This conversation is closed.

A unification of Gravity, Time (Motion) and Mass introducing the Graviton to the Standard Model

I have had this theory for quite a while now and I'm not sure
if I misunderstood something or if I'm repeating someone's idea, so
I hope someone can answer it.

If Gravity=Time then a body without mass has no time which could then influence everything at once since it is timeless (requires no time to travel, so it is everywhere at once).
Now is the point where I would like to add the graviton and it's QF into
this, since it influences everything at once.
I have had the idea that there is an event that makes an object have less time(mass) so that it interacts less with the graviton QF (since that will cancel out if both have no time).

Please tell me if I should explain this better or
if there is a reason why this doesn't work. thanks! =D

  • Dec 28 2013: You seem to have arrived to a similar conclusion. But I have a different approach. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, it explains that gravity affects time. The stronger it is, the slower the time. However, what if gravity is influenced by time? I approached by predicting that the universe is a fluid time field. If we view this field as a type of fabric we can derive space time, except that the cause and effect are changed. Individual points on this fabric have different time speeds. (Here I thought the different time speeds as a sort of modulus of elasticity for space time. For convenience let me call it x. If x is large, time flows faster and there is more space-time elasticity which in turn causes low gravity. On the other hand if x is small, time would flow more slowly and there is lower space -time elasticity which causes high gravity.) Right now I'm thinking of how to work out how this newly defined space time will interact with matter.
    • thumb
      Dec 28 2013: Thanks for the reply! =D
      I also thought about it recently, that I was
      looking in the wrong direction when I said time and gravity are the same.
      It should be the two are proportional to each other (yes this does rather seem ridiculous..).
      Do you work at a university?
      • Dec 29 2013: I think it is plausble theoretically if we derive it from Einstein's theory of relativity. However I'm still far from developing it in to a full theory because I'm still a high school student.
  • Dec 27 2013: Time is not gravity , time requires two very important point 1. travel 2. speed . if nothing travels, there is no speed . Time is distance divide by speed. The introduction of light gave birth to time in the universe . As light is the only medium , which does not require any medium for travel , hence the light travelled & the speed at which it travel's, gives birth to time .
    • thumb
      Dec 28 2013: Thanks makes a lot of sense now!
      I like all the helpfulness here at TED! =D
  • Dec 11 2013: Where on earth did you get the idea that gravity=time?
    Science is based on empirical evidence, and I'm fairly sure not a single experiment drew that particular conclusion.
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2013: As I said it's a hypothesis that would include the Graviton, and if
      possible it still has to be proven, I just want to assure it is not "so" wrong that
      you would have to restart from scratch with the thinking, but just modify it here and there.

      Thank you for the reply! =D
      • Dec 11 2013: If you're really interested in the subject, I recommend you go study theoretical physics somewhere.

        Honestly, you're not going to reach some sort of world shattering conclusion on intuition alone. The only way to get any real physics done today is with empirical evidence alongside a heavy dose of mathematics. Any other combination is more likely to get you nonsense then anything else.
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2013: I was afraid of that answer... ='(
          But thanks, this was exactly what I was looking for.
          I already asked Fritzie but according to
          "The Empirical Law of large numbers" (translated from german),
          it is always good to have more opinions:
          Any university recommendations?
  • thumb
    Dec 11 2013: You might also post this question to a science forum where more physical scientists will see it.
    • thumb
      Dec 11 2013: Do you mean post this in a different conversation or how do you mean,
      should I post it somewhere else? Can you maybe send me a link?

      P.S. I wanted to do that, but I' searched for 2 days and didn't find any good webs.
      And then I stumbled over here, and it seemed really great to me =D

      Thanks for replying!
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2013: No, Xajoc8. Your question is fine here.

        What you should know, though, is that while we have great scientists as TED speakers and also listening to TED talks, the forum is a social network for people with all sorts of backgrounds rather than a gathering of experts in physical science.

        If you are seeking people with expertise in physical science, you might be lucky here if someone with such expertise pops in, but there are science forums where you may have a better chance of finding many such people to respond to your question.
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2013: Oh, I understand! I'll regard that (by the way I was looking for
          post an idea rather than ask a question sites on google, so I changed
          it to ask a science question and I found several sites where I asked
          if this idea is possible)

          Thanks helped a lot! =D
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2013: If you are at or near a university, you might also ask at a student physics club. Quantum Field theory is typically a second year graduate student subject.

        Are you a physics student at university?
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2013: No, unfortunately I am still a student but I have plans
          to study physics and later on specialise in the field of qm.
          (Any universities you recommend?)
          I have a problem of living in South Africa though... (Not too many
          Quantum Field Theory specialists here... =( )So most of
          the time I can only get data from books or online posts.

          Thank you again for oyur fast reply! =D
        • Dec 17 2013: Xajoc8,

          Lets separate Grad school from undergrad. For Grad School for Quantum, MIT is number 1, Berkeley is 10th. It has to do with the individuals working in the field there but also be aware the best people's groups are tough to get into. It will also depend on the funding for the group.
      • thumb
        Dec 11 2013: The best physics department in the world right now, I believe, is at the University of California, Berkeley. But you can study quantum mechanics at the undergraduate level probably at any university. In fact I would guess that a semester course in that subject would be required for the physics major.
        • thumb
          Dec 11 2013: Thanks Fritzie! You have been a great conversation partner!
          I'll definately have a look at that and see if I can study there with
          a ABI+NSC graduation (that still has to come though...). If not
          I'll make a plan to get there.