hupfinsgack said:
Hey i did say i'm rusty
OMG Half Life Gluon gun is real
- Thread starter K.I.L.E.R
- Start date
Hey i did say i'm rusty
Neeyik said:
That depends: electromagnetic force clearly generates particles that interact individually and have the means to transfer the force. It has no immediate "blanket effect".
Gravity is an instant (although that is debatable) force, that acts on everything around it. And unlike the other forces, you can create an essentially unlimited amount of it by literally just stacking more stuff together. So there is a problem if you want all affected masses to be acted upon by the partices needed, especially because the volume and the outer surface of those masses have no lineair relation.
The paradoxes are the "localized" ones, the variants of the EPR paradox, although that would depend on gravity being instant and omnidirectional versus using messenger particles.
Edit: typo, unidirectional -> omnidirectional.
DiGuru said:
I'm pretty sure i've heard or read that Gravity has been proven NOT to be instantaneous, instead it has the same speed (or less) of light.
Nothing travels faster than light, not even gravity.
Neeyik said:
Yes, but there are clear differences between how the interactions can be applied. With gravity, there is just no direct relation. I'm sure you agree, that I'm not the only one that is totally baffled by the problems you get when you try to extrapolate gravity based on the other known forces. There are just too many things that won't fit, let alone the standard model and/or quantum mechanics.
london-boy said:
Some things might, as experiments show as well.
But any way you look at it, there are some very nasty problems that can only be solved by declaring time to be quantified and doing some unspecified "bookkeeping" in between the "frames".
For most things, relativity and quantum mechanics offer a nice explanation, there is just no way you can combine them. First and foremost because there is no working particle model of gravity.
DiGuru said:
But the things that "travel faster than light" don't actually "travel faster than light". Space might warp and create situations where something gets somewhere faster than light could on it own, but that's cheating.
london-boy said:But the things that "travel faster than light" don't actually "travel faster than light". Space might warp and create situations where something gets somewhere faster than light could on it own, but that's cheating.
Yes, that's a large part of it. Einstein would totally agree with that.
But there is some more information about states, spin and such as well, that seems to be known before it possibly could. Which would fit in with the way gravity seems to work. Hence the "unspecified bookkeeping".
Btw, some of the most glaring problems could be solved by postulating a class of undetectable particles that have an upper speed limit that is much higher than the speed of light. But even while I'm not sure that could solve all the main problems, that would be just about as controversial as the alleged bookkeeping, and the probability (not evidence, that would be almost impossible) of time being quantified is MUCH larger.
There isn't even really that much resistance against quantified time and all the things that would imply nowadays, with the advent of movies and computers and such, but for the "sacrilegious" aspect: who or what would be behind the scenes and how in heaven or hell could we ever get a glimpse of it?
And even so: would that be God, or would all we are and know be just some kind of computer simulation? No, that would be unacceptable. We surely are very real and important, aren't we?
There isn't even really that much resistance against quantified time and all the things that would imply nowadays, with the advent of movies and computers and such, but for the "sacrilegious" aspect: who or what would be behind the scenes and how in heaven or hell could we ever get a glimpse of it?
And even so: would that be God, or would all we are and know be just some kind of computer simulation? No, that would be unacceptable. We surely are very real and important, aren't we?
DiGuru said:
That's pretty 1960ies aka pretty old. Most scientist have abandoned that theory. They're called tachyons (yes Star Trek, i know). They have more or less been ruled out via Tschrenkov radiation.
As for what makes quantum gravitation so goddamn difficult: IT's the metric (more or less the geometry of the space) as it depends on the the gravitational interaction itself. That's also why the graviton is the only interacting boson that's spin 2...
You mean Cherenkov and as far as I'm aware this doesn't discount the possibility of object existing beyond the speed of light in a vacuum; as this only applies to charged particles. Tachyons could be very weakly interacting, non-mass particles but I think the main problem with them is the way they bugger up the lack of absolute reference frames in special relativity.hupfinsgack said:
String theory more or less predicts Tachyons, so they are not really ruled out at all.
The thing is that in the very particular circumstance where they are produced (vacuum instability in string theory) the causal structure can be reinterpreted in a nice way where you don't get some bizarre time machine or something of that nature. You can look up Sen Tachyon condensation to get more information if you are interested.
Anyway the problem with gravity is that it knows too much. It knows and feels all energy around it (weak, nuclear, EM), but worse it actually seems to know about itself. This isn't really unusual per se, every force has self energy diagrams that contribute to their quantum amplitudes. The problem here is that the actual way which we measure that amplitude (in meters, yardsticks and seconds) by its very nature changes the actual diagram that it itself induces. So you kinda have to stick a recursion relation on the whole enterprise (socalled back reactions on the metric). The series doesn't terminate in any nice way, and instead outputs infinity.
This is the fundamental problem with gravity (amongst several others), and has never truly been understood by any quantum theory of gravity. It has resisted years of research, and even the greatest minds (like Einstein) have hit brickwalls struggling with it.
The thing is that in the very particular circumstance where they are produced (vacuum instability in string theory) the causal structure can be reinterpreted in a nice way where you don't get some bizarre time machine or something of that nature. You can look up Sen Tachyon condensation to get more information if you are interested.
Anyway the problem with gravity is that it knows too much. It knows and feels all energy around it (weak, nuclear, EM), but worse it actually seems to know about itself. This isn't really unusual per se, every force has self energy diagrams that contribute to their quantum amplitudes. The problem here is that the actual way which we measure that amplitude (in meters, yardsticks and seconds) by its very nature changes the actual diagram that it itself induces. So you kinda have to stick a recursion relation on the whole enterprise (socalled back reactions on the metric). The series doesn't terminate in any nice way, and instead outputs infinity.
This is the fundamental problem with gravity (amongst several others), and has never truly been understood by any quantum theory of gravity. It has resisted years of research, and even the greatest minds (like Einstein) have hit brickwalls struggling with it.
Dash Lambda
Newcomer
No.
A quark-gluon plasma is not the same as the gluon-gun. It doesn't destroy everything it touches, it can't be used in that way. It's like saying "Hydrogen combusts, so scientists can make this thing called water with hydrogen in it, it should be really good at exploding!"
Sorry, doesn't work like that.
A quark-gluon plasma is not the same as the gluon-gun. It doesn't destroy everything it touches, it can't be used in that way. It's like saying "Hydrogen combusts, so scientists can make this thing called water with hydrogen in it, it should be really good at exploding!"
Sorry, doesn't work like that.
Yes, I'll Swap you for my theory of lightBtw, is anyone interested in my totally speculative theory on gravity? Might be good for a laugh.
I once discovered the theory of everything, most enjoyable time of my life, the happiest ive ever been. unfortunately i'd forget it by the time the lsd had wore off
ps: Peter Higgs Rocks
he has never sent an email, browsed the internet or even made a mobile phone call, He has never been tempted to buy a television, but was persuaded to watch The Big Bang Theory last year, and said he wasn't impressed.
ps: Peter Higgs Rocks
he has never sent an email, browsed the internet or even made a mobile phone call, He has never been tempted to buy a television, but was persuaded to watch The Big Bang Theory last year, and said he wasn't impressed.
Similar threads
- Locked