Gravity & interference

[CraigD]

… We must recognize that within the same time frame both faculties are at work, in our present universe Gravity and Entropy coexist. …

I suspect we two are laboring under different definitions of “entropy/disorder”. Yours has something to do, I think, with the size of the universe as a whole and its structure on many scales, while mine is best summarized by this ”measure of disorder” definition.

 

In my conception, the abrupt cancellation of gravity throughout the universe would have little effect on its entropy. Though star systems, galaxies, and galactic clusters would stop orbiting around common centers, the information encoded in all these orbits would simple be replaced with an equal amount of information that described their now mostly straight trajectories. The increase of entropy over time in this new system would, in fact, be much less, since a lot of entropy-producing interaction would cease.

 

What I believe you’re saying, is although the numeric measure of disorder in this system can be said to have not increased, a universe without solar systems or galaxies looks, and is in a practical, anthropomorphic sense less orderly – in short, a much less sensible place to live.

 

The same could be said for the other forces, as well. If the electromagnetic and the strong and weak nuclear forces suddenly winked out of existence, reality would for all intents fly to pieces, yet its information content wouldn’t change. With no means whatever to interact (even mechanical collisions would be nearly impossible without these forces), the universes increase in entropy over time would nearly stop. A consequence would be that measurement, thought, etc. would be nearly impossible. Although, from a human perspective, this event could reasonably be termed the end of all information, from a purely entropic point of view, the universe would still exist and contain about the same amount of information.

 

I’m curious – do you have a position, defensible or just a feeling, on whether the universe is gravitonally closed (will eventually collapse back to a small area or singularity), open (will expand forever), or something more exotic?

[GAHD]

Don't Lagrange points qualify?

[Boerseun]

Don't Lagrange points qualify?

Well, there we go!

 

If you have two black holes orbiting the same central point, the Lagrange points should stay very much intact - and the masses could approach each other whilst an observer can stay safely inside a Lagrange point. It'll be touch and go, 'cause if you just move a millimeter inside the L point, you'll get sucked to the black hole closest to you.

 

I suppose that should qualify as destructive interference, if you go the graviton route?

[Qfwfq]

Lagrange points are not the same thing as interference of a QM amplitude.

[infamous]

 

I’m curious – do you have a position, defensible or just a feeling, on whether the universe is gravitonally closed (will eventually collapse back to a small area or singularity), open (will expand forever), or something more exotic?

More exotic would be the definition I believe. The position I take on universal evolution is of course untestable and therefore unproveable, not unlike the standard model Big Bang universe. Even though there appears to be great support for the Big Bang universe, I believe that this event is merely local by definition. That is to say, I believe the universe to be infinite and the Big Bang event to be only a local occurence of which there may exist any number of similar happenings taking place within a larger megauniverse. I view a universal struggle taking place between the laws of Entropy and the laws of Gravity, one prone to order, the other inclined to disorder. Neither has advantage over the other, even though in local frames one may appear to gain advantage, that advantage can never overwhelm the other completely. There remains an average balance through out the total megauniverse that will persist for eternity. Where experimental proofs are not possible, logic must prevail. This is the logic I prefer, it may not be yours. But trying to prove a singlular Big Bang as opposed to the model I've presented will never wash. Because we exist within this frame, we can never recieve any information from beyond and therefore no proofs are possible.

[Qfwfq]

I believe the universe to be infinite and the Big Bang event to be only a local occurence of which there may exist any number of similar happenings taking place within a larger megauniverse.

A possibility certainly that could hardly be refuted, considering it's impossible even to observe the single big bang. The only refutation could lie in measuring the large scale curvature of what we can observe. Perhaps you might find this interesting:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2027

[CraigD]

… I believe the universe to be infinite and the Big Bang event to be only a local occurence of which there may exist any number of similar happenings taking place within a larger megauniverse

That’s one from a short list I think of under the “exotic” category of cosmology theories. It’s a neat idea.

... But trying to prove a singlular Big Bang as opposed to the model I've presented will never wash. Because we exist within this frame, we can never recieve any information from beyond and therefore no proofs are possible.

This seems overly pessimistic. If another local big bang event occurred close enough or far enough in the megauniverse’s past, light and eventually matter from it will or is already intersecting our own. I expect it would be dramatically blue-shifted. This is certainly something a you could survey the sky for.

 

If the local big bangs are very distant from one another, they’re back into the unobservable realm. Still, there’s good reason to believe that there’ll be something, even if only a photons, far into the future. If the infinite local big bangs in one megauniverse model is true, it could have a profound impact in the far future.

[CraigD]

-

[infamous]

. If another local big bang event occurred close enough or far enough in the megauniverse’s past, light and eventually matter from it will or is already intersecting our own. .

I personally believe this is the reason we observe stars in our universe that appear to be older than our own Big Bang epic. It is quite conceivable, for me at least, that our universe could overlap with another adjacent to us. If this is true, then we may be able to uncover the truth about the possibility for the existence of a larger megauniverse.

[Boerseun]

Is it only me, or are we wandering slightly off the topic, here?

[CraigD]

Is it only me, or are we wandering slightly off the topic, here?

Indeed, we are. Infamous and I are guilty of egregious threadjacking. :shrug:

 

I think the wave-particle duality of gravitons got stale once a consensus was reached that there’s not way to test it without some wildly exotic equipment. When faced with something for which a falsifying experiment isn’t easy to design, science types tend to shuffle feet in embarrassment, and move on to something vague, like Philosophy, or something well known, like Cosmology.

[vipa]

looking for sone help on things in the way thing works

if you were in a bath of h2o at your body temp wou would not know that you were hot ni the stares

 

vipa

[Boerseun]

Indeed, we are. Infamous and I are guilty of egregious threadjacking. :shrug:

 

I think the wave-particle duality of gravitons got stale once a consensus was reached that there’s not way to test it without some wildly exotic equipment. When faced with something for which a falsifying experiment isn’t easy to design, science types tend to shuffle feet in embarrassment, and move on to something vague, like Philosophy, or something well known, like Cosmology.

I didn't realise that consensus was reached for anything.

 

Maybe, if you want to move onto something else, I suggest you open a new thread and let this one die a graceful death in the Thread Crypt - any new reader in this thread will have to go through all the stuff in the beginning of the thread, and won't have any idea what you're talking about now.

 

If you look in the forum index, I'm sure you'll find something to your tastes.

[FrankM]

There might be evidence of gravity interference during a solar eclipse. What is now called the "Allais effect" was first noted by Allais during the 1954 and 1959 total solar exclipses. There are a number of articles that discuss the Allais effect but it is pertinent to cite a NASA article as they were attempting to identify the effect during the Aug 1999 solar eclipse.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast06aug99_1.htm

 

The above report noted that during the total eclipse over Helsinki in 1990 no Allais effect was detected. Helsinki was under the center of the eclipse path. When Alllais detected his pendulum deviations he was considerably off center of the path in both 1954 and 1959.

 

The follow-on report raises more questions than answers in several areas.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast12oct99_1.htm

 

There does not seem to be another NASA report as to what was found, however there is a report that cites both NASA articless. "A review of conventional explanations of anomalous observations during solar eclipses" by Chris P. Duif, 31 Dec 2004.

 

http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf

 

The curious issue in the above report is that gravimeters never detect a change but pendulums do. It suggests that the pendulums are responding to a lateral gravity effect which the gravimeters aren't designed to detect. When I first read these reports I wondered if the solar eclipse was creating a gravity interference pattern (between Sun,Moon,Earth) of some kind that is manifested by a lateral force.

 

There will be a total solar eclipse in March 2006:

 

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEmono/TSE2006/TSE2006.html

 

All past eclipses and those well into the future are available at:

 

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/solar.html

 

There are other issues noted in the NASA and Duif reports that are giving physicists fits.

[Turtle]

___Fascinating discussion! I wouldn't know a boson from a purple quark, but I experience gravity more or less as everyone does so it interests me. I have read a lot over the years on gravity & in reading this thread I noted what I consider a conspicuous absense of Buckminster Fuller's ideas on the topic. While I did read some of his books, I didn't understand them anymore than quantum physics books & yet I remember bits here & there enough to comment he had a rather geometric view as someone here suggested would be useful.

___So, for you experts, what is right or wrong about Fuller's views on gravity? I know he was ridiculed for his geometric view of carbon; is that also the case with gravity?

___Great discussion.