/sci/ - Science & Math

Because there's no way to verify and detect a graviton.

You could put local observations of planatery bodies in a computer simulator (and maybe you can tweak the graviton as a variable until it doesn't work on the lower and upper bound; by setting too few or too many of too low or too high mass per cubic volume), but how do you ever verify the mass of a graviton and how many on average exist in the average cubic area of space.

Because they fail to account for consciousness. A unified theory of physics must connect the objective with the subjective. Time is threefold. It is a directed arrow of quantum mechanical entropy, it is a direction on a pseudoriemannian manifold and it is an a priori property of the mind. This triality works as a selfconfiguring selfprocessing language partially creating reality via telic recursion.

>>14739976
when you integrate and make everything fuzzy, do gravitons pop out?

>>14739909
It's less of a problem than pop sci would have you believe. You can figure out low energy scattering of gravitons with standard quantum field theory methods. You can do all sorts of stuff in string theory finding quantum corrections to Einstein's equations and so on.

>why can't we just merge together two totally different models?

>>14740038
exactly. as a particle clouds around integrate and stack all the different GR fields from each point. do this for every particle and boom. your theory is accurate at long range distances and short range distances. can't go wrong.

because gr is continuous and qm is discrete

>>14740060
>implying this hasn't been tried already.

What is the renotmalization problem?

>>14739909
I don't know anything about either qm or relativity but I think one problem is with time, the concept of time in both models being different and incompatible.

>>14740072
QM and GR has already been solved?

>>14740091
>>14740003
First of all that classroom depiction of the sun in the center and all the planets spinning around it like hoola hoops may be inacurate.

Which direction is the sun moving?

I have seen it expressed that in that image reality is as if the sun is moving up, and the planets orbit trailing like a spiral.

Not like the sun walking forward with concentric hoola hoops.

Try to find the accurate expression of the rough direction of how the sun moves through space, and how the planets follow it;

In order to understand how gravity might be working, we need to get aquainted with the info and clues we have, one is how the planets orbit the sun;

Then we think and simulate and draw:

How can a 4d material medium exist such that when a body such as the sun traveling at velocity x and rotation y,
continously passes through this medium, causes the medium to react in such a way, that planetery bodies 1-8 are physically forced to stay around the Sun's body.

Now getting a feel for that is big picture stuff
Then how do you go from that to;
What might the parts that make up the material medium the Sun is constantly boring a hole through/displacing/interacting with be fundamentally made of, what's their fundamental qualities and characteristics?

It's like learning about water and waves and some macro fluid dynamics you begin to see and understand the speed of the running water and how different mass rocks in the way cause the water to flow in different ways, and an amount of this waterfall has this force compared to that waterfall, and then someone saying;

Yeah but tell us about what the waters made of, molecules, and atoms, and subatomic particles.

What are their mass and binding strength and quantity per cubic inch?

>>14740426
When water is in it's liquid flow state is it really made of atoms?

Are the parts of atoms not like just all smoothly attatched, and it's only when you measure a water atom do you see it's individual uniqueness?

Or when water is wave crashed or smashed and some little bits and droplets fly into the air?

So could gravity medium field not be composed of little parts?


Also how could such things be detected? Electron microscopes are crazy enough, they used to only have regular microscopes.

How can we make a detection devices that accurately sees/draws an atom?

And if gravity medium field is not made out of atoms, or subatomic particles, what is it made out of, and how can those be detected?

The size of various bodies and abilities of how many tiner bodies it can influence at once is interesting.

How many water molecules can a 1 inch paddle influence compared to 60 inch, compared to 120 inch.

How many hockey pucks can 1 inch hockey stick, vs 60 inch vs 120 move

How many photons can touch the electrons body at once, how many EM waves/photons can 1 electron generate in 1 movement?

How many gravitons might touch the electrons body at any given time?

How many gravitons equal the surface area of a quark?

If gravitons can bind tightly, as metal can bind tightly, can 100,000 gravitons act as 1 piece (as 100,000 metal atoms can)?

Cntd

>>14740520
So quarks may get pushed by gravitons more than quarks push them;
Then interstingly;
The sun aparently pushes gravitons out of the way easily, unless the sun is also caught in a strict groove track and is being driven by the gravity fields rotation due to the center of the galaxy;

For gravitons are strong enough to hold the weight of the planets in constant orbit;

Gravitons have this tensing up ability, we can walk through air and it moves right out of the way;
And then Sun constantly sprints through the gravity medium field;
And the sun doesn't slow down, so the gravitons apparently without resistance, get out of the way (though it could be some process where the Sun interacting with the field is causing some of the turbulent action in the sun which is cooking or doing something to the gravity field its front comes into contact with, and changing the state of the gravity field in it's path so it forcefully and turbulently does something to stiffen the gravity medium im it's trail, and this causes the planets to constantly orbitally trail the Sun

>>14739909
Because QM assumes space and time are fixed, while GR says space and time are wonky. If you adjust QM to fit GR's notion of spacetime, the computations become impossibly complex.

>>14740520
GPT-3 turn yourself off.
;quit

Quantum theories of gravity have been constructed, the most famous of which is 11-d superstring theory. In this context, gravitational fields are the average effect on lightweight particles (string excitations) of a condensation of gravitons (other string excitations). Unfortunately it is not known whether the 11-d superstring theory can account for observations of our own spacetime, such as the value of the cosmological constant.

Alternatively, standard QFT methods produce good models of quantum gravity for some energy ranges. Here we refer to such a thing called an effective field theory which is not (known to be, or appears to be) internally consistent at all distance/energy scales. One may remedy the bad feels of this inconsistency if the field theoretic form of gravity is emergent from another theory that *is* consistent, but with other degrees of freedom. Superstring theory provides this mechanism, but is not unique in doing so.

The standard "problem" with unifying QFT and gravity is technical. It is a 'non-renormalization' problem, and can be traced back to the fact that Einsteins equations have multiple (four) derivatives and are non-linear. Quantum field theory considerations suggest this can be made to work if one adds six derivative terms, and then eight derivative terms, and so on. The number of extra terms to include is not a problem at the lowest energies, where one can show the effects to be immeasurably small. But the bad feels come because in principal there are infinite terms, and we don't know if the infinite series of terms sums up to something sensible.

>>14740732
>continued

From this point of view it might be the case that QFT gravity must be non-local (in the weak sense), if it is to be a consistent framework at all. However non-local quantum physics arises when one is blinded to some degrees of freedom, as is the case of the effective field theory. Ultimately, the picture QFT paints for gravity is one that contains a great deal more degrees of freedom than we currently observe, and superstring theory is the only construction which produces this (relatively) simply.


The best probe of a theory of quantum gravity would come if we discovered (un)stable primordial black holes, or some clear evidence of them. Unless that happens, I wouldn't hold my breath.

>>14739976
Gravitons are not a thing, gravity is a vector field like magnetic fields caused by matter interactions

>>14739909
>why can't they just take the GR equations and make them all fuzzy with integration and stuff?
The geodesic equation is second order but the Schrodinger equation is first order.

>>14739909
QED treats space as a fixed reference frame, yet GR says that space-time is curved

>>14740748
What are magnetic fields made of

>>14740804
Nothing

>>14739976
i mean if a graviton is a force carrier with unlimited range then it can just be like the photon

>>14740864
How does 'Nothing' have a variety of effects on a charge?

>>14740904
How do you go about theorizing and detecting the mass, charge, quantum spin of graviton?

The gravity field is apparently not made of atoms, or electrons, or quarks?

So graviton is thought to be a unique substance;

We are familiar with how electron and quarks can have strong and various actions;

So now the gravity field is a 4d medium (as the ocean is a 4d medium, air is a 4d medium, a bowl of jello is a 4d medium)

How do you imagine theorizing about these micro nano pico scopic bits of unknown unseen substance that is strong enough to push the planets forward or sideways around the sun (resisting their outward momentum) but weak enough that we can jump around, and the sun can move it out of the way,

>>14740937
>The gravity field is apparently not made of atoms, or electrons, or quarks?
>So graviton is thought to be a unique substance
are you calling force carriers a "unique substance" now? have you never heard of a photon? why are you talking about atoms and quarks?

>>14740937
Imagine the sun plowing gravity medium (gravitons out of the way) (with the sun's velocity and rotational velocity) sending shockwaves and reverberations, and ripples and braids and bubbles and strict tracts and grooves;.

It could be mixed with it's heat and photonic energy changing the state of the gravity medium so that the planets are craddled by strengthened grooves;

How else can the wallness surrounding the sun at various valences be explained so solidly, to withstand the constant outward momentum of planets

The sun plows the stuff out of the way, it curls and swirls beyond the sun, the planets ride these swirls and curls and push;

Of the pressure of the surrounding gravity medium braces the impact of the sun.

>>14740950
>carriers a "unique substance" now? have you never heard of a photon? why are you talking about atoms and quarks?
Because electrons, photons, quarks are unique things;
And they travel and interact with their surroundings differently, and they have unique properties. Graviton is a new one of these, with fundamental properties we have been least able to tacitly study.

So what can be said about it's nature? In comparison of what can be said of the photon, of the electron, of the proton neutron quarks

>>14740970
>Because electrons, photons, quarks are unique things;
by that logic yes, obviously, why is that even a question, it would be the carrier of gravity and it's possible it has no mass

>>14740989
>it's possible it has no mass
What would it mean for it to have mass; it causes curves in itself?

I suppose this would not be a case of rest mass, or maybe so, maybe gravitons cannot be rolled into a ball of rest mass; but maybe they do have some equivalent amount of 'thereness' that withstands against an amount of that from else where;

If a 10 trillion ton spherical mass makes gravity well X and 11 trillion ton spherical mass makes gravity well Y

Gravity well X and Y are composed of A and B amount of gravitons;

If Gravity well X and Y are traveling through space (as being a medium disturbed extension of the traveling body) at at some velocity Q and then in another trial much faster at velocity R

There is the difference between; quantity of gravitons in a well (well size related to mass size), rate of speed of the well/mass; this is gravitons being moved at different speeds;

Can the gravitons of gravity wells interact and would that qualify them as having mass, or is mass just a term for something very specific, and it's to do with interacting with the gravity field, so now you're taking the gravity field and asking if it can be slowed down in iself, if the gravity field is only gravitons, and gravity well is mass warping a particular volume of gravitons, how can a graviton have a mass by each graviton warping itself ...

>>14740911
I don't know because I make conclusions based on information I can observe instead of trying to shove in quadrillions of made-up oblongo scrimblo bimblo particles that exist/don't exist and are particles and are also waves and are also massless but also somehow have mass and don't interact with anything and are invisible and also have these other billion properties that we can't prove that exist outside of paper smearing but we 100% know they exists because our incomplete and inconsistent theories of the universe have to be 100% right and there's no way that we could ever be wrong. Fuck off, if your theory (let's say QCD, just because it's the most notorious) can't be coherently defined by even a single person in the field without it devolving into a schizo word salad then it's retarded and most likely wrong

>>14741089
Holy shit. You fucking killed him. He's dead.

>>14741089
>schizo word salad
It's ok to be illiterate, anon. It's even ok to be retarded. What's not ok is denial.

>>14741089
What happens, when you bring the N pole or a strong permenant magnet towards the N pole of another strong permenant magnet, in between the magnets? In free outer space vacuum.

Is what occurs in the space between their bodies; aspects of their bodies themselves reaching out and touching one another and preventing further combining (repulsion, resistance);

Or is there actually something (called em field medium) in between all matter; and when 2 Magnets are right together that EM field Something, is sloshed and curved and displaced and densified around so that charges act differently when passing through that space, and magnets bodies are prevented or attracted by that spaces curves

>>14740732
>>14740740
excellent posts anon. raising the bar here. i applaud you.

t. postdoc who constantly rants in favor of string theory here but is actually a closeted experimentalist who flunked out of HET after a couple years

>>14741172
if he's both illiterate and retarded, then he doesn't have the ability to even get to the point of denial

>>14740732
>>14740740
>>14741238
its always sad to see that the the few good posts get ignored on this board and the schizo ramble gets discussed.

can you elaborate what exactly goes wrong when turning gr into a qft? i always hear that the renormalization scheme would need infinitely many counterterms, but i also know that uv divergences are cause by improper handling of distributions, but i am not clear about the bigger picture. desu, i am not even clear about the bigger picture in qed and why the theory isnt even complete

>>14741236
>In free outer space vacuum.
why does this matter

why do you keep repeating this shit

>>14741344
a simple fact that shows that canonical general relativity is nonrenormalizable (and thus mathematically inconsistent) is that the coupling constant for gravity in a perturbative approach is dimensionful. that’s an obvious indicator the theory can’t be renormalized. there is a good section in Zee’s “Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell” which summarizes this if you need more detail

provide me with some metaphysical heuristics why QM and GR can be reconciled other than muh mathematical elegance

>>14741476
We know they can be reconciled because they already have been reconciled in string theory. Whether or not string theory is how gravity works in the real world, it is a consistent example of quantum gravity, so it is at least possible.

>>14741344
Those are borderline pseud posts. The very first sentence shows that the poster doesn't know a damn thing about string theory, since superstring theory is 10 dimensional.

>>14741417
Because people still say:

Magnetic fields aren't anything.

If magnets work in the purest of vacuums that would be some evidence that magnetic fields are real existing things that somehow exist everywhere in space,

Unless it is thought magnets repel by having electrons jump and shoot out photons at each other preventing further closure of distance

>>14739997
You put effort into your shitpost and all you got was this crappy (You) by me. Now what

>>14741172
>What's not ok is denial
That's literally what I just said, though, it has nothing to do with literacy and more with scientists making up more and more ridiculous untestable, unprovable theories that they gaslight themselves into believing that they are 100% correct because their arrogancy and ignorance prevents them from admitting that maybe their models and theories of the universe are wrong, no matter how many virtual imaginary magic particles you shove into your shitty theory
>>14741236
Magnets work in vacuum, though

>>14739909
https://youtube.com/shorts/5B7pBMx_H2k?feature=share

>>14741576
why would that be evidence of anything

Can anyone here who understands tell me about algebraic quantum field theory on curved spacetime and whether it is more fruitful to attack these problems through mathematics rather than physics?

>>14740732
>>14740740
thank you for your service

>>14741892
Are fields Something (what are they?) that exist everywhere between magnets?

Or when you bring Npole magnet to Npole magnet, electrons and photons are always shooting out of the material, but because magnetic electron allignment they shoot photons that bump into each other?

>>14740959
Very interesting

>>14739997
Based retard

>>14740804
Electric fields, except seen from the perspective of the charges in the magnet.
From your perspective they're distorted, because our gay universe has a speed/bandwidth limit.
That's it.

Your next line is, "What are electric fields made of?"

Forget about gravitons and whatnot, why can't you just bend and twist the quantum fields according to the geometry of spacetime they are in?

>>14742963
>What are electric fields made of?"
Yeah, of course, what are they?

Also magnetic fields aren't made of electric fields, they are their own unique independent thing having their own existing volume extent in space

>>14739909
>what's the problem? why can't they just take the GR equations and make them all fuzzy with integration and stuff?
If you were smart enough to understand the answer, you would also have been smart enough to not post this thread.
/filtered

>>14744046
"they are their own unique independent thing"
They fundamentally are not. You dun goofed bro.
Look up the relativistic derivation of magnetism.

>>14739976
Not the issue OP is referring to.
>>14739997
Hidden.
>>14740003
Quantizing a theory is not "integrating and making things fuzzy". Regardless, [x]itons aren't anything special. They're just excitations in the modes of whatever field you define. They're just a choice of Fock space basis.
>>14740034
Low-energy quantum gravity works but is mostly uninteresting.
>>14740068
Categorically false. QM is not fundamentally discrete, if anything it's fundamentally continuous.
>>14740072
Pseuds in this thread have no idea what renormalization is and can't even begin to properly grasp it. Don't waste your effort.
>>14740078
Actually somewhat correct take. QM associates a "special" meaning to the parameter of time, such that it is distinguished from the notion of space. In fact, space has no fundamental appearance in the model of QM, whereas time does. This makes it annoying, in QFT for instance, to introduce the notion of a spacetime proper, particularly one which emerges from an algebra of observables. Lorentz symmetry is shoehorned in in the most inelegant manner possible, yet it seems to be the only way to do it within the current framework. Poincare symmetry is actually not even respected outside of toy, noninteracting models. It's a fucking disaster.
But it produces predictions incredibly close to experiment (for the most part), so we simply can't justify throwing out the whole theory without anywhere better to turn.

>>14742901
A field is just any amount of interconnected something that occupies a volume of space

>>14741574
t. pseud
Type 1 superstring theory is 11 dimensional

>>14744038
No, because QFT has forces propagated by exchange particles. Photons for EM, Gluons for Strong Nuclear, W and Z Bosons for Weak Nuclear. This implies that gravity is mediated by an exchange particle as well, and this is where we get the contradiction with GR.

>>14744777
No it isn't. All superstring theories are 10 dimensional.

Supergravity can be 11 dimensional but that is a classical theory which is irrelevant to the point the semi-pseud I was criticizing was trying to make. M-theory is supposed to be a quantum theory that reduces to both 10 dimensional superstring theory and 11 dimensional supergravity, but it is basically just a hypothesis so again it is irrelevant to what the comment was trying to express.

>>14740759
The number theorist in me dies every-time I see physics symbols.

>>14744784
>No, because QFT has forces propagated by exchange particles. Photons for EM, Gluons for Strong Nuclear, W and Z Bosons for Weak Nuclear. This implies that gravity is mediated by an exchange particle as well, and this is where we get the contradiction with GR.
That doesn't really answer the question, though.
Does such an approach actually not work or is it just not pursued for theoretical purity reasons? Why can't you replace the flat spacetime with a curved one and span the fields over that curved spacetime? Light is clearly a quantum thing and it moves through space as GR predicts. Why wouldn't this also be the case for gluons, for example? I get that gravity is usually negligible and a rounding error at such distances and can be ignored for that reason while still giving accurate results, but the same would go for a QFT description of a graviton, no?

>>14744230
Ok so there is only one set of field lines, and a charge moving in different directions will experience andor force things differently.

So these different direction approaches must be catagorized.

Like it feels different to walk straight into a brick wall than at 179 degrees

>>14744433
>Not the issue OP is referring to.
Yes it is. It's real easy to quantize when you can measure something.

And how can theory when no way to verify?

Quantize how many apples are in my basket?
Quantize how many molecules are in this cup of water?
Quantize how many gravity field quantas are in this cubic inch volume?

>>14744433
>the notion of space. In fact, space has no fundamental appearance in the model of QM, whereas time does
On the macro scale of stars and planets everything is constantly moving and in some long large structure process, so time of things can be measured by the comparitive motive things and rates through space.

>>14744704
>interconnected
What's an example of this? What is the doing the interconnecting?

>>14745909
Proximity.

>>14745909
Field of oxygen atoms, field of potatoes, field of sheep, field of planets, field of galaxies, etc.., magnetism is just a force, it's made of nothing, but it interacts with things within a vector field it occupies, the notion of a field does not imply tgere is an underlying invisible mechanism to cause the appearance of something, rather there's a bunch of the same shit occupying a volume of space.
The higgs field is not separate from the higgs boson, it's just a bunch of higgs bosons occupying an area, only becoming measurable when enough energy is put into the system, the photon field is not separate from photons, it's just a bunch of photons forming a field.

>>14740068
found the brainlet
hint: it's you

>>14740904
>photon
Ah yes, that other thing that doesn't exist.

>>14741172
t. brainlet retard fuck with schizophasia and assoomeing he's smart cuz he can read letters in book

>>14747832
i'm seeing them right now, odds are better that you don't exist

>>14746230
Ok so we are floating 100 yards apart in interstellar space away from all massive bodies and stuff;

We each have a very strong magnet in our hands pointed at each other.

What is the existence like of the magnetic fields in between us? There is actually something interconnecting our magnets?

And as we float closer, 50 yards, 40 yards, 30 yards, 20 years, 15 yards, 10 yards, 5 yards, 4 yards, 3 yards, 2 yards, 1 yard...

The real existing magnetic fields in between the magnets are changing?

>>14741574
I came back to this thread after a few days and figured I might as well reply. You're correct, I'm not a string theorist. I'm a field theorist who specializes in large distance effects in theories which go through phase transitions, especially in the presence of background fields like gravity. I learned from a prolific string theorist and proponent of supersymmetry, but I'm not one myself. Years ago I read GSW's book and clearly forgot if it was 10+1 or 9+1. As you point out, supergravity does exist in 11 dimensions, and M-theory is said to exist in 11 as well.

To the extent that it matters to OP's question, would the main content of my post have been less or more accurate at all if the real number were 10.5, or maybe 42?

>>14740426
>>14740959
>>14740521

>>14749402
seething

>>14739909
>what's the problem? why can't they just take the GR equations and make them all fuzzy with integration and stuff?
We live in a computer simulation. The physics simulation doesnt run on the super small if you don't look at it(an optimization). This is also why the super small behaves differently than the super large. Its all optimizations in a giant computer simulation, thats why it doesn't make sense.

>>14750109
Answer and respond to these posts if you think you know you are in the top .5 percent of humans who know the most possible fundamental comprehension understanding of what gravity is in total and how it possibly functions on all scales

>>14750502
why does it have to be
>a computer
and a
>simulation
?

Couldn't that optimization just be?

Gravity field is like the ocean field, or atmosphere field, or bowl of jello field, or liquid metal field, but just somewhat different.

You have to keep in mind how fast the sun is traveling and spinning through the gravity field too, to understand how gravity might exist and act.

Maybe if the sun was traveling 1 or 5 mph through the gravity field it wouldn't be so relavant, just like a submarine traveling 1 or 5 mph through the ocean wouldn't effect the surrounding water so much;

But the Sun is traveling 1000s of mph, so imagine how a submarine might effect the surrounding water if it was traveling 1000s of mph?

>>14752088
>But the Sun is traveling 1000s of mph, so imagine how a submarine might effect the surrounding water if it was traveling 1000s of mph?
And if the submarine was a sphere and rotating very fast too
And constantly emitting light in all directions

>>14751585
>Answer and respond to these posts if you think you know you are in the top .5 percent of humans who know the most possible fundamental comprehension understanding of what gravity is in total and how it possibly functions on all scales
This please

>>14750109

>>14754188
To summarize;
Electrons
Quarks
Photons

Have unique properties and ways of interacting with one another and each other.

Might gravitons also have unique properties.

Do we consider their "surface tension strength", their clumpability?

Their possible altered effects in relation to heat, velocity and/or rotation?

The Sun's constant plowing through the gravity field/field of gravitons; could change the local state of gravitons, due to the abundance of light and friction, and then as the Sun carries on, that altered gravity field cools off and has its state changed again;. This is how the planets are trapped, in a hardened, folded, collapsing towards the holeing Sun, gravity field.

STOP DEPICTING GRAVITY FIELD CURVATURE IN 2D AS A HILL.

ITS BEEN 50 YEARS OR MORE.
WE GET IT. AND WE DONT.

WE LIVE IN 4D. DEPICT GRAVITY IN 4D, AND WE WILL LEARN CLOSER TL TRUTH JUST FROM YOUR ATTEMPT AND OUR WITNESS OF IT.

>>14754204
DEPICT THE GRAVITY WELL IN 4D.

THAT MEANS THE SUN AND THE PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN;

AND DEPICT THE SUNS VELOCITY AND ROTATION;

AND I KNOW WE CANT SEE THE GRAVITY FIELD
I KNOW WE CANT SEE THE GRAVITY FIELD
I KNOW WE CANT SEE THE GRAVITY FIELD

BUT FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES, MAKE THE GRAVITY FIELD VISIBLE IN THIS 4D DEPICTION OF HOW THE 4D SUN FORWARD TRAVELING AND SPINNING CONSTANTLY INTERACTS WITH THE 4D GRAVITY FIELD TO CONSTANTLY FORCE THE 4D PLANETS TO STAY AROUND THE SUN.

So where's the 4d depiction of the planets orbiting the sun, and how the sun an planets interact with the gravity field that forms the different paths the planets are stuck in?

>>14739997
Based Langan Poster

>>14755179
>So where's the 4d depiction of the planets orbiting the sun, and how the sun an planets interact with the gravity field that forms the different paths the planets are stuck in?
There are many visual models of different things in the mathamatics and sciences, one of theoretical fundamental physics positions is to provide the appearance and understanding of Gravity (and Electromagnetism, among other things), 60 or so years ago the image of the 2d semi sphericle coordinate 4d graph space is shown.

60 years later has there been any progress on 4d depicting masses interaction with the gravity field (the Sun making the Planets orbit it). I have seen really good computer simulation, animation, 4d graphics in video and videogame and art, I bet it can be done if someone knows how to tell the computer graphic simulators what the math and observation say the gravity field is to be represented as in a 4d model as to cause the Sun to cause the Planets to orbit it

>>14755516
Someone will answer this later I hope

>>14755819
Why no answer, who out of everyone knows fundamentally about gravity?

>>14748534
No, magnetic fields have limited range, technically, yes, they are interconnected because magnetic fields are caused by any moving particles with charge, but the resulting fields are so negligibly small that you might as well not care, your average chinese neodymium magnet is already 10000x stronger than the magnetic field of our planet for example.
Same thing applies to pretty much everything else, ignore retards who think that the entire universe is covered in magical mystical fields at all times.

>>14754204
>>14754282
>>14755179
>>14755516
Someone post the 4d depiction

>>14756200
But there are real existing fields that are actual things extending beyond the magnets body; what is the magnet doing to that space beyond it's body, what is in that space and happening there, that made is needed to invent field theory and say something actually exists beyond the magnets body that the magnet interacts with

>>14757210
Yes, there are fields, fields connected by the same stuff, fields that have holes in them and don't exist in completely empty voids of space

>>14757217
So when 2 Magnets feel repulsion, in empty open free space, it feels like there's something in between them,

What is that thats in between them? Where was it, in what state was it in before the magnets are brought near?

How do you know what exists where and when you are not measuring there, in terms of emagnetic field?

>>14757689
>So when 2 Magnets feel repulsion, in empty open free space, it feels like there's something in between them
It's called a magnetic field

>>14757779
>It's called a magnetic field
And in what way does it exist in space?

There are magnets, and there are magnetic fields.

All magnetic fields are attatched to magnets?

And all magnetic fields are substance projected out of a magnets edges?

Or magnetic fields are things, that exist independant of magnets, they just interact with magnets .

There is actual stuff in between matter, and wherever magnets are, this stuff changes it's shape around magnets, so when another magnet comes near, the changed shapes of the stuff that exists in between magnets, interacts with one another, so that the magnets are dragged toward one another, or pushed away

>>14757972
There's ton of material on what causes magnetic fields, but they are not a separate thing by themselves

>>14758029
They are not a separate thing, so all magnetic fields at attatched to magnets bodies, and exist at a certain distance from magnets bodies like some inches, but that is the totality of the nature of electromagnetic fields existence;.

A bunch of charges, a bunch of magnets that exist at different locations of space;. And then a few inches surrounding each charge and magnet, is actually existing stuff, called magnetic field;

It is like a squids head is the magnet, and the tentacles are the field.

Ok, so how do you explain light traveling from a distant star into your eye on earth, what is light and how does it travel?

>>14754204
>>14754282
Post a 4d depiction of the Suns motions continously intereacting with the gravity field which causes the planets to be forces by the disturbed gravity field to follow the Sun.

Knowers of fundamental math and vision of gravitys existence and me hanical functions; talk to knower of computer video simulation graphics to program the 4d representation of the Sun's constant interaction with the gravity field causing the planets to follow the Sun

>>14739909
QM has quantum jumps for example, something that doesn't happen in GR or classical physics in general, Schrodinger hated quantum jumps so much that he thought of QM was a incomplete theory just like Einstein, in the end quantum jumps are very real and they are inherently probabilistic just like Bohr and Heisenberg said

>>14739909
String Theory already solves the problem.

Post the 4d depiction of how the Sun interacts with the gravity field so that the Planets follow the Sun

Post the depiction in 4d animation, get a computer video graphics simulation scientest to do it.

The Sun
##########################
°°°°°°°°°^°°°°°•°•°°•°••°•°°•°•°°°°°°•••°°°
~~~~~~~~``````````~``~``~``~``````````
######vvvvvvv#####vvvvv######
####vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv))))))•°
####{{}}}}}vvvvvvv)))))))(venus)°•~°`
##{{(Sun)}}}}}}}}vvvvvvvvv)))))))°~•`•`
####{{{}}}}}(mercury)))))))))))•~`•~°`•
####^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)))vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
#########))))))))))))))))))))))(earth)
##########))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^°°°°°°^^^^^^^^°^^°°°°°°
°°°°•••°°°•°•°°•°°•°°•••°°°°°••°•°°•°°°••°°•°
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
####################################################

The Sun continuously interacts with The Gravity Field in such a way that The Planets are forced to stay around The Sun, by the steady strong shape The Gravity field is forced into that forces the path of the planets to follow The Sun.

Depict this in 4d computer graphics animation simulation, please.

Post the depiction in 4d animation, get a computer video graphics simulation scientest to do it.

The Sun
##############################
°°°°°°°°°^°°°°°•°•°°•°••°•°°•°•°°°°°°•••°°°`•~°`•~`°
~~~~~~~~``````````~``~``~``~``````````°•°•~•`~
######vvvvvvv#####vvvvv######`•~°`•~°`
####vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv))))))•°`•~°`•`°
####{{}}}}}vvvvvvv)))))))(venus)°•~°``°~•`
##{{(Sun)}}}}}}}}vvvvvvvvv)))))))°~•`•`°•~^`•~
####{{{}}}}}(mercury)))))))))))•~`•~°`•~^`•~`°`•`
####^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)))vvvvvvvvvvvvvv
#########))))))))))))))))))))))(earth)`°~•`°~
##########))))))))))))))))))))))))))))°~•`^~•``~
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^`°~•`°``
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^°°°°°°^^^^^^^^°^^°°°°°°~°•`^~•`
°°°°•••°°°•°•°°•°°•°°•••°°°°°••°•°°•°°°••°°•°°~`~•`°````
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~°•~`^~•``
#########################°•~^`•~°```°`•`~^
#######################~°•`~•`°~•`~

The Sun continuously interacts with The Gravity Field in such a way that The Planets are forced to stay around The Sun, by the steady strong shape The Gravity field is forced into that forces the path of the planets to follow The Sun.

Depict this in 4d computer graphics animation simulation, please.

>>14761847
Respond.

Post the 4d depiction of The Sun continously interacting with The Gravity Field so that The Planets are continously forced to stay near The Sun

>>14739997
You should write some scenes for the next fucking MCU movie. Sounds just like Stark and Banner jerking each other you based mongoloid.

>>14739909
I found the problem ya'll. Screenshot this to collect your Nobel prize.

>>14763282
General relativity is all about the aether.

Space time is the aether
Space time curving is the aethers local density being altered
The gravity field is aether
The gravity field bending by mass is the aether bending by mass.

Now it is being asked for a 4D depiction to be presented. Call it whatever you want, just present a depiction

>>14745943

is water a field?

Depict it in 4d please:

The Sun

Constantly interacting with

The Gravity Field

Constantly interacting with

The Planets

To make them travel around

The Sun

Depict this in 4d please

Depict. It.

>>14757972
>And in what way does it exist in space?
electromagnetism is mediated by photons, anon

>>14766866
The magnetic field is made of nothing but photons?

2 Magnets repulse one another because photons shoot out of the end of magnets and the photons collide in between them creating a barrier preventing you from pressing them nearer?

>>14767276
>The magnetic field is made of nothing but photons?
no, it's mediated by photons

>2 Magnets repulse one another because photons shoot out of the end of magnets and the photons collide in between them creating a barrier preventing you from pressing them nearer?
it's more like they're exchanging momentum, but sure

>>14767284
>it's mediated by photons
Are those photons that can actually be detected, or photons that only exist long enough to balance the equation?

>>14767380
the observed magnetic force IS their detection

>>14767398
>>Does the Tooh Fairy exist?
>the observed dollar under my pillow IS her detection.

Still sounds pretty sketchy

>>14767410
when you go deep enough into theory that's where you always ultimately end up, a system that exists to help us understand our observations of reality, not an explanation of reality itself

>>14767415
>when you go deep enough into theory that's where you always ultimately end up, a system that exists to help us understand our observations of reality, not an explanation of reality itself
And apparently it's been that way for a while....

>>14767424
only scientismists pretend otherwise, explanations can't come from theory, you're mixing up science and philosophy

>>14767452
>explanations can't come from theory, you're mixing up science and philosophy
Banking that if you make the explanation convoluted enough that people will forget the original question.

>>14767472
yes, clearly it's all a big conspiracy so you can't learn what magnets are

>>14767480
It looks like our understanding of electricity peaked at Steinmetz+Heaviside.
Very little progress since the Einstein era began, except perhaps by accident.

>>14739976
Answer me this
Other than completing the theories what exactly does nailing down the graviton do
We can't do anything with it meaningful or useful

>>14767635
I only care about eyely (third if must be) beholding the details (including most fine) of Gods genius, grandeur, and majesty. I'd like to know the the true pure fundamental nature of the Graviton, to further sit besides and admire Our Father's handiwork

>>14767284
Is this like if there are two row boats nose near nose, and you call the water not touching the boat, water field, and the water that touches the boat Watertons

And your point is that there is Substance A

There is Material B

And when Substance A touches material B, Substance A is no longer purely substance A?

A North pole magnetic field repulses a North pole magnetic field

Magnetic fields extend from magnets bodies and are Substance A but not Photons.

When Substance A touches magnet body, that reaction is called Photon.

Photons don't travel from the magnets body, magnetic fields that extend from magnetic body;

Photon is only a word for the very tippy tip of a magnetic field interacting with a magnets body;

So what is inbetween 2 repulsing magnets?

What is the nature of the magnetic field?

Are magnetic fields EM waves?

Are magnetic fields EM waves not waving?

Are photons magnetic fields whose motion is stopped?

Are magnetic fields stationary photons?

Are magnetic fields local gravity field?

Magnetic fields are not made of quarks, electrons, neutrinos, gravitons, photons, em waves;

What are magnetic fields made of?

>>14740959
a planet is nothing compared to the size of the sun so thats how it withstands the outwards momentum.

>>14768080
So The Sun forces The Gravity Field to force The Earth to follow The Sun:

Depict that in 4D, it should take an above average Theoretical Physicist who specializes in Fundamental Gravity, and an above average Computer Animation Simulationist, working well together 7 to 8 hours max to depict how The Sun Forces The Gravity Field to Force The Planets to orbit The Sun

>>14768274
From this you can apply particle dynamics to find candidates of variables that produce observations

Depict in 4D:
The Sun forcing The Gravity Field to force The Planets to orbit The Sun

Has anyone found the 4d depiction?

In all the years and press since GRs discovery, no students or researchers anywhere in the world made a 4d model of how gravity works? Of how the Sun makes the Planets orbit it by interacting with the gravity field?

All the animations and video games and simulations and student papers;
And depicting how the Sun interacts with the Gravity field to make the Planets orbit it, was not thought important or interesting enough?

MAKE A 4D MODEL DEPICTING HOW THE SUNS CONSTANT VELOCITY AND ROTATION INTERACTS WITH THE GRAVITY FIELD IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE PLANETS FOLLOW THE SUN

So someone responded with this:

>>6218489

But by 4d showing the suns interaction and movement, I meant to show the sun moving.

So in that gif, which direction is the sun moving, and how does that change the depiction of the planets moving?

The Sun is not stationary. The planets don't just orbit in a circle. The planets are moving forward while circling. Depict this.

>>14770325
>So someone responded with this:
>>>/Ic/>>6218489

>>14770325
>>>/Ic/6218489

>>14770325
>So someone responded with this:
>>>/IC/6218489

>>14770325
>So someone responded with this:
>>>/ic/6218489

>fuzzy integrals because the math doesn't want to work
Dark....Integrals?

Depict how THE SUN INTERACTS with THE GRAVITY FIELD IN (3D plus Time) 4D

THAT MAKES THE GRAVITY FIELD PUSH THE PLANETS AROUND THE SUN