Gravity Diluted By Multiple Dimensions?

SEWilco writes: "Why is gravity so weak? Maybe it isn't, but it's diluted by propagating through many dimensions. The theory provides a relatively simple explanation to several oddities of physics, and it should be relatively easy to test. Notice the links at the bottom of the story; one of them mentions that the concept doesn't have a catchy name yet...and we'll be reading more about it soon. Slashdot discussed extra dimensions before, but this concept involves gravity actually propagating into them." I think we should call it 'The Emmett Effect.' There's got to be some lab-coated brainiac out there than can make it happen.

Comments

Re:Nonsense

[fiziko]

I mean how the hell can you compare two forces with completely causes? It is just as absurd as saying that 1 gram is more than 1 coulomb.

That's right. They're comparing the values of the coupling constants, which are dimensionless quantities (ie. no units), so they can look at things on the same scale. The coupling constant determines the strength of the interaction. (It also has a really bad name; it turns out that it's not constant.)

Re:Gravity is weak?

[com]

The formula for calculating the gravity between two objects from Newton is:
Fg = G * m1 * m2 / d^2

Fg - is the force

G - is a constant that is very small (about 10^-11)

m1 and m2 - are two masses of objects attracting

d - is the distance between objects

Gravity acts between every two objects in space. Even between you and me. But because G and our "weight" is so small, we can't notice the gravity. It is very weak force.

But when gravity acts between the Earth and you, the Earth's mass is very very big and the gravity is noticable. If the gravity would be a strong force, then you'd probably change into a pancake.

We rearrange this equation:
Fg=(G*m1/d^2)*m2

(G*m1/d^2) = g ~ 10 m/s

So we get the good old (and very simplified) equation:
Fg= g * m

But the word weak is very relative. You must compare gravity with the other forces. And relatively it is very weak.

Cross Dimensional Stellar Effects?

[Effugas]

I have a simple question.

Suppose for a moment that, indeed, many universes inhabited this specific multiversee.

Also suppose that certain extreme events would lead to cross universal leakage.

We wouldn't need to wait for a particle accelerator to be built to witness such effects--those stellar furnaces known as stars should be a constant source of evidence for reactions so extreme that they violate the bounds of this 3D environment.

In fact, stellar reactions should be the most mysterious, because they'd contain the most missing energy by far. It's not unimaginable, to be sure. Where I think some things start to break down is that, if there *is* leakgage, the events that cause such things as Gamma Ray bursts would *need* to involve cross universal effects.

A bigger problem actually with cross universal gravity is that it would cause real problems for universal integrity. In order for multiple universes to to exist in parallel to eachother without any kind of "reinforced wall" between those universes, they must grow in parallel to one another and never blur together. But if gravitation in one universe can extend out towards another, there'd be no way for the parallel universes to remain separate--particularly if the forces equated at short distances, the universes would draw together into one.

Thoughts?

Yours Truly,

Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com

"Little Caesars? You do pizza?"

Re:Gravity is weak?

[Chops]

Moreover, if the force of gravity increases dramatically at short distances, it may be possible for the next generation of accelerators -- such as Europe's Large Hadron Collider scheduled to begin operation in 2005 -- to create black holes, regions smaller than the radius of the extra dimensions where gravity is so strong that nothing can escape.

And the probability is yet again increased that humanity's last words will be, "It's working!"

I propose...

[MupwI]

Hyperspatially Orthogonal Transmission of Gravitational Rays In Twisted Space, or HOTGRITS for short...
Damn...I think I've just used up my day's supply of long words...

Re:Nonsense

[stevelinton]

Actually this is a perfectly sensible and serious theory, which has been around for 10 or 15 years, in various guises, it has just suffered from abbrevation and simplification.

Regarding the comparisons, if you take any fundamental particle in the universe which actually has both mass and charge and place an identical particle at rest 1m away from it, the electrostatic force between them exceeds the gravitational by many orders of magnitude. If you want a theory that explains both electromagnetism and gravity as aspects of the same thing (which is generally considered desirable) then it has to explain this huge discrepancy.

Regarding the dimensions, imagine a 1mm^2 two-dimensional creature living on the outer surface of a garden hose. It has two very different dimensions: along, which is practically infinite (althoiugh explorers may claim to have reached the mythical "tap" and "spout") and around, in which you can go only a few dozen body-lengths before you get back to your starting point.

Actually an even closer analogy would be to imagine creatures living on the hose big enough to actually wrap round it in places. Fundamental particles are supposed to be entangled with the extra dimensions in this way.

Nonsense

[garnier]

Anyone with a good scientific background can see that this article is very flawed. Here are some examples:

Although we think of gravity as strong -- we can get hurt if we fall down -- compared to electromagnetism, gravity is astonishingly weak. It takes the gravity of the whole Earth to hold a pin on a tabletop; a toy magnet can lift it easily.

Ehm, excuse me but doesn't the phrase "comparing apples to oranges" come to mind here? I mean how the hell can you compare two forces with completely causes? It is just as absurd as saying that 1 gram is more than 1 coulomb.
Gravity is related to mass, and electromagnetic forces on charge. How can someone compare the mass of the earth with the charge in the atoms in a magnet? They are totally different things.

The notion sounds deceptively simple: besides the familiar three dimensions of space there may be other dimensions, too small to see yet perhaps as large as a millimeter.

Dimensions do not have a size. Objects have sizes in a set of dimensions.

I hope Sla

Re:Gravity is weak?

[fiziko]

That's why it's only a proposal waiting to be tested. Scientists have been trying to combine all the forces of nature into one coherent picture for years. The electric and magnetic forces were combined in the last century, joined with the weak nuclear force twenty years ago, and joined with the strong force afterwards. Gravity is the only force that hasn't been pulled into a single, coherent view. Maybe it never will be brought in, but the idea of one force being completely independant of the others raises a whole new set of questions.

Basically, there's no reason for it to be the same, and there's no reason for it to be different, so scientists are checking out all the options.