Excellent animation, writing and narration. Thanks! Subbed.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Much appreciated!
@saschaschneider9157
Жыл бұрын
My physics teacher once said: Gravity might be the weakest of all fundemental forces, but it's the one with the most patience, and thus in the end always wins. (He refered to the end of stars.)
@stewiesaidthat
Жыл бұрын
Gravity comes from acceleration. The same as weight and time come from acceleration. What is weight? The acceleration of mass in one frame accelerating the mass of another frame. What is gravity? The acceleration of mass in the Space frame. Why does 'gravity' effect light? Because light is mass and mass I'd energy. The mass/energy of one frame interacting with the msss/energy of another frame. That's the definition of gravity. There is no graviton particle just like there is no time particle.
@stewiesaidthat
Жыл бұрын
@nswanberg light has force. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Light hitting a solar sail is reflected back, pushing the sail forward. What energy isn't reflected is absorbed and goes into acceleration in time of the sails atoms (radiant heat). Plants use this force to accumulate energy and process it into matter (photosynthesis). Gravity is just one frame of reference accelerating another frame of reference. The mass can be in the form of atoms or energy.
@TheDragonEmpirePokemon
11 ай бұрын
@@stewiesaidthat Sire, you said that light has force, from good ol' Newtonian mechanics, can you tell me what's force? Rate of Change Of Momentum. And that is what our friend @nswanberg said. Give it a thought. I am sure you'll understand.
@stewiesaidthat
11 ай бұрын
@@TheDragonEmpirePokemon Force is that which causes an acceleration of mass. A question for you. What is mass?
@TheDragonEmpirePokemon
11 ай бұрын
@@stewiesaidthat Sire, you are still stuck in Newtonian mechanics. Newtonian mechanics is just an approximation. It lies between QM, and GR and SR. As for what is mass, it is a property given to a substance/object/particle based on its tendency to curve the geometry of spacetime in the same way as compressed energy would.
@davep8221
Жыл бұрын
I saw a way of illustrating the difference in strength between gravity and magnetism using a fridge magnet. The entire planet is trying to pull it downwards and yet it's strong enough to hold it's own when it gets near a fridge. [Please ignore the inverse square law behind the curtain.]
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
😂😂😂
@feynstein1004
Жыл бұрын
If you ask me, trying to unite gravity and the other 3 forces doesn't make sense because theu're fundamentally different things. The other forces are matter-matter interactions whereas gravity is matter-spacetime interaction. Why should one behave as the other? If you collide two balls and see them bounce off each other, would you also expect the same thing to happen when you drop one of the balls in water? Of course not.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Your approach could very well be correct
@ixion2001kx76
11 ай бұрын
8:40 no, it gets way more complex because the force carriers (gluons) are also charged, and the coupling constant is large, leading to non-preservative chaos.
@swaralipijana6015
4 ай бұрын
Well!! Right now I'm in 12th grade!! As a high school student..I always wondered about the existence of gravitons...According to De-Broglie's hypothesis...every matter behaves both as wave as well as a particle!! Every waves be it light wave, sound wave, matter waves....exist both as waves as well as particles!! ....so it can be well ascertained that gravitational wave must exist as wave as well as particle....although there is no evidence to the fact!!!! I'm realllllllyyyyy glad to find this video...which has some excellent content of gravity in the world of particle physics !!!!!❤❤❤❤
@xitvono
Жыл бұрын
Photons do not have rest mass, but they have energy, and the gravitational force is based on total energy, so photons should absolutely be bent by massive objects, even without the theory of general relativity.
@stewiesaidthat
Жыл бұрын
Einstein created a fictional universe called Spacetime to get GR to make sense to him. The physics of relativity is based on Acceleration. In the real universe, it's Force. In the fictional universe, you get time-dilation, time travel, mass increasing instead of decreasing, eternal life but you are converted to energy on the way there. When the observations don't fit the theories. Make up a fictional universe where the laws of this universe don't apply.
@magnuswright5572
11 ай бұрын
@@stewiesaidthat Every theory of physics could be called "fiction", but they all attempt describe the very real universe, not some made up one. We can observe time dilation, and it's not rare; GPS satellites move so fast that they have to account for it. Einstein didn't "create a fictional universe", he came up with some internally consistent statements that accurately describe what we can observe. On scales larger than an atom, no observation has ever contradicted his theories of relativity, so you calling it "fiction" doesn't make any more sense than calling quantum field theory "fiction". It matches the observations, and makes useful predictions, so the distinction does not matter.
@thedeemon
11 ай бұрын
Without GR you have Newton's gravity that uses rest mass, not total energy. And zero rest mass would mean zero gravity. Otherwise gravitational attraction between two given objects would have to grow if you move relative to those objects, as in your frame of reference those objects have kinetic energy. The faster you move, the more kinetic energy those objects have in your frame, the more total energy they have.
@cykkm
11 ай бұрын
@@thedeemonExactly. I'm answering xitvono the OP, but first have to acknowledge your entirely correct explanation. I'm decoding thedeemon's statement “Without GR you have Newton's gravity” for you, xitvono, so you can clearly understand the error in your reasoning, stemming in mixing different theories of dynamics. Saying “Without GR“ could mean one of two things: either SR kinematics, or Newtonian dynamics. But SR doesn't treat gravity, so that this leaves only the Newtonian description on the table. But Newtonian gravity has a vector field structure with Euclidean gauge, which doesn't allow the field to act differently on a particle in the states of motion differing up to a constant velocity vector. The easiest way to convince oneself that this is true is using algebra, by equating the Universal gravity law with the 2nd Newton's law: mā=F=GMm/r²ē, where ē is the unit in the direction of r; the only thing you cancel is the test particle's rest mass m¹. The best way to reason, however, is from the first principles, in our case Galilean relativity² and its symmetries: all inertial observers consistently measure the same laws of nature. Since light velocity is not at all special in Newton's dynamics, different observers (be careful _not_ to place them into the same gravity field: they have to remain inertial, e.g. far away from the central mass!) will measure different velocity of the same object, including a traveling pulse of light, but they have to measure the same acceleration imposed by the gravity field on that object. Obviously, only zero acceleration (an invariant) and zero momentum (a relative quantity of motion, thus must hold true for all inertial observers!) satisfy the invariance for a massless body. There is no way to give a massless body either non-zero momentum (by any coordinate transformation, for it's relative) or mass (invariant) under the Galilean symmetries. _________ ¹ I don't like this algebraic reasoning. First, it starts from formulas whose true significance you may or may not understand. Second, there is an implicit assumption that the quantity m is the same on both sides of the equation. While true, we need to invoke an additional postulate of the theory, namely that of equivalence of inertial and gravitational masses of any physical body. Newtonian dynamics doesn't answer _why_ they have to be related, more so equal; it simply falls apart if they aren't, thus has to be postulated explicitly. Third, this is an example of the most insidious error. To see the nasty traps often lurking in reasoning from “well and widely known formulas,” consider an Incidental but mathematically invalid “prediction” of the Schwarzschild's radius as that of the smallest sphere at which anything, _regardless of its mass,_ (that should include light, shouldn't it?) has the escape velocity equal _c._ The formula for the escape velocity from rest at a distance R from a mass M, such that the escaping body comes to rest at infinity-the usual definition of the escape velocity-in Newtonian dynamics yields the speed of light if plugged a mass M and its Schwarzschild's radius R, and exceeds that for any smaller R. This is indeed correct-but _only for an escaping body with a mass._ The problem lies with the conclusion that this mass, a “Newtonian black hole,” would trap light. The escape velocity formula doesn't apply to massless escaping body: in its derivation, the escaping mass m is “canceled,“ struck out, on both sides of the equation. Algebraically, canceling means dividing of both sides of the equation by the canceled quantity. It should be now obvious that the formula is invalid for massless escaping body: canceling m=0 on both sides means that both sides divided by 0. Switching to calculus, explicitly dividing by m and taking the limit m->0 is problematic, as l'Hospital rule only bumps up the power of 1/m to 1/m², and on and on. The Taylor series expansion has the same defect in all orders. A careful treatment shows that the limit doesn't exist. The message the math is sending us is, although an arbitrary light body does have the escape velocity equal that of light, the pre-cooked formula doesn't in fact predict the trapping of light by the “Newtonian black hole;” the escape velocity formula simply unravels for massless escaping body, and quite irrepairably so. In our case, instead of “canceling m,” we may only interpret the formula as telling us F=0: light isn't subject to gravitational attraction. ² Called the 1st Newton's law in school textbooks, but this is ahistorical: Newton didn't number the laws of his theory, and his appropriating of the Galileo's postulate would be ridiculous to his contemporaries. The numbering of “Newton's laws“ is a modern simplification of terminology.
@Rio-zh2wb
10 ай бұрын
@@stewiesaidthatI struggle to think of a worse combination than confidence and ignorance.
@tiago.alegria.315
Жыл бұрын
I don't think there is a graviton , i don't think everything in this universe is a particle,for example spacetime
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
You could be correct. It all boils down to whether gravity is a force like the others at its core, or something else!
@walkabout16
10 ай бұрын
In the quantum dance where particles sway, Gravity, a puzzle in the cosmic ballet. In the realm of the small, where quanta unite, A conundrum arises, in the physicist's sight. Particles dance in the quantum domain, Gravity's embrace, a theoretical chain. Yet the equations falter, they refuse to align, In the microscopic world, where forces entwine. In the cosmic orchestra, where particles play, Gravity's melody, it seems, goes astray. Quantum mechanics and gravity's grasp, A paradox lingers, a theoretical clasp. Particles dance to a different refrain, Gravity's pull, a mysterious bane. In the quantum realm, where forces dispute, Theories crumble, in the subatomic pursuit. Gravity's force, so potent and grand, In particle physics, slips through the sand. A conundrum profound, a cosmic tease, In the dance of quanta, where mysteries appease. The equations unravel, the puzzle persists, Gravity in particles, a challenge that twists. In the quantum fabric, where uncertainty weaves, A cosmic riddle, the physicist retrieves. So we peer into realms where theories are spun, In the dance of particles, where battles are won. Gravity's mystery, in the physicist's lore, A cosmic enigma to explore evermore.
@johnfranklin8147
11 ай бұрын
Its wrong to say that alpha_g = 10^-40. People only think that, because it’s the strength between an electron and a proton, but that’s anthropocentric. They only use electron and proton, because those are the particles they know. The correct comparator is to use the force between two particles of mass equal to Planck scale. By definition….that’s g_ alpha = 1!! The next layer down, is to ask “why are the particles we know, so light”. And that becomes the question “why is the Higgs mass so light compared to the Planck mass”, which is maybe a good question. But gravity *itself* not weak, that’s the wrong perspective. And then you compare particles which are related to the Higgs mass, which is roughly the electroweak scale, let’s say the attraction between two Z0 particles (90 GeV), and find an alpha_g = 10^-33 (not 10^-40 still seven orders of magnitude away). So now you have three further questions, which are also maybe good, but not related to gravity *at all*. First is, why is the lightest fermion (the electron) so light? Why is its Higgs coupling only 10^-5? And then, you have the up and down quark masses, constituent to the proton, which are similar’ish to the electron; ok. So why are the masses within a generation (Higgs coupling constants) seemingly similar or related….in fact, what is the relationship between Higgs coupling constant and generation, why is it related at all, and in a logarithmic distribution. That’s a good question. And finally, the mass of the proton is hugely greater than the quark masses, essentially independent of them, and largely constituted by gluon energy - not coming from the Higgs mechanism at all! So, since that is related to the QCD energy scale, where does *that* energy scale come from? And why is it also so low compared to Planck scale.
@magnushorus5670
Ай бұрын
this is one of the best explanations Ive ever seen, thank you!
@RobReadControlledProjects
Жыл бұрын
Going the other way I've seen it claimed that electromagnetism can be modeled as a strain on spacetime, could ALL forces be seen as curves in spacetime, (perhaps on the hidden dimensions that QM needs)?
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
I've not heard of this explicitly but I like the thinking! Each force acts within its own field, so possibly!
@fast1nakus
Жыл бұрын
I thought that's what current physics thinks. Everything are fields, and reality is an interaction between them.
@nrxpaa8e6uml38
Жыл бұрын
What you are describing is a 100 years old idea known as Kaluza-Klein theory. Unfortunately, it just doesn't work or rather it is not supported by any evidence because the tiny rolled up extra dimensions that it needs have never been observed.
@Octa9on
11 ай бұрын
@@nrxpaa8e6uml38and also, the theory's predictions are wrong, such as predicting the electron mass on the order of the planck mass. however, the theory and its descendants are an important part of the development of modern physics, and show that electromagnetism can be described using the language of general relativity in a surprising way
@thedeemon
11 ай бұрын
There is a trivial reason why other forces can't be represented as curvature in space. With gravity, if you have some initial position and velocity, any object in free fall will follow the same trajectory from that point. So we can describe it as if it goes straight but the space itself is curved. But, say, in electric field, different charges move differently, the trajectory would be different for positively and negatively charged particles. If at the same place different objects move in different paths, you can't say both paths are geodesics in space. Gravity is unique in that all massive objects have "positive" gravitational "charge", with other forces there are different charges (+/- for EM, 3 colors for QCD etc.).
@steviejd5803
Жыл бұрын
Wonderful, thank you. Hey, sorry to bother you with a question, but if light, photons, is massless, how does gravitational lensing bend it? Is it that space is bent? I think I’ve just answered my own question, doh!
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Thanks for the comment! I love discussing physics with people so it's no bother to me at all. And yes, you are correct in what you said about space being bent. In general relativity, gravity is seen through the bending of spacetime towards objects with mass. Spacetime is space and time together, and so a high mass object like a black hole or entire galaxy cluster causes space to bend towards it and time to slow down as you get closer - hence why light still gets affected by gravity as it follows a straight path but space itself is bent.
@outerrealm
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy Well then, if light cannot escape from a black hole and is pulled into it, is spacetime pulled in alongside light, or is light affected in and of itself and not the spacetime that contains it? I'm not picturing a black hole devouring spacetime. I can see it bending and distorting it.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
@@outerrealm Indeed. Spacetime gets distorted, not devoured.
@Octa9on
11 ай бұрын
@@outerrealmyes to a black hole bending and distorting spacetime. for example, if you cross the event horizon of a black hole, the time coordinate and the inward space coordinate exchange roles, so the center of the black hole becomes your future, and the outside universe lies entirely in your past
@advaitrahasya
11 ай бұрын
Escape Chronocentricsm, invert Atomism, and there is no conflict between the various mathematical models.
@muddassirahmedkhan5947
9 ай бұрын
What will be the 3-D picture of a space-time curvature?
@SpotterVideo
Жыл бұрын
Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. ------------------------ String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
@ospyearn
10 ай бұрын
The same question springs to mind every time I watch a video about the forces of nature -- even a particularly good one like this: What's with the insistence on seeing gravity as a force, and why make an issue of gravity hardly playing any role on subatomic scales? One could just as well have complained about general relativity not being applicable to subatomic particles. Had the space curving effect of mass been more lax, atoms and molecules could not have come together to form bodies, and had it been tighter, all particles would have collapsed in on each other, or rather, there would not have been a big bang, so the "strength" of gravity is exactly what it has to be.
@paulmichaelfreedman8334
Жыл бұрын
Quantum mechanics and General Relativity cannot be united because they are two different things. Quantum mechanics describes the three fundamental forces, and General relativity describes gravity, which is not a force, but the effect of curved spacetime. Mass tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how and where to move. Gravity is an emergent property of the result of the combination of mass curving spacetime + time dilation. Gravity, as the video also states, seems to be more fundamental than Quantum Mechanics. But that would also mean that Quantum mechanics should be emergent from General relativity. This is something thas not been observed to be so.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
QFT is our closest yet to unify them both, but as one cannot be derived from the other, neither are complete theories. But I agree, gravity is probably more fundamental than just another force.
@SpotterVideo
Жыл бұрын
String Theory was not a waste of time. Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: "A theory that you can't explain to a bartender is probably no damn good." Ernest Rutherford The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Force" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist. The model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .
@roberttarquinio1288
Жыл бұрын
You cannot unify gravitation with electromagnetism, weak, and strong interactions because gravitation is a manifestation of space time curvature and the other interactions are not However, they all interact and interact and are influenced by the Higgs field via Higgs mechanism
@stewiesaidthat
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy you can unify anything with GR or SR. Einstein created a fantasy universe called Spacetime to peddle his bogus relativity theories based on ACCELERATION. You exist in a universe whose physics are defined by FORCE. in which Space and Time are TWO SEPARATE frames of reference. This is what happens when you follow a neophyte like Einstein down a rabbit hole into a fantasy universe. A complete misunderstanding of physics. Here are some questions you should be asking your masters. Why is an astronaut's heart rate increasing while the onboard instrument that measures acceleration in space is showing fewer clock cycles. Explain that Einstein. Why does water lose mass as it heats up (acceleration) and yet Relativity says it is supposed to gain mass. Answer that Einstein. That's not a relativity problem? Oh. Okay. Then why is the Breakthrough Starshot solar sail, which is accelerating in space, losing mass? How do you not its losing mass, because it's heating up and radiating energy and will eventually burst into flames and disappear from space. That wouldn't happen if it was converting that excess energy that didn't go into accelerating it into space. Photosynthesis will concert energy to mass but we are dealing with inorganic matter. So Einstein. How does Relativity account for accelerated objects losing mass when it postulates that objects should increase in mass. There are lots more examples if you are not convinced that Relativity is pseudo-science. Based on acceleration instead of force. Only works in the fantasy universe of Spacetime. There is no unifying theory for a fictional universe without creating another fictional universe.
@Octa9on
11 ай бұрын
if spacetime is emergent, then its curvature and the resulting gravitation are emergent as well. I am personally hoping that gravitation as an entropic force turns out to have deep truth to it
@hermes_logios
Жыл бұрын
Pauli exclusion IS “space.” It’s what creates physical volume. It’s the radiative, expansive vector. Mass is the inverse, the contractive vector. Mass is gravity, and vice versa. The contraction of space itself.
@GreatBigBore
10 ай бұрын
If you told me that gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces I would ask the same question I’ve been asking physicists online for years without ever getting a sensible answer (in fact usually no response at all): if it’s a force, then why did Einstein say it isn’t a force but rather an emergent phenomenon caused by the curvature of spacetime?
@Jackie-wn5hx
10 ай бұрын
It's not a force within the framework of general relativity or the invariant forces of classical mechanics. Quantum gravity would be a quantum field theory and the hypothetical graviton would become part of the standard model of particle physics.
@tonymc-dx8xw
10 ай бұрын
Just before 3:33 on the video I had a tingle in the back of my brain. I felt there was something about the coupling of gravity being a small number. It feelt that there is somthing there to look into. Gravity is a property of spacetime cuverture of mass no quantum partical needed.
@outerrealm
Жыл бұрын
What if Einstein told you that gravity is not a force at all but simply the result of the distortion of spacetime around massive objects? Because it is. "Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as the curvature of spacetime, caused by the uneven distribution of mass, and causing masses to move along geodesic lines." It may behave as a force, and might follow equations as if it were a force, yet acceleration can mimic gravity in every way but acceleration is not gravity. So being able to describe gravity as a force does not mean it actually is one in the same sense as the other 3. It seems to me that gravity is a phenomenon, a behavior of spacetime in response to massive objects. I'm not a physicist, obviously, this is just my logic such as it exists. After all, the graviton is just speculation, no one can find it and its equations have been troublesome, correct?
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Yes GR is great - but not on quantum scales! So we need something else
@Dman222000
11 ай бұрын
Gravity is the 5th dimension. The dimensions are properties of matter. Matter has length (1), width (2), depth (3) and motion (4). Think about how gravity is depicted as distorting space-time. Space-time is depicted as a flat, 2 dimensional grid, and the mass is depicted as distorting that grid into a third dimension, creating a gravity well that other mass falls into. Except that space-time is actually a 3-dimensional grid, So gravity must be distorting this grid into a higher dimension. The 5th dimension. This is why it's impossible to find a gravity particle (graviton) the same as it's impossible to find a width particle or a time particle. When we measure gravity, we're measuring the 5th dimension, the same as a clock measures the 4th dimension or a ruler measures the other 3 dimensions.
@Dman222000
11 ай бұрын
1st dimension: Length 2nd dimension: Width 3rd dimension: Depth 4th dimension: Motion 5th dimension: Mass All of these describe properties of matter.
@Dman222000
10 ай бұрын
@@cluelessamerican9931 Is space 3-dimensional or 2 dimensional? Why is a gravity well always depicted as an otherwise 2-dimensional grid being distorted into the 3rd dimension by the mass, if space is actually more accurately depicted as a 3-dimensional grid? Why not depict it accurately? Because it's impossible to do so. What would a gravity well look like if we start with an accurate 3-dimensional grid representing space? In which direction would the mass be creating the distortion? It's shown the way it is because it's impossible to show it accurately. You can't draw a 3-dimensional grid being distorted into a higher dimension by mass the way you can with a 2-dimensional grid.
@nataschajordan6053
10 ай бұрын
gravity is not a particle based stuff. as einstein said it IS "the fabric of specetime bending" whenever mass(ful particles) comes into existance. basically a particle comes into existance by overlapping fields that intersect, it will crumble this "point" in spacetime, and therby displace spacetime by an amount, thats needed for those particels beeing able to exist/interact. this bends/distorts spacetime and makes other objects fall into thicked7thinned spacetime that then are the "shortest" paths of motion/least action. the term gravity (colloquially understood as weight and or mixed with mass) implies there is some quality within it that there is in fact not. its just bent/distorted spacetime - that is bent/distorted by the mere existance of particles that are created by the fields/forced we know. you place a planet/sun/blackhole in spacetime, all spacetime will be displaced around it, so its particles it consists of to "make room for its existance" an an interactive "object" "in" spacetime. gravity is actually some kind of "thickness" of spacetime around objects or in absence of objects/particles.
@michaelmacdonald2907
Жыл бұрын
To be consistent - what is the strong and weak forces each at one meter? Otherwise the argument is nonsense, and in fact the presentation IS all over the map.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Exactly zero newtons. They act over femtometre or smaller scales, hence I didn't include them at 1m.
@michaelkahn8744
11 ай бұрын
Gravity is not a force but the joint effect of the curvature of the spacetime and the expansion of the Universe. 4-D Hypershere model of Universe can easily explain Expansion of the Universe, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Void and even the reason why the measurement values of Expansion Rate are around 70 km/sec-Mpc Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Void and Antigravity, ... all these are same phenomena. They just look different. The problem of modern physics is they're trying to explain everything with particle physics and the physics is being cornered more and more to the dead end. To escape the dead end, they invent or design another imaginary particle in vain instead of trying to revise their way to approach to the problem. I agree to the idea that the interaction between mass and space must be explained with quantum mechanics. But that doesn't mean gravity is the QM phenomena. That's because gravity is not a force. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Gravity, Antigravity, Void... all these are just joint effects of the expansion of the Universe and the curvature of spacetime. Details are given below. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity states that spacetime is curved by the presence of mass. This curvature influences the motion other objects with mass and gives rise to gravitation. Thus, gravity is a result of geometric features in spacetime. However, we also observe gravitational effects - curvature of spacetime - in areas without any detectable mass. This has given rise to the concept of dark matter, which is matter that does not interact in any detectable way with normal matter, except through gravity. So, there is some large quantity of dark matter scattered throughout the universe, which curves spacetime and causes gravitational effects just like normal matter, but we cannot see or detect it with any known method. An alternative theory to the identity of dark matter is proposed - it is not matter at all, but rather an intrinsic curvature of spacetime. In other words, spacetime is not naturally flat. Even in the absence of matter, we observe some inherent curvature of spacetime. So, the question is now - why is spacetime naturally curved? Why is it not flat in the absence of mass? The universe is 4-dimensional, with 3 spatial dimensions and one dimension in time. Rather than consider time as a linear dimension, we can consider it as a radial one. Therefore, rather than describing the universe with a Cartesian coordinate system, we describe it with a 4-dimensional spherical coordinate system - 3 angular coordinates, φ1, φ2, φ3, and one radial coordinate in time, t. We live on the 3-dimensional surface of a 4-dimensional bubble which is expanding radially in time. Thus, the Big Bang represents t=0, the beginning of time. The crucial point is that the expansion of the universe is not homogeneous in all directions. The expansion rate at one point on the bubble’s surface may differ slightly from another point near it. The universe is only roughly spherical in 4 dimensions, the same way that the Earth is only roughly spherical in 3 dimensions. The same way we observe local mountains and valleys on the surface of Earth, we observe local “mountains” and “valleys” on the surface of the universe bubble. The inhomogeneity of the expansion of the universe has given rise to natural curvature of spacetime. This natural curvature causes the phenomenon of “dark matter”. “Valleys” in spacetime pull matter in, similarly to the warping of spacetime of massive objects. So “dark matter” is really “valleys” in spacetime that are expanding slower than the regions surrounding it. These valleys tend to pull matter in and create planets, stars, and galaxies - regions of space with higher-than-average densities of mass. Conversely, “mountains” in spacetime will repel matter away, an “anti-gravitational” effect, which gives rise to cosmic voids in space where we observe no matter. Each point on the surface of the universe bubble traces out a time arrow in 4-dimensional space, perpendicular to the surface. These time arrows are not parallel to each other since the universe is not flat. This causes points to have nonzero relative velocity away from each other. It is generally accepted that the universe is expanding faster than observable energy can explain, and this is expansion is believe to be still accelerating. The “missing” energy required to explain these observations has given rise to the theory of dark energy. The time dilation caused by non-parallel time arrows can be proposed as an explanation for dark energy. Alternatively, dark energy is real energy coming from potential energy gradients caused by non-parallel time arrows. As a sanity check, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe based on the universe bubble model. Since the radius of the universe bubble is expanding at the speed of light in the time direction, it increases at 1 light second per second. Therefore, the “circumference” of the 3-dimensional surface increases by 2π light seconds per second, or about 1.88*10^6 km/s. This expansion is distributed equally across the 3-dimensional surface, so the actual observed expansion rate is proportional to the distance from the observer. At present, the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years, so the radius of the universe bubble is 13.8 billion light years, or about 4233 megaparsecs (3.26 million light years to 1 Mpc). Thus, we can calculate the expansion rate of the universe, per megaparsec from the observer, as: Expansion rate = ((d(circumference))/dt)/radiusofuniverse=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/(2π*4233Mpc)=(1.88*〖10〗^6 km⁄s)/26598Mpc=70.82(km⁄s)/Mpc The popularly accepted empirical expansion rate is 73.5 +/- 2.5 km/s/Mpc, so our calculated value is close. There may be some additional source of expansion (or observed red shift) to make up for the discrepancy. For example, if two adjacent points have some gravitational gradient due to non-parallel time arrows, then light passing through these points will be red-shifted. - Cited from www.academia.edu/82481487/Title_Alternative_Explanation_of_Dark_Matter_and_Dark_Energy
@NuclearFalcon146
Жыл бұрын
One thing we may have to figure out is what even IS gravity. Currently it is thought of as a force but GR treats it as a curvature of spacetime caused by mass rather than a "force". If we can figure out what it is then that might cue us towards a solution.
@stewiesaidthat
Жыл бұрын
Einstein created a fantasy universe called Spacetime in which the physics is defined by acceleration in order to peddle his relativity nonsense. You are not going to understand the real universe using physics created for a fictional universe.
@ulisesavila2879
8 ай бұрын
What you have said isn't divorced from the idea that gravity is a force. If spacetime is curved within a minimum threshold suddenly we have quantized theory of gravity. The problem is reach if that answer is correct or not.
@NuclearFalcon146
8 ай бұрын
@@ulisesavila2879 Why would it be divorced from that idea? The whole point I was making is that there are unknowns that if we found out what those unknowns were then we would have what we need to either quantize gravity or rule it out as a force, whichever turns out to be appropriate. The simple fact that I do not know if it is a force or not based on the conflicting understandings of QM and GR means being open to either possibility. I'll leave that to actual physicists to figure out since I just changed major to being a linguist.
@bigoptions
Ай бұрын
I know what it is; I'm not the only one, but I will show everyone soon. I'm getting old; I get really tired when I get home from work. It's easier to just watch science videos on KZitem. You won't have to wait very long unless I only get like 10 views, which is possible. By the way, gravity doesn't pull! That was one of the first things that I figured out didn't make sense. I wasn't sure if I was going to put this in, but it shows the very beginning of my thinking process from like 20 years ago. Many questions have been answered now. --- What was I thinking when I was trying to figure out what gravity was? The first thing that didn't make sense was, how come I don't feel any force pushing from the side that it is coming from? It seems to flow through everything, but, at the same time, the more mass that an object has the more pressure it puts on that object.---So easy to explain now.
@ReneVaeli
Жыл бұрын
Mass is the density of events per unit time per unit volume. Gravity is caused by differences in event density. Regions of lower density move towards regions with higher density, kind of like negative buoyancy in event density field.
@FLPhotoCatcher
Жыл бұрын
That sounds a bit like the theory (more like hypothesis at this point) of gravity I came up with about 5 years ago. The multiverse (if it exists) explains gravity. Have you heard the vacuum decay of the universe? Well, it may be happening all the time, hundreds of times per second, but we survive because of the multiverse - in at least one, we live on to observe everything. BUT, the dissolving universes that vacuum decay disperses, turn the planets and every object into a *gradient* of electro-magnetic particles/waves centered on these masses. This gradient of constantly emitted and expanding E.M. waves in other universes attract atoms (being made of moving energy) in the universe we observe. This gradient of photons in other universes refracts light and matter (matter being made of, basically, energy waves) toward the center of mass of any object. Over some length of time, the influence of the other dissolving universes fades away. This could neatly explain the rotational curves of galaxies, and therefore *dark matter.* My hypothesis might even explain "dark energy." My hypothesis might be able to be tested. A large mass could be put on a train car, with sensitive gravity detectors nearby that can determine if the large mass is there or not. Using a random number generator based on radioactive decay, the large mass would be - as quickly as possible - moved away if an unlikely radioactive particle hits a detector. In those other universes, the mass would not be immediately moved, so the gravity would not change as fast as expected. Or the reverse might be better - if a radioactive particle with a 1% chance of happening hits a detector, the mass stays put. On the rare occasions the mass doesn't move, its gravity may be much weaker than expected.
@Mlab923
Жыл бұрын
@@FLPhotoCatcher sounds like string theory.
@______IV
Жыл бұрын
Gravity compared to the 3 fundamental forces seems analogous to time and the 3 physical dimensions.
@alphalunamare
11 ай бұрын
0:40 Electromagnetism is what holds our bodily forms together. If gravity were to be stronger then we would be torn apart and not even exist in the first place. The weakness of gravity is necessary for life in the Universe. 5:32 Newton considered gravity a force but Einstein was convinced by Minkowski to consider it as a property of curved spacetime. It seems odd to me that people today still talk as if it was a force and imagine such fantasies as Gravitons which of course will never be found because The Universe is not Newtonian. 8:37 This is where the metaphor fails, anti red + anti green + anti blue equals BLACK not White. It is important to realise that RGB could just as easily be termed Rhino, Giraffe and Buffalo for things to work ...Colour is misleading and fools a lot of students. 10:30 As for what is missing, maybe it's the realisation that 'charge' is an over used metaphor as well. To be forced to consider energy as gravitational charge is proof positive of the lexical failure in modern Physics.
@bloodyorphan
Жыл бұрын
Here's mine, you could call it Graviton but it is a flat plane of space distorting the atomic kinetic mass aperturte .... Skin Aperture Theory - The Higgs Inertia/Kinetic/Gravity mechanisms Assume the particle/atomic aperture is circular if stationary. 1. Forward movement through space distorts the symmetry in such away that the incoming spacial dowel pressure is higher on the side equivalent to the velocity vector. (Frame grabbing WISC distorts atomic aperture) Generating an imbalance in spacial flow resulting in permanent velocity along the same vector line. 2. The same WISC affect of Gravity distorts the "tail" of the particle increasing curvature distance and therefore decreasing G "flow" pressure opposite the larger mass' gravity flow causing the particle to accelerate along the Gravity vector recursing on 1. Note: There is an implication that the interface angle between our visible space and the BB space is always 90º regardless of Visible space vector direction! M.B.Eringa 2022
@BiswajitBhattacharjee-up8vv
10 ай бұрын
Masses are charges of gravity . Energy is boson of quantum gravity , no doubt we are putting parallel effect and wanted to converse at a scale. GUT scale. Quantum gravity in Planks scale. Quantum in atomic scale. We are missing something , quantum gravity Time is missing in atom .
@paulsaulpaul
10 ай бұрын
These are great videos. Music, narration, pacing, presentation, just the right amount math and diagrams for me. Concise and to the point. No goofy behavior or joking around. Please keep doing what you're doing. I had to block that Fermilab channel from my suggested videos feed an hour ago, because he thought it appropriate to open a video of the Higgs mechanism by mocking the symbol of my Lord's sacrifice in the first few hundred frames. In addition to the insulting presentation in his videos where he seems to assume his audience are fools. He's an example of what not to do on a physics channel, in my not so humble opinion.
@savitriayapilla3943
8 ай бұрын
Great video.
@markpmar0356
10 ай бұрын
We believe gravity to be a "force" but it does not act like a force. Something else is the "force" and the interaction of mass/matter with spacetime produces the effect known as gravity. How Newton was able to calculate an apparent constant just by interpreting it as an attractive force is amazing.
@misterschifano
11 ай бұрын
Why do we even expect a graviton? General relativity indicates that gravity isn't a force at all. Its force-like behavior-- the ability to change the momentum of objects-- is an illusion caused by the warping of spacetime-- which in turn warps velocity. So it's just a consequence of positional invariance over a curved spacetime. Moreover, thanks to to holographic principle you can represent the universe equally well in 2D without gravity or a 3D universe with gravity, so gravity must be perceptual rather than real. Therefore I wouldn't even expect a graviton to exist at all, just like I wouldn't expect a boson for the centrifugal force or the Coriolis force. Is there something I'm missing?
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
The action of forces and any energy transfer can be modelled as a particle. Take for example the phonon (which models the vibrations of atoms in a solid) or the magnon (which models the movements of spin waves through ferromagnetic materials). Neither of those phenomena require particles to understand them intuitively. Nonetheless it is useful to model them as particles in our mathematical framework.
@romado59
Жыл бұрын
Electromagnetic Charge is not balanced since there have been observed magnetic fields which imply currents (maybe Birkeland Currents). The currents are implied by Maxwell equations.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
In what context is charge not balanced? Magnetic fields are caused by moving charges.
@willbrink
11 ай бұрын
Gravity is not technically a force at all according to GR no?
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
Correct, according to GR... only thing is GR does not work on quantum scales - so it would not be valid to apply it to gravity here.
@martinpiekarski1512
11 ай бұрын
@@OVAstronomy General relativity and quantum physics do not exactly go hand-in-hand. Hence there's a string theory that's supposed to patch up the gaps between those. And it honestly it is pretty darn close to doing it credibly. Gravity must be some kind of force, otherwise no one could experience it effects. Since it affects physical objects, it is heavily implied it is a force. Something akin to binding objects with mass. Becausehow else to explain it? Einstein could have a good idea of time and space fabric and curvatures within it but then, where did that space-time fabric come from? What is it made of? Why is it not observable, like say, trampoline? As ingenious as he was, Einstein sadly could not provide answers to those.
@avimaltzman5673
Ай бұрын
Gravity is not a force but a phenomenon that stems from space distortion as result of presence of energy/mass. Hence the perceived “paradoxes”.
@LarryBorsinger
Жыл бұрын
Using dimensional balancing, where force and charge are considered two dimensional entities and mass and energy are three dimensional entities. The relative weakness of Newton‘s gravitational force to Coulomb’s force is due to the dimensional reduction matter must undergo in order to transform/create a force. Using the above laws this would be a frequency squared reduction. From a quantum perspective Einstein’s coefficients can be used to model this transformation.
@dtibor5903
11 ай бұрын
So basically you should build a spaceship and remove 1 electron from each atom. Same should be done to the earth beneath. The spaceship should shoot away into interstellar medium.
@OverwoundGames
Жыл бұрын
mass eats space 🙃 (or to put it another way, the vibration of a particle snaps off or folds the aether / spacetime into a separate bubble of spacetime, possibly inverting the xyz dimensions)
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
hmmm
@werre2
Жыл бұрын
mass eats space as easily demonstrated in any mall
@kaveia
11 ай бұрын
"something to think about": how do gravitons escape a black hole?
@alex79suited
Жыл бұрын
So from what you've here the mistake has been made. EMFS does permeate the vacuum. Through Blacksphere and galacty. Charge is created from the vacuum vibration through particles. It's the only way the system works. Gravity is only weighted mass that's it. It's not a force it's a result not a cause. Big bang is incorrect respectfully. Small bangs, lots of them. In the vacuum there are no forces until matter is introduced at the Planck scale even at this tiniest of scale charge is introduced and the EMFS starts to form only after sufficient amounts have gathered can this charge form 1st stars. VEM =0Msquared is very important here. As size and or mass is irrelevant of these initial starting positions. It's here where I believe the mistake is possible made. Space doesn't bend, and massive stars or Planck length neither or both have 0Msquared they have equal mass in the vacuum, and neither bends space. This is the mistake. So how do galacty stay formed. Blacksphere ⚫️ at the heart are the power source. And stars that form in these galacty reinforce it's fields strength throughout to the edges. When an environment has 0Msquared like the vacuum, our brains have a hard time with this concept we see mass weight. Which just isn't there, we see Gravity which just isn't there. Through the cores of all active bodies they are connected alone the field strength isn't much, but as a single cohesive system, it's very powerful. Now any object in these fields will feel charge rocks it doesn't matter and they will follow field lines. But if an active core isn't present the charge isn't sufficient to hold the field, we get asteroid or comets. If undisturbed they will stay on these lines. Separate the vacuum from the matter. They are different properties. Blacksphere ⚫️ sit right at the heart of each galacty no holes. Build up around these spheres again increases the field strength. Don't look at the EMFS on an individual basis? You have to look at it from galacty perspective. From the core to the edge of its bubble it all works as 1 system. Not individually as a whole.
@handyallen
Жыл бұрын
Is the warp of space thinner in the direction the earth, solar system, milky way, is moving as it moves thru space?
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
It is warped towards objects with mass, and the amount of bending is stronger the closer to the object and with how massive it is
@genecat
Жыл бұрын
Most videos on this topic regurgitate the subject in a similar manner to each other. They machine gun facts to the viewer with animated graphics knowing their lay audience cannot comprehend information at this rate unless they’re already familiar with the subject or they rewind and watch repeatedly.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
👍
@eleventy-seven
Жыл бұрын
Big Bang Busted.
@digbysirchickentf2315
Жыл бұрын
Your pulling my Boson.
@irenerosenberg3609
Жыл бұрын
At 11:19, "...giving the ILLUSION of a gravitational force." And there you have it. Gravity is not a force between particles/matter. It is an interaction between matter and space/time. IMHO, trying to unite gravity with the three fundamental forces is folly. We do not have any problem accepting that nuclear forces operate over only very small distances. Why can we not accept that gravity does NOT operate over very small distances? Trying to find quantum gravity is just a way to extract grant money and keep physicists employed.
@stewiesaidthat
Жыл бұрын
Finally someone who gets it. Gravity is the result of acceleration. Just as time is the result of acceleration and also weight. In simple terms, gravity is the acceleration of the mass in the equation F=ma. What is mass? Mass is simply energy traveling < c. You have a one frame of reference with mass undergoing acceleration encountering another frame of reference with mass in an accelerated state. A black hole creates a frame of accelerated energy. A frame consisting of an electromagnetic wave encounter it and is slowed down or speeds up. The two forces try to equalize each other out. Like pouring hot water into cold. The cold atoms get accelerated and the hot atoms get decelerated.
@mattpotter8725
Жыл бұрын
Good video, however dark matter isn't called dark because it's charge neutral but because we can't detect it directly so don't know what it is, the same with dark energy. These are dark because we can infer their evidence due to observed evidence we can't detect what they are or what is causing them, where they came from.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
That is true, but the reason we cannot detect dark matter is because it is charge neutral, no electromagnetic interactions from it, so no light detected hence it is dark.
@mattpotter8725
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy I'm not saying what you said in the video isn't true just that it's not called dark because of the charge neutrality.
@Octa9on
11 ай бұрын
@@mattpotter8725are you certain of the reason the term "dark matter" was coined? at first, the nature of the unseen matter was not understood, however as research has progressed it has become clear that the majority of the unseen matter in the universe is not just dark like a planet far from a sun, it is invisible like particles with no electric charge. so the term may have originally meant matter we don't see, but now it refers to matter we can't see because it does not interact with light
@mattpotter8725
11 ай бұрын
@@Octa9on I can't remember what I said but I don't think I said that it wasn't visible, but that it was unknown what it was made up of or how it was having the affect it was, apart from a gravitational one. If I gave that impression I apologize for the miscommunication. All this said until we actually find exactly how the mechanisms work this to me is more like how Einstein or maybe it was Newton were trying to add a substance called aether into their calculations, and until there is actual experimental proof I'm still sceptical and I do think the way the universe works and especially the laws of gravity are not fully understood in certain conditions.
@Shadow_B4nned
10 ай бұрын
I think gravity isn't a force between objects at all. Instead I think Einsteinian gravity is closer to right. Where space itself is warped and bent by mass. It's not a force per say. Instead, it's mass warping the very fabric of space. The discovery of the Higgs boson with it's interaction of the Higgs field and subsequent curvature of spacetime is pretty much the last piece of the puzzle in my book. It's the handshake between general relativity and the standard model of physics.
@Jackie-wn5hx
10 ай бұрын
In general relativity, gravity can affect massless photons and is coupled to everything. Mass and energy are the source of the spacetime curvature, but how would the Higgs field describe quantum gravity?
@Shadow_B4nned
10 ай бұрын
@@Jackie-wn5hx True, it's more accurate to say the entire energy of the object curves space. As far as the Higgs field it describes quantum gravity by that very mechanism, via energy curving space. I expect the energy of the object to be tied to the Higgs Boson somehow. Definitely something to ponder.. thanks.
@motogp1gprix1
Жыл бұрын
Completely left out the role time plays in the effect of gravity. It literally is the engine the causes the constant bending of space around mass. Without time, space would still bend but then remain static and nothing would move towards large objects. This is because the objects don't move inertially towards mass. Rather, it is the space they are in that moves.
@martinpiekarski1512
11 ай бұрын
There's something that bugs me after this video... Is Lebron a boson or a fermion?
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
Considering he carries a lot of force, I would think boson 💪
@martinpiekarski1512
11 ай бұрын
@@OVAstronomy Yeah, that may be possible. I just have to figure out his spin number.
@thedeemon
11 ай бұрын
Can there be two identical Lebrons at the same place? Clearly not, so he's a fermion.
@martinpiekarski1512
11 ай бұрын
@@thedeemon But what if... we put one Lebron on top of another? Theoretically they would be located at the very same spot.
@MrDino1953
2 ай бұрын
Why do you say “shtrong” instead of “strong”?
@mikebartling7920
10 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@OVAstronomy
10 ай бұрын
You're welcome, thank you for the donation!
@Gokufansclub001
11 ай бұрын
V good video keep it up
@hosseinemami970
11 ай бұрын
زهر مار و اشترانگر. نکبت چرا به استرانگ میگی اشترانگ؟
@eddies6977
11 ай бұрын
Might it be possible that gravity is a emergent property of time? Time and gravity seem to be two parts of one property.
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
It's an intriguing possibility but purely speculative at the moment.
@cinemaipswich4636
Жыл бұрын
Within Quantum Theroy there are Gluons. They are not particales but forces that bind the Protons and Neutrons. We do not know much about them, but they have great providence in the binding of all the fundimental particles.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
They are the force mediating particles (exchange bosons) of the strong nuclear force
@outerrealm
Жыл бұрын
I like to use Gluons to stick things on my quantum refrigerator instead of magnets and post it notes. To remove them you use Gluoffs.
@mastershooter64
Жыл бұрын
damn bro you must get lots of cranks in your comment sections
@markdavid7013
Жыл бұрын
If space-time can be curved or warped, doesn't that imply that it's must have some kind of physicality? You can't curve "nothingness" ?🤔
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Yes, spacetime has topological structure.
@buddysnackit1758
11 ай бұрын
Let me flush everything you have stated down the toilet with a single question. How does a pull work? Now without any pulls describe everything again. (FLUSH)
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
What on Earth are you on about 🤣
@tonymarshharveytron1970
Жыл бұрын
Hello, if you really want an explanation of gravity, I have an hypothesis that can explain many of the outstanding problems in QM and Cosmology today. I am happy to send you a copy of my latest draft if you are interested. It is Radical but Logical, and in direct conflict with the standard Model. Kind regards, Tony Marsh.
@MattHudsonAtx
11 ай бұрын
What? No! The Higgs boson has been detected.
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
Yes agreed. To which part of the video are you referring to?
@peterfireflylund
11 ай бұрын
The Higg’s boson(s?) is (are?) not a graviton.
@biomechanique6874
11 ай бұрын
I notice that you are ignoring the fundamental constant property of 'gravity'. It is not transient or dependant on matter states as are the other forces you are comparing it to. Particle physics is still theoretical and not proven to be factual.
@OVAstronomy
11 ай бұрын
We invest a lot of money into building particle colliders, the results of these experiments provide evidence and strong backing for QFT - but there's still many unknowns.
@biomechanique6874
11 ай бұрын
@@OVAstronomy The budget for the colliders suggests military purposes ultimately. High density shielding/armour is the primary product - particle physics is a distraction.
@gonegahgah
Жыл бұрын
I would say that you are wrong. I think gravity is the strongest force and that it is the basis of all other forces. We've all seen that when gravity acts against itself that it simply cancels out. Ignoring this obvious (and pertinent) fact - which can be seen at our greater macro level - is the basis for all these wrong assumptions. The gravity we feel is simply the residual gravity after contra-effective spin balancing occurs leaving us a small left over amount to pull us down. I know Occam's razor just gets ignored these days but that is so much less convoluted than this imaginary fantasy of myriad particle fields that are supposed to somehow co-habitate like mysterious spirits.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
If gravity was the strongest force then how would you explain it being negligible compared to the others on smaller scales?
@gonegahgah
Жыл бұрын
@OVAstronomy Sorry, I thought that I had explained but, thank you, I appreciate your question and your curiosity. We are already familiar with frame dragging at the macro level and this is with relatively minor spin speeds. We are also familiar with balance points for gravity such as the Lagrange Points where the effective attraction to both sources is zero. Yet we ignore these effects at the subatomic level. There are also only two natural motions that are physically possible in a 3D world that can give us natural opposites and these are clockwise and anti-clockwise. When you combine these features: spin (clockwise or anticlockwise), momentum, gravity, and subsequent pressure, you get all the elements you need without needing to resort to a plethora of particles along with their manufactured co-existing assigned fields. A single field effect makes a whole lot more sense than a myriad of fields. Just like all elements are just derivatives of Hydrogen, all particles are derivatives of these four things, or their combinations of "sub-particles", are of these things. Simple is the answer; not complicated. If you have particles that, under spin and due to their shape, are directing their gravitational force in different directions, and that can adjust somewhat to their surrounds (ie being pressured), then the real gravitational force will principally cancel out and you will just be left with the minuscule residue that we experience.
@stancartmankenny
11 ай бұрын
No way Lebron is a quantum particle. I know that much. I'm like 98% sure.
@martinpiekarski1512
11 ай бұрын
Actually he is. This is why it looks like he is in many places on the basketball field all at once.
@irenerosenberg3609
Жыл бұрын
This narrator is pretty good, but he makes me crazy with his pronunciation of the "shtrong" force. I thought only Americans did this str -> shtr, which is called "palatization." Michael Shapiro of Brown University wrote a paper on this.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
my apologies
@alex79suited
Жыл бұрын
Size is irrelevant in the vacuum it's just that simple. Stars and all those weird objects are all failed blacksphere. The system trickles down and up but the blacksphere is the information it's the goal. The vacuum is trying to get back to equivalence and to do this it needs to get rid of whatever's disturbing it. And that's the gases and matter. That's the vacuums goal. 0Msquared. Peace ✌️ from Canada, eh
@ljubodraggrujic4872
11 ай бұрын
Štrong
@vanikaghajanyan7760
Жыл бұрын
0:40. In the Planck system F(G)/F(e)=Gm(pl)^2/e^2, that is, gravity~strong interaction*. This assumption follows from the Schwarzschild solution: the gravitational radius (or Schwarzschild radius) is a characteristic radius defined for any physical body with mass: r(G)=2GM/c^2. Consequently: 2E(0)/r(G)=F(pl)=c^4/G=ε(pl)/r(pl) : with indicating the mutual quantization of the mass (energy) and space-time: m(0)/m(pl)=r(G)/2r(pl)=n,where n-total number of quanta of the system; the tension vector flux: n=[(1/4π)(Gћc)^-1/2]gS ( const for all orbits of the system: n=0,1,2,3....). Moreover, the parameter r(0)=r(G)-r(pl)=2n-1)r(pl): defining the interval of the formation of the system, at n=0, when r=r(G)=0 (for example, the state of the "universe" before the Big Bang) turns out to be a quite definite quantity: r(0)=-r(pl). In the area [(-rpl) - 0 - (+rpl)] there is an implementation of external forces, "distance": (-rpl)+(+rpl)=0 (≠2rpl). That is, the frightening "true singularity" is actually a superconducting window between the proto-universe (the source) and physical bodies**. P.S. As a fundamental theory, GR has the ability with just one parameter: r(G)/r=k to predict, explain new physical effects, and amend already known ones. Photon frequency shift in gravitational field Δw/w(0)=k; the angle of deflection of a photon from a rectilinear propagation path =2k, the Newtonian orbit of the planet shifts forward in its plane: during one revolution, a certain point of the orbit is shifted by an angle =3πk, for a circular orbit (eccentricity е=0); in the case of an elliptical orbit - for example, for perihelion displacement, the last expression must be divided by (1-е^2). ------------------- *) - GR predicts a new physical effect: w/w(pl)=k; expression for gravitational radiation from a test body. This is amenable to physical examination in laboratory conditions at present. **) - From this, generally, from Einstein's equations, where the constant c^4/G=F(pl), one can obtain a quantum expression (as vibration field) for the gravitational potential: ф(G)=(-1/2)[Għ/с^]1/2(w) = -[h/4πm(pl)]w. Final formula:ф(G)=-(w/wpl)c^2/2, where ф(G) - is Newtonian gravitational potential, r(n)'=nλ/π=(n+n')2r(pl), , the corresponding orbital radius, w - the frequency of the quanta of the gravitational field (space-time); - obviously, the quanta of the field are themselves quantized: λ=(1+n'/n)λ(pl)= 2πc/w, where n'/n - system gravitational unpacking ratio, n'- the orbit number (n'=0,1,2,3…). Can be tested experimentally in the laboratory at the moment.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Could you provide a more straightforward explanation or some context to help others follow your perspective more easily?
@vanikaghajanyan7760
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy Details are here; "GR was QG": docs.google.com/document/d/1_lfLwMKc0eFCmSAKxbzSMoEH67nUN2ri1-zTa-C0r04/edit?usp=drivesdk
@onemediuminmotion
Жыл бұрын
The particle (or 'particulate') form of gravity - what we want to call a "graviton" - is the object we already refer to as a "black hole".
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
How would that explain gravitation between non black hole objects?
@onemediuminmotion
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy, quick 'n dirty, the "spacetime" that we currently describe as "curved" by a particulate mass is actually an otherwise absolutely continuous 'scale-uniform' superfluid medium (SUM) whose only structure is in terms of its 'self-relative motion' (a.k.a. "acceleration") as a horn toroidal fluid vortex (as a black hole) that undergoes self-fractalization at various self-relative "size" scales, resulting (in the present iteration) in the elaborate self-organizing, 'self-observing' network of space-time distributed particulate I/O devices that we find ourselves participant I/O devices in. The "multiple" structural attributes that we humans presently perceive (i.e. map with our nervous system) and verbally categorize ("index"; "indicate") as "separate things" are in fact attributes of this system's self-configuring structural vortexual and inter-vortexual wave 'behavior'. The only functional significance (ultimately) of "size" scale - ala Fourier mechanics, is its role in the 'self-constructing' structure of this (apparently now, ala ourselves at a minimum) 'self-aware entity'. Consider the self-referential 'circular' logic of the statement "The more tools I have, the more tools I can build. I build with what I have already built." Infinite regression? Afraid so, "all the way down" to the "empty space" ("void", "nothingness", etc.) that we traditionally call the SUM itself in the absence of its sr-motion (e.g. those 'inter-particulate' regions of it that are relatively 'at rest').
@Nukestarmaster
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy I for one, love the idea that I am held upon the Earth by an arbitrary number of virtual singularities (whatever that means), lol.
@onemediuminmotion
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy That was a bit indirect. I'm no expert in particle physics (your videos look promising), but let me throw these axioms at you, may be useful, maybe not: 1) The appearance of the 'spacetime curvature' of the SUM around a mass-body is because its sr-(acceleration)-flow is frictionless, there being no 'particulate interactions' involved at this region of its 'pure sr-motion' architecture. With no friction to dissipate or disperse the SUM's sr-flow (regardless of what overall self-relative size-scale it encompasses), e.g. as a 'self-siphoning' particulate fluid vortex, its 'pure momentum' as such is 'conserved'. 2) You will note that the more powerful the 'fundamental force', the smaller the scale, and the more 'concentrated' the masses to ('in the vicinity of') which it applies. 3) All sr-motion is ultimately point-radial (the ultimate source and destination being the same singularity), whether it is particulate 'shrapnel' linear, or vortexual point-radial (PR) SUM acceleration-flow _as_ a 'particle'. Though we humans observe particulate mass objects (PMO's) as in motion with respect to each other at 'slower' than the speed of light, the acceleration-flow _rate_ of the SUM as such a PMO is greater than the speed of light relative to the SUM-flow rate as the 'empty space' surrounding that PMO. The 'length contraction/time dilation' applies to the acceleration _rate_ of the SUM's flow as a PMO, thus the 'density' of such a PMO relative to the surrounding 'space'. Hope that's not too crude a tangle. Pretty sure the rest is a matter of logically connecting the dots.
@cubeduncertainty9401
Жыл бұрын
👍
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
👍👍
@robertdouglas7248
Жыл бұрын
Who are you ?
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
A guy who likes talking about physics a bit too much
@oatlord
Жыл бұрын
Algorithm
@mikebellamy
Жыл бұрын
BIG BANG Gravity Problem: 1. Big Bang assumes energy and matter from nothing in a quantum singularity or fluctuation 2. The density is quoted variously as extreme to infinite 3. The total mass of the universe curves space and shapes the universes destiny 4. Black Holes have an escape velocity at their event horizon equal to the speed of light 5. The size of a Black Hole is measured by its mass which gives the diameter of the event horizon 6. The mass of the universe is ~1e80 protons = 6.7e53 Kg 7. The formula for escape velocity = (2GM/r)^0.5 Therefore r = 2GM/v^2 8. Given M = 6.7e53 Kg and v = 3e8 m/sec therefore Dia = 2.r = 52.5 billion light yrs 9. The universe cannot at any time have been smaller than 52.5 billion light yrs in diameter 10. This is called the Schwarzschild's Radius of any mass and is well known 11. Hence the matter in the universe can only have been created *after the expansion of space..* *The Big Bang is falsified as a violation of the law of gravity! Q.E.D.* This is uniquely consistent with the Genesis account of creation of stars on day 4 after the expansion of space. Also _"Let there be light."_ on day 1 explains the uniform CMBR being a burst of photon energy with no mass.
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
I think you're forgetting about inflation.
@mikebellamy
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy I suggest you find out how big the universe was supposed to have inflated itself to first.
@rumdore
11 ай бұрын
If our Universe is much smaller than its Schwarzschild radius, does that mean we live in a black hole? No, it doesn't. A black hole is a region in space where some mass is squeezed inside its Schwarzschild radius, but the Universe is not "a region in space". There's no "outside the Universe". If anything, you might call it a white hole, the time-reversal of a black hole, in which case you could say that the singularity is not something that everything will fall into in the future, but rather something that everything came from in the past. You may call that singularity Big Bang.
@mikebellamy
11 ай бұрын
@@rumdore No the universe is *not* _"smaller than its Schwarzschild radius!"_ It just never could have been in the past. READ IT AGAIN!
@rumdore
11 ай бұрын
@@mikebellamy Like OV said… you need to read up on inflation
@___frosty-zx
Жыл бұрын
comment section is 💀
@viktorkadza
11 ай бұрын
Whoot accent is thish?
@gusnemides458
Жыл бұрын
Gravity is not a force!
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
Depends which physicist you ask and in what context 😅
@gusnemides458
Жыл бұрын
Be careful who you hang out with@@OVAstronomy
@mightytitan1719
Жыл бұрын
@@OVAstronomy no gravity isn't a force it is effect of bending of space -time
@OVAstronomy
Жыл бұрын
@@mightytitan1719 Indeed, as discussed at 11:00 , the point is that gravity is difficult to model on quantum scales even if GR works well at modelling it as spacetime curvature towards mass. It really does depend on the physicist and/or context.
@MrCorniere1
Жыл бұрын
If you can calculate the force between two objects as it is at the beginning of that video, then the force given by gravity is all real!
Пікірлер: 185