Posted on 01/17/2002 4:06:29 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Click here: RealScience
Nice to see some scientific headway!
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!
Speaking of the equivalence theory.
I always thought the heavier stuff ought to fall faster!
Well, at least it falls harder.
I am a math guy , don't understand the proof!
Well, at least it falls harder.
And there, sir, lies the answer. There is no gravity, only weight. :-)
I would like to see more of the hinted at higher quantum energy levels.
I think my brain has become quantized. I'm discovering gaps in my comprehension of all this.
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
I didn't understand it...but I thought some on here could explain it !
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.
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.
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.
Have you been studying under Senator Pardek?
nature makes particles behave according to curiously rigid rules.
Huh ... doesn't sound at all like that Gaia chick.
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?
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.
All your gravity are belong to us.
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.
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.