TrappedLight
-
Posts
150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by TrappedLight
-
-
There is an interesting conclusion I reached to.
[math]F = \frac{e^2}{6 c^3} \frac{\dot{a}_g}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}[/math]
We can also perform an integral on the Larmor formula part of the equation, to find the Abraham-Lorentz force, it becomes the gravitational acceleration performing the jerk. The net force consists of separating the force into two parts via a sum: The sum of the radiative force and the external force[math]F_{net} = F_r + F_e = \frac{e^2}{6 c^3} \frac{\dot{a}_{g}^2}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}+ F_e[/math]The radiative part appears from the Larmor formula part [math] \frac{2}{3}\frac{e^2}{c^2} \dot{a}_g[/math] and the external field part appears related to the metric (in which the gravitational field supplied the radiation). The two fields are inextricably linked and both are responsible for an overall net force on our system.How strong could this radiation be? Any hope to measure it?
Yes, if my equations are correct and using my choice of metric description, for an arbitrary charged mass which is accelerating in some distant gravitational field is
The radiation emitted is therefore[math]P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{(\frac{m^2}{1 - \beta^2})c^3} \frac{1}{(1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})} (\frac{dP}{dt})^2[/math][math]= \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{c^3} \frac{a_{g}^{2}}{(1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2})^2}[/math]The squared metric term in the denominator appears because there is one such factor in [math]ds^2[/math]. The presence of the square of the metric also ensures that the power emitted by a charge in a gravitational field can increase beyond limit, implying a relationship to the luminosity of such a system. So theoretically we should be able to detect some objects by their luminosity value.And for how strong the luminosity could be, will depend on more investigation.
The luminosity also depends on the object you are dealing with. This could even be for a black hole.
A very strange but surprising condition can arise from the new formula
[math]F_{net} = F_r + F_e = \frac{e^2}{6 c^3} \frac{\dot{a}_{g}^{2}}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}+ F_e[/math]
and it comes straight out of classical physics. What we really have is
[math]M \dot{v} = F_r + F_e = m t_0 \ddot{v} + F_e[/math]
[math]= \frac{e^2}{6 c^3} \frac{\dot{a}_{g}^{2}}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}+F_e[/math]
where
[math]t_0 = \frac{e^2}{6mc}[/math]
If you integrate the equation once, where an integral extends from [math]t[/math] to [math]\infty[/math] we can find the future effecting the past! Signals in an interval of [math]t_0[/math] into the future affects the acceleration in the present. Perhaps we can find some interesting physics when we recognize the metric in the denominator is in fact a product of advanced and retarded waveforms which allows the gravitational red or blue shift. There might be some interesting physics when making time symmetric in this equation.
This is of course a classical field limit. If the classical case does not exist in nature, then the net force will need to be described fully with non-classical quantum mechanics. What is interesting is how similar the radiative force [math]F_r[/math] is to the zero point energy. The recoil then has the appearance of a force exerted on a particle due to zero point fluctuations - in fact, H. E. Puthoff has written a theory in which gravity presents itself as a zero-point force in which the gravitational constant involves proportionally the zero point cut-off [math]\omega_c[/math]. This all forms from the principle of equivalence again, it predicts the additional zero point contribution to gravitational mass, a necessity of gravitational unification with the ZPF.
The modelling of the zero point energy would require that we replace the radiative part with the correct zero point expression (again, all done in cgs units)
[math]\frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2 c^5}[/math]
In a gravitational field, using the equivalence principle, we'd express this as
[math]\frac{e^2 \hbar \omega a_{g}^{2}}{2 c^5} = \frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2 c^5} (\frac{GM}{r^2})^2[/math]This would make the equation
[math]F = \frac{e^2 \hbar \omega}{2 c^5} \frac{\dot{a}_{g}^{2}}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}[/math]
This describes the theoretical quantum gravitational shift of zero point contribution of an accelerated charge.
0 -
Found a very relevant paper. http://users.jyu.fi/~ilsamaki/radiation.pdf
It also asks where the energy for the radiation comes from. It's conclusion is that it comes from the near fields surrounding the particle. The metric in our case acts as a near field and unifies the quantum with our topology.
0 -
Did I miss something?
The universe has a centre (with or without a black hole).
As far as the observable universe is concerned, the observer is at the centre of it and that observer isn't a black hole so PG is simply wrong about that.
It's better to say that each point on the spacetime map has a centre, so that readers won't think the observer is central in that principle.
0 -
In my opinion, it is all scientifically useful. QCD is a good theory in it's own right but we are no where nearer unifying the forces than we have for decades now, which might mean the scientific community is spending too much money on the one project. It's best to remain objective about all the theories which have been proposed, even one which has had mild success such as strong gravity.
0 -
The first expression in post 2, is missing an extra term for the relativistic Larmor equation
[math](\frac{dP}{dt})^2[/math]
0 -
TL you still really aren't answering the question. Show me a direct comparison of strong gravity, QCD, and measurements. If SG is viable it should be making predictions of comparable accuracy to QCD.
I don't know what part of it predicts asymptotic freedom and particle confinement, I don't know what else you want me to say. You have what main important predictions it makes right in front of your ''big'' nose
0 -
Who would like to give me a game? I think there some chess lovers here. I have a place were you can play chess with me.
0 -
''And as an assessor, you clearly aren't perfect. Two posts ago you thought you could force the winning of white's queen;''
Bignose, I have already told you, you were right. Try and be humble about the situation.
And no, I didn't make ''many mistakes.'' What is clear to me is that I should have found a better line than the gambit. No where in my play do I hang my pieces aside from that. My game was well-calculated and led to an exchange variation of the rooks where my position is actually better according to the computer, so I agree with your assessment of the end game, in which I admit then there are better lines than the gambit of the knight.
0 -
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/my-first-game-on-chesslive
This game, I used the kings indian, orthodox version.
Here is a game in which I played the Gundaram Defence.
Here is a game in which I play the Goring Gambit
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/goring-gambit-game
Here is another kings indian, this was like the exchange variation
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/a-clean-juggle-to-a-forced-mate
You'll find two miniatures of mine on this page
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/post-your-best-miniatures-here?page=164
On this page, you can find a Mar Del Plata variation of kings gambit miniature of mine
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/post-your-best-miniatures-here?page=163
(actually there are a few on that last page)
0 -
Why do you think 26. Qb3 is forced? 26. Kb2 works nicely.
Why do you think 26. Qb3 is forced? 26. Kb2 works nicely. White is still strongly ahead, in my opinion, with attacking options. The rook can get to the open a & b files, the knight can leap into action quickly, and the position is open enough the white bishop will wreck havoc too. Black has given too much away in a failed attack. White is now winning, assuming no more mistakes (both sides made plenty, in my opinion). At the very minimum, white can start to force some consolidation and make his extra pawn & extra knight really valuable. White only real worry in that scenario is black's a pawn.
I analysed it, yes that can be played and white will be ok in the end. I don't think my play had many mistakes, the only mistake if white can refute it was the sac. That is the only mistake I made in the game.
0 -
!
Moderator Note
For the simple reason that responding to any thread with speculations, unless that subject is the topic of the thread, is against the rules. It doesn't matter that an assertion was made in the thread. The only acceptable response is mainstream science. Strong gravity doesn't qualify, and strong gravity was not the topic under discussion. Thus, any discussion of it belongs elsewhere (i.e. here)
If you have further questions on the matter, bring it up in support.
Well there is why you folly because these discussions where made in speculations.
If this was actually the mainstream science forum, I would have agreed with you.
-1 -
Another thing is that both the quantities
[math] \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{(\frac{m^2}{1 - \beta^2})c^3}[/math]
and
[math]\frac{1}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}}[/math]
are natural consequences of the equivalence principle when we consider a mass [math]M[/math] in a gravitational field described by the metric. The close relationship of gravitational shift and the equivalence principle has been known for a long time now, and the charge accelerating in the gravitational field works from first principles of the same equivalence.
The strength of the gravitational field, is again provided by the metric which we have rewritten in terms of energy. To evaluate how this is featured in the metric, you can show that the radius of curvature is
[math]r_c = \frac{c^2}{g}[/math]
Strength of gravitational field at the surface of a gravitating object is given as a ratio of the actual radius to the light curve radius.
[math]\frac{R}{r_c} = \frac{GM}{Rc^2}[/math]
where we have used
[math]g = \frac{GM}{R^2}[/math]
If
[math]\frac{GM}{Rc^2} << 1[/math]
then the field is said to be weak. Notice,
[math]\frac{GM}{Rc^2}[/math]
is an integral expression of the Schwarzschild metric, therefore it describes the field strength of your metric. From here, you can actually state the ratio of the actual and light curve as a ratio of the gravitational energy and the rest energy by noticing
[math]\frac{R}{r_c} = \frac{GM}{Rc^2} \cdot \frac{m}{m} = \frac{(\frac{GM^2}{R})}{Mc^2} = \frac{E_g}{E_0}[/math]
To give you a taste of what some of the mathematics of my equation can do, suppose you wanted to calculate the total redshift of a wave: You would actually take an integral on the metric expression
[math]\frac{GM}{Rc^2}[/math]
like so
[math]\int_{R}^{s} \frac{GM}{R^2c^2} dr[/math]
But this would be for the weak scale. It is taken that this approach using the Larmor formula is in fact a universal property for all particles which may experience Synchroton radiation.
0 -
Ajb is intelligent and even pleasant at times, but he does obsess on me being wrong so it's difficult to tolerate .
No one is obsessing, you are simply wrong. You need to be obsessed about reading up and learning physics so you can make statements in which no one will call you out on.
Plus he is extremely kind in his assertions. I know other posters that would eat you up for breakfast.
0 -
I'm thinking Nobel prize.
I'm personally thinking ''reality check.''
0 -
Okay thanks for the history. You didn't answer my questions. Namely how does its predictions compare to experimental measurements and QCD's predictions?
I did tell you. It predicts that quarks cannot be isolated (this was a prediction of Leonard Susskind) and was thus shown to be a real facet of nature (this is quark particle confinement). It also predicts asysmptotic freedom (which I don't know enough about to explain).
0 -
For the last time, light does ''not become matter at speeds below c.''
Two major problems exist within such a statement. Light for starters, always travels at light speed. A photon can not slow down. You can change the medium in which your photon is moving and this matches it's wavelength to the Compton wavelength, which means a photons energy matches the rest energy of an electron, showing the presence of inertia. However, that photon is still moving at lightspeed, you haven't made it officially move slower. All you have done is tamper with the space it is moving in.
There is nothing magical here and we have known this a lot longer than you first ''proposed'' your theory (which) is worded wrongly and the physics is interpreted wrongly.
0 -
It may not be yours explicitly, but you are the one here claiming it as a viable alternative.
So, I am curious, what predictions does it make? How do those compare to QCD?
It's very viable. I might not like string theory, but the idea of extra dimensions is definitely a possibility we need to consider.
It hit the physics media in 1960, at that point, we were working with QCD and strong gravity was suggested as an alternative model by Adbus Salam including several other scientists. Particle level strong gravity showed to explain particle confinement and asymptotic freedom. A novelty of the approach is that it doesn't change the classical characteristic of gravity involving the inverse square law, but QCD does.
0 -
I formulated an equation which describes the radiation emitted by an accelerated charge in a gravitational field as
[math]P = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{(\frac{m^2}{1 - \beta^2})c^3} \frac{1}{\frac{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}{\sqrt{1 - 2\frac{Gm}{\Delta E} \frac{M}{r} + \frac{GQ^2}{c^4 R^2}}}} (\frac{dP}{dt})^2[/math][math] = \frac{2}{3} \frac{e^2}{c^3} \frac{a_{g}^{2}}{(\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_0})} [/math]The unique part of this equation is that not only does it describe the energy emitted, but it describes the wavelength emitted [math]\lambda_0[/math] and an observer at [math]R[/math] measures the wavelength as [math]\lambda_0[/math]. If [math]R < r[/math] the observer will measure it as a blueshift.I checked to see if anyone had offered this equation in literature - while though the Larmor equation is well-known and is used exactly for this, there has been no attempts to rewrite it for calculations made simultaneously for either red or blue gravitational shift. They are usually calculated separately, but what I have shown is that they are really part of the same equation (or at least, can be). The interesting thing is the energy in the denominator, the metric appears to be providing the energy for the radiation.''Thus we find that the work done against the stress force, supplies the energy carried by the radiation.''''Who is performing this work or, what is the source of the energy of the radiation?''''It comes out that the energy carried away by the radiation is supplied by the Gravitational Field, that loses this energy.''As you can see, the paper is saying the gravitational field acts as source for the energy which is carried away by radiation. What we see in my equation, is that the metric describes the gravitational field and now we have rewritten the metric in terms of intrinsic energy, it appears in the equation and from citing the paper, that the radiation is indeed provided from the term [math]\Delta E[/math] or at least, it may be interpreted that way.0 -
Again, why the heck split this discussion when it was discussing the assertions made in a thread?
*Looks at Swansont*
Either way, it is a waste of your time. I don't see what good it has done you to close a thread and reopen another one in which it is likely, no one is going to involve themselves. Waste of time and energy.
0 -
In the 1st game, if white does 25. Nd2, white is in a pretty good spot. 25. Rd2?? is a blunder of epic proportions (literally since then black has a mate in 1).
Yes that was a blunder.
The line you suggested has a flaw, it leads to winning the queen in a very beautiful combination
1. e4 e5 2. f4 d63. Nf3 f5 4. exf5 Bxf55. fxe5 dxe5 6. Nxe5Qh4+ 7. g3 Qe4+8. Qe2 Qxh1 9. Ng6+Ne7 10. Nxh8 Nd711. d3 O-O-O 12. Be3Nd5 13. Bg5 N7f614. Bxf6 gxf6 15. Nd2Qg1 16. O-O-O Qc517. Nf7 Nb4 18. Nc4Nxa2+ 19. Kb1 Nc3+20. bxc3 Qb5+21. Kc1 Re8 22. Qf3Be6 23. Qxf6 Bxf724. Qxf7 Bh6+ 25. Nd2Qa4 26. Qb3 Qa1+27. Qb1 Bxd2+28. Rxd2 Re1+ 29. Rd1Rxd1+ 30. Kxd1Qxb1+
So even though he blundered with the rook, either line is actually loosing.
I've went and added this line in the link. Just follow it and scroll to the end for the alternative knight version.
0 -
So, your claim ...
This isn't ''my'' theory. It is the claim of strong gravity theory, an attempt to describe the weakness of gravity on cosmological scales by creating a particle-scale. The compactification scale (the scale in which there exists hidden dimensions) exists for the time being, outside of our ability to probe.
As for distinguishing between atoms and subatomic particles, fine.
0 -
Hi guys, layman here. Can you give an example (in laymen's terms) of how you'd actually apply or use the math above in a real world situation?
The Schrodinger equation, the wave equation of all matter makes large use of the exponential in the OP. The HJ equation in particular is useful in helping to describe conserved quantities in physics.
0 -
This doesn't answer the question, though. If it is undetectable in any way, then it has no bearing whatsoever on the theory.
I might as well write gravity(r,m1,m2,unicorns) = -Gm1m2/r^2. There is no point in including unicorns on the LHS of the equation if it doesn't show up in the right. And there is no point in including extra dimensions in an idea if it doesn't affect anything.
I disagree. Your claim that gravity gets stronger at small scales has nothing to do with PG's electic black hole universe. AND your claim is unsubstantiated, and is in fact, somewhat refuted by the researcher who published that they were looking for such and effect and instead confirmed Newtonian gravity 100 times more accurately for small scales than anyone before.
Undetectable for now, it doesn't mean that as we develop our ability to probe space for signs of compactified dimensions we won't see them. Undetectable for now, means the question is open concerning the dynamics of gravity. Our understanding of it all is far from complete and this particular idea is falsifiable.
Including extra dimensions, does effect something. It effects how gravity breaks off at weaker scales due to an inverse law. I thought you might have picked up on that by now.
As for it having nothing to do with the OP, I was replying to your statement. If you make a statement in a forum, be prepared to have it challenged if you could be wrong about something. The reply by myself might not be inherently attached to the OP, but I am replying to your post which is a part of the discussion.
AND your claim is unsubstantiated, and is in fact, somewhat refuted by the researcher who published that they were looking for such and effect and instead confirmed Newtonian gravity 100 times more accurately for small scales than anyone before.
Do you know the scales we would need to probe to see measurable effects? If his experiment is that great, it would have falsified strong gravity theory; the reason it hasn't is because of the scales, no doubt. The scales in which you would find a compactified dimension is much smaller than looking at the space between atoms.
0 -
Hmmm,
I will admit that I could be misinterpreting this, but there didn't seem to be reported much here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0605018.pdf especially since they were looking for deviations from Newtonian gravity. I am pretty sure they report that they can reduce the measurement of possible non-Newtonian gravity by two orders of magnitude with the measurement technique they describe. In other words, they confirmed Newtonian gravity on the atomic level to an accuracy 100 times better than any before. And would think that had they found significant departures from Newtonian gravity at that scale, it would have spurred more and different papers.
I guess what I am saying then is... while anything 'might' happen, this is still a science forum, and you don't just get to talk about things that 'might' happen. You need to provide some evidence.
And ask a mod to split this off into its own thread.
Ummm, if we can't observe it, then why would we include it in any calculations or theories? We might as well re-introduce undetectable fairies, then.
Because we might not be able to detect it because there is the presence of extra dimensions and although this sounds like a branch of string theory, it actually was formulated originally outside of string theory but it can be applied to it.
Now, we simply don't know what the effects of gravity for particle dynamics. The ability to detect the gravitational force on the scale of particles will require that we probe space to very very small lengths. If we cannot yet probe space to detect missing dimensions, you can be sure that we won't see the effects of this strong gravity either.
And no, you don't get to pick and chose which parts can be split off. I am on topic and challenging your assertion that gravity is weak on the scales of particles. I am simply replying to you, saying we are not sure this is the case at all.
0
One of my best games in chess
in The Lounge
Posted
Someone has been using the computer it looks like. That particular move is favoured by the computer and it does lead to the white queen being in peril.