Gravity never zero

[hansda]

Hansda, GR has never explained much at a subatomic level. We can, today extend gravitational effects to an atomic scale consistent with GR, but beyond that things don't work. The GR field equations begin to generate infinities, not good.

No one has yet come up with a model for quantum gravity that can explain both subatomic scales and remain consistent with GR at macroscopic scales.

Frame-dragging is predicted from Einstein's field equations and GR, though he, Einstein was not the one to first address this. The field equations cannot be successfully applied to neutrinos and other subatomic particles, so we cannot use what little we know of frame-dragging, all of which involves macroscopic systems, and project it to the scale of the neutrino, or other subatomic particles.

No one can answer the question(s) that lie within this discussion. No one.

Frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle . So if a particle is accelerated to a relativistic speed , it will cause frame dragging and its speed will be slowed down .

In the case of Neutrino , it travels almost at the same speed of light and its speed is not slowed down . Frame-dragging would have slowed down its speed .

As its speed is not slowing down , it can be concluded that , " particle Neutrino does not cause frame-dragging " .

I don't have a problem with speculation, but it is important to always remember that it is speculation.

 

[Robittybob1]

Frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle . In the case of Neutrino , .....
As its speed is not slowing down , it can be concluded that , " particle Neutrino does not cause frame-dragging " .

Your first statement "Frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle", where did that come from?

 

[OnlyMe]

Your first statement "Frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle", where did that come from?

Although, applying this to individual particles is highly speculative and beyond anything we have experience with, when applied to gravitationally significant objects it is basically true.

Both the Earth's spin on its axis and the Moon's spin on its axis has slowed over time and continues to slow down. This is theoretically a result of the frame-dragging effect between the two. It does become more complex than just that, as all significant gravitational interactions would play some role.., i.e. the sun and other planets.

However, as I was attempting to point out to Hansda, since the frame-dragging effect is derived from general relativity and is at least perifereally associated with gravitational interaction, projecting this onto subatomic particles is a real stretch. We have no successful theory that describes gravity at subatomic scales.., yet.

There may be other interactions at play at subatomic scales with similar results, but is seems to me unlikely that what we currently observe as frame-dragging has any similar effect on subatomic particles.

To the extent that frame-dragging contributes to the shape, or dynamics of space within a gravitational field, a subatomic particle's linear velocity, meaning its line of travel may be affected. The fact that we observe subatomic particles from extra solar sources that for all intents and purposes are no different than those from within the solar system, suggests that any affect on the angular momentum or spin of a subatomic particle is insignificant. Also keep in mind here that we are talking about angular momentum, as spin and not the spin associated with particle physics as described within the standard model. We have no real coherent means to translate GR effects to QM scales.

 

[OnlyMe]

Frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle . So if a particle is accelerated to a relativistic speed , it will cause frame dragging and its speed will be slowed down .

In the case of Neutrino , it travels almost at the same speed of light and its speed is not slowed down . Frame-dragging would have slowed down its speed .

As its speed is not slowing down , it can be concluded that , " particle Neutrino does not cause frame-dragging " .

Hansda, we have enough trouble making the neutrino obey the rules we have come to accept generally, in particle physics. The FTL data from OPERA is one example, which continues to create a great deal of controversy.

Even if we were able to apply frame-dragging to, say a neutron or proton (and I am not suggesting we can), they are so different from the neutrino that extending that to the neutrino, is too big a leap.

Neutrinos don't seem to obey all of the rules we have come to associate with other subatomic particles.

 

[Robittybob1]

I understand "frame dragging" to be a distortion of the gravitational pull as such. Like a spinning star drags the gravitational field along with it so when an object falls the direction of the force curves toward the direction of spin. Have I got the right mental image?

A black hole being so massive and having such advaced frame dragging that as objects fall into the BH they are traveling side ways (combined effect of conserved momentum and frame dragging) and no longer falling directly toward it. Have I got that image right?

 

[OnlyMe]

Keep in mind that much if not most of what follows is speculation in that it is very difficult describe these things by analogy, with common experience.

I understand "frame dragging" to be a distortion of the gravitational pull as such. Like a spinning star drags the gravitational field along with it so when an object falls the direction of the force curves toward the direction of spin. Have I got the right mental image?

I am not sure this is entirely accurate. General relativity describes gravity as a curvature of spacetime. The gravitational field of an object essentially moves with it, such that the direction of the gravitational "attraction" between two objects is always toward their instantaneous position. This holds true for at least the distances that are involved within our solar system. Things get somewhat iffy when we move to larger scales and interpretations become largely model dependent. In other words we begin to need the addition of unknowns like dark matter and dark energy, to explain observations.

Frame dragging is not the same kind of curvature of space or spacetime. It seems more confined to a dynamic relationship between the motion, angular or linear, of a gravitationally significant object and space or spacetime... So it is not the pull of gravity that is affected as much as that the motion of an object drags space along with it.., very weakly.

In a very loosely defined way, frame-dragging could be thought of as space being dynamically part of an inertial orbiting system. The space in the solar system kind of orbits the sun as do planets, just not quite the same as do the planets.

In that way, yes an object falling into a gravity well, while being pulled in by gravity, is also subjected to an angular force from the frame-dragging effect. But I Personnally believe that frame-dragging is a secondary relationship between matter and space.

Gravitation is dependent on the "presence" of mass in space. Frame-dragging is dependent on the motion of mass in space.... Gravity appears to have no limit, it extends indefinitely outward from a gravity well. I am not sure but it seems from what I have read that the frame-dragging effect falls off faster than does the gravitational field itself.

A black hole being so massive and having such advaced frame dragging that as objects fall into the BH they are traveling side ways (combined effect of conserved momentum and frame dragging) and no longer falling directly toward it. Have I got that image right?

As far as what happens with these forces where BHs are concerned, it is all speculation. We just don't know enough with certainty about the internal dynamics of BHs. Some theoretical models might suggest interactions in agreement with the above and it may be the way things are. It is also important to keep in mind that when we talk about BHs we are talking theory and hypothesis. Everything we know, is based on "what we think we know", to begin with.

However, it does seem that BHs can accumulate mass and that suggests that the gravitational attraction is greater than any angular momentum an object is subjected to as a function of frame-dragging.

 

[Robittybob1]

@ OnlyMe I appreciate your approach to this problem. Your reply must have been one of the better replies to a post I've made ever. Thank you.

 

[hansda]

Your first statement "Frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle", where did that come from?

Look at this link : http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

 

[wellwisher]

One way way to explain frame dragging is it is connect to the relativistic mass that is created due to motion. In GR, mass curves space-time. With SR, velocity and kinetic energy creates relativistic mass which drags space-time. The rest mass curves space-time.

The term relativistic mass was downgraded since it implied the need for an energy balance and made it harder to do relative reference illusions with only time and distance. Now we need dark matter, which is just another term for relativistic mass.

 

[origin]

Now we need dark matter, which is just another term for relativistic mass.

No, they are 2 completely different things. Dark matter is evident by it's gravitational affect.

As relativistic mass increases the gravity of the mass does not increase.

When you have guesses or ideas that you make up, they should go into Alternative Theories, pseudo-science or be posed as questions.

 

[hansda]

Hansda, we have enough trouble making the neutrino obey the rules we have come to accept generally, in particle physics. The FTL data from OPERA is one example, which continues to create a great deal of controversy.

Neutrino case is a recent discovery . So, the existing rules should be amended accordingly ; so that behaviour of Neutrino can fit into the modified rule .

Even if we were able to apply frame-dragging to, say a neutron or proton (and I am not suggesting we can), they are so different from the neutrino that extending that to the neutrino, is too big a leap.

I think if a neutron or proton is accelerated to a relativistic speed , it will cause frame-dragging . In the case of Neutrino , logically it can be proven that neutrino with its near light velocity does not cause frame-dragging .

Neutrinos don't seem to obey all of the rules we have come to associate with other subatomic particles.

Let us consider the frame-dragging aspect of neutrino . Neutrino has a non-zero mass and as per the recent discovery , it travels with a near light velocity . Either neutrino causes frame-dragging or it does not cause frame-dragging . There is no third possibility . We know that frame-dragging slows down the speed .

If neutrino causes frame-dragging , its near light velocity is slowed down velocity . That means , its initial velocity must have been much higher than that of light ; which is against GR . So, this possibility can be ruled out .

So, the conclusion can be made that ; neutrino like photon does not cause any frame-dragging .

 

[hansda]

So, logically it is proven that ; particle neutrino does not cause frame-dragging .

May be momentum of neutrino is not enough to cause frame-dragging .

There must be some 'constant momentum' , higher than momentum of neutrino ; above which only a mass can cause frame-dragging .

 

[Robittybob1]

So, logically it is proven that ; particle neutrino does not cause frame-dragging .

May be momentum of neutrino is not enough to cause frame-dragging .

There must be some 'constant momentum' , higher than momentum of neutrino ; above which only a mass can cause frame-dragging .

I could accept a result like that.

 

[hansda]

I could accept a result like that.

Can you explain , what you mean to say ?

 

[Robittybob1]

Can you explain , what you mean to say ?

What I mean is that I have little personal view but I thought they were probably results and valid statements. I'll leave it at that.

 

[hansda]

What I mean is that I have little personal view but I thought they were probably results and valid statements. I'll leave it at that.

You are still not very clear in your statement , whether you agreed to my views or not .

If you do not agree or have any doubts , specify it ; a discussion can always be made to clarify that .

 

[OnlyMe]

Neutrino case is a recent discovery . So, the existing rules should be amended accordingly ; so that behaviour of Neutrino can fit into the modified rule .

The neutrino was predicted, it is part of the standard model of particle physics. The recent FTL neutrino data has not as yet been fully explored and confirmed. It is too early to be working on changes to current theory, based on FTL neutrinos.

I think if a neutron or proton is accelerated to a relativistic speed , it will cause frame-dragging . In the case of Neutrino , logically it can be proven that neutrino with its near light velocity does not cause frame-dragging .

What we explore as a matter of logic, is not in itself proof. Nothing about the FTL neutrino is yet "proven" as a matter of logic or experimental data.

As far as protons and neutrons causing frame-dragging.., as I have been tryin to present for some time now, we cannot extend the frame-dragging effect to subatomic scales. It may be that there is corollary or some direct connection. These things are not yet explained.

It is OK to believe something to be logical. That does not make it true. To know we must confirm, by experiment and/or observation.

The only way that I can see any possible connection is if we ASSUME that frame-dragging and a quantum explaintion of inertia emerge from the same fundamental conditions. Though there are some theories on the subject or related subjects, they are outside of the mainstream view in physics today. They essentially represent "what if" situations.

Let us consider the frame-dragging aspect of neutrino . Neutrino has a non-zero mass and as per the recent discovery , it travels with a near light velocity . Either neutrino causes frame-dragging or it does not cause frame-dragging . There is no third possibility . We know that frame-dragging slows down the speed .

We may theorize that frame-dragging slows an object's associated motion, but I am not aware of the proof, that in practice this occurs or that the theoretical mechanisms we currently believe are involved have any application at subatomic scales.

If neutrino causes frame-dragging , its near light velocity is slowed down velocity . That means , its initial velocity must have been much higher than that of light ; which is against GR . So, this possibility can be ruled out .

So, the conclusion can be made that ; neutrino like photon does not cause any frame-dragging .

General relativity does not require that the speed of light be universally constant, only that it be locally constant. In this respect GR differs from SR and SR becomes a local expression of GR in a flat spacetime.

While the point you made about when the FTL neutrinos were actually FTL may have some merit, and has been suggested and theoretically explored by others, again there is not sufficient data at this point to know one way or the other.

So, logically it is proven that ; particle neutrino does not cause frame-dragging .

May be momentum of neutrino is not enough to cause frame-dragging .

There must be some 'constant momentum' , higher than momentum of neutrino ; above which only a mass can cause frame-dragging .

The above statements must follow from definitions that have not been made. How frame-dragging is associated with subatomic particles is just one. As example, we can accept that both Newton's field equation and GR accurately describe gravitation within their own limitations. What we cannot do is project either to subatomic scales. It just does not work, the formulas make no sense. They result in infinite gravitational potentials and the whole of what we know collapses into nothingness.

Frame-dragging and subatomic scales involve a very similar situation, since frame-dragging emerges from GR, just as does gravitation.

Once again the only thing I have read of that begins to address some of what you are suggestion is, inertia as emerging from the motion of matter and/or charged particles through the zero point energy of QM. However, several things must be kept in mind. Most of the papers dealing with this area are not widely accepted, yet... If they have merit and are confirmed at some point they would generally not apply to the neutrino as an uncharged particle... Unless the Cohen-Glashow paper predicting a Cherenkov like decay process for FTL neutrinos is also confirmed. That's a lot of confirming of what at present does not rise above the level of speculation.

It seems to me that at subatomic scales things really fall back to understanding inertia and the only connection that could have to frame-dragging would require some changes to how we project the success of both GR and QM into the world... How we understand them to function together.... Something many very bright people have been working on for nearing 100 years now.., with little success.

 

[Robittybob1]

Gravity seems like something we just have to learn to live with. Yet in my theory as I have touched on from time to time, where it is gravity that is builder of the Universe. (Total GPE = Total structural Energy).
To find another energy source it maybe that a very small black hole could be formed into which other atoms are allowed to trickle into, but in the process the kinetic energy of the falling atoms is harvested, like with a type of turbine.
OK the fate of the Earth will be sealed, for eventually everything will be sucked into it at an ever increasing rate.

But realistically the Earth is doomed one way or the other in any case.
Either the Sun expands and melts the Earth or we are drawn into the BH at the centre of the galaxy, take your pick.

 

[Robittybob1]

CERN boffins to lift LHC beam power
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/13/cern_lifts_beam_to_4_tev/

In a couple of years time they will raise the power to 7 tev/beam.
Might just get little black holes then???

The machine will run at its higher energy until November before taking a 20-month break. During the break, the LHC will be prepped to resume operation at even higher energies, reaching its full design power of 7 TeV per beam in 2015.

 

[hansda]

The neutrino was predicted, it is part of the standard model of particle physics. The recent FTL neutrino data has not as yet been fully explored and confirmed. It is too early to be working on changes to current theory, based on FTL neutrinos.



What we explore as a matter of logic, is not in itself proof. Nothing about the FTL neutrino is yet "proven" as a matter of logic or experimental data.

As far as protons and neutrons causing frame-dragging.., as I have been tryin to present for some time now, we cannot extend the frame-dragging effect to subatomic scales. It may be that there is corollary or some direct connection. These things are not yet explained.

It is OK to believe something to be logical. That does not make it true. To know we must confirm, by experiment and/or observation.

The only way that I can see any possible connection is if we ASSUME that frame-dragging and a quantum explaintion of inertia emerge from the same fundamental conditions. Though there are some theories on the subject or related subjects, they are outside of the mainstream view in physics today. They essentially represent "what if" situations.



We may theorize that frame-dragging slows an object's associated motion, but I am not aware of the proof, that in practice this occurs or that the theoretical mechanisms we currently believe are involved have any application at subatomic scales.



General relativity does not require that the speed of light be universally constant, only that it be locally constant. In this respect GR differs from SR and SR becomes a local expression of GR in a flat spacetime.

While the point you made about when the FTL neutrinos were actually FTL may have some merit, and has been suggested and theoretically explored by others, again there is not sufficient data at this point to know one way or the other.



The above statements must follow from definitions that have not been made. How frame-dragging is associated with subatomic particles is just one. As example, we can accept that both Newton's field equation and GR accurately describe gravitation within their own limitations. What we cannot do is project either to subatomic scales. It just does not work, the formulas make no sense. They result in infinite gravitational potentials and the whole of what we know collapses into nothingness.

Frame-dragging and subatomic scales involve a very similar situation, since frame-dragging emerges from GR, just as does gravitation.

Once again the only thing I have read of that begins to address some of what you are suggestion is, inertia as emerging from the motion of matter and/or charged particles through the zero point energy of QM. However, several things must be kept in mind. Most of the papers dealing with this area are not widely accepted, yet... If they have merit and are confirmed at some point they would generally not apply to the neutrino as an uncharged particle... Unless the Cohen-Glashow paper predicting a Cherenkov like decay process for FTL neutrinos is also confirmed. That's a lot of confirming of what at present does not rise above the level of speculation.

It seems to me that at subatomic scales things really fall back to understanding inertia and the only connection that could have to frame-dragging would require some changes to how we project the success of both GR and QM into the world... How we understand them to function together.... Something many very bright people have been working on for nearing 100 years now.., with little success.

I think this is true that particle Neutrino has a near light speed . Controversy is with , whether Neutrino speed is faster than light or not . See this article http://www.technologyreview.in/blog/arxiv/27260/ . So, for this ongoing discussion we can assume that Neutrino speed and light speed are equal .


As per wiki , Neutrino is affected by weak sub-atomic force and gravity . So mass of Neutrino responds to some force .


As per wiki , frame-dragging slows down the spin of a particle . See here http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging .


So, i think whatever i have mentioned in my earlier post # 391 is true .