Stephen Hawking

22 posts / 0 new
Editor
Se unió: 08.09.2014
Pending moderation

I am devastated to hear the passing of one of the most brilliant minds of our era. Such a tragic loss for Science. May he always be remembered as the courageous, awe-inspiringly genius and humourous man he was.

Moderator sapiens sapiens
Se unió: 05.04.2012

True thing! Despite not being into Physics myself, he was really a role model for me. We lost one of our greatest men today, but thankfully his legacy will go on for years Regular smile

Editor (Resident Evil)
Se unió: 26.10.2015

I always admired how he was able to develop his theories although he lacked one of the basic prerequisites of every theoretical scientist - the ability to scribble his ideas on paper and wrestle with the calculations until they work out. He had to do all this in his mind - with only a little help from his computer.
I've often wondered whether he would've been even more brilliant without the impediments from his disease.
Then again, maybe it was the other way around and his condition helped him extend the capabilities of his brain (much like the other senses of a blind person are usually enhanced).

Editor
Se unió: 06.10.2016

He was a truly brilliant and awe-inspiring man. I LOVE his sense of humor and his view of life. A great loss indeed.

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

He had a brilliant mind, no doubt. Unfortunately though, his work contributed to a general slide of the 20th century physics (especially astrophysics, particle physics, and field theory) into metaphysics, by substituting math in place of natural philosophy and real understanding. As a result, one physicist (I don't remember who) said that the 20th century physics will be known as the dark ages of science, and I totally subscribe to this notion.

Super Member
Se unió: 13.04.2017

I might be mistaken but as I remember that physicist also said that we break into atoms and stars by the means of maths while we should use it to simply open the door...
R.I.P. Steve

Editor (and) усталый старик
Se unió: 11.10.2014
St. Sol wrote:

He had a brilliant mind, no doubt. Unfortunately though, his work contributed to a general slide of the 20th century physics (especially astrophysics, particle physics, and field theory) into metaphysics, by substituting math in place of natural philosophy and real understanding. As a result, one physicist (I don't remember who) said that the 20th century physics will be known as the dark ages of science, and I totally subscribe to this notion.

The late 20th and early 21st centtury are certainly a dark-age for Physics, because string theory was too easily adjustable to be effectively tested by experiment. That's nothing to do with replacing natural philosophy by maths, since maths has been the language in which natural philosophy is described by physicists since Leibnitz and Newton put physics on that track several hunderd years ago. The dark age of physics in the late 20th and early 21st centuries was caused by string theory, which had enough arbitrary conconants that it could always wriggle out of any apparent disagreement with experiment - in effect, it was so expressed as to be (i) not refutable by experiment (just adjust the appropriate consonant and say look, it's OK) and (ii) unable to predict any new experimental results, and the string theorists ganged up to ensure that most people following a different theory would have difficulties in their careers (unless they were already too revered to be treated like that) so that almost no-one was looking at alternative approaches to string theory. You might like to read Lee Smolin's book "The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science and What Comes Next" to see what has actually gone wrong in physics instead of uttering the nonsensical suggestion that using maths in physics means abandoning natural philosophy (perhaps it was Smolin whose name you forgot).

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

Pardon me? Before calling my suggestion nonsensical perhaps you might want to ponder an idea that you misunderstood what I had said and acted on this misunderstanding. Using math in physics is foundational and it doesn't mean abandoning natural philosophy. What I had in mind is that using math to explain the inner workings of the Universe and predict its ultimate fate, based on questionable assumptions (wave propagation in vacuum, nature of gravity, blind faith in big bang, black holes, dark matter and other pseudoscientific nonsense), accepting violations of causality, matter creation ab nihilo, with the lack of or total neglect of inconvenient experimental data ("far away" high red shift quasars photographed in FRONT OF low red shift nearby galaxies, totally neglecting electromagnetism on large cosmic scales, denying experimentally observed "nearly" instantaneous speed of gravity - much faster than speed of light just as Newton's laws suggest, denying fine structure of electron and misrepresenting its spin, ignoring the nature of electric charge, etc.), and trying to derive "God's equation" explaining everything when the nature of matter and all physical forces is at best misunderstood or intentionally ignored as it is, constitutes metaphysics. In my lexicon, string theory is not even a science but a pure math manipulation, portraying itself as a branch of physics. Smolin had enough sense to recognize that there is much wrong with modern physics, but he was still too bound to mainstream to see its foundational failures and to openly discuss many inconvenient facts. Truly, modern physics is blind leading blind. Regards, St.

Editor and cheeky nitpicker
Se unió: 14.09.2013

I certainly doubt quantum physics would have gone very far without a hefty cushion of eye-watering maths.

Despites my engineering degree in computer science and electronics which required me, among other unpleasant things, to tinker with the beautiful equations of Mr Maxwell and juggle with at least some basic tensorial calculus, trying out of curiosity to get a serious idea of what lies behind Schrödinger's or Einstein's equations (both of which I was taught very little about as a student in the 80's) proved an impossible task, which condemns me to stand in awe in front of this magnificent achievement of science like a monkey staring at a moon rocket.

Even with a comparable hefty cushion of maths, Einstein's equation (the one from general relativity, which is unfortunately a bit harder to write than E=MC²) leads to so atrociously complex computations it remains practically unuseable except for very simple cases like a couple of stars or a thermodynamic approach of the universe as a king size gas bubble. Most if not all of the practical applications of Einstein's theories are based on the much simpler special relativity or simplified results from the general relativity.

One of the biggest problem I see mankind facing right now is that both Einstein's relativity and quantum physics are inaccessible to anyone but rather brillant specialists or extermely brillant amateurs.

The best a teenager can hope to learn before a few university years roughly covers scientific discoveries up to the end of 19th century.
Just the maths needed to get a serious idea of what Einstein and Bohr are blabbering about require at least a couple of years in a good university. After that, you'll need another 2 or 3 years raking your brains silly to be able to master any practical application of these theories.
For instance, as a student, I had to sweat over a few very specific partial results of quantum physics needed to compute the kind and amount of junk you should mix into your silicium wafer to create electronic components like diodes or transistors. That left me with mighty headaches and a relatively good idea of how a transistor is supposed to work (about which I forgot as fast as I could), but none the wiser about whence these mysterious equations came.

If you don't have that background, you'll have to be content with simplistic vulgarization that gives you no better grasp of the reality beyond a photon interfering with itself, an electron teleporting through a wall of atoms or colliding black holes making space-time wobble like a 4-dimentional glob of jelly than your average economist has of economic growth (which, if recent history is to be trusted, is very little).

All this might indicate that we are simply nearing the limits of what our oversized monkey brains are able to process. Maybe endeavouring to unify gravitation and quantum physics is just as pointless as trying to poke the moon with a stick, and we, as a species, are just too dumb to realize it?

Even without looking at these lofty monuments of science or the fascinating speculations of the late professor Hawkins about black hole evaporation, infinitely simpler theories like thermodynamics, which can certainly help understand why a world without oil will be a world full of pain, are not even taught before A level.
Even considering the things that are at least mentioned in college, I very doubt more than 1% of mankind has seen enough exponential curves to realize what 3% growth per year really implies.
I bet 99% of mankind, including our beloved leaders, have no serious idea of what energy is or the inanity to try to maintain any kind of continuous exponential growth once energy sources have been depleted. Or if they do, they must also have a deathwish stronger than the realization of what lack of energy and various non-linear phenomenons are about to do to our mighty civilization.

Editor (Resident Evil)
Se unió: 26.10.2015
michealt wrote:

and the string theorists ganged up to ensure that most people following a different theory would have difficulties in their careers (unless they were already too revered to be treated like that) so that almost no-one was looking at alternative approaches to string theory.

Oh, right, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, uh, I mean, nobody is researching loop quantum gravity, right.
Conspiracy theories, really now? What would be the incentive to "gang up" against other approaches to solving problems? Who keeps all these people in line? At what point do you get initiated into the Dark Society of the String? Sheesh, folks.

Editor (Resident Evil)
Se unió: 26.10.2015
St. Sol wrote:

blind faith in big bang, black holes, dark matter and other pseudoscientific nonsense

... aaaand we have reached rock bottom where decades of science are argued away with a layman's handwaving. I'm out of this discussion.
(There is no "blind faith" in anything in physics, duh. And not everything that defies your personal intution is "pseudoscientific".)

Editor and cheeky nitpicker
Se unió: 14.09.2013
magicmulder wrote:

Oh, right, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, uh, I mean, nobody is researching loop quantum gravity, right.

Precious few people are, and unfortunately loop quantum gravity has yet to produce an experimental validation or any kind of predictive power.

It's rather the maths trying to push the physics than the contrary, for the little I understand of it.
About the opposite of what Einstein did. The basic maths had already been done by guys like Poincarré, but Einstein gave them a vaslty broader meaning thanks to his intuition of the underlying reality.

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

I could argue and support every point I made in my post with observable facts and logic and in the process of doing so completely shatter your view of the Universe if you only dared to remove your blinders for a moment, but it seems like a lost cause to me. False assumptions invariably lead to false conclusions, and unfortunately most of modern physics is based on such false assumptions about reality (I mentioned a few in my post). The Universe is bigger, more complex on large and small scales than anyone could imagime, and full of light. It is only dark (undetectable dark matter, dark energy, "evaporating" black holes, infinite densities, divine creation ab nihilo, etc.) in the conditioned minds of mainstream physicists unable to see the absurdity of their views and accepting it with blind faith. Whole modern physics is based on blind faith in certain postulates and assumptions about reality, which are easily demonstrated to be wrong. Sad.
Case in point and a simple test of your faith-based physics: Newton's laws assume instantaneous action of gravity at any distance, but instant action at a distance is impossible by default (if you are a scientist, of course, and don't believe in magic). Yet every observation confirms nearly instant (to our detection limits) action of gravitational force. What in your opinion is the speed of gravitational force (not imaginary gravitational waves, but the actual transmission of gravitational action)? If you are an adept of GRT, then you'd say it is the speed of light, but this is easily disproved by simple calculation, showing that any planetary system like our Solar system, not even mentioning galaxies, would become unstable and lose its planets in a few hundred years if gravity propagated as slowly as the speed of light and acted upon the Earth not where it is NOW but where it was 15 minutes ago and thus produced an extra angular momentum, accelerating it away from the Sun (easy, look it up). Yet, the Solar system seems to exist a bit longer than that and doesn't show any signs of falling apart. That implicitly supports the fact that the actual speed of gravitational force is much faster than the speed of light. For practical purposes it is assumed to be instant and this assumption works, confirming our observations and producing correct results. Now, where do you stand on this simple issue? Still blindly believe in GRT and all resulting absurdities? This is just one example, but the whole edifice of modern physics can be pulled apart just as easily with observable facts. Yet the supposedly "smart" people believe in such nonsense and keep indoctrinating others...

Editor (Resident Evil)
Se unió: 26.10.2015

Oh boy, where do I start...

St. Sol wrote:

The Universe is bigger, more complex on large and small scales than anyone could imagime, and full of light.

Says you. Who died and made you God? What "secret knowledge" do you possess that allows you to disqualify decades of science with some chatter that makes you sound like a religious nut?

St. Sol wrote:

It is only dark (undetectable dark matter, dark energy, "evaporating" black holes, infinite densities, divine creation ab nihilo, etc.) in the conditioned minds of mainstream physicists

Your personal opinion about "dark vs light" (that is obviously inspired by religious views) is irrelevant.

St. Sol wrote:

Whole modern physics is based on blind faith in certain postulates and assumptions about reality, which are easily demonstrated to be wrong.

Oh sure. You are correct whereas Einstein, Hawking and tens of thousands of other experts are all wrong, and in fact, by your argument, deliberate liars. Riiiiight.

St. Sol wrote:

That implicitly supports the fact that the actual speed of gravitational force is much faster than the speed of light. For practical purposes it is assumed to be instant and this assumption works, confirming our observations and producing correct results.

Gravitational force warps space. It's universally agreed that warping space does not violate the rules about the speed of light, nor does "faster than light" expansion of the universe in the early stages after the Big Bang.

St. Sol wrote:

If you are an adept of GRT, then you'd say it is the speed of light

Straw man. GRT does not postulate that nothing can be faster than light. Why do you have to resort to misrepresenting the other side of the argument to make it appear you've "found a hole"?

St. Sol wrote:

Yet the supposedly "smart" people believe in such nonsense and keep indoctrinating others...

It is usually those who claim the "other side" is "indoctrinating" who are not correct and are desperately trying to protect their personal beliefs in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Also, scientists do not "believe", they base their arguments on solid science. You are the one who is making this a "contest of beliefs".

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

Says you. Who died and made you God? What "secret knowledge" do you possess that allows you to disqualify decades of science with some chatter that makes you sound like a religious nut? -- I don't claim any secret knowledge, but questioning assumptions is a good habit to have if you claim to be a scientist. False assumptions = false conclusions, and you seem to be another victim.

Your personal opinion about "dark vs light" (that is obviously inspired by religious views) is irrelevant. -- I hold no religious views of any kind, but it is sad that you can't even recognize the pun about "dark vs. light".

Oh sure. You are correct whereas Einstein, Hawking and tens of thousands of other experts are all wrong, and in fact, by your argument, deliberate liars. Riiiiight. -- appeal to authority: try to think for yourself once in a while.

Gravitational force warps space. It's universally agreed that warping space does not violate the rules about the speed of light, nor does "faster than light" expansion of the universe in the early stages after the Big Bang. -- What is space and how do you warp it? Believing in phantoms yet again.

Straw man. GRT does not postulate that nothing can be faster than light. Why do you have to resort to misrepresenting the other side of the argument to make it appear you've "found a hole"? -- By several independent accounts (I have all the references), to act as it does, gravity must be at least 20,000,000,000 times faster than light. You can't just sweep this number under the rug with simple statements - surely something is missing in the whole worldview of reality. The "hole" is so big you could pull a cluster of galaxies through it, but somehow all this doesn't bother the physics crowd. Sad.

Editor and cheeky nitpicker
Se unió: 14.09.2013

I'm sorry to add another layer of contradiction, St Sol, but really your speech sounds like a rant.

There is no gravitational force as such in general relativity, only a space-time continuum with a local curvature.

Gravitational forces are only the manifestation of this curvature. Earth does not send gravitational rays to attract us. Earth has curved space time around itself the very moment it came into existence a few billion years ago, and we're just experiencing that curvature continuously. The only thing that is subject to a speed limit is the movement of masses that would bring a change in that curvature, for instance you would have to wait a bit for a big meteor to crash on earth and significantly modify its gravitational field. That would still happen pretty quickly though, I bet scientists could easily measure it before being vaporized.

The speed of light being a limit is just a consequence of the underlying concept of space-time topology. It's like the border of a flat map representing our spherical planet. Trying to exceed the speed of light is just like roaming the earth trying to reach the blank spaces outside the map.

According to special relativity, unless you enjoy the weightlessness of a photon, the energy you spend trying to go faster will increasingly be converted to mass instead of acceleration as you near the speed of light.

According to general relativity, concentrating more energy in a point of space will increase the local curvature of space-time. If you really insist in pouring more energy into the same location, you will eventually create a hole in the topology, like a cigarette burn on the aforementioned world map. The space so delimited will be litteraly outside the universe, you will no more be able to reach it than go beyond the event horizon of a black hole. Nearing such a region of space-time, it's time itself that will contract. The observable speed of whatever object will never exceed C, whatever referential you might choose.

You might want to have a look at Schwartschild radius, it's the easiest way I know to get an idea of the mind-boggling consequeces of Einstein's general relativity. You can even read the fundamental paper "Über das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie". It's very short, very clear, and the maths are relatively easy to follow with two years of scientific university under your belt.

It might well be that this Einsteinian representation of space-time is wrong, but it's been around for a century now and nobody seems to have come up with a better way of explaining a host of observable phenomenons.

What Einstein theory implies is that matter or energy cannot go faster than light. That does not mean other things can't.
For instance, one of the very first thing you stumble upon when studying electromagnetism is "phase speed" wich can routinely exceed C. It's not the speed of a material object or an energy wave, but of a wave propagation phenomemon.

Einstein himself could not admit the idea of quantum intrication, but it has been proved beyond a doubt in the 80's. And yet it does not violate the principles of relativity. It just implies that what we see as a couple of particles seems to be a global entity that can span across a vast amount of space. There is no energy or matter transfer involved, it just happens that this weird single object manifests its existence in two different locations, and an action on one end modifies the manifestation on the other end.

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

I see that shaking the already shaky foundation of modern physics seems to be too much for the crowd here: people are getting defensive and resort to name calling - a sure sign of lacking solid arguments. Without having even the slightest pretense to knowing any real answers (because the true nature of reality is ultimately unknowable to humans and to claim otherwise is to pretend to be God-like - that's the hubris most often exhibited by modern physics adepts, not me) it is still possible for an educated layman (and I do have several advanced scientific degrees, please call me Doctor next time) to expose the holes in the modern worldview with simple logic and observable facts (many, oh, so many inconvenient facts). And after reviewing these facts you'd think that physicists would be humble enough to stop ranting about big bang and the origins of the Universe (because universal expansion idea is based solely on Doppler red shifts as a measure of receding velocities and their questionable correlation with distance through cosmological constant, but red shift has been conclusively proven to be an unreliable measure for such things with oh so many inconvenient, directly observed facts, largely suppressed by mainstream though). Sorry, Pierre, but talking about space-time and its curvature is a prime manifest of metaphysical worldview, not to mention that explaining gravity as ST curvature effect is circular reasoning if you dig deep enough into it. Fact is we don't know the true nature of gravity, but I am familiar with a few theoretical concepts that make much more sense than modern metaphysics originating with Einstein. In view of mounting contradictory evidence it is high time to abandon 20th century metaphysics and return to reality, although Einstein was ultimately right when he said that apart from the Universe (possibly), only human stupidity is infinite in this world. Regards.

Editor (Resident Evil)
Se unió: 26.10.2015
St. Sol wrote:

because the true nature of reality is ultimately unknowable to humans and to claim otherwise is to pretend to be God-like

And we're back to quasi-religious arguments. Who told that the "true nature" (whatever that is) is "unknowable"? You're talking as if that were established fact; if so, please elaborate.

Just pointing out the irony here that you claim it's "hubris" to assume to be able to understand, yet you're "modest" in your claim that "the nature of reality is unknowable because I said so". *LOL* Dude, lay off the weed!

St. Sol wrote:

it is still possible for an educated layman (and I do have several advanced scientific degrees, please call me Doctor next time) to expose the holes in the modern worldview with simple logic and observable facts

Oh, we're getting closer. It's the old "I'm an expert in my field, so I'm also an expert in any other field" fallacy. I've got a degree in maths, yet I wouldn't claim I know as much about physics as Hawking (which BTW is *not* appeal to authority because I'm referring to the science his publications are based on, not his opinion on an issue for which there is no scientific basis). Are you an engineer maybe? I've seen such hybris in some of them.

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

If you consider philosophical arguments to be quasi-religious, I can't help you. Ultimately, you must take some kind of a stand on major philosophical issues in order to form a basis for your scientific exploration and discovery. Whether the nature of reality is knowable or not is one of these philosophical questions. It appears that you take mechanistic, or should I say, Marxist, approach to it: crudely stated it goes like this - all that we see/observe/measure around us is all there is to reality, there are no deeper (smaller) and larger scales that we ultimately won't be able to probe and measure some day, everything is ultimately knowable. From that it is easy to conclude that the Universe (although perhaps infinite) is still limited within a certain framework (curved space-time continuum, etc.) and thus could be understood as a whole and studied from its birth to its death. It also means that there are no larger scales than that just as there are no smaller scales beyond subatomic particles and quarks, electron has no fine structure, gravity is just a geometric property of ST and it has no real underlying carrier particle/field, etc. And finally, man is a god and master of the Universe (you just can't avoid this conclusion). I simply don't subscribe to this mechanistic worldview because, as I said, too many contradictions are piling up higher than Andromeda galaxy (pun intended), therefore I prefer to keep an open mind and consider a more probable alternative that reality is infinite in large and small, is infinitely complex, and as such cannot be ever fully measured or understood by human mind. It is as simple as that: a philosophical difference.
What is really funny is that the proponents of the simplistic mechanical view of the knowable limited Universe with their almost religious zeal for SCIENCE and their scientific idols accuse their free thinking opponents of being religious cranks. To that I can only say: look in the mirror. Regards.

Editor and cheeky nitpicker
Se unió: 14.09.2013

The right member of Einstein's equation is basically a tensor that can be coaxed into coughing up an expression of a gravitational field, provided you make a lot of assumptions on the repartition of mass in the vincinity and aren't afraid of a few pages of eye-watering maths. It just happens that the left members are an expression of space-time topology, so according to that theory, gravity is an emergent property of a topological state.
Try as I might, I see no trace of circular reasoning in this. If you see a circular reasoning in Einstein's theory, I'd be happy to hear a bit more about it.

As for this idea that gravity would have to "propagate" between the sun and the planets to hold the solar system together, that seems like a complete misunderstanding of field theory. Again, there is nothing to propagate there.
Read the background section of the wiki page about speed of gravity and you'll see these apparent changes in gravity field are mere artefacts caused by a change of referential.
The gravity field of any massive object in the solar system is, for all intent and purpose, a static field which is constant and does not propagate. The gravitational waves caused by solar system interactions are so minuscule it wouldn't make any sense to try and take them into account, assuming we could compute them, which we actually can't. Still there is no doubt they are utterly negligible.

The relativistic effects on gravity inside the solar system are limited to minute deviations of planetary orbits, again due to topological considerations and not any kind of propagation delay.
Explaining the aberrations in Mercury's orbit according to Newtonian gravity was even one of the first experimental validation of general relativity, again producing a solution of Einstein's equation in a very simple model of one light body orbiting around a massive one.
Surely you must know that?

Editor - Ironic Iron ֍ The Black Sun
Se unió: 20.11.2016

If there is "nothing to propagate" and gravitational field is static yet it updates instantly (what exactly updates? what is the carrier of this field? remember: moving/bending field lines don't exist, they are imaginary constructs invented to facilitate understanding of otherwise absurd notions, then what carries the force, what underlies it all?) everywhere (!) when a mass moves, that means gravity "speed" is infinite just as Newton's laws suggest. You may as well call it magic, I call it metaphysics, but I hope we both agree that instantaneous action at a distance is impossible. No amount of word play is going to hide the fact that the current picture of gravitational force lacks foundation. In any case, "field" is just a convenient word that pretends to explain but in reality obscures the truth (whatever the truth might be with all the forces that appear to act at a distance without a detectable carrier). The nature of "fields" is never discussed: only their effects, changes, interactions, etc. using fancy tensor equations, almost completely detached from reality. Like Newton's laws these may produce useful results but they don't explain the nature of the forces, only their effects. The result is like I said: using fancier and more complex math to hide the lack of understanding.
Consider rheology for example: many complex non-linear viscoelastic constitutive equations have been invented, operating on stress and rate of strain tensors and producing somewhat believable results. But only when the models started to include the actual molecular structure of flowing fluids - only then it became possible to describe and predict the whole spectrum of viscoelastic behavior without non-physical artifacts present in all continuum mechanics based models. Field theory, astrophysics, particle physics are not there yet.

Editor and cheeky nitpicker
Se unió: 14.09.2013

A gravity field is neither matter nor energy. It's a manifestation of the presence of masses in the vincinity (or the curvature of space-time, if Mr Einstein is to be trusted).
Same goes for electromagnetism. An electromagnetic field is the manifestation of the presence of electric charges in the vincinity, it's neither photons nor particles.

To have a problem of field propagation, you need a time variation of the field itself. For instance an electric motor will create a constantly changing electromagnetic field, but a plain magnet will produce a near-perfect constant field.

If you simply put a magnet on a table, you will be able to measure this field, and if you come back a year later the field won't have changed a bit. In the mean time, any piece of metal around the magnet will have exchanged countless electromagnetic radiations with it as vectors of electromagnetic interaction, and yet the field will not have changed at all (except the effects of the infinitesimal energy consumed by all these interactions).
Moving the magnet around will indeed change the interactions with the objects in its vincinity (since they will move inside the field), but not the field itself.
From the perspective of an unfortunate piece of metal lying around, the field will seem to follow "instantly" the magnet at the speed of the magnet. If you choose a referential that follows the magnet, the field will still be perfectly immobile and unchanging. The only thing that produces an effect on the metal around is the displacement inside the field, which only depends of the movement of the objects relative to each other.

Now back to our solar system.

The Sun is basically a big ball of very slowly burning hydrogen and helium. It does not experience any significant (relative) change of mass over a few minutes, nor of rotation speed, and it doesn't interact with supermassive objects to the point of generating any kind of significant gravity waves. So the field it produces is a near perfect constant.

When the Earth moves relative to the sun, it experiences changes in gravitational forces, but the rate at which these changes occur is dictated by the speed of the Earth relative to the Sun. This speed is extremely small compared to C, so from a relativistic perspective the Earth is practically immobile and doesn't experience any significant time shift of any kind relative to the Sun.

Frankly I have no idea whether gravitons exist or not and this Higgs boson is a sweet mystery to me, but if any kind of particle has to be exchanged for the Earth to acknowledge the attraction of the Sun, these particles will be emitted the very instant the Earth makes an infinitesimal move inside Sun's gravity field.
Maybe they will need 8 minutes to reach the Sun and sign the receipt. If some people on the Sun are able to detect those gravitons or Higgs bosons or whatever and care to know what happens to us, they will need to wait 8 long minutes to get the picture. But on Earth, the effect of gravity will be felt instantly nevertheless.

As long as the Earth doesn't start spinning around the Sun at relativistic speed, this "transmission of gravity" can be considered instant for all intent and purpose.

Añadir nuevo comentario