Posted by Dale on Jan 26, 2002 at 11:18
(204.212.212.40)
Re: P.S. Supporting article from nature (bobbapink)
I agree the second article is clearer but that is sort of like saying that the Missouri River is clearer than the Mississippi. I was baffled by the first article which implied that quantum effects were only applicable to electrically charged particles. I certainly didn't learn it that way 30 years ago. Quantum effects apply to all mass.
So now we get to the experimental rig. We take a flow of cold neutrons passing between a closely spaced mirror and absorber. The distance between the absorber and the mirror affects the number of neutrons passing through in discrete ways? DUH!!! That should be obvious. The quantum waveforms of the atoms of the mirror and absorber and neutrons are going to interact and sometimes the mirror wins and sometimes the absorber and sometimes they balance. I would expect to see distances where no neutrons pass, every neutron passes, and sets in between. All of this is expected without considering gravity at all. So now I may be getting close to the Pieman’s dilemma. Where is the smoking gun that the demonstrated effects are due to quantum gravity?
So far I have been unable to determine if the experiment is valid or not. I believe we will eventually find that gravity is discrete (why should it be different?) but the problem in demonstrating it is that the energy levels produced are so small that even with small particles such as neutrons the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle reigns supreme. Once we measure a different velocity that we expect as the result of a gravitational field, we can no longer find the particle to see if it actually fell or was moved by some other force.
Once we start measuring electrons in the gravity field of a blackhole, THEN we can see for certain that gravity is discrete but so far I view this experiment as rather uncertain.
Re: P.S. Supporting article from nature bobbapink 26/1 11:51
(2)
opps, i meant here bobbapink 26/1 11:52
(0)