Question about Basics of Gravity

[swansont]

3 hours ago, tylers100 said:

Quote: "Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become weaker as objects get farther away."
from link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Could that be so because of something similar or same as what I previously said and drew Gravity Field Visualization above?

It’s because F= GMm/r^2

Physicists quantify things, which is usually required to solve problems, so they typically use math as a basis for understanding. Not “visualizations”

[tylers100]

Quote: "General relativity models gravity as curvature of spacetime: in the slogan of John Archibald Wheeler, "Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve."

link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Does this 4-Dimension (spatial dimension) make a somewhat good analogy to the quoted above?

link:

From link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space

[exchemist]

On 6/5/2024 at 8:06 PM, tylers100 said:

Quote: "Gravity has an infinite range, although its effects become weaker as objects get farther away."
from link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

Could that be so because of something similar or same as what I previously said and drew Gravity Field Visualization above?

Yes, your visualisation is good. If you draw lines radiating out from a point, the density of the lines will fall off with the square of the radial distance from the central point. This gives exactly Newton’s inverse square relation.
 

It’s just the same as the way the intensity of illumination falls with distance from a point source of light. It’s a consequence of the surface of a sphere being proportional to the square of its radius. You have the same number of lines in total, passing through a bigger and bigger total surface area, as the radius of sphere increases. 
 

But for calculation, the algebra is a lot more useful than the visualisation.

[MigL]

@Markus Hanke
I understand the concept of background independence, I simply meant that, while space-time is the immutable background stage on which QFTs act, in GR, space-time is itself an actor, and nothing else is required 'beneath' that.
However, I was surprised to learn that QFTs require a background ( as you state ).
It seems that 'background independent' QFTs are an active area of research,
A google search provides quite a few links to background independent Quantum Field Theory of Gravity papers ( quite a few involving LQG ), so maybe the jury is still out on whether Quantum Gravity, and a Graviton ) is possible or not.

[tylers100]

Standard Model of Particle Physics: "The Standard Model of particle physics is the theory describing three of the four known fundamental forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions – excluding gravity) in the universe and classifying all known elementary particles."
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

An analogy: Atm I try to think of standard model of particle physics as bubble or bobble fishing balls "floating" with their spin side(s) respective or relative to their interaction, if there is maybe a tug or two onto / into these then maybe find out if there is gravition or not.

Quantum gravity quote: "it is not known how spin of elementary particles sources gravity,"
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

Gravition wiki quote 1 of 2: "In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitational interaction."

Gravition wiki quote 2 of 2: "If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force has a very long range, and appears to propagate at the speed of light."
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton

Maybe go for fishing.

Fishing rod as ... (I dunno tbh, a scientific instrument or something like that) and bubble / bobble balls as particles, analogically.

Then tile rod at varying strength, speed rate, and range distance levels. Plus possibly reel in or out at varying strength, speed rate, and range distance levels. If there is a tug or two.. or three...

... maybe a bass fish (gravition) ... or not. 😛

-----

If found, then can start studying it along with other particles then maybe can design / develop a ground plating with artificial gravity for more practical spaceflight exploration - it would mimic these particles and their interaction structure and function along with gravition to produce artificial gravity if evidently found, that is.

And maybe artifical anti-gravity (by understanding a possible "reverse-engineering" of gravity if possible) for launching spacecrafts (there is no actual anti-gravity, I know but what I'm talking about is potentially a work-around theoretically speaking.)

I know what I'm saying is a bit far-fetched and too ahead of myself, I know, but still...

[MigL]

Some question whether there is, or can be, a graviton.
Don't count your chickens before they're hatched.

[tylers100]

Why

• Goal 1: "Improve understanding about gravity physics possibilities and impossibilities associated with it."
• Goal 2: "To see whether if there is gravity; graviton in quantum mechanics or not?"
• Goal 3: "And see whether if an alternative option(s) for artificial gravity is/are possible or not (e.g. for spaceflight exploration)."

Attached scanned picture of diagrams

See attached picture of scanned diagram visualization by myself.

It consists of two distinct diagrams, each with following gravity-wise termed words and also symbol icons I made up to ease with identifying these in visual way:

----- "gravity equation"

• 1. Directionality
• 2. Geometry
• 3. Mass

----- "result"

• 4. Gravity
• 5. Weight

These diagrams are my current understanding in regards to gravity; circle diagram as smooth analog-alike and "classical gravity physics?" whereas diamond diagram as jump-alike and "quantum gravity physics" if there is?

Reference

1. Directionality

2. Geometry
"Geometry (from Ancient Greek γεωμετρία (geōmetría) 'land measurement'; from γῆ (gê) 'earth, land', and μέτρον (métron) 'a measure')[1] is a branch of mathematics concerned with properties of space such as the distance, shape, size, and relative position of figures."
From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometry

3. Mass
- "Mass is an intrinsic property of a body."
- "The object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies."
From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

4. Gravity
"In physics, gravity (from Latin gravitas 'weight'[1]) is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things that have mass."
From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity

5. Weight
"In science and engineering, the weight of an object, is the force acting on the object due to acceleration of gravity."
From link - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight

[tylers100]

Cross-hatched ("inwardly") intersecting gravity in geometry structure or design may be a key to a realization of alternative artificial gravity option.

3D Screenshot Picture - Gravity Intersection Concept

See attached screenshot picture modified by myself with edits: Three objects all same just arranged in different ways resulting in possible conceptually different gravitationally attraction behaviours; uniform intersecting gravity, cross-hatched intersecting gravity, and loosely lines intersecting gravity. The second one should be of interest important in a possible realization of accelerating or amplified gravity thus a possible different artificial gravity option (e.g. a plating ground).

Why

Because of the way directions are oriented by object's geometrical structure / design; in case of cross-hatched intersecting gravity, more directions are intersected thus a possible of extra accelerated or amplified when spinning.

Osmium

If we can try use osmium metal (densest material) and turn it into "inward" cubic or other geometrical objects with inward design with cross-hatched intersecting gravity, then have it spin to create a centripetal force.

Maybe.

Reference

3D Normal (geometry)
link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(geometry)

[MigL]

Pictures and words are interpreted differently by different people.
That's why mathematics are used to describe physical processes.

You would do well to learn some; you might learn that your pictures aren't conveying the information you intend, but rather gibberish, and you are drawing non-sensical solutions from them.

get a book; Newtonian gravity is simple algebra and easy to understand.
Then you can move on to understand GR and QFT.

[tylers100]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Pictures and words are interpreted differently by different people.
That's why mathematics are used to describe physical processes.

You would do well to learn some; you might learn that your pictures aren't conveying the information you intend, but rather gibberish, and you are drawing non-sensical solutions from them.

get a book; Newtonian gravity is simple algebra and easy to understand.
Then you can move on to understand GR and QFT.

A. You say pictures and words are interpreted differently by different people, meaning some might understand my words & pictures whereas some might not due to not on universal level - perhaps.

B. Then you proceed to say my pictures aren't conveying the information I intend, then called it gibberish, then drawing non-nonsensical solutions from them.

...? A contradiction between both A and B. The B is like you absolutely decided my pictures are absolutely not understood by all people. Get it?

Anyway, I understand what you meant; I should stfu and move on to learning math and talk math mechanically or else get gtfo of this science forums as it apparently talks math only.

/exits

[Mordred]

Let's put it this way object A does not allow sufficient degree of independence to allow the time dimension to work with the tesseract.

 For that you want just the spatial components for the object itself then under translational and rotational invariance have that 3d object follow the worldline between events and that is where your time component gets factored.

You must be able to separate the spatial components from the time components this is why the tesseract idea becomes impractical.

 The tesseract is useful to understand independent degrees of freedom but not useful to describe spacetime curvature ie gravity.

Once you look into the mathematics this will readily become obvious 

Edited July 17 by Mordred

[tylers100]

Ok, I changed my mind: I'll probably look into info about Newton gravity, general relativity, and quantum theory a bit more - and a bit of mathematics related to these if possible too.

Sorry about my bit drama manner.

[studiot]

31 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

Ok, I changed my mind: I'll probably look into info about Newton gravity, general relativity, and quantum theory a bit more - and a bit of mathematics related to these if possible too.

Sorry about my bit drama manner.

If you want to take this forward, I recommend you approach it from the point of view of the effective range of action of different forces.

The force that holds the nucleus together, the force that holds the atom together and the force that holds the galaxies together operate of quite different distance scales and provide quantum fields at their respective ranges.

The idea is not perfect but it provides a unifying overview.