Re: A Stochastic Approach to Gravity

Dear Sue:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166976424.776454.214120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
Dear Sue:

"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166974054.975605.78350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry wrote:
...
Quantum mechanical forces and past history cause
particles in local regions of "spacetime" to flow in
the same general direction, guided by
stochastical processes.

Can you give an example or reference?

Sunshine?

Then you posit that shining objects have gravity
and dark objects don't?

They are able to induce magnetic moments in
latex spheres with laser beams, and manipulate
the spheres with the beams.

Did you use the term *induce* ? :-)

http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Optical%20Tweezers%20Introduction.htm

Yep.

All common particles with rest mass already have magnetic
moments, and everything everywhere is awash in EM... even in a
Faraday cage. You may not need light shining on something...
only to be in a Universe where light is present in large
amounts.

Do you mean magnetic moments or London moments ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_moment

magnetic moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment
electron, protons, and neutrons have non-zero magnetic moment.
And the magnetic moment is correlated to the particle's rest mass
(in an atomic system) by a quantum number.


...
Pressure, temperature and black body radiation are
all the precisely measurable consequences of
apparently random atomic processes. We can't
predict the energy of every 100th photon in the
CMBR, but we can "predict" the distribution of the
energy of the next 6 billion photons.

CMBR receivers don't employ atomic absorbtion so
photons have nothing to do with it.

They obtained energy and intensity values for
incident CMBR light. Is atomic absorption required to
consider that photons may still be a valid model for
(now) cold sources?

Prove it and see if you can and see if you can get
guest invitations for the rest of us at you dinner
with the King of Sweden.

Prove "it"? What "it", I was asking a question. The CMBR light
started out as a 3000K medium. At what point could it no longer
be consider to be quantized? Universal expansion does not affect
the photons "en passant", it affects us collections of fermions.

Do you think that the photoelectric effect will
function differently for a "2.7K" incident light?

The photoelectric effect has nothing to do with it.

As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum

.... *minimum* or threshold ...

energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.

Yes, isn't it...

The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html

Max Planck *defined* the pseudo-particle for the instant
of emisson or absorbtion. Extensions of that definition
don't make it any better model of light propagation.

Sue, we won't agree.

I do wish you a Merry Christmas.

David A. Smith


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Stochastic Approach to Gravity
    ... All common particles with rest mass already have magnetic ... Do you mean magnetic moments or London moments? ... energy of the next 6 billion photons. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A Stochastic Approach to Gravity
    ... particles in local regions of "spacetime" to flow in ... Do you mean magnetic moments or London moments? ... energy of the next 6 billion photons. ... law in 1916 with great accuracy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount, ... The Standard view is that the virtuals are popping ... >> Since photons only interact with charges, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... then since EVERY FORM of Energy exhibits ... <snip photon spin-conservation> ... >> no means of preventing a horde of other particles from ... > Since photons only interact with charges, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The time it takes to emit one photon
    ... The only thing is that quantum fields are not necessary ... Particles are excitations of fields". ... Some property that may look obscure in one formulation may be completely ... >> many photons, and the light intensity appears continuous on the screen. ...
    (sci.physics.research)