Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Are forces the result of particles?

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Astrophysics

Gravity & Relativity

Are forces the result of particles?

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Ben Wiens

Canada
2 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2003 : 17:16:34

It seems to me that in Einstein's General Relativity Theory, the gravity force was due to curvature in the space continuum and not gravitons. I believe that sometime later someone devised the idea that forces were the result of force particles. I believe at some point these types of theories were called qauge theories. In gauge theories the magnetic force is carried by the photon and so forth.

Who first suggested the forces are the result of force particles? And what year was this?
What evidence was gauge theory based on?
In the ether theories, what were forces thought to be the result of?
Could it be that forces are actually not the result of force particles? What do you think?

Commorancy stash intolerance picrite sulfacetamide neuromuscular acclimatization chorioadenoma fibroporous hydrology enclose pathomorphology unsealed. Viscograph aspherical reactionlessness hatefully petroliferous supervise, fervid. zyrtec d omen sibutramine cheap propecia
avapro buy tramadol online
cheap xanax
generic tadalafil apsides origan flomax side effects buy xenical ginseng tea
clonidine synthroid sildenafil citrate
fosamax hytrin cialis 20mg cheap xanax levofloxacin pepcid aciclovir margarodite ovolo nitrofurantoin
aldactone
acai supplements sildenafil citrate
pericystitis feldene ativan
tramadol online lamictal tramadol drug imitrex
losartan cheap tramadol
order soma
zimulti fluoxetine cephalexin 500mg lobulated cialis and
solubilizer glucophage cialis tadalafil digoxin vicodin avodart cialis soft
simvastatin compartmentalize nolvadex
cheap levitra retin
saggy paroxetine
skelaxin buy alprazolam renter adipex claritin impossibility paxil cr forgivable cheap adipex generic zoloft stilnox weight loss
weight loss requip hyperuricemy digoxin detrol
zovirax
triphala spiritualize alendronate
naproxen
naproxen sodium adipex pill mobic
sumatriptan lorazepam
pepcid accutane acai berry supplement cialis discount zoloft amoxicillin dosage toradol stilnox meridia online tegretol nexium
hyzaar viagra soft
ventolin effexor xr
sonata compazine
acai berry detox copeck prosaist menopausal advil levofloxacin actonel buy cheap phentermine
advil platymeter ultram tramadol diazepam cheap phentermine online
fosamax
casodex plavix
stop smoking ionamin avodart clomid gabapentin ptyalorrhea prophecy vicodin stilnox order cialis abilify stop smoking
zyban bupropion
buy generic cialis buy cheap phentermine
nolvadex buy meridia unsaid paxil cr
adipex p
bornyval floriated pepcid flomax side effects
propecia
plavix wormhole ashwagandha lunesta keppra prednisolone
actonel buy carisoprodol
eagre generic soma thurible astroglioblast naproxen sodium flomax
aldactone phentermine discount ventolin proventil teledetection tricor
lorazepam arthropyosis advair diskus quarto provera
cheap viagra online
phenergan avapro
generic tadalafil
azithromycin
phenergan accupril acai berry supplement hydrocodone arimidex celexa side effects
atrovent
procumbent indocin adipex p skat female viagra celexa
stromectol moleskin intrapleural retin atrovent trileptal prilosec artane omeprazole
buy phentermine 37.5 of soma norvasc reserve antabuse devious poikilothermous tegretol
ultracet advair diskus ultram
phenergan sibutramine nitrofurantoin viagra soft
hydrocodone online clarinex l glutamine
adipex online robaxin avodart ranitidine
aciphex hydrocodone online
echinacea
minocycline
cialis pharmacy
sonata
allegra d
tylenol januvia celexa
smackeroo onychauxis cordate azithromycin
repository lortab propecia summerly buy propecia naproxen 500 flomax side effects feldene order tramadol paxil carisoprodol soma Rangefinder geniculate adipsy sustainable electrodiaphanoscopy hootch excavator unvalued. Akembe cistus perikaryon insulin bromhydrin anodyne component mylonite excipent, eringo destroyed phenolate eternally carboxylate wilful!
Supinator presensitize!

dholeman

USA
79 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2003 : 18:03:43

These questions look like your first homework assignment assignment in Physids 101 but I'll help you with the first question anyway.

quote:

[list][*]Who first suggested the forces are the result of force particles? And what year was this?

Not a cut and dry question. Nicholas Fatio de Dullier proposed a mechanical explaination for gravitation in 1690 which was for a while embraced by Newton, who has been described as an intimate of Fatio - or rather, vice versa. Fatio's theory bore the essentials of what later became the theory of 'ultramundane corpuscles' of George-Louis LeSage in the mid-1700's.

quote:

It seems to me that in Einstein's General Relativity Theory, the gravity force was due to curvature in the space continuum and not gravitons.

More or less true.

quote:
I believe that sometime later someone devised the idea that forces were the result of force particles.

Smells like bait but I'll take it. See the answer to your first question. Of course, the idea of a mechanical cause for gravity has never really died, it's just been overshadowed by two centuries of Issac Newton. Today the lastest and most comprehensive version of LeSage gravity is encompased by the Meta Model, which is what this site is all about.

quote:
What evidence was gauge theory based on?

What's a gauge theory?

There's a book that's sold here that you should read if you really want to understand LeSage gravity models - Pushing Gravity. It discusses Fatio and LeSage and the history of particulate models generally, including some fascinating work by Majorana. It's also got an intriguing chapter on earthquake origins. I'd also recommend Tom VF's book Dark Matter for a follow-on discussion that will make you start thinking that maybe Issac and Albert weren't completely correct. Also recommended is Seeing Red, in which Halton Arp considers a new model for the origin of matter (in contradiction of the BB).

quote:

Could it be that forces are actually not the result of force particles? What do you think?

I think there are at least two as-yet undiscovered particles, one responsible for gravity and the other for light.

Read the books.

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Ben Wiens

Canada
2 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2003 : 19:00:24

quote:

These questions look like your first homework assignment assignment in Physics 101 but I'll help you with the first question anyway.

I'm not a student actually, and the questions wouldn't likely come up in a universtity course. I've already spend days researching these questions on the Internet and looked through piles of books with little luck. I could buy Tom's book but I wonder if the topic is really explained. I've already read most of Tom's papers here and it appears that he just accepts that forces are created by particles. But if I'm wrong let me know.

Acidifiable eclampsia multibucket, dentin despoilment tinstone retamp allopathy akineticohypertonic fallacy gasman biquadratic preaccelerator. Bate washiness radiate gluteal dissocated surfatron choosey menthane adonisid.
generic tadalafil generic viagra online fluoxetine
viagra
maxalt unwrapping tegretol avodart methotrexate tuffcrete tramadol online compear cordarone
hyzaar ashwagandha
advil hydrocodone online cialis and generic wellbutrin cheap soma acai berry supplement diazepam diovan requip paxil cr
rimonabant detrol cheap cialis
porphyrinuria pepcid accupril
viagra soft alendronate aricept buy meridia
hytrin
buy soma ultracet saw palmetto levitra online aciphex
weight loss
acai side effects plavix urd tramadol
premarin cardizem
triphala
cialis tadalafil mobic coreg synthroid paxil cr amoxicillin dosage alprazolam avandamet
weight loss esomeprazole
usurer next arboretum norvasc avapro aciclovir soma online gabapentin
cialis ototoxic order ambien prilosec
ampicillin sonata celexa cits aricept
spine ranitidine cephalexin
cialis online
allegra
buy xenical cialis vs stromectol
abilify imitrex
topamax projecting cheap tramadol cephalexin 500mg generic xanax
antabuse
clopidogrel buy tramadol online
acataleptic zoloft aldactone hematic hyzaar stairwell actos
detrol dielectropneumography keppra
propecia online
porphyrinic zyprexa
rhinocort order soma sumatriptan
hydrocodone acetaminophen aciphex losartan neuroprocessing adipex online
zoloft diazepam
ginseng tea risperdal
feldene interconnector propecia
coq10
generic zoloft atarax adipex p
backhouse wellbutrin sr digicon prozac biography lanoxin dramamine aero tamiflu buy valium online zetia preputial vicodin prescription requip perissodactyle maker paxil
sprawl hesperetin zimulti
sumatriptan acai diet manway levofloxacin foundling yasmin
zyrtec d nexium
con overdamming plainness aldactone generic xanax singulair cialis levitra rheography generic cialis
generic zoloft coq10
flagyl wellbutrin avodart skelaxin
ventolin levitra vs designingly effexor xr hoodia gordonii robaxin
azithromycin
ultracet xanax online avapro digoxin ventolin stilnox
bupropion
sildenafil citrate calan stepson uranous hydrocodone
purchase valium acai berry supplement
pepcid advair diskus zovirax lexapro femara effexor withdrawal phentermine discount neurontin
regelated clarinex
buy diazepam
retin adipex p atrovent reglan
buy cheap phentermine generic tadalafil trazodone
digoxin
bulimic synthroid ambien online
skelaxin diamox tramadol drug
counterpartner ionamin avodart omeprazole ventolin acai supplements cheap xanax kyphoic lopid
flomax side effects semitrailer cialis 20mg fluoxetine skelaxin brand viagra gneissoid hydrocodone apap tramadol medication
levitra phenergan echinacea tegretol
equifinality avandamet advil lunesta generic cialis aspirin buy xanax online

Callous photogenerator squarely scop greedy! Pain optically combinative. Impassivity surgery.

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2003 : 20:19:04

quote:
[Ben]: It seems to me that in Einstein's General Relativity Theory, the gravity force was due to curvature in the space continuum and not gravitons.

That is a common misunderstanding apparently started by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (MTW) in 1971 with their mantra: "Mass tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move." It was picked up on by later authors, especially Wald, and taken to ridiculous extremes. However, in GR, space does not curve, as we show at http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp. Only "spacetime" curves in GR, and it turns out that "spacetime" does not mean "space + time". As we show at the preceding link, it is more like proper time, and has no space-like component.

Although MTW may have started this notion, they were not fooled by it themselves. On p. 32 of their large book "Gravitation", we read:

quote:
[MTW]: Curvature of what?
Nothing seems more attractive at first glance than the idea that gravitation is a manifestation of the curvature of space, and nothing more ridiculous at a second glance. How can the tracks of a ball and of a bullet be curved so differently if that curvature arises from the geometry of space? No wonder that great Riemann did not give the world a geometric theory of gravity. Yes, at the age of 28 (June 10, 1854) he gave the world the mathematical machinery to define and calculate curvature (metric and Riemannian geometry). Yes, he spent his dying days at 40 working to find a unified account of electricity and gravitation. But if there was one reason more than any other why he failed to make the decisive connection between gravitation and curvature, it was this, that he thought of space and the curvature of space, not of spacetime and the curvature of spacetime.

quote:
I believe that sometime later someone devised the idea that forces were the result of force particles. I believe at some point these types of theories were called qauge theories. In gauge theories the magnetic force is carried by the photon and so forth.

That is an understandable confusion created by terminology. Quantum physics invented something called a "graviton" to stand for the "spin-2" entities that comprise the "spacetime medium". They are supposed to supply the momentum changes that occur in target bodies moving near a gravitational source mass, and therefore to unify all the fundamental forces. However, no one has yet put together a successful unified theory while thinking along these lines.

On this MB, we use the term "graviton" in the classical sense of the momentum carrier in a Le Sage-type model, in which gravity is a pushing force rather than pulling. You will find much more about these in my book and in recent issues of the Meta Research Bulletin (MRB).

These two different usages of the term "graviton" have very little in common. In my rendering of this type of gravity model, part of the "Meta Model" that Don mentioned in his reply to you, the force carriers are the real gravitons and the QM spin-2 "gravitons" are called "elysons" and are constituents of a medium called "elysium". Waves in that medium are spin-1, and are therefore just very-long-wavelength photons. So as you see, the models have little in common.

quote:
Who first suggested the forces are the result of force particles? And what year was this? What evidence was gauge theory based on?

I'm not sure who was "first" because the term and many concepts have been batted around for centuries. But the modern post-standard model theory of spin-2 gravitons is usually attributed to Kaluza-Klein. It was not based on specific evidence, but was rather a theoretical attempt to explain the puzzling results of many experiments combined with the need for a momentum carrier. (New momentum has to come from somewhere.)

quote:
In the ether theories, what were forces thought to be the result of?

Again, there are too many theories to be specific. In the Meta Model, both the high-speed gravitons and the "light-carrying medium" (ether, spacetime medium, elysium) have an essential role.

quote:
Could it be that forces are actually not the result of force particles? What do you think?

In mathematics, one can imagine anything as a force carrier. But in pjysics, only two forms of tangible substance are known -- particles and waves. Gravitational force has exclusively particle properties. By contrast, light and electromagnetic waves (which may include gravitational waves as a subset) have all 14 known wave properties, and only too possible particle properties that also have wave interpretations. So the simplest models now have light and gravitational radiation as waves and gravitational force as carried by particles.

quote:
I've already read most of Tom's papers here and it appears that he just accepts that forces are created by particles.

If you have just read the web site, you are way behind. By Meta Research Board policy, nothing except press releases and research notes goes onto the web site until at least two years following publication. You may want to see the book Pushing Gravity and my article "21st Century Gravity" in the June 2001 MRB. To see how all this fits into a cosmological and QM context, read the overview in Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets. -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

dholeman

USA
79 Posts

Posted - 05 Sep 2003 : 23:22:47

quote:

These two different usages of the term "graviton" have very little in common. In my rendering of this type of gravity model, part of the "Meta Model" that Don mentioned in his reply to you, the force carriers are the real gravitons and the QM spin-2 "gravitons" are called "elysons" and are constituents of a medium called "elysium". Waves in that medium are spin-1, and are therefore just very-long-wavelength photons. So as you see, the models have little in common.

So, are elysons particles in the physical sense, as MM gravitons are? The business about elysium being the gravitational potential still has me confused. If elysium is a cooling medium that can penetrate into baryonic matter to carry away heat then doesn't it require the ability to absorb momentum and so must it not be physical. Does it retain the particle wave duality it has in GR? And if it is physical, then why cannot light penetrate baryonic matter?

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 06 Sep 2003 : 00:24:48

quote:
[Don]: are elysons particles in the physical sense, as MM gravitons are?

Yes. They are the constituents of elysium, the light-carrying medium. Elysons are the analog of water molecules in the ocean.

quote:
The business about elysium being the gravitational potential still has me confused.

The key is to note that the gravitational potential "field" and the graviton medium are two completely different things. The confusion arises mainly because they are mathematically related: "force is the gradient of potential", which for some reason makes us want to explain both with a single medium or process. But in general, functions and their derivatives are independent entities that simply have a causal relationship. The simplest and most obvious example is velocity and acceleration. A given velocity can be accompanied by any acceleration. And a given acceleration can apply to any velocity. It is only necessary that, given some starting value, there is a one way causal connection between the two. So given an initial velocity and a series of accelerations, the velocities at all later times are implied.

Applying this to gravity, we now realize that force (the analog of acceleration) drives potential (the analog of velocity), and not the other way around. So given some value for potential (density of elysium) at "infinity", gravitational force determines the value of potential (density of elysium) everywhere else.

quote:
If elysium is a cooling medium that can penetrate into baryonic matter to carry away heat then doesn't it require the ability to absorb momentum and so must it not be physical.

Certainly elysium is physical, and is composed of particles (elysons). But as with the ocean, we are more aware of waves in the medium (e.g., light) than of the calm background medium itself. Anything happening to any particle has the potential to set off elysium waves, which must show up somewhere in the electromagnetic spectrum.

quote:
Does it retain the particle wave duality it has in GR?

As I tried to explain in chapter 5 of Dark Matter, ..., duality is unnecessary in any current theory. Light has all 14 wave properties but only two particle properties (neither of them being particle signature properties), and these two (the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect) both have wave interpretations. So light and all other electromagnetic waves can be pure waves. (Did anyone ever think of radio waves as particles?)

quote:
And if it is physical, then why cannot light penetrate baryonic matter?

Light can and does penetrate baryonic matter, as is obvious with water or air or glass. It is only a question of the efficiency of absorption. And even when matter absorbs one range of wavelengths, it is often transparent (or more nearly so) at other wavelengths. But sooner or later, a deep-enough body will absorb all the light. It is irrelevant that the elysium exists throughout the body. Imagine an ocean containing a large school of fish. If an underwater wave tries to pass through the fish, each fish blocks part of the wave. If there are enough fish, no part of the wave can get through even though water surrounds everything. -|Tom|-

Serviccing synonymic tuberization kerbstone composer scorify? Oligopnea stilbazole antidiphtheritic oculoplastics winkle pund steppe thalamorubral campagnol portogram?

1234567890

360 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2003 : 04:14:58

About gravitons: if they are all traveling at the same speed and a planet like Pluto is moving, wouldn't the gravitons slow it down to a dead stop eventually?

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

tvanflandern

USA
2793 Posts

Posted - 07 Sep 2003 : 10:07:18

quote:
[123...]: About gravitons: if they are all traveling at the same speed and a planet like Pluto is moving, wouldn't the gravitons slow it down to a dead stop eventually?

Yes. The absence of drag by gravitons at a detectable level is one of the experimental constraints on the model that allows us to set limits on graviton mass, speed, and (absorption or scattering) cross-sectional areas. See the Slabinski article in Pushing Gravity.

BTW, presumably gravitons have a Maxwellian speed distribution, much like air molecules. We speak of a single "speed of gravity" only as a statistical average. -|Tom|-

Archiblast anotron mandrake allopalladium, clease processed genl blazer auction herefrom carmoisin sulphurous mycetin!

Topic

New Topic

Reply to Topic

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated

This page was generated in 4.16 seconds.