How does mass curve space?

[HalClem]

Einstein stated that mass bends space-time, and curved space-time affects mass. He did not give any mechanism by which this might occur. The following is the basis of an idea I had about twenty years ago.

 

If the particles which provide the mass of an atom (quarks) are small enough, their density must be extremely high, perhaps high enough to act as singularities. From recent browsing, I find that this has been proposed independently. However, I suggest we can speculate further on this.

 

Black holes are associated with wormholes. Might it be possible that each fundamental particle could act to “destroy” quanta of space time continually? I envisage these quanta would be Planck-length size, and removed at some rate related to a frequency of vibration (e.g. of a string?).

 

Concentrations of matter would continually "suck up" space-time, which would result in the observed curvature. Between any two centres of mass, there would be a reduction in the space-time between them, i.e. they would be “attracted” towards each other. It can be shown very easily that this would be an inverse square law of attraction.

 

As to where these quanta of spacetime disappear to – I proposed that they go to neighbouring universes, appearing at random anywhere within those universes. Other universes will also be pushing quanta into our universe. I would speculate that the loss and gain for any universe would be equal.

 

Because the quantity of matter is minute in comparison with the volume of the universe, this means a very small rate of quanta appearing per unit volume of existing void. The local effect is tiny, but accumulates when considered over the total volume, leading to an expansion of each universe in the voids between major centres of mass.

 

Closer to the centres of mass, the overwhelming effect is of quanta disappearing (net attraction). Hence an inverse square law applies close to mass centres (say the solar system, or the Galaxy), with an expansion (apparent repulsion, or negative gravity) in the great voids.

 

Of course this is complete speculation, but I can find nothing to rule it out. Can anyone else?

[sananda]

Hi HalClem,

 

I believe exactly that and have done so for years too.

 

I actually posted this independently on the 29th here:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43547

 

What is really cool is the other phenomenon that this theory can explain.

 

gravity of course

 

if light travels through the same medium then it would explain gravitational lensing

 

if atomic time is associated with it, then in areas of less pressure time would slow, so say near a black hole

 

if space energy is reasonably static then the consumption process could make an atom sticky and resist movement as it comes into a balance.

 

light speed limited by ether density

 

red shift of light from outer galaxies could be explained by the fact that space is less dense as you travel towards the centre of the universe

 

the list goes on and on.

 

would love to hear more of your thoughts on this.

[Mr Skeptic]

Interesting thought. But to make it useful and clear, it is necessary to add equations. So let's say that a mass M absorbs a volume V at a constant rate of G*M, and absorbs it equally in all directions. Are these reasonable assumptions for your theory? Also, what happens to a mass when a different mass absorbs some space near it? Does it stay in the same "location" as it was but the location is now different?

[sananda]

that's all currently described by the existing math Mr. Skeptic, neither of us is suggesting that it's wrong as it's not wrong... relativity is exceptionally accurate in describing the mechanics of large masses in space.

 

We're simply suggesting that space-time curvature can be explained in 3 dimensions through the absorption of ether...

 

Newtonian gravity can be explained thus quite simply if you simply say that matter (sorry particles with mass) absorbs the field of space as follows

 

On earth that's

 

F = mg

 

2 arbitrary bodies that's

 

F = G(m1 + m2)/r^2

 

We now know space is filled with virtual particles, Hawking radiation is based on this right?

 

Maybe these virtual particles are the fuel that give matter its mass, volumetric properties etc. like a candle needs air to shine.

 

HalClem suggests that these particles might be expelled into an equal but opposite universe... a very interesting concept... but perhaps it is simply electron production is the equal but opposite force? We also know that electrons cloud around the nucleus now and cannot be observed, perhaps they are the absence of something or perhaps they are the result of an unpairing of virtual particles.

 

What we are both suggesting however is that ether is absorbed, and that is the key to this and if you think about it, it is very intuitive, isn't it?

 

The only other factor to consider in relativity then is time...

 

Say time relative to an atom is based on how much energy is available to it... an analogy of a blow torch vs a candle is a good one here... more oxygen available to a flame the brighter and hotter it burns... perhaps it is the same with matter... the more energy available the faster it runs atomically...

 

This would give rise to time slowing for an atom near a black hole and speeding up the further you go away from it... in fact here on earth that has been verified too with atomic clocks run faster in space.

 

Is this not a beautiful system?

 

An experiment with a sound source in a room that changes frequency relative to movement would yield astonishing results...

 

Say that the pitch changed enough to cancel the doppler effect, or changed depending on the pressure of gas in the room... what kind of cool effects would we observe

[Mr Skeptic]

The thing is, you are describing trillions of different theories. For example, I asked if your theory had the matter absorb space at a constant rate... but since you don't specify, maybe it is absorbed in pulses, or at varying rates, or preferentially from one direction,... countless different theories that would yield different predictions.

[sananda]

An atom absorbs energy at a constant rate based on its atomic weight...

In fact its atomic weight is a direct result of how fast it absorbs ether.

 

Atomic weight and G are therefore intrinsically linked

 

The electron cloud is the result of the absorption of energy

The absorption of energy gives matter it's volumetric properties

The electron cloud pattern shows how energy is being absorbed from the ether

[insane_alien]

so... where does the energy go?

[Mr Skeptic]

If you don't mind, I think I'll let HalClem answer my questions about his theory.

[sananda]

so... where does the energy go?

 

Look at a single atom and the electron cloud that surrounds it...

 

It takes energy to form something so beautiful and keep it burning brightly...

 

The energy goes into creating the illusion of volume, the illusion of mass.

 

The animation of matter is the action, gravity is the equal but opposite reaction.

 

Halclem reckons the energy goes into another universe, so the atom is just a sink for this energy...

 

I think that we can stay in this dimension and simply state that gravity is the result of the fuel being used up in the animation of matter itself...

 

a flame burning oxygen to shine is about as good an analogy as you will get.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If you don't mind, I think I'll let HalClem answer my questions about his theory.

 

no problem, i thought the question was directed at my response.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Einstein stated that mass bends space-time, and curved space-time affects mass. He did not give any mechanism by which this might occur. The following is the basis of an idea I had about twenty years ago.

 

If the particles which provide the mass of an atom (quarks) are small enough, their density must be extremely high, perhaps high enough to act as singularities. From recent browsing, I find that this has been proposed independently. However, I suggest we can speculate further on this.

 

Black holes are associated with wormholes. Might it be possible that each fundamental particle could act to “destroy” quanta of space time continually? I envisage these quanta would be Planck-length size, and removed at some rate related to a frequency of vibration (e.g. of a string?).

 

Concentrations of matter would continually "suck up" space-time, which would result in the observed curvature. Between any two centres of mass, there would be a reduction in the space-time between them, i.e. they would be “attracted” towards each other. It can be shown very easily that this would be an inverse square law of attraction.

 

As to where these quanta of spacetime disappear to – I proposed that they go to neighbouring universes, appearing at random anywhere within those universes. Other universes will also be pushing quanta into our universe. I would speculate that the loss and gain for any universe would be equal.

Because the quantity of matter is minute in comparison with the volume of the universe, this means a very small rate of quanta appearing per unit volume of existing void. The local effect is tiny, but accumulates when considered over the total volume, leading to an expansion of each universe in the voids between major centres of mass.

 

Closer to the centres of mass, the overwhelming effect is of quanta disappearing (net attraction). Hence an inverse square law applies close to mass centres (say the solar system, or the Galaxy), with an expansion (apparent repulsion, or negative gravity) in the great voids.

 

Of course this is complete speculation, but I can find nothing to rule it out. Can anyone else?

 

Why another Universe? If the loss and gain for our Universe is equal...

[HalClem]

Ether: I don’t feel the need to resurrect the ether for this argument. I am proposing the same boring old three dimensions of space plus one of time as dealt with by Einstein, plus one additional to allow the removal to take place. All of his results are, I believe, untouched by my addition - very fortunately , as the hypothesis would be a non-starter otherwise! I am merely proposing a mechanism for General Relativity to work, i.e. a means by which matter might curve space.

 

I propose that fundamental particles occupy a volume on the order of the Planck length.

 

I propose that space-time is quantised at a Planck-length scale.

 

I then propose that, by analogy with black hole theory on the very large scale, which says that matter can be eliminated from this universe, perhaps (on the very small scale) quanta of spacetime might be removed.

 

I propose that vibrational modes of fundamental particles cause removal of spacetime quanta

 

Why to another universe? Because of the analogy with large scale black holes. But also because it still requires some higher dimensionality to allow for removal within this universe, if the quanta go directly to another location in this universe.

 

The question of directionality for the annihilation of space-time quanta – well, in bulk matter, it doesn’t really matter whether each individual mass “source” removes quanta in any specific direction. I would guess the observed result would be random directions since they would be averaged over a vast number of particles. Alternatively (or additionally) it doesn’t really matter about directionality, since removal of a space-time quantum would just result in all the surrounding quanta (quadrillions of them available!) shuffling up to take its place. This is what gives space its curvature – flat space shuffles in to become curved about a centre of mass. This can shuffle in from any direction.

 

This argument also covers the question of “location” also. The particle which has just removed a quantum, necessarily finds itself in the next quantum. It has “moved” in space.

 

The rate of removal? I suggest a fundamental frequency associated with each fundamental particle. The higher the frequency, the greater the rate of removal, and therefore the greater the mass observed. Hadrons would have a rate determined by their constituent quarks. Leptons would have a lower rate (lower mass). Different types of quarks would have their own frequencies. Atomic nuclei, composed of several protons and neutrons (each of which is composed of quarks) would have masses which are the sum total of its particles (less, of course, nuclear binding energies etc ).

 

Both gravitational and inertial mass are covered here in exactly the same way as in Einstein’s original theory. It really is just a way of creating the curvature of space that Einstein requires.

 

How does it remove the quanta? Perhaps at the Planck scale, the presence of a fundamental particle (a vibrating string?) twists space-time quanta so tightly that it moves through another dimension.

 

Near a centre of mass (say a planet) I envisage a constant flux of spacetime pouring down towards it, carrying everything with it. So the natural direction for an object (say a rock) at rest in relation to the planet, would be straight down. If the rock has a velocity at an angle to the planet, it will move in a curved path. Exactly as in the General Theory.

 

Over to you….

[sananda]

 

I propose that fundamental particles occupy a volume on the order of the Planck length.

 

 

Are you not just describing a modern version of Ether here?

 

Newton described it as a medium subtiler than air when contemplating how gravity acted over great distances.

[Mr Skeptic]

Ether: I don’t feel the need to resurrect the ether for this argument. I am proposing the same boring old three dimensions of space plus one of time as dealt with by Einstein, plus one additional to allow the removal to take place.

 

Do you know what a dimension is? It's not an alternate world like in TV. Which direction is this extra dimension and why can't we see it?

 

All of his results are, I believe, untouched by my addition - very fortunately , as the hypothesis would be a non-starter otherwise! I am merely proposing a mechanism for General Relativity to work, i.e. a means by which matter might curve space.

 

I'm glad you believe that, but the trick is to prove it.

 

I propose that fundamental particles occupy a volume on the order of the Planck length.

 

Why? And wouldn't an electron, for example, have a radius closer to 1.35 × 10^-57 meters if it was a black hole? (This being the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole the mass of an electron) That would be far smaller than the plank length.

 

I propose that space-time is quantised at a Planck-length scale.

 

I then propose that, by analogy with black hole theory on the very large scale, which says that matter can be eliminated from this universe, perhaps (on the very small scale) quanta of spacetime might be removed.

 

Black holes don't eliminate matter from this universe. That would violate the law of conservation of energy.

 

I propose that vibrational modes of fundamental particles cause removal of spacetime quanta

 

Why to another universe? Because of the analogy with large scale black holes. But also because it still requires some higher dimensionality to allow for removal within this universe, if the quanta go directly to another location in this universe.

 

The question of directionality for the annihilation of space-time quanta – well, in bulk matter, it doesn’t really matter whether each individual mass “source” removes quanta in any specific direction. I would guess the observed result would be random directions since they would be averaged over a vast number of particles. Alternatively (or additionally) it doesn’t really matter about directionality, since removal of a space-time quantum would just result in all the surrounding quanta (quadrillions of them available!) shuffling up to take its place. This is what gives space its curvature – flat space shuffles in to become curved about a centre of mass. This can shuffle in from any direction.

 

If these quanta of spacetime are free to move around, wouldn't there be currents of spacetime?

 

This argument also covers the question of “location” also. The particle which has just removed a quantum, necessarily finds itself in the next quantum. It has “moved” in space.

 

The rate of removal? I suggest a fundamental frequency associated with each fundamental particle. The higher the frequency, the greater the rate of removal, and therefore the greater the mass observed. Hadrons would have a rate determined by their constituent quarks. Leptons would have a lower rate (lower mass). Different types of quarks would have their own frequencies. Atomic nuclei, composed of several protons and neutrons (each of which is composed of quarks) would have masses which are the sum total of its particles (less, of course, nuclear binding energies etc ).

 

Both gravitational and inertial mass are covered here in exactly the same way as in Einstein’s original theory. It really is just a way of creating the curvature of space that Einstein requires.

 

How does it remove the quanta? Perhaps at the Planck scale, the presence of a fundamental particle (a vibrating string?) twists space-time quanta so tightly that it moves through another dimension.

 

Near a centre of mass (say a planet) I envisage a constant flux of spacetime pouring down towards it, carrying everything with it. So the natural direction for an object (say a rock) at rest in relation to the planet, would be straight down. If the rock has a velocity at an angle to the planet, it will move in a curved path. Exactly as in the General Theory.

 

So you envision spacetime as a sort of fluid? But, if it flows into matter, then there must be less and less of it unless there is also a source.

[sananda]

Mr. Skeptic,

 

Forgive me for answering your last point, but yes there is less and less of it.

 

This is why people believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which makes little sense... it makes more sense that the light is red shifting into less dense areas of space, areas where there is more matter (of the massive kind).

[mooeypoo]

Mr. Skeptic,

 

Forgive me for answering your last point, but yes there is less and less of it.

 

This is why people believe the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which makes little sense... it makes more sense that the light is red shifting into less dense areas of space, areas where there is more matter (of the massive kind).

Forgive me for being pedantic, but do you have any supporting evidence for this?