Butch

14 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The gravitational field is spacetime.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...

If gravity can mimic electromagnetism???

On 6/24/2018 at 11:29 AM, geordief said:

Yes ,it has the feel of a very half baked question now.

 

If mass is somehow conferred on  matter by this Higgs field  and we have the problem of Dark Matter too  then it seems  a pointless question after all.

 

One definition of a Universal centre of mass might be the direction in which all matter is converging  but  no one has any idea  whether this might ever happen,have they ?(we have to stop expanding first and then we can compare notes  )

 

 

Dr. Perlmutter and his associates won a Nobel prize for investigating the expansion of the universe. They wished to determine if the expansion was constant or slowing... Surprise! It seems it is expanding at an accelerating rate!

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Qualitatively, the space nearby is stretched/compressed by some small amount. I don't know what effect that will have on a point particle. I have no idea how one would describe this mathematically.

Lol, my problem exactly...  Perhaps the gravitational field governs space/time? My thought is that a photon for example (as a wave packet in a gravitational field) distorts the particle well unevenly as the well rebounds it re-emits the absorbed energy as a new photon. A wave front would distort it much differently, I suppose the mass of the particle would not necessarily change, but where is the quantum? Is it the nature of gravity itself?

Thanks, Swansont, once again you have fed the gray matter!

P.S. I assume you meant quantitatively, not qualitatively?

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

No such thing as a "basic" particle in the standard model. Particles interact via the fundamental interactions - electromagnetic, strong and weak, but some do not interact via all of them. The EM and weak unify into a single interaction at a certain energy.

It only interacts via the weak interaction, and gravitationally. Gravitational waves and the gravitational interaction are not the same thing.

 

Could you elaborate? What exactly happens when a gravitational wave encounters a neutrino...

If you wish to provide a link to more information that would be awesome! My searches seem only to lead to very basic wiki's.

16 hours ago, swansont said:

That's an electroweak interaction, not an electromagnetic one.

I am seeking a basic particle in order to establish a basic unit for the math pertaining to my single field. The neutrino would seem a good candidate, however if it does not respond classically to em waves I am lost... unless it responds to gravitational waves. I envision this as occurring as a change in perceived mass of the neutrino. I am familiar with the original thought that the neutrino was massless, followed by the discovery of oscillation which required mass. My thought is that in response to a gravitational wave my particle would perhaps gain and lose mass in quantum amounts, that is its gravity well would oscillate. As far as I know the mass of the neutrino has been elusive... Can you lead me to some research in this area?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That's an electroweak interaction, not an electromagnetic one.

Thx!

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Yes the photons can transfer momentum.

To any particle, are there exceptions?

Do neutral elementary particles respond to electromagnetic waves?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What your graph means is not well-explained by you. One issue being that x has taken on different meanings, and you have never quite gotten around to explaining what interaction is being represented.

Enough discussion about your model-that-isn't. You don't have a model, you don't have testable predictions. Explain how this meets the threshold for further speculations discussion.

A macro structure(a slit for example) would have a weak and nearly uniform gravitational field, if the particle is nearer to one side of the slit than the other, the strength of field interaction would differ horizontally. The more exaggerated the difference in proximity, the more pronounced the difference in interaction with the particle. Being that the field strength weakens radially this should be a sinus function(a wave function)! I am working on the math, I am not a mathematician, I believe with some study, I can produce it. If anyone would like to help, it would be greatly appreciated!

As far as a prediction, a neutral particle should show diffraction... I had stated that gravitation would need to be used to impel particles through the slit? Perhaps not.

This diffraction should occur to some extent at macro levels(very long wave functions).

11 hours ago, Mordred said:

Those terms are involved in the quarks/gluon and flavor family of SU(3). Yes there is extensive work of those eightfold way terms, which has similarities to the color interactions as well as flavor interactions of the strong and weak force.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics)

If you look at the graph of my proposed particle, you will note that outside of x = 1 the field is relatively weak, at x<1 the field is precipitously stronger. It is my thinking that not only "in" the well, but also in a wave packet in the field the strength of the field can be much stronger than our classical perception of gravity. Certainly such waves could have an electro magnetic effect and could be charge carriers producing strong and weak forces, however I am still at a loss as to charge itself.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

oh I seriously doubt your ready for all the applicable formulas that defines the baryon octet, nonet and meson nonet just yet. the formulas are very extensive

Are you saying there has been some work in this area?

I am sticking to elementary particles, for now.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Gravitation is not spin, so the notion of them being equal makes no sense whatsoever.

In Newtonian physics gravitation is a force. In GR it is spacetime curvature. Neither of those is angular momentum, which is what spin is.

It doesn't. A spin 1/2 electron has a different mass than a spin 1/2 muon, tau, neutrino, or quark. Hence they will have different gravitational interactions.

(and how does a "no" lead you to believe you are on the right track?)

I may be able to map quarks and leptons to my model via mass and spin.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Both the field and particle spin has wavefunction characteristics this makes sense under particles being field excitations so the symmetries are related.

 for dipolar spin 1, 1/2 etc ie electromagnetic group SU(2) this group is represented by the Pauli matrixes.

the quadrupole spin 2 group is the SU(3) group.(which will correlate to the SO(3.1 Poincare group. Under LQC however the SU(3) can be represented by the double cover SU(2)⊗SU(2)/Z those are the key symmetry groups along with the U(1) gauge for the SM particles.

gravitation affects the geometry of spacetime so your last question makes little sense

Study how spin relates to spinors under Pauli.

http://web.pa.msu.edu/people/mmoore/Lect33_Spin.pdf

Thank you!

28 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No, the graviton or even the gravitational field has specifically spin 2 symmetry characteristics. This is confirmable via the detection of GW waves in so far as the transverse and longitudinal wave components behave as to the construct design of the LIGO detectors requires the those spin 2 symmetries to be accurate.

 I know getting more technical I would lose you lol but the wave components must be quadrupole which is represented as spin 2 under gauge symmetry. (requires the Gell-Mann matrixes for other readers) where as spin 1/2 defined under the Pauli matrixes.

Sounds like I am on the right track however... How does spin relate to gravitation in an elementary particle?

Specifically an elementary particle with mass of course.

On 6/7/2018 at 2:00 PM, swansont said:

It is literally angular momentum. What it isn't is physical motion

 

I had a thought and would value your input...

Might the spin of a particle equal its gravitation?

An elementary particle, not a composite.

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

It depends on their wavelength, given by h/p

If you have some other conjecture, you need to provide a formula

Working on it.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It might surprise you to know that you do not get an interference pattern with ball bearings. 

Depends upon their mass and size of the experiment, do planets orbit the sun?

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Spin is very real, and has been experimentally confirmed. And this is your conjecture, not mine.

You have to establish that it does this, too.

 

Agreed, but I am wrong again! Imagine that!

Where I need to proceed is our perception of gravity, even our most precise measurements.

I still believe spin units are proper for my field, although it is indeed a gravitational field.

Note that our experience with gravity lies outside of x=1, hence it appears weak, however if we could venture "inside" the particle (x<1) we would find no limit on the strength of the field.

It seems that this is analogous to the event horizon and indeed it may be an event horizon.

That abstract portion of my mind is going full steam ahead and pouring out ideas, but I will gird myself to proceed in a logical and when necessary mathematical manner.

Comments appreciated, even discouraging ones.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

That's something your model must predict.

Mainstream physics  predicts the diffraction pattern, even with charged particles

Well, I guess you have your work cut out for you.

My loyalty to spin? WTF?

OK, your faith in the theoretical nature of spin.

Yes, I do have my work cut out, it starts I believe with... Why does a wave packet in a gravity field exhibit electromagnetic properties?

2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

Gravity in close vicinity of a black hole substantially deviates from the Newtonian theory, so in most cases you will not be able to use the inverse square law. Tidal distortions in particular vary with an inverse cube law, in Schwarzschild spacetime.

Thanks, I get that. At any rate the stronger the field and the more divergent, the less it resembles acceleration.

44 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, not really.

It's a complete mystery to me why your model would include a slit, unless you area's modeling diffraction or interference,. But you aren't.

Diffraction and interference are not effects of spin, so you are going down a dead-end path.

 

Nope. A photon is not a gravitational field. An electron is not a gravitational field.

OK, enough. If you have a model, present it. Give us some result that your model predicts, so it can be tested. Otherwise it's just not worth having you ignore everybody who is trying to correct your misconceptions.

Yes, my intent was to show that the "spin field" would result in diffraction, my concern was how tiny the experiment would have to be, it occurred to me that a collection of my particles would produce the same results and more precisely in the macro. The collection could be atoms or molecules or even macro objects... Next my particle would have to carry no charge or the diffraction could be electromagnetic. My idea was that I would have to propel my object using gravity(I suppose I could move the diffraction grate), regardless the diffraction would be the same interaction as the chart from earlier, the diffracting force would be the gravity divot (the field reduction between the particles)... My particle then is a gravitational field.

I say a photon is a gravitational wave packet and an electron is one of my particles that carries charge.

As I stated previously I will have to now consider the nature of spin and charge as applies to my particle.

As far as composite particles is concerned, I cannot see that on the horizon... yet.

I do not however believe I am following a dead end, I will find what is over the horizon, especially with the folks here keeping me on course!

You were correct in your loyalty to spin, I hope you understand however why I stepped away, to see what I would find.

A particle does not have a gravitational field, it is a gravitational field.

A particle with no mass is a gravitational wave packet.

I need to give thought now to spin and charge.

Indeed, the difference is most obvious approaching a black hole, the gravitation stretches you via inverse square, equivalent acceleration would smash you... But it would be it would be a straight linear smash.

I am somewhat rested today, hopefully more coherent! 

I am realizing how much of my scientific experience has been learning and using existing math... Almost none of my experience is creating math.

I will be creating the math to predict the diffraction of my particle passing through a slit.

I must consider charge, as an electromagnetic field would make my results meaningless. Assume then that my particle is neutral, so my experiment will have to be driven by gravity.

I must first consider the slope of the curve where my particle interacts with the slit, for each particle there will be 2 intersects x and x'. For each particle the difference will be the width of the slit(can someone suggest meaningful nomenclature for the slit width?) 

I must next find the resultant vector with the m slit as "a" and mx as "b" amplitude of a and b is a result of relative velocity between the particle and the slit. I must also consider that my particle is not 2 dimensional as in the chart, it is always interacting with the slit to some degree, I will need to add this factor as "z".

Critique please?

Oh my, a cascade of thought...

My experiment could be conducted on a macro scale!

Neutral bodies, small bb's perhaps could be dropped through a slit, the position of each could be easily controlled and the results very precise!

Next thought, devastating or not?

"The field" that is my particle is a gravitational field!

I think, not devastating... I have stumbled upon something here!

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You'll never 'get it' until you start doing the maths. Verbalising will only get you up to a point. That's when I tell myself that's as far as I can go without doing it, otherwise my mind would be thinking and conceiving ideas that are way off the mark. Right now you are talking about intrinsically mathematical ideas without doing maths.

You are quite correct! My time is stretched. Currently I do not have with me all of the resources(mainly pad and pencil) to do the math... I will have some time perhaps this evening. 

How small can a slit be made for a double slit experiment with electrons?

52 minutes ago, swansont said:

I'm asking about you predicting the results with your model. The results are independent of spin (i.e. we've done this with electrons, photons, neutrons and atoms)

I will need to examine the double slit experiments, specifically change in wave nature with changes in width and spacing of the slits... Perhaps you can provide some references?

I do see a problem with obtaining accuracy, the slits would have to be very tiny, on the order of nano or pico meters...

1 hour ago, Silvestru said:

No comments. Just disappointment. You would sit at the table with Newton, Faraday, and Einstein and ask them which sandwich is their favourite and why.

There was a chance to turn this thread into something from which me or you could learn...

 

I have read explanations of Schrödinger's cat many times... Just really never completely understood, now I get it.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

How about some thought on how you get from your idea to something you can measure, even if it's only in principle?

 

The double slit should provide measurement. The change that occurs when the slits are spaced differently demonstrates the slope of the curve, that should provide a reference.

Let me correct that, changing the width of the slit should provide a reference.