0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combineActually, the weak force has nothing to do with it.
The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combine
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21if too many do their combined mass density can cause a black hole to form.Which is because of their mass, not because of the nuclear forces.
if too many do their combined mass density can cause a black hole to form.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21Yes but density is lost as the masses become independentSo?
Yes but density is lost as the masses become independent
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21Not according to the citation I gave.You never posted a citation about gluons traveling at less than light speed. That was quarks.
Not according to the citation I gave.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21Gluons appear to be a different type of particleThey are "luxons", which means any particle that travels at the speed of light.Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with thatIt's not my theory. It's special relativity.
Gluons appear to be a different type of particle
The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with that
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 11:45:21The wall producing gravity as a emergent function of the strong and weak force allowing the wall to hold together.Given that each individual "brick" has gravity, then the strong and weak forces have no role in the fact that gravity exists.
The wall producing gravity as a emergent function of the strong and weak force allowing the wall to hold together.
Not clear, weak force allows atoms to change
Explain that, if the strong force is what holds atoms together then it is inherently a part of what allows mass to form into bigger and bigger groups
So 3 quarks combined have more mass than 1. Obviously.
Even if gluons can, how does it invalidate the idea of emergent gravity?
Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.
I don't remember einstein ever mentioning a banana
Ultimately this is a thread relative to the process by which the force of gravity exists.
I'm suggesting the process that creates gravity is emergent from the weak and strong forces after they have allowed mass and density to form.
Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick
Its strong force weak force mass and density in combination creating gravity as an emergent process. That's the idea.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 17:21:00Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.How?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 17:21:00Ultimately this is a thread relative to the process by which the force of gravity exists.You've yet to supply evidence (or even a good argument) that gravity emerges because of the existence of the nuclear forces. Let's say we switch the nuclear forces off. Explain to me why that would suddenly make all of the mass and gravity in the Universe go to zero.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 17:21:00 I'm suggesting the process that creates gravity is emergent from the weak and strong forces after they have allowed mass and density to form. What reason do we have to believe that? Density isn't even relevant to the strength of gravity.
If the Earth was crushed into a black hole, the astronauts in a space station wouldn't feel any difference. Mass and distance are what determines gravitational force, and that wouldn't change despite the Earth's exponential increase in density from collapsing into a black hole.Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 17:21:00Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brickYet all of the subatomic particles that otherwise would have composed that brick would have the same mass and thus the same total gravity.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 27/01/2021 17:21:00Its strong force weak force mass and density in combination creating gravity as an emergent process. That's the idea.So far, it's only that: an idea.
If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms
to provide evidence I need an experiment
we should be talking about the implications if it is the case.
More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:34:39If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atomsWhich we know isn't the case, because objects that aren't a part of atoms or affected by the strong force still have gravity.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:34:39to provide evidence I need an experimentNot necessarily. You could use data that has already been obtained. Just as I can use the data about the mass spectrum of the leptons to show that it doesn't make sense for the strong or weak force to cause gravity because they all interact with the nuclear forces the same but still have very different masses.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:34:39we should be talking about the implications if it is the case.I have been. If what you say is true, then the leptons should all have the same mass. They don't.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:34:39More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.Yet the gravity is the same.
Example?
Doesnt matter that things that are not effected by the strong force are affected by gravity. Because they are different forces, again you point doesn't address the issue.
my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter
That in no way follows.
How so?
The more mass causes more gravity.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:57:24Example?Muons, tau particles and photons.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:57:24Doesnt matter that things that are not effected by the strong force are affected by gravity. Because they are different forces, again you point doesn't address the issue.Then what does the strong force have to do with gravity at all?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:57:24my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matterThings that aren't matter (such as light) have gravity too. How does your idea account for that?
QuoteThat in no way follows.If gravity is caused by the strong and weak forces, it does.
.Otherwise, how does the exact same amount of weak force/strong force produce different masses between the six leptons?
Quote from: Kryptid on 28/01/2021 01:04:02QuoteHow so?The mass is the same, therefore the gravity is the same.Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:57:24The more mass causes more gravity.But you aren't increasing mass. You can't make new mass. That would violate conservation of mass. Greater density does not equal greater mass.
QuoteHow so?The mass is the same, therefore the gravity is the same.Quote from: Jolly2 on 28/01/2021 00:57:24The more mass causes more gravity.But you aren't increasing mass. You can't make new mass. That would violate conservation of mass. Greater density does not equal greater mass.
Leptons again. We've been over this
Its relationship to atomic structure and mass.
Light is generally effected by gravity. Depending on its strength.
I'm speaking about gravity as an emergent property. Not only the strong and weak force alone, but working in tandem with mass and density and space.
No but it potentially means more impact on space and increased curvature due to the increased energy.
Let's reverse engineer the question what is essential for gravity to exist?
Looks like I found my camphttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravityAtleast I'm not the only one to suggest it although my idea is slightly different
Could Gravity be an emergent property?
At last estimate, the repulsive force of charge, can power and rotate a charge for 10 to the 60th power years.
Even one isolated charge in a vacuum is being hammered with static.
A charge is in the mist of, the process of, exploding. Driven by the self repulsiveness of the charge itself. It's like a super nova.....BUT the radius of that super nova explosion is set with rotation. The explosion is not stopped.....it is continuously turned. The explosion is still and continuously happening.....just turned. If that rotation slows or stops.......the explosion will continue out into space. Self powered rotation is what keeps the charge together.
Be very wary of conservation laws. They are conditional. Both mass(confined motion) and energy(any motion) has been lost since the beginning of motion. And continues this loss today.
Accounting for mass and energy, does not preserve/conserve it. Any and all emissions has a proportion of loss. That loss, can not be recovered.
If you believe in the modern theory, which states that gravity is fathered by mass.........then yes......gravity has to be emergent, because mass is emergent from energy.
The real question is......what is energy........and what is mass?
The emptiness of space is not apparent in the space, in and around this cosmos. It's been polluted for eons with generated static that continues today. If you went 100 cosmos diameters away, you would find clean pristine space. Absolute emptiness. No temp. No static.So empty space can not be found around here. So I can not prove this. But kindly look at this in a different manner. Why is space NOT empty. The only reason space needs a density.......or to be related to time.........is to explain the constant velocity of light.What if I told you, that the only reason they think light is constant c, is because of the way they keep measuring it.I believe I have a way to detect the relative velocity of light. And if this proves true, why do we need space-time..