A Scientist Takes On Gravity

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
No I think what you observed is an effect called the "cheerio effect", not gravity. It's primarily the result of the surface tension of water (or milk which is mostly water).

Yes the floating objects are just reaching their lowest energy state like ball bearings on a rubber sheet.

It is amazing the amount of study that has been put into cereals. Our government gave a grant of GBP 250,000 for the study of why cornflakes lose their crunch after milk is poured on them.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Please explain how you "construct" stuff from space-time.

O.k. I'll Bite....

Firstly you have to think very small.... very very very small in fact...10 to the minus 35 meters or if you like the Planck length.

This is the boundary where the coherence of matter breaks down, this is the smallest level possible.

At this level the universe is not smooth and predictable, it is where chaos reigns and quantum foam exists..

Quantum Foam is derived from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle which states that until a particle or quanta is measured it has the potential to be in anyplace at any time. That is to say that all particles have the potential to exist as we observe them but until that point they are random.

At the Planck length Space-Time is a sea of boiling froth... A bit hard to visualise so here are a couple of well known images to highlight my point.


Now...

As you should be very well aware... from chaos comes order. This is a natural law that is observed within nature and is what gives rise to ever increasing complexity within our observable universe...

So we have a quantum chaos at the Planck level of Space-Time that as you can image gives rise to order... the order appears as loops of space-time.


Now....

A recent discovery, a theory known as Loop Quantum Gravity or LQG for short (a derivative of String theory) has found that there are some configurations of loops at the Planck length or braids as they are called that concur to the properties we observe in particles...

In other words the particles we observe are not matter within a Space-Time substrate but are in fact made of space-time itself...

Like this...


And since all you can see, smell, taste, feel and hear are made up of particles, this leads me to the conclusion that everything is made at the fundamental level of space-time itself.

So in other words if you could somehow flatten out the Planck level across the universe and unravel all the braids you would have an absolute zero figure.

A Zero figure means that we do not actually in the classical sense exist. We are simply projections of pure potentiality.

Do you see??

I on the other hand believe that it is much more likely that spacetime is being bent by the mass.

This I believe is due to spacetime being made out of a 4-d fabric containing much more shapes.(Such as 4d cubes, spheres, and triangular prisms.)

Meaning that if a piece of spacetime was to be warped too much by mass then it would create black holes, allow for increased gravity, nuclear fusion(Depending on what is being compressed) it would even be able to give mass its bending capabilities.

Maybe it could have started this way but I prefer it to be otherwise.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Er back to entropic gravity.

So if 'gravity' is inversely proportional to entropy then it will be inversely proportional to temperature as well as proportional to the mass.

Therefore a BEC will have the highest gravity per mass and a plasma will have low gravity per mass.

Wouldn't this mean that Newtons laws would need to be altered to include temperature so the derivation from the holographic principle is also wrong?

So Newtons law would then become something like:
F = G.m1.(1+(1/t1)).m2.(1+(1/t2))/r^2

where t1 and t2 are the average temperatures of the masses.

Is there an error in my thinking?

Not really the only time I see gravity being related to temperature is in black holes, and stars.(As we have already discussed this before.)

But that is AFTER gravity has already acted on them.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by Gentill Abdulla
Another problem what causes this change in density?

At the Planck level of reality, Space-time literally boils. Its totally chaotic...

From this chaos comes order in the form of stable loops (Braids) of space-time. The total surface area of space time that these loops contain equates to mass.

How mass is felt (Gravity) depends on how many stable braids there are within a given area of space-time.

For example, a blackhole....

A black hole isn't actually a hole in space-time, it's just an area where there is a cataclysmic concentration of space-time. Now this may mean one of two things. Either there are some braids that are stable at gigantic scales or there are many braids in space time concentrated in one place.

If you like a Black hole is not a smooth spherical object... it's more like a ball of wool the cat has been playing with... it's stringy and messy....

Hope this helps,

Korg.

I beg to differ, a black hole can easily be created just by compressing mass.

This is just an example of mass bending spacetime into it to increase warping enough to rip open spacetime.


A black hole can be seen as a rip.

But it can also be seen as a ball who is so encased with gravity that it falls through spacetime.(Not all the way but only halfway and the top half is what we see.)

Originally posted by LightFantastic
Er back to entropic gravity.

So if 'gravity' is inversely proportional to entropy then it will be inversely proportional to temperature as well as proportional to the mass.

Therefore a BEC will have the highest gravity per mass and a plasma will have low gravity per mass.

Nice one!

Exactly!!!

The OP paper goes a long way to explain why this is the case. It also ties observable effects to quantum mechanics in such cases as the BEC.

Korg.

Anybody actually read the entire paper. I mean I have read parts of it(8 out of 29) but not the whole thing.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The OP paper goes a long way to explain why this is the case. It also ties observable effects to quantum mechanics in such cases as the BEC.

Oops I must have missed that in the paper - I only scanned it.

So what happens if we manage to create something with zero entropy?
Do we get an infinite entropic gravity which we can modulate by adding energy?

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The OP paper goes a long way to explain why this is the case. It also ties observable effects to quantum mechanics in such cases as the BEC.

Oops I must have missed that in the paper - I only scanned it.

So what happens if we manage to create something with zero entropy?
Do we get an infinite entropic gravity which we can modulate by adding energy?

arxiv.org...

If the entropy changes as a function of the location of the matter distribution, it will lead to an entropic force. Therefore, space can not just emerge by itself. It has to be endowed by a book keeping device that keeps track of the amount of information for a given energy distribution. It turns out, that in a non relativistic situation this device is provided by Newton's potential . And the resulting entropic force is called gravity

Originally posted by LightFantastic

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
The OP paper goes a long way to explain why this is the case. It also ties observable effects to quantum mechanics in such cases as the BEC.

Oops I must have missed that in the paper - I only scanned it.

So what happens if we manage to create something with zero entropy?
Do we get an infinite entropic gravity which we can modulate by adding energy?

I think it is nigh on impossible to perceave an object with zero entropy. This would be like an object that would exist in space but not in time. Though the equations actually for such an object lead to a singularity.

I read an interesting paper on monopoles some time back that suggested they would in fact have zero entropy.... Which begs the question if this is in fact true then why is the universe not full of them??

I'll try and dig it out and will post it.



All the best,

Korg.


[edit on 23-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Quite clearly the High relates to Electromagnetic... how could it related to any other word in that sentence and make any sense??

I guess Arbitrageur answered this to your satisfaction (or dissatisfaction, since you probably didn't hear what you wanted to hear). My own take is this: it can't possibly relate to any word in the sentence.

It's like saying "high diesel". Or "best lucky", as I recently heard in a Hong Kong documentary. Of course, since your own usage of the vocabulary is quite creative (and rather obscure for just about anybody), you don't care about such pesky detail.

You sir are a fraud.

You can say "sugar" 1000 times, and there sill won't be any sweet taste in your mouth.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Quite clearly the High relates to Electromagnetic... how could it related to any other word in that sentence and make any sense??

I guess Arbitrageur answered this to your satisfaction (or dissatisfaction, since you probably didn't hear what you wanted to hear). My own take is this: it can't possibly relate to any word in the sentence.

It's like saying "high diesel". Or "best lucky", as I recently heard in a Hong Kong documentary. Of course, since your own usage of the vocabulary is quite creative (and rather obscure for just about anybody), you don't care about such pesky detail.

You sir are a fraud.

You can say "sugar" 1000 times, and there sill won't be any sweet taste in your mouth.

Thank you very much for your language lesson. Care to add anything to the physics discussion??

Oh sorry I forgot... you don't do that do you??

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Korg Trinity
Quite clearly the High relates to Electromagnetic... how could it related to any other word in that sentence and make any sense??

I guess Arbitrageur answered this to your satisfaction (or dissatisfaction, since you probably didn't hear what you wanted to hear). My own take is this: it can't possibly relate to any word in the sentence.

It's like saying "high diesel". Or "best lucky", as I recently heard in a Hong Kong documentary. Of course, since your own usage of the vocabulary is quite creative (and rather obscure for just about anybody), you don't care about such pesky detail.

You sir are a fraud.

You can say "sugar" 1000 times, and there sill won't be any sweet taste in your mouth.

Thank you very much for your language lesson. Care to add anything to the physics discussion??

Oh sorry I forgot... you don't do that do you??

Korg.

Are we really going to keep bickering over language, calling each other names, and not look at the physics?

Come on guys really?

Back on topic.

If gravity is related to entropy it would mean gravity could cause entropy to reverse.

Causing anything with enough gravity i.e. black hole to end in singularity with no entropy.

But that is wrong due to the black hole radiating because it's temperatures being above absolute zero.

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So if 'gravity' is inversely proportional to entropy

Why do you assume that the "entropy" as it is used in the source in OP relates to the entropy of the gravitating mass itself?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So if 'gravity' is inversely proportional to entropy

Why do you assume that the "entropy" as it is used in the source in OP relates to the entropy of the gravitating mass itself?

Interesting question buddhasystems.... Why do you suggest it doesn't??

Korg.

Originally posted by Korg Trinity

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by LightFantastic
So if 'gravity' is inversely proportional to entropy

Why do you assume that the "entropy" as it is used in the source in OP relates to the entropy of the gravitating mass itself?

Interesting question buddhasystems.... Why do you suggest it doesn't??

Because there is nothing to suggest that it does. One needs to read the actual paper (which I'm sure would be close to impossible without highly specialized training).

In reality, we observe the opposite -- gravity scales in our experiment. When you combine two identical volumes with identical mass, you get twice the force of gravity, so the effect of increasing entropy doesn't give a measurable contribution.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

In reality, we observe the opposite -- gravity scales in our experiment. When you combine two identical volumes with identical mass, you get twice the force of gravity, so the effect of increasing entropy doesn't give a measurable contribution.

What you state has nothing to do with the question posed by light fantastic. It goes without saying that the equations are balanced on paper as well as observable results when considering mixing of entropy.

I think what Lightfantastic was suggesting was more to do with the rate of entropy and mass in general.

In QM its quite clear, entropy is the result of Quantum fluctuations, and to relate to QLG it is quite literally the rate of stability of a braid. In other words Entropy = rate of the return of space-time braiding to the Planck constant which gives us the observable particle decay.

Though I would concur that Entropy itself is not the creator of mass, just mass acts differently given the different rates of Entropy.

Korg.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Why do you assume that the "entropy" as it is used in the source in OP relates to the entropy of the gravitating mass itself?

Because there is nothing to suggest that it does. One needs to read the actual paper (which I'm sure would be close to impossible without highly specialized training).

Any suggestions as to what else it might refer to? As I mentioned above I only scanned the paper - I don't have the time to try to fully understand everything of interest I come across, unlike you academics

In reality, we observe the opposite -- gravity scales in our experiment. When you combine two identical volumes with identical mass, you get twice the force of gravity, so the effect of increasing entropy doesn't give a measurable contribution.

But when you combine the two identical volumes the entropy will not remain the same.



[edit on 23/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by LightFantastic

In reality, we observe the opposite -- gravity scales in our experiment. When you combine two identical volumes with identical mass, you get twice the force of gravity, so the effect of increasing entropy doesn't give a measurable contribution.

Because when you combine the two identical volumes the entropy will change.

That was exactly my point. The entropy of the gravitating masses will change, however the gravitational field will scale with mass, and not entropy.

Another example -- pour a glass of water and set it on a scale. Put the whole thing in the freezer. Observe.

Will it be out of balance when it crystallizes?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Another example -- pour a glass of water and set it on a scale. Put the whole thing in the freezer. Observe.

Will it be out of balance when it crystallizes?

Maybe that depends on how accurate your scale is, especially as the entropy change from liquid to frozen is very small. Logic says there wont be any change of course.

Maybe if the glass was big enough and the scale resolution good enough there would be a change. Changing the temperature from just above 0K to a very high temperature will change the entropy by a large amount.

Anyway it would seem that the gravitational force is not linearly inversely propotional to entropy but follows another function which I may attempt to extract from the paper.


[edit on 23/7/2010 by LightFantastic]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by tarifa37
I noticed as a child that when small bath toys were left in a bath full of water they would all collect together and seem to be stuck by some mysterious force to the side. Now there are no currents wind or motion in the bath to cause this. I deducted they were being attracted across to the side much like a magnet. Does this show in a basic way that larger bodies attract smaller bodies.

No I think what you observed is an effect called the "cheerio effect", not gravity. It's primarily the result of the surface tension of water (or milk which is mostly water).

Cereal Science: Why Floating Objects Stick Together

You may or may not have pondered why your breakfast cereal tends to clump together or cling to the sides of a bowl of milk. Now there is an easy explanation.

Dubbed the Cheerio Effect by scientists, this clumping phenomenon applies to anything that floats, including fizzy soda bubbles and hair particles in water after a morning shave.

The effect has been known for some time, but an explanation for non-scientists has been lacking.

Dominic Vella, a graduate student now at Cambridge University and L. Mahadevan, a mathematician from Harvard University, decided to change that. In a study that appears in the Sept. 15 issue of the American Journal of Physics, Mahadevan explains the Cheerio Effect using three basic concepts from physics: buoyancy, surface tension and the meniscus effect.

Place a single Cheerio in a bowl of milk and its weight will cause the milk beneath it to dip slightly, forming a dent in the once smooth surface of the milk. A second Cheerio placed into the bowl will form its own dent on the surface of the milk, and if the two Cheerios drift close enough to each other, they will appear to "fall into" one another, as if pulled together by an attractive force.

Cheerios near the edge of the bowl float upwards along the curve of the meniscus to look like they're clinging the edge of the bowl.

In both cases, the movements of the Cheerios are determined more by the geometry of the surface of the milk than by any attractive force acting between them.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Superb thanks for that, very interesting.It never crossed my mind that the objects were making the water lower so other toys would slide down to them.