daddycaylor wrote:
>
>John Ross wrote:
>
>>Neutrinos and Gravity
>>
>>[0010] Neutrinos are very high-energy photons. Each neutrino
>comprises a
>>high-energy, high frequency entron. Neutrinos, like other photons,
>>travel in substantially straight lines at the speed of light with its
>>entron circling within the photon in circles having a diameter of
>>.lambda./2 where .lambda. is the neutrino's wavelength. Most neutrinos
>>illuminating the earth pass right through it. Neutrinos can pass right
>>through the nuclei of atoms and even protons. Gravity results from the
>>Coulomb force fields emanating from neutrinos as the neutrinos pass at
>>the speed of light through matter. These Coulomb force fields travel
>>rearward and sideways along the trail of neutrinos. The sideways
>>components cancel, but the rearward components add pushing the matter
>>through which they are passing back toward the source of the
>neutrinos.
>>Thus, neutrinos from the sun passing through the earth (about
>>100,000,000 per square centimeter per second) provide the "gravity"
>>holding the earth in its orbit around the sun. Neutrinos from the
>black
>>hole in the center of the Milky Way hold all the stars of the Milky
>Way
>>(including our sun) and us in our positions in our galaxy. Neutrinos
>>captured in the earth and later released provide the earth its
>gravity.
>
>Does this imply that an "anti-gravity" vehicle could be built if we could
>somehow build a neutrino shield and put it under the vehicle?
>
>Tom
>
This idea looks like it's pretty similar to LeSage's "pushing gravity"
theory--there's an article on it at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeSage_gravity which points out fatal flaws in
the the idea. It's also discussed in the second chapter of Richard Feynman's
"The Character of Physical Law", I'll quote the relevant section here:
On the other hand, take Newton's law for gravitation, which has the aspects
I discussed last time. I gave you the equation:
F=Gmm'/r^2
just to impress you with the speed with which mathematical symbols can
convey information. I said that the force was proportional to the product of
the masses of two objects, and inversely as the square of the distance
between them, and also that bodies react to forces by changing their speeds,
or changing their motions, in the direction of the force by amounts
proportional to the force and inversely proportional to their masses. Those
are words all right, and I did not necessarily have to write the equation.
Nevertheless it is kind of mathematical, and we wonder how this can be a
fundamental law. What does the planet do? Does it look at the sun, see how
far away it is, and decide to calculate on its internal adding machine the
inverse of the square of the distance, which tells it how much to move? This
is certainly no explanation of the machinery of gravitation! You might want
to look further, and various people have tried to look further. Newton was
originally asked about his theory--'But it doesn't mean anything--it doesn't
tell us anything'. He said, 'It tells you how it moves. That should be
enough. I have told you how it moves, not why.' But people are often
unsatisfied without a mechanism, and I would like to describe one theory
which has been invented, among others, of the type you migh want. This
theory suggests that this effect is the result of large numbers of actions,
which would explain why it is mathematical.
Suppose that in the world everywhere there are a lot of particles, flying
through us at very high speed. They come equally in all directions--just
shooting by--and once in a while they hit us in a bombardment. We, and the
sun, are practically transparent for them, practically but not completely,
and some of them hit. ... If the sun were not there, particles would be
bombarding the earth from all sides, giving little impuleses by the rattle,
bang, bang of the few that hit. This will not shake the earth in any
particular direction, because there are as many coming from one side as from
the other, from top as from bottom. However, when the sun is there the
particles which are coming from that direction are partially absorbed by the
sun, because some of them hit the sun and do not go through. Therefore the
number coming from the sun's direction towards the earth is less than the
number coming from the other sides, because they meet an obstacle, the sun.
It is easy to see that the farther the sun is away, of all the possible
directions in which particles can come, a smaller proportion of the
particles are being taken out. The sun will appear smaller--in fact
inversely as the square of the distance. Therefore there will be an impulse
on the earth towards the sun that varies inversely as the square of the
distance. And this will be the result of a large number of very simple
operations, just hits, one after the other, from all directions. Therefore
the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced,
because the fundamental operation is much simpler than calculating the
inverse of the square of the distance. This design, with the particles
bouncing, does the calculation.
The only trouble with this scheme is that it does not work, for other
reasons. Every theory that you make up has to be analysed against all
possible consequences, to see if it predicts anything else. And this does
predict something else. If the earth is moving, more particles will hit it
from in front than from behind. (If you are running in the rain, more rain
hits you in the front of the face than in the back of the head, because you
are running into the rain.) So, if the earth is moving it is running into
the particles coming towards it and away from the ones that are chasing it
from behind. So more particles will hit it from the front than from the
back, and there will be a force opposing any motion. This force would slow
the earth up in its orbit, and it certainly would not have lasted the three
of four billion years (at least) that it has been going around the sun. So
that is the end of that theory. 'Well,' you say, 'it was a good one, and I
got rid of the mathematics for a while. Maybe I could invent a better one.'
Maybe you can, because nobody knows the ultimate. But up to today, from the
time of Newton, no one has invented another theoretical description of the
mathematical machinery behind this law which does not either say the same
thing over again, or make the mathematics harder, or predict some wrong
phenomena. So there is no model of the theory of gravity today, other than
the mathematical form.
If this were the only law of this character it would be interesting and
rather annoying. But what turns out to be true is that the more we
investigate, the more laws we find, and the deeper we penetrate nature, the
more this disease persists. Every one of our laws is a purely mathematical
statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics.
Received on Thu Oct 06 2005 - 20:09:47 PDT