Probing gravity

Jul 30, 2012
The Gravity Probe-B spacecraft. A series of new papers describes the key astronomical results pertaining to this mission which measured Einstein's relativistic frame-dragging effect. Credit: NASA/Stanford

(Phys.org) -- Einstein's theory of relativity is remarkable not only because it is so successful in explaining seemingly bizarre observations (like the bending of starlight) or because it has assembled a coherent picture of nature. One would expect these results from any good theory. Relativity is also amazing because its has shown that the universe behaves in completely non-intuitive ways (at least to humans): time dilates, lengths contract, gravity warps space, and mass and energy are related by E=mc^2. Our so-called "common sense" is sometimes just plain wrong.

It is no wonder, therefore, that astronomers are constantly testing relativity to see whether all of its details are perfectly in order, or if some adjustment might be necessary that might also change our basic understanding of . One of its more curious, non-intuitive predictions is that space is not only warped by the gravity of a massive body - it is also warped (though to a lesser degree) by the rotation of a body, the so-called "frame dragging effect." This particular prediction of relativity is small and extremely hard to measure. How small? The axis of a precessing gyroscope traces a circle that is 360 degrees around. According to Einstein's theory a orbiting the Earth (as per the experiment described below) would, because of frame dragging, have its axis precess by 11 millionths of one degree per year -- very tiny indeed.

In 2004, launched the Gravity Probe-B mission, an heroic experiment developed primarily at Stanford University, to test this minuscule but critically important prediction, and a team of CfA astronomers worked on the mission. In 2011, the NASA/Stanford team reported their conclusion: no with relativity. In a series of seven papers published in this month's Supplement, the many astronomical issues involved with the analysis are presented in detail. In the summary paper, CfA scientists Irwin Shapiro, Daniel Lebach, Michael Ratner, and four colleagues discuss the critical issue of how to measure the tiny predicted precession.

Key to the experiment was a guide star that provided the absolute reference for the spacecraft and its four cryogenically cooled, superconducting "gyroscopes." The experiment team in the planning stages chose the star IM Pegasi because it is bright at both optical and radio wavelengths and is located in a convenient part of the sky for the satellite. Using techniques of ground-based very long baseline radio interferometry referenced to distant quasars, the astronomers began an intensive multi-year program of study of this star's motion in the sky, working from 1997 until 2005. All motions of the star would have to be taken into account in the analysis; an ancillary result would be the distance of the star from Earth.

In their new paper the team reports that the star is located 314. 4 light-years away with an uncertainty of about 2.2 light-years, and that it moves across the sky ("proper motion") at a rate of 34.3 thousandths of an arc-second per year. The new series of papers, and the meticulous discussion of the many astronomical factors that had to be accounted for in the analyses, mark an important stage in the effort to probe Einstein's theory at amazing new levels of precision.

Explore further: New mass map of a distant galaxy cluster is the most precise yet

Related Stories

Gravity Probe B confirms two Einstein theories

May 04, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Stanford and NASA researchers have confirmed two predictions of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, concluding one of the space agency's longest-running projects.

Distorting the lens

Feb 09, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- One of the most bizarre predictions of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is the existence of back holes, objects that are so dense that not even light can escape from their gravitational ...

Watson Lecture: Exploring Einstein's Legacy

Nov 15, 2005

November 25 marks the 90th anniversary of Einstein's formulation of his theory of general relativity, which describes gravity as a consequence of the warping of space and time.

Recommended for you

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

2 hours ago

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Video: The diversity of habitable zones and the planets

2 hours ago

The field of exoplanets has rapidly expanded from the exclusivity of exoplanet detection to include exoplanet characterization. A key step towards this characterization is the determination of which planets occupy the Habitable ...

Ultra-deep astrophoto of the Antenna Galaxies

2 hours ago

You might think the image above of the famous Antenna Galaxies was taken by a large ground-based or even a space telescope. Think again. Amateur astronomer Rolf Wahl Olsen from New Zealand compiled a total ...

The most precise measurement of an alien world's size

4 hours ago

Thanks to NASA's Kepler and Spitzer Space Telescopes, scientists have made the most precise measurement ever of the radius of a planet outside our solar system. The size of the exoplanet, dubbed Kepler-93b, ...

User comments : 196

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Jul 30, 2012
Interesting, what I can't make out of the article is if this "frame dragging" effect is caused by the speed or does the rotating object litterally drags space around it with the rotations?
chardo137
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 30, 2012
The rotating object, in this case the Earth, actually drags space around with it. Even the whole earth only drags space by this minuscule amount. The effect becomes really interesting when you consider black holes. Gravity probe B was proposed in the 60's. The frame dragging effect was first detected around black holes before the results from gravity probe B were available. The most amazing thing about the mission was the amount of unwanted effects that were drowning the signal, and the cleverness of the researchers in teasing it out of the data. Great job guys. Much Kudos.
ritwik
1 / 5 (10) Jul 30, 2012
i dont think gravity curves spae the light bending effect could be because of dark energy or matter surrounding the bodies or the physical boundary of stars is not the real limit like light rays bending through prism ,if viewed thru 'quantum eyes' the physical existence of a star will extend to light years and this aura of subatomic particles surrounding the systems might be causing the bending effect

space is nothing but hard vacuum but space btween stars and galaxies are not vacuum there would be a sea of particles which behaves as if it is space but fapp we can ASSUME space is curved

Ventilator
1 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2012
The reference frame point above is interesting to me in that time seems to be passing at an accelerated rate, based on what speed of rotation is, occurring for said object.

That rotation can alter the passage of time seems to indicate inertia in some regards may be connected to both spin as well as velocity. Basically, spin is a velocity, just as a rotation generating force, rather than a normal vector force.

If there are any differences between spin and normal vectors as far as effects on space-time, I would honestly like to know.
chardo137
not rated yet Jul 30, 2012
Ventilator, you should read this:http://phys.org/n...tia.html
Bewia
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 30, 2012
The frame dragging effect was first detected around black holes before the results from gravity probe B were available
1) It wasn't, you're just inventing stuff at public. 2) We didn't prove the existence of black holes yet. 3) Not accidentally you were upvoted for your nonsense (with Gawad), because this is how the religious community here is working. The people here aren't interested about facts, they just do support the scientism here.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (3) Jul 30, 2012
i could be wrong -- and i don't feel like diggin up proofs right now -- but we have observed black holes.

challengers welcome
Silverhill
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2012
@ritwik:
i dont think gravity curves spae the light bending effect could be because of dark energy or matter surrounding the bodies
Dark energy doesn't enter this picture. Dark matter might be at work, though -- via its gravity. Whatever a mass consists of, it has gravity, and that distorts nearby spacetime.

space is nothing but hard vacuum
Pure, empty space, perhaps -- but only if you ignore the quantum foam.

we can ASSUME space is curved
We don't just assume it, we measure it (such as during the 1919 solar eclipse).
yks
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
We know that a medium causes the light to bend.
How hard is to think that around a massive object there is a medium of particles gravitating and causing the light bending effect. And, how about the clock slowing down. Can it be the clock frequency affected by the gravity alone (interpreted as a force acting on particles) not by some space-time distortion.
yks
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
It is interesting to think about space as something, but what is space (not to mention what is time)?
Let's suppose we need to create a virtual world. Will I describe the virtual space as all possible coordinates or just as relations between particles? Think about it...
Satene
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2012
How hard is to think that around a massive object there is a medium of particles gravitating and causing the light bending
It's actually quite easy, but it brings the aether paradigm, which the mainstream physics avoids desperately from political reasons. Anyway, the replacement of space-time curvature for vacuum density doesn't explain the question, by which the vacuum is formed. The aether model just says, the space-time is formed with gradient of many tiny space-curvatures, but it doesn't explain, by which these curvatures are formed - it's recursive concept. It just relates the large and small scale space-time curvatures in emergent way: the gravity field (large space-curvature) is caused with density gradient of many tiny space-time curvatures. LeSage model explains it with shielding effect of gravitational waves with massive objects - the vacuum is full of energy, but less energetic at the proximity of massive objects, so that its massive properties prevail there.
Satene
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2012
What I particularly like with this model is, it explains dark matter naturally. In deDuillier-LeSage model the dark matter is caused with shielding of gravitational shielding with another massive objects - actually all massive objects in the observable universe participate on it, although in different way. With increasing distance the influence of this shielding naturally weakens, so this model explains dark energy too - well, at least conceptually. This model explains for example, why the dark matter is concentrated at the perimeter of galaxies instead of their center and it explains the physical meaning of gravitational anomalies which occur during eclipses and conjunctions of massive objects (Allais or Lunar effects).
Shinichi D_
5 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
"How hard is to think that around a massive object there is a medium of particles gravitating and..."

LOL. And what causes the particles 'gravitating' around massive objects?
Satene
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
We should finally put the question, which state of Universe is more "natural" or "fundamental" with respect to the Occam's razor and causality: the empty void zero state - or the random state? For me zero or every well arranged particular state brings more questions than answers.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2012
i dont think gravity curves spae the light bending effect could be because of dark energy or matter surrounding the bodies or the physical boundary of stars is not the real limit like light rays bending through prism


White light passed through a prism is separated into a spectrum because the interaction with matter always creates a bend that depends on the frequency. Gravitational bending is independent of frequency so cannot be explained that way.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2012
What I particularly like with this model is, it explains dark matter naturally. In deDuillier-LeSage model the dark matter is caused with shielding of gravitational shielding with another massive objects - ...


You need to show the maths that leads to your ficticious conclusion.

LeSage's gravity is nonsensical, predicting that all matter would be vapourised in a fraction of a second, something that has been pointed out to you and your other sock puppets many times.
Bewia
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
..Gravitational bending is independent of frequency so cannot be explained that way...
Even normal materials don't exhibit the dispersion at the whole range of wavelengths. The dispersion of light in gravity field manifest at substantially shorter wavelengths, than you expect, i.e. gamma rays - the gamma ray jets of black holes can be interpreted with light dispersion. But I don't think, the gravitational lens is behaving like normal lens - the refraction model is only rough description of the light bending with it.
LeSage's gravity is nonsensical, predicting that all matter would be vapourised in a fraction of a second
It actually works so during the accretion of matter into black hole. But in normal gravity this heating is slow and the massive particles are radiating their energy into all directions in form of quantum fluctuations. They're actually pretty hot, if you consider the speed of their intrinsic motion: the pressure of their radiation prohibits their collapse.
Bewia
1 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
You need to show the maths that leads to your ficticious conclusion.

Many predictions can be done without math qualitatively and therefore quite reliably. For example the Allais effect manifests itself just during conjunctions of massive bodies, because the gravitational shielding is strongest along this line. The dark matter fibers connecting the galaxies should thicken the more, the more the galaxies are close each other and collinear. This model predicts too, that lone massive objects exhibit only weak dark matter effects, because there are no other objects, which could shield the gravity field shielding. It has its consequences for kinetics of steady state cosmology: the new galaxies will be formed at the free places between another galaxies preferentially - but still at their connection lines. This kinetics can be described like the coalescing of droplets along fibers of dark matter connecting the existing galaxies.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2012


Many predictions can be done without math qualitatively and therefore quite reliably.


Really now? And that is how Einstein proved his GR, no math?
Bewia
1 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2012
General relativity could be tested without math quite easily, because theories are falsified with experiments, not with writing of formulas at the table. For example, if we wouldn't find any clock deviation in gravity field (Hafele-Keating or PoundRebka experiments), then Mr. Einstein would be doomed with all his math or without it. Some other predictions of general relativity (precession of Mercury perihelion) would indeed require more thorough analysis (Newtonian theory predicts some precession too) - but for example the gravitational lensing can be observed with naked eye in telescopes without any measurements. You're not required to consider any math for to realize immediately, Einstein was right at the moment, when no other theory predicts gravitational lensing.
Bewia
Jul 31, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2012
General relativity could be tested without math quite easily, because theories are falsified with experiments, not with writing of formulas at the table. For example, if we wouldn't find any clock deviation in gravity field (Hafele-Keating or PoundRebka experiments), then Mr. Einstein would be doomed with all his math or without it. Some other predictions of general relativity (precession of Mercury perihelion) would indeed require more thorough analysis (Newtonian theory predicts some precession too) - but for example the gravitational lensing can be observed with naked eye in telescopes without any measurements. You're not required to consider any math for to realize immediately, Einstein was right at the moment, when no other theory predicts gravitational lensing.


How foolish of me it was to spend six years in engineering school, when all I really needed to do was sign into your curriculum.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Aug 01, 2012
....BTW it's symptomatic, the aether theory was originally refused just with absence of aether drag ,.....


Et tu Bewia?
Satene
Aug 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2012
@Benni: you're not visiting engineering school six years just for experimental confirmation of relativity. Here way more useful things, which the math is good for...


Whew, what a relief....suddenly I feel relevant again & can continue with my career.
Satene
1 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
It's normal. The high schools graduates, who spent with learning of rigor many years tend to believe, that formal math is more important for understanding of physics and falsification of experiments. Actually there is lotta "quantum noise" represented with high-dimensional logics, which cannot be expressed with math easily, but it still contributes to the reality understanding and to our judgement of relevance of formal models. What's more important, with increasing complexity of formal models this "common sense" becomes more and more significant and it may even lead into new significant predictions. The using of such logic requires to learn the physics like the chemistry of biology, i.e. like huge pile of mutually connected facts. It's completely different approach, which is difficult to formalize.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2012
..Gravitational bending is independent of frequency so cannot be explained that way...
Even normal materials don't exhibit the dispersion at the whole range of wavelengths.

It is less pronounced away from resonances but is always detectable, gravitational bending shows none at any frequency so refraction by material is definitely ruled out.

The dispersion of light in gravity field manifest at substantially shorter wavelengths, than you expect, i.e. gamma rays


In gravitational bending there is no dependence on frequency whatsoever even at gamma.

LeSage's gravity is nonsensical, predicting that all matter would be vapourised in a fraction of a second
It actually works so during the accretion of matter into black hole. But in normal gravity this heating is slow ..

Wrong again, for normal matter it would be billions of degrees per second. That is why you have to do the maths, your "qualitative" approach fails.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (9) Aug 01, 2012
You need to show the maths that leads to your ficticious conclusion.

Many predictions can be done without math qualitatively and therefore quite reliably.


Ah yes, like thinking LeSage heating was "slow" when in fact it is billions of degrees per second. If you can't do the maths, you have no way to test your ideas. LeSage himself was well aware of the problem and never solved it.

Similarly, unless you can show mathematically that the shielding model can create the appearance of a dark matter halo in deep space independent of any nearby objects to create that shielding, it is obvious that your claim is completely spurious.
Satene
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
..gravitational bending shows none at any frequency so refraction by material is definitely ruled out..
Try to think about gravitational lens of black holes like about dense droplet which reflects the radiation of central singularity back into black hole with total reflection mechanism. In analogy with normal optics the long wavelength radiation evades the total reflection and it escapes from black hole through event like so called Hawking radiation. The same phenomena can be observed during total reflection of light inside of normal droplets. This simple analogy is actually quite predicative, because in accordance to classical theory the critical wavelength would correspond the diameter of the droplet, and in theory of Hawking radiation the wavelength of escaping radiation is equivalent to the diameter of black hole too. Which explains, why the black hole is supposed to explode in bright gamma ray flash during very end of its Hawking evaporation.
Satene
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2012
This simple analogy may be extrapolated even further, if we realize, that the wavelength of radiation emanated with total reflection mechanism depends on the gradient of vacuum density at the place of event horizon. The large black hole exhibit rather subtle density gradient at the radius of event horizon and the wavelenght of hawking radiation is shifted toward shorter wavelenght. When the black hole will become sufficiently large, is not able to protect escaping of radiation at all and it changes into white hole. Does the relativity predict it? I'd say not, but we can still observe these artefacts as so called quasars inside of distant parts of Universe. Which essentially means, that the glowing of these quasars correspond their Hawking radiation at the same moment.
Satene
1 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2012
Another point is, that at the case of rotating black holes the gradient of vacuum density at the poles of black hole is weaker or it may be missing there completely at the case of toroidal shape of event horizon. Therefore the black hole would radiate its Hawking radiation like so-called naked singularity through its poles in form of jets. Actually what we can see here is the example of dispersion of light in the gradient of vacuum density, analogous to Newtons prism. The longer wavelengths are radiated under lower angle, the short wavelenght radiation is refracted more and its emanated from polar areas of black hole. This model is assuming, that the black hole jets are radiation generated with black hole itself, i.e. from inside. Again, we can make testable predictions with this model. For example, at the case of more massive and fast rotating black holes the aperture of the polar jets will be wider and vice-versa. It corresponds the gravitational brightening of rotating stars, BTW.
Satene
1 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
LeSage heating was "slow" when in fact it is billions of degrees per second
Try to think more consistently here. The LeSage model of gravitation of massive body corresponds the shielding of Brownian noise with sphere, which is floating at the water surface. These tiny waves surround sphere from all directions and between spheres some of them are missing, which is causing the attractive force. But these waves aren't the Brownian noise at the water surface, but the Brownian noise of the underwater in additional dimensions. Le-Sage explicitly talked about "ultramundanne particles", i.e. these which come from outside of our Universe and he was essentially correct about it. In my model the CMBR noise is really manifestation of extradimensions and gravitational waves, coming from outside of observable Universe with superluminal speed. The extreme temperature which you're talking about therefore applies to these extradimensions - not to our observable space-time.
Satene
1 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
These extreme temperature caused with Le-Sage shielding actually exists, because the deeper we are going into quantum scale, the more the particles appear heated. It was essentially observed with Einstein himself during his study of Brownian motion as a consequence of equipartition theorem. The immense energy of electrons, atom nuclei and quarks inside of atoms is in balance with their strong gravity, which holds them together.

Note that the water surface model of LeSage theory actually predicts the existence of two independent shielding forces at the vicinity of massive bodies: the shielding of Brownian noise from underwater (a "common" gravity) and the shielding of Brownian noise at the water surface, which is known as so-called Casimir force. The ratio of distance scales of these two forces indicates, how deeply the external dimensions of space-time are compacted (in the range of 10E 40, which corresponds the alleged inflation ratio of Big Bang model).
chardo137
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2012
I do not know why so many people are upset by the term "The God Particle". It is the title of a book by one of the great physicists of our time, Leon Lederman. Apparently it is a corruption of the title that he proposed, which was "The God Damned Particle", referring to the difficulties encountered in the search for the Higgs boson. If the use the term God upsets religious people, then perhaps they should not read physics for a few years, because they will in fact see it.
Fleetfoot
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
LeSage heating was "slow" when in fact it is billions of degrees per second
... The extreme temperature which you're talking about therefore applies to these extradimensions - not to our observable space-time.


Until you learn some simple maths, you're not going to understand any of this. Kinetic energy and momentum are closely related. The heat delivered to an object is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles so if they don't deliver heat, they don't create a force

For example if LeSage's particles were moving at the speed of light, a rock on the surface of the Earth would receive 9.81*3e8 watts of heat per kg. For a specific heat of 1.47, the temperature would rise at 1 billion degrees per second and Poincare showed from drag calculations that the speed (and hence heating) needed to be 18 orders of magnitude greater than that.

http://en.wikiped...essments
Bewia
Aug 01, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jsdarkdestruction
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2012
I do not know why so many people are upset by the term "The God Particle". It is the title of a book by one of the great physicists of our time, Leon Lederman. Apparently it is a corruption of the title that he proposed, which was "The God Damned Particle", referring to the difficulties encountered in the search for the Higgs boson. If the use the term God upsets religious people, then perhaps they should not read physics for a few years, because they will in fact see it.

god has no place in science. its as simple as that. i dont think the religious people care, its the scientifically interested that care. they dont want to be confused with religion or be related to it in any way. with religions history can you blame them? its also misleading. your right that it was originally "goddamned", i'd be fine with that. the current use of the term god though is misrepresented as "god particle" because it gives other particles mass. not its hard to find. the meaning changed.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2012
... atom nuclei and quarks inside of atoms is in balance with their strong gravity, which holds them together.


OK, let me attempt to get this straight: you are proposing that inside of an atomic nucleus a few flavors of quarks generate strong gravity forces. Sounds as if you're suggesting gravity is not mass dependent.
Bewia
1 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2012
The LeSage shielding model can be generalized to composite particles and particle clusters, like the atom nuclei composed of nucleons composed of quarks etc.. and to derive more complex composite forces with it (especially if we consider the shielding of this shielding with another particles in the particle cluster).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
..heat delivered to an object is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles...if LeSage's particles were moving at the speed of light
You cannot use the two hundred years old calculations..


You can when the model you are describing discards everything that has been learned since. LeSage's particles had to travel much faster than the speed of light which means Newton's approximation is valid to those speeds, you have to discard relativity and all that follows.

At the moment, when you're talking about particles moving at the speed of light, then it's evident, you're not talking about tachyons of LeSage model.


My calculation using the speed of light was just to get some basic numbers to demonstrate that even at a speed that is far lower than needed, the heating is intolerable. Your problem is that you don't appreciate how all these facets are linked, LeSage's model is not compatible with modern physics, you can't mix-and-match.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2012
.. the one sq.decimeter plate is attracted with net force about ten Newtons from distance of few nanometers ... How is it possible, this plate will remain cool during it?


I have told you that before, the impinging modes are reflected therefore there is no heating. If you try to use that in LeSage's model, the reflected particles replace the shielded ones and you get no gravitational force. That is why he was forced to postulate they were absorbed by matter.

Try to remember these facts, or better try to learn how LeSage's model and basic mechanics work, otherwise you will just continue repeating these errors.
Satene
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
LeSage's particles had to travel much faster than the speed of light which means Newton's approximation is valid to those speeds, you have to discard relativity and all that follows.
At first, what exerts pressure aren't particles but gravitational waves. These waves are behave like massive superluminal bosons. We can even observe them easily: they do manifest itself like CMBR noise. Relativity shouldn't be discarded because of it - you cannot observe these particles in motion in deterministic way: they appear at some place and disappear again.
LeSage's model is not compatible with modern physics
LeSage's theory's using the very same shielding model, like the Casimir force. If the mainstream physics has no problem with heating of plate attracted with Casimir force, why it should have a problem with the same mechanism for gravity? It's the very same problem - the physicists understand only their math, but not observable reality, they're trained so by their educational system
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2012
LeSage's particles had to travel much faster than the speed of light which means Newton's approximation is valid to those speeds, you have to discard relativity and all that follows.
At first, what exerts pressure aren't particles but gravitational waves.


Then you aren't talking about LaSage's model at all. In his model gravity is an effect produced by the impact of very fast particles. Gravitational waves couldn't exist in that model but changes in gravity (such as tidal effects) would be a slow variation of the average rate of the impacts.

We can even observe them easily: they do manifest itself like CMBR noise.


The CMB is microwave as the "M" says, it is EM, not gravitational, as we have again discussed before - don't try to change the subject.

Relativity shouldn't be discarded because of it.


You have no choice, LeSage's model was based on Galilean relativity and no speed limit. As I said, you can't mix-and-match.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
LeSage's theory's using the very same shielding model, like the Casimir force.


No it doesn't, the Casimir effect is not related to Le Sage's shadowing at all, it is analogous to using a waveguide beyond cutoff.

If the mainstream physics has no problem with heating of plate attracted with Casimir force, why it should have a problem with the same mechanism for gravity?


Perhaps you missed my answer a few posts back:

I have told you that before, the impinging modes are reflected therefore there is no heating. If you try to use that in LeSage's model, the reflected particles replace the shielded ones and you get no gravitational force. That is why he was forced to postulate they were absorbed by matter.


It's the very same problem - the physicists understand only their math, ...


Physics is the name given to mathematical modelling of nature. If it isn't mathematical, it isn't physics. You can't do any maths which is why you can't understand it.
Satene
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
.. the Casimir effect .. is analogous to using a waveguide beyond cutoff...
There is common illustration of Casimir effect - it doesn't illustrates a waveguide, but an obstacle of waves or virtual photons, which exert a pressure to obstacle. Now my questions is: if "heat delivered to an object is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles", how can you explain, the obstacle isn't heated with energy of these photons and we cannot utilize the evolved heat in let say steam machine?

You must be very stupid, if you need to repeat my objection triple times...
Satene
1 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2012
here we can read, the energy required for keeping of squirrel in levitation with using of pressure of light is about 1.21 gigawatts. How the hell it is possible, the Cassimir plate isn't heated accordingly with pressure of virtual photons, if it undergoes a force in the same range?
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2012
Physics is the name given to mathematical modelling of nature
Understanding and explanation of nature in logical way belongs into math too, because the logics represents whole fundamental basics of math. The contemporary physicists consider the physics isolated into equations and they don't ask, where they come from, but the science doesn't work so.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2012
.. the Casimir effect .. is analogous to using a waveguide beyond cutoff...
.. it doesn't illustrates a waveguide, ..


Yes it does. Note that the waves between the plate can only exist if they have an integer number of cycles. The long wavelengths shown outside cannot fit between the plates so those modes aere exclude, exactly the same physics that creates the cutoff frequency for a waveguide.

Now my questions is: if "heat delivered to an object is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles", how can you explain, the obstacle isn't heated ..


As I said twice before in this thread, because the external waves are reflected while trying to use reflection in LeSage's model results in no force.

You must be very stupid, if you need to repeat my objection triple times...


I don't need you to repeat your objection, I have told you the answer each time so you must be too stupid to understand it even after three repetitions.
James_Possamai
1 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2012
I don't understand math as well as I would like, and I would definitely waste my dollars and the collective tax dollars of people to levitate a squirrel. Opening credits for that link is "xkcd The blag of the webcomic" Closing ones are "420 THOUGHTS ON THE LASER ELEVATOR"
I know I shouldn't think it is a joke and like to keep an open mind but I am pretty biased towards theories that don't seem to need evidence, that can seemingly be disproven by observation and math, with publishing comes from such sources. I must be missing something.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Einstein use many thought experiments and then prove them with math?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 05, 2012
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Einstein use many thought experiments and then prove them with math?


Einstein developed SR by starting from Maxwell's Equations, themselves obtained empirically from experiments measuring coils and Leyden jars. Thought experiments are a way of exploring the consequences of a theory by using the equation(s) to predict what would happen in a scenario designed to highlight particular features.
Bewia
1 / 5 (4) Aug 05, 2012
note that the waves between the plate can only exist if they have an integer number of cycles.
That's right, but the virtual photons which are exerting pressure to the Cassimir plate have no distinct wavelength, they're a mixture of wavelengths. The LeSage shielding works in the same way: it would attract the objects of certain quantized mass, but because the wavelength of gravitational waves isn't centered about single value, the gravitational attraction isn't apparently quantized. But even if it would, it doesn't solve the problem, why Cassimir plates aren't heated fast, if the "heat delivered to an object is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles so if they don't deliver heat".
..because the external waves are reflected while trying to use reflection in LeSage's model results in no force..
This is the principle of shielding - when the wave isn't passed trough, it's reflected. It can work in the same way for reflection of gravitation waves.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2012
This is the principle of shielding - when the wave isn't passed through, it's reflected.


No, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the model. Look at the sky on a moonless night and you can imagine LeSage's particles hitting you from all angles while fewer hit from beneath because of shadowing by the Earth. When the Moon is above you though, that would slightly reduce the number from above if it absorbed a fraction. That would be the cause of ocean tides in LeSage's model.

However, if the Moon reflected them, then particles hitting the Moon from the Earth-facing side would be reflected back towards you (in the same way that we see the Moon by reflected sunlight) and when you do the maths you find they exactly make up for those shielded by the Moon. The result would be no tides and in general there would be no gravity. Overall it is only the fraction that are absorbed that contribute to the force, and the equation I gave is valid for absorption.
Satene
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
The LeSage model of gravity is fully equivalent to shielding model for Casimir force - it just considers (the shielding of) longitudinal waves of vacuum instead of transverse ones. If the Cassimir plate isn't heated with shielding of virtual photons, then there is no reason for heating of massive object with LeSage shielding. I explained it to you four times here and you never considered this argument, so IMO the discussion about this subject with you is exhausted already.
if the Moon reflected them, then particles hitting the Moon from the Earth-facing side would be reflected back towards you..the result would be no tides..
The Cassimir plate reflects the virtual photons too - but it still doesn't cancel the effect. Try to rethink your arguments once again...
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
I explained it to you four times here and you never considered this argument,..


I have answered it three times, you just aren't listening.

if the Moon reflected them, then particles hitting the Moon from the Earth-facing side would be reflected back towards you..the result would be no tides..
The Cassimir plate reflects the virtual photons too - but it still doesn't cancel the effect. Try to rethink your arguments once again...


Imagine we could see Fatio's particles - the sky would look a uniform bright colour. Now imagine a smokey glass Moon that absorbs some of the particles - you could see it as a shadow on the sky. Then instead think of a mirrored Moon in that sky. You couldn't see it because it would reflect the sky behind you, there would be no shadowing.

There would be a downward pressure on the surface of a planet but an object above the surface would not be attracted to it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
Try to rethink your arguments once again...


Even Le Sage was aware of the problem with reflection, see the second paragraph here for example:

http://en.wikiped..._concept

The explanation in the section higher on the page called "Nature of collisions" is poorly writte and needs a diagram to be comprehensible.

Fatio too was aware that fully elastic collisions would not produce a gravity-like effect but wasn't sure how to resolve it:

http://en.wikiped...s_theory

So I'm not saying anything new here, the problem is well known, it only remains for you to understand it.
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
Imagine we could see Fatio's particles - the sky would look a uniform bright colour. Now imagine a smokey glass Moon that absorbs some of the particles - you could see it as a shadow on the sky. Then instead think of a mirrored Moon in that sky. You couldn't see it because it would reflect the sky behind you, there would be no shadowing. There would be a downward pressure on the surface of a planet but an object above the surface would not be attracted to it.
Imagine we could see virtual photons - the vacuum would look a uniform bright colour. Now imagine a smokey plate that absorbs some of the particles - you could see it as a shadow in the vacuum. Then instead think of a mirrored plate. You couldn't see it because it would reflect the vacuum glow behind you, there would be no shadowing. There would be a downward pressure on the surface of a plate but an object above the surface would not be attracted to it. It disproves the reflection of virtual photons between Cassimir plates.
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
Even Le Sage was aware of the problem with reflection
I'm talking about reflection only because you did talk about reflection at the case of Cassimir effect. But the same arguments can be used against both Cassimir shielding, both LeSage shielding. If the reflection should nullify the Le-Sage shielding, it should nullify the Cassimir shielding as well. If the momentum of particle shielded should heat the LeSage objects, it should heat the Cassimir plates in the same way.

Any further questions?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
Imagine we could see virtual photons - the vacuum would look a uniform bright colour. Now imagine a smokey plate that absorbs some of the particles - you could see it as a shadow in the vacuum. Then instead think of a mirrored plate. You couldn't see it because it would reflect the vacuum glow behind you, there would be no shadowing. There would be a downward pressure on the surface of a plate but an object above the surface would not be attracted to it. It disproves the reflection of virtual photons between Cassimir plates.


Correct. As I said, the mechanism is not reflection, it is because only modes which have a whole number of wavelengths in the gap between the plates can exists, similar to a waveguide beyond cutoff.

Sadly,I think you just repeated my words without thinking, what you say is correct but I don't think you have learned the lesson.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
I'm talking about reflection only because you did talk about reflection at the case of Cassimir effect.


No, I talked about waveguides, you brought in reflection.

But the same arguments can be used against both Cassimir shielding, both LeSage shielding. If the reflection should nullify the Le-Sage shielding, it should nullify the Cassimir shielding as well.


The Casimir effect isn't a shadowing effect, it is due to the exclusion of possible modes in the small gap. There is no equivalent to that gap in LeSage's model.

If the momentum of particle shielded should heat the LeSage objects, it should heat the Cassimir plates in the same way.


If the particles were reflected in LeSage's model, there would be no heating, I think we can agree that.

Your problem is that in LeSage's model, if you suggest the particles are reflected, there is also no shadow cast, hence also no gravity. As I say, Fatio knew that, you need to try drawing some sketches to see it.
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
The Casimir effect isn't a shadowing effect, it is due to the exclusion of possible modes in the small gap. There is no equivalent to that gap in LeSage's model..
These modes are excluded with shielding, after all, there are no particular modes involved, because the virtual photons form a continuous spectrum. Cassimir force is often illustrated with shielding effect between two boats at the undulating water surface, but if you adhere on some other valid interpretation for Cassimir force, then I've absolutely no problem with it, until such an interpretation remains consistent with shielding effect of waves with continuous power spectrum.
..if you suggest the particles are reflected, there is also no shadow cast..
Nope, I just said, the Le-Sage mechanism is equivalent to Cassimir force mechanism. It's you, who is talking about waveguides and their reflections, not me. If you see some problem with this mechanism for Cassimir force, just don't use it even for LeSage force.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
The Casimir effect isn't a shadowing effect, it is due to the exclusion of possible modes in the small gap. There is no equivalent to that gap in LeSage's model..
These modes are excluded with shielding, after all, there are no particular modes involved, because the virtual photons form a continuous spectrum.


Outside, the spectrum is continuous because there is only one surface but in the gap it becomes discrete lines, only modes that have exactly a whole number of wavelengths can exist. If you had ever done any physics, you would see the similarity to the "electron in a well" calculation all students do. Shielding is irrelevant.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
Nope, I just said, the Le-Sage mechanism is equivalent to Cassimir force mechanism. It's you, who is talking about waveguides and their reflections, not me. If you see some problem with this mechanism for Cassimir force, just don't use it even for LeSage force.


OK, the whole Casimir topic is a red herring so let's be clear why. The Casimir force does not result from shielding, there is vacuum on both sides of the plates so if a continuous spectrum was allowed, the force would be the same on both sides and there would be no force. The effect arises because non-integral wavelengths are not permitted in the gap.

Because of that, the force rises rapidly as the gap is reduced. If you try to model it by shadowing, the gap size would be irrelevant (as long as it is much less than the width of the plates), but the thickness of the plate material would matter. In the Casimir effect, plate thickness is actually irrelevant as long as it is an adequate reflector.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
If you try to model it by shadowing, the gap size would be irrelevant
Not for mixture of waves of different wavelength, where small objects are shielded less, than the larger ones.


There are just two large parallel plates in the Casimir experiment. What would get through them would depend only on the properties of the plates themselves. There is a good article on the effect here:

http://en.wikiped...r_effect

Note the effect depends on the inverse fourth power of the plate separation while LeSage's model would be independent of the gap size.

Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
The Cassimir effect is illustrated with boats which are attracted mutually because they're shielding the waves between boats.


I may have found the article related to that. Ignore the animation at the top and scroll down to the picture of two ships:

http://www.byzipp...tion.htm

The text says: "If the secondary waves radiated by two ships are out of phase they will cancel, reducing the wave energy between the ships."

That is closer to the QM description but is not due to shielding and it is not a common description of the effect. It doesn't really tie up exactly. If you read the Wikipedia article, you will see the simplest calculation is based on a microwave cavity which has the same effect of only supporting discrete frequencies. That is the root cause:

http://en.wikiped...#Effects
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
plate thickness is actually irrelevant as long as it is an adequate reflectorr.
As you told above "the (Cassimir force) mechanism is not reflection, it is because only modes which have a whole number of wavelengths in the gap between the plates can exists, similar to a waveguide beyond cutoff".

So, why do you repeat the whole reflector stuff again?


Because I am answering the specific questions you ask. I'm assuming you are looking up other references to educate yourself on this stuff, these basics seem to be entirely new to you.

The mechanism behind the Casimir Effect is the elimination of all but discrete frequencies for standing waves between the plates. To create those, you need nodes at the cavity boundaries and those have the effect of reflecting the waves. The plates could actually be transparent as long as there is a discontinuity in the refractive index, the Casimir Effect has nothing to do with shielding or reflection of external waves.
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Casimir Effect has nothing to do with shielding or reflection of external waves
But do you realize, that shielding model is one of approximations for Cassimir force and force attracting boats? If you replace the plates with spheres, then you get the situation described with shielding model.
Cassimir force depends on the inverse fourth power of the plate separation while LeSage's model would be independent of the gap size
Cassimir force is five dimensional shielding force. Einstein's theory predicts no distance dependence in this case, because no gradient of space-time curvature should depend on the distance between such a plates, when boundary effects are neglected.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
[q.. do you realize, that shielding model is one of approximations for Cassimir force and force attracting boats?

It is not even a vague approximation. Think of two oil tankers each 200m long and 10m freeboard with a uniform gap of 2m between them. There may be waves outside but in the gap it will be dead calm. One can imagine the waves lapping at the vessels pushing them together, but the force of that is not going to change if the vessels close to 1m separation, it is entirely due to the external wave force with no opposition from the calm water between. It would be fair to describe that as an example of shielding.

The Casimir force on the other hand is highly dependent on the gap. If the separation between two plates is reduced from 2nm to 1nm, the force becomes 16 times stronger. That is nothing like the ship effect, shielding is not even a vague qualitative approximation to the Casimir Effect.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Einstein's theory predicts no distance dependence in this case, because no gradient of space-time curvature should depend on the distance between such a plates ..


GR predicts the usual gravitational effect, a very small attraction proportional to the mass of the plates which doubles when the gap is halved but would be too small to measure in a practical experiment. Other than the obvious heating, drag and other problems, LeSage's model could explain that force.

The Casimir Effect is additional to the gravitational attraction, it increases by a factor 16 if the gap halves and is independent of the mass of the plates (which determines the degree of shielding in LeSage) which is exactly the opposite of what LeSage's model predicts.

when boundary effects are neglected.


It is a pure boundary effect (similar to the behaviour of a microwave cavity) predicted to within a few percent by QM and completely unrelated to GR.
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Cassimir effect is an example of the shielding in five dimensions and as such it's indeed dependent on the gap width. The Cassimir force between pair of plates is indirectly proportional to the fourth power of distance, so it's fifth dimensional force (actually six-dimensional at the case of Cassimir force between spheres, where it's indirectly proportional to fifth power of distance). It's manifestation of six-dimensional supergravity.
Casimir Effect is independent of the mass of the plates
Of course, because it includes the shielding of photons, not gravitons. The photons aren't absorbed with all structures of matter in the same way.
It is a pure boundary effect
Which is typical for higher-dimensional shielding. You can imagine like the shielding of materials with microwaves of decreasing wavelength - at the very end only surface will participate to shielding effect.
Satene
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
BTW The six dimensional supergravity was predicted with string theorists (SUGRA 1, 2) a long time ago - it just wasn't recognized as a Cassimir force, because the string theorists don't understand their own theory and extradimensions in many extents. The shielding model is consistent with explanation of gravity with projective hyperfields of holographic model of Verlinde and others.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Cassimir effect is an example of the shielding in five dimensions and as such it's indeed dependent on the gap width.


Nope, think about the oil tanker analogy. Shielding would produce a force which would be constant for small separations. It doesn't matter how many dimensions there are, if separation in each one has no effect then there is no effect at all.

As I said before it is blatantly obvious that the behaviour of the Casimir Effect bears no resemblance to that predicted by a shielding model.
Satene
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2012
Shielding would produce a force which would be constant for small separations.
In the same way, like the gravity. BTW Tankers are attracted with considerable forces, and they're still don't evaporate during this. Why the shielding of gravitational waves should lead into heating of massive bodies after then?
..It doesn't matter how many dimensions there are..
It actually does, just the scope of linear dependence of Casimir force at distance is way smaller than experimental limit. From microscopic perspective every Casimir plate is composed of isolated atoms, which are roughly spherical. So at the proximity the Casimir force between plates becomes a Casimir effect between spheres again and the dimensionality of this force would increase. So I don't think, the Casimir force would remain the very same even at the smallest distances.
Satene
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2012
Whole the discussion has started just with problem, why the Le-Sage force should lead into heating of massive objects, when tankers or Cassimir plates aren't heated under action of waves or virtual photons, if the "heat delivered to an object is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles".

IMO it doesn't matter, if you consider a Cassimir plates as a result of "plain shielding in extradimensions" or as a result of "missing of some wave modes" shielded (these modes are missing just because of shielding action of Cassimir plates). But despite the actual mechanism the exerted momentum and speed of virtual photons remains very same and your formula doesn't care about origin of momentum exerted. So it should lead into the same heating of both tankers, both Cassimir plates, if your objection regarding Le-Sage heating is relevant.

And this is was my actual point in this discussion.
Satene
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2012
Note that tankers aren't heated significantly when they're absorbing surface ripples, because these waves shielded are actually getting scattered with environment into form of myriads minute thermal vibrations of water. The transverse waves of environment are converted into longitudinal waves spreading in extradimensions during this. IMO the very same explanation can be applied even to gravitational shielding of much smaller waves in vacuum - the remaining vibrations are detectable as so called quantum noise and no physics is violated during this - as I explained already at the beginning of this discussion.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Shielding would produce a force which would be constant for small separations.

In the same way, like the gravity.


Nope, gravity is inverse square, try again.
Fleetfoot
4.8 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2012
Why the shielding of gravitational waves should lead into heating of massive bodies after then?


You appear to be switching back to thinking about LeSage's gravity again? Over the last several posts, you got hopelessly confused between that and the Casimir Effect so I recommend you just try to understand one at a time.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2012
..It doesn't matter how many dimensions there are..
It actually does, just the scope of linear dependence of Casimir force at distance is way smaller than experimental limit.


Nope, the region is comparable to the width of the plates. In the experiments, a constant force should have been seen but instead theyconfirmed the QM prediction to a few percent. A shielding-based explanation cannot reproduce the effect even at a crude qualitative level. That should be obvious even to you.
Satene
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2012
(F:)Shielding would produce a force which would be constant for small separations. (S:)In the same way, like the gravity. (F:)Nope, gravity is inverse square, try again.
In accordance to Newtonian law yes, but in general relativity not. In relativity the gravity is inverse square force for massive spheres, but not for very large massive parallel plates, which you're probably considering here, because the space-time curvature between sheets would converge to zero here. Actually for very small separations the gravity should get even negative, but we aren't so far enough with quantum gravity theory).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
IMO it doesn't matter, if you consider a Cassimir plates as a result of "plain shielding in extradimensions" or as a result of "missing of some wave modes" shielded (these modes are missing just because of shielding action of Cassimir plates).


Nope, they are not permitted because where reflection occurs, there has to be a node in the resulting standing wave so only frequencies that exactly fit a whole number of (half) wavelengths can exist in the gap.

And this is was my actual point in this discussion.


I understand your claim, but since you don't understand either the Casimir Effect or LeSage's gravity and you image they are related when they aren't, your point is based on fallacies at every point. All I can do is try to educate you on each, one at a time.

The whole Casimir effect discussion is actually irrelevant, a simple mirror is not heated by the Sun for example, but you insist on pretending to be knowledgeable when you in fact know nothing about the topics.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
Note that tankers aren't heated significantly when they're absorbing surface ripples, because these waves shielded are actually getting scattered with environment into form of myriads minute thermal vibrations of water.


The ripples aren't absorbed or scattered or turned in to "thermal vibrations", they are simply reflected back just like light from a mirror.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
(F:)Shielding would produce a force which would be constant for small separations. (S:)In the same way, like the gravity. (F:)Nope, gravity is inverse square, try again.
In accordance to Newtonian law yes, but in general relativity not.


In the Casimir effect, we are taking about low speed and weak fields (masses are small) which is where the Newtonian approximation is most accurate.

In relativity the gravity is inverse square force for massive spheres, but not for very large massive parallel plates, which you're probably considering here, ..


The experiments are incredibly dificult and done with tiny plates in high vacuum. A plate 1mm square is still a million times bigger than the nanometre scale gap.

To find the effect of a flat plate, just calculate the volume integral if the inverse square attraction.

.. but we aren't so far enough with quantum gravity theory).


You can't cope with Newton or calculus yet, learn to walk before you try to run.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2012
..the ripples aren't absorbed or scattered or turned in to "thermal vibrations", they are simply reflected back just like light from a mirror...
Ideal mirror without scattering doesn't exist.


Indeed, 90% reflection is typical for aluminium with 10% absorbed, but I'm keeping it to discussing first order physics until you learn the basics. Similarly ripples reflected from a ship would lose a small amount of energy due to friction with the surface but these are secondary effects.

To exert a pressure in orders of Newton per square decimeter you should have very good mirror..


Just no absorbtion.

..if you don't want to heat it with heat which "is half the momentum delivered multiplied by the speed of the particles".


That refers to kinetic particles being entirely absorbed by the target wth no reflection at all. You still haven't grasped the basic operation of LeSage's model. As long as you confuse these different processes, you will remain clueless.
Satene
1 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
The ripples aren't absorbed or scattered or turned in to "thermal vibrations", they are simply reflected back just like light from a mirror. ...Just no absorbtion.
Do you agree, that application of your reflection model of Cassimir force (which you originally denied) would mean, you should neglect the heating of the same order, like the LeSage model with "ideal reflection" (in the range of gigawatts per square centimeter)? This is physically nonrealistic.
There would be a downward pressure on the surface of a plate but an object above the surface would not be attracted to it. It disproves the reflection of virtual photons between Cassimir plates. Correct. As I said, the mechanism is not reflection
So that the Cassimir force mechanism is excluding some wave modes between plates, but with no absorption, reflection or shielding... We are doing progress, don't you think?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012
So that the Cassimir force mechanism is excluding some wave modes between plates, but with no absorption, reflection or shielding... We are doing progress, don't you think?


The boundaries of the gap create nodes which constrain the wavelengths of the allowed modes, you can think of that as reflection at the surfaces creating standing waves. If you follow that, yes, you are making progress on that topic.

Do you agree, that application of your reflection model of Cassimir force (which you originally denied) would mean, you should neglect the heating of the same order, like the LeSage model with "ideal reflection" ..


If you have ideal reflection, there is no heating, BUT there is also no shadowing hence no gravitational force. The Fatio/LeSage model only works if you assume absorption of a small fraction of the "ultramundane" particles, and absorption produces heating according to the equation I gave you. If you follow that, yes, you are making progress.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2012
If you have ideal reflection, there is no heating
There is no reason to assume, that Cassimir plates are forming ideal reflectors. Even the most ideal superconductors don't reflect more than 99,9% of incoming radiation. In addition, many material shield virtual photons poorly, so they don't exhibit Cassimir force. It's rather strange to consider, such a poor absorber would be ideal reflector at the same moment. A much more realistic assumption would be, that the energy reflected is actually scattered into outside.
Fatio/LeSage model only works if you assume absorption of a small fraction of the ultramundane" particles and absorption produces heating according to the equation I gave you
If it doesn't produce heating in Cassimir force, then I don't see any reason, why to consider this effect at the case of Le-Sage force.
there is also no shadowing hence no gravitational force
Cassimir force is always followed with shadowing, because the wave modes are shielded with plates
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2012
Sadly, it appears you made no progress after all, we are back to square one.

Fatio/LeSage model only works if you assume absorption of a small fraction of the ultramundane" particles and absorption produces heating according to the equation I gave you
If it doesn't produce heating in Cassimir force then I don't see ..


There are no external particles being absorbed by the plates in the Casimir effect, it is a QM boundary effect in the gap that creates the force and the process bears no resemblance to LeSage's model whatsoever.

Real particles with finite mass travelling at high speed (which is the core of LeSage's model) will produce heat if they reflect off a surface or pass through a body, but will deposit heat if they are absorbed. Fatio and LeSage both realised that the particles had to be absorbed (not all but some) in order to create the effect of gravity, if you still don't see it, try reading the pages I cited where it is explained more fully.
Satene
1 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2012
it is a QM boundary effect in the gap that creates the force
But how this effect is formed? It's formed with shielding of virtual photons with Casimir plates in similar way, like the LeSage shielding works with gravitational waves. This effect is connected with scattering of energy at both cases into outside, so no heating can be observed. Because the gravitational waves are superluminal, this effect just manifest itself at considerably larger distances. I know what Fatio and Le-Sage realized, I know what Maxwell assumed about aether theory. Their ideas and models had a rational core, they just weren't considered consequentially in accordance to physical reality of dense particle environment. In this environment the waves can spread in form of transverse and longitudinal waves and these guys always considered only one aspect in the same way, like you. With such approach it's not difficult to dismiss whatever theory you don't like.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2012
it is a QM boundary effect in the gap that creates the force
But how this effect is formed? It's formed with shielding of virtual photons


No it isn't. LeSage's particles hurtle across the universe at high speed so that a body that absorbs some creates a shadow. Virtual particles are actually only intermediate terms in the maths, they don't exist in the conventional sense and only have the potential to exist (which creates an effect in QM) for a duration comparable to the Planck time, hence they cannot last long enough to move any distance. The effect is due to the difference in density of the allowed modes, you might get a better picture if you thought of them as being static and appearing then dissapearing in a Planck time without moving.

As I have said many times, there is almost no resemblance between the effects at all, dicussing the Casimir effect is a complete red herring.
sanita
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2012
.. LeSage's particles hurtle across the universe at high speed so that a body that absorbs some creates a shadow..
In Le-Sage theory these particles are "ultramundanne" and as such they're effectively a tachyons. The impact of such particles with negative or imaginary mass could cool the gravitational bodies instead. Note that the tachyons are behaving in similar way, like the virtual photons described with you: they're appearing and disappearing fast without actually moving. IMO they're corresponding the well known CMBR noise.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
.. LeSage's particles hurtle across the universe at high speed so that a body that absorbs some creates a shadow..
In Le-Sage theory these particles are "ultramundanne" and as such they're effectively a tachyons. ..


In LeSage's model, Galilean relativity applies which is the limit as 'c' goes to infinity. "Tachyons" are hypothetical particles which would move at a speed greater than the constant c, not faster than light. Bear in mind Cerenkov Radiation is created by ordinary particles moving slower than c but faster than light, it is seen as the blue glow in water surrounding reactors. If c is infinite, particles couldn't move faster than that so 'tachyon' loses any meaning in Galilean Relativity. Ordinary Newtonian mechanics would apply at all speeds.
sanita
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
Ordinary Newtonian mechanics would apply at all speeds.
I'm not sure if the proponents of the "correct physics" realize well, that every theory, which explains some older theory MUST violate this old theory in certain (if not all) aspects. Therefore the theory, which could explain Newtonian gravity cannot be Newtonian anymore.
"Tachyons" are hypothetical particles which would move..
I know about it quite well, but without tachyons the LeSage theory simply cannot work. I've no problem with assumption of tachyon existence, because the CMBR noise, which is all around us exhibits all signs of tachyon field. Yes, it's composed "of photons", but these photons have no apparent origin. They correspond the Brownian noise, which we could see at the flat water surface and which is manifestation of underwater sound waves. These waves are faster, than the surface ripples, so they cannot be seen directly (in this point they fullfill the relativity), but they can still manifest as a noise
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
Ordinary Newtonian mechanics would apply at all speeds.
I'm not sure if the proponents of the "correct physics" realize well, that every theory, which explains some older theory MUST violate this old theory in certain (if not all) aspects. Therefore the theory, which could explain Newtonian gravity cannot be Newtonian anymore.


LeSage's MODEL isn't a theory, it is an application of Newton's theory.
sanita
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
Newton's theory doesn't explain the origin of gravity in similar way, like the relativity doesn't explain the origin of space-time curvature around massive bodies. To explain relativity you would need a theory, which extends the relativity in some aspects and as such it provides different predictions in various aspects, in which relativity doesn't agree with observations today. Alternatively, the gravity is explained with holographic model (Verlinde), which would require the tachyons as well for being able to work. I can understand, that mainstream physicists don't like the tachyons, because they appear to violate the relativity, but we have many phenomena unexplained yet. The tachyons play well with concept of extradimensions of our space-time, which could be modelled with water surface. You couldn't observe the underwater directly with the surface transverse waves, but it would still exist there. It would manifest with strange noise, which we are observing as a CMBR noise by now.
sanita
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
LeSage's MODEL isn't a theory
If the Le-Sage theory of gravity isn't a theory, then the Verlinde's theory of gravity is just a model too. The purpose of both theories is to provide the explanation for experimentally supported but ad-hoced Newton's gravitational law. Actually Newton believed originally, that the gravitational force is indirectly proportional to the distance, not square of distance. Just the theory of his ingenious friend Fatio deDuillier has convinced him in the equation, which was proposed with Robert Hooke, which Newton opposed wildly and which holds Newton's name by now. Newton was just a troll regarding physical stuffs: he was good mathematician, but he wasn't so clever, as is generally believed by now. He was a predecessor of contemporary formal approach to physics.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
"Tachyons" are hypothetical particles which would move..
I know about it quite well, ..


Aparently not, you snipped the part of the sentence that matters, it should read:

"Tachyons" are hypothetical particles which would move at a speed greater than the constant c ..


but without tachyons the LeSage theory simply cannot work.


As I said, there is no such concept as a tachyon in the absence of c as an upper speed limit. The model of very small ordinary particles of matter moving much faster than light works fine as a cause of the force of gravity, as long as you don't assume perfect reflection. It is primarily the heat deposited that causes a problem. Fatio assumed reflection at a slightly reduced speed which is simialr to most being reflected and a fraction being absorbed. It avoids the problem of accumulating mass but doubles the heat deposited. However you mix-and-match though, the heating remains proportional to the force and mean speed.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
LeSage's MODEL isn't a theory
If the Le-Sage theory of gravity isn't a theory, then the Verlinde's theory of gravity is just a model too. ...


Right, if you look at the Wiki page it says

"It appears that Verlinde's approach to explaining gravity leads naturally to the correct observed strength of dark energy."

They call it "Verlinde's approach". The nearest thing to a mention of a theory on that page is where they say "The Verlinde formula, which is important in conformal field theory .."

http://en.wikiped...Verlinde

Newton was just a troll ..


The only troll here is you.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
The model of very small ordinary particles of matter moving much faster than light works fine as a cause of the force of gravity, as long as you don't assume perfect reflection.
Or scattering of excessive energy into its environment, which is physically way more realistic assumption, than everything "perfect".
..However you mix-and-match though, the heating remains proportional to the force and mean speed...
The Cassimir force model doesn't suffer with reflection artifacts, neither with heating. And it's based on shielding, no matter how do you want to (des)interpret the "elimination" of certain wave modes of virtual photons between plates.
They call it "Verlinde's approach".
And so? It's called a "theory" atanother place of Wiki and many other places of the web.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
Newton's theory doesn't explain the origin of gravity in similar way, ..


Right, it is called a law because it was empirical. The cause is conventionally described as "instantaneous action at a distance" but Newton never really believed in that.

like the relativity doesn't explain the origin of space-time curvature around massive bodies.


Indeed, all theories need some starting point, curvature of the geometry of spacetime is that for GR.

To explain relativity you would need a theory, which extends the relativity in some aspects and as such it provides different predictions in various aspects, in which relativity doesn't agree with observations today.


No, that would be a new theory which would replace GR and GR would then become an 'emergent' simplification, just as the Schwarzschild Metric explained Newton's approximation.

.. gravity is explained with .. (Verlinde), ..


Perhaps but are many questions over it's predictions for neutrons, time will tell.
sanita
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
Perhaps but are many questions over it's predictions for neutrons, time will tell.
The Verlinde's entropic theory is similar to Le-Sage theory in many aspects, for example just in the point, the Le-Sage shielding doesn't account to quantum phenomena (the entropy has a geometric interpretation only for particle gas). Or better to say, it doesn't account if you consider the shielding (and bouncing) of particles, but not gravitational solitons or wave packets. And while the derivation of inverse square law requires many assumptions in Verlinde's theory, in Le-Sage model it's fairly trivial. Le-Sage model is still powerful enough for being able extended for explanation of composite forces (supergravity) and dark matter. But we should keep on mind, it's hyperdimensional model: the gravity in 3D is just one of low-dimensional approximations of it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
Perhaps but are many questions over it's predictions for neutrons, time will tell.
The Verlinde's entropic theory is similar to Le-Sage theory in many aspects, for example just in the point, the Le-Sage shielding doesn't account to quantum phenomena ..


ROFL, neither of them tells you who will win the SuperBowl next year either, but that's hardly a point of commonality, you really are scraping the barrel now.

Fatio's model was an ingenious attempt to explain Newton's Law of gravitation using very small, very fast particles of ordinary matter two centuries before Galilean relativity was ever questioned, nothing more. It fails miserably due to drag and/or heating (depending on your presumed mean speed), that's the bottom line.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
The model of very small ordinary particles of mattermoving much faster than light works fine as a cause of the force of gravity, as long as you don't assume perfect reflection.
Or scattering of excessive energy into its environment, which is physically way more realistic assumption, than everything "perfect".


You still fail to grasp the basics, if the reflection was perfect in LeSage, there would be no force, Fatio knew that so assumed the reflection was imperfect. That imperfection deposits heat into the matter being hit and it could then re-radiate it as thermal radiation only if the temperature were high enough.

..However you mix-and-match though, the heating remains proportional to the force and mean speed...


The Cassimir force model doesn't suffer with reflection artifacts, neither with heating.


That's because it doesn't imagine the force is caused by particles of matter hitting the plates (which wouldn't produce the inverse fourth power law).
sanita
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
Fatio's model..fails miserably due to drag and/or heating, that's the bottom line.
IMO we shouldn't throw the child with bath water here - the full potential of shielding mechanism wasn't analyzed yet - it may lead to way more complex forces and interactions, than just inverse square law. Your understanding of shielding in both Le-Sage, both Cassimir force models is very schematic: just full reflection or full absorption, nothing inbetween. You're considering the particles or waves, nothing inbetween, and so on. If you don't want to accept the physically realistic model, I've no motivation to force you in doing so.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
IMO we shouldn't throw the child with bath water here - the full potential of shielding mechanism wasn't analyzed yet ...


The way it works then is that YOU do the analysis, have it peer reviewed and then publish.

Your understanding of shielding in both Le-Sage, both Cassimir force models is very schematic: just full reflection or full absorption, nothing inbetween.


Fatio assumed reflection at reduced speed. If a particle arrives with velocity V and loses dV on reflection, the momentum imparted is:

dP = m dV

and the energy is:

dE = 1/2 m [ V^2 - (V-dV)^2 ]

hence for dv << V

dE = V dP

or double the value for full absorption as I said a few posts back. I have already considered that possibility, you haven't.

If you don't want to accept the physically realistic model, I've no motivation to force you in doing so.


A model that says the temperature of matter Earth is rising at a billion degrees per second (at least) is not "physically realistic".
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
In my assumption the LeSage shielding force is the dual force to the pressure of radiation. To being able to counterfeit the gravity the massive objects would be required to be very hot and lose the energy with speed of billion degrees per second (which happens in quasars). When the speed of radiative cooling balances the speed of shielding heating, the quasi-stationary state is established. This assumption is indeed relevant for stationary bodies indeed - not objects which already rotate around center of gravity. The radiative energy of these objects corresponds their kinetic energy in such case.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
In my assumption the LeSage shielding force is the dual force to the pressure of radiation.


Nope, LeSage's model has particles only.

To being able to counterfeit the gravity the massive objects would be required to be very hot and lose the energy with speed of billion degrees per second .. When the speed of radiative cooling balances the speed of shielding heating, the quasi-stationary state is established.


Right, there would need to be equilibrium which means a constant temperature of billions of degrees, that is not realistic.

(which happens in quasars).


No it doesn't.

This assumption is indeed relevant for stationary bodies indeed - not objects which already rotate around center of gravity. The radiative energy of these objects corresponds their kinetic energy in such case.


The speed of the Earth's rotation is not increasing and there is no mechanism in Fatio's model to produce a torque.

At least you are starting to think about it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
LeSage's model has particles only
The gravitational waves can be shielded too and they do behave like the particles (they're essentially pieces of space-time curvature in the same way, like particles of matter). BTW Your formal problem with their kinetic energy could be solved in the way, if we realize, that their effective speed is very low - being a tachyons, they just appear and disappear from three dimensions, so they're effectively remain at place and their action takes a brief period of time only. The same interpretation would remain problem with their drag in Feynman's analysis (some residual drag is already known as Lense-Thirring drag).
The speed of the Earth's rotation is not increasing
It's the rotational momentum, not its derivation, which counterfeits the gravitational acceleration.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 11, 2012
LeSage's model has particles only
The gravitational waves can be shielded too


No they can't, they pass through everything. More to the point, they can't exist in Fatio's model.

BTW Your formal problem with their kinetic energy could be solved in the way, if we realize, that their effective speed is very low - being a tachyons


Nope, the word tachyon has no meaning in Fatio's model as it had to be based on Galilean relativity as I have explained repeatedly, think about it.

The speed of the Earth's rotation is not increasing
It's the rotational momentum, not its derivation, which counterfeits the gravitational acceleration.


Fatio's model creates a constant flow of energy into the body so it would need a constant rate of increase of rotation to absorb that. Fatio tried that but it has its own problems.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2012
No they can't, they pass through everything.
If they would, we couldn't detect them as a CMBR noise...
..they can't exist in Fatio's model...
Why not? They're superluminal, they perfectly fit the Fatio definition of "ultramundane particles", i.e. particle from extradimensions or parallel Universe. I'm pretty sure, Mr. Fatio would be an expert to topological string theory, extradimensions, multiverse and holographic noise today.. He managed to guess all these stuffs... But he was actually just a consequential aetherist.. BTW Fatio was first who proposed the foamy structure of space-time and atoms from packed sphere geometry. He was amazing guy, if we consider, he lived before more than four hundred years - and with compare to Newton, he's still completely unknown in wider society.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
No they can't, they pass through everything.
If they would, we couldn't detect them as a CMBR noise...


Don't be silly, the "M" in CMBR means "microwave", not "gravity".

..they can't exist in Fatio's model...
Why not?


Because gravitational waves are quadrupole and transverse. Fatio's ultramundane particle cannot interact with each other or collisions between them would loose speed. They act like a gas and as we have discussed a gas cannot support transverse waves.

They're superluminal


Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light.

The rest of your post makes no sense.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
Gravitational waves are ASSUMED to travel at the speed of light. The speed of GWs doesn't follow from any mainstream theory. And whole existence of harmonic GW's is a product of simplification of Einstein's field equations with introduction of Einstein's pseudo-tensor, which enables to solve them in explicit way. But - as Eddington pointed out already before many years - gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed of alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation and such waves would propagate like noise (actually a CMBR noise). It's actually quite simple to understand - in flat space-time you've no both reference frame, both gravitational wave. The gravitational wave therefore serves as a reference frame for itself, the speed of GW's is singular concept in general relativity. These things are known for sixty years already (H. Weyl 1944).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2012
Gravitational waves travel at the speed of light
Gravitational waves are ASSUMED to travel at the speed of light. The speed of GWs doesn't follow from any mainstream theory.


They are a solution of GR.

But - as Eddington pointed out already before many years ..


He was wrong, that was resolved decades ago.

A different set of coordinates yields a different speed of propagation


If a wave travels at c in one frame, it travels at c in all frames.

and such waves would propagate like noise


"Noise" is just a broad, flat spectrum of waves.

It's actually quite simple to understand - in flat space-time you've no both reference frame, both gravitational wave.


LIGO is trying to detect them, they would move at c relative to LIGO.

Citing mistakes made 60 years ago when people were first trying to understand the implications of GR is only emphasising that you know nothing of the subject.

Of course none of this relates to Fatio's model ;-)
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2012
He was wrong, that was resolved decades ago.
Where and how (a link, plz)?
LIGO is trying to detect them, they would move at c relative to LIGO
LIGO didn't find nothing, but it still generated tons of article pages. Whereas the Universe is full of CMBR noise...
"Noise" is just a broad, flat spectrum of waves.
But GWs detectors are looking for harmonic waves in acoustic range.
none of this relates to Fatio's model
deDuillier's model considers "ultramundanne particles", the definition of which the gravitational waves fulfill very well (they spreading in extradimensions or in "parallel Universe").
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2012
LIGO is trying to detect them, they would move at c relative to LIGO
LIGO didn't find [anything].


.. yet. Irrelevant, the equipment defines the reference frame.

Whereas the Universe is full of CMBR noise...
"Noise" is just a broad, flat spectrum of waves.
But GWs detectors are looking for harmonic waves in acoustic range.


No, it is sensitive across a couple of decades, it will see any waves in that range, but there are no sources at a detectable level that would have a noise-like spectrum.

http://blogs.disc...e-waves/

none of this relates to Fatio's model
deDuillier's model considers "ultramundanne particles", the definition of which the gravitational waves fulfill very well ..


You are badly confused, gravitational waves wouldn't be Fatio's particles themselves, they would be large-scale aggregate motions propagating through his flux of matter particles, a bit like sound through air.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2012
gravitational waves wouldn't be Fatio's particles themselves, they would be large-scale aggregate motions
Because they're spreading in extradimensions, they're manifesting just with noise in our space-time in similar way, like underwater sound waves at the water surface. You can check the appearance of some underwater nuclear explosions to understand, what I mean. It means, the gravitational waves from binary pulsars wouldn't manifest with harmonic waves, but with periodic changes of CMBR noise intensity.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2012
gravitational waves wouldn't be Fatio's particles themselves, they would be large-scale aggregate motions
Because they're spreading in extradimensions,..


No, don't be silly, do you think sound in air is "spreading in extradimensions". Fatio's particles were simple matter, nothing more fancy.

It means, the gravitational waves from binary pulsars wouldn't manifest with harmonic waves, but with periodic changes of CMBR noise intensity.


Try to get it into your head that the CMBR is electromagnetic waves, not gravity. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2012
..do you think sound in air is "spreading in extradimensions". Fatio's particles were simple matter, nothing more fancy.
You cannot know, how "ultramundanne particles" should behave.
the CMBR is electromagnetic waves, not gravity
Every photons is a piece of space-time curvature as well, in this sense it's a graviton too. In EinsteinMaxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field. In this sense every graviton will behave like the photon, too. It's easy to imagine with water surface model of space-time, again: If you will spread the sound waves trough underwater, some minute vibrations will appear at the water surface, too. And vice-versa: the spreading of surface ripples is followed with generation of some sound waves trough underwater. I'm not silly, I'm thinking strictly physically.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2012
Fatio's particles were simple matter, nothing more fancy.
You cannot know, how "ultramundanne particles" should behave.


You could find out by reading what Fatio wrote.

the CMBR is electromagnetic waves, not gravity
Every photons is a piece of space-time curvature as well ... In Einstein-Maxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field.


In the summary they say:

"However, the factor of proportionality (of the order of G/c^5) is very small. The two power outputs are comparable only when energy is radiated at the rate of around 10^52W"

In this sense every graviton will behave like the photon, too.


Photons are spin 1 and interact with charge, gravitons are spin 2 and don't, their behaviour is quite different.

I'm not silly, I'm thinking strictly physically.


ROFL, you don't seem to know the difference between a graviton and a gravitational wave either.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2012
Graviton is a soliton of gravitational wave in similar way, like the photon is a soliton of light wave. Note that the photons are behaving in similar way like the gravitons in this extent: they're not moving continuously trough space, they disappear and re-appear irregularly due the quantum decoherence and they're doing a "jumps" trough space during this.
Fleetfoot
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2012
Graviton is a soliton of gravitational wave in similar way, like the photon is a soliton of light wave.


Exactly, just as quantised amounts of energy in a sound wave are not the same as the molecules that form air, they are not the particles of matter in Fatio's model. You have previously been confusing the two.

Note that the photons are behaving in similar way like the gravitons in this extent: they're not moving continuously trough space, they disappear and re-appear irregularly due the quantum decoherence and they're doing a "jumps" trough space during this.


Rubbish, decoherence is a mechanism which is roughly equivalent to "collapse of the wavefunction" in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Stick to trying to learn the basic stuff, the more advanced topics are all built on those simpler foundations.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2012
just as quantised amounts of energy in a sound wave are not the same as the molecules that form air, they are not the particles of matter in Fatio's model
All particles are solitons of bosons.
decoherence is a mechanism which is roughly equivalent to "collapse of the wavefunction" in the Copenhagen Interpretation
And it's the collapse (decay) of photon soliton too, i.e. an analogy of quantum oscillations of neutrinos.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2012
just as quantised amounts of energy in a sound wave are not the same as the molecules that form air, they are not the particles of matter in Fatio's model
All particles are solitons of bosons.


No, that would be macroscopic waves.

decoherence is a mechanism which is roughly equivalent to "collapse of the wavefunction" in the Copenhagen Interpretation
And it's the collapse (decay) of photon soliton too, i.e. an analogy of quantum oscillations of neutrinos.


No, nothing like either of those.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2012
Graviton is a soliton of gravitational wave in similar way, like the photon is a soliton of light wave.


Exactly, just as quantised amounts of energy in a sound wave are not the same as the molecules that form air, they are not the particles of matter in Fatio's model.


I should have pointed out they are "quanta", not "solitons", the latter are macroscopic waves, but your analogy is reasonable despite the error in the jargon.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2012
Particles aren't "quanta" but a solitons, which can get into many different quantized energetic states. This behaviour is the most apparent, the more the particles are distant from electron energy density scale.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2012
Particles aren't "quanta" but a solitons ...


No, solitons are specific wave structures composed of large numbers of particles, there's a photograph of one here:

http://en.wikiped.../Soliton

You may be thinking of "phonons" which are the sound equivalent of photons:

http://en.wikiped...i/Phonon

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2012
Nope, I don't think so... Soliton is general class of wave packets, including the quantum wave packets, which are quantized in mass/energy.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2012
Nope, I don't think so... Soliton is general class of wave packets, including the quantum wave packets, which are quantized in mass/energy.


Nope, it is a transient waveform which doesn't disperse because, for it's particular shape, the non-linear effects cancels dispersive effects. It is a single cycle (or a short burst of cycles with a stable envelope) so must have a finite spectral width, and hence cannot be a single wave packet.

Bear in mind that a photon for example has a specific energy hence one specific frequency, it can only be a pure sine wave.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
I've no problem with it. Quantum soliton (a "single wave" packet) is special case of classical solitons (i.e. "multiple wave" packets).
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
I've no problem with it. Quantum soliton (a "single wave" packet) is special case of classical solitons (i.e. "multiple wave" packets).


Nope, a soliton is a phase-related group of waves. This stuff is a bit beyond your understanding at the moment, you need to learn how to use a Fourier transform and what it means before this will make sense to you.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
Nope, a soliton is a phase-related group of waves.
I've no problem with it. Quantum soliton (a "single wave" packet) is special case of classical solitons (i.e. "multiple phase-related wave" packets).
This stuff is a bit beyond your understanding at the moment
My understanding of this stuff is best of all people in this moment. Quantum wave packet is a soliton of elastic environment, the mass density of which corresponds just the (potential kinetic) energy density of wave in each time and space interval. This condition will collapse all multiple phase conjugated waves into single wave and you get a single wave quantum soliton.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
If you want to play with quantum soliton, you can check the DHTML applet here (MS IE supported only). The top blue line is a sum of kinetic and potential energy densities in each space element of string, i.e. the probability distribution of Hamiltonian, the bottom red line is quantum wave function.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
BTW note that the quantum solitons are dispersive by their very definition - they cannot propagate at distance. So, if we observe the arrival of some photon travelling across the whole universe, we can be sure, it's not the original photon. Such a photon was scattered and restored many times due the quantum decoherence, as I explained before few comments already (it's actually quantum gravity effect, as the quantum mechanics cannot predict the spontaneous restoration of any quantum object from vacuum). Actually, the photons must be massive just because of quantum mechanics and scattering which this theory predicts - if they would be massless, they could propagate at infinite distance without change. Only massless particles can mediate the forces of infinite range.
Satene
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
In general relativity the photon must be massless or it would require an infinite energy for its spreading with speed of light. But in quantum mechanics no quantum wave can survive without gradual scattering, so that the photons cannot mediate force at infinite distance - so that the photons must be massive like every other quantum particle. The spicy point is, the quantum mechanics cannot describe the gravity too - so it violates the equivalence principle at the same moment: it predicts antigravity and gradual scattering even for massive particles (those, which cannot mediate the forces at infinite distance).

Could you explain these paradoxes? At least you can understand, why I'm downovoted with proponents of mainstream physics religion obstinately. They cannot swallow the fact, their adored theories are logically inconsistent even at the case of quite trivial and fundamental concepts.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
Nope, a soliton is a phase-related group of waves.
I've no problem with it. Quantum soliton (a "single wave" packet) is special case of classical solitons (i.e. "multiple phase-related wave" packets).


There is no such thing as a "quantum soliton". Making up rubbish terms is meaningless, the words have to encapsulate a valid concept and "soliton" means a waveform which has a broad spectrum and consequently cannot be a single quantum entity.

This stuff is a bit beyond your understanding at the moment
My understanding of this stuff is best of all people in this moment.


ROFLMAO, it is obvious to everyone that you haven't a clue!!!

This condition will collapse all multiple phase conjugated waves into single wave and you get a single wave quantum soliton.


No clueless, you would be left with a pure sine wave :-)

Seriously, learn what a Fourier transform is and stop making a fool of yourself.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2012
If you want to play with quantum soliton, you can check the http://www.aether...ave1.htm here (MS IE supported only).


Nope, apply a single cycle, something like a raised cosine, and it dies away as it moves. A soliton propagates with constant shape and no energy loss.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
BTW note that the quantum solitons are dispersive by their very definition - they cannot propagate at distance.


Wrong, solitons are defined as macroscopic structures which propagate WITHOUT dispersion.

So, if we observe the arrival of some photon travelling across the whole universe, we can be sure, it's not the original photon. Such a photon was scattered and restored many times due the quantum decoherence, as I explained before few comments already


Decoherence is the name we give to part of the process when the photon is detected, it happens only once at the point where the photon is absorbed. You haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
In general relativity the photon must be massless or it would require an infinite energy for its spreading with speed of light.


More accurately, like neutrinos, if photons had mass, light wouldn't travel at speed 'c'.

But in quantum mechanics no quantum wave can survive without gradual scattering, so that the photons cannot mediate force at infinite distance - so that the photons must be massive like every other quantum particle.


Nope, they're massless in QM too which is why QED works so well.

Could you explain these paradoxes?


Easily, most of what you claim is completely the opposite of what the science actual says, you know virtually nothing of the subjects in question.

At least you can understand, why I'm downovoted with proponents of mainstream physics religion obstinately. ...


There are few physicists here, you are downvoted because even amateurs know the rubbish you write is gross misinformation.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 17, 2012
A soliton propagates with constant shape and no energy loss
Such a solitons are rare due the omnipresent scattering. You're living in world of Platonic ideals, not realistic physics.
Decoherence ..happens only once at the point where the photon is absorbed
Apparently the physicists should still learn a lot. They're living in the world of their misconceptions and misunderstanding of reality. This is how the light wave propagates in form of photons.
if photons had mass, light wouldn't travel at speed 'c'
If photon wouldn't have mass, it wouldn't be affected with gravity. You must violate the Lorentz invariance of equivalence principle, special or general relativity. Make your choice.
most of what you claim is completely the opposite of what the science actual says
I'm demonstrating these paradoxes just with citation of mainstream physics theorems.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2012
A soliton propagates with constant shape and no energy loss
Such a solitons are rare due the omnipresent scattering. You're living in world of Platonic ideals, not realistic physics.


ROFL, this site will give you times when you can go and see some:

http://www.severn-bore.co.uk/

The solitons are the un-breaking ripples that follow the main wavefront.

Here is a photograph of three atmospheric solitons:

http://en.wikiped...lane.jpg

most of what you claim is completely the opposite of what the science actual says
I'm demonstrating these paradoxes just with citation of mainstream physics theorems.


No, you are only demonstrating your complete lack of understanding of mainstream physics even at the level of basic Newtonian mechanics that most people learn before their teens.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2012
if photons had mass, light wouldn't travel at speed 'c'
If photon wouldn't have mass, it wouldn't be affected with gravity.


Wrong again, it follows a null geodesic in spacetime. You are probably thinking in Newtonian terms of gravity being a force that affects mass, but you are still wrong because Newton's model produces a uniform acceleration independent of mass. You learn about Galileo's thought experiment, actually performed on the Moon:

http://en.wikiped...periment

You must violate the Lorentz invariance of equivalence principle, special or general relativity. Make your choice.


Nope, the standard model of the photon as massless is entirely consistent with both SR and GR, the former gives us QED while the latter gives the equations that predict gravitational lensing and the Einstein Cross:

http://apod.nasa....311.html
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2012
the standard model of the photon as massless is entirely consistent with both SR and GR, the former gives us QED while the latter gives the equations that predict gravitational lensing and the Einstein Cross..
I'm pretty sure, Einstein didn't bother with zero mass of photon at all, because the existence of photons was accepted ten years after the gravitational lensing was predicted (Lewis, Compton 1927).. You're confusing light wave and light photons all the time. Light wave has no mass, because it has no shape and size, whereas the photon has a mass, being spatially constrained artifact. The above paradoxes can be explained quite easily just with consideration of soliton concept and its behavior.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2012
I'm pretty sure, Einstein didn't bother with zero mass of photon at all, because the existence of photons was accepted ten years after the gravitational lensing was predicted (Lewis, Compton 1927)..


Einstein demonstrated the existence of photons in 1905 via the photoelectric effect though it was some time before his interpretation was accepted. It was for that work that he was awarded the Nobel in 1921.

You're confusing light wave and light photons all the time.


No, we haven't discussed macroscopic EM waves at all.

.. the photon has a mass, being spatially constrained artifact.


A non-zero mass for a photon would cause a deviation from an inverse square for Coulomb's Law but none has been found. That Law was checked in 1785 by Cavendish and his measurements result in a maximum mass for the photon of around 10^-40g so the experimental results were there long before the interpretation.

http://en.wikiped...ton_mass
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 18, 2012
You still didn't understand the difference between wave and wave soliton (quantum wave packet). Because quantum wave packet is localized, it cannot have the same properties like the wave with respect of mass/energy equivalence principle. Because the energy density of photon is localized into small area, its mass is localized there too. If you require the zero net mass density for such artifact, then you must accept the fact, that the light is mixture of bright photons of positive mass and dark photons with negative mass. The bright photons with positive mass would move more slowly than the light wave and the dark photons will move faster than the speed of light. This of course leads into instability, which is known as a quantum decoherence: the bright photons decompose and they're replaced with dark photons and vice-versa. As a whole the rest mass of system remains zero, but the "whole" is very abstract concept here.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2012
You still didn't understand the difference between http://i47.tinypi...8202.gif (quantum wave packet).


The upper waveform is a single frequency, the lower is the sum of two sine waves of slightly different frequency. What you have illustrated is equivalent to the sodium doublet, not a classical wave packet. As I said before, you need to learn how to use a Fourier Transform.

The rest of your post is clueless nonsense, you need to learn the relativistic definition of mass to start. The mass of a single photon is precisely zero as far as we know and certainly experimentally confirmed as many orders of magnitude less than their typical energies.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2012
The point is, we never measured the mass of single photon, but the mixture of many photons. Anyway, the gravitational action of light is clearly visible at the case of gravitational lensing. The stars are losing matter with radiation of light - this matter indeed disappear nowhere, but it's radiated just in the form of photons, which are therefore massive - no matter what you're thinking about it. The massless photons would violate the mass/energy conservation law. BTW I do understand the Fourier transform - what it has to do with the topic?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
The point is, we never measured the mass of single photon, but the mixture of many photons.


Nor true, in the photoelectric effect every electron emitted is due to a single photon. That proof got Einstein the Nobel Prize.

Anyway, the gravitational action of light is clearly visible at the case of gravitational lensing.


That is not is dispute but as I pointed out before neither Newtonian gravity nor GR require a particle to have mass for gravitational lensing.

The stars are losing matter with radiation of light - this matter indeed disappear nowhere, but it's radiated just in the form of photons, which are therefore massive ... The massless photons would violate the mass/energy conservation law.


On the contrary, they are an example of it. Mass in the Sun is converted to energy in the form of photons. Tests of Coulomb's Law prove photons are massless to the limit of measurement.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
BTW I do understand the Fourier transform


Then apply it to your second waveform and see what you get, I shouldn't have had to correct you if you already know the answer.

what it has to do with the topic?


Good question, beats me. The topic was the failure due to heating of Fatio's attempt to explain Newton's Law of gravity. I have no idea why you think any of your discussion of photons is relevant.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
The point is, we never measured the mass of single photon, but the mixture of many photons.


Nor true, in the photoelectric effect every electron emitted is due to a single photon. That proof got Einstein the Nobel Prize.


Sorry, I misread your post. Indeed, the fact that all photons have zero mass is confirmed through Coulomb's Law. If they had mass, the force would reduce at faster than inverse square.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2012
Nor true, in the photoelectric effect every electron emitted is due to a single photon. That proof got Einstein the Nobel Prize.
This experiment has nothing to do with subluminal speed or mass of photon.
why you think any of your discussion of photons is relevant
No theorem of relativity is relevant for photon, because photon is quantum phenomena. The relativity cannot predict the existence of photons, therefore it cannot say anything about it ("No pain, no gain"). That's it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2012
what it has to do with the topic?

Good question, beats me. The topic was the failure due to heating of Fatio's attempt to explain Newton's Law of gravity. I have no idea why you think any of your discussion of photons is relevant

No theorem of relativity is relevant for photon, ...


I'll ask again, why do you imagine any discussion of photons (or relativity) is relevant to the heating problem of Fatio's gravitational model? His particles were high-speed matter, not light, and he wrote 200 years before Einstein so of course his model was based on Galilean relativity.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 19, 2012
Fatio's model of gravitational shielding is dual to pressure of radiation - it's the consequence of the pressure of ultramundanne particles (gravitons, i.e. solitons of longitudinal gravitational waves), which are superluminal and a such negative mass. Photon particles (solitons of transverse waves) are of positive mass in this duality and they result into the opposite force. The shielding of these gravitons around massive bodies creates a volume area of more dense vacuum around them, which is known as a gravitational field and it exhibits the gravitational lensing. The excess of photons manifest itself in similar way.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2012
Fatio's model of gravitational shielding is dual to pressure of radiation...


No, it was based on the impact of matter particles. Try again.
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
it was based on the impact of matter particles
Nope, the particles of matter cannot be "ultramundanne". Such a particles would be superluminal and they cannot exhibit the positive rest mass. The deDuillier's model was more insightful, than it may appear at the first look.

My approach is phenomenological: if some theory apparently works well (the deDuillier-LeSage theory predicts the inverse square law like any other theory), then we should struggle with explanation, why it works so well. The similar case exists for example with Heim's theory, which is ignored with mainstream physics for decades, although it's able to generate impressive predictions regarding the particle mass. If it's able to do it, then it must be something with such a theory! As Albert Einstein once said: "If the facts don't fit the theory, check the facts!". This stance apparently violates the Feyman's stance: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".
Satene
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
Because my life philosophy is based on balanced approach, I don't believe in omnipotent power of math, neither I don't believe in omnipotent power of experiments as well. Especially at the moment, when these experiments are based on interpretation of experimental results. So if deDuillier-LeSage theory works well at formal level, but it still doesn't agree with some experimental facts, we should take a look, if these "facts" aren't just a product of poor interpretation of this theory. IMO it's smart and wise approach - and sufficiently careful too in the sense of scientific scepticism. Never believe in anything: neither in theory, neither in the interpretation of seemingly apparent facts.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2012
it was based on the impact of matter particles
Nope, the particles of matter cannot be "ultramundanne". Such a particles would be superluminal and they cannot exhibit the positive rest mass.


Not true, radioactive particles in water produce Cerenkov radiation yet are still just ordinary matter. Fatio's matter particles would have done the same.

My approach is phenomenological: if some theory apparently works well ..


That's the problem though, Fatio's model predicts all objects in a gravitational field would be vapourised almost instantly, it doesn't work at all.

This stance apparently violates the Feyman's stance: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong".


Any theory is just an equation which should describe reality. If the equation and reality differ, the equation is wrong. Matter isn't vapourised by gravity so Fatio was wrong.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2012
Never believe in anything: neither in theory, neither in the interpretation of seemingly apparent facts.


A degree of scepticism is a good thing but I believe my body has not been vaporised while Fatio's model says it must have been, therefore Fatio was wrong.

If you wish to prove me wrong, feel free to explode immediately.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2012
Not true, radioactive particles in water produce Cerenkov radiation yet are still just ordinary matter. Fatio's matter particles would have done the same.
Only when they're charged - the gravitons considered in deDuillier model ("Fatio" is name of birth only) are indeed without charge.


You miss the point, the particles are ordinary matter with positive rest mass despite travelling faster than light.

Fatio's model predicts all objects in a gravitational field would be vapourised almost instantly, it doesn't work at all.
If the subluminal speed and positive rest mass was assumed, then yes.


No, the point regarding Cerenkov radiation is that ordinary particles of matter can travel faster than light.

But such a particles couldn't be "ultramundanne" after then.


"Ultra" means very fast, "mundane" means ordinary (i.e. normal matter), exactly what he described.
Fleetfoot
3 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
Come on, you're just inventing stuff at public. Is it really so difficult to make sure, what the "http://www.answer...mundane" word really means (extending or being beyond the world or the limits of the universe)?


"outside or beyond the earth or the orbits of the planets"

http://dictionary...amundane

We aren't using the theological definition. His particles were nothing more than ordinary matter.

The particles are ordinary matter with positive rest mass despite travelling faster than light
Such a particles are called a tachyons and they do propagate superluminally. They're of imaginary mass.


Nope, particles travelling faster than light are commonplace as I have pointed out several times, but they have ordinary positive mass. You would only get imaginary mass in Einstein's relativity, not the Galilean relativity of Fatio's time.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2012
particles travelling faster than light are commonplace as I have pointed out several times, but they have ordinary positive mass
I'm not here for silly discussion with you. The tachyons don't have positive mass, they've negative mass-square.


The refractive index of water (for example) is 1.333 or 4/3 so the speed of light through water is reduced to 2.25*10^8m/s. If a normal particle travels at say 2.5*10^8m/s through water, it can be said to be "superluminal" because it is moving faster than light but its mass remains positive real.

Imaginary mass would only occur if the speed exceeded 3*10^8, the value of the constant 'c', not the speed of light in a medium.

In Galilean Relativity that doesn't happen because Galilean Relativity is what you get if you set the value of 'c' to infinity, hence that speed can never be exceeded.

If you don't want a "silly discussion", try to learn something about the subject for once and stop talking complete rubbish.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
I don't see any connection of deDuillier model to Cherenkov radiation and the speed of light in water. IMO you're continuing in it only because you forget that the Cherenkov radiation applies to charged particles only. These particles aren't considered in deDuillier theory.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (3) Aug 20, 2012
I don't see any connection of deDuillier model to Cherenkov radiation and the speed of light in water. IMO you're continuing in it only because you forget that the Cherenkov radiation applies to charged particles only. These particles aren't considered in deDuillier theory.


The question of charge is irrelevant and Cerenkov Radiation is just an example.

You keep making the basic error of thinking that anything going faster than light (such as the particles in Fatio's model) gets imaginary mass.

You need to grasp that light can travel more slowly than c in transparent media. Particles don't have imaginary mass because they travel faster than light, only if they travel faster than c, and then only in Einstein's relativity. In Galilean relativity, mass remains positive and real at all speeds.

BTW, his name was Nicolas Faccio (or Fatio), the son of Jean Baptiste Faccio and Catherine Barbaud (or Basband). The "de Duillier" is because the family moved to Duillier in Switzerland.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2012
You keep making the basic error of thinking that anything going faster than light (such as the particles in Fatio's model) gets imaginary mass
In vacuum yes, why not? The Fatio's model applies to vacuum, not to some material environment.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2012
You keep making the basic error of thinking that anything going faster than light (such as the particles in Fatio's model) gets imaginary mass
In vacuum yes, why not? The Fatio's model applies to vacuum, not to some material environment.


Why not? Because Fatio's model was set in Galilean relativity in which the speed of light was 3*10^8m/s but the value of 'c' would be infinite. His particles moved faster than light but not faster than 'c' hence had normal positive mass. If you conflate the speed of light in general with the value of 'c', you lose that distinction which is why you keep getting it wrong.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2012
Your problem with heating in Fatio model doesn't depend on the speed of light and Fatio postulated clearly, his particles come from outside of this universe, so that they could move with higher speed than the light. The substantial point is, the particles of Fatio deDuillier are of imaginary mass, so they may induce both heating both cooling at the same moment.


Nope, he said they were isotropic throughout the universe but of course contained within it, but that is beside the point. It doesn't really matter where they come from though, in Galilean Relativity, there is no upper speed limit so supraluminal particles are not a problem and don't have imaginary mass. The mass of Fatio's particles was small but positive.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2012
I'm explaining how Fatio model works in accordance to contemporary physics. Fatio explained his model with reflection and scattering of particles with massive bodies.


OK, no problem there in principle. To do that, you need to translate his parameters from Galilean to Lorentzian invariance. His particles would then have miniscule (positive) mass, very low interaction cross-section and travel just below 'c' (but possibly above the speed of light depending on the local refractive index). Remember that 'c' plays the same role in modern theory that "infinite speed" played in Fatio's model.

They would in fact be very similar to neutrinos, the pressure and heating effects of which are significant in supernovae. Their ubiquitous nature would match the relic neutrinos from the era of nucleogenesis.

You have to be careful however to consider the effects of drag and aberration.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2012
IMO the neutrino don't participate to gravity effects so much, ...


You were considering what Fatio's gravity would be like in relativity. His model would be that gravity was the force applied by fast particles which barely interact with matter and have no charge. That description is similar to the behaviour of neutrinos. In other words, in his model something like neutrinos would be the cause of gravity via impact pressure, there would be no other mechanism for gravity.

They're supersymmetric particles of photons (photinos) ..


No, that was once hoped but it turns out they aren't. They are just normal particles, no SUSY particles have been found yet and supersymmetry remains only speculative.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2012
That description is similar to the behaviour of neutrinos.
The neutrinos cannot work in Fatio gravity model, until they don't propagate way faster, than the light.


No, Fatio's model was a speed much higher than light but set in Galilean Relativity, the modern equivalent is a speed faster than light (in the local medium) but less than 'c'.

.. the neutrino flux is simply not sufficient to provide any measurable gravitational effect.


That is correct, to model gravity using Fatio's concept, you need a much higher flux, but the general properties of his particles would be similar to neutrinos.

We know about flux density of solar neutrinos and it should manifest with increased gravity shielding at the proximity of Sun. Which we don't observe.


If you could measure the pressure exerted by neutrinos you would find there was a net force but the level is way too small. The same is true for the heating effect.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2012
I never read that the neutrinos were considered a photinos, about some counterarguments the less. Could you provide some link for this hypothesis?


"As in Dirac's case, this doubling of the number of particles was disconcerting, and it was initially hoped that perhaps the neutrino could be the supersymmetric partner of the photon. Now it is known that this is impossible, but in contrast to Dirac's case, no discovery of supersymmetric partners has quickly followed."

http://web.mit.ed...de2.html
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2012
the neutrino could be the supersymmetric partner of the photon. Now it is known that this is impossible
Why it couldn't be impossible? IMO the neutrino fit the attributes predicted for supersymmetric particles of photons rather closely.


You would need to look that up, it's not an area where I am knowledgeable, but since you can't even understand the basic Newtonian mechanics of Fatio's model, this whole topic is well beyond your understanding.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2012
it's not an area where I am knowledgeable, but since you can't even understand the basic Newtonian mechanics of Fatio's model, this whole topic is well beyond your understanding.
How do you want to recognize, some topic is beyond my understanding, if you're not knowledgeable in it? Well, at least you've sense of humor.
Fleetfoot
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2012
it's not an area where I am knowledgeable, but since you can't even understand the basic Newtonian mechanics of Fatio's model, this whole topic is well beyond your understanding.
How do you want to recognize, some topic is beyond my understanding, if you're not knowledgeable in it?


You told me some time ago that you had problems with maths and the topic is pure maths.

Well, at least you've sense of humor.


Because it requires a thorough knowledge of Newtonian mechanics and you still haven't grasped the basic connection between energy and momentum. It's like claiming you can produce a perfect mathematical model of the dynamics of the spiral arms of a galaxy while admitting you don't know how to calculate an inverse square function.

One reason why you constantly get downvoted is because it is very obvious to everyone that you try to bluff when you have no idea about a topic. People would might respect you more if you were honest about your areas of ignorance.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
and you still haven't grasped the basic connection between energy and momentum
It's irrelevant in matter of fact discussion. BTW Why do you believe in it? It's you who is claiming here, the Fatio LeSage model of gravity cannot work due the heat evolution - and it's me, who is explaining you, it's misinterpretation of model.
you told me some time ago that you had problems with maths and the topic is pure maths
With math you can predict/prove everything you want. For example, Ptolemaists proved with math, the Sun is revolving around Sun, the Euler proved with math, the Earth is formed with hollow sphere. The supersymmetry is physical model, not mathematical one - and it's relevance for experimental i.e. observable physics begins exactly where its math ends. If you don't understand, how the SUSY works at physical level, then you cannot estimate its relevance for observable, i.e. falsifiable with experiments physics at all. The math itself will not help you with it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
One reason why you constantly get downvoted is because it is very obvious to everyone that you try to bluff when you have no idea about a topic.
Galielo and all people transforming human understanding of Nature were dismissed hatefully as well. You cannot judge the significance of ideas with subjective reactions of contemporaries. I'm getting downvoted with only one voting troll, who does the same for most of people here. Such a limited and biased sample doesn't say anything about qualification. If I would be downvoted with twenty different people here with some statistic distribution, then I would consider, if this negativism has no deeper origin. BTW Without matter of fact arguments every downvoting is just what it is - just a subjective stance, not qualified opinion. So, if you want to prove me, I'm not qualified in subject, the reference to voting carma is very poor argument for it.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
BTW It's not accidental, your misunderstanding of Fatio/Le-Sage theory of gravity is of the same origin, like your misunderstanding of the mechanism of scattering of light in steady-state universe model (a "Tired light" theory). In both cases the scattering is done with particles, the size of which is comparable to the wavelength of wave scattered. The waves scattered are changing their wavelength during this instead of single reflection/refraction.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2012
you still haven't grasped the basic connection between energy and momentum
It's irrelevant in matter of fact discussion.


No, it is absolutely fundamental, the heat problem is not one that can be avoided without major changes to his model (such as very low speed particles) and those changes then cause other problems (notably aberration).

BTW Why do you believe in it? It's you who is claiming here, the Fatio LeSage model of gravity cannot work due the heat evolution - and it's me, who is explaining you, it's misinterpretation of model.


No, what you are doing is producing "word salad" without meaning because you cannot do the maths. Learn how to do basic algebra and simple vectors and you will find out why his model fails.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
One reason why you constantly get downvoted is because it is very obvious to everyone that you try to bluff when you have no idea about a topic.
Galielo and all people transforming human understanding of Nature were dismissed hatefully as well. You cannot judge the significance of ideas with subjective reactions of contemporaries.


It's not your ideas, it is the lack of knowledge you display when expressing them that gives you away as a fake.

So, if you want to prove me, I'm not qualified in subject, the reference to voting carma is very poor argument for it.


No, the proof that you are unqualified is your own errors. The point about voting is that it tells you that your attempts to fake being competent are transparent to your audience, two different things.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
.. like your misunderstanding of the mechanism of scattering of light in steady-state universe model (a "Tired light" theory). In both cases the scattering is done with particles, the size of which is comparable to the wavelength of wave scattered. ...


The wavelength changes, the redshift factor doesn't, so your suggestion fails. As I told you before, even Zwicky who first proposed "Tired Light" noted in the original paper that it was obvious that scattering was not a possible explanation.

This is a good example of what I was saying before, your lack of such basic understanding is what causes you to be seen as arrogant and incompetent, the downvoting is the consequence, not the cause.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
Math is not tool of understanding but a description (exchange of information). If you derive a fringe formal level based on misunderstanding of reality, then no level of math cannot save you from failure of your deduction. For example, the interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment was based on longitudinal waves of vacuum, but the light is spreading in transverse waves. If you don't take account into it, whole the subsequent derivation may be formally correct with respect to math, but it's still wrong from logical perspective. Whole the epicycle model of Ptolemy was based on perfectly correct math - and it was still nonsense from physical perspective. Your adherence on "basic algebra" and "simple vectors" cannot save you from your misunderstandings at least a bit - it's just modern version of medieval religion ("if it's written with equations, then it must be correct"). It's symptomatic, that the references to my qualification replace matter of fact arguments again and again.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2012
The wavelength changes, the redshift factor doesn't, so your suggestion fails.
What is the "redshift factor"? The red-shift is indeed based on change of wavelength of light observed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
the heat problem is not one that can be avoided without major changes to his model
The heat "problem" in Fatio/LeSage gravity can be avoided with assumption of reflection, scattering (i.e. reflection into many directions), the temporary low speed of ultramundane particles and/or with their superluminal speed and negative mass (actually both explanations are equivalent, because the tachyons do manifest like temporary particles of low effective speed) and or with change of wavelength of gravitational waves shielded, which balances the thermal effect. After all, the Cassimir force is of the same shielding origin like the gravity and it doesn't lead into any apparent heating of objects.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
Math is not tool of understanding ..


Speak for yourself, it is for those of us who have bothered to learn the language.

For example, the interpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment was based on longitudinal waves of vacuum, but the light is spreading in transverse waves.


Again your lack of knowledge shows. The MMX analysis makes no such assumption. Light had been known to be transverse for a long time prior to the MMX from birefringence. It was derived mathematically by Maxwell in the 1860's, twenty years before the MMX.

It's symptomatic, that the references to my qualification replace matter of fact arguments again and again.


Nobody has mentioned you lack of qualifications, I have no idea what you have. What you make obvious is your lack of knowledge and understanding, that is clear regardless of qualifications.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2012
The wavelength changes, the redshift factor doesn't, so your suggestion fails.
What is the "redshift factor"?


It is the ratio of emitted to received wavelength minus 1.

It is independent of the wavelength.

The red-shift is indeed based on change of wavelength of light observed.


Correct, however the ratio is independent of wavelength in cosmological redshift but dependent on it in scattering, hence scattering cannot explain cosmological redshift. Zwicky knew that when he published, you should learn these basics.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2012
the heat problem is not one that can be avoided without major changes to his model
The heat "problem" in Fatio/LeSage gravity can be avoided with assumption of reflection, scattering (i.e. reflection into many directions),


Wrong, using elastic scattering or reflection means there is no shadowing. You don't even need maths to understand that, just simple symmetry.

I've explained this to you several times but if you still can't figure out why, I'll draw you a diagram.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
The MMX analysis makes no such assumption. Light had been known to be transverse for a long time prior to the MMX from birefringence.
If the MMX analysis would the light are transverse waves, it could never expect the drift, because the spreading of transverse waves is independent of their environment by their very definition.
..the (red-shift) ratio is independent of wavelength in cosmological redshift but dependent on it in scattering, hence scattering cannot explain cosmological redshift..
And this is what we are really observing, because the cosmological red shift becomes zero for wavelengths of CMBR and for radiowaves it even appears negative, i.e. the blue shift.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2012
The MMX analysis makes no such assumption. Light had been known to be transverse for a long time prior to the MMX from birefringence.
If the MMX analysis would the light are transverse waves, it could never expect the drift, because the spreading of transverse waves is independent of their environment by their very definition.


Rubbish, as long as they travel at a defined speed, they will take longer to cover a greater distance. That means there should be a detectable fringe shift in the experiment.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
..the (red-shift) ratio is independent of wavelength in cosmological redshift but dependent on it in scattering, hence scattering cannot explain cosmological redshift..
And this is what we are really observing, because the cosmological red shift becomes zero for wavelengths of CMBR and for radiowaves it even appears negative, i.e. the blue shift.


Nope, you don't even understand the press release. The first says the variations in temperature of the CMBR may be slightly greater than currently believed but does not call the mean into question. The second refers to an old 2006 result of 2.729K compared to the then best result of 2.725K and within the uncertainty. That confirms a redshift of 1089 for the CMBR. Both papers confirm the opposite of your fantasy.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
as long as they travel at a defined speed, they will take longer to cover a greater distance. That means there should be a detectable fringe shift in the experiment
You probably didn't understand the meaning of MMX. It's purpose was to detect the motion of vacuum environment. But for transverse waves no such motion can ever exist, although their environment is quite real elastic material.
Both papers confirm the opposite of your fantasy.
OK, time will decide...;-) It's evident, you're sticked in your negativism already.
Fleetfoot
Aug 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2012
Both papers confirm the opposite of your fantasy.
OK, time will decide...;-) It's evident, you're sticked in your negativism already.


Experiment and observation will decide. In fact it already has, Wolfe et al, 1985 which I told you about before for example (you found the wrong paper initally but the correct one later IIRC).
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
the speed of that wave was relative to the hypothetical medium for the waves
The speed of transverse waves has no meaning with respect to any medium. ISW effect doesn't exist at the CMBR wavelength (1, 2)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2012
the speed of that wave was relative to the hypothetical medium for the waves
The speed of transverse waves has no meaning with respect to any medium.


Rubbish - watch the video where you can see a transverse wave moving along a spring:

http://www.youtub...AYFTXq3E

The speed in question is that of the transverse wave relative to the coils of the spring.

ISW effect doesn't exist at the CMBR wavelength (http://arxiv.org/...4v2.pdf)


You seem to be losing the plot, that document is about the beam profile of the antenna, did you link the wrong one? A search for "ISW" does not find the term, nor "Sachs or "Wolfe". Nor is the ISW relevant to the current topic.

Nor is it relevant to Fatio's model which we were discussing. Have you understood yet why fully elastic collisions can solve the heat problem but result in no gravity?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2012
The speed in question is that of the transverse wave relative to the coils of the spring.
Why not to consider the water surface analogy? It's more close to reality than 1D metallic string..
fully elastic collisions can solve the heat problem but result in no gravity
Not when the wavelength is changing during it. If the radiation reflected gets longer wavelength, than the incoming radiation (thermal scattering) the system may even get cooled instead of heated.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
The speed in question is that of the transverse wave relative to the coils of the spring.
Why not to consider the water surface analogy?


It has other problems but for this analogy you could, water waves also have a well defined speed.

fully elastic collisions can solve the heat problem but result in no gravity
Not when the wavelength is changing during it.


In Fatio's model, we are talking about particles, not waves but set that aside for a moment:

If the radiation reflected gets longer wavelength, ..


Then the energy has changed and the scattering is not elastic. Elastic scattering reflects at the same wavelength.

than the incoming radiation (thermal scattering) the system may even get cooled instead of heated.


No, if the energy of the reflected particle or wave is reduced, the object must be heated, that's just conservation of energy.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
It has other problems but for this analogy you could, water waves also have a well defined speed.
When being observed with faster waves, like the sound or light waves.


Nope, you just need to note the time difference when the wave passes two observers some distance apart.

And the spreading of water surface ripples isn't affected with motion of underwater, which is the point of MMX


Drop a stone from a bridge into a fast moving river, the ripples does not stay centred on the bridge, those moving downstream move faster relative to the bridge than those moving upstream.

The MMX compares the average of those moving up/down stream to those moving perpendicular to the flow, the maths is available all over the net.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
fully elastic collisions can solve the heat problem but results in no gravity
Not when the wavelength is changing during it.
Then the energy has changed and the scattering is not elastic
Why not.. does it make some problem?


No but note the first two words of what you quoted.

Elastic collisions produce no differential force.

Inelastic collisions produces heating because the energy has to transfer to the body along with the momentum.

if the energy of the reflected particle or wave is reduced, the object must be heated, that's just conservation of energy
The object wouldn't be heated so much, after then.


The equations I gave you are the minimum heating. The force is the difference between impacts from all directions so the full heating would be even more than that. Since the amount I gave you would vapourise any matter on the surface of the Earth in a fraction of a second, higher rates are academic, Fatio's model simply cannot work.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
you just need to note the time difference when the wave passes two observers some distance apart
Of course, but this time difference must be measured with surface ripples too.


Not at all, you just use local clocks, it couldn't be simpler.

It's the time dilatation of special relativity in its full beauty modelled with water surface.


Nope, water waves illustrate Galilean Relativity.

Drop a stone from a bridge into a fast moving river, the ripples does not stay centred on the bridge, those moving downstream move faster relative to the bridge than those moving upstream.
Water surface supports whole spectrum of surface ripples in this moment, because the stone flash contains the waves of many frequencies (do you remember your Fourier transform). The ripples of different wavelenght are dragged with motion of underwater in different extent.


Wrong again, the waves travel with slightly different speeds but the centre is carried at the same rate. Try it.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2012
Here you can see the celerity curve of water waves of different wavelength. Not quite accidentally, the waves which are moving at the water surface in most transverse way are moving along it with lowest speed.


You are losing sight of three important facts, (1) the MMX is performed in air where velocity dispersion is negligible (2) it is usually performed with a monochromatic source and (3) even with white light, the result is that there is NO fringe shift of any component wavelength.

The experiment doesn't measure the velocity per se, it is only sensistive to anisotropy in the speed.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Aug 27, 2012
with white light, the result is that there is NO fringe shift of any component wavelength
Actually a subtle fringe shift for visible light was observed and it was usually neglected. The complete absence of fringe shift would mean, that the Lense-Thirring effect doesn't work. Such a complete absence of fringe shift can be expected only for microwave radiation.
water waves illustrate Galilean Relativity
Only when being observed with light waves or other waves (sound waves), which are much faster than the water waves. But such an arrangement is not consisted with observation of Lorentzian Relativity in vacuum at all. We indeed don't use a TWO different kinds/speeds of waves in vacuum - the light serves here both as a subject, both as a mean of observation of both location, both time. If you admit such an inconsistence, then its evident, you actually never understand the special relativity - no matter how good you may be in its formulas... ;-)
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2012
with white light, the result is that there is NO fringe shift of any component wavelength
Actually a subtle fringe shift for visible light was observed and it was usually neglected. The complete absence of fringe shift would mean, that the Lense-Thirring effect doesn't work.


There was none observed. Frame dragging effects are orders of magnitude too low to be seen.

water waves illustrate Galilean Relativity
Only when being observed with light waves or other waves (sound waves), which are much faster than the water waves.


Nope, you measure with local clocks.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2012
Frame dragging effects are orders of magnitude too low to be seen.
It's because the Earth's direction and velocity (ca. 368 km/s) relative to the CMB rest frame are ordinarily used as references in the searches for anisotropies with MMX
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2012
Frame dragging effects are orders of magnitude too low to be seen.
It's because the Earth's direction and velocity (ca. 368 km/s) relative to the CMB rest frame are ordinarily used as references in the searches for anisotropies with MMX


Clueless garbage, the experiment looked for anisotropy in the light generated by the lamp in the experiment due to the motion of the Earth relative to the aether on the assumption that it was Galilean Invariant. It couldn't measure microwaves at all.