Learning Gravity: Gravitons nor mass of a particle

[sirios]

Hi everyone, today, I have a question about quantum gravity, good to begin with. I used Newton's formula to calculate gravity for nêutron , the result exceeded Planck's radius, the question is: could it be that gravity is not necessarily connected to the mass of a particle, nor with graviton, but in another way that no one has explained yet?

 

[DrChinese]

Hi everyone, today, I have a question about quantum gravity, good to begin with. I used Newton's formula to calculate gravity for nêutron , the result exceeded Planck's radius, the question is: could it be that gravity is not necessarily connected to the mass of a particle, nor with graviton, but in another way that no one has explained yet?

I think your units are off, as gravity is not usually measured in length. Also, not sure why you would be thinking of Newton when you are asking a fundamental theoretical question about gravity. Gravity is currently best described by General Relativity (GR) (Einstein, 1916).

As to whether gravity can be better explained by a currently unidentified theory: that is an open question, but we already know that GR is extremely good. Improvements have been suggested, but none have good experimental support at this time. Some versions include the existence of the graviton, but it is by no means certain that gravitons exist.

 

[sirios]

I think your units are off, as gravity is not usually measured in length. Also, not sure why you would be thinking of Newton when you are asking a fundamental theoretical question about gravity. Gravity is currently best described by General Relativity (GR) (Einstein, 1916).

As to whether gravity can be better explained by a currently unidentified theory: that is an open question, but we already know that GR is extremely good. Improvements have been suggested, but none have good experimental support at this time. Some versions include the existence of the graviton, but it is by no means certain that gravitons exist.

in fact, I did not use relativity to calculate gravity because I did not think a particle could bend the space-time fabric. But you do not think that relativity will also exceed Planck's radius.

 

[DrChinese]

in fact, I did not use relativity to calculate gravity because I did not think a particle could bend the space-time fabric. But you do not think that relativity will also exceed Planck's radius.

Sure, particles with mass bend space time. That is the basis of how GPS satellites synchronize with Earth time.

Time on Earth goes slower than time for satellites in high orbit above the Earth. That is because of the effect of the Earth's mass for those of us on the surface. There are offsetting effects to consider too, and those can be seen here:

http://www.askamathematician.com/20...-where-the-effects-cancel-out-is-that-useful/

 

[Khashishi]

You are going to have to learn to walk before you learn to run. Quantum gravity is something that stumps professionals who have dedicated their lives to it.

 

[sirios]

Sure, particles with mass bend space time. That is the basis of how GPS satellites synchronize with Earth time. [emoji2]

Time on Earth goes slower than time for satellites in high orbit above the Earth. That is because of the effect of the Earth's mass for those of us on the surface. There are offsetting effects to consider too, and those can be seen here:

http://www.askamathematician.com/20...-where-the-effects-cancel-out-is-that-useful/

I already knew this, however, what I asked was this: Relativity when applied on sub atomic particles or in quarks, does not exceed the radius of Planck or rather, the power of gravity does not exceed the radius of Planck?
[emoji5]

 

[sirios]

You are going to have to learn to walk before you learn to run. Quantum gravity is something that stumps professionals who have dedicated their lives to it.

Eu não sou um profissional neste assunto. Sou estudante universitário.

[Mentor's note: The above roughly translates from Portuguese as "I'm not a pro on this subject. I'm a college student"]

 

[Will Oakley]

The emergence of gravity at the electron scale is shown in a recently published article: It says gravity derives from the space-time curvature necessary to localize a single photon. The curvature is toroidal and the photon propagates rectilinearly (straight line) in curved space very close to an event horizon. The mass effect is due to the photon being relativistic as the localized energy cause a lower local light velocity, so it appears to move at less than c to the observer. The electron is a 70MeV circulation reduced by the relativistic factor of alpha (= 1/137) to the observed rest mass energy of 0.511MeV. The article calculates a value for Newton's G: "Oakley WS. Analyzing the Large Number problem and Newton's G via a relativistic quantum loop model of the electron. Int J Sci Rep 2015;1(4): 201-5"

 

[Will Oakley]

The electron model gives a gravitational quantum of about mqc^2 = 6.792MeV and derives a value for Newton's G at 6.674273033 x 10^-11 SI units. BUT NOTE: gravity does not act via mass but directly via the particle energy curving space-time. So the c^4 in the following equation is (2.9989 x 10^10)^4 and G = (hbarc/c^4)(2mq)^2.
This same gravitational quantum is the basis of the protons rest mass energy of 938MeV, I.e. 6.792/alpha = 6.792 x 137 ~ 930.6MeV, which is increased by 1.00834 due to internal cross coupling factors.

Dr Chinese, there is lots more than can be mentioned here.

 

[sirios]

The electron model gives a gravitational quantum of about mqc^2 = 6.792MeV and derives a value for Newton's G at 6.674273033 x 10^-11 SI units. BUT NOTE: gravity does not act via mass but directly via the particle energy curving space-time. So the c^4 in the following equation is (2.9989 x 10^10)^4 and G = (hbarc/c^4)(2mq)^2.
This same gravitational quantum is the basis of the protons rest mass energy of 938MeV, I.e. 6.792/alpha = 6.792 x 137 ~ 930.6MeV, which is increased by 1.00834 due to internal cross coupling factors.

Dr Chinese, there is lots more than can be mentioned here.

Hello, thank you very much for replying, can you send the article to me?

 

[Nugatory]

I used Newton's formula to calculate gravity for nêutron , the result exceeded Planck's radius...

You've mentioned the Planck length several times now in this thread. You might want to take a look at this Insights article: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

1) You cannot trust any calculation based on classical physics, including Newton's formula, at that length scale.
2) The Planck length isn't the smallest possible distance.

 

[sirios]

You've mentioned the Planck length several times now in this thread. You might want to take a look at this Insights article: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

1) You cannot trust any calculation based on classical physics, including Newton's formula, at that length scale.
2) The Planck length isn't the smallest possible distance.

Thanks

 

[sirios]

Eu não sou um profissional neste assunto. Sou estudante universitárioI am not a professional in this subject. I am a university student. Sorry, my keyboard has been configured in another language

 

[Will Oakley]

Hello, thank you very much for replying, can you send the article to me?

I would be happy to send a copy of the article if I knew how. It's on line - no charge- at the site given in the prior text.