Having been immersed in the last few months in the complexities of quantum mechanics, and other reading including about the quantisation of space itself, it has been too easy to park the subject of gravitation. But it has emerged in two places recently, the Horizon programme and an article of the IoP. Apparently the reason the 4th fundamental force, Gravity, is so weak is that the world we (and the other three Forces) inhabit has only three spatial dimensions and act entirely within them, whereas gravity exists mainly in a 4th spatial dimension. Not a macro dimension (which would contradict GR) but a micro one, too small for us to observe. A neat analogy is that a tightrope can only be walked on in one dimension, but ants can also walk all around it.
But the line defining the x dimension is just a mathematical construct, it has no thickness or circumference. Put an ant on a spider thread, it can rotate around it (as a man on a tightrope could), but not walk around it.
Centrifugal force is not a force, unlike the centripital force (which is a true force) required to balance it in a stable, whirling (can on a string) system. Centrifugal force is known as a virtual or "imaginary" force, a consequence of an object with mass and hence inertia being constantly accelerated in a circular path. Gravity is the same kind of imaginary force, such that in the case of an orbiting planet, the two imaginary forces, centrifugal and gravity, balance each other. The object is being acted upon in two ways (a) by the elastic space it and its massive partner are being accelerated by, thereby sharing a dent in the space, and (b) by the inertia of the orbiting masses resisting the dent pulling them together. Gravity replaces the centripetal force applied by the string. Hence gravity and centrifugal are equivalent, the mass and its inertia affecting them both identically, but the difference is a two-dimensional shape, the circle (more generally the ellipse). Gravity has an extra dimension S4, and it is one that we all experience.
Maybe that extra dimension is just time T, but I would rather use S4 and then determine if S4 = T. But no need for gravity to be locked into "micro-S4" - it is not a force at all (let alone a fundamental force).
Everyone is hung up about dark matter being needed to explain why galaxies clump together as they do, and dark energy to explain why dark matter is not causing the expansion of the universe to slow down, but accelerate. The higgson explains why matter has mass, but I wonder if it can explain how nothing can also have mass? It is clear that dark matter can be mapped by the observation of distant objects through gravitational lensing. But can't the lumpy shape of dark matter be modelled instead by clumpiness of space itself? Not easy, I know. I need dark energy, not to expand the Universe, but as the rotational potential energy in S4 with which space is whirling all the mass within it. If I had my way, the zero of potential energy would be the bottom of the largest possible black hole, and the value at "infinity" would equal the total DE. Though that might not be very convenient.
I am worried by the finding that the Universe is flat, and therefore infinite, as infinity is just another mathematical construct, 1/0, impossible in reality. Seems to me they are asking the wrong question, and just ending up with the number they first thought of. Naive, maybe, but interesting . .
Tuesday 4 September 2012
Monday 14 May 2012
Take a fresh look . .
I posted something profound the other day. Richard Feynmann is quoted by John Gribbin as saying that if each point in space takes a huge (infinite?) amount of computing effort to describe what it is and does, then something is wrong with our understanding. It has to be fundamentally simple. And in a whimsical post on a forum I asked (independently) how did all those electrons learn all that maths? We do seem to be a pre-Copernican maelstrom, like trying to make sense of planets in curly orbits around the Earth. Whatever happened to Occam's razor?
I still wonder why physicists hope or expect to reconcile the three main forces with gravitation. They do so because they are part of the same universe, and clearly all involved in the processes we observe, like star evolution. But it does not follow that the container should be directly related to the contents, even in this context.
Gravitation is a feature of the shape and (I contend) motion of spacetime, whereas the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are properties of the 'medium' of spacetime and the particles in it. Mass is a property of some particles, and masses interact with spacetime as they resist being pulled along by it, but that does not mean that gravitation is related. The same can be argued for radiation, that it follows the shortest path through spacetime even though it is bent by the interaction with large masses. It doesn't "know" it is being bent.
This separation approach seems to me to be the only way to progress the explanation for dark energy and dark matter, since otherwise it makes no sense that with all our detection means and theories there is no direct evidence for either. They have to be results of the interaction between masses and the motion of spacetime, clearly measurable only on the same large scale as relativistic effects.
I think a good new approach will be for experts to define contrary projects and spend at least 10% of their time on them. In other words, take some of their pet theories or dogma or "facts" and try to show they are not true. Peers will then check how honest and diligent they have been, the payoff being that a thorough honest contradiction by an expert, which fails, will properly enhance their orignal premise. But there are bound to be some successes in the contradiction, or new ambiguities, or new pathways discovered, leading to some answers.
This may be a way for amateurs or undergrads to contribute, because they can come up with contradictory project ideas without necessarily understanding the subject to the detail of the expert. In fact it is an area where naivity may allow a question to be asked, that an expert (or his expert rivals) would not.
Well it worked for Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Schrodinger et al. Maybe time to study alchemy . .
I still wonder why physicists hope or expect to reconcile the three main forces with gravitation. They do so because they are part of the same universe, and clearly all involved in the processes we observe, like star evolution. But it does not follow that the container should be directly related to the contents, even in this context.
Gravitation is a feature of the shape and (I contend) motion of spacetime, whereas the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are properties of the 'medium' of spacetime and the particles in it. Mass is a property of some particles, and masses interact with spacetime as they resist being pulled along by it, but that does not mean that gravitation is related. The same can be argued for radiation, that it follows the shortest path through spacetime even though it is bent by the interaction with large masses. It doesn't "know" it is being bent.
This separation approach seems to me to be the only way to progress the explanation for dark energy and dark matter, since otherwise it makes no sense that with all our detection means and theories there is no direct evidence for either. They have to be results of the interaction between masses and the motion of spacetime, clearly measurable only on the same large scale as relativistic effects.
I think a good new approach will be for experts to define contrary projects and spend at least 10% of their time on them. In other words, take some of their pet theories or dogma or "facts" and try to show they are not true. Peers will then check how honest and diligent they have been, the payoff being that a thorough honest contradiction by an expert, which fails, will properly enhance their orignal premise. But there are bound to be some successes in the contradiction, or new ambiguities, or new pathways discovered, leading to some answers.
This may be a way for amateurs or undergrads to contribute, because they can come up with contradictory project ideas without necessarily understanding the subject to the detail of the expert. In fact it is an area where naivity may allow a question to be asked, that an expert (or his expert rivals) would not.
Well it worked for Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, Schrodinger et al. Maybe time to study alchemy . .
Monday 30 April 2012
Not a game for amateurs
Studying physics is a broad process - as well as formal study, questions arise which lead to reading recommended material, which shows that the experts are scratching their heads. The fact that some physicists are almost in despair that their quest for the truth appears further, not closer, indicates a huge challenge ahead.
Richard Feynmann said that if you watch a safecracker trying to crack a combination, there is no point in asking "Have you tried 10-20-30?". Of course he has, and many others besides. Yet it is as if science is taking a blind turn, and could be relaxing its rules of evidence to accept bizarre theories while curtailing its ability to question some of its fundamentals.
Reading of Lee Smolin and John Gribbin (I have Penrose but no time yet to read) indicates that space itself is quantised, but with enormous problems of scale; that string theory proceeds with no predictions or evidence in a closed shop; that our view of reality is subjective no matter how objective we try to be, as we use our photons and electrons to observe - photons and electrons. SR limits to light speed, yet wave functions collapse everywhere at the same instant.
However, as I continue to have assessments to submit and exams to take, there are plenty of my original questions still to tackle. There is no real progress on dark matter or dark energy; the subject of the number of dimensions is still apparently open, despite GR appearing to stick with 3s+t; he distinction between gravity and the other three main forces is very confused.
No answers here, but it is fun trying to understand the questions. What a subject to be working in!
I often muse how fortunate we are to be living at a time when most of us live comfortably, have all this information and IT at our disposal, and can can probe to the smallest and largest scales in the universe. We should be walking around in wonder at it all. Well in a sense we are, even as we take it in our stride and press on . . .
Richard Feynmann said that if you watch a safecracker trying to crack a combination, there is no point in asking "Have you tried 10-20-30?". Of course he has, and many others besides. Yet it is as if science is taking a blind turn, and could be relaxing its rules of evidence to accept bizarre theories while curtailing its ability to question some of its fundamentals.
Reading of Lee Smolin and John Gribbin (I have Penrose but no time yet to read) indicates that space itself is quantised, but with enormous problems of scale; that string theory proceeds with no predictions or evidence in a closed shop; that our view of reality is subjective no matter how objective we try to be, as we use our photons and electrons to observe - photons and electrons. SR limits to light speed, yet wave functions collapse everywhere at the same instant.
However, as I continue to have assessments to submit and exams to take, there are plenty of my original questions still to tackle. There is no real progress on dark matter or dark energy; the subject of the number of dimensions is still apparently open, despite GR appearing to stick with 3s+t; he distinction between gravity and the other three main forces is very confused.
No answers here, but it is fun trying to understand the questions. What a subject to be working in!
I often muse how fortunate we are to be living at a time when most of us live comfortably, have all this information and IT at our disposal, and can can probe to the smallest and largest scales in the universe. We should be walking around in wonder at it all. Well in a sense we are, even as we take it in our stride and press on . . .
Thursday 12 January 2012
A path well-trod . . ?
Now I've started some serious reading in parallel with undergrad study, it is a relief to find that Gunnar Nordstrom came this way back in 1914. With the big 5th dimension, out popped gravity, and it even unified with electromagnetism. His work is being continued today. It seems that it stands up well against Einstein's GR except (among other things) the prediction of light being bent around masses. There are only a couple of bits of independent recent work on the web, neither refereed or developed, which also involve rotation. Just as Einstein was stopped in his search for GU by difficult maths, so it is probably the maths that defeats most people's progress.
What Einstein achieved was a solution for a number of key observations which makes it best, nay the only, viable theory. To me in my naivity it looks like his maths has succeeded in flattening the universe into 3sd+t. Those who understand it have no choice but to pursue it, and the rest of us can go and puzzle and dream. Many attempts have been made to explain GR to the layman, including by Einstein himself and Eddington.
Although GR purports to be dynamic, I have not found it involving a rotation, and neither (I believe) did Nordstrom. And GR is still 'king', even though dark energy and dark matter are known only through their gravitational effects, yet our best theory of gravity does not explain them.
Back to my own experience, I am aware of gravity not through skydiving etc but the mundane activity of barrowing piles of earth from A to B, every Thursday. Now I know that if I lie on a fast-turning roundabout with my feet braced against a panel on the circumference, I will be restrained from being flung off it by a force through the soles of my feet. And if I try to move a mass by my feet towards my head it will require work to do so. If I look at the sky I realise I am being whirled. And that force is no different from pulling down on me and the rocks as I go about my earth-moving activities. Except that gravity is being focussed through the mass of the Earth. The Earth, me and my rocks are all being whirled in space, causing it to be dented, and our sharing of the Earth's large dent causes us to be attracted together. Simple.
There are some fundamental effects or values that the rotational 4sd+t model will predict, including dark energy, dark matter, and an absolute value for gravitational potential energy at infinity (which nonsensically is presently taken as 0). This value will set a finite maximum on the gravity inside black holes, presently taken to be infinite at the singularity. Why do physicists cling on to the idea that infinity is a real value, when it is obvious it is just a mathematical construct? Finite gravity links with a finite radius of a black hole, within the Schwatzchild radius, helping to explain how its mass is somehow retained despite being "crushed into nothing". Funny how the most efficient conversion of mass into energy occurs in the accretion disc aound a black hole (about 10% efficient), yet it does not in the even more extreme conditions inside the horizon.
My main realistic expectation is not that this model will survive scrutiny, but that it offers an "as if" explanation to the layman of how gravity works.
Mass couples to the 'medium' of spacetime just as electromagnetic charges, poles and waves couple to spacetime. They have permittivity and permeability constants, mass will have a prehensibility constant. It should not be too difficult to identify or find it. But the model does require that extra big dimension.
What Einstein achieved was a solution for a number of key observations which makes it best, nay the only, viable theory. To me in my naivity it looks like his maths has succeeded in flattening the universe into 3sd+t. Those who understand it have no choice but to pursue it, and the rest of us can go and puzzle and dream. Many attempts have been made to explain GR to the layman, including by Einstein himself and Eddington.
Although GR purports to be dynamic, I have not found it involving a rotation, and neither (I believe) did Nordstrom. And GR is still 'king', even though dark energy and dark matter are known only through their gravitational effects, yet our best theory of gravity does not explain them.
Back to my own experience, I am aware of gravity not through skydiving etc but the mundane activity of barrowing piles of earth from A to B, every Thursday. Now I know that if I lie on a fast-turning roundabout with my feet braced against a panel on the circumference, I will be restrained from being flung off it by a force through the soles of my feet. And if I try to move a mass by my feet towards my head it will require work to do so. If I look at the sky I realise I am being whirled. And that force is no different from pulling down on me and the rocks as I go about my earth-moving activities. Except that gravity is being focussed through the mass of the Earth. The Earth, me and my rocks are all being whirled in space, causing it to be dented, and our sharing of the Earth's large dent causes us to be attracted together. Simple.
There are some fundamental effects or values that the rotational 4sd+t model will predict, including dark energy, dark matter, and an absolute value for gravitational potential energy at infinity (which nonsensically is presently taken as 0). This value will set a finite maximum on the gravity inside black holes, presently taken to be infinite at the singularity. Why do physicists cling on to the idea that infinity is a real value, when it is obvious it is just a mathematical construct? Finite gravity links with a finite radius of a black hole, within the Schwatzchild radius, helping to explain how its mass is somehow retained despite being "crushed into nothing". Funny how the most efficient conversion of mass into energy occurs in the accretion disc aound a black hole (about 10% efficient), yet it does not in the even more extreme conditions inside the horizon.
My main realistic expectation is not that this model will survive scrutiny, but that it offers an "as if" explanation to the layman of how gravity works.
Mass couples to the 'medium' of spacetime just as electromagnetic charges, poles and waves couple to spacetime. They have permittivity and permeability constants, mass will have a prehensibility constant. It should not be too difficult to identify or find it. But the model does require that extra big dimension.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
