# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Gravitation and heat generation  (Read 6123 times)

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Gravitation and heat generation
« on: 12/01/2014 07:24:48 »
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 07:30:32 by jeffreyH »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #1 on: 12/01/2014 16:36:49 »
Jeffrey, you do see that this is a testable proposition?
So how would you like to set up a experiment, proving it?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #2 on: 12/01/2014 19:18:38 »
Jeffrey, you do see that this is a testable proposition?
So how would you like to set up a experiment, proving it?

Yes I do see that and my whole theory stands or falls on this proposition. I have no idea as yet on a test scenario. Most importantly and scarily all sorts of other properties follow from this including the solution to gravitation. One interesting one is that for an observer at infinity the speed of light will vary in proportion to the amplitude of the Higgs field. Any suggestions? I don't fancy digging out the earth's core.

BTW This means the amplitude of the Higg's field will be zero at the event horizon trapping light. Another thing is the stability of a star will depend upon the conductivity of its core. Any large enough thermal conduction away from the centre will destabilize the system initiating collapse. Also the distortion of the particles in a mass will be eliptical in nature becoming more spherical  the nearer to the centre of gravity. This means that time speeds up the nearer the centre of gravity a particle is. This is the source of the virtual particle travelling backwards in time.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 19:58:17 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #3 on: 12/01/2014 20:09:29 »
If we look at the sun we see temperature increase towards the core.

http://www.space.com/17137-how-hot-is-the-sun.html

For the planets see this.

http://cseligman.com/text/planets/magnetism.htm

Uranus and Neptune have higher internal temperatures than expected.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #4 on: 12/01/2014 20:22:12 »
One method to test the heat theory would be to suspend a metallic spherical mass within the cavity of a larger metallic sphere and vibrate the external sphere while leaving the internal mass undisturbed. This should be carried out in a vacuum. Temperature of the central mass being monitored during the experiment.

The big problem with this arrangement is finding a way to prevent the vibrational energy from directly transferring from the outer sphere to the inner one.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 20:29:22 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #5 on: 12/01/2014 20:48:53 »
Wow I just found this abstract.

This could be tied in with my theory. Interestingly Schrodinger's equations don't fit. Planck originally missed out the integration portion of Boltzmann's method which looks at first glance to be the problem they found when trying to use Schrodinger's methods. Which makes sense as the integration wasn't used by Planck at that stage in the development of quantum mechanics. The interesting point is that is what the researcher's needed for their work on the Higgs field.
« Last Edit: 12/01/2014 20:56:04 by jeffreyH »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11987
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #6 on: 13/01/2014 00:00:42 »
don't think you need to make the test astronomical?
Just big enough to measure.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #7 on: 13/01/2014 00:14:15 »
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.

By definition, temperature T = heat / (mass x specific heat capacity) = H/M

From the quote, H = k/r

Consider an infinitesimal element at the centre of a solid sphere. M-> 0 and r = 0 since the element is contiguous with the rest of the sphere, so T -> infinity

But the temperature of the rest of the sphere is finite

Therefore we can extract an infinite amount of energy from a cannoball by placing a thermocouple at its centre with the reference junction anywhere else.

Seems (a) testable and (b) unlikely.

Furthermore, in an infinite homogeneous universe, any point can be considered the centre, the surrounding mass is infinite, and the distance to any other point is finite, so the temperature of every point in the universe is infinite. Not what we observe.
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 00:18:41 by alancalverd »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #8 on: 13/01/2014 01:58:07 »
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.

By definition, temperature T = heat / (mass x specific heat capacity) = H/M

From the quote, H = k/r

Consider an infinitesimal element at the centre of a solid sphere. M-> 0 and r = 0 since the element is contiguous with the rest of the sphere, so T -> infinity

But the temperature of the rest of the sphere is finite

Therefore we can extract an infinite amount of energy from a cannoball by placing a thermocouple at its centre with the reference junction anywhere else.

Seems (a) testable and (b) unlikely.

Furthermore, in an infinite homogeneous universe, any point can be considered the centre, the surrounding mass is infinite, and the distance to any other point is finite, so the temperature of every point in the universe is infinite. Not what we observe.

This only applies to the convergence of gravitation inward to a point source. You don't know the details of my theory so don't jump to conclusions. As yor_on has suggested the idea needs to be tested. If it fails my whole theory fails.

Take a look at this.

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/how-the-higgs-field-works-with-math/2-why-the-higgs-field-is-non-zero-on-average/

Especially this.

"How does it happen that the Higgs field has a non-zero average value in nature, while the other (apparently-)elementary fields of nature that we know about so far do not? [Very fine point: other fields excepting the lowest-level gravitational field, called the "metric", that helps establish the very existence of space and time.]"

The Higgs field and the lowest level gravitational field have some sort of link which is direct enough to indicate an interaction. The Higgs field has no preferred direction as has the gravitational field. I am NOT saying the Higgs field is the gravitational field BTW.
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 02:03:59 by jeffreyH »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #9 on: 13/01/2014 02:09:00 »
Also bear in mind that mass-energy is given by the Higgs field so to borrow extra energy may be a property of the amplitude and directionality of the field. If the field is being concentrated on a point source there will be an increased effect. Thus the heating.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #10 on: 13/01/2014 02:20:15 »
Also bear in mind that this energy is being expressed in a faster time frame so if we were to slow it down then the extra energy release would be spread over a longer period and be much less. This also means that the heat conduction slows down towards the surface leaving it cooler that the core. This is what we see in the sun and the planets.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #11 on: 13/01/2014 12:22:49 »
I have a calculation for the Higgs wave density at the surface of a mass but don't know if it is valid. Hd = 0.5 * M * G * hbar/(r - rs)^2

Where Hd is the wave density, M is the mass, G the gravitational constant, r the radius and rs the Schwarzschild radius.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #12 on: 13/01/2014 21:23:29 »
I have been thinking about a test scenario for this. The heat curve must rise the nearer the centre of gravity a particle is. It is no use testing below the surface of the earth as the molten core can be considered as the heating mechanism. The mass needs to be small enough to be manageable but large enough for an effect to be detected and with no internal molten core.

Interestingly I just looked the moon up on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_structure_of_the_Moon

About the core we have this.

"Analyses of the Moon's time-variable rotation indicate that the core is at least partly molten."

So even the moon, as small as it is has some molten activity. The moon's age is estimated as 4.527 billion years. Shouldn't the heat have radiated away? What is keeping it going? For its size it seems to be able to sustain this energy release over long periods of time. As temperature tends to conduct from hot surfaces to colder surfaces this should have radiated away to reach an equilibrium. After all it is not like a star needing to consume fuel continuously.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #13 on: 13/01/2014 23:00:53 »
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.

By definition, temperature T = heat / (mass x specific heat capacity) = H/M

From the quote, H = k/r

Consider an infinitesimal element at the centre of a solid sphere. M-> 0 and r = 0 since the element is contiguous with the rest of the sphere, so T -> infinity

But the temperature of the rest of the sphere is finite

Therefore we can extract an infinite amount of energy from a cannoball by placing a thermocouple at its centre with the reference junction anywhere else.

Seems (a) testable and (b) unlikely.

Furthermore, in an infinite homogeneous universe, any point can be considered the centre, the surrounding mass is infinite, and the distance to any other point is finite, so the temperature of every point in the universe is infinite. Not what we observe.

I need to make an apology. I was rather sharp in my initial reply to this point. Without a test of the hypothesis we won't know either way. We can make an educated guess but that is all.

BTW If my hypothesis that uncertainty being limited in scope is true then this has a bearing on this issue.
« Last Edit: 13/01/2014 23:03:04 by jeffreyH »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #14 on: 14/01/2014 00:30:37 »

Quote
This only applies to the convergence of gravitation inward to a point source. You don't know the details of my theory

I don't need to. Your statement was quite clear, that as a result of your theory any mass in the centre of a sphere will heat up, and the closer it is to the surrounding shell, the hotter it will get in inverse proportion to the separation. So let the separation tend to zero and see what happens. Well, your hypothesis has been tested and in the absence of permanently molten cores in cannonballs or infinite thermal energy being generated from any lump of rock, it seems to be flawed.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #15 on: 14/01/2014 01:57:28 »

Quote
This only applies to the convergence of gravitation inward to a point source. You don't know the details of my theory

I don't need to. Your statement was quite clear, that as a result of your theory any mass in the centre of a sphere will heat up, and the closer it is to the surrounding shell, the hotter it will get in inverse proportion to the separation. So let the separation tend to zero and see what happens. Well, your hypothesis has been tested and in the absence of permanently molten cores in cannonballs or infinite thermal energy being generated from any lump of rock, it seems to be flawed.

That is not what I said. It does not get hotter towards the surface. It gets cooler. The conduction of the heat source progresses through an intensifying time dilation reducing the energy at the surface. There is a time dilation well at the surface which then climbs away from the surface through the gravitational field.

I see the problem.

THIS
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also inversely proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.

SHOULD BE
Any mass in a cavity at the centre of a larger spherical mass will heat up. The heat generated is proportional to the surrounding mass. This effect is also proportional to the distance from the inner surface of the cavity.
« Last Edit: 14/01/2014 02:12:21 by jeffreyH »

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #16 on: 14/01/2014 09:12:40 »
Now that is very interesting indeed. The further away from the surrounding mass, the greater the heat generated. So a small planet in an infinite universe will get very hot indeed.

Congratulations! You have found the source of climate change - it's a ripple from the Big Bang, and thanks to cosmic expansion, it's going to get worse and worse.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #17 on: 15/01/2014 00:01:43 »
Now that is very interesting indeed. The further away from the surrounding mass, the greater the heat generated. So a small planet in an infinite universe will get very hot indeed.

Congratulations! You have found the source of climate change - it's a ripple from the Big Bang, and thanks to cosmic expansion, it's going to get worse and worse.

Well I thought I'd be a ridiculous as you were.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #18 on: 15/01/2014 10:12:12 »
But all I've done is take your first assertion at face value and asked what the temperature would be in the middle of a dense solid object like a cannonball. Seems like a sensible thing to do. Then you changed your assertion so I asked what the temperature would be in  the middle of a nebulous object, say on a small planet in a large universe. Nothing ridiculous about either extrapolation as we are familiar with both scenarios.

If the observations don't agree with the calculations, the hypothesis is ridiculous. That's science.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #19 on: 15/01/2014 17:55:24 »
But all I've done is take your first assertion at face value and asked what the temperature would be in the middle of a dense solid object like a cannonball. Seems like a sensible thing to do. Then you changed your assertion so I asked what the temperature would be in  the middle of a nebulous object, say on a small planet in a large universe. Nothing ridiculous about either extrapolation as we are familiar with both scenarios.

If the observations don't agree with the calculations, the hypothesis is ridiculous. That's science.

So do you think a cannon ball would have enough mass to show a significant effect? Also can you tell me what you think the cause for stellar combustion is when a gas cloud condenses. It is all well and good using mathematics but without experimentation there is no validation OR refutation. Who in the 18th century would have predicted superconductivity? They would have argued that was ridiculous too if someone had proposed it. What NO resistance? You are being ridiculous. Sound familiar?

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #20 on: 15/01/2014 18:11:51 »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

"Protostar
Stellar evolution begins with the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud. Typical giant molecular clouds are roughly 100 light-years (9.5×1014 km) across and contain up to 6,000,000 solar masses (1.2×1037 kg). As it collapses, a giant molecular cloud breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. In each of these fragments, the collapsing gas releases gravitational potential energy as heat. As its temperature and pressure increase, a fragment condenses into a rotating sphere of superhot gas known as a protostar.[3]
The further development heavily depends on the mass of the evolving protostar; in the following, the protostar mass is compared to the mass of the Sun: 1.0 M☉ (2.0×1030 kg) means 1 solar mass."

Does the gravitational energy heat the star uniformly? This seems to be unlikely. More likely centrally. Why centrally? That is the unanswered question. For a gas with low temperature to gain heat from a cold area violates thermodynamics.

#### alancalverd

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 4704
• Thanked: 153 times
• life is too short to drink instant coffee
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #21 on: 15/01/2014 19:05:02 »

So do you think a cannon ball would have enough mass to show a significant effect?
No, but you do, or at least that is what your statement clearly implied.

If, as you originally stated,  the heat generated is inversely proportional to the distance to the inside of the shell, then it must be infinitely hot at the centre of a solid.   Or, if as you subsequently stated, the heat is directly proportional to the distance, it must be infinitely hot at the centre of an infinitely tenuous universe.

Now this isn't a matter of subtle measurement: we (or at least you) are predicting infinite quantities of heat.

Your latter suggestion, however bizarre, does at least explain the creation of the universe. The amount of heat at the centre of an infinite vacuum must be infinite, according to your theory, so the universe will indeed have begun as a big bang  in the middle of nothing. Full marks, and collect your Nobel Prize at the door!
« Last Edit: 15/01/2014 19:06:40 by alancalverd »

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #22 on: 16/01/2014 00:33:47 »

So do you think a cannon ball would have enough mass to show a significant effect?
No, but you do, or at least that is what your statement clearly implied.

If, as you originally stated,  the heat generated is inversely proportional to the distance to the inside of the shell, then it must be infinitely hot at the centre of a solid.   Or, if as you subsequently stated, the heat is directly proportional to the distance, it must be infinitely hot at the centre of an infinitely tenuous universe.

Now this isn't a matter of subtle measurement: we (or at least you) are predicting infinite quantities of heat.

Your latter suggestion, however bizarre, does at least explain the creation of the universe. The amount of heat at the centre of an infinite vacuum must be infinite, according to your theory, so the universe will indeed have begun as a big bang  in the middle of nothing. Full marks, and collect your Nobel Prize at the door!

I don't mind being bizarre. Consider the topic of the hollow planet that was posted a while back. Everyone agreed that the gravitational field cancelled out. It follows that time dilation and length contraction cancel out. So as Einstein stated the surface of the sphere is more compressed than the centre. If the cavity exhibits a reduction in time dilation and length contraction then what happens when you fill it in with matter? Does this suppression of time dilation and length contraction just disappear with a Paul Daniels "That's magic"? Or does the internal mass experience this gradation from central point out to the surface? If so then this will cause stress and friction on the centre outwards. Being strongest at the central point.

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #23 on: 18/01/2014 03:15:03 »
From the cosmoquest forum.

"
JS Princeton
2002-Oct-22, 08:51 PM
Agora is right on in this thread. Heat is actually a thermodynamically defined quantity that is endemic to states. Heat transfer can be accomplished through radiation, convection, and conduction but that in itself is not heat.

Temperature can be defined as the average kintetic energy of the particles in a closed system. This works for both relativistic and nonrelativistic particles. Can gravity effect temperature? You better believe it! In fact, gravity pulls together diffuse nebula and heats them up to a point where fusion can occur in starbirth. Gravity definitely allows us to warm things up.

If you try to escape a gravitational potential well, that will tend to have a cooling effect on ya."

That says it all. Leaving a gravitational potential well has a cooling effect. So the greatest temperature must be at the centre. Sheesh this is hard work!

#### jeffreyH

• Global Moderator
• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3916
• Thanked: 53 times
• The graviton sucks
##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #24 on: 07/04/2014 01:35:41 »
I am revisiting this thread because of the PDF posted in this thread http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=50741.25 on the calculation of the gravitational constant. In that PDF G is set to C^2 for purposes of removing the circular nature between Planck values and G. On hbar derived from the Planck constant:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
"The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics. Published in 1900, it originally described the proportionality constant between the energy (E) of a charged atomic oscillator in the wall of a black body, and the frequency (ν) of its associated electromagnetic wave. Its relevance is now integral to the field of quantum mechanics, describing the relationship between energy and frequency, commonly known as the Planck relation:"

In the PDF a Planck mass value is derived using G = C^2 to then provide a means of determining G. This now ties gravitation to the black body work done in the early 20th century. What this says about heat generation within a gravitational mass has yet to be determined. What it does say is that the photon and the proposed graviton have a direct link. This could indicated a gluon-like nature to gravitation. What would happen if we translated the atomic scale up to macroscopic in the same way?
« Last Edit: 07/04/2014 01:37:53 by jeffreyH »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Gravitation and heat generation
« Reply #24 on: 07/04/2014 01:35:41 »