The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: The photon's intimate relationship with gravity and what that implies  (Read 1589 times)

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
As Schwarszchild pointed out there is a point where mass density generates a gravitational field strength that traps light. If the speed of gravity equals c and gravity does in fact interact with itself then that implies that the gravitational field can also trap itself within the event horizon. We assume that at the centre of gravity the field cancels and we have zero g at that point. Would this change within a collapsing mass? If not then, although the event horizon traps light and gravitation, we would have freedom of movement the nearer to the centre of gravity we get. How is this different from a proton or neutron? It may be that the proton is simply a scaled down version of a macroscopic black hole and that singularities are not an inevitable consequence of collapse. Once compacted the interior of the mass may express gravitation in the same way as quark confinement via gluons. If the graviton is in fact described by the two copy gluon model then under intense compression the two copy model may split into a single gluon-like state.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2014 02:52:28 by jeffreyH »


 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2762
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
As Schwarszchild pointed out there is a point where mass density generates a gravitational field strength that traps light.
That wasn't Schwarzschild. That was David Finkelstein in 1958.

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the speed of gravity equals c and gravity does in fact interact with itself then that implies that the gravitational field can also trap itself within the event horizon. We assume that at the centre of gravity the field cancels and we have zero g at that point. Would this change within a collapsing mass?
No. Not if it's symmetrical. If it was symmetrical then ask yourself which way the force would point and why.

Quote from: jeffreyH
If not then, although the event horizon traps light and gravitation, we would have freedom of movement the nearer to the centre of gravity we get. How is this different from a proton or neutron?
How would you have more freedom the closer you get to the center of a black hole? You're deal before you get there and at the center there is a point of matter already there which you would then become part of and would be unable to leave. Where's the freedom in that?  I can't see any relationsip between this and protons and neutrons.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It may be that the proton is simply a scaled down version of a macroscopic black hole and that singularities are not an inevitable consequence of collapse.
Nope. A proton certainly isn't a black hole. If it was then it'd keep increasing in mass by capturing photons and other particles whereas protons remain the same mass.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
As Schwarszchild pointed out there is a point where mass density generates a gravitational field strength that traps light.
That wasn't Schwarzschild. That was David Finkelstein in 1958.

Is there any online info on Finkelstein?

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the speed of gravity equals c and gravity does in fact interact with itself then that implies that the gravitational field can also trap itself within the event horizon. We assume that at the centre of gravity the field cancels and we have zero g at that point. Would this change within a collapsing mass?
No. Not if it's symmetrical. If it was symmetrical then ask yourself which way the force would point and why.

Yes I can see that. I think this one falls down quite easily.My musings sometimes make sense and other times not,

Quote from: jeffreyH
If not then, although the event horizon traps light and gravitation, we would have freedom of movement the nearer to the centre of gravity we get. How is this different from a proton or neutron?
How would you have more freedom the closer you get to the center of a black hole? You're deal before you get there and at the center there is a point of matter already there which you would then become part of and would be unable to leave. Where's the freedom in that?  I can't see any relationsip between this and protons and neutrons.

If black holes do not create singularities but have a maximum density limit this may apply. It all depends upon how gravity really behaves internally within a mass. I have no evidence that this is even remotely true.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It may be that the proton is simply a scaled down version of a macroscopic black hole and that singularities are not an inevitable consequence of collapse.
Nope. A proton certainly isn't a black hole. If it was then it'd keep increasing in mass by capturing photons and other particles whereas protons remain the same mass.

That is a problem with this idea.
« Last Edit: 21/06/2014 00:36:11 by jeffreyH »
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Rather than say a proton is like a black hole it is better viewed as a black hole, in some of its aspects, is like a proton or neutron. Quarks are confined by gluons within protons and neutrons. Gluons also self-interact. Gravity is presumed to self-interact. In a black hole photons and particles with mass are confined. We assume that the mathematics is right in pointing to the formation of singularities. If we examine the hypothetical quark-gluon plasma then colour charge becomes confined within an object such as a neutron star by certain forces. We may presume this to be gravity. If gravity is expressed as has been suggested as a 2 copy gluon particle then it possibly has a confinement mechanism related to the gluon. If so then we may or may not be able to maintain the mathematics of the singularity. As gravitation is yet to be fully explained this is a matter of debate.
 

Online jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3926
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Starting  from the postulate that the curvature of a sphere at any point is 1/r^2 and using Kepler's 3 laws of planetary motion a set of equations can be derived to describe the action of a field of gravitational force carrying particles at any point outside the surface of the radiating mass.

Kepler's laws are:

1. The Law of Orbits: All planets move in elliptical orbits, with the sun at one focus.

2. The Law of Areas: A line that connects a planet to the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal times.

3. The Law of Periods: The square of the period of any planet is proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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