Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Theory Of Gravitime


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 inigmatus

inigmatus

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 07:40 PM

Rather than seeking the existence of gravitons that disappear into other dimensions or multiverses such as string theory predicts in order to account for the unexpectedly low value of gravity in the universe, what if the reason the expected value of gravity fails observations is because we fail to take into full account the relationship between gravity and time. In other words, perhaps we should take into account that gravity and time are not just related, but rather two sides of the same coin, that is just as synonymous with each other as another duality in our universe: matter and energy. Since matter is related to gravity by the force it projects in spacetime, then perhaps matter itself is the the unifying factor between gravity, time, and energy. The equation could be as simple as:

g/t = m/e

In short, what if gravity itself is merely a physical representation of time in a three dimensional observation frame of reference with time itself equating to the uncertain and indeterminate force of energy and gravity equating to the certain and determinate force of matter - the conversion in 3d space of which produces reality as we know it, with the strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic forces of matter corresponding to mathematical relationship of gravity to matter, time to energy, and energy to matter in that order.

This would also explain why quantum mechanics relies on uncertainty to reduce equations to a simpler form, and also helps explain that uncertainty itself is merely an illusion in a three dimensional frame of reference, whereas in time (ultimately infinity -1) the uncertainty always reduces to zero. This would mean that we would not find the existence of gravitons, but rather we would instead find evidence observed for bubbles of relative time (thus quantum mechanically certain), and conversely be able to mathematically prove waves of objective time that are unobserved (quantum mechanically uncertain), with the bubbles of time measured by observed effects predicted in a mass collision at the transformation reference point of matter to energy (into quantum uncertainty) and back again from energy to matter (quantum certainty), the observed gravitational loss from one state to another and back being attributed to the duration of time mathematically predicted to have taken place between the certain planes of mass conversion into uncertain energy and back again. If a gravity detector could detect the destruction of matter into energy, and then the construction of energy back to matter in the effects of a multiple mass collision, there should be a loss of mass and thus of gravitational force if the final resulting mass post-reconstruction equivalent to the expected loss of gravitational equilibrium converted to the relative time that passed between planes.

  ______________________________________                    
 /   Time      /|       Gravity        /
/_____________/_|_____________________/
              | |
          conversion  
              | |
  ____________|_|_______________________
 /  Energy    | /          Matter      /
/_______ _____|/______________________/

         infinite observer


http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/7863/gtmei.jpg

Since quantum uncertainty itself is an illusion that is always ultimately resolved in time according to this theory, the only explanation for the certainty of the existence of anything at all, is that everything has been “observed” by the infinite.

Thoughts on this approach?
  • belovelife likes this

#2 belovelife

belovelife

    psionicist - preserver lv.143

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1397 posts

Posted 12 April 2012 - 11:54 PM

cool :)

#3 Eclogite

Eclogite

    Creating

  • Moderators
  • 1477 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:42 AM

Perhaps I'm mistaken but your equation

g/t = m/e

appears to be dimensionally inconsistent.
  • CraigD likes this

#4 belovelife

belovelife

    psionicist - preserver lv.143

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1397 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:37 PM

Posted Image



could it be

for mass of x (t, t=infinity, t++)

for (enery of gravitational pull, (g of x) ++)

or something along these lines



( as this matter has been observed, it has exerted x amount of force in the universe)

#5 Pincho Paxton

Pincho Paxton

    Permanently suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 07:19 AM

I agree, it's similar in my theory. A bit more complex, but similar.

Edited by Pincho Paxton, 14 April 2012 - 07:20 AM.


#6 inigmatus

inigmatus

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:24 AM

Essentially:

Time can only exist if there is energy or matter.

Gravity can only exist if there is matter.

Time then is a function of - a result of - the existence of energy (or matter, which is essentially realized energy). Gravity thus is understood to be "realized" time, just as matter is "realized" energy. The realization is then expressed as space. Therefore space is an expression of the existence of energy and time which has been realized as matter and gravity.

Time therefore is a localized (relative) illusion in space wherein motion is observed within, but all possibilities of motion realized without. It is an illusion brought about by the potential of unrealized energy as it could relate to its gravitational exertion in space if such energy were cooled and realized as matter. This unrealized energy is what has been hypothesized as dark energy and it exerts its influence on space by space's attraction to it (since space wants to return to its original state: energy). Since space itself can't convert directly into energy (without itself being twisted into the singularity of a black hole), it is forever attracted to that which can never annihilate it. This attraction causes spacetime itself to warp into and stretch into multiple dimensions, where at its greatest extent of stretching it finally finds its equilibrium with energy in what I can only think can be described as negative space - a universal sum of dimensions where space, by sheer lack of matter which can no longer exist beyond that point, annihilates itself back into energy.

Edited by inigmatus, 15 April 2012 - 03:25 AM.


#7 Pincho Paxton

Pincho Paxton

    Permanently suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:55 PM

What's realized supposed to mean? How are things realized? they are either there, or not there. Realized sounds like a materialization in imagination.

"I realize that!" Is.. I can see that in my imagination. To make a thought real.

Edited by Pincho Paxton, 15 April 2012 - 12:58 PM.


#8 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:55 AM

Perhaps I'm mistaken but your equation

g/t = m/e

appears to be dimensionally inconsistent.

It appears to be to me, too.

Because Inigmatus’s post doesn’t include “where ...” explanation of the symbols in this equation, Eclogite, I, and others must guess what they represent. Here’re my guesses:
“t” is time, a basic http://en.wikipedia....sis#Definition'>dimension (T)
“m” is mass, a basic dimension (M)
“e” is energy, a physical quantity with dimension ML2T -2, where L is the basic dimension length.
“g” is “gravity”. There’s no unambiguous physical quantity of gravity, so I have to try several guesses.
It could be an acceleration, with dimension LT -2
It could be a gravitational parameter, with dimension L3T -2, or the gravitational constant, with dimension M-1L3T -2.

However, none of the guesses result in
[math]\frac{g}{t} = \frac{m}{e}[/math]
being dimensionally correct, but rather analyze to the form MaLbT -3 [imath]\not=[/imath] L -2T2.

Inigmatus, if Eclogite and I are correct, this is a serious problem with your idea. Can you resolve this?

What's realized supposed to mean? How are things realized? they are either there, or not there. Realized sounds like a materialization in imagination.

"I realize that!" Is.. I can see that in my imagination. To make a thought real.

I agree.

I often use “realize” to mean “make a real thing from an idea or design”.

Inigmatus’s “gravity thus is understood to be ‘realized’ time”, however, doesn’t make sense to me.


Time can only exist if there is energy or matter.

Inigmatus, it’s hard to comment on statements like this, because you don’t seem to be using the terms energy and matter the way they’re normally used in physics.

I’m guessing that by “energy”, you mean single or ensembles of particles with zero invariant mass, such as photons, by “matter”, single or ensembles of particles with nonzero invariant mass, such as electrons, protons, and neutrons.

If so, your claim

Gravity can only exist if there is matter.

is incorrect according to General Relativity. Even massless particles such as photons have non-zero relativistic mass, so produce gravitational effects. Theoretically, a black hole, which produces very strong gravitational effects, can be made entirely of photons. This is called a kugelblitz.

#9 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:06 PM

Our GPS systems work because they adjust for the time dilation between them and the ground. It is understood by everyone on Earth that gravity is a function of mass. Let's suppose for a second it is an error and that gravity is a function of time dilation. Now I have to show how time dilation is the cause of gravity. Suppose I have built the worlds most accurate clock with a built-in computer that can track your motion via external transmitters. I give you the clock and put you on a train where the track has transmitters along it so that your clock can tell you how fast you are moving. The train gets up to it's normal velocity and I tell you to check your speed every five minutes. Your first check shows you to be moving at ten meters per second. Unbeknownst to you I have a remote control that allows me to adjust how fast your clock runs and I slow it by fifty percent. Your next check shows you to be moving at twenty meters per second. This part of the story is just to prove that your relative velocity is dependent on how fast or slow your clock moves. Now we rocket out into high Earth orbit and I put you and your clock into a sphere shaped container. Now I place your sphere inside of a sealed cylinder. I place your sphere at one end of the cylinder such that the front edge of the sphere is exactly 4.9 meters from the end of the cylinder. Now I give your sphere an acceleration of one gee. You hit the other end of the cylinder in one second with a velocity of 9.8 m/s and a momentum of p = mv. Now I take you and your sealed cylinder with it's vacuum down to a someplace on Earth where the gravity is exactly one gee. I place the cylinder on end so that I can pull your sphere to the top of the cylinder. Now I release your sphere and allow you to fall. As you fall your clock starts to slow ever so slightly as it falls further into the gravity well. When you hit the end of the cylinder your clock says you are moving slightly faster than when you were in high orbit. This shows that your high orbit impact momentum is less than your Earth impact momentum which strongly suggests to me that gravity is a function of time dilation and not mass.

#10 inigmatus

inigmatus

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:44 PM

"realized time" aka the present. in short, the present is all there is. there is no existing future or existing past. only the present exists.

"gravity is 'realized time'" is essentially saying that gravity is the present physical manifestation of time itself localized in space.

CraigD, you and Eclogite are correct. The equation is dimensionally inconsistent, but this because the variables mentioned and compared in the equation are currently expressed in physics within the terms of dimension you posted. This theory may require dimensionless definitions (or definitions expressed in expanded dimensions up to the 11 dimensional limit supported by M Theory) for the the variables listed. I have not worked out the math. I only present this theory here in the hopes that it might lead to a ToE.

Edited by inigmatus, 16 April 2012 - 07:49 PM.


#11 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 12:40 PM

Criag, if theory predicts a finite lifetime for protons and electrons why wouldn't the infinite gravitational force at the center of a black hole rip them into their constituent photons?

#12 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 18 April 2012 - 01:23 PM

Criag, if theory predicts a finite lifetime for protons and electrons why wouldn't the infinite gravitational force at the center of a black hole rip them into their constituent photons?

Some, but not all, “beyond the Standard Model” mainstream physics theories predict a finite lifetime for protons, though experiments to detect this have set the maximum decay very low, giving a minimum half-life around [imath]10^{34}[/imath] years. I know of no modifications to SM physics proposing a theory that includes electron decay, though experiments have been done to detect it, setting a minimum half-life of around [imath]5 \times 10^{24}[/imath] years.

Minimum half-life determining experiments like these are “zero finds” experiments. They find no occurrences of a decay event, so are able, by the number of particles and length of time observes, to show that they can’t be decaying any faster than given by the calculated half life.

Neither protons nor electrons have photons as constituent particles. The constituent particles of the proton are quarks and gluons. The electron is an elementary particle – it’s not composed of more elementary particles.

Sources: wikipedia article proton decay, electron, and proton

... why wouldn't the infinite gravitational force at the center of a black hole rip them into ...

There’s no clear consensus that any infinite forces exist in nature, within or without black holes. There are some reasonable models showing that conditions within very large black holes, such as the ones at the centers of galaxies, can be fairly ordinary, including stars, planets, etc. I mentioned a paper about such models earlier this year, in this post.

However, our – not just us amateurs', but pros' famous and not – understanding of “extreme gravity physics” is patchy at best. The SM doesn’t attempt to describe gravity at all, while the best theory that does, General Relativity, is understood to be an approximation of reality, as it doesn’t include any of the known particles or their interactions. A successful theory of “quantum gravity” – the combination of these two very, but only partially, successful theories, is IMHO the big challenge facing physics today.

This, combined with our inability, and perhaps the impossibility, of experimentally observing the inside of a BH, makes speculating about them difficult, and to some extent pointless. If, as best present theory suggests, the insides of black holes can’t interact with their outsides except in a few ways, what’s really happening in them might be considered a matter of curiosity only, with no practical scientific consequences.

#13 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:23 PM

Einstein predicts matter can be turned into pure energy and back. The only pure energy I'm aware of is radiation so why wouldn't the photon be the basic unit of matter?

#14 belovelife

belovelife

    psionicist - preserver lv.143

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1397 posts

Posted 19 April 2012 - 10:32 PM

the photon still has a negative charge right?

#15 Little Bang

Little Bang

    Questing

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1140 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 12:22 PM

If it has a charge it's news to me.

#16 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:57 PM

http://scienceforums...y-of-gravitime/

Einstein predicts matter can be turned into pure energy and back.

The phrase “pure energy” doesn’t have much use in physics, but yes, mass-energy equivalence does essentially predict that mass can be transformed into energy, and energy into mass.

The principle of mass-energy equivalence, which Einstein wrote about starting in 1905, predicts that, contrary to the old principles of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, the invariant (AKA rest) mass of a collection of bodies can be change, as can their kinetic energy, but that their relativistic, (or effective) mass times the speed of light squared ([imath]mc^2[/imath]) cannot. In short, it replaces the principle of conservation of mass and energy with one of conservation of a single, combined quantity, mass-energy.

This theory is pretty intuitive when used on systems where every body has non-zero rest mass and speed less than c: it essentially says that when a body’s speed is increased, its mass increases also. It gets some counterintuitive in systems with bodies with zero mass that move at c, as the photon is theorized to do in quantum mechanics and other theories.

The only pure energy I'm aware of is radiation so why wouldn't the photon be the basic unit of matter?

You can, in principle and in practice, transform zero rest mass, speed of light-traveling photons into non-zero rest mass, slower than light “matter”. But when people say something is a “basic” or “constituent” part of something else, they usually don’t mean that it can be transformed into the new stuff, but that the new stuff contains it.

No particle “contains” photons, in the sense that protons contain quarks and gluons, or atomic nuclei contain protons and neutrons.

Practically, you can’t create “matter particles” more massive than electrons from photons, because there are not photons, nor any known means of creating ones with enough energy. For example, to create a proton – antiproton pair, you’d need to have a photon with at least 2 GeV, about 2000 times more than the most energetic known ones.

the photon still has a negative charge right?

As LB noted, the photon has zero charge. Perhaps you’re thinking of the electron, an entirely different particle?

#17 sigurdV

sigurdV

    Thinking

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 641 posts

Posted 20 April 2012 - 07:20 PM

http://scienceforums.com/topic/24861-theory-of-gravitime/


The phrase “pure energy” doesn’t have much use in physics, but yes, mass-energy equivalence does essentially predict that mass can be transformed into energy, and energy into mass.

The principle of mass-energy equivalence, which Einstein wrote about starting in 1905, predicts that, contrary to the old principles of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, the invariant (AKA rest) mass of a collection of bodies can be change, as can their kinetic energy, but that their relativistic, (or effective) mass times the speed of light squared ([imath]mc^2[/imath]) cannot. In short, it replaces the principle of conservation of mass and energy with one of conservation of a single, combined quantity, mass-energy.

This theory is pretty intuitive when used on systems where every body has non-zero rest mass and speed less than c: it essentially says that when a body’s speed is increased, its mass increases also. It gets some counterintuitive in systems with bodies with zero mass that move at c, as the photon is theorized to do in quantum mechanics and other theories.


You can, in principle and in practice, transform zero rest mass, speed of light-traveling photons into non-zero rest mass, slower than light “matter”. But when people say something is a “basic” or “constituent” part of something else, they usually don’t mean that it can be transformed into the new stuff, but that the new stuff contains it.

No particle “contains” photons, in the sense that protons contain quarks and gluons, or atomic nuclei contain protons and neutrons.

Practically, you can’t create “matter particles” more massive than electrons from photons, because there are not photons, nor any known means of creating ones with enough energy. For example, to create a proton – antiproton pair, you’d need to have a photon with at least 2 GeV, about 2000 times more than the most energetic known ones.


As LB noted, the photon has zero charge. Perhaps you’re thinking of the electron, an entirely different particle?


Hi CraigD

Did you notice Michaelangelicas reference to constituents of the electron?