# gravitational force and electric force

by kurious
Tags: electric, force, gravitational
 P: 653 If a particle has a wavelength greater than twice the scwarzschild radius will it be unlikely to get into the black hole, just as a long wavelength photon isn't likely to get through a narrow slit? If this is true there is a possible explanation for the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the electric force- gravitons with a longer wavelength than photons are much less likely to fit into the event horizon of a proton, for example and so are less likely to be absorbed.What do you think - and don't just say protons don't have an event horizon - let's assume they do!
Mentor
P: 27,572
 Quote by kurious If a particle has a wavelength greater than twice the scwarzschild radius will it be unlikely to get into the black hole, just as a long wavelength photon isn't likely to get through a narrow slit? If this is true there is a possible explanation for the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the electric force- gravitons with a longer wavelength than photons are much less likely to fit into the event horizon of a proton, for example and so are less likely to be absorbed.What do you think - and don't just say protons don't have an event horizon - let's assume they do!
Er... long wavelength photon isn't likely to ge through a narrow slit? Since when? If d is the width of the slit, for $$\lambda << d$$, you don't see significant diffraction pattern, but for $$\lambda$$ comparable to or greater than d, you now get diffraction patterns. There's nothing here that says it can't get through the slit.

Typically, in physics, when you try to come up with an explanation, you try to limit, as much as possible, using incorrect or unverified conjecture and assumptions in your explanation. Doing so would only cause your explanation to be less likely to be correct or be taken seriously. Your "explanation" has several:

1. Incorrect wavelength-slit relationship
2. gravitons - still unverified
3. assumption of proton event horizon.

In addition, physics just doesn't say "what goes up must come down". It must also say when and where it will come down. The trademark of a good explantion or idea in physics must involved quantitative predictions that can be tested.

Zz.
 P: 653 I did a quantitative calculation.It says wavelength of graviton is 10^12 wavelength of photon.This means using wavelength x frequency, and assuming a vibrating particle generates equal frequency for photon and graviton ,that graviton moves at 10^20 metres per second.I've already got this speed for a graviton from general relativity!!
Mentor
P: 27,572

## gravitational force and electric force

 Quote by kurious I did a quantitative calculation.It says wavelength of graviton is 10^12 wavelength of photon.This means using wavelength x frequency, and assuming a vibrating particle generates equal frequency for photon and graviton ,that graviton moves at 10^20 metres per second.I've already got this speed for a graviton from general relativity!!
Er... you got the SPEED of a graviton from GR? GR has gravitons? Since when?

Secondly, "assuming a vibrating particle generates equal frequency"? How many assumptions is that already?

Thirdly, "10^12 wavelength of photon"? Which photon? Photons have wavelengths that varies several orders of magnitude, from km to nm and beyond. So you'll understand if that estimation that you derived is rather ambiguous.

Finally, shouldn't you try to get this published in, let's say, PRL first, and established its validity before you build on it? It appears that you are building something on very shaky grounds in the first place.

Zz.
 P: 653 The great thing about GR is that it can yield the speed of an electromagnetic graviton that travels faster than light but which does not contradict relativity theory because electric charge and coulomb constant are substituted for mass and Gravitational constant.In other words I have done GR for charge! If I oscillate a charge in an electric field it produces an EM wave.Since mass is considered to be where point charge is, frequency of oscillation will be the same.Differences in wave speeds will come from wavelength difference only. Graviton will have negative energy though so in blue and red shifts of photons in a gravitational field momentum is conserved.I will publish it in PRL when I have more evidence so that they will believe what I have is correct. This will not be till next year though.
Mentor
P: 27,572
 Quote by kurious The great thing about GR is that it can yield the speed of an electromagnetic graviton that travels faster than light but which does not contradict relativity theory because electric charge and coulomb constant are substituted for mass and Gravitational constant.In other words I have done GR for charge!
Pardon my skepticism, but that remains to be seen...

 If I oscillate a charge in an electric field it produces an EM wave.Since mass is considered to be where point charge is, frequency of oscillation will be the same.Differences in wave speeds will come from wavelength difference only.
The frequency of oscillation does NOT have to be the same. An electron in an EM field does not give off the same frequency as a proton in an EM field due to the larger mass/inertia of the proton. We know this very well in particle accelerators since photoinjector cavities and LINAC use these techniques to accelerate these particles. In addition, laser wakefields make USE of the fact that when a high intensity laser passes through a plasma, the heavier ions and lighter electrons respond DIFFERENTLY under the identical EM radiation.

 Graviton will have negative energy though so in blue and red shifts of photons in a gravitational field momentum is conserved.I will publish it in PRL when I have more evidence so that they will believe what I have is correct. This will not be till next year though.
Well, one consolation here will be that you probably won't have me as one of the referees.

Zz.
 P: 653 To clarifY: The frequency of oscillation of the mass of a proton=frequency of oscillation of charge of proton the frequency of oscillation of mass of electron = frequency of oscillation of charge of electron. The wavelength of photon and graviton emitted always has the ratio of 10^12 for all wavelengths. The electric field is just a strong gravitational field!
 PF Patron Emeritus P: 8,100 No it isn't. There's a lot more to both of them than frequency.
P: 182
 Quote by kurious To clarifY: The electric field is just a strong gravitational field!
Huh, ,I'm in a knock-down!
Mentor
P: 27,572
 Quote by kurious To clarifY: The frequency of oscillation of the mass of a proton=frequency of oscillation of charge of proton the frequency of oscillation of mass of electron = frequency of oscillation of charge of electron. The wavelength of photon and graviton emitted always has the ratio of 10^12 for all wavelengths. The electric field is just a strong gravitational field!
Then this whole string should have been in the Theory Development section, where it belongs, and not in here, since you are simply making loose extrapolation off something you barely understood.

As a side note, I can show you a 1D conductor obeying Luttinger Liquid description where it's "mass" and it's "charge" behave DIFFERENTLY from each other due to fractionalization. So let's just say that your "rule" regarding oscillation of mass corresponding to oscillation of charge can be challenged.

Zz.
 P: 653 How would you expect a spin 2 graviton to differ in behaviour from a spin one photon? FOR EXAMPLE GRAVITONS WOULDN'T SCATTER OFF ONE ANOTHER LIKE PHOTONS DO.
Mentor
P: 27,572
 Quote by kurious How would you expect a spin 2 graviton to differ in behaviour from a spin one photon? FOR EXAMPLE GRAVITONS WOULDN'T SCATTER OFF ONE ANOTHER LIKE PHOTONS DO.
How would you know? You haven't SEEN any gravitons, much less, to know if they scatter off one another (what this has anything to do with my previous comments, I have no idea). That is the essence of my ORIGINAL question regarding your idea way in the beginning of this string. You adopt something that hasn't been verfied and act as if it's a fact. Not only that, some of these things you adopt are just wrong. Photons can't pass through a slit that is smaller than its wavelength? Really now!

Zz.
 P: 7 The reason that gravity is so weak is simply because the mass of the proton is much less than the Planck mass

 Related Discussions Introductory Physics Homework 5 Introductory Physics Homework 1 Introductory Physics Homework 4 Introductory Physics Homework 1 Introductory Physics Homework 14