# Critique of Logic

Years ago, I had the opportunity to have a lot of time on my hands. I filled a notebook with what most would call simple mathematics. Now I'm no genius, but the math led me to make two basic conclusions.
Here's what I wrote about the first conclusion.
If the graviton existed, then would'nt objects in an accelerating frame produce gravitons by virtue of the equivalence principle?
If an atom is falling freely in a gravity field, would'nt that mean every graviton it produces must be exactly met and cancelled by a graviton within the gravity field? Is'nt gravity supposed to be cumulative?
If you sat in a ferris wheel in space (no gravity field) that was rotating at a constant speed, would'nt the equivalence principle apply to the centrifugal force even though there is no accelleration?
At what level does the equivalence principle apply?
Molecular - yes
Atomic - yes
Sub-atomic - ?
Quantom - ?

If we think of a neutron star as a screen through which all particles must pass in order to escape. That is, the space between the atoms is the holes in the screen. For the sake of argument, let's think of the star as a hollow object with a screen across the surface, representing the atoms and the space (the material of the screen and the holes in it repectively). If gravity was a particle, it must be exceedingly small because not just some gravitons pass through; all gravitons pass through the screen.
Now think of a black hole as a screen with an ever decreasing hole size. Mathematically, all gravitons escape to affect the surrounding space no matter how fine the screen.
This leads me to think that all gravitons would pass through even if the screen became solid (no holes left for gravitons to pass through yet all gravitons would still pass through). If they do not escape, then the only gravity to affect the curviture of the surrounding space would be the ones created at the surface of the neutron star/black hole.
Unless, of course, one can show that neutrons are 99.99999% empty space and are not compressible by gravity. Otherwise, they would collapse into a black hole, thus closing the holes in the screen and preventing gravitons from escape.
The alternative is to assume that gravity is not a particle at all. Which would make it the only true force of the four fundamental forces. Quantom theory, and the GUT describe the electromagnetic, strong, and the weak nuclear forces as particles adequately enough to assume it correctness.
However; no theory that assumes gravity as a particle works, therefore it is logical to assume that gravity is not a particle until such time as new information indicates otherwise.​

Now as I said, I'm no genius, and I'm not trying to promote some personal wacko theories. I admit, I'm probably wrong (as we all are). But I would like to hear some honest critique of the logic. The conclusion also indicates that the particle/wave duality does not apply to gravity. And since gravity would be the physical manifastation of a particle-less wave, it opens up the possibility (albeit fantastic) of a waveless particle.

The other conclusion is a bit more wacked out. Using a single logical assumption, I think I was able to derive a measurement for n+1 when given an n dimentional object. In other words, I was able to derive information about an unseen dimention simply by using geometry and trig. I applied it to the accelleration formula and ended up with mass in motion=time. Kinda wacked, most likely wrong, but if anyone is interested in seeing it, let me know. My command of math is limited, so my work is rather simplistic. Therefore I probably got it wrong.

Which brings me to a question that I hope someone can answer. If all mass and most energy cannot escape a black hole with the exception of quantom "leakage", would not the energy build up within eventually tear up most forms of matter. Would'nt the heat (entropy) be so intense that matter would be reduced down to sub atomic particles and below thereby eliminating most mass, and vis-a-vis most gravity, therby destroying the black hole? Does gravity overcome even entropy?

Last edited:

Related Other Physics Topics News on Phys.org
Or perhaps it merely reaches a balancing point?

And perhaps they do dissapear after a while, I don't think we truly know how long they last.

Current theories suggest a very long but not infinite length of time. They do melt away due to quantom tunnelling, but it would take billions or trillions of years.

But has anyone insterted entropy into the equations? Certainly squeezing that much mass and energy into a small space would produce a huge amount of entropy. But would the entropy convert the mass into energy?

Yes, there would be a point of equilibrium; that would depend upon how much mass is entering into the system. It's very much like the equilibrium between gravity and explosive fusion in a star except for the insertion of an inconsistent amount of extra mass and energy into the system.

That I can understand. Now, does anyone have any physical evidence that gravity is a particle?

Last edited:

Am I to take this to mean there is no solid evidence that gravity is a particle?

How about the question of the equivalence principle? Does it apply on the subatomic or quantom level?

Art
Black hole

"Current theories suggest a very long but not infinite length of time. They do melt away due to quantom tunnelling, but it would take billions or trillions of years."

I thought the evaporation was due to the creation of particle anti-particle pairs near the horizon of a black hole with some particles falling into the black hole before it could annihilate with it's counterpart thus allowing the other half of the pair to escape. I think this is the gist of Hawking's theory after whom the escaping particles are named; Hawking radiation. - As you say it is a very slow process. The total lifetime of a black hole of M solar masses = 10^71 M^3 seconds.
Art

Hmm... I stand corrected. That is still a very long time.
If there is no evidence to show that gravity is a particle, why are we trying to come up with a quantom theory of gravity?
Why not just treat it as a field, or as an extra dimension?

BTW, anyone have a problem with the logic when I apply the second law of thermodynamics to black holes? Should'nt entropy take over once gravity starts converting mass into energy? How much can you heat mass before it starts flying apart on a quantom level?

Art
BH do have entropy

Stephen Hawking and Jacob Bekenstein have proven theorems that the entropy of a black hole is proportional to the area of it's event horizon. And so the second law of thermodynamics is adhered to.
Art