The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The photon as the link between electromagnetic radiation and gravitation  (Read 7197 times)

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile


BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.
The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile


BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.
The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile


BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.
The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.
OK, for one reason or another, I seem to have misunderstood where you were headed with this discussion.

I think we can agree concerning these points about relative motion. But how does this relate to electromagnetic radiation and gravity? Electromagnetic radiation always propagates at c, and according to the latest estimates, gravitational waves do as well. These velocities would of course apply to their local frame. As observers, there exist many circumstances where we can see slowing of these speeds from our frame of reference. But just because we see them slowing from our frame, doesn't mean they have slowed in theirs. The photon always experiences it's local speed as c. And if the graviton is a proper estimation for the gravitational force carrier, it does as well.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2014 21:24:51 by Ethos_ »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile


BTW Hubble's uniform expansion with distance gives us a starting point for a universal reference for such a subsystem.
The important word here is subsystem. With all due respect Jeff, proving motionlessness relative to the total system, our universe, is impossible. Defining one object motionless relative to another is also impossible. Remember our thought experiment, it is not possible to prove who is in motion, you or your friend. It only becomes possible when one is accelerating that inertial forces signal motion applied to that particular body. Motionlessness is impossible to prove.

I wasn't trying to prove motionlessness. That was the point. I was attempting to reference relative motion in a subsystem.
OK, for one reason or another, I seem to have misunderstood where you were headed with this discussion.

I think we can agree concerning these points about relative motion. But how does this relate to electromagnetic radiation and gravity? Electromagnetic radiation always propagates at c, and according to the latest estimates, gravitational waves do as well. These velocities would of course apply to their local frame. As observers, there exist many circumstances where we can see slowing of these speeds from our frame of reference. But just because we see them slowing from our frame, doesn't mean they have slowed in theirs. The photon always experiences it's local speed as c. And if the graviton is a proper estimation for the gravitational force carrier, it does as well.

I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile


I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.
Which three virtual particles are you considering Jeff?
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile


I am veering away from a direct link between the photon and gravitation. However by going down this route I have come to a more startling conclusion. What we think of as the graviton could be a merger of three other particles, all of which is are virtual particles. So these 3 virtual particles then combine to make a graviton that appears to move backwards in time which is not disallowed in quantum physics.
Which three virtual particles are you considering Jeff?

That would be jumping the gun. I need to produce an experiment to test the theory first. This is not as strange as it first sounds. I obviously cannot mimic a particle travelling backwards in time but I can produce what the forward travelling version would look like. One of the virtual particles is known and named. The other two are not as far as I know. I need to look into whether or not they have been discovered yet.

This interaction will also provide elliptical motion as seen in celestial orbits and have an attractive property. BTW It is only generated by molecular matter but acts on both solids and elementary particles. Whilst this sounds counter-intuitive, as we think of all matter types as generating gravity, it will work. Helium can be considered within the molecular group due to its shell stability, although it interacts with gravity in a different way and gives rise to the low temperature effects of superconductivity and container climbing effects.
« Last Edit: 04/01/2014 00:32:21 by jeffreyH »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Something to bear in mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
"For the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, the zero rest-mass of the associated boson particle permits long-range forces to be mediated by virtual particles."
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I have come to the conclusion that a new particle exists as an intermediary between the graviton and the proton via the Coulomb potential well. This may of course be totally wrong. I am investigating further.

I am wondering if this would resolve the proton spin crisis.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2014 23:11:24 by jeffreyH »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
If the photon is a long string that we can only detect at its tip then this particle would have a mass that we currently cannot detect fully. In this case it would interact with the Higgs field like any other mass. Outside the gravitational field of a large mass the vector of momentum through the Higgs field averages to a straight line for these so called massless particles. The Higgs field if then aligned by a large mass into a generally elliptical spiral configuration would then bend light and other particles whilst giving them mass. I propose 3 virtual particle interactions creating an inverse square effect to infinity to be the mechanism aligning the Higgs field around a large mass.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The Higgs field being under greater compression the nearer to a gravitational source it is will cause a slowing of momentum resulting in time dilation and a compression of the space causing length contraction. The elliptical spiraling causes the gravitational lensing.

One more feature of the compression of the Higgs field is to put matter into a lower energy state. Like the electrons in a potential well atoms tend towards lower energy states. In the Coulomb potential well, as protons are compressed, the wells overlap producing a stronger attraction. At a particular density the combined well potential reaches the Schwarzschild radius limit permanently trapping photons. The electrons can no longer reach an energy state to allow photon emission. This could result in all photons falling inward to be pulled into and trapped within the extended well. This will amplify the overall negative charge on the electrons compressing the protons even further until the mass is forced into a compressed singularity.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2014 16:19:03 by jeffreyH »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
It appears I may be near the mark.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/what-if/what-if-black-hole-formed-near-solar-system2.htm
Hawking radiation
"Everywhere, all the time, pairs of positive and negative "virtual particles" pop briefly into existence, then recombine and annihilate one another. What would happen to such particle pairs at a black hole's event horizon? According to physicist Stephen Hawking's theory, the negatively charged particles would be caught by the black hole, whereas the positively charged ones would escape. This Hawking radiation, if it weren't too faint to detect, would provide another way to spot black holes in space [source: Economist]."
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
One of my virtual particles is actually a pseudoparticle called an instanton. This leads to the very interesting twistor theory proposed by Roger Penrose.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2014 06:13:14 by jeffreyH »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Could the fact that a photon picks up mass in a superconductor be due to string compression? So it is no longer just the string tip that is detected.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3925
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Just found the reason for the 2GM in Schwarzschilds calculation of the event horizon radius. It was Einstein and Stern's modification of Planck's energy radiator equation. This was related to the zero point energy at absolute zero. This is 1/2hv. I'm glad that is sorted.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums