Is Space Zero Gravity (0 G)

[OceanBreeze]

Just a little note:

arxiv is not peer-reviewed at all. How usually it works and I have done it for 5 articles I think, is you submit your article to arxiv and you sub,it your article to the journal of your choice for peer reviewing then when accepted you upload the accepted version to arxiv.

 

But you can as well just upload an article to arxiv and not do the journal part....

 

 

Yes, that’s true, but the paper submitted by Clifford M. Will, debunking Kopeikin’s experiment, was also submitted to the Astrophysical Journal, so that paper is fine.

 

Kopeikin’s paper, on the other hand, was only submitted to arXiv, as far as I can tell and contains several errors.

[exchemist]

Why fight your instincts? What  super-p has posted in this thread is at least 90% rubbish.

 

We have already explained the field must be static. Theoretically the field extends to infinity, so if it consists of waves it would require infinite energy!

Actually it wouldn't. A star emits light that radiates to infinity but does so at a finite rate of energy expenditure. 

 

But our friend seems to think spacetime forms itself into waves  - wherever mass is present - by some magical process, without any agency in the mass oscillating to set spacetime into this wave motion.  He further seems to think (if that's the word) that either no energy is transferred by these waves - which means they cannot be waves  - or that the energy lost from the object emitting them does not show up in any measurement we can make.

 

And he disputes the LIGO findings of gravity waves.......because he thinks gravity is made up of waves: it's all terribly logical, you see. 

 

But then, he does not know what a wave is, he does not realise photons travel at c because they have no mass..........  

 

Who knows what other howlers will come to light if this thread continues.   

 

He also has one of the hallmarks of the sundry ill-informed cranks I have come across on these forums over the years, which is to be quick to disparage Wikipaedia as a source of science education, when in fact it is generally excellent, at least to 6th form (high school)/undergrad level, preferring to rely on unreviewed articles on arxiv that he does not himself understand.

 

He reminds me of that Warner Bros character: Wile E Coyote - Super Genius. (For "acme", read "arxiv", perhaps? :) )

Edited May 8, 2017 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

Actually it wouldn't. A star emits light that radiates to infinity but does so at a finite rate of energy expenditure. .

 

 

 

Yeah, I thought about that afterwards. It would take a hell of a lot of energy though and that obviously is not happening.

Thanks for the correction.

[OceanBreeze]

In thinking more about fields, I find them mysterious. The dimensions of gravitational field intensity are LT^-2, which are the dimensions of acceleration, but not force as there is no mass involved. And the dimensions of gravitational field potential are L²T^-2 which are not the dimensions of energy, as again no mass is involved. Indeed, the field is static and in theory it extends to infinity.

So, we accept that all mass has this static field about it, but Is there any explanation of where the field comes from originally? My thinking is that there must have been energy involved in setting up the field at T=0 but so far, I have not found any references that shed any light on this.

Is this just one of those things that we accept, or is there any science that deals with the origins of a field, or is the field just assumed to be primordial, the same as the supposed singularity?

 

[exchemist]

In thinking more about fields, I find them mysterious. The dimensions of gravitational field intensity are LT^-2, which are the dimensions of acceleration, but not force as there is no mass involved. And the dimensions of gravitational field potential are L²T^-2 which are not the dimensions of energy, as again no mass is involved. Indeed, the field is static and in theory it extends to infinity.

So, we accept that all mass has this static field about it, but Is there any explanation of where the field comes from originally? My thinking is that there must have been energy involved in setting up the field at T=0 but so far, I have not found any references that shed any light on this.

Is this just one of those things that we accept, or is there any science that deals with the origins of a field, or is the field just assumed to be primordial, the same as the supposed singularity?

Phew, a big subject, certainly. I think myself I'd want a real physicist in on the discussion, because with things like QFT an awful lot of fundamental stuff seems to be expressed in terms of fields.

 

But with gravitation specifically it seems one has a choice between the Newtonian 1/r² field or Einstein's tensor field, with neither of them (so far as this chemist can see, which may not be very far) offering more than an empirical description of what we observe. But then, at some point, all scientific explanations run up against that. 

 

As for energy, the theories seem to work with energy differences rather than absolutes. I recall that by convention one generally sets gravitational (or electrostatic) potential at zero at infinity and measures everything else as +ve or -ve with respect to that datum level, because that is the level at which all interactions can be said to have diminished to zero. But it's just a convention, I think, to make calculations easier.  

Edited May 8, 2017 by exchemist

[billvon]

So, we accept that all mass has this static field about it, but Is there any explanation of where the field comes from originally? My thinking is that there must have been energy involved in setting up the field at T=0 but so far, I have not found any references that shed any light on this.  Is this just one of those things that we accept, or is there any science that deals with the origins of a field, or is the field just assumed to be primordial, the same as the supposed singularity?

Well, keep in mind that a field in and of itself isn't a "thing."  A field is defined by its effects on other things.  Gravity is defined by its effect on other mass, and on spacetime.  The electric field is defined by its effects on charged particles.  The strong force is defined by its effect on nearby nucleons.

 

So creation of a field, if there is nothing nearby to interact with, is largely an academic exercise; there is nothing "there" (i.e. nothing observable) until something comes by to interact with the field.

 

(That's not a complete answer to your question, but to me makes it a bit easier to understand what a field is and what it isn't.)

[Super Polymath]

Gravity waves carry an attractive force outward, the LT^-2 thing is the strength that attractive force has over an object based on that objects vicinity from the mass that caused the gravity wave in question. To measure the speed of gravity the wave would have to bend light enough for us to see it, the only way a gravity wave could be strong enough to bend light is with a gravitational wave (as in a NS-BH merger) that distorts space and time. This assumes that gravity has mass, and is made out of gravitons. Space time is warped by mass to generate gravity waves. Gravitational waves warp space time, gravity waves do not. Gravity waves are the very warping of space and time caused by mass. So a graviton would just be a measurd unit of the warpage caused by a mass object, we cant measure the speed of gravity using that warpage because gravity is not doing the warping, unless it's a "particle".

Edited May 8, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

In which case, why not just assume space and time are composed particles?

Or we can state the obvious, we don't know what, if anything, subatomic particles themselves are composed of. They're waves, right? They have an indeterminate position, unless we photograph the tracks they leave in detectors each of them land in several places in one time. But everytime we hit their footprints with photons they land in one place.

 

The explanation is that they do indeed have mass and the photons landing behind them have an effect on them because they're so close to one another, it's basically microgravity. Photons do have mass, the longer they exist as waves the more mass they acquire. So if they don't interact with one another they seem to be in several places at once. This is because once oscillation gives them their mass or substance in our perceivable reality. So the more frequently they oscillate as waves the more microgravity they're being pulled by. If this this happens rapidly (short wavelength) the fastest they can go while we can perceive them is c. However, go smaller than that and time fractures away from space piece by piece it's extra special relativity. If a black hole is small enough it can distort space times beneath the Planck scale and pull masses that are beneath our perception.

 

Fractal dimensionality, fractions of a percievable 3D object, explains the oscillating wave function. It also explains the singularities of black holes. It's based on the notion that spacetime is not discrete (the distance between two points can always be reduced into smaller fractions of the planck length because space and time are not made out of anything and neither, then, is gravity). Space & time are the product of more than we can perceive (fractal planes).

 

Why assume matter & energy interact any differently with spacetime below the Planck length? Whatever is going on inside the particles, the inner structures of those particles, should look like what's going on out there in interstellar space, how can galaxies fly apart faster than light? Well, if a singularity is fed for a long enough amount of time black holes with an event horizon equivalent to the distance of our particle horizon are in every direction from us somewhere they could pull galaxies apart that fast because space and time are distorting on a larger scale & we're closer to that event horizon than we'd consider possible at known scales without getting sucked in by them, and space and time is moving around at all different levels perpetually expanding into that garagantuan event horizon forever because there's infinite mass, or matter. It's just there, always was, always will be.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Super Polymath

[OceanBreeze]

Phew, a big subject, certainly. I think myself I'd want a real physicist in on the discussion, because with things like QFT an awful lot of fundamental stuff seems to be expressed in terms of fields.

 

But with gravitation specifically it seems one has a choice between the Newtonian 1/r² field or Einstein's tensor field, with neither of them (so far as this chemist can see, which may not be very far) offering more than an empirical description of what we observe. But then, at some point, all scientific explanations run up against that. 

 

As for energy, the theories seem to work with energy differences rather than absolutes. I recall that by convention one generally sets gravitational (or electrostatic) potential at zero at infinity and measures everything else as +ve or -ve with respect to that datum level, because that is the level at which all interactions can be said to have diminished to zero. But it's just a convention, I think, to make calculations easier.  

 

 

Well, keep in mind that a field in and of itself isn't a "thing."  A field is defined by its effects on other things.  Gravity is defined by its effect on other mass, and on spacetime.  The electric field is defined by its effects on charged particles.  The strong force is defined by its effect on nearby nucleons.

 

So creation of a field, if there is nothing nearby to interact with, is largely an academic exercise; there is nothing "there" (i.e. nothing observable) until something comes by to interact with the field.

 

(That's not a complete answer to your question, but to me makes it a bit easier to understand what a field is and what it isn't.)

 

 

Thanks for the replies, they do help my thinking on this: We know from the dimensional analysis what the field is not; it is not a force and it is not energy. The gravitational field intensity has only the dimensions of an acceleration. I am finding it difficult to think of an acceleration existing independently of something that is accelerated, but it seems that is what a field is. As you both say, there is nothing to observe until there is something there for the field to interact with, and then we observe the interaction and not the field itself.

We can’t say the same thing about a photon, for example, because even though we may not know the photon is there until it interacts with something, the photon is a tiny bundle of energy; it is a “thing in itself” as Ernst Mach might say, while a field really isn’t anything until something else reacts with it.

So, the field is just a ghostly potential, sitting there quietly waiting for something to come along and give it a means of expression. Since we can say it isn’t really a “thing in itself” there is nothing to be propagated. It can exist everywhere instantly, or more correctly, continuously; no propagation means no propagation delay! This does not violate causality and is not spooky action at a distance because there is no action, only a potential for action. When action does happen, it has to be initiated by something other than the field and it cannot happen faster than the speed of light. And, the gravitational wave generated from such interaction also travels at c.

 

I think that satisfies my question, but would welcome any additional thoughts or links to any references on this subject.

 

Funny thing, I never looked at fields quite this way before; this must be the effect of reading too many of Super_PM posts! I am not at all sure this is a good thing!

[OceanBreeze]

In which case, why not just assume space and time are composed particles?

Or we can state the obvious, we don't know what, if anything, subatomic particles themselves are composed of. They're waves, right? They have an indeterminate position, unless we photograph the tracks they leave in detectors each of them land in several places in one time. But everytime we hit their footprints with photons they land in one place.

 

The explanation is that they do indeed have mass and the photons landing behind them have an effect on them because they're so close to one another, it's basically microgravity. Photons do have mass, the longer they exist as waves the more mass they acquire. So if they don't interact with one another they seem to be in several places at once. This is because once oscillation gives them their mass or substance in our perceivable reality. So the more frequently they oscillate as waves the more microgravity they're being pulled by. If this this happens rapidly (short wavelength) the fastest they can go while we can perceive them is c. However, go smaller than that and time fractures away from space piece by piece it's extra special relativity. If a black hole is small enough it can distort space times beneath the Planck scale and pull masses that are beneath our perception.

 

Fractal dimensionality, fractions of a percievable 3D object, explains the oscillating wave function. It also explains the singularities of black holes. It's based on the notion that spacetime is not discrete (the distance between two points can always be reduced into smaller fractions of the planck length because space and time are not made out of anything and neither, then, is gravity). Space & time are the product of more than we can perceive (fractal planes).

 

Why assume matter & energy interact any differently with spacetime below the Planck length? Whatever is going on inside the particles, the inner structures of those particles, should look like what's going on out there in interstellar space, how can galaxies fly apart faster than light? Well, if a singularity is fed for a long enough amount of time black holes with an event horizon equivalent to the distance of our particle horizon are in every direction from us somewhere they could pull galaxies apart that fast because space and time are distorting on a larger scale & we're closer to that event horizon than we'd consider possible at known scales without getting sucked in by them, and space and time is moving around at all different levels perpetually expanding into that garagantuan event horizon forever because there's infinite mass, or matter. It's just there, always was, always will be.

 

I don’t want to be unkind, but It does seem like you are just stringing words together without considering what they mean, but you have provided us with food for thought, thanks for that.

[billvon]

Space time is warped by mass to generate gravity waves.

I have lost track of the number of times it has been explained to you that you are wrong.  You even admitted it once; not sure why you continue to repeat your error.

Gravitational waves warp space time, gravity waves do not.

 

That's like saying that photon beams carry energy, photonic beams do not.

[Super Polymath]

I don’t want to be unkind, but It does seem like you are just stringing words together without considering what they mean, but you have provided us with food for thought, thanks for that.

Okay, any atom is composed of 3D particles.

 

These particles we know, what we might not know about is what exists on sub-quantum scales. The double-slit experiment demonstrates that particles we send to the tracks of other particles to observe them neutralize the wavelength of these particles. So they seem to be interacting with some superluminal microgravitational attraction so to speak. Perhaps there's a fractal dimension manifesting beneath the quantum world among 2.86544 etc dimensional objects, basically asymptotic 3D objects. They're so close together that they need less gravitational force to interact faster than light.

 

When we go real big, we see galaxies accelerating faster than light, this requires a super gravitational attraction on large scales, say like 3.16557 etc asymptotic dimensional structures composed of galaxy clusters, faint dead regions dominated by evaporating black holes, and electromagnetic clouds that span across infinity particle horizons. These structures mirror the atomic world.

 

Our perfect little mid-cosmic conditions repeat infinitely if you expand or shrink one's perspective enough. By that notion, if gravitational attraction is relative to the distance and scale of structures in the universe, then so too is the cosmic speed limit because the rate of causality has to compensate for various scales.

 

Mathematical certainty that we aren't alone in the universe depends upon this concept.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

[Super Polymath]

Logic & language & internal communication>math. The speed of light is a finite measurement, the scales are infinite. Academic slavers can do the math & witness how the spontaneous existence notion of the big bang theory is inherently flawed. Concepts are not derived from mathematics, mathematics are derived from concepts. String theory is ****.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Super Polymath

[billvon]

 So they seem to be interacting with some superluminal microgravitational attraction so to speak. Perhaps there's a fractal dimension manifesting beneath the quantum world among 2.86544 etc dimensional objects, basically asymptotic 3D objects. They're so close together that they need less gravitational force to interact faster than light.

Word salad.

 

I am thinking several other posters are correct here - crank.

[Super Polymath]

Word salad.

 

I am thinking several other posters are correct here - crank.

[exchemist]

Thanks for the replies, they do help my thinking on this: We know from the dimensional analysis what the field is not; it is not a force and it is not energy. The gravitational field intensity has only the dimensions of an acceleration. I am finding it difficult to think of an acceleration existing independently of something that is accelerated, but it seems that is what a field is. As you both say, there is nothing to observe until there is something there for the field to interact with, and then we observe the interaction and not the field itself.

We can’t say the same thing about a photon, for example, because even though we may not know the photon is there until it interacts with something, the photon is a tiny bundle of energy; it is a “thing in itself” as Ernst Mach might say, while a field really isn’t anything until something else reacts with it.

So, the field is just a ghostly potential, sitting there quietly waiting for something to come along and give it a means of expression. Since we can say it isn’t really a “thing in itself” there is nothing to be propagated. It can exist everywhere instantly, or more correctly, continuously; no propagation means no propagation delay! This does not violate causality and is not spooky action at a distance because there is no action, only a potential for action. When action does happen, it has to be initiated by something other than the field and it cannot happen faster than the speed of light. And, the gravitational wave generated from such interaction also travels at c.

 

I think that satisfies my question, but would welcome any additional thoughts or links to any references on this subject.

 

Funny thing, I never looked at fields quite this way before; this must be the effect of reading too many of Super_PM posts! I am not at all sure this is a good thing!

Yes, a lot of fields seem to be mathematical ways of expressing the value and direction of a force exerted on a test body, if such is placed in the field at various points. So the physical nature of the field itself is as you say a potential for exerting an influence...not very physical, really. But I feel sure there are whole lectures on this that I have not had the pleasure of attending, and books written on the subject.