In two minds about gravity

@Bracewell,

I am not sure what you just said. It seems if you believe forces are an exchange of virtual particles, then one thing we can draw is that the more massive is the object, the more graviton it exchanges with other things with mass. I imagine it is similar to electric field lines works.

1 Reply

@vectorcube,

Vector - I don't really have any firm views on the subject but I do enjoy reading about the various ideas.
You seem to favour the General Relativity view, which I too think is more likely to be the correct view.
In Mond theory Gravity really needs to be in two parts, which would suggest two Graviton particles. If one is discovered then maybe there are more and maybe many more?
Of course nature could be that perverse but I feel a simpler route might be more productive.
However, I suppose it is necessary to explore the particle route to the maximum if only to eliminate a possibility.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

In quantum mechanics( or field ) interpretation. There is a division between matter particles, and force particles. Matter particles are particle of fractional spins, and force particles are particle of integer spins. Force particles are what mediate different forces of nature by the exchange of different types of force particles. According to this view, gravity is a force due to the exchange of graviton. According to this view, this force is long ranged, and weak,so for the mass of a single atom, there is not much force, but for massive objects, the are more exchanges of graviton.

Vector - You explained things well but why should particle physics have a need to differentiate between matter and force particles and who decided there was a need?
It sems like a commitment to Newtonian mechanics to me.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

yeh gravity is well interesting. What i like about GR in particular is the revolutionary change of perspective such that not only is gravity not a force, but the force that we experience on the ground is the earth's material surface pushing us up! In free fall air resistance is the only force. No other force necessary. Incidentally that is why gravity bends light, because there is no force acting upon it. Gravity is a change in the 'no force' geodesic path from a straight line constant velocity (newtonian geodesic) to the (generally) curved acceleration geodesic. The acceleration of light being manifest not as an increase in velocity but a change of frequency and curvature of path.

What is interesting also is that QM can be scaled up to show newton as a very good classical approximation. GR can likewise be scaled down to also approximate to the newtonian classical model. BUT GR and QM mathematically diverge when they are scaled to each other.

It is possible that GR and QM cannot be unified and that the third narrative alternative of classical mechanics acts as a bridge between the two.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;82762 wrote:

It is possible that GR and QM cannot be unified and that the third narrative alternative of classical mechanics acts as a bridge between the two.

Hi,

I think the the concept of force has to be investigated. What is it? Might it not be observable by instrumentation? The Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation pretty much suggests that what we are observing is a translation because we are forced into using classical instruments to observe the phenomenon which may not be mechanical at all.

Some say there are hidden variables. What might these hidden variables might there be? I am thinking it might be consciousness. But then, this would out of the realm of physics which is why Bohr concluded that we must live with complementarity and why Einstein was never comfortable.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

well it is always possible that a hidden variable theory of QM can be unified with GR. Quite what a 'force' would look like in such a theory is probably something very strange indeed. Smile

Hidden variable theories of QM at least don't look 'necessary' from a QM experimental point of view .... but if an unecessary (experimentally) addition to a theory is needed to unite it in form with another theory, would that be a truly united theory of gravity and mechanics in the scientific sense? I mean in regards that science tends to dismiss redundant concepts. Redundant concepts in the experimentally predictive sense? Or redundant concepts in the experimental AND universal narrative sense?

1 Reply

@pagan,

I think the beauty of Einstein views of force is that it frames it in terms of space/time geometry. Still, he does not address, what is curving space/time.

Quantum has no such geometrical concept. It is simply an equation. Bohr's complementarity principle suggests that we will never know what's really going down there. Max Born and Dirac suggested it doesn't matter or the time isn't ripe. Neither of these views attempts to unite the micro with the macro with a cohesive view of nature.

de Broglie and Bohm, suggested the possibility that there was a long range force that guided the particle. This long range force would act in accordance with the Bell Theorem and Aspect experiments as well as the Wheeler's delayed double-choice Gedanken, which is being observed experimentally. Still, what can this force be? I am positing consciousness. It is not superfluous - but it may be well hidden. Or maybe not, since consciousness is everywhere, but alas not measurable by classical instrumentation.

What Bohr suggested was that we can never know what it is, since everything is being translated through classical instruments. That is all that we can observe. But there may be other more creative ways to observe this? We shall see.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

hi rich

Quote:

This long range force would act in accordance with the Bell Theorem and Aspect experiments as well as the Wheeler's delayed double-choice Gedanken, which is being observed experimentally. Still, what can this force be? I am positing consciousness.

well as i interpret the weird world of qm and the likes of wheeler's delayed double choice experiment, our conceptual tendencies and point of history in human scientific and philosophical understanding, means that we naturally think that there is a 'force' causing these things to happen. But is a 'force' a good choice? .... we have seen in relativity that there is in a sense no force of gravity. Gravity free fall is THE state of no force. Similarly, the force particles of QM are one thing, but the long range collapse of a the wave equations into either one of two forms can be seen as not a force at all. There is no need so far to imply a hidden force particle to cause the shrinking of the wave equation one way or the other. It is just a long range consistent possibility. A sort of conceptual connection that does not require a force or force particle..... which are of themselves different conceptual connections that we can relate to on our human experiential level. Why does the universe have to be understandable not only by mathematics and logic, but conceptual forms that we can relate to? Surely QM has already shown that it doesn't?

Entanglement, information theory, wave particle duality, probability waves ...... therein lies the attraction of hidden variables and a long range force. It is more homely. Smile

2 Replies

@pagan,

I dont want to understand it,i want to avoid it and float away.Could we ever deceive it and make it think we have no weight.I wonder,could we pretend to be a helium atom and gravity treat us as such?

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;82981 wrote:

hi rich
well as i interpret the weird world of qm and the likes of wheeler's delayed double choice experiment, our conceptual tendencies and point of history in human scientific and philosophical understanding, means that we naturally think that there is a 'force' causing these things to happen.

Hi pagan,

I think force is someone inevitable since it is difficult to conceptualize movement of any kind without the notion of force. For example, the curvature of space/time. What is causing the space/time to curve? Why does it curve more as it becomes closer to mass? I conceptualize this as similar to curvature caused by a swirling hurricane.

Delayed choice is another beast altogether. Apparently quantum can decide decide whether to go down the first base line or third base line, depending upon what is happening at second base, after it has already left home. One needs a very interesting conceptual model to understand this. Bohm attempts to conceptualize such a model using the de Broglie's hidden force and his own implicate order model.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Quote:

rich - I think force is someone inevitable since it is difficult to conceptualize movement of any kind without the notion of force.

communication? projection? synchronization? juxtaposition? ....

Quote:

What is causing the space/time to curve? Why does it curve more as it becomes closer to mass?

If it is axiomatic and fundamental to a successful narrative, then why look for the cause? Else surely we will forever create the next "what is causing". Is there no end to "why daddy why?" ..... except it just is. Smile

I am not suggesting that to keep asking why is pointless or useless, but how can there be an end to it other than "it just is?" The newtonian theory of mechanics and gravity is still useful even though we can ask many "why" questions of its axioms. eg why is inertial mass equal to gravitational mass? .... and to ask such may lead to new discoveries and theories. But it will never end. It will create new theories. New 'forces'.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;83008 wrote:

communication? projection? synchronization? juxtaposition? ....

Yes, all of these concepts seem to have some suggestion of movement of some type. Projection, for example.

pagan;83008 wrote:

If it is axiomatic and fundamental to a successful narrative, then why look for the cause? Else surely we will forever create the next "what is causing". Is there no end to "why daddy why?" ..... except it just is.

I love questions. It creates movement. But I move from one perspective to another. Today, I was observing different tennis swings and asking questions about them and experimenting. But then, I come back to other questions, when I browse this forum. All of life may be nothing more than asking questions, exploring, creating, and amusing oneself. For example, what happens when you mix this color with that? It can go on forever. And why not? There is plenty of time.

pagan;83008 wrote:

I am not suggesting that to keep asking why is pointless or useless, but how can there be an end to it other than "it just is?"

There may be no end, and there may be one. Some people get exhausted because they try to hard to quickly. I am more patient. I have been working on questions like these for 40 years and more. And I'll patiently keep at it. I am in no rush. Smile

pagan;83008 wrote:

The newtonian theory of mechanics and gravity is still useful even though we can ask many "why" questions of its axioms. eg why is inertial mass equal to gravitational mass? .... and to ask such may lead to new discoveries and theories. But it will never end. It will create new theories. New 'forces'.

Yes. Isn't it wonderful. And when we find the answers, I am sure there will be something new. Maybe that is why we have life and death. To begin afresh?

Rich

0 Replies

In two minds about gravity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know