[Jolly2 (OP)]

The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combine

Actually, the weak force has nothing to do with it.

Not clear, weak force allows atoms to change, I'm sure in certain areas that might allow for more density.

if 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.

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

Yes but density is lost as the masses become independent

So?

So 3 quarks combined have more mass than 1. Obviously.

Not according to the citation I gave.

You never posted a citation about gluons traveling at less than light speed. That was quarks.

Even if gluons can, how does it invalidate the idea of emergent gravity? Any mass they may have which the citation claims they dont is irrelevant to the actual issue. Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.

Gluons appear to be a different type of particle

They are "luxons", which means any particle that travels at the speed of light.

The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with that

It's not my theory. It's special relativity.

I don't remember einstein ever mentioning a banana

The 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.

Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick

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. 

Its strong force weak force mass and density in combination creating gravity as an emergent process. That's the idea.

[Kryptid]

Not clear, weak force allows atoms to change

It doesn't bind them together, though.

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

But that doesn't have anything to do with how much gravity there is. If the total mass remains constant, then the total gravity remains constant.  That's guaranteed by the gravitational constant.

So 3 quarks combined have more mass than 1. Obviously.

It doesn't increase the total mass (and therefore the total gravity) of the system in question.

Even if gluons can, how does it invalidate the idea of emergent gravity?

It doesn't. I never said it did. What I was refuting was your idea that gluons have no mass.

Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.

How?

I don't remember einstein ever mentioning a banana

He didn't have to. Special relativity applies to everything (bananas, dolls, cars, whatever you feel like talking about).

Ultimately 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.

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.

Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick

Yet all of the subatomic particles that otherwise would have composed that brick would have the same mass and thus the same total gravity.

Its 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.

How?

If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms, that allows bigger masses to form, and ultimately suns to be made, gravity would be a later development a residual result of the actions of the strong and weak force, if gravity had interfered with the strong force it may well have destabilise it and everything would fall apart. So my idea relates to the force of gravity not being able to disturb the forces responsible for its creation if it did they wouldn't sustain it.

Ultimately 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.

Yeah I'll just go in the garage and play with my hand on collider.
This is nothing more than an idea I am seeking to expore, to provide evidence I need an experiment,  to ddesign an experiment I need calculations of what would be the case IF the idea is correct.

So again, rather then taking about proff, we should be talking about the implications if it is the case.

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.

More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.

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.

Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick

Yet all of the subatomic particles that otherwise would have composed that brick would have the same mass and thus the same total gravity.

Brick yes wall no.

Its 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.

I am very aware

[Kryptid]

If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms

Which we know isn't the case, because objects that aren't a part of atoms or affected by the strong force still have gravity.

to provide evidence I need an experiment

Not 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.

we 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.

More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.

Yet the gravity is the same.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms

Which we know isn't the case, because objects that aren't a part of atoms or affected by the strong force still have gravity.

Example?

You know that doesnt matter right?
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.

to provide evidence I need an experiment

Not 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.

Nice that wasn't my idea, my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter, increasing mass. The idea makes gravity a force of processes

we 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.

That in no way follows.

More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.

Yet the gravity is the same.

How so? The more mass causes more gravity.

[Kryptid]

Example?

Muons, tau particles and photons.

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.

Then what does the strong force have to do with gravity at all?

my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter

Things that aren't matter (such as light) have gravity too. How does your idea account for that?

That 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?

How so?

The mass is the same, therefore the gravity is the same.

The 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Example?

Muons, tau particles and photons.

Leptons again. We've been over this

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.

Then what does the strong force have to do with gravity at all?

Its relationship to atomic structure and mass.

my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter

Things that aren't matter (such as light) have gravity too. How does your idea account for that?

Light is generally effected by gravity. Depending on its strength.

That in no way follows.

If gravity is caused by the strong and weak forces, it does.

Again a simplification of my idea, 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. Exactly how many elements and forces would be combined to cause gravity, I'm not sure, I'm just exploring the idea, maybe eletromanetics also plays a role.

.Otherwise, how does the exact same amount of weak force/strong force produce different masses between the six leptons?

As above.

How so?

The mass is the same, therefore the gravity is the same.

The 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.

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?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Looks like I found my camp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Atleast I'm not the only one to suggest it although my idea is slightly different

[Kryptid]

Leptons again. We've been over this

Yes, yes we have.

Its relationship to atomic structure and mass.

It has a relationship to atomic structure, but not to mass.

Light is generally effected by gravity. Depending on its strength.

But how does your idea allow for light to generate its own gravitational field? Neither the strong nor weak force have any effect on light.

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.

But if gravity doesn't require the nuclear forces in order to emerge (such as in the case for gravity produced by a light ray), then how is gravity emergent from those forces?

No but it potentially means more impact on space and increased curvature due to the increased energy.

The energy, like mass, is a conserved property.

Let's reverse engineer the question what is essential for gravity to exist?

Mass (or equivalently, energy) and space-time.

Looks like I found my camp

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity

Atleast I'm not the only one to suggest it although my idea is slightly different

Yes, emergent gravity theories do exist, but I don't know of any that claim the nuclear forces produce it.

[evan_au]

Could Gravity be an emergent property?

You may be familiar with the technique of Feynman diagrams, where the result of a quantum interaction is calculated as the sum over all possible interactions?

In a podcast primarily about the black hole information paradox, towards the end they mention some progress towards a theory of quantum gravity, based on an ensemble of all possible interactions.
Listen: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/09/21/115-netta-engelhardt-on-black-hole-information-wormholes-and-quantum-gravity/

[Hayseed]

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?

Energy is SIMPLY........motion.    Whether it's a mass or a field.   Any and all physical motion is energy.   Mass is a configured, confined motion.  It requires at least two, perpendicular motions, to confine a motion.

If you take an energy(e for instance)........and push it at c.......while at the same time, turning it at c........c times c..........c squared......then you get mass......by confining that motion.

Do you know why e is in motion?   Do you know why anything moves at all?  One simple force is the father of all motion.  The self repulsive force of charge.  All other motion comes from this.

At last estimate, the repulsive force of charge, can power and rotate a charge for 10 to the 60th power years.

That's fairly good efficiency.

[Kryptid]

At last estimate, the repulsive force of charge, can power and rotate a charge for 10 to the 60th power years.

I'm not sure what that means, but an object (with the correct properties) should be able to rotate indefinitely. An electrically-charged, extremal black hole would be one such object. Due to conservation laws, it can't decay like other black holes. That means it will keep on spinning forever (unless disturbed by an outside force).

[Hayseed]

No charge anywhere, can rotate freely.  It's constantly being peppered and disturbed with external stimuli.   Even one isolated charge in a vacuum is being hammered with static.  It has to be powered.

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.

[Kryptid]

 Even one isolated charge in a vacuum is being hammered with static.

From where?

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.

Evidence please.

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.

Citation needed.

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.

Citation needed.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

Thankyou this was my contention.  Ofcourse this is missing space, as gravity ultimately emerges from the relationship with mass to space.

The real question is......what is energy........and what is mass?

I add what is space?

Leaves the point and the point of this thread if that is true what are the implications that could allow an experiment design to prove it?

[Hayseed]

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.

Even after learning that light has a relative velocity.........they would still keep space-time for gravity.

They must have magic.  If it ain't star trek, it ain't science.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

.

I was recently watching this: time causes gravity.

[Hayseed]

I do not believe in space-time......... not because I don't understand it............the reason I do not believe in space-time..........is because I do understand it.  I understood it decades ago, when I was taught it.   They tried.   I refused.

And it's nonsense.   This is why they can't measure the relative velocity of light.

The period of ANY oscillation changes with a gravity gradient.  And with acceleration.

When they learn to use a rotational period, instead of an oscillatory period, then one can measure the proper universal constant rate of time.

Connect a 10,000 ft rod to a spinning gyroscope.   Affix another scope at the top.  A oscillatory clock will measure different speeds.  But they are the same speed.

Remove rod.   They are still spinning at the same speeds.

[Kryptid]

@Hayseed You should start your own thread about this instead of taking up space in Jolly2's thread.

[Hayseed]

Please pardon me.   I thought I was conversing with Jolly2, I didn't realize that I was interfering with his thread.  I thought it was a conversation.  I didn't know I was taking his space.  And time.

I shall retire.