It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Anti Gravitational particles

page: 1
5
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:55 PM
When a body of matter spins it warps space time outwards,hence why we get an increase in mass in spinning matter,space time thins and is strectched outwards.
Thus if you spin a particle at many times the speed of light it will thin space time to the extent that the particle experiences zero gravity,ie it exists within a bubble of extremely thinned space time where zero gravity exists.

Thus all you have to do to attain zero gravity particles is to spin them at many times the speed of light and it will create a bubble of extensively thinned space time,so thin infact that the interaction between space time and the particle breakes down and it becomes anti gravitational.

the same can apply to a spaceship,if it spins at many times the speed of light it will exists in its own zero gravity zone.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:57 PM
Indeed, the problem is, how do you spin it without friction?

One could use a magnetic superfluid (thus no friction), or other bose-einstein condensate with magnetic properties, and use a magnetic to spin it. The fluid could be instead of a circular tube.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:59 PM

Thus far I believe we have only been able to accelerate particles to near the speed of light. Don't hold me to this but I don't think that it is possible to accelerate particles to even the speed of light let alone many times the speed of light. Could you post where you got your information. thx.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Chindogu because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:03 PM
Sounds interesting, could you post your sources or elaborate on this...

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:07 PM

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
Indeed, the problem is, how do you spin it without friction?

One could use a magnetic superfluid (thus no friction), or other bose-einstein condensate with magnetic properties, and use a magnetic to spin it. The fluid could be instead of a circular tube.

the barrier of the speed of light is a myth,that is merely the speed at which electrons travel at.
spin doesnt have the same mechanics as linear motion as spin does not cause the particle to come into contact with new space time where with linear motion there is a space time build up effect when particles travel.
the faster a particle spins the more it thins space time thus the less space time friction it experiences and thus the faster it can spin,the result is with spin particles can be naturally spun at post light speeds.

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:23 PM

So far, you've claimed that c = myth and that's bold in itself, even if I believe that to be true or not.

I personally don't believe that the speed of light can be broken but I certainly believe it can be circumvented.

Looking forward to some papers or journals in your references.

~Namaste

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:50 PM
From my understanding of particle physics, you're refering to an anti-higgs boson or anti-gravitron. The higgs-boson and gravitron are currently theroitical particles, and may or may not exist. But lets say for sake of argument that they do, and so would their anti-counterparts. This creates a large problem for your idea of spining an anti-particle to generate an anti-gravity field; unless this was done in a vacuum of deep space where there are no regular higg-bosons or gravitrons, the anti particles would annihilate their regular counterparts, releasing large amounts of energy. Thus, you wouldn't have anything to spin.

Supposing this did work, regardless of the annihilation problem, I doubt you could extend that to a spaceship. An object with a measurable amount of mass will have an increase in it's weight when in motion (either linear or rotational). Thus, you'd need a larger amount of energy to spin it faster, with an increase at each increment. Eventually you'd need an "infiinite" amount of energy since it's weight would become infintie once you approach the speed of light, let alone to overcome this speed.

Having said all of the above, there's still very much about the universe that we don't know, perhaps especially when it comes to quantum physics.

How would you propose to overcome these problems?

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by HeresHowItGoes
When a body of matter spins it warps space time outwards,hence why we get an increase in mass in spinning matter,space .

Just prove this for us and then we can discuss this matter further.

(I'll bet you have Einstein and some of those other guys spinning quite fast in their graves.)
edit on 20-3-2011 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:26 PM
A very interesting proposition. I did like the theory of beating e=mc2 by creating gravity waves to tweak your mass and fall through space. But inducing spin, hmmm... Is this sub atomic matter or atomic matter that we are talking about?

I can see how spin would work in beating c because with a record player the outside goes a lot faster than the inside. Right in the middle they may be no, or only a very small fraction of movement at all. So it all comes down to a technicality of what part of the matter is subject to the law of c. So the next question is how do you induce spin on such a small thing to such high speeds? Frequency of electromagnetic energy maybe, but producing this at a frequency faster than light does not make any sense. But this it because it does not have to accelerate the outside of the partial, just the inside centre of it. Is this getting close or is there something else going on?

Has this got something to do with scalar waves?
edit on 20-3-2011 by kwakakev because: added scalar question

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:54 PM

the barrier of the speed of light is a myth

How do you know?

that is merely the speed at which electrons travel at.

I think you mean photons. Electrons have rest mass, and nothing that has rest mass can attain the speed of light.

As these threads of yours multiply, it becomes ever more obvious that your take on science is refreshingly original – in fact, it is all your own. Did you think there were no scientifically literate ATS members?

edit on 20/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Astyanax

the barrier of the speed of light is a myth

How do you know?

that is merely the speed at which electrons travel at.

I think you mean photons. Electrons have rest mass, and nothing that has rest mass can attain the speed of light.

As these threads of yours multiply, it becomes ever more obvious that your take on science is refreshingly original – in fact, it is all your own. Did you think there were no scientifically literate ATS members?

edit on 20/3/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)

photons are a purely a hypothetical particles which has no basis in science,electromagnetic waves are composed of electrons hence why when you wish to produce an EM wave you apply an electrical current to two oscilating coils

Electromagnetism is defined as the combinations of alternating electric and magnetic fields created by accelerated charges that propagate out from these charges at the speed of light in the form of waves- electromagnetic waves or radiation

www.buzzle.com...
as you may know an electromagentic wave is composed of an electrical and magnetic component,there is no photon component,photons were devised by the schiester einstien.
the speed of light is the speed of electrons nothing more,if you wanna throw hypothetical particles into the argument then be my guest but science will soon show that photons as with einstiens theories are null and void.

mainstream science i know for a fact is a cover up,a cover up to keep us in the dark as to the true nature of existence,humans arnt allowed to be physicists,only synths are and these synths must abide by the cover up protocols.

no mass?,electromagetic waves HAVE MASS thus cannot be composed of "photons",how can an electromagnetic wave which has mass travel at the speed of light if only massless particles can?.an em wave clearly has masss,is clearly composed of electrons and clearly travels at the speed of light,such a simple argument blows apart yours and mainstream physics yet the synths will never hear it and continue their schiester work.
i reiterate my case that the speed of light is merel the speed of an electron and the reason why its so fast is that its so small,quarks,singularities and neutrinos will travel faster than an electron.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by kwakakev
A very interesting proposition. I did like the theory of beating e=mc2 by creating gravity waves to tweak your mass and fall through space. But inducing spin, hmmm... Is this sub atomic matter or atomic matter that we are talking about?

I can see how spin would work in beating c because with a record player the outside goes a lot faster than the inside. Right in the middle they may be no, or only a very small fraction of movement at all. So it all comes down to a technicality of what part of the matter is subject to the law of c. So the next question is how do you induce spin on such a small thing to such high speeds? Frequency of electromagnetic energy maybe, but producing this at a frequency faster than light does not make any sense. But this it because it does not have to accelerate the outside of the partial, just the inside centre of it. Is this getting close or is there something else going on?

Has this got something to do with scalar waves?
edit on 20-3-2011 by kwakakev because: added scalar question

ive seen it in action,i was about to be hit by a van when i suddenly became weightless and was propelled forwards away from the van,i could feel it was a gravitational wave.
edit on 22-3-2011 by HeresHowItGoes because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:43 PM

photons are a purely a hypothetical particles which has no basis in science

Which explains why we can measure their spin states and use them for various communication purposes.

I'll level with you - I think the concept of "particle" is an antiquated notion that undermines the true nature of our universe. However - the phenomena we attribute to the presence of something we refer to as a "photon" is quite well documented. I'm sure our understanding of it will evolve as time goes on, and the concept of particles will eventually be seen as silly as the "blueberry pudding" model of atoms that existed for a time.

Now, if you want to get into particles that are truly hypothetical (IE - it is still debated whether they actually exist or are merely a mathematical convenience, as their presence is only derived indirectly from math used to explain observed phenomena, never directly observed) - you could look up the gluons believed to be responsible for electromagnetism.

electromagnetic waves are composed of electrons

Not really, no. That would be closer to electrostatics. Electromagnetic waves are still a bit of a mystery. Our understanding of them is almost exclusively functional and utilitarian. For example - the power supplies in your computer currently have at least one small flyback transformer with a 30 kilohertz oscillation applied to it (used for DC-DC conversion in a number of power supplies). Alternately, an inductor can be used in another form of off-the-line power supply.

In either case - you've got an EM field buzzing away in your computer - up the frequency a little bit, and you might be able to pick it up on your radio. Increase it by a few orders of magnitude, and you'll begin to feel it glow with heat - not from resistive losses, but because the field is oscillating in the infra-red spectrum. Up the frequency even further, and you'll see the transformer glow in the visible spectra before it passes into ultraviolet. Eventually, you get into X-rays, which are classified as radiation emitted by electrons (not necessarily free-flying electrons... though that's probably a whole "does the photon really exist in empty space or does it just appear where it needs to be" sort of craziness). It would generally be accepted that, such a hypothetical resonant circuit, would not emit the x-rays so much as it would excite electrons into emitting x-rays. Going up further - you get gamma radiation, which is emitted by the nucleus of atoms - generally accepted to be caused by neutrons, neutrinos, etc.

So - why we go from radio to light to spontaneous emission of neutrons with the same force is still something of a hum-dinger in the physics community. It's likely that it's one force triggering different reactions within different structures - but that's merely my guess.

hence why when you wish to produce an EM wave you apply an electrical current to two oscilating coils

This is partially true. EMR is present any time an electric current is present. Induction is the tendency for any conductive material to resist a change in the magnetic flux of the space it occupies by generating a current 180 degrees inverted from the source of the flux change. This, in turn, leads to the formation of an opposing magnetic field.

This is why an aluminum ring (non-magnetic), will repel away from a transformer or other inductor under the influence of an alternating or pulsed current. You'll notice, however, that a plastic or rubber ring (non-conductive) will not react in proximity to the transformer.

Obviously, it's not as simple as "EM waves are electrons" - as even non-conductive materials are subject to electrostatic phenomena.

posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 11:48 PM

Yes, well, all that’s as may be, but according to the boring old conventional physics I studied at university, the photon is the gauge boson of the electromagnetic interaction. That is to say, photons (not
electrons) are the force carriers of the electromagnetic field.

edit on 22/3/11 by Astyanax because: dohh!

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:48 PM

So - why we go from radio to light to spontaneous emission of neutrons with the same force is still something of a hum-dinger in the physics community. It's likely that it's one force triggering different reactions within different structures - but that's merely my guess.

Actually in physics this is a part which is extremely well understood with lots of confirmed quantitative predictions.

It's because the quantum mechanical interaction of charged particles and electromagnetism is very well understood---because this is the most experimentally practical force to manipulate. And yes, the eventual effects can be quite different but the underlying interaction is electromagnetism all the way down. Pretty remarkable actually that if you add QM + electromagnetism + atoms, you explain of 90% of what's known in physics.

On their own, very high frequency and high energy photons do not spontaneously emit neutrons, but they do create positron/electron pairs.

The question is why do your eyes see light and not radio---that's because of the atomic physics of biological molecules.

edit on 15-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

Now, if you want to get into particles that are truly hypothetical (IE - it is still debated whether they actually exist or are merely a mathematical convenience, as their presence is only derived indirectly from math used to explain observed phenomena, never directly observed) - you could look up the gluons believed to be responsible for electromagnetism.

I think you meant "strong force".

You need to define "particles that are truly hypothetical" and ones which aren't carefully. The professional philosophers are probably not much help here, and the amateur ones none at all.

Sticking within physics, here's my definition: If it gravitates (contributes to the stress-energy tensor which is the source term in the Einstein equation), it's real.

Gluons count as do photons.

Other things like "phonons" are more descriptions of behaviors of underlying particles which themselves already count in the stress-energy tensor, I'd say no.

Obviously, it's not as simple as "EM waves are electrons" - as even non-conductive materials are subject to electrostatic phenomena.

It's as simple as "EM waves are NOT electrons".

edit on 15-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:03 AM
I'd like to see the formulae on mass increasing. Or is it just that mass acts as if it is increasing due to the actions and influences of the particles surrounding it?

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 02:17 AM

no mass?,electromagetic waves HAVE MASS thus cannot be composed of "photons",how can an electromagnetic wave which has mass travel at the speed of light if only massless particles can?.an em wave clearly has masss,is clearly composed of electrons and clearly travels at the speed of light,such a simple argument blows apart yours and mainstream physics yet the synths will never hear it and continue their schiester work.

Here is what actual physics says:

Photons do not have mass. An electromagnetic wave is not composed of electrons and will propagate perfectly fine in the absence of electrons or any other matter.

Furthermore, it is not necessary to have mass to posses these properties which photons/electromagnetic waves possess:

a) have momentum (linear & angular)
b) store and propagate energy
c) be affected by, and affect gravitation

I really wish that people who wanted to criticize standard physics actually understand standard physics.

Often here it feels like people bitching about Ludvig van Beethoven because they think Ludvig's some spoiled blond bimbo singer who flashes her crotch when drunk.

1) Deny Ignorance
2) Think Different.

Do NOT reverse the order!

edit on 16-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 03:48 AM

Actually in physics this is a part which is extremely well understood with lots of confirmed quantitative predictions.

We clearly have different standards of quality.

Physics still can't unravel the conundrum of particle-wave duality. While we grow accustomed to working with probable physics as opposed to determinant physics - we still have no real clue -what- the hell a particle/wave/thingy is. It is even sufficient to say that the particle is merely a mathematical convenience used to express interaction and the wave a mathematical convenience used to express transmission/communicability.

It's because the quantum mechanical interaction of charged particles and electromagnetism is very well understood---because this is the most experimentally practical force to manipulate. And yes, the eventual effects can be quite different but the underlying interaction is electromagnetism all the way down. Pretty remarkable actually that if you add QM + electromagnetism + atoms, you explain of 90% of what's known in physics.

The problem is that quantum-mechanics is not an understood thing. It is a catalog of experimental data and the behavior and existence of particles derived from them. If we understood "quantum mechanics" we'd have a unified field theory and be able to predict the existence of particles and create them using particle accelerators quite reliably. Sure - different teams speculate on the existence of one particle or another and find it after five or more years of experimenting and analyzing the results - but there's no universal standard that people use to make these predictions off of. Half the time their eventual discovery flies in the face of what was once "known."

For example - I've already been poorly understood by two people in this thread, you included. The source of electromagnetic fields is the movement and/or alignment of electrons. The carrier is another story entirely. While we call it a photon - all a photon really is is the quantization of localized transmission of energy through empty space. See particle-wave duality as the reason I use that kind of definition for a photon.

The question is why do your eyes see light and not radio---that's because of the atomic physics of biological molecules.

While I posed the question, it wasn't due to my own lack of understanding.

The force (quantized in the concept of a photon) reacts with matter differently depending upon the properties of its source (frequency, intensity/amplitude, etc). It has little to do with the physics of any one particular molecule, but the nature of the interaction of this "photon" and electrons. It would be impossible to "see" radio even with a heavily modified retinal chemistry. Although I have considered the notion of genetically modifying a class of humanoid with conductive filaments inside body hair and connected to specialized neural receptors that act as AM/FM tuners and detectors.

Of course - what I've just described is quantum electrodynamics. Albeit - very simply and from an interrogative position as opposed to a declarative one.

The question always comes back around to what is real versus what adds up on paper.

There's a reason I'm such a stickler about this: presumptions in science are damaging. We have a tendency to try and reduce processes to our own ability to envision them. While this may help in grasping the concepts of observed phenomena, it does not help in terms of causality and exploring the nature of the observed phenomena. Obviously - when something can be demonstrated to behave in two ways that are, normally, mutually exclusive, you are missing an important concept to put it all into perspective.

This is where we get into things like the holographic model and start talking about physical dimensions being manifestations of the exchange of properties along a two dimensional (or some number fewer than the eleven currently recognized) information system. At this point - almost everything is virtual and is merely a cursory product of information exchange. It'd be comparable to a video game - the rasterized environment betrays the information that is actually being processed. Or like how the web-page you are viewing betrays the information that the computer actually reads.

But that all starts to sound dangerously close to "life is but a dream" - and we don't need to row the boat any further down that stream, merrily or otherwise.

Sticking within physics, here's my definition: If it gravitates (contributes to the stress-energy tensor which is the source term in the Einstein equation), it's real.

How surprisingly practical of you.

But the devil is in the details. At the center of heated debate regarding Gravitation these days is the concept of Emergent Gravity. It's actually a fairly old idea - it is just not very well publicized and previous work was, interestingly, too mathematically complex to see mainstream consideration. Verlinde came along and piggy-backed to demonstrate that Newtonian equations could be derived from quantum mechanics.

Pending more experimental evidence for the holographic principle that these formulas are based off of, and some refinement of the model - it implies that the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics was merely a figment of our imaginations and a failure to consider the macroscopic implications of quantum mechanics.

The practical implications mean little for what we already know about gravity - apples thrown up will still come down. It would be, for gravity, what quantum electrodynamics did for magnetism. Further - it means relativity no longer has to be unified with quantum mechanics... as it's merely the effects of entropy.

This is where gravity no longer exists as a fundamental force. Mutual attraction between two bodies will still be real - we just will never encounter the graviton, Higgs Boson, or some other tom-foolery.

Or, more likely - we'll prove the holographic principle and the emergent nature of gravity, then find the higgs boson and graviton - just to mess with our minds.

It's as simple as "EM waves are NOT electrons".

Well, except for the fact that EMF almost exclusively interacts with electrons - from source to load. You don't see EM that doesn't originate from charged particles. EM waves aren't photons, either - the photons merely pop into existence long enough to exchange information. The true nature of the phenomena is obscured.

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Aim64C

Actually in physics this is a part which is extremely well understood with lots of confirmed quantitative predictions.

We clearly have different standards of quality.

Physics still can't unravel the conundrum of particle-wave duality. While we grow accustomed to working with probable physics as opposed to determinant physics - we still have no real clue -what- the hell a particle/wave/thingy is. It is even sufficient to say that the particle is merely a mathematical convenience used to express interaction and the wave a mathematical convenience used to express transmission/communicability.

I personally believe that there is no actual randomness, it's evolution of the Heisenberg equation all the way down. If it looks random it's because of interactions with extremely chaotic and high dimensional dynamics (vacuum or other fields/collections of many particles).

What does it mean to have a "clue" about what the hell a particle/wave/thingy is? Quantum mechanical particles are what they are, they have aspects of both, always. In practical experimental circumstances, especially bosons with large wavelengths and large quantum numbers, they act very very wavelike so that a classical continuum theory is very close approximation. In other cases, when they have similar or smaller wavelengths than characteristic sizes of stuff they are interacting with, they act more like particles. Generally things with pretty strict conservation laws in most circumstances also are more "particle like", because the stuff that humans intuitively know as stuff (i.e. matter) behaves exactly this way. Prior to the 20th century, no human had ever intentionally changed some thing's lepton or hadron number.

It's because the quantum mechanical interaction of charged particles and electromagnetism is very well understood---because this is the most experimentally practical force to manipulate. And yes, the eventual effects can be quite different but the underlying interaction is electromagnetism all the way down. Pretty remarkable actually that if you add QM + electromagnetism + atoms, you explain of 90% of what's known in physics.

The problem is that quantum-mechanics is not an understood thing. It is a catalog of experimental data and the behavior and existence of particles derived from them. If we understood "quantum mechanics" we'd have a unified field theory and be able to predict the existence of particles and create them using particle accelerators quite reliably.

That's not how I see it. I'm not a real expert on this, but this is how I thought things went:

You start with a Lagrangian density---this has your axioms about what "stuff" there is in your theory, and is an entirely experimentally determined assumption. Then you have certain rules---known as quantum mechanics---which show how to construct equations of motion and interaction strengths. So far as we can tell, all physics (except for gravitation) can be successfully described this way. Throughout the decades since 1930's we've discovered a bunch more stuff to put in the Lagrangians (the various leptons, quarks, etc, etc, etc) but the underlying quantum mechanical rules have been the same since Bohr, Dirac, Einstein & Heisenberg.

This is no different from a classical field theory where you have a similar density and apply a principle of least action---you get classical mechanical laws. The stuff you put in as the fields representing the physics was your choice to describe the system in question---once you put that there is a cookbook procedure to find laws of motion.

Sure - different teams speculate on the existence of one particle or another and find it after five or more years of experimenting and analyzing the results - but there's no universal standard that people use to make these predictions off of. Half the time their eventual discovery flies in the face of what was once "known."

For example - I've already been poorly understood by two people in this thread, you included. The source of electromagnetic fields is the movement and/or alignment of electrons.

Any charged particle in fact.

The carrier is another story entirely. While we call it a photon - all a photon really is is the quantization of localized transmission of energy through empty space. See particle-wave duality as the reason I use that kind of definition for a photon.

Have you had a quantum optics class? Some things are better explained that way. It's a little complicated but you can take a classical system and quantize it and "the photon" is the eigenstate of a creation operator. It's more like orbitals of electrons in an atom. A classical plane wave is not a pure state in photon number!

The question is why do your eyes see light and not radio---that's because of the atomic physics of biological molecules.

While I posed the question, it wasn't due to my own lack of understanding.

The force (quantized in the concept of a photon) reacts with matter differently depending upon the properties of its source (frequency, intensity/amplitude, etc). It has little to do with the physics of any one particular molecule, but the nature of the interaction of this "photon" and electrons. It would be impossible to "see" radio even with a heavily modified retinal chemistry. Although I have considered the notion of genetically modifying a class of humanoid with conductive filaments inside body hair and connected to specialized neural receptors that act as AM/FM tuners and detectors.

Of course - what I've just described is quantum electrodynamics. Albeit - very simply and from an interrogative position as opposed to a declarative one.

The question always comes back around to what is real versus what adds up on paper.

That's what experiment is for. I'm practical. If it works, it's good.

There's a reason I'm such a stickler about this: presumptions in science are damaging. We have a tendency to try and reduce processes to our own ability to envision them. While this may help in grasping the concepts of observed phenomena, it does not help in terms of causality and exploring the nature of the observed phenomena. Obviously - when something can be demonstrated to behave in two ways that are, normally, mutually exclusive, you are missing an important concept to put it all into perspective.

This is where we get into things like the holographic model and start talking about physical dimensions being manifestations of the exchange of properties along a two dimensional (or some number fewer than the eleven currently recognized) information system. At this point - almost everything is virtual and is merely a cursory product of information exchange. It'd be comparable to a video game - the rasterized environment betrays the information that is actually being processed. Or like how the web-page you are viewing betrays the information that the computer actually reads.

As far as I can tell, it's just another hypothetical representation of the laws of motion. If it ultimately predicts better, it's better. Why would one be more "real" than another?

Sticking within physics, here's my definition: If it gravitates (contributes to the stress-energy tensor which is the source term in the Einstein equation), it's real.

How surprisingly practical of you.

Why surprising? I'm not into philosophical mumbo jumbo in physics very much. I care about observable results.

But the devil is in the details. At the center of heated debate regarding Gravitation these days is the concept of Emergent Gravity. It's actually a fairly old idea - it is just not very well publicized and previous work was, interestingly, too mathematically complex to see mainstream consideration. Verlinde came along and piggy-backed to demonstrate that Newtonian equations could be derived from quantum mechanics.

Pending more experimental evidence for the holographic principle that these formulas are based off of, and some refinement of the model - it implies that the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics was merely a figment of our imaginations and a failure to consider the macroscopic implications of quantum mechanics.

The practical implications mean little for what we already know about gravity - apples thrown up will still come down. It would be, for gravity, what quantum electrodynamics did for magnetism. Further - it means relativity no longer has to be unified with quantum mechanics... as it's merely the effects of entropy.

It would be great theoretically. It might also suck practically---then there's no warp drive to invent, ever. If GR, and nothing but GR is an inescapable consequence of thermodynamics then we won't discover any hidden interaction which we didn't know about before (stuff in the lagrangian instead of the rules governing how to get physics out of it---which emergent gravity is).

This is where gravity no longer exists as a fundamental force. Mutual attraction between two bodies will still be real - we just will never encounter the graviton, Higgs Boson, or some other tom-foolery.

Graviton, probably not. I thought the Higgs had little to do with gravitation, though.

Or, more likely - we'll prove the holographic principle and the emergent nature of gravity, then find the higgs boson and graviton - just to mess with our minds.
etic fields.

I hope the LHC doesn't find Higgs. Or, if it does, it finds two. Or three of them. Just to make things interesting.
edit on 17-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 05:42 PM
Sorry double post. Ignore.
edit on 17-4-2011 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

top topics

5