Gravitons, String Theory and Electro-Magnetism

[j_rankin]

I have a big problem understanding string theory. The main reason for this is because in order for string theory to be able to combine electro magneticism and gravity in one equation there has to be a particle or a 'string' which is devoted to causing gravity to happen, called a graviton.<br /><br />Now...i see where theyre coming from, because the string theorists predict that every possible force has it's own string vibration. But I still think that Einstein was right. <br /><br />Forget the nuclear weak and nuclear strong forces. Insead just look at the quantum universe and tell me how much it really differs from the grand universe. <br /><br />What i propose is that perhaps atoms themselves are the product of collapsing matter - in the same way that stars are formed. Not just simply clumps of quarks and gluons. Perhaps gluons aren't any more than trapped matter. They don't themselves hold the atom together. I propose that general relativity and therefore gravity is what holds them together.<br /><br />To me...the BIG question is still trying to explain electro-magnetism. It just doesn't seem right to me that electro-magnetism affects different dimensions to gravity. <br /><br />The really odd thing about it is why do magnets not only attract but also repel? If they were warping space like gravity does but just on a different dimension then how come they repel each other? I think the answer lies in only 3 dimensions. (plus time)<br /><br />Because in the quantum universe everything is so much smaller and happens so much faster, the stability of matter is considerably greater than bigger objects. I wonder what would happen if you fired two stars at each other which both had the EXACT same mass at very high speeds. Would they combine to form a massive star? Would they collide and explode? Or would they simply bounce off each other in opposite directions? I believe they would bounce off each other. And in the miniature universe, when considering particles s

 

[kmarinas86]

Magnetic fields are dual in the sense they have positive and negative poles. Gravitational fields don't have this property.<br /><br />Gravitational fields may also be dual in the sense they may have positive and negative curvature. Magnetic fields don't have this property.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The really odd thing about it is why do magnets not only attract but also repel?</font><br /><br />It is what we call magnetism. Things have charge, so why does the universe have embedded charges? We don't know. It appears that the sum of electromagnetic forces weakens because of neutralization their charge. One could suppose that the force of gravity weakens, that is, as a 50/50 mixture of positively and negatively curved space-time creating a sum of flat space time with no curvature on average. This is what I propose for uniting the gravitational force with the strong force (in the sense of a fractal universe).<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If they were warping space like gravity does but just on a different dimension then how come they repel each other?</font><br /><br />The forces of Electro/Magnetism do not curve space, they curve Electric fields and Magnetic fields, which are perpendicular to each other and to the direction of propogation (e.g. transverse waves in light). The direction of propogation of light follows the curvature of space-time. Therefore, it follows that the local electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to the gravitational field. They could be called coordinate systems, instead of "fields" (i.e. the electric coordinate system, the magnetic coordinate system, and the gravitational coordinate system)<br /><br />In the same way, Gravity curves space (the gravitational field), but it does not determine Electric fields and Magnetic fields.<br /><br />Electro/Magnetism appears to be the inverse of Gravity/Curvature.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I wonder what would happen if you fired two stars at each other which both ha</font>

 

[tmccort]

<br />There is no evidence for string theory so I wouldn't take it too seriously.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow">There is no evidence for string theory so I wouldn't take it too seriously.</font><br /><br />Same here.

 

[cambridgeboy]

No evidence YET...<br /><br />Hopefully we will be one step closer to gaining some physical evidence for M-Theory when CERN's new atom smasher is complete in the next couple of years.<br /><br />String theory is beautiful. Whether it actually describes our reality is debatable, but either way the mathematics behind it is simply astonishing. <br /><br />There is a general feeling amongst most physicists that it is too beautiful to be completely wrong. But with current technology it is impossible to prove.<br /><br />Only time will tell of course.

 

[yevaud]

Cambridge Massachusetts, or Cambridge, UK? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

Why does life exist smaller than the sun and bigger than an atom? At the scale of lifeforms, measuring anywhere from yards to microns, gravitational field lines and electric field lines are most integrated. Together, they create a complex network of electric field lines and gravitational field lines which is required for the complexity of life to exist.<br /><br />When gravity is dominant, there are planets, moons, and stars, which are not living thing themselves. At this larger scale, the gravitational field lines are simple, and the electric field is neutralized almost entirely. <br /><br />At the level of subatomic particles gravity is insignificant, and therefore the mesh between electromagnetism and gravity is not strong resulting in a very simple order. Therefore, neither are the electrons, protons, nor neutrons biological in nature.<br /><br />Life requires a balance where the fields consisting of electromagnetic forces, emerging as the organisms means of self-mobility and gravitational forces, which keep the organism connected with other lifeforms, are intricately woven and are closest to equal.

 

[cambridgeboy]

UK.

 

[j_rankin]

I'll try to explain why i thought the stars would bounce off each other.<br /><br />If you take a musketball, for instance, and smash it with a hammer, the hammer will most likely bounce off because the hammer is being applied to its whole surface. But if you shrink the hammer down to the size of a pin and hit the mustkball with the same force, you'd have a much more likely chance of splitting the ball in half. <br />When CERN atom-smasher is built, they'll be firing particles at each other that are of the same consistency, and it therefore requires enormously high speeds in order to make them smash into each other without bouncing off. I think the only reason the particles will actually smash is because they must have a slight flaw in their construction, and built up of even smaller particles we are yet to name (as im sure you'd agree). But perhaps when you get small enough, even particles travelliung at the speed of light will be repulsed and bounce off all over the place, which will explain the double-slit experiment. Hrmmmm *scratches head* I need to read more about quantum mechanics i think.

 

[kmarinas86]

Gravity and Electromagnetism are inverses.<br /><br />Electomagnetism : +/- Particle<br />Gravity : +/- Field<br /><br />Electromagentism's duality is noted by opposing/complementary particles concentric on fields. +/- Charge.<br />Gravity's duality may be noted by opposing/complementary fields concentric on particles. +/- Curvature.

 

[bonzelite]

this is a thesis statement for most of modern cosmology today:<br /><br />"... the mathematics behind it is simply astonishing... There is a general feeling amongst most physicists that it is too beautiful to be completely wrong. But with current technology it is impossible to prove."

 

[tmccort]

Sounds like a religious statement doesn't it?

 

[frobozz]

"No evidence YET... "<br /><br />This is true, but String Theory is still not likely to be true. Indeed, it's the only attempt at the theory of everything which even requires many many extra dimensions to explain what's going on - I'd say this makes it less likely to be the true explanation then the others as no one find evidence that these are in any way required. As it doesn't really add a whole lot to pure mathematics section, it's not good mathematics either - it's just a mismash of Topology and Physics and few other abstract subjects to try to explain the universe.<br /><br />Of course, I can't prove string theory is wrong either and if your correct about the experiment, I suppose we'll see in a few years time whose right.

 

[bonzelite]

<br />"Sounds like a religious statement doesn't it?"<br /><br />yes. science is a religion, most definitely. very good observation.

 

[tmccort]

<br />bonzelite, I was talking about string theory and not science in general.<br /><br />Do you have something against science?

 

[bonzelite]

bonzelite, I was talking about string theory and not science in general. <br /><br />Do you have something against science?<br /><br />---oh. i understand now. yes. i think science is elevated to a religion for some people. to the extent that it is no longer helpful. science has it's pantheon of demi-gods as any religion does. and they are worshiped. and the disciples of this science inhibit it's growth potential. <br /><br />but overall, no. i think most scientists truly want to get to the bottom of things. at least they begin thier journey this way. like in any endeavor, you have the ones who retain a sense of wonder and innocence. they remain curious. and you have the others who sell-out and crust over and become like lawyers. <br /><br />i think we're all part of the matrix to some extent.

 

[tmccort]

<font color="yellow">science has it's pantheon of demi-gods as any religion does</font><br /><br />Oh, such as? Scientific ideas are very open to change based on new information.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">i think we're all part of the matrix to some extent.</font><br /><br />I can't deny such an idea, but it's just as likely that the universe was created 5 seconds ago with us and our memories in place. Interesting to think about but when you start to take ideas like that too seriously in the absence of any evidence, your in trouble.<br />

 

[jatslo]

The evidence is mathematical genius, and the <b>hope</b> that something previously undetected will be detected in these larger particle accelerators like CERN. I don't remember what is the holy grail of detection; I know it starts with an "S" like "simpleton" or something that sounds like that. I am curious as to why someone would make a comment related to String Theorists dream, because it is real, and maybe not understood yet. I would expect particle physics or astrophysics to solve for gravity, which I think is simply (low and high-pressure), and it may very well be held together by a harmonic string of sorts.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There is no evidence for string theory so I wouldn't take it too seriously.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>If I could go really fast, the particle would grow larger before my eyes, and then I could take a really good look at the particles characteristics and compare these observations with what I already know about the universe. We may find that a particular particle is a miniature Star in a infinite universe where velocity defines size.

 

[tmccort]

<font color="yellow">The evidence is mathematical genius, and the hope that something previously undetected will be detected in these larger particle accelerators like CERN</font><br /><br />Hah, that's not evidence, sorry.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">If I could go really fast, the particle would grow larger before my eyes, and then I could take a really good look at the particles characteristics and compare these observations with what I already know about the universe. We may find that a particular particle is a miniature Star in a infinite universe where velocity defines size.</font><br /><br />Such ignorance...

 

[jatslo]

<font color="yellow">Hah, that's not evidence, sorry.</font>Since when is math not evidence? Hope is far more motivating than you are, and that is the truth. I would hope that CERN will detect gravity waves/particles that would forever prove that gravity is, in fact, pressure. <font color="yellow">Such ignorance...</font>Clearly you do not know what ignorance is: You name one fact, FACT that I ignored. I'm am waiting... (taps finger on table).

 

[bonzelite]

math is not evidence. math is made up. you can invent any equation you want and get whatever you want. look at string theory. or any of it. signularities --it is the math person's version of a book or novel or story, an approximation of reality, or what could possibly be a reality. yet it is all an abstraction. some of it is spot-on. a lot of it is pure fantasy. <br /><br />math is one of the demi-gods in the pantheon of the religion of science. it is a sacred cow. and it has come to replace sensibility in large part. <br /><br />is it all this way? no. is math useless? no.

 

[jatslo]

The math in this regard is brilliant, and the anomalies are nominal; this math is based on real facts or much of it is fact. That of course does not mean that is it totally correct by any means, but it is evidence nevertheless. If I were arguing this theory, I would most definitely present the math as evidence to support my case.<br /><br />Math is evidence: Maybe circumstantial evidence. I never said it proved the theory, because if math alone could do that, then it would not be a theory, now would it?<br /><br />Math is evidence. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

in that regard, yes, you are correct. <br /><br />math ceases to be evidence when it ventures into the purely theoretical. this is why i have a problem with black holes because they predicate the existence of a mathematically derived singularity conclusion. i will grant that it is theoretical evidence. moreover, you can hang your hat on entire systems and models based upon theoretical evidence that is built upon "circumstantial" probabilities that might actually be true. and it will make perfect sense, and entire legions of followers will "kneal before zod." and this leads to the taking for granted that everything is a "fact." when it really is not --facts can change as more circumstantial evidence is allowed into the court. <br /><br />i like your thinking, by the way, jatslo. <br /><br />

 

[j_rankin]

In the case of maths in science, theories are created due to the maths. If two sides of an equation don't add up, then the physicists/theorists are forced to think up something new so that the maths has no anomalies. This is especially the case with string theory, and that is why string theory predicts gravitons and multiple dimensions. String theory could not work without the extra dimensions which make the math work, but that doesn't mean they exist. The rpoblem with string theory, and why it is not and never will be regarded as true physics, is because there is no way of testing to see if the math is correct. There are no experiments that will prove or disprove the math.<br /><br />This in no way means that the math is evidence. For example...until Ed Witten came up with 'M theory', we had 5 different versions of string theory whose math ALL worked and no-one knew which one was right.<br />

 

[jatslo]

I thought these larger particle accelerators might give up some clues in string theory regard; however, I cannot remember what exactly it was that we were looking for. I am very anxious to find out the truth behind gravity, because I am confident that gravity is, in fact, pressure. I want to see the pressure waves pulsating through the cosmos.