Posted on 06/23/2003 9:25:12 AM PDT by RightWhale
I think your question is probably on the mark: they are so weak we cannot measure them.
Heck, two black holes waltzing around once per minute 100 LY away we can't detect...
--Boris
You know, the standard answer to "how do gravitons get out of a black hole?" is that the field is a "fossil" left over from when the hole was a star.
So the obvious question is: if stuff is falling into the hole, how can its gravity increase?
I've seen answers but have a hard time grasping them.
Evidently the integral of the mass/position of the inflow at the moment it crosses the event horizon averages out and the field intensifies that way. I dunno.
--Boris
P.S. Everything radiates EM (light) unless it is at absolute zero...right?
Per Wien's law [yet another law,] the peak wavelength is inversely proportional to temperature [as always, measured relative to absolute zero] so as the temperature approaches absolute zero, the wavelength of the emitted light approaches infinitely large values. At the same time the energy of the wavelength falls rapidly as the wavelength increases, so the intensity of the light emitted near absolute zero is very low. This radiation is probably not going to be called light except on FR since it is way outside the visible spectrum. It's not even in the radio spectrum.
V e r y, . v e r y . l o w . f r e q u e n c y. Even lower than that.
I don't quite understand the question.
From LIM: "Glad you cleared that up."
ROFLMAO! RA, you've got more brains than are decent. Would you please explain this in layman's terms? :^)
Oh, you're just fishin' for a compliment, aren't you? :^)
Actually, I know RA quite well, and yes...he does talk and think just like that. Which is why I told him he has more brains than are decent and asked him for a translation. I'm just a lowly geochemist and have postively NO clue what he was talking about either, but it sounded legit.
Indeed he does, but in this instance he's quoting "Physicist," so it's a safe bet it wasn't uttered in jest.
Well it most certainly was legit. What you are all talking about was the addition that Physicist freepmailed me for a post I was making. (If you note: I added this caveat in front of that paragraph with this statement: " An addition by Physicist")
It was a paragraph he added to my description of the Standard Model for a post I made a while back. I had originally only included the (Pion and others) as an exchange force and he made the addition that the “others” needed to be a bit clearer. I should have added my two cents to this to make that paragraph more understandable from the beginning.
My apologies for not doing this from the beginning. So here goes:
BTW This is all mine, so any mistakes are mine as well:
First, lets take a look at Van der Waals Forces:
(I am attempting this without a complete lecture on chemical bonding so please be kind) Atom and molecules are attracted to each other by two classes of bonds. The Intramolecular bond and the Intermolecular bond.
The Intermolecular bond is divided into these categories; Van der Waals Forces, Hydrogen Bonds, and molecule-ion attractions.
The Intramolecular bond (which are much stronger than the Intermolecular bond) is divided into these categories; Ionic bonding, covalent bonding, and metallic bonds.
We will only concentrate on the Van der Waals Forces.
Van der Waals Forces arise from the interaction of the electrons and nuclei of electrically neutral atoms and molecules. How is this possible if these are considered electrically neutral I hear you ask. What is going on here is that the electrons and nuclei of atoms and molecules (for this description: from here out called particles) are not at rest, but are in a constant motion. Since this is the case, there arises an electrical imbalance (called an instantaneous dipole [another term is a temporary polarity]) in this electrically neutral particle. Two “particles” in this dipole state will attract. Also this dipole action in one particle can cause a dipole in an adjoining (nearby) particle. So the dipole-dipole attraction is what is known as Van der Waals Forces. If these “particles” kinetic energies are low enough (anc close enough together), the repeated actions of the instantaneous dipoles will keep them attracted together.
One of the interesting things about this that the more electrons are in play the greater the Van der Waals Force. This is why the noble gas Krypton liquefies at a higher temperature than the noble gas Neon.
Whewwwwww!!!!!! Half done!:
Back to the Standard Model.
Again trying to keep this at an understandable level I may mess this up So if I did not explain this quite right, please correct me!.
A brief background: How does a nucleus stay together when it is packed with positively charged protons? Since “like” charges repel, you would think that the nucleus would fly apart. The force that keeps this from happening is the Strong Force. One of the things that was discovered is that the mass of any nucleus is always less than the sum of the individual particles (called nucleons) that make it up. The difference (residual) is due to the “Binding Energy” of the nucleus. This binding energy is directly related to the strength of the strong force. Note: This is why there is a release of energy when an atom is split. (nuclear fission).
So just what is this Strong Force anyway? The Strong force has an effect on quarks, anti quarks and gluons. Oh my, another term, QUARKS! After much research, it was discovered that the protons and neutrons in the nucleus were made up of smaller particles called quarks. It turned out that two types of quarks were needed to “produce” a proton or a neutron. However, there are six types of quarks in normal matter. The strong force binds these quarks together to form a family of particles called hadrons which include both protons and neutrons. (SORRY IF THIS IS GETTING COMPLEX) To simplify this discussion, quarks have a “color charge” (red, green, and blue). BTW, this was a convenient way of describing the charge, it is not referring to color as we commonly use it). Like colors repel and unlike colors attract. There are also antiquarks. The attraction between the quark and antiquark is stronger than between just quarks. If it is a quark/antiquark (same color) it is called a meson. If its between quarks it is called a baryon (protons and neutrons fall in this category). Here is the rub, baryonic particles can exist if their total color is neutral; i.e. have a red green and blue charge altogether.
Without getting into too much more detail, quarks can interact, changing color, etc. so long as the total charge is conserved.
The quark interactions are cause by exchanging particles called gluons. There are eight kinds of gluons each having a specific “color” charge.
So back to the original paragraph. Neutral (all three colors) hadrons (which include protons and neutrons) can interact with the strong force similarly to the way atoms an molecules react via the Van der Waals forces.
Physicist? Anything you want to add or change if I "stuffed it up" so to speak?
Oh, so I'm a humorless cipher then, am I? Guess I'll just go eat worms...
;^)
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.