Butch

Yes, charge escapes me at present, I do have some thoughts however, just not to the discussion point yet.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... If gravity can mimic electromagnetism???

Dr. Perlmutter and his associates won a Nobel prize for investigating the expansion of the universe. They wished to determine if the expansion was constant or slowing... Surprise! It seems it is expanding at an accelerating rate!

Lol, my problem exactly... Perhaps the gravitational field governs space/time? My thought is that a photon for example (as a wave packet in a gravitational field) distorts the particle well unevenly as the well rebounds it re-emits the absorbed energy as a new photon. A wave front would distort it much differently, I suppose the mass of the particle would not necessarily change, but where is the quantum? Is it the nature of gravity itself? Thanks, Swansont, once again you have fed the gray matter! P.S. I assume you meant quantitatively, not qualitatively?

Could you elaborate? What exactly happens when a gravitational wave encounters a neutrino... If you wish to provide a link to more information that would be awesome! My searches seem only to lead to very basic wiki's.

I am seeking a basic particle in order to establish a basic unit for the math pertaining to my single field. The neutrino would seem a good candidate, however if it does not respond classically to em waves I am lost... unless it responds to gravitational waves. I envision this as occurring as a change in perceived mass of the neutrino. I am familiar with the original thought that the neutrino was massless, followed by the discovery of oscillation which required mass. My thought is that in response to a gravitational wave my particle would perhaps gain and lose mass in quantum amounts, that is its gravity well would oscillate. As far as I know the mass of the neutrino has been elusive... Can you lead me to some research in this area?

Thx!

To any particle, are there exceptions?

Do neutral elementary particles respond to electromagnetic waves?

A macro structure(a slit for example) would have a weak and nearly uniform gravitational field, if the particle is nearer to one side of the slit than the other, the strength of field interaction would differ horizontally. The more exaggerated the difference in proximity, the more pronounced the difference in interaction with the particle. Being that the field strength weakens radially this should be a sinus function(a wave function)! I am working on the math, I am not a mathematician, I believe with some study, I can produce it. If anyone would like to help, it would be greatly appreciated! As far as a prediction, a neutral particle should show diffraction... I had stated that gravitation would need to be used to impel particles through the slit? Perhaps not. This diffraction should occur to some extent at macro levels(very long wave functions).

If you look at the graph of my proposed particle, you will note that outside of x = 1 the field is relatively weak, at x<1 the field is precipitously stronger. It is my thinking that not only "in" the well, but also in a wave packet in the field the strength of the field can be much stronger than our classical perception of gravity. Certainly such waves could have an electro magnetic effect and could be charge carriers producing strong and weak forces, however I am still at a loss as to charge itself.

Are you saying there has been some work in this area? I am sticking to elementary particles, for now.

I may be able to map quarks and leptons to my model via mass and spin.

Thank you!

Sounds like I am on the right track however... How does spin relate to gravitation in an elementary particle? Specifically an elementary particle with mass of course.

I had a thought and would value your input... Might the spin of a particle equal its gravitation? An elementary particle, not a composite.

Working on it.

Depends upon their mass and size of the experiment, do planets orbit the sun?

Agreed, but I am wrong again! Imagine that! Where I need to proceed is our perception of gravity, even our most precise measurements. I still believe spin units are proper for my field, although it is indeed a gravitational field. Note that our experience with gravity lies outside of x=1, hence it appears weak, however if we could venture "inside" the particle (x<1) we would find no limit on the strength of the field. It seems that this is analogous to the event horizon and indeed it may be an event horizon. That abstract portion of my mind is going full steam ahead and pouring out ideas, but I will gird myself to proceed in a logical and when necessary mathematical manner. Comments appreciated, even discouraging ones.

OK, your faith in the theoretical nature of spin. Yes, I do have my work cut out, it starts I believe with... Why does a wave packet in a gravity field exhibit electromagnetic properties? Thanks, I get that. At any rate the stronger the field and the more divergent, the less it resembles acceleration.

Yes, my intent was to show that the "spin field" would result in diffraction, my concern was how tiny the experiment would have to be, it occurred to me that a collection of my particles would produce the same results and more precisely in the macro. The collection could be atoms or molecules or even macro objects... Next my particle would have to carry no charge or the diffraction could be electromagnetic. My idea was that I would have to propel my object using gravity(I suppose I could move the diffraction grate), regardless the diffraction would be the same interaction as the chart from earlier, the diffracting force would be the gravity divot (the field reduction between the particles)... My particle then is a gravitational field. I say a photon is a gravitational wave packet and an electron is one of my particles that carries charge. As I stated previously I will have to now consider the nature of spin and charge as applies to my particle. As far as composite particles is concerned, I cannot see that on the horizon... yet. I do not however believe I am following a dead end, I will find what is over the horizon, especially with the folks here keeping me on course! You were correct in your loyalty to spin, I hope you understand however why I stepped away, to see what I would find.

A particle does not have a gravitational field, it is a gravitational field. A particle with no mass is a gravitational wave packet. I need to give thought now to spin and charge.

Indeed, the difference is most obvious approaching a black hole, the gravitation stretches you via inverse square, equivalent acceleration would smash you... But it would be it would be a straight linear smash. I am somewhat rested today, hopefully more coherent! I am realizing how much of my scientific experience has been learning and using existing math... Almost none of my experience is creating math. I will be creating the math to predict the diffraction of my particle passing through a slit. I must consider charge, as an electromagnetic field would make my results meaningless. Assume then that my particle is neutral, so my experiment will have to be driven by gravity. I must first consider the slope of the curve where my particle interacts with the slit, for each particle there will be 2 intersects x and x'. For each particle the difference will be the width of the slit(can someone suggest meaningful nomenclature for the slit width?) I must next find the resultant vector with the m slit as "a" and mx as "b" amplitude of a and b is a result of relative velocity between the particle and the slit. I must also consider that my particle is not 2 dimensional as in the chart, it is always interacting with the slit to some degree, I will need to add this factor as "z". Critique please? Oh my, a cascade of thought... My experiment could be conducted on a macro scale! Neutral bodies, small bb's perhaps could be dropped through a slit, the position of each could be easily controlled and the results very precise! Next thought, devastating or not? "The field" that is my particle is a gravitational field! I think, not devastating... I have stumbled upon something here!

You are quite correct! My time is stretched. Currently I do not have with me all of the resources(mainly pad and pencil) to do the math... I will have some time perhaps this evening. How small can a slit be made for a double slit experiment with electrons?

I will need to examine the double slit experiments, specifically change in wave nature with changes in width and spacing of the slits... Perhaps you can provide some references? I do see a problem with obtaining accuracy, the slits would have to be very tiny, on the order of nano or pico meters...