Does this explain what generates gravity?

Jump to Latest
#2,761
snoopy.PNG


Personally, and as a Mathematician, in which 1729 is important, and I cannot define my Physicist friend Richard Feynman as a Friend:

But somehow He Was:

Got me through my 2.2. Science degree.

All I seek in this World is Adequacy.

I say this as a FEYNMAN:


And a believer in the Standard Model:


The Standard Model of Physics.jpg


🙂
 
#2,765
TNT said:
The universe, therefore, appears to be expanding faster in our vicinity
Click to expand...

There has been a comparison of the value of the Hubble Constant in the early universe (by observing distant gravitationally lensed galaxies) with the later stages of the universe (by observing nearby Type 1a supernovae).

Results suggest that, while the Hubble Constant is constant everywhere in space at a given time, it is not constant in time.

The way the universe is thought to be evolving is based on observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) - left over radiation from the Big Bang.

Measuring the Hubble Constant provides an interesting pursuit for cosmologists and keeps them out of harm's way!

In fact, there's lots of room for argument - some cosmologists refuse to accept that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
 
#2,766
AjohnL said:
Who knows. It's now all about empirically derived factors of dark energy and matter to make thing fit current thoughts. Interests in various ideas still remain. Then comes mainstream. 😉 One critisism of others Einstein made was that they were over educated - you might say stuck in a box.

In n dimensional geometry terms there is another dimension we are perfectly aware of. Often called the arrow of time. All lovely and straightforward until Einstein cropped up. While bending space time is a nice cool term bear in mind we are still really talking n dimensional geometry. His idea predicts things that have found to be correct. Some one does some sums and up pop black holes. Also singularities - crazy things really. There is nothing new about super dense matter, Seems there is no limit.
Click to expand...
What intrigues me talking about dimensions in space is x, y and z are in units of distance and t in units of seconds. But, if I consider c as my standard ruler, why are x, y and z not also measured in units of time? Granted, time will be malleable, but it does not alter the fact that ultimately it’s time in 4 dimensions, not just one.
 
#2,767
Galu said:
However, the Standard Model does not explain gravity.

The hypothetical boson called the graviton has never been experimentally observed so can't be included in the particle zoo.
Click to expand...
Particle physicists look for particles to explain everything. WIMP, now gravitons. Maybe there’s a particle responsible for time - the timiton; or what about one for acceleration, acceletron?
 
#2,769
Bonsai said:
What intrigues me talking about dimensions
Click to expand...
I try and keep a view of these things simple which is why I posted. The maths for me aren't relevant.

The flat universe man. Indicates that there is nothing in that dimension that is relevant to us. In Einstein's case there is. The curled up ones so small we can't see them - why the hell should we be able to see them? LOL if they exist. It's just a more flexible word. The Aether can be seen as another one. Maybe QM's buzzing in and out particles another one although I think QM stinks. Einstein thought he had knocked it on the head as some aspects imply faster than light travel. Latest answer to that in a noddy talk show is that the "info" is transmitted electronically so doesn't travel faster the light - sort of open your box now. The QM lady video I posted has others on QM. When ever I look I tend to smell bull stuff.

Bonsai said:
Particle physicists look for particles to explain everything. WIMP, now gravitons. Maybe there’s a particle responsible for time - the timiton; or what about one for acceleration, acceletron?
Click to expand...
I've no idea but do they still use cloud chambers to see what is going on. 😉 I've always wondered if there are implications due to that.
 
#2,770
Bonsai said:
Particle physicists look for particles to explain everything. WIMP, now gravitons. Maybe there’s a particle responsible for time - the timiton; or what about one for acceleration, acceletron?
Click to expand...
I believe it’s called a “chroniton”. Accelertron is a derived particle - would be made of a couple of Quarks and a chroniton or two. He could sell you a couple you a couple if you came up a bit short. There is latinum to be made in the field of pseudoscience.


Ignore if you’re not a trekker - just a lighthearted way of saying that they’ e already named the time particle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonsai
#2,772
Bonsai said:
What intrigues me talking about dimensions in space is x, y and z are in units of distance and t in units of seconds.
Click to expand...

In spacetime, instead of describing points using coordinates (x, y, z), spacetime events are described using coordinates (x, y, z, ct), where c is the speed of light.

Note that c has units of length/time and t has units of time, so ct has units of length, just like x, y, and z.

This conveys to me that the spacetime metric contains a fourth 'spatial' term which is time dependent.
 
#2,773
I suppose the question then becomes (for me at least) why can’t we separate out space and time? My reasoning is time in the x,y, z co-ords is spatial since if something takes longer to move from a - b than a - c, then surely it has spatial qualities as well, but not in units of distance, but time?
 
#2,774
AjohnL said:
The flatness of the universe is something else.
Click to expand...

Yes, the flatness of the universe isn't the two-dimensional kind we often encounter in our everyday lives.

Apart from the gravitational lensing anomaly to which TNT linked, there isn’t the slightest reason to doubt the universe is flat.

1701709360433.png


Omega in the above illustration represents the universe's density. A flat universe is taken to have a 'Goldilocks' density value of 1.

In a flat universe, two spaceships flying next to each other will always remain parallel.

In a curved universe, the spaceships could separate and never cross paths again, or could even curve around so that they meet back where they started.

https://www.astronomy.com/science/what-shape-is-the-universe/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonsai and indianajo
#2,776
Something that might interest you, @Bonsai, about this theory (or hypothesis to be exact!) is that it suggests that "the rate at which time flows would wobble randomly, like the ebb and flow of a stream".

https://www.theguardian.com/science...me-may-resolve-contradictory-physics-theories

“The rate at which time flows is changing randomly and fluctuating in time,” said Oppenheim, although he clarifies that time would never actually go into reverse. “It’s quite mathematical,” he added. “Picturing it in your head is quite difficult.”
Click to expand...
 
#2,778
Tiime travel could work by using high levels of chronons to cause temporal distortions in local space.

Unlike the 'time wobbles' of the "post quantum theory of classical gravity" which cannot reverse the flow of time.

A Word of Warning! Beware of dabbling with the past, as you may become afflicted by 'dark chronons'! 😉
 
#2,780
Bonsai said:
Stern-Gerlach experiment
Click to expand...

In short, Otto Stern and Walther Gerlach shot neutral silver atoms through a varying magnetic field.

Instead of travelling through the field in a straight line, or spreading out evenly, the silver atoms separated themselves into two distinct groups, with one group heading up and the other going down.


1701819606597.png



Their experiment showed that there were only two directions of spin associated with the silver atoms.

An electron can only have a spin +1/2 or -1/2, corresponding to the up and down deflections of the Stern-Gerlach experiment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bonsai
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom