161

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How does Hawking's radiation helps in figuring out "the theory of everything"?

« on: 07/05/2016 07:45:27 »

How can the understanding about empty space possibly help us to find the "theory of everything"?

Stacyjones is promoting a pet theory and not discussing mainstream science so don't be misled.

162

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do matter and antimatter interact gravitationally?

« on: 01/05/2016 23:07:01 »

A lot of the time non scientists like us will pick up on the quirky aspects of a theory and focus on that without understanding why that quirky conclusion was reached in the first place. Just like the idea of an antiparticle going backwards in time. Popular science books don't help much in this regard. It is always good to question what you think you know as it is so easy to misconceive aspects of science.

163

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Do matter and antimatter interact gravitationally?

« on: 01/05/2016 10:53:29 »

A particle is considered to be an excitation in a field. Since LIGO detected a gravitational wave which can be considered to be an ensemble of excitations in a field then the evidence is swayed heavily in favour of the existence of the graviton.

164

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What if there is no gravitational interaction between matter&antimatter?q

« on: 01/05/2016 00:17:45 »

The graviton should be its own anti-particle so whether in a matter or anti-matter universe the effect of gravity should be the same.

165

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the speed of gravitational waves?

« on: 18/04/2016 20:37:32 »

Where; V_G⁴ = G (the gravitational constant)

I don't understand how you are balancing the dimensions of this equation

That's because he can't. There is no way that a velocity can be equal to the gravitational constant G. I have done some off the wall equations in my time but that one takes the cake.

166

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Does Einstein believe in gravitational wave ?????

« on: 24/03/2016 21:04:56 »

Do you have a link to the 1938 paper?

Maybe this will help.

arxiv.org/pdf/1602.04674

167

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many neutrinos are orbiting the Earth?

« on: 13/03/2016 22:15:51 »

There could be an equatorial orbital band, for want of a better description. This would have to be a rare orbital path as the approach would have to be on a very precise trajectory. I am unsure of what such an orbit would tell us since no interactions would necessarily be detectable. However, it may in some way affect the profile of accretion disks.

Other orbits at an angle to the equatorial plane should be more common. These geodesics could maybe have some influence on the generation of relativistic jets. That is however speculative and not founded in observation.

168

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can gravity really interact with itself?

« on: 13/03/2016 21:49:27 »

I have found a page which does go into some detail. For those interested here is the link.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/gravity_of_gravity

This is by Markus Pössel of the Max Planck Institute of Astronomy so is a reliable source.

169

New Theories / Re: Is my theory viable

« on: 10/01/2016 20:10:55 »

I am currently reading through the attached PDF. The first point I would like to make is on bead rotation. This cannot be a simple rotation around an axis if a monopole field is to be generated by this 'particle'. I will be making further comments as I go.

170

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where do I begin with Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem?

« on: 09/01/2016 14:11:37 »

One last point. Where you have Linear Algebra Done Right, I have Applied Linear Algebra (Noble and Daniel). This shows the applications of the methods as the book progresses. I would be interested to see how you get on with your text.

171

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Physics does a good job of informing but does it do enough listening?

« on: 08/01/2016 23:22:16 »

And this is the point at which I believe it all went wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veneziano_amplitude

172

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Physics does a good job of informing but does it do enough listening?

« on: 08/01/2016 20:53:43 »

Like the box I have studied the best I can the status quo and as a retired chartered engineer my basic maths and physics is not bad( I took both at A level and refined them at university) I can sum a series, calculate a probability, and differentiate and integrate ( when I can remember the standard integrals) just fine. Like The box I found a different way to join up the experimental dots, but unlike The box I don't believe my way can be right. My frustration is that I cannot find any way to discover why it is not right. Lectures on the internet don't do it. Careful descriptions of the main accepted theories won't do it. Only a discussion with some one more knowledgeable will help. This proves impossible to arrange even if paying, because the physics community operates a one way valve form of communication. These forums are great and I am becoming addicted, but you still don't get an honest critique of any theory or idea put forward.

I may regret this but what is your idea?

173

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Where do I begin with Emmy Noether's Wonderful Theorem?

« on: 08/01/2016 20:12:55 »

If you can pick up linear algebra and advanced calculus that should be enough. As for QM and GR I doubt if you need go that far. For a very quick run through the basics Linear Algebra for Dummies can get you there fast although the ordering of the topics is a bit of a mix up and reviewing previous material has to be done a lot if you are new to the subject. You could try an undergraduate text but that might slow you down. As far as advanced calculus goes I would try Advanced Calculus (Dover Books on Mathematics) by David V. Widder. It is an older text but has very good reviews and is inexpensive.

174

New Theories / Re: What is the mechanism behind Gravity?

« on: 06/01/2016 23:53:08 »

You really need to read this before continuing down this path.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid_vacuum_theory

175

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How can photons travel at the speed of light?

« on: 04/01/2016 19:31:12 »

And it gets worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_general_relativity

176

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can we put an end to the nonsense of "duality"?

« on: 21/11/2015 15:54:36 »

I have bumped this thread to emphasize Alan's point that duality is in fact nonsense.

177

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can curved spacetime make time go let's say ten times faster?

« on: 14/11/2015 17:52:47 »

machmarosz you are flooding threads with irrelevant speculation. That is a very unhelpful thing to do. It is to all intents and purposes self promotion. This should be in New Theories. I can see why other forums ban you. You cause a nuisance.

178

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Gravity waves and faster time?

« on: 12/11/2015 02:01:58 »

OK. Let's say for arguments sake that you are in a universe with an absolute frame of reference against which all other frames can be measured. If an object is stationary relative to the absolute frame then dilation of time is at it's minimum and here time is running faster than anywhere else in this universe. I can see no way of speeding time up any further. You are at a maximum for the rate of change at this point. This would be equivalent to the absence of any gravitational field. As if the object is at infinity. Why do you think this might be possible?

179

New Theories / Re: what causes gravity??

« on: 14/10/2015 20:03:24 »

Shielding a spacecraft from the force of gravity would be some feat. Considering that gravitation acts on all particles almost simultaneously. Depending only on the density of hypothetical force carriers. The best that can be done is distort the gravitational field around an object so that no force carriers take a path through the craft. This would require some kind of black hole device. Imagine trying to contain that.