It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by Balboa
So far, no one has succeeded at proving definitively that action-at-a-distance, i.e. entanglement, exists.
I agree that relating gravitation into the quantum realm is an excercise in frustration due to the infinitessimaly small forces being beyond (beneath) our instrumentation, however I disagree that 'entanglement' per se has not been proven. What has not been proven is the often quoted instantaneous action at a distance.
If the Higgs particle mediates mass and therefore gravitation, I would reason that the speed with which gravitational changes propogate is sub-lightspeed.
If gravitation is a function of EM, then it is lightspeed.
If gravitation is an illusion created by the curvature of timespace then it could propogate at light speed but could also go faster, depending upon HOW it is a function of timespace.
Beyond that there are several theories that could have an instant or supralightspeed rate but present physical theory backed with observation is then out of the question, except that the sums we do with orbits & such don't usually take the passage of time into consideration and produce slightly 'off' results if we try,
What the says to me is that we still don't have a rigourous enough theoretical framework.
Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by CIGGSofWAR
Thinking about your question, is mass not a function of time? Does logic suggest that when we talk about the local spacetime, which is a function of mass, does not gravity manifest itself proportionally with increase in mass?
Now we're back to mass being a function of time as any observation is an "average" of a constantly fluctuating exchange of positive and negative particles, and so then is time not also a function of gravity? (Just like time is a function of energy?)
Originally posted by Balboa
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
Very cool post! If you don't mind posting some references that we could check out, I'd very much like that.
If you don't mind me asking here: How are you involved in gravity research? (just self learned internet research or something else?)
Originally posted by Silverlok
" ...If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. ... the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years... From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of classical gravity of about 108 c, where c is the speed of light...."
Originally posted by l_e_cox
How do you "turn on and off" mass? So it is difficult to create a gravity signal (change in the field) big enough to be detected easily at a substantial distance away.
Just as electromagnetic waves (EM), gravitational waves (GW) too carry energy and momentum from their sources. Unlike EM waves, however, there is no dipole radiation in Einstein's theory of gravity. The dominant channel of emission is quadrupolar. But the recent experimental discovery of negative gravitational mass suggest the possibility of dipole radiation.
In a recent paper we have shown that the gravitational mass and the inertial mass are correlated by an adimensional factor, which depends on the incident radiation upon the particle. It was shown that only in the absence of electromagnetic radiation this factor becomes equal to 1 and that, in specific electromagnetic conditions, it can be reduced, nullified or made negative. This means that there is the possibility of control of the gravitational mass by means of the incident radiation.