Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: ScientificBoysClub on 10/02/2009 13:08:41
-
Is there any method to block Gravity (OR) Gravitons ? ......
cos string theory says that Gravitons can travel higher dimensions ..??
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not Trolling OK!! I am not posting any trolling Questions .... I am good guy... not the bad one !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Is there any method to block Gravity (OR) Gravitons ? ......
cos string theory says that Gravitons can travel higher dimensions ..??
I know of no way to block gravity. In a Bose Einstein Condensate, helium atoms seem to defy gravity by climbing out of their container; I think the theory is that since the atoms are in the lowest possible energy state, they can't go to a lower state by yielding to the force of gravity.
I am not sure that I buy into that reasoning.
-
If anyone finds something that blocks gravity then they have a free energy machine. It doesn't look likely to me.
-
If we are thinking of blocking gravity we must contemplate the mass of Gravitons compared to Neutrinos, it takes lighjt years on lead to stop Neutrinos and it is estimated that Gravitons are 10^-10 times as massive.
No Chance!
-
Is there any method to block Gravity ?
Buy many helium filled balloons and attach them to your body... [:)]
What does "block gravity" means? If you don't explain it, then my answer is a correct one.
-
I think that the closest you could get to "blocking gravity" would be a "zero" gravity place such as one the Lagrange points where the gravity of the earth and sun are in an equilibrium.
-
I think that the closest you could get to "blocking gravity" would be a "zero" gravity place such as one the Lagrange points where the gravity of the earth and sun are in an equilibrium.
That's another possible answer. However I suspect he intended to talk of a kind of shield that doesn't allow gravity to pass through, which thing is impossible.
-
Vern it's no antigravity involved in it.
But it seems strange enough even so.
"One fascinating aspect of helium that intrigues scientists is superfluidity.
At 2.17 K (-270.98 C.), helium completely loses its viscosity. Left in a closed ring, it could flow without stopping: There is no friction, much as a superconducting current encounters no resistance. It gets even curiouser.
This superfluid conducts heat perfectly. As a result, it actually rises up the sides of an open container and flows over the top.
You can even make a fountain out of the stuff simply by heating it even slightly. "
http://www.magnet.fsu.edu/education/tutorials/magnetacademy/cryogenics/documents/cryogenics.pdf
-
I read somewhere that the helium had to H4 or helium four because H4 is a boson. If I remember, boson's are not bound by the Exclusion Principle. So more than one H4 atom could be in the same state. I don't think I understand the meaning of "state" in this circumstance. Surely two atoms can't occupy the same spacial area at the same time.
-
I read somewhere that the helium had to H4 or helium four because H4 is a boson. If I remember, boson's are not bound by the Exclusion Principle. So more than one H4 atom could be in the same state. I don't think I understand the meaning of "state" in this circumstance. Surely two atoms can't occupy the same spacial area at the same time.
You are perfectly correct Vern. And thinking of it some more, I'm not all that satisfied with the explanation that it is because helium conducts heat perfectly, that it is 'rising' from that bowl.
But photons are bosons as you said, and so are helium-4 atoms, what one need to remember when discussing a BEC (Bose-Einstein condensate) though, is that you will need a group of particles with a 'whole' integer spin to form it.
Fermions (matter) as protons, neutrons, and electrons all have a spin of '1/2' (fractured spin, sort of:). That according to the Pauli exclusion principle means that any two fermions can't share/occupy that same quantum state simultaneously, So they don't want to get too close to each other.
But if you add their half-integer spins into integer spins they will get the same spin as a Boson who always seems to be of 'whole' spins. One way to do that is to create a strong magnetic field and then line up those atoms together inside that lattice, then those atoms will 'pair up' to each other thereby creating 'whole' spins.
Helium four which has 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons is one example of that 'adding up'. And that seems to be what allows its strange properties. It has a zero viscosity, and heat and sound waves seems to travel through it without any resistance as the atoms can't interfere with each other. And if you can 'superimpose' them? then that's seems reasonable, don't it:)
But I would love to see that experiment wherein we superimpose all those atoms into only one.
Also it seems to say, in another and very fascinating way, that fermions may just be a 'stable state' of Bosons, if you look at it 'my way' :)
As that is how I see it, as 'states' and as such, very stable and unique too::))
The 'real' question to me is what differs 'those states' from each other.
Time seems like one description of it, as its arrow seems to differ from QM to Macroscopically.
-
Yes; all very interesting. That brings up another thought; I think a proton is half integer spin; and in QM theory a neutron is also half integer spin. Now I had not thought of this before, but a neutron composed of four sub-entities each of which has half integer spin, would itself have integer spin.
You know the neutron I'm thinking about; from my pet speculative matter construct.
I wonder how spin is measured in experiment.
-
There goes that weakest force thing again. Nothing can block it, not even an atomic bomb. Yet it is considered a weak force.
-
You do see what this might mean Vern?
A Black Hole!!
From Neutrons, no less...
- Well well well.
*said the Constable, happily twirling his baton*
- Can't have 'mad scientists' running loose now, can we Sir?
- One moment Sir while I attach you to the main stream of thinking.
- Sires! Come back I say...
*Group of mad scientists madly running , white labcoats last seen fluttering at 'c'*
Naah, just couldn't help myself here.
Together we will charge the bastions Vern.
And all womenfolk will swoon at our feet:)
---
'quarks' Andrew?
-
There goes that weakest force thing again. Nothing can block it, not even an atomic bomb. Yet it is considered a weak force.
On account of it being a weak force.
-
You do see what this might mean Vern?
A Black Hole!!
From Neutrons, no less...
Yep; maybe everything will disappear into the innards of the neutron (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotontheory.com%2Fvern.gif&hash=c22996c1b3c68c693722af86eb9eafb9)
-
There goes that weakest force thing again. Nothing can block it, not even an atomic bomb. Yet it is considered a weak force.
I am sure you have had this explained to you in the past Andrew, but I will try again
Gravity is considered a weak force because the force between two protons due to their charge is roughly 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 times stronger than the force between them due to gravity. Hence in comparison gravity is very very weak, and only noticable if you have trillions and trillions of tonnes of material.
However because with electromagnetic fields positive attracts negative charge and then they cancel out most of the time objects are not charged so you don't notice how strong the force is.
Gravity on the other hand only has one kind of charge - lets call it mass, and mass attracts other mass. As there is no repulsion you can't cancel it out and so you can't block gravity.
So in summary, gravity is immensely weak, but it is always attractive and so can't be blocked, hence it is important at long ranges.
-
Oh, I thought of the so called weak interaction or 'force' when I read it?
Probably as I personally don't see gravity as a force, so I'm quite blind at that eye:)
You have what is called the 'colour force' too, and that's even stranger
I find it extremly mystic that it can becomes stronger when quarks are separated.
How is that possible?
Is there any good explanation to it?
------
You know, thinking of it.
Feynman diagrams and 'twisting' them.
If all 'interactions' we see can be seen as symmetries.
What makes one outcome, and not the other?
There is some kind of 'causality arrow' at work, isn't there.
At both 'sizes', what we call 'time' macroscopically and ? at a QM level.