Mike Smith Cosmos

Well of course , I do agree with that totally . But I see the ' analogies ' status being at least on a par with the other two disciplines , if not in fact The need to Dominate the particular field being discussed , rather than some little amusing , unimportant , interruption to the real business. I am not sure the procedure of using Analogies is perceived by most as such an important , essential aspect , as I am describing . In other words , it should have equal if not more importance than :- Yes , but , Where is the Science ? Where is the Maths ? This should have as a pre requisite. Where are the ' stash ' of Analogies , on which this proposition is based. A bit like ' what is the Observation on which this is based? Mike Yes but it all depends what you want to get out of life ? Survival and a good life , or being able to explain in minute detail the lightning which just struck you dead. That apart , I am suggesting that some aspects of scientific progress are being slowed down , unnecessarily by not giving enough credence to the value of ' analogies ' throughout the whole process of science . Ranging from Observation , to hypothesis, to document research , to calculation , to experimentation , to results , conclusions, to publishing . I am suggesting that ' Analogisation ' ( namely translating the stage or aspect to a set of analogies ) should have a ranking in here somewhere . Perhaps at several points in the process. Not viewed as a little ' party trick ' Mike

If I was in the process of being struck by lightening . I know which skill I would sooner have in my front brain at the time . Not how many Amps does the ' fork of lightening ,conduct ' , or 'how exactly does lightening come about. ' It would be the collection of Images of lightening strikes and how much Damage they do, including killing people . And I would leg it away from the site! Mike

Well yes , I know you are stating the ' party Line ' and I would probably guess ,it is what you believe, BUT ! Your first line to me has more Impact. Namely " Analogies can of course be useful in developing ideas and presenting them. " Firstly ,though I agree science looks elsewhere to get its 'serve as a replacement ' Physics similarly , and the dreaded Maths similarly. However , I would contend that ' ANALOGIES ' are a whole additional ' pack of cards' , 'coming to the table ' as an effective and equal contributor to the total understanding of what a phenomenon IS . Or put another way what the Nature of Reality IS . So if Science is a contributor without eyes , Maths is a contributor without eyes , then the host of Analogies are the EYES. These eyes , I would say , gives a far better picture of the ' Whole ' , whereas often science will give ' an aspect' and maths can give 'a formulae and a set of numbers ' by way of definition. I would say that Analogies are the language of the brain! Analogies in the brain , are the models in the brain , by which a view of ' the nature of reality ' , can be struck. Of which the science and the maths can put some factual overlays , serving a specific purpose , ( like how fast , and which bit exactly moves, etc ) Mike I agree about the calculations and in fact the design . However driving a Car , my wife , and even I do not think of calculations as I drive. Perhaps the design may cross my mind from time to time , I doubt my wife does . Yet , certainly at my age , my wife is a better and more reliable driver than me . However , I could argue that analogies , are coming to the fore when ' one ' drives. Mike

I was caught up in a ' scientific ' discussion recently , where I was attempting to use ' Analogy ' as a way of developing an idea. A respected colleague on the Forum , 'StringJunky'. Brought up the point , to quote :- " it is the fundamental nature of these things.There's nothing in our sensory world that we can correlate with them accurately, just resorting to analogies, which can only ever be coarse approximations." I have always liked and used ' Analogies ' , to help my mental processes to understand things! In fact I would reason , It has to be ! This enables us to get our grip on reality . Whether it ' is' reality is a different question ? Or is it ? Mike

I appreciate to some extent what you say here . But surely ( unless I have been teleported into another Universe , ) Gravity waves have to do with Gravity Gravity has to do with mass . Mass has to do with ( one sort of the particles or another ) .i won't say the words or I might get them wrong . The difference in the spin type ( integer or half integer ) makes the particle type . And Spin is the subject , I just brought up . I don't get , where I am going adrift in my logic ? Unless I have been shipped to another Universe? Either that or you are winding me up ! Mike

Back tracking a bit ! There is something , surely , we can pull out of the similarity yet difference between ' electrical charge ' and ' Gravity ' Static Field lines emanate out from a point source in a similar manner , if my memory serves me right . Gravity field lines look very similar to electrostatic field lines , if I am correct ? Yet the difference is in the 'spin' ? Am I correct? Which is the characteristic that makes it either a Boson or a Fermion . Is that correct ? Which makes it have mass or not ? Am I correct ? Or have I got in a muddle again? . Mike

O.k. But I still think that is a good place to start , even if the analogies are ' coarse approximations ' Mike The SEA is a good analogy . It is vast . It weighs a good deal, it goes nearly everywhere . It is self levelling .... Mike

Yes but what if the answer IS NOT in the MATHS . What if Gravity emanates from the very Large , rather than from the very small. After all it is concerned with the structure of the very large ( like the whole universe) and it permeates the whole universe , and would seem to have effects across the whole universe . So maybe it is best understood by looking from the Outside looking in , rather than from the Micro,microscopically small looking up! Mike

The small amount I have attempted to read deep explanations of these subjects , very specialised definitions of mathematical functions , seem to appear out of nowhere. Many seem to describe these matters , in a way which uses expressions not common in ordinary scientific arenas. This makes life very difficult to anyone other than the specialist. What is needed is an interpreted presentation .in everyday terms. Unfortunately string theory has gone off on a whirlwind of mathematical investigation into areas and dimensions that loose the listener at an early turn. Perhaps it will be beneficial to bring gravity in from a Top- Down direction. Rather than trying to understand things from the very smallest , direction. Mike

Well in an electrical wave , when the wave falls to zero from peak it induces a magnetic field to peak coming up from zero . Similarly as a magnetic field falls from its peak to zero , it creates an electrical wave to come up from zero to peak . So the restorative force is the opposite . ( magnetic to electrical and electrical to magnetic ) . I presumed that's why the wave could propagate in empty space. . I would sooner believe the two forces work within a medium . ( but it seems it's not to be. ) So with gravity , I would sooner it worked in some form of medium . ( but if it's not to be) . I still ask what restorative force can cause the gravity to bounce or restore ? Mike

o.k. That's a shame , I thought you were suggesting something pretty spectacular ! Well , I struggle enough with Electro Magnetic waves not having a medium , with the disproval by the Michelson Morley optical reasoning and experiment . But I just about , get my mind , to imagine this pair of oscillating , in and out of electrical field to magnetic field , and back again . Moving to gravity ? Where is the restorative force ? Rubber sheet is o.k as an illustration, but what is the rubber sheet representing . Unless these tubes illustrated are so contorted , gravity turns so upside down it pulls back on itself? Mike

Why are we talking about electric charge , when the issue at steak is Gravity , Gravity waves , and Energy . Or are you saying there is some , connection of electric charge with the force of Gravity ? Is this what you are talking about ? Do they somehow overlap, if they do ? If so where and how ? Or are you saying , that they occupy the same space ( eg space time ) You must be suggesting .. :.. :- The sum total of all ' particle charge,' across all space and time . or That the Big Bang caused an astronomical single charge at the beginning and it has been spreading out with the expansion to make " electric field is proportional to E2, integrated over all space. " ? Mike

Yes but , surely you are talking about a humungous value . But what is this you are saying ? An electric field all over space And/ or an Energy field all over space ? Or are you referring to all matter that exists , across all of space time? Mike

Could I ask you ,possibly to be more specific, as to what you say is integrated across all space? Are you saying an electric field is integrated across all space ? Or are you saying Energy is integrated across all space ? Makes some interesting viewing the different images of Space , and Waves in space. My first reaction was that the images of something ,looking like a digestive tract , did not have the same esoteric feeling as a purple starburst. However one comes from maths no doubt , the other from wishful thinking . Mike

.I am not sure about quantities. But there has been a lot of talk about huge quantities of energy , beyond the amount represented by ordinary matter in the universe. It has got to be somewhere , all this extra energy , so surely it must be in Space time somewhere , there is no where else for it to be . So what better place for it to be, than bound up , in the fabric of Gravity and Space Time ? Mike Ps . Of course the maths of all this Energy/ Gravity may well be formalised by all these Richie Tensors ,

?Well I can vouch for the electro magnetic field ( being an active Radio Transmitting Amateur ( HAM Radio G4HMA ) I am licences to pump 150 watts into the ( great beyond ) , have and do . Interesting , you are saying then :- " that there is conventional 'Energy ' in the conventional Gravitational Field . Like ( Newton meters ) . " which sort of 'stands to reason ' because we can turn water behind a Dam into Electricity ? By the Megawatt Mike This is one comment about stiffness , I think you made another , perhaps in another thread about gravity , when you spoke about ' tension or twist ' I think , I will look . Here is this one , to one of ajb's posts Quote Strange, on 02 Mar 2016 - 2:13 PM, said: The "medium" is space and time itself. I do wonder (and I really don't know) if some parameter(s) in the Einstein Field Equations can be interpreted as something analogous to "stiffness" or "density", or something else that would define the speed at which waves travel. Similar to how the vacuum permittivity and permeability define the speed of light. Mike

Well that is the bit with me historically , I found it difficult other than to the Big Bang to trace back through energy. To pure energy . Which you are suggesting is un obtainable. At least the part that does shed some relevant picture to me personally is where :- The fabric of space time itself is energy ? So gravity is energy ? Is that bit right ? Could it be that the energy density in open space time , is more dense in energy than the equivalent volume of say inside a planet , star , moon , . there would be an inward " pull in " due to the effective force developed toward the object ( star, planet, moon or whatever ) . So in this case , it's a sort of push in toward the less energy density . Mike

." Mass is a 'Form of Energy' ". This could be integral in our understanding of ' Gravitational waves traveling through ..' As you picked me up on my expression ' conversion of energy ' , I must be honest, there has been a bit of a void in my head where , 'energy' goes . I had thought of it in terms of ' Energy makes things happen ' and after that it was a matter of converting one form of energy to another ( eg letting something drop, converting potential energy to other forms of energy say electrical energy in a power station) . And the whole exchange of state....making the conversion? But I have always struggled with tracing it back to pure ' Energy ' If when we see ' Mass ' , you are saying we are seeing ENERGY. Then this helps explain this Big Bang ----- wooch----space time ---- matter ( mass ) being distributed ' space-time' , molecular clouds , stars , galaxies, clusters etc . Both the space- time and the contents by your statement are all ENERGY in very thin and thick conditions , spread across the entire universe. So my wanting to know where ENERGY itself was , ' the whole shooting match ' in its entirety is ENERGY. So the Einstein General theory of relativity is just that ! Everything all spread out including its nature , that , the more concentrated and amount of matter the more gravitational effect . But that would include the very fabric of ' space time ' I still leaves a bit of fathoming the transparent bit . But even though we cannot see it , when we look at it , there is energy in some form there. This in turn, can be " Rucked a bit " and can so spread out waves in ' space-time .? Is this what you are saying , or have I picked up on the wrong thing ? Mike

O.k. .I have quite a lot to look in to here , and it sounds very interesting . But when I looked up ' torsion and torsion tensor ' on the net , it was as if the top shelf of a college library in the maths section had just tipped over and dropped all its maths books on my head , as they cascaded to the floor , knocking me off the ladder as they descended. Strange did mention earlier in the thread that he had come across some similar ideas in his personal research . I will try to look up the " Riemann Curvature Tensor " , except this time I will wear a metal hat and grip onto the library ladder! Mike

When you say it has energy due to mass. Do you mean by Mass energy conversion ( e= mc to power 2 ) ? Or what ? Mike

O.k so fermions and bosons are irrelevant . Hope you are right . Earlier on someone suggested it might be like Electro magnetic waves ! I presume you do not actually mean actually , electro magnetic ? I will presume No. Then to be like EM ( electro magnetic waves ) , the gravitational waves would need to be Made of Two different yet compatible forces or entities , To be self sustaining the forces would need to be self generating . ( as electro and magnetic forces do , magnetism coming from moving charge , and electricity coming from moving magnetism. ) The only hint we have is the the result of these two entities is the weak yet pervasive net force we have coming out of large objects like the Earth or the sun , or moon for that matter. They are all spinning by motion so maybe the two halves of gravity are to do with some net force of spinning . For the moment if we say that we are just dealing with the net force but like electro magnetism is self sustaining , so let us assume , that the two different forces of spin are self sustaining , and we are just detecting the NET force of Gravity. Well maybe over the next period of time we can undo the two different , yet self sustaining forces , can be separated and analysed and reproduced in their distinct parts , as it is with Electro magnetism ( where we isolate static electric charge , and magnetic moment. ) We then need to think how this dual object could cause the effect Gravity has? Mike O.k. I have taken most of that on the chin . That is O.k. How do you feel about " gravity ,not being a single force but rather a mix of two forces ( similar to electricity and magnetism , working together to produce electro magnetism . ) ? Rather than Gravity being one force , it being a pair of forces together producing the force of Gravity we know ? I have a sneaking feeling ' spin ' of some sort or another is at the root of gravity . Spin seems to come up all over the place , both at the sub atomic level, the atomic level and even the Earth level , and probably right up at a Universe scale . Mike

.So what you are saying , I have it the wrong way round . O.k. .----------------------------------- So is ( Space - Time ) :- 'Bosonic ' field ,which can entertain ( photons or gravitons ) this field existing as a medium ? ------------------------------------ Mike

. So Fermions have the HALF INTEGER SPIN ( .5 , 1.5 , 2.5 .....) concerned with mass And Bosons have the WHOLE INTEGER SPIN ( 0,1,2,3, 4.......) concerned with fields Is that right . So going back to ( space -time ) , as Einstein was saying this is a Gravitational Field , does that make it Boson or Fermion orientated or is it just not relevant ? And are we sure that ' Space - Time ' does not contain the energy which is supposedly maintained within the universe, in some form of strained, tense , field that constitutes Potential Energy across the whole of Space , ... As a MEDIUM which can flex when near planets and stars , and entertain waves such as the GRAVITY WAVES. Detected the other day by LIGO. Mike

O.k. So it sounds all a bit interwoven and complicated . When I have tried to make sense of the standard model . I though I picked up That :- BOSONS were more involved with being messengers , having zero or very little mass , concerned with fields, and having one sort of spin say ( half internet spin ) And FERMIONS were more involved with things that have mass , like quarks ( thus protons, neutrons ) and electrons , concerned more with mass , particles and say ( whole integer spin ) ( may have the spins the wrong way round ) So , I was proposing anything to do with mass like gravity , needed to be Fermion like , or work within a mass sensitive environment . Comparing to Electro Magnetic waves which work in association with things like charge and magnetism surrounding atoms . But maybe that is not possible or in conflict with things , I do not yet understand , or am probing in a wrong direction ? I thought Gravitons were only theoretical at this moment in time . I thought that is what LIGO was going to do , to detect a graviton . May be I have that wrong too. But I was sure Mordreds quote on research was saying it would take a source the size of a black hole and a detector the size of Jupiter ? Mike

Ok but do not fermions work in conjunction with bosons . Like photons with electrons / atoms . Mike ( walking the dog , oops slipped into the canal ! )