Re: ...no time...cont'd

Posted by Pasti on Nov 12, 2002 at 03:08
(64.10.121.228)

Re: ...no time...cont'd (Mike Kremer)

>>Whwn I stated 'almost massless particles' I was >>thinking interactions between elementary >>particles, rather than Neutrinos (which I know >>are effected by gravity).

I am afraid you misunderstood. Traditionally, neutrinos don't have mass, so any gravitational interaction should vanish.However, recent experiments at the Sudbury Neotrino Observer suggest that neutrinios have mass, as does some theoretical work about neutrino oscillations (a neutrino cann "oscillate" say between the electron neutrino and muon neutrino states).

>>Has any Lab, actually been able to measure this >>virtually non existent gravitational force >>between two elementary particles? I'll bet no. >>It would seem impossible due to the swamping >>effect of the binding forces.

Nope, they haven't. As I said in the previous posting,the reasons are yes, the very small magnitude of the effects, and we don't yet have that experimental accuracy, and the fact, and the fact that at elementary particale level, everything "tends" to behave quantically, and again,we don't have a quantum theory of gravitation yet in 4 dimensions.

>>Which is why I feel Newtons Law dos'nt work in >>the micro universe of two atomic particles?

Ok, now I understand what you mean.Well, the proof for your feeling is yet to come.

>>And no I am not surprised that there is very >>little work for testing ideas of theoretical >>gravitation. Gravity may be all around us, but >>there a few practicle Lab tests that can be >>done to give us any more info than we have, >>guess its all done out in space with >>telescopes.

Well, you are right in a manner of speaking. Moreover, the fashion for nuclear/elementary particle facilities is long gone, and the only very well funded field is astrophysics.And as I said, most astrophysicists are not exactly theoretical physicists,and most theoretical physicists are "recycled" from theoretical elementary particle physics (because it went out of fashion),etc.

>>Which brings me to a question.
>>Particles and/or Photons coming away from >>grazing a Black Hole are shifted to the red. ie >>Longer wavelength = energy lost.
>>Do those same particles gain energy, 'coming >>in' to graze the same Black Hole?

Roughly speaking, you can think classically of this problem very much like about planetary motion, with one major addition: radiation of graviational energy (very much like the energy radiation of electromagnetic energy by electrons in the electromagnetic field of the nucleus, the bremsstrahlung radiation).And because of this radiation, the overall effect would be loosing energy.But again, this is only a classical picture.


Follow Ups:


Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:
Comments:

[ Forum ] [ New Message ]