Gravity : An alternative approach

[Xelasnave.1947]

, so why can't a theory be developed around some entity which stretches and curves in presence of mass with direct physical connect?

Why not indeed?
As you know scientific theories are models that enable prediction.
It would seem you could say pink unicorns caused gravity if you can provide the math and predictions that are better than the current model.

I encourage you to try and given that you are wrestling with the greatest questions man can consider even failure is nothing to worry about.

However rolling GR won't happen.
You won't roll the catholic church in fact you won't roll the flat earth followers. And GR has legitimate runs on the board and more importantly it is mainstream and enjoys all the benefit endorsement by the best in acedemia offer.
I am not being cynical or anti science or anti church and most of all would not go against the wonderful folk in the flat earth society.
I am simply saying you have an impossible task before you and don't dispair when the world fails to grasp your ideas and give you recognition you may or may not deserve.
Up until GR Newton had the best science on gravity and as I understand GR builds upon or uses something of Newtons work.
I don't know but that is my belief unsupported by authority.
But no doubt if I am mistaken folk here will kindly correct me.
From my reading of the history it seems Le Sage push gravity was considered a viable explanation of how at a mechanical level gravity worked.
Newton was well aware of the LeSage approach and had contact with a chap, who's name escapes me, who was into push gravity.
However after GR there seems an abandonment of a need for a mechanism and it seems the notion of an ether left the stage around this time.
Why that is so I don't know given the work around that time which included an ether.
If there is no ether there is need of a word that describes the infinite trajectories at any point in space each carrying trillions of energy packets or waves from each and every part of the universe.
Personally I believe this infinite collection of stuff which we think of as nothing possibly provides a pressure we call gravity.
I tried to do some math but the fact is from the start all you have is infinite trajectories which means any attempt to quantify energy results in infinite energy potential at every point in the universe.
Sounds crazy but such a conclusion is inescapable but moreover well beyond my ability to present any of this in a form one could call physics.

To me one thing is very clear if gravity as a mechanism is viable then any need for dark matter will disappear. And I hasten to add...no I have no math but stuff would be easily contained by what would seem an almost infinite energy potential from outside a galaxy as opposed to an internal binding force.

I think things come into and out of fashion and although GR may not be what one would call a fashion I suspect that in time the search for answers may see a return to a need for a mechanical explanation.

Lucky I am a layman because if I was not I could not speculate.

Again good luck you are trying to be original and I always hold a high respect for those who will risk being called names and stand for what they believe in.

Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

For GR none is asking even after a century that how mass curves the space-time, but any new theory will face massive scrutiny, that too if at all it is taken up for consideration.

My thoughts are that in GR the concept of stretching and curving of some entity is there, it's mathematical but it is given physical significance (even though none exists in reality), so why can't a theory be developed around some entity which stretches and curves in presence of mass with direct physical connect? That's the attempt which covers sub nucleonic regime to cosmological level, explaining all the observations.

I like to give free advice, lol, but the best learning comes from experience. It is interesting to see ideas get developed, and so I'll keep an eye on the progress.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

I like to give free advice, lol, but the best learning comes from experience. It is interesting to see ideas get developed, and so I'll keep an eye on the progress.

Thanks. Such discussions surely propagate the thoughts in right direction and help in getting over with deadlocks.

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Again good luck you are trying to be original and I always hold a high respect for those who will risk being called names and stand for what they believe in.

Alex

Who cares about name calling.

I am convinced that this proposal can explain all the observations qualitatively. I stretched myself and could not find any problem even treating strong nuclear force and nuclear force as gravity. Variable Gravity is there for all to see, G is not constant. And it's not adoc also, G varies depending on stretch value. Precise maths would be complicated.

 

[quantum_wave]

Thanks. Such discussions surely propagate the thoughts in right direction and help in getting over with deadlocks.

True. I was wondering what you view of time is, and is there any correlation with gravity, as in gravitational time dilation?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

True. I was wondering what you view of time is, and is there any correlation with gravity, as in gravitational time dilation?

This one is very deep. One second is the time that elapses during 9192631770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two hyperfine ground states of Cs133 atom. But the frequency measurement is done in the stretched space, which changes wavelength. It is to be seen if this change can be attributed to time dilation.

 

[quantum_wave]

This one is very deep. One second is the time that elapses during 9192631770 cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two hyperfine ground states of Cs133 atom. But the frequency measurement is done in the stretched space, which changes wavelength. It is to be seen if this change can be attributed to time dilation.

Well said.

Time dilation is, I think, a generally accepted part of General Relativity, so non-GR models wouldn't necessarily have to call it time dilation. However, you make a good point when you say the passing of time is related to the frequency of the cesium atom, and in the context of your idea, that frequence is always being measured in the stretched space. So is it fair to say the rate that time passes varies with the energy density of the local stretched space?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Who cares about name calling.

Presumably the folk who engage in calling the names.

My mother told me...

Sticks and stones will break your bones but names can never hurt you.

Simple but being called names one feels compelled to respond and I have taken her words to mean one need not respond and when you think about it an opponents name calling is designed to throw you off track such that you miss speaking your truth.

Again good luck with your model.
Alex

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Well said.

Time dilation is, I think, a generally accepted part of General Relativity, so non-GR models wouldn't necessarily have to call it time dilation. However, you make a good point when you say the passing of time is related to the frequency of the cesium atom, and in the context of your idea, that frequence is always being measured in the stretched space. So is it fair to say the rate that time passes varies with the energy density of the local stretched space?

In higher stretch domain, a natural process cannot remain stable in lesser stretch magnitude. I will clarify.

If a string is taught with 100 Newton force, a process which was hitherto staying stable at 50 Newton will break or will not form.

Cs atom electron excitation level energy and frequency is same and deterministic because surrounding space stretch is less than that of stretch between this electron and nucleus.

Now if we carry this atomic clock at a place where gravity is higher such that stretch surrounding is higher than the stretch between electron and nucleus, then what must happen? Will this atom itself be stable at all?

We have two fold issues, one as highlighted earlier the measurement in different stretch domain although less and secondly the stretch being higher than the electron nucleus stretch.

 

[paddoboy]

Gravity under my proposal is some kind of radial stretching of energy field, which is not contemplated under GR. I am trying to figure out if curving of space-time of GR can be equated with curving of energy field around an object. What is positive is that most of the observation can be explained under this, of course qualitatively as of now. It does not appear that any of the observations falsify this.

Your fabricated hypothetical does not fit the observations, particularly those local regions that are decoupled from the overall expansion rate.

In GR as on date we do not know about the mechanism of how mass curves the space-time or how spacetime tells the mass to move.

For GR none is asking even after a century that how mass curves the space-time,

Sounds like that old boring god of the gaps argument, as two others are fond of sneakily implying.
I can't explain it to someone who is obviously not going to accept any rhyme nor reason, so I'll just post one of my favourite videos again

My thoughts are that in GR the concept of stretching and curving of some entity is there, it's mathematical but it is given physical significance (even though none exists in reality),

Again the same incorrect thoughts as another pair were so keen on posting on this forum.....
Space is real: It's what stops everything from being together.
Time is real: It's what stops everything from happening at the same instant.
Spacetime is the unified multi-dimensional framework within which it is possible to locate events and describe the relationships between them in terms of spatial coordinates and time. The concept of spacetime follows from the observation that the speed of light is invariant and does not vary with the motion of the observer and/or emitter.
Spacetime allows a description of reality that is common for all observers in the universe, regardless of their relative motion.
And just as real is the fact that spacetime curves, twists and creates gravitational waves in the presence of mass.
In essence, gravity is the geometry of spacetime as invoked by GR.
"matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".
Those facts are now beyond any reasonable doubt, not withstanding the babbling preached on science forums by some with baggage, and whose hypotheticals are never supported with reputable citations, links and references.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

In essence, gravity is the geometry of spacetime as invoked by GR.
"matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move".

Richard says I can not ask but I must...why or how?

What does the geometry describe?

It can't all happen via magic.

You are a layman with I gather a trade you must understand my search for a nuts and bolts explanation.

Is there one.

I have heard of gravitons which as far as I can tell are " force carriers" ...can you explain any thing you know to a less educated layman?

Thanks
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

In higher stretch domain, a natural process cannot remain stable in lesser stretch magnitude. I will clarify.

If a string is taught with 100 Newton force, a process which was hitherto staying stable at 50 Newton will break or will not form.

Cs atom electron excitation level energy and frequency is same and deterministic because surrounding space stretch is less than that of stretch between this electron and nucleus.

Now if we carry this atomic clock at a place where gravity is higher such that stretch surrounding is higher than the stretch between electron and nucleus, then what must happen? Will this atom itself be stable at all?

We have two fold issues, one as highlighted earlier the measurement in different stretch domain although less and secondly the stretch being higher than the electron nucleus stretch.

You ask what must happen. Given observations, when you move the Cesium clock to a more energy dense location like a higher stretch domain, to use your terms, the clock runs slower. Certainly that is the same effect, no matter what model of physics you are happy with.

At that point you refer to two issues. One is that when you measure the frequency of the cesium you get different values at different stretch positions. I don't understand the second issue, where you say "and secondly the stretch being higher than the electron nucleus stretch." Do you mean that when you move the clock to a higher stress domain, that you are increasing the electron nucleus stretch? If so, in regard to your model that would make sense.

So in trying to reconcile that with a concept of energy in space, is a change in the stretch value the same as a change in eneregy density, or doesn't the term "energy density" make sense when talking about different stretch domains?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

You ask what must happen. Given observations, when you move the Cesium clock to a more energy dense location like a higher stretch domain, to use your terms, the clock runs slower. Certainly that is the same effect, no matter what model of physics you are happy with.

At that point you refer to two issues. One is that when you measure the frequency of the cesium you get different values at different stretch positions. I don't understand the second issue, where you say "and secondly the stretch being higher than the electron nucleus stretch." Do you mean that when you move the clock to a higher stress domain, that you are increasing the electron nucleus stretch? If so, in regard to your model that would make sense.

So in trying to reconcile that with a concept of energy in space, is a change in the stretch value the same as a change in eneregy density, or doesn't the term "energy density" make sense when talking about different stretch domains?

I am still developing it, so there could be some issues in my response.

My premises is very simple, if matter can stretch so can energy. And likewise stretching the energy will make it less dense and higher gravity (higher G).

Now what I am saying is that any sub interaction must be in higher energy density only. For example the stretch between electron (any electron of any atom) and nucleus must be higher or equal then the surrounding stretch.

Now say the stretch of Cs electron is 100 units, then surrounding stretch must be less than 100 only, say 75 units. So you are measuring the frequency in 75 units stretch. Now if we take this atomic clock to higher gravity, the surrounding stretch will be more than 75....the clock will show different time....but what will happen if you take the clock to a place where stretch more than 100 umits. The Cs electron must collapse.

 

[quantum_wave]

I am still developing it, so there could be some issues in my response.

My premises is very simple, if matter can stretch so can energy. And likewise stretching the energy will make it less dense and higher gravity (higher G).

Now what I am saying is that any sub interaction must be in higher energy density only. For example the stretch between electron (any electron of any atom) and nucleus must be higher or equal then the surrounding stretch.

Now say the stretch of Cs electron is 100 units, then surrounding stretch must be less than 100 only, say 75 units. So you are measuring the frequency in 75 units stretch. Now if we take this atomic clock to higher gravity, the surrounding stretch will be more than 75....the clock will show different time....but what will happen if you take the clock to a place where stretch more than 100 umits. The Cs electron must collapse.

Those unit relationships and the conclusion that at some point an increase in unit should lead to collapse makes sense. So it might help to say if you think that space and energy are infinite or finite.

 

[paddoboy]

Richard says I can not ask but I must...why or how?

Why? We don't really know. How? Again, we don't really know.

What does the geometry describe?

That gravity is spacetime, albeit curved... that gravity is not an ordinary force, but rather a property of the geometrical space-time?
Or the following link may explain it better.
http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/03/17/for-there-we-are-captured-the-geometry-of-spacetime/
extract:
"This is what I mean when I say that spacetime is curved. We can measure (using light as a meter-stick) that distance itself changes depending on our position in spacetime. We call this change in distance the curvature of spacetime. It is a curvature in spacetime, not just space, because we can measure the “temporal distance” of that change (a form of time dilation) as well as the spatial distance. Note that the curvature of spacetime affects spatial and temporal distance in ways not predicted by special relativity. There’s more going on here than the constant speed of light"

It can't all happen via magic.

Agreed, but the fact remains as of now, we still are unable to understand the actual why and how of what you asked first.
And while scientists continue to research and improve our models and throw more light on the how and why, we also have of course the cranks, quacks and religious fundamentalists, that would like to "short circuit" that research by invoking either openly or insinuating insidiously a "god of the gaps" solution...or simply insinuate that scientists are just plain wrong and don't know what they are talking about, despite using our models of gravity to send probes to all the planets, some probes actually rendezvousing with three and four planets at the one trip.

You are a layman with I gather a trade you must understand my search for a nuts and bolts explanation.

Is there one.

Our scientists model based on what they see and observe. If that happens to align with reality, all well and good. If not, as long as the model/theory continues to match observation, and continue to make successful predictions, then that is also accepted.

I have heard of gravitons which as far as I can tell are " force carriers" ...can you explain any thing you know to a less educated layman?

Thanks
Alex

Other then gravitons are simply the hypothetical "quanta" that mediates gravity in QFT, no.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Why? We don't really know. How? Again, we don't really know.

Well that's OK I have been thinking there must be something that I don't know about.

I find it frustrating that we can "measure" space time but we really don't know what we are measuring in effect.


Thanks for your well considered reply I found it most helpful.


Alex

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

GR says spacetime curves, but mechanism is not known even after 100 years. We do not know the possible applicability of GR at quantum level and in extreme gravity. Our bet is that some futuristic Quantum Gravity will fill the gaps.

What I proposed is simple, we know how and why space stretches in this theory, we know that it works great in high gravity, and we know that it manifests itself very strongly even between QQ bond. Is there any meaningful flaw?

 

[RajeshTrivedi]

Those unit relationships and the conclusion that at some point an increase in unit should lead to collapse makes sense. So it might help to say if you think that space and energy are infinite or finite.

As on date it leads me to infinite nature of universe. The universe at the start was filled up with this stretchable energy field. No time as there was no relative motion, as soon as (dont askme how) first particle, say quark formed, the local area stretched and time evolved, this stretching was sufficient to create one more quark, and this continued.

What I am saying is that formation process can be hypothesized with lesser assumed factors than Big Bang. Like how that BB singularity came, we dont know, in the same manner we do not know how that infinite energy field came. Rest all is much better than BB cosmology.

 

[quantum_wave]

Why? We don't really know. How? Again, we don't really know.

That gravity is spacetime, albeit curved... that gravity is not an ordinary force, but rather a property of the geometrical space-time?
Or the following link may explain it better.

http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/03/17/for-there-we-are-captured-the-geometry-of-spacetime/
extract:
"This is what I mean when I say that spacetime is curved. We can measure (using light as a meter-stick) that distance itself changes depending on our position in spacetime. We call this change in distance the curvature of spacetime. It is a curvature in spacetime, not just space, because we can measure the “temporal distance” of that change (a form of time dilation) as well as the spatial distance. Note that the curvature of spacetime affects spatial and temporal distance in ways not predicted by special relativity. There’s more going on here than the constant speed of light"



Agreed, but the fact remains as of now, we still are unable to understand the actual why and how of what you asked first.
And while scientists continue to research and improve our models and throw more light on the how and why, we also have of course the cranks, quacks and religious fundamentalists, that would like to "short circuit" that research by invoking either openly or insinuating insidiously a "god of the gaps" solution...or simply insinuate that scientists are just plain wrong and don't know what they are talking about, despite using our models of gravity to send probes to all the planets, some probes actually rendezvousing with three and four planets at the one trip.


Our scientists model based on what they see and observe. If that happens to align with reality, all well and good. If not, as long as the model/theory continues to match observation, and continue to make successful predictions, then that is also accepted.


Other then gravitons are simply the hypothetical "quanta" that mediates gravity in QFT, no.

Well that's OK I have been thinking there must be something that I don't know about.

I find it frustrating that we can "measure" space time but we really don't know what we are measuring in effect.


Thanks for your well considered reply I found it most helpful.


Alex

GR says spacetime curves, but mechanism is not known even after 100 years. We do not know the possible applicability of GR at quantum level and in extreme gravity. Our bet is that some futuristic Quantum Gravity will fill the gaps.

What I proposed is simple, we know how and why space stretches in this theory, we know that it works great in high gravity, and we know that it manifests itself very strongly even between QQ bond. Is there any meaningful flaw?

As on date it leads me to infinite nature of universe. The universe at the start was filled up with this stretchable energy field. No time as there was no relative motion, as soon as (dont askme how) first particle, say quark formed, the local area stretched and time evolved, this stretching was sufficient to create one more quark, and this continued.

What I am saying is that formation process can be hypothesized with lesser assumed factors than Big Bang. Like how that BB singularity came, we dont know, in the same manner we do not know how that infinite energy field came. Rest all is much better than BB cosmology.

Having given some thought to all of that for many years, my solutions follow a path that would be hard for anyone else to follow, as I think Alex and Paddoboy will attest, and I would think that when you figure it all out, your path might be hard for others to follow too. But if you figure it out, that can be your own story.

I put this post out some time ago when someone asked "What exactly is gravity". It is along the lines of some ideas about quantum gravity. That post got reported for violating rules about speculation, but they left it there anyway, so I guess I can link to it for reference:
http://bit.ly/2akewQw

The point is that layman have a great advantage over professionals, because we can speculate and hypothesize at will, without having to worry about being taken seriously. Keep working and you will surly be able come up with something on quantum gravity that suits you, even if it never gets liked .

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I have all the answers but I forgot the original questions.
Alex