eLliDKraM's Rantings

Magnetism is Arbitrary!

Tue, 01 May 2007 03:35:23 +0000

Electric Fields vs. Magnetism (Part 1)

You ask any physicist the definition of a magnetic field and he or she will either give you a textbook answer and or a mathematical answer. However, both are actually arbitrary. This is a little bit of a read but I urge you to read through all of it if you are going to make any comments or any attempt to criticize my thoughts.

I�ll repeat, I�m in the process of rendering the entirety of the subject of magnetism an arbitrary value. Does this mean people will stop teaching it? Absolutely not, because it�s so much more simplified (because of the fact it�s arbitrary) it will still go on being taught the same way; however, the goal here is to actually provide fundamental meaning of magnetism. What I mean by fundamental meaning to magnetism is prove that magnetism isn�t really anything but a simplified version of a very complex system of charges and electric fields.

My goal is to graphically, mathematically, and conceptually give reasoning for my theory in this blog; it may be a little disorganized but I have yet to actually organize it on paper yet so I have to start somewhere. In this part, part one of my explanations, a deep mathematical understanding of relativity isn�t necessary, just an abstract conceptual one.

I�m going to Photoshop an example diagram regarding my situation because that would look better than my MS Paint or blackboard drawings. It�s fairly abstract; however it�s also fundamental, which is what we�re aiming at. There are some obvious flaws but consider these findings in pre-beta version mathematically; conceptually it all makes sense, however much of it is a little counter-intuitive but will be explained later in some detail.

http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/electric%20field%201.jpg

My labeling will seem counter-intuitive but when I get into the relativistic integration, it will make sense because gamma will need to be introduced sooner or later to make the correlation.

Picture two electrons, as I have, separated by distance �r�, where the second electron is traveling at velocity vector, in some arbitrary direction we will note as negative. Theta represents the angle between vector v and vector r. This isn�t too necessary but is required to be established here so it will make sense in the math later. Also, I�m restating the fact that I�m using relativity to define this therefore the fact that electrons have wave particle duality can be ignored because Euclidean geometry and Einsteinian mechanics work perfectly.

Think back a ways and remember what current is, aside from Ohm�s law, but on a more fundamental level. It is measured in amperes and is noted as the time derivative of charge (I�m going to do what everyone else does and label current, I, and charge, q): http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/1.jpg (try to picture this, it�s important because I make some nasty assumptions later). Well it�s also common sense that velocity is just the time derivative of a distance, r, http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/2.jpg. The definition of electric field, E, is the amount of force distributed for a certain charge and can be mathematically written as such: http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/3.jpg. Mathematically, it�s obvious that there is a direct correlation between electric field and current by the time derivative of charge. It can be written as follows: http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/4.jpg. We can rewrite the initial equation as http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/5.jpg therefore allowing us to establish an understanding of force which is how I will prove everything down the road.

Whenever there is the presence of a charge, there is an electric field that surrounds it and that electric field exerts a force on any surrounding charge proportional to the magnitude of something like 1/r^2. It�s 1/r^2 because we live in a three dimensional universe and everything expands outward from a center control with a radius. The only thing in three dimensions that corresponds to a radius that has equidistant unit points at every point in space, infinitesimally small units apart, is a sphere. Why not 1/r^3 if we�re in three dimensions? Think of the surface area of the sphere, it goes something like 4pi*r^2. When I get further into it, all the electrical constants have 4pi embedded into them somewhere, such as mu nought, coloumb�s constant, epsilon nought, etc. That�s where the r^2 comes from and it�s a very important concept to grasp. This is why magnetic field can�t be specifically described as �real� in the common sense because it goes by a proportional relationship like 1/r, not 1/r^2.

Taking this from Google�s definition feed, �magnetism is one of the phenomena by which materials exert an attractive or repulsive force on other materials�. Magnetism exists from the movement of electrical charge. Remember what I said earlier, the movement of electrical charge in a quantitative format is described as current. This needs to be defined on a relativistic level though, this is my whole point.

Time for some math.

http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/6.jpg

OK, what I�ve done here is kind of set myself up for what I�m trying to prove with the essential equations.

Back to my diagram in accordance with the math; remember that charge 2 is the moving charge. In the http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/7.jpg equation, the q�s represent the charge that is FEELING the effects electric/magnetic field, and I have defined that as charge 2. You might find that weird, why would charge 2 feel the electric field and magnetic field if it�s the one that�s moving and creating it. Well, I�m going off relativity here and I can see that relative to charge 2, the moving charge to a stationary observer, that charge is not moving and charge one is the only charge moving, in the opposite direction of course. That is why I declared the moving charge as in the negative direction. Therefore, mathematically we can say that http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/8.jpg. The magnetic field is the cross product of the velocity and magnetic field vector.
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/9.jpg
In a simplistic one loop diagram (more pertinent to charges on a quantum scale when traveling in trigonometric functions, but it still obviously suffices here), the magnetic field is perpendicular to the velocity and the force is orthogonal to that, and by using the right hand rule you can determine in which direction that vector is. The vector sum of the electric force and the magnetic force will be in the same plane.

Taking those equations I have above, I can do a lot of substituting and clearly come out with my current result. However, I need to explain the integral because it�s a bitch, and I will do that after I quickly substitute everything in. I was having a debate about this problem, this afternoon over lunch with some professors and currently my idea still holds out.

Substituting, E and B primarily, we now get:
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/10.jpg
That�s all beautiful except for that integral:
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/11.jpg. My diagram sucks right here so I�m going to redraw it for any other normal Biot-Savart situation.
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/12.jpg
You have a wire, I was an idiot when I drew this and I�ll explain why. But this wire has electrons flowing through it rightward, another electron x distance away from the center of the wire will feel a force acting upon it relative to the sum of the magnetic field and electric field vectors. Yes, a magnetic field does affect an electron too. Electrons have a small magnetic dipole, or can act as a bar magnet, in a small way because they spin in a specific direction, and the direction of their polarity is relative to which way they spin; they spin with an integer number s which is relative to what orbital they are in an atom, but that�s pretty damn irrelevant to this, so I�ll stafoo. Back on topic, the reason this diagram is +1 on confusing is because I accidentally drew negative charges in the wire, which means whatever way your fingers curl using the right-hand rule, it�s the exact opposite because the charges are opposite, silly me.

Hear me out, ds, the part of the integral that is difficult to identify in my original situation with two lone electrons, can be seen in this wire diagram as an infinitesimally small portion of the wire. You infinitely add up tiny bits of the wire and calculate the forces for each little piece and add them up, you need to do this because the force is constantly INCREASING as you approach the mid point of the wire because the overall effect is related to 1/r^2, and since r is decreasing, the effect of that part of the equation is less significant. Going back to what I said in the beginning, electric fields only exist for where there is charge. Charge moves. Charge moves relativistically fast (speeds near the speed of light). This means that the vector ds, the infinitesimally small change in the wire, with respect to my first diagram of the two lone electrons, is ACTUALLY just the width of the electron. Because, get this, there will only be charge around the point that is the electron, therefore the diameter of the electron is exactly that part with respect to an instant in time. Therefore, we can now call the change in distance as just a constant as the width of an electron, a distance, if you will (therefore units are still matching up). R-hat is simply a unit vector with magnitude of 1 and we can call it +1 because at the end we�ll switch all the signs anyway. The sin theta of the cross product can be killed because our experiments will be done orthogonally. Therefore, our newest equation, and simplifying the other one, is (please note that w is equal to the width of the charge):
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/13.jpg
If w is a measurement of length of a charge (similar to distance), divided by time, and since v is the velocity of that same charge, we can combine like units into calling it:
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/14.jpg
Simplifying further, we get:
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/15.jpg
If you�re still reading and actually care, you might think this can be related to time dilation. Oh shit! It can, in an ugly way; I�m still working with the math making sure it�s true with Einstein�s equations.
All time dilation is, you need to understand conceptual relativity for this, but as an object is moving near the speed a light, the stationary observer sees its clock as traveling slower relative to its own, the ratio test regarding the difference between the rates of the two clocks can be known as the constant gamma.
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/16.jpg
All I need to do is connect them directly. I get:
http://dumpo.falsefiction.com/upload_files/17.jpg
I�ll keep it posted as I clean up the math. What this proves that on a relativistic scale, meaning almost all scales of normal charges regarding electrons and electric fields (the fields that surround those relativistic motions) magnetic fields arise. This means that magnetic fields are arbitrary and are just added to ease calculations but can be defined in terms entirely of electric fields and electric charges on a more fundamental scale. You�re a person without a life for reading all of this. I am for writing it, but I learned something.

Relations, relations, relations.

Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:19:03 +0000

Relations, relations, relations.

Everything I�ve been talking about has some relation to a grand unified theory. Like I�ve said, it all boils down to understanding gravity on an extraordinarily small scale and an extraordinarily large scale with the same mathematical model (overall).

Gravity is a relationship based force unlike electromagnetism. Electromagnetic fields are absolute and kind of give the old Newtonian ways of thought a big thumbs up even though it�s obvious that Newtonian physics is supremely flawed relative to what we know about everything today. What I mean by absolute is that if you have two sets of electromagnetic field lines, their equivalence depends entirely on exactly where they are located in relation to the entire universe (in terms of an absolute space, which is impossible but we can make more obvious definitions later).

Field lines are weird, they take up space, meaning a universe (or any closed system) can be entirely comprised of fields however with our sense of material particles there is nothing in the universe. I only bring this up because Einstein�s theory of relativity supports it and it may confuse you. However, that phrase is totally wrong, nothing in the universe means that there is no universe. Space, as it is defined, is only a way to provide some relationship in terms of a distance between two objects. Space is absolutely nothing, however don�t confuse this definition of space between space in� space because space in space may contain matter called dark matter comprised of neutrinos which are too tiny for us to detect but may still exist.

Say wha? Points of space have no existence in themselves. The only meaning a point can have is a name we define it with a reference to something else within a closed system and in terms of the system it is always within some reference to gravitational field lines, which can be visualized as a triple tree of field lines as opposed to an ambiguous set.

So what did Newton say? Newton defined space and time as being absolute, not relationship oriented. Everyone is taught Newtonian physics to some degree because it supports Euclidean geometry, which is necessary for the development of common sense as well as the development of basic mathematical tools. Euclidean geometry is good for any normal macroscopic engineering and physics taking place, but at the scales and energies we need to view objects with in space, we will have to dismiss Euclidean geometry and our general sense of Newtonian definitions to some extent. An important concept you learn in quantum physics is there is no certainty of anything, which means that nothing can be absolute. If you ask anyone how many angles a triangle has, they will say three and the sum of those angles are 180 degrees. I use this when using calculus or doing other methods of engineering; mostly everyone does. It doesn�t mean that it�s right; you must realize that 180 degrees is simply an approximation fully acceptable on a macro general scale. Everything, all objects with a type of geometry, like a triangle, residing in the universe are entirely dependent on one another, meaning their geometry is actually proportional to a relationship regarding their location in a closed system with regards to any other object. What I�m saying is as objects change their location relative to one another, since all locations are relative to begin with, the angles on these triangles will change to follow suit with regards to the new organization of matter. Now remember, the true space between these objects isn�t space in the normal sense because true space is nothing, absolutely nothing.

Enough about space, what about time? Newton was wrong there too and I�ll tell you why, but in my opinion, time is a little trickier to explain because we�re talking about a dimensional manifestation, which in itself is a little delicate to comprehend on a visual level. So, I guess I�ll first explain why time is relational. Again, he described time as an absolute property of the universe. The problem is, this is how I, and initially I�d say (based on his difficulties with his comprehension of time) how Albert Einstein was viewing time in accordance with his understanding of spacetime. His view was a little different actually, he understood time as the fourth dimension, when he initially sought out to describe it, he didn�t define it as just a manifestation of an always increasing temporal dimension. Newton described time like how many people initially think of it and that�s that it is an absolute property of the universe starting at negative infinity flowing to the infinite future.

However, one way to think of it is in terms of a relationship. Time doesn�t exist without rates, changes in interactions between objects within a closed system. Similar to macroscopic space, this is obvious because you can�t say how fast is going (a rate) in an absolute sense because you need to refer it to a rate of something else, we usually call that something relative to an observer on the surface of Earth. And we zero out any of those rates a �stationary� observer might be having. Space nor time exist outside the system we defined as the universe. Sine time is defined as a relation between interactions between objects within a space, time doesn�t exist without these interactions. Lee Smolin said, roughly in like 30 pages, that you can�t view the universe, space if you will, as a stage that can be empty or full but the stage only exists if there are interactions between actors on that stage and objects are irrelevant without these interactions having rates.

In terms of a less conceptual analogy, why does �time� �move� at the speed of light? And how is there a maximum at the speed of light? This is where I get to be a choosey little girl and I�ll be selecting ideas within several different theories. In moving dimensions theory, it is understood that photons are moving in our special dimensions therefore perpendicular to the temporal dimension, and since light moves at this rate along with the expansion of this perpendicular dimension, and since this perpendicular dimension�s rate is always relative to the three special dimensions, the rate of the photon itself is independent of the rate of any observer. So we have this temporal dimension, a manifestation of this dimension being an act of change defined as time, it expands at the speed of light relative to our three dimensions that we notice and since it travels at the speed of light, which is why time slows as you approach that speed. As you approach it, photon emitting approaches zero and without the emitting and absorbing of photons, there is an inability to �age�. I�ll hump this fact in every single one of my blog posts but it all goes back to the 1/r^2 relationship that we live in a three dimensional world (string theory has some problems with this but its orthogonal definitions are impossible to test and truly comprehend by the human mind which is perfectly acceptable since we live in a three dimensional macroscopically obvious world) and that photons are emitting in only one direction relative to the surface area of a sphere. Therefore these relationships exist because of their own existence which seems paradoxical which it truly isn�t, you just need to be able to comprehend actual space as a non-existent medium allowing matter to interact.

Quick Grand Unification Overview

Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:19:18 +0000

There once was a thought of a unification of all four fundamental forces (unified field theory, grand unification, theory of everything, whatever, whatever�). Well, there still is; there are plenty of theories, however there are, I�ll say Three big boys (but there are plenty of others just as credible) that have my attention:

-String Theory (M Theory or ST)
-Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)
-Moving Dimensions Theory (MTD)

OK, there are theories, but what are they theorizing?

Obviously, there are four fundamental forces in nature, a gravitational force, an electromagnetic force, and a strong and weak nuclear force.

-Gravitational force is the most commonly �understood� of the four among people today, but the ironic twist to it is, even though more people are aware of it, nobody really understands it (if they do they have not been able to devise a mathematical projection that is widely accepted among the scientific community as acceptable under quantum and Newtonian degrees). Gravitational forces are simply forces that interact between matter.

-Electromagnetic force is a force that we come across quite often and provides a link between electric and magnetic forces by means of a similar constant and like attractions of charged or magnetic widgets (particles, poles, whatever).

-Weak Nuclear can get a little extra confusing in terms of just the definition but simply it�s just neutrinos, as of right now we consider them to be uncharged, nearly massless fundamental particles that are so small they�re virtually undetectable (I�m getting involved in a project in Soudan, Minnesota that is building a neutrino trap) however they are so abundant they are what dark matter is thought to be comprised of therefore they are so great in numbers that they comprise of most of the matter in the universe. Anyway, the neutrinos have interactions with fundamental particles that cause them to radioactively decay. The process is mediated by fundamental particles, called bosons, that spin (please don�t confuse spin with classical spinning involving angular momentum).

-Strong Nuclear force is the force regarding interactions of the fundamental particles that bind protons to other fundamental particles (other protons and neutrons), primarily the quark; these interactions are adjudicated by gluons.

Since all interactions in nature involve one or more of these processes, obviously, understanding a connection between all of these will allow scientists to understand things that aren�t obvious or capable of being mathematically understood. Some of these difficulties are:

-Why protons and electrons have the charges they do, as well as why their charges are of the exact same magnitude.

-We can learn more about the history and purpose of neutrinos and what their role is in the universe. In terms of neutrinos we can also understand why they�re nearly massless and what causes their strict abundance. With the understanding of neutrinos, this allows us to understand whether the universe will continue to expand, why it is expanding on a more exact degree, which will also let us understand if the universe will ever experience a big crunch (a big contraction, opposite of Big Bang is considered realistically impossible at this point, but the understanding over neutrinos would help affirm current theories).

-Off of the other ideas, a unification of the four fundamental forces will allow for an explanation of physical particles that are indeed lighter than the proton because everything experiences decay over time, it is wondered what particles comprise of a proton.

-They can explain the lack of antimatter in the universe. As you may know, when the Big Bang occurred and matter was created, every bit of matter that was created also had an opposite matter called antimatter. Every particle has a corresponding antiparticle in the universe and when matter and antimatter comes into contact, an annihilation occurs. An annihilation is simply a way of expressing Einstein�s E=mc^2 equation, since mass and energy are directly proportional relative to the constant being the square of the speed of light, the mass of the matter and antimatter when annihilated will produce the exact corresponding energy as a result.

The point of all those partial explanations is that a grand unification will allow for an understanding in found interrelationships of amazing things that are occurring in the universe, but are mathematically impossible to understand or conceptually too disorganized to make sense of. They also allow for discoveries of new ways every force in the universe can be interconnected allowing for new discoveries in science and cosmology.

Since a unified field theory allows for the understanding that corresponds to ALL matter (and therefore everything in the universe since both matter and energy have a fairly simplistic relationship with one another if you sum them up with their respective inefficiencies).

What is:
String Theory.

String Theory is a possible explanation, and is indeed one of the most popular among people in the modern age because of all the hype the media is giving it, for the interconnection between gravity and electromagnetism, which obviously dictates that it unifies all four forces.

The theory suggests that in the most simplistic terms, all the matter in the universe can be understood as one-dimensional �strings� of energy vibrating around that, in certain situations and under certain configurations can form particles of matter.

A downside to the theory, however, is that it requires the presence of 11-dimensions instead of the currently perceived four dimensions (three special-dimensions and one temporal dimension, remember that the temporal dimension should not be understood as time even though in concept they are analogous to one another). This produces a problem because there is no proof of any other dimensions being present. If other dimensions were present, there would be deviations between matter i.e. deviations in terms of the universal gravitational constant as gravitons will then be interacting between more than three dimensions (there should at least be some variation which there is currently no proof for). I have already explained the significance of the universal gravitational constant in my first post because, since there are three dimensions, points in the universe can be seen as a sphere which, spacially, produces a 1/r^2 relationship, which has yet to be violated experimentally.

The theory has its upsides, the first is that it provides extraordinary ease in terms of mathematics with regards to unifying the four forces which allows for an understanding of many interactions between matter in the universe that were before too difficult to comprehend or derive calculations for.

To counter that, string theory opponents claim that it�s fine and dandy because it provides fantastic theoretical proof however none of it can be experimentally verified. There is talk that a string theory experiment proved successful not too long ago (some time late last year).

Quote

Number 813 #2, February 27, 2006 by Phil Schewe, Ben Stein, and Davide Castelvecchi

String Theory Explains RHIC Jet Suppression

String theory argues that all matter is composed of string-like shreds in a 10-dimensional hyperspace assembled in various forms. It has won acclaim from many who appreciate the theory's elegant mathematics and ambition to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, and skepticism from others who cite the theory's lack of a practical track record. String theory, the doubters say, makes no testable predictions.

But this isn't exactly true. Indeed, the theory has not yet been experimentally vindicated in the realm of quantum gravity, but has been put into play in the realm of high-energy ion collisions, the kind carried out at Brookhaven's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). A few years ago string practitioners attempted to establish a relationship between the 10-dimensional string world and the 4-dimensional (3 spatial dimensions plus time) world in which we observe interactions among quark-filled particles like protons (for background, see Physics Today, May 2005).

This duality between string theory and the theory of the strong nuclear force, quantum chromodynamics (QCD), was recently used to interpret puzzling early results from RHIC, namely the suppression of energetic quark jets that should have emerged from the fireball formed when two heavy nuclei (such as gold) collide head on. The thinking was that perhaps the plasma of quarks and gluons (quarks bursting free from their customary proton and meson groupings) wasn't a gas of weakly interacting particles (as was originally thought) but a gas of strongly interacting particles, so strong that any energetic quarks that might have escaped the fireball (initiating a secondary avalanche, or jet, or quarks) would quickly be slowed and stripped of energy on its way through the tumultuous quark-gluon plasma (QGP) environment.

Two new papers by Hong Liu and Krishna Rajagopal of (MIT) and Urs Wiedemann (CERN) address this problem. The first paper calculates a specific quark-suppression parameter (namely, how much the quarks, each attached to a string dangling "downward" into a fifth dimension, are pushed around as they traverse the quark-gluon plasma) that agrees closely with the experimentally observed value.

Rajagopal (krishna@ctp.mit.edu, 617-253-6202) says that in the second paper, the same authors make a specific testable prediction using string theory that bears not just on missing jets of energetic light quarks (up, down, and strange quarks), but on the melting or dissociation temperatures of bound states of heavy quarks (charm-anticharm or bottom-antibottom pairs) moving through the quark-gluon plasma with sufficiently high velocity, as will be produced in future experiments at RHIC and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) under construction at CERN.

----Found at: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2007/split/813-2.html

There still is no accepted understanding of that fifth dimension and how it mathematically doesn�t congregate with other laws of physics such as the inverse square law.

My opinion with string theory is that it provides plenty of concepts that should be taken seriously as well as mathematics that can prove useful in physics as we know it, but should not be taken as a grain of salt because of its fallacies and ridiculous assumptions. However, I don�t want to go straight up and say that it�s bullshit because, obviously nobody knows it, but we will have to wait until next year with the creation of the extremely powerful Hadron Collider. This will allow people to do experiments with energy levels sufficiently high enough to actually allow for a possible experimental unification in the fundamental forces allowing for a realistic test in the equations brought forth by theories today.

I�m going to get into Moving Dimensions Theory and Quantum Loop Theory later because, come on, this is already six pages or so, and I plan on getting into more detail with them. What you have read here is a basic introduction with what�s goin� down and a quick overview of string theory which in my opinion is too erroneous to support.

Actually quick edit, there is also this professor that gave a two hour presentation at the University of Minnesota a little while back and he claimed to have successfully, with experimental proof being present, unified all four theories in terms of math and physical experimental proof. He hasn't finished his papers and basically doubled over on affirming his own findings, but it is quite amazing actually and I will keep you all updated on his findings too. I'll have to get his name from my professor because it escapes me right now.

A little about me.

Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:35:57 +0000

I'm the resident dickhead here at dreamincode, mostly because I have a very minute background in programming therefore motivation is low, and I was dropped on my head as a baby so I am prone to sudden fits of anger.

I'm double majoring in Mechanical Engineering and Theoretical Physics, and minoring in Mathematics (my focus being differential calculus due to its applicatory status in my interested fields).

My purpose for Mechanical Enginering, ME, is because A] I like to build things and apply Newtonian/Conventional Mechanics to everyday life to make everyday uses for engines, devices, machines (anything mechanical) more efficient, and B] I simply need to produce a physical product in the world to have some worth in life.
EDIT:
Also, this girl I was talking to said it best,

Quote

Emily Melcher: physicists waste their time and should try doing something that actually contributes to society

Even though she was joking around, she said exactly what I was thinking, I just didn't want to be a dick to my own subject of study. Theoretical physics supplies society with no actual product and I need that fulfillment as well.

However my intellectual lust lies in Theoretical Physics, primarily quantum gravity. I'm currently a physics student of Professor Marvin L. Marshak, co-author of Neutrino Masses and Neutrino Astrophysics: Including Supernova 1987a : Ashland, Wisconsin 1987 (Telemark IV), and (don't quote me on this because I'm not 100% sure but it sounds like it to me...) Project Leader of the detection of neutrinos in Soudan Minnesota. A detailed link describing his project is at: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/maths...-detector_x.htm.

Anyway, this entire blog is going to be devoted to my research and studies on Quantum Physics (primarily quantum gravity and in terms of specifics, quantum loop gravity and moving dimensions theory ((they both have fantastic points, but MDT has more promise to it overall))) but also straight forward mechanical physics describing current paradoxes that may seem unsolveable without high-end mathematics as well as arguing claims against those who just don't have physics right. Whether the physics I'll be arguing is straight forward a mistake, or that someone (like many theologists) are preaching pure bull because they don't understand it themselves. My goal is to make basic movements of the universe, a, understandable in terms of graphs, math, and well explained fundamental concepts, and b, let people think about things in a new light.

i'm also just really fuckin bored

Creationists Denounce Gravity

Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:00:35 +0000

I was recently reading an article (with many seemingly legitimate sources) that claim to "disprove gravity" with the physical evidence that the moon is traveling futher away from the Earth. This rate of change is rather constant at least as far as we are concerned; according to NASA (I'm going to round here because I'm not sure about the precision this one site quoting NASA gave me) about 1.2nm/s.

Quote

"Some have criticized gravity, reminding us that it is only a theory, and that no scientist has ever seen a graviton or a space curve. Furthermore, experiments done by NASA prove that the Moon is receding (moving further away) from the Earth at a rate of 3.8cm per year, directly contradicting the theory that masses attract one another[1]."

I lost the URL but I don't care, you can find many pages like this on the web, claiming some serious bullshit.

Well, many scientists will agree that there are no other KNOWN alternate planes or universes due to the fact of the 1/r^2 connection between electromagnetic force and gravitational force.

As far as I'm concerned here, there are three known spacial dimensions, this is obvious, the reason that there is a 1/r^2 relationship in the physical known universe is because we can consider everything to be respectively setup as a spherical visual, you still may ask yourself, "Why isn't it r^-3 rather than r^-2?". Well, when you look at the distance traveled, the surface area INCREASES relative to r^2 therefore the deviation from that would prove that all relations are directly proportional (with the constant of 4pi since we're dealing with a sphere) to it, and since the surface area increases, the force decreases by the inverse square. I'll just restate the reason: Consider little particles called gravitons escaping your body in every direction at a constant rate. After they leave your immediate presense, the image they will make at a certain radius R will create a sphere. Consider a person standing at R1, they will be hit with X amount of gravitons. Now let's say they move out double the distance to 2R1, the surface area of the sphere increased by a factor of 4piR^2 therefore the person will be hit by that many LESS gravitons (precisely four times fewer gravitons since the square root of Double the distance is Four).

Wonderful, but how does this prove that there are no alternate universes? Well, we have this lovely constant called G, the universal gravitational constant about 6.7x10^-12 m^3/kg-s^2; it's pretty small. Scientists don't really understand the nature from which this magnitude is derived, it is just a calculated constant based on all other known variables by the simple equation F=Gm1m2/r^2. If you have some known force, two masses, and a measured distance, this is the calculated G to a certain precision; any deviation of this would potentially bring forth the idea of an alternate universe (more probably many other things including faulty equipment) which seem to be the current claims of religious fanatics who enjoy denouncing calculus.

So they're claiming two deals here, they disproved gravity BECAUSE the moon is going further away; gravity doesn't exist, at least in the way current science views it because it's traveling away. Well since these two actions (their movements may be analogous due to obvious fundamental forces) can be seen as rather independent of one another (I'm going to reiterate that I do understand that tidal forces and gravity are analogous in this case but can be seen as independent components in my example). This is going to help make me feel better about my loser self. Now back to the fact that the moon is receding.

First we need to understand the two main forces here, there are tidal forces (a non constant force derived from a general gravitational force caused by angular acceleration), and a linear force of gravity between the two masses, a factor of G all over R^2. Because of the way the Earth rotates and the formation of the rocks, obviously seas aren't uniform in depth and in surface shape. So when the Earth spins (and the Earth is also being accelerated to do the linear gravitational pull of the moon), basically the shaking of the water in the Earth causes for a lot of rotational friction (since it's caused entirely by the tides it's called tidal friction). Due to this friction, and other internal inefficiencies, the Earth is obviously slowing at a relatively constant rate. Since the tides are directly linked between the moon's orbital system and the Earth's rotational system, angular momentum obviously says, if momentum is being lost due to tidal friction and is causing the Earth to slow, the moon must be speeding up. Also due to the tides, the moon has a fixed position meaning the same face always points to us so the majority of that angular momentum from the Earth is being trasnferred as orbital momentum to the moon. Remember that angular momentum in this scale can be viewed as a multilinear function of the product of the Moment of Inertia and Angular Velocity. This causes the moon's orbit to increase and since every other quantity can be viewed as relatively fixed, the radius must increase linearly as a function of its increased orbital velocity.

All in all, gravity IS acting on the Earth and the Moon and it's presence is quite apparent; it's just that the tidal transferrences of energy (tidal friction/loss of energy) are greater than that whimpy tiny little G therefore causing a (respective) linear decrease in the angular momentum (since energy isn't conserved) of the Earth which as a result increases that of the Moon. The Moon compensates to keep this equilibrium of direct forces with the Earth by traveling further away (respective to the 1/r^2 law) and eventually R will be so huge the function will be so tiny that gravitational forces are negligible and we lose the moon forever.

No, sorry, God didn't have anything to do with it. Now I know I skipped many calculations which you can do yourselves since everything is proportional with the equations I gave and I skipped a lot of probably vital information because everything I said here is directly relevant. If you're interested, I would suggest getting a mechanics textbook since that is where some of my information is from, and checking out the portion on angular momentum and a chapter on gravity, it would patch a lot of questions you have up. I hope my abstract overview was sufficient enough.