| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Can we be sure that large electric charge doesn't... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Jarek Duda... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Since Einstein we have started treating gravitation and
electromagnetism in completely different way.
There are also simpler ways to make gravitation Lorentz invariant -
for example it can be made by a second set of Maxwell-like equations
for gravity - with mass density instead of charge density and
correspondingly for current density - getting something like Amper's
law for gravitation required for Lorentz invariance. To make it always
attracting, it would be enough to change the sign in formula for
potential (5th section of http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.2724 ).
Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jarek Duda... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I've asked You on another thread how can You be sure that photon is
spin 1 (graviton 2) and I didn't get any response...
For me the best to experimentally define spin is through Stern-Gerlach
experiment - do You believe that photon gives three different
behaviors in it?
I'm only saying that Newtonian gravity can be much easier extended to
Lorentz invariant than by introducing intrinsic curvature, which
brings many inconvenient question like if spacetime is infinite thin
surface embedded somewhere, what about wormholoes this theory allows,
etc...
I'm asking why there was chosen this in fact extremely controversial
way?
How this qualitative difference between these interactions relates to
grand unification theory many physicists believe in?
And please give some concrete arguments, if You know what does it mean. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jarek Duda wrote:
[quote]
Since Einstein we have started treating gravitation and
electromagnetism in completely different way.
[snip][/quote]
Hey stooopid - spin-2 tensor boson vs. spin-1 vector boson
propagators. What part of "entirely different" escapes your
lead-lined skull?
[quote]Why can we be sure that these interaction are so qualitatively
different - that for electromagnetism it's enough to use Maxwell's
equations, while gravitation requires intrinsic curvature of
spacetime?
[/quote]
Not even while wearing Kaluza-Klein jeans. Go ahead, abandon
spacetime curvature in pseudo-Reimannian spacetime for spacetime
torsion in Weitzenböck spacetime. We won't mind.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Uncle Al... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jarek Duda wrote:
[quote]
I've asked You on another thread how can You be sure that photon is
spin 1 (graviton 2) and I didn't get any response...
[/quote]
The photon is observationally and theoretically spin-1. The vector
boson allows attractive as well as repulsive interactions. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range. That requires a massless at least spin-2 tensor
boson.
[quote]For me the best to experimentally define spin is through Stern-Gerlach
experiment - do You believe that photon gives three different
behaviors in it?
[/quote]
Photons are inert to electric and magnetic fields in vacuum to at lest
10^9 gauss, lab on a small scale (particle accelerators' magnetic and
electric detectors) and by observation of pulsars.
[quote]I'm only saying that Newtonian gravity can be much easier extended to
Lorentz invariant than by introducing intrinsic curvature, which
brings many inconvenient question like if spacetime is infinite thin
surface embedded somewhere, what about wormholoes this theory allows,
etc...
[/quote]
Newton was wrong. Light falls with twice the acceleration of matter
in the same gravitational acceleration,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light
[quote]I'm asking why there was chosen this in fact extremely controversial
way?
[/quote]
Theory vs. observation. Newton was repeatedly falsified by empirical
observation, e.g., quasar radio image displacement by gravitation at
grazing incidence to the sun.
[quote]How this qualitative difference between these interactions relates to
grand unification theory many physicists believe in?
[/quote]
There is no evidence that gravitation and quantum mechanics can be
unified into a predictive, testable theory.
[quote]And please give some concrete arguments, if You know what does it mean.
[/quote]
REFEREED LITERATURE. Screw your ass into a chair and get educated.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jarek Duda... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:25 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote]The photon is observationally and theoretically spin-1. The vector
boson allows attractive as well as repulsive interactions. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range. That requires a massless at least spin-2 tensor
boson.
No - carrying attraction/repellence doesn't give them spin! - waves on[/quote]
water can do it ...
Spin is about internal magnetic structure ... explanation that they
just have zero gyromagnetic ratio is not good enough ...
The only reasonable argument I know is that while electron
deexcitates, it changes spin so spin conservation says that photon is
spin 1.
But it can be explained much simpler - changing electrons spin from up
to down is just rotating it 180deg, so the only what photon has to
carry is angular momentum - sometimes be traveling twist-like wave.
Extending quantum phase to ellipsoid field from the paper makes
photons able to do it and also explains these selection rules.
I need some better arguments to believe that photons have spin 1.
[quote]Newton was wrong. Light falls with twice the acceleration of matter
in the same gravitational acceleration,
But this gravitationally lensed light goes through millions of[/quote]
kilometers of quite a lot of matter accelerating toward the mass.
These particles interact electromagnetically - why they couldn't share
this acceleration with light?
Another question - how can we be sure that huge electric charge
wouldn't also cause such attraction?
[quote]There is no evidence that gravitation and quantum mechanics can be
unified into a predictive, testable theory.
The problem of this sentence is what quantum mechanics really[/quote]
means...
You are probably referring to that gravitation is not renormalisable -
that while trying to quantize it, we will fail due to infinities ...
this sentence carries so many assumptions ...
But maybe being able to get rid of singularities in miraculous way is
not what QM is about ...
Please look at Anderson localization characteristic for quantum
mechanics and maximal entropy random walk / generic random walk from
my paper or
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/GenericRandomWalkAndMaximalEntropyRandomWalk/
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000102000016160602000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
maybe QM is just a natural result of four-dimensional nature of our
world ... that we should look at particles as their trajectories in
spacetime as in action optimizing formulation of Lagrangiam
mechanics ... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Snip b.s.
.. The
[quote]graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range.
snip rest of b.s.[/quote]
And it must travel outward while acting inward.
BZZZZZZT!!!
Non-starter, you idiots.
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:01 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]john wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Snip b.s.
. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range.
snip rest of b.s.
And it must travel outward while acting inward.
BZZZZZZT!!!
Non-starter, you idiots.
john
John confuses gravitation and gravitational wave propagation.
[/quote]
Enlighten me.
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]john wrote:
On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Snip b.s.
. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range.
snip rest of b.s.
And it must travel outward while acting inward.
BZZZZZZT!!!
Non-starter, you idiots.
john
John confuses gravitation and gravitational wave propagation.
Enlighten me.
john
Google is your friend, John.
[/quote]
Google Le Sage gravity, Sam.
Tell me what is wrong with that.
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]john wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Snip b.s.
. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range.
snip rest of b.s.
And it must travel outward while acting inward.
BZZZZZZT!!!
Non-starter, you idiots.
john
John confuses gravitation and gravitational wave propagation.
[/quote]
Sam, what waves?
Let's compare current gravity theory with Le Sage:
..In Le Sage infinite sources impact on the planet
causing the effect by an imbalance of *push*. In current theory,
the planet produces continuously an outgoing *something* which
acts with anything it meets by pulling it in the opposite
direction to which it is going, plus, although it gets weaker with
distance,
it must spread evenly throughout the volume so anything it interacts
with
will be pulled directly towards the planet.
Now, really, Sam, which is more likely?
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 10:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Snip b.s.
. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range.
snip rest of b.s.
And it must travel outward while acting inward.
BZZZZZZT!!!
Non-starter, you idiots.
john
[/quote]
John confuses gravitation and gravitational wave propagation. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 9:52 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Nov 6, 4:40 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle... at (no spam) hate.spam.net> wrote:
Snip b.s.
. The
graviton - if it exists - must mediate a purely attractive force of
infinite range.
snip rest of b.s.
And it must travel outward while acting inward.
BZZZZZZT!!!
Non-starter, you idiots.
john
John confuses gravitation and gravitational wave propagation.
Enlighten me.
john
[/quote]
Google is your friend, John. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
