Let me be perfectly honest. I know that this theory of gravity will sound perfectly absurd. We have been so far ingrained into the thinking that gravity is simply an attractive interaction between massive bodies to the point that anything that runs counter to this thinking is automatically seen as the work of a lunatic. However, we all know that the force of gravity is a monkeywrench in all of our attempts to develop a full-fledged TOE (A "Theory Of Everything" to unify the 4 fundamental forces). We also know that Einstein dramatically revised the meaning of gravity when he described it as distortions of a substantial space rather than a simple interaction within an empty background space. Einstein's theory is highly intuitive when we consider it on the scale of cosmic-sized bodies (bodies with at least the mass of small moons). However, when we try to "quantify" his theory of gravity, physicists are left in a precarious situation. They are tasked with nothing other than finding the basic quantum of mass. Before I go any further, I am fully aware of the experiments that have supposedly discovered a universal gravitation constant. These types of experiments are called "Cavendish experiments", and they involve the attempt to detect the "gravitational pull" between laboratory-sized objects (see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment for details). The philosophical problem behind these experiments is obvious when you realize that all "massive bodies" are essentially byproducts of the 3 "other" forces: electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. We know that the nuclear forces are only exerted over extremely small scales. The effects of electromagnetism, however, have been seen over distances of many hundreds of feet (such as lightning). It is said that the electromagnetic force is on the order of 10^39 times greater than that of gravity. This means that any attempt to determine the gravitational force between objects in a laboratory will have to find a way to locate a gravitational "needle" within an electromagnetic "haystack". (Of course, this analogy only holds if you think of a haystack with 10^39 pieces of hay!) The point here is not to say that a non-electromagnetic, attractive interaction between massive bodies does not exist... it is only to say that the attempt to isolate such an interaction from electromagnetism within a real-world, laboratory-sized context is a practical impossibility. Now let us get back to the purely theoretical aspects of gravity. Einstein's theory says that gravity is the distortion of a substantial space. I agree with him up to this point. However, I believe that Einstein goes wrong when we says that these distortions are caused by the pressures of quantifiable massive bodies upon a spatial fabric. After all, if Einstein's interpretation is correct, then he has just begged the question of finding a true "atom of mass". Enter the world of the string theorists. Here is where physics turns into a Wild West frontier. This is where the imagination is free to run wild because because there are no "real world" constraints (due to the fact that our particle accelerators have no where near the power to investigate Planck-scale sizes.) In the end, the ideas of the string theorists are nothing short of mathematical inventions that will never have any applicability within the forseeable future. Well, let me now go back to Einstein. Perhaps his idea of a substantial space is all we need to reformulate the concept of gravity in a more sensible way. After all, why do we need a "space substance" as well as a "mass substance"? Putting on our philosopher's hats, we can invoke Ockham's razor by way of merging these two different substances in a single all-purpose substance. Here is the assumption that we will make: the stuff of space is the same as the stuff of sensible matter. This is our axiom upon which we will build a new theory of gravity. We will not question it, but we will only see where it may take us. If all we have is a singular substance, then it can no longer be said that mass-substance causes space-substance to deform. In fact, without the duality between matter and space, we can no longer uphold any kind of causal relationship. Instead, we must say that the phenomenon of gravity is simply the uncaused deformation of universal substance. We know that this deformation must consist of a kind of condensation that is directed radially inward towards a single point. We will call this deformation a gravity field. However, a pure gravity field without any "quantum bits" within it does not give us anything to see or touch. If we start with a perfectly homogeneous universe, we are going to need to find a way to "manufacture" the quanta that allows for all of the diversity in the natural universe. Perhaps it is within spontaneously occurring, cosmic-scale gravity fields that the universal fabric becomes entangled within itself. (Think of gravity fields as being pressure cookers, or incubators, out of which spatially contained units of energy arise.) These entanglements, then, can be used as the fundamental building blocks of all of nature. The thing about this theory that will cause most physicists to shudder is the idea that gravity is a spontaneous action rather than a causal interaction. In other words, gravity is now arbitrary rather than law-abiding. However, the physics establishment is perfectly content with the greatest of all possible arbitrarities: the spontaneous creation of the universe itself. Not only does my theory give a sensible explanation of the phenomenon of gravity (as opposed to the nonsensible, multi-dimensional explanations offered by string theorists), but it also paves the way to explaining why it is that these "Big Bang" theories do not hold water. (Stay tuned!) Now you tell me... which type of arbitrarity is philosophically easier to take: one that allows for the existence of spontaneously occurring gravity fields, or one that allows for the creatio ex nihilio of the entire universe itself?
But that's exactly what Cavendish-type experiments do. Look up "bending space in the basement". You can observe gravity in your garage.
The "external face" of all atomic matter is the electromagnetic force. In other words, electromagnetism is the controlling factor of all of atomic interaction. In terms of Cavendish-style experiments, we have collections of atoms being brought towards one another (usually in the form of large metal spheres being brought near smaller ones). Since electromagnetic fields are said to be about 10^40 times stronger than gravity fields, all this practically means is that collections of tiny electromagnetic fields are slowly being brought towards one another. For all intents and purposes, the force of gravity has effectively disappeared. This is not yet a question of whether the phenomenon of quantum gravity theoretically exists, but only whether an experiment can practically be devised that reduces the error introduced by an interfering phenomenon that is 10^40 times greater than the phenomenon being studied to within acceptable limits. If the error introduced cannot be reduced to these limits, then one cannot have confidence in the results that are obtained. In order to have confidence in the results, we are going to have to construct an apparatus that is big enough to test masses of such a magnitude so that the effects of the electromagnetic fields of the atoms in each of the masses can be reasonably discounted as a cause of any change in position. I cannot even begin to think about how this can be done. As an aside about my research of these kinds of experiments, it seems that the trendline is towards less certainty as regards the value of the gravitational constant as more people throw their hats in the arena in an attempt to pin it down. Rather than convergence towards a number that we all can agree upon, the physics community just seems to be diverging away from the numbers of the past. All in all, it just seems that this "universal gravitational constant" may be more of a function of a particular set of arbitrary "Cavendish-style" conditions (torsion balances, metal spheres, etc.) than a function of any deep, underlying physical principle. I am not saying that these experiments are not detecting some sort of real phenomenon. But I am saying that we cannot be reasonably certain in saying that the phenomenon being detected is due to some sort of extra-mundane interaction between otherwise physically inert "quantum masses". On the theoretical side of things, there is a problem with general relativity that I haven't heard a good answer to. Suppose there is a background of flat space, free of any matter. Now, we take an individual quantum of matter and we place it in this space. According to theory, we know that this bit of matter is supposed to create a region of a certain gravitational potential. We also know that the value of this potential decreases with distance from the place where the bit of matter is located. Of course, this means that the gravitational potential is the highest precisely at the region of space in which the quantum of matter rests. The problem is that general relativity tells us that the mass of an object is proportional to the gravitational potential at which the object exists. Therefore, the mass of our quantum of matter will increase in response to the gravitational potential that has been created due to its appearance in space. However, because the mass has increased, so too will the value of the gravitational potential in the region of space in which it exists. This is a self-feeding loop that can only end in the implosion of an infinitely massive object into an infinitely deep gravitational "well". The only way around this outcome (from within a theory of quantum gravity) is to say that a gravity field is defined at every position except at its very center, where its source is located. This requires relying upon field equations with discontinuities in them (the potentials on a line from one edge of a gravity field to another will steadily increase from an arbitrarily small number, then instantly drop to zero, then jump to some large number before steadily decreasing). On the one hand, we have an infinite series, and on the other we have a discontinuous function. Neither one of these are very mathematically appealing. The ultimate problem that general relativity sets up is that it proposes two "real" entities (which just means that matter and space are both capable of having externally verifiable states) that must each occupy the same locations. The non-relativistic version of quantum gravity reverts back to a purely passive space background, and treats gravity as a typical, classical force whereby elementary mass-particles interact via elementary gravity-particles. Such a simple picture, however, does not account for the elegant geometric aspects of relativistic gravity. The particular curved geometries of relativistic gravity fields allow for the directional distinctions (down is the direction of the force of gravity, up is opposite to down) and the gradual gradations (atmospheres on top of liquids on top of solids) that make more the subtle natural phenomenon of life possible. In flat space-time with purely classical forces (like electromagnetism and the nuclear forces), all we can possibly have are the relatively simple lattice arrangements of metals and crystals (this is assuming that we already have these heavy atoms randomly floating around) that are created by random atomic interactions. For all of these reasons, it only makes sense to be more creative when thinking about the concept of gravity. Our philosophical penchant for subject-object dualism silently creeps into our physical theories where it doesn't necessarily belong. There is no longer any reason to uphold the arbitrary schism between material bodies and the continuous spaces in which they are immersed. It is only in this way that a self-consistent universal physical ontology will become possible. The bottom line is that if we think of gravity as a spontaneous cosmic action rather than a determined quantum interaction, then we will be capable of "moving on" from the conceptual quagmire that manifests when trying to unite quantum theory with general relativity.
I said I was going to describe why this theory leads us out of the spontaneous creation theory of the universe, otherwise known as the "Big Bang". We must start out by assuming that there is no difference between quanta of matter and the spaces in which they are immersed. This just means that space itself is "massive" or "substantial". The only difference between space-mass and quantum-mass is that a given volume of space-mass is perfectly at rest (think of a bunch of jelly beans filling a jar) while the same volume of quantum-mass is internally kinetic (think of a bunch of angry bees in the jar). In other words, the fact that a space has more "internal kinetic energy" is what makes it more resistant to a given force. Since we can see that there is no fundamental difference between (invisible) space-mass and (visible) quantum-mass, we would expect that the same type of phenomena that occurs in one should occur in the other. For example, we know that waves of energy can be transmitted through bodies of quantum-mass, such as seismic waves, ocean waves, and sound waves. These kinds of macroscopic waves have the property of spreading themselves out and becoming less energetic over time. What this technically means is that, as the areas of the wavefronts become bigger, the waves that they describe have continually decreasing amplitudes and continually increasing wavelengths. When the amplitudes have decreased to zero and the wavelengths have increased to infinity, the wave of energy has effectively disappeared. This is a necessary byproduct of the law of conservation of energy. To visualize what is going on, think of a stiff piece of wire in the shape of a sine wave. As we pull on both ends of the wire, the heights of the waves decrease while the distances between wavecrests grows. When light energy is emitted from a star, then, it begins with a spherical wavefront that has the same area as the star's surface. Just like the other forms of wave-energy, as the wave of light energy "pushes through" the mass of space, its intensity (amplitude) decreases while the time it takes to complete one oscillation increases (that is, its frequency decreases). This idea of the proportionality between the distance from a light source and the the wavelength of the emitted light was found by Hubble about 90 years ago. However, he made the further correlation that this equation implied an increasing recessional velocity the further away that the light source was situated. Hubble completely disregarded the effects of the physics of wave-energy propagation because it was assumed at the time that space was an inert, non-massive entity. Furthermore, the emerging quantum physical theories were of the opinion that light ultimately comes in the form of indivisible particles (photons) whose "waviness" come in the form of probabilistic descriptions called wave functions. For both of these reasons, the "real-world" physics of macroscopic wave-energy propagation was never applied to the world of light energy propagation. Once space is taken to be massive, there is no longer any problem in understanding why light waves lose frequency as they propagate. Concerning the phenomenon of predictable cosmological redshift, therefore, relative motion between light-source and observer does not necessarily apply. That is, the universe might not be expanding after all! This theory of "massive space" has thus allowed us to remove the confounding difficulties inherent in any attempt to "quantize" gravity fields as well as the philosophical problems implied by the thought of an ever-expanding universe.
Modern physics has attempted to discover a distinction between: 1) the small scale where the continuum breaks down and leaves us with an infinity of discrete (yet more or less probable) world lines, which can each exist alongside each other. 2) the large scale, where the multitude of possible scenarios "even out" to the point where there appears to be only one world line. This distinction is psychologically pleasing because it allows us to believe that the "human scale" of things is extraordinarily predictable while at the same time leaving room for certain bizarre events (such as the spontaneous appearance of the occasional universe!). However, there is no a priori reason to uphold that unpredictability only manifests in the world of human-scale smallness. In other words, why must there only be quantum wave functions? Why can't the idea of the wave function be applied to the world of the relatively large? Why can't we think of the phenomenon of gravity as a wave function of the cosmic structure of space itself? In this way, we will no longer need to mess around with trying to figure out how massively large-scale structures (such as the cosmic "bubbles" along which galaxies seem to be lined) can possibly be shaped by ridiculously small-scale structures (such as superstrings). Instead, these cosmic-sized structures will simply be formed by the spontaneous, cosmic-sized force called gravity. Then, when we think of the fact that the temperatures/pressures within the most intense gravity fields are large enough to entangle the fabric of space (space-mass) into tiny knots (quantum-mass), we can see how the world of the very small is in fact completely dependent upon the world of the very large!
Who says, it cannot? For example, the waves in the foam are propagating like quantum wave (packets), because the foam gets more dense, when the energy is passing through it, i.e. when shaken (i.e. the mass density is proportional the energy density by E=mv^2). This is completely easy to simulate classical physics phenomena. We even have the mechanical analogies of quantum phenomena observed already. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Gravity... i have this wee theory going that it might not be a quantized force. Instead, just simply, an attraction between two bodies acting like a mysterious force. I don't think the graviton exists.
But then, you have to define what you mean by a "body". Obviously, everyday definitions of what constitutes a body (a baseball, a house, a mountain) don't apply because they are all made of atoms. Is a body an atom, then? Or is it some more fundamental particle that has mass? Is a body just a fermion? You see, just by invoking the term, "body", you are begging the question of the ultimate reducibility of matter. This leads us directly into the insanity that is "string theory" and all of its incarnations. This is why I've taken the extreme opposite position by relating the force of gravity (as Einstein did) just to the structure of space itself. However, if you think that there is no essential difference between quantum matter and the continuous fields that everywhere pervade the universe, then you can no longer uphold the causal connection between matter and the deformation of the structure of space. Gravity, then, becomes a non-dualistic phenomenon that can occur on any scale. It just so happens that the scale that makes these "space-structure fluctuations" observable to us is what we consider to be very large (aka cosmic).
