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

Warped space vs gravitrons

  1. Jun 27, 2008 #1
    Hi,

    If space is warped, then does it push towards the Earth vs some type of atomic attraction within the Earth mass, that then pulls towards its center? The 2 diff theories of gravity, among many others.

    Now, take both, either warping or attraction, and when 2 diff mass objects are dropped in free fall, they fall at the same rate towards Earth. However, go an lift each (penicl and metal brick) and you see the diff in what work is needed to do so.

    So, if warping is the one, then would not the items weigh the same weight as they are lifted, as they are being pushed equally down without their mass involved vs the same items, if attraction is at play, where now their mass make up is important to how much pull or attraction is needed given their diff masses.

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 28, 2008 #2
    NO

    The difference in relative weight between different values of mass, and the different speeds you are expecting depend inertial mass being different than gravitational mass. The observed results we see of different mass falling at the same speed depend on each having their gravitation mass = to their inertial mass. Newton concluded that G mass = I mass for any one item long ago. I don’t think that assumption has changed since for any theroy including warping or gravitons.
     
  4. Jun 29, 2008 #3
    Hi, thanks for the reply.

    I was wondering more about lifting objects than falling ones. Does mass matter, when dealing with warping? I might be looking at it wrong, but I would think it does not (please see my 1st post here.

    Also, on the subject of SG, I understand everything up to the point that when an observer on, lets say a train or spaceship, sees those 2 beams of light, one first in the front, then in the back, are they hitting at the same time or it is the one in front that hits first and then the rear? If so, if light travels at the same speed, then even if time has slowed for this person, why would the light not hit at the same time front and rear, just as an observer on the station platform sees it? Why would time slowing effect the light hitting at the same time. I understand that the spaceship is moving fast towards the front light, but still, even at half the speed of light, the person should see them hit at the same time, same as the person not moving.

    Also, all of these stories, mags, videos, etc. show the effect of this SR, but none explain WHY (cause) this time slowing is happening.

    I believe that it comes from the effects of either gravity attaction ( not warping of space) or of fast acceleration (not cruising) that these 2 effects show the same results, in that, somehow acceleration/attraction on sub atomic particales, does something to them to just slow them down, thus slowing everything down. The more gravity or acceleration, the more the atoms are effected thus slowing.

    Thanks
    Randy
     
  5. Jun 29, 2008 #4
    You need to be clear what you mean by “lifting”.
    If by lifting you are measuring work on an object, or maybe a the force needed force on an object to stop it from falling (ie. How much does it weigh) of course mass matters, that’s just basic physics.

    But if you thinking of lifting as something dependent on mass like gravity is then no mass does not matter. Example: Ignore warping vs. graviton gravity they both come out the same – assume you go high enough above the earth surface you come near the Moon. While the earth is pulling you down you could thing of the moon as ‘lifting’ against that pull. But that force in that form of lifting is based on mass of the object being ‘lifted’ just as the amount of force from earth gravity is depends on the mass as well. Since thinking of ‘lifting’ in this way rather than the lifting used to measure work or how much something weighs the mass is not factor. Thus two lunar landers of different masses close enough to the moon to be lifted away from the earth and fall to the moon will both fall at exactly the same rate because their mass does not affect the rate of acceleration.

    You look new to the forum, welcome.
    I assume you mean SR Special Relativity and you are off your own subject here; plus you seem to be shooting in the dark looking for an unknown answer to “WHY” that is only going to get you lost in the weeds..
    First, if any knew WHY then we would also know which was correct Space Warps or Gravitons. Just because Einstein did not believe in gravitons and did believe in Warped Space does not mean Science goes one way or the other on this. Science can only say HOW gravity works not What it is or Why it works, at least not yet and both GR warping and Gravitons can account for gravity accuratly, just in different ways.

    On SR I’d recommend you search for some existing threads on what your trying to understand and then ask something specific and try to keep to one topic in any one thread.
    But if you just want to know why it works as it does, not how we understand it now; then you may as well ask what is the theory of everything and exactly how does it work – you’re not going to get an answer because physics doesn’t know that yet.
     
  6. Jul 3, 2008 #5
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ ​

    More evidence negating the probability of gravitons (or new contradictions in quantum gravity):

    1. Einstein’s tensor field equations (tensor maps that are not actual physical fields but rather mathematical constructs used to preserve coordinate invariance during calculations) are non-linear (unlike the Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations), so superpositions of the type used to describe the change in a field or coherence in particle-duality experiments are not possible as they are with quantum mechanics.

    2. In general relativity, Newtonian fields can only be used to approximate the gravitation of stationary bodies (this is because the Komar mass is dependent on a stationary metric).

    3. Gravitation in the ADM and Bondi approximations use a field-like Hamiltonian but require a 3+1 split and are only valid in flat space-time.

    4. Thus far tests to detect the Nordtvedt effect, which would use self-gravitating energy to separate notions of inertial and gravitational mass (implicating an energy-transmitted field with dedicated mass-charge), have failed.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2008
  7. Jul 5, 2008 #6
    evidence negating Warped Space

    Well yah duh;
    You should expect evidence based on large scale tests of gravity (of the type or way GR looks at gravity) is going to support the Warped Space perspective and rej.

    Gravitons are based on a view and way of looking at gravity to satisfy the requirements of a much smaller scale as seen in the Standard Model. In that scale and way of testing gravity you find evidence negating the probability of Warped Space causing gravity.

    Not found is evidence or explanations the reconcile the two views to make clear which one (or what else there might be) is actually correct.

    Personally I prefer Gravitons,
    But at the same time I would not consider finding or proving gravitons as expected by the Standard Model a confirmation of Quantum Mechanics. It would only confirm the accuracy of QM was good enough to allow a good Standard Model be built, which is all the more the CI view of QM would expect is possible.
     
  8. Jul 5, 2008 #7
    Re: evidence negating Warped Space

    The fact that there is no evidence for gravity on the quantum scale is evidence in itself that a theory of quantum gravity is likely to be inconsistent...in general relativity, over Planck intervals space-time is practically flat anyway. There is a better treatment of the subject in this thread, which was locked by the censorious moderators of these forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=241024
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Warped space vs gravitrons
  1. Warped space (Replies: 8)

  2. Warped space (Replies: 1)

  3. Warp Space ? (Replies: 0)

  4. Warped space (Replies: 2)

  5. Warping of space? (Replies: 1)

Loading...