/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9653655

By transforming itself in such a manner that it breaks free from the set path of entropy.

QED
Free will.

>>9653655
Now prepare for headpats...
Lewd headpats.

>>9653655
I don`t know but I got a question too.
Is gravity affected by gravity?

>>9653659
Only if you can generate a gravitational force.
The earth has a naughty secret though that no one really acknowledges and hiding in plain sight.

If gravity is a wave, how does matter generate this wave? Where is the energy for this gravity wave coming from?

>>9653660
Explain.

>>9653665
it's flat

Is it possible for gravity to be a particle too, like a photon?
Can the double slit experiment be done with gravity?

>>9653665

"Do you believe in magic in a young girl's heart?
How the music can free her whenever it starts?
And it's magic if the music is groovy
It makes you feel happy like an old-time movie
I'll tell you about the magic, and it'll free your soul
But it's like trying to tell a stranger 'bout-a rock and roll"

LDBWWFEW

>>9653668
lol

>>9653672
... if gravitons do exist (they probably do) they'd have a wavelength so long that you'd need a detector the size of jupiter to measure them.

>>9653655
>How can gravity escape the event horizont of a gravitational singularity?

The transmission of gravity is not dependent on or influenced by whatever space time curvature is already present.

>>9653659
>I don`t know but I got a question too.
>Is gravity affected by gravity?

Based on observations with LIGO and existing theory, nope.

>>9653673

https://youtu.be/-SnQ0nSpNac

>>9653665

>>9653655
Mass (or energy) creates curves spacetime.
A gravity field represents energy.
Which means a gravity field has gravity.
This non-linearity in the Einstein equation is why it's so hard to solve (unlike Maxwell's equations.)

What's inside the event horizon can have no influence on anything outside. Maybe the matter which falls into the Singularity vanishes or reappears in another dimension or, literally, in Hell. We'll never know.

Doesn't matter, because it's no longer needed. A black hole is a self-sustaining.

>>9653659
Gravity IS affected by gravity. It's that non-linearly. Linear waves go right through each other. (My professors used to say that if matter was linear, railroads wouldn't need switches. Trains could go both ways on a single track.)

>>9653690
Based on existing theory, yes! Non-linearity again.

>>9653663
A steady gravity field is NOT a wave.
If you change the field (redistribute the matter responsible) objects at a distance only "learn" about the change a bit later. If the Sun was abruptly jerked sideways by half its diameter, the Earth wouldn't alter it's motion until about 8 minutes passed -- the same time it would take for us to see the Sun's motion. If this were not so, we could transmit information FTL by wiggling objects. (Not practical, but you get the idea.)

>>9653749
Damn you....you had to enlighten them "The easy way." didn't you.
Tch. Whatever.

>>9653659
Yes. The linearity of the waves and their polarisation will allow you to interfere with them...
IF you can build something that can generate the wavelength.

>>9653749
Is GR an actual gravity theory? Or is a accelerated field theory? I mean, if we change gravity for electrostatic field, and intead of mass we take electric interactions, should not the GR describe the system's trayectories and interactions?

>>9654181
GR is an actual gravity theory. In fact, it's ALL about gravity. It's the only theory we have currently.

No. Gravity is not electrostatics. Einstein's equations are not Maxwell's. Gravity affects everything equally and it comes in only one form; there aren't "positive" and "negative" and "neutral" (un-gravitated) bodies.

Also, as stated earlier, gravity is non-linear. A black hole is self-sustaining even if the matter within the event horizon vanished. But take away electric charges and the electric and magnetic fields vanish.

>>9653749
Also, since fields interactions are made by "virtual particles", and virtual particles manifest when the field is broken, and since particles can be turn into photons, arent fields, just another state of matter?

>>9653655
And about this, since "virtual particles", or whatever a field actually is, its influence is manifested beyond the effects of its own forces, should not this be the evidence that virtual particles arent what are meant to be? and actually there are "planes of reality" that while they intercat with some objects, the planes dont interact with themselves?

Because a eletromagnetic field does interact with electromagnetic forces, as a force that distributes itself trough all the space, but then, this electromagnetic field can be turned into photons if it get disrupted, but then whe it exists as a field it interacts with the space-time thread.

And how would be the interaction between a gravity field and a electrostatic field, if there is any?

>>9654197
>there aren't "positive" and "negative" and "neutral" (un-gravitated) bodies.

I understand this, but both forces equations are similiar, so Im extrapolating the electrostatic force concept, from the force form of gravity to the GR theory.

We know what causes an electrostatic field, than a gravity field better.

But dont know nothing about gravity, we only know their effects.

>>9654231
>>9654255
You can postulate anything you like.
Physicists would like there to be gravitons. That would put gravity on a par with the 3 other known forces.
But they haven't been found and even if when they are found they won't be the same as the photons which carry the electromagnetic force.

Electromagnetic fields are linear. That's why we can't build energy shields to deflect incoming lasers.
The equations are not the same. The resemblances are only superficial.
Electric field lines are radial (inverse square force law) only close to a charged object. They MUST bend at some point to enter an object with the opposite charge. Electric field lines can never be open-ended. Gravity doesn't behave like that.


Gravity deflects light but light does not deflect gravity (except inasmuch as each photon carries a bit of energy and, thus, exerts gravity.)
No one knows how to build a "gravitor"; the sort of thing which keeps people on the floor in Star Trek, other than by making the floor out of neutron-star matter. Billion tons per cc.

>>9654410
If gravitons existed, would you be able to measure instances of coherence/decoherence because of their interactions with in-phase/out-of-phase gravitons of equal wavelengths, or would such phenomena be impossible given that gravity is nonlinear?

>>9653847
>enlighten
I see what you did there

>>9654441
I don't know.
At the moment I can't even think of how to perform an experiment.
We can't generate gravity on demand and, even if we could, there can be nothing comparable to the double-slit experiment because nothing is "opaque" to gravity.

Since LIGO has detected multiple instances of gravity waves being generated (briefly) there must, logically, be spots in the universe where the waves from two such events arrive simultaneously. Won't try to guess what a fortuitously-placed observer would measure.

>>9654231
>arent fields, just another state of matter
Check out wave-particle duality (outside of the context of just light). The contention is that all interactions between waves can be described in terms of particles, and partical interactions can be described in terms of waves. From that contention the three main assertions that are made are

>everything is made of particles and the observation of waves is fallacious
>everything is made of waves and the observation of particles is fallacious
>all particles and waves are both waves and particles

With the classical interpretation being that there are waves and there are particles and there are special cases like light that are both