high frequency gravity waves from the sun

[granpa]

the sun weighs 2*10^30 kg.

the energy in the gravitational field of a proton is 10^36 times less than the energy in the electric field of a proton.

the temperature of the surface of the sun is 5800 k

the temperature at the center of the sun is 15,000,000 k

the energy output of a blackbody increases with the fourth power of temperature

(15,000,000/5800)^4=4.5*10^13

the density at the center of the sun is 150 times that of water.

the energy required to heat the corona is 1/40,000th the total output of the sun.

we assume that gravity waves are transmitted at c.

we assume that gravity waves once emitted are not reabsorbed (in the body of the sun) to any significant degree.

the total surface area of the sun is 6*10^18 m^2

 

the total energy emitted in high frequency gravity waves due to the oscillations of individual nuclei due to heat should equal 1/10^36 times the total light energy being emitted by the same particles in the sun (even if that light is just reabsorbed again). since most of this light is emitted in the center of the sun and the total mass of the sun is 2*10^30 kg then 2*10^30/10^36 equals 2 millionths of a kg of material at the center of the sun. the light energy emitted by this 2 millionths of a kg should be equal to the energy emitted by the whole sun in high frequency gravity waves.

 

this 2 millionths of a kg of material will emit 4.5*10^13 times as much as it would at the surface of the sun. or rather a blackbody at the center of the sun will emit 4.5 * 10^13 times as much as a blackbody at the surface of the sun. the question becomes how thick does material at that temp and density have to be to be opaque and therefore more or less blackbody-like.

 

if we assume that it is totally opaque meaning that a layer only a few particles thick would radiate like a blackbody and we can see that this 2 millionths of a kg could cover 0.5 m^2. this will emit 4.5*10^13 times as much as it would on the surface. so lets say it emits the same amount as it would on the surface but covers 4.5*10^13 times as much area. thats 2.25*10^13 m^2. the total surface area of the sun is 6*10^18 m^2. this is 1/270,000th the total surface area.

 

so the total energy emitted by high frequency gravity waves would by this calculation be 1/270,000th the total energy emitted by the surface of the sun.the only real assumption here is that the material at the center of the sun is so opaque. other than that its pretty straightforward.

 

 

this compares favorably to the 1/40,000th needed to heat the corrona. therefore if some unknown quantum mechanical interaction causes the solar atmosphere to absorb these high frequency gravity waves then that could explain the coronal heating.

 

 

edit:

actually the core is much denser than the photosphere so collisions are much more common. that will greatly increase the amount of gravity waves. The average density of the photosphere is less than one-millionth of a gram per cubic centimeter. 150,000,000 times less dense than the center of the sun. particles are 500 times closer and presumably collide 500 times more often.

 

also the neutrons in the helium nuclei havent been taken into account. and gravity waves should be longitudinal as well as transverse so that should also increase the energy emitted as gravity waves.

 

 

the absorption of gravity waves in the rarified solar atmosphere but nowhere else could be explained if every time a particle strikes another (which is what creates gravity waves) it is rendered unable to absorb gravity waves but then slowly regains it over time (unless it strikes another before then). so in effect creating gravity waves renders the particle transparent to gravity waves for a short time.

 

the only way a lone particle can absorb transverse gravity waves is if that particle possess some kind of gravitational curl. gravitomagnetism I suppose.

Edited December 11, 2008 by granpa
multiple post merged

[farmboy]

Sorry, I'm really not sure what you mean at all. Is there some effect you are trying to explain?

[granpa]

yes. coronal heating. I've calculated the energy emitted in gravity waves by vibrations of all the individual particles/nuclei. its close to the required amount of energy.

[Bignose]

the energy output of a blackbody increases with the fourth power of temperature

(15,000,000/5800)^4=4.5*10^13

 

Why are you taking the ratio of the two temperatures here? This would be a unitless number now. The Stefan-Boltzmann equation has a constant in front of it that converts the units of K^4 to Joules per meter squared per second. The Stefan Boltzmann equation also doesn't have the ratio of two temperatures in it -- only the temperature of the radiating body.

 

Also, heat can move around an object in different ways that just radiation. Especially in a body that is a fluid/plasma like the sun. I imagine convection and conduction are also important. Also also, it isn't any different than a chemical reaction occurring in a catalyst particle or in a droplet. The reaction can occur everywhere and the combination of radiation/conduction/convection determines the heat distribution along with the rate of reaction. I imagine the sun is the same way, in that the distribution of heat is due to the rates of fusion across the entire sun, not just due to the 2 millionth of a kg of material at the center of the sun.

 

the density at the center of the sun is 150 times that of water.

 

I don't even know what this has to do with anything.

 

All in all, granpa, this is highly speculative. At the very least, your numbers need units on them. I can't follow what any of this means because almost all the numbers don't have units on them. Nor are a lot of your numbers cited properly. I.e. who says that "the energy in the gravitational field of a proton is 10^36 times less than the energy in the electric field of a proton." provide a cite for this please. Who also says "the energy required to heat the corona is 1/40,000th the total output of the sun." provide a cite for this too.

 

the total energy emitted in high frequency gravity waves due to the oscillations of individual nuclei due to heat should equal 1/10^36 times the total light energy being emitted by the same particles in the sun (even if that light is just reabsorbed again)

 

Why? You can't just say something "should" equal something else unless you have a reason why.

 

And finally, the obligatory question, do you have any evidence to back up your theory? I.e. an experiment to prove the existence of the gravity waves as you think they exist?

[granpa]

I dont have time right now but suffice it to say that you've greatly mistunderstood what I wrote.

 

the key is the total light emitted by all atoms/nuclei in the sun. of course its virtually all absorbed and then re-emitted again and again. we are only looking at the total amount emitted.

[insane_alien]

the key is the total light emitted by all atoms/nuclei in the sun. of course its virtually all absorbed and then re-emitted again and again. we are only looking at the total amount emitted.

 

so what has this got to do with gravity waves?

 

and not having enough time isn't an excuse you can compose your reply in a word processor(or even notepad) over a period of days and just copy paste the final result. we are patient, we can wait.

[Klaynos]

The surface temp is the only one that contributes to the black body emission surely?

 

The mean free path of a photon in the sun is TINY none of the ones in the middle escape as they were.

[granpa]

so what has this got to do with gravity waves?

 

and not having enough time isn't an excuse you can compose your reply in a word processor(or even notepad) over a period of days and just copy paste the final result. we are patient, we can wait.

 

wtf. I had to go to work. now that I'm back I'll be glad to respond (in spite of your attitide).

 

my computer keeps freezing so my posts are going to be short.

 

this isnt complicated.

I dont understand why you cant work this out for yourselves.

lets start at the beginning. a nucleus bounces off another nucleus and therefore emits light. now the energy in the gravitational field is 10^36 times less than the energy in the electric field therefore it should emit 1l10^36 times less energy in gravity waves than it does emits as light? right?

 

(assuming that gravity waves propagate at the same speed that electric fields do)

 

the light waves are except at the very surface absorbed immediately and re-emitted time and again. but the gravity waves are not absorbed. therefore the gravity waves reaching the surface of the sun come from the entire bulk of the sun.

Edited December 14, 2008 by granpa
multiple post merged

[Klaynos]

The light and gravity waves wont propergate out of the system at the same speed as the mean free paths are different.

[granpa]

thats what I just said. its the whole point of what I am saying

[Klaynos]

Oh good, I get lost in all the text :s

[granpa]

☺☺

 

so to determine the total amount of energy in gravity waves reaching the surface we need to calculate the total amount of light energy being emitted (even if its just immediately reabsorbed) by all particles in the sun and divide by 10^36. right?

[Klaynos]

I'm not sure we can do it like that, because you compare the EM force with the gravitation force to get your relation between the two, but then you use temp to work out the photon energy, but that photon energy is not related to the charge of the particles emitting the energy.

[granpa]

I'll be honest with you. I have no idea what you just said. I think you are referring to some quantum mechanical interpretation of things. the model I'm using is purely classical. I'm thinking of the vibrating particles as antennae.

the freezing up of this computer has become intolerable. I'm preparing to reinstall ubuntu. it may take a little while.

[Klaynos]

The sun system require quantum mechanics.

 

But, you're using temperature to calculate the amount of energy produced by photons.

 

And then multiplying that by some number to calculate the gravitational energy associated with that.

 

That's not valid as the equivalence between the two does not hold for emitted photons and gravitation, as it does for the gravitation energy and electric potential energy associated with an object.

[granpa]

not 'associated with that'. the gravity waves and the light waves are produced by exactly the same mechanism. the vibrations of the particles. since the gravity field everywhere is 10^36 times weaker it follows that the waves produced will be 10^36 times weaker.

[Klaynos]

it's your 10^36 that is flawed and cannot be applied here imo.

 

I also don't think you can apply a simple classical approach to this.

 

Where is this gravitational energy change coming from, the change in mass? Or are you discussing the simple change in positions, which if you integrate over the whole of the sun will be 0 as it is not pulsating (much)...

[granpa]

well my whole approach is the classical approach. if you dont believe it applies then thats pretty final. yes as each particle moves back and forth it emits light and gravity waves. certainly of the whole sun was pulsating then it would not emit any (transverse) gravity waves but there is no reason to say that therefore it wont emit any due to the thermal motion of its particles. if you believe that then it shouldnt emit light either. that is all I have to say about that.

 

now I already know that you have a response ready for this so I wont bother to respond to it.

have a nice day.

[Klaynos]

It'd only emit some if they were oscillating in some kind of coupled state, but they're not (as that would cause a pulsation).

 

So for every gravity wave pulling it right a bit there'd be one pulling left a bit etc...

 

The emission of light is completely different. The photons are NOT virtual particles in this case, whereas the gravitons are...

 

Accelerating charges radiate, accelerating masses don't to the best of my knowledge. Even if this was not true then your ratio would still be wrong as that's comparing virtual particles and virtual particles.

 

You can't consider this in a classical way, it's just not possible.

[Mr Skeptic]

How would you notice the gravity waves emitted by the atoms? There are so many atoms moving in so many other directions, that it would cancel each other out. You'd probably have more luck trying to detect a marble orbiting the sun due to its gravitational waves.

[D H]

well my whole approach is the classical approach.

No, it's not. There's that factor of 10^-36, which is a quantum mechanic result. There are at least two things wrong here. First off, the assumption that thermal gravitons will carry away 1/10³⁶ of the thermal radiation does not follow from the fact that the gravitational attraction between a pair of protons is 10^-36 times weaker than electrostatic repulsion between a pair of protons. Second, mixing classical and quantum mechanics approaches in describing thermal emissions of photons leads to big problems (google ultraviolet catastrophe). There is no justification for your very first step, and your entire concept depends on this unjustified assumption.

[granpa]

the gravitational field and the electric field arent exactly alike. the electric interacts with the magnetic field. the gravitational field has nothing like that. so 10^36 may not be exactly right. it might be exactly right but I doubt it. on the other hand I very much doubt that it is far off. 10^36 is definitely not a quantum result. its simply the ratio of the energy in the gravitational field of a proton to the energy in the electric field of a proton.

 

any oscillating mass must produce gravity waves unless gravity propagates infinitely fast. its a simple antenna. again no quantum mechanics at all.

 

It'd only emit some if they were oscillating in some kind of coupled state, but they're not (as that would cause a pulsation)..

bullshit. exactly the opposite of the truth. thats why a pulsating sun wouldnt emit gravity waves. all the wave would be in phase and would cancel out. a pulsating charge wouldnt emit light either.

 

So for every gravity wave pulling it right a bit there'd be one pulling left a bit etc...

that would be true for light as well. yet the sun emits lots of light.

 

The emission of light is completely different. The photons are NOT virtual particles in this case, whereas the gravitons are...

what does the 'emission' of light have to do with whether the resulting waves cancel each other out or not? either the waves cancel out or they dont. light waves dont. so there is no reason to think that gravity waves would. how the waves were created in the first place is irrelevant.

 

Accelerating charges radiate, accelerating masses don't to the best of my knowledge.

????????

 

Even if this was not true then your ratio would still be wrong as that's comparing virtual particles and virtual particles.

10^36 is the ratio of the energy in the electric field of a proton to the energy in the gravitational field of a proton. this model is purely classical. there are no virtual particles in it.

 

You can't consider this in a classical way, it's just not possible.

 

quantum mechanics may indeed alter it a bit but there is no reason at all why it cant be modelled classically.

 

I just realized why mainstream science is against this idea. if solar wind is caused by gravity waves then so are reletivistic jets from black holes. that would mean that black holes arent singularities. that means that its hopeless for me to try to convince any of you that I am right.

 

since its hopeless I give it up.

Edited December 14, 2008 by granpa
multiple post merged

[Mr Skeptic]

I just realized why mainstream science is against this idea. if solar wind is caused by gravity waves then so are reletivistic jets from black holes. that would mean that black holes arent singularities. that means that its hopeless for me to try to convince any of you that I am right.

 

since its hopeless I give it up.

 

We here are not modern science, we are scientists. The reason we reject your idea is because you can't back it up, not because it goes against our dogma. Even if accelerating mass emits gravitational waves, you have not answered my question as to why it would be noticable.

 

How would you notice the gravity waves emitted by the atoms? There are so many atoms moving in so many other directions, that it would cancel each other out. You'd probably have more luck trying to detect a marble orbiting the sun due to its gravitational waves.

[Bignose]

I just realized why mainstream science is against this idea. if solar wind is caused by gravity waves then so are reletivistic jets from black holes. that would mean that black holes arent singularities. that means that its hopeless for me to try to convince any of you that I am right.

 

since its hopeless I give it up.

 

OK, well, thanks for stopping by, don't let the door hit you on the rump on the way out...

 

But, seriously, dude. You aren't the first to play the conspiracy card, and you won't be the last. You really think that there is a cabal of scientists that are huddled together in dark alleys and smokey back rooms trying to make sure that the "truth" that black holes aren't singularities gets out? Why would anyone care?!? Scientists included! It's not like anyone owns the black holes or using them right now. Or will be for hundreds or thousands of years. Who would this conspiracy benefit?!?

 

If you truly believe this, then you have a very poor idea of how the vast majority of scientist work. Most would be very eager to work on a completely new idea -- if and only if that new idea had some evidence that it was the right path. Every scientist I know would relish the opportunity to work on something completely new -- that's the primary reason a lot of people chose science as a career in the first place! Sure, there might be a few people bitter or angry or upset about a paradigm shift -- that's human nature. But, the overwhelming majority would love to jump in elbows deep into a new problem.

 

But, there has to evidence that it is right. People aren't just going to chance their mind with a few paragraphs of text, and a few calculations with questionable assumptions. Those assumptions have to be shown correct, for example. There would have to be experiments to show that the new idea is right. The mathematics behind the idea would have to be checked and rechecked over and over again.

 

And, the idea would have to stand up to questions from everywhere. People from all the disciplines.

 

If you can't even stand up to 23 posts on an Internet forum, then science may not be the game for you. If your idea cannot even stand up for 23 posts on an Internet forum, then it may not be as good as you think.

 

The questions asked here have been good, and if want or need time to research and answer them, then please take that time and come back with good answers. There will then probably be more good questions. This is how science works.

 

What doesn't work is copping an attitude, and getting all huffy when people don't immediately call you the greatest visionary since Einstein. What doesn't work is accusing all of us to be part of a conspiracy to protect black holes.

 

So, if you want to come back and act like a scientist, this forum will welcome you with open arms. Answer questions that are asked of you as best you can -- "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. Name calling and claiming conspiracies aren't. I sincerely hope you will continue to participate.

[Klaynos]

the gravitational field and the electric field arent exactly alike. the electric interacts with the magnetic field. the gravitational field has nothing like that. so 10^36 may not be exactly right. it might be exactly right but I doubt it. on the other hand I very much doubt that it is far off. 10^36 is definitely not a quantum result. its simply the ratio of the energy in the gravitational field of a proton to the energy in the electric field of a proton.

 

You're dealing with individule protons, it's got to be a quantum result!

 

any oscillating mass must produce gravity waves unless gravity propagates infinitely fast. its a simple antenna. again no quantum mechanics at all.

 

The oscillating mass, is a quantum system in this case, so yep quantum mechanics. And my argument was that they were all cancelling each other out, not that they don't produce changing G fields.

 

bullshit. exactly the opposite of the truth. thats why a pulsating sun wouldnt emit gravity waves. all the wave would be in phase and would cancel out. a pulsating charge wouldnt emit light either.

 

This shows a lack of understanding. If they were all in phase (coupled in some way) then the sun would be rocking from side to side, or pulsating... A pulsing thing that is charged does emit light because accelerating charges radiate.

 

that would be true for light as well. yet the sun emits lots of light.

 

No, as the gravitons are VIRTUAL particles, the photons that are emited are NOT.

 

what does the 'emission' of light have to do with whether the resulting waves cancel each other out or not? either the waves cancel out or they dont. light waves dont. so there is no reason to think that gravity waves would. how the waves were created in the first place is irrelevant.

 

You're comparing two different systems here. The graviton is a virtual particle, the photons emitted by the sun are not. When an oscillating charge gives out photons it stops oscillating.

 

????????

 

Electrodynamics, to understand what you're trying to talk about, you should read up on this a bit more, as a start I'd recommend QED by feynmann.

 

10^36 is the ratio of the energy in the electric field of a proton to the energy in the gravitational field of a proton. this model is purely classical. there are no virtual particles in it.

 

It is in no way purely classical. Nothing when dealing with systems like this are purely classical. The fields are mediated by virtual particles, you can't just ignore that fact, especially when comparing radiated energy to gravitation.

 

quantum mechanics may indeed alter it a bit but there is no reason at all why it cant be modelled classically.

 

Well actually there is. Classical mechanics is wrong over the range of the universe you are trying to apply it to.

 

I just realized why mainstream science

 

"mainstream science" only cares about what is correct and can be tested.

 

is against this idea. if solar wind is caused by gravity waves then so are reletivistic jets from black holes. that would mean that black holes arent singularities.

 

Black holes arn't singularities, we just don't know what happens at the point of where relativity tells us a singularity should be.

 

that means that its hopeless for me to try to convince any of you that I am right.

 

Not really, you just need solid arguments and evidence.