Gravitation, and distortion of Space by Mass.

[Keller]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, I merely had my curiosity peaked regarding Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, and one thing lead to another, until I came up with this. Please feel free to brainstorm alongside myself for other ideas, things I may not have considered, or anything else you want to add.

Theory of mass-space relationship, gravity, and space distortion.
    

    Vulcan was a planet hypothesized in order to explain Mercury's unusual orbit around the sun. However, when Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, and how mass warps space-time, it explained Mercury's orbit, and thus Vulcan no longer was believed in.

    If, indeed, mass does warp space-time, and that somehow influences gravity, and how objects affect each other, in what way does it warp space-time?

    Leaving out the time component for the time being, how would mass affect space? If apparently more mass means more attraction towards the mass, does that mean there is more space at M1 (for simplicity's sake, this is what I'll be calling this mass) or that there is less space? I have seen graphic representations of how mass supposedly warps space-time, and all of them depict "space" stretching and thinning at the mass. I beg to differ in that particular regard. For us to have an idea of how mass affects space, we would need to first theorize what they are to each other. My interpretation is that space is like a container, a coordinate, a data slot of sorts, that may or may not be host to "matter" or "mass" at a point in time. If we suppose for simplicity that space is like a tissue or fabric capable of moving in relation to an orthonorm, orthogonal coordinate system S1, and that it is faster in its movement than mass, we could put together the following theory:
        Space is the carrier of mass, and more mass requires more space to hold. Let's use our imagination to simulate this experiment:
            In the coordinate system S1, there exists space evenly spread out, and without any mass. We then summon a mass M1 in a certain point. That causes space to rush and fill up the "void" at the mass M1 in order to accommodate it, just as higher pressured air rushes to fill the "void" in lesser pressured air. The mass does not have the opportunity to rush and fill up the space instead, because it is of lesser speed. Now there exists a distortion around the mass, where space is concentrated at the mass, and diluted around it. Let us now summon another mass M2 significantly smaller than M1, and set it in motion towards the latter. Once it reaches orbit point, it notices the significant lack of space, and since space is held up by a much larger mass, it cannot rush to accommodate M2, so M2 rushes to fill it up instead. I do not have a way to explain why space's dilution decreases the farther from the mass, I only theorize it does so logarithmic-ally. That means that the dilution is exponentially stronger the closer to the mass, until it reaches a summit - or rather, the pit's bottom - at the mass's edge, then stabilizes at the mass.

 

    Theory by Y. "Keller" B.
        Moroccan High School graduate. Baccalaureate in Mathematical Sciences - A.

Edited September 19 by Keller
fixed a typo

[Mordred]

!

Moderator Note

As this is discussing a personal theory on the topic it belongs in our Speculation forum.

 

1 hour ago, Keller said:

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, I merely had my curiosity peaked regarding Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, and one thing lead to another, until I came up with this. Please feel free to brainstorm alongside myself for other ideas, things I may not have considered, or anything else you want to add.

Theory of mass-space relationship, gravity, and space distortion.
    

    Vulcan was a planet hypothesized in order to explain Mercury's unusual orbit around the sun. However, when Einstein came up with the theory of relativity, and how mass warps space-time, it explained Mercury's orbit, and thus Vulcan no longer was believed in.

    If, indeed, mass does warp space-time, and that somehow influences gravity, and how objects affect each other, in what way does it warp space-time?

    Leaving out the time component for the time being, how would mass affect space? If apparently more mass means more attraction towards the mass, does that mean there is more space at M1 (for simplicity's sake, this is what I'll be calling this mass) or that there is less space? I have seen graphic representations of how mass supposedly warps space-time, and all of them depict "space" stretching and thinning at the mass. I beg to differ in that particular regard. For us to have an idea of how mass affects space, we would need to first theorize what they are to each other. My interpretation is that space is like a container, a coordinate, a data slot of sorts, that may or may not be host to "matter" or "mass" at a point in time. If we suppose for simplicity that space is like a tissue or fabric capable of moving in relation to an orthonorm, orthogonal coordinate system S1, and that it is faster in its movement than mass, we could put together the following theory:
        Space is the carrier of mass, and more mass requires more space to hold. Let's use our imagination to simulate this experiment:
            

A large portion above wouldn't make sense. Understandably it's tricky to understand spacetime curvature. As your a student in high school its important to get a few physics definitions out of the way first and foremost.

Energy is ability to perform work.

Mass is the resistance to inertia change.

Space is simply the available volume where the SM particles reside its not a fabric and such isn't a mediator for mass.

Now taking the above spacetime curvature describes the geodesic paths of particles both massless and massive.

 Different geodesics for each above.

So take two parallel light beams if the beams remain parallel spacetime is flat. If they converge (positive curvature) if they diverge the negative curvature.

Now with the above consider the following mass being resistance to inertia change( mass being determined by the coupling constants of each field a particle interacts with.)

Let's see how we'll you understand the above before continuing.

 

[studiot]

2 hours ago, Keller said:

Theory by Y. "Keller" B.
        Moroccan High School graduate. Baccalaureate in Mathematical Sciences - A.

Excellent idea identifying your level of expertise.

I wasn't aware that anyone offered a 'bac' in such anarrow field. Generally the bac requires a spread of subjects.

 

2 hours ago, Keller said:

I am not a physicist, I merely had my curiosity peaked regarding Albert Einstein's theory of relativity,

Modred is 110% correct in saying the Physics is the dominant partner here, not Mathematics.

Relativity is merely couched in mathematical terms for convenience of expression.

 

I think that full explanation here is a job for @Janus  who does the best ones.

Meanwhile a few comments on the Physics.

 

There are two types of mass, inertial as Mordred has mentioned, and gravitational.

These two types have heen distinguished since the days of Newton.

Happily they have the same values using appropriate equations.

 

Thre are also several types of Relativity.

There is what we call Galilean or Newtonian Relativity

Einsteins Special theory of Relativity this may be understood at high school level

Einsteins General Theory of Relativity which requires some more advance maths to properly understand it.
This is the one you are speculating about.

Physics in the guise of quantum theory)  requires that space cannot be empty.

It also requires that whatever is in it alters the mathematical structure from a simple orthgonal coordinate system imposed, not by Physics, but by us, to a more complicated one.

I do agree with you that there is no 'stretching' involved  -  perhaps you have been looking at those awful trampoline pictures that should be banned.

I said whatever is in it since quantum theory has no requirement that the something be mass, although it does describe how the mass works.

The whatever includes energy which also also change the coordinate system.

These last two comments have been the focus of intensive research over the last part of the 20th century and into this current one.

[Keller]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

!

Moderator Note

As this is discussing a personal theory on the topic it belongs in our Speculation forum.

 

A large portion above wouldn't make sense. Understandably it's tricky to understand spacetime curvature. As your a student in high school its important to get a few physics definitions out of the way first and foremost.

Energy is ability to perform work.

Mass is the resistance to inertia change.

Space is simply the available volume where the SM particles reside its not a fabric and such isn't a mediator for mass.

Now taking the above spacetime curvature describes the geodesic paths of particles both massless and massive.

 Different geodesics for each above.

So take two parallel light beams if the beams remain parallel spacetime is flat. If they converge (positive curvature) if they diverge the negative curvature.

Now with the above consider the following mass being resistance to inertia change( mass being determined by the coupling constants of each field a particle interacts with.)

Let's see how we'll you understand the above before continuing.

 

I did not include energy in my hypothesis, and I do admit that it would likely seem very cranky to those specialized in physics, but please do bear with me.

I understand mass as the primordial and essential part of matter, that any matter has mass, or anything with a gravitational field, or affected by one.

I do define what space is in relation to mass in the hypothesis. And the entire focus of my post is to understand what space curvature would be.

 

Thank you for taking the time to respond, I do appreciate it very much! <3

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Excellent idea identifying your level of expertise.

I wasn't aware that anyone offered a 'bac' in such anarrow field. Generally the bac requires a spread of subjects.

 

Modred is 110% correct in saying the Physics is the dominant partner here, not Mathematics.

Relativity is merely couched in mathematical terms for convenience of expression.

 

I think that full explanation here is a job for @Janus  who does the best ones.

Meanwhile a few comments on the Physics.

 

There are two types of mass, inertial as Mordred has mentioned, and gravitational.

These two types have heen distinguished since the days of Newton.

Happily they have the same values using appropriate equations.

 

Thre are also several types of Relativity.

There is what we call Galilean or Newtonian Relativity

Einsteins Special theory of Relativity this may be understood at high school level

Einsteins General Theory of Relativity which requires some more advance maths to properly understand it.
This is the one you are speculating about.

Physics in the guise of quantum theory)  requires that space cannot be empty.

It also requires that whatever is in it alters the mathematical structure from a simple orthgonal coordinate system imposed, not by Physics, but by us, to a more complicated one.

I do agree with you that there is no 'stretching' involved  -  perhaps you have been looking at those awful trampoline pictures that should be banned.

I said whatever is in it since quantum theory has no requirement that the something be mass, although it does describe how the mass works.

The whatever includes energy which also also change the coordinate system.

These last two comments have been the focus of intensive research over the last part of the 20th century and into this current one.

Thank you and Mordred for the information you presented. I shall look more into the things you mentioned if I find time to do so.

In regards to my baccalaureate degree, if you're interested to learn more, isn't only mathematics. The Moroccan program for Mathematical Sciences - A offers a wide range of subjects, each with a different factor of importance (each exam results are multiplied by their respective subject's factor, to influence the final grade depending on degree of importance)

The subjects taught in my particular course are:

- Mathematics (Analysis, arithmetic, calculus, algebraic structures) Factor of 9

- Physics (Nuclear physics, waves, electric circuits and mechanics) Factor of 7

- Life sciences (Mendelian genetics, human genetics, population genetics) Factor of 3

- French (Grammar, reading and comprehension, written production) Factor of 4

- Philosophy (Human philosophy, politics, ethics and freedom...) Factor of 2

- Islamic Education (Quran, jurisdiction) Factor of 2

- Arabic (Same as French) Factor of 2

- English (Same as French and Arabic) Factor of 2

- History and Geography (World war II, Occupation of Morocco, US as a superpower, China as a superpower...)

Edited September 19 by Keller

[Mordred]

Great course guideline those definitions I provided will be identical to what's taught in your physics course and apply to all forms of physics including QM/QFT, String theory etc.