| written by Deanfrz on Nov 11, 2007 18:35 |
 | |  | | Now stop me if you've heard this one before.
So they sent up that Gravity Probe B to see if the spin of the earth was dragging space time around with it and apparently it was.
Assuming that particles are really just nothingness spinning very quickly, and sence objects with spin drag space time, you'll very quickly see where I'm going with this.
Using the rubber sheet model of space time, imagine a piece of the rubber sheet that has suddenly begun twisting in a cirlce on the horizontal axis. The sheet is no longer dimpled by the wieght of the ball bearings, but instead pieces of the sheet are being drawn towards one another by the twisting and contracting rubber. Working outward from simple gravity, many forces can be explained through this simple model.(Magnetism- counter rotating portions of rubber might have a tendency to knot together.
This hypothesis may start out accounting for electromagnetism, but the cumulative effect should resemble a gravitational force.
(The constant effect of spacetime fabric being drawn into matter might account in some ways for universal expansion, but that is a bit more arcane) | |  | |  |
|
  | written by Pomelos on Nov 11, 2007 20:24 |
| written by Dumbum on Nov 11, 2007 21:11 |
| written by Deanfrz on Nov 11, 2007 21:33 |
 | |  | | Electrons/protons and neutron spin warps the fabric of spacetime, drawing distortions("objects" with spin) together. Atoms are basically knots, and macro scale objects are collections of knots. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Naavis on Nov 11, 2007 21:46 |
 | |  | | ![]() I'm gonna have to agree with Pomelos and say no. | |  | |  |
|
  | |  | | ![]() (Naavis just summarized what I was going to say. I'll say it, anyway.)
I don't really have the knowledge of Minkowski manifolds, Poincare/Lie groups and all that math stuff that supports relativity, so I cannot, with rigor, ask what do you mean by "knots", and expect to discern from your answer whether it makes any sense or not. Just bear in mind that, without the math background, it is as gratuitous to make these conjectures as it would be to attribute gravity to God or to the Flying Spaguetti Monster. So how come "spin" (which I presume has nothing to do with quarks, just as they don't have any 'flavor' or 'color' either) came to be the responsible of mass distorting spacetime?
Just as an aside, take notice that the "rubber sheet" mind model is really really bad. It gives the impression that it is space (rather than spacetime) that is distorted. A better picture would come out if you try to imagine Newton's first law: imagine Earth, and a still object in space (not in orbit; just still). It will begin to fall... but why, if nobody is applying any force to it? If the Earth and the object are imagined as (parallel?) lines in the direction of forward time, Earth's mass curves spacetime such that the lines are no longer parallel: Earth's line would go nearly straight, while the small object's line would bend towards Earth's line. So we, in space, see the object moving towards the Earth. | |  | |  |
|
| written by Duskesko on Nov 12, 2007 09:03 |
 | |  | | ![]() the rubber sheet model is horrible.
spandex, on the other hand...
i'd like to know what draws objects toward large masses in such a uniform matter. it's a set acceleration. how creepy is that?
someone figure this out!
*pokes stephen hawking* | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() well if you get rid of the rubber and use licra and place a large ball such as a a boche ball and roll ball bearings past it. thats more like it... gravity waves in the space time continuum cause such objects to be pulled towards it... i don't think we actually know what causes gravity but we have a few theory's
Quantum physics is a bit of a hobby of mine... i hope i didn't stuff up what i was trying to say | | | | |
|
 | |  | | ![]()  | Starchaser said: | | boche ball |
Are you sure you don't mean bocce ball? : )
 | Answers.com said: | bocce
n.
A game of Italian origin similar to lawn bowling that is played with wooden balls on a long narrow court covered with fine gravel. |
| Answers.com said: | boche
n. Offensive Slang.
Used as a disparaging term for a German. |
| |  | |  |
|
| written by Deanfrz on Nov 12, 2007 11:45 |
| | | | By knots I was refering to two counter rotating sections of spafcetime wrapping into eachother(if that makes more sense, which I know it dosnt really)
As for rotation, no I didnt mean quarks(I'm throwing throwing them out the window on the grounds that they are an over complication of a much similar process. Or maybe not, I'm trying to solve gravity right now.)
Anyways. I rotation, I meant the natural spin(or rotation) of subatomic particles(we all know they aren't simply fixed in space).
If any of you know any really smart dudes(like physicists or whatever), and you dont mind bothering them, could you maybe forward this to them(or tell me how I might do it myself).
I'm just trying to get an answer as to wether I should give up or start packing for a trip to stockholm. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() You can try www.physicsforums.com ... if you don't mind being torn to pieces.
P.S.: Spandex! Hip, hip, hurray! | | | | |
|
| written by Bgreman on Nov 12, 2007 21:37 |
| | | | ![]() | Deanfrz said: | | Anyways. I rotation, I meant the natural spin(or rotation) of subatomic particles(we all know they aren't simply fixed in space). |
This is why I hate that subatomic angular momentum is called spin.
They are NOT: I repeat NOT actually spinning like little tops. This is a fallacy. In fact, there is no little 'particle' there to begin with. There's just a quantum wavepacket which has some attributes. One of which is angular momentum, ONE COMPONENT of which is called spin.
In the generalized case, you can't even say with certaintly which direction the angular momentum vector points. Aside from the fact that they aren't actually spinning, your theory falls apart when we can't even say with certainty which WAY they're "spinning".
Sorry chap. | | | | |
|
| written by Megagun on Nov 12, 2007 21:58 |
| | | | ![]() And when we *do* tell what way they're spinning, our measurements actually influence the spin itself! Violent action ensues!!
That's probably not true, but blame my little knowledge of quantum mechanics.. : P | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() Well I must thank Cryo for the spelling correction. and i believe the referance to "wrapping into each other" makes me say WTF. and now I can't be stuffed replying to everyone else and all that cos its to DAMN HOT!!! | | | | |
|
| 
