Wow! Lots of deep questions in there. I will do my best to answer them.
Quote: new theory that Newtonian Physics is not holding up at the galaxy level. Nothing proven yet... but has serious potential.
Actually, the idea that gravity might have a slightly different form than Newtonian only measurable at large scales (e.g. galactic scales) has been around for awhile. Occasionally new data will pop up, or someone will make a new stab at how the equation should look to fit the data.
According to Newton, the gravitational force is proportional to the inverse square of the distance between the two objects. So if you double the distance between two objects, the force will decrease by a factor of 4. Tripling the distance would cause it to decrease by a factor of 9, and so on. This equation, Newton's Universal Law of Gravity, has been shown to be VERY good at predicting observed motions in gravitational fields.
However, there are other observations that don't fit with this Law. If you take a galaxy full of stars and gas and put it in motion around a massive central object (typical scenario for a spiral galaxy) the speed of rotation of the stars should decrease with increasing distance from the center. We see the same thing with the planets in our solar system (how many are there again? LOL). But when we observe the rotational speed of stars in our galaxy, the speed of objects remains roughly constant with distance from the center.
There are two basic ways that people have used to explain this observation. One is dark matter, which we can go into if you want. The other is that the equation of gravity is slightly different than Newton's Law. If you experiment for example with the power, instead of it being inverse square it is inverse to the 2.3 power, you can make orbiting objects move differently. The trick is to tweak that number or the equation in such a way that you get the observed motion in galaxies, WITHOUT affecting the equation enough that it doesn't correctly predict the orbits of planets. People have been able to do this.
The problem is that there are many other motions in space, and tweaking the Law of Gravity in the way proposed to solve the galactic rotation problem creates conflict with some of those other motions. So the majority of scientists do not support the "tweak" model.
Quote: No one, not even Einstein, could figure out why gravity is such a weak force, but it is theorized, that gravity is woven, somehow into the space/time theory... the fabric of the universe.
First, figuring out WHY gravity is a weak force would be more of a philosophical question. Gravity just is what it is.
Second, the notion that gravity is woven into spacetime is essentially Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. The presence of mass warps spacetime. Objects are not orbiting in response to a centripetal force of gravity, they are following the curvature of space caused by the massive object. Einstein's theory has been successful primarily because it correctly predicts all observed motion, AND motions that Newton's Law could not predict, such as the bending of the path of starlight.
Quote: So I got to thnking. At the quantum level, gravity does not behave as it does at the macro level. This consfused Einstein. K. I get that.
You have basically described the great conundrum of modern physics. At the microscopic level, we can describe 3 of the 4 forces using a particle model (quantum physics). The missing one is gravity. But we have this great model for how gravity works at the macroscopic level. Unfortunately, that model (Relativity) cannot be molded to work at the microscopic level, at least not in the same way as the other 3 forces. Also, gravity is so weak that we do not have laboratory equipment sensitive enough to measure its properties at the microscopic level. Many people have made attempts to create a model (so called String Theory models) to explain the 3 quantum forces and gravity together, but while they look good on paper, there is no laboratory verification at this time.
Quote: So... what if... gravity defines the closed system? And systems within systems? What if it is merely an indicator of they system with which you are dealing, rather than a manifestation of the system?
I'll have to admit I am a bit confused as to the point you are trying to make here. Can you elaborate?
Quote: bodies that have mass exhibit certain levels of gravity that will always be pre-empted by the stronger forces, such as EMP and strong and weak nuclear forces.
While it is true that the other forces are stronger, gravity is preiminent at the macroscopic level. This is because the nuclear forces are only strong on very small scales, on the order of the size of an atomic nucleus. And the electromagtic force is generally zero outside the atom because most are electrically neutral. Gravity is the only long range force that always points in the same direction, toward the mass. So yes, the other forces do dominate at very small scales.
Quote: But... if gravity were any stronger than it is... how is it... that we would even be able to survive? If gravity operated at the quantum level as it does at the Newtonian level, how it is that you and I would have the ability to think? To walk upright... to have a neuron fire?
It seems as if you are skirting near the anthropic principle here. Are you asking if gravity were STRONGER than it currently is, how would it affect us? There is no reason to think that gravity does not operate at small scales, it is just very weak and thus essentially does not influence the behavior of particles. But it would be definitely true that if gravity were stronger than it is now, it would completely change the character of our universe, not just us.
Quote: Photons have no mass... why, then, would gravity have the same affect on them that it does on say... a planet?
But see, gravity does have the same effect on a photon as it does on a planet, given the difference in the properties of a photon and a planet. Scientists have demonstrated conclusively that the path of photons are altered by the presence of mass in the exact same way that a planet's path is altered to make it orbit, through the warping of spacetime. The difference in path being related to the energy of the object in question. Imagine taking a bed-sized rubber sheet and stretching it taut. Now put a bowling ball in the center (the massive object). Now start shooting marbles across the sheet. If you shoot them slowly, they will circle around the bowling ball. If you shoot them quickly, they will just move in a slightly curved line. That is the difference between orbits and the bent path of photons.
Quote: Why would gravity have the same affect on a galaxy that it does on a planet?
Why would it not? Galaxies are made up of the same material as planets, the only difference being that galaxies appear to have large quantities of matter that does not interact with light surrounding them. The presence of this "dark matter" affects the motion of the galaxy in the same way as if there was a large quantity of normal matter surrounding the galaxy. It is just that this matter is electromagnetically neutral and thus we cannot see it with electromagnetic waves (i.e. light). This is not unprecedented. There are many forms of matter that we cannot see with light. The only real question is what exactly is this dark matter made of.
Quote: If it did... the whole big bang would never have happened... yes? No?
Unfortunately that is a question that is impossible to answer definitively at this time. We really do not know how tweaking the fundamental properties of the universe would have affected the event called the Big Bang. All we can really say is how it would likely have affected the evolution of the universe post-Big Bang. Yes, if gravity were different than we observe it, the universe would be a MUCH different place.
The problem that a lot of people get into here is trying to predict exactly how different it would be. One of those problematic predictions has to do with the presence of life. There are many that say if you change only slightly the properties of the universe, life could not exist, thus this is evidence that the universe was designed in a certain way so that life would be created. Some of those take that one step further and use it as proof of a Designer, i.e. God. The problems with that argument are three-fold. One, we do not really know enough about life, especially how it starts, to really say anything conclusive about the probability of it starting under given conditions. All we can say is that life, as it manifests itself on the Earth, would be unlikely if the fundamental properties of the universe were to change. But even then we still don't have a good model for exactly how life began on the Earth to definitively say.
Second, we have NO way of knowing that changing the form of gravity slightly would not alter some other property(s) of the universe so that life, even life as we know it, could still develop. String Theory purports that all of the fundamental properties are connected in some way. So tweaking one would cause a change in all. Since we do not know the exact form of that connectedness, there is no way to predict (at this time) how changing one would affect the other.
Finally, evolution itself gives an answer to the anthropic principle. Let us just postulate that tweaking some or all of the parameters of the universe would cause it to not be able to support life or even itself. I.e. if gravity were much stronger, the universe would have just quickly collapsed on itself. If gravity were much weaker galaxies and stars would have never formed. In essence, the universe would have "died" quickly. But who is to say that many universes have not be formed by many "Big Bangs", each with different sets of fundamental properties. The ones with bad mixes of properties just "die", while the one that comes along with just the right mix "lives." Isn't it interesting how amazingly parallel that is to the theory of biological evolution. Adaptations that are favorable (e.g. a set of properties that works well together) survive while unfavorable sets do not. It could even been that the very first universe to be formed with the right mix was then able to propogate its properties into future universes (a series of "bangs" and "crunches") much in the same way that natural selection drives the changing of Earth's species toward adapations that work. I find that rather elegant personally.
One more quote then I'll wrap up ... for now
Quote: WHY WOULD gravity operate in a dense field, like a black hole, the same way it would in empty space... if it did... waht sense would THAT make?
You are absolutely right here. Einsteins Relativity AND Newton's Laws are ineffective at predicting the environment inside a black hole. Clearly there is a higher order model that is needed. String Theory does have promise, we just need to be patient for the laboratory equipment to catch up with the theoretical possibilities.
Basically, your questions do drive at the heart of what is puzzling the astrophysical community today. So while I may be able to "answer" your questions, I must admit that those answers are very tentative. But then again, that is the nature of science.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Thanks so much for that. Really. That helped quite a bit.
And it really sucks to know that all I did was outline the exact flippin' problem....
Quote:
Quote: So... what if... gravity defines the closed system? And systems within systems? What if it is merely an indicator of they system with which you are dealing, rather than a manifestation of the system?
I'll have to admit I am a bit confused as to the point you are trying to make here. Can you elaborate?
No, because it is probably stupid, and I hate looking stupid.
So... gravity still remains a mystery. Bummer. I'm rather intrigued with it.
"No, because it is probably stupid, and I hate looking stupid."
One, I seriously doubt it was stupid. I'm sure some things I say that are crystal clear to me are most definitely NOT so to others. Two, being afraid of looking stupid can be crippling. I understand the sentiment, believe me. But wasn't it you that was so eloquently discussing the ills of letting FEAR guide your actions.
Besides, all girly-girls look stupid from time to time, its part of the charm. Just kidding ... really.
Feel free to shoot me with any more questions. I promise to try to limit my verbosity.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Quote: So... what if... gravity defines the closed system? And systems within systems? What if it is merely an indicator of they system with which you are dealing, rather than a manifestation of the system?
The quantum world is part of the macro world, yes? So this quantum world is going on somewhere inside of me, too, yes? I've got little particles of light streaming through me that follow the quantum physics theories?
I guess I would describe msyelf (a human) as a closed system... I'm contained. My macro self follows the laws of the macro universe. If I jump off a building, a very high one, I will go splat on the ground because of gravity.
But... the micro world of me... defies the macro world of me? Or does the macro world of me influence the micro world of me, and that is in fact why gravity at that level IS so unpredictable... for one system is influencing another?
Yeah, it is so dumb that it is a fundamental physical principle. That was my lame attempt at sarcasm. You question is about as un-dumb as they come. The ability to connect the macroscopic to microscopic is crucial to any theory. This is called the "correspondance principle." Basically you should be able to take any formula describing a microscopic property or action and take limiting values for any scale variables and it should reproduce observed macroscopic properties. A good example is the quantum phenomenon itself. Why is it that we cannot see quantum effects in "real life?" Well if you take your quantum mechanics equations and put in macroscopic values for distance variables (e.g. scales on the order of meters) it is easy to see that the quantum-ness is so fine that we cannot percieve it with ordinary instruments. It looks continuous to us. This correspondance principle is considered so important that it is included in every basic text on Modern Physics. So basically your question again deals with very important considerations in physics. Hardly what I would call dumb.
You can skip this paragraph if you have heard enough. I just wanted to mention that the correspondance principle is for more than just quantum effects. Have you ever heard of the kinetic theory of gases? It is basically statistics which describe the overall motions of the constituent molecules. One of the great efforts in the 19th century was connecting this model to thermodynamics. Kinetic theory describes the micrscopic (molecular motion) while thermodynamics describes the macroscopic (overall temperature/pressure/density of the gas). This connection, basically a correspondance principle, is the subject of a standard core curriculum class in physics graduate schools, "Statistical Mechanics."
So to your questions ...
Quote: The quantum world is part of the macro world, yes? So this quantum world is going on somewhere inside of me, too, yes? I've got little particles of light streaming through me that follow the quantum physics theories?
yes, yes, yes. And your body is made up of protons, electrons, and neutrons that obey quantum physics theories.
Quote: I guess I would describe msyelf (a human) as a closed system... I'm contained. My macro self follows the laws of the macro universe. If I jump off a building, a very high one, I will go splat on the ground because of gravity.
Well, you are not a closed system. You interact at both the macroscopic and microscopic levels with the outside world. You are respirating, shedding skin and hair, emitting and absorbing molecules, etc. And your entire body is under the influence of gravity. AND, when you scuff your feet on a carpet or pull on a sweater, the friction creates an imbalance of charge in your body that manifests itself as "static electricity." AND when you make physical "contact" with an object you are actually experiencing electromagnetic repulsive forces between the charge particles in your body and the other object.
Actually, you will go splat on the ground due to those forces, but gravity is what gave your body the energy to collide with the ground at such a high speed. But that is just being "picky" as they say.
Quote: But... the micro world of me... defies the macro world of me? Or does the macro world of me influence the micro world of me, and that is in fact why gravity at that level IS so unpredictable... for one system is influencing another?
Here is where you really hit on the conundrum. While it is usually easy to take microscopic theories and make them "correspond" to macroscopic observations, the reverse is not true. General Relativity is a macroscopic theory of gravity. Trying to "reverse engineer" the underlying quantum model has so far been beyond the capacity of physicists. So instead they are using the quantum models of the other forces and trying to model quantum gravity in the same way, but again with little success. However, we will succeed! It will just take more time and better equipment.
Sorry again if that was too verbose. I hope that it does answer most of your questions and assuage your fears of sounding dumb. Again, feel free to ask anything else and I will do my best to answer.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Quote: So... gravity still remains a mystery. Bummer. I'm rather intrigued with it.
Just wanted to add, if you figure out this gravity thing, please tell me first. That way I can scoop you and claim the Nobel Prize for my own. It is $1,000,000 afterall.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Hey Chrome, I've been thinking about your sitch and some of the statements you have made. I've also been trying to think back in my own M to try to get back into that mindset so I could give some insight into what your wife may be feeling or thinking. I can only relate my experiences. Your W may be completely different.
I've been reading Corri's thread. Her experience is absolutely heartbreaking. It brings back some stuff for me as well. What Corri said about respect being at the core of everything is so true.
I know that I grew up being taught to be "respectable". At the same time I was being taught, through my parents actions, that *I* was not ok just as I was. I was constantly having to recreate myself according to the mood in the house. I was the fixer and peace keeper. By all appearances, we were the perfect family. There was no alcoholism or physical abuse. But there was also no emotional support, affection and no one teaching me how to have and enforce boundaries. No one who was there for me no matter what. While my older brother acted out, I was told by my parents that they knew I'd be ok so they had to deal with bigger issues than whatever mine were. My younger brother was quite a bit younger so again, more pressing issues to deal with than mine.
I learned to stuff my emotions because it was not worth either the argument about why I shouldn't be feeling that way, or the rejection for sharing that I was feeling that way (angry was a big no-no, as well as any other "negative" emotion like sadness or disappointment). I learned to turn the other cheek until I was completely twisted around. I chose my battles and fewer and fewer became worth the fight because, well, there were bigger issues than mine. What I took away from that was that I was not worth it.
All this led me to be with a man who laid all the responsibility for his happiness in my lap (sometimes, literally!). I knew that if I acted a certain way or did certain things or looked a certain way, he would be happy. In the beginning, I liked that. It felt like we were connected in a big he's-my-soulmate kind of way. But eventually, it became an enormous burden to try to keep him happy. I took on the role because it felt familiar. The payoff was that when he was happy, he was the most affectionate, loving, supportive person I had ever known. When he was not happy, he was abusive, physically, verbally, financially, emotionally. We found ourselves in an impossible dynamic. If I did all the right things, he was happy and things were good between us. I was supposed to forget about the abuse and just be in the now. When I couldn't do that at times, he would actually turn things around enough to say that *I* was the abusive one for holding the past against him.
So, he would break the trust, I would feel scared or sad, he would get angry, I would step back further, he would not understand why I was pulling away from him and get defensive. Then he would pull away and be sad. I would see that the anger had passed and try to connect. The cycle starts again. Also, many times, he would be stuck in his defensive pouting mode and would reject any attempt I would make to try to reconnect. Didn't make me want to try again any time soon.
So, how does this relate to the Chromes? From what you have said of your W, keeping up appearances and showing no bad emotions were a part of her upbringing. If she is doing what I did...acting a certain way because it's respectable, turning the other cheek because it's the right thing to do etc. she may have a lot of resentment bubbling inside her. You said she didn't react to news of the EA? I think that's a good indication. My guess is that her struggle is this: is changing into a sex kitten the only way to keep you? I guarantee she resents that because she wants to be so much more than that to you. She may resent having one more person that needs so much from her (being a SAHM with little one's pulling at her all day long). Are you making her responsible for your happiness? She may be feeling a lot of bottled up emotion like fear of losing you, but can't show it because she feels betrayed. If she was never taught how to express emotions, sexiness and desire are going to be just as difficult for her to let out unless there is an air of absolute trust and respect between you two outside the bedroom as well as in it. Trust as in no more EA's and respect as in respect her for who she is and what she does instead of being disappointed with what she is not providing you right now. You are in this for the long haul. I believe that. You have time to work this out. The problem is not the lack of sex, that is the symptom. Even if she were to "come around" and you two had a night, week, month of rock-your-world sex, the problem would still be there, the emotional connection will fade for her and the sex life will suffer. Let me ask you this...How shocked would you be to find out that while you were at work, your wife was having sex with a stranger? In some ways, for some reason, you feel like a stranger to your W so she is not able to connect in the way you would like her to...and very probably in the way she wants to connect with you.
Just a thought, but how about approaching the affection thing on the level she is on right now. She is probably in mommy mode all the time. For me it was a real struggle to get out of mommy mode for any length of time because if I was not thinking about the kids, I was feeling guilty for not thinking about them. How about just talking to her about what she wants to portray to the kids? Does she want them to see a mom and dad who don't touch each other? Maybe she really does want to break the cycle and show affection but is afraid of not being able to set and keep boundaries when she needs to so she just doesn't do anything.
Hope this made some sense. As I said, just my perspective.
Bear
The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes.
--Marcel Proust
You have given me a LOT to think about. Let me process for a bit before getting back to you. Let me also say I can see the seeds of some very useful understanding of my W beginning to bud. Thanks.
Chrome
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Your main point seemed to be that it was FOO issues that contributed most to the conditions leading up to my mental state being open to an EA. And although I was working on a variety of things in my M and my self-esteem, it was the avoidance in dealing with the deep FOO issues that caused me to effectively not change my internal propensity to create a situation in which the EA would persist and another EA develop. And you also see that if I do not deal with those issues, another EA remains a future possibility. That basically no matter what I do in my M, my FOO is a "monkey on my back" that will constantly sabotage my efforts until I consciously deal with it. Is that close?
I think this is a pretty good summation of what I think, along with a similar situation for your wife. As I stated some time back, I do not really see the EA as much of an issue. Sure, your W is bothered in a major way, but from the FOO perspective, I see an EA as only a higher order action on the scale of “acting out” behavior particular to you. In other words, I think you have been doing the same basic actions all along in your marriage, and even before you got married. Those actions started out small and grew larger and more emboldened over the years as you made a louder and louder cry for attention. So I see the EA as only a matter of degree.
I am intrigued by this idea, because I did think I was dealing with my FOO issues, but perhaps it was only tangentially.
I recall when you were talking some about your FOO, and just when I thought you were beginning to get into it, the subject sort of died out and switched to something else. I agree with others that too much analysis can be harmful, that some stones are best left uncovered, but as we have seen on Corri’s thread, the effects of FOO can reach into places you never suspect. If you and your wife can get along fine without further analysis, then great. If not, perhaps more work is needed until a state of equilibrium is reached. But if one person again wants to grow, more FOO work could be needed in order to keep up with the spouse’s growth.
I can see how my efforts at improving my self-esteem could have been focused on the here and now and not with how my self-esteem got so low in the first place. I guess you might say I just put new wooden boards over the old rotting ones instead of trying to figure out why the old boards were rotting.
I would think this is true since you had another EA since that time you were discussing FOO. Also, from what I experienced, digging up FOO is not easy and very humbling. The hardest work for me was taking the hit to my ego and self esteem as one layer after another was peeled back. A person can only take so much at a time before s/he needs to rest, digest, re-energize before taking on some more. The whole process was new for me and I just wanted it over. I mostly learned through hard experience as I went from one hollow relationship to another. Maybe you only reached a preliminary stage, which was new for you and thought the work had been completed, not knowing there could be unknown multiple stages yet in store for you. Don’t let this intimidate you, it is nothing more that the process Corri nicely illustrated for us.
The important point I want to make for you is that you need to be aware of this overall dynamic and have at least a general idea of the overall level of dysfunction you are dealing with. What ever sized chunks you want to take on at a time is your business, but try to get an idea of what you don’t know (which I think you have). Then understand that whenever you come under stress in your marriage, it could be due to the next FOO chunk calling out for resolution. You know inside that there is something nagging at you or your wife, so keep a perspective on this rather than jumping to a fatalistic mindset, throwing out all hope, and running to another EA. So on to the big picture.
My question to you would be specifically how could my FOO connect with my internal failings re: the propensity to create EA situations?
How could it not? Remember Corri’s history? She laid out a very clear example of generational FOO, where low self esteem, disrespect, anger and resentment prompts a parent to “abuse” their children so that the kids end up mimicking the same behavior and being attracted to the same abusers. It is not usually intentional because all the rationalizations and denials block the truth (remember Corri’s mom?)
You can see how the abuse you suffered from your dad affected your self esteem. You understand how it made you focus on your misery, mostly because you had no other choice. You could not fight back against the abuse, he would not let you run from it, and you certainly could not express it. There wasn’t much left for you to do other than internalize it and commiserate with it. I suspect that is when listening to sad songs struck a cord with you. The music became a safe haven, allowed you to retreat into a fantasy world in which you dreamed of the kind of family and love you would have when you grew older (yeah, I had the same fantasies). There was a feeling of peace in the music that you carry over to this day. But it is just an escape.
That state of low self esteem and almost frantic longing to be loved had a direct effect on the kind of woman who you would attract and who you are attracted to. Take a good hard look at kids who come from families with lots of fighting. One type is the kid who is lifeless, blank faced, sullen, does not laugh or smile much, and feels very uncomfortable with spontaneous, lively, outgoing activities. There is a great sense of repressed shame from covering up the fighting at home. Everyone else seems so happy and carefree, but this child can only watch from the outside. He wants to join the others, but that means taking on too much attention from the group. At home s/he is used to disappearing into the woodwork, becoming inconspicuous in hopes of not doing anything that could trigger another fight. (I was like this as a kid. When I look at old pictures or movies, the expression on the face of myself and my brothers is so clear now.)
Now contrast this with the outgoing, life-of-the-party type, the bouncing head cheerleader or Mr. Popularity. No matter how attracted I might be to a girl like this, I always felt she was way out of my reach. If I ever did speak to someone like this I would be so uncomfortable and nervous, the experience would leave me drained. I also found that these types of girls wanted to be entertained, to have someone to make them laugh and I just could not come up with the lines or the smiles to ever pull it off.
I found better rapport with girls who wanted to talk to me, who seemed interested in a two way conversation, who were intrigued by my shyness and found it a challenge to pull me out of my shell. This of course was appealing to their mothering needs, but it was also appealing to my need to be wanted. So as an introvert, I ended up being attracted to extroverts. I also ended up with a wife who saw in me a person easy to control, since I was so quiet. To her and others I seemed so agreeable, so easy to get along with. But I was really not used to exerting myself and putting my needs first. To do so meant too much attention placed on me, and that was uncomfortable.
Is this helping you to understand how your FOO sets up the basic preferences for attraction in a mate? Sure, biology is mixed in there too, but FOO is so important. Let me know if anything does not make sense.
I can say that just being aware of your FOO is enough to prevent it from kicking your legs out from under you. That is where a lot of Blackfoot’s approach comes into play. But if you don’t know what is wrong, how are you to know what needs to be fixed? Like you tried already, fixing one thing may not be what is needed to prevent an EA (or some other cry for help) if that vulnerability comes from something else. But I think targeting your FOO is the starting point.
