Thread: An explanation of gravity.

Has this question been posed:

Since we have not proven the existance of the graviton, and since a mass must be present for the force gravity to exist, then wouldn't it be logical to say that if matter is produced from energy that the graviton or the force of gravity is produced? Therefore isn't it possible that the graviton may not exist and that gravity is the by-product of mass like magnetism is the by-product of moving electrons? So it may be possible that we need to produce mass to produce gravity or control gravity correct?

The graviton is just an idea which is almost certainly wrong. I have an idea of what gravity is but as I have found out here, you cannot discuss new ideas since the answers usually are just down to character assassination and attempts to censor me. Yes, gravity is linked to mass so we are not going to have anti gravity. Anti gravity was said to be impossible decades ago but that did not stop Guth coming up with anti gravity (dark energy).

Isn't Gravity a curvature of space time due to the presence of matter? Gravity is an epi-phenomenon of the presence of matter in space time, as mind is an epi-phenomenon of the brain.

Great responses and I understand all of what you're saying but the point of what I'm trying to say is that if we convert energy to matter, we create mass and hence gravitational force. It's just like magnetism - although we can generate magnetic force and control it, we really don't understand why it works so this is similar to gravity yes? Now all we have to do is find a way of producing huge spot masses from energy and project it in 3D space to overcome the weak force of gravity from the earth that all matter is influenced by!

Originally Posted by Curtologic

isn't it possible that the graviton may not exist and that gravity is the by-product of mass like magnetism is the by-product of moving electrons? So it may be possible that we need to produce mass to produce gravity or control gravity correct?

It seems you misunderstand the role of the graviton in gravity. The hypothesised graviton is what's called a Gauge Boson, a particle which carries the gravitational force int he same way that photons carry the electromagnetic force. So using your analogy: yes, gravity does arise from the presence of a massive object, in the same way that magnetism can arise from moving charges. But you still need a particle to carry the force.

One issue with detecting gravitons is that they probably exist only as virtual particles; travel at the speed of light; and don't interact via any of the other fundamental forces.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

but the point of what I'm trying to say is that if we convert energy to matter, we create mass and hence gravitational force

The energy will have exactly the same gravitational force as the matter you convert it to. Remember e =mc²? They are equivalent.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

but the point of what I'm trying to say is that if we convert energy to matter, we create mass and hence gravitational force

The energy will have exactly the same gravitational force as the matter you convert it to. Remember e =mc²? They are equivalent.

Oh my, stop the bus here, are you saying Strange that energy has the same gravitational property as mass?
nokton.

Originally Posted by nokton

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Curtologic

but the point of what I'm trying to say is that if we convert energy to matter, we create mass and hence gravitational force

The energy will have exactly the same gravitational force as the matter you convert it to. Remember e =mc²? They are equivalent.

Oh my, stop the bus here, are you saying Strange that energy has the same gravitational property as mass?
nokton.

On a lighter note, due to a moment of levity,as an old man, am prone to sitting down more these days,
is that due to increasing gravity, or my lack of energy? Smile.
nokton

Originally Posted by nokton

Oh my, stop the bus here, are you saying Strange that energy has the same gravitational property as mass?
nokton.

Yes. (Note that pressure and momentum also contribute but they are not usually significant.)

Strange, but true.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by Curtologic

isn't it possible that the graviton may not exist and that gravity is the by-product of mass like magnetism is the by-product of moving electrons? So it may be possible that we need to produce mass to produce gravity or control gravity correct?

It seems you misunderstand the role of the graviton in gravity. The hypothesised graviton is what's called a Gauge Boson, a particle which carries the gravitational force int he same way that photons carry the electromagnetic force. So using your analogy: yes, gravity does arise from the presence of a massive object, in the same way that magnetism can arise from moving charges. But you still need a particle to carry the force.

One issue with detecting gravitons is that they probably exist only as virtual particles; travel at the speed of light; and don't interact via any of the other fundamental forces.

So are you saying that if the hypothesied partical, being the graviton, carries the force of gravity, wouldn't it then mean that a mass of an object will eventually diminish because it would require energy to create the graviton or a mass will increase if it attracts gravitons. Something doesn't add up here if we follow the conservation of energy! Also since gravity, in the example of say the earth, works omnidirectionally, it could imply it is a wave rather than a particle and we should be able to observe interference patterns from the presense of gravitons.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Strange, but true.

That's me.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

So are you saying that if the hypothesied partical, being the graviton, carries the force of gravity, wouldn't it then mean that a mass of an object will eventually diminish because it would require energy to create the graviton or a mass will increase if it attracts gravitons.

The gravitron might be a virtual particle (no actual energy required). But, at the same time a falling body does lose mass - that's where the energy for acceleration from gravity comes from.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Also since gravity, in the example of say the earth, works omnidirectionally, it could imply it is a wave rather than a particle and we should be able to observe interference patterns from the presense of gravitons.

Wave/particle/wave. Same difference. If you consider a graviton in the contect of the gravitational field, like a photon in the context of the electric and magnetic fields, then yes, gravitons would destructively interfere - and as gravity only attracts, the position where they would interfere would be between two masses - which we see happening.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by Curtologic

So are you saying that if the hypothesied partical, being the graviton, carries the force of gravity, wouldn't it then mean that a mass of an object will eventually diminish because it would require energy to create the graviton or a mass will increase if it attracts gravitons.

The gravitron might be a virtual particle (no actual energy required). But, at the same time a falling body does lose mass - that's where the energy for acceleration from gravity comes from.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Also since gravity, in the example of say the earth, works omnidirectionally, it could imply it is a wave rather than a particle and we should be able to observe interference patterns from the presense of gravitons.

Wave/particle/wave. Same difference. If you consider a graviton in the contect of the gravitational field, like a photon in the context of the electric and magnetic fields, then yes, gravitons would destructively interfere - and as gravity only attracts, the position where they would interfere would be between two masses - which we see happening.

Not sure I entirely get your point - about the interefence we see happening. Are you saying that the interference pattern (similar to Young's slits experiment) of the hypothesised graviton is the attraction between two or more masses? I see your point about the virtual particle but where does the interference pattern fit in? As far as I know, no wave interference pattern has ever been observed for a gravitational field interation between two masses so unless this is proven it will also disprove the gravitron. Wave theory is just as important here possibly even more significant as it may be the only way to prove the existance of the of the gravitron.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Strange, but true.

That's me.

Aw Strange, your modesty overwhelms me. :-).
nokton.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Not sure I entirely get your point - about the interefence we see happening. Are you saying that the interference pattern (similar to Young's slits experiment) of the hypothesised graviton is the attraction between two or more masses?I see your point about the virtual particle but where does the interference pattern fit in? As far as I know, no wave interference pattern has ever been observed for a gravitational field interation between two masses so unless this is proven it will also disprove the gravitron. Wave theory is just as important here possibly even more significant as it may be the only way to prove the existance of the of the gravitron.

A photon interferes because it is a sinusoidal wave, oscillating between positive and negative magnetic and electric fields. Gravity only attracts, so the interference between two gravitons can only be constructive, unless they (or a component of them) are moving in opposite directions. I suppose you could take from this that gravitons do not act as waves, or at least do so with a wavelength unrelated to the gravitational field strength that defines them.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Not sure I entirely get your point - about the interefence we see happening. Are you saying that the interference pattern (similar to Young's slits experiment) of the hypothesised graviton is the attraction between two or more masses?I see your point about the virtual particle but where does the interference pattern fit in? As far as I know, no wave interference pattern has ever been observed for a gravitational field interation between two masses so unless this is proven it will also disprove the gravitron. Wave theory is just as important here possibly even more significant as it may be the only way to prove the existance of the of the gravitron.

A photon interferes because it is a sinusoidal wave, oscillating between positive and negative magnetic and electric fields. Gravity only attracts, so the interference between two gravitons can only be constructive, unless they (or a component of them) are moving in opposite directions. I suppose you could take from this that gravitons do not act as waves, or at least do so with a wavelength unrelated to the gravitational field strength that defines them.

I see your point. You've made me look at the science behind it another way but here you are assuming the graviton exists?

So you say that graviton is a carrier of gravity then where exactly is gravity formed ?

Originally Posted by Curtologic

I see your point. You've made me look at the science behind it another way but here you are assuming the graviton exists?

The graviton is predicted by the standard model of particle physics, but it's existance is in many ways inconsequental. It wouldn't change our understanding of gravitation per se, it would just mean the standard model was wrong.

Originally Posted by Rohith

So you say that graviton is a carrier of gravity then where exactly is gravity formed ?

Gravity is inherent in all massive systems, if that's what you mean? Just like electromagnetism is inherent in all non-stationary charged systems.

Since we're on the subject of gravity.......

I'm not sure if anyone has looked at this concept (or if it has been discussed in these forums) but it has been proven that stationary and moving mass produces a Debroglie wave. Using duality as the basis of this concept, has anyone studied the effects of producing electromagnetic waves of frequencies well above the SHF range and more like 8x10⁷⁰Hz to produce a pseudo mass to counteract the forces of gravity?

Now I know that producing electromagnetic waves with such a high frequency is extremely difficult to achieve if not impossible using LC oscillators, magnetrons or even gamma ray generators so what I'm really asking is what is the highest generated electromagnetic wave frequency recorded? Its possibly many many magnitudes lower than 8x10⁷⁰Hz right?

Personally, I'm not a believer of the graviton and for that matter any virtual particle. I however don't have an in depth understanding of them but if there is a lot of resources spent on understanding these imaginary particles, wouldn't it be better to investigate the virtual particle that exhibit the forces that we understand such as charged particles and magnetism? We can create and manipulate these forces quite easily. Gravity is still an unknown.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Since we're on the subject of gravity.......

I'm not sure if anyone has looked at this concept (or if it has been discussed in these forums) but it has been proven that stationary and moving mass produces a Debroglie wave. Using duality as the basis of this concept, has anyone studied the effects of producing electromagnetic waves of frequencies well above the SHF range and more like 8x10⁷⁰Hz to produce a pseudo mass to counteract the forces of gravity?

If I understand your proposal correctly, the frequency of each individual wave is irrelevant for this purpose. All that matters is the total momentum of all the photons emitted in a downwards direction - whether Gamma rays or radio waves. The problem is that you still need exactly the same amount of energy to achieve the same altitude - gravity's a bitch like that.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Personally, I'm not a believer of the graviton and for that matter any virtual particle. I however don't have an in depth understanding of them but if there is a lot of resources spent on understanding these imaginary particles, wouldn't it be better to investigate the virtual particle that exhibit the forces that we understand such as charged particles and magnetism? We can create and manipulate these forces quite easily. Gravity is still an unknown.

Electric and magnetic forces are the same force; electromagnetism; and this force is carried by the photon (which is obviously not a virtual particle).

The strong and weak nuclear forces are carried by the W and Z bosons and the gluon respectively.

Link about virtual particles: Virtual particle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So are you saying that a permanent magnet emits photons?? Please explain.

Yes the carrier particles of the field formed by the magnet are indeed photons.

As a side note to the above discussion - in the field equations of GR the source of the gravitational field is the so-called Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor. The relevant elements of this tensor denote energy density and momentum density, which means that any form of energy can constitute a source of a gravitational field; this includes mass, energy fields etc but also the gravitational field itself since it contains energy. The gravitational field therefore also acts on itself. In the picture of the standard model of particle interaction, this would mean that graviton particles act on each other, meaning they emit further gravitons, who then emit more gravitons and so on and so on. This leads to infinities, rendering the theory meaningless. This is just one of the many obstacles in trying to obtain a theory of quantum gravity...

Originally Posted by Curtologic

So are you saying that a permanent magnet emits photons?? Please explain.

Permanent magnets don't emit photons constantly, only when there is a magnetic interaction - where there is a change in magnetic potential, this is carried by a photon.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Yes the carrier particles of the field formed by the magnet are indeed photons.

Hangon here.....but all magnetic fields are always interacting and hence what you are saying is that there are always photons emitted. In addition, there would have to a specific frequency of the photon which in turn would reveal an interference pattern. I know photons are not virtual particles, so why hasn't any interference pattern been observed??

If this is indeed true, what are the frequency of these photons??

No you misunderstand me - as drowsy turtle has pointed out, photons are only exchanged once an interaction takes place. Yes, the magnetic field can be treated as energy waves, which then have a wavelength proportional to its energy content. That wavelength however would not be the same as visible light, so I'm not sure how you want to obtain an interference pattern ? You cannot see EM fields...

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

As a side note to the above discussion - in the field equations of GR the source of the gravitational field is the so-called Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor. The relevant elements of this tensor denote energy density and momentum density, which means that any form of energy can constitute a source of a gravitational field; this includes mass, energy fields etc but also the gravitational field itself since it contains energy. The gravitational field therefore also acts on itself. In the picture of the standard model of particle interaction, this would mean that graviton particles act on each other, meaning they emit further gravitons, who then emit more gravitons and so on and so on. This leads to infinities, rendering the theory meaningless. This is just one of the many obstacles in trying to obtain a theory of quantum gravity...

I would agree then that the theory is meaningless once we talk about inifities. This is possibly why I would prefer not to belive in the graviton!

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

No you misunderstand me - as drowsy turtle has pointed out, photons are only exchanged once an interaction takes place. Yes, the magnetic field can be treated as energy waves, which then have a wavelength proportional to its energy content. That wavelength however would not be the same as visible light, so I'm not sure how you want to obtain an interference pattern ? You cannot see EM fields...

Photons are EM particle/waves. They don't have to be at visible light frequencies to see interference patterns. Even xrays would reveal interference patterns. If we cannot see EM fields, then they are not photons or at least the understanding of them is not conclusive.

This leads to the hypothesis that interference patterns need to be present for the force of gravity.

Not correct. There are many photons (such as X-Rays, infrared, radio etc) that we cannot see. We just happen to have receivers built into our head that detect photons in the visible wavelengths. Photons at other wavelengths are detected by other designed receivers, and translated into data we can interpret.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

No you misunderstand me - as drowsy turtle has pointed out, photons are only exchanged once an interaction takes place. Yes, the magnetic field can be treated as energy waves, which then have a wavelength proportional to its energy content. That wavelength however would not be the same as visible light, so I'm not sure how you want to obtain an interference pattern ? You cannot see EM fields...

Photons are EM particle/waves. They don't have to be at visible light frequencies to see interference patterns (...).

Yes you are of course correct - however, I didn't say that there wouldn't be any interference taking place ( there is ), only that I am not sure how you would want to visualize it. I cannot immediately think of any experimental setup that would visualize interference patterns within an EM field.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

No you misunderstand me - as drowsy turtle has pointed out, photons are only exchanged once an interaction takes place. Yes, the magnetic field can be treated as energy waves, which then have a wavelength proportional to its energy content. That wavelength however would not be the same as visible light, so I'm not sure how you want to obtain an interference pattern ? You cannot see EM fields...

Photons are EM particle/waves. They don't have to be at visible light frequencies to see interference patterns. Even xrays would reveal interference patterns. If we cannot see EM fields, then they are not photons or at least the understanding of them is not conclusive.

This leads to the hypothesis that interference patterns need to be present for the force of gravity.

"If we cannot see EM fields, then they are not photons (...)". This statement is incorrect. All EM fields are transmitted by photons, whether visible or not.

What about Young's slit experiment?

Ok I'll put it another way. Have we detected any emitted particle or wave from interacting fields from magnetism, charged particles or gravity? No virtual particles should be included as they are virtual. I assume the answer is no. This leads again to my point that if photons are transmitted, then they would have a frequency which when multiplied by Planck's constant would reveal their individual energy. All photons can behave as waves and therefore would reveal an interference pattern when two photon waves interfere with each other and will produce an interference pattern. It's just that we cannot see them because the frequency may be too high.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Yes, the magnetic field can be treated as energy waves, which then have a wavelength proportional to its energy content.

You only get EM radiation where the flux density varies. Around a single magnetised particle floating in an infinite vacuum, there is no energy stored in the magnetic field, and no EM (excluding black body ratiation).

Magnetic potential energy is stored between two magnetised bodies, and photons are only involved when there is a change in potential.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

Ok I'll put it another way. Have we detected any emitted particle or wave from interacting fields from magnetism, charged particles or gravity?

A radio antenna emits radio waves (photons) by passing an alternating current through it, which causes the electric and magnetic properties of the antenna to periodically reverse, or oscillate. The result of these two oscillations, at right angles to one another, is a photon.

In fact, fundamentally, a photon is an interacting magnetic and electrical field - or rather, the wavefront of the two changing fields.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

No virtual particles should be included as they are virtual.

Virtual particles are still real, hence the Casimir effect and Hawking raditaion.

Originally Posted by Curtologic

This leads again to my point that if photons are transmitted, then they would have a frequency which when multiplied by Planck's constant would reveal their individual energy. All photons can behave as waves and therefore would reveal an interference pattern when two photon waves interfere with each other and will produce an interference pattern. It's just that we cannot see them because the frequency may be too high.

Yes, coherent photons will interfere. I didn't realise this was under discussion. What is the relevance of this fact?