Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:56 pm**

Hello Dr Skeptic

You will need to update your info on Plasma.

wikipedea states that:

In the physical sciences, a phase is a set of states of a macroscopic physical system that have relatively uniform chemical composition and physical properties (i.e. density, crystal structure, index of refraction, and so forth). The most familiar examples of phases are solids, liquids, and gases. Less familiar phases include: plasmas and quark-gluon plasmas; Bose-Einstein condensates and fermionic condensates; strange matter; liquid crystals; superfluids and supersolids; and the paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases of magnetic materials.

Ultra dense Plasma matter

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/ter...age=list&ABC=Q

Term: Quark-gluon plasma
Definition:
A state of matter in which quarks and gluons, the fundamental constituents of matter, are no longer confined within the dimensions of the nucleon, but free to move around over a volume in which a high enough temperature and/or density prevails. This type of plasma has recently, 2/2000, been observed indirectly by the European laboratory for particle physics, CERN. These plasmas result in effective quark masses which are much larger than the actual masses. Calculations for the transition temperature to this new state give values between 140 and 180 MeV. This is more than 10,000 times the nominal fusion plasma temperature of 10keV. 150 MeV is the characteristic energy of a particle in a plasma at roughly 1.5 trillion Kelvin. This corresponds to an energy density in the neighborhood of seven times that of nuclear matter. Temperatures and energy densities above these values existed in the early universe during the first few microseconds after the Big Bang.

http://columbia-physics.net/faculty/gyulassy_main.htm

Professor: Miklos Gyulassy

Research
quote:"I head the nuclear theory group at Columbia. Our work concentrates on the physics of ultra-dense nuclear matter, called the quark-gluon plasma. Current experiments at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider RHIC at BNL require the development of detailed parton/ hadron transport theory in order to interpret the data and to test specific signatures that can reveal the physical properties of this new state of matter. We have developed new techniques to solve ultra-relativistic non-linear Boltzmann equations and relativistic hydrodynamics to study collective flow signatures, such as elliptic transverse flow at RHIC. In addition, these transport models are used to predict pion interferometry correlations that probe the global freeze-out space-time geometry of high energy nuclear reactions. Recently we concentrate on the problem of non-abelian radiative energy loss and its application as a novel tomographic tool to study the density evolution in the expanding gluon plasma on times scales ~10^-23 sec. We predicted that high transverse momentum jets of hadrons produced in nuclear reactions should be strongly quenched by radiative energy loss induced by the high opacity of the produced plasma. This prediction has been recently confirmed by the PHENIX and STAR experiments at RHIC, and we have deduced from the quenching pattern that gluon densities about 100 times greater than in ground state nuclei have been attained in Au+Au reactions at Ecm = 200 AGeV. At such high densities matter is predicted via lattice QCD to be in the deconfined phase. We continue to refine and extend the theory of jet tomography in order to predict the quenching pattern of heavy quarks as well as high pT correlations of monojets. Another area of interest is the dynamics of baryon number transport and hyperonization at RHIC. Preliminary data provide possible evidence of novel topological gluon junction dynamics that we first tested on data at lower SPS/CERN energies."

If you need more info on plasma and cosmology let me know.

My time on the net is limited with the project at hand. So my thought will not be focused.

as for Ultra dense plasma matter.

Compact stars a full of it. In actual fact it makes up most of the universe.

Posted: **Sun Jul 30, 2006 3:52 pm**

Harry:

Because the tern "Quark-gluon plasma" in someones article somewhere was used doesn't make it a legitimate term. Refer me to the actual publication scrutinize by the scientific community in one of the commonly excepted periodicals, which is the standard for all scientific announcements. 8)

Are you trying to tell me that the plasma in an incandescent light bulb is the same as matter state of a black hole?????????

Also, check that your links work and their credibility before you post them.

Posted: **Sun Jul 30, 2006 5:13 pm**

I think when they call it a 'quark-gluon plasma', they're using the term plasma in the sense of 'an energetic gas of separated charges'. In this case they're obviously not electromagnetic charges, but rather color charges. It does seem a bit confusing sometimes, though.

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 8:48 am**

Hello All

Look at the phases of matter and come back to me. Terminology is used to name and object.

I have named the object taken from many papers. Google for it.

The ultra dense matter that we are talking about ranges from

10^15 to possibly 10^35 in preon theoretical stars.

Matter within a black hole is theoretical, Some say it is made up of neutrinos compacted. This would have a density over 10^35.

Dr Skeptic ,,,,,What is your point?

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 4:28 pm**

Dr. Skeptic wrote:The subatomic "Strong Force" is 10^36 stronger than the gravitational force within the confines of an atom, The strong force will always increase exponentially faster than the force of gravity preventing a "Singularity" from occurring.

That still becomes a problem beyond an event horizon. At that point, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light, and all forces must propagate no faster than this, so the strong force isn't going to be able to do much.

Not that I feel a singularity is the correct answer... there's just something not right when you're ending up with physical infinities.

At I guess, I'd venture the solution will have something to do with the discrete nature of spacetime, ie. the idea that there is actually a smallest unit of spacetime. But again, that requires quantum gravity, and we're not there yet.

Posted: **Wed Aug 02, 2006 6:01 pm**

The EH is not the issue. On the sub atomic level the force of gravity will "Pull" each "piece" of matter together. The atomic forces will "Push" sub atomic particles apart. In a BH the "Long reaching" force of gravity exerted on atoms, protons, quarks or neutrinos will compress the particles in a way a person would push two like poles of a magnet together. The closer the "magnets" or particles get to each other the harder it is to push. At a point equilibrium will restrict the proximity the particles can obtain because gravity is not strong enough to overcome the "Strong Force".

In your hands you can push on two magnets with a force of 100 kg, but the magnet exert a repelling force of 1,000 kg at contact. You cannot make them touch so you bring in another set of hands with the same strength, but the rules are they also have two magnets. The end product is you will never get the magnets to touch by following the rules. The same is true for BH inside the EH they will never reach a point of singularity, in theory; the size of a BH may be calculated if a value for temperature could be achieved. (Not the value for temp at the EH).

Posted: **Thu Aug 03, 2006 10:05 am**

Hello Qev

I did not say a singularity.

The compaction of subatomic particals are limited and therefore a singularity that takes on board infinite compaction to one point, is not possible.

Imagine one Hydrogen atom's volume being able to conatin 10^35 hydrogen atoms.

We know that in a neutron core we have 10^15
In quark stars 110^18,,,,,,,,,,,10^22
Preon stars (Theoretical) 10^22 and greater.

Smile,,,,,,thats my opinion.

The links that I post sometimes express Ideas that I do not agree with in total.

Hey! at the end of the day,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we could all be wrong. Its fun discussing.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:08 am**

Dr. Skeptic: The problem is, the escape velocity at the event horizon is the speed of light. In order for the strong force to be able to 'hold up' the star's material, information (the push) would need to be exceeding lightspeed. That can't happen, so the star can't be stable. It must collapse.

It's vaguely similar to why you can't communicate faster-than-light using a light-year-long rigid rod, and just pushing and pulling it back and forth to make Morse code. The rod will compress and expand to limit the information speed to below that of light, no matter its composition.

Harry: Well, I myself kinda doubt that black holes contain true singularities... again, physists hate those things.

My bet is it just shrinks down to the Planck scale, since anything smaller is really meaningless. It would make black holes a weird kind of 'super-particle' (which is curious, as subatomic-scale black holes would appear to us very much like fundamental particles do, apparently).

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:04 am**

Hello Qev

I was just making an observation with compacted star cores,,,,atomic compaction,,,,,,,,neutron,,,,,,,,,,,quarks,,,,,,,,,,preons,,,,,neutrinos,,,,or what ever.

If this is the process, than we can assume the next Step.

The other point is what comes off black holes via the jets. This is difficult because by the time we see the effect the subatomic particals reform and do their thing.

I wander if I should change the topic to girls. Would that make it simpler? Nah! that would even complicate the issues out of this world?

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 12:20 pm**

My bet is it just shrinks down to the Planck scale

That scenario leaves problems, one being the escaping gravitons for a BH to exert a gravitational force.

Posted: **Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:42 pm**

Dr. Skeptic wrote:
My bet is it just shrinks down to the Planck scale
That scenario leaves problems, one being the escaping gravitons for a BH to exert a gravitational force.

I've always thought that would be a problem too, personally. But someone explained it to me once, though I daresay the explanation was a bit beyond my grasp.

It has to do with the fact that forces aren't carried by 'real' particles, but rather by 'virtual' particles that make up the field; virtual particles are funny because they can apparently break the rules (as long as they don't do it long enough to get caught). It sounds like hand-waving but I'm pretty sure there's some solid, incomprehensible math behind it.

Of course, we don't as yet even have a quantum description of gravity, so 'gravitons' might not even exist.

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 4:41 am**

Hello Dr Skeptic

Please explain

"That scenario leaves problems, one being the escaping gravitons for a BH to exert a gravitational force."

Posted: **Sat Aug 05, 2006 3:09 pm**

harry wrote:Hello Dr Skeptic

Please explain

"That scenario leaves problems, one being the escaping gravitons for a BH to exert a gravitational force."

I could, but I'd rather make you use your own brain and figure it out - posting a URL on the topic doesn't = understanding.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:25 am**

Hello Dr Skeptic

I tried using my head, it left marks on the computer.

=====================================
Please explain

"That scenario leaves problems, one being the escaping gravitons for a BH to exert a gravitational force."

Can someone else explain it to me, the above sentence. Where is the problem.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:27 pm**

The Graviton is a theoretical, open looped (M-Theory) particle thought to carry the force of gravity through space/time (also an open loop). If nothing can escape the EH of a BH, how can the effect of gravity or the graviton exert a force outside the EH. The same is true about space/time at the EH, space/time would = zero if infinity where used in the equation. With space/time = to zero it would take "forever" for anything to move from inside to outside the EH. (no recycleing)

PS "Open Loop" is a M-theory term for "One Way" forces - as gravity that always attracts and time only advances. One end of the loop is connected to one of the 11 dimension that does not interact with the 4 dimensions of our universe.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:01 pm**

Both Gravity and Time can escape the ultimate pull of the black hole because they are acting on their own separate dimensions which aren't influenced by the 3 spacial dimensions which they are inferior dimensions and gravity & time are more superior dimensions.

The more superior the dimension, the more it can influence its inferior companions; however, the more inferior dimension cannot noticably influence the more superior dimension.

More thought has produced another possible superior dimension. One upon which a force can act through which has a direct influence on the the inferior three but can not be directly viewed. It is the realm of ENERGY. It can not be lessened or eliminated only redirected.

That gives us six so far. The three inferior spacial dimensions + TIME, GRAVITY, and ENERGY.

Posted: **Mon Aug 07, 2006 6:34 pm**

Dr. Skeptic wrote:PS "Open Loop" is a M-theory term for "One Way" forces - as gravity that always attracts and time only advances. One end of the loop is connected to one of the 11 dimension that does not interact with the 4 dimensions of our universe.

Actually, everything I've read on M-Theory states that gravitons are closed-loop strings, while the majority of other particles, which are restricted to our current p-brane, are open strings. This is where the idea that gravity from other branes may be affecting processes in our universe comes from.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:35 am**

Hello All

Gravity

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... .html#grav

The gravity force has the same form as Coulomb's law for the forces between electric charges, i.e., it is an inverse square law force which depends upon the product of the two interacting sources. This led Einstein to start with the electromagnetic force and gravity as the first attempt to demonstrate the unification of the fundamental forces. It turns out that this was the wrong place to start, and that gravity will be the last of the forces to unify with the other three forces. Electroweak unification (unification of the electromagnetic and weak forces) was demonstrated in 1983, a result which could not be anticipated in the time of Einstein's search. It now appears that the common form of the gravity and electromagnetic forces arises from the fact that each of them involves an exchange particle of zero mass, not because of an inherent symmetry which would make them easy to unify.

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravi ... ravity.asp

There is no detectable delay for the propagation of gravity from Sun to Earth. The direction of the Sun’s gravitational force is toward its true, instantaneous position, not toward a retarded position, to the full accuracy of observations. And no perceptible change in the Earth’s mean orbital speed has yet been detected, even though the effect of a finite speed of gravity is cumulative over time. Gravity has no perceptible aberration, and no Poynting-Robertson effect – the primary indicators of its propagation speed. Indeed, Newtonian gravity explicitly assumes that gravity propagates with infinite speed.

A general problem with purely geometric explanations of gravity is that they ignore causality. How does spacetime far from a large mass get its curvature updated without detectable delay so that orbiting bodies accelerate through space toward the true, instantaneous position of the source of gravity?

Read the rest of the link, interesting.

Speed of Gravity.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

=============================================

If electromagnets produce a gravity effect. Why not test the propagation?

ooops it does in the last link.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:45 pm**

Actually, everything I've read on M-Theory states that gravitons are closed-loop strings, while the majority of other particles, which are restricted to our current p-brane, are open strings. This is where the idea that gravity from other branes may be affecting processes in our universe comes from.

You are right, it is the string theory that has gravity as an open loop.

If it could be proven the speed of gravity is instantaneous, +1 for the M- Theory.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:36 pm**

Now I wonder what happened to that other "speed of gravity" thread?

harry wrote:Speed of Gravity.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

That article (by a Tom Van Flandern) supports faster-than-light propagation of gravity. The most convincing argument I read was the absence of a gravitational Poynting-Robertson Effect. However, the integrity and credibility of the publishing website http://www.metaresearch.org is questionable at best to me after perusing some of their other articles. For example, they support the "exploding planet hypothesis" and publish "proof of artificiality" of the "face-on-Mars" Cydonia region

I was reading up on the speed of gravity on Wikipedia, and for what it's worth, Van Flandern is discredited in the article itself as well as in the "Van Flandern" section of the article's "Talk" page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Speed ... n_Flandern

harry wrote:If electromagnets produce a gravity effect. Why not test the propagation?

ooops it does in the last link.

As far as I've heard and read, electromagnets haven't been observed to influence gravity at all. Can anyone confirm this?

---

EDIT: sorry about all the Wikipedia references, but from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity :

there is no known observational or experimental evidence which suggests that the speed of gravity differs from the speed of light.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 5:42 pm**

Pete wrote: As far as I've heard and read, electromagnets haven't been observed to influence gravity at all. Can anyone confirm this?

Didn't the ESA recently announce some peculiar and interesting results from their funded experiments on superconductive gravity shielding? I seem to remember that being in the news a few months back.

Aha! Here it is, I think. It's not so much 'gravity shielding' as it is the gravitomagnetic effect being a lot stronger than general relativity predicted. Which is just as cool, in my books.

Posted: **Tue Aug 08, 2006 6:32 pm**

It may well be that we can create a condition where the electromagnetic and gravitational forces can be more or less "united" in a way that allows a little manipulation.

One way that we can actually use now (but it is really, really wimpy) is to pulse a piezoelectric crystal with extremely fast, energetic pulses of laser light. This makes the entire crystal jerk and produces some gravitons.

Another would be to have a very heavily charged mass and oscillate it in an electrical field, thus creating a brute force coupling to a mass field. Again, the effect is very weak, but with work we might be able to get something useful out of it. Perhaps I am wrong, but resonances might be the key.

Consider creating a structure that could be made to resonate at a frequency that was a very efficient creator of gravity waves, using the electrical or magnetic field to induce the energy. Superconductors are nearly always called on as the panacea, which is not yet justifiable. We don't have enough experimental data to say for certain.

Still, it is an intriguing thought that we might have everything we need to make a useful gravity generator, but we just don't have the theory in hand yet. When it does come along, you can expect that things will explode into development rapidly.

Posted: **Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:30 am**

Hello All

The question with Gravity and electromagnetic waves rather than electromagnetic radiation. Is that Electromagnetic waves travel maybe at the same speed as gravity and if so you could test for speed by controlling the test.

I think I will read up on this.

Just a thought.

Smile and live another day.

Starship Asterisk*

Let's talk about Strings!

Gravity and handles on it