Gravity Bends spacetime

[IDMclean]

Gauss' law for magnetism: [math]\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = \mu_0 c \rho_m[/math]

 

Faraday's law of induction: [math]\nabla \times \mathbf{E} = -\frac{\partial \mathbf{B}}{\partial t} - \mu_0 c \mathbf{J}_m[/math]

 

I am fairly sure these are not in the standard books... and if they are, then wow I need those books. These are the modified Maxwellian Equations for Monopoles, I believe formulated by Dirac.

 

They have never ever ever been observed. And even if they did, special relativity will not break down like you are trying to suggest. Magnetism and electric fields are and forever will be one and the same effect.

 

You sound sure of that. I ask you these questions, like I would love to ask any Physist. What would happen should these two be seperated? What would a monopole be like, what properties would it exhibit? How would you know what monopole looks like, seeing as you've never seen one before?

 

Oh and I am not saying Special Relativity would "break". I'm just saying perhaps it's to focused on one concept to notice the effects of another. I rather agree with SR myself. As I understand it it only has problems in a few places. I intend to figure out why, and then patch it up. If Special relativity would break, I would like to know how. I don't see it. Please do point me in the right direction then.

 

Oh and for that last part, which is in bold. I think that perhaps you are right. Perhaps it's merely a rearrangement of terms that is in order.

[sebbysteiny]

I ask you these questions, like I would love to ask any Physist. What would happen should these two be seperated? What would a monopole be like, what properties would it exhibit? How would you know what monopole looks like, seeing as you've never seen one before?

 

I would answer your questions, but this thread is about the bending of spacetime as an explanation for the (phantom) force of gravity and it would be very rude of me to hijack it. By all means, start another thread and I'll happily explain. Perhaps you could also let me know how advanced your knowledge is eg if you know of gauses law and if you understand vector calculus.

[Turtle]

I didn't read anything in the thread in regard to experimentally settling the gravity questions; see if this helps.

 

Lab tuned to gravity's 'ripples'

By Jonathan Amos

Science reporter, BBC News

 

One of the great scientific experiments of our age is now fully underway.

 

A German/UK team has put the giant GEO 600 gravitational wave detector in a continuous observational mode. ...

 

Full Article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5111642.stm

:eek2:

[Qfwfq]

Note, perhaps KAC meant: "You'll notice that the divergence of B does not equal zero."

 

Seriously, Maxwells equations are not relativistic equations. They work but only in one frame. In another frame, the E and B field changes.

Uhm, perhaps you mean that the usual form isn't the Lorentz-covariant one.

 

The equation you gave is just Maxwells equations for special relativity, if I remember right.

If you refer to the ones with monopoles, I'm not sure you remember right at all. Relativity doesn't imply, nor require, magnetic charge.

 

Are either of you aware that magnetic charge would be a pseudoscalar, as the magnetic field is a pseudovector, also called axial vector?

[sebbysteiny]

 

Seriously, Maxwells equations are not relativistic equations. They work but only in one frame. In another frame, the E and B field changes.

Uhm, perhaps you mean that the usual form isn't the Lorentz-covariant one.

 

Well der. I was refering to the maxwell equations provided by kickassclown. I know there is a Lorentz-covariant (and contravarient) form of the equations that is compatible with special relativity. That was my point: that the exact measurements of E and B vary depending on the frame you are in. However I wasn't entirely convinced of the necessesity to go into axial vectors and vector calculus and especially not 4 dimensional covarient and contravarient tensors to explain special and general relitivity for someone at Kickassclown's level.

 

 

The equation you gave is just Maxwells equations for special relativity, if I remember right.

If you refer to the ones with monopoles, I'm not sure you remember right at all. Relativity doesn't imply, nor require, magnetic charge.

 

Are either of you aware that magnetic charge would be a pseudoscalar, as the magnetic field is a pseudovector, also called axial vector

 

That was my entire point qfwfq.

 

I am also fully aware that magnetic fields are pseudovectors. The question is whether this would effect the properties of the field lines of a magnetic monopole. I believe it would not. Perhaps here you could make a contribution.

[IDMclean]

to explain special and general relitivity for someone at Kickassclown's level.

 

What's this suppose to mean?:)

 

It certainly would be helpful for me to get the complete explination, rather than the abridged format.

 

The whole Psuedo-scalar thing agrees with my thesis on Monopoles. Question: Is Electric Charge Scalar or Psuedo-Scalar?

 

Also perhaps someone could give me a better understanding of Wave Theory. Why Gravity waves?

[sebbysteiny]

to explain special and general relitivity for someone at Kickassclown's level.

What's this suppose to mean?

It certainly would be helpful for me to get the complete explination

 

Erm, no offense Kickassclown, but I asked you whether you understood vector calculus and Gauss' law and you said you did not. So my explanation tried to explain it in a different way. My explanation wasn't 'less complete'. It explained the real phyics behind the answers to your questions. It just wasn't mathematically rigorous. I'm still not sure talking in terms of pseudo scalers and normal scalars adds anything to this discussion about the physical properties of a magnetic monopole.

 

Also, I'm entirely sure this is the wrong thread for such a discussion.

[Qfwfq]

I'm still not sure talking in terms of pseudo scalers and normal scalars adds anything to this discussion about the physical properties of a magnetic monopole.

I'm sure it would have been better than remarking about KAC's level, and it would not be off topic at all. If I ask someone about their grounding, it's usually so as to know whether they need it explained to them, or advised to look it up first when it would be to unwieldy to explain on these boards. There are some cases when a surrogate or workaround might be found but you sure weren't doing a good job of it, not that you could. As for your replies to me, it seemed like dodging.

[Qfwfq]

The whole Psuedo-scalar thing agrees with my thesis on Monopoles.

What exactly is your thesis?

 

Question: Is Electric Charge Scalar or Psuedo-Scalar?

Electric charge is scalar, magnetic charge would be pseudoscalar. This is the main reason for the belief that, while electric charge is observed abundant, magnetic charge doesn't exist. It would be "rather odd" if it did.

 

Also perhaps someone could give me a better understanding of Wave Theory. Why Gravity waves?

An introductory textbook that I found quite good is the third volume of the Berkley lectures in physics. :hyper:

 

On the flyleaf, it even has the translation of a Haiku about the pebbles "moving" on the bottom of a brook. :doh:

[sebbysteiny]

I'm sure it would have been better than remarking about KAC's level, and it would not be off topic at all. If I ask someone about there grounding, it's usually so as to know whether they need it explained to them, or advised to look it up first when it would be to unwieldy to explain on these boards.

 

I disagree. I believe if someone asks a question one should try and present an accurate picture of how things work targetted at their level of understanding. Asking KAC to read up on vector calculus is rediculous since he doesn't yet know it and it will take the < removed > ages when the important points could be explained in one post. So we have different teaching styles. That doesn't make it wrong. It is only wrong to criticise a style of teaching simply because it is different to your own personal choice.

 

There are some cases when a surrogate or workaround might be found but you sure weren't doing a good job of it

 

This is getting a little personal and I'm not liking this. Saying I wasn't 'doing a good job' does not make it so. I never claimed to be 100% correct since my memory might have faded slightly but I believe I have remembered the crucial points. If you believe that I have been mistaken then kindly and politely suggest where the mistake lies rather than criticising my decision that mathematical jargon was not appropriate in this case and my dislike of resorting to 'look it up yourself' teaching techniques.

[Qfwfq]

Watch your words, especially as I had just warned you not to be disrespectful. You are not his schoolteacher and you lack the authority to put a dunce hat on his head and send him behind the blackboard.

[Qfwfq]

And, BTW:

This is getting a little personal and I'm not liking this.

:hyper:

[IDMclean]

Back on topic.

 

As I understand it, from the various equations that make up Relativity. Mass is seen as collections of Electric and Magnetic fields, in constant motion (E=mc^2). When these fields move, they deform (Lorentz Transformation). This is often viewed as Space-time Distortion which tells a charged body how to move, which in turn tells space-time how to distort (Einstein's Tensor).

 

A photon, though neutrally charged, is none the less charged, even if internally. Quantum Charge will need to address the issue of "zero" charge as that is not an acceptable Quantum number for a property that is Quantizied.

[Erasmus00]

As I understand it, from the various equations that make up Relativity. Mass is seen as collections of Electric and Magnetic fields, in constant motion (E=mc^2).

 

There is a mistake in this understanding, as I've repeatedly tried to point out to you. Mass is not lumped into electromagnetic energy, as of now, there is no consistant theory of mass. The Higg's field, (different and seperate from electromagnetic fields) is one attempt (thus far unverified) at a theory of mass.

 

When these fields move, they deform (Lorentz Transformation). This is often viewed as Space-time Distortion which tells a charged body how to move, which in turn tells space-time how to distort (Einstein's Tensor).

 

This is also incorrect. The deformation of the electric fields of moving charges is fundamentally unrelated to the idea of spacetime curvature.

 

A photon, though neutrally charged, is none the less charged, even if internally.

 

Why? You assert this with absolutely no reasoning.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Because a photon can be split. In a Gamma-ray pair reaction zero becomes +1 and -1. This to me at least indicates along with alot more info from a number of sources which I have long forgotten, that the photon though NET neutrally charged is Absolutely charged. Fields, is one thing that brings me to this. EM fields.

 

Also Mass-Energy are equivilant. Mass-Antimass reaction results in energy. Energy-Energy reactions result in mass. It is implied by a varety of sources. That every body of mass has an electic and magnetic field is proof enough to me.

 

I am not going to "defend" my position, because I know it to be self-evident. If it's not to you, that is not my concearn. It is my assertion, mine alone, that Space-time deforms when charged bodies move through it. I had read it somewhere once or twice and I being forgetful of small things, have forgotten the source.

[sebbysteiny]

Watch your words, especially as I had just warned you not to be disrespectful. You are not his schoolteacher and you lack the authority to put a dunce hat on his head and send him behind the blackboard.

 

Your really one to lecture on disrespect. You have introduced this personal element into the conversation and it is for you to appologise, not me.

 

Kickassclown specifically asked me to explain the significance of the equations towards general relativity and the existence of monopoles. I explained it as best as I believed one could on the information received in private emails from Kickassclown. If you don't like my response or style of explanation / teaching then deal with it. KickassClown does not need me to know he has made a fine contribution to this forum. It is KickassClowns right to complain if he feels I am being rude to him not yours. You can of course put forward your explanation that you obviously feel is far superior to mine but to criticise me going so far as to say that my explanation was lousy and later going on to say that I have no right to be a 'school teacher' when asked a question to which I am more than qualified to answer is beyond objective questions and answers and crosses the line on the outright disrespectful.

 

And knocking off 'rep points' is just petty.

 

You are claiming the moral highground. I therefore challenge you to find one word of disrespect on my part mentioned before your first offensive post that included

 

There are some cases when a surrogate or workaround might be found but you sure weren't doing a good job of it, not that you could. As for your replies to me, it seemed like dodging.

 

I respect your views and your clear knowledge of physics and other subjects and all I ask is that you respect mine. If you want to end this argument now then you might want to apologise for the unnecessarily personal attacks in your posts, undo any actions you have taken as a petty response and try to keep future criticism constrained to ideas. Otherwise I would like this matter put to the monitors who, despite your clear experience in this forum, can be relied on to be objective and fair.

 

Any further response should be made to me personally so that this very interesting thread is not hijacked any further.

[sebbysteiny]

I am not going to "defend" my position, because I know it to be self-evident. If it's not to you, that is not my concearn. It is my assertion, mine alone, that Space-time deforms when charged bodies move through it. I had read it somewhere once or twice and I being forgetful of small things, have forgotten the source.

Your theory is a valid idea to consider. However, perhaps I should add that your suggestion that charge, deforms space time goes against the widely accepted, widely proven, theory of general relativity which states as a basic assertion that the only property of a particle that leads to bending of spacetime is mass.

 

Perhaps one should look at it in another way. The beinding of spacetime is just another way of saying 'gravity'. Therefore, what you are suggesting is that particles with a charge should cause gravitational attraction. However, one can measure the electric forces and even the gravitational attraction caused by mass between particles. If charge also contributes towards a gravitational force, then it must be so small that it has not yet been measured by any scientific instrumants and the general theory of relativity must be radically altered.