- Thank you received: 0
Requiem for Relativity
- Larry Burford
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
14 years 8 months ago #23869
by Larry Burford
Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford
Joe,
Sorry for the deletions, but we had to have our database restored from a four or five day old back-up. We still have some messes to clean up, but so far things seem to be stable and no new attacks have been detected. (We are pretty sure the BEMs and the LGM are not involved, but who knows for sure?)
(... Sigh)
Regards,
LB
Sorry for the deletions, but we had to have our database restored from a four or five day old back-up. We still have some messes to clean up, but so far things seem to be stable and no new attacks have been detected. (We are pretty sure the BEMs and the LGM are not involved, but who knows for sure?)
(... Sigh)
Regards,
LB
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
14 years 8 months ago #23775
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />Dr Joe, How do you determine the gravity of a proton? ...I think the solar field becomes equal to the gravity of the universe at some distance near 50 or 100AU.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks, Jim, for the post. This "gravity of the universe" figure, is interesting! Do you recall the source?
Regarding the gravity of a proton, I sketched the calculation in other posts on this messageboard years ago, and also in my 2002 article in "Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology", but here's a review:
1. Let's try to construct a proton of the smallest size possible, using college quantum mechanics to make the most compact possible radial Gaussian mass distribution allowed by the proton's mass, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Let's start with the formula E = sqrt(m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2). I'm considering the proton's constituent deBroglie waves; in this view, there is no rest mass because all the energy is in the internal "p". Because of equipartition of energy, one part of the proton's mass is available for the deBroglie waves in each of the three directions, and a fourth part is available for "spin". Along, say, the x-axis, I have momentum p such that the root-mean-square value of p satisfies p^2*c^2 = 0.25 * m^2*c^4, i.e. p = 0.5 * m*c. A deBroglie wave of wavenumber k, has momentum p = hbar*k. So, the rms value of k (along the x-axis) is 0.5*m*c/hbar.
2. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is really only a theorem in the first year graduate mathematical course called "real analysis". The theorem says, that in Gaussian wave packets, the bigger the rms k value (i.e. wavenumber) along, say, the x-axis, the smaller the packet's x dimension. The formula is k*x = 0.5, where the k & x are the rms values for the wave packet. (There's another theorem that says that Gaussian wave packets are the best you can do; for other kinds of wave packets, k*x > 0.5.)
3. Now I have a Gaussian wave packet, the smallest possible ( x = 0.5/k, where k is given in #1, so x = hbar/(m*c), the Compton radius for the proton), and it's radially symmetric. I used a statistical table of the normal distribution, but with modern computers, if one knows how to program BASIC or some other language, it's fairly easy, to have the computer add up the effects of the "shells" and find the gravitational force inside the proton at various radii, bearing in mind that the proton's mass is distributed in this Gaussian form. There is a radius at which the gravitational force is maximum.
4. Note that I call hbar/(m*c), the Compton radius. Usually, h/(m*c) is called the Compton wavelength. So my "Compton radius" is the Compton wavelength divided by 2*pi, recalling that hbar is defined as h/(2*pi). The gravitational force for the above Gaussian packet is maximum at 1.3688 Compton radii, and the mass inside this radius, is 0.40096 times the total proton mass. So, for this compressed proton, the maximum interior gravitational acceleration is G*m/(Compton radius)^2 * 0.40096/1.3688^2 = (using physical constants from my old Handbook of Chemistry & Physics) 5.398/10^5 cm/sec^2.
5. The gravitational acceleration due to the sun, at a distance of 1 AU, is omega^2 * r = 0.5930 cm/sec^2. This would seem to imply that the gravitational acceleration due to the sun at 104.8 AU, equals the maximum gravitational self-acceleration inside a proton.
6. Now let's recall the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. If only one dimension, say, x, can be measured, then the energy available for localization along the x-axis isn't m*c^2/4, as I assumed above; it's simply m*c^2. The proton effectively can be sqrt(4) = 2x smaller, and its internal gravitational acceleration 4x greater. This corresponds to 104.8/2 = 52.4 AU.
<br />Dr Joe, How do you determine the gravity of a proton? ...I think the solar field becomes equal to the gravity of the universe at some distance near 50 or 100AU.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks, Jim, for the post. This "gravity of the universe" figure, is interesting! Do you recall the source?
Regarding the gravity of a proton, I sketched the calculation in other posts on this messageboard years ago, and also in my 2002 article in "Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology", but here's a review:
1. Let's try to construct a proton of the smallest size possible, using college quantum mechanics to make the most compact possible radial Gaussian mass distribution allowed by the proton's mass, according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Let's start with the formula E = sqrt(m^2*c^4 + p^2*c^2). I'm considering the proton's constituent deBroglie waves; in this view, there is no rest mass because all the energy is in the internal "p". Because of equipartition of energy, one part of the proton's mass is available for the deBroglie waves in each of the three directions, and a fourth part is available for "spin". Along, say, the x-axis, I have momentum p such that the root-mean-square value of p satisfies p^2*c^2 = 0.25 * m^2*c^4, i.e. p = 0.5 * m*c. A deBroglie wave of wavenumber k, has momentum p = hbar*k. So, the rms value of k (along the x-axis) is 0.5*m*c/hbar.
2. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is really only a theorem in the first year graduate mathematical course called "real analysis". The theorem says, that in Gaussian wave packets, the bigger the rms k value (i.e. wavenumber) along, say, the x-axis, the smaller the packet's x dimension. The formula is k*x = 0.5, where the k & x are the rms values for the wave packet. (There's another theorem that says that Gaussian wave packets are the best you can do; for other kinds of wave packets, k*x > 0.5.)
3. Now I have a Gaussian wave packet, the smallest possible ( x = 0.5/k, where k is given in #1, so x = hbar/(m*c), the Compton radius for the proton), and it's radially symmetric. I used a statistical table of the normal distribution, but with modern computers, if one knows how to program BASIC or some other language, it's fairly easy, to have the computer add up the effects of the "shells" and find the gravitational force inside the proton at various radii, bearing in mind that the proton's mass is distributed in this Gaussian form. There is a radius at which the gravitational force is maximum.
4. Note that I call hbar/(m*c), the Compton radius. Usually, h/(m*c) is called the Compton wavelength. So my "Compton radius" is the Compton wavelength divided by 2*pi, recalling that hbar is defined as h/(2*pi). The gravitational force for the above Gaussian packet is maximum at 1.3688 Compton radii, and the mass inside this radius, is 0.40096 times the total proton mass. So, for this compressed proton, the maximum interior gravitational acceleration is G*m/(Compton radius)^2 * 0.40096/1.3688^2 = (using physical constants from my old Handbook of Chemistry & Physics) 5.398/10^5 cm/sec^2.
5. The gravitational acceleration due to the sun, at a distance of 1 AU, is omega^2 * r = 0.5930 cm/sec^2. This would seem to imply that the gravitational acceleration due to the sun at 104.8 AU, equals the maximum gravitational self-acceleration inside a proton.
6. Now let's recall the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. If only one dimension, say, x, can be measured, then the energy available for localization along the x-axis isn't m*c^2/4, as I assumed above; it's simply m*c^2. The proton effectively can be sqrt(4) = 2x smaller, and its internal gravitational acceleration 4x greater. This corresponds to 104.8/2 = 52.4 AU.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
14 years 8 months ago #23833
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Joe,
Sorry for the deletions, but we had to have our database restored from a four or five day old back-up. ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks!
<br />Joe,
Sorry for the deletions, but we had to have our database restored from a four or five day old back-up. ...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
14 years 8 months ago #23870
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
Dr Joe, I misstated the distance where the solar gravity field merges with the background gravity of the universe. Its much more distant than 100AU so would not be relevant to the Pioneer anomaly at 53AU. Sorry for the interuption
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
14 years 8 months ago #23776
by Stoat
Replied by Stoat on topic Reply from Robert Turner
Hi Joe, that makes the idea of an f.m particle all the more interesting. If we write the Lorentzian as sqrt(1 - 1/rho^2) and allow for the possibility of a phase change at the speed of light, then the sign changes to a plus rather than a minus. A negative refractive index in other words. Then we can have a frequency modulated wave particle. The cosine of the natural log of the Lorentzian. it will have two anti parallel phase velocities, one very fast the other slower.
Now I did look at this in a grapher program but didn't try the same thing for a sine. That was Because I wanted a peak at x = 0 and a cosine is symmetrical about zero, a sine isn't. I didn't bother graphing the sine wave.
Such a particle will become denser on accepting a photon but the anti parallel movement, I assume to be a graviton being emitted. This runs both ways, and I think a particle accepts gravitons from huge distances, then emits a photon which is taken up by a particle nearby. That particle has to be graviton rich in order to take on precisely that photon energy. No violations of causality then.
Now I did look at this in a grapher program but didn't try the same thing for a sine. That was Because I wanted a peak at x = 0 and a cosine is symmetrical about zero, a sine isn't. I didn't bother graphing the sine wave.
Such a particle will become denser on accepting a photon but the anti parallel movement, I assume to be a graviton being emitted. This runs both ways, and I think a particle accepts gravitons from huge distances, then emits a photon which is taken up by a particle nearby. That particle has to be graviton rich in order to take on precisely that photon energy. No violations of causality then.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joe Keller
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
14 years 8 months ago #23777
by Joe Keller
Replied by Joe Keller on topic Reply from
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />...the distance where the solar gravity field merges with the background gravity of the universe. ...much more distant than 100AU <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks for letting me know. Most people know only about the Pioneer anomalous acceleration, but there was another anomaly shown on a graph in one of JD Anderson's articles, and discussed by Anderson in the text. This "other" Pioneer anomaly, which I discussed years ago in the same places I discussed the proton gravity, amounted to large erratic frequency shifts near 52 or 53 AU. Anderson speculated that these shifts were caused by gravitational acceleration from multiple close encounters with Kuiper belt objects.
However, my estimate showed that the magnitude, duration and number of these anomalies would be extremely unlikely unless the number and mass of Kuiper belt objects were much more than believed. Also, the anomalies occurred near the Kuiper belt dropoff, not near the densest part of the belt.
<br />...the distance where the solar gravity field merges with the background gravity of the universe. ...much more distant than 100AU <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Thanks for letting me know. Most people know only about the Pioneer anomalous acceleration, but there was another anomaly shown on a graph in one of JD Anderson's articles, and discussed by Anderson in the text. This "other" Pioneer anomaly, which I discussed years ago in the same places I discussed the proton gravity, amounted to large erratic frequency shifts near 52 or 53 AU. Anderson speculated that these shifts were caused by gravitational acceleration from multiple close encounters with Kuiper belt objects.
However, my estimate showed that the magnitude, duration and number of these anomalies would be extremely unlikely unless the number and mass of Kuiper belt objects were much more than believed. Also, the anomalies occurred near the Kuiper belt dropoff, not near the densest part of the belt.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 1.020 seconds