If you compare the force equations for two magnetic poles, two electrical charges and gravitational force between two masses; it can be observed that all these equations are similar. So, we can say there is some similar mechanism in all these forces. If attraction is push mechanism; repulsion should be considered as pull mechanism(opposite of push mechanism). Can repulsion be explained as pull mechanism?
Layman's attempt at gravity
- Thread starter Xelasnave.1947
- Start date
If you compare the force equations for two magnetic poles, two electrical charges and gravitational force between two masses; it can be observed that all these equations are similar. So, we can say there is some similar mechanism in all these forces. If attraction is push mechanism; repulsion should be considered as pull mechanism(opposite of push mechanism). Can repulsion be explained as pull mechanism?
In gravitational force also, there is no physical contact. It works at a distance.
You were so close and then you made a fatal error. There is no similar mechanism. What is similar is the geometry. If you start from a single point and radiate outward geometry tells us that the intensity of whatever is radiating outward will decrease by $$1/r^2$$. If you were to explode a small charge surrounded by BBs out in space you would find that the number of BBs would fall off at $$1/r^2$$. Clearly not related to magnatism, yet since the geometry is similar the equations to determine the intesnity VS distance are similar. Nothing but simple geometry.
I wonder how many times this has been explained to you? This is why people can get nasty in their response to you - they are simply exasperated!
If up is considered down then down should be considered up. Neither example is particularly enlightning or profound I'm afraid.
I think you are mixing up Newtonian model with GR. GR works on geometry. But in Newtonian model the gravitational force is dependent on the distance between two masses. And same is the case with magnetic force/electrical force between two magnetic poles/electrical charges. This force depends on the distance and not on geometry.
No, I'm not mixing them up at all. Are you saying that you don't think the distance from a mass matters in GR? I think you misspoke.
Newtonian gravitational force falls off at 1/r^2 as does force from a charged particle. As I said this is due to the geometry of the point source and a radiating field.
In my earlier post #41, I only considered Newtonian model and not GR.
Isn't this mechanism also true for magnetic force between two magnetic poles?
Last edited:
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for bringing up Le Sage gravity. It was time for someone to do that in this thread.
For those who do not know, Le Sage gravity was based on the idea of two large ships on a turbulent ocean being pushed together because the slightly less turbulent water between the ships provided less pressure than the more turbulent water surrounding both of them, after a 19th century manual on basic seamanship taught to French sailors. To avoid possible heavy damage to both ships, it is necesary to orient the ships to minimize this effect when they are in proximity on stormy seas.
Let's try and update Le Sage's idea slightly. Let us suppose that a turbulent quantum foam in inertialess space is pushing into (with LINEAR inertia akin to that carried by photons or virtual photons) two gravitating bodies from all directions at once. If something about a material object could act to selectivly absorb some of the energy or inertia of the quantum foam, that would tend to push two objects together, as if by a force akin to gravity, would it not? It WOULD NOT. However...
If instead of quantum foam you replace what is pushing in from all sides with the Higgs field and Higgs bosons interacting with itself, electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, neutrinos and their antiparticles, THEN you have a totally different kettle of fish, mainly because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PARTICLE OF ANY KIND TO IMPART INERTIA OF ANY KIND WITHOUT CHANGING ITS OWN INERTIA. This would include Higgs. So while Higgs bosons are imparting inertial mass to fermions and electroweak bosons in atomic structure all the way through to the center of gravitating bodies, the parts receiving that inertia are continuously changing the inertia of the Higgs field and the space surrounding a gravitating body. In this manner, it is quantum spin / angular momentum that is being converted to linear momentum or inertia for any matter in proximity to gravitating bodies. It isn't exactly that there is less Higgs pressure in the direction of the gravitating body, it is that the inertia gifted by the Higgs mechanism to the gravitating body steals sufficient linear inertia from inertial masses in proximity to where the Higgs mechanism is occurring.
Imagine that. A means for changing quantum spin angular momentum into an inverse square law gravitational field. Only it's not Le Sage's waves doing the pushing, only the presence of inerial mass. And THIS time, the gravity mechanism also explains why those bodies are perfectly round, if they are large enough, and why a falling mass doesn't need a doctorate in mathematics or any scientific instrumentation at all to find the precise direction in which to fall to the center of a planet.
At the precise center of the planet, the net gravitational force is ZERO, not INFINITY, and the time dilation at the geometric center of a large gravitating body is exactly the same as it is in free space, far removed from the effects of gravity at its surface. Already, because this results in field equations without a radius that yields a wrong answer when r=0 in the denominator, this theory bests the predictions of both Newton and Einstein. And we're only getting started with what other things this mechanism can predict. I believe this mechanism is also the key to eliminating the Universal Gravitational Constant in the gravitational theories of both Newton and Einstein, which is to say, you need not measure the constant empirically; you can actually DERIVE the Universal Gravitational Constant, if you know just a few details about the way Higgs delivers inertia to fermions, and how much coupling of linear to rotational inertia occurs in BOTH directions. You may also find, there is always a bit more inertial mass in the vicinity of gravitating masses than you can actually see. This is because the Higgs field also extends inertial and gravitational mass in the presence and vicinity of objects to which it delivers inertia, and a good deal beyond their surfaces or atmospheres. And all in the precise and requisite inverse square law proportions.
If you are looking for a theory that explains more about gravity than any competing theory, look no further. It is here, in all its glory. No gravitons, and no loose ends to gravitational attraction begging more questions than it provides answers. I don't care if Peter Higgs himself denies this is the answer. It's all I ever wanted to see in a consistent theory of gravity, including and especially the part about the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass.
Last edited:
There appears to be a communication problem. I have pointed out twice that the similarities between the two is due to geometry
What mechanism? You mean is the geometry the same? Yes the geometry is the same.
See #31, #35 - this thread! Someone else with an extremely poor memory.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
That (my post in response to a previous one about Le Sage gravity) was not an endorsement, and we all know that Le Sage gravity is discredited. No question, it does not work, and would never work.See #31, #35 - this thread! Someone else with an extremely poor memory.
Nige Cook's quantum gravity "graviton scattering" does not impress. If a graviton as the boson of gravity was a part of a hadron, we would have seen it detected at the LHC already, and we haven't. The Higgs was not previously considered a part of atomic structure except in theory, and it seems many still believe, it is not. Lots of people didn't believe in neutrinos for decades after they were confirmed to six sigma either.
Is the graviton supposed to be lower mass than neutrinos, because that is a very low threshold of detection? How could that be, given the principle of equivalence and the graviton as the boson that carries that force? It would have to be a minimum of 125 GeV to provide inertial/gravitational mass, even at the 2% level that Higgs does.
Also, the spin for the graviton is wrong. At a spin of +1, all of empty space where gravitons need to reside, not to mention gravitating bodies, would be spinning so fast, the gravitational mass the graviton provides couldn't hold anything with gravity together. Matter interacting with it would simply fly apart.
Does anyone who knows whatever it is they are looking for even bother to peer review these things? Or, to put it another way, what part of atomic structure is acted upon by a graviton in order to generate said graviton force pair? The paper says the protons. Okay, good luck with that. We don't even know for sure what the spin of a proton is supposed to be. Yeah, the proton / neutron inertial / gravitational masses are big. So, what part of the mass of the proton is provided by the graviton as compared to the other part (quarks) given by the Higgs? Does this sound half-baked to anyone else, or is it just me? Where is the graviton term in the Lagrangian for atomic structure? Missing? Why is that? It gets complicated fast, doesn't it? Don't really mind that, though.
Forces always come in pairs, and bosons are the particles that are responsible for such exchanges. We all get it. Make the graviton part of any Abelian group you like; don't care. Doesn't explain gravity as observed. Doesn't explain much of anything better than General Relativity does. Quantum gravity based on graviton exchange, like Le Sage gravity, is long cold dead. I think another thread might have mentioned that also.
Last edited:
In 'standard treatments' (that school of thought that actually thinks gravity is mediated by gravitons) it is massless just like the photon. aLIGO GW observations have constrained any possible non-zero mass of gravitons to an extremely small value - far less than for the lightest neutrino. And incidentally so it is for Nigel Cook's spin-1 gravitons - massless. Got that? As for the rest of your 'treatise' connecting the Higgs particle/field tro inertia and gravity: https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/
[Composed above before your edit additions. Nothing there to really add comment on.]
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
No you covered it very well. Excellent post, and covered all of my questions completely.
No wonder gravitons are so hard to explain. They provide gravitational mass without having any themselves. Whatever happened to Newton's third law? Sounds like a reactionless thrust, or else it REALLY takes a lot of them to make that force. You'd also think, that would make them easier to find. Perhaps not. I see it's spin 2 also. Makes my head spin just thinking about what that would mean.
Know all about Prof. Matt Strassler. Good guy. OPERA. FTL neutrinos. Everything. Nice blog, and not afraid to go out on a theoretical limb at all, which is something I really like.
Last edited:
Thank you Dan. Just to add a touch of irony and 'interconnectedness' here; Nige also went out on a limb and declared, on the basis of his own quantum theory, there was no Higgs. Not sure how he coped with LHC confirmation back in 2012. Such folks rarely just throw in the towel. A nifty mod and hey presto - v II of theory is there bigger and better than before.
???? Where do you get that idea Dan? They are in e.g. string theories the force carrier - NOT the source.
I don't agree with everything he says, but a reliable source on nearly everything touching on particle physics.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Well, Nige has lots of company in roundly ignoring the discovery.
I assume you mean the idea that it must take a lot of ultra low mass gravitons to make gravity work?
I understand, this idea (a low mass graviton) must have come from preferentially trying to use gravitons as a means for solving the force hierarchy problem RATHER THAN to acknowledge the greater importance of GR's Principle of Equivalence. As far as I can see, these two ends are not reconcilable, particularly not with a low mass for the graviton.
I would agree that for the most part, ProfMattStrassler is a good source for understanding a lot of orthodox particle physics.
But when he says that the Higgs mechanism cannot be responsible for gravity, he is really just parroting what particle physicists with a specialty in the strong nuclear force will tell you; that even though the Higgs provides inertial mass for itself, fermions, electroweak bosons and neutrinos, this accounts for only about 2% of the total mass of atomic structure. Most of the rest of the mass/energy of atomic structure (98%) is in the strong force for which gluons are the force carrier.
Fine. Higgs most often decays into a pair of gluons, with an antitop quark as an intermediary, as I understand it. So Higgs is everywhere else. How likely is it, really, that it is not also doing something with the strong force, if only to produce gluons?
Well, let me tell you a thing or two about QCD.
While physicists like Richard Feynman credited "standing on the shoulders of giants" like Newton did, QCD tzar Gell-Mann once quipped that he was "surrounded by dwarves".
While Feynman tried to make his work in QED more accessible by means of Feynman diagrams, his close associate Gell-Mann was writing stuff like "The Quark and the Ocelot" , in which he advocated a physics notation that deliberately sought to obscure deeper physical meaning by means of eliminating some of the mindless tedium of writing out all of the math in longhand notation.
When Feyman died, Gell-Mann got out of physics and tried to apply his knowledge of subatomic particles to predicting market trends on the stock market. You know, Newton had his tulip futures disaster and no one batted an eye, but I have a sneaky suspicion, Gell-Mann may not have actually been responsible for the progress that was made in QCD.
Make no mistake, the physics associated with QCD is not for the faint of heart. For one thing, whenever you try and pull the strong force apart, more quarks and gluons and what-not fly out of there simply because you provided additional energy to create them. If the strong force were "magic", then the energy provided by the hand of the magician pulling a rabbit (or a quark) out of a hat would cause a torrent in the production of rabbits (subatomic particles). Whether you call them "partons" (Feynman), or "aces" (Zweig), or "quarks" (Gell-Mann), some of the most bizarre physics we know comes right out of QCD. Perhaps all of the physics associated with QCD is not completely settled just yet.
A supercomputer simulation that ran for over a week in 2002 of all the QCD calculations needed to keep a proton together indeed yielde the correct mass, but the spin dynamics remained indeterminate. As far as I am concerned, that simulation was pretty much a failure, since the mass of the proton has been known empirically for a very long time.
THERE IS POWER IN KNOWING WHAT INERTIA IS. In large part, this point seems completely lost on the lost physics of QCD. Take it with two grains of salt, this area of physics, like string theory and supersymmetry, is overdue for a sea change. The Higgs mechanism and quantum spin is very likely the source of gravitation.
The boson that is responsible for gravitation will have zero spin, because the universe as a whole is not spinning, or at least, not BECAUSE of gravitation, only the conservation of angular momentum, and gravitation doesn't cause anything to spin either. Under normal circumstances, most particles possessing quantum spin do not transfer spin to other particles they are not entangled with. Higgs would be the sole exception. Angular momentum has inertia too. If the inertia of a particle with inertial mass is provided in every direction at once, the Higgs mechanism would have been what delivered it, and if it did not, the particle wouldn't exist.
Independent of any deity, there is good reason the Higgs was once called the G-d particle. Not beliving in that is probably very trendy right now. The Standard Model doesn't exist without Higgs.
Lots of people won't know the difference between Feynman's humor and Gell-Mann's eccentric shennanigans, but do yourselves a favor and don't become a groupie or an academic equivalent of a whore by believing everything and anything a cult leader or tenured pimp in a field of learning condescends to present to mere mortals or students in a suitably ordained trash receptacle. You all have good minds. Use them once in a while.
Last edited:
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Probably should have softened or explained that last remark. An academic prostitute is someone who teaches a subject he or she has no real love for, to students for whom they have a similar regard. It happens a lot, and it really shouldn't. Feynman loved the subject he taught, and also the students he presented it to, and it shows.
No. Recall I wrote the graviton is massless in standard treatments that actually use graviton concept. Any non-zero mass implies a Yukawa type field with exponential fall with distance, and propagation speed v < c. No sign of such via aLIGO observations.
If you really meant a gravitational field having mass-energy within it thus acting as partially it's own source, GR presents an inconsistent dog's breakfast. Try Yilmaz gravity instead. And note there is no inconsistency in the latter with an equivalent 'massless gravaton' - photons are also massless yet have gravitational effective mass. In most metric theories of gravity the stress-energy-momentum tensor is the full source of gravity, not just proper mass.
As for the rest of your discourse in #54->#55, linking to even one reliable source backing your distinctively different pov would do wonders to improve credibility.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
I'm not an academic, but I do recognize the value of keeping a record of what progress other people have made. If I ever actually published anything along those lines, I certainly would take the trouble to see if someone else had the same ideas. But really, what difference does it really make if the ideas are wrong? Just consign them to the rubbish bin and be done with the documentation already. Why waste someone else's valuable limited time to read about an idea that is a failure?
Being completely original (and also correct) is very rare indeed, and most of my comments are certainly are nothing of the sort. Well, perhaps a few.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-yilmaz-right.50921/
A most impressive list (Yilmaz gravitation virtues), apparently including accurate precession predictions of several other planets that GR did not account for. I seem to recall, there are many promising alternatives to GR with similar lists of what they explain very well. Most don't explain everything. And this still doesn't touch the central question of WHY is there gravity, not how does it BEHAVE?
If things fall toward the center of mass of a planet, I would like to know HOW DOES A FALLING MASS KNOW IN WHICH DIRECTION TO FALL? Modifying GR's field equations won't do that, because even GR doesn't do that. If a falling object without a PhD in math or instruments won't be able to figure out which way to fall, that's not good enough. It wasn't good enough for Newton, either, but at least he suggested a "divine hand" that guides falling objects. What is that "divine hand" made of? Is no one other than me even the slightest bit interested in the answer to that question? In GR, yes, the "divine hand" is still very much there. Could the divine hand be the G-d particle? YECs should be all over this like bees on honey.
Yilmaz at one time published things with one of my old mentors, Carroll O. Alley. Apparently, Yilmaz has passed away. Too bad. Well, that one didn't get us very far.
And something other science forums are currently discussing:
If Higgs is a boson, and therefore a force carrier in the Standard Model, WHAT FORCE does it carry, exactly? Inertial mass for fermions et al., IS NOT A FORCE, is it?
Last edited:
That link in your #57 to an old SF thread is interesting. None of the naysayers that thread knew what they were talking about, but further the OP made some erroneous statements re Mercury perihelion advance re Yilmaz Gravity vs GR that were seized on. The OP's link is now defunct. Here's the one that works: http://albert51.tripod.com/yilz.html
That article is slightly dated. It turns out, thanks to the brilliance of Stanley Robertson, that like it was with Einstein and his GR, Yilmaz didn't understand the full implications of his own theory:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
That article is slightly dated. It turns out, thanks to the brilliance of Stanley Robertson, that like it was with Einstein and his GR, Yilmaz didn't understand the full implications of his own theory:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809
https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.01417
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
Much better links. Thank you.
Yilmaz gravity predicts that black holes do not exist.
A current effort to actually image a Saggitarius black hole at the center of the Milky Way using the "Event Horizon" telescope (radius of the Earth as an aperture) should once and for all lay to rest all gravitational theories that propose black holes do not exist:
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-38937141
Seeing is believing. If you can see the effects of inertia, same arguments. By the same token, no one can argue that the effects of gravity are not something you can actually see or demonstrate. Light bends and you get gravitational lensing. If it bends more and more, eventually it cannot escape the pull of gravity. So much for Yilmaz Gravity. Leave it in the dust bin.
This is more solid evidence of existence for most people than a gauge symmetry, or a boson (Higgs) not associated with any known force, or a force (gravity) not associated with any known boson. If you can't be correct, at least have the courtesy to be consistent. We already knew the Standard Model was not consistent, but this is too ridiculous even to teach it that way. Perhaps the Higgs is the boson that is responsible for the force that is ASSOCIATED WITH QUANTUM SPIN ANGULAR MOMENTUM. Has anyone even considered that idea? An awful lot more is explained if you will allow only that much. It's not as though I'm trying to reduce the particle zoo to a single animal here, although this might lead in a general direction so that it could be done. The Periodic Table is very nuanced and complex, but mostly constructed of just three particles that make up all of atomic structure. And a few simple rules.
If you don't actually know something, do us all a favour and JUST SAY SO, and be done with it.
Let me go first. I DON"T KNOW what gravity is. And even if, in a limited way, science can tell us a great deal about how it behaves, perhaps I don't really care about how it behaves, unless that also tells us the reason it does.
I believe in both spin and linear inertia, Special Relativity, the invariance of the speed of light and measurements of it referenced to ANY rest frame, quantum entanglement, and Lorentz time dilation of intervals of time.
I DON"T believe in using Euclidean geometry in inertialess, origin-or-coordinate-less space. I DO BELIEVE an instant of time is the basis of entanglement, and that this is akin to absolute time, even if there exists no absolute space to go along with that idea.
And finally, I believe that if you cannot build a theory of everything from these elements, then it is very unlikely that you will be able to build one from any mathematics not based on these ideas. Even someone as capable as Einstein couldn't do that.
NO WONDER it is so difficult to determine what is science and what is pseudoscience these days.
It does not appear likely that this situation will improve any time soon. All we ever seem to get is more mathematical fiction.
Last edited:
That dismissive 'analysis' is from a profound ignorance and tells me you have never grasped what Yilmaz gravity entails and truly predicts. Escape is always possible in principle but from an exceedingly small solid angle and with exceedingly large redshift as emission comes from deeper into the potential well.
I'll take that rant as directed personally at me. Unfortunately you speak from ignorance and prejudice.
From that BBC article:
"As I've said before, it's never a good idea to bet against Einstein, but if we did see something that was very different from what we expect we would have to reassess the theory of gravity.
"I don't expect that is going to happen, but anything could happen and that's the beauty of it."
The differences between GR and Yilmaz gravity here are not likely to be at all 'very different' - see for instance para below eqn (30) in https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.07809
While there is no EH in Yilmaz gravity, there is also, particularly for a massive galactic core compact object, no surface just like for a BH. Or maybe a fuzzy one so far deeper inside than for a notional BH EH radius it doesn't matter. Might be a long wait to really distinguish via EHT. Please don't let any of this stop you from further outbursts.
Last edited: