Strong gravity (split from EM field of universe)

[TrappedLight]

Then it would be measurable. It's not.

 

 

Did you just neg me on that comment? lol

 

What is wrong with the comment? Do you have any idea what strong gravity is? I never commented that gravity was measurable, I said it might get stronger at smaller levels. The whole point of making this statement is because BigNose for some reason thinks gravity should be small on the scale of atoms and large on the scale of planets.

Strong gravity is a field of gravity physics which attributes a cosmological and particle scale gravity. If gravity gets stronger at smaller levels, what makes you think we would observe it? I'll tell you now, that scientists are investigating this and that experiments are soon going to go on the way to see if gravity really does get stronger due to the square rule.

Some string theories says that we don't observe this strong gravity because gravity is leaking into unseen compactified dimensions.

Edited October 5, 2013 by TrappedLight

[TrappedLight]

Hmmm,

 

I will admit that I could be misinterpreting this, but there didn't seem to be reported much here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0605018.pdf especially since they were looking for deviations from Newtonian gravity. I am pretty sure they report that they can reduce the measurement of possible non-Newtonian gravity by two orders of magnitude with the measurement technique they describe. In other words, they confirmed Newtonian gravity on the atomic level to an accuracy 100 times better than any before. And would think that had they found significant departures from Newtonian gravity at that scale, it would have spurred more and different papers.

 

I guess what I am saying then is... while anything 'might' happen, this is still a science forum, and you don't just get to talk about things that 'might' happen. You need to provide some evidence.

 

And ask a mod to split this off into its own thread.

 

Ummm, if we can't observe it, then why would we include it in any calculations or theories? We might as well re-introduce undetectable fairies, then.

 

 

Because we might not be able to detect it because there is the presence of extra dimensions and although this sounds like a branch of string theory, it actually was formulated originally outside of string theory but it can be applied to it.

 

Now, we simply don't know what the effects of gravity for particle dynamics. The ability to detect the gravitational force on the scale of particles will require that we probe space to very very small lengths. If we cannot yet probe space to detect missing dimensions, you can be sure that we won't see the effects of this strong gravity either.

And no, you don't get to pick and chose which parts can be split off. I am on topic and challenging your assertion that gravity is weak on the scales of particles. I am simply replying to you, saying we are not sure this is the case at all.

Edited October 5, 2013 by TrappedLight

[Bignose]

Because we might not be able to detect it because there is the presence of extra dimensions and although this sounds like a branch of string theory, it actually was formulated originally outside of string theory but it can be applied to it.

This doesn't answer the question, though. If it is undetectable in any way, then it has no bearing whatsoever on the theory.

 

I might as well write gravity(r,m1,m2,unicorns) = -Gm1m2/r^2. There is no point in including unicorns on the LHS of the equation if it doesn't show up in the right. And there is no point in including extra dimensions in an idea if it doesn't affect anything. You only include things in ideas if they actually affect the end result.

 

And no, you don't get to pick and chose which parts can be split off. I am on topic and challenging your assertion that gravity is weak on the scales of particles. I am simply replying to you, saying we are not sure this is the case at all.

I disagree. Your claim that gravity gets stronger at small scales has nothing to do with PG's electic black hole universe. AND your claim is unsubstantiated, and is in fact, somewhat refuted by the researcher who published that they were looking for such and effect and instead confirmed Newtonian gravity 100 times more accurately for small scales than anyone before.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Bignose

[TrappedLight]

This doesn't answer the question, though. If it is undetectable in any way, then it has no bearing whatsoever on the theory.

 

I might as well write gravity(r,m1,m2,unicorns) = -Gm1m2/r^2. There is no point in including unicorns on the LHS of the equation if it doesn't show up in the right. And there is no point in including extra dimensions in an idea if it doesn't affect anything.

 

 

I disagree. Your claim that gravity gets stronger at small scales has nothing to do with PG's electic black hole universe. AND your claim is unsubstantiated, and is in fact, somewhat refuted by the researcher who published that they were looking for such and effect and instead confirmed Newtonian gravity 100 times more accurately for small scales than anyone before.

 

 

Undetectable for now, it doesn't mean that as we develop our ability to probe space for signs of compactified dimensions we won't see them. Undetectable for now, means the question is open concerning the dynamics of gravity. Our understanding of it all is far from complete and this particular idea is falsifiable.

 

Including extra dimensions, does effect something. It effects how gravity breaks off at weaker scales due to an inverse law. I thought you might have picked up on that by now.

As for it having nothing to do with the OP, I was replying to your statement. If you make a statement in a forum, be prepared to have it challenged if you could be wrong about something. The reply by myself might not be inherently attached to the OP, but I am replying to your post which is a part of the discussion.

AND your claim is unsubstantiated, and is in fact, somewhat refuted by the researcher who published that they were looking for such and effect and instead confirmed Newtonian gravity 100 times more accurately for small scales than anyone before.

 

 

Do you know the scales we would need to probe to see measurable effects? If his experiment is that great, it would have falsified strong gravity theory; the reason it hasn't is because of the scales, no doubt. The scales in which you would find a compactified dimension is much smaller than looking at the space between atoms.

[Bignose]

Do you know the scales we would need to probe to see measurable effects? If his experiment is that great, it would have falsified strong gravity theory; the reason it hasn't is because of the scales, no doubt. The scales in which you would find a compactified dimension is much smaller than looking at the space between atoms.

So, your claim then is that gravity gets stronger between particles on a subatomic level, because of some extra dimensions. Sure, anything is possible, but QCD which doesn't include gravity seems to be pretty successful. I do agree that our knowledge of physics on that level is incomplete today. But, that doesn't mean that one assumes that your 'strong gravity' theory is correct.

 

Secondly, please look at exactly what I wrote above. "Gravity is an exceptionally weak force on the scale of atoms". This is still correct, as best we know, and as backed up by the paper I linked to where they investigated gravity from single atoms. Your 'strong gravity' claim above is subatomic per your own words.

 

And really, this entire discussion completely misses my bigger point above that when someone uses words like "exceptionally weak [or strong]" that the phrase is rather meaningless without context. That phrases like that imply a mathematical relationship, and if one refuses to provide mathematics -- then one shouldn't be making statements with implied mathematical substance.

[TrappedLight]

So, your claim ...

 

 

This isn't ''my'' theory. It is the claim of strong gravity theory, an attempt to describe the weakness of gravity on cosmological scales by creating a particle-scale. The compactification scale (the scale in which there exists hidden dimensions) exists for the time being, outside of our ability to probe.

As for distinguishing between atoms and subatomic particles, fine.

[TrappedLight]

Again, why the heck split this discussion when it was discussing the assertions made in a thread?

 

*Looks at Swansont*

 

Either way, it is a waste of your time. I don't see what good it has done you to close a thread and reopen another one in which it is likely, no one is going to involve themselves. Waste of time and energy.

[Bignose]

This isn't ''my'' theory. It is the claim of strong gravity theory, an attempt to describe the weakness of gravity on cosmological scales by creating a particle-scale. The compactification scale (the scale in which there exists hidden dimensions) exists for the time being, outside of our ability to probe.

It may not be yours explicitly, but you are the one here claiming it as a viable alternative.

 

So, I am curious, what predictions does it make? How do those compare to QCD?

[TrappedLight]

It may not be yours explicitly, but you are the one here claiming it as a viable alternative.

 

So, I am curious, what predictions does it make? How do those compare to QCD?

 

 

It's very viable. I might not like string theory, but the idea of extra dimensions is definitely a possibility we need to consider.

 

It hit the physics media in 1960, at that point, we were working with QCD and strong gravity was suggested as an alternative model by Adbus Salam including several other scientists. Particle level strong gravity showed to explain particle confinement and asymptotic freedom. A novelty of the approach is that it doesn't change the classical characteristic of gravity involving the inverse square law, but QCD does.

[Bignose]

Okay thanks for the history. You didn't answer my questions. Namely how does its predictions compare to experimental measurements and QCD's predictions?

[TrappedLight]

Okay thanks for the history. You didn't answer my questions. Namely how does its predictions compare to experimental measurements and QCD's predictions?

 

 

I did tell you. It predicts that quarks cannot be isolated (this was a prediction of Leonard Susskind) and was thus shown to be a real facet of nature (this is quark particle confinement). It also predicts asysmptotic freedom (which I don't know enough about to explain).

[Sensei]

"Gravity is an exceptionally weak force on the scale of atoms".

 

Any equation which uses inverse-square law is the strongest with the smallest r.

 

f.e.

Strengths of Earth's, Sun's gravity comes from quantity of atoms, not from distance, in the first place.

 

When OP said sub-atomic he probably meant inside of nucleus, "between quarks".

[Bignose]

Sensai, I agree. But gravity is far weaker on the atomic scale than em forces. This is my point. Strong and weak are relative terms. Gravity is strong on a galactic scale because the other forces are far weaker. Gravity is weak on the atomic scale because the other forces are far stronger.

 

TL you still really aren't answering the question. Show me a direct comparison of strong gravity, QCD, and measurements. If SG is viable it should be making predictions of comparable accuracy to QCD.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Bignose

[swansont]

Again, why the heck split this discussion when it was discussing the assertions made in a thread?

 

*Looks at Swansont*

 

 

!

Moderator Note

For the simple reason that responding to any thread with speculations, unless that subject is the topic of the thread, is against the rules. It doesn't matter that an assertion was made in the thread. The only acceptable response is mainstream science. Strong gravity doesn't qualify, and strong gravity was not the topic under discussion. Thus, any discussion of it belongs elsewhere (i.e. here)

 

If you have further questions on the matter, bring it up in support.

[TrappedLight]

 

!

Moderator Note

For the simple reason that responding to any thread with speculations, unless that subject is the topic of the thread, is against the rules. It doesn't matter that an assertion was made in the thread. The only acceptable response is mainstream science. Strong gravity doesn't qualify, and strong gravity was not the topic under discussion. Thus, any discussion of it belongs elsewhere (i.e. here)

 

If you have further questions on the matter, bring it up in support.

 

 

Well there is why you folly because these discussions where made in speculations.

 

If this was actually the mainstream science forum, I would have agreed with you.

[swansont]

 

 

Well there is why you folly because these discussions where made in speculations.

 

If this was actually the mainstream science forum, I would have agreed with you.

 

!

Moderator Note

 

 

I don't particularly care if you agree with me. Disagree all you want.

 

I am enforcing the rules, though, and if your disagreement continues to manifest itself in breaking those rules, or ignoring moderator notes, you will end up suspended.

 

Because you seem to have missed it before: If you have further questions on the matter, bring it up in support. To do so here merely hijacks the thread. It's off-topic

 

[MigL]

In three spatial dimensions gravity falls off with the square ( ie n-1 where n is the number of spatial dimensions ) of the distance. If we were to add another dimension, compacted of course at near Planck scale so as to be undetectable, the gravity, at this scale, would fall off with the cube of the distance. In other words, at this scale halving the distance would disproportionately increase gravity eight times.

It can be easily demonstrated, in reduced dimensions of course, by using water pressure leaking through a hole and then considering that same pressure when we move very far away, and the hole is leaking into a very long hose which, at distance, appears as a line.

 

This is the effect trapped light is talking about, and is a common speculation and field of research in string theory. The problem is that since extra dimensions are expected to be compacted at Planck scales, means that any such effects will start to make themselves apparent at close to Planck scales. That means any observational evidence of gravity not following an inverse square law are a long way off.

Edited October 6, 2013 by MigL

[TrappedLight]

TL you still really aren't answering the question. Show me a direct comparison of strong gravity, QCD, and measurements. If SG is viable it should be making predictions of comparable accuracy to QCD.

 

I don't know what part of it predicts asymptotic freedom and particle confinement, I don't know what else you want me to say. You have what main important predictions it makes right in front of your ''big'' nose

Edited October 6, 2013 by TrappedLight

[Bignose]

I don't know what part of it predicts asymptotic freedom and particle confinement, I don't know what else you want me to say. You have what main important predictions it makes right in front of your ''big'' nose

I want something like this: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.1898.pdf

 

A paper where they used experimentally measured values, compared them to the predictions from QCD, and demonstrated just how accurate the predictions from QCD are. If SG is truly to be considered 'viable', it should be able to do the same. Use the published experimental values, and make a plot with 3 curves on it: those experimental values, the predictions from QCD, and the predictions from SG.

 

This is what more I want you to say. This is what I've been asking for since post #8 in this thread, and explicitly asked for in my last post.

 

On the other hand, if SG can't do the above, I don't see how it can be considered viable. Because QCD would seem to be tremendously more scientifically useful.

[TrappedLight]

In my opinion, it is all scientifically useful. QCD is a good theory in it's own right but we are no where nearer unifying the forces than we have for decades now, which might mean the scientific community is spending too much money on the one project. It's best to remain objective about all the theories which have been proposed, even one which has had mild success such as strong gravity.

[Bignose]

It's best to remain objective about all the theories which have been proposed, even one which has had mild success such as strong gravity.

I am remaining objective. Scientifically, the theory that makes the most good predictions, wins. Accuraet predictions is the ultimate in objectivity. Just as it always has. I'm not saying that QCD won't ever be replaced by something else, because chances are someday it will be. But that something else that does replace QCD, will replace QCD only because it makes more and more accurate predictions that QCD.

 

If you are telling me that SG is viable, then it should be able to make at least somewhat good predictions.

 

If it doesn't, then objectively, what else should be done? Objectively, I'll take the theory that makes good predictions over the theory that apparently can't.

 

Ironically, I think it can fairly argue that your support for SG isn't terribly objective, since it doesn't have the predictive successes QCD does.

 

Lastly, if someday SG can be shown to make more and better predictions than QCD, then I'll gladly change my mind. But right now, it appears that QCD is far, far superior at making accurate predictions.

[MigL]

Again, strong gravity and QCD are nowhere near the same scale, so its not really a matter of one replacing the other or making better predictions. Strong gravity is not noticeable at nuclear scales, and the energies of Planck scale make QCD unworkable,

[Bignose]

I will again admit, I don't know much about it. But I had always seen SG pitched as an alternative to QCD. Even if it isn't, and they work on different scales, what it needs to gain support is evidence that is makes predictions that agree with measurements. Just like anything scientific.

[TrappedLight]

I will again admit, I don't know much about it.

 

Yet you attempt to ignore this line of science, at least a ''perspective.'' Truth is you actually don't have one, since you admit you have no knowledge on the subject, yes?

Again, strong gravity and QCD are nowhere near the same scale, so its not really a matter of one replacing the other or making better predictions. Strong gravity is not noticeable at nuclear scales, and the energies of Planck scale make QCD unworkable,

 

Yes, it's scale is nuclear, but it's scale is the origin of the nuclear force, a slight difference to what you are saying, but your idea is correct. The scales are completely different. BigNose somehow believed that the atomic scale can easily answer if strong gravity exists, I did mention very early on that the probing of atomic scale is different to the gravity particle scale, which is very much within the origin of the strong and electroweak forces.

But we are actually talking about high energy physics in which all the forces unify to supply the origin of the other deviations.

Edited October 7, 2013 by TrappedLight

[Bignose]

Yet you attempt to ignore this line of science, at least a ''perspective.'' Truth is you actually don't have one, since you admit you have no knowledge on the subject, yes?

"not much" =/= "no". I have enough.

 

I especially have enough about how science in general works. And that is, if you want to claim an idea is scientific, that that idea needs to demonstrate predictive capabilities that agree with measured results. I know that is shouldn't be this darn hard (25th post in this thread!) for a truly 'viable' idea to have actually demonstrated some predictions. And I don't just mean predicting concepts like "quarks cannot be isolated" -- I mean actual graphs of data measured and mathematical predictions of that data.

 

I have enough knowledge about science to note that this thread is only just a smidgen better than most of the rest of the non-scientific ideas expounded upon in the Speculations forum. That smidgen is that it appears to actually have been published at one time in the 1960s. What about recent publications? If it is so viable, why does it seem to have lost so much favor?

 

but it's scale is the origin of the nuclear force

Ok then, so then we're back in the domain of QCD. If gravity is indeed such an influence at that scale, why isn't it included in QCD? The strong force, at this scale, is on the order of 10^39 times stronger than gravity... not much room to wiggle in there and actually be noticeable.

 

I guess I just don't get what is being said here at all. I keep being told that SG is viable, but no evidence to back that up. Why is it so difficult to provide some evidence?