gravity as dimension five?

[JvNrocks]

Could it be that gravity can't be expressed as a part of quantum physics because it is a dimension rather than a field, wave or particle? Could this explain the weakness of gravity? Its independence from jibing with the Standard Model?

[Nobrainer]

There is a simple explanation to explain gravity that works in three dimensions. If the forces other than gravity are dipole alignment forces where constructive wave interference is strong because the wave alignment is between two dipole bound fields and gravity is a momopole wave alignment between fields that are generated by the decay of electromagnetic fields into monopole gravitational waves which form wavefronts. Everything can be explained this way by understanding that gravity is a generated wave alignment.

[JvNrocks]

Thanks for the reply. Why can't we fit gravity into a unified field theory of wave/particle fields?

There is a simple explanation to explain gravity that works in three dimensions. If the forces other than gravity are dipole alignment forces where constructive wave interference is strong because the wave alignment is between two dipole bound fields and gravity is a momopole wave alignment between fields that are generated by the decay of electromagnetic fields into monopole gravitational waves which form wavefronts. Everything can be explained this way by understanding that gravity is a generated wave alignment.

 

 

 

 

[swansont]

Why a dimension? How is it orthogonal to length or time?

[ajb]

Just because dimension 5 was in the title; there is a very interesting result, which is a consequence of Campbell's theorem , that says that solutions of 4-d general relativity can always be embedded in 5-d Ricci-flat space-times [1]. This means that we can study general relativity in 4-d in terms of vacuum solutions to 5-d general relativity.

 

References

 

[1] Romero, Carlos; Tavakol, Reza; Zalaletdinov, Roustam. The embedding of General Relativity in five dimensions. General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp.365-376 (1996).

Edited September 18, 2012 by ajb

[JvNrocks]

It would be independent from dimensions one two and three. It would be describable only by its effects. If time is the dimension of changing then gravity would be the dimension of moving. Like time, it would exist only when measured--both for "static" observers and observers changing or moving. Time is more similar to gravity than it is to the three directional dimensions. If you could stop Hubble's universe from expanding you would stop time and gravity.

 

For light, there is no time. For gravity, there is no first, second or third dimensions. Just as light eliminates time via c, gravity crushes space in a matter equal and opposite to universal expansion. A future state of our universe may be one where gravity from black holes overpowers Hubble's expansion. Not universally, but locally. Destruction from within.

 

 

Why a dimension? How is it orthogonal to length or time?

[illuusio]

Why you are so in love with dimensions? Why don't you look simpler solution to gravitation? Science should follow Occam's razor.

[zapatos]

If you could stop Hubble's universe from expanding you would stop time and gravity.

How would time or gravity stop? Just because some particular relative motion stopped?

[JvNrocks]

relativity itself stops in a static universe.

How would time or gravity stop? Just because some particular relative motion stopped?

 

Quantum physics has had plenty of time to incorporate gravity. It's time for thinking "outside the box," folks. We already know Einstein's smooth spacetime breaks down in establishing gravity as a field. (At the Plank scale. With such quantum barriers as "quantum foam.")

 

Simpler solution? General Relativity results in mathematical singularities when set up as a quantum field. Not simple at all.

Why you are so in love with dimensions? Why don't you look simpler solution to gravitation? Science should follow Occam's razor.

[zapatos]

relativity itself stops in a static universe.

What does that mean? How does a theory stop? How does gravity stop? How does time stop? Do you have any references to support this position?

[JvNrocks]

Gravity is a guess. But time stops for light--a flat fact implicit in time dilation, a consequence of special relativity. I'm pretty ignorant, but I know time slows for anything approaching the velocity of light. At c there is no time. Again, a basic consequence of E=mc2.

What does that mean? How does a theory stop? How does gravity stop? How does time stop? Do you have any references to support this position?

 

what if we found out gravity is what causes the universe to expand?

[ACG52]

Gravity is a guess. But time stops for light--a flat fact implicit in time dilation, a consequence of special relativity. I'm pretty ignorant, but I know time slows for anything approaching the velocity of light. At c there is no time. Again, a basic consequence of E=mc2.

 

 

what if we found out gravity is what causes the universe to expand?

 

 

But we're not talking about light, we're talking about objects with mass. They will never reach c, and time dilation is only relative to another reference frame, not an absolute.

[JvNrocks]

but an experiment could come as close to c as there is fuel in the universe and that's pretty close. Time dilation virtually stops time for that experiment. And for c itself, the velocity isn't relative to another frame, nor is it clock, because this stripping of relevance is necessary for c to be constant.

 

The velocity of light involves time, though, because whichever human unity of measurement (186,000 mi./sec. or anything else) you use there are two fundamentals of spacetime in play: time and distance.

 

C's constant velocity and its self-referential time are two phenomena of the same fundamental equation. Special Relativity.

 

 

I used to think of Special Relativity as the crown jewel of science. But if you take Heisenberg seriously and follow the bouncing quantum ball, nothing in this universe is certain. Not even c. And please don't try to minimize him because he worked in the world of the very small. It's really von Neumann's Catastrophe of the Infinite Regress that convinces me there is no "real" reality. We are at least that one step away at all times.

 

But we're not talking about light, we're talking about objects with mass. They will never reach c, and time dilation is only relative to another reference frame, not an absolute.

Edited September 19, 2012 by JvNrocks

[ACG52]

Time dilation virtually stops time for that experiment.

 

Only relative to another frame of reference. In the reference frame of the experiment, there is no time dilation.