Gravity: What We Know vs What We Don't

[baywax]

Too much for me, I'm afraid..

If I took every word as literally as you do, I'd be convinced you really are afraid.

 

[rewebster]

don't some scientists believe that photons/particles can 'communicate' with each other if sent off in different directions?


(I'm getting ready for a "that's different!")

 

[baywax]

don't some scientists believe that photons/particles can 'communicate' with each other if sent off in different directions?


(I'm getting ready for a "that's different!")

Here's one entry to do with this idea...

[quote}Long-distance quantum communication with entangled photons using satellites
Aspelmeyer, M.; Jennewein, T.; Pfennigbauer, M.; Leeb, W.R.; Zeilinger, A.
Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, IEEE Journal of
Volume 9, Issue 6, Nov.-Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1541 - 1551
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSTQE.2003.820918

Summary: The use of satellites to distribute entangled photon pairs (and single photons) provides a unique solution for long-distance quantum communication networks. This overcomes the principle limitations of Earth-bound technology, i.e., the range of the order of 100 km afforded by both optical fiber and by terrestrial free-space links.[/quote]

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/2944/28271/01263786.pdf?temp=x

Here's something similar

Toshiba Research Europe Ltd., Cambridge Research Laboratory


Quantum Information Group, Single Photon Communications

Quantum cryptography can be implemented by sending encoded single photons ('particles' of light) along standard telecom fibres. These particles of light correspond to extraordinary dim light signals - an ordinary light bulb emits 1 billion billion photons per second. The sender (Alice) encodes one bit, i.e. 0 or 1, onto each photon. This can be done in a number of ways, for example by applying different time delays to the photons to represent 0 and 1 using a device called a 'phase modulator'.

Nearly all the photons launched into the fibre are scattered out enroute, allowing only very few to actually reach the other end. However, quantum cryptography is robust against photon loss, since only photons detected by Bob are used to form the key. Thus, keys can be formed even over fibres in excess of 100km. Although using single photons is a very inefficient way to communicate, its attraction is that it allows a measure of the security of each communication.

Quantum cryptography can also be performed over air based, line-of-sight optical links of the type sometimes used for high bandwidth connections between buildings, or in some local area networks. These free space links may be useful for replenishing the key material of communication satellites in low Earth orbits or for secure communication between satellites.

http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/singlephotoncommunications.html

I think the idea of communication between photons is a misconception you've come across that has developed out of these technological advances.

 

[rewebster]

I'm not one in those 'some' group---entanglement, to me, won't hold up----(I was being 'ironical' with that previous post)


oh--and 'being ironical' doesn't mean I'm from Iron.

 

[baywax]

(I was being 'ironical' with that previous post)

What can I say...

Lets look at the terms surrounding storage of data.

A person's brain that stores a lot of information, "knows" a lot.

A computer that stores a lot of information "stores a lot of information".

Why is there a differnence in terms for the same condition?

• "Knowing" information is not a definition of "Sentience".
• "Sentience" is defined as "being able to perceive or feel things" (Oxford Dictionary)

So, by definition, my use of the word "knowing" in reference to the data stored by the constitution of a rock, is not so incorrect as to be "scarey".

 

[rewebster]

well, I think, that words like 'knowing' , 'reacting' , etc. can be taken in different context---does the 'rock' react to its surroundings?



to some degree, but it doesn't know that its reacting(?)------it, to me, is just the interplay of physical circumstances (air, gravity, etc.) that it is in at any given surrounding----I don't know if you're meaning something on the level of 'star wars' idea of 'that everything has the Force' or not----

I don't think the 'rock' would care (or know) whether or not if it was on dry land or in the water---it may contain some record of ever being in the water or on land (or where it was formed)--but I think those are physical properties rather than 'it knowing' something


maybe its like those CSI shows---the info/data/evidence would just sit there until it is found and interpreted (the specific physical properties of that evidence)


A rock doesn't have 'data'--a rock has properties that WE can interpret AS data

 

[Redbelly98]

If that is all you want to know then I am envious.

I see a long thread here and pardon me for jumping in without taking time to read it entirely. But I'll just point out the above statement is an admission that we do know something about gravity, in contradiction to the premise that we know nothing about it.

 

[rewebster]

there may be a few other threads (quite a few really) that may also have a little 'dramatic quality' to the title of the thread too

 

[out of whack]

People tend to embellish. It's easier to do than to be precise and it grabs attention better, but the intended meaning tends to be missed as a side effect.

 

[baywax]

A rock doesn't have 'data'--a rock has properties that WE can interpret AS data

True enough.

The same can be said of a human brain. I have knowledge in my brain... but CSIS (Canadian version of the CIA) will interpret it as data pertinent to their inquiry.

So all we have said about it is that the word "know" is a term that is relative to circumstance(s).

 

[baywax]

A rock doesn't have 'data'--a rock has properties that WE can interpret AS data

True enough.

The same can be said of a human brain. I have knowledge in my brain... but CSIS (Canadian version of the CIA) will interpret it as data pertinent to their inquiry.

So all we have said about it is that the word "know" is a term that is relative to circumstance(s).

Moving right along...

 

[rewebster]

True enough.

The same can be said of a human brain. I have knowledge in my brain... but CSIS (Canadian version of the CIA) will interpret it as data pertinent to their inquiry.
So all we have said about it is that the word "know" is a term that is relative to circumstance(s).

They have mind readers up there in that CSIS?------and what exactly are YOU doing/working on in your secret lab?

 

[baywax]

They have mind readers up there in that CSIS?------and what exactly are YOU doing/working on in your secret lab?

CSIS was more interested in the personal doughnut vending machine idea than the fluid mechanics of a beer hat.

 

[gator6913]

Can we build a model to simulate gravity and accurately describe the dynamics of gravity within the model?

Dale

 

[baywax]

Can we build a model to simulate gravity and accurately describe the dynamics of gravity within the model?

Dale

Hi gator6913;1838016 (can I call you gator?)

Simulating gravity seems to be the topic of many si fi movies. There's always an area of a spaceship where they have to explain how they've simulated gravity by using a gyroscope or a centrifuge.

I don't think its that easy on a massive planet like ours or any other one since there is so much contamination from the gravity going on here.

So, where do we build the lab and the experiment and ensure that we have zero gravity to begin with?

Or, are you talking about a digital/mathematical/hypothetical model of gravity?

 

[gator6913]

I've been working on a theory for gravity I call "contracting space".

This theory appears to be predicting the mechanism for gravity may very well be the same mechanism for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

This theory calls for space to have some characteristics that can not be ascribed to what we currently consider is space.

It must have properties associated with a solid and have a rigid elasticity.

It predicts all matter contracts a particular volume of space proportional to its mass. It's possible that a single atom may contract 1 cubic meter of space or more and contain it sub atomically. Surrounding all matter will be an area of stretched space as it is forced to fill the area where the contracted space existed. This stretched space will have the most tension closest to the object and will gradually relax towards a normal state of space with distance from the object. When two objects are within a proximity that their gravity is observable the space directly between both objects has more stretch tension than any other position around either object. It is the stretched space between the objects excerting a pulling force on the objects contracted space that is the force of gravity.

The sci-fi simulations of gravity you mentioned are an equivalence of gravity to acceleration.

That too should be explainable if my model is indeed correct. That explanation is: when an object is moving through space it is continually contracting a different area of space. If the object is accelerating the contracted space the accelerating object is containing will experience a pulling force from the space directly behind the accelerating object. The effect is similar to that when stretched space is applying a pulling force on that objects contracted space.

I've attached an animated model I've worked on using water to represent space. Because the medium in my model is not a solid I'm using pumps to replicate matter contracting space using a liquid, this will give my water the characteristics equivalent of being a solid. The pump inlet bulbs in this model will have the same effects on each other as two objects of mass exerting gravitational effects on one another.

 

[baywax]

I've been working on a theory for gravity I call "contracting space".

This theory appears to be predicting the mechanism for gravity may very well be the same mechanism for the propagation of electromagnetic waves.

This theory calls for space to have some characteristics that can not be ascribed to what we currently consider is space.

It must have properties associated with a solid and have a rigid elasticity.

It predicts all matter contracts a particular volume of space proportional to its mass. It's possible that a single atom may contract 1 cubic meter of space or more and contain it sub atomically. Surrounding all matter will be an area of stretched space as it is forced to fill the area where the contracted space existed. This stretched space will have the most tension closest to the object and will gradually relax towards a normal state of space with distance from the object. When two objects are within a proximity that their gravity is observable the space directly between both objects has more stretch tension than any other position around either object. It is the stretched space between the objects excerting a pulling force on the objects contracted space that is the force of gravity.

The sci-fi simulations of gravity you mentioned are an equivalence of gravity to acceleration.

That too should be explainable if my model is indeed correct. That explanation is: when an object is moving through space it is continually contracting a different area of space. If the object is accelerating the contracted space the accelerating object is containing will experience a pulling force from the space directly behind the accelerating object. The effect is similar to that when stretched space is applying a pulling force on that objects contracted space.

I've attached an animated model I've worked on using water to represent space. Because the medium in my model is not a solid I'm using pumps to replicate matter contracting space using a liquid, this will give my water the characteristics equivalent of being a solid. The pump inlet bulbs in this model will have the same effects on each other as two objects of mass exerting gravitational effects on one another.

That is one very nice theory of gravity!

I guess I'm partial to it since it suggests some of the things in my own layman's theory where space is actually filled with radiation and where matter has formed either from that radiation going into a standing wave or "condensing" through collisions of photons, creating hadrons, sigmas etc.. then eventually matter. With the area directly around the newly formed matter being devoid of radiation (since its become matter) there is less "tension" to hold up other, smaller matter and it joins the larger mass.

Space as a solid! ... any physicists reading this!?

 

[ronjanec]

I personally believe space is a multi-billion light year in size physical sphere and has the same makeup or composition as a elementary particle. Ok everyone you can give me a hard time about my theory I am used to it.