The entropy of systems

Hi GD, yeah, I'm in need of a break from physics at the moment. I'm busy with a novel about Saxon Northumbria and I want to do some greek translation as well.

Actually the n body problem is a maths conundrum, the arts, that excludes electromagnetic forces. It's really a problem set to explore aspects of the calculus.

What we can say about a giant cloud of gas, is that given an ftl gravity, changes in the gas cloud are informationally transferred almost instantly. The cloud will just sit about doing not much, until it's hit by an external force, most likely that of a supernova explosion. In the early stages of collapse, it will be electromagnetic forces, which have a positive and negative, which dominate over gravity.

"How does time modify motion?" Well, time is not another spatial dimension, a ftl gravity removes the simultaneity problem and also gets rid of the silly acausal stuff of matter waves.

On the issue of the speed of light squared, divided by the speed of gravity squared. One of the denominator terms is out, if we want to get h. The denominator needs be reduced by about 0.4. It can't be the speed of light which is out, or the fine structure constant. That means that the measured force of gravity is less than 6*10^-39 or that there's another constant hidden in that 0.4 number. I'll probably fret over that for months [][][]

I think I've made a bit of progress on that 0.4 problem. he electromagnetic gravitational coupling constant is, Gmp*mp / ke^2 where
k = 1 / 4pi times the permitivity of free space. It differs for the masses being protons or electrons. I stuck in my figures and got the two masses as being about 0.6 of a proton's mass. Call it a hunch but it would be intersting if it turned out to be half the proton's mass, so that the inertial and gravitational mass balance out in a proton mass.

I still need to see what I get, if I hold the masses at the proton's mass and then look at the permitivity of free space.

<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>
<br />... if I hold the masses at the proton's mass and then look at the permitivity of free space.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello Stoat,

According to you, how does permittivity of free space change with respect to position in the solar system. (Does the permittivity of space vary with respect to the distance to a mass?)

You indicated in the previous post that the fine structure constant is a given. Why?

Stoat you have almost combined electromagnetic forces with those of gravity in your explanation:

" In the early stages of collapse, it will be electromagnetic forces, which have a positive and negative, which dominate over gravity." ... and then gravity...

Is this not what we are looking for? What is the equation for this "event"?

If we go back to the 3-body problem (how about the 2-body problem), but this time we will add energy interactions. Lets say atoms <b>A</b>, & <b>B</b>.
<b>A</b> moves the slowest while <b>B</b> accelerates towards it.
This motion modifies electron speed:
electron of <b>A</b> moves slowest (the reason why atom <b>B</b> is moving towards it), while electron of <b>B</b> slows down slightly (because atom <b>B</b> is accelerating).
This modifies energy state of <b>A</b> with respect to <b>B</b>. With a collision this force of change (in energy state) is even greater.
Now add a zillion atoms in the game... at some point one of these collisions is going to start a chain reaction...

No need of a supernova explosion (If there is one though, it will certainly speed things up.)

Note: I have read that explanation some time ago(...supernova causing cloud to collapse...)and somehow did not make sense to me (being the sole event that could cause change). It is as if saying that child birth would be possible only on stormy days.[][8D][]

On the other hand, this external force you are talking about ... might simply be <i>time</i>
According to this theory, with time (very long time) this cloud of hydrogen atoms would move closer to the center of the galaxy. (Change in position changes energy state.)

What do you think?
Actually take your time to answer this (I intend to take a few months off)

Thanks for your patience on this subject!

If you do come up with an answer, you can jump and shout all you want, nobody will understand you!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GD</i>
[br(how about the 2-body problem),... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Stoat ... just realized, this is a 4-body problem: nucleus/ electron pair...

o.k. I'm out.

Hi GD, looking at that problem of the force of gravity being so much smaller than the electromagnetic force.

I assumed that the speed of light squared, divided by the speed of gravity squared, was equal to h. That gave me a speed of gravity of 3.88482813146E 16 times c. Popping that into the equation where F = Ea /c^2 when Ea = 1 I get 2.86409081278E-34

Now we put this into the coupling constant equation GMp*Mp /ke^2 to get the mass of our two "protons" at 3.14686025483E-26 but I want to consider that we have one particle which is always trying balance its electromagnetic and gravitational mass, half and half. So I divided that number through by a quarter, half of a half is a quarter. This gave me 7.86715063707E-27 Which is 4.70348080035E 00 the mass of a proton.

Well, I'm sorry, I just don't believe that there is any such thing as a real mass increase of any particle. So I have to assume that what is changing here is the refractive index of space. So I took the cube root of 4.70348080035E 00 and got 1.67548209785E 00 That's very close to the proton mass, about 0.002 off.

I don't know what to make of that? Is it an artefact of the maths? I do recall that Robert Carroll said that mass takes a cube root contraction and radiation a square root. [][]

<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>
<br />....Well, I'm sorry, I just don't believe that there is any such thing as a real mass increase of any particle.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Stoat,

I agree with you, there is no such thing as an increase in mass of a particle.
What I think is happening with a mass which accelerates (naturally),would rather mean that its disorder is increasing.

In the previous post, I mentioned the 2-body problem (atoms)... then I revised it to a 4-body problem (nucleus & electrons), but in fact it becomes an n-body problem if you add all the sub-atomic particles and their constituents (which have not been classified yet). Then you have to go further... what are these particles composed of? I guess energy strings of some sort?

So we went from a 2-body problem to an "energy problem".

Then what is gravity?
How does a cloud of hydrogen gas become a solar system?

Is gravity a property of mass or of space?

Stoat,
you seem to show that electromagnetic forces can be coupled down to gravitational forces.

Then my question is: Is gravity the evolutionary process by which a mass undergoes a change in energy state?

I think the answer is yes. gravity is a property of mass.

What do you think Stoat?