Re: do photons interact with gravitons?

From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 08/29/04 

Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:50:27 +0200

"zigoteau" <zigoteau@ausi.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:9da9cba1.0407290308.5493e1d@posting.google.com...
> phy1dkh@leeds.ac.uk (Dave Houseman) wrote in message
news:<d1eb5600.0407271625.9f5de7d@posting.google.com>...
>
> Hi, Dave,
>
> [snip]
> > > Good point, although I can't think of a reason why gravity waves
would
> > > be in equilibrium with electromagnetic waves (maybe I'm just
thick).
> >
> > My reasoning was, having established (previous posts) that gravity
> > waves and electromagnetic waves interact, they must necessarily tend
> > to equilibrium. As in the classical statistical theory of an ideal
> > gas, it > is not important exactly what the collision cross-section
is -
> > as long as there is an interaction of some sort.
> >
> > There are a huge number of mathematical details that I am not sure
of.
> > For instance, it is not immediately obvious that a gravity wave
> > actually gravitates; and if it was, that its effective stress-energy
> > would be equal to that of a photon of comparable energy. I'm sure
> > that someone must have looked at these questions before, but
> > there is so much literature out there that it is hard to find the
answers
> > to specific questions.
>
> But we know that, 5e17 s after the Big Bang, photons and matter are
> far from being in equilibrium with each other, in spite of their
> strong interaction. The interaction between photons and gravitons is
> far weaker, and AFAICS essentially elastic.
>
> > > While we're on the subject, could I ask you in return about
neutrinos?
> > > We can see the photons from the stars, but a roughly equal amount
of
> > > energy is emitted as neutrinos. Presumably neutrinos were also
emitted
> > > by decay processes just after the Big Bang. In articles I have
read on
> > > the subject in the popular scientific press, a lot of emphasis is
> > > placed on whether neutrinos have a rest mass, with the apparent
> > > assumption that the tinier the rest mass, the lower the
gravitational
> > > field they produce. However in GR the gravitational source
strength is
> > > measured by T_ij, the energy-momentum flux tensor. Most
gravitational
> > > fields in the universe are so low that the equations may be
> > > linearised. The most important component of the metric tensor is
g_00,
> > > which is essentially twice (or is it half?) the Newtonian
> > > gravitational potential. The source for this is T_00, i.e. the
energy
> > > density (in the sense in which the term 'energy' includes the rest
> > > energy mc^2 of massive particles). AFAICS, a particle does not
have to
> > > have a rest mass to contribute to T_00: if it does not, it can
still
> > > have whatever energy you like, it just moves at the speed of
light.
> > >
> > > So, could you comment on why the rest mass of the neutrino is
> > > considered to be relevant to the expansion of the universe?
> >
> > Not much help, I'm afraid. Your reasoning seems pretty sound to me.
> > There are a variety of other reasons why people care whether
neutrinos
> > have mass or not; one is that (apparently) if neutrinos have mass,
> > then protons are unstable. Hmm.
>
> > Is it generally assumed that the gas of
> > neutrinos is in equilibrium with the background radiation - ie 3K?
>
> I didn't say that they were in equilibrium. I said that the processes
> going on within stars produce neutrinos with an energy comparable to
> the energy which eventually ends up as photons. I seem to recall that,
> in the current model of the Big Bang, matter started off as protons,
> and some were converted to helium by non-stellar processes. However
> the creation of helium in this way would also have been accompanied by
> the creation of neutrinos.
>
> > For if so, the current upper bounds on the neutrino mass would
> > surely show it to have negligible contribution to the total
> > stress-energy, as you say.
>
> ?? Could we go over that again?? I did not say that. I said that the
> neutrino rest mass is irrelevant to the calculation of T_00, the
> energy density, which is the most important component of the source of
> the gravitational field as far as slow-moving bodies are concerned.
> From nuclear physics we know fairly precisely how much of the energy
> from fusion reactions ends up as neutrinos. We do not know exactly
> what the rest mass m_nu of the neutrino is. However m_nu is so small
> that the neutrinos are all moving at essentially the velocity of
> light. It's all kinetic energy, sure, but T_00 does not distinguish
> between kinetic and rest energy.
>
> Let me put it this way. Given an energy spectrum for neutrinos in deep
> space, I think you can write down an equation for T_00 in which the
> neutrino rest mass does not appear. Certainly not as a multiplicative
> factor. I claim that neutrinos should contribute an amount to T_00
> comparable to the contribution from photons, and that their rest mass
> is totally irrelevant to the question of how much gravitational mass
> they represent.

I. There is/was no big-bang and no universal expansion.
The redshifts are simple gravitational effects indicating
the universal gravitational work.

II. GR extended in 5D Kaluza-Klein for energy-parameters
and with correct "cosmological constant" Lambda (which is
not any constant at all) in terms of energy-mass density and
pressure, constitutes GAR, the General Theory of Aether
and Relativity.

III. The Aether equations leading to the above conclusions are
discussed in thread "Aether is the empty space....", where the
the Aether is defined as the space-time-energetic continuum
provided by the radiation from all astrophysical bodies, and
the quantum-gravitational process as an universal exchange of
radiant EM energy between all astrophysical bodies (particles).

(CGS) kappa*U*V / G*h*c^2 = 1 dimensionless
              G*c / kappa*L^2 = U*L / h*c = K dimensionless
              V * L/c * u / K*h = 1 dimensionless

kappa = 1 erg/(sec*g^2) = 4Ghc^2 / 3SVT
S = 1.968074E-13 erg/Kelvin = Entropy of the Aether
U = 3.973637E-13 erg = specific aether energy at T(Aether)
T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin = T(CMBR) theoretical
u = U/V erg/cm^3
p = u/3 dyn/cm^2
V = 1 cm^3
L = 1 cm
G = 6.672426E-8 cm^3/(g*sec^2) theoretical
h = 6.626176E-27 erg*sec
c = 2.99792458E10 cm/sec
K = 2.000343E3 dimensionless

IV. Considerations on coefficients x to U, y to G, and
z to c, lead to a tentative sketching of the dependence of
G and c as functions of the local aether energy density u
and the implications in low energy physics at temperatures
below T(Aether) and in the extreme of galaxy kernels and
so-called "black holes" with u proportional to T(Aether)^4.

V. Gravitons as tensor bosons spin-2 are assumed to be
modulations of the ordinary EM vector boson gas spin-1
of the aether by any moving, swinging, or oscillating mass.
They are believed to be represented by gravitational waves
which has been looked for since Joseph Weber began the
research.

VI. There is, to my knowledge, no indications or experim-
ental evidence for neutrinos to have mass, why I assume
they (presently) must be conceived as ordinary EM-waves
as of emitted photons.

Ole D. Rughede

Relevant Pages

  • Re: do photons interact with gravitons?
    ... >> would be equal to that of a photon of comparable energy. ... The interaction between photons and gravitons is ... The Aether equations leading to the above conclusions are ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Nobel Prize for David Thomson?!
    ... force will invariably stress the aether to ... >> having zero mass, no electric charge, and an indefinitely long lifetime. ... So indeed, a photon IS energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Quantum Mechanics according to Mark Mccutcheon
    ... qi healers now number in ten of thousands with more than ... would enable you to directly sense Qi and etheric energy. ... holding the qi and throwing it to salt water. ... Aether units or modified Seto E-String ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading