Gravity is a particle that pushes!

[scotter59]

A few questions for OP author.

 

1. Does your model predict that gravity particle push or pull antimatter ?

 

Curious what does current theory state about the behavior of "antimatter", does it bend space in the same manner as "matter" ?

 

The wave/particle concept of gravity is still odd, why would the gravity particle be attracted to mass/matter ?

 

How about electric/magnetic fields, they are observed by the interaction of particles with the "fields", but what are the fields ? a bending of space ? If so then why are electrons attracted to positive charge ? :shrug:

[Rade]

Curious what does current theory state about the behavior of "antimatter", does it bend space in the same manner as "matter" ?

Excellent question, I have no idea what current theory states. Here are some thoughts.

 

The Einstein General Relativity equation in simplistic form [ (G) = (8 pi T) ] has on the left side the Einstein Tensor (G), which gives the math how matter would curve the geometry of spacetime. Suppose we think of (G) as a type of space geometry <|||||||> with the arrows the two potential arrows of directions of time (> to future and < to past). The right side of the equation (8 pi T) gives the "motion" of "matter" in relation to (G), as stated by John Wheeler, "matter tells spacetime how to curve".

 

So, the question you ask is.....does antimatter curve spacetime <|||||||> the same way as matter ? There are only two logical answers, yes or no. What if the answer is no. Then perhaps matter causes (G) to curve this way <///////> and antimatter causes (G) to curve the opposite <> ? I have no idea what current theory suggests, but my feeling is that both matter and antimatter have same effect on curve of spacetime. Why ? Because I think Richard Feynman hit the nail on the head when he showed mathematically that antimatter is "matter moving backward in spacetime". Thus, using the above diagram, matter moves toward future arrow of time direction ||||||||> , whereas antimatter moves toward past arrow of time direction <||||||||.

 

This is why, imo, the Einstein Tensor (G) should be explained to allow for the possibility of both < and > arrows of time, one direction is for the motion of "matter" in relation to spacetime and the other for the motion of "antimatter".

 

Now, back to the OP topic, if there is an antigravity particle, then I would suggest it would be moving through spacetime toward the past <||||||, and the gravity particle would be in motion toward the future ||||||>. I only say this as a logical outcome of the OP claim that there is in fact a "gravity particle", I have yet to get answer if an antigravity particle is predicted by the model under discussion.

 

OK, fire away, show where my thinking on this is false.

[scotter59]

Now, back to the OP topic, if there is an antigravity particle, then I would suggest it would be moving through spacetime toward the past <||||||, and the gravity particle would be in motion toward the future ||||||>. I only say this as a logical outcome of the OP claim that there is in fact a "gravity particle", I have yet to get answer if an antigravity particle is predicted by the model under discussion.

 

OK, fire away, show where my thinking on this is false.

 

Thanks for the response, for myself I was musing as to what would support a particle that pushes concept. Spontaneous creation from space would provide the source of the Gravity particle/wave, dark matter/energy....

 

....towards the past..... more musing, what if the "Gravity" particle's source is an "antimatter" universe. Pops into existence in empty space and is immediately attracted to the nearest mass, upon interaction it tunnels, flipping state as it returns to the "antimatter" universe. Backwards through time, interesting. Interesting musings, mirrors....

[Astrojan]

What do you thinks, what things builds up Universe ??? First of all matter ! (Matter means to me: barionic, normal matter, all kinds of radiations, photons, GRAVITONS, and all kinds of instable particles)

 

But what else ???????????????????????????

[scotter59]

What do you thinks, what things builds up Universe ??? First of all matter ! (Matter means to me: barionic, normal matter, all kinds of radiations, photons, GRAVITONS, and all kinds of instable particles)

 

But what else ???????????????????????????

 

Dark matter

 

The vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection").

 

For myself. I was curious how a particle generated from somewhere would create an observable effect of pushing. I just what if'd the Zero-Point Energy and Continuous Creation of Matter in an Expanding Universe idea.

[Astrojan]

I say, First of all matter ! Dark matter is matter. Dark energy too.

 

But what else (out of matter), what else builds up the Universe ??????????????????????????????????????

[Rade]

i say, first of all matter ! Dark matter is matter. Dark energy too. But what else (out of matter), what else builds up the universe ??????????????????????????????????????

antimatter

[scotter59]

I say, First of all matter ! Dark matter is matter. Dark energy too.

 

But what else (out of matter), what else builds up the Universe ??????????????????????????????????????

 

Show me this "Dark Matter / Energy" ..... If I understand correctly this is a theoretical construct that explains anomalous behavior identified by the actions of observed objects, considered to be made of known particles (matter and light). So Dark matter / energy may not be matter, it could be spacial foam, turbulence in the fabric of space or a sea of widgets.

 

Show me this "Darkness"..... :shrug:

[Astrojan]

Show me this Dark Matter..

Dark matter is simply molecular hydrogen, nothing curious, look here: ESA Dark matter, anti matter are all matter, namely positron eg. a kind of matter naturally.

 

turbulence in the fabric of space

Oooops, fabric of space? What about the fabric of an even line ??? Perhaps fabric of an even plane ?? Its ridiculous, that is the problem. Space is a non existent, man-made idea has no fabric, no structure, its NO MATTER.

 

In Universe ONLY matter exists, no else. Matter can interact with dark energy (matter), disturbing their homogeneity. That is the fabric, not for space

[scotter59]

Dark matter is simply molecular hydrogen, nothing curious, look here: ESA Dark matter, anti matter are all matter, namely positron eg. a kind of matter naturally.

 

Oooops, fabric of space? What about the fabric of an even line ??? Perhaps fabric of an even plane ?? Its ridiculous, that is the problem. Space is a non existent, man-made idea has no fabric, no structure, its NO MATTER.

 

In Universe ONLY matter exists, no else. Matter can interact with dark energy (matter), disturbing their homogeneity. That is the fabric, not for space

 

Have you considered updating Wikipedia's Dark Matter description with your 1999 ESA article. Wikipedia states the following:

Wikipedia's Dark Matter

 

The vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, which means that it contains no atoms and does not interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles.

 

Better yet how about this reference, little more current WHAT IS DARK MATTER - Chandra X-Ray observatory...

There is as yet no answer to this question, but it is becoming increasingly clear what it is not. Detailed observations of the cosmic microwave background with the WMAP satellite show that the dark matter cannot be in the form of normal, baryonic matter, that is, protons and neutrons that compose stars, planets, and interstellar matter. That rules out hot gas, cold gas, brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, white dwarfs, neutron stars and black holes.

 

 

As for your comment that "Space is a non existent, man-made idea", well the observable universe is a man-made idea, I made it up. If there is a question about this prove me wrong once I pass away - course if this perception is correct and everyone is a figment of my imagination then you all do not have much time. :eek2::lol:

 

Guess one could state that space consists of matter, baryonic / nonbaryonic of varying densities. I personally would consider the volume occupied by such densities as space. As far as being a fabric, well the bending of space around a mass (this volume is not described as a mass or matter) or how about the electric/magnetic fields that charged particles follow, are they a spacial effect ?

 

This is a digression from the topic of "Gravity is a particle that pushes".

[CraigD]

It seems to me that the writer is suggesting that gravity is particle that exist outside a mass, instead of in it, and it pushes all masses towards each other. I think thats why he says that gravity pushes not pulls.

 

This idea is quite interesting. Although doesn't explain some things.

It – the idea that gravity is caused by collisions, that is, pushing by otherwise undetected particles (Le Sage – see below – termed them “ultramundane corpuscles”) – is not only interesting, it’s among the oldest and most thoroughly studied, as is its failure to satisfactorily explain even simple gravitational phenomena.

 

Generically, this idea is known as “kinetic” or “corpuscular” gravity. The most well known such a theory is “Le Sage's theory of gravitation”, after papers from 1748 to 1784 by physicist George-Louise Le Sage, though an essentially identical theory was publically presented in 1690 by Nicolas Fatio. ...

 

Moderation note: the rest of this post and various replies to it were moved to the math and physics forum thread 23052, because this discussion is not about the original strange claim thread’s pushing gravity particle theory, but about old and present day theories about gravity carrying particles.

[scotter59]

I’d like to try answering a few questions and address possible misconception not directly related to kinetic gravity theory that have appeared in the past few days in this thread:

 

Current theory (the Standard Model) states that that a fundamental particle of antimatter (positron, antiproton, etc) has nonnegative mass but a charge opposite their non-antimatter partner particle. Current theory (General Relativity) states that effect of matter on spacetime is related to mass, not charge. So current theory states that antimatter has the same “bending” effect on space that ordinary matter has.

Although a gravitational force carrying particle (boson) has been given a tentative working name for inclusion in it – the graviton - the Standard Model has not yet been successfully expanded to explain gravity, so can’t yet answer questions about gravity.

 

According to the Standard Model, fields can be explained as interactions of particles. The particle responsible for electromagnetic force, such as between an electron and a proton, is the photon, the same particle responsible for light and other electromagnetic radiation. When carrying electromagnetic force, however, photons are always virtual (not observed other than by the interaction of the affected particles), while when constituting light, they are actual, interacting with any particle in their classically predictable path.

 

The concept of actual and virtual particles, while central to quantum physics, is a difficult on to understand.

 

I take it that the field model supporting the virtual photons theory does not support one of virtual gravitons.

 

I was always perplexed by my "light" reading when it stated that electromagnetic force was transfered through photons. Virtual, not observed, I will accept that the math supports the theory. What confuses me about this are Solar Flares, when the magnetic lines of force snap releasing the particles trapped in them - how does one explain those particles trapped in the fields using the virtual photon model ?

 

I realize I am asking for trouble on that last question as I forgot how to spell calculus when I left High School. But it would seem that there was some other mechanism at work containing that plasma than virtual photons....

[Astrojan]

Dark matter, anti matter are all matter, namely positron eg. a kind of matter naturally.

Dark matter is matter. Anti matter is another type of matter, but matter. For example positron a kind of matter, naturally. Antiproton is a kind of matter. Proton is a kind of matter. Graviton is a kind of matter.

 

Where is the confusion ? Read carefully and forgive me for poor english.

[CraigD]

Dark matter is matter. Anti matter is another type of matter, but matter. For example positron a kind of matter, naturally. Antiproton is a kind of matter. Proton is a kind of matter. Graviton is a kind of matter.

 

Where is the confusion ? Read carefully and forgive me for poor english.

Confusion arises, I think, from using the term matter when discussing particle physics, because the term doesn’t have a single, agreed on meaning.

 

In some situations, it’s convenient to consider the elementary fermions – quarks, which include the 2 first-generation quarks (up and down) that exist in protons and neutrons, and leptons, which include the electron, and their antiparticles, to be matter. In others, it’s convenient to consider elementary particles that contribute to the masses of ordinary objects – the elementary fermions and leptons, and elementary bosons such as gluons, which have zero rest mass, but who’s energy equivalent mass contribute most of the mass of protons and neutrons, to be matter. Another useful definition is elementary particle that are not their own antiparticle, and composite particles containing them

 

Astrojan, you find it convenient to consider all particles to be matter. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with this, and in some contexts it makes a lot of sense. In others, it doesn’t

Graviton is a kind of matter.

Including the graviton in the same list as other Standard Model particles can be confusing, because it gives the impression that it is include in the Standard Model, which it is not. Although some theories of quantum gravity suggest its inclusion in the standard model, they are at present very speculative, so it’s uncertain if an extension of the Standard Model that explains gravity will or will not include the graviton, use a particle currently already in some versions of it (eg: the Higgs boson), or involve one or more particles not yet imagined, or even if the Standard Model can be extended to include gravity with the addition of only one or a few particles.

 

The wikipedia articles matter, Standard Model and graviton have more discussion like the above.

[Astrojan]

Thank you for your moderate sounds, but Im sorry to say, quarks are NOT matter !!! Quarks are hypothetical matter, its a big difference.

 

And also with my apology, gluons are NOT matter ! Gluons are hypothetical matter also.. (Not virtual, but hypothetical). Like gravitons, because nobody can not demonstate graviton directly. Similarly to quarks and gluons !! Or even Higgs bozons..

[Pyrotex]

Dark matter is matter. Anti matter is another type of matter, but matter. For example positron a kind of matter, naturally. Antiproton is a kind of matter. Proton is a kind of matter. Graviton is a kind of matter.

 

Where is the confusion ? Read carefully and forgive me for poor english.

The confusion arises because the word "matter" is a general term. It does not have a specific, technical meaning. In physics, it is used to speak (in general) of particles that have mass. Generally speaking.

 

To be precise, we need a better defined term than "matter". Baryons is a specific and technical word that identifies particles such as protons and neutrons. And anti-protons and anti-neutrons.

 

Is Dark Matter "matter"? Depends on what you mean by "matter". If you mean Baryons, then no, Dark Matter is apparently not Baryons.

 

Sometimes, we include Leptons into the definition of "matter". That would include electrons and positrons. But Dark Matter is apparently not electrons nor positrons, nor their meson-cousins.

 

Rarely (if ever) do we include photons of light in "matter". They have no mass, even though their paths are influenced ("bent") by gravity.

 

Dark Matter appears to have ONLY gravitational attraction, and density. We know that mass is the "source" of gravity, but we do not have any reason to claim that ONLY mass can be a "source" of gravity. Perhaps Dark Matter is entirely something else. You can call it "matter" if you want to, but that doesn't explain anything.

 

My own personal opinion (untainted by any evidence) is that Dark Matter consists of Free Neutral Quarks left over from the Big Bang. Having no charge, they could not exchange Gluons with each other. Created without the Gluons necessary for them to combine and form Baryons and Atoms, these Free Neutral Quarks interact with nothing, not even each other. Collectively, they have a gravitational field and are pulled by gravity. And that's all. They are the "dead ash" of the Big Bang.

 

I'm almost certainly wrong. :(

[CraigD]

Thank you for your moderate sounds, but Im sorry to say, quarks are NOT matter !!! Quarks are hypothetical matter, its a big difference.

 

And also with my apology, gluons are NOT matter ! Gluons are hypothetical matter also.

The actual, objectively real existence of quarks has been settled science for about 30 years, since deep inelastic scattering experiments revealed that protons, neutrons, and other hadrons, bombarded with leptons (electrons and more exotic particles) change those leptons’ velocities in a way consistent with the Standard Model’s prediction that hadrons contain specific numbers and kinds of quarks.

 

As the brief wikipedia article to which I link explains, we have about the same confidence in the existence of quarks revealed by DIS as we have in the existence of protons in the nuclei of atoms revealed about 100 years ago by Rutherford scattering experiments, in which heavy (eg: gold) atomic nuclei were bombarded with light (eg: helium) nuclei, and changes in the velocities of the bombarding nuclei observed to be consistent with the Rutherford model of the atom.

 

If you wish to reject the existence of quarks and gluons, you must explain DIS via some other theory. Given how perfectly DIS observations are explained by the Standard Model, it’s hard to imagine any such theory being so different from the Standard Model that it didn’t also predict the existence of quarks.