Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I'm asking why Quantum Theory and Relativity don't work together

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AthlonSavage
 


I have heard that the magnetic force is stronger than the calculations say that it should be.
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 




To me it seems like these Three Forces are in action against gravity, keeping the particles, that form matter and its mass From quickly collapsing in on itself. Which is why objects with more mass possess more gravity, but all matter more or less is affected by it.


Bingo! Even on a macro level the way space time is some times demonstrated with that bowling ball on a trampoline curving space but that cant be all , or the planets would all crash into the sun.
Perhaps magnetism and the electric universe theory plays a part in this.
Then again objects in motion .......
I am a novice here and just providing some food for thought.
edit on 31-12-2013 by bluemooone2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by Mon1k3r
 


It is, actually; you just don't see it, probably because you're not too familiar with general relativity. No shame in that; it's a tough subject.

This, too, is incorrect:


For example, a cosmologist looks at distant galaxies and realizes that the universe is expanding, or inflating, as it were. But he cannot quite make the connection that if that type of inflation is occurring at the macrocosmic level, it is indeed also happening at the microcosmic level. Thus he himself, and his entire environment is inflating at a uniform rate.

It is only interstellar space, far from significant gravitational influences, that expands. In the vicinity of galaxies and their components, the metric expansion of space does not apply. Neither do physical objects expand along with space.


And this is what everyone is so certain of. They are certain that what they've been told about inflation is exactly how it has to be because that's consensus. For hundreds of years, people believed that the heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth, all because the authorities said so.

Space is space. It exists within us just as much as we exist in it. To assume that inflation of space would not apply to us, simply because it can't be observed, is just egotistical.

When you scrutinize the visualization of the cosmic background radiation taken by Hubble, one distinct feature is its uniformity. The fact that there are no large differences in heat or density from one area or another suggest uniformity of inflation. At what point did that uniformity cease to be uniform? After the first few seconds of the big bang? After 15 minutes? Ever?

For the sake of argument, say the average lifespan of a universe like ours is 900 trillion years. We're sitting at 11-16 billion, depending on who you listen to. On that kind of time frame, could we not still consider ourselves 'in the big bang?'



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Arbitrageur
Scientists question if what they are observing is accurate probably more than you realize.


Scientists deliberately do not question what they observe, and would prefer that others do not really question standing physics despite their observations. This is because they are entrenched in academia, they have invested their entire lives into their work, and science is coming to the point now where all the things that we've known thus far is coming into questions by new observations.

Galaxies intertwined in gravitational lock, with identical distances from our reference reporting varying red shift?

And yes, the speed of light now has more to do with a yardstick than it does how fast light actually travels.

If light is a wave, like sound is a wave, then what that wave describes is the conditions or substances through which the wave propagates. Like air or water, space must be considered the medium through which light waves propagate.

We need to stop looking for what is there, and start looking for those things we 'think' are not.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   
reply to post by IblisLucifer
 



Basically I'm asking why Quantum Theory and The Principals of Relativity don't work together


Because one of them is wrong.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Mon1k3r
 



It exists within us just as much as we exist in it. To assume that inflation of space would not apply to us, simply because it can't be observed, is just egotistical.

It's not an assumption, you silly person. It arises from the physics.

FLRW metric

Metric expansion of space



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Mon1k3r
We need to stop looking for what is there, and start looking for those things we 'think' are not.
I think you missed the whole point of the sources I posted, which is, they are looking for things we think are not there, like variability of "constants".


It exists within us just as much as we exist in it. To assume that inflation of space would not apply to us, simply because it can't be observed, is just egotistical.


Astyanax
It's not an assumption, you silly person. It arises from the physics..
Correct. Actually I can provide an interesting reference for the truly pedantic, which in in a way supports both apparently contradictory claims that the expansion of the universe does affect local systems and the claim that it does not affect local systems. Hopefully the nature of the calculation reveals how both claims can be true and what may or may not be observed:

Why doesn't the Solar System expand if the whole Universe is expanding?

For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.
Here is the Cooperstock paper to which he refers:

The influence of the cosmological expansion on local systems

So if the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System, I wouldn't argue against anyone who says there's no local effect (because that's really not a local effect of any significance), and I also wouldn't argue against anyone who says there is an effect if they cite that statistic.

But as you can see, we really haven't assumed "that inflation of space would not apply to us"; the effect has been calculated.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Mathematical calculations describe things that we observe. We match the math up with observations until the math describes what we observe. What we see is not necessarily what is. Why is it that astrophysicists have to continually add arbitrary, unconnected numbers to one side of these equations that supposedly describe the universe?

Dark matter = Arbitrary number, or another way to say "I don't know."

The trouble with the concept is that if everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is expanding at a uniform rate, from the very, very small, to the interstellar scale, we would not be able to observe this, because from our reference, everything would seem to be the same size all the time, regardless of expansion or inflation. We can only really notice this inflation on very large scales, because those are the scales on which it is observable.

The uniformity of the cosmic background is clue number one that the expansion of space does not give a damn if you are a tiny human who can't see very well yet.

edit on 31-12-2013 by Mon1k3r because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Mon1k3r
The trouble with the concept is that if everything, and I mean EVERYTHING is expanding at a uniform rate, from the very, very small, to the interstellar scale, we would not be able to observe this, because from our reference, everything would seem to be the same size all the time, regardless of expansion or inflation. We can only really notice this inflation on very large scales, because those are the scales on which it is observable.
I don't follow your logic here. If everything was expanding at a uniform rate, including all of our "yardsticks" we use to measure distance, then we wouldn't measure any increase on large scales either, would we?



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Just for the record, Relativity applies to sub-atomic particles (such as electrons or muons) also. Fast-travelling particles have more mass and experience time dilation. This has interesting implications for chemistry, such as making certain metals soft and resistant to oxidation: en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by FatherStacks
 


Is there no conversion step? Is there no midway point at which one translates into the other? Not even a hybrid which reconciles the two and determines the differences?



Not really, no (that I'm aware of). That's why there's been so much buzz about string theory and M-theory the past decade- they were thought to provide some unification, but hasn't really panned out thus far.



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
I don't follow your logic here. If everything was expanding at a uniform rate, including all of our "yardsticks" we use to measure distance, then we wouldn't measure any increase on large scales either, would we?


The problem with observing this happening on the scale of life is that there is not enough space between objects. At our scale, the idea that the car down the road is getting further away from you faster than the one in your driveway, or that the atoms at the center of your body are moving away from one another slower than the ones at your extremities (from the relative frame of reference of the center of your body, of course) is imperceptible.

When we look through telescopes at objects that have lots of space between them, it becomes more apparent. Because space is the component that is inflating, we can more plainly observe this inflation the more 'space' we look at objects through.

What we see when we look at the inflation of space, more distant galaxies and clusters moving away seemingly at a greater rate of acceleration than closer ones, is simply the inflation of space between those objects. More space, more inflation.

But SPACE is the substructure that is inflating, and since all matter and energy exists within space (and indeed IS space), then it must expand with the space. There is no magical force field around local groups, individual galaxies, stars, planets, or human bodies, or even atoms that absolve them from the expansion of that which makes their existence possible.

Measuring the rotational speed of spiral galaxies, we observe that the angular momentum is so great that the galaxy SHOULD fly apart, according to what we know. So now, we have something called dark matter, that supposedly surrounds local groups and galaxies that cause them to remain intact.

Dark matter is the fallacy that supplies the equilibrium necessary to make this possible, but only mathematically. It's an arbitrary number that is added to one side of an equation to make it conform to our observations.

If you move from the supposition that space is expanding within the galaxy as it is without, then there is no need to add this arbitrary number. But still, the general consensus remains that 'space only expands in places where there is no matter, and it doesn't expand where there is.

I think we just don't understand space.
edit on 31-12-2013 by Mon1k3r because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Mon1k3r
There is no magical force field around local groups, individual galaxies, stars, planets, or human bodies, or even atoms that absolve them from the expansion of that which makes their existence possible.
There aren't any magical forces that do this, but there are natural forces that affect expansion of space (the fundamental known forces of gravity, electroweak force and strong nuclear force.)

But obviously we still have things to learn so you're right about that. We don't understand dark energy yet, for example.



posted on Jan, 1 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


And no one understands gravity or inertia for that matter. We can measure it, we can ascribe numbers to it, make inventions that do wonderful things with our understanding of what it does, but no one can tell you why it does it.

The reason we don't understand or correctly observe the action of gravity is the same reason why someone thought we needed dark matter as compensation.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join