Origin of Gravity

[Speed of Light]

Hi

I'd be interested if anyone has any views or comments (eg criticisms) regarding 'Origin of Gravitational Force', something I wrote a few years ago


ORIGIN OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE

Although molecules are commonly visualised as being similar to snooker balls, according to the Quantum Theory, molecules are best understood as Waves of Probability - That is, each molecule, does not have a 'Definite' location - Its location could be thought of in terms of probability. For example, the molecules of which the Earth is composed, could in theory be anywhere in the universe - The probability decreasing, as we go further from the Earth. For example, the probability of
'Earth Molecules' being on the Moon, is much less than the Probability of them being on the Earth itself.. Similarly, during the course of its travels, as the Moon moves closer to the earth, the probability associated with Earth molecules, increases - So in effect, the closer the Moon becomes to the Earth, the more Earth Molecules are 'incorporated within the Moon's structure' - and the further away the Moon goes, from the Earth, less earth Molecules form part of the Moon's structure. Thus, as the Moon travels nearer to Earth, its Mass slightly increases (due to the slight increase in Earth Molecules), and similarly, as the Moon moves away from the Earth, its Mass slightly decreases.
Thus, the mere presence of the Earth, causes the Moon's Mass to vary, increasing as it approaches the Earth, and decreasing as it moves away from the Earth Statement One
The effect is only slight, but it is Real.
Molecules, when subjected to Heat, increase their Kinetic energy. This can normally be illustrated by the expansion that occurs with heat. There is always a certain Kinetic energy in Molecules - The molecules could be thought of as being in constant motion or vibration.
Although an Object like the moon may appear Solid enough, at the microscopic level, it is simply 'Buzzing' with Movement. Statement Two
Let us now combine Statements One and Two -
Statement Two tells us that, at the Microscopic level, the Moon is Never completely Stationary - and Statement One tells us that the mere presence of the Earth, causes the moon's Mass to vary, depending on its distance from the Earth.
Therefore - Each time the Moon moves Microscopically nearer to the Earth (or even vibrates in the Earth's direction), its Mass slightly increases, and conversely, each time the Moon moves or vibrates away from the Earth, its Mass slightly Decreases.
Statement Three
Thus we have a Simple Mechanical situation - Each microscopic movement of the Moon towards the Earth must have a Greater Inertial effect than a similar movement away from the earth. Thus it can be plainly understood by simple mechanics, that a resultant slight movement towards the Earth occurs.
Thus - The Origin of Gravitational Attraction

 

[KingMerv00]

I'm not an expert by any means but I thought the odds of an earth molecule tunneling its way all of the way to the moon is amazingly small. That means the small force you suggest would be swamped by other forces, like I meteorite striking the earth.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bound states decay exponentially with distance, but gravity obeys a 1/r² dependence. This is a fundamental difference. The effect of gravity therefore doesn't match up with the proposed cause (wave function overlap).

 

[fuelair]

Just a minor check here - I was taught that it is electrons not atoms or molecules that can (mathmatically/potentially) make that little shift of location - molecules being way too big for that game. If wrong, please provide a source. Thanks kindly.
(and since electrons have a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller mass, I specs that in no way accounts for gravity - not to mention that reason would be obvious enopugh that someone paid the big bucks would already have "patented" that thing!!!)

 

[Ziggurat]

Just a minor check here - I was taught that it is electrons not atoms or molecules that can (mathmatically/potentially) make that little shift of location - molecules being way too big for that game. If wrong, please provide a source. Thanks kindly.

It's both. But the exponential decay of the wave function depends quite a bit on the mass of the object, and since nuclei are so much more massive than electrons, the probability of finding them shifted any significant distance, even on the atomic scale, is vanishingly small. So compared to the electrons, they can generally be thought of as stationary.

But it doesn't matter: for both electrons and nuclei, the decay is exponential, and an exponential decay of the wave function cannot explain an inverse square power-law force. So the explanation doesn't work, regardless of whether it's the electrons, nuclei, entire molecules, or whatever that we're considering.

 

[Yllanes]

Just a minor check here - I was taught that it is electrons not atoms or molecules that can (mathmatically/potentially) make that little shift of location - molecules being way too big for that game. If wrong, please provide a source. Thanks kindly.
(and since electrons have a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay smaller mass, I specs that in no way accounts for gravity - not to mention that reason would be obvious enopugh that someone paid the big bucks would already have "patented" that thing!!!)

Not only electrons. For example, alpha decay is the result of a ⁴He nucleus tunnelling out of the bigger original nucleus. Of course, the spatial scales for electron and nucleus tunnelling are quite different.

 

[tracer]

For example, alpha decay is the result of a ⁴He nucleus tunnelling out of the bigger original nucleus.

Really? I thought the emission of an Alpha particle by an unstable nucleus was just, you know, because the strong force lost a little tug-of-war with the weak force.

 

[drkitten]

I'd be interested if anyone has any views or comments (eg criticisms) regarding 'Origin of Gravitational Force', something I wrote a few years ago

Yeah. It's wrong from beginning to end.

I'm not sure I could get that much wrong together in one place if you set me in a field full of wrong with a wrong mating call, a large vat of wrong musk, and a shotgun. The world's supply of right has been substantially reduced by the mere existence of that writing, as great herds of right have stampeded away to distant stars.

 

[mhaze]

That is some kind of awesome right wing stuff you be jiving on?

 

[Schneibster]

Have you ever heard of the Time Cube^TM?

Just trying a little experiment in cancellation... 8D

ETA:

Sorry, didn't mean to take the chance of creating a black hole in the middle of the forum without permission from the admins...

 

[ReligionStudent]

Hi

I'd be interested if anyone has any views or comments (eg criticisms) regarding 'Origin of Gravitational Force', something I wrote a few years ago


ORIGIN OF GRAVITATIONAL FORCE

Although molecules are commonly visualised as being similar to snooker balls, according to the Quantum Theory, molecules are best understood as Waves of Probability - That is, each molecule, does not have a 'Definite' location - Its location could be thought of in terms of probability. For example, the molecules of which the Earth is composed, could in theory be anywhere in the universe - The probability decreasing, as we go further from the Earth. For example, the probability of
'Earth Molecules' being on the Moon, is much less than the Probability of them being on the Earth itself.. Similarly, during the course of its travels, as the Moon moves closer to the earth, the probability associated with Earth molecules, increases - So in effect, the closer the Moon becomes to the Earth, the more Earth Molecules are 'incorporated within the Moon's structure' - and the further away the Moon goes, from the Earth, less earth Molecules form part of the Moon's structure. Thus, as the Moon travels nearer to Earth, its Mass slightly increases (due to the slight increase in Earth Molecules), and similarly, as the Moon moves away from the Earth, its Mass slightly decreases.
Thus, the mere presence of the Earth, causes the Moon's Mass to vary, increasing as it approaches the Earth, and decreasing as it moves away from the Earth Statement One
The effect is only slight, but it is Real.
Molecules, when subjected to Heat, increase their Kinetic energy. This can normally be illustrated by the expansion that occurs with heat. There is always a certain Kinetic energy in Molecules - The molecules could be thought of as being in constant motion or vibration.
Although an Object like the moon may appear Solid enough, at the microscopic level, it is simply 'Buzzing' with Movement. Statement Two
Let us now combine Statements One and Two -
Statement Two tells us that, at the Microscopic level, the Moon is Never completely Stationary - and Statement One tells us that the mere presence of the Earth, causes the moon's Mass to vary, depending on its distance from the Earth.
Therefore - Each time the Moon moves Microscopically nearer to the Earth (or even vibrates in the Earth's direction), its Mass slightly increases, and conversely, each time the Moon moves or vibrates away from the Earth, its Mass slightly Decreases.
Statement Three
Thus we have a Simple Mechanical situation - Each microscopic movement of the Moon towards the Earth must have a Greater Inertial effect than a similar movement away from the earth. Thus it can be plainly understood by simple mechanics, that a resultant slight movement towards the Earth occurs.
Thus - The Origin of Gravitational Attraction

Well, I think the biggest problem here is the idea that earth molecules might be on the moon. While it is impossible to tell where very small particles are, it is possible to say where molecules are. At the very least it is entirely pausible to state some sort of limit for them. ie, my mass does not very based on molecule loss. There is a much higher rate of loss through something as small as persperation than through random particle loss.

Remember, 12 grams of carbon 12 is 6.0221415 × 10^23 molecules or one mole. Thus for there to be 1 kg of difference between the moons weight at its closest and farthest, there would have to be roughly 50184512500000000000000000 atoms of C-12transfered between the earth and the moon.

Now lets say there were a 1 in 100 (an extremely favorable chance) chance per atom of it dancing itself over to the moon, for there to be that one kg change in the moon's mass, there would be a 1 in 100^50184512500000000000000000 chance for any given set of 50184512500000000000000000 atoms of c-12. (math people please check this. And I know this is not really fully true, because there are other elements than carbon, but it gives a good aproximation).

Now at 5973600000000000000000000 Kg the earth seems large. That is 5973600000000000000000000 chances for a kg to boogie over to the moon, with each one having a 100^50184512500000000000000000 chance of doing so. It is obvious that there is little chance of that happening.

Additionally, the distance variation between the earth and the moon would not be great enough to effect the probability significantly enough to cause a change in mass. (the probability at closest and farthest would be so astronomical, that no difference would really be detectable).

 

[Mashuna]

The main problem I can see is in this section,

less earth Molecules form part of the Moon's structure.

I think you meant

fewer earth molecules form part of the Moon's structure.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thus it can be plainly understood by simple mechanics, that a resultant slight movement towards the Earth occurs.
Thus - The Origin of Gravitational Attraction

Wot no math?

Look, it's not a theory unless you can go from your postulates to accurate predictions of how things behave under gravity. For example, the first thing to check is that your postulates predict the inverse square law.

Come back when you can do that.

 

[Big Al]

Quote:
fewer earth molecules form part of the Moon's structure.


As I like to say, "less beer, fewer bottles."

However, back to this mass-exchange proposal. How does this putative mass exchange account for spacetime warping effects such as time dilation? A large gravitational field has relativistic effects.

What about black holes? NOTHING escapes from one of them - well, except minuscule amounts of Hawking radiation. How does this mass exchange work under thiose circumstances?

 

[Yllanes]

For example, alpha decay is the result of a ⁴He nucleus tunnelling out of the bigger original nucleus.

Really? I thought the emission of an Alpha particle by an unstable nucleus was just, you know, because the strong force lost a little tug-of-war with the weak force.

You may be confusing it with beta decay, which is an example of weak interaction.

In Gamow's theory of alpha decay one considers an alpha particle trapped inside a potential barrier, created by the rest of the nucleus. Very small changes in the height of this barrier cause huge changes in the probability of tunnelling through it. This explains why the half lives of alpha emitters are so different. A factor of little more than two in the energy of the alpha particle causes a difference of 23 orders of magnitude in the half-life!

Basically,

• Alpha decay is governed by the strong interaction.
• Beta decay is governed by the weak interaction.
• Gamma decay is governed by the electromagnetic interaction.

 

[Fredrik]

Speed of Light, I think you're making the problem much more complicated than it needs to be by considering the molecules that the Earth and Moon are made of. If you want to argue that gravity is a consequence of how position is represented by a wave function in quantum mechanics, you should try to show that two elementary particles must attract each other. And as Dr Adequate said, you must also show that strength of the force varies with distance r as 1/r^2.

 

[scratchy]

"Although molecules are commonly visualised as being similar to snooker balls, according to the Quantum Theory, molecules are best understood as Waves of Probability" < stopped reading exactly here, realising this was going right off the cliff.

 

[fishbob]

So in effect, the closer the Moon becomes to the Earth, the more Earth Molecules are 'incorporated within the Moon's structure' - . . .

And the more Moon Molecules are incorporated within Earth, with a net gain of zero. Unless Earth is made up of one-way matter.

 

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Yeah. It's wrong from beginning to end.

I'm not sure I could get that much wrong together in one place if you set me in a field full of wrong with a wrong mating call, a large vat of wrong musk, and a shotgun. The world's supply of right has been substantially reduced by the mere existence of that writing, as great herds of right have stampeded away to distant stars.

[TOMMY LEE] That was sauteed in Wrong Sauce.[/TOMMY LEE]