How does gravity move stuff?!?!?!

[grooble]

I don't get it, how can the moon be pulled toward the earth when the space between earth and moon is empty?

 

[Leovinus]

While you're at it, why not question electrical and magnetic attraction? These too are examples of "force at a distance." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grooble]

I understand centripedal force if you spin a ball on a peice of string, but theres no string connecting the earth and moon.

 

[Leovinus]

And there's no string connecting opposite poles of two magnets, yet they attract too. You have to accept the reality of force at a distance. Not everything that exists in nature can be seen or touched, yet the effects are readily apparent.<br /><br />It is simply the process of matter that any two objects with non-zero mass will attract each other. If it weren't for that, there would be no planet Earth for us to stand on, no Sun to light our skies and bring us warmth. If there are alternate universes out there with different laws of physics where matter does not attract other matter, there probably isn't life as we know it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5stone10]

Pulling isn't really the right adjective IMO.

 

[jcdenton]

Gravity needs no medium to act as a force of attraction.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

grooble<br />First of all a warning: My following claim is not mainstream science; it is my own hypothesis.<br /><br />The dimpled sheet anology of gravity is a bit unsatisfying. If you say that gravity is the dimple, then you are left without a reason for the ball to roll down the dimple. You cannot claim it is gravity because you have already used that to create the dimple.<br /><br />My understanding is that mass has a property of destroying the space around it. The more mass you have, the greater the destrution of space. More of the the space is destroyed close to the mass than further away from the mass. This means that anything close to a massive object will simply be closer to it in each succeeding second because there is less space separating them. This would also be why the path of light is bent by a massive object even though light itself has no mass. The space that the light travels through disappears, necessarily changing where the light goes.<br /><br />One consequence of this destruction of space explantion is that you need not think of gravity as a force. Nothing is forcing anything to move anywhere. Whatever exists near a massive object moves because the space it is in disappears.

 

[rogers_buck]

For the electo-weak force photons and W or Z bosons carry the attractive force. For the nuclear strong force (color force betwwen quarks) it is gluons. For gravity, the boson is the graviton. <br /><br />It is postulated that space is filled with something called the Higgs field. The Higgs field is thought to give particles mass. Photons and gravitons do not (weakly) interact with the Higgs fields but W and Z bosons interact strongly. I don't know about gluons since they have so many other weird auto-interactions.<br /><br />The explanation for what mass and the Higgs field might be has resulted in speculation for at least one other boson, the Higgs boson. The interaction of Higgs bosons with particles is what results in the distortion of space-time, the dimple that Eddie mentioned. A hollywood party is oft used to explain how Higgs gives mass to a particle. The explanation is that a room is filled uniformly with party goers (Higgs field) and a starlet enters one end of the room. The party goers in her vacinity flock to her as she moves through the room. People leave and join the admiring group clustered around her which gives her momentum and therefore mass. It is hard for her to slow down or speed up without fighting the crowd. At the same time a cocktail waiter (photon or graviton) can whisk through the room unimpaired.<br /><br />M-theory describes the various bosons and fermions as vibrating closed loops in each of 10 spatial and one time dimension. M-theory has the promiss of uniting all the forces into a single theory that can be used to describe physical phenomena and make predictions.<br /><br />Now the reason all of this is important is because of the concept of pressure. The dimple effect that is produced from mass can also be produced from pressure. In GR pressure is a source of gravity. It is postulated that back in the early moments of the universe the universe became filled with a negative pressure. The source for this neagative pressure can

 

[meteo]

Space and time are the same thing, it's as simple as that.

 

[igorsboss]

Concerning the cocktail party analogy...<br /><br />You used the concept of pressure to explain the Higgs field and Boson. Ordinary fluid pressure may be explained by saying that pressure arises from many tiny particles colliding with a surface.<br /><br />One of the consequenses of this model of ordinary pressure is the Bernoulli effect... The effect that makes airplane wings work.<br /><br />If the Higgs field is an accurate model, is it reasonable to expect that there would be an analogy to the Bernoulli effect, but taking place in the gravitational field?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The dimpled sheet anology of gravity is a bit unsatisfying. If you say that gravity is the dimple, then you are left without a reason for the ball to roll down the dimple. You cannot claim it is gravity because you have already used that to create the dimple. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I always thought it was merely the limitations of language that produced that problem -- the sheet isn't dimpled downwards, of course, because it is dimpled in a completely different direction than those for which we have names. So the ball isn't rolling down. But we can think of it as if it is.<br /><br />I agree, though, that it is an unsatisfying model for that reason. Sort of like saying that an ion "wants" to gain or lose an electron. It's not conscious, so obviously it doesn't want anything, but that doesn't stop chemists from using the word even in serious scientific literature.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One consequence of this destruction of space explantion is that you need not think of gravity as a force. Nothing is forcing anything to move anywhere. Whatever exists near a massive object moves because the space it is in disappears.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That's an intriguing notion. One thought occurs to me. Your notion goes very well with the idea of the expansion of the universe. If redshift is caused by the expansion of space, which seems to accelerate objects apart from one another without any perceived force to cause this effect, then perhaps gravity is merely the contraction of space caused by the presence of matter.<br /><br />Actually, as I think about it, maybe that's what the dimpled sheet analogy is really getting at, only without the clumsy bit where you have to come up with a reason for objects to tend to roll down the dimples. If the dimples are actually spacetime being pulled together, then objects should be pulled along with it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">"always thought it was merely the limitations of language that produced that problem -- the sheet isn't dimpled downwards, of course, because it is dimpled in a completely different direction than those for which we have names. So the ball isn't rolling down. But we can think of it as if it is. </font><br /><br />Would it be more correct to say that an object warps the space around it in every conceivable direction?<br /><br />If you hold an apple, doesn't the apple have it's own gravitational field? Albeit a minutely small one.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Pressure was the mechanism for inflation that has been proposed. The Higgs field was frozen when the universe expanded (at the time symetry between the forces was broken). Don't think there is an bernouli analog.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Would it be more correct to say that an object warps the space around it in every conceivable direction?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes! That's what I was getting at, and you've said it much better than I did. That's the trouble with thinking out loud. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Thank you!<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you hold an apple, doesn't the apple have it's own gravitational field? Albeit a minutely small one. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yes, the apple has a gravitational field -- it's just too small to be easily detectable. It has been experimentally proven that even comparatively small objects like apples have gravitational fields. I seem to recall the experiment involved suspending metal balls and carefully isolating them from any vibrations or drafts to see if they would move towards one another. They did. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Maddad]

Calli<br />The expansion of the universe is the second half to gravity. If something can erase space, then something might be able to create it. I've an idea what that mechanism might be, but right now it's just a guess, and even I assign it a low probability of being correct. I see matter-energy as being the flip side of a space-time coin. If you create one, then you also create the other at the same time. If matter-energy is negative space-time, then there would be no conservation violation by destroying matter because space would also disappear; the balance is still even.<br /><br />I've even ran some numbers to equate the two. My units are protons for mass and cubic centimeters for volume. The volume would be that of the visible universe, about 10⁸⁵ cm³ (4/3 x Pi x raius cubed, where the radius is 14 billion light years - 14 x 10⁹ LY = 1.4 x 10²³ kilometers = 1.4 x 10²⁶ meters = 1.4 x 10²⁸ centimeters - cubed to 3 x 10⁸⁴ cm³). The mass of the visible universe is thought to be about 10⁸⁰ to 10⁸¹ protons. This gives you a space equivalent of 10,000 cubic centimeters per proton.<br /><br />If you want to calculate the space represented by a gram of mass instead of an atomic mass unit, then you just multiply 10²³ (approximately Avagadro's Number) by 10,000 to get 10²⁷ cm³. Divide that by a million to give you 10²¹ meters³, and again by a billion to get a trillion (10¹²) cubic kilometers represented by a gram of matter. One gram of matter is associated with a box of space 10,000 kilometers on a side.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">grooble - I don't get it, how can the moon be pulled toward the earth when the space between earth and moon is empty? </font><br /><br /><br />Well. That's the $20,000.00 question isn't it? As a matter of fact, people are still trying to figure out what the mechanism actually is. We like to call the expression of this mechanism in our Universe "gravity."<br /><br />Gravity is, somehow, intimately connected with mass. As has been mentioned earlier, there is an idea that there could be a "messenger" particle that has been labeled the "Higgs" boson. To mark its importance and scientific significance, if it actually exists that is, it has also been dubbed the "God" particle. ...More on that in a moment.<br /><br />Gravity is an expression of mass on the <i>fabric</i> of "space-time." Let's take a look at this <i>fabric</i> for a moment. The fabric of space-time is that which allows our Universe to exist. It has the property of enabling the expression of three geometric dimensions (space) and one dimension of time (time). Hence, space-time. We live in a 4 dimensional fabric of space-time. It is the canvas on which the portrait of the Universe is painted.<br /><br />When expressing how objects react with each other in this 4-D fabric, Newton and a host of others expressed an interest in the "force" of gravity. Gravity, it seemed, caused every object to fall towards every other object according to Newton. The Earth "fell" around the Sun, the "Moon" fell around the Earth. Etc etc. Other forces, such as centrifugal (from Newton's Laws of Motion #1.), centripetal force (helps form the orbit when acting with centrifugal force), inertia. velocity and the like, kept objects from eventually all falling together in a big heap. With Newton's "Laws of Motion", "Universal Gravitation" and a bunch of equations, we are able to navigate to the stars fairly accurately. In fact, theoretically, we could take a small rock and given enough force and i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

It is worth noting that currently electro-weak theory unites the photon and the W and Z bosons. By uniting it is meant that the physics of these field particles can be described by the same theory assuming some initial conditions. The photon is massless, and the W and Z bosons are fat (90 proton mass) particles, and yet they can be interchanged at high enough energys. The Higgs field that causes the mass effect can be coerced to allow these particles to interchange (same force).<br /><br />To unify the nuclear strong force and gravitons (and possibly even the Higgs boson), M-Theory is the current favorite. If efforts succeed, this will result in a "theory of everything" that will allow all the forces to be characterized by the same mathematical treatment.<br /><br />Since the universe is supposed to at one point in its early history existed with all the forces in a state of symetry the new theory of everything will allow the calculations to be made pre-inflation. In other words, we will be able to speculate in an informed manner on conditions prior to the formation of our universe and carry through the verification of the predictions made with observational astronomy.<br /><br />What is most interesting in all of this to me is the ramifications of quantum mechanics applied to the conditions pre-inflationary universe. The implications of this can be pretty astounding and profound if one considers the early univese as a given quantum state and the end of the universe as another quantum state. It might just be that reality as we know it, free will itself, and the entropy field that defines are reality are simply a product of the sum over histories between these two quantum states. This is probably a topic for another thread, I mention it because our notion of the fourth dimension, time, is entangled with a lot of baggage that sets it apart from time in physical equations. As creatures of this mangled time, some times it is a bit daunting to seperate the two.<br /><</safety_wrapper>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Wow buck, supersymmetry, free-will, the unification under the electro-weak force and entropy... all rolled into one post. Covered quite a few bases there! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">rogers_buck-Since the universe is supposed to at one point in its early history existed with all the forces in a state of symetry the new theory of everything will allow the calculations to be made pre-inflation. In other words, we will be able to speculate in an informed manner on conditions prior to the formation of our universe and carry through the verification of the predictions made with observational astronomy. </font><br /><br />So will a new TOE explore beyond the supersymmetry point? If so, what would have happened that disrupted the symmetry and affected the change of state prior to the "Big Bang" (or which ever theory is held in esteem at the moment.) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'm still waiting on the first series of tests from the LHC. So, do you think they'll jump in with both feat and start searching for the HB right off the bat? Or, do you think they'll take "baby steps" first?<br /><br />A new thread on covering the subject of your post would be interesting. I confess, I probably should have a few more cups of coffee before reading/responding. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

There are quite a few dogs in the fight for breaking symmetry. Coleman-Weinberg, Higgs mechanism, Techni-color, dynamical symmetry breaking, radiative symmetry breaking, Some of these are different names for the same thing. I have no idea who the top dog is with respect to not running into problems of vaccuum stability (Higgs mass). There are likewise a pretty good zoo of Higgs particles theorized with different arrangements of quarks. <br /><br />The SM Higgs weights in at 115 GeV, here's a slide show where the M**2 of the Higgs SU(2) is calculated for the radiative sym. breaking case.<br /><br />http://www.ichep02.nl/Transparencies/COMP/COMP-1/comp-1-6.csikor.pdf<br /><br />Here are some links where possible Higgs detections have been logged:<br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/04/9/2<br />http://lephiggs.web.cern.ch/LEPHIGGS/talks/tully_talk.pdf<br /><br />I think these have all fallen short of the 5 sigma detection standard to date. More energy would no doubt be a tonic and I would be surprized if every high energy run will not be searched for any signs. I don't know anything about how these particle searches are made though, so I can't speak to whether they would actually declare a particular run for a particular detection target in advance.<br /><br />Someone on another board posted an interesting comment.<br /><br />...Hawking wrote a paper that claimed that *elementary* scalar particles (i.e., non...-composite scalars) could never be observed (or at least, could never appear as asymptotic plane-wave states in a quantized spacetime),<br />because interactions with gravitational instantons would turn them into Planck-mass tachyons.<br /><br />The gist of the argument was that an elementary scalar particle coul ``fee

 

[tom_hobbes]

Is it possible, in trying to understand your theory that space isn't erased but somehow ‘compressed' in the presence of mass. I’m trying to imagine space as the volume between fibres in a mesh net. When you place a mass into the net it gets pulled out of it’s ‘relaxed' shape, the fibres are tautened and the volume between the fibres, ‘space’ is contracted. But what the hell would the fibres be? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Something like that.<br /><br />Perhaps space just gets lonely and being attracted to mass likes to squash up close when it's nearby...<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#339966"> I wish I could remember<br /> But my selective memory<br /> Won't let me</font><font size="2" color="#99cc00"> </font><font size="3" color="#339966"><font size="2">- </font></font><font size="1" color="#339966">Mark Oliver Everett</font></p><p> </p> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Mass is simply compacted space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Great stuff rogers_buck!<br /><br />I'm thinking that seperate thread may be warranted btw. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Hawking wrote a paper that claimed that *elementary* scalar particles</font><br /><br />Wasn't something like that posted on the board before the Great Crash? I think it had to do with a thread that drifted into discussing the progress on the LHC or some such. In any event, I remember some talk about it.<br /><br />Trying to get out of the office atm and get home. Will check those links in more detail later. I wonder who will win in inducing the early phase change from supersymmetry to... BANG! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

OK, I had my coffee today.<br /><br />I remember the article that you posted. In fact, if I am not mistaken, I've read it before and commented on it somewhere before the Great Crash.<br /><br />This was at a point in which the search was turned over to Fermilab while the LHC was being constructed. Shame they had to shut down the LEP. However, there is doubt that it had the capabilities to detect the HB. Here is a recent article that reignited the search for HB and, I believe, showed that the only possible way we have of detetecting it will be by using the LHC.<br /><br />Key sub-atomic particle slips away again -Newscientist<br /><br />And this is a very interesting article describing new detection techniques. Maybe these new techniques will act as a "force multiplier" if the LHC needs a little more "umph" to hit the Higgs.<br /><br />Top quark measurements give 'God particle' new lease on life -Eurekalert<br /><br />I remember when they shut down the LEP just as they were "on the verge" heh heh. Even though they probably couldn't have been on the cusp of proving the Higgs, it was still something that <i>torqued</i> me off more than a little bit. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Why? Cause, I want an autographed Higgs Boson poster.. just like everyone else does. Right? Doesn't everybody?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Interesting articles. Funny how a new analysis technique can breath new life into old data. It will be nice if the SM Higgs is finally a confirmed kill. The universe will at last have a suspect for the most obvious of all physical phenomemena. Nailing down the mass of the Higgs should also be good for narrowing the field with respect to symmetry breaking events. That, in turn, should then invite more work that should help validate unification theory predictions.<br /><br />I dread that new thread. The white rabbit will be in need of a watch...<br />

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">rogers_buck - I dread that new thread. The white rabbit will be in need of a watch... </font><br /><br />The rabbit could ask Schroedinger's Cat or Maxwell's Demon to help with it. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>