Why does classical physics gravity formulas/measurements do not work at a quantum level, what’s missing?

[jhixon]

So when we think about the laws of motion and the effects of gravity and it’s new counterpart “reverse gravity”, we know that the type of mass (positive or negative) directly affects the direction of gravities force. Positive mass creates “normal” gravity and pushes the object in the same direction of force (Newton’s Laws), while negative mass causes the reverse effects. While the mass determines the direction of gravities force, what would cause the strength of gravity?

Laws of gravitation say that object 1’s force affecting object 2 from center to center. While the measurement of strength could be determined based on distance between the two objects, it’s not the distance or the mass that determines the amount of gravities strength. Which is why these formulas/methods fail at the quantum level because gravity is weak and does NOT work this way. We think it works this way because we think in terms of matter and not what we can’t see. We must be missing something, but what? The question of why Newtonian Mechanics does not work at small scales and why we need to use quantum mechanics is not straightforward to answer.

Let me answer this for you simply.

We have to start at the simplest concept. Ask ourselves what causes gravity? Einstein showed us that what causes gravity is the displacement of space, not anything to do with matter per se. We may have visually thought in our mind that the object/matter was the cause of displacement, but it’s not which is why none of the formulas work, so it must be wrong. So what is it exactly other than mass or matter that could be displacing space causing gravity to occur? What does space contain? Since everything in our entire universe is energy, matter is energy, phono/ sonic sound is energy, photon/light is energy, electrical energy, kinetic energy, nuclear energy, ionization energy, mechanical energy (possibly), thermal energy, and chemical energy. In our universe we see roughly 20% of matter which is only a small part of the list we just reviewed. So what is the remaining part that’s not physical matter in our universe from this list that could also displace space? Electrical energy, photon/light is energy, kinetic energy, nuclear energy, ionization energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, sonic energy are what is remaining. These are all energies, so it’s the amount of energy in the object that is displacing space that determines the strength of gravity and nothing to do with mass or matter which is why Newtonian Mechanics don't work for atoms and it turns out that quantum mechanics makes a good job of predicting energies. The key word is energies.

The more energy an object has, the stronger the gravity is regardless of which direction the force is applied in normal or reverse. One could also determine that the gravitational constant is based on amount of energy of the object and is proportional. When we look at a quark and the force of gravity holding it together is very weak, so at the quantum level gravity is very weak because it’s a small amount (size/quantity) of energy, and energy is proportional to gravities strength. When a force applied is stronger than gravities strength, the bond breaks or gravity fails to hold it together. This would fundamentally work at the quantum scale and classical physics at the same time. Has anyone considered that energies may be the key to making both classical physics and quantum physics work together in determining gravities strength and functional formulas that work at large scale and the quantum scale at the same time? Has this been worked as gravity formulas based on energy and not based on mass? Since Newton Laws clearly don’t work at all outside of large bodies and even then, it’s approximately close but not exact?

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results”.

 

[promytius]

You're too young to remember when cars were started with a crank; you had to crank it, over and over, in order to start it, so you did the same thing over and over until it worked....just sayin'

 

[jhixon]

You're too young to remember when cars were started with a crank; you had to crank it, over and over, in order to start it, so you did the same thing over and over until it worked....just sayin'

And we wonder why we haven't advanced in classical physics in 100 years and actually came up with formulas that work in all areas of physics.

 

[ChrisA]

My opinion is that classical physics is just a shortcut. It is the result of summing trillions of quantum effects.

Other examples of this are

(1) the illusion of solid surfaces. We all know that a brick wall is a mostly empty space. But at the macro level, it seems solid. Why. It is the effect of trillions of negatively charged electrons in the wall interacting with trillions of trillions of electrons in your hand and the electric fields repel each other. The wall seems solid. But solidity disappears at the quantum scale. Solidity is "emergent".

(2) General relativity is likely also an emergent effect, like solidity. But we just don't know what it emerges from. Likely even our now-standed quantum mechanics is also emergent from something else.

(3) If you want the ultimate emergent shortcut look at chemistry. It is a quick way to predict how matter reacts with matter. we all know things like "valence" are fake but it makes it easy to predict what will happen.

The problem is that it appears physically impossible to even know what is at the bottom layer. It is likely unobservable. (Yes, I'd like to be wrong.)

Now my point: The existence of solid surfaces is not "wrong". At our level, they exist. General Relativity seems to be real too. Even if both are only illusions that emerge from some underlying physics, they are still real in that they offer observable, testable, and predictive science.

My opinion: If GR is not "real", then neither are solid surfaces. It is OK to reject both but not one. Either both are real or both are "useful fictions".

 

[jhixon]

Love your analogy, however any real theory must work in all instances in space and time, that’s just our universe

 

[CryptoCraig]

Understanding Classical Physics at Micro and Macro Scales

The definition of a gravitational singularity is "a point in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself becomes ill-defined."

Singularities exist at the largest of scales, black holes at the center of galaxies, and I'd like to hypothesize, singularities exist at much smaller scales, particles within atoms.

Spacetime warps due to gravity, until gravity reaches a certain strength. Once a mass, or masses, become so great, a singularity is created, AKA a black hole. Black holes do much more than 'warp' spacetime, they completely rip spacetime apart. Once matter passes the event horizon, that matter will not exit the singularity.

A hypothesis of mine, gives subatomic particles similar properties to that of black holes. Particles are singularities and thus, have an event horizon. This is why particles are held together, defying classical physics. Time-dialation effects at the event horizons of particles could also account for objects, like a brick wall, to seem solid to an observer, when in reality, we know it's mostly empty space.

Now, why is the Universe's expansion defying gravity by its expansion accelerating? It is either because of what happens to matter as it enters black holes or we are in a black hole.

Can we remove dark matter and dark energy?

 

[jhixon]

Understanding Classical Physics at Micro and Macro Scales

The definition of a gravitational singularity is "a point in which gravity is so intense that spacetime itself becomes ill-defined."

Singularities exist at the largest of scales, black holes at the center of galaxies, and I'd like to hypothesize, singularities exist at much smaller scales, particles within atoms.

Spacetime warps due to gravity, until gravity reaches a certain strength. Once a mass, or masses, become so great, a singularity is created, AKA a black hole. Black holes do much more than 'warp' spacetime, they completely rip spacetime apart. Once matter passes the event horizon, that matter will not exit the singularity.

A hypothesis of mine, gives subatomic particles similar properties to that of black holes. Particles are singularities and thus, have an event horizon. This is why particles are held together, defying classical physics. Time-dialation effects at the event horizons of particles could also account for objects, like a brick wall, to seem solid to an observer, when in reality, we know it's mostly empty space.

Now, why is the Universe's expansion defying gravity by its expansion accelerating? It is either because of what happens to matter as it enters black holes or we are in a black hole.

Can we remove dark matter and dark energy?

So if black holes break apart matter, the reverse of what "normal" gravity does, something has to create this reverse effect. People say dark matter/dark energy but these have no value, no measurements, no explanation and is only a naming word to explain the unknown that does not explain anything other than the observation of reverse gravity. We have observed negative mass perform this reverse gravity and yet everyone is quick to dismiss it, why?

 

[CryptoCraig]

So if black holes break apart matter, the reverse of what "normal" gravity does, something has to create this reverse effect. People say dark matter/dark energy but these have no value, no measurements, no explanation and is only a naming word to explain the unknown that does not explain anything other than the observation of reverse gravity. We have observed negative mass perform this reverse gravity and yet everyone is quick to dismiss it, why?

The hypothesis doesn't dismiss the 2 forces, currently known as dark matter and dark energy. The whole reason behind the hypothesis is to explain these two forces using the unknowns of black holes, event horizons and singularities.

A more in-depth explanation of the hypothesis:

We can only guess at what happens at the event horizon and within a black hole. This is where dark energy (negative gravity) and dark matter come from.

Black hole singularities produce anomaly's. These anomaly's change the behavior of gravity as well as space time. As black holes "feed" on matter that make up it's parent galaxy, that matter will no longer experience gravitational force but will be bound to that black hole. The stars and planets that are bound to a black hole will orbit the black hole until it's inevitable demise.

Once a mass enters a black hole, by crossing it's event horizon, that mass no longer experiences forces outside of that black hole's event horizon. The galaxy, outside of the event horizon, no longer experiences any of the forces that are within the event horizon.

Can this theory be proven with current technology? It's possible.

Using the equation:
F=ma, we want to solve for mass, so...

m=F/a

Force, will remain constant, which is not what current theories suggest, because of the acceleration of expansion.

Mass, can possibly be calculated by using current technologies which can determine a star system's size and mass. Using JWST, point it at the center of the Milky Way and capture star systems entering a black hole.

As the mass of each galaxy decreases, and assuming the force at which is acting on those galaxies remains the same (no dark energy) then acceleration should take place.

 

[Gibsense]

We can only guess at what happens at the event horizon and within a black hole. This is where dark energy (negative gravity) and dark matter come from.

Do you mean guess what happens after crossing the event horizon? We have a good idea of what happens before that.
Why do you say Dark Energy and Dark Matter come from a black hole?

The Event Horizon is not a barrier for entry (except spin and space dragging complicates the issue). Light for example in a galactic black hole can enter fairly normally; looking back you would still see stuff - distorted. Except of course if the conjecture that time points directly to the BH centre is true. In that case, you would be in the future of anything following but it may be more complex than that, I think

 

[CryptoCraig]

Do you mean guess what happens after crossing the event horizon? We have a good idea of what happens before that.
Why do you say Dark Energy and Dark Matter come from a black hole?

The Event Horizon is not a barrier for entry (except spin and space dragging complicates the issue). Light for example in a galactic black hole can enter fairly normally; looking back you would still see stuff - distorted. Except of course if the conjecture that time points directly to the BH centre is true. In that case, you would be in the future of anything following but it may be more complex than that, I think

If dark energy is used by astrophysicists to explain the universe's accelerated expansion, then I propose that mass within black holes not be calculated when calculating the mass of a galaxy. If only the mass of everything outside of the event horizon of a black hole was used in calculating the total mass of a galaxy, then galaxies would continuously lose mass. If the force pushing, or pulling, galaxies remains the same, then using F=ma you would come to the conclusion that the universe's rate of expansion is accelerating due to each galaxy losing mass to black holes.

 

[Fest3er]

So when we think about the laws of motion and the effects of gravity and it’s new counterpart “reverse gravity”, we know that the type of mass (positive or negative) directly affects the direction of gravities force. Positive mass creates “normal” gravity and pushes the object in the same direction of force (Newton’s Laws), while negative mass causes the reverse effects. While the mass determines the direction of gravities force, what would cause the strength of gravity?

Laws of gravitation say that object 1’s force affecting object 2 from center to center. While the measurement of strength could be determined based on distance between the two objects, it’s not the distance or the mass that determines the amount of gravities strength. Which is why these formulas/methods fail at the quantum level because gravity is weak and does NOT work this way. We think it works this way because we think in terms of matter and not what we can’t see. We must be missing something, but what? The question of why Newtonian Mechanics does not work at small scales and why we need to use quantum mechanics is not straightforward to answer.

Let me answer this for you simply.

We have to start at the simplest concept. Ask ourselves what causes gravity? Einstein showed us that what causes gravity is the displacement of space, not anything to do with matter per se. We may have visually thought in our mind that the object/matter was the cause of displacement, but it’s not which is why none of the formulas work, so it must be wrong. So what is it exactly other than mass or matter that could be displacing space causing gravity to occur? What does space contain? Since everything in our entire universe is energy, matter is energy, phono/ sonic sound is energy, photon/light is energy, electrical energy, kinetic energy, nuclear energy, ionization energy, mechanical energy (possibly), thermal energy, and chemical energy. In our universe we see roughly 20% of matter which is only a small part of the list we just reviewed. So what is the remaining part that’s not physical matter in our universe from this list that could also displace space? Electrical energy, photon/light is energy, kinetic energy, nuclear energy, ionization energy, thermal energy, chemical energy, sonic energy are what is remaining. These are all energies, so it’s the amount of energy in the object that is displacing space that determines the strength of gravity and nothing to do with mass or matter which is why Newtonian Mechanics don't work for atoms and it turns out that quantum mechanics makes a good job of predicting energies. The key word is energies.

The more energy an object has, the stronger the gravity is regardless of which direction the force is applied in normal or reverse. One could also determine that the gravitational constant is based on amount of energy of the object and is proportional. When we look at a quark and the force of gravity holding it together is very weak, so at the quantum level gravity is very weak because it’s a small amount (size/quantity) of energy, and energy is proportional to gravities strength. When a force applied is stronger than gravities strength, the bond breaks or gravity fails to hold it together. This would fundamentally work at the quantum scale and classical physics at the same time. Has anyone considered that energies may be the key to making both classical physics and quantum physics work together in determining gravities strength and functional formulas that work at large scale and the quantum scale at the same time? Has this been worked as gravity formulas based on energy and not based on mass? Since Newton Laws clearly don’t work at all outside of large bodies and even then, it’s approximately close but not exact?

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results”.

Could one create a strong, massless energy field (perhaps magnetic) and measure it’s gravity?

 

[billslugg]

A magnetic field occurs only when a charge is moving relative to an observer. The observer feels the static charge force which is a simple inverse square relationship. The observer also sees the effect of Lorentz contraction due to the relative velocity. For example, two parallel wires with opposite currents will repel each other. This is because an observer moving with the electrons in one wire sees the opposing electron approaching it, shortened by Lorentz contraction, thus posing a larger number of charges than it would otherwise see, thus repelling it. All magnetic phenomena can similarly be explained.
Given that a magnetic field is simply charge force, and that charge is one of the sources of energy that Einstein includes in his field equations, then, yes, a strong magnetic field would have gravity.

 

[Fest3er]

A magnetic field occurs only when a charge is moving relative to an observer. The observer feels the static charge force which is a simple inverse square relationship. The observer also sees the effect of Lorentz contraction due to the relative velocity. For example, two parallel wires with opposite currents will repel each other. This is because an observer moving with the electrons in one wire sees the opposing electron approaching it, shortened by Lorentz contraction, thus posing a larger number of charges than it would otherwise see, thus repelling it. All magnetic phenomena can similarly be explained.
Given that a magnetic field is simply charge force, and that charge is one of the sources of energy that Einstein includes in his field equations, then, yes, a strong magnetic field would have gravity.

But could you measure the gravitational force produced by the magnetic field?

 

[billslugg]

No, there is no way we could measure the gravity due to a magnetic field here on Earth anyway. We can make about 10 Teslas, but any attempt to measure the gravity of such a field would be vastly overwhelmed by the environment. Noise, EM waves, vibration, thermal changes all would prevent such delicate measurements.
There are magnetars with a vastly more powerful field, like a trillion times stronger. However, their gravitational field due to the mass would overwhelm any gravitational field due to the magnetic field.

Einstein said any thing with energy has mass. This includes all the fields.

 

[Gibsense]

If dark energy is used by astrophysicists to explain the universe's accelerated expansion, then I propose that mass within black holes not be calculated when calculating the mass of a galaxy

It seems quite odd to suggest that the very thing creating overwhelming gravity in a galaxy be ignored. To me, that seems irrational.
"Dark Energy" is a name for something that may not exist. Accelerated expansion itself may be a misleading description. Naming some unknown cause gives some confidence in communication, but not much else, IMO.