| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Guck" |
| Date: |
11 Sep 2004 06:45:00 AM |
| Object: |
gravity |
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
Second, I would like some likes for the latest research on gravity.
where, on an atomic level, does gravity exist? If we inserted some
vapourized gold into a box with an absolute vacuum, in earth orbit,
eventually the gold atoms in the vapour would gather together due to
mutual gravitational force. So where in thenatom does the gravity
mechanism exist? And how can an electron be considered to have no
discernible internal structure if it has a negative charge?
Guck
marcus4767@canada.com
.
|
|
| User: "Andr? Michaud" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
13 Sep 2004 04:08:38 PM |
|
|
(Guck) wrote in message news:<e97cd51a.0409110345.4763b96e@posting.google.com>...
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
Second, I would like some likes for the latest research on gravity.
where, on an atomic level, does gravity exist? If we inserted some
vapourized gold into a box with an absolute vacuum, in earth orbit,
eventually the gold atoms in the vapour would gather together due to
mutual gravitational force. So where in thenatom does the gravity
mechanism exist? And how can an electron be considered to have no
discernible internal structure if it has a negative charge?
We know that the electron (or positron) is the less massive
stable scatterable particle that has been found to exist.
Its mass appears to relate to its inertia.
Charge, despite all that is said about it, is still a mystery,
so it is difficult to extrapolate that electrons may have an internal
structure based on something that we do not yet understand.
Regarding inertia, mass and charge, what is known since the 1930's is
that a photon (neutral and massless but having inertia) of at least
1.022 MeV (twice the energy of an electron) can split into a pair
electron/positron (charged in opposition) if that photon grazes a
heavy nucleus.
If you cause a pair electron/positron (charged and massive) to
recombine at low energy (positronium), you get either 2 .511 MeV
photons (neutral and massless but having inertia) if both particles
have their spin is oriented antiparallel, or 3 .34 MeV photons if
their spin is oriented parallel.
That about sums up the charge-mass-inertia relations that minimally
have to be considered between electrons and energy that we have at
our disposal.
As for gravitation, it is difficult to conceive that it would
not completely originate, or at least have something directly
to do with the only known set of stable scatterable massive
particles that make up stable matter, and which is restricted
to electron, quark up and quark down.
They are the only totally stable particles, with the positron,
that can be directly verified to exist through scattering.
The only force directly verifiable to act at long range between
charged particles is the Coulomb force, which, interestingly, obeys
the law of inverse square of the distance (just like gravitation
in Newton's theory) between charged particles.
This about sums up the information that must minimally be considered
to solve the gravitation problem (it is not yet completely understood
despite assertions to the contrary by many physicists).
André Michaud
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
14 Sep 2004 03:20:21 AM |
|
|
Andr? Michaud wrote:
marcus4767@canada.com (Guck) wrote in message news:<e97cd51a.0409110345.4763b96e@posting.google.com>...
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
Second, I would like some likes for the latest research on gravity.
where, on an atomic level, does gravity exist? If we inserted some
vapourized gold into a box with an absolute vacuum, in earth orbit,
eventually the gold atoms in the vapour would gather together due to
mutual gravitational force. So where in thenatom does the gravity
mechanism exist? And how can an electron be considered to have no
discernible internal structure if it has a negative charge?
We know that the electron (or positron) is the less massive
stable scatterable particle that has been found to exist.
What about the lightest neutrinos? They are also stable and "scatterable".
Its mass appears to relate to its inertia.
Since mass is essentially *defined* to measure the inertia of a
body, that's no big surprise.
Charge, despite all that is said about it, is still a mystery,
One could equally well say that mass is still a mystery.
[snip]
Regarding inertia, mass and charge, what is known since the 1930's is
that a photon (neutral and massless but having inertia)
Again, no big surprise, since the "massless" refers to the rest mass,
whereas inertia is determined by the relativistic mass.
[snip]
As for gravitation, it is difficult to conceive that it would
not completely originate, or at least have something directly
to do with the only known set of stable scatterable massive
particles that make up stable matter, and which is restricted
to electron, quark up and quark down.
They are the only totally stable particles, with the positron,
that can be directly verified to exist through scattering.
Still ignoring the neutrinos, I see.
The only force directly verifiable to act at long range between
charged particles is the Coulomb force, which, interestingly, obeys
the law of inverse square of the distance (just like gravitation
in Newton's theory) between charged particles.
And that is explained by both the photons and the gravitons being massless
and either not or only very weakly coupling to each other.
This about sums up the information that must minimally be considered
to solve the gravitation problem (it is not yet completely understood
despite assertions to the contrary by many physicists).
Say, what *is* completely understood in physics, in your opinion?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
11 Sep 2004 08:03:07 PM |
|
|
(Guck) wrote:
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
There was one, but it fell flat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
11 Sep 2004 09:08:37 AM |
|
|
Guck wrote:
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
I think it's not necessary. There is not so much traffic on gravity
that it needs its own newsgroup.
Second, I would like some likes for the latest research on gravity.
where, on an atomic level, does gravity exist?
Neutrons feel gravity. Does this satisfy you?
<http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/gravity/gravity.php>
If we inserted some
vapourized gold into a box with an absolute vacuum, in earth orbit,
eventually the gold atoms in the vapour would gather together due to
mutual gravitational force.
Yes.
So where in thenatom does the gravity mechanism exist?
Huh? What mechanism, and why does it need to exist in the atoms?
Do you also ask where in the electron the mechanism for electrostatic
attraction and repulsion exists?
And how can an electron be considered to have no
discernible internal structure if it has a negative charge?
Why does it need an internal structure for having a negative charge???
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guck" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
11 Sep 2004 04:46:47 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chv0t5$40b$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
Guck wrote:
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
I think it's not necessary. There is not so much traffic on gravity
that it needs its own newsgroup.
Second, I would like some likes for the latest research on gravity.
where, on an atomic level, does gravity exist?
Neutrons feel gravity. Does this satisfy you?
<http://www.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/physi/gravity/gravity.php>
Yes thank you.
If we inserted some
vapourized gold into a box with an absolute vacuum, in earth orbit,
eventually the gold atoms in the vapour would gather together due to
mutual gravitational force.
Yes.
So where in the atom does the gravity mechanism exist?
Huh? What mechanism, and why does it need to exist in the atoms?
Well, if something exists, it has to proved what that something's
basic source unit is, e.g. for light the basic source unit is the
photon.
Do you also ask where in the electron the mechanism for electrostatic
attraction and repulsion exists?
Yes. Because they tell us the proton which has a + charge equal to the
electron -charge is composed of 3 quarks which somehow divide the
unit charge among them.
But if an electron has both mass and charge then the charge has to be
carried by a different "entity" than the entity that carries the mass.
Because the
charge is a "force", it's energy, whereas the mass is matter.
And how can an electron be considered to have no
discernible internal structure if it has a negative charge?
Why does it need an internal structure for having a negative charge???
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
12 Sep 2004 10:11:50 AM |
|
|
Guck wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message news:<chv0t5$40b$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>...
[snip]
So where in the atom does the gravity mechanism exist?
Huh? What mechanism, and why does it need to exist in the atoms?
Well, if something exists, it has to proved what that something's
basic source unit is, e.g. for light the basic source unit is the
photon.
"basic source unit" is no clearly defined term. Do you mean the quantum
of the corresponding field? If yes, then the "basic source unit" of
gravity is the graviton. But no, so far we don't know if it really
exists.
I still fail to see what this has to do with a "gravity mechanism"
inside the atom.
Do you also ask where in the electron the mechanism for electrostatic
attraction and repulsion exists?
Yes. Because they tell us the proton which has a + charge equal to the
electron -charge is composed of 3 quarks which somehow divide the
unit charge among them.
Not "somehow". It consists of two up quarks with charge +2/3 and
one down quark with charge -1/3.
But if an electron has both mass and charge then the charge has to be
carried by a different "entity" than the entity that carries the mass.
Why? Your reasoning below makes no sense, and is based on several false
premises.
Because the charge is a "force",
Wrong. Charge is not a force. Charge is a parameter which tells us
how strong the particle *reacts* to a force, and what force it can
itself exert on other particles.
it's energy,
Wrong. Charge also is not energy. Charges *have* energy.
whereas the mass is matter.
Again wrong. Mass is not matter. Mass is a *property* of matter.
And how can an electron be considered to have no
discernible internal structure if it has a negative charge?
Why does it need an internal structure for having a negative charge???
Care to answer that?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: gravity |
11 Sep 2004 12:41:24 PM |
|
|
Guck wrote:
First I would like to ask why no sci.physics.gravity newsgroup?
Probably for the same reason there is no sci.physics.electrons, or
sci.physics.AthruB, or sci.physics.BthruC, etc
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
