Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gravity-The Inside Story 8 Jun 10

Gravity-The Inside Story 8 Jun 10

Ratings: (0)|Views: 19 |Likes:
Published by Richard Benish
Given a uniformly dense sphere with a hole through its center, gravity is supposed to cause an object dropped into the hole to oscillate between the extremities. This is a prediction of both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity. Though every physicist knows what is supposed to happen, nobody has ever seen it happen. Failure to back up the predicted oscillation with empirical evidence is not due to insurmountable technical obstacles; a laboratory experiment to test it is quite feasible. According to the ideals of science, we should not be satisfied with analogies or extrapolations suggesting that the prediction is correct. We should, if possible, get the answer directly from Nature. Thus, we have two questions: 1) In the physical circumstance described above, what happens? And 2) Why don't we find out what happens? (1) is a physics question; its answer is non-verbal and is gotten by simply observing Nature. Whereas (2) is a more complicated, sociological question. Its answer involves the ways that physicists rescind the ideals of science; how they accept analogies and extrapolations as substitutes for facts due to the weight of authoritative ``knowledge''---even though such knowledge lacks empirical evidence. These questions will be discussed in order.
Given a uniformly dense sphere with a hole through its center, gravity is supposed to cause an object dropped into the hole to oscillate between the extremities. This is a prediction of both Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity. Though every physicist knows what is supposed to happen, nobody has ever seen it happen. Failure to back up the predicted oscillation with empirical evidence is not due to insurmountable technical obstacles; a laboratory experiment to test it is quite feasible. According to the ideals of science, we should not be satisfied with analogies or extrapolations suggesting that the prediction is correct. We should, if possible, get the answer directly from Nature. Thus, we have two questions: 1) In the physical circumstance described above, what happens? And 2) Why don't we find out what happens? (1) is a physics question; its answer is non-verbal and is gotten by simply observing Nature. Whereas (2) is a more complicated, sociological question. Its answer involves the ways that physicists rescind the ideals of science; how they accept analogies and extrapolations as substitutes for facts due to the weight of authoritative ``knowledge''---even though such knowledge lacks empirical evidence. These questions will be discussed in order.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Richard Benish on Jun 17, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/16/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Research Argument
Gravity: The Inside Story
R. Benish
(
1
)
(
1
)
Eugene, Oregon, USA, rjbenish@teleport.com 
Abstract.
Given a uniformly dense sphere with a hole through its center, gravity is supposedto cause an object dropped into the hole to oscillate between the extremities. Thisis a prediction of both Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity. Though ev-ery physicist knows what is
supposed 
to happen, nobody has ever
seen 
it happen.Failure to back up the predicted oscillation with empirical evidence is not due toinsurmountable technical obstacles; a laboratory experiment to test it is quite fea-sible. According to the ideals of science, we should not be satisfied with analogiesor extrapolations suggesting that the prediction is correct. We should, if possible,get the answer directly from Nature. Thus, we have two questions: 1) In the phys-ical circumstance described above,
what happens
? And 2) Why don’t we
find out 
what happens? (1) is a physics question; its answer is non-verbal and is gotten bysimply observing Nature. Whereas (2) is a more complicated, sociological question.Its answer involves the ways that physicists rescind the ideals of science; how theyaccept analogies and extrapolations as substitutes for facts due to the weight of authoritative “knowledge”—even though such knowledge lacks empirical evidence.These questions will be discussed in order.PACS 04.80.Cc – Experimental tests of gravitational theories.
1. – Introduction
From the moment of birth, human beings, like other animals, learn how to deal withgravity without thinking about it. Though gravity remains mostly an unconscious partof our existence, thanks to Newton, Einstein and others, modern society has benefitedfrom an understanding of gravity sufficient to send people to the moon and to maintainan impressive array of satellites. But there is a huge gap in our knowledge of gravitythat physicists continue to neglect. We can predict well enough how planets and satel-lites move around large gravitating bodies. What has never been observed, however,is what would happen if a falling object were allowed to fall straight to the center of a larger body without collision. The orbiting of satellites and most everything else weknow about gravity involves what is sometimes referred to as a gravitational
exterior 
solution. Whereas falling to the center of a gravitating body involves what is referred
c
Richard Benish 2010
1
 
2
R. BENISH
to as a gravitational
interior 
solution.
The standard gravitational interior solution hasnever been empirically teste
. It is obviously impossible to do a fall-to-the-center ex-periment by digging a hole through Earth. But it could be done relatively easily withmore conveniently sized bodies in an Earth-based laboratory. For various reasons it isimportant to fill the gap in our knowledge of gravity by conducting an experimental testof the gravitational interior solution. Failure to do so up to now is not because of anyinsurmountable technical challenge. The thought of doing the experiment simply doesnot arise in the establishment of academic physics. The science of physics is not wellserved by leaving this stone unturned. My purpose is to bring this situation to light sothat, ultimately, we can find out whether the standard gravitational interior solution issupported by empirical evidence, or not.We need to first outline the history of our understanding of gravity. Fortunately,though gravitational physics can get very complicated, our concern will be a few simplefacts about theories of gravity that we can meaningfully discuss in plain language and afew empirical facts about gravity that are similarly simple. This basic lesson will providesufficient context to see the importance of the experiment mentioned above. Once we seethat doing the experiment would be a worthwhile contribution to science, it becomes hardto avoid the question of why the physics community has neglected to carry it out. Whatwe find is that this neglect is due to the weight of assumed knowledge, i.e., theoreticalknowledge that is so deeply ingrained that physicists have ceased to question it.
2. – Basic background: History, theory, and physical facts
Gravitational physics mainly involves two theories: Newton’s theory and Einstein’stheory. The latter is known as general relativity. General relativity has proven itself su-perior to Newtonian gravity by agreeing with observations that disagree with Newtonianpredictions. Currently there are no widely known viable alternatives to general relativity.In most cases the disagreements between these two theories are extremely small, so thatNewtonian gravity is still more commonly used. In fact, the core curriculum of collegephysics throughout the world is Newtonian mechanics, which consists of Newton’s laws of motion and, as a special case, his law of gravity. The deviations from Newtonian theorydescribed by Einstein’s theory become significant only in cases involving extremely highvelocities or extremely massive bodies. Thus, general relativity retains much of Newto-nian physics. It is fair to say that the prevailing understanding of the physical worldis still deeply influenced by Newton’s conceptions of space, time and matter—which arethe fundamental elements of physics.According to Newton’s theory (which dates back to the 17th century) gravity is aforce of attraction between material bodies. The bodies and the force are all envisionedas residing in the vast, possibly infinite expanse of 
absolute space
. Newtonian matterpossesses the property of inertia, which means that it resists being accelerated. Matteris conceived as consisting of a multitude of static, inert chunks of stuff. Newtonian spaceis conceived as a
flat 
, passive background arena. Being flat means that it obeys the lawsof Euclidean geometry. By contrast, one of the key innovations that Einstein introducedwith general relativity (in 1915) is that space is described in terms of 
non 
-Euclideangeometry. Instead of being flat, space is
curved 
or
warped 
. In many popularizationsof Einstein’s theory the idea of warped space is depicted as a dimpled rubber sheet.Somehow matter is supposed to cause this dimple, which is sometimes characterized asan undulation in the
fabric of spacetime
. As implied by the word, space
time
, it is notonly space that is warped; so is time. This means that gravity causes clocks to tick at
 
GRAVITY: THE INSIDE STORY
3
different rates, depending on their location in the gravitational field. This is in contrastto the Newtonian conception, according to which time is unaffected by anything else.Newtonian time “flows equably,” which means that all properly functioning clocks tickat the same rate no matter where they are located or how they are moving.As noted above, Newtonian gravity successfully predicts the motions of bodies in thesolar system; and where Newton’s theory fails (by extremely small margins) Einstein’stheory succeeds. Physicists are very happy with this. And yet, it is important to em-phasize that we still do not know the inner workings of gravity. We don’t know
why 
Newton’s theory seems to correspond to observations, nor do we know
why 
Einstein’stheory matches observations even better. In other words, we have no idea what
physical mechanism 
could produce the force envisioned by Newton or the warpage envisioned byEinstein.It is humbling to consider how some physicists have characterized our understandingof gravity. The well-respected cosmologist, J. Narlikar, has written, “It would be noexaggeration to say that, although gravitation was the first of the fundamental laws of physics to be discovered, it continues to be the most mysterious one.” [1] An assessmentby the English physicist, B. K. Ridley, is even more sweeping:Things in a force field start to move without anything visible pushing them.Pure magic, but we have talked ourselves into behaving as though such thingsare perfectly understandable...We think we understand. But really, we donot. The invisible influences of gravitation and electromagnetic fields remainmagic; describable, but nevertheless implacable, non-human, alien magic. [2]Another cosmologist, Michael Turner, puts it succinctly: “I think we are so confusedthat we should keep an open mind to tinkering with gravity.” [3] The enigma of gravitypersists not only with regard to the question of how material bodies produce it, it extendsto various other unsolved puzzles, including the behavior of the universe as a whole, andto the question of how gravity relates to the other fundamental forces of nature. For manyyears physicists have been trying, without success, to find answers to these questions.
3. – Experiencing gravity for the first time
It often happens that the solution of a puzzle involves looking at it in a new way, froma new angle. So far, not surprisingly, gravity has been approached by humanity only asEarthlings would approach it. Perhaps that is the problem. We are so familiar with ourexperience of living on a large, warm, moist sphere of matter, that we have neglected toconsider our gravitational experience from any other perspective. Therefore, let us nowimagine that we are not inhabitants of such a place, but rather, that we have evolvedin the far reaches of space where our experience of gravity would be much different. Byadopting this perspective, perhaps we can expose a blind spot that we might otherwise notbecome conscious of. We will see that having the heritage of this civilization would meanthat, upon discovering a large body of matter for the first time, we would instinctivelyhave a burning curiosity to test the interior solution.In addition to the unanswered questions about gravity mentioned above, the perspec-tive we now adopt gives us one more poignant reason to look inside matter. Suppose,then, that we have evolved very far from any large gravitating bodies, so that we areessentially ignorant of gravity. Suppose our home is a huge wheel-like rotating spacestation—perhaps the size of a large city on planet Earth. This is possible because the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->