JohnSSM Posted January 22, 2015 Author Posted January 22, 2015 For any folks who were confused about my vague descriptions of objects having a vector of energy (momentum) that creates the curvature of space-time in which it resides, I was talking about gravitomagnetism...ha...if I only knew that then the discussions could have been so much shorter 1
ajb Posted January 22, 2015 Posted January 22, 2015 ... I was talking about gravitomagnetism So you mean frame dragging effects due to rotating objects? I am not sure if it is a good name or not, but there is also 'gravitoelectromagnetism' which is based on the formal analogies between gravity and electromagnetic theory. In particular angular momentum in gravity looks like dipole moment in electromagnetism. It has been a while since I looked at these similarities in any detail.
JohnSSM Posted January 22, 2015 Author Posted January 22, 2015 So you mean frame dragging effects due to rotating objects? I am not sure if it is a good name or not, but there is also 'gravitoelectromagnetism' which is based on the formal analogies between gravity and electromagnetic theory. In particular angular momentum in gravity looks like dipole moment in electromagnetism. It has been a while since I looked at these similarities in any detail. Not frame dragging in particular although I was reading about frame dragging when I started in on gravitoelectromagnetism...they call it gravitomagnetism on wikipedia a couple times... In one of my early and vague descriptions of how objects effect space-time, i declared that all objects have a vector of energy that dictate the curves of space...folks were like "vector? what do you mean vector?, they have four vectors and a tensor"..."energy? what energy are you talking about?"....the energy was momentum and I assumed folks new what I was referring to...but when i claimed that each tensor can create a new vector, i was just given the runaround, so to speak... If the thread werent so hearty, I would go back to find these different discussions.... Gravitoelectromagnetism is my favorite of all subjects at this point...earlier in this thread I was attempting to draw similarities between the fields and forces of gravity and EM as well... Of all things, im back to the weak nuclear force...The reading dove into the higgs field and my understanding of bosons is shady at best.... In understanding the weak force, i always just vaguely understood it as entropy or radiation...it didnt seem like a force as much as a rule..."energy will radiate and transform states"...thats all I really got...I dont understand why is makes fusion possible...because it is weak enough to be put out of balance by other forces? The W and Z bosons are massive, so they are less likely to move fast and that's why the interaction is weak? Still confused about why it takes 2 gauge bosons for the weak interaction... "Again, the neutron is not an elementary particle but a composite of an up quark and two down quarks (udd). It is in fact one of the down quarks that interacts in beta decay, turning into an up quark to form a proton (uud). At the most fundamental level, then, the weak force changes the flavour of a single quark:" So, the weak force changes quarks, but the strong force holds them in groups to form hadrons? I thought the gluons were the force carrier between quarks...but the weak force also interacts with quarks? confused
ajb Posted January 23, 2015 Posted January 23, 2015 Gravitoelectromagnetism is my favorite of all subjects at this point...earlier in this thread I was attempting to draw similarities between the fields and forces of gravity and EM as well... So there are plenty of similarities. You can split the Riemann curvature tensor into an 'electric' and a 'magnetic' parts. Much like the electromagnetic field, this requires some reference, so you can split the Riemann curvature relative to a time-like vector. You can then further develop the similarities here. In understanding the weak force, i always just vaguely understood it as entropy or radiation...it didnt seem like a force as much as a rule..."energy will radiate and transform states"...thats all I really got...I dont understand why is makes fusion possible...because it is weak enough to be put out of balance by other forces? You should think of the weak force as the force, or better the interactions, that allow for nuclear decays. In this sense it is the force for change. The W and Z bosons are massive, so they are less likely to move fast and that's why the interaction is weak? The strength of the weak interaction is measured by the Fermi constant. It involves the coupling constant of the weak force squared divided by the mass of the W boson squared, and then there is some numerical factor. So yes, the mass of the W boson has something to do with the strength of the strong force. However, I don't think we should interpret it as the kinetic energy of the bosons, unless you can make this clear. So, the weak force changes quarks, but the strong force holds them in groups to form hadrons? I thought the gluons were the force carrier between quarks...but the weak force also interacts with quarks? confused Quarks are electrically charged, carry colour charge, carry weak hypercharge and have energy momentum. They interact via all the known forces of the Universe. 1
JohnSSM Posted January 24, 2015 Author Posted January 24, 2015 So there are plenty of similarities. You can split the Riemann curvature tensor into an 'electric' and a 'magnetic' parts. Much like the electromagnetic field, this requires some reference, so you can split the Riemann curvature relative to a time-like vector. You can then further develop the similarities here. You should think of the weak force as the force, or better the interactions, that allow for nuclear decays. In this sense it is the force for change. The strength of the weak interaction is measured by the Fermi constant. It involves the coupling constant of the weak force squared divided by the mass of the W boson squared, and then there is some numerical factor. So yes, the mass of the W boson has something to do with the strength of the strong force. However, I don't think we should interpret it as the kinetic energy of the bosons, unless you can make this clear. Quarks are electrically charged, carry colour charge, carry weak hypercharge and have energy momentum. They interact via all the known forces of the Universe. Yep...I encountered Riemann and gave it a sweep...prolly need to sweep it again... The weak force allows nuclear decays, or creates nuclear decays? I figured because it was a weaker force, that it allowed this "weak link" in the atomic chain to be broken by the other forces when they reach extremes,.. Otherwise, it sounds like a force that directs atoms how and when to fall apart (decay, radiate) on their own? And this force is an interaction between quarks, by bosons? Are you saying the quarks are effected by gluons and w and Z bosons? and other gauge bosons? is there some nice chart somewhere that depicts such things? EMF - gauge Photon, dicates forces between charge SF - gauge gloun, holds quarks together, holds protons and neutrons together, dictated by quark-gluon interactions in QCD WF- gauge, Ws and Zs, This is the interaction between...all fermions and leptons which include quarks, electrons and other leptons...? through QFD IS this saying that electrons and quarks interact through bosons in radiation and absorption? I get it...quarks carry traits for each field? I had no idea...i had all the forces and gauge bosons grouped with their fields but did not notice any "overlapping"...particle physics must be a nightmare... Throw me another breakthrough or two...that was nice!
ajb Posted January 25, 2015 Posted January 25, 2015 Yep...I encountered Riemann and gave it a sweep...prolly need to sweep it again... You should also look at the geometric formulation of electromagnetism. You will see that the notion of a curvature tensor is fundamental in physics. The weak force allows nuclear decays, or creates nuclear decays? I figured because it was a weaker force, that it allowed this "weak link" in the atomic chain to be broken by the other forces when they reach extremes,.. Allows or creates, I am not sure there is any physical difference here for a clear distinction. Anyway, don't let the name 'weak' drive your thoughts. A rose by any other name and all that.. Otherwise, it sounds like a force that directs atoms how and when to fall apart (decay, radiate) on their own? I guess it kind of does that, but this is an interpretation and one must take care. And this force is an interaction between quarks, by bosons? The exchange particles of the weak force (in its broken phase, which is what we are talking about) are the W^+, W^- and Z^0. Quarks and the leptons interact via the weak force. Are you saying the quarks are effected by gluons and w and Z bosons? and other gauge bosons? is there some nice chart somewhere that depicts such things? Yes and yes. You can find a nice diagram of the tree level Feynman diagrams in the standard model here IS this saying that electrons and quarks interact through bosons in radiation and absorption? Again this would be a near classical interpretation of some complicated mathematical expressions. But as a basic idea I would say yes. Particles exchange energy, momentum and charges via the gauge bosons which you can think of as being radiated and absorbed. I get it...quarks carry traits for each field? I don't quite follow your question. I had no idea...i had all the forces and gauge bosons grouped with their fields but did not notice any "overlapping"...particle physics must be a nightmare... De-tangling all the different interactions in an experiment must be hard work. I don't work in phenomenology and so I don't really know how it is done.
JohnSSM Posted January 31, 2015 Author Posted January 31, 2015 Ive done some major rethinking and on why curvature is so important in relativity...and it seems such a small jump in understanding...Its so obvious to think that every observer just represents a place in space-time, as does every other particle...it seems that space-time becomes polarized for each observer, or it's much easier to look at it that way...Its harder to explain than imagine...and such a simple concept...The appearance of a "straight" line from any certain point will be a line that travels around that point...Straight lines imply a distance between 2 points which never changes (do straight and parallel imply the same thing?) So, if one object is going to remain 3 meters away from the other object and stay in motion, the straight line it must travel is a circle with a radius of 3 meters...that would be a straight line from the perspective of the center point observer...this is why a polar coordinate system works so much better than trying to explain that curve through a function of a cartesian perspective...which is what the transformations do with much mathematical effort...But now, it seems that the object which is travelling in a "spherical straight polarized" line around one observer is no longer a straight line to any other observer...It begs this question...is there ever a "god" perspective that can truly experience all of it without defining a place in space-time to view it from? Every point in space time becomes as valid as any other, but their observational realities are always different in some sense...Will there ever be a perspective that can account for all of them? It seems not...one must plop themselves somewhere into the reality to take a look...This is where you lose the cartesian perspective, isnt it?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now