking about and depends on the intrinsic properties of the particle and has a different value for each different body. Therefore different particles fall at different rates. And negative charges would “fall up” which doesn’t happen with gravity.
However you’re under the mistaken impression that the electric force between two bodies is never zero, which is quite wrong. There’s no reason to assume such a thing to be true. The distances between the positive and negative charges in an atom is so small that an atom with the same number of protons as neutrons is electrically neutral and thus when separated by a macroscopic distance from another atom (e.g. one micrometer) the force is zero for all practical purposes.
What you’re doing is using generalizations and thinking off the cuff. The problem with that is that you never sit down and do the calculation and this never see the error in your argument. Next time do the calculation. Had you tried the simple example I gave which led to
a = (q/m)kQ/x^2 = CkQ/x^2
then you’d have see the problem and not needed help.
-
Pete, thank you very much taking the time teaching me.
I am still confusing.
We knew atoms are each electrically neutral, but they attract to each other in short distance to form matter. The same force in long distance should be still there, acting as gravity.
F=M1M1/R^2, M1=m1+ + m1-, M2=m2+ + m2-. F=cQ1Q2/R^2
Can you see the connection? Mass is proportional to total charges in a body.
-
Pete, thank you very much taking the time teaching me.
You're most welcome, sir! :)
I am still confusing.
We knew atoms are each electrically neutral, but they attract to each other in short distance to form matter. The same force in long distance should be still there, acting as gravity.
F=M1M1/R^2, M1=m1+ + m1-, M2=m2+ + m2-. F=cQ1Q2/R^2
Can you see the connection? Mass is proportional to total charges in a body.
No. I can't see the connection because it's not there.
You've got it all wrong. I keep telling you that when the force is caused by the electric force that the bodies accelerate towards each other as a function of the charge to mass ratio which depends on the particulars of the body. But when its gravity that doesn't happen. The body which falls is independant of anything. Do you have the mathematical abilities to work out an example? If so then work out the acceleration between an electric dipole and a gravitational dipole. If not then let me know and I'll do it for you.
Besides. You're forgetting that particles that don't have any charge is also attracted by gravitating bodies. Light is a perfect example. Photons fall in a gravitational field. A beam of light is bent by the sun as it passes by it.
-
Light bend by gravity is because the medium of light is denser near sun/matter/body, the medium they called ether, I call it enertron, a tiny tiny negative charged particle that fills the space. Light also bend by air or water or glass that has different density of enertron than vacuum.
The only thing in the space that attracts enertrons is positive charges. Therefore, enertrons form ball shape field around proton/protons/nucleus and matters.
Around any heavy mass, enertron density is proportional to its mass.
My theory so far no one agrees, but all you smart minds please give it a chance, think about it.
If we shoot electrons at matter, what stops electrons hit straight on nucleus? They attract each other with strong force, plus electron has momentum towards nucleus?
If nothing stops electrons hit nucleus, nucleus reaction should be everywhere and we won't be here.
Is any question more simple than this one? What stops electrons reaching nucleus?
-
Light bend by gravity is because the medium of light is denser near sun/matter/body, the medium they called ether, I call it enertron, a tiny tiny negative charged particle that fills the space.
Sorry but I have no interest in your theory. It doesn't even belong in this forum. It belongs in the New Theories forum. You can't just claim that an ether exists and is the medium of light. The motion of light in such a medium was shown to be independant of such a medium over a hundred years ago. There's too many things wrong with it and you haven't even thought about it being consistent with all other branches of physics and all observations.
-
Opinion various, Pete.
The theories you hold as Bible today was new yesterday.
If light was particle, why light beam expending with distance? Why is light change speed in different matters? If most space within matter is vacuum then light particles should pass through with same speed.
Sound wave is EM force passing between atoms/matters, light wave is EM force act between enertron field which is space. Any wave needs medium.
-
If light was particle, why light beam expending with distance?
I don't know what expending with distance means. Do you mean that the intensity decreases with distance? If so that's simple. Whenever photons are emitted from some place they aren't all emitted in the same direction. Consider a laser beam. Ideally the laser beam is a collimated beam of photons whose intensity ideally does not decrease with distance. However nothing is ever perfect and there is a very small divergence of the beam. This happens because the beam leaves the laser from an aperture and when that happens the photons, due to the wave-particle duality, diffracts at the edge of the aperture due to the photons wave properties.
Why is light change speed in different matters?
The propagation of light through matter can be viewed as an absorption of a photon by one atom which is excited to a higher energy state. A short time later the atom de-excites to a lower energy level where a photon of the same energy is emitted in the same direction. This property repeats until the photon is all the way through the material. Since the excitation/de-excitation process is not instantaneous there is a slight time delay. This is why the light appears to travel at a slower speed in matter.
If most space within matter is vacuum then light particles should pass through with same speed.
So? What’s your point? Space is not mostly vacuum. It’s filled with atoms. Light doesn’t pass straight through an atom. The atom absorbs the photon. You’re thinking in classical terms like a point particle is moving through empty space that has many point particles in it from the atom. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t use classical thinking in atomic physics or you’ll get it all wrong.
Please don’t post that stuff about enertron any place other than the new theory section where it belongs.
-
If we shoot electrons at matter, what stops electrons hit straight on nucleus? They attract each other with strong force, plus electron has momentum towards nucleus?
If nothing stops electrons hit nucleus, nucleus reaction should be everywhere and we won't be here.
Is any question more simple than this one? What stops electrons reaching nucleus?
What is energy level? How it works? How is photon move as wave? Isn't QM a self explanatory theory?
-
If we shoot electrons at matter, what stops electrons hit straight on nucleus?
If you have some type of wave (eg an ocean wave, a sound wave or a radio wave) striking an obstacle which is much smaller than the wavelength, the wave effectively goes around the obstacle and keeps on going (with perhaps a small amount of diffraction).
Electrons in an electron microscope have a much larger wavelenegth than the size of an atom (and much larger than the proton in the central nucleus). So an electron often just passes on by the atom (with a bit of diffraction).
They attract each other with strong force, plus electron has momentum towards nucleus?
There is a mechanism with the German name of Bremsstrahlung radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung), or "braking radiation", which occurs when a high-speed electron passes close to a proton. This might happen if you collided a beam of protons and electrons.
In this case, the electron's path is deflected, and it produces a photon. The electron does not actually react with the proton.
If nothing stops electrons hit nucleus, nucleus reaction should be everywhere and we won't be here.
To borrow a Solar-System analogy from another thread: If a planet hits the Sun, it is burnt up, and ceases to exist as a separate planet. If an electron passes through a nucleus, it usually does not react with the nucleus, and they continue to exist as a separate electron and proton.
So you don't need to worry about ceasing to exist because of your electrons reacting with your protons (unless you have the misfortune to be caught in the center of a star going supernova, and then you would already have bigger problems!).
-
jccc, please keep posts on your enertron theory to the new theories section of the forum. This section is for discussion and Q&A on mainstream physical theories. Thanks!
-
JP, understood, thanks.