polarity for other forces than electrostatics

[lemur]

If gravity had positive and negative poles, like magnetism, could the opposite pole be hidden because it existed in anti-spacetime? Matter tends to organize into apparently spherical bodies, but what if the center of these bodies was just a transition point between the positive and negative poles of gravitational force, where only the positive spacetime-generating side is observable? So whereas we generally think of gravity-wells bottoming-out at their centers, could the curvature of spacetime actually be continuing through some kind of virtual/shadow anti-spacetime that feeds force back into the gravity field as we know it?

 

Think about it like being an electron living on the positive pole of a magnet and observing electrostatic force as attractive and having no capacity to recognize the negative pole because the electron is consistently repelled away from that direction to the point of all direction curving back toward the positive pole of the magnet. Spacetime could work the same way, with spacetime expansion outward from any gravitational-center as a polar opposite of the center itself. Since light itself would be deflected toward the "positive" gravitational pole, the apparent expansiveness of spacetime would be the result of repellant force from the negative pole. Like an electron heading through a magnetic field, all directions toward the negative pole would only curve back around to the positive pole, making spacetime appear as an endless realm of positive magnetic poles with no negative poles.

 

This is a bizarre idea, I know, hence it being posted in speculations. Mainly, I just think it's interesting to speculate about the possibility that gravity could be dipolar without our being able to observe both poles. A related speculation might involve connecting the electrostatic polarity between electrons and protons to the nuclear forces as seemingly attractive without having dipolarity. E.g. maybe gravity could be the anti-pole of nuclear force, since it attracts atoms from the outside of the electrons while the nuclear force attracts particles inside them. Anyway, very confusing thinking I know and what point could thinking this way possibly have? . . . but I still find it interesting and wonder what others might have to say.

[D H]

If gravity had positive and negative poles, like magnetism, could the opposite pole be hidden because it existed in anti-spacetime?

There is no such thing as negative mass, and hence no such thing as a gravitational dipole.

 

 

 

[swansont]

What is "anti-spacetime" ?

[amber r shaffer]

!

Moderator Note

moved http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/54256-hypothesis-on-space-and-time/

[lemur]

There is no such thing as negative mass, and hence no such thing as a gravitational dipole.

If I had thought that this idea was resonant with established theory/science, I wouldn't have posted it in speculations. However, to answer your question in terms of my speculative logic, I would say that there is no such thing as positive electrons, but their electrostatic counterparts are protons, which also happen to anchor the nuclear force. This is why I said maybe nuclear force is interwoven with electrostatic force in a way that is similar in the relationship between gravity and nuclear force. I.e. maybe the nuclear force is the negative pole of gravitation. I know these are bizarre-sounding thoughts, but think about the way a magnet's field extends outward from the negative pole and re-connects through the positive pole. This is all the result of some atomic-level shift in the electrostatic relations between the electrons and the protons, presumably. In the same sense, the external gravitational attraction between atoms/molecules could be due to some kind of polarization of the nuclear force. Magnetism may be strong because electrons are light and fast, whereas gravity may be weaker because protons and neutrons are heavier and less mobile. Obviously this is totally speculative, but I find it interesting to explore radically different thoughts sometimes.

 

What is "anti-spacetime" ?

To me, spacetime is just another name for gravitational field-force. So anti-spacetime would refer to the "negatively charged" part of a gravity field, if gravity were dipolar. It wouldn't be like another dimension of spacetime that could somehow be explored like an alternate universe or something. It would just be like having a magnet where you're an electron and you can only perceive space(time) as the part of the magnetic field between the positive pole and a certain level of repulsion/curvature you would encounter when attempting to approach the negative pole. So translating this idea to gravity, outer space would not be like a large integrated container, as people often seem to think of it, but more like a collection of gravity wells whose exteriors repel objects back in the direction of the same gravity well or another one.

 

Just think about an electron that could fly around freely among a collection of magnets. It would experience spacetime as being always curved in the direction of the positive poles and if light followed the same curvature, it would not even be able to see the negative poles because they would just as easily repel light as electrons.

Edited January 22, 2011 by lemur

[michel123456]

What is "anti-spacetime" ?

The future.

[ajb]

To me, spacetime is just another name for gravitational field-force.

 

I think it is far better to think of the gravitational field as the local geometry, so either as the metric or as the appropriate connection. In standard general relativity either way of thinking is equivalent. In more exotic theories we can have independent metrics and connections, as well as torsion.

 

So, let us think about general relativity in particular.

 

So anti-spacetime would refer to the "negatively charged" part of a gravity field, if gravity were dipolar.

 

 

So, you need to think about what is meant by negatively charged gravitational field. So, let us assume we have a gravitational wave propagating on an asymptotically flat space-time.Thus, we have a good notion of energy and mass of the space-time. Which you would want to be negative to be a "classical anti-graviton". This would violate the positive energy theorem of general relativity.

 

Of course the positive mass theorem relies on the dominant energy condition. So, either this condition is not true, or gravitational waves (if it can be defined) carry positive mass.

 

So, I think the notion of a "negative mass/energy gravitational field " will be more complicated to construct that you might at first think.

 

You now need to give us more details of your "anti-space-time".

[michel123456]

I like Lemur's proposal.

 

(...)

So, you need to think about what is meant by negatively charged gravitational field. So, let us assume we have a gravitational wave propagating on an asymptotically flat space-time.Thus, we have a good notion of energy and mass of the space-time. Which you would want to be negative to be a "classical anti-graviton". This would violate the positive energy theorem of general relativity. (...)You now need to give us more details of your "anti-space-time".

 

All you need is negative distance.

 

Think about it: in our world, only positive distance exists, and only the past is observable. All distance is linked with time, and this time is always in direction of the past. What is not observable: negative distance & the future. This is the world of anti space-time.

 

Think of it otherwise: when you look around you, all that you observe lie at some distance in the past. The past is a sphere extending all around you.

 

When the distance decreases, you get less in the past, closer to the present. When the sphere touches yourself, you reach the present. If you want to continue further, you have to continue inside yourself and find the future.

Edited January 22, 2011 by michel123456

[ajb]

All you need is negative distance.

 

We sort of have that already in relativity, as well as zero distance.

 

Generally, you need to replace a Riemnnian metric, with a pesudo-Riemannian metric. That is weaken the positive definite condition. One also keeps the non-degeneracy condition, but I expect you could weaken this and get somewhere.

[michel123456]

Great.

Usually when I talk about negative distance I only take answers like "utter nonsense".

[ajb]

Usually when I talk about negative distance I only take answers like "utter nonsense".

 

Defining spaces or manifolds with pseudo-Riemannian metrics is fine. How you decide to use them may be "utter nonsense"

[michel123456]

Defining spaces or manifolds with pseudo-Riemannian metrics is fine. How you decide to use them may be "utter nonsense"

 

That is a huge step forward. Thank you.

 

Lemur: yours.

[ajb]

I guess I should point out that every smooth manifold can be given a Riemannian metric. The same is not true of of pseudo-Riemannian metrics. There are some topological obstructions. The fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry can be generalised ok.

 

You may have to be a little careful generalising other theorems.

[D H]

Once again, you are just making up nonsense garbage, lemur. Science doesn't work that way. What outstanding problem are you trying to solve? What is the math behind your conjecture? Without math you are not doing physics, and it is not the job of a physicist to add the math to your nonsense proposals.

[lemur]

Once again, you are just making up nonsense garbage, lemur. Science doesn't work that way. What outstanding problem are you trying to solve? What is the math behind your conjecture? Without math you are not doing physics, and it is not the job of a physicist to add the math to your nonsense proposals.

I posted this thread in "speculations" because I wanted to have the freedom to discuss something radically ungrounded except in the aspects of the building-block concepts that I used. Specifically, I wanted to think about the polarity of electrostatics in the (possible) context of gravitation, and as somewhat of a tangent to my own thread, the possibility that protons/neutrons are to gravity what electrons are to a ferromagnetic field. These are pure speculations that are barely derived from the logic of some known particles and forces. I don't have any math to go with them, but if someone else would/could create such math/equations, I would be curious how.

 

You don't have to call these ideas physics, but then please give me a more accurate descriptor than "garbage," "nonsense," or "conjecture." Maybe it should be called theoretical-fiction and you can leave out your judgment of the quality from the actual descriptor. You can say "it's fictional theory and I think it's garbage," but don't call it "fictional theoretical garbage" please, because someone else might find it thought-provoking in some way. I think you're attacking it as if it was a paper submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal when it's just a speculative conceptual musing posted for amusement and commentary and perhaps legitimate physics insights as they related to it.

 

Speaking of that, thanks to ajb and michel for using scientific terminology that is beyond me for the potential that it will contribute to some future understanding of Riemannian metrics, whatever those are. Michel's point about anti-spacetime being the future and the spatial metaphor described are creative and interesting though I think unrelated to my concept.

 

Before I post this, though, I would like to say that the analogy of multiple magnets traversed by an electron seems particularly interesting to me in that if gravity-wells existed as the positive poles of gravitational "magnets" whose positive polls were invisible due to light being repelled by them along with matter, that sounds like something similar to the current ideas about "dark matter" and "dark energy" that are floating around. Do you think thoughts posted in the speculations section should still be limited according to some criteria?

Edited January 22, 2011 by lemur

[D H]

Garbage and nonsense are the best descriptors or your ... stuff. Conjecture is being nice.

 

Even the speculations forum has rules, lemur. Did you read them?

[lemur]

Garbage and nonsense are the best descriptors or your ... stuff. Conjecture is being nice.

Thanks for your opinion. Your criticism is, well, uncritical. You fail to consider that legitimate science has the power to stimulate the fictional imagination in other ways than writing stories about interstellar space voyages. I found it reasonable to post this in speculations. I would find your critique more reasonable if I had posted it in Physics.

 

edit: ok, I read the speculations rules and it seems I should have deduced some testable experiment or observation. How's this:

 

1) if protons/neutrons were related to some kind of polarity for gravity (the way electrons are to ferromagnetic fields), there should be some variability to gravitation that depends on something other than mass OR there should be some aspect of mass that doesn't depend directly on proton/neutron numbers. Both of these would appear to be unsubstantiated by current observations, though one could wonder if there's something we're not seeing.

 

2) If the gravity-wells we observe are the (visible) positive poles of a dipolar system, each gravity-well would have a concentration of spacetime curvature in the direction of the invisible negative pole. This would necessarily have some gravitational-lensing effect whose shape would possibly resemble that of a magnetic field in some way. I'm not sure how a magnetic field could be modeled in a way that light would trace curvature away from the negative pole toward the positive. If it was possible to model such a thing, the results could be compared with actual observations of stars, etc. Still, even if the results did not visually differ from observation, how would this support the validity of the idea that gravity-wells in fact have invisible repellant negative poles?

Edited January 23, 2011 by lemur

[D H]

From the rules for the Speculations Forum:

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.

So what problem are you trying to solve and what is the evidence of your conjecture?

[lemur]

From the rules for the Speculations Forum:

[/size][/color]

So what problem are you trying to solve and what is the evidence of your conjecture?

 

The problem I'm trying to solve is inconsistency among different kinds of force and a lack of inter-relation in some places despite such interrelation in others. For example, protons are both the positive poles of electrostatics and the point-particles of nuclear force. This links the two forces in a common anchor-point. Why shouldn't it be expected that other forces would be linked in similar ways? Also, it is inconsistent that electrostatic force exhibits (relies on) polarity while nuclear force and gravitation don't. It's like electrostatic force is a direct current and the other two are AC. On another level, I'm trying to address an empirical-observability problem of light being affected by gravity while also being the basis for visual observations of gravity-systems.

Edited January 23, 2011 by lemur

[D H]

There is no problem. Mass isn't negative. There is zero experimental evidence that mass can be negative. You need to cite some evidence in favor of your conjecture.

[lemur]

There is no problem. Mass isn't negative. There is zero experimental evidence that mass can be negative. You need to cite some evidence in favor of your conjecture.

If some species seemed to have common ancestors but other species didn't, would you consider that a scientific problem or would you say that those species that didn't simply don't and there's no reason to ask why? I agree with you that there's no inductive reason to assume that mass can be negative, but are you saying that there's no reason to think that different forces of nature would have common characteristics? If electrostatic force is dipolar, why wouldn't nuclear force and gravity?

[D H]

While little statesmen and philosophers and divines often adore a foolish consistency, physicists do not necessarily do so. We need evidence and math before we dive off the deep end. You have neither.

[lemur]

While little statesmen and philosophers and divines often adore a foolish consistency, physicists do not necessarily do so. We need evidence and math before we dive off the deep end. You have neither.

What does math have to do with it? All math does is describe and calculate patterns of observations, no? Evidence is always consistent with existing theory, as far as I know. What about when evidence is explained by existing theories but they're not correct? Many past scientific concepts have turned out to be flawed though they explained existing observations fairly well. Are new models always the product of new or better observed data?

 

When you call it a "foolish consistency" that all forces should have polarity because electrostatics does, or that the intersection of electrostatic and nuclear force in protons should have analogies in the intersections between other forces, I wonder if it's because you have proactively determined something foolish about it or if you're just reacting to the fact that you've never thought in that way before. I completely understand your point that just because one force acts a certain way doesn't mean that any other force should act the same way, but what is wrong with questioning if it is possible that the way these forces have been observed has biased us against being able to identify common traits among them?

 

I am reminded of the thread on why herbivores are so muscular and a conversation I had with someone about the role of digestive-system bacteria in generating protein. I compared the protein-generating bacteria to animals that convert plant-matter into protein for carnivores. My conversation partner said I was creating a false analogy between animals and bacteria, but this was only because he didn't see the consistency between bacteria and complex animals as protein-factories for their consumers. Sometimes science can be done by studying the relationship between similar species of phenomena, no?

 

 

 

[rigney]

If gravity had positive and negative poles, like magnetism, could the opposite pole be hidden because it existed in anti-spacetime? Matter tends to organize into apparently spherical bodies, but what if the center of these bodies was just a transition point between the positive and negative poles of gravitational force, where only the positive spacetime-generating side is observable? So whereas we generally think of gravity-wells bottoming-out at their centers, could the curvature of spacetime actually be continuing through some kind of virtual/shadow anti-spacetime that feeds force back into the gravity field as we know it?

 

Think about it like being an electron living on the positive pole of a magnet and observing electrostatic force as attractive and having no capacity to recognize the negative pole because the electron is consistently repelled away from that direction to the point of all direction curving back toward the positive pole of the magnet. Spacetime could work the same way, with spacetime expansion outward from any gravitational-center as a polar opposite of the center itself. Since light itself would be deflected toward the "positive" gravitational pole, the apparent expansiveness of spacetime would be the result of repellant force from the negative pole. Like an electron heading through a magnetic field, all directions toward the negative pole would only curve back around to the positive pole, making spacetime appear as an endless realm of positive magnetic poles with no negative poles.

 

This is a bizarre idea, I know, hence it being posted in speculations. Mainly, I just think it's interesting to speculate about the possibility that gravity could be dipolar without our being able to observe both poles. A related speculation might involve connecting the electrostatic polarity between electrons and protons to the nuclear forces as seemingly attractive without having dipolarity. E.g. maybe gravity could be the anti-pole of nuclear force, since it attracts atoms from the outside of the electrons while the nuclear force attracts particles inside them. Anyway, very confusing thinking I know and what point could thinking this way possibly have? . . . but I still find it interesting and wonder what others might have to say.

 

Suppose the word "Gravity" is a misnomer for something that actually exists??

[lemur]

Suppose the word "Gravity" is a misnomer for something that actually exists??

Ok, so should I decode this as you suggesting that gravity does not actually exist and that something else does that explains its effects but in some other way? Why wouldn't you just post your idea explicitly instead of using implicit suggestion in this way? Btw, imperative commands don't end with question marks.

Edited January 23, 2011 by lemur