If I had a cubic metre of solid osmium, a perfect cube....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the interaction between a red laser beam and a cubic metre of solid osmium, specifically regarding the deflection of the beam and the nature of gravity. Participants assert that gravity is a fundamental force explained by general relativity and the strong nuclear force cannot account for gravitational effects. The consensus is that significant mass, such as that of the sun or larger, is required to produce noticeable gravitational effects. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of adhering to established scientific theories and the lack of evidence for alternative claims.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and its implications for gravity
  • Familiarity with the strong nuclear force and its properties
  • Basic knowledge of light behavior and laser physics
  • Mathematical skills for calculating gravitational forces and deflections
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of general relativity and its predictions regarding gravity
  • Study the strong nuclear force and its role in atomic interactions
  • Learn about the behavior of light in gravitational fields, including gravitational lensing
  • Explore experimental setups for measuring gravitational effects in a controlled environment
USEFUL FOR

Physics students, researchers in gravitational physics, and anyone interested in the fundamental forces of nature and their interactions with light.

Peter Hodgson
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
If i shon a red laser across the surface of the osmium cube 5mm above the solid perfect 1000mm cube, by how many degrees would it be deflected?
 
Science news on Phys.org
This is not a reply it is another question what density and quantity of matter would I require to bend a red laser beam by15 degrees? What I am really asking is how hard is it to bend space time. I am going to suggest that it is too hard to produce the force we mistakenly call gravity.
I suggest what we experience as gravity is not a force in its own right it is an artifact of the strong force leaking out from the nucleii of atoms. Because space time is scale invarient it would be nearly but not quite pinched off around a nucleus. A tiny portal is left to allow a tiny fraction of the strong force to leak out.
 
Last edited:
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: davenn
First, note that personal theories are not allowed here at PF. So don't expect your post to stay unlocked for very long.

Second, keep in mind that thousands of scientists do work involving either the strong nuclear force or general relativity, and none of their experiments or observations show any unambiguous results that disagree with either theory. In addition, the strong nuclear force literally cannot do what you are claiming it can do. If it can, then its not the strong nuclear force as has been observed in nature, but another force that has so far eluded every scientist in the world and every experiment in their arsenal to date.

We know this because we can make accurate predictions about what should happen involving the strong force and if it were possible that the strong force was responsible for gravity then these predictions would not be correct.

If you're going to disagree with a fundamental part of modern physics, then you're going to need a substantial amount of both evidence and the theory underlying your evidence. And I suspect that you have none of either.

Peter Hodgson said:
I am going to suggest that it is too hard to produce the force we mistakenly call gravity.

It's not hard. You can do experiments in your basement.

See this video and the others like it:
 
Drakkith said:
First, note that personal theories are not allowed here at PF. So don't expect your post to stay unlocked for very long.

Ohhh dear, indeed !
Peter Hodgson said:
This is not a reply it is another question what density and quantity of matter would I require to bend a red laser beam by15 degrees?

Something around the mass of the sun or bigger
Peter Hodgson said:
I am going to suggest that it is too hard to produce the force we mistakenly call gravity.

You really should learn some real physics
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
Peter Hodgson said:
I am going to suggest that it is too hard to produce the force we mistakenly call gravity.
Yes, it's hard to "produce" gravity in the sense that it's a relatively weak force so it takes a lot of mass to produce even a small gravitational force - we have the entire mass of the Earth producing a gravitational field, and a tiny little refrigerator magnet can outpull that field. Nonetheless...
  • There is a lot of mass in the universe. If your cube of osmium or the entire mass of the Earth isn't enough to produce an interesting deflection of a light beam, we can always try a suitable galaxy instead.
  • Gravity is always attractive so it's always adding up (compare with electromagnetism - very strong, but because of the opposite charges an atom exerts no net electromagnetic force on things near it).
  • Gravitational forces get weaker with distance but never die out.
Putting this all together and actually doing the math, we can show that there is a force that is proportional to mass, and that our current best theories of gravity explain it really well.

Physics Forums is here to explain what modern physics does say, not to entertain new theories based on misunderstandings, so this thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn and Dale

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K