Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

nirgal · 2003-08-10 10:09:38

Apollo 11?s Armstrong said that some consider anti-gravity as a possible breakthrough in future years.

Clarke responded that research is now underway to explore methods of controlling gravity. While now a line of investigation that is far-out, he admitted, such research is important, he said, "because the payoff could be enormous."

Link

Adrian · 2003-08-10 18:52:24

I'm rather skeptical myself, but as Clarke says, the payoff could be enormous. NASA has been wise enough to recognise this and has followed up all the promising leads, with a lack of success so far. Interesting to see that Armstrong is out and about again.

sethmckiness · 2003-08-11 08:17:23

Yes, I think much of this research hinges on the actual discovery of the particle that is believed to cause wieght/gravitional attraction. I don't remember it's name.. but hopefully they can find it, or figure it out. be awesome to find a way to block gravitational waves. would make space access a wee bit less expensive, and travel to other planets much quicker..

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-12 14:06:43

Hmmm. . . . . . . I don't really believe antigrav can be developed at all, but if it is, thats great! The whole concept of antigrav sounds very crackpot to me. I reserve my doubts.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-17 02:46:52

Hi Seth!
I'm not sure but I think you may be referring to the Higgs Boson, a so-far theoretical particle which bestows the property of mass.
I saw a question in a science magazine recently, which helped enormously in lowering me still further into a quagmire of confusion regarding particle physics!!

This guy was asking about the yet-to-be-observed Higgs Boson, which is predicted by theory to be a very massive particle (...can you see this one coming?!! ).
He wanted to know, if the Higgs Boson endows all particles with mass, where does the Higgs itself get its own mass?!!!!!!!!!!

Er, well ... you see, it's like this ... um, er ... geeez! My head is starting to throb. Where the hell did I put those aspirins?!!!
:laugh:

Ian · 2003-09-24 11:26:32

Isn't gravity caused by a gravitational well and the fact that space is curved as said in the general and special theories of relativity? Would such a particle not exist if this was correct? Could a spacecraft somehow produce it's own gravitational well or enhance it to make the crew on board more comfortable?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-24 21:21:35

Hi Ian!
The biggest conundrum in physics today is how to reconcile Einstein's relativity with quantum mechanics. Don't ask me why but apparently the mathematics of each, while perfectly consistent and experimentally justified in itself, just won't mesh with the mathematics of the other.
The best attempts to meld the two into a single Grand Unified Theory (GUT) currently involve the use of something called 'string theory'. To the best of my knowledge, this string theory involves representing particles as infinitesimally small oscillating strings which exist in up to 10 dimensions, including time as one of them. (Yeah, I know ... I have enough trouble visualising 4 dimensions, never mind 10!! )

Anyhow, the point is that the curved-space-time explanation of gravity stems from Einstein's work on relativity. On the other hand, I believe the Higgs Boson explanation for gravity is based in quantum mechanics and forms part of the search for a theory of 'quantum gravity' which, if found, would amount to the 'holy grail' of unification we've all been looking for.

If the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, then a lot of apparently very sound theoretical work will have to be re-written. I think it would be quite a drama, resulting in a major re-think of how we understand the universe. But judging by current difficulties in reconciling the two major pillars of theoretical physics, maybe a complete re-think is just what we need!

As for a spacecraft creating (or enhancing) its own gravity well, that's a very tall order, since such control of gravity would also mean control of time (see Einstein) and would automatically imply a gravity-drive!
SpiderMan and some others aren't convinced Einstein got it right with relativity. They maintain that there are other explanations for how the universe works and that the speed of light is not the limit, gravity, for example, being thought by some to propagate at almost infinite speed.
If Einstein's relativity were to be found wanting, and other, better, quantum mechanical explanations were to supplant it, then maybe Higgs Bosons do exist and maybe one day we'll use them to create gravitational fields at will and greatly exceed the speed of light.

These are exciting times for cutting-edge physics. Back in 1903, there were anomalies that didn't fit in with the state of knowledge at that time; perhaps the most obvious being how to explain where the Sun got the energy to keep shining. These annoying anomalies eventually gave rise to a total paradigm shift with the emergence of e = mc^2, a better understanding of the structure of matter, and the harnessing of nuclear energy. All this came about in just a few short decades.
I believe we may be on the brink of a new re-evaluation of what we know and I'm hoping it'll give us access to impressive new technologies and open up opportunities for humanity we can only dream about today.

There are new particle accelerators close to completion. Watch out for news of the discovery of the Higgs Boson ... it could be the start of something big!

Spider-Man · 2003-09-24 23:20:06

Yes, I think much of this research hinges on the actual discovery of the particle that is believed to cause wieght/gravitional attraction. I don't remember it's name..

The graviton is the name of the theoretical particle still being sought for.

I'm not sure but I think you may be referring to the Higgs Boson, a so-far theoretical particle which bestows the property of mass.

Ah yes, the nonsenical, most unfortunately named Higgs Boson... What foolishness...

I saw a question in a science magazine recently, which helped enormously in lowering me still further into a quagmire of confusion regarding particle physics!!

That's because, long ago, particle physicists stopped trying to think logically and abstractly, and fell into the quagmire of pure mathematics, inventing particles to justify their own inane, ?ber-complex equations.

This guy was asking about the yet-to-be-observed Higgs Boson, which is predicted by theory to be a very massive particle (...can you see this one coming?!! ).
He wanted to know, if the Higgs Boson endows all particles with mass, where does the Higgs itself get its own mass?!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, you see that's what happens when you (id est physicists) stop thinking and only mathematicize.

Isn't gravity caused by a gravitational well and the fact that space is curved as said in the general and special theories of relativity?

Not to quibble, but only General Relativity deals with the curvature of spacetime and gravitational results.

Would such a particle not exist if this was correct?

Actually, Einstein's theories essentially preclude the existence of particles, waves, or even a medium for them to be transmitted in that lie outside the boundaries of his statements.

Could a spacecraft somehow produce it's own gravitational well or enhance it to make the crew on board more comfortable?

As in Star Trek? I'd sure hope so.
Theoretically, if we united the forces and discovered how they interrelate, creating a true Theory of Everything (ToE), we could turn gravity on and off with the flip of an electrical switch.

However, if that were the case, we should be able to turn the strong and weak forces on and off as well, for we have unified those with electromagnetism. But, thank heavens, we do not have the power to turn the strong force on and off; scilicet, we cannot make the nuclei of any and all atoms spontaneously fly apart and explode, which could easily become a weapon of unbelievably destructive capability.

You write very well, by the way, Shaun.

The biggest conundrum in physics today is how to reconcile Einstein's relativity with quantum mechanics. Don't ask me why but apparently the mathematics of each, while perfectly consistent and experimentally justified in itself, just won't mesh with the mathematics of the other.

It's actually an aesthetical problem at its most apparent. Relativity is based on a concept of a universe that is smooth, flowing, aqueous, fluid, and lacks the sharpness of points or any part in space having anything less than four dimensions. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, is as its name suggests, a science that deals with the particulated quantity, whole and rigid numbers of the microscopic universe. As the respective sets of equations are based on the two pillars, so too are the pillars utterly different from each other, as starkly contrasted as columns Ionic and Corinthian.

The best attempts to meld the two into a single Grand Unified Theory (GUT) currently involve the use of something called 'string theory'.

For all its musical beauty in conceptual aesthetics, it seemed flawlessly beautiful when I first read it (The Elegant Universe, by Brian Green) ? in fact, I was listening to the Overture of The Magic Flute when I began the book and the initial chapters. It was a lovely inspiration.
But, unfortunately, String Theorists are the next victims in the attempt to reconcile physical physics differences by using more math.

To the best of my knowledge, this string theory involves representing particles as infinitesimally small oscillating strings which exist in up to 10 dimensions, including time as one of them. (Yeah, I know ... I have enough trouble visualising 4 dimensions, never mind 10!! )

It's nonsense. The strings may be able to oscillate in any sort of direction ? but what exactly are they vibrating? The fabric of spacetime? How do strings interact?

They don't. They just... react to one another, somehow. It's an absurdity, like the ten dimensions tripe, which results from trying to develop incredibly complex equations instead of attempting to solve the real problem.

If the Higgs Boson doesn't exist, then a lot of apparently very sound theoretical work will have to be re-written. I think it would be quite a drama, resulting in a major re-think of how we understand the universe. But judging by current difficulties in reconciling the two major pillars of theoretical physics, maybe a complete re-think is just what we need!

My god yes.

SpiderMan and some others aren't convinced Einstein got it right with relativity.

Indeed; let me link you:

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;st=15

They maintain that there are other explanations for how the universe works and that the speed of light is not the limit, gravity, for example, being thought by some to propagate at almost infinite speed.

At least twenty billion times faster than light, aye (vide supra)

If Einstein's relativity were to be found wanting, and other, better, quantum mechanical explanations were to supplant it, then maybe Higgs Bosons do exist and maybe one day we'll use them to create gravitational fields at will and greatly exceed the speed of light.

Sounds good to me.

These are exciting times for cutting-edge physics. Back in 1903, there were anomalies that didn't fit in with the state of knowledge at that time; perhaps the most obvious being how to explain where the Sun got the energy to keep shining. These annoying anomalies eventually gave rise to a total paradigm shift with the emergence of e = mc^2, a better understanding of the structure of matter, and the harnessing of nuclear energy. All this came about in just a few short decades.
I believe we may be on the brink of a new re-evaluation of what we know and I'm hoping it'll give us access to impressive new technologies and open up opportunities for humanity we can only dream about today.
There are new particle accelerators close to completion. Watch out for news of the discovery of the Higgs Boson ... it could be the start of something big!

I reitterate, you write extremely well.

alokmohan · 2003-09-25 04:46:58

With discovery of dark energy,antigravity appars real

Ian · 2003-09-25 09:24:44

Quote
They maintain that there are other explanations for how the universe works and that the speed of light is not the limit, gravity, for example, being thought by some to propagate at almost infinite speed.

At least twenty billion times faster than light, aye (vide supra)

How can anything go faster than light? I heard that if you go faster then light, then you go backward in time. Can gravity go backward in time if it propagates faster than light?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-09-29 01:38:11

I think the point, Ian, is that the same people who believe gravity must necessarily propagate at speeds vastly higher than the speed of light, also believe time is absolute.
In other words, travelling faster doesn't alter time at all but, rather, slows physical processes due to interaction with a proposed ether.
In this new physics (or is it just the re-emergence of old physics?! ), information and matter can indeed travel faster than light, though it presumably becomes harder to push through the ether the faster you go. If all this were to prove correct, a suitably designed starship could leave Earth on a Monday, travel to Alpha Centauri and back by the following Thursday, and the crew would find their relatives only three days older. No time dilation effect. No infinite mass effect. (The only proviso is that some means of 'etheric streamlining' would need to be devised in order to overcome resistance and, hopefully, shield against high energy particles at the same time.)

I hasten to add, I'm not yet convinced relativity is wrong but I think I'd like it to be. Anything which might get us out of this straight-jacket of a 'light-speed cosmic speed-limit', looks awfully attractive to me!

Spider-Man · 2003-09-29 23:15:57

No infinite mass effect. (The only proviso is that some means of 'etheric streamlining' would need to be devised in order to overcome resistance and, hopefully, shield against high energy particles at the same time.)

In the end, I don't think this is possible, nice as it would be. The aether probably is not a fluid so much as a fabric, and probably a fabric that is very, very hard to tear. Carrying one's own, non-moving aether fabric would be the key...but godknows how that is possible.

I hasten to add, I'm not yet convinced relativity is wrong but I think I'd like it to be. Anything which might get us out of this straight-jacket of a 'light-speed cosmic speed-limit', looks awfully attractive to me!

Likewise.

Ian · 2003-09-30 09:19:40

"The aether probably is not a fluid so much as a fabric, and probably a fabric that is very, very hard to tear. "

I'd like to see some proof that the so called "aether" is real. In experiments preformed in the late 19'th and early 20'th centruies, physicists have not had any successful experiments saying that the "aether" is real. I'd like to see more sofisticated expermiments done to try to prove that it is real.

Spider-Man · 2003-10-01 01:16:28

Did you bother to read the articles?

Simply, according to all other experiments (read the original treatise by Van Flandern), an aether is the only logical explanation. That there was no aether for photons to vibrate had always been completely irrational to begin with.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-01 01:49:14

SpiderMan:-

That there was no aether for photons to vibrate had always been completely irrational to begin with.

Perhaps so, though I've since become comfortable imagining self-contained packets of energy oscillating as they move. Maybe I'm fooling myself into thinking this is rational, I'm not sure!
:laugh:

But for a taste of one of the doubts about particle physics that percolates through the recesses of my mind, try this logical sequence:-
1) What's a photon?
A vibrating electromagnetic field.
2) What's a field?
A region in which a force (in this case electromagnetism)
exerts its influence.
3) How is this influence exerted?
By the exchange of particles called carrier bosons.
4) What's the carrier boson for the electromagnetic force
called?
A ... photon .. !!!

HUH???!!

clark · 2003-10-01 13:38:19

And the universe is composed of 11 dimensions, and we exsist in but 4 of them.

Is reality nothing more than vibrating strings?

Perhaps a butterfly's flap can cause a hurricane half-way across the globe, the only reason we can't know now is that we don't see the connection...yet.

Is the universe expanding, or collapsing? Seems a rather pertinent question if you want to talk about gravity.

Of course, I always thought that the question was incomplete, not enough variables. This or that. Expand or collapse. What if it was doing neither. What if the universe is far larger than we might have imagined, and we look upon the our horizon and say, the universe ends there. And far away, on the opposite side of that horizon, perhaps another says the same thing.

And perhaps I am off-topic. Oh well.

If gravity is a force, then what makes 'gravity'. Compressed atoms? To my understanding, the earth, with her mass, is nothing more than a giant compressed atom which somehow creates gravity- is gravity considered energy? IF so, then wouldn't it fall under the law of thermodynamics? What do I have wrong here?

alokmohan · 2003-10-05 05:29:15

Howypu say universe has 11 dimensions.I have heard upto 4.

Pat Galea · 2003-10-05 10:46:29

But for a taste of one of the doubts about particle physics that percolates through the recesses of my mind, try this logical sequence:-
1) What's a photon?
A vibrating electromagnetic field.
2) What's a field?
A region in which a force (in this case electromagnetism)
exerts its influence.
3) How is this influence exerted?
By the exchange of particles called carrier bosons.
4) What's the carrier boson for the electromagnetic force
called?
A ... photon .. !!!
HUH???!!

I think step 2 is causing the problem.

"What's a field?" "A region in which a force exerts its influence."

Yes, but that's not the pertinent attribute of a field to this argument. A field is an array of potentials, in this case electric and magnetic.

The self-sustaining wave known as a photon depends on the electric and magnetic components continually generating each other. AFAIK, there's nothing to suggest that this 'internal' physics of the photon has to be mediated by another photon. It's just a wave in the field, not the potential at one part of the field being transmitted remotely to another part via a photon.

Of course, it might be that virtual photons are required to make this work, but I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to be that way, so there's not necessarily a contradiction (or endless regression).

[Even if there is an infinite regression, that's not necessarily a problem. If each photon requires 'smaller' photons to sustain it (and I'm deliberately not defining 'smaller'), then you've got an infinite sum; but as 'every schoolboy knows', an infinite sum can result in a finite value. (And I've deliberately not defined what I'm summing.)]

Crazy li'l ol' universe, huh?

Shaun Barrett · 2003-10-12 07:35:51

Thanks for the reply, Pat!
Nice of you to visit the recesses of what passes for my 'mind' and good of you to take the trouble to attempt to relieve my confusion.
I admit that step 2 is the weak point in the sequence and, to be honest, I knew my semi-humorous assessment of how photons work wouldn't stand up to close scrutiny. If there were really a glaring fault in the logic, I'm aware somebody would have noticed it before now!

Your explanation(s) are well thought out and I'm happy to accept them ... or at least as happy as I am to accept explanations for anything this hard to visualise!!
In as much as some philosophers have argued that our thoughts are defined, and limited, by our language, I believe many of the concepts of modern physics cannot be fully grasped by anyone with less than a thorough understanding of higher mathematics. i.e. It takes someone who 'speaks mathematics' as the rest of us speak our mother tongue.
Those of us with little more than highschool mathematics are left to do the best we can with the tools we have. But still, I love to think about it all!
Cheers Pat!!

alokmohan · 2003-10-19 04:17:09

And that eleven dimention horrifies me.

Ian · 2003-10-20 17:56:47

"As the respective sets of equations are based on the two pillars, so too are the pillars utterly different from each other, as starkly contrasted as columns Ionic and Corinthian"

I also agree that the two pillars are very different from each other. Would those pillars be quantum mechanics and general relativity? Those two pillars can't be easily unified. How can a gravitational field exist in a gravitational well?

Spider-Man · 2003-10-20 20:44:24

How can a gravitational field exist in a gravitational well?

Nice. That's going in my AIM profile.

dicktice · 2003-10-21 10:09:22

I doubt, from what I've read, that Albert Einstein came up with his conceptions mathematically, but rather adapted borrowed math to prove (?) them. That's smarts!

Ian · 2003-10-21 11:02:19

What about the "missing mass" of the universe that is called "Dark Matter? I heard that some people are doing an experiment to prove whether or not dark matter is passing through solid rock on our planet. I heard also that they are calling this dark matter "WIMPS". Why are they calling them that?

Euler · 2003-10-22 17:53:31

Astronomers have calculated that the stars in a galaxy do not have enough mass to hold the galaxy together by themselves (according to the standard laws of physics). This has caused many scientist to search for "dark matter" that would explain why the galaxy does not fly apart.

WIMPs are Weakly Interacting Massive Particles. They are hypothetical particles that are difficult to detect, but which may have enough mass to account for most or all of the dark matter.

Some astronomers also are looking for MACHOs, MAssive Compact Halo Objects. These would be things like stray planets, burned out stars, and other large chunks of matter that do not emit much light. However, there do not seem to be enough MACHOs to explain most of the missing mass.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-08-10 10:09:38

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#2 2003-08-10 18:52:24

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#3 2003-08-11 08:17:23

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#4 2003-08-12 14:06:43

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#5 2003-08-17 02:46:52

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#6 2003-09-24 11:26:32

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#7 2003-09-24 21:21:35

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#8 2003-09-24 23:20:06

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#9 2003-09-25 04:46:58

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#10 2003-09-25 09:24:44

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#11 2003-09-29 01:38:11

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#12 2003-09-29 23:15:57

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#13 2003-09-30 09:19:40

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#14 2003-10-01 01:16:28

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#15 2003-10-01 01:49:14

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#16 2003-10-01 13:38:19

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#17 2003-10-05 05:29:15

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#18 2003-10-05 10:46:29

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#19 2003-10-12 07:35:51

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#20 2003-10-19 04:17:09

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#21 2003-10-20 17:56:47

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#22 2003-10-20 20:44:24

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#23 2003-10-21 10:09:22

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#24 2003-10-21 11:02:19

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

#25 2003-10-22 17:53:31

Re: Armstrong: anti-gravity a possible breakthrough

Board footer