Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity

From: luke (funk420_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: 14 Aug 2004 14:05:27 -0700

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<FffTc.40273$xk.18557@fed1read01>...
> Dear luke:
>
> "luke" <funk420@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:e1b04639.0408130831.788b8c36@posting.google.com...
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> wrote in
> message news:<amBSc.11075$xk.6511@fed1read01>...
> > > Dear vernonner3voltazim:
> ...
> > > For any new reader of this Thread,
> > > who sees this first, the Question is: If the vacuum self-
> > > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount,
> > > on the average, then since EVERY FORM of Energy exhibits
> > > Gravitation, THEN, is the gravitation of those virtual
> > > particles repulsive or attractive? For years I thought it
> > > was attractive, but recently encountered an article in which
> > > it was stated to be repulsive. If true, I want to know why!
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> >
> > Greetings. Sorry to jump in in the middle here.. lots of great
> > material, thanks! A few questions you raise:
>
> I at least am listed at crank.net, so don't put too much store in what I
> say. Vernon can speak for himself.

Nice mea culpa dude.

>
> > You seem pretty confident that 'EVERY FORM of Energy exhibits
> > Graviation'..
> > As far as I understand there is no experimental evidence that anything
> > except neutrons and protons actually form a gravitational source. Is
> > there something I am missing?
>
> The Einstein Field Equations have both mass and energy terms. Electrons
> also have mass, as do neutrinos. Pairs of non-cotravelling photons have
> rest mass (in their center-of-mass frame). Energy does contribute to
> gravitation.
>

Mass and energy terms are together in the stress-energy tensor. The
theory has only been tested for a small sample of particles as far as
I know. The armchair physicist can theorize what he likes about the
gravitational field of a muon or an antiproton for example.

> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I'm starting to wonder about just how many black holes
> > > > > > there might be. If I recall, just about all of the earliest
> > > > > > stars that formed, throughout the universe, were humongous
> > > > > > types which could only have exploded and left black holes
> > > > > > behind. Enough of them, and BHs might BE the Dark Matter....
> > > > >
> > > > > The distribution is wrong. DM is also located in a halo near
> > > > > the periphery of spiral galaxies, remember. Andromeda should
> > > > > be one big mass of gamma producers...
> >
> > Only if there is accretion material available, right?
>
> Right. The rim of Andromeda is accretion material rich, as are most spiral
> galaxies.

I suppose so, but even in the halo? And you need a lot of friction
and some angular momentum to get an accretion disk.. But even if it
doesn't explain the dark matter problems, its still fun to think about
some rogue black holes floating around out there.

> > >
> > > Yet can you say with assurance that NONE of the images we see are of an
> > > infant Milky Way? I don't have any emotional investment either way.
> It is
> > > a point of cogitation only.
> > >
> >
> > To say something like that with assurance sounds a bit egotistical. A
> > better approach might be to put a limit on the time required, i.e. the
> > size of the universe. In other words, if the universe were big
> > enough, by the time the light went "all the way around", it could be
> > that the galaxy is no more. Then you'd never be able to observe any
> > effect.
>
> Actually, I can see a problem with it. If the Universe is a hypersphere,
> then the image of the Milky Way should appear as the CMBR appears...
> diffuse and "equidistant". Only if the Universe is "faceted" on its
> boundary should discrete images be present. Perhaps multiple BH opening
> here will do this. But I don't like it.

Interesting. Plato first suggested the dodecahedral cosmos, and some
are still pushing that model it appears:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2122034

Hard to fit that in with the parent universe black hole however..

> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Interjection: Recent News of largest parity violation found yet,
> > > > between matter and antimatter. This Universe is looking more and
> > > > more dominated by our ordinary kind of matter.
> > >
> > > Link? Yes this would tend to describe "local" laws as tending towards
> > > production of matter, rather than antimatter.
> >
> > Yes. Partity violation experiments are certainly very important, and
> > nucleogenisis arguments are convincing. However, empirically and
> > experimentally I don't think anyone has cashed in on the Alfven
> > challenge yet, to prove that the closest star is not made of
> > antimatter.
>
> Voyager will get there in a few thousand years...

I bet we'll know for sure before then. If not, too bad it won't be
able to tell us.

> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > >
> >
> > It seems to me that the space-time conditions (fields) inside the
> > event horizon have never been experimentally sampled. Thus, the
> > problem is we have no idea what kind of forms "matter" or "energy"
> > would take there.
>
> Perhaps we do. Perhaps we see those forms all around us. What Mr. Nemitz
> and I have been droning about is my pet idea that all our BHs open into a
> Universe that is mostly antimatter, and all its BHs open into our Universe.
> There are a class of solutions in GR that have our space coincident with
> time inside the BH. Inside the BH, space is NOT conconstrained to have any
> relation with our time...

If the mass falling into a BH goes into some antiuniverse, does it
still add to the mass of the hole? I like the idea of event horizons
as boundaries or "liedenfrost layers" between anti and koino worlds.
Does that mean our universe will eventually pop out of existence with
Hawking evaporation? Or maybe a sudden infall of mass to the
superuniverse hole could be a.. cosmic expansion?

> > >
> >
> > Yes. Of course, at this point it is no longer a meteor, as it has
> > been ripped apart by tidal forces, and mostly converted to gamma
> > rays.. What happens to a proton or electron (or photon!) on their way
> > towards the event horizon is the question.
>
> Personally I don't see that it has to be shredded that fine, but I haven't
> done the math either. I'd figure it would stop at electrons and nucleii.
>

Probably so. That would be an interesting calculation however, what
kind of nuclei could survive tidal forces around different holes.

> > > As is any theory or hokey hypothesis (that me!) involving BH.
> >
> > Nice to see some honesty and humility from a theoretical physicist!
> > Especially in the ng :)
>
> I have allowed you to be confused. I am a mechanical engineer (graduated
> with honors in machine design). I have been a Radiation Safety Officer. I
> currently sell ozone contacting equipment. I dream of competence. I came
> here because I was sure that light was slowing down. I stay to help those
> that are similarly confused.
>

Well, at least you're not a patent clerk. I am a graduate student and
java programmer, staying to practice my scissor technique amongst
other things.

> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >

>
> Please forgive me for "playing" the physicist...
>

Likewise, though no apolgies are necessary. All the world's a stage.
- luke

Relevant Pages