Gravity never zero

[OnlyMe]

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 .

Hansda, the WiKi reference is very thin and appears to have been based on assumptions. It needs some significant expert review. As I said earlier frame-dragging is a general-relativistic effect and cannot be applied directly to subatomic particles.

The first reference is by the standards of the FTL neutrino saga "old". There has been a great deal of speculation, as best as I can tell the paper referred to in that article is another example of just that.

I am not trying to say your speculations may not at some point have merit. I am only attempting to remind you that they, as with many reputable researchers and theorists, are still speculation at this time.

Believe what you like, but as far as the science goes, try to remember the difference in what you believe to be and what you know to be.

 

[Robittybob1]

I agree. Hansda maybe right but it hasn't been proven yet. Even though it is a logical and intelligent analysis there is no scientific experiment backing this up.

 

[hansda]

I agree. Hansda maybe right but it hasn't been proven yet. Even though it is a logical and intelligent analysis there is no scientific experiment backing this up.

Experiment is already carried out atleast twice by CERN to conclude that , Neutrino speed is equal to light speed .

All the controversies with Neutrino or with the CERN experiment is , whether neutrino speed is greater than light speed or not .

There is no controversy at all , if it is said that ; neutrino speed = light speed .

 

[hansda]

Hansda, the WiKi reference is very thin and appears to have been based on assumptions. It needs some significant expert review. As I said earlier frame-dragging is a general-relativistic effect and cannot be applied directly to subatomic particles.

I have seen two web-sites and both claim that particle Neutrino is affected by "weak" sub-atomic force and gravity .

 

[OnlyMe]

Experiment is already carried out atleast twice by CERN to conclude that , Neutrino speed is equal to light speed .

All the controversies with Neutrino or with the CERN experiment is , whether neutrino speed is greater than light speed or not .

There is no controversy at all , if it is said that ; neutrino speed = light speed .

There has been no question that neutrinos travel at c. The 1987a supernova data supports that. The issue has always been the OPERA data that measures a neutrino speed in excess of c.

That first sentence, in your above post, is misleading, the CERN/OPERA experiments provide data of FTL neutrinos not neutrinos at c.

I have seen two web-sites and both claim that particle Neutrino is affected by "weak" sub-atomic force and gravity .

There is no question that neutrinos interact with matter, through the weak force. The issue is whether anyone can say with any certainty that they are in any way affected by gravity. We cannot observe or measure neutrinos directly and have no data, apart from theoretical applications that would support an interaction of gravity and the neutrino. (If you have found a site that suggests this AND cites references to experimental or observational evidence that supports the suggestion, please.., I would be interested.)

On the one hand we have gravity which is assumed to affect everything, either directly or indirectly. Then we also have the principle of equivalence that ties gravity and interia together, in some fundamental way.

The problem lies deep in how we project what we know of physics, and primarily inertia and gravity, onto experience. While there have been a number of "recent" attempts to explain inertia as a QM phenomena, the mainstream view still tends toward some interpretaion of Mach's principle, where inertia is tied to the gravitational influence of all matter in the universe. A perspective which has not been successfully encorporated into the field equations of GR. experience tells us it is, and yet we cannot make it work in an entirely satisfactory way, in the context of our best theoretical models.

Now we come to the OPERA data and a suggestion that neutrinos "can" travel at FTL velocities. (A situation which likely only occurs under artificially constructed circumstances, i.e. it has only been suggest from data emerging from experiments involving particle accelerators...) Since the speed of light limitation for objects and particles with mass, is one which is essentially a wall involving inertia, and is described in theory by the addition of the Lorentz factor to Newton's formulas for force and momentum, $$F = ma$$ and $$p = mv$$, become $$F = ma\gamma$$ and $$p = mv\gamma$$ FTL neutrinos would appear to NOT be subject to those same inertial restrictions... That is if the FTL neutrino data is confirmed.

Which brings us back to the principle of equivalence, if we cannot measure any difference between inertial resistance to acceleration and gravity.., and FTL neutrinos do not experience inertial resistance to their FTL velocity, then we cannot assume that they are affected by gravitation. At least not in a manner consistent with our past experience of gravitation.

My skepticism lies in the area of proof that neutrinos are affected by gravity. While it would not be difficult to assume that a neutrino's path would follow the curvature of space, we do not have observational data that suggests any other gravitational interaction between a neutrino and a gravitational source, that is more than an extension of theory. Even should we accept that a neutrino follows the curvature of space on a path directly into a gravitational field, they appear to be able to pass all of the way through the earth and even likely the Sun without difficulty. Remember they interact only weakly with matter, which means essentially they only interact with matter when they directly impact an atomic nucleus... From this it would seem that only black holes and perhaps neutron stars would appear to be solid objects to a neutrino.

Since we cannot observe neutrinos directly, we do not have at present any information that suggests any change in neutrino velocity moving toward, through or away from a gravity well. They don't redshift as does light.

 

[Robittybob1]

I don't find it that remarkable that the inertial mass and gravitational mass is the same. Both are discovered by applying a force and both forces act on the inertial mass.
It gets a bit more difficult to understand how an object in free fall is accelerating but an accelerometer will register nil acceleration during free fall.
I can only think that is due to the design of the accelerometer.

Either that or my understanding of free fall is skewed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Objects in free-fall really do not accelerate, but rather the closer they get to an object such as the Earth, the more the time scale becomes stretched due to spacetime distortion around the planetary object (this is gravity). An object in free-fall is in actuality inertial, but as it approaches the planetary object the time scale stretches at an accelerated rate, giving the appearance that it is accelerating towards the planetary object when, in fact, the falling body really isn't accelerating at all. This is why an accelerometer in free-fall doesn't register any acceleration; there isn't any.

 

[hansda]

There has been no question that neutrinos travel at c. The 1987a supernova data supports that. The issue has always been the OPERA data that measures a neutrino speed in excess of c.

That first sentence, in your above post, is misleading, the CERN/OPERA experiments provide data of FTL neutrinos not neutrinos at c.

There is no question that neutrinos interact with matter, through the weak force. The issue is whether anyone can say with any certainty that they are in any way affected by gravity. We cannot observe or measure neutrinos directly and have no data, apart from theoretical applications that would support an interaction of gravity and the neutrino. (If you have found a site that suggests this AND cites references to experimental or observational evidence that supports the suggestion, please.., I would be interested.)

Look at these two sites :

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

2. http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html

These two sites mention that , Neutrino is affected by gravity .

On the one hand we have gravity which is assumed to affect everything, either directly or indirectly. Then we also have the principle of equivalence that ties gravity and interia together, in some fundamental way.

The problem lies deep in how we project what we know of physics, and primarily inertia and gravity, onto experience. While there have been a number of "recent" attempts to explain inertia as a QM phenomena, the mainstream view still tends toward some interpretaion of Mach's principle, where inertia is tied to the gravitational influence of all matter in the universe. A perspective which has not been successfully encorporated into the field equations of GR. experience tells us it is, and yet we cannot make it work in an entirely satisfactory way, in the context of our best theoretical models.

Now we come to the OPERA data and a suggestion that neutrinos "can" travel at FTL velocities. (A situation which likely only occurs under artificially constructed circumstances, i.e. it has only been suggest from data emerging from experiments involving particle accelerators...) Since the speed of light limitation for objects and particles with mass, is one which is essentially a wall involving inertia, and is described in theory by the addition of the Lorentz factor to Newton's formulas for force and momentum, $$F = ma$$ and $$p = mv$$, become $$F = ma\gamma$$ and $$p = mv\gamma$$ FTL neutrinos would appear to NOT be subject to those same inertial restrictions... That is if the FTL neutrino data is confirmed.

Which brings us back to the principle of equivalence, if we cannot measure any difference between inertial resistance to acceleration and gravity.., and FTL neutrinos do not experience inertial resistance to their FTL velocity, then we cannot assume that they are affected by gravitation. At least not in a manner consistent with our past experience of gravitation.

My skepticism lies in the area of proof that neutrinos are affected by gravity. While it would not be difficult to assume that a neutrino's path would follow the curvature of space, we do not have observational data that suggests any other gravitational interaction between a neutrino and a gravitational source, that is more than an extension of theory. Even should we accept that a neutrino follows the curvature of space on a path directly into a gravitational field, they appear to be able to pass all of the way through the earth and even likely the Sun without difficulty. Remember they interact only weakly with matter, which means essentially they only interact with matter when they directly impact an atomic nucleus... From this it would seem that only black holes and perhaps neutron stars would appear to be solid objects to a neutrino.

Since we cannot observe neutrinos directly, we do not have at present any information that suggests any change in neutrino velocity moving toward, through or away from a gravity well. They don't redshift as does light.

 

[OnlyMe]

Look at these two sites :

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino

2. http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/neutrino.html

These two sites mention that , Neutrino is affected by gravity .

A quote from the second link,

... If neutrinos have mass, they also interact gravitationally with other massive particles, but gravity is by far the weakest of the four known forces.

There is no confirmation of this statement. It is assumed based on the theoretical relationship between mass and gravity. It was only relatively recently, that the affect of gravity on individual atoms was confirmed by experimental observation and there has yet to be any test involbing subatomic particles, let alone neutrinos.

This is another of those areas where I repeat caution in remembering the difference between what we know because we have tested and confirmed something and what we think we know because it seems to fit the theoretical model(s) we currently favor.

No one has demonstarted that neutrinos are subject to gravitational interaction. Any statements to that effect remain theoretical. And as I have said, IF inertia and gravity are fundamentally associated, which is consistent with the principle of equivalence and experience, then even neutrinos traveling at the speed of light, which is consistent with astronomical observation, let alone any possible FTL data.., seems to suggest that neutrinos are not subject to the same inertial limitations as other matter and thus may not be affected by gravity either.

If our understanding of how the Lorentz factor moderates the formulas for force and momentum is accurate, any object or particle with mass moving at the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy.., or alternately, inertia as suggested within the context of some QM models, might have a fine grain structure that does not interact with the neutrino, allowing the neutrino velocities equal to or greater than the speed of light, without violating the physics that larger charged particles and complex matter is subject to.

And again, IF inertia and gravity are fundamentally related or emerge from the same underlying mechanisms, the neutrino may not be affected by gravity in the same way as are other larger charged particles and complex matter.

There is a lot of speculation going on here, granted. The point is that most of what we think we know of the neutrino remains theoretical. We have very limited means to even observe the interaction of neutrinos and ordinary mater, based on secondary interacts. Neutrinos theirselves have never been observed directly. And the indirect information we do have suggests only that they do not interact electromagnetically or through the strong nuclear force, only weakly through the weak nuclear force. We can say nothing of their interaction with gravitational fields from the secondary interacts we can observe.

 

[hansda]

A quote from the second link,



There is no confirmation of this statement. It is assumed based on the theoretical relationship between mass and gravity. It was only relatively recently, that the affect of gravity on individual atoms was confirmed by experimental observation and there has yet to be any test involbing subatomic particles, let alone neutrinos.

This is another of those areas where I repeat caution in remembering the difference between what we know because we have tested and confirmed something and what we think we know because it seems to fit the theoretical model(s) we currently favor.

No one has demonstarted that neutrinos are subject to gravitational interaction. Any statements to that effect remain theoretical. And as I have said, IF inertia and gravity are fundamentally associated, which is consistent with the principle of equivalence and experience, then even neutrinos traveling at the speed of light, which is consistent with astronomical observation, let alone any possible FTL data.., seems to suggest that neutrinos are not subject to the same inertial limitations as other matter and thus may not be affected by gravity either.

If our understanding of how the Lorentz factor moderates the formulas for force and momentum is accurate, any object or particle with mass moving at the speed of light would require an infinite amount of energy.., or alternately, inertia as suggested within the context of some QM models, might have a fine grain structure that does not interact with the neutrino, allowing the neutrino velocities equal to or greater than the speed of light, without violating the physics that larger charged particles and complex matter is subject to.

And again, IF inertia and gravity are fundamentally related or emerge from the same underlying mechanisms, the neutrino may not be affected by gravity in the same way as are other larger charged particles and complex matter.

There is a lot of speculation going on here, granted. The point is that most of what we think we know of the neutrino remains theoretical. We have very limited means to even observe the interaction of neutrinos and ordinary mater, based on secondary interacts. Neutrinos theirselves have never been observed directly. And the indirect information we do have suggests only that they do not interact electromagnetically or through the strong nuclear force, only weakly through the weak nuclear force. We can say nothing of their interaction with gravitational fields from the secondary interacts we can observe.

Consider this link : http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/ , which says Neutrino has non-zero mass . So, particle Neutrino interacts gravitationally with other massive particles .

Consider Neutrino speed = c . This supports particle Neutrino does not cause frame-dragging . So , Lorentz Transformation & GR are not applicable to Neutrino ; as is observed in reality .

Only Newton's Laws are applicable to particle Neutrino .

 

[OnlyMe]

Consider this link : http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/ , which says Neutrino has non-zero mass . So, particle Neutrino interacts gravitationally with other massive particles .

Consider Neutrino speed = c . This supports particle Neutrino does not cause frame-dragging . So , Lorentz Transformation & GR are not applicable to Neutrino ; as is observed in reality .

Only Newton's Laws are applicable to particle Neutrino .

Hansda, you are right the article(s) do say that the neutrino has non-zero mass, but they say nothing about how they interact gravitationally, aside from some speculation that they could contribute to the missing mass, dark matter. Note.., they do not say the neutrino IS dark matter.

What I have been trying to point out is that when discussing the neutrino, or other subatomic particles for that matter, gravity and/or frame-dragging, the discussion is completely speculative. There is no experimental evidence, observation or experience that involves neutrinos and either frame dragging or gravity.

The case here is one where we associate gravitation with mass, and then because we find that the neutrino and other subatomic particles have mass, we project or assume that they also interact as independent gravitational, point sources.

As I mentioned earlier, there have been experiments demonstrating that individual atoms interact gravitationally, in the same way that larger objects do. There is no observation of a neutrino interacting gravitationally with anything. We don't even have any experimental evidence that protons and neutrons, independently interact gravitationally. It is functionally difficult given our current technological limitations to design experiments, which can both control the other forces involved and measure the individual motion and interaction of these particles, we assume to be governed by gravitation.

Think about a neutrino for a moment. We can detect secondary particles that result from neutrino interactions with atoms. We can create neutrinos in high energy particle collisions. However, we cannot focus or change the direction of a neutrino's velocity after it has been created. We can't even detect all of the neutrinos created only the very small number that interact with atoms in the detector, providing us with secondary particle interactions we can detect.

Read back through the research papers. Though they are generally careful to explain all of the adjustments and controls required for the results they have obtained, they never say anything about adjusting the beam to account for any affect that gravity might have on the trajectory.

When you fire a gun or a missile over a long distance, you cannot aim it directly at the object you intend to hit. You must aim above it, to allow for how gravity will change its trajectory. This is not required for a neutrino beam. At least not over the distances involved in experiments we can conduct, today.

What it seems you are tring to do is project phenomena well described by general relativity, into an area of physics that general relativity does not explain. We do not currently have a successful quantum gravity model. There are some suggestions that involve inertia from a perspective of quantum mechanics, which if they could be or were confirmed might provide a better understanding of not just inertia, but of gravity at subatomic scales. However, should any of these be confirmed they would represent similar shifts in our understanding and interpretation of current theory, as would or will(?) the FTL neutrino data should it be confirmed.

If you want to extend frame-dragging and gravitation to neutrinos and subatomic particles, you must at the same time explain how general relativity works at those scales and resolve the conflicts between general relativity and quantum mechanis, that rise at those scales.

I do believe that there is a fundamental common origin for both GR and QM. I don't believe that how we interpret either will be entirely unaffected should we discover that common origin.

So, any current association of the neutrino and gravity or frame-dragging is speculation, unless or until you can explain the interaction in a manner consistent with QM.

 

[Robittybob1]

Could a neutrino be a tachyon since it has mass, there is a problem of things with mass going at the speed of light, but what if it was instantly formed in the FTL velocity category?? It certainly is an odd particle.

I see it has been proposed several times before.
This is what I found in the Wikiipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

In 1985 it was proposed by Chodos et al. that neutrinos can have a tachyonic nature.[12] The possibility of standard model particles moving at superluminal speeds can be modelled using Lorentz invariance violating terms, for example in the Standard-Model Extension[13][14][15]. In this framework, neutrinos experience Lorentz-violating oscillations and can travel faster than light at high energies. On the other hand, the above-mentioned proposal by Chodos et al. was strongly criticized by some researchers,[16] but this criticism was subsequently shown to be incorrect.[17] Since then, the idea has been studied by other researchers.[18]
In 1979 a new approach to study tachyon was proposed by Tsao Chang,in which a generalized Galilean transformation (GGT) is introduced. It has been shown that GGT is a non-standard form of the Lorentz transformation.[19] When describing superluminal particles, the time of GGT always goes to positive direction.
In 1986 Chang suggested that the neutrino would be the most possible candidate of a free tachyon.[20] To explain the experiment of parity non-conservation, the two-component neutrino theory was introduced. The neutrino has a left-hand spin and anti-neutrino has a right-hand spin. That means the velocity of an observer in any frame must be less than the velocity of neutrinos, otherwise the direction of the neutrino’s spin will be changed. In other words, the neutrino must be a particle with the velocity of light or faster than light.

 

[hansda]

Hansda, you are right the article(s) do say that the neutrino has non-zero mass, but they say nothing about how they interact gravitationally, aside from some speculation that they could contribute to the missing mass, dark matter. Note.., they do not say the neutrino IS dark matter.

What I have been trying to point out is that when discussing the neutrino, or other subatomic particles for that matter, gravity and/or frame-dragging, the discussion is completely speculative. There is no experimental evidence, observation or experience that involves neutrinos and either frame dragging or gravity.

The case here is one where we associate gravitation with mass, and then because we find that the neutrino and other subatomic particles have mass, we project or assume that they also interact as independent gravitational, point sources.

As I mentioned earlier, there have been experiments demonstrating that individual atoms interact gravitationally, in the same way that larger objects do. There is no observation of a neutrino interacting gravitationally with anything. We don't even have any experimental evidence that protons and neutrons, independently interact gravitationally. It is functionally difficult given our current technological limitations to design experiments, which can both control the other forces involved and measure the individual motion and interaction of these particles, we assume to be governed by gravitation.

Think about a neutrino for a moment. We can detect secondary particles that result from neutrino interactions with atoms. We can create neutrinos in high energy particle collisions. However, we cannot focus or change the direction of a neutrino's velocity after it has been created. We can't even detect all of the neutrinos created only the very small number that interact with atoms in the detector, providing us with secondary particle interactions we can detect.

That means after creation , Neutrinos are in a state of inertia of uniform motion ; unless they are absorbed by an atom . So, Neutrinos are following Newton's First Law of Motion on Inertia .

Read back through the research papers. Though they are generally careful to explain all of the adjustments and controls required for the results they have obtained, they never say anything about adjusting the beam to account for any affect that gravity might have on the trajectory.

When you fire a gun or a missile over a long distance, you cannot aim it directly at the object you intend to hit. You must aim above it, to allow for how gravity will change its trajectory. This is not required for a neutrino beam. At least not over the distances involved in experiments we can conduct, today.

What it seems you are tring to do is project phenomena well described by general relativity, into an area of physics that general relativity does not explain. We do not currently have a successful quantum gravity model. There are some suggestions that involve inertia from a perspective of quantum mechanics, which if they could be or were confirmed might provide a better understanding of not just inertia, but of gravity at subatomic scales. However, should any of these be confirmed they would represent similar shifts in our understanding and interpretation of current theory, as would or will(?) the FTL neutrino data should it be confirmed.

If you want to extend frame-dragging and gravitation to neutrinos and subatomic particles, you must at the same time explain how general relativity works at those scales and resolve the conflicts between general relativity and quantum mechanis, that rise at those scales.

GR can explain Physics well , when frame-dragging is happenning . If frame-dragging is not happenning , Newton's Laws are better .

I do believe that there is a fundamental common origin for both GR and QM. I don't believe that how we interpret either will be entirely unaffected should we discover that common origin.

So, any current association of the neutrino and gravity or frame-dragging is speculation, unless or until you can explain the interaction in a manner consistent with QM.

 

[Robittybob1]

@Hansda It is pretty brave to try and imagine how particles formed from the first stuff of the Big Bang! Who knows what was happening then in those moments?

 

[AlexG]

@Hansda It is pretty brave to try and imagine how particles formed from the first stuff of the Big Bang! Who knows what was happening then in those moments?

You obviously don't, but then physics just isn't your thing.

Instead of 'imagining' why don't you try to learn what's already known?

 

[Robittybob1]

You obviously don't, but then physics just isn't your thing.

Instead of 'imagining' why don't you try to learn what's already known?

As far as the Big Bang mechanism of particle formation you are finally spot on the money - I know nothing about it.
Maybe since I want to "Solve Genesis" and rewrite Genesis I should take your advice and study what is known already.

 

[hansda]

What it seems you are tring to do is project phenomena well described by general relativity, into an area of physics that general relativity does not explain. We do not currently have a successful quantum gravity model. There are some suggestions that involve inertia from a perspective of quantum mechanics, which if they could be or were confirmed might provide a better understanding of not just inertia, but of gravity at subatomic scales. However, should any of these be confirmed they would represent similar shifts in our understanding and interpretation of current theory, as would or will(?) the FTL neutrino data should it be confirmed.

If you want to extend frame-dragging and gravitation to neutrinos and subatomic particles, you must at the same time explain how general relativity works at those scales and resolve the conflicts between general relativity and quantum mechanis, that rise at those scales.

I do believe that there is a fundamental common origin for both GR and QM. I don't believe that how we interpret either will be entirely unaffected should we discover that common origin.

So, any current association of the neutrino and gravity or frame-dragging is speculation, unless or until you can explain the interaction in a manner consistent with QM.

QM deals with quantum particles which may be atomic or subatomic .

If the quantum particle is causing frame-dragging , it will be explained by GR ; otherwise it will be explained by Newton's Laws .

So, GR and Newton's Laws together can explain QM .

 

[hansda]

@Hansda It is pretty brave to try and imagine how particles formed from the first stuff of the Big Bang! Who knows what was happening then in those moments?

Einstein developed the Equation E = MC^2 .

This Equation can be rewritten as M = E / ( C^2 ) . At the big bang some of the energy must have converted into mass following this equation .

 

[origin]

Einstein developed the Equation E = MC^2 .

This Equation can be rewritten as M = E / ( C^2 ) . At the big bang some of the energy must have converted into mass following this equation .

21 pages and now you have discovered that mass was created from the energy of the big bang. Your time could be so much more efficiently spent actually doing just a tiny bit of research on the big bang.

 

[hansda]

21 pages and now you have discovered that mass was created from the energy of the big bang. Your time could be so much more efficiently spent actually doing just a tiny bit of research on the big bang.

I just made a guess . There must be some mechanism , reciprocal to ' Einstein's e = mc^2 ' ; through which energy could be converted into mass .

Otherwise , how do you think first particle of mass was formed from energy ?

 

[Robittybob1]

I just made a guess . There must be some mechanism , reciprocal to ' Einstein's e = mc^2 ' ; through which energy could be converted into mass .

Otherwise , how do you think first particle of mass was formed from energy ?

A Rapid uneducated guess is that the energy condensed into quarks then into particles. Other suggestions??