New test may provide 'smoking gun' for modified gravity

Jun 20, 2014 by Lisa Zyga feature
modified gravity 1
A schematic picture of how researchers can observe galaxy peculiar velocities, “a cosmic dance of galaxies.” Credit: Wojciech A. Hellwing

(Phys.org) —Since 1916, general relativity has provided a description of gravity that can explain many observations, including objects in free fall, gravitational lensing by massive objects, and black holes. Despite the success of the theory for nearly 100 years, scientists have been looking at ways to modify general relativity in order for it to better explain certain observations—particularly the accelerated expansion of the universe. Although these modifications can be very different from one another, they generally fall into the category of "modified gravity."

Like any scientific prediction, modified gravity must be experimentally tested in order for scientists to confirm its validity. Although significant progress has been achieved in recent years in designing observational tests of gravity's effects in the universe that might reveal the presence of modified gravity, there is still no conclusive evidence for its existence.

Now in a new paper published in Physical Review Letters, Wojciech A. Hellwing, et al., have proposed a new test of modified gravity that is based on measuring the tendency of well-separated galaxies to approach each other. This movement is called the galaxy pairwise velocity.

The physicists show that the galaxy pairwise velocity distribution of many galaxies with a wide range of masses is expected to deviate from the predictions of by significant amounts: between 5 and 10 standard deviations or higher, depending on the model. Due to these large deviations, this proposed test could potentially offer the strongest evidence in support of modified gravity to date.

"Modified gravity (MG) theories have gained a lot of attention in the last decade," Hellwing, a researcher at Durham University in the UK and the University of Warsaw in Poland, told Phys.org. "Mostly because this class of theories provides an alternative explanation of the late-time accelerated expansion of the universe, while avoiding some conceptual problems related to the classical general relativity (GR) picture in which Einstein's cosmological constant is supposed to drive this acceleration. In the classical GR picture, one needs to have a very small value of the cosmological constant, which is hard to reconcile with quantum field theory. MG theories provide an alternative explanation, but in most of these theories modifications to gravity not only can account for accelerated expansion but also can produce non-negligible enhancement to gravity at cosmic scales relevant to galaxy formation and dynamics. Therefore it is of utmost importance to find observational evidence that could distinguish between these two scenarios (GR or MG)."

A thin slice of the large-scale cosmic density field (the clustering of dark matter and galaxies) is depicted for four models: GR and three different MG models. The side of the box corresponds to ~360 Mega parsecs (Mpc) or ~1.16 billion of light years. Credit: Baojiu Li, et al. “The non-linear matter and velocity power spectra in f(R) gravity. Credit: ” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 428, Issue 1, p.743-755

Although one possible type of observational evidence of MG is related to the clustering of luminous galaxies, Hellwing explained that these observations have been plagued by ambiguities connected to non-linear baryonic physics responsible for galaxy formation and clustering. The complications make it very difficult to find a clear and measurable signal that could help researchers distinguish between GR and MG scenarios.

"In our paper we have shown that the peculiar velocities of galaxies bear a significant signal of the underlying theory of ," Hellwing said. "The advantage here is that the galaxy velocities are much less prone to the effects of the non-linear baryonic physics of . We also show this in our paper, when we present that the MG signal is present for galaxies of all masses and can also be measured both on large and small cosmological scales. Thanks to these unique features connected to the statistics of the galaxy velocity field, these kinds of observables pose a clean 'smoking gun'-like signature of either GR or MG."

The physicists explain that the MG signal can be measured in two ways because it involves two different observational data sets. One set consists of the data of galaxy peculiar velocities, the other the clustering of galaxies in so-called redshift space. In the latter, the galaxy positions (clustering) are affected by their peculiar velocities and in the former the galaxy velocities are measured directly.

"Both data sets call for a different approach," Hellwing said. "However, the quality of the current data should allow for a clear measurement of the signal we discuss. Redshift space data is very abundant but it needs an extra theoretical effort to model properly the expected signal in GR and MG. The velocity data can be interpreted directly but it is much sparser and contained by much larger observational errors. A program aimed to extract the signal we have predicted theoretically is already in progress."

If experiments confirm that a modified version of general relativity can explain observations better than the original version, the results could shed light on some fundamental cosmological questions.

"The implications of measuring the signal we have found are very profound," Hellwing said. "Firstly the GR commonly adopted as a crucial ingredient of the standard cosmological model has only being tested at scales corresponding to the Solar System. Einstein's theory was never directly tested on cosmological scales (relevant to galaxy velocities). Confirming that the GR is a valid theory of gravitation also on intermediate cosmological scales is very important. On the other hand, if the measured signal will indicate that GR is not enough to explain the observed motion of galaxies, then we will be dealing with a paradigm shift and a real breakthrough in modern cosmology and physics, comparable in magnitude to the discovered in the late '90s of the 20th century."

Explore further: Study finds 'lumpy' universe cannot explain cosmic acceleration

More information: Wojciech A. Hellwing, et al. "Clear and Measurable Signature of Modified Gravity in the Galaxy Velocity Field." PRL 112, 221102 (2014). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.221102

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Light from galaxy clusters confirms theory of relativity

Sep 28, 2011

All observations in astronomy are based on light emitted from stars and galaxies and, according to the general theory of relativity, the light will be affected by gravity. At the same time all interpretations ...

Einstein's theory fights off challengers (w/ Video)

Apr 14, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two new and independent studies have put Einstein's General Theory of Relativity to the test like never before. These results, made using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, show Einstein's ...

Recommended for you

And so they beat on, flagella against the cantilever

2 hours ago

A team of researchers at Boston University and Stanford University School of Medicine has developed a new model to study the motion patterns of bacteria in real time and to determine how these motions relate ...

Tandem microwave destroys hazmat, disinfects

6 hours ago

Dangerous materials can be destroyed, bacteria spores can be disinfected, and information can be collected that reveals the country of origin of radiological isotopes - all of this due to a commercial microwave ...

Cornell theorists continue the search for supersymmetry

8 hours ago

(Phys.org) —It was a breakthrough with profound implications for the world as we know it: the Higgs boson, the elementary particle that gives all other particles their mass, discovered at the Large Hadron ...

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

User comments : 73

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
4.4 / 5 (37) Jun 20, 2014
I honestly wish the trolls here would pay attention to stories like this. They're so informative. Yes, GR is widely the consensus view. But no, there's no conspiracy to make it the *only* view. It's just the only view to pass the scrutiny of data to date. Plenty of scientists are free to and are working on alternatives to the accepted paradigm.

And if they have enough evidence to overturn the paradigm, it will shift accordingly. This is what's really going on in science. Not some sinister plot to hide your favorite Guru's work from 3 centuries ago like some priestly class hiding away anti-dogmatic viewpoints.
otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.3 / 5 (9) Jun 20, 2014
otero, sorry I downvoted you with no good reason. I guess I reacted when I saw that the idiot Zephyr had commented.

Heim's theory never held much interest with me or most others, fortunately. I like Picasso, but unless you're on drugs the real world doesn't look like that.


Skippy, did you have the good reason for voting down the shavara-Skippy? He's on of the smarter Skippys on this place.
Uncle Ira
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2014
otero, sorry I downvoted you with no good reason. I guess I reacted when I saw that the idiot Zephyr had commented.


Zephir-Skippy is the otero-Skippy. But he likes to be called the Socratic-Skippy now.
otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dr_toad
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.2 / 5 (13) Jun 20, 2014
Only trolls may be happy from the ignorance of bright minds.


Socratic-Skippy, you realize you just called your own self a troll who is ignorant of the smart peoples you. That is what you are saying in that Cher.
otero
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
There are so many of him, though! I get confused, especially with so many Skippy-this-and-thats.


Well you ain't blaming that on me. There wasn't no Skippys up there when you down voted. I only chimed in after you posted to otero-Skippy not knowing he was the Zephir-Skippy. Zephir-Skippy likes to be the Socratic-Skippy now.

My apologies to shavera instead, then, and thanks for the correction.


Okay, good karma points for you. Glad to see what you really mean because that shavera-Skippy is one of the really smart ones. He writes things I can understand.
Dr_toad
Jun 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
arom
1 / 5 (11) Jun 20, 2014
If experiments confirm that a modified version of general relativity can explain observations better than the original version, the results could shed light on some fundamental cosmological questions….
Confirming that the GR is a valid theory of gravitation also on intermediate cosmological scales is very important. On the other hand, if the measured signal will indicate that GR is not enough to explain the observed motion of galaxies, then we will be dealing with a paradigm shift and a real breakthrough in modern cosmology and physics, comparable in magnitude to the accelerated expansion discovered in the late '90s of the 20th century."

Maybe it is easier to improve the conventional GR to a more realistic one, in order to explain the accelerated expansion problem …
http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
Whydening Gyre
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 20, 2014
You guys are all pretty funny.. Gravity is just magnetism squared... A critical mass of magnetism, if you will...
TechnoCreed
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 20, 2014
You guys are all pretty funny.. Gravity is just magnetism squared... A critical mass of magnetism, if you will...
O_o WG are you going to join the voodoo guru crowd crawling in comment treads of phys.org?
Associating gravity with magnetism is preposterous... even in a joke.
adave
1 / 5 (2) Jun 20, 2014
I wonder if anyone did a stereo comparison between the predictions.
swordsman
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2014
The failure to consider electromagnetic effects in GR is its downfall. It is taking a long time for contemporary physicists to realize this fact.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (14) Jun 21, 2014
Associating gravity with magnetism is preposterous... even in a joke.


"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." Henri Poincaré, Science and Method

The real joke is the religious following of GR in spite of the many fundamental errors...
http://vixra.org/...56v1.pdf

Errors which have been noticed by some from the beginning.

"...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory (GR) is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8 Nikola Tesla
Uncle Ira
2.2 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2014
The failure to consider electromagnetic effects in GR is its downfall. It is taking a long time for contemporary physicists to realize this fact.


Well then Skippy, maybe you should write the physicists-Skippys a nice letter and tell them they forgot about it. Maybe they put you name in their next paper.
DeliriousNeuron
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2014
The failure to consider electromagnetic effects in GR is its downfall. It is taking a long time for contemporary physicists to realize this fact.


Completely agree. Finally someone posted something true here.

IMP-9
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 21, 2014
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin."


A claim not a proof. It certainly doesn't support your claim there is a simple relation between mass and B.

The real joke is the religious following of GR in spite of the many fundamental errors...
http://vixra.org/...56v1.pdf


Not errors no.

http://www.staff....ons.html

Nikola Tesla


Blatant appeal to authority which is funny for you. He never produced an argument behind these claims, nor his claimed theory of gravity. This statement is completely worthless.
DeliriousNeuron
2.3 / 5 (13) Jun 21, 2014
One more thing....who is this Skippy? You sound like a retard takling about Skippy, your fictional gravity wizard.
I've become so tired of these mainstream articles about gravity, dark matter/energy! You mainstream gravity whores are only digging yourself into more confusion. But hey....at least you get to create new words and nowhere theories.

Now open your eyes and go study up on Plasma/EM.
It simply makes MUCH more sense than your fictional gravity wizard!
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2014
"...magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory (GR) is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists..." New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c8 Nikola Tesla
I would not dare to compare myself to Tesla but, back then navigators were using sextants and compasses. Now we use GPS; that is relativity applied to our everyday life. http://www.physic...will.cfm
mohammadshafiq_khan_1
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2 / 5 (11) Jun 21, 2014
One more thing....who is this Skippy? You sound like a retard takling about Skippy, your fictional gravity wizard.


You are this Skippy, Skippy. You sound like a retard when you accuse me takling. I ain't takled no one in my whole life yet. So that makes you the lying-Skippy. Put your silly looking pointy cap back on.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Everybody knows you are the cantdrive-Nazi-Skippy, and I ask you nice not to talk to me (I don't want you takling to me either.) so knock it off.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 21, 2014
The calling the other posters here the Skippy is pejorative and childish. Get over it: most of your posts here isn't subject related at all, i.e. they're composed of off-topic pointless verbiage and personal attacks.


Well I will tell you one thing Socratic-Skippy. Skippy is not as pejorative as all those weird names you make up for your self. You should not be the right Skippy to be bringing up the off-topic postums.
otero
Jun 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
1.9 / 5 (9) Jun 21, 2014
Sorry for ruining the only happiness and meaning of your life here.


Socratic-Skippy, Cher, you add to my happiness of my life here. But you are right about the "meaning". I never know what you mean most of the time.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (8) Jun 21, 2014
One more thing....who is this Skippy? You sound like a retard takling about Skippy, your fictional gravity wizard.


You are this Skippy, Skippy. You sound like a retard when you accuse me takling. I ain't takled no one in my whole life yet. So that makes you the lying-Skippy. Put your silly looking pointy cap back on.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Everybody knows you are the cantdrive-Nazi-Skippy, and I ask you nice not to talk to me (I don't want you takling to me either.) so knock it off.


Look....up in the sky! Its a bird! It's a plane! No it Gravity Wizard! LOL! What a douche
verkle
1 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
I'm glad to see scientists grappling over the gravity problem in a meaningful way, not just coming up with a DM or DE as way to explaining it away.
bobbylon_5
1 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2014
The best way to explain the speeding up of the expansion of the universe... Is to define everything else as the 'NOT Universe' and such not bound by laws of physics.

Then we can quite quickly see that dropping a subatomic element into the 'not universe' will create a chain reaction as all the stuff that creates the 'not universe' suddenly starts obeying the laws of physics by doing things like 'moving' (movement requires a spacial and temporal dimension).

So we can surmise that the universe is expanding in waves.. The sub atomic expansion and the atomic expansion. Which means that the subatomic universe must be larger than the atomic universe, which should hint at why the atomic universe is speeding up in it's expansion.
nikola_milovic_378
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 22, 2014
Gravity is the unbalanced force between matter at its creation and ether from which it originated material. It is a case similar to the cohesive force. The force of gravity gathers material by natural law, the body that can attract each other and it takes until a critical mass is formed when a black hole that matter transforms back into the ether. There is the manifested part of the universe-I call it COSMOS. It expands and acts to enjoy their current science thinks it's a universe. The universe is something that can not be seen, measured, learn, and describe the means of matter and energy. The universe is a two entities: material and energy (cosmos) and the spiritual entity that manages the ether from which everything arises.
There is no other logical conclusion.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2014
Gravity is the unbalanced force between matter at its creation and ether from which it originated material. It is a case similar to the cohesive force. The force of gravity gathers material by natural law, the body that can attract each other and it takes until a critical mass is formed when a black hole that matter transforms back into the ether. There is the manifested part of the universe-I call it COSMOS. It expands and acts to enjoy their current science thinks it's a universe. The universe is something that can not be seen, measured, learn, and describe the means of matter and energy. The universe is a two entities: material and energy (cosmos) and the spiritual entity that manages the ether from which everything arises.
There is no other logical conclusion.
Sir, this conclusion belongs to you, and nobody else will see the logic behind it. For most people here science is based on systemic observations, measurements and experiments. Most educated people disassociate their faith and science. It is up to individuals to relate science to their faith if they must; if there is a clash between them it is your problem not everybody else's. Do not bother the rest of the world with it.
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
shavera asserts that "there's no conspiracy" to make general relativity the only view of gravity, there is no "sinister plot". How does shavera know that? What is shavera's "proof"? "Science" devotees like to insist that, "It'sw not possible to prove a negative." If shavera can prove their negative assertion, it can be considered in other cases where it's asserted that negatives can't be proved.
Incidentally, where exactly is the evidence that the "paradigm" will "shift"? Where is the evidence that the "paradigm" being used now, in cases where gravity is considered, is exactly what general relativity says/? Where is the "proof" that the real formulas and material used in cases of deciding gravitational influences is anything like anything that has ever been said? Frankly, how many have enough understanding of the world to be able to make sense of models claimed by general relativity, much less realize when the results agree, or don't? How many, for example, have reso
Uncle Ira
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
@ julia-Skippy what the heck are you mumbling about? You been down at the roadhouse all day again Cher?
julianpenrod
1 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
And, in fact, an "accelerating universe" violates special and general "relativity".
To be "accelerating" every galaxy would have to be undergoing the same increase in speed simultaneously. But special "relativity" at least calls the possibility of simultaneity into question. And what exactly would they be speeding up with respect to? It suggests a universal constant yardstick, as well.
But the "argument" for "acceleration" is flawed. It says distances and speeds were related directly right out to 5 billion light years. Then, at a galaxy whose speed correlated to a distance of 5 billion light years, a star in the galaxy turned out to be "further than they thought it would be". So a galaxy, going at a low enough speed that would move it five billion light years in the time since the beginning of the universe suddenly is further away. Even though its speed is the same as before and the supposed time to the beginning of the universe is the same!
KBK
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 22, 2014
I honestly wish the trolls here would pay attention to stories like this. They're so informative. Yes, GR is widely the consensus view. But no, there's no conspiracy to make it the *only* view. It's just the only view to pass the scrutiny of data to date. Plenty of scientists are free to and are working on alternatives to the accepted paradigm.

And if they have enough evidence to overturn the paradigm, it will shift accordingly. This is what's really going on in science. Not some sinister plot to hide your favorite Guru's work from 3 centuries ago like some priestly class hiding away anti-dogmatic viewpoints.


Actually, there *is* a group doing exactly that.

You need to research and get out more. Conspiracies have been the norm of humanity for about 10,000 years. history is riddled with it, in thousands of examples that plagued even continents. If you read unedited history, that is - you would find it.

They didn't stop scheming just because you came along.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
KBK
3 / 5 (4) Jun 22, 2014

Okay, good karma points for you. Glad to see what you really mean because that shavera-Skippy is one of the really smart ones. He writes things I can understand.


This is a shining example of ignorance.

As well as psychological problem of constantly using derogatory terms when speaking of others. "People writing things you understand" is dogmatism...exactly the opposite of the quest for knowledge and intelligence.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 22, 2014
This is a shining example of ignorance.


You act like you discovered something Skippy. I have always been right up front honest that there is lot of stuffs on here I don't understand. Being ignorant is not the shameful thing if know it and work to change it.

Non Cher the shameful thing is all the ignorant Skippys who pretend like they aren't and try to make people think they are more the expert on the science stuffs than the professional-scientists-Skippys who people pay for knowing things.

As well as psychological problem of constantly using derogatory terms when speaking of others.


You want to make me the misere Skippy? You wish you aren't going to do that no, just you don't know it yet .

"People writing things you understand" is dogmatism...exactly the opposite of the quest for knowledge and intelligence.


You got so smart by reading things you don't understand? Cher you are stupid enough for a silly looking pointy cap, want it now or wait for later?
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jun 22, 2014
You guys are all pretty funny.. Gravity is just magnetism squared... A critical mass of magnetism, if you will...

okay. Rather than posing it as an outright statement, I should have posted it as a "what if"...
That said, please explain why it is "preposterous" to associate magnetism to gravity.
Notice - I did not use the word "electro" magnetism.
otero
Jun 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 22, 2014
@Whydening Gyre
That said, please explain why it is "preposterous" to associate magnetism to gravity.
Notice - I did not use the word "electro" magnetism.
Simply explained, for a given material to be attracted by an exterior magnetic field it must have some ferromagnetic properties; ferromagnetism is the result of collective spin coupling of this given material. Gravity is a modification of the space geometry created by the presence of any massive object.

By the way, I was not trying to discredit you in any way as your comment did not have any scientific pretention. But since I knew, by reading many of your past comments, that you have a good sense of humour, I just took the occasion to be sarcastic over the word that you chose to associate; it provoked some good reaction. No offence was intended.

bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2014
.. for a given material to be attracted by an exterior magnetic field it must have some ferromagnetic properties ..


Sure but many materials are affected by magnetic fields. Some of which exhibit no magnetic or ferromagnetic properties. Classic would be the diamagnetic reaction of water. It's not so simple to dismiss the idea of magnetism and gravity being related. I suspect that all matter is affected by magnetism.
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Jun 23, 2014
Using the Compact Muon Solenoid it looks like they've observed Higgs boson decays into bottom quarks and tau leptons (significance of 3.8 sigma). So it's likely been observed now decaying into both bosons and fermions. See http://phys.org/n...ons.html

What all couples with what, and how it couples, is still pretty mysterious, especially considering things like neutrinos and dark matter.

@otero – has EHT been fully translated into English yet? Is there an open source project working on it?
George_Rajna
Jun 23, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DeliriousNeuron
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
.. for a given material to be attracted by an exterior magnetic field it must have some ferromagnetic properties ..


Sure but many materials are affected by magnetic fields. Some of which exhibit no magnetic or ferromagnetic properties. Classic would be the diamagnetic reaction of water. It's not so simple to dismiss the idea of magnetism and gravity being related. I suspect that all matter is affected by magnetism.

Plasma is an excellent conductor
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014
@bluehigh
Sure but many materials are affected by magnetic fields. Some of which exhibit no magnetic or ferromagnetic properties. Classic would be the diamagnetic reaction of water. It's not so simple to dismiss the idea of magnetism and gravity being related. I suspect that all matter is affected by magnetism.
Diamagnetism is magnetic repulsion not attraction. The only strong diamagnetic effect phenomenon is the Meissner effect and is related to supraconduction. But, if you must complicate things, you are right, all materials react to a magnetic field in some way and even at the nuclear level.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
Simply explained, for a given material to be attracted by an exterior magnetic field it must have some ferromagnetic properties; ferromagnetism is the result of collective spin coupling of this given material. Gravity is a modification of the space geometry created by the presence of any massive object.

So... magnetic fields can cause ferromagnetic materials to attract - move towards the field. Enough of it can cause massive bodies to exist, thereby causing geometric modifications to occur, right?
By the way, I was not trying to discredit you in any way as your comment did not have any scientific pretention.

Can't discredit an artist - you just have to humour their out of the box perceptions...:-)
But since I knew, by reading many of your past comments, that you have a good sense of humour, I just took the occasion to be sarcastic over the word that you chose to associate; it provoked some good reaction. No offence was intended.

None taken! Sarcasm rules!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
Gravity is just magnetism squared... A critical mass of magnetism

http://imgs.xkcd....ory.png?

Now, THAT was funny....:-)
TechnoCreed
3 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
@WG
So... magnetic fields can cause ferromagnetic materials to attract - move towards the field. Enough of it can cause massive bodies to exist, thereby causing geometric modifications to occur, right?
Both gravitational and magnetic fields would be reducing by the inverse square law if you would have some voodoo monopole magnet or a very veeeery long magnet. But since polarities of magnets are relatively close together they have a cancelling effect. So they have no significant affect on astronomic distances as compared to gravity.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
@WG Both gravitational and magnetic fields would be reducing by the inverse square law if you would have some voodoo monopole magnet or a very veeeery long magnet. But since polarities of magnets are relatively close together they have a cancelling effect. So they have no significant affect on astronomic distances as compared to gravity.

What if the carrying medium is of say - a magnetized "plasma" of some sort, getting stretched and tensed in a very fluidic manner. Perhaps snapping in places - CREATing an electrical discharge which is a result of reconnection other stretched/tensed magnetically aligned portions of the field binding together more strongly and...
Maybe I'd better lay off all the spray I use in my Art...
no fate
1 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2014
The failure to consider electromagnetic effects in GR is its downfall. It is taking a long time for contemporary physicists to realize this fact.


Completely agree. Finally someone posted something true here.


The flashcard response I have received whenever posting something of this nature is that they do take EM effects into consideration, but that it is not significant on a galactic scale (1st part true, 2nd part totally incorrect). Without predisposition, it is clear "how" motion is governed in the universe on all scales.

"So they have no significant affect on astronomic distances as compared to gravity." - Technocreed

Flashcard response. Nice timing.

Only someone without actual understanding of magnetic fields could say something this juvenile. When you understand that there is no naturally occurring bar magnet in the universe, because all magnetic fields have a structure, and most objects associated with them are spherical, you can progress.


no fate
1 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
What if the carrying medium is of say - a magnetized "plasma" of some sort, getting stretched and tensed in a very fluidic manner. Perhaps snapping in places - CREATing an electrical discharge which is a result of reconnection other stretched/tensed magnetically aligned portions of the field binding together more strongly and...
Maybe I'd better lay off all the spray I use in my Art...


Switch Magnetized plasma for magnetic flux...and keep on spraying...maybe share some with Ira.
Uncle Ira
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2014
Only someone without actual understanding of magnetic fields could say something this juvenile.


Why you call that juvenile no-Skippy? That's what most of the professional-scientist-astrophysics-Skippys say too. They get paid for being smart enough to say it too, did you know that? It seems to me even though I'm not the scientist, that calling all the professional-scientist-Skippys juvenile is juvenile.

Why you are not in the scientist schools teaching all the juvenile scientist-Skippys what are the right things to say? If you know so much they would probably pay you to teach some of it to the scientist-Skippys who don't know as much about it as you seem to know.
no fate
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
Why you call that juvenile no-Skippy? That's what most of the professional-scientist-astrophysics-Skippys say too. They get paid for being smart enough to say it too, did you know that? It seems to me even though I'm not the scientist, that calling all the professional-scientist-Skippys juvenile is juvenile.


Well my slow cajun/creoleskippy fan of Zephir, we are commenting in an article about yet another cornerstone of modern astrophysics which by their own admission, needs work. If I link all of the articles in the entire community which have been doing this in light of new observations you would start to see a trend, a trend that indicates alot of the current assumptions about how things work are wrong.

This is why I told you were a perfect fit to cheerlead the group that don't want to acknowledge this. Cher.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014
Switch Magnetized plasma for magnetic flux...and keep on spraying...maybe share some with Ira.

Don't have a flux without a medium (matter of some sort) to carry it, right? why switch them?
Makes me wonder about something else - assuming they wouldn't be pulled apart by kinetic torsion, what would the field lines in a light-year long string of little neomydium magnets look like...
Uncle Ira
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2014
If I link all of the articles in the entire community which have been doing this in light of new observations you would start to see a trend, a trend that indicates alot of the current assumptions about how things work are wrong.


@ no-Skippy okayeei, apology accepted. Glad you think I make a good suggestion. Let me and everybody know how it works out. If you put up some good articles on the physorg in case you don't use the no-fate-Skippy name when you put them up let us know. I'll be cheering for you.
no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
Switch Magnetized plasma for magnetic flux...and keep on spraying...maybe share some with Ira.

Don't have a flux without a medium (matter of some sort) to carry it, right? why switch them?


Plasma flow is directed by Magnetic flux.
The field of a magnet has no matter component...just force. What it does to space (as in it's effect on it/relationship to it) I won't say until I'm sure we have it nailed down (not too far now though) . This is why I think so many people have trouble with it, there is nothing but force effecting energy flow....on all levels. The word particle is a terrible descriptor for an electron or proton, it is misleading. However we know very well how magnetic fields interact with them, and with each other....it doesn't all "cancel out"

no fate
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 23, 2014
Switch Magnetized plasma for magnetic flux...and keep on spraying...maybe share some with Ira.

Don't have a flux without a medium (matter of some sort) to carry it, right? why switch them?
Makes me wonder about something else - assuming they wouldn't be pulled apart by kinetic torsion, what would the field lines in a light-year long string of little neomydium magnets look like...


I'd be curious to see that one myself...

However, when you see distinct shapes and structure in Planetary Nebulae, they aren't formed by gravity. Even the mainstream have recently begun to acknowledge the structures are formed magnetically.
Photons released through "collisionless shocks" paint some of the coolest pictures in the universe IMO.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014
Plasma flow is directed by Magnetic flux.

But - the AMOUNT of matter determines the flux flow direction...

The field of a magnet has no matter component...just force. What it does to space (as in it's effect on it/relationship to it) I won't say until I'm sure we have it nailed down (not too far now though) . This is why I think so many people have trouble with it, there is nothing but force effecting energy flow....on all levels.

Simple answer to this one - the energy IS the force - and vice versa...
The word particle is a terrible descriptor for an electron or proton, it is misleading. However we know very well how magnetic fields interact with them, and with each other....it doesn't all "cancel out"

It doesn't cancel out cuz all the visible Universe knows how to do is add. Over and over and over, again.
To be clear, I am not in any "camp" on this. Just observing and watching it play out...:-)


no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 23, 2014
The amount of matter doesn't determine the flow direction, polarity and potential for plasma, voyager's "magnetic highway" is a good example.

If the energy was the force, we would have stable Higgs Bosons floating around as the quanta would be irrelevant.

I like that you aren't in a camp, it allows you to be objective.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014
The amount of matter doesn't determine the flow direction, polarity and potential for plasma, voyager's "magnetic highway" is a good example.

Of course it does. I should have said - plasma will flow towards a different charge (in this case magnetic) moment that it has on it's own. Energy concentrates around matter and attracts other energy.
If the energy was the force, we would have stable Higgs Bosons floating around as the quanta would be irrelevant.

Unless the ENERGY was in constant motion - both in direction and intensity...:-)

I like that you aren't in a camp, it allows you to be objective.

You call it objective - I call it free to let my mind explore possibilities. Given certain information constraints, of course.
But - Thanks for the compliment...:-)
Just remember - we're all here for the entertainment value of it all...;-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2014
The amount of matter doesn't determine the flow direction, polarity and potential for plasma, voyager's "magnetic highway" is a good example.

Okay. I just read about this. Will respond after some "rumination"...
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Ho ho! Somebody is addressing me with some pretentious authority. He spread his self presumed knowledge trough some hypothesis of his own and, of course, he add some insults to sound more pompous...
Only someone without actual understanding of magnetic fields could say something this juvenile. When you understand that there is no naturally occurring bar magnet in the universe, because all magnetic fields have a structure, and most objects associated with them are spherical, you can progress.
No fate the only credibility you can get on an anonymous comment tread is trough the consistent quality of your postings.

Something every knowledgeable people know is that there are "billions upon billions" of naturally occurring bar magnets in the universe, in the form of free electrons. They are observed trough the galactic synchrotron emission spectrum; all leptons emit photons when they are forced to change direction.
no fate
1 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Technocreed: My prententious authority was in response to your pretentious assertion regarding magnetic fields. And no, an electron is not a bar magnet. It is a quanta of energy with a magnetic moment which consists of energy flowing in a structured field. The magnetic flux around a bar magnet when mapped, is nothing like the magnetic field structure of an electron. I agree fully regarding photon emission, just not the bar magnet mentality because it is, as I said, juvenile. It is equivalent to assuming all photons are visible to the human eye.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
No fate please stop you are making a fool out of yourself... Straight from wikipedia:" This analogy holds as an electron indeed behaves like a tiny bar magnet" http://en.wikiped...e_moment
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
The amount of matter doesn't determine the flow direction, polarity and potential for plasma, voyager's "magnetic highway" is a good example.

Okay. I just read about this. Will respond after some "rumination"...
@WG
Do not bang your head over that; he just confused some figure of speech from a Nasa webpage with reality. This metaphor is referring to the credible hypothesis that cosmic rays are being accelerated by the magnetic lines of the astronomic object they are originating from. http://www.nasa.g...486.html
Uncle Ira
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 24, 2014
@ Techno-Skippy. Will you answer the question for me. I'm thinking I am reading it right on the google. Is any magnet everywhere have both the north AND the south poles on him? So if the electron have magnetic thing, he has to have the north AND the south pole, is that right? Like a little tiny small bar magnet?
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Here, mon vieux Ira, you will find your answers. https://www.youtu...XdXZ5TM. Enjoy. TC
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 24, 2014
Fundamentally, when you hook up the north and south poles of a group of "bar magnets", don't they just become one bigger "bar magnet"? Put enough of them in a series and you could loop it back around on itself, right?
Is there any definitive pole then? Or is just a blob of "magnetism"?
Uncle Ira
1 / 5 (6) Jun 24, 2014
Here, mon vieux Ira, you will find your answers. https://www.youtu...XdXZ5TM. Enjoy. TC


@ Techno-Skippy. Thanks but I have to save him for later to watch. I am at work on the boat and get my interweb from Net-zero stations and don't like to run my bill for the youtubes. At home this is not the problem because I use the Mrs-Ira-Skippette's interweb connection on the cable wire, they don't charge extra for getting a bunch of stuffs during the month. I don't think they do, because if they did, the Mrs-Ira-Skippette would say something about it for sure to me.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Technocreed- The Nasa term is grossly under descriptive, but it is the easiest place to find info about what voyager passed through. They (magnetic hwy. particles) aren't cosmic rays, (those have already been accelerated by a source outside the solar system to their velocity that resulted in their name), they are particles which originated in the solar system which is why they can be accelerated, but don't worry, saying that didn't cause you to make a fool of yourself.

When we can map the magnetic field of an electron, we can resume our discussion as to it's configuration. In the meantime, go drop a bar magnet in a plasma chamber and wait for a torus to appear, or try a sphere magnetized anyway you want and wait for the torus...see you...never, because it doesn't happen. There is only one field configuration which allows a torus to form around a sphere and it isn't the configuration of a bar magnet.

Your video is about your level of understanding, good luck with that.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Jun 24, 2014
@WG
Do not bang your head over that; he just confused some figure of speech from a Nasa webpage with reality. This metaphor is referring to the credible hypothesis that cosmic rays are being accelerated by the magnetic lines of the astronomic object they are originating from. http://www.nasa.g...486.html

No worries...:-) I meant was just gonna have some pie...:-)
We think of them as "lines", inasmuch as that's the 2d way we view them on a screen or paper.
in actuality, they can be considered "shells" of a 3d phenomenon.
Personally, since they do indicate "lines" or layers and not just an entirely smooth field, I might even be persuaded to call them "boundaries" (between layered densities of a field)...
But, then - I'm just a artist - what would I know?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Here, mon vieux Ira, you will find your answers. https://www.youtu...XdXZ5TM. Enjoy. TC

That was fun AND informative. Thanks, Techno...
DeliriousNeuron
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 24, 2014
Aunt Ira is confused. Please excuse him.
otero
Jun 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Requiem
5 / 5 (2) Jun 24, 2014
Wow....

Wouldn't it be awesome if the comment section here had the moderators from the forums?

http://www.physic...t4763532
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
No worries...:-) I meant was just gonna have some pie...:-)
We think of them as "lines", inasmuch as that's the 2d way we view them on a screen or paper.
in actuality, they can be considered "shells" of a 3d phenomenon.
Personally, since they do indicate "lines" or layers and not just an entirely smooth field, I might even be persuaded to call them "boundaries" (between layered densities of a field)...
But, then - I'm just a artist - what would I know?


Very well described. I am not surprised by the fact that "just an artist" can visualize the phenomenon in a way that seems to be impossible for someone looking at it from a mathematical perspective.

What kind of pie?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
Very well described. I am not surprised by the fact that "just an artist" can visualize the phenomenon in a way that seems to be impossible for someone looking at it from a mathematical perspective.

What kind of pie?

Any kind that tastes good...:-) Also taking into consideration what my wife has made at the moment...
Actually, was kinda referencing what K does when he needs to think, in MIB3.
Scroofinator
5 / 5 (1) Jun 25, 2014
there is nothing but force effecting energy flow....on all levels

Truest statement I've seen here in a while. There is only energy, and the forces that accompany it's interaction with other energy sources. The more atoms, the more energy, the more force.

That being said, energy stems from an electron's movement and spin (magnetic moment). Trying to resolve the issues of GR without starting there just seems pointless.
no fate
1 / 5 (2) Jun 25, 2014
Very well described. I am not surprised by the fact that "just an artist" can visualize the phenomenon in a way that seems to be impossible for someone looking at it from a mathematical perspective.

What kind of pie?

Any kind that tastes good...:-) Also taking into consideration what my wife has made at the moment...
Actually, was kinda referencing what K does when he needs to think, in MIB3.


LOL...did you have it with a "nasty ass peice of cheddar" ?

And thanks Scroof. Accurate observation regarding GR.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Jun 26, 2014
LOL...did you have it with a "nasty ass peice of cheddar" ?


"I" before "E" , except after C - not before...
And no. Who would do that to a decent blackberry pie?
otero
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2014
It's true, many crackpots abuse forums as well: they're spamming with OT links mindlessly and don't dispute anyway.


@ Socratic-Skippy. You bump your head Cher? I can not believe you said what you just said right there. It's too bad they only give you 3 or 2 minutes to change something you wish you didn't say because I bet the people here going to make the fun with you on that one.
otero
Jun 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 26, 2014
@Uncle Ira: It's nice you don't believe my post and link in it - but what would that imply? How your belief/disbelief can change it? Are your private feelings intersubjectivelly testable at distance? Do they matter in matter of fact discussion at all? If not, why we should take care of it? Etc...


@ Socratic-Skippy. I believe your post and didn't look at the link you put up. I tried that before and get confused while I try to put the link together with what you are talking about. Non Cher, I was just only talking about where you said that the forums have the too many crackpots on them that do the spamming on them. That's the part I think everybody going to make the big fun with.
mooster75
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 26, 2014
Wow....

Wouldn't it be awesome if the comment section here had the moderators from the forums?

http://www.physic...t4763532

Yes. It would be incredibly awesome!
otero
Jun 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.