Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?
From: Ken S. Tucker (dynamics_at_vianet.on.ca)
Date: 03/07/05
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)??"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 7 Mar 2005 08:06:56 -0800
Bilge wrote:
> David Cross:
> >May I ask how one can suppose that electromagnetism, based on the
> >presence and motion of charges, can be superficially claimed to
also
> >have its origin in gravitation, which is based on the presence of
> >interacting masses?
>
> You can't, since mass is a poincare invariant in special
relativity,
> which manifestly does not include gravity. That means that mass has a
> meaning even in the absence of a gravitational interaction. Whether
such a
> theory is ultimately self-consistent and physically realizable is a
> different question which, as far as I know, has never been proven
either
> way. However, since there is not a single example of a high energy
> experiment in which it has been necessary to include gravity to
obtain
> agreement with theory, it's a safe bet that gravity isn't relevent at
the
> TeV scale.
Not a safe bet. If you push repelling charges
together they can store energy (==mass) that
gravitates.
> >I grant that unified theories would have the same set of equations
> >for both gravity and electromagnetism; however, as I see it that is
> >not the same thing as saying the origin of one kind of wave is the
> >same as the origin of the other.
>
> It's not, except in a very remote and abstract way which is not
anything
> like what was suggested. E&M and gravity can only be the same
interaction
> in the same limit that the electromagnetic field strength is
equivalent to
> geometric curvature. The ``curvature'' defined by the electromagnetic
> field strength is not a geometric curvature, except in the sense that
a
> phase can be described using geometric language and calling it a
fibre
> bundle, or alternatively by appealing to more than four dimensions.
If the
> universe was ever five-dimensional, the five dimensions have not been
on
> equal footing for a very long time and have long since split into 4
> spacetime dimensions and one ``curled up'' circular dimension.
However,
> since we already have a theory which unifies the electromagnetic
force and
> the weak force (and the strong force, more or less), which is known
to
> work very reliably, the question of unifying E&M and gravity is
> essentially moot.
Not necessarily. My concern is with how the
energy that *appears* to emitted by the the
change in the orbital period of binary pulsars,
the working assumption is g-waves, (My best text
ref to g-waves is Bergmanns
"Intro ... to Relativity", pg 187).
Two other ways of radiating that loss of
energy are possible.
1) EM
In that case, we are *shaking* spacetime and
the emission shows up as EM.
2) Neutrino's
((Bilges March 7, 2005 post to "mas of neutrinos"
was interesting, by it's definite ambiguity)).
3) To date, the LIGO experiment has no definite
positive.
4) According to the Bergmann ref, (Eq.12.39)
we are supposed to have a g-wave propagation,
in the SYMMETRICAL g_23.
I mention that because the basis of propagation
using symmetrical tensors is mathematically
opague, because our experience and developed
thoery has relied on the asymmetric field tensor
F_uv.
Personally, I find I need to do *a leap of faith*
to use the symmetrical metrics, characteristic of
gravitation, to propagate radiation.
The reason for my concern is this: In GR, Maxwell's
propagation equation becomes the familiar,
F_uv;w + F_vw;u + F_wu;v = 0 ,
and AE and others have suggested a nonsymmetrical
metric that includes q*F_uv, as I do.
Anyway I think #2 possibility might contain
information, here's why, I'll pose a problem.
Consider a pair of charges "a" and "b" that
shift their relative positions and emit a
photon, along the lines of QT,
energy = -a*b/r => -a*b/R + photon, (R<r),
and the photon is directional, NOT spherical.
Simultaneously with that event, that same pair
of charges becomes less massive and less
gravitational. How should we expect that
change in the gravitational mass to be
communicated to neighouring mass?
>The question is unifying gravity with a theory in which
> E&M doesn't exist as a force distinct from the strong or weak
> interactions.
Yup
Ken S. Tucker
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Letter to Dirk Van de moortel"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: What really is "Light" (assuming SR is correct)??"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Next in thread: Bilge: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
