The Book Of THoTH

I've read through many of the questions posted about gravity but still didn't notice this particular concept addressed. I'd like to get some thoughts on it.

I simply seek confirmation/clarification regarding my understanding of matter, space, and their respective relationships to each other and to gravity.

I have read various sources that describe Einstein’s theories of relativity and how matter warps space to explain gravity. The usual example given is to imagine an elastic rubber sheet of material representing space, and a large heavy ball (mass) placed in the center of the sheet that is then stretched proportionally depending on the amount of mass. However, my own conceptual example is slightly different and I simply would like to know if my example is equally accurate.

As I envision the subject, the warping of space is actually space displacement. Much the same as a bowling ball placed into a vat of water will displace the water out of its way, so too does matter displace space, forcing it out of its way. It doesn’t just occupy space, it displaces it altogether. The greater the quantity of matter, the greater the amount of space displaced. In this way, matter is creating a "hole" in space while simultaneously acting as the plug for the hole. It seems to me then, the displaced space changes the space density immediately surrounding the matter. I’m not sure whether to consider the space in the immediate vicinity of the matter as being thinned due to it being stretched or to consider it being more dense since space has been pushed out into other surrounding space, or perhaps, something of both. Either way, I conceive some sort of space differential between the space closest to the matter and space farther away from the matter. The amount of differential (gravitational force) is dependent upon the quantity/density of the matter present which determines the amount of space being displaced. I assume this differential changes inversely proportional to the square of distance from the matter as evidenced by the rate in change of gravitational force. And, the gravitational force between two objects is the result of greater cumulative space displacement in the area between them as opposed to the degree of space displacement in other directions from them. If this conception is accurate, then it seems to me that although gravity may be caused by the presence of matter, it is more accurately a property of space displacement rather than a property of the matter itself. Then again, I may be completely out in left field in my interpretation.

Edit to repair text.
Edit to fix spelling.

After careful consideration of the subject matter, I can only say this...

Penthar!

It might help to first look at where the usual visual comes from. At the heart of general relativity are Einstein's field equations, which in a very simplistic representation boil down to

Gab = 8 Tab

The right side represents the stuff that causes gravity; generally we think of mass but it's actually energy (equivalent to mass, by the most famous equation of all time) and momentum. Hence the name: that Tab is called the stress-energy tensor.

A quick note on the term "tensor" if you're unfamiliar with it: tensors are essentially just physical quantities described using some number of components. For example, scalars are things you need only one number to describe, like mass, temperature, or speed--these are said to be tensors of rank zero. Vectors are similiar, except they have three components: things like velocity, acceleration, and force (which require a number describing their magnitude along each of the spatial axes so momentum p will have components px, py, and pz). These are said to be tensors of rank one (there's a pattern between the rank of a tensor and the number of components it has: if the rank is n, the number of components is 3^n). The stress-energy tensor mentioned above is a tensor of rank two so it has 9 components. This isn't some weird theoretical physics construct: a stress tensor exists in classical physics, too. A common example is a beam carrying some load. It will experience stresses and strains along each spatial axis, each of which can be described by a vector (i.e. each one has some magnitude and a direction associated with it). A three-component vector for each of the three spatial dimensions will give you nine numbers to keep track of.

Anyway, back to the main point. It's the left side of that equation that's especially relevent to this thread. That's what you're trying to interpret with your conceptualization. That Gab is called the Einstein tensor and is really shorthand for a couple more terms. The most important of those is called the metric tensor (a metric is a way of measuring or describing the distance between two points). The other terms in that Einstein tensor are associated with and depend on the metric tensor --they're concerned with curvature.

As you probably gathered through your various sources, these equations--this theory--is about geometry. Einstein's earlier great contribution to physics, special relativity, had led to the realization that space and time are very much mixed up with each other. One of his former teachers, the mathematician Hermann Minkowski, had made the leap in proposing a four-dimensional geometry to space--summed up very nicely in this famous quote from Minkowski: "Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality." General relativity takes this spacetime to be a kind of manifold that can be described by the metric. The left side of that equation above is about describing curvature and the distance between points and relating it to the right side--the side describing the mass/energy/momentum on that manifold.

So you can probably see why the conventional conceptual explanation is so popular. The equations of general relativity really are describing how the distance between points/the curvature of spacetime itself is affected by the presence of mass-energy and momentum. Or, in snappier words, how the stress-energy tensor relates to the metric tensor.

Now for your proposal. Is it an equivalent way of conceptualizing general relativity and the Einstein field equations? I don't think so. You said "The greater the quantity of matter, the greater the amount of space displaced" but I'm not sure how that necessarily follows. Your idea would seem (at first glance, at least) to indicate the gravitational pull of an object should depend on its volume. Two different masses of equal volume would displace the same amount of space yet they of course have different gravitational pulls. Here I think you might be incorrectly reasoning from some properties of objects in fluids. If you put two objects of the same shape and volume in water but one is made of gold and the other of wood, obviously you'll see the gold sink to the bottom and the wood float (the gold, of course, having the greater quantity of matter crammed into the given volume). But that's not because they're displacing different amounts of water (which, forgive me if I'm wrong, is what it seems to me you're thinking and extrapolating to your ideas about gravity). Both are displacing the same amount--whatever their volume is. The reason two different things happen is because there are two forces on each, an upward (buoyancy) and a downward (gravity). There is a principle (called Archimedes' principle) that the buoyant force is equal to the weight of the displaced fluid. Since both the gold and wood are displacing the same volume of water, the weight of the displaced fluid will be the same in both cases (namely, the volume of water displaced x the density of water x the gravitational constant)--that is, they both have the same force pushing them up. The wood (being less dense than water, meaning it has less matter crammed into a given volume than water) will have a smaller weight than the water it displaces, which means the force pushing it down is smaller than the one pushing it up. So it floats. For the gold, it is the opposite. But both displace the same amount of water.

There are some other points to consider, as well. Suppose you have a sphere of a given mass with the mass distributed evenly throughout it. Now double the radius of that sphere and make sure the mass is distributed throughout it evenly again. You've now made the volume eight times as large but the mass has remained the same. Simple Newtonian physics (its easier to leave out the general relativity stuff when you're just talking about simple results) tells us that it doesn't matter how big the volume of the mass is (i.e. how dense it is)--to anything above the mass's surface the whole situation is as if all the mass of the object were concentrated at the object's center. Presumably in your conception eight times as much space would be displaced and even if you argued that now the displaced space is dispersed around a larger surface so the gravitational pull remains the same you'd have to account for the fact that the new surface is four times as big as the old one. Putting it all together: the volume and hence amount of space displaced is eight times as large, the surface area is now four times as large, but the mass and gravitational pull remain the same. I'm not sure how your idea accounts for this situation.

Another consideration is a situation where the mass of an object isn't evenly dispersed throughout it. Suppose you have a hollow sphere--make it an infinitesimally thin shell of some mass. As I said, Newtonian physics tells us (if we're outside the shell) we can treat this as if that mass is all concentrated at a point at the hollow center of the shell, which is the same as if that mass was spread evenly through the sphere. But how much space is being displaced in a situation like this? Only that amount that should be where the infinitesimal shell is (which would seem to be a fairly small amount). How does this situation yield the same results as a situation where the same amount of mass is spread evenly though a solid sphere? I'm not sure how you could account for that but perhaps you have an explanation.

Besides all that, I'm just not sure what all this means. It's one thing to talk about the curvature of spacetime by treating it as a manifold described by tensors, etc. But what does it mean to describe it in terms of densities and displacements of the manifold on which all this is taking place? How does the varying density of spacetime shape and define the path of some object through it? I'm not sure and it doesn't really feel right. But I'm no expert on general relativity; just passing on my view.

Penthar,

Thanks much for your insight. I see that I've jumped into some mighty deep water here. I understand your concern about confusing volume with mass. I have considered this in my conception. I know that a 2 cubic feet block of styrofoam will occupy much more volume than a 5 lb ball of lead and that the styrofoam would displace more water because of water's inablility to penetrate the styrofoam thoroughly. I simply wanted to use the water displacement example to illustrate the concept. When it comes to space though, I understand it to be penetrating even to the atomic and subatomic levels, and that an atom is more space than matter. So in the example of the styrofoam/lead, the lead would actually be displacing much more space than the styrofoam even though the styrofoam has a good deal more volume since the lead has much more matter.

I further envision that as more and more matter density is achieved, and more and more space is displaced, that the pressure of space density on the matter itself (seeking to fill the space vacuum/hole created by the matter) becomes greater, pressing the matter components tighter until ultimately the traditional "black hole" is created and the matter is forced into itself. At this point I conceive the matter being converted into its energy equivalent as a true hole in space is punched into another dimension of pure energy. At this stage I conceive a change from space displacement to a true black "hole" in space, and space itself is bent inward to this dimension establishing a constant "space vacuum".

Does this seem at all feasible?

Ah, ok. I misunderstood you--in your idea, masses are in a sense "saturated" with space and so it exists even within massive structures. But unless I'm mistaken again, the problem still exists. For example, take an electron and take a top quark. The top quark is the most massive known elementary particle and is over 300,000 times as massive as the electron. Yet in the standard model of physics (which is admittedly incomplete and open to revision) both are the same size--namely, no size at all. They're taken to be point particles. Now I may be getting hung up on the words you're using but it seems that if you're talking about something displacing space you're talking about physical size and thus implicitly assuming that something more massive takes up more space. That ultimately is not true. You could of course just say that a mass Z will displace Z0 amount of space so that if I have 300,000-odd electrons together they're displacing the same amount of space as one top quark and that's just the way it works. But it makes for a less appealing and comprehensible visual. I should admit that I've done the dangerous and sinful deed of talking about gravity on quantum (tiny, tiny) scales but I did it to make a point (plus, it seemed like you were going there a bit).

All that aside, I'm not sure I understand your picture of black holes. The thing about punching a hole into another dimension of energy is a bit out there and poorly defined. I will say, however, that while spacetime does weird things in general relativity behind the event horizon (that is, inside the black hole) it's still there and hence isn't really a hole in or displacement of it. So that would be another point where your interpretation of the equations diverges a bit from what they say.

All in all, while your idea is interesting, I think that it's not particularly useful in visualizing what general relativity says is happening and it ultimately is not exactly what general relativity seems to be saying is happening.

Yes, I guess this is the way I was considering it. But your point is well taken about them being point particles (no pun intended). If space is not more penetrating into one particle or another, then this concept does seem to break down.

I'm not good at mathematics and tend to try to "see" things in a way that makes sense to me. There's so much in relativity and quantum mechanics that just flat out makes my head spin.javascript:emoticon(':?')
Confused

Thanks so much for your input.

edit/ Tags fixed. --Penthar

Wow, I really need to figure out how to use the quotes and emoticon functions. I got the quote and reply reversed and tried to drag the emoticon.

Historically, the greatest physicists have been the ones with the best physical intuition. Einstein didn't start with the math, he started with his physical insights then used the math to probe it, take it places even he couldn't forsee. Michael Faraday is considered one of the greatest physicists in history and he wasn't very good at math at all; yet a good deal of the electrical devices in use today have their roots in his work.

So it's very good that you try to picture things for yourself; wrong or right, you'll arrive at insights you might never have suspected before.

Bless you Penthar. You are not only a Scholar, but an extremely wise Counsellor.

Sojourner,
My concept on that matter is that the space around us, which was previously perceived to be empty is in fact filled with dark matter and whilst a body displaces that mass the dark matter pushes back with an equal and opposite force, equating to your displacement theory. The bigger the mass displacing this dark matter the greater the consequent pressure on that body. Thus the bigger the body, the greater the mass, the greater the displacement of space/dark matter, and the greater the gravity. In other words gravity is not an attractive force it is a displacement force. Imagine space as being a soft multidimensional matrix and planets as bowling balls of various sizes. Remember that the bigger the ball, the greater the mass and the more of the matrix it displaces, but that matrix is also resisting with the same force exerted upon it. -- NOW you’ve got it!

Bear in mind that many people have got the magnetic field of our planet confused with gravity, mostly due to Newton. He did not realise that things are pushed down towards the ground, not attracted to it like some giant magnet. The earth’s core is like a giant motor, the constant volcanic action keeping that core magnetic, thus it keeps the earth turning and therefore governs our seasons as well as being responsible for creating our atmosphere. Marvellous though it is this amazing engine does not equate to gravity, it is merely a contributory force lending our planet further mass. The beauty of this whole argument is the resistance of space to bodies of mass.

It seems to me that many scientists make things too complicated for themselves and instead of just accepting the .nuts and bolts’ of an argument they feel that have to explain ‘nuts and bolts,’ in great detail sending them off on a tangent of invented words instead of looking at the actual object in question.

Hi there dewarfinch,

I see what you're saying about the possibility of "dark" matter displacement as well. Whether space also includes "dark" matter or not, my mind still wants to perceive that "something" is indeed being displaced by physical matter.

Thanks for your input. It definitely gives food for thought.

I like the idea. It's a very interesting analogy, that I believe has merit.

Perhaps displacement of space by a particle's presence is what gives rise to a particle's apparent size or volume.

I've pondered the nature of the vacuum before, and it always struck me that space was as much of a 'thing' as anything else. To say space is an area of nothing in which not-nothing things reside seems wrong. To say, rather, that space is stuff with other stuff in it makes more sense to me. If you can warp it, it's not nothing.

I think the old idea of "ether" is not as daft as modern science would suggest.

Hi,

I think I know precicely what you mean. I've thought about this too, and I came to a similar conclusion.

Let's just say that matter causes an amount of space to be captured within a very small area, a point perhaps. The space surrounding the matter is elastic and will try to minimalize the amount of stretching. Space would 'prefer' not to be stretched at all. Since some of the space is 'stuck' within a small area in the form of mass, the space will have to look elsewhere in order to minimize stress. It will want to draw space from the surrounding area. The closer to the object of mass, the more the space will need to be stretched, thus the stronger the gravitational field. Two objects are drawn towards eachother, because the space between them needs to be streched as little as possible. Just like stretched out rubber. Does this make sense?

Greetings,

David

Hi astronut,

It sounds to me like you're equating space and matter. That is, you think a particle of matter is somehow made up of a certain quantity of space itself.

This isn't really how I perceive things to be. I think that it has been sufficiently proven that matter has an energy equivalent, but I think space is more of a medium for the suspension of matter/energy in this 3+1 dimensional world we live in.

But thats just my way of seeing it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Suppose space is not capable of penetrating matter at the atomic level? The mass would be the controlling factor for the strength of gravity. Having stronger gravity at the surface of the mass and less strength with distance would seem to make it more feasable that gravity is displaced space rather than space is distorted by gravity. Both Einsteinian and Newtonian concepts would seem to fit. For instance the reason a distant star's light is bent by gravity is because the photons farther from the mass pass through the gravity faster than the photons closer to the mass. Seems simplistic, but I have a simple mind.

There are a few more perspectives required to understand how gravity is manifested. View space as a constant unchanging container ( unaffected by forces of any sort) filled with particles at equilibrium phasing between what is understood as matter and light. Understand that the concept of energy of most beings is skewed beyond all belief, even some — if not all of the most renowned scientist of this world; lol reverse what u have been thought: so far as the universe is concerned --- there is no energy --- only matter and space... The disbursement of Dark Matter is not so important in the journey of understanding gravity, or the expansion of one universal event, as the understanding of "trace light" and the flow of trace light in a circuitous system governed by the total and localized mass of the universe. You must also understand that particles from trace light have an acceleration that is not completely understood and how that forms density influenced by complicated matter( research a phenomena called Pair Production) residual trace light from past universal events and intruding trace light... gravity may only be the remains of light that is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere displaced by the forces created by complex matter or the dicotomy of the Universe ( forces nonexistant before last known universal event). Also gravity may not be a singular force, but the result of a combination of all and not as constant as once thought as it applies to large and very localized phenomena
those particals resulting from pair production are the particals displaced by more complecated matter that you were looking for. yes, view those particals as the water of the universe and the displacment of as one part of gravity...



***** Copyright, all rights reserved*****

Hi B..and..

As a new member..you may like to tell us a little about yourself here in the Welcome section..

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/forum-1.html

You seem to have a little trouble with editing btw (the Preview button can help there)..?..if you need any help..just shout up...

Sorry about all the Edits lol. Here are a few more subjects that will help you with understanding gravity as a resultant force of other forces and how they are unified.
1. propagation of light through space
2. annihilation in pair production
4. elementary particle flux through space near large bodies and the acceleration change of those particles near large bodies.


there is more but you will need to discover that on your own...

Oh yes and i was wrong about Dark Matter as i understood it to be defined. LOL i just looked it up hehe

Hi B,

Thanks for the inputs. But, I'm sorry, that stuff is so far over my head it might as well have been uttered by Professor Irwin Corey.

(For those young whippersnappers who aren't familiar with said professor, See Here.)

I guess I'm just not able to digest too much technical stuff.

Only the government has all the information that is required to understand gravity hehe.

I don't think one can look at liquid displacement in the same way that you can with spacial displacment. They are, of course, related since liquid takes up space, but you are displacing only the liquid when you replace it with a solid object. We often think of space as a void of nothingness, yet we hear the term "fabric of space" thrown around a lot. I would suspect void space is indeed made of something. We are able to detect matter and things which have volume and density, but it harder to wrap our thoughts around something that doesn't appear to be there.
And the word "there", to me, is a good term for a point in space. "There" is a convergence of three dimensions. If you were to pass a solid object through this point "There" would not disappear or become displaced as we often hear. It would simply become joined with the object. I believe it is this joining through interaction with yet another dimension, "time", which causes a reaction significant enough to generate a radial implosion of attactive energy. I believe that would explain why the greater the density of an object, the more gravitational pull it will have. The more matter you can cram in one space, the more it will react with that space, and the more radial attractive energy it will produce.