Gravity: We Might Have Been Getting It Wrong This Whole Time (phys.org) 152
Motoko Kakubayashi, from the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, writes via Phys.org: Physicists have been looking for laws that explain both the microscopic world of elementary particles and the macroscopic world of the universe and the Big Bang at its beginning, expecting that such fundamental laws should have symmetry in all circumstances. However, last year, two physicists found a theoretical proof that, at the most fundamental level, nature does not respect symmetry. There are four fundamental forces in the physical world: electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, and gravity. Gravity is the only force still unexplainable at the quantum level. Its effects on big objects, such as planets or stars, are relatively easy to see, but things get complicated when one tries to understand gravity in the small world of elementary particles.
To try to understand gravity on the quantum level, Hirosi Ooguri, the director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo, and Daniel Harlow, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, started with the holographic principle. This principle explains three-dimensional phenomena influenced by gravity on a two-dimensional flat space that is not influenced by gravity. This is not a real representation of our universe, but it is close enough to help researchers study its basic aspects. The pair then showed how quantum error correcting codes, which explain how three-dimensional gravitational phenomena pop out from two dimensions, like holograms, are not compatible with any symmetry; meaning such symmetry cannot be possible in quantum gravity.
To try to understand gravity on the quantum level, Hirosi Ooguri, the director of the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Tokyo, and Daniel Harlow, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, started with the holographic principle. This principle explains three-dimensional phenomena influenced by gravity on a two-dimensional flat space that is not influenced by gravity. This is not a real representation of our universe, but it is close enough to help researchers study its basic aspects. The pair then showed how quantum error correcting codes, which explain how three-dimensional gravitational phenomena pop out from two dimensions, like holograms, are not compatible with any symmetry; meaning such symmetry cannot be possible in quantum gravity.
Einstein (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm pretty sure that when Einstein got out of his time machine from the future and told us that gravity is the curvature of time and space, that he wasn't wrong. He didn't even realize what it meant himself, he must have just read that in future Wikipedia and forgot to bring along the details.
Re: Einstein (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure...
Alrighty then.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure that when Einstein got out of his time machine from the future and told us that gravity is the curvature of time and space, that he wasn't wrong.
See? That's the thing. Gravity is NOT a fundamental force, it is the result of the bending of spacetime, it does not bend spacetime. What bends spacetime? Mass/Energy. Well, mass doesn't actually bend spacetime, spacetime is a field generated by massenergy.
There is spacetime, electromagentism, and massenergy. Everything that physically exists comes from the interactions of those three 2axis "things".
Gravity is not a fundamental force. It is the result of massenergy dictating to spacetime what it should look
Re: (Score:3)
Euphemism? I don't think the Ashkenazi [wikipedia.org] need a euphemism, but they sure know a thing or two about what real racism is, as opposed to political incorrectness.
OP seems to have omitted the link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OP seems to have omitted the link (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
But then, I'm weird - I often read things before I click buttons. Sick, I know, but don't worry - it's not a transmissible disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Never noticed that link ...
sucks (Score:2)
Gravity is a lie,
the earth sucks
Re: (Score:2)
The sun doesn't emit light, it sucks dark. That's also what keeps us in orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
The earth displaces quantum space, as we do and hence we attract each other as we displace quantum space, the greater the density of the quantum particles we are made of, the greater the displacement of quantum space and the greater the attraction to other mass expressing particles. Probably a specific range of quantum particles, gravitons and the greater the mass expression high density quantum particle normal space constructs (us) the further and more strongly it propagates out into the graviton field, we
Meh (Score:5, Insightful)
If unproven theory X is true and unproven implication y us true, then we can conclude z.
Ok. That's valuable in understanding the consequences of ideas and how you can test theories by implication.
It is not a proof of anything.
We have no evidence for any of the components of the model, all we have now is a means to test those models (asymmetry) when the models cannot be examined directly.
Nothing more.
+1 Re:Meh (Score:3)
Thanks for saying it. This kind of flawed logic seems to be gaining respectability somehow and it scares the hell out of me.
Re: +1 Re:Meh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, questioning science is the very point of good science. Unquestioned science is not science. It is religion and faith, by definition. Scientists question.
There's questioning, which often involves experiments, measurements and such and there's denial-ism, which often masquerades as questioning but is based on belief.
Consider a couple of theories that have/had scientific consensus.
The germ theory of disease in which the first evidence was statistical, some people denied it because it meant expense in redesigning water and sewer systems or the hassle of washing hands. Others questioned and came up with experiments to prove or disprove it. As experimentation poi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, anything not testable would be denied if people with letters next to their names were all quite as sciencey as they proclaim themselves to be.
Like the Big Bang Hypothesis; if you have complete Faith in this hypothesis, it wouldn't change that it is untestable, so if you were using the scientific method you'd have to note that there is no experimental result being explained, it is just a belief based on observation, and so it wouldn't rise to the level of being a Theory. That's if you had complete Faith
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes all you can do is make predictions. We can't create a universe via a big bang but the theory can make predictions. The first was that the evidence in the form of the cosmic microwave background would exist, 16 years later it was found. There's other predictions that have roughly worked, the ratio of H to HE to LI where the H to HE is close to predictions but the LI seems to be double the prediction. Now that can mean the whole hypothesis is wrong or it needs to evolve. Currently it is the best we
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't test it, it isn't a scientific theory.
If it isn't testable, it isn't even scientific to talk about it.
Lack of falsifiability does not change the standard of evidence, it simply excludes the subject from consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
Prediction is a type of test.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!
No.
And that is a ridiculous statement to the point of absurdity. Do better. You could, if you wanted. You're not actually so deeply stupid that you can't see that that is circular.
"I predict that I will predict something, therefore it is true!"
An observation does not become an experiment using a different word.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that we should throw out most science such as gravity that is under discussion as all it can do is things like predict where an object will be in the future and it wasn't science to replace Newton's theory of gravity as it failed to predict Mercury's orbit and relativity should have been dropped because all it did at first was correctly predict Mercury's orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> It is not a proof of anything.
Assuming their work is correct, a subset of current experimental models can be discarded.
Since we won't have enough people working on models until a generation after we get everybody clean water, power, and sanitation, it's still valuable to narrow the problem domain.
The force of gravity grows stronger when (Score:2)
Unproven Hypothesis (Score:4, Informative)
The pair then showed how quantum error correcting codes, which explain how three-dimensional gravitational phenomena pop out from two dimensions, like holograms, are not compatible with any symmetry; meaning such symmetry cannot be possible in quantum gravity.
No, it means that _IF_ their model is correct, symmetry is not part of the fundamental theory of quantum gravity. Currently, there is zero evidence to suggest this idea is correct. Hence, it is entirely possible that quantum gravity does follow symmetries and this theory is just another failed attempt at explaining quantum gravity.
Theoretical physicists are always coming up with new, interesting models to solve problems in physics. However, until it is experimentally verified and shown to be an accurate model of nature you cannot use it to draw any conclusions about nature.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it means that _IF_ their model is correct, symmetry is not part of the fundamental theory of quantum gravity.
Or, more concisely, it means that their model is incompatible with symmetry. :-)
Thanks for making a point too easily lost in our world that is ever more clever than smart.
That's a lot of theoreticals and maybes! (Score:2)
We should not forget, that such mental models, no matter how nice they may be, only ever become science, when they both give testable predictions, and those actually match observed reality!
And mathmatical "proof" is useless, when it is built on axioms that aren't tested in reality. Otherwise it can at most become a religion, and not even a hypothesis.
This here builds on so much stuff that is not yet even on that level of a proper hypothesis with predictions, that it might aswell be a game of Dungeons &
Re: (Score:2)
We should not forget, that such mental models, no matter how nice they may be, only ever become science, when they both give testable predictions, and those actually match observed reality!
And mathmatical "proof" is useless, when it is built on axioms that aren't tested in reality. Otherwise it can at most become a religion, and not even a hypothesis.
This here builds on so much stuff that is not yet even on that level of a proper hypothesis with predictions, that it might aswell be a game of Dungeons & Dragons, with how useless it is for predicting anything in reality.
Like, maybe try to turn that holographic analogy into more than a hack, before building on it. ;)
Otherwise you end up like string "theory".
Preach it. String "theory" is actually string "hypothesis." It was developed as a way to avoid the "infinity problem" where general relativity equations resolve to zero in the denominator for very large values of gravity.
While string does help there, it also calls for at least 11 dimensions and multiple universes.
String predicts nothing and can't be tested. It's not a theory.
However, this new paper is interesting because it provides food for thought. It would be a mistake to dismiss it.
Einstein's epiphanies
Nature does not abide (Score:2)
So basically, nature does not abide our neat and tidy categorization of it. Long-standing issue in epistemology. Don't mistake the map for the territory.
What do you mean might have? (Score:2)
Quantum gravity / supergravity / GUT, etc. has been the holy grail of physics for over a hundred years.
We know a lot about gravity, and the one thing we've been absolutely sure of for a quite a while is that we've been getting it wrong.
I know! (Score:2)
I get gravity wrong every single time when I'm drunk like a skunk.
gut-instinct nap time (Score:2)
Alternate title: Gravity: Have We Been Getting It Wrong This Whole Time?
Hirosi Ooguri: Constraints on Quantum Gravity 1 [youtu.be] — 28 May 2019
See al
Back to the topic: (Score:2)
Gravity may indeed disconnect at the microscopic. A similar thing happened with velocity.
All these millennia, even going back to the days of cave persons throwing spears, we knew precisely how speed works. Then, in 1905 Einstein showed that "excessive" speed introduced weirdness. Novices often ask, "Why the hell didn't we see this coming?" The answer is that we had no way to achieve speeds that are great enough.
So, at traditional velocity, we don't need special relativity to get things done. Plugging values
Great.... (Score:2)
Food for thought... (Score:2)
https://www.khouse.tv/on-deman... [khouse.tv] OR
https://www.youtube.com/playli... [youtube.com]
Don't gimme no grief if you haven't invested at least a couple of hours seeing what he's got to say. Everyone interested in information technology should invest some time in Dr. Missler's observations and insights. JUST CHECK HIM OUT FIRST...!
[Gen 1:1-13 KJV] 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the
Most interesting . . . . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If symmetry is true then if there are Gluons, there have to also be Gluoffs
Re: (Score:2)
And your fixation on homosexuals says exactly what about you? Come out of the closet, let your friends know the truth. If they are your friends, they won't reject you.
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engine (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Five dollars? I have a couple "nice" red lasers, and have had a lot of one dollar red lasers (they've been available for a dollar for TWENTY YEARS now), and the laser diodes themselves are pretty much identical. The overall packaging is stripped for cost, but the fact is that red lasers have been SUPER CHEAP for DECADES now.
Green lasers becoming cheap and ubiquitous is a more recent development. I remember not that long ago when a decent green laser would set you back $200. Then it was $75, then $40... and
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engin (Score:5, Interesting)
It makes my cat happy. What more did you want or expect?
I kind of expected it to make cats insane. Lasers gaslight the cat into thinking it’s tracking an object, but every time it goes to catch it, it misses. The cat soon starts to doubt its own abilities and self doubt creeps in. Anxiety increases as the cat no longer has a grasp of what’s real. Eventually the cat settles into a permanent hyper aware state where it’s only focus is on the thing it can never have. To the untrained eye, this resembles a normal cat so ymmv.
Re: (Score:3)
To the untrained eye, this resembles a normal cat so ymmv.
I think you are not giving enough credit to the average cat's adaptability.
I have four cats, and the female is a play addict. Her self-appointed mission in life is to convert cat foot into high-intensity play time. In some ways she is more like a dog than a cat.
She is also very smart. Sometimes when she is bored she will bring a toy ask ask me to "make it go." She will also jump on the desk and sit there, giving me a pointed look. She knows where my laser pointer is and what it does. She knows t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you have to let the cat "catch" the dot once in a while. Just let it shut off when the paw lands on it, and let the cat declare victory. This doesn't work as well with dogs because they want to actually retrieve the dot, not merely kill it.
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engin (Score:2)
I kind of expected it to make cats insane.
That doesn't sound at all redundant.
Re: (Score:2)
- without understanding of it, GPS would be way off.
I recall an article in Scientific American about a decade back that related the story about the launching of the first GPS satellites in the '60s. They were equipped with a run-time settable option where the correction for relativistic effects would be operating or shut off.
They quickly found out of course that what you wrote is true -- the GPS would be off by about 11 miles a day if you didn't account for the difference of time in different frames of acceleration.
Think about that. The engineers who
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engine (Score:4, Interesting)
Relativity had no practical uses until suddenly it had
Relativity was needed to explain why Maxwell's Equations are correct and to define the precise difference between them and Newton's Laws.
That's why "everybody" was working on it at that time; Einstein didn't come up with any of the ideas, he simply came up with the mathematic formula that showed how to calculate it.
If relativity theory have come earlier, before Maxwell (his synthesis of the work of Ampere and Faraday), then their theories would have been immediately adopted and it would have changed the world. The engineering of electromagnetism was held back by thirty years, because this stuff contradicted Newton and nobody knew how to prove or disprove relativity yet. But the concept already was know, and it was known to have real-world implications.
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engine (Score:2, Funny)
I'm actuall not sure if it's worth my while trying to educate you. But some other poor soul might read along and be grateful, so *sigh*... here we dive.
- solve fusion power generation
Fusion is, like, the fscking DEFINITION of science. Oh, you mean engineer a better tokamak? Why? Do you realize that you can fuse two hydrogen atoms together using something like 15 kV voltage (actually a bit less, being generous here). No? Oh, bummer...
- make space flight cheap, easy and reusable
To fly where? When? Which orbit? And to do there what? Oh, that's math and science?
- make cost to get to orbit dirt cheap
See above. Also: how?
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engin (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: more pseudo-science by people who arent engi (Score:2, Informative)
The energy required to move the charge of a sinle electron aginst a potential of 15kV.
So it's 15 keV, so to speak.
Glad I could help.
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining plasma confinement has been the primary problem from day one, and still is. I'm not surprised to see that's where you're stuck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't need a "plasma confinement" with every design, only with the torus tokamak-like designs. "Confinement" only becomes a problem if you think of fusion as of "biiiilions of Kelvin temperature". Not so much if you realize that "biiilions of Kelvin" is just a few kilo(electron)volts, and you can approach the problem easily from an electrostatic angle using off-the-shelf electrical components.
See also "Fusor" on Wikipedia, for an alternative design. You'll have yourself a device that you can turn on-off
Re: (Score:2)
which is fine, since they didn't mention energy, or power.
much like if i say if you have 5 V you can light up an LED. Yes, it is implied that the 5v has enough push behind it to keep like 10 mA running through the LED
cancers do have common characteristics.
there may be a single cure for all of them.
it's still stupid to say "cure cancer".
Re: (Score:2)
Things were recently redefined, but generally, all the terms related to Ohm's law have been traditionally defined in terms that translate to Joules and meters.
You're basically repeating something vastly incorrect, but that is taught in High School "physics." It is of the same nature as the absurd and stupidly-wrong pithy one-liner starting with "it isn't the voltage that kills you..."
It turns out, Ohm's Law says you can't separate these terms. All the expected implications, like volts and amps both being de
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe use some magical unicorn dust as fuel once the limits of current propelling technology are reached?
I can't resist the urge to promote one of the greatest reads for any space nerd ...
Liquid rocket fuel (which is not the only means of propulsion) is a largely fully-developed engineering discipline, thanks to some bat-s**t crazy folks that are wonderfully described in John D. Clark's epic non-fiction work "Ignition! An Informal History of Liquid Rocket Propellants" that has an almost-as-epic introduction by Isaac Asimov. Look for the PDF.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "cure cancer" is like saying "cure virus"
And what, exactly, is wrong with that? Scientists have been trying to find a universal cure for all viruses for decades. See DRACO for an example.
makes you sound like a mentally retarted 28-year old havin spit around his mounth while rocking back and forth.
Do you know what makes YOU sound "retarted"? First, your inability to spell "retarded". Second, you still using that word in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
- cure cancer
Which one? You sound like a moron when you say that. ... Saying "cure cancer" is like saying "cure virus" - makes you sound like a [hate speech redacted]
Hey there, Derpy Dan, you wouldn't say "cure a virus" because a virus is a causal agent and not a disease or disorder. Saying "cure cancer" is exactly the same as saying "cure the common cold," or "cure viral pneumonia."
Or "cure a broken arm." Did you know that each break is different? Any sameness is invented by the human ability to categorize.
How about, "cure mental deficiency that results in hate speech?" Now there is an impossible one.
Also, I ran your handle function and I got back "born yesterday."
Re:more pseudo-science by people who arent enginee (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a ridiculously shortsighted take which history has proven to be not the way to go at all in the field of science and technological advancement in general.
"Building stuff that works" requires basic research, but which basic research advancements will lead to a breakthrough in engineering and technology is not obvious at all at first.
Sure, one can play the short-term game and only focus on the next quarter, or few years, but real breakthroughs sometimes have decades of foundations in basic research required to ultimately make them happen: if we only focus on the short-term applicable advancements we risk missing putting in place the building blocks for the future big breatkthroughs. These building blocks might have no obvious short-term application now, but might be fundamental requirements for future applications to be realized.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except when you realize how little that actually is.
Let's even assume it goes over budget, because these things generally do. Let's make it a round $10 billion, over ten years -- or $1 billion a year.
Let's spread that 1 billion acrosssolely the EU, US, and Canada. That's 513.5 million, 330 million, and 37.5 million people, or a total of 881 million people. That's $1.135 per capita, and absolutely pissing into the wind compared to military spending ($989 billion for last year for the US alone, not counting o
Re:more pseudo-science by people who arent enginee (Score:4, Insightful)
When Michael Faraday asked the British Government for funds for his research in Electromagnetism, there was the same question: What use is it? And Michael Faraday famously replied: "I don't know of any uses yet, but I know for sure, that you will levy taxes on it one day."
Re: (Score:2)
Neither are the people who want those things built (on someone else's dime).
Re: (Score:3)
Without physicists building accelerators on someone else's dime in the 1950ies and 1960ies, we wouldn't have the succes
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention a number of treatments for cancer that involve particle accelerators.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, scanning cargo containers for nuclear material is done by neutron-producing linear accelerators that run about $500k to $2M each, and a cobalt-60 source that has to be refreshed frequently. (I only know what they cost because I had to handle a cargo claim when one got knocked over.)
Re: (Score:3)
BUT...hardly ever does engineering precede theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, not by very much at least. It's pretty common for a widget to rely on phenomena that are not well understood, like the thermopile, but then they tend to get stuck there precisely because the phenomena are not understood. Best case, wanting to improve the widget leads to studying the phemonemon that drives it.
Re: (Score:2)
Or not thermopile, I brain farted. Aeolipile.
Re:more pseudo-science by people who arent enginee (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the Enlightenment has totally passed you by. The Enlightenment enabled science through the 1500-1800s. Without Newton, there'd have been no Einstein to look at Newton's physics and find it wanting. Would the quantum theorists at the beginning of the 20th century have decided that screw it, we're gonna solve real problems, then there'd be no chance of solving any of the problems you listed. Would the mathematicians who did all the groundwork enabling modern physics have thrown down their formulas and switched to applied mathematics, there'd be no chance of solving the problems you listed. Admittedly, math is not science, but then without it, science is more or less without its major language and tools.
Your attitude can only come from having no exposure to the history of science who only looks at the world and wonders what it can do for you right now.
Re: (Score:2)
*facepalm*
Re: Let me try to understand this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't understand why you got modded down, your comment was spot on. One thing also to remember about the holographic principle, it is a mathematical principle that maps somewhat to the real world, but that does not imply it describes the real world, only one abstract avenue of physics. Let a million theories be generated. We learn by knowing what might work and what conflicts with observation.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't understand why you got modded down, your comment was spot on. One thing also to remember about the holographic principle, it is a mathematical principle that maps somewhat to the real world, but that does not imply it describes the real world, only one abstract avenue of physics. Let a million theories be generated. We learn by knowing what might work and what conflicts with observation.
Agree. Shoulders of giants, kinda.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that a line was two dimensional...
Which is probably what they're feeding us:)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought that a line was two dimensional...
Which is probably what they're feeding us:)
Cute play on words. Unfortunately based on an incorrect "thought".
A line is one-dimensional (having only length). A plane is two dimensional (it has an area), while three dimensional allow for volumes.
Maybe we can make a pun based on plane = airplane (or aeroplane if that is your preference)?
How about:
I thought a plane was two dimensional?
Which is probably why they are going on such a trippy ride?
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct...
That's what I get for posting while waiting for the coffee to brew:)
Now that I'm awake...
I guess you could always ask the folks at Boeing about planes and gravity:)
Re:Let me try to understand this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah... Trust your math, not my experience.
Re: (Score:2)
It was already broadly considered proven in ancient Greece that your experience is entirely constructed within your mind, due to the nature of your senses.
But you weren't entirely wrong; just mostly wrong. Too many words. Trim it down and it becomes true.
Trust ... not
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The reason they used the holographic principle stems from work on black holes. Black holes really behave like a two dimensional object. Throw three dimensional stuff in and the surface area grows linearly, this isn’t at all how it works on every day scales. The surface area relation to mass is close to being observationally verified, it’s why tiny black holes have extreme density and super massive ones at the center of galaxies are less dense than water. Is it a coincidence a singularity the size of the observable universe would be limited to about the density of our universe? It’s suspected that quantum information cannot be destroyed, therefore the size of a singularity is due to a maximum possible information density and that is essentially the surface area in plank areas. This idea, if correct, ultimately means that our perception of three dimensional space is not fundamental. You can’t scale something like a drop of water to any size as it would eventually exceed the maximum density for that volume and create a singularity, it’s more than just stating a critical density to mass relationship of singularities, it attempts to reason out a fundamental reason why this relationship is true. The idea of the holographic principle isn’t going away, it’s becoming more and more ingrained into physics models. It may in fact be true the universe is not fundamentally three dimensional at all, we just perceive that dimensionality as an emergent property from a two dimensional surface.
Let's not get carried away.
The holographic principle is a convenient metaphor (I never met a phor I didn't like) -- a crutch -- that simplifies understanding and was never meant to be taken literally.
If we use units of mockingbird shit on a sycamore limb and get good approximations, we go with that because it's slicker than tackling a very difficult subject head-on.
Re: (Score:3)
I strongly believe that gravity is not a force but a part of Electromagnetism.
Odd you should say that. I've wondered if gravity is not a force unto itself, but the result of the weak and strong forces. By that I mean, build up enough of those forces in one location, and gravity is created.
I don't have a good analogy to give, so let's use steam is the result of heating water to a high enough temperature, but you won't find steam by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly believe that gravity is not a force but a part of Electromagnetism.
Odd you should say that. I've wondered if gravity is not a force unto itself, but the result of the weak and strong forces. By that I mean, build up enough of those forces in one location, and gravity is created.
I don't have a good analogy to give, so let's use steam is the result of heating water to a high enough temperature, but you won't find steam by itself.
Good thinking.
A quantum particle may be so small that gravity is not an influencing factor. We don't experience gravity until we reach a tipping point of quantum particles in aggregate. That could well be the cumulative effects of the strong or weak or both.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly believe that gravity is not a force but a part of Electromagnetism
Non-conservative forces are still forces. And friction might not be the best metaphor here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
The words 'hologram' and 'error correcting code' tell us that we are living in a computer simulation, not a real universe.
To extend your logic, a "floppy disk" is actually floppy and not the rigid 3 1/2" rigid component that we all know it to be.
Re: (Score:2)
A floppy disk was originally just as named. Maybe you're too young to remember them..There were 8 inch ones and later 5 1/4" ones. The disk inside the later ones is still floppy. Only the case is rigid.
I'm 74 years old and got a TRS-80 in 1978.
Nice try on the embedded flop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An anti gravity force has been observed
No. Theorized to explain observations that did not agree with prediction. Not precisely the same. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Theorized to explain observations that did not agree with prediction.
So you are saying it was observed indirectly. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yer sayun yu cunt red, burt ey dn't belev yu.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Precisely not that. Observations were made.
They were not in agreement with predictions.
"Dark energy" was proposed as a possible solution to the contradiction.
Somewhere between one and a very large number of other explanations remain possible. Experiments and observations are being made to try to narrow that range of possibilities.
Your science teacher at school failed you badly.
Re: (Score:2)
So anti-gravity is impossible? That's half of all science fiction ever, right down the drain. That's not only sad, it's unacceptable.
Anti-gravity is possible. It's not prohibited by any fundamental law of physics. The same is true of time travel and magnetic monopoles. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Re: (Score:2)
if the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, there's your symmetry right there: a gravity-inverse large scale field. Or not, but we've based so much on symmetry that a single paper challenging the foundation of physics will need the sort of math that can revolutionize it, and that's a really, really, really bold statement.
You may have a point.
The influence of gravity at microscopic scale is negligible. At mesoscopic scale (the physics we all live in) gravity certainly manifests itself.
At macro scales, and particularly at super-macro scales, gravity is a batshit crazy, wonderful bitch.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, it may become a major theory and it is important. One might even get carried away and think about anti gravity propulsion systems. There must then be some level at which the quantum laws take effect. Could a device be created such that it surfed in and out of the quantum state, thus turning gravity off and on at will. It is hard to imagine such things, but such a device might be a way to form a new method of communications.
You have a very strong sense of the situation.
We know a lot about what happens at the microscopic scale (quantum mechanics) and we know a lot about what happens at the macro scale (Classical mechanics).
Precisely at what point does an aggregate of quantum particles start behaving classically?
We're looking for that "sweet spot." We have a small collection of quantum particles that exhibit the properties of a quantum particle and somewhere along the line, as we grow the particles, the conglomerate flips classi
Re: (Score:2)