Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Noob physics

  1. Jun 7, 2004 #1
    Ok, I am not a physicist or a mathematician. I'm more of a philosopher, because its the only discipline people who are broke can afford and still be good at. :smile:

    Still, I had a puzzling thought the other day, and I was wondering if at least the concept held some water. Please feel free to burn away, since none of it is mathmatically based.

    What if a particle were not 'solid', but was rather a energy bubble highly focused due to a point of convergence (POC) at its center, which is actually the source. It would almost act as a vacuum at the center of all particles to make a spherical energy field that is too focused for other energy fields (also particles) to penetrate. This would mean that matter was only a vast network of energy fields, or bubbles, drawn together by multiple POCs creating a gravitational force. The denser the object is, the larger the number of POCs, and thus the greater the gravity.

    My thinking behind this is; since gravity is a force exerted by one mass upon another, where each mass tries to reach the center of the other (atomic cohesion, gravity, etc.). Where else could this force come from, save the center of the particle? Much like matter rushes into a vacuum, energy seeks to return to the source at its center, yet when it breaks its wave it runs into itself and creates a spherical field.

    To me, this seems more logical in explaining why individual bodies have gravity rather than the curve of space. Indeed, it would explain the curve of space, as well as the big bang.

    In my mind, I kind of picture it like a very large, perfectly flat bed sheet (5th dimension), where you drop billions of ball bearings on it (intrustions into 1-4th dimensions). The dimples represent how this dimension becomes matter, and the billowing represents how it becomes energy.

    Lemme know if this has some merit, or if I'm smoking crack.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 7, 2004 #2
    Nonlocal ghost in the machine.

    Your ideas are coherent and are as reasonable as any mathematics model, which I am not so fond of , I will only urge caution when you start using terms 'curved space' and othe such concepts that are more popular and pedestrian than scientific.

    Eventually we will all get the point of realizing the intrinsic reality of nonlocality, the unobserved. Here is an example that is as far as experiemtal results go as valuable as current gravity theories.

    From sources outside our solar system, at least, there is no known inter-stellar affect of gravity on our masses in the solars system. Look at a'farthest star' some evening and ask if here seems any reasonablel way that star you picked will ever exert any proved force on any other stellar bodiy much less on you, ever.. We may as well consider all the externl forces, which are unobserved and maybe unobservable directly, to be nonlocal. Ths means that force channels aren't seen in the usual way.

    Here is an experiment that your philosophical bent may appreciate. All that in front you you that you see, the crt, the lights, the tip of your nose, body parts extending out, moving scratching your nose, all of that out there that you observe, wave at yourself with your fingers and ask if you know how you did that, move your fingers I mean, wave silly at yourself,. Do you know'? No you don't. The words that form just before you speak, or type you really doin't know what they are going to be before spoken, or typed, do you? I mean unambiguously you don't know what the word is in the same sense that you speak when reading from printed material do you? All that, and much , much more, ah ,well, when we have just the observed to consider, no real problem or even questions come up do they? no mystery in what we observe is here?

    The observer, of all this now, kept very busy by a mind really not wanting to know anything about that nonlocal stuff, keeps focused on the observed. JS Bell Irish QM theoretician proved that models of QM that are expressly void in nonlocal expressions, explicitly employing nonlocal forces, is an incomplete model. well the observer is nonlocal, or unobserved, hidden in a nonlocal cupboard, or whatever your best metaphor for personal hiding place is, the place where you remain nonlocal, as there is no other place to be, for the nonlocal. There is propbably some hierarchy of states of nonlocal, if you get my drift? You really don't even know how you comb your hair do you? Or hopw you spit? or how you copulate?

    We all refer to "my nose", my finger" , even "my brain". It sure seems like the "ghost in the machine scenario" I am talking about, doesn't it.
  4. Jun 8, 2004 #3
    Your response deals more with the question of the location of consciousness on an existentialist bent. What I am trying to suggest is that there is no such thing as true 'matter', but rather a collection of unified energy fields that create a sensation that we interpret as solid states.

    In my mind, I KNOW that matter and energy are made of the same fabric. In my theory, matter would be static and energy would be kinetic.

    As for understanding the conscious mind, the sum of the parts do not equal a whole. You must be willing to remove sensation and perception from the equation, without which there is no calculation. It is, in my opinion, a leap of faith.
  5. Jun 8, 2004 #4
    I have been speculating along similar lines for years just for fun:

    Electron Speculation Toy - Physics Help and Math Help - Physics Forums

    I think we share the same interest in the concept that matter might actually be an absense of something (you: vacuum, me: cavitation) rather than a presence of it.

    The phenomenon of cavitation is one that occurs in water when it is "stretched" beyond its natural volume. To fit into the larger volume it will develop pockets of low density that are basically just full of steam. They are like spherical springs and are always trying to pull the water back to its original volume. There is alot of energy stored in a cavitation. When they collapse they have enough force to do a little damage to solid objects. They occur most frequently in the water stirred up by boat propellers and the propellers are pitted over time by constant exposure to collapsing cavitations.

    If you read my link you'll see I haven't been able to think very far into this idea without hitting snags.

  6. Jun 8, 2004 #5
    If we suppose that space is made of infinite number of points, and these points are constantly moving, the location vacated by one point is filled by another point so that space always appears as a continuum, and further we suppose the existence of forces between points that is always attractive which does not violate Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, then there is a way of quantizing this local motion of space points. The quantum is the square of energy given by

    [tex] E^2 = r_i \times F_i \cdot r_j \times F_j [/tex]
  7. Jun 8, 2004 #6
    How do you suppose that there is always attractive forces (gravity) between points in space when not all those points have mass? In my theory, only energy fields (mass) contain points of convergence which result in gravity.

    I'm certainly glad that two people were kind enough to respond. The more I think about it, the more I think it sounds like pseudoscience than science. Still, it's something interesting to think about.
  8. Jun 8, 2004 #7
    Contrary to Mach's principle, there exists an absolute acceleration in a local infnitesimal region of space. This acceleration uses your POC as center, with distance [itex] r_i [/itex] and constant attractive force [itex] F_j [/itex]. All the loci of POCs form paths of acceleration with POC located on the other locus with distance [itex] r_j [/itex] and constant attractive force [itex] F_i [/itex]. Space remains continuous. It is only the locus of POC points in motion that is quantized. If the forces are not attractive, then the local motion is not conserved and not symmetrical and hence cannot be quantized as such.
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2004
  9. Jun 8, 2004 #8
    My point of view

    Hey Guys,

    The way I see it, The universe is like a two sided coin. One side is particle and the other is wave. We see the particle side all around us in the form of mass. We also experience the wave side all around us in the form energy. QM wants to see everything as a particle. I decided some years ago that thinking of everything as a wave might be move difficult to imagine, but, much more flexible in figuring out the relationships between density/volume and angular momentum versus wave frequency. In other words, I figured out what wave density would have to do in order to remain stable in the form of matter. I'm convinced that at the fundamental level, all we have is pure energy and that matter is simply one of the three fundamental stages of energy.
  10. Jun 9, 2004 #9
    Wave particle duality did not have its origins in such a grand manner as your model. Two hole diffraction experiments needed a wave particle duality theory as a contivance to get one particle through two holes. WPD is a mathematical contrivance, just another QM contrivance in a series of contrivances.
  11. Jun 9, 2004 #10
    Pick a star in the sky, any star. Will that star ever affect any other star you see in the sky?, By gravity I mean. Will the affect ever be observed or is it, the effect, observable? :wink:
  12. Jun 9, 2004 #11
    I absolutely agree. The universe, in my mind, must consist of the same fabric which travels both as particles and waves. QM seems to suggest that empty space is actually particles caught in quantum flux, which if you removed the 4th dimension would make the entire universe solid as if it were frozen in glass. :surprise:

    If that were true, then wouldn't the POCs that existed for a microsecond within subatomic particles exert a very small gravitational force? That would agree with the idea that points in space have qualities of attraction, if only infinitesimally. But, in that universe, everything would be contracting instead of expanding, unless the POCs of subatomic particles were the reverse of particles: beginning as a field and ending as energy as opposed to beginning as energy and ending as a field, i.e. in to out vs. out to in. In that case, subatomic particles would emit antigravity and particles would emit gravity, which would explain expansion over contraction since there is more flux than mass in the universe.

    :sigh: I am going cross-eyed. Somebody shoot me.
  13. Jun 9, 2004 #12
    By perturbation theory, which is an approximation method for solving the many-body problem, the gravitational effects of one star to other stars can all be calculated but are considered negligible and can be duly truncated to save computer's time.

    FYI: According to astrophysicists and astronomers alike, there are more binary-stars systems in the universe than single-star systems. For binary stars (such as pulsars), the gravity effect is obvious.
  14. Jun 9, 2004 #13
    I find it interesting that if neutrinos emitted equivalent mass, it would account for Omega = 1. That seems to support my theory. That makes it appear that gravity is a closed circuit out from dimension 5 into 1-4 that forms into fields which account for mass. I wish I had the math to support it.
  15. Jun 9, 2004 #14
    Pure energy is square of energy, [itex]E^2[/itex], the three stages of pure energy is ordinary energy [itex]E[/itex], mass, [itex]m[/itex], and quantized space, [itex]H[/itex].
  16. Jun 10, 2004 #15
    Hi guys,

    when I think about the gravitational affect, I think in terms of vacuum density. Think about it, all systems radiate energy. If you have "only" the affects a binary system in a model, the only way each system can affect the other is an increase in radiation density between the two systems. Is this not true?
  17. Jun 10, 2004 #16
    Except for the quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field verified by the Casimir proposed experiments, the zero-point energies of the vacuum is uniform. It does not change from point to point. Similar to the Coulomb field and the gravitational field, the radiation density of electromagnetic field is inversely proportional to the square of distance between the two points in question.
  18. Jun 10, 2004 #17

    Are you sure that your references apply to a binary system model that "excludes" any other influences outside of the dual system?
  19. Jun 10, 2004 #18

    I pressumed you are talking about a binary stars system. The binary configuration is kept by the mutual gravity alone. But the excess radiation from each star is the internal interaction of gravity and outward radiation pressure. The pressure keeps the star from collapsing into a black hole. For some stars, this difficult internal balancing act resulted in novae and supernovae.
  20. Jun 10, 2004 #19
    Antonio, I think I understand our differences. We're both talking about fruit, but i'm talking about apples and you're talking about oranges.

    You refer to radiation as an outward force caused by pressure. I think of radition as caused by an external "pull" on the system. (I.E. - 5th force)
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2004
  21. Jun 10, 2004 #20

    The radiation pressure follows from both the classical point of view of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the quantum theory of radiation. Chandrasekhar devoted a chapter of his book "An introduction to the Study of Stellar Structure" to discussing this pressure.

    FYI: both Chandrasekhar and Eddington devoted a major part of their scientific career on the study of stellar evolution but only Chandrasekhar lived long enough to receive the Nobel Prize.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?