Butch

Gravity (split from Neutral elementary particles and electromagnetic waves)

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Sensei said:

Charge of particle is intrinsic essential property..

 

Yes, I've got that... 

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It doesn't, in some very important and distinct ways.

Gravity is only attractive, and cannot be shielded, to name two. 

But, can waves in a gravity field be attenuated or reflected?

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Butch said:

Yes, I've got that... 

 

But, can waves in a gravity field be attenuated or reflected?

 

Those are good questions, Butch. +1

 

Since you can't shield from gravity I can't see an attenuation mechanism, but maybe someone who knows more can.

Reflection ? I don't see why not if you interpose a massive object in the wave path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Butch said:

But, can waves in a gravity field be attenuated or reflected?

AFAIK they can't be attenuated- the energy doesn't get absorbed when it deforms spacetime. Reflected, possibly, but no experimental confirmation for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/27/2018 at 12:47 PM, studiot said:

 

Those are good questions, Butch. +1

 

Since you can't shield from gravity I can't see an attenuation mechanism, but maybe someone who knows more can.

Reflection ? I don't see why not if you interpose a massive object in the wave path.

Not gravity, waves in a gravitational field as relates to attenuation. For example a particle being "shaken" by a gravitational wave might absorb its energy and re-emit it in another form that redistributes it... refraction?

On 6/28/2018 at 6:10 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Thanks

Gravitational force is a matter of mass density and proximity at any level... Does a particle have an event horizon? Could be that classical gravity is very weak, however perhaps there is a horizon beyond which gravity is precipitously stronger?

On 6/27/2018 at 10:14 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

So...just to be clear...both effect spacetime gravitationally so indirectly respond (as a minimum)?

Is that correct?

And enlightening!

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Butch said:

For example a particle being "shaken" by a gravitational wave might absorb its energy and re-emit it in another form that redistributes it... refraction?

It is indeed possible to refract gravitational waves (at least in principle); in fact gravitational waves exhibit many of the qualitative properties that “ordinary” waves would also. The main difference is that gravitational waves also self-interact, because gravity is non-linear. This gives them highly complex dynamics, and while aforementioned behaviours exist for them, their quantitative description is very different as compared to ordinary waves. They also exhibit some dynamics that are unique to gravitational waves, and don’t exist for other, linear, wave fields. 

12 hours ago, Butch said:

Does a particle have an event horizon?

No. Only regions of geodesic incompleteness (i.e. singularities) are covered by event horizons. Ordinary matter is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Butch said:

Not gravity, waves in a gravitational field as relates to attenuation. 

Gravitational waves (i.e. waves in a gravitational field) is still a gravitational effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

It is indeed possible to refract gravitational waves (at least in principle); in fact gravitational waves exhibit many of the qualitative properties that “ordinary” waves would also. The main difference is that gravitational waves also self-interact, because gravity is non-linear. This gives them highly complex dynamics, and while aforementioned behaviours exist for them, their quantitative description is very different as compared to ordinary waves. They also exhibit some dynamics that are unique to gravitational waves, and don’t exist for other, linear, wave fields. 

No. Only regions of geodesic incompleteness (i.e. singularities) are covered by event horizons. Ordinary matter is not.

So, em et al could be a subset of gravitation.

Ordinary matter meaning matter as we perceive it, what of a point particle? I have given this some thought... It seems that photons, Planck and the "event horizon" may give me a path to the units and math I am seeking, more on this later...

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Gravitational waves (i.e. waves in a gravitational field) is still a gravitational effect.

Agreed, while gravitation cannot be shielded, phenomenon within the field might.

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Butch said:

So, em et al could be a subset of gravitation.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. What Markus was saying is that gravitational waves have some superficial similarities to other waves, but are completely different. There are some analogies between (Newtonian) gravity and EM, but they only hold in limited cases. There are far more differences than similarities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. What Markus was saying is that gravitational waves have some superficial similarities to other waves, but are completely different. There are some analogies between (Newtonian) gravity and EM, but they only hold in limited cases. There are far more differences than similarities.

It is not a conclusion, it is a speculation and waits upon deduction... 

I am exploring the differences and similarities... I have lacked units of measurement and thus have lacked math. I believe I am close to defining my units of measurement however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Butch said:

 Agreed, while gravitation cannot be shielded, phenomenon within the field might.

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butch said:

So, em et al could be a subset of gravitation.

Not if the universe has four dimensions, with those fields in it that we know about. It is possible to unify EM and gravity, by introducing a compactified extra dimension, an extra scalar field, plus a few technical assumptions which I’ll skip here - this is called Kaluza-Klein gravity. However, this only has the status of a hypothesis, since no trace of the extra dimension nor the extra scalar field has ever been observed as of yet.

59 minutes ago, Butch said:

I am exploring the differences and similarities

There are really more differences than there are similarities. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, swansont said:

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Again, not a conclusion.

It seems, we could produce such phenomena in a lab environment. Such things could be tested?

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Butch said:

It seems, we could produce such phenomena in a lab environment. Such things could be tested?

What phenomena? What tests would you perform? And what (quantitatively) do you expect the results to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Strange said:

What phenomena? What tests would you perform? And what (quantitatively) do you expect the results to be?

Reflection and/or attenuation of gravitational waves. 

If they can be reflected or attenuated then phenomena such as those in em fields could be mimicked by gravitational phenomena... A unification of the two. Please view the earlier discussions.

What about charge? This is my direction of thought... You are familiar with my plot of a particle well. In this y(gravitational force) is always greater than 0. What happens if the particle is perturbed or a wave peak in the field pushes y below 0?

Screenshot_20180608-075926.png

The spin label of course is incorrect, x is distance, y gravitation.

Note that this represents a point particle, the gravitation we classically experience is indistinguishable from 0 on this graph.

Once I have determined my units of measurement, as well as the influence of a photon, I believe it will be demonstrated that such perturbation of y will be quantised.

In order to picture this in your mind at some distance (x) place a gravitational wave packet... What happens as it approaches x=0?

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Butch said:

Again, not a conclusion.

It seems, we could produce such phenomena in a lab environment. Such things could be tested?

Stop being coy. What line of reasoning gets you from "gravity can't be shielded" to "phenomenon within the field might"?

If you think of it as an interaction: the interaction can't be shielded. How could anything depending on the interaction be shielded?

!

Moderator Note

If you think of it as curvature: nothing can modify the curvature. How can something then modify the curvature?

As this has nothing to do with EM, I have split it off. Since you are making pronouncements rather than sticking to questions, this is in speculations.

 
12 hours ago, Butch said:

The spin label of course is incorrect, x is distance, y gravitation.

How did spin get into the discussion?

What do you mean by "gravitation"? Do you mean gravitational potential energy? Gravitational force?

12 hours ago, Butch said:

Note that this represents a point particle, the gravitation we classically experience is indistinguishable from 0 on this graph.

"indistinguishable from 0"? That's meaningless

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Butch said:

You are familiar with my plot of a particle well. In this y(gravitational force) is always greater than 0.

Oh, y is gravitational force now. I thought it was angular momentum before. And what is x this week?

12 hours ago, Butch said:

What happens if the particle is perturbed or a wave peak in the field pushes y below 0?

How are you going to change gravitational force? Which bit of, "we have no way of controlling gravity" do you no understand?

12 hours ago, Butch said:

Reflection and/or attenuation of gravitational waves. 

What evidence do you have that gravitational waves can be reflected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

What evidence do you have that gravitational waves can be reflected?

They actually can be reflected - and you can do a whole bunch of other stuff with them too. But these effects do not happen with matter, they happen with the radiation field itself. This is because gravitational waves are non-linear and hence self-interacting, so you get some very complicated dynamics when you have a region of spacetime filled with overlapping waves. The crucial bit though is that these dynamics are very different from the ones you find in EM radiation fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Strange said:

Oh, y is gravitational force now. I thought it was angular momentum before. And what is x this week?

How are you going to change gravitational force? Which bit of, "we have no way of controlling gravity" do you no understand?

What evidence do you have that gravitational waves can be reflected?

Not we control gravity... If a gravitational wave can be created then the curvature in my graph can certainly be modified! Not by us, by nature. We can do experiments to observe the phenomenon. Sometimes nature presents the experiment for us and we can observe the evidence, as has been the recent case with gravitational waves.

I guess I could have stuck with y=spin if I had a tremendous fear of being wrong. Success comes from failure. When I presented this graph originally, I was not sure what the field was, I am convinced now that the field is gravitation(reference "particles as excitation in a field" to see my reasoning.), y is not spin, it is gravitational force, x is distance. I am not certain what this particle is, I am leaning toward neutrino, neutrinos oscillate ergo they have mass and thus a gravitational field... that oscillates.

What is your opinion on the mind experiment I suggested?

3 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

They actually can be reflected - and you can do a whole bunch of other stuff with them too. But these effects do not happen with matter, they happen with the radiation field itself. This is because gravitational waves are non-linear and hence self-interacting, so you get some very complicated dynamics when you have a region of spacetime filled with overlapping waves. The crucial bit though is that these dynamics are very different from the ones you find in EM radiation fields.

Please reference the mind experiment in my earlier post, do not get too complicated! As gravitation in proximity of the origin curves time/space the reference frame only comes into play for an outside observer.

If a very dense massive body were oscillating strongly, in density, very close to you(assuming somehow the gravitational field did not rip you apart) would it cook you like a microwave? At the quantum level does this occur? If gravitational waves were at the frequency of microwaves would they differ? 

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Stop being coy. What line of reasoning gets you from "gravity can't be shielded" to "phenomenon within the field might"?

If you think of it as an interaction: the interaction can't be shielded. How could anything depending on the interaction be shielded?

!

Moderator Note

If you think of it as curvature: nothing can modify the curvature. How can something then modify the curvature?

As this has nothing to do with EM, I have split it off. Since you are making pronouncements rather than sticking to questions, this is in speculations.

 

How did spin get into the discussion?

What do you mean by "gravitation"? Do you mean gravitational potential energy? Gravitational force?

"indistinguishable from 0"? That's meaningless

 

Gravitational force.

Just a matter of graphics, " normal" gravitational force, that is gravitational force at distances magnitudes greater cannot be displayed on this graph, they are too weak.

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Butch said:

If a very dense massive body were oscillating strongly, in density, very close to you(assuming somehow the gravitational field did not rip you apart) would it cook you like a microwave?

No it wouldn’t. Gravitational radiation doesn’t behave like EM radiation, and doesn’t have the same effects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Butch said:

 Gravitational force.

Just a matter of graphics, " normal" gravitational force, that is gravitational force at distances magnitudes greater cannot be displayed on this graph, they are too weak.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If it's gravitational force, then you are graphing GMm/x^2 against x. It's attractive, so there should be a - sign in front.  

The next step is to put magnitudes and units on the graph, so it might mean something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

No it wouldn’t. Gravitational radiation doesn’t behave like EM radiation, and doesn’t have the same effects. 

So, it would not raise the temperature of atoms?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. If it's gravitational force, then you are graphing GMm/x^2 against x. It's attractive, so there should be a - sign in front.  

The next step is to put magnitudes and units on the graph, so it might mean something.

 

I was demonstrating the increase in gravitational force, certainly a "well" is more familiar.

What happens when y crosses 0?

I am working on units, any suggestions greatly appreciated... For now just small, very small! I am thinking something like hbar not clear however on π or 2π.

I suppose the way to proceed is to try both, I need to collide a photon with my particle.

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butch said:

 I was demonstrating the increase in gravitational force, certainly a "well" is more familiar.

 

You didn't show a well*. You showed a barrier.

*Jack and Jill may have gone up the hill to fetch a pail of water. For everyone else, though, wells go down.

Quote

What happens when y crosses 0?

It doesn't in your model.

Quote

I am working on units, any suggestions greatly appreciated... For now just small, very small! I am thinking something like hbar not clear however on π or 2π.

hbar is not a unit.

If you are plotting gravitational force, the unit is Newtons. You don't get to pick the unit arbitrarily.

 

!

Moderator Note

I would caution you to not repeat your approach in the spin thread. It was closed because you were making claims with no model. It looks very much like you are doing the same now, with gravity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, swansont said:

You didn't show a well*. You showed a barrier.

*Jack and Jill may have gone up the hill to fetch a pail of water. For everyone else, though, wells go down.

It doesn't in your model.

hbar is not a unit.

If you are plotting gravitational force, the unit is Newtons. You don't get to pick the unit arbitrarily.

 

!

Moderator Note

I would caution you to not repeat your approach in the spin thread. It was closed because you were making claims with no model. It looks very much like you are doing the same now, with gravity.

 

 

Newtons! Absolutely! Thank you! I had not thought about it, but since "normal" gravity is so weak in comparison to that in my graph... Newtons should work just fine! I just assumed the units would be to large!

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you!

My model is a particle that is isolated, but if it is influenced y might fall below 0.

Gravitational force at a distance could also be influenced to become much more attractive than the "norm".

Patience please sir? I am building ideas and taking critiques. I am not trying to convince or state fact that is not in evidence... I am not an academic (perhaps I should have been), I do have a great abstract mind! I see things and investigate, however I cannot do it without the guidance of all of you... Einstein did not do it alone, he was in constant communication with colleagues. The wonderful folks on this forumn are the only colleagues I have and I do appreciate you greatly!

Einstein threw Euclid to the wind... Imagine what that was like for him!

I am sure that many of his closest friends told him he was full of poppy cock and was certainly wasting his time and theirs!

 

On 7/2/2018 at 2:05 AM, Markus Hanke said:

It is indeed possible to refract gravitational waves (at least in principle); in fact gravitational waves exhibit many of the qualitative properties that “ordinary” waves would also. The main difference is that gravitational waves also self-interact, because gravity is non-linear. This gives them highly complex dynamics, and while aforementioned behaviours exist for them, their quantitative description is very different as compared to ordinary waves. They also exhibit some dynamics that are unique to gravitational waves, and don’t exist for other, linear, wave fields. 

No. Only regions of geodesic incompleteness (i.e. singularities) are covered by event horizons. Ordinary matter is not.

In em f1 and f2 result in f1, f2, f1+f2,f1-f2. Is this self interaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

My positively charged particle:

 

Screenshot_20180703-172208.png

 

My negatively charged particle:

 

Screenshot_20180703-172253.png

 

My neutral particle:

Screenshot_20180703-172827.png

I do apologise for the lack of units, I produced these charts with:

-1/x^2 + abs(1/x)

-1/x^2 - abs(1/x)

-1/x^2

Perhaps someone could help me out with charge as applies to elementary particles?

I have chosen abs(1/x) as my charge because I believe it represents a quantum.

Not sure what x=1 is in units of N, it should be a relatively large number as gravitational force at x=1 is very much greater than that at sea level on earth... Much greater!

Screenshot_20180703-174045.thumb.png.3f72765def3314889233b8cfbb0a9ce2.png

Edited by Butch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Butch said:

Newtons! Absolutely! Thank you! I had not thought about it, but since "normal" gravity is so weak in comparison to that in my graph... Newtons should work just fine! I just assumed the units would be to large!

The units don’t tell you anything about the magnitude, they just tell you the “type” of thing you are measuring. In the case of newtons that means force. 

A tiny force or a large force can be measured in newtons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now