/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12666113]

What does /sci/ think gravity is on a quantum level?

[Anonymous No.12666115]

>>12666113
What?

[Anonymous No.12666119]

>>12666113
probably something to do with the form that quantum foam takes on a planetary scale. Gravity is proven to be a higher dimension so imo it makes sense that we haven't really be able to incorporate it at a quantum level. It just isn't the same "shape/position" at scales that small

[Anonymous No.12666237]

>>12666113
Like electromagnetism, gravity is also predicted to have infinite range, and thus its quantum nature.

[Anonymous No.12666238]

>>12666113
Its the weight of your mom bending spaceytime downward

[Anonymous No.12666333]

gravity is just there, stop trying to give names and numbers to everything, nerds

[Anonymous No.12666490]

i actually am in the process of writing gravity into quantum theory

[Anonymous No.12666513]

>>12666333
>he doesn't like order
why not just kys and return to chaos then faggot??

[Anonymous No.12666615]

>>12666113
everything has energy. energy has some sort of magnetism.
end of story.

[Anonymous No.12666624]

>>12666119
>Gravity is proven to be a higher dimension
qrd?

[Anonymous No.12667984]

>>12666624
https://youtu.be/Xc4xYacTu-E
this video has a lot of good examples (especially the one with the globe) but basically general relativity proves that space and time are the same/inherently connected. And that gravitational pull AKA the concept of 'down' is actually just a translation through another dimension, somewhere higher than the third.

[Anonymous No.12669307]

>>12667984
Wouldn’t we be able to observe the 3D parts of gravity if that was true? And I don’t mean it’s effects, I mean what it literally looks like.

[Anonymous No.12669364]

>>12666113
it’s string theory. how am i the only person here to state the scientific consensus opinion?

[Anonymous No.12669417]

On a quantum level particles move randomly everywhere. Kind of like Brownian motion. They take a tiny step (maybe like Planck length) towards a random direction gazillions of times a second (maybe every Planck time).

Since there is more space where other particles/energy exists (stress-energy-tensor) particles are more likely to move towards each other than anywhere else. So during these gazillions of tiny motions they are slowly and randomly drifting towards each other.

It might seem that this wouldn't explain the acceleration that we see with gravity but that's a longer topic. You need to read about John Wheeler's Geons and realize everything (momentum too) only consists of compressed space and it will make sense. Momentum is the compression vector of the space that builds particles.

[Anonymous No.12669469]

>>12666113
>quantum level?
what is this smallest dividable limit & how close to interferometer detection is our best lock-in-amplifier designs?

[Anonymous No.12669477]

>>12666513
Entropy can never be reversed

[Anonymous No.12669487]

>quantum level?
what is this smallest dividable limit & how close to interferometer detection is our best lock-in-amplifier designs?
can we prove amounts of gravity are discrete?

[Anonymous No.12669494]

>>12666113
just seems fun so why not?
if you were making it where would you put it

[Anonymous No.12669568]

>>12669477
Yes it can.

Entropy is simply due to randomness and statistics. It's kinda like Casinos. The house always wins. Not because it's a must or a law but because it's so likely that it should almost never not happen.

[Anonymous No.12669739]

I unironically believe string theory is the best approach we currently have, but the math is so fucking hard that no one is able to predict new stuff.

[Anonymous No.12669753]

>>12669739
We use quantum-mechanics & relativity shit all the time doing or making shit in the real world.
Proof is always in the puddings we engineer because of it.

Why does string seemingly structure itself to be both unprovable & utterly pointless anyway?

[Anonymous No.12670198]

>>12669307
well, yeah. All planets and stars are round. The accumulation of matter does indeed give us a 3D 'shadow' of what 4d space time looks like.

[Anonymous No.12670209]

>>12669753
>Why does string seemingly structure itself to be both unprovable & utterly pointless anyway?
one thing to keep in mind is that originally string theory was the dual resonance model of hadrons and the dual resonance model was actually quite predictive about the properties of nuclear resonances. regge trajectories and all that

the reason it got the way it is is that the string formalism was adapted to quantum gravity instead and naturally that lives at super high energy. string theory has basically no free numerical parameters and all of the ambiguities come from dynamics. so in order to fit it to data it isn’t a matter of tuning some numbers like in the standard model or the dual resonance model—instead it amounts to solving the theory. and solving the theory is basically known to be a dead end ... imho this is really because string theory is known to be a limit of M-theory, but M theory has no nonperturbative formulation yet (but it could if someone discovers it) so some ingredient towards finding the right solutions is probably missing until we formulate M theory

[Anonymous No.12670235]

>>12669364
/sci/ would rather shot themselves on the foot than admit string theory is useful for anything

[Anonymous No.12670257]

Nobody was ever able to explain gravity to me, despite asking teachers for more than ten years.

The moon is drawn to the earth- but what is the medium?
How does gravity act on distant objects through space?

I speculate personally that Gravity is to time what energy is to matter.
Gravity is the force generated in the relationship of time and mass.
Gravity is not the force that attracts mass to mass, it is the force that attracts mass to the previous position of mass.
It's sort of an expression of lag, objects travel through both space and time- and anything that moves through time faster generated gravitational pull.
The actual medium gravity effects objects through is the R4 time plane.
I speculate that objects that move through time faster than they move through space would sort of shrink

[Anonymous No.12670261]

>>12669477
good rule of thumb for the observable universe- but not necessarily true.

[Anonymous No.12670272]

Gravity is a foam you faggot. Gravity is "real" and the spaces in the gravitational foam are "not real" i.e matter. Have you even watched Insterstellar yet?

[Anonymous No.12670274]

>>1267020/
>DARK MATTER/ENERGY got nuttn on us, nigga!!
such is life
-Ned Kelly.

[Anonymous No.12670277]

>>12670209
>DARK MATTER/ENERGY got nuttn on us, nigga!!
such is life
-Ned Kelly.

[Anonymous No.12670286]

same as the other forces, it's a field quantified by its elementary particle, the graviton

[Anonymous No.12670328]

>>12670277
dark matter is not an issue for string theory. dark energy sort of is though, since naive string theory predicts a 0 or negative cosmological constant, but modern string theory has constructions that can make it work out to agree with observation (e.g. KKLT). though there is some ongoing discussion about this related to swampland studies

[Anonymous No.12670336]

>>12670328

[Anonymous No.12670464]

>>12667984
>basedboy in the thumbnail
yeah, nah

[Anonymous No.12670873]

>>12670464
>t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.12671204]

>>12670286
Yuh

Stilk confused as to why gravity is weaker than time and space

[Anonymous No.12671207]

>>12669364
>String theory
>Scientific consensus
Lel. Larp detected.

[Anonymous No.12671571]

>>12666113
the tendency for complexity to grow