It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass

page: 1
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass

The equivalence principle is one of the corner stones of general relativity. Now physicists have used quantum mechanics to show how it fails.





The equivalence principle is one of the more fascinating ideas in modern science. It asserts that gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical. Einstein put it like this: the gravitational force we experience on Earth is identical to the force we would experience were we sitting in a spaceship accelerating at 1g. Newton might have said that the m in F=ma is the same as the ms in F=Gm1m2/r^2.

[...]

All that changes today with the extraordinary work of Endre Kajari at the University of Ulm in Germany and a few buddies. They show how it is possible to create situations in the quantum world in which the effects of inertial and gravitational mass must be different. In fact, they show that these differences can be arbitrarily large.

It turns out that physicists already play with exactly this kind of set up: the so-called atom trampoline, in which a matter wave falls under the influence of gravity but is bounced by an electromagnetic force. They calculate that the energy eigenvalues of the atom are proportional to the (gravitational mass)^2/3 but to the (inertial mass)^-1/3.

If successful, these kinds of investigations will provide an entirely new way of studying the nature of mass and, perhaps more importantly, of investigating the puzzling relationship between general relativity and quantum mechanics.


Source : www.technologyreview.com...




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   
If they can prove, even through manipulation, that inertial and gravitational mass can be seperate, what relevance could that have on the potential for space flight?
Could this be the next factor to be considered in the development of FTL travel? If inertia can be singled out, then the sci-fi created "inertial damperners" used to protect material in hyper flight is one step closer to reality.

I love quantum science because it challenges the theories and bases that most of the rest of the science community is founded on and rarely steps aside from.

Einstein's theories have done as much good as harm for the furthering of scientific understanding through the growing age of science. He provided for some very good foundations, but because it was taught as the base line of modern science, too few are comfortable laying those theories aside and thinking outside the perverbial box.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by wheresthetruth
 


Einstein has made a lot of errors, and he was too fast to impose is vision ( like most scientist, it is human, but it is not the scientific method ).

Could we say einstein have a cybernetic knowledge , based on wide and different science ( he learn with his first job) ... that he merely reused to become famous ( with RG , he stolen part of the idea from an other scientist ). He was a true scientist, but we (people) should learn how science work : scientist don't invent , they suppose, demonstrate, test, and agglomerate ideas.

- a computer will find all the last rules in the univers, maybe ...

[edit on 6-7-2010 by psychederic]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Strictly speaking Mass is equivalent to total space-time surface area of any given particle.

At the planc level space-time is frothy or foamy and constantly changing. Quantum foam gives rise to particles, stable particles are areas of space-time that the chaos within the quantum foam has formed a resonance and found order.

Gravity as we know it does not exist as such; it is just an effect of varying degrees of space-time density.

Inertial mass however is caused by how dense areas of space-time increase in surface area with the movement of the density through less dense areas.

In other words, a particle may appear to have more mass when moving than when stationary.

This premise can be tested as it predicts that the mass of moving particles will fluctuate given the movement through the ever changing density of the space-time it is moving within.

This is the basic model for Loop Quantum Gravity and the propagation of gravity through spin networks.

Sorry if you can't follow, it's not an easy subject to relay and quite difficult to visualise.

All the best,

Korg.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by Korg Trinity]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


You know what ? 40 years ago : we describe molecules like this : visual.merriam-webster.com...

But you know what ?

Read quantum physics, and this articles : and you see the schematic is way to simple, and lead to misconception :

yes it is simple for a simple mind ...

but reality is different.

So, don't create upper levels rules, when the whole and the sub-systems are not analysed.

Loop Quantum is not prooved, let talk about it in one or two years ...

[edit on 6-7-2010 by psychederic]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
What i would like to tell you : it is time now to think about the last question ...

www.multivax.com...

"How may entropy be reversed?"

"How to create real reality from nothing ?"

Or in an other field : "the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything "

en.wikipedia.org...

Or in other word : what really matter when you live as human being, and you have all the anwers, all the energy and space YOU NEED...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychederic


It turns out that physicists already play with exactly this kind of set up: the so-called atom trampoline, in which a matter wave falls under the influence of gravity but is bounced by an electromagnetic force.


Wait, so is this something different from the fact that the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force combine in opposite directions to make a smaller force? If not, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual nature of gravitational mass. Just a classical vector sum of forces.

Perhaps I didn't understand the rest of the post, but what is it here that demonstrates that gravitational mass is something fundamentally different from inertial mass?


[edit on 6-7-2010 by NewlyAwakened]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by wheresthetruth
 


No. it just means that when someone shoves you, it's different from the Earth gaining a few pounds.

Current knowledge and technology allows for FTL drives to be built today. Money is the only thing stopping it. It costs so dang much.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Gravity is so puzzling that scientists even invented dark matter and dark energy to account for behavior of masses at large and very large scales of the Universe. I wanna aks "Are they that stupid for believing that gravity must exert the same force throughout all scales of masses, when this principle already breaks at subatomic scale, for example??" Seriously, just think about it, read some stuff about this "current frontier of theoretical physics". I'm ashamed of scientific community.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Korg Trinity
 


Yes.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Is it just me, or does an "atom trampoline" just sound incredibly fun?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by psychederic
New Quantum Theory Separates Gravitational and Inertial Mass

The equivalence principle is one of the corner stones of general relativity. Now physicists have used quantum mechanics to show how it fails.




They have done nothing of the kind. If you had understood the research paper, you would have summarized it properly by saying that physicists have used quantum mechanics to provide a way of testing whether the Equivalence Principle fails for objects as small as subatomic particles.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
In a related field :

A quantum trampoline for ultra-cold atoms

iopscience.iop.org...

Skydiving for cold atoms ( bose einstein ) : translate.google.com... bre-pour-atomes-froids.html

Energy entropy : translate.google.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
all we do is STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS... now that is science!



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by psychederic
 


I think if Einstein were alive today he would welcome people to challenge his conclusions. Einstein pioneered a lot of the theoretical, which in and of itself has helped advance civilization.

Einstein knew he was human, and that errors are made. Think of it this way.. We might not even be having this conversation had he not ventured into the unkown and made some guesses.

It doesnt matter if he was right.. What matters is he made an attempt to find answers to the unkown.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Pardon my inexperience with quantum physics, but would this have anything to do with Ed Leedskalnin's work??

I think if I were an engineer or physicist I'd spend a good deal of my time trying to figure out what he knew and how he accomplished his amazing tasks. Maybe even make it a full time occupation.

Funny how he did what he did a long time ago, all by himself, and it just doesn't seem to get the attention it deserves. I think if we had his knowledge we might have some reasonable solutions to a lot of the problems we face today.

I think if we combined his *esoteric* knowledge with Tesla principles we might be living in a more advanced society, with less need for TPTB. Which would only be a threat to them, and an obvious benefit to us all.

Just my 2cents...



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
/start mental diarrhea

I'm still trying to figure out basic electricity and its relationship to magnetism - let alone all this crazy GR theory. I've been teaching myself from the ground up on everything so I can understand people like Tesla, and his inventions - namely the coil and induction motors.

What is clear in my studies (I'm talking pre-school physics, chemistry and math here), is that science has taken great liberties.

What I mean by that is, after reading through college chemistry books checked out from my local library, is that it seems more emphasis is put into manipulating what is already known instead of understanding more of the how's-and-why's.

I guess, commercially, it makes sense. But in my mind, it makes more sense to figure out HOW it all works at a fundamental level because that could lead to more efficient theories or machines (meaning less consumption) and we'd have a stronger foundation for tackling the biggies like GR and QT.

It just seems we're going about it all backwards - this is my OPINION. The first thing we did with Einstein's work was make a bomb out of it before we even knew if it would ignite the atmosphere or not.

I think there should be less assumptions and more fundamental research into how things work, because, honestly, dark matter and quantum foam and other terms percolating from the scientific community are getting harder and harder to take as gospel.

How and why magnetism - a fundamental force in our known universe and core piece of industry - works shouldn't still be theory in today's age, I guess it my point.

/end mental diarrhea



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by strNick
I wanna aks "Are they that stupid for believing that gravity must exert the same force throughout all scales of masses, when this principle already breaks at subatomic scale, for example??"


Nothing speaks class like "I wanna aks". Anyhow, I doubt that the physicists are stupid. Yes it's hard to extrapolate and in fact there in an acknowledgment that this is not done right. However, there is still a half decent model of the Universe that includes such scaling.

As to "breaking at subatomic scale"... I doubt that it does. After all, masses of electrons, protons and neutrons are all separately measured, and it all adds us (if you include the equivalence) to the correct mass of a chunk of material. Gamma-rays can lose or gain energy in gravitational field. Looks like we are doing a decent job here as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I dunno if I'm gonna get frowned at here but this would explain how UFO's are able to move at high speeds (presumably) without damaging their crew. Maybe one day this could lead to such applications in our transport, imagine a world where a car crash would leave the passengers unharmed as they haven't been brutally stopped.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by DiGi-Dan]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
I took note of something the other day. The BBC released "High Defination" Gravity Maps of the planet.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Does anyone else see it? Where gravity is at it's weaker points, magnetism is stronger - IE, the Gulf of Aden area and the Bermuda Triangle - both have had unusual things happening.

I haven't had time to do more research on this.




top topics



 
24
<<   2 >>

log in

join