On Oct 24, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
On Oct 23, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Mauro Lacy wrote:
OK here's Newton's law of gravitation defined:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation
When bodies are large with respect to the distance between them, or
even "overlap", forces on every tiny volume of a given body are
computed as the sum of forces over many small units of volume of
the
surrounding space. This summation is an integration process,
with the
volumes being examined in the limit where they approach zero
volume.
In the limit the number of chunks of volume dV becomes infinite and
their volumes become zero - i.e. points. This is just basic
calculus. This is how Coulomb's law (and Newton's gravitational
equivalent) is applied for non-point objects. It works for
ordinary
volumes, like spheres, even inside them, and it works for wave
functions.
Yes, but you seem to ignore that this working gives a different
result
(rate of change or strength) in each of those cases you mention.
You ignore that *both* the Coulomb and Newton laws apply in every
case, i.e. for every pair of tiny volumes between which forces are
computed, and thus the huge *ratio* of forces remains at about
10^30. The fact that all kinds of wild fields and force equations
result from macro sized bodies is completely irrelevant to the
accuracy of the fundamental laws.
Let's say that to me, that remains to be demonstrated.
OK, I'll give up on that.
And particularly on the subatomic scale, as you said, this different
result is to be associated with a wave function. This wave function
then,
in the case of the Coloumb force, does prevent the electron from
collapsing into the nucleus, and prevents the protons to be
escaping from
it.
So what? The solar system runs for billions of years without
collapsing. Does this invalidate Newton's laws of gravitation? No.
There is no reason to expect the Coulomb force to disappear at small
radii just because it is balanced by other forces. The law is still
valid, there are merely other forces at work at close range which
have to be added also. Even if it did, similar effects would happen
to the gravitational force as well, so it is *remains* insignificant
compared to the Coulomb force. The two forces are coupled to a given
volume in very similar ratios, not varying in ratio by anything like
10^30 for any pair of charged particles at a given distance r.
What I'm thinking is that those "other forces" you mention are no
more than gravity in disguise. Gravity in another "mode" of operation.
When in the past the method of integration of point forces for
gravity was defined, it was defined based on the mode of action of
gravity at macroscopic scales. And maybe that is not the best way
to see it at microscopic scales.
Newton proceeded partially by induction(i.e. based on known data)
when deriving the law of gravity, and after that, others proceeded
by deduction, assuming that the same basic law applies at all
scales. After that, others arranged some "wave functions" to make
things fit with the classical laws when they didn't(in the atom),
and invented other forces when that wasn't enough(in the nucleus).
In the same way as, in a sense, gravity changes "mode" when
entering the Earth, something similar could be happening at the
atomic level.
Please consider the following scenario. I'll talk here about two
forces, but you'll see later that they can be unified:
- An electron approaches a proton, attracted by both, the electric
force and the gravitational force(to a much weaker extent).
- Approaching the Bohr radius, an inversion process start to
manifest for the gravitational force: it starts to increasingly
repel instead of attract. Let's not hypothesize now about the
reasons for that to be happening, just let me describe the theory.
- At the Bohr radius, the repulsive gravitational force equals the
Coulomb force, and the electron is stable in its orbit.
- Inside the Bohr radius, the repulsive force continue growing up
to a certain point, that lies somewhere in the middle between the
orbit of the electron and the center of the nucleus.
- After that point, gravity becomes attractive again(but much
strongly), and after that, its strength diminishes(not increases)
with distance to the center. And that's the nuclear force.
The Bohr radius is then the result of the interaction of the
Coulomb force with the "repulsive mode" of the gravitational force.
The other orbitals are other points of equilibrium of these "two"
forces.
This has no sense of reality for me. Even as a repulsive force,
gravity has the net same 1/r^2 *apparent attractive* effect from
spherical "shadowing". If gravity and the Coulomb force are both 1/
r^2 forces then they remain in the roughly 10^30 ratio range with
regards to fusion (the topic of this thread) because you can't have
charge without mass.
That said, I don't know why people think gravity as push makes more
sense than gravity as pull. There is no hesitation to believe that
Coulomb force as *attraction* exists between opposite charges, i.e.
that virtual photon exchange can result in a *negative momentum*
transaction. I see no reason to think gravitons can not achieve the
same thing, or that negative gravitational charge can not or does not
exist. In fact, I see both negative energy and the MOND equations as
strong indications that negative gravitational charge exists, as well
as the great voids of space which yet have magnetic fields. Of
course I have described why I think all that here before:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf
To see this more clearly, it's good to think about "spheres of
influence". Please let me give you an example:
If we think of the Moon-Earth system as a whole, and refer all to
the center of the Earth, we can see that gravity(related to that
center), could be repulsive: something that is under the
gravitational influence of the Moon, will be seen as being repulsed
from the Earth. And somewhere in the middle between the two
celestial bodies, a point of unstable equilibrium will exist, from
which everything is repulsed in one or the other direction.
Continuing the analogy, if we go now to the interior of the Earth,
we'll notice that, although gravity is still attractive there, its
strength now changes directly with distance, not inversely with the
square of the distance. This is similar as the way the nuclear
force operates.
So, we have two interfaces:
At a point between two celestial bodies, the "sphere of influence"
changes, and so the direction of action changes. That's equivalent
to a point somewhere in the middle of the electron orbit and the
center of the nucleus.
At another point(at the surface of the bodies), a different
inversion process occurs, and now the force, that continues acting
on the same direction, suffers a "change of mode": It becomes in a
direct relation to distance, not an inverse square relation. That's
the domain of the nuclear force.
This is another (good) way to see it:
Center of the Earth (stable equilibrium) <- surface of the Earth
<-- Point in between (unstable equilibrium) --> surface of the Moon
-> center of the Moon (stable equilibrium)
Center of the nucleus (stable equilibrium, nuclear force domain) <-
"surface" of the nucleus <-- Point in between (unstable
equilibrium) --> "surface" of the electron -> center of the
electron (stable equilibrium)
The arrows with two hyphens (<--) mean "force changes with the
inverse of the square of the distance".
And the one hyphen arrow (<-) means "force changes with the direct
of the distance".
Why don't you just provide a formula for what you think the
gravitational force is? Physical laws are most clearly described as
formulas, so that with any set of given inputs we can determine the
outcome. This eliminates endless discussion on how to apply them.
As you can see, I think that the electrical force and the
gravitational force can be unified, so we have only one force, with
just different modes of operation according to scale,
I don't see this at all. This is too nebulous. You need to quantify.
"environment" and "sphere of influence". In the atomic domain, the
electric mode of operation predominates to a point. In the
celestial domain, the gravitational mode predominates to a point.
But they are only aspects of one and the same fundamental "force".
In my humble opinion, this is the right path to grand unification.
The reasons for the behavior or different modes of manifestation of
this one underlying "force" must be sought in the domain of waves
and wave interactions, and I'm working on that at the moment. The
integration of the other forces must also arise as a consequence of
a wave model of this fundamental force, and of its interactions.
The reason I started this thread, is that at the time I was working
on this model of the up quark deflated state:
http://mtaonline.net/~hheffner/FullGravimag.pdf
later described here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg35331.html
which at the time of starting this thread included formulas for both
the gravitational force and gravitational binding energy between the
up quark and the electron in the deflated state. When I ran the
model it quickly became clear that gravitation played no significant
role whatsoever, regardless the tiny distances or huge energies and
gammas involved. The magnetic force (which is just the retarded
Coulomb force) from spin coupling dominates all the other forces
interacting with an energetic electron at close range.
Enjoy the pickles.
BTW, I avoid all pickles that have alum in them - my brain is in bad
enough shape as it is without aluminum salts deposited in it.
I like the sweet kind, like Farmen's Cucumber Chips, which have no alum.
Big dill pickles with alum are fun for lighting up inside using
electrodes. Google (glowing dill pickle experiment). I did the
experiment. It worked. The pickle glowed from the inside.
Best regards,
Mauro
If this very particular wave function(supposing this is so), or
another
factor, at those scales has effects so dramatic on the strength
of the
Coulomb force,
You confuse the fundamental force at work with macro effects.
why it could not have effects also on the gravitational
force?
However the forces are summed, they remain in about the same ratio.
Where there is charge there is mass, and they remain in roughly the
same ratio. Fusion is about overcoming the Coulomb barrier, thus is
an issue of forces between charges.
Particularly: Why are we going to accept that the comparision
between the
strengths of these forces is valid at those scales, when at least
one of
these forces clearly suffers alterations,
The fundamental force does *not* change, as noted before. You have
to distinguish between what is fundamental law and the sums that are
result of the application of that law and thus merely the result of
any whimsical body shapes and motions desired. It still sums nicely
across small volumes, though relativistic adjustments have to be made
if the speeds involved are high enough. Even so, when things get
relativistic, there is not a large difference in interacting particle
gammas because the mass ratios are only 3 orders of magnitude apart,
so the interactions keep the gammmas in a similar range, not varying
anything like 30 orders of magnitude. Gravity remains insignificant
when it comes to overcoming the Coulomb barrier, and that is the
point of my posting.
Here is an analogy. We can say F = m*g for every particle in the
body. We can't say that law breaks down, is invalid, just because
every person does not weigh the same, or just because we each have
centers of gravity located in various places, or some of us have very
different weight distribution from others. In all cases the whole is
the sum of the parts, but the sums are not necessarily equal. We also
can't say the law is invalid because we weigh less on a mountain top,
because that just changes g, so the sum of the masses of all our
atoms changes there. The law remains valid. Further we can't say
that law breaks down just because we want to sum over the parts of an
atom, or quantum waveform. It still applies to the parts.
even independently of the fact
that these alterations are explained or associated (or not) with a
wave
function?
Best regards
Mauro
You have raised so many red herrings that we are in need of a pickle
jar. 8^) There may well be some valid criticisms of my point that
gravity is irrelevant to fusion, that gravity is insignificant
compared to the Coulomb force that prevents fusion, but I can't see
that they have been raised yet.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
