Inside Gravitons

[Bengt E Nyman]

Inside Gravitons

This is a hypothesis which claims that the Graviton is a name and a placeholder, not for an autonomous particle, but for a mechanism which is the result of composite electrostatic forces between electric charges in particles and bodies.

The diagram below shows two hydrogen atoms and illustrates the mechanism of dipole formation producing dipole gravity.

The electrons orbiting the protons of the two hydrogen atoms have some freedom to deform their orbits depending on external influences. In the case of the two atoms below, each proton attracts the electron of the other atom while also repelling the proton of the other atom. The result is an offset of both electron orbits in relation to their protons.

As a consequence attracting charges move somewhat closer to each other while repulsing charges move slightly further away for each other. Calculations of the effect of this elasticity shows a tiny net increase in the sum of attracting forces compared to repulsing forces.

The nature of the dipole effect and the forces produced are such that they always yield a tiny attracting net force between the two dipoles, particles, atoms or bodies. See arbitrary numerical example below.

Attraction = e^2/0.9^2 + e^2/1.1^2 - e^2/1^2 - e^2/1^2

= e^2(1/0.81 + 1/1.21 - 1/1 - 1/1

= e^2(1.23456790 + 0.82644628 - 1 - 1)

= e^2(0.06101418)

= 0.061e^2

Calculations using real charges and dimensions of the two hydrogen atoms show that at a distance of 1 x 10^-12 meters between the two hydrogen atoms, the dipole distance of each hydrogen atom would be 3.672300 * 10^-31 meter, which is 6.939 * 10^-21 of the radius of the hydrogen atom, or 4.424 * 10^-18 of the radius of the proton. In other words, the charge shift or dipole distance required is extremely small, even compared to the radius of the proton.

Links to Hydrogen Gravity simulations:

2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and Gravity between 2 simulated hydrogen atoms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKa3-LS3rpc

2D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms with free quarks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8sZvadCHH4

3D Charge Posturing, Dipole formation and ES Gravity between 2 hydrogen atoms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NxBjszft2Y

Links to Neutron Gravity simulations

2D Charge Posturing and Gravity between 2 neutrons with trapped quarks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSGeHRyfcho

3D Charge Posturing and ES Gravity between 2 neutrons:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL1Qs-jO6iE

Multiple Body Gravity

Each body reacts to each and every body in its environment. In case of for example three hydrogen atoms, the dipole formation of each atom becomes the result of the response to the charges in both adjacent atoms.

Take for example one of the three hydrogen atoms below. The proton in this atom is attracted to both adjacent electrons and repelled by both adjacent protons while the electron in the same atom is is attracted to both adjacent protons and repelled by both adjacent electrons.

The vector diagram below shows all twelve force vectors involved. The size of the individual forces is determined by Coulombs Law. The individual force vectors for each atom point in different directions. As always, with multiple force vectors acting on one and the same body, the resultant vector determines the composite force acting on the body. In this case the resultant points between the two adjacent atoms and describes the direction of the dipole axis and the gravitational pull on said atom.

In case of more bodies in the environment there are additional individual force vectors, the composite of which determines the direction of the composite force, the composite dipole axis of each body and the gravitational pull on that body.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[Bengt E Nyman]

Once upon a time we regarded atoms as the smallest possible building blocks of the universe. Today we understand that subatomic particles as well as photons are likely nests of even smaller, energetic, constituents of some sort.

 

Studying the subatomic world, electric charge is a common ingredient. Even seemingly neutral particles like neutrons turn out to consist of smaller, electrically charged sub-particles.

 

Mass is a well established unit of measure for something that responds to gravity and which exhibits inertia, characterized by requiring an external force to change speed or direction.

We have long looked for a reason why a mass would attract another mass through what we call gravity.

 

Why would two inert and truly neutral masses attract each other ?

 

Accept instead that all bodies consist of electrically charged sub-particles which have some freedom to move and posture within the body. We know that these charged sub-particles are very responsive to other charged particles within the body.

Why would they not show some degree of reaction to bodies consisting of charged particles and sub-particles in their external environment.

 

I plan to post a second part of this hypothesis explaining the mechanism of strongforce, including a calculation of strongforce and binding energy in deuterium, supporting the quantitative aspects of this hypothesis about gravity and strongforce.

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

Why aren't these induced dipoles just included with electrostatic forces? i.e. the components of the van der Waal's interaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force

 

Why is there something else left over beyond this?

 

Dipole forces drop off with the cube of the separation; induced dipoles drop off as r^6 (Keesom, London interactions). So how is it that gravity drops off as r^2?

[Bengt E Nyman]

1. Why aren't these induced dipoles just included with electrostatic forces? i.e. the components of the van der Waal's interaction.

2. Dipole forces drop off with the cube of the separation; induced dipoles drop off as r^6 (Keesom, London interactions). So how is it that gravity drops off as r^2?

Good questions.

 

1. Compared to the very weak forces of gravity, Van der Waal's interactions produce stronger forces with a "shorter range".The ultimate force with short range is of course strongforce. All three, I believe belong to a diverse family of complex electrostatic interactions resulting from both attracting and repelling forces, some of which even reverse at certain distances, like strongforce.

2. In this case we are not talking about magnetic dipoles, magnetic fields, electric fields or voltages, but about electric charges and their interactions as determined by Coulombs Law (1/r^2).

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

Good questions.

 

1. Compared to the very weak forces of gravity, Van der Waal's interactions produce stronger forces with a "shorter range".The ultimate force with short range is of course strongforce. All three, I believe belong to a diverse family of complex electrostatic interactions resulting from both attracting and repelling forces, some of which even reverse at certain distances, like strongforce.

2. In this case we are not talking about magnetic dipoles, magnetic fields, electric fields or voltages, but about electric charges and their interactions as determined by Coulombs Law (1/r^2).

 

But the situation you describe is what we have for the van der Waal's force, and not something where Coulomb's law directly applies — we don't have unshielded, bare charges. So this sidesteps the question, rather than answering it.

[Bengt E Nyman]

 

But the situation you describe is what we have for the van der Waal's force, and not something where Coulomb's law directly applies

I believe that van der Waal's force and similar are special cases driven by electrostatic interactions following Coulomb's law. I see no reason to start with van der Waal's in a case that is more general. I believe that Coulomb's law is at the starting point of all these cases and should be the starting point for any numerical analysis.

[swansont]

I believe that van der Waal's force and similar are special cases driven by electrostatic interactions following Coulomb's law. I see no reason to start with van der Waal's in a case that is more general. I believe that Coulomb's law is at the starting point of all these cases and should be the starting point for any numerical analysis.

 

Then do it. What you'll find when you analyze these systems with charges that interact with and shield each other is that the behavior is not 1/r^2. van der Waal's forces are an example of this, and your solutions are going to look an awful lot like them. The electric field outside a hydrogen atom is not 1/r^2, regardless of whether it's by itself or interacting with other atoms.

[Bengt E Nyman]

I thought you were going to ask this:

Assume there is some kind of analogy between gravity and Coulomb electrostatic attraction, both quantified by r/x^2. For this to be true the product of the charges sensed by object A in object B and by object B in object A would have to be proportional to their masses m1 and m2, while independent of their distance r. What would make this possible ?

 

"You will never further science by insisting that it be supported by what you already know."

Edited October 13, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

I thought you were going to ask this:

Assume there is some kind of analogy between gravity and Coulomb electrostatic attraction, both quantified by r/x^2. For this to be true the product of the charges sensed by object A in object B and by object B in object A would have to be proportional to their masses m1 and m2, while independent of their distance r. What would make this possible ?

 

I don't see where you're going with this, because we already know that the Coulomb interaction and Newtonian gravity vary with distance.

[Bengt E Nyman]

 

I don't see where you're going with this, because we already know that the Coulomb interaction and Newtonian gravity vary with distance.

You mean: we already know that the Coulomb interaction and Newtonian gravity vary with distance^2.

Don't worry. I am calculating a virtual charge, or visible charge, to produce a quantitative comparison between Newton and Coulomb.

Take a break. I'll be back.

[Bengt E Nyman]

Gravity between bodies is caused by electrostatic posturing and subsequent attraction. A body can be said to have a certain amount of virtual, visible, accessible or free dipole charge in response to the proximity of other bodies. This free dipole charge always postures to cause a net attraction force between bodies.

The free dipole charge in a body is (sorry, recalculating Coulomb/kg) and is sensed by all bodies in its environment.

Coulomb's Law now determines the attraction or "gravity" between bodies based on the free dipole charge in each body and the distance^2 between the bodies.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

Repeating yourself is not a valid response.

 

Dipoles do not follow 1/r^2, and electric polarizability is a property that varies between materials, so there's no basis for asserting that it is the same for everything and only depends on the mass. Also, ~1Coul/kg is pretty big. If this was right, two 1 kg masses at 1 meter separation should feel a force of ~ 9 x 10^9N. Newton's law of gravitation predicts ~6.67 x 10^-11N. Wrong by 20 orders of magnitude

[Bengt E Nyman]

Checking. You are right. Sorry. Recalculating.

How about 8.6169*10^-11 Coulomb/kg.

Please check.

 

P.S. The dipole formations that I am talking about involve quarks, protons, neutrons and electrons. It has nothing to do with the choice of material, other than its mass.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

Checking. You are right. Sorry. Recalculating.

How about 8.6169*10^-11 Coulomb/kg.

Please check.

 

P.S. The dipole formations that I am talking about involve quarks, protons, neutrons and electrons. It has nothing to do with the choice of material, other than its mass.

 

Is the quark and electron content consistent between materials?

[Sensei]

Do you want to explain gravity by subtle electrostatic force interactions.. ?

 

If yes, I have something for you:

Isotope of element has the same quantity of protons, same quantity of electrons, but different quantity of neutrons in atom, thus different mass.

 

So if you would take 1 ton of Iron-54 it would have:

10^6 g / 53.9396 g/mol = 18539.255 mol of Fe-54 (multiply by 6.022141*10^23 to get absolute quantity of atoms, then multiply by 26 to get protons/electrons absolute quantity)

Same quantity of protons and electrons of Fe-56 would have mass:

18539.255 mol * 55.9349 g/mol = 1036991.4 g = ~1.037 ton

 

Should or shouldn't have different gravitational force more massive Iron-56 ore.. ?

[Bengt E Nyman]

 

Is the quark and electron content consistent between materials?

Not sure I understand the question.

Material weight is the result of the weight of its constituents. Quarks, protons, neutrons and electrons make up the weight and are common between all mateials.

The ability to form subatomic dipoles is therefore common between all materials explaining why available dipole charge is the same in all materials and only dependent on bodymass.

So if you would take 1 ton of Iron-54 it would have:

Same quantity of protons and electrons of Fe-56 would have mass:

18539.255 mol * 55.9349 g/mol = 1036991.4 g = ~1.037 ton

 

 

 

More mass (quarks in neutrons) = more free dipole charge = more gravity calculated based on Coulombs free charge 8.6169*10^-11 Coulomb/kg

Dipole posturing is not limited to electron orbit elasticity but also includes quark orientations in protons and neutrons. See strongforce.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[ajb]

Material weight is the result of the weight of its constituents.

This is not true. Look up the notion of binding energy...

[Bengt E Nyman]

This is not true. Look up the notion of binding energy...

What is not true ? be more specific.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

Not sure I understand the question.

Material weight is the result of the weight of its constituents. Quarks, protons, neutrons and electrons make up the weight and are common between all mateials.

The ability to form subatomic dipoles is therefore common between all materials explaining why available dipole charge is the same in all materials and only dependent on bodymass.

 

 

If I have a kg of O-16 and a kg of O-18 I will not have the same number of up and down quarks in the two samples. If I have a kg of B-11 and C-11 I will also not have the same number of electrons.

[Bengt E Nyman]

 

 

If I have a kg of O-16 and a kg of O-18 I will not have the same number of up and down quarks in the two samples. If I have a kg of B-11 and C-11 I will also not have the same number of electrons.

Of course not. But they all have a total mass of 1 kg, which is what counts. My claim is that available, free dipole charge is only a function of mass.

Ask yourself: What is the definition of mass, and how do we measure it ?

In most cases the answer is: By measuring its gravitational pull toward earth.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Bengt E Nyman

[swansont]

Of course not. But they all have a total mass of 1 kg, which is what counts. My claim is that available, free dipole charge is only a function of mass.

A claim which you have not backed up. You said that it depends on the quarks and electrons, but now you say it doesn't matter which. They make equal contributions? HOW?

 

And if it's the quarks, how is this different from finding a value for the dipole moment of protons and neutrons?

 

Ask yourself: What is the definition of mass, and how do we measure it ?

In most cases the answer is: By measuring its gravitational pull toward earth.

That would be weight, not mass.

[ajb]

What is not true ? be more specific.

What you claimed is not true. The mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of the free constituents. (Your wording was a little sloppier than this)

[Bengt E Nyman]

A claim which you have not backed up. You said that it depends on the quarks and electrons, but now you say it doesn't matter which. They make equal contributions? HOW?

 

And if it's the quarks, how is this different from finding a value for the dipole moment of protons and neutrons?

 

 

That would be weight, not mass.

1. In case of for example a hydrogen atom there are two levels of charge posturing occurring in reaction to adjacent charges:

1.1. On an atomic scale, there is a distortion of the electron orbit around the proton, separating the center of orbit of the electron from the location of the effective, compound charge of the proton.

1.2. On a proton scale the two up quarks and the one down quark form a triangle which can turn and tumble in response to adjacent charges at a nuclear level.

Both play a roll in gravity though the electron-nucleus dipole formation on the atomic scale is the larger contributor to ES forces causing gravity.

Posturing of the quarks at a nuclear level is responsible for ES forces causing strong force.

 

2. Correct. And how do we measure mass, irrespective of weight ?

What you claimed is not true. The mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of the free constituents. (Your wording was a little sloppier than this)

 

We all know that the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its free constituents, however, the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its constituents.

[Sensei]

2. Correct. And how do we measure mass, irrespective of weight ?

If you're on board of space ship, and hit object with well known force, it'll accelerate object.

Object that has large mass, will be accelerated to smaller velocity.

Object that has small mass, will be accelerated to bigger velocity.

 

Search google how is measured mass of atoms in mass spectrometry..

 

Say you have particles all with charge -1e, and masses m1=0.511 MeV/c^2 (electron), m2=105.66 MeV/c^2 (muon-), m3=139 MeV/c^2 (pion-).

If you accelerate them using electrodes with well known potential, smaller rest-mass particle will be accelerated to higher velocity.

Gravity can be ignored.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Sensei

[swansont]

1. In case of for example a hydrogen atom there are two levels of charge posturing occurring in reaction to adjacent charges:

1.1. On an atomic scale, there is a distortion of the electron orbit around the proton, separating the center of orbit of the electron from the location of the effective, compound charge of the proton.

1.2. On a proton scale the two up quarks and the one down quark form a triangle which can turn and tumble in response to adjacent charges at a nuclear level.

Both play a roll in gravity though the electron-nucleus dipole formation on the atomic scale is the larger contributor to ES forces causing gravity.

Posturing of the quarks at a nuclear level is responsible for ES forces causing strong force.

 

 

Electrons don't have orbits, they have orbitals. All of this is incorporated in quantum mechanics.

 

All of this here is assertion. You have done nothing to actually demonstrate that this is true; no experiment, no model, nor even a plausible argument that you could get a 1/r^2 relationship from electrostatic forces of composite systems, much less that it would be identical per unit mass. Just lots of hand-waving.