Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Anonymous: on 6/1/16 at 11:53am UTC, wrote How does the objects interact? What decides whether to attract or repel...

Anonymous: on 4/21/16 at 16:22pm UTC, wrote Does this mean that if a large hollow body was placed in space...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/28/16 at 19:16pm UTC, wrote Hello, I reread the article about the works of Verlinde.It is very...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/27/16 at 8:34am UTC, wrote Hi James,Happy to see you again.He was a real friend ,I liked alot to...

James Putnam: on 3/26/16 at 23:20pm UTC, wrote Hi Steve, No one would be quicker than Ray Munroe to say "No problem...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/26/16 at 15:21pm UTC, wrote Hi,I read my posts in 2010,Oh My God, my parano was enormous, I am sorry.I...

Swami: on 3/26/16 at 13:43pm UTC, wrote The expansion of universe at speed pf light is the expansion of light...

Ramin Zahedi: on 5/9/15 at 11:46am UTC, wrote I attached the article mentioned in my previous post.



FQXi FORUM
March 23, 2017

ARTICLE: The Myth of Gravity [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Karl Coryat wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 20:21 GMT
So the Universe is like an inside-out black hole? Wow, that's a fascinating concept. Even more so if you follow it back to the beginning of the Universe and entertain ideas of the Big Bang being associated with a white hole.

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 21:20 GMT
Entropy is Aether physics anyway - you cannot have entropy without Boltzmann gas concept. And black hole model of Universe points to dense Aether model of vacuum anyway.

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 21:29 GMT
Le-Sage model of gravity is still much more easier to comprehend.

http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/06/awt-
and-gravity.html

Funny point is, in AWT context gravity is just an negentropic force: it leads to condensation of matter, whereas entropy always describes its evaporation.

report post as inappropriate

Jody Fulford replied on May. 9, 2010 @ 23:51 GMT
The last sentence of the article asks "Is that crazy enough?". I believe the answer to that should be a loud resounding "Yes". It almost seems that modern physics has collapsed into a game of theoretical one-upmanship, seeing who can pass off their mathematical suppositions of gravity as science, while for centuries a plausible explanation has languished, prematurely dismissed,and even given the "kiss of death" by a prominent physicist possessing the tools to remove the thermodynamic preclusion to it's validity. So, yes, that's crazy enough. It's time to get real.

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 25, 2010 @ 21:41 GMT
Regarding the claimed connection of black hole model to loop quantum gravity and relativity, there is another apparent controversy, because from general relativity follows, black holes are formed by singularity. Wereas the black hole model of Universe assumes instead, Universe is formed by interior of dense star.

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 01:59 GMT
The Verlinde result is pretty easy to understand. There is a result called the Birkhoff theorem, which states that for a spherically symmetric distribution of matter the gravity field exterior to the matter is equivalent to that of a black hole with the same mass. For a screen, such as where an image of a gravitational lensing occurs, the entropy involved with the distortion is determined by this “entropy force of gravity. The attachment illustrates a unique image of a gravitational lens. The entropy is just the amount of information on an event horizon via the holographic principle, or equivalently the degree of knowledge not needed about the matter distribution of a gravity field by Birkhoff theorem.

This means that gravity is equivalent to the information contained in a field theory, or a conformal field theory, on the stretched horizon of one dimension lower than spacetime. In a supergravity configuration this is equivalent to the GUT of quantum fields in five dimensions. So a full knowledge of supersymmetric gauge field theory is equivalent to everything we need to know about this force we call gravitation.

Cheers LC

attachments: Abell_370.jpg

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 08:08 GMT
Yes, this is how gravity works. GW do not exist. I publish an article about the subject this month:

Original Solution of Gravity is without Gravitational Waves

Amrit. S. Sorli

Scientific Research Centre Bistra

The IUP Journal of Physics, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 54-57, April 2010

Abstract:

Original solution of gravity motion is a curved four dimensional cosmic space. Massive objects move into direction of higher curvature of space. Quantum gravity introduces the idea that cosmic space is made out of grains of Planck size. If space has granular structure one can consider that it also has density. According to the first law of thermodynamics, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In the universe as a whole, the amount of energy of matter and energy of quantum space is constant. Second law of thermodynamics shows that distribution of energy in a given system tends to become homogeneous. Because of the tendency of homogeneous distribution of energy, more mass is in a given volume of quantum space less space is dense. Less space is dense, more space is curved. Massive objects always move in the direction of lower density and higher curvature of quantum space. Gravitational motion of massive objects is the result of change of density of quantum space. Change of density of quantum space is a physical basis for change of its curvature.

Yours Amrit

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1593
907

report post as inappropriate


Luboš Motl wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 09:04 GMT
Gravity can't be an entropic force because entropic forces are

1) irreversible;

2) they break the interference due to the multiplicity of possible microstates for each point of the interference pattern - in Verlinde's case, because of the dependence of the number of microstates on the height (or gravitational potential).

Gravity is

1) reversible;

2) it preserves the interference patterns - that just freely falls, just like the equivalence principle implies (so the breaking of the interference patterns in Verlinde's picture also contradicts the equivalence principle).

See more explanations of these rudimentary basic points at

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/erik-verlinde-why-gravit
y-cant-be.html

report post as inappropriate

Florin Moldoveanu replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 20:29 GMT
Lubos,

In your blog entry at the end you state: "Together with the attempts to "unexplain" quantum mechanics by a silly deterministic picture, these flawed "alternative attempts" are likely to stay with us for quite some time."

I am curious to see what do you make out of Adler's attempts in this area:

http://www.sns.ias.edu/%7Eadler/Html/CAMbook.html http://www.sns.ias.edu/~adler/talks/italy2006.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510120

Thank you,

Florin

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 23:40 GMT
General relativity has second order field equations which are time reversible. However, there are some things which are not reversible, such as the coalescence of two black holes. Further, it is well known that black holes have an entropy S = k*A/L_p L_p = sqrt{Għ/c^3}, which gives the entropy force for any distribution of matter that on the exterior is equivalent to the gravity field of the black hole.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 01:36 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

It seems that you and Lubos are both making good points. Lubos' points (such as gravity being a conservative force) are more relevant to 'everyday' gravity, whereas your points (such as the entropy of a black hole being proportional to its event horizon) are more relevant to 'extreme' gravity.

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 11:47 GMT
/*Gravity can't be an entropic force because entropic forces are 1) irreversible*/

In AWT gravity is reversible force, dual to pressure of radiation (antigravity). In fact, just this pressure is entropic force, gravity is negentropic.

/*it preserves the interference patterns */

I simply didn't get such argument, both in relation to gravity, both in relation to entropy. Could you clarify it?

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 23:14 GMT
Zephir,

"In AWT gravity is reversible force, dual to pressure of radiation (antigravity). In fact, just this pressure is entropic force, gravity is negentropic."

If radiation is the anti-gravity, would the photon, being a light particle, be the initial collapse of radiation back into mass, while radiation, in its role as anti-gravity/expansion, be a pure wave?

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 11:50 GMT
BTW the argumento of irreversibility of gravity could be used as an argument against existence of gravitational waves, as AMRIT bellow noted (but I don't understand the motivation of this argument with respect to Verlinde's model).

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 12:20 GMT
Using the entroiy principle, who can prove....the kelvin planck statement of the second law and also the clausius statement with this same second law?????

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 13:23 GMT
Attempt for censorship applied on your blog won't help you here, Lubos - if you're saying, gravity is irreversible, then it cannot form gravity waves, predicted by relativity - it's as simple as it is.

And the babbling about "interference patterns" is irrelevant to the topic at all, until you prove the opposite.

report post as inappropriate


kyrilos wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 13:44 GMT
If this is true, then there should be a way to nullify it?

report post as inappropriate


Michael L. Cook wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 14:30 GMT
Since 1917 we have known that gravity is a peculiar type of "force" in that two objects in empty space moving with respect to each other will never attract and come together unless their initial trajectories were such as to force that. Instead,they both serenely circle each other most of the time in ellipses in which they smoothly accelerate towards or away from each other.GR is best understood as a description of motion and geodesics always were the pathway of motion with minimal or no expenediture of energy, even though velocities and momentum could change quite spectacularly.

Most interestingly, an astronaut crusing along a curvilinear geodesic experiences no accelerations even though his/her velocity and direction of travel changes constantly.

In extreme elliptical orbits we find that naked singularities can arise which do not have event horizons. In the classic black hole, the event horizon does arise but many folks conjecture that an astronaut nearing it may appear from far outside the system to be torn apart by tidal forces and smeared out but to the astronaut all his parts retain the same perceived relationship to each other and everything is normal. This is similar to his/her observations during the elliptical accelerations, which is that he/she does not report feeling accelerated at all.

Always the reality we see does not allow any object to "fall" into another unless an exactly equivalent amount of mass/energy speeds away. No rogue star is ejected from a galactic center without else being forced down to the event horizon of a black hole. Hawking famously pondered whether particle/anti-particle pairs appearing virtually out of the cosmic foam could so diverge and if half of the info of that pair would then be lost.

So what is information? Humpty Dumpty lies on the floor and I can neither guess what happened to him nor put the remnants back together because too much info was lost when a lazy cosmic housekeeper did a half-baked job of cleaning up the mess.

However, if it was perfectly half of a mess and if the half of what remains exactly duplicates the missing material and indeed is still joined to it even up to an infinite distance in a spooky QM sense, has info really been erased? It still has a perfect duplicate, after all. I have always wondered if in an 11 dimensional universe we may have two objects that are separated in our common four dimensions but exactly the same point in the other 7, if other influences can leak across the dimensions the way Lisa Randall's gravity does? When does a leaking influence become a hidden variable?

report post as inappropriate

Michael L Cook replied on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 14:47 GMT
whoops, left out word "something" before word "else" in 3rd line of 4th paragraph

this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Bernd wrote on Apr. 26, 2010 @ 18:28 GMT
The entire idea is really not that new. The late Burkhard Heim looked as Entropy as additional dimension (yes in two directions, which positive direction he called Entelechie) he also mathematical formulated. Now with the help of a fifth dimension (Aeonic he called), he was (theoretical) able to show how these informational dimensions (here Hologram) would generate Graviton's among others. Sounds pretty similar, doesn't it?

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 07:11 GMT
Zephir

energy of matter and energy of quantum space that you call ether have a tendency to be distributed in a homogeneous way in accordance with second low of thermodynamics. More mass in a given volume of space less space is dense. Material objects have a tendency to move constantly into direction of lover density of space means into direction of higher curvature. This is “gravitational motion”. There is no gravitational force existing between material objects. GW do not exist. Gravity is result of “distortion” of quantum structure of space caused by the presence of matter.

yours Amrit

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 10:04 GMT
1) interference patterns between observers were never observed in connection to gravity - such "argument" is irrelevant here

2) a model, which allows reversible and chaotic time is just feature of such theory, which demonstrates connection to quantum mechanics, where such time is common

3) near event horizon the gravity becomes both nonconservative (dispersive) force (compare the multiple event horizons in Kerr's metric), both pretty reversible, because it's ballanced by pressure of radiation there

AMRIT: in AWT Aether is completelly random stuff (a sort of clouds or Perlin noise) and it has tendency to virtually anything - it's causual boundary of our knowledge. There is no entropic/negentropic flow preffered at global scale. Insintric observer of it would always see one half of Universe expanding by pressure of radiation, the second one (above CMB scale) would collapse by gravity instead. In AWT GW exists, but in higher dimension because they're superluminal, so they manifest like CMB noise in our 3D space-time. And so on...

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 23:08 GMT
Zephir wrote: "1) interference patterns between observers were never observed in connection to gravity - such 'argument' is irrelevant here"

In fact, it's not only relevant, it's key. Asymmetry between gravitating bodies is what led Einstein to his failed "Relativistic theory of the asymmetric field." Lubos's application of the equivalence principle necessarily assumes that field properties of massless particles are constant; i.e., that there is nothing physical going on between gravity and light.

"2) a model, which allows reversible and chaotic time is just feature of such theory, which demonstrates connection to quantum mechanics, where such time is common"

There is no time parameter in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. In classical physics, time is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 15:54 GMT
Zephir

at the Planxck scale information and energy transfer are immediate. Quantum space is a direct information and energy medium by EPR, gravity and other immediate phenomena.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


craq wrote on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 18:14 GMT
I don't think it mentioned in the article, that if gravity is entropic, it would fit that both only work in one direction. (Gravity is always attractive, entropy is always increasing.) Without understanding any of the finer points, it seems that this theory has the advantage of being elegant.

report post as inappropriate

Zephir replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 00:19 GMT
You're perfectly right - this is because I've said, I can see paradox in the fact, entropy increases from the beginning of Universe due the expansion of Universe, which contradicts the gravity, which is attractive force, so it leads into collapse. You simply cannot have entropic process, which leads to spontaneous condensation of matter - such process would be always negentropic, instead.

Does it mean, entropic interpretation of gravity is wrong from AWT perspective? Not quite, if we consider vacuum as an interior of dense collapsar, which is condensing by its own gravity. From this moment the entropic expansion of Universe changes into negentropic process, which could be described by gravity.

But such negentropic condensation must be always followed by evaporation of matter into radiation - which is the true entropic process here. The space-time couldn't expand, if the collapsar forming our Universe wouldn't collapse, which is impossible, if it wouldn't a white hole, evaporating its matter to outside.

If we consider this entropic process, then the gravity becomes reversible, because the gravity near collapsar becomes ballanced by pressure of radiation. In accordance with this we can consider such collapsar as an undulating blob or giant quantum wave packet, which is in dynamic equillibrium of negentropic gravity and pressure of entropic radiation.

On the black hole model of Universe the holographic principle is based, but we can see, Verlinde's model leads logically to collapsar model or white model instead, thus removing the problem with reversibility of gravity. After all, one of features of quantum gravity is just to make gravity as reversible, as most of common quantum phenomena.

report post as inappropriate

Zephir replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
I'd compare Verlinde's model to epicycle model, which is incomprehensible, but formally (at numeric level) works well, although it's describing dual model (heliocentric model) in fact. So if we ignore the fact, gravity has an opposite sign regarding to entropy, we can consider Verlinde's model as it is.

But the understanding of celestial mechanics is on the dual side - in the dense aether model of vacuum itself. If we consider Universe as a interior of black hole, we are forced to consider vacuum as a very dense gas, filled by foamy density fluctuations of hyperbolic geometry simmilar to foam (you can mix watter and sugar solution to imagine it). These fluctuations manifests itself like CMB noise in vacuum. The light would spread through such foam in two dual ways, thus creating an illusion of expanding space-time above CMB wavelength scale, whereas space-time bellow CMB wavelength scale would collapse instead.

In accordance with this geometry, the noise of CMB fluctuations is gradually evaporating all objects smaller then the CMB wavelength, whereas all larger objects are condensing under omnidirectional pressure of this "ultramundane flux" in accordance to ancient Le-Sage theory. This is why every action of gravity force is followed by glowing, i.e. by radiation.

And this is what the entropic model of gravity is really about at intuitive, physical level.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 03:12 GMT
Zephir, The heat capacity of spacetime is negative. For this reason entropy increases with lower temperature and it accompanies collapse.

Equilibrium is not possible either. A black hole sitting in a background with a certain temperature and which emits Hawking radiation at the same temperature is not at eqilibirum. This is contrary to our standard expectations. The reason is that if the black hole emits a photon it get smaller and the entropy S = A/4L_p decreases. However, the temperature also increases, meaning the black hole can emit more photons. So the black hole emits more photons, gets hotter and ... . Conversely if the black hole absorbs a photon from the environment it gets colder, higher entropy and has a higher probability of absorbing more photons.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Zephir wrote on Apr. 27, 2010 @ 23:59 GMT
/* Asymmetry between gravitating bodies is what led Einstein to his failed "Relativistic theory of the asymmetric field." Lubos's application of the equivalence principle necessarily assumes that field properties of massless particles are constant; i.e., that there is nothing physical going on between gravity and light...*/

Sorry, but my syntactic parser still didn't catch any causual reference of interference patterns to entropic model of gravity. You just added another phrases like the "equivalence principle", "constant properties of massless particles", "asymmetry between gravitating bodies".

So far I'm forced to consider every sentence of yours as an tautology, separated from other sentences. I still don't see any causual relation in the line "interference patterns" -- "asymmetric field" -- "equivalence principle" -- "entropic model of gravity". Could you argument more coherently for me, i.e. at least to use pair of these concept in one sentence by using of implication clause (IF-THEN) - if nothing else.

You know, it's easy to say, someone is too stupid to understand some logics, so we should define some intersubjectivelly acceptable criterions of existence of such logics. If you prove, such logics exist in your sentences, then it's just me, who didn't understand it - but not before.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 01:19 GMT
You're right. It's just you who didn't understand. The points Motl raised are well known physics.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Zephir replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 14:41 GMT
I still don't see any connections of gravity to some interference. I'm particularly interested about it in connection with red shift quantization.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantizat
ion

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0711/0711.4885v3.pdf

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 22:49 GMT
Zephir, I don't know how to explain it better than Lubos Motl (26 April 9:04 GMT) already did. I'll make an attempt.

The equivalence principle (of inertial mass and gravitational mass) in general relativity deals with ponderable quantities of mass in relation -- the symmetry of the mutual attraction between them explains the physics of gravity in a field theory without imposing other parameters, because it is the spacetime field that is physically real.

If one tries to introduce discrete energy exchange (i.e., through massless speed of light particles, bosons) as a physically real parameter, one comes up against the fact that there is no elapsed time between these massless particles, therefore no change in the field; measure in any direction at any observer velocity, and the speed will be the same. All that we know about gravity so far is classical physics alone.

Now you know the two-slit experiment, right? This is the heart of quantum mechanics. The two slit experiment informs us that bosons communicate holistically; i.e., these massless particles make coherent wave patterns from discrete units in statistically predictable ways.

Lubos is saying that Verlinde cannot get a workable field theory that includes mass, because if one makes information a physical parameter, it is wavelike, while the deterministic interactions of classical gravity are particle-like. So we are stuck with the same problems of unification that we always had, plus--Lubos claims--an additional problem of incorporating time into the theory. Time in classical physics is a simple parameter of reversible trajectory; in non-relativistic quantum physics, time has no meaning. So when we start talking about information entropy (whose mathematical model is identical to energy entropy) as physically real, we lose time conservation--a fundamental symmetry principle.

Gravity is not physically real in classical physics. If one wants a field theory in which gravity is identical to physical information and information is dissipative, then gravity has to be physically real. There goes the spacetime field, though, because of the nonreversibility of the time parameter.

I know that Lubos Motl's objections are sound, and must be successfully countered. However, I favor Erik Verlinde's and Ted Jacobson's approach -- why? Because I see the answers in a model that exploits what Hawking & Hartle found 30 years ago -- that imaginary time preserves both time reversibility and time asymmetry in a field theory.

If you're interested, my paper "On breaking the time barrier," is here

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Zephir replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 00:44 GMT
Hi Steve, you're the very first case of public support of my person after five years of spreading of my ideas on the net. From some reason people are refusing to consider, we are composed of random particle stuff - the entropy is apparently more illustrative concept for them.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Apr. 28, 2010 @ 16:37 GMT
we need fun ....and that is going to begin.....Mr London , I need helps....Mr Landau thanks to be near me also and Mr Feynman of course, they need a curse of thermodynamics aznd sphericality sciences ahahah

How can we do for explaining to them with my bad english, bad english but me it's true sciences.

Let's begin with phonons and rotons.....and my spherons of course .Oh my God they need curses of thermo.

ROTATING SPHERES MY FRIENDS AND THERMODYNAMICS KINETICS

THE ROTATIONS OF THE SPHERES EXPLAIN ALL ........THE SOUND AND THE ROTATIONS YOU WANT A CURSE OR WHAT .

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 02:36 GMT
The concern over mass is something which is important, for it is the IR part of the theory and has a correspondence with the UV scale. To illustrate something about this I outline the physics in some detail here

A sphere of area A will contains N = A/L_p^2 units of information. The equipartition theorem is E = (1/2)NkT, where E = mc^2, and T the Hawking Unruh temperature,



The work-energy theorem of mechanics E = ∫F*dr gives Newtonian gravity



and Newton’s second law F = mg.

A surface area at the Bekenstein limit due to quantum black holes is a summation over all eigen-numbers of Planck units of area



where n = n_1 + n_2 … + n_N contributes energy E_n = cnħg/4πc. An accelerated surface is degenerate according to a partition function



The average energy is



and the entropy



from which the characteristic temperature for a phase transition of an accelerate surface is



where c = 2 ln2. The energy for N --> ∞ is ( |E| ) = 0 [here ( and ) used for bra-ket notation] for T \lt T_c. A critical point occurs as T --> T_c, with production of quantum black holes from the vacuum. For large N the result approximates E = NkT.

This theory then lends itself to phase transitions. I recently submitted a paper on this, but I can outline what happens from here. The stretched horizon is a place where strings which compose a black hole are “frozen” and have an effective mass. The string’s mass is just its energy which is confined on the stretched horizon. The elementary analysis with the critical temperature indicates a possible phase transition, indeed a quantum critical point or phase transition. The analysis is done in a fairly straight forwards way with extremal black hole and the analysis of the spacetime near the stretched horizon. The physics for fields or strings that enter the horizon or quantum tunnel out is quantum physics with a V ~ |x| potential. This has Airy function solutions which satisfy Zamolodcikov’s c = 1/2 CFT condition on massive fields. The masses correspond to the (8,1) irrep of the E_8 group.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 13:48 GMT
When you write like that dear Lawrence, I love ....hip hip houraaa

I love your Zustandsumme...the partition function....interesting...Boltzman has had a good idea when he introduced that indeed .

But if the ideal gas propertiers are inserted with their limits, that will change a little.

Because the sum of the denominator implies effects on statisticam mechanics simply.And of course the levels of energies are correlated.

The entropy of these systems considered with like ideal gas.Thus dS=dQ/T...etc etc etc ...S=INT C dT/T+n R ln V+S0......your N is it true ??? Furthermore still the infinity is confusing.....the functions of T and P and V needs the correct referential.

In these cases, the existence of micro black hole seems impossible.

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 12:50 GMT
Entropy means that energy of the system tends to be distributed in a homogeneous way. In the universe energy of matter and energy of space tends to be distributed in a homogeneous was.

Presence of big mass creates distortion of quantum space and makes space less dens. Smaller mass have a tendency of “gravitational motion” into direction of lower density of space.

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 29, 2010 @ 18:20 GMT
That's interesting, Lawrence. Thanks. As I mentioned elsewhere, I think we are going to the same place from opposite directions.

I think your stretched horizon where string field energies originate is the same as my four dimension horizon that I find identical to the 10 dimension limit (which means the energy on the 9 dimensional shell of S^10).

It is of interest to me that your string mass is confined on the stretched horizon, because I think the low energy of our familiar four dimensions in terms of total cosmic inertial (baryonic) mass, which I calculate from first principles to a precise 4.59% of observed cosmic composition (consistent with WMAP data) is explained by this hyperspatial fraction of length 1. Your string field masses that originate in the quantum vaccum on the event horizon -- and this tiny fraction of 10-dimension length 1 -- explains the low energy content in that as our world becomes more ordered, disorder increases in dimensions > 4 as a result of information entropy, even as entropy also increases in our own world. IOW, only our unique dimensionality can sustain open systems ("life") within a universe in which entropy can only increase.

Exta dimensions need not be compactified in this model -- we need only a sphere packing with an order normalized on 4 dimensions in which information monotonically decreases as the counting order (entropy) increases. This is consistent, I think, with Zamolodchikov's C-function extended to n dimension space > 4, if I understand correctly.

I think the problem you're going to run into is the treatment of spacetime near the horizon. I don't think you can avoid singularities, with infinite mass density. (I try to get around this by proposing a continuum of mass identical to quantum unitarity, which implies negative mass and imaginary time.)

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Apr. 30, 2010 @ 03:19 GMT
Tom,

I have to make this somewhat brief. I remembered to look here a bit late in the day. The concept of strings on a stretched horizon was first suggested by 't Hooft and developed by Susskind. A generalized version was worked out by Maldacena in supergravity, called the AdS/CFT correspondence.

The Verlinde results fit into this picture pretty well. All that I have done is to illustrate there exists a phase transition associated with this entropy force of gravity with black holes. This does go a bit further, for the Hagedorn temperature at the T ~ 1/L_s (very large) is the UV correspondence temperature at high energy to the IR temperature for the quantum critical point. So the broken symmetry phase theory at the IR domain is dual to a UV theory where the symmetries of the vacuum are those of the Lagrangian.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 22:53 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

I could see scale invariance and/or S-duality relating UV and IR divergences. The AdS/CFT correspondence also works well with scale invariance. But which AdS/CFT model are you using? If you are using AdS_5~CDF_4, then I think we need a minimum rank-4 transform, so that J^3 - by itself - is insufficient. In my opinion, this infers a minimum of 28 dimensions. Perhaps at some higher energy scale, this is equivalent to a G2 of Quantions and/or Pauli Matrices.

Regarding Verlinde's work, I think that "probablistic" interpretations of data are due to a smearing of phase space that is caused as extra dimensions collapse and/or decouple from Spacetime. Thus, "probabilistic" interpretations such as Quantum probablilities, and Statistical/Thermal probabilities are a property of our decoupled Spacetime. Because Spacetime Curvature and General Relativistic Gravitation are related, we should expect spacetime properties to be relevant. However, if Quantum Gravity (and Mass) originate in Hyperspace, and are transformed to Spacetime, then we should not expect to see a true and complete picture of Quantum Gravity in our decoupled Spacetime. We can only see part of the bigger picture clearly, the rest is "fuzzy" thanks to probabalistic interpretations. In a sense, you and Lobos are both correct in that Verlinde's ideas may model some features of Gravitation, but probably not all features of Quantum Gravitation.

I am trying to organize all of my "crazy" ideas on extra dimensions.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 14:11 GMT
Dear Lawrence,

Perhaps a 4-D transform operator first decomposes into a J^3 X U(1), which are then subsequently broken such that this U(1) yields the axion.

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Apr. 30, 2010 @ 23:36 GMT
Lawrence, you wrote, "So the broken symmetry phase theory at the IR domain is dual to a UV theory where the symmetries of the vacuum are those of the Lagrangian."

Yes, that is what I am getting at with the quantum mechanical unitariness of the mass continuum. In order to have such a continuum, however, one must define a length 1 radius on the complex plane, because the minimum measure of 2 dimensions (complex analysis) drives the real measure of the 1-dimensional metric whose range is minus infinity to plus infinity. Wherever we arbitrarily cut that line (by measurement in real analysis), is real; however, negative spacetime of 2 dimensions is the necessary generator of the physical measure function.

The price one pays to get here is negative mass and imaginary time. I find that result to be less exotic than one imagines.

I am persuaded that the simplest mathematical support for supersymmetric phase transition and resultant broken symmetry is a model in the extended complex plane.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 01:24 GMT
The E_8 lattice or root space has the symmetries of the group. This is a remarkable property of E_8. This means that the lattice, which has a toroidial topology is a compactified versions of the the space of E_8. The uncompactified version can be thought of as similar to a repeated set of tiles, while the compactified version is where one of the tiles is rolled up into a torus. This is an aspect of the UV/IR correspondence. The Golden mean ratio of masses for the (8,1) portion of the irreducible representation of E_8 are the low energy IR theory, and equivalent to the high energy conformal E_8 theory.

The low energy theory describes one aspect of the string spectrum as measured on the stretched horizon. The lowering of the gravitational coupling constant, say we do this in an adiabatic manners with G --> 0 reduces the black hole to a gas of free strings with the E_8 symmetry. Similarly, if the mass of the black hole is reduced to zero the energy of the strings on the horizon approaches the Hagedorn bound. So this is the UV limit of the strings when the black hole is "evaporated."

Imaginary time is involved with the partition function for the UV limit and the Hagedorn temperature it corresponds to. I will try to spell this out in greater detail later on. Writing the TeX macros is a bit time consuming, and yesterday for some reason one of them did not work right. Oddly the file I wrote it on has no error

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 1, 2010 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Tom,

I have also been playing with imaginary time and unusual masses. At this point, I think it is imaginary mass (or negative mass-squared - I think that mass -squared is the more appropriate relativistic quantity with which to work).

I am also approaching the problem from a different angle from you and Lawrence. And although we three might disagree on specific details, I think that our general approaches may be converging.

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate


Steve R, Clark wrote on May. 2, 2010 @ 06:32 GMT
One aspect of gravitation, of which there seems to be two widely diverse schools of thought, needs clarification, at least for myself. I could quote numerous authors on either side of this "argument" but, according to Einstein's GR, which is it?: Is the curved spacetime nearer a massive object "stretched", therefore "less dense", or could it be considered Lorentz contracted in the direction of the massive object (as well as time dilated)? Please pardon my ignorance and help me resolve this concept.

Sincerely,

Steve

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 2, 2010 @ 15:15 GMT
Lawrence/Ray,

I think that the only unpatchable difference between us, is your emphasis on the lattice as a physical agent. I admit I am weak in group theory; however, I can't reconcile any kind of rigid rotation with my hypothesis. My model aims at the basis for a nonperturbative field theory.

This, because my time dependent model is smoothly continuous (by analytical...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 18:50 GMT
Hi Tom,

We almost have similarities. You are focusing on the Cardinal numbers, Steve Dufourny is focusing on the Prime numbers, and I am focussing on the Fibonacci and Lucas numbers (I know - you haven't seen my Lucas number results but this turns 'fractals' into 'integers' while admiting scale invariance, and I want integer symmetries to tie in with standard Group Theory and not have to use something as 'radical' as El Naschie's E-Infinity theory). I am certainly OK with complex numbers, but I'm not sure about the compatibility of smooth continuous functions with Quantum effects. Which is more fundamental - a discrete quantum Universe or a continuous classical Universe? Lawrence and I tend to think that the discrete quantum is more fundamental than the continuous classical. I think that smeared phase spaces caused by the collapse and decoupling of unseen extra dimensions causes discrete quantum (possibly lattice) effects to appear probabalistic and continuous. Perhaps you think that the Universe is smooth and continuous, but measurements give a discrete effect. Perhaps your studies will lead you to an interesting semi-quantum probabalistic Universe, but I don't think you are on a direct path towards the GUT or TOE.

Kissing spheres leads to lattices and a sphere (vertex) - string (strut) duality that likewise leads to particle - wave duality.

Hi Lawrence,

Are you working with an AdS_5~CDF_4 model and wouldn't it require a 4-D transform?

Have Fun!

Ray

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 3, 2010 @ 03:14 GMT
The lattice is in a way non-physical. It is entirely frame dependent, unlike a solid state physics lattice, but is something which is gauge dependent in a non-covariant way. The lattice does though define a moduli space and curvature.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on May. 3, 2010 @ 12:39 GMT
Hi Ray,

My hypothesis is not based on cardinal numbers, prime numbers or numerology in any form. I use cardinality to describe boundaries of dimension sets, a counting order of discrete ordered and symmetric points of n dimension Euclidean space. Though I do use a prime number structure of Sophie Germain primes, it is to define the compact, nonorientable plane of recurring singularity (equivalent to RP^2)in the evolving counting order. IOW, the underlying spacetime manifold of measure zero is the engine of change in a dynamic system; because this manifold is integral, nonorientable, compact and 2 dimensional, it is smoothly continuous with scale invariant n dimension space. This is detailed in my "time barrier" paper.

Because we know that space is mostly smooth, Euclidean, in the 4 dimension relativistic limit, if we allow 2 dimension analysis in the quantum limit then we get a unitary result for 4 dimensions and measure zero in 3 dimensions. Here's how:

In my kissing number model, the 4 dimension kissing number (24) is normal 1. The kissing number in 3 dimensions (12) is zero, and in two dimensions (6) is - 1. So in a colloquial manner of speaking, we get "4 for 2" dimensions by introducing complex analysis and consequently, system dynamics.

You ask, "Which is more fundamental - a discrete quantum Universe or a continuous classical Universe?" I answer, a contiuous scale invariant universe of discrete self similar quanta. There is thus no quantum-classical boundary -- there is coherence and decoherence at all scales, based on continuous subsystem cooperation and decoupling.

You say, "Perhaps you think that the Universe is smooth and continuous, but measurements give a discrete effect." Certainly so. It could not be otherwise in a relativistic quantum model, because we must convert continuous functions to discrete measures.

And, "Perhaps your studies will lead you to an interesting semi-quantum probabalistic Universe, but I don't think you are on a direct path towards the GUT or TOE." On the contrary, I expect my model to rehabilitate classical determinism in a supersymmetric quantum field theory. We just have to get used to manipulating calculations of negative mass and imaginary time. I don't have the ambition to explain nature in terms of a GUT or TOE -- I think that nonlinear evolution will always harbor potential surprises, even in a metastable universe.

"Kissing spheres leads to lattices and a sphere (vertex) - string (strut) duality that likewise leads to particle - wave duality." Yes, my "time barrier" paper also notes this result.

I don't know what you mean when you say that the lattic is "in a way" non physical. Either it is independent in its physical properties, or it is not. I know what you mean when you say the lattice defines moduli space and curvature. I hate to keep referring to "time barrier," but this result is also in there.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 2, 2010 @ 18:39 GMT
Steve Clark,

Remember that in general relativity, there is no preferred frame of observer reference. Every inertial frame is valid.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Clark replied on May. 2, 2010 @ 22:47 GMT
Thanks Tom,

What I'm trying to ascertain is whether a "stationary" observer at some distance from a "stationary" gravitational field would perceive a measuring rod near the surface of the gravitational mass (but not in motion relative to the observer) to be shorter (Lorentz contracted) in the direction of the gravitational "force", as compared to a measuring rod of equal length at the observers location. I understand that for time dilation it would be so, that a clock in the gravitational field would tick slower than at some distance from the field, but would length contraction also occur?

Thanks again,

Steve

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 3, 2010 @ 01:40 GMT
Steve,

Again, you're forgetting that there is no preferred frame. Also, what is true for clock dilation/contraction is also true for rod dilation/contraction -- they are different ways to measure the same phenomenon; spacetime is a physically real field continuum in which an observer at rest records different results than an observer in motion, yet in which we know that we share the same spacetime, by a mathematical operation called the Lorentz transformation.

For these questions, you should get a basic nontechnical book on relativity theory. I think Einstein's classic, Relativity: the special and general theories, although published long ago, is especially clear, to my memory. I make this recommendation knowing that a great deal has been written about general relativity in the last 100 years that often skips the basics and misleads by omission.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Benish replied on Dec. 22, 2010 @ 21:28 GMT
Tom wrote: "what is true for clock dilation/contraction is also true for rod dilation/contraction -- they are different ways to measure the same phenomenon;"

In general relativity this is not true for the interior of a material body. General relativity predicts that, at the center of the body, time dilation is a local maximum, whereas length contraction is a local minimum (space is flat at the center). This is relevant since Tom was responding to Steve's request for clarification concerning these effects in gravitational fields.

As implied by Tom's answer, the intuitive assumption is that the effects should be of the same magnitude, as "different ways to measure the same phenomenon." I agree with this. Yet general relativity contradicts it for interior fields.

Though a range of clock rates has been measured in exterior gravitational fields (in agreement with general relativity), for practical reasons there are no measurements for interior gravitational fields. So we do not really know whether the general relativity prediction is correct or not. Note, however that an indirect, yet convincing, test is possible. The local minimum clock rate prediction corresponds to the prediction that a test object dropped into a hole through the center of a larger massive body will oscillate from one end of the hole to the other. Of course this is a very commonly discussed prediction of both general relativity and Newtonian gravity ("hole to China" problem). Curiously, we have no empirical evidence to back up the prediction.

An overlooked possibility is that, instead of having a local minimum rate, the central clock has a local maximum rate (corresponding to flat space). If this were true, then the dropped object would not oscillate in the hole.

The latter possibility (among other things) is discussed in:

http://www.gravitationlab.com/Grav%20Lab%20Links/MaximumF
orce-Jan-6-2010b.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 4, 2010 @ 01:12 GMT
Golden ratio numbers have a musical interpretation, which leads to physics. The old diatonic scale for tuning notes is 1 9/8 81/64 4/3 3/2 27/16 243/128 2, which might correspond to the C-major scale CDEFGABC, where from C to high C the frequency of the sound doubles. The A note has the ratio 27/16 = 1.6875, and the golden ratio is φ = (1 + sqrt{5})/2 = 1.618034 … , is in many ways a preferable tuning ratio for A/C and the corresponding ABCDEFGA scale is the C-minor scale tuned according to partitions thereof. So the resolution of the two diatonic scales according to their respective pentatonic relationships involves the golden ratio. So a φ^2 will now take us to another scale entirely, which is the F-scale, and one can cycle through this. This has a bearing on physics, so bear with this.

Now we don’t use old tuning system. The problem is that if you tune the instrument to the C-major scale this way and it sounds great. In fact if you have a compositional software package, say Sibelius, you can tune to a golden ratio system --- it sounds interesting. This is not a very convenient way to tune scales, and has a slight dissonant quality to it. So the above old version was used, which fits better in the western notion of musical tuning. A use of the golden ratio is more in line with Indian and Islamic music. The problem with the old diatonic tuning system is that if you change scales it sounds like donkey crap. So Johan Sebastian Bach wrote a book of compositions called “Das Wohltemperierte Klavier” (The Well Tempered Clavier (harpsichord)) and devised a tuning compromise with the ratios 1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2, where the ratio for the A is 1.666… , and this works pretty darn well, and one can tune all scales this way without problems.

The golden ratio is what determines the roots of the E_8 group. Further, for a string on an extremal black hole the ratio of masses of string is determined by the (8,1) portion of the E_8 irreducible representation with these roots. There are then 8 masses for the supergravity multiplet in this massive broken phase which corresponds to the tuning ratios from major and minor scales. This is an interesting example of how maybe Pythagoras might have had some sort of insight when he talked about the music of the spheres as being related to the exponential maps. Tymencho, as I recall the spelling, wrote a couple of articles on how musical dyads and triads in musical composition obey certain orbifold relationships, or the discrete subgroups of compactified manifolds in string theory.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 4, 2010 @ 09:32 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

Your posts are very interestings.

The music is a beautiful road.

Bach was the best mathematic musician.

His partitions are difficults and are quicks.

A good allurement is necessary for playing Bach.

The sequences are relevants about the harmonization and superimposings.

I don't know the idea of pythagore about the music of spheres, it's interesting , what is this exponetial maps ?

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on May. 4, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
The music of the spheres is a logical result of the Pythagorean obsession with rational numbers. That is, if the counting numbers are orderly, the interval should be orderly as well. Between musical beats on a scale, between points on a line, between planets in the heavens.

Because musical harmony is a sophisticated and artistic form of counting, only rational numbers conform to beat combinations.

A similar idea is being investigated today by Michael Berry in the UK, in connection with the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) and the distribution of prime integers. The RH is a conjecture in the complex plane, extending harmonic analysis (the sum of the harmonic series using real integer exponents) to prime integers with complex exponents, with the consequence that the real part of the summed result appears to always lie on the singular line 1/2. Because the RH appears to indicate a deeper and perhaps more exact order to distirbution of the primes than can be estimated by the prime number theorem, one wonders if a counting order (and thus, orderly intervals as well) can be derived from these "atoms" of the counting numbers (fundamental theorem of arithmetic).

Sir Michael is using advanced computer techniques to derive a "music of the primes."

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 4, 2010 @ 16:13 GMT
Thanks dear Tom.

It seems very relevant all that.

My knowledge of the Riemann zeta function is young,it's here on FQXi I knew it .

I think that the secret is still in the sphere and the correct distribution of numbers with their pure harmonious series and superimposings.

at my knowledge

we have

sum (infinity and n=1)(-1)exp n-1/n²=pi²/12...and we substitute for obtain the series as fourier like f(x)=Sum (inf. n=0) a(n) cos nxconsidering f(x)= x² for example and x between - pi and pi .....the value of pi takes all its sense ...the distribution of primes inside a sphere shows us the harmonization .

But the real universal distribution is difficult to perceive like it's difficult to see the Planck scale.Like it's difficult to check the universal energy.In fact we are youngs at the universal scale , thus we understand our young knowledges.

I think strongly that the sphere helps in all centers of interest, like a gauge .The distribution inside a closed evolutive system permits to see more clear about the real series .A real puzzle all that .....the universal partition and its secrets ....

Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 00:00 GMT
The Pythagorean tuning is the "old" diatonic scale system, which tunes one scale well, but not others. One can play with tuning a bit and use the golden ratio, but it is not convenient. Pythogora's sytem is a close approximation to this, as is the Bach "Well Tempered Clavier" compromise. There are other cultures which tune in different ratios for notes. For the diatonic scale it is interesting that the C to A ratio is close to the golden ratio, to within about 4%.

Of course rhythm has to be integral or rational.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on May. 5, 2010 @ 00:18 GMT
Dear Friends,

My E-Infinity Friend, Dr. Scott Olsen of the College of Central Florida in nearby (for me anyway) Ocala, Florida has a short book on "The Golden Section - Nature's Greatest Secret". He covers these and other applications of the Golden Ratio. The best piece of information that I got out of his book was the Lucas number sequence. I think this is the critical link for two reasons:

1) There is a relationship between powers of phi and exact integers, and

2) Exact expressions relating powers of phi and its inverse automatically admit Scales and Scale Invariance.

Have Fun!

report post as inappropriate


Robert Gallinat wrote on May. 5, 2010 @ 08:00 GMT
May 5th 2010

My remark to this FQXi-article on Verlindes Paper on Gravitation as a kind of enntropy:

I published the idea that gravitation is not a 4. fundamental force but a kind of "existential" entropy (or Planck-entropy) and at the same time counterpart to (physical) information (some sort of it) in february 2009 in "Concept and Method of Physimatics" on blog.physimatics.org.

Moreover I made it a little more detailed and I described gravitation as a kind an algebraical misfit in a process of combinatorial shifts in a big group, called the Universal Group "UG" that is roughly representing space and matter in our universe - without events or without irreversibility. Furthermore I put this in context with a hypothetical existence process of our universe itself.

So I put this approach in a bigger context of a weak structured "substrate" (below Planck scales) thats description is completely based on algebra. Due to the local action ("force") caused by gravitation has local effects, we need a local abegraic mapping as well, attached as a sort of a virtual individual environment to elementary particle. The story is much longer ... and you can make yourself a picture.

Already arround November 2008 I sent the paper "Concept and Method of Physimatics" to arxiv.org where it was first announced for publishing under arXiv:0811.3688 than later rejected as "unapropriate" by Don Beyer together with the hint to send it to a conventional journal.

I sent Brendan Foster on monday this weak an exemplar of my latest version with the title "Concept & Method of Physimatics, the Logic of Existence and

the Logical Time Formula" that is listed an http://vixra.org/abs/1005.0009 in PDF form.

with kind regards from Germany

Robert Gallinat

Berlin/Germany

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 7, 2010 @ 03:00 GMT
Robert, I am not entirely sure I follow your idea. You seem to have some idea of an algebraic system, and even nonassociative structures. These are called octoniona, but as yet a clear physical idea which motivates them has not been advanced.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


Czeslaw wrote on May. 19, 2010 @ 15:19 GMT
The holographic principle shows that relation gravity/electromagnetism is a result of a product of the geometrical relations Planck length/Compton length.

(lp / l x ) * (lp / l y ) = -a Fg / Fe

where lp = Planck length, lx, ly = Compton length, a=alfa (fine structure const.)

It suggests that each oscillation of the charge along its Compton length causes a Planck's length contraction (curvature of the space and Planck's time dilation when the non-local information interfere with another non-local information of the another particle.

The holographic interference of the non-local information create the quantum vacuum with its virtual particle-antiparticle pairs.

Verlinde's example shows it.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on May. 22, 2010 @ 11:55 GMT
His idea sounds very much like a leSage ether theory.

report post as inappropriate


PHYSICS HELPER wrote on Jun. 5, 2010 @ 15:36 GMT
Gravity can only ultimately enjoin electromagnetism and quantum mechanics when space is dynamic and yet highly ordered. Randomness, order, potentiality, actuality, visible, and invisible all are included.

"Quantum gravity" and electromagnetism/light require that the structure and form of sensory experience in general MORE CLOSELY resembles thought.

report post as inappropriate


PHYSICS HELPER wrote on Jun. 5, 2010 @ 19:01 GMT
Gravity ultimately pertains to distance in space as a function of balanced attraction and repulsion.

report post as inappropriate


Member Ian Durham wrote on Jun. 7, 2010 @ 01:12 GMT
Everyone seems to forget that, in terms of general relativity, gravity is not a fundamental force either. Technically it's a "fictitious" force (to use Tom Moore's terminology). That's part of the reason that there's a disconnect between quantum mechanics and GR.

report post as inappropriate


Jacob A. Munoz wrote on Jun. 10, 2010 @ 05:15 GMT
From what I understand of the article, the new definition of gravity is NOT as a fundamental force in itself but rather as a side-effect of other fundamental forces. Gravity as a force still exists in this model, but it's not a fundamental quantum energy-exchange force like strong, weak, and electromagnetic.

I have a similarly-related theory I'm trying to put on paper that I believe is in sync with this new idea of gravity. I believe my theory may explain the dark matter and dark energy problems as an underestimation of empty space's quantum mass. The most appropriate name I can think of for this is "Spindle Theory". I'll be posting articles soon..

poxix.com

Jacob Munoz

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 10, 2010 @ 09:17 GMT
Hello dear Jacod,

Nice to know you, could you tell us more please, it's interesting.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


The Lightbringer wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 23:39 GMT
"Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)" -- to quote DiMeglio.

DiMeglio is defining the dream process/manifestation as the source of genius.

Quantum gravity occurs in dreams per DiMeglio. This statement links the union of gravity and electromagnetism to/with dreams: "The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense." DiMeglio has unified gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum gravity as dream experience.

report post as inappropriate


COSMO D wrote on Jun. 22, 2010 @ 00:05 GMT
Lightbringer, this might be of assistance/clarification to you in your understanding. I am most appreciative of your diligence, concern, and caring in this most important matter.

As DiMeglio wrote: "Thoughts are relatively shifting and variable. Accordingly, dream vision is relatively shifting and variable. Therefore, the quantum mechanical nature of both thought and dream vision is quite apparent. Indeed, the unpredictable and random aspects of quantum phenomena are clearly evident in dreams. The dynamic nature of quantum energy/entities is also apparent in dreams. (Light is known to be quantum mechanical in nature.)"

Defining the THOUGHTFUL dream process/manifestation as the ULTIMATE source of the mathematical genius that constitutes the unification/inclusion of Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations is awesome.

Quantum gravity occurs in dreams.

This statement links the thoughtful/theoretical union of gravity and electromagnetism to/with dreams: "The ability of thought to describe OR reconfigure sense is ultimately dependent upon the extent to which thought is similar to sense." Gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum gravity are unified in/as dream experience.

Accordingly, the [mathematical] union of gravity and electromagnetism is shown/demonstrated in dreams, as DiMeglio said. Moreover, it is clear that a (or ANY) unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE PLAINLY AND SIGNIFICANTLY APPARENT IN OUR EXPERIENCE. That is simple common sense.

Thanks again DiMeglio. We love you.

report post as inappropriate


Wilton Alano wrote on Jul. 6, 2010 @ 23:46 GMT
.

Dears,

All we know in fact about "gravity" is that it is an attractive force that works in our class of dimensions.

Einstein's idea of "space deformation" as explanation for gravity has been the most fake theory of all physics history...

Corpses are attracted, like they had a memory of an united state, nothing else is known...

Cheers,

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 14:47 GMT
Why would one think that the idea of physically real spacetime is "fake?"

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Wilton Alano replied on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 23:24 GMT
"Why would one think that the idea of physically real spacetime is fake?"

Dear Tom,

Energy and time are two face of the same coin: both means motion an fragmentation.

The void/nothing can't move, so something apparently material do exists to be in motion (even though I think it is also virtual and dubious).

Space means simply some "distance" that separates parts of a fragmented system (in opposition to an unified on - even though imaginary).

Let's imagine a unified mass being exploded by inner repulsive forces: space and time starts! "Universe of things" also, for one unified corpse is all but a a "universe" (universe means fragmentation and plurality).

So, neither space nor time are "fakes", but clear realities.

Cheers

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 8, 2010 @ 23:48 GMT
All that tells me, Wilton, is that you don't know the principles of general relativity. Spacetime, in which neither space nor time are independent, is the "clear" physical reality in Einstein's theory.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 13, 2010 @ 22:38 GMT
TH RAY,

We can measure space with a ruler. We can measure time with a clock. These are “physical entities”, the product of our direct physical interaction within our reality. Spacetime, on the other hand, is a (META=not or beyond) metaphysical entity created to stitched up measures within our reality and what (little) we know about the underlying reality or metaphysical universe. Spacetime is not physical. It is a product of physics and as such, it contains both physical and metaphysical components by requirement.

People do not understand where one ends and the other begins and believe that spacetime is true physics (not) or true metaphysics (not). Spacetime is a hybrid tool we invented in order to keep doing physics where physics means nothing. In order to understand what we are doing , we must respect the boundaries of each, physics and metaphysics.

If we can just understand that the universe is not the experience we have of it, but rather what we can deduce from that experience of it while removing our own transform we effect as observers, then, we have a chance to get it. Do you?

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 14, 2010 @ 00:25 GMT
The continuum of spacetime is explicitly physical in general relativity: " ... by 'physically real' we mean 'independent in its properties, having a physical effect but not itself influenced by physical conditions.'" (Einstein, 1956, The Meaning of Relativity)

General relativity is a physical theory, not a metaphysical proposition.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 03:38 GMT
Tom,

Could you please explain the meaning of what is between the quote marks?

Thanks,

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 15:01 GMT
That covers a lot of physics, Marcel. I’ll try to summarize as best I can. The quote is directly from Einstein, in his introduction to general relativity—following the explanation of special relativity. Special relativity is the “special case” of uniform motion; general relativity is the generalized case of accelerated motion.

To understand accelerated motion, we have to go back...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 16, 2010 @ 00:23 GMT
Tom,

Thank you for taking the time to lay down your explanation. I learned much from your discourse. Here are a few comments.



- an action at a distance does not require to be instantaneous.

- “at non relativistic distances and speeds..” (Verlinde says the same on p2) There is no such thing! Relativity is always true in principle, even in the case where it is not measurable by the observer. If it is universal, the observer and its capacity of observation is not to be taken as a limit to Relativity. If I throw a ball in the air, the time within this ball, believe it, is relatively slower than mine, without any other proof than the fact that the equation shows no boundary. This case is where in fact it actually means the most, for understanding.

- It is strange, but consider that measuring a speed of zero is relative to the observer while the maximum of the scale is c, and this is relative …. to the universe! One end of the scale is relative to us (0) and the other end is absolute ( c) . Maybe we should use c as speed coordinate axis!

- The clock is universal because it runs everywhere … it just doesn’t run everywhere at the same rate…The passage of time is a universal process with a local value of its rate, just as in a gravitational field.

- “Time is not physically real”. Time is by nature a dynamic process. We measure on a clock its first integral in a physical way. But this measurement and integration cannot exist without its first derivative i.e. the rate of passage of time. You see, time integrated as measurement on a clock is physical*. The underlying process, the rate of passage of time, is metaphysical. If we could “see” the rate of passage of time we would be technically as blind as a goldfish in a glass of milk. But we detect very short first derivative of the passage of time as photons, or gradient of it, as gravity. This is what I mean by “physical”.

- But, my absolute partition of physics and metaphysics does not allow your explanation (last few sentences) of the content of the quote marks.

* The first function (and most basic one) of a clock is to show/detect the presence of the passage of time. It runs, then time is passing. The second function of a clock is to partition the local spontaneity of time into equal units used for measurement. The local rate of passage of time is an indication of the local rate of spontaneous processes, the clock being our standard spontaneous partitioned process used for measuring it.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 16, 2010 @ 00:58 GMT
Tom,

A quick tour on metaphysics 101. To help you understand where I am coming from..

Anything we call an experience (person or instrument) is a binary relationship between subject and observer. This experience (and all our knowledge) has meaning and exists only in this ephemeral relationship. Everything we know is about this experience, not about the universe itself. From this we understand that the universe as it is by itself is entirely metaphysical. Our job is to decode our experiences in order deduce what the subject matter really is by itself, starting by removing the transforms we effect on the data; integrations leading to the concepts of space and duration.

S___w the Copenhagen school! They said nothing worth our attention lied beyond the window.(underlying reality). In fact, everything that really exists is there.

With this tool you may dissect relativity into its physical and metaphysical components. You will understand that relativity is a bridge between our physical reality (what we can measure) and what little we know about the metaphysical universe. The theory itself is not wrong (it is physically proven!); only the metaphysics we deduced from it is wrong, mostly because we don’t know or acknowledge the difference between the two; physics and metaphysics.

Marcel,

________________

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 16, 2010 @ 11:50 GMT
Marcel,

How do you differentiate between your view of "metaphysics" and the philosophy of "solipsism," which has no objective value at all?

I have no aversion to metaphysical realism; however, I find no way to convert your view to objective knowledge.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 18, 2010 @ 23:21 GMT
Tom,

No solipsism here. Only a profound an honest pragmatism. We already know we create our whole reality from sensory experience. We make up colors, sounds, and space and our own version of time… There is no objective observer because we are part of the experience…

As for making something out of it, well. Look at all we could DO without understanding what we were doing. How much more could we DO if we actually understood what it is all about???

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 19, 2010 @ 18:21 GMT
Marcel,

When I say "we" know something, I mean that I can point to an object or concept that we objectively agree is real, even if only metaphysically real. E.g., the counting numbers -- the real positive integers -- though we may "experience" them in different ways, are real in an objective sense.

What do you mean when you say "we" know anything, if objective reality doesn't exist, and again, how does one specifically and operationally distinguish this philosophy from solipsism?

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 02:56 GMT
** I cannot re-write my whole essay to answer your questions re physics vs metaphysics vs truth systems etc. ; you have to read it. But I can give you a sequence of arguments illustrating my position.

1- Something exists out there that supports the existence of a universe 14 billion years old. That is a substance (or process).

2- A substance requires the rule of non-contradiction because the substance either exists or it doesn’t. From this rule, other rules of logic follow; addition, substitution, etc,

3- A universe that evolved for 14 billion years under logic must be operational under logic. For this, there can be only one substance in the universe. Logical operations can only operates on a single substance (single nature). (like no situation where apples add with oranges..)

4- All spontaneous operations can only have one type of cause because there is no logical reason to choose precedence between two types of causes.

5- A universe created from the logical rule of non-contradiction allows only the passage of time to exist. Why? A contradiction is two contrary states at the same time. A neat trick but, only time can in effect avoid the contradiction between its own existence and non existence by time insulation or, “not at the same time”. Time evolves continually in an explosive process to avoid the contradiction. Such a universe is created from nothing, is locally something, but as a whole is still nothing.

6- The existence of the substance is more probable where the passage of time is slower because it is where in effect it stays longer. This influence of time on itself explains gravity as a field made of a gradient in the rate of passage of time and supports an action at a distance. A differential in the rate of passage of time is the one and only logical “Cause” for spontaneous processes. (What Verlinde calls “entropic force” I call “spontaneity”)

Now, where are the concepts or energy, mass, real, objective, experience etc.in this? They are not here because this is the underlying reality, a material metaphysics, the ontology of the universe, where the observer is not present. All numbers driving our usual equations are absent. They were created for our need to know. The universe only needs substance and cause to exist and happen.

My metaphysics, or ontology of the universe, is based on an impossibility; the impossibility for something to exist by itself AND not follow the rule of non-contradiction. This makes this metaphysics a bona fide truth system, where truths derived from it are as true in it (this metaphysics) as general relativity is, as derived from the impossibility to distinguish inertia from gravity (equivalence principle). You have to explain to me how this is a solipsism, at least in your definition of it.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 14:20 GMT
Okay, Marcel, I see your philosophy is based on Aristotle's metaphysics.

That's fine; however, why would one be compelled to accept metaphysical philosophy over scientific objectivity, when your question is "How much more could we DO if we actually understood what it is all about???"

What does one do with a belief system? It isn't about doing. Take for example your belief that time is continuous. That classical notion requires a metric of reversible trajectory in contradiction to your "explosive evolution" which is a one-way process. Compare this philosophy based on belief to Newton's scientific pledge to "make no hypoothesis." Inevitably, one who bases one's conclusions on logic alone will end in contradiction, because so much (most, actually) of what we objectively know of Nature is counterintuitive.

The anlogies you make between physics and metaphysics are not true. We certainly do know the difference between gravity and inertia, e.g. -- the equivalence principle refers to the equivalence between gravitational force and acceleration, and follows from Newtonian mechanics. Newton had shown that the acceleration of an apple toward the center of the Earth and the acceleration of the moon around the curvature of the Earth are due to the same physics -- Einstein extended this result to the vacuum, away from the influence of a gravity field, where an observer without external reference cannot distinguish between acceleration in one direction and gravity in the opposite direction. The significance is classical symmetry -- reversibility -- which gets right back to the time continuum.

Jacobson's and Verlinde's entropic model identifies gravity with information entropy. Because the mathematical model of information entropy (due to Shannon) is identical to thermodynamic entropy, one finds that if the world is made entirely of quantum information (and how's that for a metaphysical premise?) then information entropy holds it together. This goes right against the grain of classical gravity and its reversible continuous field.

Now that you've given me your operational meaning for metaphysics and I see that it is Aristotelian rather than solipsistic, I understand. However, I based my question on your claim, if I understood correctly, that there is no objective universe (which would imply solipsism). There is an objective component to your philosophy, however -- Aristotle's rules of logic and pure deduction.

As I implied, science does not shy from metaphysical realism -- I think the Jacobson/Verlinde model is an excellent example. Can we do more with a purely metaphysical POV than with science? I doubt it, though I wouldn't dare sell short the metaphysical contribution to scientific motives.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Super Man wrote on Jul. 20, 2010 @ 21:09 GMT
Repulsion and attraction have to be balanced in order for gravity and electromagnetism to be united/balanced, as DiMeglio says. This provides, and must be understood as providing, distance in space.

report post as inappropriate

Professor J Jones replied on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 23:46 GMT
Superman, are you saying that a type of inertial resistance/inertial binding energy/GRAVITY -- that would either increase or decreased with distance -- with generally balanced attraction and repulsion -- would thereby fix or determine position/distance in space within the framework/context of what is described herein?

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 22, 2010 @ 00:57 GMT
Okay, Marcel, I see your philosophy is based on Aristotle's metaphysics.

M= If you say so. I was more thinking along the lines of Plato’s cave allegory…

That's fine; however, why would one be compelled to accept metaphysical philosophy over scientific objectivity, when your question is "How much more could we DO if we actually understood what it is all about???"

M=...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 23, 2010 @ 10:57 GMT
Marcel, your laws of logic are directly from Aristotle: Identity, Noncontradiction, Excluded Middle.

Before science became distinct from philosophy (and especially physics, which until relatively recent times was known as "natural philosophy") we did do science according to Aristotelian logic. Why don't we still? Because we found that deep nature does not necessarily obey physical intuition. Take the one instance of Aristotelian science that Galileo overthrew. Until Galileo's experiments, one would not question that objects of different mass fall at different rates -- it's logical. The Galilean model gave Newton the basis to show that the acceleration of the moon falling around the curvature of the Earth is the same force that accounts for an apple falling toward Earth's center, which could never have been deduced by Aristotelian physics. Newton's model gave Einstein the basis to show the equvalence between gravity and acceleration, i.e., between gravitational mass and inertial mass. And as a result of this equivalence, because an observer away from the influence of a gravity field cannot distinguish between a force pushing up and a force pulling down, we find one demonstration of time reversibility (symmetry) in classical physics. This is not controversial, and not something you could deduce from your logic.

That time is apparently not reversible is even deeper and even further removed from your logic, because it involves quantum physics which outright contradicts your metaphysical rules.

Scientists in general don't deny the role of metaphysics in reaching for that which is beyond grasp. When you say, however, that understanding gets us to the point faster -- well, it didn't get you to the point of understanding time reversibility in classical physics, did it? I am reminded of von Neumann's reply to a young physicist who said he did not understand von Neumann's recommendation to use a certain mathematic method: "One does not understand (a math technique)! One gets used to it!"

Contemplating "existence" is, I agree, an important part of being human and an excellent way to condition one's imagination to break free of traditional ways of thinking. When we get to exploring how nature really behaves, though, most of what we know is counterintuitive, often to an extreme.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 24, 2010 @ 15:07 GMT
Tom,

Marcel, your laws of logic are directly from Aristotle: Identity, Noncontradiction, Excluded Middle.

M= For that part, yes, the rule of non-contradiction was for Aristotle of the highest order.

Before science became distinct from philosophy (and especially physics, which until relatively recent times was known as "natural philosophy") we did do science according to...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 16:43 GMT
Not sure what you're saying, Marcel. If it's that metaphysical philosophy supercedes science as a true description of reality, you've already failed. I tried to explain that Aristotelian logic (from which Aristotelian science was derived) does not apply to the science we know today -- we practice science as a demonstrated correspondence between theory and result.

Take your definition of "existence" as time dependent in an absolute space. This Newtonian notion was overthrown by general relativity. Extending Newton, Einstein showed how the derivative ("rate of change") specifying uniform motion relates to the second derivative ("rate of change of the rate of change" for which Newton invented the calculus to describe accelerated motion), in a mathematically complete theory of gravity. So you think that it's a contradiction to say that an object is in uniform motion (at rest) or moving (accelerated) in the same place at the same time? You're wrong. General relativity showed that there is no such absolute reference frame. My rest frame might be your accelerated frame, and vice versa. One description is not more valid than the other.

Most sixth graders still have nimble enough minds to take on that "baggage" and unpack it in creative ways. It's a much richer world than one finds in the metaphysics to which they already have ample exposure in churches and mosques, religious schools and popular media. From that, we get creationism and holy wars.

Education is supposed to liberate us from the prison of ordinary thinking, not build one.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Super Man wrote on Jul. 26, 2010 @ 23:48 GMT
Exactly. This is our ideal unification of electromagnetism and gravity.

Agreed?

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 27, 2010 @ 22:06 GMT
Super Man,

I super require more words or require more super words before I super agree with anything. :-)

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Jul. 29, 2010 @ 22:49 GMT
Dear Tom,

As I said, you do not understand the first thing about what I am saying.

First, Aristotle was a few centuries back there and he did’t know what we know now. His philosophy was for his era, not ours. Aristotle is not Lebel. Forget about Aristotle.

Secondly, the ontology of the universe is that of a universe made of a single substance, all over! So, your argument about absolute space is not founded. We make up space as a conceptual tool! This natural metaphysics is not science! This is Metaphysics, more specifically ontology. It is everything science want to know but can`t ask. Stuff that a proper metaphysics can ask and answer. This natural metaphysics has nothing to do with church, religion, creationism and the likes that you use for lack of understanding and arguments. “Rest frame” just like space is part of empirical science and has nothing to do with metaphysics. You are not even in the right ball game.

And sixth graders will get it. They will understand logically what it is all about. Then, in order to DO something with this universe, they will move to physics and engineering, never asking back for the how’s or why’s of the causal type.

Just close your eyes. Realize the whole universe has to be made of a single substance and be driven by a single type of cause because it operates (exists and evolves by itself) in a logical way…..

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 12:25 GMT
Marcel, you're right. I not only don't understand, I don't find your philosophy coherent. And as I said before, closing one's eyes and contemplating the oneness of existence does not really go anywhere toward understanding nature in any objective manner. At most, one might understand oneself and how one thinks, and that is certainly a good thing. It does not, however, translate into physics and engineering.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jul. 30, 2010 @ 23:51 GMT
Tom,

Thank you for sticking around for so long and asking questions,

and not getting ruffled up by my rhetoric. Really, you have built-in barriers that prevent you from growing out of your comfort zone ..

Take care my friend, amd may your own quest be fruitful.

Marcel,

report post as inappropriate


Super Man wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:33 GMT
Marcel, Einstein's theory of gravity does not even allow for distance in space.

The relative constancy of electromagnetic energy/light balances attraction and repulsion, and this gives us distance in space. Einstein's collapsing OR expanding space isn't cutting it.

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is proven by balancing scale (i.e., demonstrating what is BOTH a larger and smaller space, invisible AND visible) by making gravity attractive and repulsive as electromagnetic energy/light.

A space that is BOTH invisible and visible demonstrates wave-particle duality necessarily.

This...

The unification of gravity and electromagnetism/light is proven by balancing scale (i.e., demonstrating what is BOTH a larger and smaller space, invisible AND visible) by making gravity attractive and repulsive as electromagnetic energy/light.

...demonstrates particle-wave.

Observer, particle/wave, gravity, electromagnetism/light, balanced/truly extended scale, visible/invisible -- Dreams include all of this.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 @ 20:40 GMT
Great point Superman. Real "Quantum gravity" demands a union of gravity and electro. to go with it.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 02:42 GMT
"Who is the master who makes the grass green?"

I'm just a composer but I've enjoyed this exchange very much. I've always pondered the mathematical significance of the natural harmonic. Could the resulting tones be mapped a some sort of universal reference point?

We just need a really really really long string.

How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? — Albert Einstein

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 03:10 GMT
small minds

report post as inappropriate


E.R.Ravikumar, Transformer Design Consultant wrote on Aug. 28, 2010 @ 17:02 GMT
Scientists depend on experiments, analyses, inferences, logics, etc., to formulate any of their theories. Unfortunately, the very tools that are used are defective, in the sense that they cannot help one to find the underlying Great Force governing all components of the world. As long as these defective tools are not dispensed with, one will only conclude that there is some unknown Force governing all cosmic laws. That is, whatever law is made or discovered, it can only be a pointer to the secondary cause at the most. The cause for all secondary causes is the Primary Cause which should be independent of all factors. This Primary Cause is Brahman and is beyond all known and unknown things. It is beyond the reach of human mind and speech. However, It reveals Itself to one who is able to keep his mind free of all impurities. It will be futile to find a cause for this Primary cause, for it will only lead to infinite regress. Only the admission of such a causeless Cause can avoid an infinite regress in our search for an ultimate cause.

report post as inappropriate


Helmut Hansen wrote on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 15:06 GMT
There are indeed some experimental hints that gravity is not fundamental.

The physicist Francis Farley well-known by his ultra precise measurements of the muon has published a paper that does strengthen this view:

Does gravity operate between galaxies? Observational evidence re-examined

Authors: Francis J. M. Farley

(Submitted on 27 May 2010)

Abstract: The redshifts and luminosities of Type 1A supernovae are conventionally fitted with the current paradigm, which holds that the galaxies are locally stationary in an expanding metric. The fit fails unless the expansion is accelerating; driven perhaps by "dark energy". Is the recession of the galaxies slowed down by gravity or speeded up by some repulsive force? To shed light on this question the redshifts and apparent magnitudes of type 1A supernovae are re-analysed in a cartesian frame of reference omitting gravitational effects. The redshift is ascribed to the relativistic Doppler effect which gives the recession velocity when the light was emitted; if this has not changed, the distance reached and the luminosity follow immediately. This simple concept fits the observations surprisingly well. It appears that the galaxies recede at unchanging velocities, so on the largest scale there is no significant intergalactic force. Reasons for the apparent absence of an intergalactic force are discussed.

Regards

Helmut

report post as inappropriate


reasonmclucus wrote on Sep. 24, 2010 @ 06:33 GMT
The idea that there is an accelerating expansion of the universe is based on faulty reasoning due to confusion of relative time with time as a dimension. With relative time distant events are considered to occur at the time the affect earth. Any attempt to explain something like the current location of objects in the universe must look at time as a dimension.

If we do this then it is apparent that if the red shift indicates motion away from earth, rather than something like a change in wavelength due to passage through a transparent aether, then any expansion slowed over time.

To plot the rate of explosion: at time T objects were moving away at velocity V; At T + 1(billion years) light left closer objects that were moving away at V - x; At T + 2 light left still closer objects at V - x - y... From this example we can conclude that if the red shift does indicate movement of objects away from earth, then at T velocity of expansion was V, at T + 1 velocity was V - x, at T + 2 velocity was V - x - y, etc. This information would indicate that any expansion of the universe slowed over time rather than increased.

report post as inappropriate


Dov Henis wrote on Oct. 23, 2010 @ 15:42 GMT
Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos

Stars' energy fuels the cosmos expansion

All spin arrays fuel the cosmos expansion

Gravity Simplified

Gravity Is The Other Side Of Inflation

Again: Dark Energy And Dark Matter YOK

A. E=Total[m(1 + D)]

Is the relationship between the cosmic energy(E), mass(m), and spatial expansion distance(D) of travel of the galactic clusters since the cataclysmic E/m superposition resolution.

At singularity all cosmic energy was in mass format. The Big Bang was the start of reconversion of mass into energy. At 10^-35 seconds since big bang, D was already a fraction of a second above zero. This is when gravity started. This is what started gravity. At this instance started the energy space texture, the straining of space texture, and started the space-texture-memory, gravity, that most probably will eventually overcome expansion and initiate impansion back to singularity, again.

The clusters of galaxies behave as accelerating classical Newtonian bodies. Their motion is fueled with energy from myriads of mass-to-energy reconversions, in intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters.

B. The mass-to-energy reconversions continuously diminish m, as D continuously increases

The energy spent on increasing D, the clusters expansion, becomes the potential impansion energy that will eventually re-form singularity. This is gravity. This is the striving of the resolved-from-energy mass to return to its singularity wholeness.

m are ALL cosmic formats of mass, regardless of size and complexity, including astronomic-to-smallest-particle bodies and all energy-mass organizations such as black holes environs, biospheres-lifes, all sizes and varieties of spin-arrays.

"No Dark Matter, No Maybe"

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/
122.page#4545

C. Mass is destined to dis-exist. It attempts to postpone-survive this by ingesting of energy

The cosmic expansion will eventually nearly run out of fuel-energy m, when at some value of D it will be overcome by gravity and impansion will thus set in. The universe will then revert towards singularity. D will go on a diminishing course and m will enter a growing course of evolution, very different from the present cosmic evolution course.

D. Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos

The present universe came into being with inflation, with the onset of gravity. Gravity has been setting the course and nature of all the aspects of its evolution. Gravity will eventually terminate cosmic expansion and reverse the course of cosmic evolution.

Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos

Dov Henis

(Comments From The 22nd Century)

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/user/profile/1655.pag
e

28Dec09 Implications Of E=Total[m(1 + D)]

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#4
587

Cosmic Evolution Simplified

http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.pa
ge#4427

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Oct. 26, 2010 @ 12:15 GMT
Hi dear Dov Henis,

Nice to know you, and happy to see a rational vue of our Universe and its evolving lifes and creations.

you say"Gravity will eventually terminate cosmic expansion and reverse the course of cosmic evolution"

Very relevant about the point of contraction, afetr this maximum volume of the universal sphere, the density continues to increase due to evolution and the contraction will go towards the ultim equilibrium between all physical spheres, quantic or cosmologics.

Dear Don Hen,the singularity....is 1 for the main central sphere(quantic or cosmologic,the number is the same it seems to me) and the other 1 singularity is this Universal sphere.Thus we have the real singularity because the serie is between 1 and 1, like an unique oscillation.

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 26, 2010 @ 17:32 GMT
not so new ideas, about gravity like not a fundamental force............

andrei sakharov.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0204/0204062v1.
pdf

http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~akempf/sakharov.pdf

report post as inappropriate


JOSEPH_ANGUSTIA@YAHOO.COM wrote on Dec. 24, 2010 @ 00:43 GMT
When does a force is pushing or pulling something? It is a pulling force if the force is infront of the object it is acting , It is leading the object towards its direction. A pushing force on the otherhand , the force is behind the object it is acting upon. Although the object is infront of the force, it is still the force which has the say to which direction the object will go.

In 1687,...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 15:16 GMT
Quantum theory of gravity.

Convert a circular 360 day earth orbit in 11 dimensions to an eliptical 365 day orbit in Einstiens 4D space/Time.

And reverse the equation to convert EInsteins thoery to string theory..........

Sine string theory is compatable with quantum theory.

YOu need to define time as the robit of the earth not like Einstein defines time.

And you need to convert 4 Dimensions to 11 with the formula for time.

Steve.

have fun. HA HA.

report post as inappropriate


EINSTEINS DICE wrote on Jan. 13, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
You can ask COSMOS for a copy of EInsteins dice or email me on aircloudenator@gmail.com and I will send them to you.

The dice obey the rules 1 ODD THROW+ 1 EVEN THROW= 2 ODD THROWS.

and 2 ODD THROWS+ 2 EVEN THROWS=4 EVEN THROWS.

And you can program a supercomputer with a virtual quauntum universe that is determined.

The maths is very good but it does not approximate our universe which may be detemrined 53% or soemthing like that by ESP.

You can make rules to predict the throws of real random dice based on EInsteins dice.

You can make yourself a copy of Einsteins dice in C..........

These dice put quantum and classical theories together.

Joe

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 18:31 GMT
Sorry, quantum gravity occurs in/as dream experience, as dreams make thought more like sensory experience in general. Here is EXACTLY why and how this is so:

Inertia and gravity may be unified -- and a smaller space made larger, and a larger space made smaller -- if we are semi-weightless/semi-mobile. This makes space manifest in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia. Gravity attaches space, and inertia detaches space. Accordingly, space is then semi-detached from touch, as it manifests in/as the middle distance in/of space in conjunction with half gravity and half inertia, and space is contracted/flattened and stretched/expanded in keeping therewith. A smaller space is then made larger, and a larger space is then made smaller. This gives us quantum gravity and balanced/equivalent attraction and repulsion in keeping with equivalent/balanced inertia and gravity, as this all relates to/involves the middle distance in/of space.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jan. 31, 2011 @ 22:01 GMT
http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9702997

Explains what gravity is.

report post as inappropriate


julian luque wrote on Feb. 6, 2011 @ 08:57 GMT
GRAVITY AND SPACE

When a body accelerates in space, creating the effect of inertia in the direction opposite where you accelerate, called center of gravity.



If space that accelerates, will create the same effect. (gravity)



Example, in the first second of the universe, the universal sphere would measure 300,000 kilometers in radius, at 2 º second 600,000 in the 3 rd second 900,000-kilometer radius, with the mass the same, in an area that increases in volume to the cube in negative density . It is therefore an acceleration into space. vacuum is not constant, and is accelerated by the universal sphere radius at all times. The vacuum is accelerated outward, and the effect goes in from each club. (gravity)



Principle of cause, effect.



Do not want to elaborate more. If you are interested I can explain a lot more Thank you for your attention Julián Luque c / escuelas nº 24, cp, 14550 Montilla (Córdoba) Spain



mobile 638017324, phone 957651734

( MORE). the effect of inertia is constant as long as you accelerate, as if desaceramos always opposite to the direction.

(Gravity is an effect of inertia) due to the constant volume of the universe, the ability of the universal sphere increases with the cube in each, time. Mathematics is an accelerated equation. (The acceleration is equal to inertia). (inertia is equal to gravity)

Vacuum the entire volume of the universe is spread in more than half empty, otherwise it will shrink.

report post as inappropriate


Russ Otter wrote on Feb. 19, 2011 @ 22:24 GMT
Hello Erik,

Simply Congratulations on your out of the box work...

The arena you have chosen to explore with you open approach to ideas and intuition, along with the science of our finite truth through mathematics, bodes well for the future of knowledge. Which needs new ideas to move us forward to a more universal community of cultures, through science.

Cheers, and good journey to you,

Russ

report post as inappropriate


George Rajna wrote on Feb. 26, 2011 @ 13:44 GMT
The gravity is dependent on the mass and the ultimate source of the mass is the electromagnetic force. The only attracting force between same electric charges is the magnetic force if they are moving in the same direction. Probably the Big Bang caused accelerating Universe gives this parallel motion and the general magnetic attraction - we intercepting as gravitation.

attachments: 2_PhysicsUnified.tif

report post as inappropriate


Gary Hansen wrote on Feb. 27, 2011 @ 01:16 GMT
The Nature of Spatial Content:

As a result of experiment and observation we are predisposed to thinking that nature abhors a vacuum, vacuum being unfilled void or space. By nature we mean the totality of all phenomena that exhibit behaviour. Vacuum, which we consider to be devoid of behaviour, we conclude to be hostile and unnatural. We take this position because our immediate environment...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate


Patrick Picklesimer wrote on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 03:45 GMT
The answer is a Dark Matter Matrix. Gravity is, in fact, a myth.

The matrix is governed by Dark Energy.

PKP

report post as inappropriate


Ramin Zahedi wrote on May. 9, 2015 @ 10:02 GMT
Surely, the gravity is and should be a fundamental force. Because it is possible to derive all laws of the fundamental forces of nature (including the force of gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the (strong) nuclear force, and only these three kinds of forces), "mathematically".

Please see this recent article: https://www.scribd.com/doc/263420570/

report post as inappropriate


Ramin Zahedi wrote on May. 9, 2015 @ 11:46 GMT
I attached the article mentioned in my previous post.

attachments: 2_R.-a.-Zahedi1_the-fundamental-laws.of.nature.pdf

report post as inappropriate


Swami wrote on Mar. 26, 2016 @ 13:43 GMT
The expansion of universe at speed pf light is the expansion of light itself. Light spreads like that over time and the screen size increases. Matter is constantly added by our thoughts in the cosmos. Gravity it seems is the overall effect of black holes in cosmos. They impart gravity on each celestial objects depending on its size. An effect of that is felt as gravity of each celestial object.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 26, 2016 @ 15:21 GMT
Hi,I read my posts in 2010,Oh My God, my parano was enormous, I am sorry.I had serious problems in belgium and my health was bad.I regret my comportments, arrogant and paranoiac.I regret also the discussions with my friend Ray Munroe.

I have imrpoved my theory of spherisation here on FQXi, I have leanrt a lot and I haave completed my works.I am thanking FQXi to have accepted my comportements, sorry.I have had several neurological probelms,and more my personnal problems, I was bizare simply.I am thanking you FQXi and friends.My mind is more quiet now.Sometimes you are stupid in life ,I have been stupid simply.But we evolve, all evolves....

report post as inappropriate

James A Putnam replied on Mar. 26, 2016 @ 23:20 GMT
Hi Steve,

No one would be quicker than Ray Munroe to say "No problem friend." Ray Munroe was a gentleman scientist.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 27, 2016 @ 08:34 GMT
Hi James,Happy to see you again.He was a real friend ,I liked alot to discuss with him,Lawrence,you James, Tom,Georgina,Jason....

My paranoia was enormous due to serious personnal and neurological problems.Thanks James and happy Easter.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 28, 2016 @ 19:16 GMT
Hello,

I reread the article about the works of Verlinde.It is very relevant.There is a bridge between our thermo and our gravitation.It seems essential to insert a new quantum of gravitational energy.We have problems if we consider our relativitic thermo.

I am asking me how can we consider the quantum gravitation? The QFT needs a kind of bridge to explain this gravitation which are not a thermodynamical force in fact.Perhaps that we must analyse at zero absolute at 10^-35m .A kind of dark quantum matter , stable encodes particles of gravitation which aren't bosonic;The serie of uniquenss, stable and not linear becomes relevant considering the serie towards the singularities.Our standard model needs to insert those other particles which are not bosons and fermions,it is not baryonic.We can correlate with the dark matter.It exists a bridge between thermo, gravitation and entropy.BH produce in logic these particles of gravitation, this dark matter.These particles are also encoded in our nuclei respecting the evolution and the increasing matter entropy on the irreversibe Arrow of time.Regards

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Apr. 21, 2016 @ 16:22 GMT
Does this mean that if a large hollow body was placed in space it's"gravity" for lack of understanding, could be equal to that of say..... Earth? Random virtual particles pressing onto the surface from all regions of space? "Gravity" being equal on the inside of the sphere to"gravity" on the outside perhaps? I'm struggling with practical application of this theory, though tantalizing to the imagination.

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Jun. 1, 2016 @ 11:53 GMT
How does the objects interact? What decides whether to attract or repel each other?

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:

And select the letter between 'W' and 'Y':


Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.