You're probably right but imagine for a second, what else would a uniform spread of particles in a volume look like if it did exist? Stationary particles right, why would they move?
Last edited:
You're probably right but imagine for a second, what else would a uniform spread of particles in a volume look like if it did exist? Stationary particles right, why would they move?
Mass is stuff - things that take up space pushing apart the particles.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Your force does not depend on the mass of the object doing the pushing. It depends on the size of the object. So 2 objects of the same mass but different density will experience different 'gravitational' forces. There are quite sensitive experiments that show that gravity does not depend on the density (or composition) of the object.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
What is the force that stops them moving as soon as another object coomes into your 'empty' space? As you state in your posts - this object pushes the particles. What pushes back?
zosima
Muse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2008
- Messages
- 536
Also, your model ignores relativity. Mass-Energy equivalence means that even though a photon is massless it has energy and thus should be expected to exert a tiny force on the objects around it. If light falls into a black hole, it increases the energy of the hole and therefore increases the gravitational pull of the black hole.
This same objection applies to energy from the motion of objects in your model.
If you ask me, the bending of 4-dimensional spacetime is probably as easy as it is going to get. That model doesn't postulate the existence of some crazy grid. Just smooth curves of geometric structures.
Also, your two-slit example doesn't explain how a particle could appear to travel through both slits. It posits only one or the other.
So I think I have to agree with reality(check), it doesn't even have utility as an educational model, and it doesn't have one or two little flaws. The best educational tool would be a physics textbook.
ETA: actually this fixed particle grid seems a lot like the aether model which has been widely discredited.
Last edited:
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
You leave out one critical dimension in your analysis, time. As zosima mentioned the bending of 4-dimensional spacetime is the most accurate way we currently have of describing gravity. Since we live in a perceptually 4-dimentional universe (3 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension) any concept that does not involve all of those dimensions can not accurately describe gravity. Please see Spacetime and General Relativity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
chran
Muse
This needs to be quoted again.
How much physics and maths do I have to do before I can ask other people, people who probably know a lot more than me about the physics hence I am asking a question and not just stating "I am right", their opinion on how I am picturing something in my head exactly?
I only have 3 years of maths I'm afraid, my apologies.
To put it another way if you were thinking about something out of your area of expertise how would you go about finding out if your thoughts were absolute nonsense or not?
Why the attitude? I am asking questions, nothing more.
Can you send me a link to write ups of these experiments?
Thank you btw for answering how I had hoped people would, I am merely trying to learn here.
The other gravity particles - consider just a simple 2D plane like a page of maths paper where the lines can bend. As you push a gravity particle (at the intersection of two lines) in one direction it gets closer to other gravity particles which push back.
Another good point, thank you. How I picture it, and again I am just trying to relate what I see in my head, is sometimes a photon could influence the position of the gravity particles by lightly grazing it as it goes past. This could explain the tiny force exerted, gravity particles being pushed just a little bit.
As to how the light falling into a black hole increases the gravitational pull - the more stuff you have the bigger the gap between particles (as stuff is taking up volume the particles can’t occupy) and therefore the larger the acceleration\gravity.
I picture it as smooth geometric structures in a way, consider an atom moving towards a mass then it travels down a sort of funnel where the gaps between the gravity particles are further apart closer you get to the mass hence the atom can travel further without being influenced by the gravity particles.
Ah this is probably the bit of the two split experiment I don’t completely understand then, again thank you. Can you explain briefly, or point me to a source that does, why it is considered an individual photon goes through both slits?
Thanks again.
No it’s not like the aether model, the aether model relied on a medium through which things travel the grid is a medium which things travel around.
He is brainstorming here and never once passed off his ideas as facts. You have no business oppressing fellow members of the forum and if you didn't notice, this would be a perfect opportunity to do some instruction.
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Basically you are replacing gravity with 2 forces - the force between your particles that keeps them on the grid and the force between the particles and an object. Now you are stating that photons can "graze" the particles.
This seems too ornate when General Relativity is much simpler, works and is much easier to understand.
One prediction of your model that can be tested:
Make 2 balls, one made of lead and another of iron. Let them have the same mass. The lead ball will be smaller then the iron ball (lead is denser than iron). The lead ball will push past fewer particles than the iron ball. Thus the gravitatinal force on the lead ball will be less than that of the iron ball.
This is not observed. Therefore the grid of particles does not exist.
This seems too ornate when General Relativity is much simpler, works and is much easier to understand.
One prediction of your model that can be tested:
Make 2 balls, one made of lead and another of iron. Let them have the same mass. The lead ball will be smaller then the iron ball (lead is denser than iron). The lead ball will push past fewer particles than the iron ball. Thus the gravitatinal force on the lead ball will be less than that of the iron ball.
This is not observed. Therefore the grid of particles does not exist.
I know what these are but thank you - why do you think this doesn't explain it? Or what specifically isn't explained by it?
Thank you for getting to the crux of the OP, I want a discussion with people more knowledgeable than me on this subject.
I have been a member here for a long time, I can understand the initial feelings of 'Sweet FSM here comes another kook who thinks he has all the answers' but think it's unwarranted here.
No it’s just one force, the repelling of the gravity particles. The gravity particles do not exert a force on the object they get in the way. But is that what you mean – when I say getting in the way this assumes a force that acts between them?
Thanks very good point.
I think I can answer this one believe it or not, both balls will hit the same number of particles. Though the lead ball is smaller it contains more stuff therefore more particles are being hit. So the way to think of mass is that it’s the number of particles displaced by something – though the lead ball is smaller as it’s denser more particles are displaced in a smaller volume.
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 844
I think I can sort of see what you're getting at, but a lot of what you're describing doesn't jive with general relativity. For starters, the whole mesh thing implies some kind of granularity to space-time, which just isn't the case (within our measurement capabilities). Also, it implies some kind of universal frame of reference, which doesn't match up with special relativity.
The double slit experiment is a bad example - scattering of light is caused by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.
The double slit experiment is a bad example - scattering of light is caused by the electromagnetic force, not gravity.
Why does it imply a universal frame of reference do you think, could you elaborate for me?
OK slightly moving into fantasy territory here but stick with me - The LHC could find the Higgs boson and in turn we could find out that the Higgs field is created by the Higgs bosons all repelling each other to form the grid. Completely nuts do you think?
Again can you elaborate for me please, how do we know this? Apologies if I'm asking you to do a thesis on a forum, if so can you suggest a source I should read?
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2008
- Messages
- 844
Your description is about things moving within a 'grid', so something moving with a constant velocity through space would be moving relative to these hypothetical particles (if I understand you right). This was the line of thinking when people were theorising about the aether, which turned out to be a load of rubbish. I'm not sure what would be a good reference for this. I did it when I did my degree and I doubt that material is what you're after. However, the key phrase is 'Lorentz invariance', which is a key part of special relativity.
Yes, that is completely nuts. That isn't how the Higgs boson is theorised to behave at all.
The photon is the force carrier for electromagnetism and all their behaviour regarding scattering etc. can be explained with classical wave theory and on a finer scale, QED. Given that electromagnetism is a much stronger force than gravity, it'd be daft to even suspect that gravity would somehow be responsible. Still, we've got not grand unified theory yet, so you never know...
But wasn’t aether a medium for light to travel through like sound needs a medium to travel through? I am thinking the grid is things to avoid, without the grid a photon could travel no problem, in fact this is what happens when the gaps between the gravity particles gets stretched by a mass, the photon travels with less of a hindrance from the gravity particles.
I’ll read up on aether and get back to you, I probably misunderstand that as well.
Thought so.
I don’t see it as gravity as being responsible per se – it’s more that the photons have to travel around the particles which is causing the photon to travel in a wave which can be explained by classical wave theory. So we have a force carrying photon avoiding the gravity particles as it travels causing an unpredictable path.
Thank you for your input I think this is the level of detail that I lack and that I need to somehow understand so I can picture it differently and, hopefully, more accurately.