Constant of gravitation

[swansont]

If mr = G/2, then a larger mass or larger particle must have a larger constant of gravitation.

[elas]

If mr = G/2, then a larger mass or larger particle must have a larger constant of gravitation.

 

Not so because, as my table showed; for the elementary particle an increase in radius is matched by a decrease in mass.

 

[swansont]

Not so because, as my table showed; for the elementary particle an increase in radius is matched by a decrease in mass.

 

And we've come full circle on this, so I'm done.

[elas]

You have driven the debate around in a ful circle without realising that I have not used the classical electron radius, I have used the quantum mechanical Compton radius.That is to say that I have used an experimentally proven radius.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

swansont

My objection was the use of the classical electron radius as a physical value, as it is a value derived from equating the electrostatic self-energy with the mass. In reality, the data are consistent with the electron being a point particle.

 

The main thrust seems to be that if you take a number and divide it by a larger number, you get a fraction. elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage you'll see that he says that experiment confirms that the electron is indeed a million times smaller (at least) than the classical radius, and that as a result classical physics does not apply.

 

The compton radius depends on the mass of the particle, and AFAIK the QM corrections to it are a constant, so it's not surprising that certain ratios give you a constant. 5/10 is the same as 3/6. OMG!

 

 

MacGregor states:

 

if the electron has a radius that is comparable to R(QMC), then we can quantitatively reproduce its basic properties in a classical context, which demonstrates that classical physics still applies in this domain.

 

Although the electric charge of the electron, as viewed in scattering experiments, seems to be point-like, its manifestation in atomic bound states is not point-like.

 

We have shown how the fractions derived from atomic compression of electrons are related to those found in magnetic compression of non-atomic electrons.

 

We have shown that atomic structure and electron shell structure are founded on balanced force fields

 

This justifies our claim that elementary particles are also balanced force fields as demonstrated in the table.

 

It might seem that particles are point-like, but this, as indicated by MacGrergor; is only true of the electric radius it is not true of the magnetic radius or the QMC radius. Atomic structure proves that the electron is not point-like. The cause of the discrepencies between the various electron radii, is the failure to realise that all the various radii attributed to the electron can be explained using a balanced force field as shown in the graph in reply No.7 of this forum.

Edited February 26, 2010 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[swansont]

You have driven the debate around in a ful circle without realising that I have not used the classical electron radius, I have used the quantum mechanical Compton radius.That is to say that I have used an experimentally proven radius.

 

The Compton radius, classical or quantum-mechanical, is a calculated value, not an experimentally determined value.

 

[math]R_c=\frac{\hbar}{mc}[/math]

 

(The QM corrections to this are constants)

[elas]

The Compton radius, classical or quantum-mechanical, is a calculated value, not an experimentally determined value.

 

[math]R_c=\frac{\hbar}{mc}[/math]

 

(The QM corrections to this are constants)

 

The reply quoted was deleted and replaced with a lengthier reply that I saw displayed on the SFN forum before switching off. It is my practice to do the reply using MS Word and delete the word programme once the reply has been posted. I will rewrite the correct reply as soon as possible.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The Compton radius, classical or quantum-mechanical, is a calculated value, not an experimentally determined value.

 

[math]R_c=\frac{\hbar}{mc}[/math]

 

(The QM corrections to this are constants)

 

That is why I used atomic structure (found by experiment) to show that the 'balanced field' approach is a valid approach. There is no experimental proof of particle radius, only experimental proof of particle electric radius, but MacGregor points out that atomic structure indicates that the electric radius is not the same as particle radius. As MacGregor shows the electric radius is point-like being the shortest of all the radii proposed for elctrons.

Edited February 27, 2010 by elas
Consecutive posts merged.

[elas]

In light of some recent refresher reading I now see that this statement is in flat contradiction to Einstein's equivalence principle. Local position invariance dictates that gravity is the same, independent of the constituents of the mass. Comparisons of atomic clocks in the varying gravitational potential of the sun (due to our elliptical orbit) using different elements confirms this.

http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v65/i8/e081101

 

Local Position Invariance relies on comparing light waves passing through different elements in a changing gravity field. No difference was found that is attributable to changes in gravitational force' why was any difference expected? The Nicholson Morley experiment shows that light waves pass through the same number of particles in the same unit of local time, so the observer records the same speed in units of local time regardless of momentum and/or force; LPI experiments simply confirm what Nicholson and Morley discovered. But if there was no corresponding uniformity in the content of all particles (including the graviton) then LPI experiments would not agree with Nicholson and Morley.

Note that the ever changing mixture of particles due to solar flares; between the sun and earth made no difference to N and M's calculations; in fact no one suggested taking such changes into account; but LPI experiments suggest that there was a need to ensure that variations in particle density did not make a difference.

 

The main thrust seems to be that if you take a number and divide it by a larger number, you get a fraction. elas is selectively quoting MacGregor; if you read the entire passage you'll see that he says that experiment confirms that the electron is indeed a million times smaller (at least) than the classical radius, and that as a result classical physics does not apply.

 

Not quite correct, Mac Gregor states that the common view is that the electric radius is the true radius and the electric radius is indeed a million times smaller than the classical electron radius; but he does not say that the other radii do not exist quite the contrary he states that they need explaining.

 

The balanced field concept used to explain particle structure on this forum has been extended to atomic structure on:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=51884

 

Meanwhile on:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245

there has been a debate on Rovelli’s nodes. As loop quantum gravity has no experimental foundation the debate does not include any statements on the cause of the nodes. The following two diagrams shoe how changes in the radius of the elementary particle are the cause of the nodes; but to claim that the nodes can be separated from the elementary particle in the form of strings has still to be proven.

Rovelli's three dimensional hexagonal lattice is the fundamental division of space. the balanced partial vacuum field, shown in blue; has to fill one fundamental divsion of space giving rise to variable radii. When (mr = G/2) is applied to the maximum and minimum radii we find the cause of Rovelli's nodes shown in graph form.

Edited June 20, 2010 by elas

[swansont]

Local Position Invariance relies on comparing light waves passing through different elements in a changing gravity field. No difference was found that is attributable to changes in gravitational force' why was any difference expected? The Nicholson Morley experiment shows that light waves pass through the same number of particles in the same unit of local time, so the observer records the same speed in units of local time regardless of momentum and/or force; LPI experiments simply confirm what Nicholson and Morley discovered. But if there was no corresponding uniformity in the content of all particles (including the graviton) then LPI experiments would not agree with Nicholson and Morley.

Note that the ever changing mixture of particles due to solar flares; between the sun and earth made no difference to N and M's calculations; in fact no one suggested taking such changes into account; but LPI experiments suggest that there was a need to ensure that variations in particle density did not make a difference.

 

Michelson, not Nicholson.

 

AFAIK the Michelson Morley experiment (aka MMX) was/is not a test of LPI. To test LPI you have to test different masses in the presence of a gravitational field. You can do the MMX in a vacuum, and it uses light, so I don't see how "passing through particles" enters into the problem, unless you are contending that something is happening in the beamsplitter.