Experiments Show Gravity Is Not an Emergent Phenomenon

MIT Technology Review ^ | 08/24/2011 | Staff

[Yardstick]

Gravity is merely the effect of everything growing larger.

[Unruly Human]

So, I still have to go to work tomorrow?

[Boogieman]

I had a thought about why time dilation and velocity are linked in Relativity. Imagine that time is caused by our 3 dimensional universe moving at the speed of light through a 4th dimension. We move through this 4th dimension at a constant rate and direction, which is why time seems to flow one-way at a contant rate. The kicker to this idea is, that the velocity limit of the speed of light applies to the SUM of our motion in the 3 spatial dimensions and the 4th time dimension. So, any spatial motion would have to reduce the velocity of an object through time, since everything is already moving at the speed of light in the 4th dimension. Of course, this effect wouldn’t be noticeable at everyday speeds, since they are so much smaller than the speed of light, the time distortion is negligible.

I’m still trying to work out a few things about how that could actually work, but I think it’s an interesting idea.

[Cyman]

My guess was that it is a property of dark matter.

[yarddog]

It is probably best to just watch and enjoy “Star Trek” rather than think too much about it.

They do make some weak attempts to explain why everyone speaks American English but that has to be a big what if too.

[concerned about politics]

But there is NO Physicist now alive who believes that Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally correct.

They still teach it at the colleges. I talked to a professor at the local college (because I wanted to know if he taught a class on quantum.) that didn't believe in Quantum physics at all!
If it's now considered bunk, then why the heck are students still forced to take it and pay for it?

[CharacterCounts]

Gravity is certainly no friend of my emergent phenomenon.

Would your wife describe it as a phenomenon?

[FredZarguna]

Well, having taught Physics to undergrads for a number of years, the answer is this: on the ordinary scale of things useful for a very large part of physics, chemistry, biology, weak gravity astonomy, telemetry, and almost all of engineering that isn't EE, Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly well. It is an amazingly accurate approximation; the conceptualization is much simpler, and the mathematics is an order of magnitude or so easier. On these scales, for these professions, there is no reason to teach quantum mechanics, so it is not taught except for those aspects particular to a given discipline.

I don't know what your local college is, but there is no mainstream Physicist who doesn't believe in QM. None.

[FredZarguna]

If you mean the "matter" hosed out of milking parlors, or shoveled out of horse barns, then yes, that is usually dark, and it is exactly what he's been writing about on this thread.

[Jack Hydrazine]

So does this mean that there are gravitons in the universe?

[concerned about politics]

I don't know what your local college is, but there is no mainstream Physicist who doesn't believe in QM. None.

Really? Beside that one professor, at the beginning of almost every book I've read on the subject, there's always a quiet "debate" between the two sciences, as if there's some kind of scientific struggle going on behind the scenes.
I'm glad you told me that. I'm not a science major, but Quantum physics fascinates me. I'm thrilled to learn there is no more debate. It's an amazing science, but when I try to explain it to some one, the scientific jargon escapes me. (I'm not well versed in that at all.)

[FredZarguna]

There aren't two distinct sciences. Quantum Mechanics includes Newtonian Mechanics as a specialized, limited case. There is even a rule of thumb called "the Correspondence Principle" in QM which specifies that in the limit of large quantum numbers you are supposed to be able to get back to the same results as classical physics (what you are calling "Newtonian.")

[FredZarguna]

At a certain age, just “emergent” is enough.

[fhayek]

Okay . It has been long been my belief, and I am NOT a physicist, but I do watch the Science Channel and all. But it is my belief that gravity is NOT a property of matter, but matter is a property of gravity. When you look at it that way, everything changes.

[bigheadfred]

Thank you for the cogent reply. But I, in my bigheadfredlessness, meant The Unification Church, where, the goal is pursued so single-mindedly and without regard for its plausibility that it takes on the aspects of zealotry. ;-)

I would like you to take a look at my book if you have any leisure time.

Bigheadfred's Incoherent And Incomprehensible Rantography

[Arthur McGowan]

A Poem (by me)

Dear Mr. Buffett:

Shuffett.

[the invisib1e hand]

thanks. i think relativity, as popularly expressed, is mental masturbation.

[bigheadfred]

At a certain age, just “emergent” is enough.

I know what you mean, but does everybody else????

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2768587/posts

[antidemoncrat]

Maybe the folks behind this theory are quarks!

[the invisib1e hand]

I came across this completely by accident, thought you might want to check it out. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technology/hong-kong-physicists-put-an-end-to-time-travel-talk/story-fn7celvh-1226101130129