Quantifying gravity's mechanism

[Markus Hanke]

Are you telling me that GR does not maintain that the curvature is felt instantaneously while the changes or interruptions to the motion of objects is time delayed. That was my misconception then.

Right, I misunderstood you; my impression was that you were talking about some "action" that needed to be performed by energy to curve space-time, and whether that was instantaneous.
Anyway, the above statement is of course correct; static fields are "felt" instantaneously, whereas changes in the field propagate at the speed of light. This of course makes sense, because a static field is just simply curved space-time; a body approaching such a field will follow the "contours" of that curved space-time, right there and then at every point it traverses. There is no exchange of information ( i.e. exchange of particles ) required for static fields.

 

[quantum_wave]

Right, I misunderstood you; my impression was that you were talking about some "action" that needed to be performed by energy to curve space-time, and whether that was instantaneous.
Anyway, the above statement is of course correct; static fields are "felt" instantaneously, whereas changes in the field propagate at the speed of light. This of course makes sense, because a static field is just simply curved space-time; a body approaching such a field will follow the "contours" of that curved space-time, right there and then at every point it traverses. There is no exchange of information ( i.e. exchange of particles ) required for static fields.

Thanks for the update and clarification on static fields.

 

[quantum_wave]

Just for the record, this thread, "Quantifying Gravity's Mechanism" was started in Physics and Math to follow a thread I had started there called, Gravity's Mechanism (renamed that appropriately by a moderator after a few posts).

Inadvertently, and probably not unexpectedly, I expressed my personal views on the Gravity's Mechanism thread and then on the Quantifying Gravity's Mechanism thread. When the normal and not unexpected objections from the members made this thread inappropriate for P&M based on my standards, I asked it to be moved and was accommodated.

My ideas and my so called model attract controversy just by being alternative to generally accepted science. Further, some members scan the forums for alternative ideas that can't be observationally tested, and make a point of expressing various levels of discontent with the views, and with the originator, and that is just a fact of forum life. In response to those objections over the many years I have been developing my so called model, I have learned that a disclaimer is necessary. I have written lengthy disclaimers but it is ineffective at stopping those who want to derail a thread, and so I boil all the disclaimers down to the statement that my so called model is a hobby and not science.

Sometimes there are a few members who follow along and keep quiet, but who root for the underdog (that's me ), and when they do post any kind of support they are putting themselves in the same category as the originator, and sometimes they end up regretting the support. For that reason I don't go out of my way to make friends, but those who do support me are forum friends in my view, and I thank them for that. I welcome friends.

This thread is a perfect example of how both of the mentioned sub groups of members interact, and it is also an example of how an originator can be derailed by those who want a thread derailed. This is a good place to put an end to the thread, and in my new thread I will ignore a few of the people who I hold responsible for the continual derailing of my threads and threads like mine. Let them say that by ignoring them I am quitting mad or scared of the truth, or ... well you all know the rhetoric from both sides. My so called model is my hobby, it is not science, and I will see you all on my next thread.
(2262)

 

[Farsight]

Quantum wave: I took a look at your first post. I'm sorry, but I don't think gravity works like that. There's no problem with energy waves or a "foundational medium" or the wave nature of matter or standing waves. The problem is with them moving in and out. Waves don't actually do that. Ever been on a ship? Sailing over a glassy ocean on a windless day? You see oceanic swell waves, big bulges in the water gliding along at maybe ten knots. Imagine you could pace one in a helicopter. It isn't moving in and out at all.

Light waves aren't all that different, but there is an "out and in" to them. The typical electromagnetic sine waves you see drawn orthogonally to one another are the spatial and time derivates of electromagnetic four-potential. Imagine a lattice with a lemon-like bulge in it representing a photon. Just looking at the upper portion of the bulge from right to left, it slopes upwards, the slope increasing to a maximum in the middle of the slope. Then the slope decreases to zero at the top of the bulge. Then the slope goes the other way increasing to a maximum in the middle of the slope, then it decreases to zero. Now imagine this bulge passing you by at c. As it does the lattice bulges out, then unbulges back in. In between, gravity outside the bulge is something like reaction to photon action h. But it's only there because of the out, not the in and out. If you freeze-frame the bulge and say it's a standing wave, it's something like the bowling ball analogy. However you remove the bowling ball to start with a flat rubber sheet, then you put your fingers together, put them on the rubber sheet, and spread them out. Imagine the flat rubber sheet has lattice lines on it. You don't have to wiggle your fingers in and out to make a gravitational field. That would make gravitational waves.

 

[rr6]

I like It

QW, I like the two 2D circles or 3D spheres overlapping. This ideas are similar to ideas I have been proposing for a few years. One difference is that I believe there is never less than 8 spheres overlapping a 9th sphere centrally located to the 8.

I have to go now but hope to get back to you on where I ideas may overlap. r6

 

[eram]

I have to go now but hope to get back to you on where I ideas may overlap.

Haha excellent pun.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quantum wave: I took a look at your first post. I'm sorry, but I don't think gravity works like that. There's no problem with energy waves or a "foundational medium" or the wave nature of matter or standing waves. The problem is with them moving in and out. Waves don't actually do that. Ever been on a ship? Sailing over a glassy ocean on a windless day? You see oceanic swell waves, big bulges in the water gliding along at maybe ten knots. Imagine you could pace one in a helicopter. It isn't moving in and out at all.

I avoid analogies, but you are thinking 2-D waves. And ocean waves or better yet sound waves pass through each other don't they. And when they converge there is a crest and between crests there is a trough. The crests and troughs might be analogous to high density and low density wave energy :shrug:, and waves on water or through the air are continually expanding until interrupted. The analogy can be made to work for me .

Light waves aren't all that different, but there is an "out and in" to them. The typical electromagnetic sine waves you see drawn orthogonally to one another are the spatial and time derivates of electromagnetic four-potential. Imagine a lattice with a lemon-like bulge in it representing a photon. Just looking at the upper portion of the bulge from right to left, it slopes upwards, the slope increasing to a maximum in the middle of the slope. Then the slope decreases to zero at the top of the bulge. Then the slope goes the other way increasing to a maximum in the middle of the slope, then it decreases to zero. Now imagine this bulge passing you by at c. As it does the lattice bulges out, then unbulges back in. In between, gravity outside the bulge is something like reaction to photon action h. But it's only there because of the out, not the in and out. If you freeze-frame the bulge and say it's a standing wave, it's something like the bowling ball analogy. However you remove the bowling ball to start with a flat rubber sheet, then you put your fingers together, put them on the rubber sheet, and spread them out. Imagine the flat rubber sheet has lattice lines on it. You don't have to wiggle your fingers in and out to make a gravitational field. That would make gravitational waves.

The thing with photons is that they are particles containing quanta in my so called model. They are emitted at the local speed of light and therefore get all of their directionally inflowing wave energy component of their standing wave pattern from that one direction, the direction of motion, thus they always move in that direction at the speed of light. Their wave nature is the out flowing spherical wave energy component of the standing wave of the photon particle which causes observable interference patterns once the beam has been interrupted, but remember my disclaimer, this is a hobby and not science, and you must be 18 years of age to read it.

Farsight, thank you for engaging with me, and I always learn from it, but my so called model is a stark departure form generally accepted science, and is built form the bottom up to be internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. You just can't understand it from the perspective of existing theory. My hypotheses invoke only the scientific observables, and then the gaps in science that are filled by theoretical mathematics are either thrown out or invoked, and my so called model fills the remaining gaps with supposedly internally consistent hypotheses. It is a hobby that allows me to learn all the science that pertains to observables, and hypothesize about all the science that isn't observational.

I have called a end to the thread because I have finally confirmed my quantum action equation for quantum spheres of any wave energy density, both at the quantum level and at the big bang arena level. The energy density of the parent spheres determines the location of the emerging sphere, and the change in location equates to gravitational motion in my so called model.

Look for my gnat swarm density hypothesis later, lol.

 

[quantum_wave]

QW, I like the two 2D circles or 3D spheres overlapping. This ideas are similar to ideas I have been proposing for a few years. One difference is that I believe there is never less than 8 spheres overlapping a 9th sphere centrally located to the 8.

I have to go now but hope to get back to you on where I ideas may overlap. r6

Start a thread and PM me so I see it. I'll enjoy chatting about it.

 

[quantum_wave]

Look for my gnat swarm density hypothesis later, lol.

On second thought, a new thread would be a waste of bandwidth until I have updates to my so called model. I'll just continue to waste it here.

Gnat swarm density is a pretty good analogy and so though I told Farsight that I don't usually use them, I consider a gnat swarm that is continually expanding to be a good analogy to an expanding quantum wave.

The gnat swarm has a broader application than just to quantum waves, and so let me make a point about less than quantum wave energy. In my so called model, lesser gnat swarms exist all throughout space, but they are not meaningful in space until they combine to reach quantum status. Lesser waves emerging from less that quantum convergences cannot form particles, they have to accumulate to reach a quantum of energy before they can become a standing wave pattern on their own. Until then they just supply existing standing wave patterns with inflowing wave energy.

Quantum status is the key to a new expanding wave, or should I say a new gnat swarm that can be sustained in space by the inflowing gnat density arriving to it form distant expanding swarms.

I can see the quantum equation applying to the accumulation of lesser waves to reach quantum status and to describe it I would draw several curved plane waves as the inflow in place of the converging quantum spheres. The overlap space of those curved plane waves would become a quantum wave if the wave energy density of the converging plane waves pushed enough gnats, i.e. energy density into the overlap.

The observations and talk about the formation of virtual particles popping into existence could be an example of this type of curved plane wave convergence taking place in space outside of existing standing wave patterns, but fueled by the out flowing wave energy density of nearby gnat swarms.

Oh, OK, the gnat analogy can quickly get over used, lol.
(2528)

 

[Farsight]

I avoid analogies, but you are thinking 2-D waves.

Ocean waves aren't really two-dimensional. Take a look at wind waves on wiki and click on the animation. They go deep. Note the rotational motion. There's a parallel between that and action h in E=hf and angular momentum, see this.

And ocean waves or better yet sound waves pass through each other don't they. And when they converge there is a crest and between crests there is a trough. The crests and troughs might be analogous to high density and low density wave energy :shrug:, and waves on water or through the air are continually expanding until interrupted. The analogy can be made to work for me.

It isn't a perfect analogy because photons involve electromagnetic four-potential, the space and time derivatives of which give you the orthogonal electromagnetic sine waves. And of course space doesn't have a surface. The photon is more like a pulse propagating through gin-clear water all around you. Even that isn't a perfect analogy, but nevermind. This is worth a read: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596

The thing with photons is that they are particles containing quanta in my so called model. They are emitted at the local speed of light and therefore get all of their directionally inflowing wave energy component of their standing wave pattern from that one direction, the direction of motion, thus they always move in that direction at the speed of light. Their wave nature is the out flowing spherical wave energy component of the standing wave of the photon particle which causes observable interference patterns once the beam has been interrupted, but remember my disclaimer, this is a hobby and not science, and you must be 18 years of age to read it.

It's good to have a hobby and to think for yourself. But remember that quantum is derived from quantus, which means how much?. And when it comes to photons we can diffract them, we have long-wave radio, and E=hf applies. So they're waves. The how much? is represented by the h common to all photons, and the answer is the same much. Go and look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Look at the depicted amplitudes. They're all the same. It's like action is a kick, and no matter how hard you kick, the length of your leg doesn't change.

Farsight, thank you for engaging with me, and I always learn from it, but my so called model is a stark departure form generally accepted science, and is built form the bottom up to be internally consistent and not inconsistent with scientific observations and data. You just can't understand it from the perspective of existing theory. My hypotheses invoke only the scientific observables, and then the gaps in science that are filled by theoretical mathematics are either thrown out or invoked, and my so called model fills the remaining gaps with supposedly internally consistent hypotheses. It is a hobby that allows me to learn all the science that pertains to observables, and hypothesize about all the science that isn't observational...

Enjoy your hobby, quantum wave. Think for yourself.

 

[quantum_wave]

Ocean waves aren't really two-dimensional. Take a look at wind waves on wiki and click on the animation. They go deep. Note the rotational motion. There's a parallel between that and action h in E=hf and angular momentum, see this.

It isn't a perfect analogy because photons involve electromagnetic four-potential, the space and time derivatives of which give you the orthogonal electromagnetic sine waves. And of course space doesn't have a surface. The photon is more like a pulse propagating through gin-clear water all around you. Even that isn't a perfect analogy, but nevermind. This is worth a read: http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.2596

It's good to have a hobby and to think for yourself. But remember that quantum is derived from quantus, which means how much?. And when it comes to photons we can diffract them, we have long-wave radio, and E=hf applies. So they're waves. The how much? is represented by the h common to all photons, and the answer is the same much. Go and look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. Look at the depicted amplitudes. They're all the same. It's like action is a kick, and no matter how hard you kick, the length of your leg doesn't change.

Enjoy your hobby, quantum wave. Think for yourself.

Thanks for the great links and analysis.

The good thing is we are talking about the same observables and the same universe where invariant natural laws govern everything.

In that "gnat density" post I refer to two environments where wave energy is active. The wave energy within standing wave particles which advances in quantum increments, and wave energy traversing the space between particles which is not in quantum increments. However, the non-quantum movement of wave energy in space still advances by the action of directional convergence and spherical out flow in my so called model, just not quantum outflow. The action in space is called pinhole action (Huygens type) and it characterizes the advance of wave fronts.

Another distinction between the advance of waves within the particle space vs open space is the velocity of the wave. The wave energy density of the medium governs the velocity of wave advance, and waves traverse the inner particle space very very slowly relative to the inter particle space.

 

[Cthun]

Quantum Gravity has been experimentally verified. The first observation of gravities quantum effects were made by Valery Nesvizhevsky(et. al. 2001) using ultra-neutrons. However, there is no actual theory of QG but what these repeated experiments have shown is that Gravity is indeed an actual force and not an emergent property.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quantum Gravity has been experimentally verified. The first observation of gravities quantum effects were made by Valery Nesvizhevsky(et. al. 2001) using ultra-neutrons. However, there is no actual theory of QG but what these repeated experiments have shown is that Gravity is indeed an actual force and not an emergent property.

That is certainly my take on it too . Thanks for the new name and new ideas to research. I know you can't post links yet due to low post count so here is a link to Valery: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2002/jan/17/neutrons-reveal-quantum-effects-of-gravity
"Classically, the energy spread of the bouncing neutrons – and so the range of heights to which they could rise – would be continuous. But this is not what the researchers observed. By placing a neutron absorber above the mirror and counting the particles as they moved the absorber up and down, they found that neutrons existed only at certain well defined heights. According to the researchers, these heights correspond to the peaks in a standing wave created when the de Broglie wave of the neutron interferes with its reflection from the mirror. The first peak agreed well with theory, but the researchers still need to confirm the presence of the higher peaks.
Nesvizhevsky says that the experiment could precisely verify the equivalence between inertial and gravitational masses – the reason that all masses accelerate equally in a gravitational field. The set-up could also confirm the electrical neutrality of neutrons. But such studies will require a significant increase in the neutron flux."

 

[rr6]

Gravity = Force

That is certainly my take on it too . Thanks for the new name and new ideas to research. I know you can't post links yet due to low post count so here is a link to Valery: /

I started posting links to that year the news came out. Never saw any confirmational tests.


Other links to this same information is the other I've been posting for years.

Oops I couldn't post a link. See nobel prize for binary stars 1974.

..."Binary pulsars are currently the only tools scientists have to detect evidence of gravitational waves; Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that two neutron stars would emit gravitational waves as they orbit a common center of mass, which would carry away orbital energy and cause the two stars to draw closer together and shorten their orbital period."...

It is true that Lee Smolins Loop Qauntum Gravity predictions did show some frequencies of EMR speeds retarded because of intereference with a spacetime foam( gravitons? ).

For me this, only means we have not reached the ultra-micro levels needed to verify gravity as force particle and not the so called 'emergent property' or whatever the terminology of this geodesic space or is it geodesic spacetime?

My vote is for quantum gravity. r6

 

[quantum_wave]

I started posting links to that year the news came out. Never saw any confirmational tests.


Other links to this same information is the other I've been posting for years.

Oops I couldn't post a link. See nobel prize for binary stars 1974.

..."Binary pulsars are currently the only tools scientists have to detect evidence of gravitational waves; Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that two neutron stars would emit gravitational waves as they orbit a common center of mass, which would carry away orbital energy and cause the two stars to draw closer together and shorten their orbital period."...

It is true that Lee Smolins Loop Qauntum Gravity predictions did show some frequencies of EMR speeds retarded because of intereference with a spacetime foam( gravitons? ).

For me this, only means we have not reached the ultra-micro levels needed to verify gravity as force particle and not the so called 'emergent property' or whatever the terminology of this geodesic space or is it geodesic spacetime?

My vote is for quantum gravity. r6

I don't know your level of expertise but my so called model, and hobby, certainly does not contain anything that will be recognizable within quantum gravity theory when it gets official. However, until then I have it, lol. Just kidding, but the fact is, if there were to be some consensus on quantum gravity I would love it. I don't have the slightest suspicion that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime. There is no spacetime, there is only space and energy density in space, and the speed of gravity and light waves is determined by the wave energy density of the medium through which those waves pass. That is exactly what the EFE's quantify so nicely, but the explanation for what is happening via curved spacetime is just wrong, according to my so called model. I certainly won't argue with anyone who swears by spacetime because if they are OK with it they are fine, but I'm sure the quantum gravity search will be successful.
(2602)

 

[rr6]

There is no spacetime, there is only space and energy density in space, and the speed of gravity and light waves is determined by the wave energy density of the medium through which those waves pass. That is exactly what the EFE's quantify so nicely, but the explanation for what is happening via curved spacetime is just wrong, according to my so called model. I certainly won't argue with anyone who swears by spacetime because if they are OK with it they are fine, but I'm sure the quantum gravity search will be successful.
(2602)

Little to no expertize. When I say spacetime I mean a gravitational phenomena.

My top of the spatial heirachy is;

non-occupied space....your "space" for me...I think?

occupied space...your "space density" and for me that is fermions and bosons) includes gravity ).

You do appear to believe gravity is a force and it appears you predicting it will be quantized by the year 2602 take the number to be and inferment of such by you?

Lee Smolin predicted-- maybe 13 years ago ---that humans would quantify gravity( not quantize ) via some geometric model within 15 years. I think he is being way to optimistic. I dunno. I have no good info to make any valid predictions.

r6



r6

 

[quantum_wave]

Little to no expertize. When I say spacetime I mean a gravitational phenomena.

My top of the spatial heirachy is;

non-occupied space....your "space" for me...I think?

occupied space...your "space density" and for me that is fermions and bosons) includes gravity ).

I see how you can make those comparisons.

You do appear to believe gravity is a force and it appears you predicting it will be quantized by the year 2602 take the number to be and inferment of such by you?

Yes, long before that in fact. 2602 though was the number of thread views, not the year, lol.

Lee Smolin predicted-- maybe 13 years ago ---that humans would quantify gravity( not quantize ) via some geometric model within 15 years. I think he is being way to optimistic. I dunno. I have no good info to make any valid predictions.

r6



r6

The problem will be that the observational evidence will be hard to come by. The quantum theory will probably be hard to agree on because quantum mechanics has some really unhelpful aspects in the current consensus that will make quantification by the scientific community a real struggle. My thinking is that there will be a departure from some of the quantum weirdness before there is much progress toward a quantum gravity consensus.

 

[rr6]

2602 Threads

I see how you can make those comparisons.
Yes, long before that in fact. 2602 though was the number of thread views, not the year, lol.
The problem will be that the observational evidence will be hard to come by. The quantum theory will probably be hard to agree on because quantum mechanics has some really unhelpful aspects in the current consensus that will make quantification by the scientific community a real struggle. My thinking is that there will be a departure from some of the quantum weirdness before there is much progress toward a quantum gravity consensus.

Ahh, number of threads...not a prediction by you....my bad

Yeah, how to unify classical( relativity ) gravity with quantum mechanics i.e. how to quantify gravity if I understand correctly?

I've seen it stated more correctly by others better than myself. I have no expertise in any classical( relativity ) gravity and quantum mechanics.

Again, I guess I need to eventually start a thread to explain my 8 around a 9th sphere/spherical/spheroid, overlapping scenario. I'm still new here so give me a little time.

r6

 

[quantum_wave]

Ahh, number of threads...not a prediction by you....my bad

Yeah, how to unify classical( relativity ) gravity with quantum mechanics i.e. how to quantify gravity if I understand correctly?

I've seen it stated more correctly by others better than myself. I have no expertise in any classical( relativity ) gravity and quantum mechanics.

Again, I guess I need to eventually start a thread to explain my 8 around a 9th sphere/spherical/spheroid, overlapping scenario. I'm still new here so give me a little time.

r6

I predict that you will think and learn. Start a thread, be sure to research before you post, and even try to include links to supporting pages. Good luck.

 

[Cheezle]

I have been thinking a lot about your diagrams ever since I found your Physics and Math thread about the 2 swarms of gnats. When I combine that with some other stuff you have said earlier it makes for some very interesting brain work.

Some of the things you have said in the past or that I am assuming:

1. an expanding quantum unit is a flat scalar field, meaning that the energy inside the quantum unit is everywhere the same (gnats keep a uniform distance from each other or a uniform density aka homgenous).
3. I think you are implying that the wavefronts (the expanding edge of the circles in your diagrams) are traveling at the characteristic speed of the aether medium which I will just call c.
5. When the overlapping area (volume) of 2 (or more) original expanding quantum units reaches 1 quantum unit, that overlap becomes the new quantum unit.
7. In your diagram you show two circles (spheres) overlapping in a lens shaped area. I will call pointy ends of the lens a cusp and the curves sides faces. I will refer to the 2 expanding circles as A and B, and the new lens shaped quantum unit as C.

I think I found a problem with how all these features fit together. It involve the area inside the lens C near the cusp. There are two parts to this problem.

1. before the new quantum unit is achieved, there are 2 distinct sets of gnats in the lens area, the A gnats and the B gnats. A gnats are on average moving to the right with various amounts of vertical motion. And the B gnats are moving generally to the left. When the new quantum unit is achieved, all the gnats are going to have to change their average speeds in order to maintain an average uniform gnat density. I don’t know if this is how you envision it, or if you consider it a problem. I think most orthodox science types would find this problematic. Any comment?
3. the next problem involves the gnats near the cusp(s). On the face of the wavefront that was originally from quantum unit A, the gnats is moving up and to the right at c. But on the face near the cusp that is the wavefront from B, the gnats are moving at c up and to the left. So if a gnat was in the lens very close to the cusp, then when C attains quantum unit and the gnats assume the new average speeds, that gnat in the corner has to be moving faster than c. This is because it has the velocity c to the upper left and c to the upper right, maintaining the wavefront speed of c for the 2 faces. 

I am assuming that is a violation that can’t happen, and so when C attains quantumhood and the gnats change speed the gnats will stay at c or below. The problem is that to do this there has to be loss of energy.

It appears that when you have 2 homogeneous expanding areas, and then you take two subsets of those areas and try and make a new homogenous unit out of those subsets, then problems like this can arise. Any comments?

I have another interesting feature of this system coming up soon.