It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
ImaFungi
Arbitrageur
Do you think a 1 with 39 zeroes after it may help explain why gravity is harder to detect on small scales?
ImaFungi
Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields
Strong Nuclear Force
the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is around 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 1000000 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravitation.
Why do any of the fundamental constants (like the gravitational constant) have the values they have? We don't know.edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Well thats interesting considering gravity is such a macro phenomenon, and the strong and weak force as phenomenon only really exist in very relatively confined areas of space. These forces, strong and weak, exist due to virtual particles right? Which really is another way of saying...what? There is some coupling to the fundamental spatial field essence that when certain fundamental particles are in close enough proximity they snap together? All of these situations share the same problem, and common theme, they are characteristics and phenomenon (the fundamental forces that is) that are engrained, if not space itself, into space itself.
Arbitrageur
Why do any of the fundamental constants (like the gravitational constant) have the values they have? We don't know.edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
GargIndia
ImaFungi
Arbitrageur
Do you think a 1 with 39 zeroes after it may help explain why gravity is harder to detect on small scales?
ImaFungi
Why is the fundamental nature of gravity field so much harder to grasp and detect then the quark fields
Strong Nuclear Force
the strong interaction is the "strongest" of the four fundamental forces; its strength is around 100 times that of the electromagnetic force, some 1000000 times as great as that of the weak force, and about 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times that of gravitation.
Why do any of the fundamental constants (like the gravitational constant) have the values they have? We don't know.edit on 31-1-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Well thats interesting considering gravity is such a macro phenomenon, and the strong and weak force as phenomenon only really exist in very relatively confined areas of space. These forces, strong and weak, exist due to virtual particles right? Which really is another way of saying...what? There is some coupling to the fundamental spatial field essence that when certain fundamental particles are in close enough proximity they snap together? All of these situations share the same problem, and common theme, they are characteristics and phenomenon (the fundamental forces that is) that are engrained, if not space itself, into space itself.
What do you mean by "gravity is such a macro phenomenon"?
You introduce a term "virtual particle" then you express surprise about it?
I tell you what - a theory must be published (put into science) when you have enough evidence you understand it.
The question about gravity is - "Do you really understand gravity?"
Yes you can call it a multiplier, for example with the gravitational constant, it's a multiplier that when multiplied by your mass (and other factors, like the mass of the Earth) determines your weight.
KrzYma
Arbitrageur
Why do any of the fundamental constants (like the gravitational constant) have the values they have? We don't know.
we don't? aren't those just multiplier ?
When we try to calculate or predict what the cosmological constant should be, our result differs from observation by 120 orders of magnitude. We aren't sure if there are ways to predict or show theoretically why the constants have the values they have. It would be a good accomplishment if we could do that, but as the quote says, we don't even know if that's possible.
Q: Why are the strengths of the fundamental forces (electromagnetism, weak and strong forces, and gravity) what they are? For example, why is the fine structure constant, that measures the strength of electromagnetism, about 1/137.036? Where do such dimensionless constants come from? Or is this an unanswerable question?
A: Particle masses and strengths of the fundamental forces constitute most of the 26 fundamental dimensionless constants of nature. Another one is the cosmological constant - assuming it's constant. Others govern the oscillation of neutrinos (see below). So, we can wrap a bunch of open questions into a bundle by asking: Why do these 26 dimensionless constants have the values they do?
Perhaps the answer involves the anthropic principle, but perhaps not. Right now, we have no way of knowing that this question has any answer at all!
That's a popular view of course but what's more interesting is that some apparently otherwise logical people use what seems to me to be an illogical argument to say that not only did God do it, but the fact that G has the value it has (as well as some other constants) is proof of the existence of God. When you dissect that argument it boils down to a tautology that "if things were different, they would be different", which you can't argue with, but how does that prove "God did it?"; and beyond that the argument seems highly speculative.
Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
God did it
*slinks away*
When you dissect that argument it boils down to a tautology that "if things were different, they would be different", which you can't argue with,
Arbitrageur
reply to post by KrzYma
Yes that's exactly right, but even after you normalize the gravitational constant to a value of 1, that still doesn't explain why it's not, on that normalized scale, say 1.5.
If we lived in a universe where it had the higher value we could similarly normalize it so again in that universe the value would be 1.
So then you might wonder, well if it's 1 in both universes, 'isn't it really the same?', and the answer is, no. The normalization process has ignored the differences. Looking at both universes we could still say the value is 50% higher in one universe than the other. The 1=1 argument doesn't work because the normalized scales are different. (it would be like saying 1kph = 1mph, it doesn't).
So, we are still left with no explanation of why our universe's normalized value of 1 for the gravitational constant is 50% higher or lower than another hypothetical universe's gravitational constant where the normalized gravitational constant is also 1, but a different 1 which is 50% higher or lower than ours (or any other arbitrarily different value).
You're confusing "big G" with "little g" as explained here:
ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
The reason it has the value it does must be exactly proportional to the energy density of the gravity field and the nature/quantity/value of mass. I think I understand what you mean though; the gravity constant dictates that all mass falls to earth at the same rate right?
Little g is somewhat constant over the Earth's surface, but if you measure it precisely enough, you find variation and we've mapped this as shown here where red means stronger gravity and blue means weaker gravity, and we can even see a gravity well in the Indian ocean.
The gravitational constant, approximately 6.67×10−11 N·(m/kg)2 and denoted by letter G, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation(s) of gravitational force between two bodies. It usually appears in Sir Isaac Newton's law of universal gravitation, and in Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant, Newton's constant, and colloquially as Big G. It should not be confused with "little g" (g), which is the local gravitational field (equivalent to the free-fall acceleration), especially that at the Earth's surface.
The string theorist moduli says gravity is understood, but he hasn't explained it to me, meaning I can do the math and predict Gravititational motions, but I can't really explain precisely WHY gravity is associated with mass and at the precise value that it is.
That is to say, if the earth is sitting in free space, or moving, all the energy associated with the area of gravity field the size/mass of the earth, is sucked into the earth itself, and this suction of energy is what accounts for the lesser quantities of energy surrounding the mass. Is this what is suggested, if not, what is?
Yes and no. Here is an example.
KrzYma
I can't see how normalisation of anything can value any dimensional laws. Those dimensions are still separated by some constant.
what is 1 in universe A is not 1 in universe B but A x dimmesionalConstant
or so...
So lets call our universe "universe A" where the mass of the proton is 1836 if the mass of the electron is 1.
Out of the many physical constants, the designer of a system of natural unit systems must choose a few of these constants to normalize (set equal to 1). It is not possible to normalize just any set of constants. For example, the mass of a proton and the mass of an electron cannot both be normalized: if the mass of an electron is defined to be 1, then the mass of a proton has to be ≈1836.
Arbitrageur
However, we can say that parts of your statement are not consistent with observation, for example "all the energy associated with the area of gravity field the size/mass of the earth, is sucked into the earth itself" is not a statement which I've seen any observations to support, and I think I can find observations to contradict it, like the blackbody radiation (a form of energy) emitted by the Earth is not sucked into the Earth by gravity, though the Earth's gravity does have a small red-shifting effect on this radiated energy.
The inverse square law is just simple geometry. The area at radius r becomes 4 times as much at 2r and 9 times as much at 3r (3x3=9). This is pretty easy to visualize in 3D in this illustration:
ImaFungi
earth sitting there, how is there a gradient in energy density which increases in energy 'the square of the distance or what have you'?
Teaching is not the same thing as talking down. Don't confuse them. It's not humorous to me at all, but it is a little disappointing to see you use your sometimes genuine curiosity to put so much time and effort into asking all these questions about physics, when you are having difficulty expressing your questions clearly because you don't understand the definitions of some basic terms in physics like the difference between "force" and "energy".
ImaFungi
You are missing my points and then talking down to me which is probably more humorous for you then me, but its still quite funny.
Then explain this. Take a billiard ball and place it on the ground next to the leaning tower of Piza. Let's define this as the rest state of the ball and say it has zero potential energy at this point.
The gravity field is an energy gradient, it must be, unless you suppose its a material made strictly of numeral digits.
Arbitrageur
Then explain this. Take a billiard ball and place it on the ground next to the leaning tower of Piza. Let's define this as the rest state of the ball and say it has zero potential energy at this point.
Now bring the ball up to the top of the tower and hold it over the edge. Would you say the ball now has more potential energy than it did before? I would.
Why do you think the gravitational field is an energy gradient in this example, when the potential energy of the ball is going up as the gravitational force goes down? (hint: gravity is a force, energy is not)
We only have limited confidence in our measurement of the Gravitational constant G. It seems very likely that we will have more accurate measurements in the future. But we still explore space, because it's close enough to use for engineering purposes in designing spacecraft to explore our solar system.
GargIndia
The way science is being run is that we observe (with whatever accuracy our instruments have at that time) and then rush to create a theory. Then at a later point we have better instruments and our measurements no longer agree with the previous one. Then we rush to revise the theory and introduce new variables. This goes on.
The problem here is that theoretical Physics cannot and should not be run that way. The theories must be limited to what can be observed accurately.
When a satellite flies over a mountain range, the orbit of the satellite doesn't follow the mountain range. The mountain range perturbs the orbit very slightly.
GargIndia
reply to post by Arbitrageur
The gravity on surface of the earth has slight variations. Agreed, as it is due to differences in crust material. But how much variation would be in the gravity at the orbit of the satellite? Please remember that the orbit itself naturally adjusts for this gravitational difference. So why would that make a difference to the clock?
Now why does perturbing the orbit change the clock?
Various forces acting on GPS satellites
Mainly gravitational forces act on satellites which can be categorized into two main groups:
- central gravitational attraction
- non-central gravitational (also called the perturbing forces)
Magnitude of central gravitational forces is three order of magnitudes larger than non-central gravitational and all other combined forces. Hence, the modelled satellite motion can be considered by central gravitational field and all other forces are considered as perturbing or disturbing forces.
Various perturbing forces include (Figure 9.1):
-Non-central gravitational force
-Third body effects (gravitational attraction of sun, moon, and planets)
-Atmospheric drag force
-Solar radiation pressure
-Magnetic forces
-Variable part of earth gravitational field arising from tidal and other deformation of solid earth and ocean.
Effect of some of these factors is significant which can be expressed as time dependent variation from mean motion and can be introduced as corrections. Resultant effect of various dynamic model shortcomings is treated as orbital bias.