On gravity
Posted by David Wees on May 21, 2011
I was down on the beach today, throwing a rock in my hand, wondering about how it "knows" which direction to fall, and realized that this is not a trivial thing. The rock always falls down toward my hand as I throw it up.
I thought about the graviton theory of gravity, in which the force of gravity is carried by gravitons between each mass, and as I did this, I wondered how many gravitons it would take to communicate forces between each mass on Earth. I then realized that the gravitons would also transport the information of gravity between each particle in the universe, and every other particle in the universe, and this made me think that is a bit weird. The number of particles in the universe is enormous, so the number of gravitons required to communicate the force of gravity would be absolutely disgustingly big. So it seems to me a bit weird that we should require all of these particles in order to communicate gravity. Surely Okham's razor suggests that this can't be so. That we shouldn't need an enormous number of particles we can't see to describe this force of gravity. If these particles had even the slightest bit of mass, they could easily outmass the rest of the universe.
I then thought, if we had gravitons, then each particle would have to individually "calculate" the total force applied from every other particle in the universe, which means that every atom would have computational power greater than any computer we could ever hope to build. Given that this seems a bit ridiculous as well, it stands to reason that this cannot be the case, that gravitons are a failed theory, at least from this perspective.
I then wondered about the theory I've heard wherein space-time itself is warped by mass, and as a result, particles travel along paths of least resistance through space, and thought that this handled nicely both the problem of a gigantic number of gravitons and the ability of individual particles to calculate the sum of the forces present on them. Instead of needing to "know" about every other particle, this information would be contained in space-time itself, and each particle would "calculate" it's own contribution to the deflection of space-time.
I also wondered, if space-time is warped, is it wrinkled anywhere, and if so, could we measure the size of these wrinkles. This may be a false analogy, but if you had a thin sheet of rubber, and then rolled something along the rubber in an elliptical path, the rubber would form wrinkles perpendicular to the direction of the motion, and in space-time, this would correspond to small perbutations in the force of gravity.
For example, imagine the Earth travelling in orbit around the sun. As it does so, it could bunch up and wrinkle space slightly. This deflection, should be in principle, measureable, although the effect would be incredibly small. I know there is some work being done to measure gravitational waves, which would also confirm the "rubber sheet" theory of gravity, but that we have yet to find any evidence this occurs.
Does anyone know if this wrinkling of space-time has been discussed before, and if so, how much an effect it would show? Does it even make sense to think of space-time as wrinkling?
Share this post with:
Disclaimer: The ideas discussed on this blog are my own, and in no way represent those of my employer.
Popular content
- Creating a WiiMote interactive white board at my school for under $50. (67,625)
- For whom are Interactive White boards Interactive? (20,559)
- Eight Videos to Help Teachers Get Started Using Twitter (15,613)
- 15 things kids can do instead of homework (15,608)
- Forget the future: Here's the textbook I want now (14,759)
- Online Geogebra training (12,269)
- What is The Effect of Technology Training for Teachers on Student Achievement? (12,112)
- Reflection of our course discussion about the use of technology in the classroom (11,719)
- 20 reasons not to use a one to one laptop program in your school (and some solutions) (11,170)
- Why teachers should blog: A helpful flowchart (10,557)
- 1 of 61
- ››
Comments
Have some answers about gravity
You pose a lot of good questions, David. Excellent, 10 out of 10 on this assignment.
I'm no expert but I have a few answers to the simpler questions. First, every particle is already "in contact" with every other particle through electromagnetic interactions like heat, visible light, x-rays, magnetic fields, and so on. This interaction is carried by photons of light. You have to imagine the Universe like an ocean of electromagnetic radiation, with us swimming through it. The radiation has no mass (though in special circumstances, it can be converted to or from mass via E = m c^2) nor does it produce any "friction" (see Michaelson-Morley Experiment)
I don't know enough about gravitons to know if they have the same wave/particle duality that light does, but a Universe filled with communicating "particles" is certainly not impossible.
As for the wrinkles, rotating objects send out ripples in spacetime. Google "LISA gravity waves" and you'll see some beautiful animations. And while the Earth doesn't produce a "bow wave" or "wake", its daily rotation is dragging and twisting nearby spacetime. This was predicted decades ago and finally confirmed just last month with the Gravity Probe B experiment. It used spherical balls in an orbiting satellite as gyroscopes and observed minuscule changes in their axis of rotation. these spheres were so precisely milled, if you embiggened one to the size of the Earth, the biggest surface feature would be only 6 feet high (so they say - haven't done the math myself...)
If you have other questions about gravity, call on @warp. Gravity is his thing. Oh, and colonizing Mars.
Peter (@polarisdotca)
So how has the information
So how has the information content argument been resolved? How do the particles "know" what the sum of the forces on them are? Does this question make sense?
She knew -
http://bit.ly/l3xetl
On Gravity And The Maybe Graviton...
EOTOE, Some Implications (I)
(recapitulation)
A.
EOTOE is an Embarrassingly Obvious Theory Of Everything.
In essence it states that all things in the universe, nouns and verbs objects and processes, originate and derive from the energy-mass dualism.
The origin and essence of this derivation are expressed mathematically by
E=Total[m(1+ D)] (D = distance travelled by mass since singularity)
Which suggests that the universe cycles between two poles: singularity/all-mass , and maximum-expanded/nearly-all-energy.
The “nearly” all-energy leaves behind some mass formats that begin consolidating by gravity, when it eventually overcomes expansion as the mass fueling the expansion is nearly depleted, becoming very small m multiplied by very large D = E .
B.
Thus the essence/definition of gravitation is:
“Gravitation Is the propensity of energy reconversion to mass”.
Gravitation is the “monotheism” and the “ genesis” of the universe. Singularity, at D = 0, is the very brief all-mass pole of the universe. The Big-Bang-inflation did not produce matter or anti-matter. It was the beginning of mass reconversion into energy, of increasing D fueled by decreasing m.
The conjectured gravitons, smallest basic particles, most probably do exist, but must be with mass, and each graviton must “big-bang” during the on-going expansion at a resolution of its energy-mass superposition.
This is rationally commonsensical, therefore it is scientifically probable.
Inflation started with the whole universe m shattering into fragments that evolved into, became, the galaxy clusters. The clusters expansion is fed at a constant rate by m-fuel. Since expansion accelerates, since the clusters depart from each other at an ever increasing velocity, we learn that the rate of m-to-E reconversion in the universe is constant. The accelerated expansion derives from the ever decreasing m of each cluster.
C.
Thus the essence/definition of evolution, natural selection is:
Mass formats attaining temporary augmented energy constraint in their successive generations, with energy drained from other mass formats, to temporarily postpone, survive, the reversion of their own constitutional mass to the pool of cosmic energy fueling the galactic clusters expansion.
This explains why black holes and humans, in fact all mass formats, must feed themselves in order to survive.
This explains that the essence of quantum mechanics of all processes is the detailed procession steps, the evolution details, between physical states ordained for natural selection.
D.
Thus comes to light the universe inspected progressively in greater detail.
Science reveals the universe’s nature-scope and directing drive, followed by technology studying its evolution details-aspects, followed by engineering exploitation of the attained information. This suggests the specific weight, importance, of science, technology and engineering in considering of research or enterprise plans and implementation.
Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
PS1:
Definitely: Dark energy and dark matter YOK! Universe's m reconverts to E at a constant rate…
Universe expands per Newton's motion laws, obviously…
Also, universe physics constants should vary, probably slightly, between galaxies clusters due to different clusters...
Also, the clusters formed by dispersion at inflation…
PS2:
The singularity constituents must have been the smallest elementary particles. They may be designated gravitons, but they MUST HAVE MASS. They were born at the energy-mass superposition resolution, together with the fragments that became galaxies clusters.
At expansion D increases, therefore m decreases, which per Newton mandates mass and matter acceleration. This goes on, most probably, at a constant rate of mass-to-energy reconversion, at an energy-mass resolution. And this resolution is, for each graviton, most probably in a format of a minuscule big-bang.
This is a lesser fantasy than the dark matter and energy fantasy. Such mass-energy gravitons may be omnipresent within each galaxies cluster, maintaining each cluster as a primordial Newtonian body and being the fuel-driver of expansion.
DH
Post new comment