Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jaycrooks on 18/08/2005 13:30:35
-
Any Theory of Everything needs to first look for the Origin of Gravity
Theoretical physicists are making strenuous efforts to achieve a �Theory of Everything�. This would link gravitational and quantum theories. The very different mathematics of each of these theories is well understood and enables accurate predictions to be made of both:
the universe at large, at one extreme; and
atomic interactions at the other extreme.
But uniting the two theories into a single Theory of Everything has, so far, proved impossible. One reason may be that physicists have been unable to discover the origin of gravity.
Summary of new ideas on the Origin of Gravity
The origin of gravity is a mystery. Gravity is an unusual force that cannot be shielded or absorbed. There is also no explanation for the experimental observation that the gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass.
However, a new theory, based on including a stronger form of Mach�s Principle, predicts that these two types of mass should be identical, and indicates that gravity must have inertial origins.
When clarifying Mach�s Principle in 1916, Einstein stated that the distant masses in the universe and their motions relative to local masses must affect the local laws of motion and gravitation. But he was unable to fully embrace this concept within general relativity.
The new theory goes one stage further, by proposing that the local gravitational forces we observe are generated by the rotational inertial motion of matter in our galaxy relative to the distant matter in the universe. The theory predicts that the value of the gravitational constant G will vary within any galaxy, especially at the outer edge of the galaxy, and predicts that G will be zero in any intergalactic region of space where no rotation of matter occurs.
The value of G appropriate to the intergalactic region within a galaxy cluster will depend on the rotation and mean density of the cluster. Hence, the theory will predict that stable, non-rotating gas and dust clouds may exist in the intergalactic space within a galaxy cluster, but may not exist in intergalactic space external to a galaxy cluster. This prediction appears to conform with observations.
Hypothetical dark matter and dark energy (which are claimed to form 96 percent of the universe - at least according to current gravitational theory!) are not then needed to explain galactic stability, galaxy cluster stability, and the accelerating expansion of the universe.
The new theory predicts gravitational stability for all atomic particles having spin - and points out a rather obvious shortcoming of classical theory that seems to have been neglected...
For more information please look at
http://www.livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
please stop trying to write a theory of everything its not possible,
I tend to agree with your take on this question jolly, nevertheless, a better understanding about the origin of gravitational effects would be an atractive scientific goal. At present, the best explanation we have for the gravitational effect is an ambiguous relationship suggesting that mass influences the geometry of space/time itself. This view has pretty well been accepted in contempory scientific circles.
We know what happens, and can produce predictable results from past experiment but we really don't know exactly why. This is the mystery about gravity, we know rather well how it effects our surrounding but not exactly why mass causes the result.............................Infy
-
first off disregaurd jollys post, that was dumb. Criticizing someone for trying to create a theory of the universe? Seriously, are you that dense, maybe you should not go to new theories forums.
Anyways, jaycrooks I think you are on the right track(sort of). I was pretty surprised to see that einstein wrote, distant masses and their motions relative to local ones, must affect the local laws of motion and gravitation. This is just like my theory. Where did you find that? Im really curious to see einsteins later thinking, the stuff that was shot down. Cuz I know, that boy really knows what hes talkin bout.
-
deleted as inapproprate
-
you lot are always going on about how its fun to learn, therefore if you get a theory of everything you'll have nothing left to learn, and your lives will become boring.lol I would direct you to what i've already written about gravity.
But it would still be only a theory, surely you could still have fun trying to prove your theory.
could you not?
-
Well Ive never heard anyone talk about how fun it is to learn, personally I hate it, thinking seems like a job now. And there is no way anyone can ever get anywhere close to knowing everything, so we're safe.
-
Well Ive never heard anyone talk about how fun it is to learn, personally I hate it, thinking seems like a job now. And there is no way anyone can ever get anywhere close to knowing everything, so we're safe.
Ofcourse learning new things is fun. Why do you and I come to a forum such as this? To learn, and occasionaly have to oppertunity to pass on some of the things we in tern have learned.
School, and any form of education is, or should be fun. If it is not then something is drastically wrong!
-
Im sure alot of people think thinking is fun, I just said I never heard anyone say it here. And I also come here to learn, but that doesnt mean I enjoy it. I only enjoy thinking for myself, being creative and unique, learning what other people have figured out usually bores me.
-
you lot are always going on about how its fun to learn, therefore if you get a theory of everything you'll have nothing left to learn, and your lives will become boring.lol I would direct you to what i've already written about gravity.
But it would still be only a theory, surely you could still have fun trying to prove your theory.
could you not?
It goes beyond that. Even if you could prove you had a theory of everything, you would still have a great deal to learn about how that theory would be applied to real world situations (but I do agree that it is probably without our powers to develop such an all encompassing theory in the first place).
To have a theory of everything (or even a theory of anything) does not mean we can predict everything - it just means we can create models that tell us how it should in theory be possible to predict everything, but we would still lack the computational power to make all those predictions.
-
Im sure alot of people think thinking is fun, I just said I never heard anyone say it here. And I also come here to learn, but that doesnt mean I enjoy it. I only enjoy thinking for myself, being creative and unique, learning what other people have figured out usually bores me.
Learning what other people have figured out provides a basis to go beyond what they have figured out. Just being taught something, without any desire to extend it, I agree is boring; but being taught how someone else worked out a problem, and then suddenly coming to a realisation that you can use that method to solve a totally different problem can be exciting.
-
please stop trying to write a theory of everything its not possible,
I tend to agree with your take on this question jolly,
Just to qualify what I mean by agreeing here; I suspect a theory of everthing is a long way off if in fact it can ever be realized.
.........................Infy
-
Concerning the origin of gravity and how a theory of everything plays into the mix, has anyone here read McCutcheon's theory of expanding matter? Albeit very interesting, it does conflict with the standard model of space/time. I have not personally read it myself, only excerpts and second hand opinions have come to my attention thru other interested parties. If anyone here has read the whole work, I would be interested in their views.....................Infy
-
I was thinking it might be time to bump this thread along so I'll offer a few ideas McCutcheon spells out in his book.
The bases of his argument is that gravity is not an attractive force but rather a pushing one. This concept is explained as a universal expansion of space/time. For example; We've all been exposed to the contemporary concept of universal expansion. This details the expansion of space as a consequence of the initial Big Bang. Because McCutcheons theory gets rather complex, I'll try to explain it in few but very carefully chosen words.
This is my own interpretation and may not express exactly the McCutcheonesque point of view.
Because space is expanding, and we all know that matter is composed of little more than space itself, one would necessarily have to ask; "If space is expanding, why not also the matter within it?" If this is indeed the case, then the expansion of matter would produce the observed effect we refer to as gravity. It is necessary to point out at this juncture that if this universal expansion also includes matter, it would not be visably apparent to us because we are expanding right along with it.
This theory is interesting indeed, nevertheless I do find a few points contained within it that need greater and more refined explanation. Needless to say, I have not completely bought into the idea as yet. I would appreciate comments and or questions about this theory because it may hold answers to mysteries of physics which are still hidden from view.
.............................Infy
-
What I find difficult to believe is why more Physicists have not been tempted to the Atomic Expansion gravity idea - or maybe they have ??
I do like the idea, and believe there is merit in the basic idea of expanding subatomic / atomic particles - I have been working on my own Atomic Expansion (AE) Idea for more than 32 years (since my college physics)
I have differences with other proposed theories. The problem I see with some "expansion" ideas is that no one seems to adequately described how an orbit works. No no no no - sketches and the lack of math do not do it at all - what I have seen do not satisfy me.
For example... Earth and Lunar expansion and linear motion only gets you a nice "flyby". Sorry no orbit here, spinning the Earth will not do it either, remember you must account for the background of stars.
Statements and claims about solving spacecraft gravitation anomalies and other problems cant be done IMHO, without first getting basic orbit mechanics right !!
I do have my theory that "appears" to elegantly solve the orbit and spacecraft anomaly issue associated with AE. However there is plenty of negative press right now on AE. I did share some on Steven H. astronomy and physics forum back in 1999.
-
Most items in science seem to be consistant...
Magnatudes differ while charateristis are similar
May I express my thoughts...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34382.msg325975#msg325975
-
There is an utterly new, yet very old body of work that may explain the origins of gravity.
Planck is the one who started all the quantum business with his work on black body radiation. Interestingly Planck ORIGINALLY worked on electromagnetic theory with energy, an energy constant (energy/EM oscillation), measurement time (of the EM irradiation) and frequency (osc/sec). His original relationship was thus E = energy constant X measurement time X frequency.
When he wrote his famous paper deriving the formula for black-body radiation, he had to resort to the use of Boltzmann's statistical methods (Planck was not very fond of Boltzman) and this in turn caused him to multiply his original energy constant and measurement time into the single value "h" (fixing the value of the measurement time variable at 1 second in the process).
This of course yielded his famous action constant "h" but Planck didn't really like it at first, as he had an energy constant in mind, not an action constant. The action constant produced the odd result that the fundamental particle of light came in an infinite variety of energies, rather than having a constant defining energy ... a defining constant characteristic such as the charge on an electron. The units didn't balance either because the "oscillations" in frequency (osc/sec) were unbalanced.
But the number worked and people started using his equation so he went with it.
If we restore his original formula we have E = E/osc X measurement time (sec) X frequency (osc/sec). Units balance and total energy can be determined. If you irradiate for 2 seconds instead of one you measure twice as much energy. The energy constant from Planck's original formulation turns out to be the energy of a single EM oscillation. The energy is conserved over time and space, and appears to be therefore the true quantum of energy for EM waves.
Because the units did not balance in Planck's condensed E = hf, the engineers and scientists got together back in the thirties and officially changed the nomenclature for frequency from osc/sec to sec-1. That got rid of the pesky oscillations hanging out of the equation and everything balanced.
So far so good, but it was incomplete mathematical notation and that never helps anything. Kind of like describing your miles per hour speed as just hour-1. You would have to start putting in a lot of fudge factors to account for the fact that it was miles and not kilometers or yards you were measuring. Same thing happened in quantum mechanics. More and more fudge factors had to be brought because the foundational quantum equation was abbreviated and incomplete in a mathematical sense.
A lot of the problems in quantum mechanics go away if one uses Planck's original and complete quantum formula. Take gravity, for instance. De Broglie wanted to calculate the mass of light. If we use Planck's energy constant, we can plug it into De Broglie's equation and get the mass of a single EM oscillation. This theoretical light mass is in remarkable agreement with measurements by Luo et al’s calculation for the upper limit of light’s rest mass (Phy Rev Let 90(8) 2003).
More information on this, as well as cites to many of the original papers by the quantum fathers, can be found at www.EinsteinsHiddenVariables.com.