Nuclear Thermal Expansion (and Energy's effect on Gravity)

[Borson]

Thermal Expansion due to energy in the nucleus:

 

 

Energy/friction of nucleus causes heat/repulsive/expansive force that pushes against electrons (or otherwise smallest stable particle in the atom [consistent with gravity in general]). The position an electron lies in orbit clouds is due to the balance between this thermal expansion, and the attractiveness of the nucleus.

There are many implications from this (and I'm still looking to see if certain tests have been performed, with their results).

Avoiding other implications (for now), to the topic of energy and gravity.

I believe gravity, as observed, described, and commonly understood, is Not true attractiveness, but the difference of true attractiveness and said expansion. That's why gravity is seen as weak.

True attractiveness (concept of gravity) among the bigger particles of the nucleus (strong force), expansion pushing the smallest of stable atomic particles (electrons), yet expansion deteriorating faster with distance than attractiveness, so the area where attractiveness balances with expansion you'll find the electrons. Then finally, beyond the interaction, you have the remaining attraction that exceeds expansion. This is gravity as we observe it, the weakest force.

In short: The observed force of gravity is the difference between the true attractiveness [strong force] (as a function of mass) and expansion (as a function of energy).

Further, as expansion deteriorates quicker with distance than attraction, the greater the mass, the less significant the expansion, and the more gravity resembles true attraction. Leading to expansion's insignificance in terms of general relativity.

Test to be performed (if possible) [with expectations]:
1) Adding Energy to an atom. [Even as attractiveness/gravity increases due to increased density/reduced radius, the electrons get pushed farther from nucleus due to also increasing expansion].
2) Heavy Metal at extremely low temperatures (near absolute 0). [Electrons would fall into the nucleus, with smaller atomic particles (such as neutrinos which normally get completely pushed out) then behaving as electrons about the atom].
3) Vaporizing water/mercury in "zero" gravity. [Appears as a collapsing star, which is actually a result of a star gaining energy rather than running out of energy. Black Hole formation such].
4). Observing electron teleportation [as described in next paragraph].


To visualize: Expansion from the sun causes solar flares, but gravity pulls them back in. Similar quantum effect, expansion pushes a part of the nucleus (such as an electron formed from a nuclear collision) into electron cloud, then a corresponding electron falls back into nucleus (rebalancing the causing collision). [This effect happening much faster than electron normal cloud movement, giving an "electron teleportation" appearance. Difficult to test/observe though.]

It's a radical idea, and I'm still working on supported/unsupported evidence (thus speculation and lacking sources).

[swansont]

OK, then, derive the energy spectrum of hydrogen. Why are the levels quantized?

 

How do you "heat" a proton?

[Borson]

Protons have energy. Protons have quarks. Nuclear Heat/Energy attempts to radiate, but attraction doesn't let it (they "balance" out). The electron gets caught in the battle (finding orbit within that balance).

[Sensei]

I believe so, Swansont was interested in math equations. Not word description.

Talking is cheap. And anybody can say anything about everything.

 

What energy you must spend to make Hydrogen-1 plasma? Just checking your knowledge..

[ajb]

Protons have energy. Protons have quarks.

We have excited states of nucleons, they are typically short lived. Look up Delta baryons or the Delta resonances.

[Borson]

I believe so, Swansont was interested in math equations. Not word description.

Talking is cheap. And anybody can say anything about everything.

 

What energy you must spend to make Hydrogen-1 plasma? Just checking your knowledge..

I would love help on math. I'll check such out (as my time for research is limited). [Personally, I've never been a fan of a system's whole is less than sum of (known) constituents. I believe this "opposite force" is the missing constituent that will better explain a system's wholeness. Point being, that's where I'd first look for math. For now I'm still seeing how supported this is of evidence/testing.]

 

As for how much energy is needed for expansion to push away the electron from hydrogen (exceeding attraction) I'm not sure. That's the process you are mentioning though. (I also wonder if the proton will also react accordingly, breaking up and expanding its least massive quark, which would then behave like an electron. That's the flip side of the tempurature test I mentioned...though not to say it'd remain in long if it can shed/radiate some energy.)

 

[Forgive me if I sound less coherent, as it's 3a and I can't sleep.]

Edited May 25, 2015 by Borson

[Mordred]

Protons have energy. Protons have quarks. Nuclear Heat/Energy attempts to radiate, but attraction doesn't let it (they "balance" out). The electron gets caught in the battle (finding orbit within that balance).

Particle physics already accounts for the binding energy of Quarks within the proton.

 

The FLRW metric accounts for thermodynamic processes via the Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac statistics.

 

Which covers the 108 degrees of freedom of all standard model particles.

 

The Fermi Dirac statistics deals with all fermions. The Bose Einstein statistics deals with all the Bosons.

 

Both statistics, include chemical reaction, entropy density, degrees of freedom, spin, mass, momentum and binding energy of said particles.

 

The GR portion of this is covered via the Lorentz group SO(1.3) Lorentz group of both the

 

SO(5) and SO(10) particle physics models.

 

[latex]So(10)\bigotimes So(5)\bigotimes So(3)\bigotimes So(2_{L,R})\bigotimes U(1)[/latex]

 

The subgroup [latex]SO(3)\bigotimes SO(2) \bigotimes U(1)[/latex]

 

Deals primarily with the SM particles, including the strong force, weak force and electromagnetic force. The SO(3) group is the Lorentz group rotations (GR) influences upon the SM groups.

 

The supersymmetric particles is incorperated under the SO(5) portion but this group also includes the Higgs field and thermodynamic influences upon the other subgroups.

 

The SO(10) portion though incorperates your Pati Salam subgroups for left and right hand chirality including the Higgs field.

 

so tell us what's missing?

 

Usually people that state they need to fix GR don't have a clue what GR actually covers. Particularly the Einstein field equations.

 

The FLRW metric incorporates the ideal gas laws and GR. The acceleration equation of the FLRW metric includes pressure, energy density and GR. (Via the Einstein field equations)

 

The Einstein field equations stress energy tensor handles the energy,momentum, energy flux influences due to gravity.

 

It never ceases to amaze me. Most of the posters that try to fix GR. Usually try to describe the atom portion only. They tend to stop at the strong force or electromagnetic force. They rarely include quarks and gluons.

 

However they never realize that four forces and all the standard model particle interactions are accounted for in the numerous international model connections between GR, Thermodynamics, particle physics models.

 

The Einstein field equations didn't develop without including Thermodynamics and the Maxwell and Dirac equations. (It incorporates those factors)

 

Those details can be found in these articles.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein

http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau

 

The above was used to develop the cosmic inventory

 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf "The Cosmic energy inventory"

 

in terms of particle physics and GUT which details the group's above.

 

Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2

 

 

GUT theories

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES

 

 

my advise is study what GR, particle physics and the FLRW metric can and does describe first before assuming there is problems that you can fix due to reading pop media literature.

 

In other words study the models first before trying to fix them.

I would love help on math. I'll check such out (as my time for research is limited). [Personally, I've never been a fan of a system's whole is less than sum of (known) constituents. I believe this "opposite force" is the missing constituent that will better explain a system's wholeness. Point being, that's where I'd first look for math. For now I'm still seeing how supported this is of evidence/testing.]

 

As for how much energy is needed for expansion to push away the electron from hydrogen (exceeding attraction) I'm not sure. That's the process you are mentioning though. (I also wonder if the proton will also react accordingly, breaking up and expanding its least massive quark, which would then behave like an electron. That's the flip side of the tempurature test I mentioned...though not to say it'd remain in long if it can shed/radiate some energy.)

 

[Forgive me if I sound less coherent, as it's 3a and I can't sleep.]

The articles above in particular differential geometry is included in the articles above. If you don't have strong differential geometry start with

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2

 

The first link teaches differential geometry or rather extensively reviews the needed math.

 

Part two takes you into the GR portion.

The tools to learn is above several of those articles include textbooks.

 

In particular interest is particle physics and inflationary cosmology (full textbook)

 

If you need further my signature has my webpage that includes further articles. Including a handy expansion light cone calculator.

(Lol the material I provided though should take a year at least to properly understand)

I would also look over and study the Feyman lectures.

 

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

 

there is four textbooks available here.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

You start by saying "Thermal Expansion due to energy in the nucleus:"

Can you explain why the measured values for thermal expansion are exactly what you calculate from measurements of the energy/ distance curves for the electron?

you also say "Energy/friction of nucleus causes heat/repulsive/expansive force that pushes against electrons (or otherwise smallest stable particle in the atom"

Well, there are a couple of problems there.

friction is a dissipative process- where does the energy go and, perhaps more importantly, where does the energy come from to ensure that they atoms don't "run out"?

Also, many of the electrons in an atom have an essentially zero probability of being at the nucleus.

How does it affect them?

 

As far as I can see the easiest s explanation of the issues with your idea is that it's just some stuff you made up.

Do you have a nice clear summary of

(1) how your idea gives a better explanation than the standard one used in textbooks (you might want to start by showing where that theory gives the wrong answers)

and

(2) how you mathematically derived your ideas from some set of testable postulates.

[swansont]

Protons have energy. Protons have quarks. Nuclear Heat/Energy attempts to radiate, but attraction doesn't let it (they "balance" out). The electron gets caught in the battle (finding orbit within that balance).

 

So why is it that the proton's mass doesn't seem to change? And why are the energy levels of the hydrogen atom (or any atom, for that matter) quantized, if the orbitals are the result of heating the nucleus? And, more importantly, how do you arrive at the formula for the spectrum — something we already have?

 

Why would attraction keep the particle from radiating? The radiation would be in the form of photons, which are unaffected by the nuclear attraction.

I would love help on math.

 

The math is the bulk of the theory. If you don't have math, you don't have much. Further, you haven't described enough that consistent with known physics to really get any traction with math. IOW, the math of known physics isn't going to get you to where you want to go.

[Borson]

First off, missing math is why this is in speculation section.

Thanks for links Mordred, I'll get to them when I can. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure particle physics explain that enough energy/momentum can break bonds of force.

It's not particle physics, or (for the most part) GR I'm looking to change (as this is insignificant at such scales).

Quantum theory has energy transforming into mass without corresponding mass particles, and explains this with the whole is less than the sum of it's parts. Essentially saying 1 < 1. In there lies what's missing.

 

To help me out, explain why energy doesn't radiate within the atom. Specifically why energy is considered evenly distributed within the atom, rather than concentrated at it's center/source, the nucleus. The kinetic motion/energy lies in the nucleus much more than the vastly empty space elsewhere in the atom.

Why doesn't energy radiate from the nucleus to the outer, less energetic parts of the atom (pushing the electrons against attraction in the process)?

 

I suspect it's similiar to thermal dynamics and gravity, changing inverse to radius, rather than equal throughout.

Attraction interaction with radiation prevents energy from escaping in a balanced system, but that does not imply equal distribution of energy.

 

 

Thanks for your time.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Borson

[swansont]

First off, missing math is why this is in speculation section.

 

From the perspective of the rules, the reason this is in speculations is that it's a new idea that runs contrary to established physics. That it lacks math, or any testable predictions, means it's not speculations according to our guidelines.

To help me out, explain why energy doesn't radiate within the atom. Specifically why energy is considered evenly distributed within the atom, rather than concentrated at it's center/source, the nucleus. The kinetic motion/energy lies in the nucleus much more than the vastly empty space elsewhere in the atom.

Why doesn't energy radiate from the nucleus to the outer, less energetic parts of the atom (pushing the electrons against attraction in the process)?

 

Why should energy radiate within an atom? What part of physics says anything about the distribution of the energy? You are proceeding from a lack of understanding of what the prevailing model is, so you are in effect attacking a straw man version of physics.

Quantum theory has energy transforming into mass without corresponding mass particles, and explains this with the whole is less than the sum of it's parts. Essentially saying 1 < 1. In there lies what's missing.

 

E=mc^2 is relativity. Energy is conserved, and mass is a form of energy. It's not that energy transforms into mass, it's that one form of energy transforms into another form, which is mass. There is no 1 < 1 at play here. It's more like 1 = 0.1 + 0.9

[Borson]

Is the sun equally energetic within, or does it have a hotter, energetic core, radiating outward? Is that not described by molecular thermal expansion (which is why I chose the name).

 

Is energy kinetic motion? Is that not most prevailing in the nucleus (compared to electrons and other space in the atom)? Does energy not tend to radiate from higher concentrations to low concentrations in general?

 

If energy was equal throughout, would it not imply motion of particles equal throughout? Such that nuclear particles should equally be distributed in the atom as well?

 

 

Additionally, if you're to calculate gravity based on energy conversion (rather than actual particle mass), would you not need to convert the entire energy of a system before such calculation?

 

Example: Conversion of energy of earth would be required, than added to it's mass, before calculation? (I thought we just used mass, radius, and G, am I wrong?)

 

E=mc^2 is a mathematical conversion. Not implication that addition of energy manifest also particles of mass. (You can't just pick and choose when to convert energy to mass for calculation).

Edited May 25, 2015 by Borson

[Mordred]

Yes but all these are currently calculatable via the ideal gas laws. Which you can then apply to the Einstein field equations.

 

Any formula can be adapted to specific systems. This is done on a regular basis. The generalized formulas one usually finds in textbooks, the system specific formulas in peer reviewed literature.

 

One good example is redshift formulas I've long ago lost count on the system specific variants I've seen.

 

If you study the math you will learn that any formula can be modified to include other related formulas.

 

All formulas are done to good approximation none are ever completely exact.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Mordred

[John Cuthber]

"Is energy kinetic motion? Is that not most prevailing in the nucleus (compared to electrons and other space in the atom)?"

No

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem

 

"If energy was equal throughout, would it not imply motion of particles equal throughout?"

 

No.

it would imply that the lightweight things like electrons move faster than the heavier thinks (like protons).

And that's what is actually observed.

 

Don't you think you should spend a little more time finding out how well the usual models aork, before trying to come up with a better one?
After all, if you don't know what you are trying to mimic, you are almost bound to get it wrong 9as you have so far).

 

Once again,

Do you have a nice clear summary of

(1) how your idea gives a better explanation than the standard one used in textbooks (you might want to start by showing where that theory gives the wrong answers)

and

(2) how you mathematically derived your ideas from some set of testable postulates.

[Mordred]

Here is the stress energy/momentum tensor in Minkowskii metric. (Special relativity)

 

 

[latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

[latex]SO(3.1)=SO(2)\otimes SO(2)\backslash Z_2[/latex]

 

what the above correlates to is the 4*4 matrix (coordinates) correlates to the 4*4 observer coordinates via the Z integer group ( particle angular momentum (spin). electron is 1/2 spin, photon spin 1, gravity falls under spin 2 not part of the Z group. (May be another integer spin, i.e. -2 cannot be 1\2 or 1 or zero) loses symnetry

(Side note The letter group designations can have several meanings in lie algebra, there is a subset just on electromagnetic)

 

This above is the poincare group which the Lorentz group is a subset of equates to

Included is pressure, and energy density.

 

[latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\Lambda_{\rho\mu}\Lambda{\sigma v}_g{\rho \sigma}[/latex]

 

Which corresponds to

 

 

[latex]G_{\mu v}=\Lambda g_{\mu\nu}=\frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

 

 

The equations of state for cosmology applications is here

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

 

Key note

 

[latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex]

 

One thing to mention is the ideal gas laws include solids.

 

This is one example of how interconnected the various theories and models are interconnected.

 

I've provided the literature to understand this post previously.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Mordred

[swansont]

Is the sun equally energetic within, or does it have a hotter, energetic core, radiating outward? Is that not described by molecular thermal expansion (which is why I chose the name).

Yes. The key being that this is an atomic/molecular/plasma interaction; you chose nuclear for your title. The sun is not a nucleus. The thermodynamic interactions of ~10^54 particles governed by the electromagnetic interaction and driven by fusion cannot be used a model for what happens to 3 quarks bound inside a nucleus.

 

Is energy kinetic motion? Is that not most prevailing in the nucleus (compared to electrons and other space in the atom)? Does energy not tend to radiate from higher concentrations to low concentrations in general?

Kinetic energy is the term for energy of the motion of the center of mass. Yes, energy tends to radiate in that direction, though "concentration" is an awkward term to use (see below). But it follows specific laws, and you are just waving your hands.

 

If energy was equal throughout, would it not imply motion of particles equal throughout? Such that nuclear particles should equally be distributed in the atom as well?

This phrasing makes little sense, and less so in the context of quantum mechanics. Energy is not a substance, it is a property. The quarks in a proton or neutron would have energy, and the protons and neutrons in a nucleus have energy, and the electrons bound to an atom have energy, but that energy would be quantized. It is not generally distributed equally, or evenly. For the protons, neutrons and electrons, the Pauli exclusion principle demands that they not have the same energy.

 

You do know what the Pauli exclusion principle is, right? If not, you need to go back to square one and learn the basics. There's no point in this if you're starting from a position of ignorance.

 

Additionally, if you're to calculate gravity based on energy conversion (rather than actual particle mass), would you not need to convert the entire energy of a system before such calculation?

 

Example: Conversion of energy of earth would be required, than added to it's mass, before calculation? (I thought we just used mass, radius, and G, am I wrong?)

The mass of the earth is ~6 x 10^24 kg. That already includes any energy above the rest mass. But what if would we need to account for it separately? If the entire earth were at 1000 K on average, with a heat capacity of 1 J/g-K, that would be 6 x 10^30 J. Divide by c^2 (or about 10^17) and we get 6 x 10^13 kg. Or a change that's a about a part in 10^11. Nothing to fret over for gravitational calculations. We don't know the mass of the earth (or G) to that level.

 

E=mc^2 is a mathematical conversion. Not implication that addition of energy manifest also particles of mass. (You can't just pick and choose when to convert energy to mass for calculation).

Actually yes, it does imply that mass increases (nobody has claimed that particles appear as a result), and what's more, it's been experimentally confirmed. Add a photon to Fe-56, putting it in a metastable excited state (so it stays excited long enough to measure) and the mass changes

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278 (latter part of the post)

 

Also, you can turn energy into particle antiparticle pairs. Photon energy into mass energy. Also observed, and that's even easier to see.

[Borson]

I figured rest mass right after I gave thought to it. (Haven't had time to respond).

 

Energy is a property of mass, not a property of the empty space in a system, right? (This is what I'm failing to understand, why wouldn't energy radiate...[light bulb]. Such energy needs mass to radiate to (as you can't have energy without mass)).

 

So is the energy radiating from the nucleus to the electrons what keeps them from falling into the nucleus?

 

I withdraw.

 

Thanks for your time.

[swansont]

Photons have energy, but no rest mass.

 

That electrons don't radiate and fall into the nucleus was a problem addressed by quantum mechanics.

[Mordred]

I figured rest mass right after I gave thought to it. (Haven't had time to respond).

 

Energy is a property of mass, not a property of the empty space in a system, right? (This is what I'm failing to understand, why wouldn't energy radiate...[light bulb]. Such energy needs mass to radiate to (as you can't have energy without mass)).

 

So is the energy radiating from the nucleus to the electrons what keeps them from falling into the nucleus?

 

I withdraw.

 

Thanks for your time.

As you noticed rest mass, just in closing the other form of mass is inertial mass. More for other readers. By the way +1 not many drop their personal model ideas