Finnally an advancement in physics or not ?

[ModestGamer]

You have to remember just how much weaker gravity is than EM especially on the scale of a electron and timescales involved. The effect your describing is effectively a tidal force and should, in principle, be calculable...but very negligible.

I had almost forgotten that article on the nuclear decay with a periodicity of a year. Most physicists that I talked to will tell you that you generally look for the obvious periods and then throw them out. Those include day-night cycles, 60Hz, lunar cycles and solar cycles.

Nuclear physics is a very active area of research, we don't know nearly as much as we would like about how nuclei work -- but it is sadly one of those fields whose funding is slowly getting cut off.

you know we have 4 forces we have labeled EM SN, WN and G

honestly. We have no idea what those forces are. We don't know how they are produced and we have no idea how they actually inteact. They are obervations with bias of catigorization built in. humans like to put thing in order. Even when thats not how they might actually work. For all we know all 4 forces might just be exspression of interactions at lower levels of matter we don't even have a clue of understanding.

Its just like particle excelrators. More energy in. More energectic particles out. Thats the only thing they actually predict with any prooveable relevance.

 

[William Gaatjes]

QFP and cliffs: be afraid of the reverse transcriptase

I am not, i do however know that we have a colon to process material that can withstand the enzymes in saliva and the acid of the stomach. That same colon is where almost all bacteria can be found who happily take up new dna.
As i mentioned before, plant material is a bit harder to process. It is not meat(Although an exceptional case as a prion seems to survive and i admit i do not know how this functions).

 

[William Gaatjes]

I wrote him off MONTHS ago man.

I have done the same for you. All i read in your replies is "wrong" and "fail" and "i am lazy". But never a constructive answer why i am wrong. As such, you do not know either. You do not even think about it. You just copy literally what you have learned without understanding why. The same as the few others do.

You can always proof me wrong. I will not hold it against you. I will have you in higher regards for taking the time to proof why i am wrong. Learning and understanding is a dynamic process with occasional errors to be made and to to be occasionally on the right track from intuition. But you already know that when you come up with an answer, i will ask you how that answer came to be and i will show you the holes in the theory you learned if there are any. If not, I will thank you very much for straighten me out. I win either way as you will as well because you will because of the debate, view what you know from a lot of different perspectives.
^_^

 

[DrPizza]

Gaatjes, you were babbling something or other about an electron being affected by gravity. Yes, it is.

If I jump, in agreement with Newton's third law, the entire planet Earth goes the other way - I slightly disturb the orbit of the Earth. While most sane people would say "well, technically, that's true, but it's a bit ridiculous to even discuss," if my back of the napkin calculations are correct, that change on the Earth is several orders of magnitude greater than what the electron experiences.

 

[ModestGamer]

Gaatjes, you were babbling something or other about an electron being affected by gravity. Yes, it is.

If I jump, in agreement with Newton's third law, the entire planet Earth goes the other way - I slightly disturb the orbit of the Earth. While most sane people would say "well, technically, that's true, but it's a bit ridiculous to even discuss," if my back of the napkin calculations are correct, that change on the Earth is several orders of magnitude greater than what the electron experiences.

the problem becomes summed errors in the calculations. which then leads to wierd bizzare thoerys of how things behave.Sort of like when the ancient greeks used elipses to explain the orbital behaviors of celestial bodys. It worked but it wasn't correct.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I just read the news, and maybe we will soon read about the answer :

http://www.physorg.com/news202563395.html

A beam of laser light (red) should be able to cause a glass bead of approximately 300 nanometers in diameter to levitate, and the floating bead would be exquisitely sensitive to the effects of gravity. Moving a large heavy object (gold) to within a few nanometers of the bead could allow the team to test the effects of gravity at very short distances.

A new experiment proposed* by physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology may allow researchers to test the effects of gravity with unprecedented precision at very short distances -- a scale at which exotic new details of gravity's behavior may be detectable.

Of the four fundamental forces that govern interactions in the universe, gravity may be the most familiar, but ironically it is the least understood by physicists. While gravity's influence is well-documented on bodies separated by astronomical or human-scale distances, it has been largely untested at very close scales—on the order of a few millionths of a meter—where electromagnetic forces often dominate. This lack of data has sparked years of scientific debate.

"There are lots of competing theories about whether gravity behaves differently at such close range," says NIST physicist Andrew Geraci, "But it's quite difficult to bring two objects that close together and still measure their motion relative to each other very precisely."

In an attempt to sidestep the problem, Geraci and his co-authors have envisioned an experiment that would suspend a small glass bead in a laser beam "bottle," allowing it to move back and forth within the bottle. Because there would be very little friction, the motion of the bead would be exquisitely sensitive to the forces around it, including the gravity of a heavy object placed nearby.

According to the research team, the proposed experiment would permit the testing of gravity's effects on particles separated by 1/1,000 the diameter of a human hair, which could ultimately allow Newton's law to be tested with a sensitivity 100,000 times better than existing experiments.

Actually realizing the scheme—detailed in a new paper in Physical Review Letters—could take a few years, co-author Scott Papp says, in part because of trouble with friction, the old nemesis of short-distance gravity research. Previous experiments have placed a small object (like this experiment's glass bead) onto a spring or short stick, which have created much more friction than laser suspension would introduce, but the NIST team's idea comes with its own issues.

"Everything creates some sort of friction," Geraci says. "We have to make the laser beams really quiet, for one thing, and then also eliminate all the background gas in the chamber. And there will undoubtedly be other sources of friction we have not yet considered."

For now, Geraci says, the important thing is to get the idea in front of the scientific community.

"Progress in the scientific community comes not just from individual experiments, but from new ideas," he says. "The recognition that this system can lead to very precise force measurements could lead to other useful experiments and instruments."

More information: * A.A. Geraci, S.B. Papp and J. Kitching. Short-range force detection using optically cooled levitated microspheres. Physical Review Letters, Aug. 30, 2010 (online). 105, 101101 (2010) DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.101101

 

[William Gaatjes]

Gaatjes, you were babbling something or other about an electron being affected by gravity. Yes, it is.

If I jump, in agreement with Newton's third law, the entire planet Earth goes the other way - I slightly disturb the orbit of the Earth. While most sane people would say "well, technically, that's true, but it's a bit ridiculous to even discuss," if my back of the napkin calculations are correct, that change on the Earth is several orders of magnitude greater than what the electron experiences.

I have some time to reply ^_^.
I understand what you mean, but the problem is that what you do to the planet when jumping is a whole lot different then when the oscillation of an electron is disturbed. Because it will affect the nuclei more then you think.

I do not fully understand your napkin calculation.
A single electron on a proton as is hydrogen. As it seems, an electron has 1/ 1835 the weight of a proton ? A large human is 6* 10^22 times lighter then earth. That is a big difference.

What is really interesting , is what is happening while present in real empty space. Far away from any galaxy or planet. No gravitational distortions as can be found when being in a solar system.

It is this i think what Albert Einstein meant when he mentioned relativity. You cannot measure the difference in gravity correctly because when you try to do this, you are not experiencing the same effects of gravity as the subject you want to research. It is what Werner Heisenberg correctly mentioned when speaking about uncertainties. It is this what you must take into account. If you do not, everything seems impossible and magical and random.
While i will predict here that you can solve it with any of the transformation math as for example used very often in digital synthesis or very high rf design. Math as for example Fourier analysis.
When you want to do something useful with particles, you must be able to predict the behaviour. And you cannot do that if you ignore variables or just set them to zero or infinite. That you yourself is an influence to the subject (particle) you try to measure, is obvious. But it is an predictable and controllable influence. And still the answers will not be what you expect it to be.

I am just guessing and wondering here but maybe the noise of virtual particles is just that. The effects of gravity distortions. Because i always ask my self. If i would take a lump of matter and compress it so much that it becomes a black hole. Would there still be virtual particles jumping in and out in that black hole. I would say yes. A whole lot. And violently i would think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAVX5WLIUrs

EDIT :
To clarify what i mean : When a sinewave is no longer a sinewave but a combination of sinewaves and cosinewaves. What do you get if you look at the spectrum ?
As in the picture in the post i placed above explaining about gravity distortions, with the transfer function not being a straight line but a curved line, the sine wave will be a distorted sine wave.
Now from mathematics we know that any waveform can be seen as a combination of sine waves or /and cosine waves. That is what i mean. It is an spectrum. A lot of little almost not measurable harmonics... all just random. For example, when you hear just white noise or pink noise, what do you see when you look at it as an spectrum or as a 3d graph ? You will see something a lot of physicists show on there slides as the magic of virtual particles...

 

[C1]

i always ask my self. If i would take a lump of matter and compress it so much that it becomes a black hole. Would there still be virtual particles jumping in and out in that black hole. I would say yes. A whole lot. And violently i would think.

Yes, this in effect is part of what is behind "Hawking Radiation" - the mechanism by which black holes supposedly would eventually evaporate. And you damn well better hope Hawking is right, because if he isnt, we all may be goners if or when LHC should begin creating mini black holes.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

Not sure if this helps you or not, but try looking up the Stark Effect. It is more or less the effect of an Electric field on an atom, something which should be qualitatively similar to gravity except many orders of magnitude stronger.

Just to make sure you draw the parallels, write out the gravity force law and the coulomb force law to see that they should both have the same form so that an atom in an electric field is equivalent to that of one in a gravitational field. The only difference being that of the relative strengths of the two forces, the electric force being MANY orders of magnitude higher.

I wonder if there is a really enhanced "stark" effect near a black hole...hmmm....

 

[William Gaatjes]

Yes, this in effect is part of what is behind "Hawking Radiation" - the mechanism by which black holes supposedly would eventually evaporate. And you damn well better hope Hawking is right, because if he isnt, we all may be goners if or when LHC should begin creating mini black holes.

I personally really do not think in mini blackholes by the LHC.
I personally think that gravity is a result force of expansion. And for the mechanism that can sustain the violent power of an black hole there needs to be enough mass that is focused to the center of mass. Something that can only happen when enough particles come close enough to each other and reach a treshold "weight". Which i think is in reality an harmonic oscillation or resonance. It would be similar as soldiers walking in the right ( or wrong, depends on which perspective) pace over a bridge making the bridge sway and shake as a resonance force.
Energy is nice, But a few particles just do not do it. In this case i think it is mass based on quantity what is important. Afcourse, when you speed up a heavy particle closer to the speed of light it get's heavier. But i really do not feel any worries. In this case it is not just mass that matters, it is quantity as well.

EDIT :



It may read strange, but if the space time would be curved enough because of gravity( inreality the faster expansion), that the transfer function would become a circle, i wonder what would happen... ^_^

I will try to make a better picture. Try envision this in 3d.

The picture did not really come out as i had in mind.
If i could only draw what i see, alas... Seeing the finest details but not able to draw it, sigh...

 

[William Gaatjes]

Not sure if this helps you or not, but try looking up the Stark Effect. It is more or less the effect of an Electric field on an atom, something which should be qualitatively similar to gravity except many orders of magnitude stronger.

Just to make sure you draw the parallels, write out the gravity force law and the coulomb force law to see that they should both have the same form so that an atom in an electric field is equivalent to that of one in a gravitational field. The only difference being that of the relative strengths of the two forces, the electric force being MANY orders of magnitude higher.

I wonder if there is a really enhanced "stark" effect near a black hole...hmmm....

Stark effect. I will read about it. Thank you.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Hello Biftheunderstudy.

I have just read a little bit about the stark effect.
It is the shifting and splitting of spectral lines of an atom in the presence of an static electric field.

There is also the zeeman effect Where the spectral lines an atom are split in the presence of an static magnetic field.

If i understood correctly, the zeeman effect would present itself differently for hydrogen when compared to atoms with more electrons. Because it is the influence of the magnetic field that is experienced differently depending on the energy or orbital of the electron. This gives each electron a slightly different fluctuation ( i do not know how to put it yet) when compared to the other electrons.
That causes the splitting of the spectral line. That makes sense. But that would mean that a hydrogen atom would only have a spectral shift yes ? Would this also be the case with the stark effect ?

I am still reading about the stark effect. It is new to me , but i see possibilities arising... ^_^ Thank you for mentioning it.

Finally just something to learn from someone that i can learn from and discuss with. Without having to put up with ignorance an arrogance as big as the universe. It is like good food. Very enjoyable. Not much people here to talk openly about these things.

But now i understand your post. If the stark effect causes this effect at "low" field strengths, gravity does it too but at a much lower strength. But where electrons do not like each other because of the electric charge meaning they repel each other because of the charge, gravity is the opposite. Gravity increases in strength with numbers without repelling. Electric charge increases in strength but at the cost of an external force needed to keep the electron's close. With magnetism it is the same thing. With protons as well. Gravitational redshift comes to mind again.

Time to go to sleep. I accomplished some programming features but am puzzled by other features and errata i could not solve yet. Tomorrow i will test a 2 * 100 A switch/ measurement device. I have to build some electronics for a small test device that creates pulses of 7 ns spikes at a period of a millisecond. Fun stuff to build.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I received this pdf from a collegeau last week. I have read it today.

My view of Richard Feynman has grown more positive. What he wrote here in 1974, i am exactly worried about without experiencing the problems directly and i agree that i have made myself a bit guilty of cargo cult science myself. With how he is displayed many times by other people, my view of him was not that positive. I actually saw him as a cargo cult scientist and it seems i am wrong.
When i have free time, i will perform and extend the math needed to see if my idea holds ground or is just wrong. Afcourse i am as many people not able to repeat some of the experiments from where the results are used in modern day theoretical models.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf

When i was young but it is still very common to day...
Why is that some children just know something is hot without touching it and not fearing it but being careful ? Just naturally extrapolating ?
While others just have to touch the hot object and learn it the hard way ?

I was one of those kids that just used their senses and had no need to confirm hot being painful.

While electricity i learned the hard way as most do for hot objects. Plugging in my 3 volt electric motor into the mains plug because my battery was empty. No sense for "low" voltage electricity at the time and no experience. It was quite a bang and the fuses where blown. :biggrin:

But that day i learned that because i cannot sense something without direct measurement(i was not touching the mains wire with my fingers first), i cannot automatically deny it if i cannot confirm it's non existence. And proving it indirectly is also not proof in my eyes...
EDIT:
Afcourse in the case of electricity and the 3 volt motor. I knew that the light turned on and the vacuum cleaner of mom. But i did not know the nature of the electricity. It's strength. That it was an alternating current. I just knew it was electricity. That is what i mean with proving indirectly. People know something , but that's it. And the truth is no longer important. Grants are...

 

[William Gaatjes]

I think i understand what you are trying to tell me.

If i would take the transfer function for gravity, i am afcourse not finished.

I also would have to add the transfer function for the Stark effect.

And i would have to add the transfer function of the Zeeman effect.

Perhaps there is more. But for now i will just keep it to these 3 effects.

If i would take a single electron around a proton which is hydrogen.
If i would assume the electron as an point article, I would have these 3 effects modulating the orbit of the electron around the proton.
If i would assume the electron as an wave. Then this wave would be modulated by these 3 transfer functions as well as in my example about gravity. Because an electron has an electrical nature.

If we would take real empty space, for light years, no other particles. Just one lonely hydrogen atom. The trajectory of the electron around the nucleus would be very different. then when measured right here on earth.

If i understand correctly, when we would take 2 electrons around a nucleus, we would have the 2 electrons modulating each other as well. Because of the Stark effect and the Zeeman effect and in a lesser degree gravity. But when the electrons are seen as 2 oscillating waves or just as particles, they would start to effect each other causing an harmonic oscillation. It would be similar as this marvelous example of automatic synchronization :

http://www.shortform.tv/matt.melmon/my/synchronisation

From the thread :
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2103410

A small intermezzo :
( To explain self assembly, that is exactly this, the harmonic oscillation of 1 atom to 2 atoms to 3 atoms. Self assembly found in nature, is in my opinion nothing else then automatic synchronization of atoms. )



Now, the more electrons you add, the complexer the result will be. This everybody can extrapolate without use of calculation just by imagining the 2 electrons around the nucleus. Afcourse, i have not taking the effects of the nucleus in account yet.

1 electron 1 proton. Hydrogen. If we would take deuterium. The same seems to apply. Now we take helium. 2 electrons, 2 protons. All four are modulating each other. We get the gravity transfer function. The Stark effect and the Zeeman effect.

If the Stark effect and Zeeman effect can be applied between electrons, this would be interesting. It might maybe to apply in atom configurations with more electrons. But it is just a preliminary idea. I have not fully read up on the Stark effect and the Zeeman effect yet to know if this is possible.

 

[Biftheunderstudy]

By mentioning the Stark effect I was simply trying to say that the interaction of gravity and electromagnetism are well characterized. We can predict to very high accuracy the effects of these external forces so your model must agree in this (and every) area.

My primary research is not quantum mechanics so I'm a little fuzzy on most of this, but Stark and Zeeman effect are done in an introductory QM class. What you were describing sounds more like spin-orbit coupling. A gravitational "stark" effect comes from the gravity of the Earth not the nucleus, the gravitational force from the nucleus is again calculable and comes out orders of magnitude lower than the electric force. It is safe to ignore since you couldn't include it even if you wanted to, you would need 40 digits of precision above that needed for the electric force just to see its effects.

Before you get too invested in this model I suggest you take out a sheet of paper and try to calculate one of these effects...if your model is very wrong you have work to do.

Work with hydrogen since the other atoms get very complicated and even the very basic version of QM doesn't work for them. For higher than hydrogen (and helium) you need more complex concepts in QM.

Try to calculate things which people actually measure, energy levels. You also have to explain all of the weird quantum behaviour we see.

 

[William Gaatjes]

By mentioning the Stark effect I was simply trying to say that the interaction of gravity and electromagnetism are well characterized. We can predict to very high accuracy the effects of these external forces so your model must agree in this (and every) area.

My primary research is not quantum mechanics so I'm a little fuzzy on most of this, but Stark and Zeeman effect are done in an introductory QM class. What you were describing sounds more like spin-orbit coupling. A gravitational "stark" effect comes from the gravity of the Earth not the nucleus, the gravitational force from the nucleus is again calculable and comes out orders of magnitude lower than the electric force. It is safe to ignore since you couldn't include it even if you wanted to, you would need 40 digits of precision above that needed for the electric force just to see its effects.

Before you get too invested in this model I suggest you take out a sheet of paper and try to calculate one of these effects...if your model is very wrong you have work to do.

Work with hydrogen since the other atoms get very complicated and even the very basic version of QM doesn't work for them. For higher than hydrogen (and helium) you need more complex concepts in QM.

Try to calculate things which people actually measure, energy levels. You also have to explain all of the weird quantum behaviour we see.

Although i indeed did not mention it properly, i indeed meant gravity from an external source such as the earth. With both the Stark effect and the Zeeman effect, i first will have to read up on to be able to predict if this can be an external source - electron and nucleus - electron and electron - electron effect and external source - nucleus . It will take a while. It is new for me in the sense that i have to link it with what i think i know or that it is different.

Fun times indeed. ^_^ .
No matter what the outcome may be.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Afcourse you are right. That gravity is much weaker then the electrical force or magnetic force. However, it still has an effect. And the closer you get to the center of mass of an object. Or should i say the center of gravity. The stronger it's effect gets. This i am sure is already thought off. Here is a thought experiment :

If you want to compensate for gravity while doing measurements, you have to apply an electrical or magnetic field opposing the gravity effect on that which you want to measure. That means you need to know the transfer curve of gravity on the object you want to measure. (That is why i prefer empty space without heavy objects around. It would be much easier to do research. But for now impossible...)

If you know this, you can compensate for it with the opposing electrical field. When you measure a particle with a disturbance you control, and you compensate for gravity... But i can already tell you that it is not a static field. It must compensate not only for earth, but for the sun as well and maybe even the other planets must be taken into account.
Then you can cause an disturbance while predicting where the particle will be and you will find it there. Knowing the position and momentum at the same time if you force multiple disturbances. Because then you can predict the answer and see it appear in the measurement data.
Then i think you can do what Heisenberg says is impossible. Because you take the effects of gravity (how small they may be into account) You are compensating for the t which is not a constant because the t is varying because of gravity (well, it is really the expansion of the universe and not gravity) is varying depending on the distance between the object and the gravity source.

Remember, it is not a straight line. And therefore, very messy numbers. But in a graph there is a clear shape.


Afcourse, this takes much control of the object and the devices you use. At the moment not possible. And that's why it is a thought experiment based on measured data of varying time because of varying gravity(?) because of varying distances of multiple heavy masses.