A logical approach to gravity at the quantum level

[Strange]

The animation that was provided by swansnot, depicts two separate laws of the way light travels, one for our suns light radiating out through space away from the suns mass, and a separate rule for starlight traveling past the sun in which the starlight is attracted towards the mass. You can't have it both ways. Is our sun not a star? Are the properties of starlight and sunlight different?

 

 

The light from the Sun is affected by the mass of the Sun, but by an immeasurably small amount. It will make the Sun look very slightly larger than it would otherwise. However, this effect is (a) very small and (b) undetectable because the Sun does not have a solid edge.

 

It becomes significant for black holes, for example, where the apparent size is about twice what would be expected.

 

 

 

but the sun light is definitely moving away from its mass and, there fore starlight as it travels past the sun, unless it has different properties, will move away from the suns mass also.

 

You seem to be confusing two different things here.

 

The light from the Sun is radiated in all directions away from the Sun.

 

The light from the star is also radiated in all directions away from the star.

 

Any given ray of light light (from either the Sun or the star) will continue in a straight line unless something else affects it. In this case it passes through the gravitational field of the Sun.

 

Or, for example it could pass through a lens. Exactly the same sort of diagram is used to show the change in position in that case.

 

 

 

I like simple common sense language, not big words that are used more for trying to impress people about how smart you are.

 

The only reason complicated words (and mathematics) are used is because the world is basically pretty complicated.

[swansont]

I'm not saying Einstein's theory was wrong

Yes, actually, you are.

 

I'm just saying most animations are wrong about why this effect happens. I would have to concede that the electrons from the sun are maybe not filling the "displaced stacked space" created by its mass, but the sun light is definitely moving away from its mass and, there fore starlight as it travels past the sun, unless it has different properties, will move away from the suns mass also. If you can't agree with this your just in denial.

Ray-tracing for refraction, as with Strange's example above, is pretty well established.

[mantraphilter]

I have attached my own animation of the effect on starlight as it moves past the sun. To me, this makes more sense. It agrees with what was observed during the lunar eclipse. But it also means that if the mass of the sun is displacing space, and that because of this, there is extra space all around the mass of the sun, the starlight would move into that extra space and bend toward the sun. In which case I don't believe you would be able to see it because it would then be blocked by the sun and the moon. but this is not what happened. so if their is space displaced by the mass of the sun it would have to be filled with something in order that the starlight moving past it would not enter that space, and take the same path as the light that is being radiated away from the sun. You don't have to believe it. this just makes more common sense to me, its simple, and does not require magical attraction between inanimate matter to be explained.

[Strange]

starlighpath.gif I have attached my own animation of the effect on starlight as it moves past the sun. To me, this makes more sense.

 

 

So you have the light curve away from the sun and then suddenly do a 90º swing towards the Earth.

 

Is this just based on what you would like to think happens, or is there some theory (i.e. mathematics) behind it?

 

Note that both Newton and Einstein worked out that light would be curved towards the sun, based on their respective theories, in the same way that any material object would. The reason that this was used as a test of GR is that it predicts a different value for the curvature then Newton's gravity.

 

Gravitational lensing happens and is a useful tool for studying dark matter, distant galaxies, etc. The fact that you don't like / can't understand the graphical representation doesn't change that.

Actually, looking at your diagram again, I'm not sure you understand how light, or even sight, works...

[mantraphilter]

 

 

So you have the light curve away from the sun and then suddenly do a 90º swing towards the Earth.

 

Is this just based on what you would like to think happens, or is there some theory (i.e. mathematics) behind it?

 

Note that both Newton and Einstein worked out that light would be curved towards the sun, based on their respective theories, in the same way that any material object would. The reason that this was used as a test of GR is that it predicts a different value for the curvature then Newton's gravity.

 

Gravitational lensing happens and is a useful tool for studying dark matter, distant galaxies, etc. The fact that you don't like / can't understand the graphical representation doesn't change that.

Actually, looking at your diagram again, I'm not sure you understand how light, or even sight, works...

You do not understand the diagram. The light from the star does not make a 90 and swing back toward the earth. the line that you think represents this, is only representing the line of sight from your eye to where the position of the star appears in the sky. If you do not believe it, you don't have to.

show me a quote that can be definitely attributed to Einstein where he states that the stars light bends toward the sun as it travels past it, and I will tell you it is wrong. It is more likely that other people have misunderstood why the effect happens and in there own attempt at understanding , have name dropped Einstein into there own version of it. Anybody who believes sunlight and starlight, moving through the same space, will move in opposite directions is clutching on to there own religion in order to keep their ego intact, rather than admit that they did not completely understand the theory. If this describes you than so be it.

[Strange]

You do not understand the diagram. The light from the star does not make a 90 and swing back toward the earth. the line that you think represents this, is only representing the line of sight from your eye to where the position of the star appears in the sky.

 

 

So you don't understand how light works. (Or maybe you don't understand what the diagram is supposed to show?)

 

You can only see something if a ray of light travels from that object to your eye. You can't see it because a ray of light is passing sideways to your field of view (as your diagram appears to show).

 

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/light_deflection

[mantraphilter]

If people believe that starlight passing close to our sun, is bent towards our sun due to the gravitational pull, they are wrong. While my graph may not be a complete, to scale, representation of the path the starlight travels to reach your eye, it is only an attempt to explain, that the starlight, as it passes near the sun, does not bend towards it, but rather away from it. If anyone believes that the starlight bends towards the sun, than they also believe that the sunlight and starlight will move in different directions while traveling through the same space. They might as well say that it is due to magic.

[Lord Antares]

If anyone believes that the starlight bends towards the sun, than they also believe that the sunlight and starlight will move in different directions while traveling through the same space.

 

Can you explain this? I'm interested to hear the explanation.

 

Also, your graph, if it were accurate in scales and angles, only shows what we know from general relativity. What are we supposed to obtain from it?

[swansont]

You do not understand the diagram. The light from the star does not make a 90 and swing back toward the earth. the line that you think represents this, is only representing the line of sight from your eye to where the position of the star appears in the sky. If you do not believe it, you don't have to.

 

The line of sight to the star's apparent position is a straight line, because we perceive things to be such a line. But you have a curved line going from the star to this line, and it intersects at basically a right angle, and it's labeled as the starlight path. How does the light get to an observer on earth?

[Strange]

If anyone believes that the starlight bends towards the sun, than they also believe that the sunlight and starlight will move in different directions while traveling through the same space.

 

 

Of course they can move in different directions in the same space.

 

Take two laser pointers and place them at right angles so the beams cross: the light from each is travelling in different directions while travelling through the same space.

 

Or just turn on two different lights in your house.

 

I find it odd that someone who doesn't even understand how light and vision work, can be so certain that the whole of optics, geometry, and two theories of gravitation are wrong.

[Sriman Dutta]

Mantraphilter, I would advise you to get some basic knowledge of physics and mathematics.

[mantraphilter]

I realize that the animation I have provided and other animations I have seen, are similar in predictions of the lights path curving away from the sun, only the description of why it occurs is different. Language is the barrier to understanding different descriptions of the same concept. The animation Swansot linked does indeed show the path of starlight bending away from the sun, as I agree it would do, and for the same reason that the sun radiates its light into the space farther away from its mass, their is more space for the light to move into.This is the reason space is warped by mass. But, I also believe, in the case of a large planet that does not radiate light to fill the space that is displaced by its mass, the starlight moving past the planet should curve towards the mass. If the planetary mass were large enough to create an observable effect.

[Strange]

I realize that the animation I have provided and other animations I have seen, are similar in predictions of the lights path curving away from the sun, only the description of why it occurs is different. Language is the barrier to understanding different descriptions of the same concept.

 

 

That is why physics uses math.

 

 

 

But, I also believe, in the case of a large planet that does not radiate light to fill the space that is displaced by its mass, the starlight moving past the planet should curve towards the mass. If the planetary mass were large enough to create an observable effect.

 

Absolutely. That is why gravitational lensing is useful for mapping dark matter.

[swansont]

The animation Swansot linked does indeed show the path of starlight bending away from the sun

 

It most certainly does not.

 

Are you going to answer the questions about your drawing?

[mantraphilter]

This is a better representation of the path I believe the starlight takes. As the starlight moves pass the mass of the sun. The starlight bends away from the sun because there is more space for it to move into (the space farther from the sun is not already filled with electrons). This is the same reason the sun radiates light into that space, and is my explanation of the weak nuclear force. The same thing happens at the atomic level when the space that is displaced by the mass of the atom stacks around it, and becomes so filled with electrons that an electron will move into the space farther away from the "displaced stacked space" that closely surrounds the atom because, there is more space to move into (that space is not filled with electrons). I believe this describes how an atom decays. if this is true (and I believe it is) this describes gravity at the astronomical and the quantum level. A planet also displaces space that gets stacked around it, but, that space is not being filled by a nuclear reaction that fills the space with electrons, and so newton's apple falls to the ground into the "more space" that exits immediately next to the mass of the planet. The reason the electron does not fall into the mass of its atom is, the particles in the atom are already charged, and like magnets, the protons and electrons push away from each other. The electron will not enter the space farther away from the atom because there is more space stacked up around the mass of the atom and it will stay in that space until, again, that space becomes so full of electrons that the space around the atom and the space farther away become equal, allowing an electron to escape. But, once the electron escapes there is a difference between the two spaces trapping the remaining protons and electrons inside the "displaced stacked space" until the condition of friction creates more charge and fills the space again. I believe this is the simple explanation that describes all of the forces. You do not have to believe it. I am not a mathematician, I can not come up with the mathematical formulas to prove it, this is no reason to discredit it. Maybe somebody who is better at math than I, will.

[Strange]

I can not come up with the mathematical formulas to prove it, this is no reason to discredit it. Maybe somebody who is better at math than I, will.

 

 

So, on the one hand, we have a mathematical theory of gravitation that makes very accurate predictions. All of these are consistent with experiment.

 

On the other hand we have your guess, with no ,mathematics and way of testing it.

 

Sorry, but I think I will stick with the science. But thanks anyway.

[mantraphilter]

You still are not getting it. If this is true, it describes gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and how the magnetic force occurs. To me, this is exciting. I do not care if I can do the math. If you are so keen on proving it with math, why don't you? or at least disprove it with math.

[Strange]

You still are not getting it. If this is true, it describes gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and how the magnetic force occurs. To me, this is exciting. I do not care if I can do the math. If you are so keen on proving it with math, why don't you? or at least disprove it with math.

 

 

The math and evidence already disproves it. We have a theory of gravitation that describes how light behaves near massive objects. This has been tested and it is correct. Your idea says something different and therefore it is wrong.

You still are not getting it. If this is true, it describes gravity, the weak and strong nuclear forces, and how the magnetic force occurs.

 

How can it describe any these things without math?

 

Can you tell us anything about atoms or atomic nuclei or the structure of protons that isn't already known? Or are you just fitting known information into your story?

[swansont]

starlightpath1.gif This is a better representation of the path I believe the starlight takes. As the starlight moves pass the mass of the sun. The starlight bends away from the sun because there is more space for it to move into (the space farther from the sun is not already filled with electrons).

 

 

Why does it then bend back toward the sun?

[mantraphilter]

The light does not bend back towards the sun, the starlight follows the space that is warped by the mass of the sun and to your eye. Gravity is not the magical force of attraction that we are typically told occurs between two masses. When a star has a planet in orbit behind it, and we see the red shift which tells us that a planet is there. This is not caused by magical attraction between two masses. It is cause by the space being warped as the planet moves around its star, and the star and the planet moving into each others warped (displaced stacked space). The reason this excites me is because, this, (if true) is like the holy grail of physics. This one, simple Idea, can describe all four forces at the astronomic and atomic level. You say math can disprove it, but are not showing me the math. I am not a mathematician, I get bored with all the numbers and formulas. Math can pretty much describe any situation if you tweak the formulas right. Show me any experiment that can disprove this theory, and I will have to re-adjust my own understanding of the universe and the way things work. No big deal, all part of the learning process. I'm not scared.

[swansont]

The light does not bend back towards the sun,

OMG. Let's cover the basics here: do you know what toward and away mean?

 

The starlight in your diagram bends twice (there are opposite sections of concavity) If it only bent away from the sun, it would never reach earth.

 

[Manticore]

I think I see the problem. Somehow, the OP thinks that we are still seeing the same photons we would have seen had the sun not blocked them, rather than the slightly oblique rays which are curved by the sun into our line of sight.

 

(Is this comprehensible - it's been a long day.)

[Strange]

This one, simple Idea, can describe all four forces at the astronomic and atomic level. You say math can disprove it, but are not showing me the math.

 

 

1. How do you know it can describe all these forces? As you have no math, it is just a guess. My guess is that it can't.

 

2. The math (GR) says that the light curves towards mass, not away:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#Explanation_in_terms_of_space.E2.80.93time_curvature

More detail here, as you complain we haven't shown the math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing_formalism

 

More discussion here if you want to learn (instead of making up fairy tales):

http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lens.html

 

 

 

I am not a mathematician, I get bored with all the numbers and formulas.

 

So you didn't really want the math. Ho hum.

 

 

 

Show me any experiment that can disprove this theory, and I will have to re-adjust my own understanding of the universe and the way things work.

 

And overview here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Gravitational_lensing

 

Also, there are many other tests that confirm GR gives accurate results (see the rest of the page linked above). It is not possible that it would somehow give the correct results for everything else, but somehow get lensing wrong.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Strange

[mantraphilter]

Let me put this as simple as I can, If a person thinks gravity is a magical force where mass attracts other mass, that person is wrong. What about magnetism? Would not the light from the sun and the light from the star have the same charge, yet, people are still saying that the light from the passing star is bending towards the sun due to its attraction to mass. So my animation is not perfect, the point is, the starlight follows the curvature of the space created by the mass of the sun, and not pulled magically by the mass of the sun. It's like asking if you believe in love, because two different masses do and that is why they are attracted to each other. The sun is round . If the star were centered as directly behind the sun as it could possibly be, you would still see its light during the lunar eclipse. If gravity was only the attraction of mass, that same starlight would be attracted by the mass of the sun and you wouldn't see it during the lunar eclipse. Starlight as it travels past the mass of the sun is not simply bending due to attraction by gravity, it is following the curvature of space. I never said that gravitational lensing is wrong. I am saying that why it occurs is not because mass is attracted to mass. The reason I believe that the "displaced stacked space" theory describes all of the nuclear forces? I am very good at building things, I can imagine a three dimensional model in my head and examine it from all perspectives before cutting my first piece of wood. I can do the same with my model of the universe, and the simplest solution to all the differences that exist in the astronomical and the quantum, is "displaced stacked space" you can stand behind all of the complicated formulas, and confusing language, but all you are really doing is confusing things in order to argue your position. I believe most people do not really understand these formulas, and only reference them in a debate so they can say, see, you are confused because you don't understand these formulas, and therefor, wrong. How did you know these complicated formulas would confuse me? Could it be you are confused by them also and so you knew I would be. I skimmed over a lot of the links you have provided, of the things I could understand. I did not see anything that disproves the "displaced stacked space" theory. I did see a lot of complicated formulas and long words paraded about as a, " look see how smart I am" billboard.

[swansont]

Let me put this as simple as I can, If a person thinks gravity is a magical force where mass attracts other mass, that person is wrong. What about magnetism? Would not the light from the sun and the light from the star have the same charge, yet, people are still saying that the light from the passing star is bending towards the sun due to its attraction to mass. So my animation is not perfect, the point is, the starlight follows the curvature of the space created by the mass of the sun, and not pulled magically by the mass of the sun. It's like asking if you believe in love, because two different masses do and that is why they are attracted to each other. The sun is round . If the star were centered as directly behind the sun as it could possibly be, you would still see its light during the lunar eclipse. If gravity was only the attraction of mass, that same starlight would be attracted by the mass of the sun and you wouldn't see it during the lunar eclipse. Starlight as it travels past the mass of the sun is not simply bending due to attraction by gravity, it is following the curvature of space. I never said that gravitational lensing is wrong. I am saying that why it occurs is not because mass is attracted to mass. The reason I believe that the "displaced stacked space" theory describes all of the nuclear forces? I am very good at building things, I can imagine a three dimensional model in my head and examine it from all perspectives before cutting my first piece of wood. I can do the same with my model of the universe, and the simplest solution to all the differences that exist in the astronomical and the quantum, is "displaced stacked space" you can stand behind all of the complicated formulas, and confusing language, but all you are really doing is confusing things in order to argue your position. I believe most people do not really understand these formulas, and only reference them in a debate so they can say, see, you are confused because you don't understand these formulas, and therefor, wrong. How did you know these complicated formulas would confuse me? Could it be you are confused by them also and so you knew I would be. I skimmed over a lot of the links you have provided, of the things I could understand. I did not see anything that disproves the "displaced stacked space" theory. I did see a lot of complicated formulas and long words paraded about as a, " look see how smart I am" billboard.

 

Gravity is not magic.

 

Your animation is not perfect in the sense that it shows the opposite of what you claimed.

 

If a star were centered behind a star, nothing in GR says we'd see it; the effect is not strong enough. Same for the light leaving the sun. This is why we use the formulas - you can quantify the effects. So stop making stuff up.