Could Gravity Be Just A Little Bit Simpler?

I've been wandering around the 'net lately trying to find a good theory about gravity that holds some serious water. I've found that a lot of them, in response to something that humans really aren't sure about, is to find something horrendously complex and usually arbitrary. A few places state that we have no way of measuring gravity. Riiiiight.

So, in order to put my feeble brain at ease I've set myself to pondering the question of gravity. I've taken a look at the graviton theory. If gravitons exist, they're supposed to be massless. How, then, do places with more mass have more gravity? Shouldn't mass be irrelevant if gravitons are massless? And how would a particle that is both invisible and has no mass exert a force as we know it?

Yeah, I think you get the picture. We don't know a whole heck of a lot about gravity except that it's an acceleration (9.81 m?s^2 average on Earth) and that it hurts to try and permanently defy it. Thus, I have attempted to supply my own small theory that seems to more or less make sense, and is far simpler than a lot of other theories out there.

In short: I believe that gravity is the cumulative force of the Van der Waals Forces (AKA London Dispersion Forces). . Hooray me. The VDW forces are traditionally very very weak. Basically they are attractions of the particles of one atom to the oppositely charged particles of another atom. Since the electrons of atoms are not evenly spread all of the time, we get a resultant net attraction. This force is present in all compounds, ionic, molecular, and otherwise, although forces like Dipole-Dipole, Hydrogen bonding, and all that other junk are much stronger.

Now, you all are probably thinking "yes, it's a force. But there's a lot more forces out there that could be responsible for gravity", and you are correct. But what piques my interest is that this one has some serious similarities. Alone, one atom's attraction for another from the VDW forces is very small. But between planetary amounts of atoms for atoms of other things, I expect that we get something more likely to tip the scales. The Earth is reported at 5.9736 x 10^24 kilograms. That is (using chemical composition from Wikipedia's Earth article) 93 780 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms pulling on whatever else there is around the Earth. I expect that has just a little bit more of an effect than one or two atoms.

Interestingly enough, this would account perfectly for the fact that we observe gravity only as a constant acceleration, not a constant force. Since this field is so large because of the cumulative effect, each force reaches each atom in you. So each atom in you receives basically the same force. If you were made of one atom, it would exert a certain amount of force on that atom. Enough, in fact, to make it accelerate at about 9.81 meters per second due to the attraction. If you were made of two atoms, (basically) the same force would be exerted on each of the two atoms. Hence they move at the same rate and, thus, stick together. Understanding prevails. By now a lot of you who couldn't initially understand are probably seeing that this makes sense in some mad, insane way that should never have defiled a human mind.

Because the same force is exerted on each separate atom (or similar enough forces to not have a significant differing effect on adjacent atoms) it appears very much that gravity is a force that changes to make an object accelerate at a particular rate. But this is explained, and can be seen as similar effects on separate atoms by a force.

Anyway, sorry for those that really don't care. The rant is over now.

mod edit: title spelling

[edit on 13-5-2007 by sanctum]

Isnt that, except for the mention of the Van der Waals Forces, exactly what gravity is considered by the majority to be? the attraction beetween masses? larger masses ie those with more atoms, having a larger effect?

gravity does not, from my understanding, exeart a constant accelaration, it varys where ever you go.

so the same force is not on two atoms, unless they are exactly the same distance from the centre of the mass the pull of gravity is being measured from.

In fact, your head has less of an accelearation towards the earth then do your feet, altough the difference, though measurable, is not enough to really cause any ill effects.

of course, when much stronger forces of gravity are in queestion, such as over the event horizon of a black hole, the effect is noticable, very much so, and objects will become streched. eg if you were in there yould have normal head, but long torso, girraffe like legs, and really really long feet.
this effect i have heard reffered to as spagittifacation

I found this at C2C today.
Weird gravity over Canada blamed on Glaceirs

Weird Gravity in Canada Blamed on Hefty Glaciers
www.livescience.com...

I am a therapist that uses gravity as a tool.
I have a nice thing up under science on Tensional Release Therapy.
Cheers to the gravity gang

Originally posted by tiddly54
Isnt that, except for the mention of the Van der Waals Forces, exactly what gravity is considered by the majority to be? the attraction beetween masses? larger masses ie those with more atoms, having a larger effect?

Yes, that is basically what gravity is considered. This is not really a post to redefine what gravity is, but rather what exerts the force.

so the same force is not on two atoms, unless they are exactly the same distance from the centre of the mass the pull of gravity is being measured from.

In fact, your head has less of an accelearation towards the earth then do your feet, altough the difference, though measurable, is not enough to really cause any ill effects.

True, the force of gravity does differ over that difference, but on a planet the gravitational field is so large and changes so gradually that it does not significant affect us.

of course, when much stronger forces of gravity are in queestion, such as over the event horizon of a black hole, the effect is noticable, very much so, and objects will become streched. eg if you were in there yould have normal head, but long torso, girraffe like legs, and really really long feet.
this effect i have heard reffered to as spagittifacation

Hence, I suspect that it is good that none of us are currently living on or in close proximity to event horizons, although it would probably explain quite a bit about basketball players.

being one of the few people that make their living off of gravity, I am more interested in it then most can imagine.
Its a fastinating subject and needs to be part of any therapy for orthopedic injuries...
did you ever hear that before?
a gravity therapist is a postural therapist that uses gravity as tool in the relation of structure and function....very cool stuff



I did make a post by the father of the atomic clock and his new theory of gravity.
cheers

Remember that a good theory has to account for all the variabilities and predict correctly. Physicists keep hoping to find a simple model for it, but so far the quest for an easy explaination has been elusive.

They've looked at interatomic forces like the Van Der Waals forces, actually (and that one as well) and it simply doesn't account for everything... like the fact that the sun has a huge amount of gravity. It's one giant ball of plasma, and there are no pairs of atoms or molecules inside it. If gravity was related to the Van der Waals force, then the sun would have almost no gravitational pull, and distant stars could't distort light through gravitational lenses.

[edit on 14-5-2007 by Byrd]

thats why relativity is so much better in explaining the effects of gravity via warped space.

I know this is a very old thread but for those interested there are others who have had the same thought...

Google search for gravity van der waals forces

Detailed theory of electric gravity

gravity is your friend. until you get drunk.

Until you can come up with something better, I’m afraid Einstein rules.

General Relativity has worked quite well for the past 100 years. The reason scientists have attempted to replace it with a quantum equivalent isn’t because it doesn’t work; it’s because they would like to be able to explain all the known forces using the same methodology/language. The strong, weak and electromagnetic forces lent themselves well to quantum mechanics. Gravity, however, seems to be a different animal.

Einstein’s approach is different. He didn’t treat gravity as a force, but rather as a consequence of the of the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass. It’s not viewed as an attractive force, but is a warpage of spacetime in the vicinity of massive bodies/objects. Although the mathematics of general relativity is diificult (but elegant), the concept is simple enough. GR is strictly a theory of geometry. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within spacetime.

It may be that gravity just doesn’t lend itself well under the umbrella of particle physics/quantum mechanics, and scientists are heading down the wrong path by insisting it must be particulate (graviton) in nature. They’re so obssessed with coming up with a Theory of Everything (what an arrogant name), though, that they continue down this path. It may turn out that we’re just not seeing the forest for the trees.

Have fun!!

I blame the gnomes.

originally posted by: netbound
Until you can come up with something better, I’m afraid Einstein rules.

General Relativity has worked quite well for the past 100 years. The reason scientists have attempted to replace it with a quantum equivalent isn’t because it doesn’t work; it’s because they would like to be able to explain all the known forces using the same methodology/language. The strong, weak and electromagnetic forces lent themselves well to quantum mechanics. Gravity, however, seems to be a different animal.

Einstein’s approach is different. He didn’t treat gravity as a force, but rather as a consequence of the of the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass. It’s not viewed as an attractive force, but is a warpage of spacetime in the vicinity of massive bodies/objects. Although the mathematics of general relativity is diificult (but elegant), the concept is simple enough. GR is strictly a theory of geometry. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within spacetime.

It may be that gravity just doesn’t lend itself well under the umbrella of particle physics/quantum mechanics, and scientists are heading down the wrong path by insisting it must be particulate (graviton) in nature. They’re so obssessed with coming up with a Theory of Everything (what an arrogant name), though, that they continue down this path. It may turn out that we’re just not seeing the forest for the trees.

Have fun!!

But GR doesn't display gravitational attraction, only space deformation.

In other words, an object under the influence of a gravitational field, if gravity was only about space deformation, wouldn't fall, it would just have to apply different forces to counter the space deformation.

But in reality objects fall to their gravitational well, which means that there is something beyond space deformation.

There is no questioning gravity.
There is also a simple test,
Try standing on your head and taking a crap,
Then you will realise,
You cant control it that well/

originally posted by: masterp

originally posted by: netbound
Until you can come up with something better, I’m afraid Einstein rules.

General Relativity has worked quite well for the past 100 years. The reason scientists have attempted to replace it with a quantum equivalent isn’t because it doesn’t work; it’s because they would like to be able to explain all the known forces using the same methodology/language. The strong, weak and electromagnetic forces lent themselves well to quantum mechanics. Gravity, however, seems to be a different animal.

Einstein’s approach is different. He didn’t treat gravity as a force, but rather as a consequence of the of the geometry of spacetime in the presence of mass. It’s not viewed as an attractive force, but is a warpage of spacetime in the vicinity of massive bodies/objects. Although the mathematics of general relativity is diificult (but elegant), the concept is simple enough. GR is strictly a theory of geometry. It describes how objects interact with each other by changing their geometric distribution within spacetime.

It may be that gravity just doesn’t lend itself well under the umbrella of particle physics/quantum mechanics, and scientists are heading down the wrong path by insisting it must be particulate (graviton) in nature. They’re so obssessed with coming up with a Theory of Everything (what an arrogant name), though, that they continue down this path. It may turn out that we’re just not seeing the forest for the trees.

Have fun!!

But GR doesn't display gravitational attraction, only space deformation.

In other words, an object under the influence of a gravitational field, if gravity was only about space deformation, wouldn't fall, it would just have to apply different forces to counter the space deformation.

But in reality objects fall to their gravitational well, which means that there is something beyond space deformation.

Yes, there is.

It is space-time deformation that makes things fall in the GR model.

originally posted by: Darkpr0
I've been wandering around the 'net lately trying to find a good theory about gravity that holds some serious water. I've found that a lot of them, in response to something that humans really aren't sure about, is to find something horrendously complex and usually arbitrary.

There's something pretty remarkable, invented by a guy named Albert Einstein. Nearly exactly 100 years ago, I think November 24th 1915, he cracked it.

Now, general relativity is not 'horribly complex', by the standards of modern physics, and is certainly not 'arbitrary', but it is subtle and difficult to appreciate and needs quite a bit of study to really understand it.

A few places state that we have no way of measuring gravity. Riiiiight.

Measuring gravity is technologically quite difficult to do with precision but it's done.

So, in order to put my feeble brain at ease I've set myself to pondering the question of gravity. I've taken a look at the graviton theory. If gravitons exist, they're supposed to be massless. How, then, do places with more mass have more gravity? Shouldn't mass be irrelevant if gravitons are massless? And how would a particle that is both invisible and has no mass exert a force as we know it?

No, mass is not irrelevant if gravitons are massless.

Electromagnetic waves do not have charge, and yet charge is essential to creating electromagnetic waves.

Let's stick to the Standard Model of elementary particle physics. Here, the idea is that one kind of particle (photons, i.e. electromagnetic waves), interact with other kinds of particles, like electrons and quarks, which themselves have charge.

Electrons are not photons, but they mutually interact with one another. The concept of electromagnetism needs both particles with charge, and photons which don't have charge, but interact with things that do.


Why? If you want to ask why the Standard Model is the way it is, that's above my pay grade. The Universe was born that way and stays that way.

The same should apply to gravitation. There is no strong-field full theory of quantum gravity (the weak field limit has been known since the 1960's I believe) yet but it's presumed to work similarly.

Van der Waals with relativity is the closest you get with Einstein. You need Tesla for understanding that enables work. I'll try to explain it. Gravity is like the consciousness of the demiurge that has receded to manifest itself in even the most gross of matter. Van der Waals' London dispersion disregards consciousness completely, yet Russian studies has proven that raising the consciousness of the demiurge thru use of crystals, such as the Herkimer that stills the mind of the demiurge, enabling him meditative trances and expanding the metaphysical size of the matter, one could convince him to consciously end the 9.81ms^2 constant and release hydrogenbonds...