Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 11/26/02 1:47 pm:
Thank you, but my question was about dark energy (sometimes called the cosmological constant) not about dark matter.
Clarification/Follow-up by bluto on 11/26/02 3:07 pm:
IQ....
My apologies for missing the boat on part of your question. For some reason I had DM stuck in my head when I was reading it.
Oddly enough, the essence of my previous response still pertains somewhat to DE.
It is undoubted that your 'analogy', whatever that's suppose to mean, has holes in it.
If not, I will expect to be seeing your nomination soon for the Nobel Prize. No one has any conclusive notions about DE.
I don't know however, if I agree with your statement that DE is increasing. That seems to be unfounded, altho it's
possible there is some work out there that lends credibility to that.
It's believed the universe is increasing *because* of 'something'....that 'something' being a repulsive-force coined,
unofficially by M. Turner of U. of C...'DE', but as in DM, there is nothing conclusive in the literature to confirm/deny.
To draw an analogy for such a thing to describe to a user wouldn't be a terribly difficult thing.....would it? I doubt they would benefit
from a rigorous dissertation on that topic, so a satisfactory, general description would be best I'd guess.
Like I said before, it would not be difficult to come up with a simple analogy to describe what DE is doing. You're talking about
an analogy, so there's no scientific principles you have to adhere to, nor is there any math that has to be proven.
Just a description to be given describing the essential mechanism of whatever you're talking about. In this case DE.
Am I missing something?
For someone more knowledgeable about it, more specific cases could be discussed. There's always good info to be had
talking about these kinds of things with folks. Ideas, perceptions, reports of various kinds. All good stuff...wouldn't you say?
But using an analogy for someone like that would be fairly moot.
This is about as good as I can answer such a general, non-specific question.
So again....did I answer your question?
Hey...at least I managed to get my brain on topic this time! :)
b~
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 11/26/02 5:44 pm:
I tend to rate answers after followups, not before; that may not always work here...
Your second response gave me several nice chuckles; I doubt there is anything wrong with your brain, or that any Nobels are in my future. But personally, I think analogies are necessary to facilitate understanding, and thus are not moot, because they allow one to first picture a simpler concept, and then take a leap from there. For example, where would we be without Schroedinger's cat?
My original question was generated by a recent Discovery Channel show which attempted to summarize all the cosmological work done on dark energy since 1998. The graphics were stupendous. But they showed simultaneous acceleration and volume expansion of all included galaxies (and space) shown in each graphic. Trying to explain such a vision, to persons not familiar with thinking in 3-dimensional expansions, is, to say the least, difficult; hence the need for a simple analogy. So I developed one, which I call the rubber submarine; I am interested in finding others. Should you have any additional personal interest in that sort of thing, let me know.
My warmest regards, IQ.
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 11/27/02 3:45 pm:
Ignore this test! IQ.
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 11/27/02 3:45 pm:
Ignore this test! IQ.
Clarification/Follow-up by bluto on 12/03/02 9:41 am:
IQ....
I did not see the Disc program. Might have been interesting.
Here's your analogy, which will answer your question.
Imagine blowing up an ordinary balloon, with one exception. The balloon has not one, but two tubes to blow into.
You have no knowledge of the other tube.
So, while you try to blow the balloon up, someone else, behind the scenes is doing the same.
What you see is the balloon expanding at a rate that is not consistent with what you expect. And then the game
is to try and account for the extra air.
b~
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 12/03/02 2:32 pm:
Thank you for your last response. Your analogy is useful, beautiful in its simplicity, and thought provoking. Please let us continue; let us see if anything else useful can be developed...
Please be in no hurry to plod through or to answer this addendum; I offer it primarily for your perusal and consideration in a somewhat longer timeframe. Perhaps we can find some common interest here? I do hope so...
Let us try this one on for size: First, suppose we eliminate "our" blowtube in your analogy, place ourselves inside your balloon, and take with us an air/pressure generator. The generator replaces and mathematically equates to all previous (volume, pressure, time) functions of "our" external blowtube; the other external tube remains as before.
Second, let us expand the analogy of a balloon to the analogy of a submarine. Let us begin with the submarine completely closed (including the undefined external blowtube) but operating like a surface ship, without diving, such that if we run the generator the submarine will become internally pressurized.
Third, let us replace the undefined external blowtube with an infinitely strong but infinitely elastic rubber membrane, which is mounted so as to seal a porthole, or other hole, in the side of the submarine, just barely below the water level outside the docked submarine. If we pressurized the submarine at the dock, this membrane would be expected to bow or balloon outwards; if the submarine slowly sinks in a vertical plane, this membrane would be expected to bow or balloon inwards, unless the pressure inside the submarine was correspondingly increased, with the generator, to equal the increased external pressure. So, we would expect that the flatness of the membrane itself could be used to determine what additional internal pressure is required at any depth, so long as the sub sinks/rises both slowly and vertically. However, moving the submarine against (perpendicular to) the membrane, even at docking depth, would ALSO cause the membrane to bow or balloon inward, from the additional external pressure which is created on that membrane as a reaction to the momentum of the submarine. However, we could calculate the expected external momentum pressure factor for any submarine speed, and for any angle of movement relative to the membrane.
(We also know that there would be a small, but measurable, direct variation of the momentmum factor based upon depth, based upon the very slightly greater (compressed) density of water encountered at depth.)
Fourth, based upon all of the above, let us conceive and build a mechanism which will actually regulate the internal submarine pressure, based solely upon the flatness of the membrane. Thus, at the surface, internal pressure will be a function of only velocity and movement relative to the membrane; at motionless depth, internal pressure will be a function of only depth; when moving, accelerating, or decelerating at depth, pressure will be a function of all the factors mentioned above, including density of water at depth.
So far, so good; all of the above is possible, theoretically. But now add the following complexity to this analogy: When we operate this submarine, instead of the anticipated results, we find that the external membrane balloons inward much more than expected, and/or that, simulataneously, the submarine itself also unexpectedly expands... as if the submarine itself were also made of some kind of expandable rubber. So...
Fifth, we modify our analogy to include a rubber submarine shell structure in the first place, and we also modify our pressure mechanism calculations, and the pressure mechanism itself, to include the generation of the additional pressure with depth, such that we now operate the internal pressure mechanism of our submarine solely from the inwardly-ballooned VOLUME of the external membrane, instead of its flatness. So, as the external membrane grows into a balloon inside the submarine, the submarine increases its own volume by an identical amount, thus maintaining the exact original available and usable internal volume of the submarine.
We have now arrived at the circa 1950 cosmos analogy: The submarine equates to the universe. But this submarine can only move with one velocity and in one direction: a downward dive. So, just as the downward momentum of our particular submarine through ever-increasing water pressure causes an ever-increasing expansion of its shell at a constant rate, we (mistakenly) determine that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, the same rate that was determined by the departure velocity selected when the submarine left the dock, i.e., the Big Bang.
But alas, we once more determine, by observation, that our model still does not predict correctly. Instead, we observe that
the inward ballooning of our external membrane per unit of time is greater than expected. We don't understand why, but to compensate for the error, we merely create a concept called the cosmological constant factor, and incorporate that factor into all of our calculations used to determine pressure external to the submarine, and thus also internal to the submarine when using our new internal pressure mechanism...
We have now arrived at the circa 1985 cosmos analogy. We now recognize that the submarine (universe) did/will expand forever, and thus begin to reanalyze when and how things in the universe did/will occur. Enroute, we rename the cosmological constant "dark energy" (which is a different concept that "dark matter") and incorportate both types of "dark" into our new analysis equations. But alas, that analysis reveals, once again, that our predictor still has a flaw...
The only way we can account for that flaw is to take a mental leap which once again redefines our definition(s) of "dark energy", and which also notices that even that modication cannot account for observed phenomena unless, instead of expanding at a constant rate, the universe is expanding at an ACCELERATING rate.
We have now arrived at the circa 1998 cosmos analogy: As our external membrane constantly balloons more and more into our rubber submarine, that submarine (universe) simultaneously expands, and at an accelerating rate! [Using this particular analogy, I think one can actually form a very accurate mental picture, which uniquely includes and identifies EACH of the many parameters in our current cosmological theory. That is why I would be most interested in recommended additions or changes thereto, and/or in your comments thereof.]
Additionally, the travel of individual galaxies through the fabric of space-time is also somewhat analagous to the travel of our submarine through ever-increasing water depth, wherein the submarine (galaxies, or the space between them) gain "dark energy" from the water and/or pressure-gradient (fabric of space) in some manner which is not yet understood. So the analogy can be used in both manners. Anyway, it appears that additional correlations of dark energy - to travel through water pressure - may be appropriate to our analogy...
One final thought: It appears that the concept of a catalyst MAY be germane here; dark matter cares not about stars, just as any catalyst cares not about the chemical reaction going on around it. Could the energy gained from dark energy be (or include) a catalytic effect?
Well, thank you for your time in reading this. I look forward to any comments you may have, whenever.
My warmest regards, "IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 12/03/02 2:32 pm:
ARGHH! The Answerway formating did not work there.
Please let me try again.
Thank you for your last response. Your analogy is useful, beautiful in its simplicity, and thought provoking. Please let us continue; let us see if anything else useful can be developed...
Please be in no hurry to plod through or to answer this addendum; I offer it primarily for your perusal and consideration in a somewhat longer timeframe. Perhaps we can find some common interest here? I do hope so...
Let us try this one on for size: First, suppose we eliminate "our" blowtube in your analogy, place ourselves inside your balloon, and take with us an air/pressure generator. The generator replaces and mathematically equates to all previous (volume, pressure, time) functions of "our" external blowtube; the other external tube remains as before.
Second, let us expand the analogy of a balloon to the analogy of a submarine. Let us begin with the submarine completely closed (including the undefined external blowtube) but operating like a surface ship, without diving, such that if we run the generator the submarine will become internally pressurized.
Third, let us replace the undefined external blowtube with an infinitely strong but infinitely elastic rubber membrane, which is mounted so as to seal a porthole, or other hole, in the side of the submarine, just barely below the water level outside the docked submarine. If we pressurized the submarine at the dock, this membrane would be expected to bow or balloon outwards; if the submarine slowly sinks in a vertical plane, this membrane would be expected to bow or balloon inwards, unless the pressure inside the submarine was correspondingly increased, with the generator, to equal the increased external pressure. So, we would expect that the flatness of the membrane itself could be used to determine what additional internal pressure is required at any depth, so long as the sub sinks/rises both slowly and vertically. However, moving the submarine against (perpendicular to) the membrane, even at docking depth, would ALSO cause the membrane to bow or balloon inward, from the additional external pressure which is created on that membrane as a reaction to the momentum of the submarine. However, we could calculate the expected external momentum pressure factor for any submarine speed, and for any angle of movement relative to the membrane.
(We also know that there would be a small, but measurable, direct variation of the momentmum factor based upon depth, based upon the very slightly greater (compressed) density of water encountered at depth.)
Fourth, based upon all of the above, let us conceive and build a mechanism which will actually regulate the internal submarine pressure, based solely upon the flatness of the membrane. Thus, at the surface, internal pressure will be a function of only velocity and movement relative to the membrane; at motionless depth, internal pressure will be a function of only depth; when moving, accelerating, or decelerating at depth, pressure will be a function of all the factors mentioned above, including density of water at depth.
So far, so good; all of the above is possible, theoretically. But now add the following complexity to this analogy: When we operate this submarine, instead of the anticipated results, we find that the external membrane balloons inward much more than expected, and/or that, simulataneously, the submarine itself also unexpectedly expands... as if the submarine itself were also made of some kind of expandable rubber. So...
Fifth, we modify our analogy to include a rubber submarine shell structure in the first place, and we also modify our pressure mechanism calculations, and the pressure mechanism itself, to include the generation of the additional pressure with depth, such that we now operate the internal pressure mechanism of our submarine solely from the inwardly-ballooned VOLUME of the external membrane, instead of its flatness. So, as the external membrane grows into a balloon inside the submarine, the submarine increases its own volume by an identical amount, thus maintaining the exact original available and usable internal volume of the submarine.
We have now arrived at the circa 1950 cosmos analogy: The submarine equates to the universe. But this submarine can only move with one velocity and in one direction: a downward dive. So, just as the downward momentum of our particular submarine through ever-increasing water pressure causes an ever-increasing expansion of its shell at a constant rate, we (mistakenly) determine that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, the same rate that was determined by the departure velocity selected when the submarine left the dock, i.e., the Big Bang.
But alas, we once more determine, by observation, that our model still does not predict correctly. Instead, we observe that
the inward ballooning of our external membrane per unit of time is greater than expected. We don't understand why, but to compensate for the error, we merely create a concept called the cosmological constant factor, and incorporate that factor into all of our calculations used to determine pressure external to the submarine, and thus also internal to the submarine when using our new internal pressure mechanism...
We have now arrived at the circa 1985 cosmos analogy. We now recognize that the submarine (universe) did/will expand forever, and thus begin to reanalyze when and how things in the universe did/will occur. Enroute, we rename the cosmological constant "dark energy" (which is a different concept that "dark matter") and incorportate both types of "dark" into our new analysis equations. But alas, that analysis reveals, once again, that our predictor still has a flaw...
The only way we can account for that flaw is to take a mental leap which once again redefines our definition(s) of "dark energy", and which also notices that even that modication cannot account for observed phenomena unless, instead of expanding at a constant rate, the universe is expanding at an ACCELERATING rate.
We have now arrived at the circa 1998 cosmos analogy: As our external membrane constantly balloons more and more into our rubber submarine, that submarine (universe) simultaneously expands, and at an accelerating rate! [Using this particular analogy, I think one can actually form a very accurate mental picture, which uniquely includes and identifies EACH of the many parameters in our current cosmological theory. That is why I would be most interested in recommended additions or changes thereto, and/or in your comments thereof.]
Additionally, the travel of individual galaxies through the fabric of space-time is also somewhat analagous to the travel of our submarine through ever-increasing water depth, wherein the submarine (galaxies, or the space between them) gain "dark energy" from the water and/or pressure-gradient (fabric of space) in some manner which is not yet understood. So the analogy can be used in both manners. Anyway, it appears that additional correlations of dark energy - to travel through water pressure - may be appropriate to our analogy...
One final thought: It appears that the concept of a catalyst MAY be germane here; dark matter cares not about stars, just as any catalyst cares not about the chemical reaction going on around it. Could the energy gained from dark energy be (or include) a catalytic effect?
Well, thank you for your time in reading this. I look forward to any comments you may have, whenever.
My warmest regards, "IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 12/03/02 3:01 pm:
AARRGGHH AGAIN! ONE MORE TIME (This one will have to do; my apologies).
Thank you for your last response.
Your analogy is useful, beautiful in its simplicity, and thought provoking.
Please let us continue; let us see if anything else useful can be developed...
Please be in no hurry to plod through or to answer this addendum.
I offer it primarily for your perusal and consideration in a somewhat longer timeframe.
Perhaps we can find some common interest here?
I do hope so...
Let us try this one on for size:
First, suppose we eliminate "our" blowtube in your analogy.
Place ourselves inside your balloon, and take with us an air/pressure generator.
The generator replaces and mathematically equates to all previous (volume, pressure, time) functions of "our" external blowtube.
The other external tube remains as before.
Second, let us expand the analogy of a balloon to the analogy of a submarine.
Let us begin with the submarine completely closed (including the undefined external blowtube) but operating like a surface ship.
Without diving, if we run the generator, the submarine will become internally pressurized.
Third, let us replace the undefined external blowtube with an infinitely strong but infinitely elastic rubber membrane.
It is mounted so as to seal a porthole, or other hole, in the side of the submarine, just barely below the water level outside the docked submarine.
If we pressurized the submarine at the dock, this membrane would be expected to bow or balloon outwards.
If the submarine slowly sinks in a vertical plane, this membrane would be expected to bow or balloon inwards, unless the pressure inside the submarine was correspondingly increased, with the generator, to equal the increased external pressure.
So, we would expect that the flatness of the membrane itself could be used to determine what additional internal pressure is required at any depth, so long as the sub sinks/rises both slowly and vertically.
However, moving the submarine against (perpendicular to) the membrane, even at docking depth, would ALSO cause the membrane to bow or balloon inward, from the additional external pressure which is created on that membrane as a reaction to the momentum of the submarine.
However, we could calculate the expected external momentum pressure factor for any submarine speed, and for any angle of movement relative to the membrane.
(We also know that there would be a small, but measurable, direct variation of the momentmum factor based upon depth, based upon the very slightly greater (compressed) density of water encountered at depth.)
Fourth, based upon all of the above, let us conceive and build a mechanism which will actually regulate the internal submarine pressure, based solely upon the flatness of the membrane.
Thus, at the surface, internal pressure will be a function of only velocity and movement relative to the membrane.
At motionless depth, internal pressure will be a function of only depth.
When moving, accelerating, or decelerating at depth, pressure will be a function of all the factors mentioned above, including density of water at depth.
So far, so good; all of the above is possible, theoretically.
But now add the following complexity to this analogy:
When we operate this submarine, instead of the anticipated results, we find that the external membrane balloons inward much more than expected, and/or that, simulataneously, the submarine itself also unexpectedly expands...
As if the submarine itself were also made of some kind of expandable rubber.
So...
Fifth, we modify our analogy to include a rubber submarine shell structure in the first place.
We also modify our pressure mechanism calculations, and the pressure mechanism itself, to include the generation of the additional pressure with depth, such that we now operate the internal pressure mechanism of our submarine solely from the inwardly-ballooned VOLUME of the external membrane, instead of its flatness.
So, as the external membrane grows into a balloon inside the submarine, the submarine increases its own volume by an identical amount, thus maintaining the exact original available and usable internal volume of the submarine.
We have now arrived at the circa 1950 cosmos analogy:
The submarine equates to the universe.
But this submarine can only move with one velocity and in one direction: a downward dive.
So, just as the downward momentum of our particular submarine through ever-increasing water pressure causes an ever-increasing expansion of its shell at a constant rate, we (mistakenly) determine that the universe is expanding at a constant rate, the same rate that was determined by the departure velocity selected when the submarine left the dock, i.e., the Big Bang.
But alas, we once more determine, by observation, that our model still does not predict correctly.
Instead, we observe that the inward ballooning of our external membrane per unit of time is greater than expected.
We don't understand why, but to compensate for the error, we merely create a concept called the cosmological constant factor.
We incorporate that factor into all of our calculations used to determine pressure external to the submarine, and thus also internal to the submarine when using our new internal pressure mechanism...
We have now arrived at the circa 1985 cosmos analogy.
We now recognize that the submarine (universe) did/will expand forever, and thus begin to reanalyze when and how things in the universe did/will occur.
Enroute, we rename the cosmological constant "dark energy" (which is a different concept that "dark matter") and incorportate both types of "dark" into our new analysis equations.
But alas, that analysis reveals, once again, that our predictor still has a flaw...
The only way we can account for that flaw is to take a mental leap which once again redefines our definition(s) of "dark energy", and which also notices that even that modication cannot account for observed phenomena unless, instead of expanding at a constant rate, the universe is expanding at an ACCELERATING rate.
We have now arrived at the circa 1998 cosmos analogy:
As our external membrane constantly balloons more and more into our rubber submarine, that submarine (universe) simultaneously expands, and at an accelerating rate!
[Using this particular analogy, I think one can actually form a very accurate mental picture, which uniquely includes and identifies EACH of the many parameters in our current cosmological theory.
That is why I would be most interested in recommended additions or changes thereto, and/or in your comments thereof.]
Additionally, the travel of individual galaxies through the fabric of space-time is also somewhat analagous to the travel of our submarine through ever-increasing water depth, wherein the submarine (galaxies, or the space between them) gain "dark energy" from the water and/or pressure-gradient (fabric of space) in some manner which is not yet understood.
So the analogy can be used in both manners.
Anyway, it appears that additional correlations of dark energy - to travel through water pressure - may be appropriate to our analogy...
One final thought:
It appears that the concept of a catalyst MAY be germane here.
Dark matter cares not about stars, just as any catalyst cares not about the chemical reaction going on around it.
Could the energy gained from dark energy be (or include) a catalytic effect?
Well, thank you for your time in reading this.
I look forward to any comments you may have, whenever.
My warmest regards, "IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 12/12/02 1:32 pm:
Let us continue and summarize: "The energy has to come from somewhere." The problem is, we are not sure what type of energy(ies) is involved!
Although it is possible we will never be sure, it is presumed more likely that we (science/philosopy/religion) will someday gain more insights into the nature of the dark energy (flux) which is pervasively invading our spacetime. That energy may be something completely new to us, and may or may not include components which we have seen glimpses of in other areas such as Kirlean photography (auras), psychic experiences and/or prayer (directed psions), and or supernatural phenomena (unexplained temperature differentials; ectoplasm; space/time distortions), etc. Anyway, it appears that our new frontier IS studying dark energy, and thus science needs to develop all sorts of ways to better enable us to begin to think about it more clearly.
Anyway, whatever dark energy is, its invasion into our spacetime
creates a cosmos in which its proportion routinely increases, and at an accelerating rate. The result on the cosmos, in the far far future, is that galaxies will move so far apart that the inhabitants thereof will be unable to even see another galaxy, with any type of telescope possessed by our current technology; the destiny of any galaxy is thus merely to become an orphan in the depths of space.
New subject: Grasping my submarine analogy.
When I took mechanical drawing in highschool years ago (1958), I was suprized to find how difficult it was for many of my classmates to visualize, or to draw, the unshown side of a simple 3-D object. Years later, at grad school (1974), I penned one Masters Thesis which, inter alia, discussed the organizing influence upon the brain generated by learning how to draw and then program logic diagrams into a computer program; I named this spill-over effect "Thinking process transmutation". Since then, similar and better analyses of that process, under a variety of names, have been documented by many others, in many different fields, validating that such beneficial spillover effects do, in fact, occur. The leap of computer games, computer graphics, and the internet into our lives since 1974 has, I believe, generated a lessor but similar effect upon a majority of our youth, which is often not recognized by parents and teachers. Thus, because of their experience with zooming computer images, most youth can now visualize the backside of a 3-D object better than they could in 1958. No insult intended, but I daresay many of them would find my expanding submarine easier to visualize than you did; they all grew up with this kind of stuff; whereas you and I didn't! I thus believe that many of our youth literally "think" in ways that their parents do not. For that reason, I think you underestimate the ability of the average youth to immediately grasp and use the expanding submarine image...
Let us now try to continue by further contemplating what dark energy might include, which you say you have not previously thought much about. Now is the time! I await your thoughts on that, at your convenience, whenever.
Warm regards, "IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 12/13/02 8:27 am:
Hi Bluto!
I hope this conversation can continue for mind-bending enjoyment, without creating any pressure at either end for immediate responses. Life is long and routinized; worthy correspondents, though rare, add spice to life. God willing, I will be here whenever you get around to responding; I pray that you may adopt that same attitude... As an aside, and because I probably have more spare time than you do, we could shift to emails, and/or to instant messenger, if you should ever prefer to do that; otherwise, I rather like the AnswerWay format.
About your posit: Weak, strong and gravitational forces do not explain how polarized photons, split by a prism, can continue to evidence a pairing awareness of each other at distance, thereafter, as has been well documented in quantum physics. Such 'communication' appears to me to require a new communication 'flux' which either operates with some type of energy which we now neither understand nor can measure, or which somehow operates outside of time as we understand it. However, it may well be, as you suggest instead, that this is merely an effect of some type of matter/energy/wave phenomena which mimics, rather than is, a new form of energy. But I suspect that there is an unexpected new form of energy somewhere in this! And I also wonder if we are (or are not) seeing a related type of energy in some psychic phenomena, meditation, and/or prayer. If not, then does that mean we have TWO (or more) unknown types of energy?...
DE: If we try on the idea of parallel universes, then black holes
could be mechanisms for removing matter from universe A and spewing it as energy into universe B. If that were the case, then some universe, such as ours, might be expanding merely because it receives more than it gives; some other universe(s) might be correspondingly shrinking. But without accepting parallel universes, it appears to me that we need to clearly separate (or define the relationshipe between) DE and DM; it also appears to me that the directional diversions of entire galaxies can already be explained using only black holes, DM, and gravity. But, it is unclear to me whether and/or how an expansional acceleration of the entire universe can be explained without adding DE to the equation. Obviously, I still expect no Nobel for discovering that DE equation, but it is nonetheless most interesting to think about...
I look forward to your next, whenever. Have a great holiday season! "IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by bluto on 12/30/02 9:09 am:
Hello IQ....
I hope you have been enjoying your holiday thus far. Even as nice as it's been, it's still a crazy time of year!
I doubt that I'll have much opportunity to say much until the end of this week, but I did want to send a quick response to your last one re Newton's 3rd law about light and gravity.
The question as you posed it....'what does light do to gravity'....has given me a new path to think about. As I understand it, it's more what gravity does to light that is the topic of most discussions. I can't imagine that you're *not* familiar with this idea, so I will, hopefully not mistakenly so, ignore that part and assume you mean a more fundamental interaction with light and gravity that is the thrust of your question.
Since gravity does not interact electrically or magnetically, it must strictly be the mass between the photon and the source of the gravity that is the root of the interaction. However, given that the photon travels with velocity 'c' it's calculations will have to be relativistically corrected for. Einstein first proposed that this interaction would be so, and it was experimentally verified a number of times.
Perhaps we can discuss this more after the holidays. Enjoy your New Year's, have fun and will 'talk' to you later.
b~
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/10/03 9:28 pm:
This'll be an apostrophe test. So'll this.
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/10/03 9:28 pm:
This'll be an apostrophe test. So'll this.
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/11/03 7:25 pm:
Hello again!
Yes, this is what I wish to pursue:
"...it must strictly be the mass between the photon and the source of the gravity that is the root of the interaction. However, given that the photon travels with velocity 'c' the calculations will have to be relativistically corrected for."
But all the literature seems to be about the effect of the gravitational body upon the light; I find nothing about the converse.
Please let us start with a simple experiment:
First, place a bright flashight horizontally, about 3 feet away from a vertical screen, in a darkened area. Then hold a golf ball several inches from the screen, in the direct path of the light, such that its shadow is round. Then, while maintaining that same distance between ball and screen, move the ball anywhere else and observe what happens.
Second, consider a set of theoretical observation points, each the same (several) feet behind the screen.
Third, posit whether the light emitted by a star is or is not more powerful (and or more polarized) in some directions than others.
Fourth, correlate all of the above, with special attention to whether or not, from the behind-screen observation point(s), the observed bending of light by the golf ball can be observed or calculated to be uniformly distributed around that golf ball.
And if not, what does that mean to cosmology?
I will be most attentive to any response, whenever!
"IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by bluto on 01/11/03 9:59 pm:
Hello there IQ.....
Oh my.....sorry for your misinterpretation on this, but your reading would need only take you to high school physics Mr IQ.
I assumed your awareness, and my apologies if my assumption is wrong, that gravitational interactions take place via the field itself and some mass. Photons have mass and therefore interact with gravity thusly. I'm at a loss as to where you are confused by this. I would like to know what your sources are please, since they are telling you the contrary.
I should like to stop here, and take up the other tidbits once I am satisfied you understand the bending of the light is a mass-field interaction. Then we can play games with suppositions......the more fun stuff!
I will look forward to your thoughts and sharing other ideas with you on this topic.
Also...I just happened to log onto the site and discovered your question! I wasn't notified, via email, it was there. Have you had this happen to you? Up till today things have been working just fine in this regard.
Enjoy your weekend......
bluto
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/11/03 10:39 pm:
First, I am having no problems with email.
Otherwise, ????
I.e., you must have misunderstood the thrust of my very poor wording?
Anyway, for the purposes of this discussion, and/or until proven otherwise, please assume that my background in quantum physics, differential equations, relativity, Maxwell Equations, BOTH (!) types of cosmological redshifts, and other similar subjects, has more depth than 99% of humanity, and then proceed accordingly...
I still hope to (someday) get to something:
In particular, I hope to broach here a discussion on the effects, in ways not roiutinely discussed in the literature, of visible light upon gravitational matter; instead of the effect of gravitational matter upon visible light.
The fact that both exist in the same field and/or the same space/time is not (yet) the subject.
Instead, the equation which defines how light rays are deflected is: Alpha=4GM/c^2R, where alpha is the angular deflection in radians, and R the distance of the beam from the center of the heavenly body of mass M. The deflection is directed so as to increase the apparent angular distance of a star from the center of the Sun when starlight is passing near the Sun, etc; we both know ONLY the relativistic and corpusculic equations (not Newton's) work here, etc. A similar observable phenomena occurs with the lensing of some distant stars by closer intervening stars. Meanwhile, we all know why inertial motion cannot be detected optically, as demonstrated by Michelson-Morley.
So please proceed from there. Again, I look foward to your response with great anticipation. And again, I will still be here, whenever; there is no rush.
"IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/12/03 3:01 pm:
You need not respond so quickly!
What I meant about email was what you meant.
Still, no problems with that at this end...
I will ponder most of your last response before I proceed further, meanwhile I offer only these three items:
(1) The formula is from page 686 of McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Physics, 2nd Ed., 1992, ISBN 0-07-051400-3, under the topic Light:Quantum Physics. There are no mislabled items in my discussion of it.
(2) I have read all 1624 pages of that reference several times; I tend to retain about 70% of whatever I read, on any subject, on my FIRST reading; I have been reading physics books for 41 years; I own 3 MS degrees and more graduate science hours that most double-PhDs do, though not in Physics.
(3) My point was, and is, precisely that, although the Einstein equation(s) OBVIOUSLY govern the gravity-mass interactions in BOTH directions, nobody (including the aforementioned 1624 pages) ever TALKS about them, or even THINKS about them, except in one direction! Well, LET US LOOK AT THE OTHER DIRECTION! As near as I can determine, that subject was last mentioned by Einstein himself, and even that comment was merely "En Passant". It is as if Einstein birthed an infact, which then immediately died for lack of attention. I propose that we resurrect that infant, and see if we can breathe some life back into it... If that has no interest to you, please say so!
"IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/12/03 3:43 pm:
P.S:
I see I failed to explain a few 'WHYs', which may be germane:
I have been reading physics books so long, because, since HS, my first love and hobby has been serious Spelunking; my second love and hobby has been seriously studying Physics, with special emphasis upon
cosmology...
I have 4 MS and 1MA but no PhD merely because I wanted to learn more about those 5 subjects; I have no PhD because I have no interest in being one; I too easily become bored when narrowly constrained (except in caves).
"IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/13/03 1:24 am:
Meanwhile, To see a torus and 'bar' thingee, please go to the Construction page here, and click on the only FAQ there. "IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by bluto on 01/13/03 11:43 am:
IQ....
I will have to seek out the encyclopedia reference another time. I thought I might be fortunate enough to find it online, even tho I thought it was unlikely. Either your interpretation of the equation therein given was askew, or the entry was incorrect, or your recitation to me was incorrect. I will follow-up with this to see for myself where the error might have occurred, and I appreciate your providing the appropriate information. If you are interested I will relate what I found to you.
The rod and hoop idea I gave you was a relativistic one. Apparently it isn't ringing familiar with you, which is too bad. I'd be interested in talking about that one.
I don't see that we are really getting anywhere with our discussions IQ. No offense, but the armchair-approach to science does not strike me as something I feel I can benefit from except for the exercise of typing back and forth. Your replies strike me as evasive, and this entire discussion...from the beginning has been like work.
From having had this 'discussion' with you I've found your references to be questionable and your responses evasive, without forthcoming information to support them. But, I do enjoy your imagination and willingness to discuss things, and I do know you have many things to contribute. My point of taking you up on this discussion, and for answering questions for folks here on Answerway for that matter, is for the satisfaction of sharing ideas, and helping people.
I would like to wish you well on Answerway, I'm sure you will be gracing our site with outstanding answers, and would enjoy possibly sharing questions from time to time if you are so inclined.
If at some point you'd like to re-connect, via email, I will consider that, but for now, I would prefer to discontinue our thread.
Many thanks for the time you have devoted and for the common love of science we obviously both share!
Be well, and take care....
b-
Clarification/Follow-up by IQGuru on 01/13/03 6:42 pm:
Bluto: Good evening. A few final thoughts:
The rod and hoop idea you gave me, the relativistic one, is still ringing another distant bell; my memory does contain a (another) similar image; whenever I can get it out of the cobwebs there, I will get back to you. I'd also be interested in talking about that one!
In the meantime, I also don't see that we are currently getting anywhere in this discussion. No offense, but it seems to me that you read tone, humor, sarcasm, other emotions, mystery, and motivations into passages which were not intended to have any of those things, which makes communication most difficult for me. Suffice it to say, we do not appear to have very similar personalities.
Conversely, I originally had nothing whatsoever in common with some of my current closest friends, so my current personal approach is NOT to be easily dissuaded by differences; instead I seek to find compatibilities. I think we may have more of those than you now suspect; for example, I VERY STRONLGY concur with the majority of your 01/03/05:43 transmission, and I wish you all of the same regards, for all of the same reasons.
To end this conversation and get it off BOTH our boards, please just feel free to respond with something short (like, "Bye") which I will then immediately apply 5 stars to, and this thread will then be terminated.
Meanwhile, from this end, my warmest regards.
"IQ"
Clarification/Follow-up by bluto on 01/14/03 6:52 am:
IQ...
Good morning to you...I feel like Columbo here...but...one more thing! lol
I had some unexpected free time last evening, so I decided to play with the 'alpha' equation. I ended up deriving it on my own, which isn't terribly challenging really, but ended up coming up with a form that is almost identical to the one you cited.
So apparently my first run-thru (different method) was in error! Not sure what happened. Still have to check back on that, but thought you would appreciate that and wanted to pass that long to you.
The site is painfully slow this morning, so no feedback expected, or required, but welcome nonetheless.
Ok....enjoy your day. :)
b~
