Why "modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works"?

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

Split from "Is physics about "why?""

 

Furthermore, to be extremely pedantic, modern physics actually doesn't have why gravity works.

 

Because you're using incorrect model since beginning.
And you can't move further with it, cause it's wrong. Going in circles.
Bending of space must happens at any scale either quantum, macro and cosmic scale.
When light is passing through water which has refractive index = 1.333, v=c/1.333=0.75c
Every mainstream physics is saying that c is const, but while passing through some transparent material photons are constantly absorbed and emitted. That's wrong basement. We know how such absorptions and emissions are looking like in electrons: spectral lines, missing photons at one wavelength, and more photons at other wavelength.
When nucleus is absorbing photon it's accelerated and we see it as increased temperature.

And it's lost from point of view photons passing through transparent material to other side.

If you would model from beginning that any particle is attracting any other particle, the less distance is between them, you could explain slowing of time, slowing of velocity of photons in water and other transparent materials, and also understand true nature of gravitation at quantum level.

 

We have proposed ideas like the graviton, but no gravitons have been detected to date.

 

It is impossible to detect something that doesn't exist.

 

 

So, you in fact have picked as your example of something simple enough to explain and understand as something we don't have a complete explanation and understanding of. Kind of ironic, really.

 

It's very good example! It shows that mainstream physicists are ignoring what they don't understand pretending it's not existing, and not wanting to discuss weaknesses of current model.

newts doesn't understand relativity, can't even calculate relativistic velocity what he showed in thread "Relativity".
But that's different story.

 

But he at least doesn't ignore weaknesses of current model that you ignore everyday.
When mainstream physics are founding, yet another violation of their rules, they're 1) ignoring it 2) trying to mix it to inside of mainstream by finding yet another 'symmetry'. And it's going and going. C, CP, CPT..

Do you want to break Baryon Number conservation? That's easy. Just make quark-gluon plasma.
Take f.e. 100 hydrogen, so B=100, make quark-gluon plasma.
Split it to half. You will never be able to measure energy at half with precision 50:50, it'll be 49.999:50.001 if you're lucky.
from one "half" quark-gluon plasma will form 49 hydrogen back, and from another "half" 50. And remaining 1 will create other particles that will quickly decay to smaller.
And you have violation of Baryon Number, one of the main rules in QM!

 

What we do have is an excellent model of gravity in that we can make
very accurate predictions of how the gravity force affects objects.

 

Which is nice to hear.
But why are not you using it where it's the most influencing particles at quantum level?
Because some said that c is const, and you're continuing repeating it over and over again, without rethinking how it's possible that light in water (18 protons+neutrons; density 1g/cm3) is travelling 0.75c, in silicon (28 protons+neutrons; density 2.33g/cm3) is travelling 0.25c. etc. etc.

 

 

What really irritates me, newts, is your lack of respect for known confirmed data. Whether you think quarks are fantasy or not, it is undeniable that the quark model as it exists today makes predictions that agree pretty darn well with experimental data.

 

That was me who complained about quark model, not newts.

I gave you already much easier model that can be used to simulate over 260 particles baryons and mesons, leptons, their decay models that are in SM long for another hundred possibilities, and transformations to photons. And from photons to them back.

And that was probably you who said, you don't imagine proton made of billion of billion elementary particles, if I recall correctly. Energy-E is quantity of elementary particles, when you divide it by Planck const h, and multiply by 2. Charge is excess of one of kind of elementary particles. When there is excess of positive particle above negative, there is e+, muon+, tau+, pion+, K+, B+, p+ etc. etc. When there is excess of negative particles, there is e-, muon- etc. etc.

Using this model it's completely logical how K+ can decay to pion+, pion- and pion+ and other time to pion 0 + pion+ etc. etc.

And whatever model replaced, supplants, or enhances the quark model will
also make predictions that agree really well with experimental data. If
the replacing, supplanting, or enhancing idea didn't, it would be
rejected outright as demonstrably less useful.

 

Scientists made from the each piece of energy independent particle, even if it's living 10^-20 s, gave it its own name and then analysing how it's breaking apart, to another hundred possibilities.

In normal world if you would come to somebody and give list of possible f.e. B meson decay models long for hundred possible cases, you would be laughed. Prediction must be precise. Input source giving precise result on output. Prediction of thousands of possible cases, it's not prediction. It's total lack of precision.

 

Collisions of particles remind me car/airplane crash tests- you don't know in which direction each newly "created" chunk/debris of car/airplane will fly, until you actually destroy it. You can only predict it with quite low precision.

If you have "particle" composed of 1 million elementary particles, it can be split only to elements with less elementary particles (not more). It's what you call conservation of energy.
f.e. particle with 0.5mln of positive, 0.5mln of negative elementary particles, can split to two also neutral 0.25mln of positive, and 0.25 mln of negative,
And you have decay model similar to f.e.

Kaon 0 short K0s-> pi0 + pi0

or

Kaon 0 long K0l -> pi0 + pi0 + pi0

or

pion0-> y + y

If it'll split to 249999 positive and 250001 negative and another one with 250001 + and 249999-, quantity still match, but charge is different, in each of newly made particle.

And you have decay model similar to f.e.

pion0 - > e- + e+ + y

or

K0 -> pi+ + pi-

 

Then they exist a fraction of time, and again split to smaller and smaller pieces, until you have bunch of photons, electrons, positrons, and neutral neutrinos. And what is funny, none of them has any quarks inside.

And electrons and positrons can also be converted to high energetic gamma photons.
And gamma photons can also be converted to less energy photons by absorption and emission at lower frequency. Hundred and thousands times absorbed and emitted at lower frequencies. From annihilation of just 2 the smallest leptons "elementary in Standard Model" there can be accelerated thousands or millions particles.

 

Decaying should stop at particles with charge -1e and frequency 1 Hz, and +1e 1 Hz. If -1/+1e is charge of elementary particle. Or at -1/3e and +1/3e if there is needed 3 of them to sum to -+1e.

 

 

[swansont]

Split from "Is physics about "why?""

 

 

Because you're using incorrect model since beginning.

And you can't move further with it, cause it's wrong. Going in circles.

A wrong theory gives answers that disagree with what is observed. GR is not wrong by that metric. It also lacks a mechanism, as does Newtonian gravity. GR says that spacetime is curved, but does not explain why that happens. Just how much, and in what way.

 

Bending of space must happens at any scale either quantum, macro and cosmic scale.

When light is passing through water which has refractive index = 1.333, v=c/1.333=0.75c

Every mainstream physics is saying that c is const, but while passing through some transparent material photons are constantly absorbed and emitted. That's wrong basement. We know how such absorptions and emissions are looking like in electrons: spectral lines, missing photons at one wavelength, and more photons at other wavelength.

The absorption/emissions are not at the resonances. Since c is defined for a vacuum, the objection that light slows down in a medium is moot; there is no longer a vacuum. c hasn't changed.

 

It is impossible to detect something that doesn't exist.

The question is how do you prove that gravitons don't exist.

It's very good example! It shows that mainstream physicists are ignoring what they don't understand pretending it's not existing, and not wanting to discuss weaknesses of current model.

Weaknesses of straw-men of models is not the same thing as weaknesses of models.

 

Do you want to break Baryon Number conservation? That's easy. Just make quark-gluon plasma.

Take f.e. 100 hydrogen, so B=100, make quark-gluon plasma.

Split it to half. You will never be able to measure energy at half with precision 50:50, it'll be 49.999:50.001 if you're lucky.

from one "half" quark-gluon plasma will form 49 hydrogen back, and from another "half" 50. And remaining 1 will create other particles that will quickly decay to smaller.

And you have violation of Baryon Number, one of the main rules in QM!

What journal was this published in?

 

As a thought experiment such a contradiction means nothing beyond not applying the theory properly.

 

 

That was me who complained about quark model, not newts.

newts has complained about the quark model before.

 

gave you already much easier model that can be used to simulate over 260 particles baryons and mesons, leptons, their decay models that are in SM long for another hundred possibilities, and transformations to photons. And from photons to them back.

And refused to address the shortcomings that were pointed out. But that discussion belongs in that thread. Do you want these to be merged?

[Bignose]

That was me who complained about quark model, not newts.

newts has a history before you logged onto this site, P.G. He was given a very long leash to try to talk about his model, but steadfastly refused to address questions asked about it. That's why I refer to it when I address him.

 

...kind of like how you aren't really answering direct questions about your model.

[Przemyslaw.Gruchala]

 

A wrong theory gives answers that disagree with what is observed. GR is not wrong by that metric. It also lacks a mechanism, as does Newtonian gravity. GR says that spacetime is curved, but does not explain why that happens. Just how much, and in what way.

 

I said GR is wrong? Rather reverse..

 

"If spacetime curvature is true, then it should happen at any scale, also quantum scale".

 

Which means that electron should be "orbiting" "around" proton because of its influence on spacetime curvature.

Shared electrons are orbiting around molecule couple atoms, because spacetime "blended" between atoms.

 

With 2 spatial dimensions it should looks like this:

 

 

On the left is object (proton) with 1836.15 higher energy than on right (electron). Up axis represents influence on curvature. Red circle represents hypothetical orbit around proton (with 3 spatial dimensions of course red circle wouldn't be circle anymore)

Electron can absorb only photons with correct frequencies.

If they're absorbed, electron gains kinetic energy and is starting orbiting farther from nucleus.

And in extreme situation escaping and nucleus is becoming ion.

 

Add more protons.

4 protons

 

 

Add even more protons:

 

8 protons:

 

12 protons:

 

The more protons, neutrons, nucleus, the more influence on time space. And the higher density.

 

Notice how "ground" surrounding them is going up. That's summed up their influence.

 

Photon passing through such concentration of nucleus is affected as well, and we observe it as slowing down of light.

Refractive index higher than 1.0 is physical evidence of gravity existing at quantum level.

You just have to stop modeling it as constant absorption and emission of photon passing through transparent material and route to QM gravity is open..

 

 

The question is how do you prove that gravitons don't exist.

 

Proving is job for somebody believing in graviton, not somebody not believing in it.

 

But if graviton exists it should be fired by any massive object, black holes (escaping it), also the largest black holes in the center of any galaxy and then going to entire Universe, in the all directions, and then going back to original particle that fired it. Of course such idea is violating speed of light limit and not possible to escape black hole by anything rule.

Influence of 100 protons.

 

Edited May 3, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala

[swansont]

I said GR is wrong? Rather reverse..

 

You said "Because you're using incorrect model since beginning." To which model were you referring, then?

 

 

"If spacetime curvature is true, then it should happen at any scale, also quantum scale".

 

Which means that electron should be "orbiting" "around" proton because of its influence on spacetime curvature.

 

Calculate the gravitational effect of a proton on an electron. Compare with the electrostatic value.

 

 

Proving is job for somebody believing in graviton, not somebody not believing in it.

 

You can't make a statement and then run away from the responsibility of providing evidence. If you can't come up with it, then don't make the statement.

 

 

But if graviton exists it should be fired by any massive object, black holes (escaping it), also the largest black holes in the center of any galaxy and then going to entire Universe, in the all directions, and then going back to original particle that fired it. Of course such idea is violating speed of light limit and not possible to escape black hole by anything rule.

 

You need to familiarize yourself with a theory before you critique it. The answer is easily Googled (spoiler alert: Gravitons are virtual particles)

[DimaMazin]

When you fall down planet gravitons beat your space, therefore you escape from your last space and approach to the planet, creating new space which does not coincide with the last space.