The entropy of systems

Hi GD, here's the comparisons of quantities in pairs;

U = W / m, V = W / Q.

g = F / m, E = F /Q

g = -dU / dx, E = -dV / dx

For the effects of point masses and point charge;

U = -G * m / r^2, V = 1 / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 ) * Q / r

g = G * m / r^2, E = 1 / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 ) *Q / r^2

F = G * m1 * m2 / r^2, F = 1 / ( 4 * pi* epsilon0 ) * Q1 * Q2 / r

We can also take a look at these two, the Compton wavelength of the electron

r = 1 / ( 4 * pi * epsilon0 ) * e^2 /m c^2

and

E = 0.5 *1 /( 4 * pi * epsilon0 ) * e^2 / r

the case of a surface charge on the electron.

What I think is of interest, is that if we say the mass doesn't increase, and the charge is conserved but we put in the speed of gravity in place of the speed of light, then the radius of an electron gets pretty close to h.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
What I think is of interest, is that if we say the mass doesn't increase, and the charge is conserved but we put in the speed of gravity in place of the speed of light, then the radius of an electron gets pretty close to h.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello Stoat,
How would you explain gravity in terms of energy? Is gravity the cause or an effect of a physical occurrence.
I would like to change the wording: <u>force of gravity </u>with <u>force caused by...?</u>
In other words: is the combined force of the time varying energy field of all the electrons below our feet (Earth) the cause of gravity?

How would you write this as an equation?

-Sorry, but what did you mean by "the radius of an electron gets pretty close to h" ?

Hi GD, I would say that any mass has an electromagnetic energy e = mc^2 and a gravitational energy, which is much much greater. Prior to Einstein the supposed increase in mass of an accelerating particle was called its electromagnetic mass. If we could do the Michelson Morley experiment for gravity, then the one in the expression would be the speed of gravity squared over the speed of gravity squared, equalling one. That would mean that no infinity would be present at the speed of light but there would be a zero internal frequency of the particle. I would argue that that suggests a phase transition at light speed. We live in a very cold gravitational region of the universe, with only about one twenty billionth of the available energy we can use.

As for gravity's cause. Mention the very idea in CERN's canteen and huge battles would break out. Remember that most physicists don't even believe that gravity is a force. They think it's down to space-time curvature. Then there's the problem of the ordering of events. Does event A precede event B? That question could have fists flying in seconds.

h is Planck's constant, a very small number. It's supposed to be dimensionless but I and a lot of others would argue that it's a measure of angular momentum and therefore does have dimensions. It's a number that shows up all over the place but the most obvious one is hf = mc^2.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
I would say that any mass has an electromagnetic energy e = mc^2 and a gravitational energy, which is much much greater. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GD: How would you relate gravitational energy to F=mg? What is a force then? I was under the impression that gravitation would be much weaker (not greater). Are you saying that gravitational energy affects a mass so that "e" and "m" in "e=mc^2" does not remain constant? Is this how a mass moves (force)?



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">That would mean that no infinity would be present at the speed of light but there would be a zero internal frequency of the particle. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


GD: Is zero internal frequency of a particle in fact: a mass becoming a photon (light)?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I would argue that that suggests a phase transition at light speed. We live in a very cold gravitational region of the universe, with only about one twenty billionth of the available energy we can use.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">


GD: Are there regions in the universe (or galaxy) where this available energy is almost completely used?


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">As for gravity's cause. Mention the very idea in CERN's canteen and huge battles would break out. Remember that most physicists don't even believe that gravity is a force. They think it's down to space-time curvature.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GD: Do they mean space-time curvature or <i>energy field-varying-with- time curvature?</i>



<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">h is Planck's constant, a very small number. It's supposed to be dimensionless but I and a lot of others would argue that it's a measure of angular momentum and therefore does have dimensions. It's a number that shows up all over the place but the most obvious one is hf = mc^2.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

GD: What is "f" in the equation above? Or: what does "frequency" do in the workings of an atom? Is it caused by motion, change in energy, are there forces involved? If "f" varies with time, what does this mean?

If I look at all the equations: we have; energy, mass (which is a form of energy), acceleration and force (which are caused by an energy varying field)....

All the equations pertain to: energy, it's transformation, and it's availability.

So... what causes motion (acceleration)? The energy's availability in a mass becoming less?

(I had posted some time last year an article which concluded that the human body needed at some time entropy reducing therapy or medicines... but to what I consider is to counteract the entropy increasing effects of gravity)

what do you think Stoat?

When we compare electromagnetic force with gravitational force, three points are always made. The gravitational force is much much weaker. The electromagnetic force has two charge carriers, positive and negative, gravity only one. There is no analogue to the permitivity of free space for gravity. Gravitational force does not depend on the medium.

However, if we say that the speed of gravity is billions of times that of light, then we can have a permitivity of the medium but it's going to be so small that we simply cannot measure it.


Let's look at the conventional wisdom fro a moment. A big bang. Problem, We can look back into the past and see galaxies. To get the thing to work we have to assume that the universe expanded at many times the speed of light. This super cooled it into a condensate of electromagnetic matter. The speed of gravity is assumed to fallen with light to present values.

So what was it that made the baby universe expand so rapidly? They don't want to touch the idea of negative mass with a barge pole, so dark energy has to be invented. A huge cop out!

Note with this that we have created "space" the "vacuum" out of faster than light energy. It simply cannot wander about out there with it hands in its pockets, doing nothing. It permeates everything. it's extremely flat.

A little aside. A straight line is a curve of infinite radius. If we took our very flat sheet of gravity, we can draw meridians on it but we cannot wrap it into sphere and say that parallel lines meet at infinity. yet this is an axiom of space-time.

The problem is down to thinking of time as another spatial dimension. We write T = T0 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) for the time dilation of an atomic clock. T here is the period of oscillation, which is the reciprocal of the frequency, so we can write it as
hf = hf0 * sqrt(1 - v^2 /c^2)

I'll leave it there for now, as I'm starting to wander all over the place. I'll get back to the other points later. The trouble is, the more I look at this, the more I think we can get at this gravitational energy. Scary stuff, do we really want the Dr. Strangelove's of this world to have new toys that make nukes look like party squibs?

Hi Stoat,

I have a different perspective of what gravity is: I think the ever changing distribution of mass at a grand scale in the universe is affecting the very fabric of space-time (sounds quacky doesn't it?)

I will use Wikipedia's definition of electrostatics and electric (energy) fields(see previous post)and apply it to gravity:

electrostatics:
"According to equation (1) above, electric field is dependent on position. The electric field due to any single charge falls off as the square of the distance from that charge."

Gravity:
an energy field is caused by the change in position of a body. The energy field due to any time-varying energy in a body falls off as the square of the distance from that body."

I say "time-varying energy" because I am assuming this is what causes motion. (a charge in motion causes an electric field &lt;but why is it in motion?&gt;)

Electrostatics:
If more than one charge is present, the total electric field at any point is equal to the vector sum of the respective electric fields that each object would create in the absence of the others.

Gravity:
If more than one body is present, the total energy variation (energy field) caused by these bodies at any point in a mass (ie: galaxy or universe)is equal to the energy state of each individual body in the absence of the others at that moment in time (since available energy in a mass varies with time).
... <i>this was a bit tricky, I will have to re-think this one </i>...

In other words: start with "x" amount of energy in a mass (coherence, organized, structured atoms are present) , vary it's energy content with time (causes acceleration) and end up with the same amount of "x" energy at the end but (non-coherence, disorganized, structured atoms are not present).

An example would be: the evolution of our sun from the time it formed at the edge of the galaxy from hydrogen atoms until it reaches the center of the galaxy.

Does this make sense?

Stoat, why not continue after Christmas... (lets say in a few days)
Have a great time ! []