It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I watched the video as excruciating as it was, but there's no math to verify in the video.
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
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."
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.
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."
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.
In fundamental physics, physicists can set the gravitational constant to 1. Remember I mentioned Planck units?
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.
"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.
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.
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"
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.
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.