Ask any question you want about Physics

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Nochzwei

Ummmm, nope. Nice try.

Are there any actual experiments to back up this 'theory' of yours?

Ive posted some videos on other threads. look them up, pointless posting the same 2 videos again and again

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

you said gravity you dont tihnk is graviton, but curved space. As far as I can tell, those concepts are not mutually exclusive, in fact, the idea of particles comes as a deduction from the concept of curved space. When one asks, well what is the space made of? What is the space that can curve, made of? If it is not made of particles, 'what is it made of'? How does a substance that takes up a cubed area not have parts? And what does this mean?

You are so stuck on space and what it is the problem is your looking at the wrong thing. Look it is not quite correct to say "gravity warps space." It is better to say the presence of mass/energy warps space (and time). LIke the presence of the Sun warps space and time in its vicinity.I remember a quote dont remember who said it but it went something like this. Mass and energy grips spacetime and tells it how to curve -- and curved spacetime (gravity) grips mass and energy and tells it how to move. So mass and space are interlinked cant have one without the other makes sense if you think about it. Mass needs a place to be and space can only be defined using mass. They key to the universe is time we use time to define space. Space is nothing more than the time it takes something to move. Thats what i meant by a graviton needs to effect time not space. When we talk of warping space for example we are talking about making it so we can cross it in a shorter time. A warp drive would actually change space it makes time in front compress and time behind it expand. Meaning you cross space in alot less time.

I tried to explain this partly to you earlier when i said what you were really asking about is time just didnt feel like walking you through how linked spacetime is. Ever ask yourself why the less gravity there is the quicker time moves? We see the effecton earth with our own satellites.

You are absolutely wrong. And missing the point, just blatant misunderstanding on your part.

Spaces exists in 3 dimensions +time if you want, mass exists in 3 dimensions, plus time. You think you sound cool and/or smart and/or right by saying 'things change and effect time' but in reality you sound like neither of those things.

Mass moves. Near the mass, gravity occurs. Therefore, near the mass, the gravity field moves. There is no better term to describe what occurs to the gravity field near mass, than 'curvature' (though maybe displacement would work or the same idea, the altering of local density, ideas of stress energy tensor).

The questions I asked were appropriate. Is 'that which curves/changes/displaces' locally near a mass, 'composed of a network of particles' (gravitons...or any particles at all?)?

If not... what could it possibly be composed of? If not separate particles, that are bound together somehow, then you would believe that the whole universal gravity field is one pure fundamental particle that is that large and there can be no breaks in it or parts of it.

The reason you are confused, is many reasons, but one of them is you think Space is at once absolutely nothing, and can be curved. If I say the gravity field, you probably will come back and say, No no no, there is no real gravity field, that just helps us model, it is really just space, well space must be a something if it curves, no no no space is nothing it is only the mass that produces the gravity field from nothing because uncertainty principle gravity field I think is made of virtual particles that come from nowhere everywhere the mass goes and this is what is curving. That sounds about what you believe in, but seriously ignore that, and answer my other questions.

a reply to: Jukiodone

This sounds to me like the graviton theory. To me, I always thought graviton idea was, "well...everything else we know about is quantized particles, lets assume the gravity field is composed of quantized particles, and then theorize and experiment until we can get closer and closer to the physical values of the particle".

So it could be possible that if space or gravity field is a super fluid, and you believe the superfluid is quantized or composed of separate particles, that those are the gravitons.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok space isnt nothing its everything it gives time its meaning and gives a place for thing's to occur. You want it to be made of something there is no need for it to be a physical object. Curvature of space could be nothing more than the effect mass has between the diffrent dimensions in the univere. In a 3D universe we see it as a curvature of space time. Now the universe could have some energy that the entire system works on but as of yet we havnt detected it. As far as virtual foam is this space or is this just latent energy in otherwise empty space? In order for a particle to effect space it also has to effect time. In relativity this isnt necessary.

a reply to: ImaFungi

No it's different.
Gravitons are hypothetical particles that mediate a "force".
In hypothetical quantised space, Gravity is not a force. It is simply the existing density of quanta in any localised measurement of space.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Exactly right either one or the other will be right my moneys on gravitons dont exist. Gravity is the effect of mass caused by density variations but who kmows i just find it unlikely we will find gravity to be tied to a particle.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: ImaFungi

No it's different.
Gravitons are hypothetical particles that mediate a "force".
In hypothetical quantised space, Gravity is not a force. It is simply the existing density of quanta in any localised measurement of space.

'the existing density of quanta in any localised measurement of space'. And for example, what is this quanta you speak of, an unknown/undiscovered 'gravity' quanta? You are saying, that all of space has an inherent quanta, like how water or a mountain is composed of quanta, space too is a substance composed of quanta?

Does the graviton hypothesis not suppose space is composed of the inherent quanta, the graviton? And that as a mass travels through space, it is always interacting with the gravity medium, a more massive object will interact with a larger quantity of gravity quanta, therefore creating the greater force of gravity to surrounding masses.

Its not supposed a force like a push or pull, thats the thing, the mechanism of GR assumes a displacement, a curving, because it is more intuitive to think that a mass A over here, is not 'pulling or pushing' mass B over there, but that mass A is 'pushing or pulling' the local medium it occupies from time to time, and because the local medium is connected to itself, here and there, like dominos, or like a taught fabric, what changes the medium here, will change the medium there. Therefore, mass A, changes its local medium, by existing in the medium, the change in the local medium creates a change up to a certain extent away from the mass itself, and mass B can be effected then up till a certain distance away from mass A, by approaching the extent of what its mass effecting medium, creates.

a reply to: ImaFungi

No quanta as in stuff the more stuff you put into an area the more the area distorts. Think of space as a hefty garbage bag it can hold alot of stuff but keep adding more stuff space starts to distort to hold it. If we shove too much stuff bag explodes thats like a black hole. The distortion is space expanding to hold more stuff.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

No quanta as in stuff the more stuff you put into an area the more the area distorts. Think of space as a hefty garbage bag it can hold alot of stuff but keep adding more stuff space starts to distort to hold it. If we shove too much stuff bag explodes thats like a black hole. The distortion is space expanding to hold more stuff.

Yea I know, and is this hefty bag, or space, composed of particles/quanta? If not, how can 'something exist' that is not composed of quanta? Something that takes up a massive 3d/4d area none the less? If the hefty bag/space is not quantized/composed of particles, what does this mean? It is just 'pure' 'energy', pure non quantized energy, like a perfect substance with no parts? Like how classically water/fluid appears to not have parts, it appears continuous, are you suggesting it is most probably that space/gravity field is a energetically dense substance that is the first we are aware of existing that is actually truly continuous?

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

No quanta as in stuff the more stuff you put into an area the more the area distorts. Think of space as a hefty garbage bag it can hold alot of stuff but keep adding more stuff space starts to distort to hold it. If we shove too much stuff bag explodes thats like a black hole. The distortion is space expanding to hold more stuff.

Yea I know, and is this hefty bag, or space, composed of particles/quanta? If not, how can 'something exist' that is not composed of quanta? Something that takes up a massive 3d/4d area none the less? If the hefty bag/space is not quantized/composed of particles, what does this mean? It is just 'pure' 'energy', pure non quantized energy, like a perfect substance with no parts? Like how classically water/fluid appears to not have parts, it appears continuous, are you suggesting it is most probably that space/gravity field is a energetically dense substance that is the first we are aware of existing that is actually truly continuous?

Does it really have to be made of something for example we can measure time it exists so what would time be made of ? We can measure space but it doesnt have to be made of anything. And even Einstein didnt see it as something physical. See this is where the problem comes in Einstein quite frankly nailed it relativity has been very successful at explaining things. But so has the standard model in particle physics we just cant get the two to play nice.

Now for the particle side of thing even here your assumption that space is made of something is wrong .Ill try to explain in geometry, we learn that a point has no dimension, but a line is one-dimensional, it has length. A plane is two dimensional—length and breadth as, for example, a triangle or circle. A solid is three-dimensional—length, breadth, and height, as for example, a tetrahedron or a sphere. It is often said that time is the fourth dimension and, while this seems true, we can no longer use a static geometric image to represent it. Take a three-dimensional object and move it, like throwing a ball. and you have an image of the fourth dimension. We see this as time but the forth dimension is motion and the time is the measurement. Now the fifth dimension we throw are ball and we get all possible trajectories for the ball. This fifth dimension would then correspond to quantum physics' "superposition" in which, prior to measurement, a quantum system can be in any possible state or, rather, in all possible states simultaneously. The 6th can be looked at like the third dimension of time are ball stretches through time making it essentially a line from past present and future. now we can keep going string theory has 11 to make everything work but even i start getting confused. Now some believe that what we see as curved space or gravity is in fact and effect from an upper dimension or bleed through if you will , Why gravity for example would be such a weak force.

IMAFUNGI- I sort of get what you are saying- I dont even "get" the idea of Gravitons though so if they are just theoretical bits of space- then yes maybe the theoretical impact is similar.

The interesting thing about Quantised Space is that you immediately get a multidimensional 11D Universe picture in your head when imagining using bubbles.

Imagine all reality is made up of bubbles and gaps between bubbles ( it seems spherical objects and gaps are natures favourite in the vacuum).
If we were to plot a localised co-ordinate of a Planck length object we could suggest a position that is beyond the usual measurements of XYZ and t (Time) in Quantised space.

Our make believe planck length object in space could be at X, Y, Z at a certain time but we could also describe it's position as Intra Spatial (within a bubble) within the Quantised space model.
We could also then describe the time to witness the planck length object using an intra spatial or super spatial descriptor.

11 Dimensions for events that happen at the plank scale and bleed over (average out) into reality=

4 conventional co-ordinates (X, Y, Z and Time) which identifies the bubble and it's number of resonances.
3 co-ordinates inside a bubble ( Intra Spatial XYZ)
3 co-ordinates relates to the bubbles position relative to other Bubble Positions (XYZ)
1 Time (super spatial time) to describe the bubbles velocity in super space



(Bubbles are Space Quanta- not necessarily round!)


This video sums it all up nicely in 1 hour:

vimeo.com...

I would appreciate someones review who has a the maths ability to verify the maximum and minimum curvature of space idea that logically falls out of having quantised space

originally posted by: Jukiodone
This video sums it all up nicely in 1 hour:

vimeo.com...

I would appreciate someones review who has a the maths ability to verify the maximum and minimum curvature of space idea that logically falls out of having quantised space

I watched the video as excruciating as it was, but there's no math to verify in the video.

Even if someone has math like Garrett Lisi's theory of everything, and he says the math is beautiful, he admits that it's meaningless if it doesn't agree with experiment, so that's the important question, does it? Lisi made some predictions about how his model might be experimentally verified, or more likely rejected (his words), so we would need to see something similar from Thad Roberts regarding how his model can be experimentally verified for it to be scientifically meaningful.

I see he worked on a book while in prison and has some excerpts from it on his website but maybe he hasn't published it yet? If not he should publish it because listening to him ramble for the first 30 minutes of that video before he actually said anything useful was painful. At least with a book or paper it's easier to skip to the relevant material. Further, serious science isn't usually done by writing popular books for the public, it's more often done via publishing peer-reviewed papers in respected journals, and while that's no guarantee of accuracy at least some peers reviewing for obvious errors, omissions or contradictions would add something.

There's nothing unusual about the idea of 11 dimensions which is part of M-theory, a unification of superstring theories, but experimental evidence confirming string theory is lacking too, and string theory isn't without its own problems, like which of the 10^520 vacua which are similar to our universe actually apply to our universe and why.

Ok I've lurked enough and am going to go ahead and show my ignorance :-)

I 'think' this is physical...maybe not...if not please to ignore lol

I am going to make an attempt at being concise

Is there such a thing as exact or do we simply keep delving closer and closer to being exact based on the available technology? Is there an ultimate end to being 'exact' on a measurement?

I mean in pen and paper experiments we can say force A = 10 (I really don't know units so bear with me...I am just making the point) and that force b = 5 or something like that. I can get behind that because on pen and paper you can make assumptions on exactness

But what of the real world? Like a piece of string. We use a ruler and measure it to be 1 foot. But then we can look closer and see that perhaps some miniscule bit of thread from the string extends some microscopic amount. So in fact it isn't 1 foot, it's 1 foot and some tiny amount. Great. But then can we look at the electrons and see that one extends further than we thought?

You get the point I am sure...is there ever a point where can can know something to be precise? exact? perfect measurement? Or is there always going to exist some manner of improving technology and measurment

...well that wasn't concise at all

No every measurement imposes an error
a reply to: KyoZero

a reply to: KyoZero
We can define most units exactly, but we can't measure exactly. The one unit we have problems with is the kilogram unit for mass, but most if not all the others have been defined without the use of physical standards.

You could literally write a book in response to that question so it's not a trivial topic, but I'll try to hit a few key points. Look at some unit definitions:

en.wikipedia.org...

Since 1967, the second has been defined to be:

the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.[1]

In 1997, the CIPM affirmed that the preceding definition "refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K."

en.wikipedia.org...

Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

So the reason a meter is related to 1/299,792,458 of a second, and not, say, 1/299,792,458.1 of a second is because we say so; it's an exact definition of a meter.

So in some sense we can have "exact" definitions of units, but we can't actually measure distance "exactly", partly due to equipment limitations. Some of the most impressive equipment to me are the optical atomic clocks that can measure the change in passage of time when the clock is moved up or down half a meter in the lab. However if you look at that research the error bars are quite large. It's still a statistically confirmed confirmation of relativity but as precise as it is, the measurements are still imprecise as seen by the error bars.

Even if we get over the equipment limitations, there may be fundamental limitations in nature that prohibit an exact measurement, like this measurement problem related to measuring more precisely than a Planck Length:

Simple dimensional analysis shows that the measurement of the position of physical objects with precision to the Planck length is problematic. Indeed, we will discuss the following thought experiment. Suppose we want to determine the position of an object using electromagnetic radiation, i.e., photons. The greater the energy of photons, the shorter their wavelength and the more accurate the measurement. If the photon has enough energy to measure objects the size of the Planck length, it would collapse into a black hole and the measurement would be impossible. Thus, the Planck length sets the fundamental limits on the accuracy of length measurement.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Indeed you could write a book on it.

The standard theorists have continually run into problems getting measurements to agree with their theories, so what they end up doing is, instead of altering their theories, they create systems of measurement that utilize "moving yardsticks."

In less obtuse terminology, scientists have never been able to prove the so-called "constants" utilized by relativity are actually constant. It's not just error bar readings, they have been observed to statistically vary over time. Both light and gravity exhibit this variance.

To solve this "problem" scientists simply declare what the constant should be, then alter the yardstick they measure by after the fact.

It's an absurdity.

When gravity is measured using a beam balance, it was shown to vary by as much as .7%.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

well I am going to go home and drink now...and try to digest all you said :-)

seriously though you presented that VERY clearly and I thank you quite a bit. I am sure you could indeed write a whole topic...a book an encyclopdia set and man I would be first in line to buy it

thank you so much for your time

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
To solve this "problem" scientists simply declare what the constant should be, then alter the yardstick they measure by after the fact.

In fundamental physics, physicists can set the gravitational constant to 1. Remember I mentioned Planck units?

How Many Fundamental Constants Are There?

You might at first think that the speed of light, Planck's constant and Newton's gravitational constant are great examples of fundamental physical constants.

But in fundamental physics, these constants are so important that lots of people use units where they all equal 1! The point is that we can choose units of length, time and mass however we want. That's three independent choices, so with a little luck we can use them to get our favorite three constants to equal 1. Planck was the first to notice this, so these units are called "Planck units"....

26 constants is not too many — but most physicists would prefer to have none. The goal is to come up with a theory that lets you calculate all these constants, so they wouldn't be "fundamental" any more. However, right now this is merely a dream.

"this is merely a dream" but somehow you're dreaming if you think this has already happened as your post suggests. We can't calculate values for those constants, so your implication that observation doesn't match our calculated values is based on the false premise that we even have calculated values; we generally don't.

The gravitational constant is one of the harder constants to measure, so of course there is some variability in the measurements as a result.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
"this is merely a dream" but somehow you're dreaming if you think this has already happened as your post suggests. We can't calculate values for those constants"

I must be dreaming then, because I've seen a nearly unending list of supposed measurements for constants in various scientific publications.

Hell, here's an MSM article that just came out in June declaring a new measurement for G!

www.nbcnews.com...

Oh by the way, your article is precisely what I'm taking about. Constants are still used in calculations, but their values are defined by the physicists themselves, not by a standardized method of measurement. The "yardstick" moves according to the needs of the theory.

originally posted by: dragonridr


Does it really have to be made of something for example we can measure time it exists so what would time be made of ? We can measure space but it doesnt have to be made of anything. And even Einstein didnt see it as something physical. See this is where the problem comes in Einstein quite frankly nailed it relativity has been very successful at explaining things. But so has the standard model in particle physics we just cant get the two to play nice.

Yes, it does. Something that curves or can be curved and affect things physically must be made of something, or the same to say, must be something, not nothing.

Here goes your famous confusion again. When we measure time, we are measuring physical objects, something. Try to measure time using ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, good luck. "Oh well thats easy, ill just take my stop watch and" No.

Now for the particle side of thing even here your assumption that space is made of something is wrong .Ill try to explain in geometry, we learn that a point has no dimension,

False, and anti logic. "Because our symbolic creation of geometry says this, when I use the same words to describe the universe, that means the universe must be equal to the rules we created for our abstract geometry" No.

I dont care if you learn in geometry a point has no dimension. Where in the universe have you learned that something exists that has no dimension? Have you measured dimensionless points in the universe? A dimensionless object is absolutely nothing, oxymoron, 'pointless' statement. And dont say "yea exactly, so gravity is made of non dimensional points and is absolutely nothing, and thatsss what curves" No.

but a line is one-dimensional, it has length.

Show me in the universe a line without width and depth, ill wait.

A plane is two dimensional—length and breadth as, for example, a triangle or circle.

Show me in the universe a plane without depth, ill wait.

A solid is three-dimensional—length, breadth, and height, as for example, a tetrahedron or a sphere. It is often said that time is the fourth dimension and, while this seems true, we can no longer use a static geometric image to represent it. Take a three-dimensional object and move it, like throwing a ball. and you have an image of the fourth dimension. We see this as time but the forth dimension is motion and the time is the measurement.

All stuff I know, but yes, good for you.

Now the fifth dimension we throw are ball and we get all possible trajectories for the ball. This fifth dimension would then correspond to quantum physics' "superposition" in which, prior to measurement, a quantum system can be in any possible state or, rather, in all possible states simultaneously.

No evidence this is something that actually exists, besides an abstract way to look at potential before an event we have troubles predicting its outcome occurs.

The 6th can be looked at like the third dimension of time are ball stretches through time making it essentially a line from past present and future. now we can keep going string theory has 11 to make everything work but even i start getting confused. Now some believe that what we see as curved space or gravity is in fact and effect from an upper dimension or bleed through if you will , Why gravity for example would be such a weak force.

Wow, I was waiting for you to even remotely attempt to touch upon my questions, scrolling down and responding as I went, and it just ends right here...damn.