Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gravity's quantum leaps detected
New Scientist ^ | 19:00 16 January 02 | Hazel Muir

Posted on 01/17/2002 4:06:29 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

1 posted on 01/17/2002 4:06:30 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RealScience
To find all articles tagged or indexed using RealScience

Click here: RealScience

2 posted on 01/17/2002 4:13:51 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Schroder's cat alive or dead?

Nice to see some scientific headway!

3 posted on 01/17/2002 4:21:27 PM PST by Rain-maker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
bump
4 posted on 01/17/2002 4:22:47 PM PST by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rain-maker
Dead. And the glass is half empty.
5 posted on 01/17/2002 4:25:53 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. It's merely time for another round
6 posted on 01/17/2002 4:27:47 PM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: physicist
Any comments?
7 posted on 01/17/2002 4:34:50 PM PST by crypt2k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crypt2k
Bump for later
8 posted on 01/17/2002 4:44:12 PM PST by America's Resolve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: crypt2k
I feel better having read it.
9 posted on 01/17/2002 4:46:17 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: crypt2k
Any comments?

Yes, it sound like a nice piece of work. Even if nothing unexpected comes out of the results, it's an important experiment. It's a whole new tool in the kit.

Thanks for the ping!

10 posted on 01/17/2002 4:47:36 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Wrong again--the glass was over-engineered.
11 posted on 01/17/2002 4:50:23 PM PST by randog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
All nine lives?
12 posted on 01/17/2002 4:51:36 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Is gravity gaining gravitas?
14 posted on 01/17/2002 4:56:35 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
analog does not exist.
15 posted on 01/17/2002 5:02:50 PM PST by sigSEGV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; longshadow; radioastronomer; vaderetro; junior; thinkplease
Gravity bump.
16 posted on 01/17/2002 5:05:33 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
To use an anachronistic vernacular term, this is a really heavy thread, dude.
17 posted on 01/17/2002 5:18:39 PM PST by snowfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowfox
Maybe one of Einsein's theories will get a clever test!

Speaking of the equivalence theory.

I always thought the heavier stuff ought to fall faster!

18 posted on 01/17/2002 5:23:44 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I always thought the heavier stuff ought to fall faster!

Well, at least it falls harder.

19 posted on 01/17/2002 5:31:33 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the bump.
24 posted on 01/17/2002 6:01:38 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Clarity;Physicist;Pinlighter
I'm with Clarity.

I am a math guy , don't understand the proof!

25 posted on 01/17/2002 6:03:55 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It was only a matter of time before this quantum craze hit gravity.
26 posted on 01/17/2002 6:10:45 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I always thought the heavier stuff ought to fall faster!

Well, at least it falls harder.

And there, sir, lies the answer. There is no gravity, only weight. :-)

27 posted on 01/17/2002 6:12:54 PM PST by Mind-numbed Robot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The 3rd law already covers the zero energy case. There ain't one.

I would like to see more of the hinted at higher quantum energy levels.

28 posted on 01/17/2002 6:18:25 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowfox
Great scott!
29 posted on 01/17/2002 6:28:57 PM PST by Slapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
It was only a matter of time before this quantum craze hit gravity.

I think my brain has become quantized. I'm discovering gaps in my comprehension of all this.

30 posted on 01/17/2002 6:33:19 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks, I was just about to post a question about this very topic and you beat me by seconds to the punch and answered everything with this article.
31 posted on 01/17/2002 6:35:46 PM PST by A CA Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I have a hypothesis about gravity. It could falsefied by showing that electrons have gravitational attraction for one another. Showing protons some gravitational attraction would not do it, as they have quarks with so opposite electric charge.

I suppose it could be confirmed by seeing if the strength of the gravitational constant falls within parameters suggested by the hypothesis. Here goes...

Gravity is a by-product of subatomic particles reacting to electromagnetic waves that pass through their "location".

There is a net difference in the "pull" force produced by an EM wave that has the opposite charge as the particle verses the "push" force produced by an EM wave that has the same charge. This is because during the minute time period that the EM wave of the charge is passing through the "location", the subatomic particle reacts to the event.

Consider; if a wave of the same charge passed through the particle, it would alter its "location" so as to move in the opposite direction of the wave. This motion would weaken its force of "impact" during the time of the event (wave passing through). I suppose this is like the Doppler effect on wave energy.

Now consider the opposite situation. A wave from an opposite charge moves through the particle "location". During the tiny life of the event the particle will be attracted to the source, so the relative motion will draw the particle into the incoming wave. This will strengthen the its force of attraction during the time the wave is passing through.

The force known as "Gravity" is therefore the net difference between the opposite verses the same charge of wave passing through a particle "location". The attractive EM force gets stronger as it passes through, the repulsive force gets weaker. This tiny difference explains why gravity is so tiny relative to the EM force, and why no anti-gravity has ever been found.

I am sure you get stuff like this all the time. If it is nonsense just saying so if fine. I won't be offended if you do not have time to explain why. Ahban

32 posted on 01/17/2002 6:40:04 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
What? You've never read "Transgressing the Boundaries" by Paul Sokol? He proves, rather convincingly, that gravity is a social construct and an artifact of human existence. The quantum theory proves it. (I could give you the exact link so that you could check it out, but I'm too blasted lazy to walk a few feet to my library and pull out my copy of "Fashionable Nonsense").
33 posted on 01/17/2002 6:50:19 PM PST by JusPasenThru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Yea right!! LOL!

I didn't understand it...but I thought some on here could explain it !

34 posted on 01/17/2002 6:54:24 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Right-side brain cell stimulation bump. Quantum mechanics was me favorite course in college. hehe
35 posted on 01/17/2002 7:14:16 PM PST by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ahban
I have a hypothesis about gravity. It could falsefied by showing that electrons have gravitational attraction for one another.

Well, I didn't follow the argument, but it's simple to show that electrons have gravitational attraction. Electrons make up one part in 1800 or so of the mass of hydrogen, say, which is more than 2.5 times the fraction of the mass of uranium made up by electrons. All you would have to do is measure the ratio of inertial masses of a mass of hydrogen and a mass of uranium (you could do this with a torsion balance), and compare it to the ratio of their gravitational masses (you'd do this with a beam balance). The ratios would be measurably different. Archimedes might have used water and lead; the ratio of electron mass fraction would have been a bit smaller than 2.5, but he wouldn't have missed the effect.

36 posted on 01/17/2002 7:15:17 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Clarity; Ernest_at_the_Beach
But it does not necessarily follow that they also have a maximum energy in the Earth's gravitational field.

Nor would there be a maximum energy.

Thus, isn't the precise hypothesis ("the pull of gravity should make particles fall into discrete energy levels") still unproven?

The lowest energy levels, just like the energy levels of an electron in an atom, are the most widely spaced. As the particle assumes a higher and higher energy level, the spacing between the energy levels becomes ever smaller and less easily distinguished, until ultimately it becomes a continuum band. That is to say, there is an energy above which any amount of energy is permitted. But for slow enough neutrons, only certain energies are permitted.

37 posted on 01/17/2002 7:26:03 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: laconas
"maybe in some time they will able to measure the speed of gravity."

Is that Turkey gravity, or Beef gravity?

The speed of gravity depends on the temperchur. If it's biscuits and gravity, and the biscuits are hot, the gravity runs fast.

38 posted on 01/17/2002 7:43:30 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
'Thanks, I was just about to post a question about this very topic and you beat me by seconds to the punch and answered everything with this article."

Have you been studying under Senator Pardek?

39 posted on 01/17/2002 7:48:47 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: monkey
Math guy ... you with Clarity or agin' him?

nature makes particles behave according to curiously rigid rules.

Huh ... doesn't sound at all like that Gaia chick.

41 posted on 01/17/2002 10:11:21 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: editor-surveyor
Biscuits and gravy? See you for breakfast!
43 posted on 01/17/2002 10:27:34 PM PST by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this experiment, standing on it's own, proves nothing. It shows only that the neutrons posessed a minimum amount of energy that caused them to rise more than 14 micrometers above the mirror. Let's say 10 neutrons reached the detector. To prove a quantum effect, there should be no increase in the number of neutrons detected until the mop is set at a greater, discreet height. So, there will be no increase in neutrons detected until the mop is set to 30 micrometers, for example. At that point, the number of neutrons detected suddenly rises. For example, it becomes 15. Then, the mop is elevated again. No more neutrons are detected until the mop reaches another discreet height. Maybe that is 35 micrometers. Then, 18 neutrons are detected. That would show a quantum effect.

This study also depends on the gravitational field of the Earth for it's results, and should be replicated in greater and lesser gravitational fields for confirmation. Is that right?

44 posted on 01/17/2002 11:19:09 PM PST by sig226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Nesvizhevsky's team took a beam of ultracold neutrons with tiny energies, moving from left to right at less than eight metres per second. Under the force of gravity, the neutrons fell down onto a reflecting mirror and bounced off it before arriving at a detector.

The team could limit the energies of the neutrons arriving at the detector by placing an absorbing material at different heights above the mirror. The material mopped up all the neutrons that bounced too high.

At last, we know why the toast always falls buttered-side down. The butter mops up all the neutrons.

45 posted on 01/18/2002 2:41:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Heavy article, but Im only interested if these guys can figure out a way to build a neat gravity gun for the Special Forces.

All your gravity are belong to us.

46 posted on 01/18/2002 3:01:18 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #47 Removed by Moderator

To: sig226
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this experiment, standing on it's own, proves nothing.

As I said, the primary value of this is the technique and not the result. They do claim in the article to have evidence for higher energy levels; presumably that will be the subject of their next publication.

This study also depends on the gravitational field of the Earth for it's results, and should be replicated in greater and lesser gravitational fields for confirmation. Is that right?

I don't know whether their apparatus is sensitive enough to distinguish variations in the gravitational field at different places on the Earth. It would be expensive to do it anywhere else right now. Personally, I think it's enough to show that the energies are discrete, and to show that the energy levels agree or disagree with what theory predicts.

48 posted on 01/18/2002 4:19:15 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
At the other end of the quantum scale (sort of), I wish they'd tell the world more about quantum redshift and the implications it has for the Big Bang.
49 posted on 01/18/2002 4:27:13 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson