Energy, QM, and Gravitation

[baudrunner]

I have read the paper titled Energy, Quantum mechanics,and Gravitation. The principles discussed therein were pretty well understood by way of de Broglie's line of reasoning by 1925 and which led to Erwin Schrödinger's descriptions of wave mechanics. Not surprisingly, diffraction experiments in the laboratory confirmed that streams of particles behaved like waves. The intensity of emissions from a radiating body described as energy/time/area corresponds to the radial inverse square in the same way that units for expressing the intensity of a sound wave are in Watts/meter².

As regards quantum mechanics, the gray area concerning the discussion of particle-wave duality are symptomatic of the trepidation most physicists have in that regard because of the lack of consensus around a clear understanding of the nature of the behaviour of wave interaction in any medium with respect to the constant rate of atomic interaction. The rate of propagation of electromagnetic waves is well known and has been measured in countless experiments as c. The phase velocity can be reduced by analysis then as the actual rate by which a particle's dimensional limits oscillates, or as seen in three dimensions, compresses and decompresses to complete a cycle. Of course that rate is "superluminal" but does not violate any laws of physics that I can see. This rate must be greater for atoms having larger dimension if c is to remain constant, but inasmuch as the dimensions in question are so minute as to make the measurement of phase velocity virtually untestable from one atom to the next the actual differences are moot, as is c, as has always been my opinion.

The idea that a hot body produces more intense gravitation than a cold body is new, and clearly discounts any association that gravity may have with electromagnetism. To draw such conclusions from established mathematical theory is bold and imaginative. This necessitates to my mind some bold new assumptions about the density of particles, for in my vision, gravity is the result of spatial displacement, and a particle of greater density than another particle of equal volume necessarily displaces more space. Logically, a particle of greater density also has a greater thermal coefficient. I think that a greater analysis of the theory is in order, however, before the hypothesis is tested experimentally as described in the paper. Much could be resolved through modelling right down here on earth.

[baudrunner]

I yanked this quote from Waterford's thread, hopefully to keep this thread more serious (keepin' my fingers crossed). It's about the paper I wrote about in the preceeding post.

A new short paper was released today in which Dr. Mayer postulates that if we restrict the phase velocity of de Broglie waves to the speed of light, rather than faster than light speed, then the superposition of these waves around a mass composed of a large number of particles creates a gravitational field. He proposes an experiment that would test this hypothesis. The need for gravitons is abandoned. If this theory is correct gravity may be able to be controlled in the future, which leads to all sorts of practical applications.

Slowing down the phase velocity of waves slows down c, the propagation rate of the waves themselves. Those who argue that this is not so do not understand the concept of wave intensity, that the energy of the wave given as the radial inverse square is also related to the number of cycles over a given distance of wave propagation. A wave of frequency x and n cycles/cm could have still a frequency of x and 2n cycles/cm for example, which results in a greater intensity of a wave of the same frequency.

Dr. Mayer infers from his theory that warm bodies exert greater gravitational force than cold bodies. He probably derives this from the idea that gravity resulting from the restriction of phase velocity decreases wave intensity and at the same time by so doing trades off in an increase in temporal velocity resulting from a decrease in the relative timeframe wherein the body exists because it is burning up faster. That's pretty deep.

[waterford]

I looked at the deep impact slide 78 in lecture 1 and thought i would see if anything there might shed any information on the gravity theory. The following info is provided for your perusal:
"Data from the mission is still being analyzed, but initial results were surprising. The material excavated by the impact contained more dust and less ice than had been expected. In addition, the material was finer than expected; scientists likened it to talcum powder rather than sand." Wikipedia

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/main/index.html
http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

Nothing here really helped me much, but it's worth a look.

[baudrunner]

Yes, I have seen that first site. The second is new to me and I think that it should be taken with a grain of salt, as temperature measurements for the coldest spots where ice is found on the comet are indicated to be in the range from +11.85º celsius to +21.85º celsius. I know that when it is that warm where I live, ice is pretty much non-existent. However, the data is correlated with a lot of other data which can lead to the conclusion that ice exists in microscopic quantities somewhere below the surface of the comet, and I won't argue with that possibility. The results may yet be tainted by an unwillingness to shift from the paradigm of the ice-ball scenario as has been the accepted theory of comet composition. Also, temperatures can be expected to vary greatly with distance from the sun, and the comet should be considered to be quite close for these measurements. What fascinates me is the possibility that a variation from the leading edge of the comet to the tail might be consistently apparent no matter how far away from the sun it might be.

That the comet is covered by loose powdery dust does not actually surprise me. Near space is far from empty and matter accretion should be expected during the lengthy and high-velocity journey around the sun. I am just as likely to give cause to electro-static attraction as I am to gravity however. To say that it is dry out there is an understatement.

[baudrunner]

Having said all that, I think that perhaps we can rule out any discrepency in trajactory calculations giving rise to that 7 km margin of error as being caused by errors in gravitation theory and by replacing the ideal space environment scenario as the basis for those calculations with a more realistic one where matter accretion occurs on bodies moving through near space influencing expected velocity calculations with a small friction effected component. I think this is the most likely cause of the error when one considers that even a 7 km miss is a pretty darn near perfect hit when dealing with those colossal distances. The temperature variations observed from the leading edge to the tail of that comet definitely point to the same effect that spacecraft encounter during reentry into the atmosphere, as does the actual tail of the comet in its orientation away from the sun no matter where its position in proximity to it. All this must be factored in.