Reading you I remembered a sufi tale about six blind men and an elephant. keep going, maybe something interesting will come out
Nobody really knows yet, but logically, gravity has to be some form of interaction between masses or electric charges:
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf
In the view of the quantum theory, each particle corresponds a wave. If gravity also follows the quantum theory, it is both a particle and a wave.
Reading you I remembered a sufi tale about six blind men and an elephant. keep going, maybe something interesting will come out
Dear Ali,
Einstein's equations can be written as a wave equation quite straightforwardly if we approach the general Riemann metric to a Minkowski's one plus a linear perturbation.Because of the linearity, by superposing plane wave solutions with different propagation vectors 𝑘𝜇, one can get waves having any desirable wave front. Einstein named these gravitational waves. . He also showed that within the
linearized theory these waves carry energy, and he found a formula for the energy loss in terms of the third time derivative of the quadrupole moment of the sources
But, do the fully nonlinear Einstein equations admit solutions that can be interpreted as gravitational waves? This was a question which has worried to Einstein from the 1916 when he published a paper on its non existance. But nowadays this difficulty was overcome and the gravitation can be waves in the same form as electrodynamics do. What is not at all known is if they can form gravitons for explaining this interaction as the other three as an exchange of bosons.
my dear Ali I. Alburiahi ......here is my proposal on gravity....in this proposal gravity is treated as dual (both particle and wave)
you can find details of my research in the following link..
Preprint THEORY OF MOST PROBABLE DISTANCE
thank you...
Gravity is a description of a deformation of our living space, which relates to the property mass of the object that actuates that deformation. It can also relate to an ensemble of massive objects.
"StructureOfPhysicalReality"; http://vixra.org/abs/1806.0087
this link is useful
https://www.telegraph.co.uk › News › Science
regards
Gravitation is an effect and gravitational attraction (gravity) is an apparent force.
Entire space, outside the most basic 3D matter-particles, is filled with an all-encompassing universal medium, structured by quanta of matter. Due to its structure, universal medium is inherently under compression. A 3D matter-particle, in the universal medium, experiences compression from universal medium. This property of universal medium is gravitation. Magnitude of gravitation corresponds to extent of universal medium that exerts the pressure. Extent of universal medium between two 3D matter-particles is always less than extents of universal medium on their outer sides. Hence higher gravitational actions on outer sides tend to move the 3D matter-particles towards each other. This tendency is understood as gravitational attraction or gravity. Gravitational attraction (gravity) is the resultant (relatively a minor by-product) of separate gravitational actions on two 3D matter-particles by universal medium. See: 'MATTER (Re-examined)'.
Gravitation is a wave interaction. If the gravitational field is static (as the Newtonian gravitational field), gravitation is a standing wave: gravitational interaction between bodies spreads momentary, forming a system of holograms. Newton considered gravitation in a flat 3-space. Karl Schwarzschild in 1916 obtained an exact solution of Einstein's equations. This solution includes the gravitational radius r_g = 2GM/c^2, which is the source of gravitational effect for every body. Laplace previously showed that r_g is the radius of a body which is compressed to the state, when it accelerates the falling body to the light velocity. In fact, Schwarzschild's solution is a relativistic generalization of the Newtonian law. Every solution of the field equations in GR is a model of a particular gravitational field. If the field is non-stationary, it consists of traveling waves. Standing waves create constant attraction, while traveling waves are connected with non-stationary objects (stars, galaxies, ...). Wave of gravitation coming from objects having the stationary gravitational field travels momentary, connecting the objects.
Einstein assumed that gravitation is caused by masses, and creates curvature of the space. Really, masses create the curvature of the space-time, and this kind of gravitation depends on the correlation between r_g and the radius of the gravitating body itself, a. If r_g
Dear Zbigniew,
It is true that the proof that the full gravitational waves carry energy and they have a radiation field is not easy. It has taken almost one hundred years to solve this problem with many mistakes included. Mathematically your country has played an important role thanks to A.Trautman who was the one to introduce the proper boundary conditions for solving Einstein's equations for showing the existance of the wave gravitational solutions carrying energy
1. A. Trautman, Boundary conditions at infinity for physical theories, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. (1958), 6, 403–406; reprinted as arXiv:1604.03144. MR 0097265 (20 #3735)
2. I. Robinson and A. Trautman, Spherical gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4 (1960), 431–432; also in: I. Robinson and A. Trautman, Some spherical gravitational waves in general relativity, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A265 (1962), 463–473.MR 0135928 (24 #B1970)
Their motion at the velocity of light is straigthforward and well know since Einstein first paper in 1916.
3. A. Einstein, Näherungsweise Integration der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation, Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte, 1916 (part 1) (1916),
688–696
Dear Ali,
-You can say a particle, but never a wave! From this my conclusion(s) is as follows: (a) both belong to matter; however particle is solid and 'large hadron collideble'; wave is fluid and 'large hadron non-collideble'; (b) but both are essentially distinct and different; (c) and our contemporary established mainstream science is in principle based upon distinction.
-We are waiting for a (next) science based upon the fluid or even the airy! (That is what I am searching after). Best regards, Marc.
Dear Ali and all,
"Is gravity a particle or a wave ?"
I make the difference between: gravity as "being a wave" and the possibility to fabricate "gravitational waves" in the universe.
You mean the first one, I guess.
The second ("gravitational waves") has been allegedly measured by the LIGO program. However, every time that a "detection" has been reported, there was an alignment between the Sun, the Earth and the Moon. So, probably it are all fake detections and instead Earth quakes.
The first (gravity as "being a wave") is a possibility.
However, there is a process that wonderfully matches the creation of gravitational attraction, if it is assumed that gravity is made of tiny particles (say, 'Planck-scale particles', or 'gravitons' for the distinction) that are densely orbiting about elementary particles.
The gravitational attraction can very well be realized by the mechanical contact between a graviton and a spinning elementary particle.
Such a mechanical contact is given by the Coriolis force. This force is perpendicular to both the graviton's speed and the elementary particles' angular momentum vector. Hence, it results in an attraction.
When the Solar data are analysed, it acts exactly the same: the empirical value of the spin of the Sun perfectly matches this Coriolis force at the Sun's equator level. The value of the gravitational constant can be deduced empirically from this Coriolis action.
The condition for this fit is that the speed of propagation of the gravitons equals the speed of light.
Also the differential rotation of the Sun can be deduced straightforwardly.
The reasoning and calculus is annexed here:
Article Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis...
It means that gravity as made from gravitons has a high probablility.
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Book Gravito-Magnetism - Including an introduction to the Coriolis Theory
@ Zbigniew Motyka
The idea of gravitational wave was controversial from the very beginning of the development of GR. This will be evident from the following account of the subject in the first section of a paper by Arthur Eddington:
The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character. The Propagation of Gravitational Waves. p. 268
By A.S. Eddington, F.R.S. (Received October 11, 1922) 1.
"The problem of the propagation of disturbance of the gravitational field was investigated by Einstein in 1916 and again in 1918*. It has usually been inferred from his discussion that a change in the distribution of matter produces gravitational effects which are propagated with the speed of light; but I think that Einstein really left the question of the speed of propagation rather indefinite. His analysis shows how the co-ordinates must be chosen if it is desired to represent the gravitational potentials as propagated with the speed of light; but there is nothing to indicate that the speed of light appears in the problem, except as the result of this arbitrary choice.
So far as I know, the propagation of the absolute physical condition – the altered cuevature of space-time –- has not hitherto been discussed. Weyl** has classified plane GWs into three types, viz.: (1) longitudinal – longitudinal; (2) longitudinal- transverse; (3) transverse- transverse. The present investigation leads to the conclusion that transverse- transverse waves are propagated with the speed of light in all systems of co-ordinates. Waves of the first and second types have no fixed velocity – a result which rouses suspicion as to their objective existence. Einstein had also become suspicious of these waves (in so far as they occur in his special co-ordinate-system) for another reason, because he found that they convey no energy.
*‘Berlin Sitzungsberichte,’ p. 688 (1916); p. 154 (1918)
** ‘Raum, Zeit, Materie,’ 4th edition, p. 228; English edition, p. 252
.....They are not objective, and (like absolute velocity) are not detectable by any conceivable experiment. They are merely sinuosities in the co-ordinate-system, and the only speed of propagation relevant to them is “the speed of thought”. ...........
Downloaded from http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on October 3, 2017
Also, a paper co-authored by Einstein (while probably at Princeton U.) dismissing the existence (or the possibility) of GW was rejected by the same journal that published the first “discovery” of GW by LIGO! Einstein reportedly was so angry with the editor that he vowed not to publish any work in that journal. Unfortunately, I do not have the reference at hand for this information.
Dear Wulf,
Ridiculous questions don't exist, only ridiculous answers...
Best regards,
Thierry De Mees
"Why don't physicists apply realistic theories?" would be a better question. Most physicists are afraid of theories that are loaded with complicated equations or that require deep reasoning. That is why in their experiments they avoid the question about the origins of the concepts that they use. Those who do optical experiments avoid questions of what photons are. Those that work with EM fields cannot answer the question what the origin of electric charge is. Similarly the cosmologists talk a lot about gravity, but cannot explain the origin of mass. Nobody knows the internal structure of an elementary particle (Yes, they are point-shaped objects, and yes they feature a dynamic spatial structure. They just hop around in a coherent swarm!)
Preprint Structure of physical reality
Dear Wulf,
You wrote : "But in order to pose a meaningful question, it takes some prep, for instance a serious study of physics."
Maybe aren't you aware that CERN physicists think that physics is 'f*cked up', but that they don't to come out with it, because of the fanatism from theoretical scientists, the same ones as those you support....
You wrote: "You can detect those good questions by the quality of the explanation given for the question, and by the fact that the question doesn’t have misspellings, typos, nonsense words, or grammatical errors."
Interesting analysis... How many languages do you speak and write fluently, dear Wulf? Regarding the ones who ask the questions, maybe you will also exclude those who wear silly hats?
My conclusion is, my dear Wulf, that the CERN phisicians are right.
Hence, many questions should be regarded as very serious, spites what many theoretical scientists think...
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Book Gravito-Magnetism - Including an introduction to the Coriolis Theory
Dear Wulf,
Does my answer to Ali also belong to your ridiculous answers? If yes, why?
Thanks for your answer! Marc.
Dear Wulf,
So, you seem to be of those people who 'know' a lot. Remember that in every former century, since a few thousands of years, there were people who 'knew' a lot.
However, science changed a lot since, and this progress was not made by people who 'knew' a lot, but by people who investigated and questioned what was poorly 'known' and allegedly 'known'.
And if one thinks that the nowadays science in theoretical physics 'knows' a lot, could get quite a lot of surprises some day, like in all the past centuries...
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Dear Wulf,
It is amazing how you interpret my writings in a funny way. You answer in a quite contradictory way, since you pretend not to 'know', but don't stop spreading your knowledge..., which everybody can find in books, and from other data sources.
Till now, I don't have found the least of a reasonable argument to support you in what you wrote, i.e. to tackle questions at RG or to call them 'ridiculous'.
I think you are afraid that supposed 'known' physics would be questioned. Such a thing would not be surprizing in the case that only 'knowledge' and no insight has been acquired during a lifetime.
What is interesting on RG, is that insight would be acquired, unlike numerous scientists, physicists or researchers, not 'knowledge' from books. Therefore, apparent silly questions may be welcome.
For example, in the context of 'knowledge' and insight, I would be curious to know what your answer is to the following question at RG:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_an_aircraft_rocket_does_not_shift_relative_to_the_land_due_to_Earth_rotation_at_low_altitudes_but_does_it_at_the_high_ones
With best regards,
Thierry De Mees
Book Gravito-Magnetism - Including an introduction to the Coriolis Theory
Dear Wulf,
The way we traditionally conceive of ignorance—as an absence of knowledge—leads us to think of education as its natural antidote. But education, even when done skillfully, can produce illusory confidence. Here’s a particularly frightful example: Driver’s education courses, particularly those aimed at handling emergency maneuvers, tend to increase, rather than decrease, accident rates. They do so because training people to handle, say, snow and ice leaves them with the lasting impression that they’re permanent experts on the subject. In fact, their skills usually erode rapidly after they leave the course. And so, months or even decades later, they have confidence but little leftover competence when their wheels begin to spin.
Thomas Jefferson, lamenting the quality of political journalism in his day, once observed that a person who avoided newspapers would be better informed than a daily reader, in that someone “who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.” Benjamin Franklin wrote that “a learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.” Another quote sometimes attributed to Franklin has it that “the doorstep to the temple of wisdom is a knowledge of our own ignorance.”
Kind regards,
Dear Wulf,
This is an added answer upon your answer of 2 days ago. According to me you are too apodictic in expressing your opinion that 'Of course there exist ridiculous questions' (and ridiculous answers).
Let me pinpoint only some of them you mentioned:
(i) "How many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?" is seemingly ridiculous, but in fact a serious scientific question: (a) One is obliged to explain scientificly the exsistence of angels. Can you? (b) Moreover 'the tip of a needle' even betrays that it is scientific: it regards matter (consisting of the solid, fluid, and gaseous).
(ii) "What is the purpose of life and death?" is not a Sunday school blather! This question is based upon the identity of: to be, to be true, and to be good, which cannot be expressed in our language simultaneously (even not quantum-parallelisticly, let alone identically) due to our liability to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
(iii) Now back to my added answer of 2 days ago. From your long answer, I only mention a couple: (a) ? Wow, this is new for me; (b) stands for that it can be collided in the LHC; maybe my English is hopelessly poor, but one can turn it mathematicly as {LHC}ble; (c) for 'fluid', see my previous question (days ago); (d) I am not worth receiving a Nobel prize in physics because my knowledge in physics is 'nothing' (nor mathematics) according to you.
(iv) Is 'physics' all (there) is?
Thank you anyhow for the answer! Marc.
Comprehending gravity requires understanding the excitations that can deform the field, which represents our living space. I know only one tiny excitation that does this. It is a spherical shock front and it locally injects a bit of volume into the field. The injected volume spreads over the field. Consequently the deformation quickly fades away. To establish a persistent deformation the spherical shock front must reoccur such that the deformations overlap in time and in space.
This means that nature must recurrently regenerate all its massive objects.
See: Preprint Structure of physical reality
Gravitational waves are well within experimental reach. LIGO has observed gravitational waves caused by black hole merger events. Quantum gravity on the other hand is an unknown theory. It is believed that quantum effects of gravity can be observed at the Planck scale, which is far above the scale of experimental reach. However, there are theories of large extra dimensions which claim that effects of quantum gravity should be visible in future high energy colliders. These theories are non-renormalizable, and so they should be interpreted with a lot of caution. Finally, experimental results are the last words in Physics. We must wait until a theory is confirmed by experiment.
Gravity, classically-and when relativistic effects are significant-is described by a field-the metric tensor-whose one-particle excitations are the gravitons, particles of mass zero and spin 2. This follows the usual description of particles as representations of the Poincaré group, which makes sense that spacetime is asymptotically flat.
Gravitational waves are the classical manifestations of the superposition of a macroscopic number of gravitons, when the individual gravitons can't be resolved. For the moment it isn't possible to resolve individual gravitons, i.e. measure their shot noise. It has been possible to measure the effects of gravitational waves.
The paper "Mass and Field Deformation"; describes how elementary particles get their mass. Preprint Mass and Field Deformation
Dear Ali,
(i) Please define rather strictly what you mean by particle and wave!
(ii) According to me the further development of quantum theory depends upon the becoming (or change, see Whitehead's Process and Reality) of particle to wave which is by definition impossible. That is the reason of my (i). Cheers, Marc.
Marc,
The particle-wave duality is long solved. Elementary particles hop around in a hopping path that forms a coherent hop landing location swarm. A location density distribution describes that swarm. It equals the squared modulus of the wavefunction of the particle. The hopping path locations are generated by a stochastic process that owns a characteristic function, which is the Fourier transform of the location density distribution. For that reason the location density distribution is a wave package that can form interferences. So, it can show wave behavior. The location density distribution is continuously regenerated by the stochastic process.
See:
https://www.opastonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/tracing-the-structure-of-physical-reality-by-starting-from-its-fundamentals-atcp-18.pdf
Dear Marc,
I mean if the Gravitational field components from particles called (gravitons) or the gravity are just several curves in space-time like the Gravitational Waves.
Regards,
Dear Hans,
Thanks for the scientific link (with your contribution). However, I have a couple of foundational questions:
(i) Physical reality (e.g. 'a' particle) is structured as you observe it. Here we have two problems: (a) structuration or systemization; (b) perception (which is alas reduced to observation by science not by philosophy).
(ii) An object can only be perceived/observed if it is distinguishable. And every distinction presupposes limitedness. And every limitedness presupposes more or less solidity (1st component of matter), even the neurons of your brain.
(iii) Wave belongs to fluid (2nd component of matter) or even to gaseous/airy (3rd component of matter), consequently not distinguishable nor limited but (Plotinian) 'open' or 'one'.
Dear Ali,
Thanks for your added answer! For my answer, see the afore mentioned points. Marc.
Marc,
You can solve these dilemmas by selecting a suitable modelling platform. The Hilbert Book Model does this by selecting a set of quaternionic separable Hilbert spaces that each use their own version of the quaternionic number system for defining the inner product.
See: https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Hilbert-Book-Model-Project/update/5c5d76273843b0544e64cd0e
The gravity is a field of force of masses.It is like the electric field of charges and the magnetic field of electric current.
Best wishes
"Every particle is associated with a wave nature and vice versa "---non-paradoxical hypothesis of Louis de Broglie.
Therefore, it's important to look at both natures together as a single entity rather than either as a wave or a particle depending on the observation as in the case of wave-particle duality which itself is a paradox.
In classical mechanics, gravity is a force.
Albert Einstein described gravity as a curve in space that wraps around an object—such as a star or a planet. Thus in general relativity, gravity is not a force, but geometric property of the space.
In quantum mechanics, the gravity is exchanged amount of discrete energy between particles that is called graviton.
Untill were not discovered gravitational waves, gravity had been considered as a forse.
Gravity is an interaction between masses by the warping of space and time.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Elementary Particle Physics
- Particle