Gravitational effect of the very small

[PJay_A]

<p>Wondering what effect gravity has on the behavior of subatomic matter... For instance, in theory would it be possible to "free fall" or "bounce" particles or possibly atoms through the crust of&nbsp;our planet's mantle and on to the core, slowing down once through the core to eventually reversing direction and catipulting back to the opriginal spot it was dropped. Or does the Earth not have enough gravitation pull on something of not considerable mass such as single atoms or particles to trigger an attraction to our planet's core?</p><p>Also, I was wondering, if (minus atmospheric drag), the speed at which all objects fall towards or orbit a larger common object (caused by larger object's gravitation pull) is constant and the fact that "free" flowing photons always move at a constant speed (light) that maybe a cause for that movement could be because they're being pulled by an&nbsp;invisible gravitational force of something very distant and very large. Could it be the Universe itself or possibly something outside and engulfing the "boundaries" of what we call our "visible" Universe. Either could provide the mass neccessary to cause such a field of gravitational with quantum omni-directional orbital paths for&nbsp;our "free falling" photons,&nbsp;as its "center of gravity" would be out in all directions quite litterally. So, once photons are "let loose" (in my thinking here) they will lock to my theorized&nbsp;gravitation field&nbsp;and begin to free fall in any direction quantumtatively. If we are engulfed by this unknown object, or this is the inside out effect of the Universe, then all objects captured by its gravity move towards it at a constant speed. Since this field surrounds us (in what I'm proposing here), then the "direction" of "towards it" is any direction away from where it came and provide a clue as to why the speed of light is constant. Is this possible?</p>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wondering what effect gravity has on the behavior of subatomic matter... For instance, in theory would it be possible to "free fall" or "bounce" particles or possibly atoms through the crust of&nbsp;our planet's mantle and on to the core, slowing down once through the core to eventually reversing direction and catipulting back to the opriginal spot it was dropped. Or does the Earth not have enough gravitation pull on something of not considerable mass such as single atoms or particles to trigger an attraction to our planet's core?Also, I was wondering, if (minus atmospheric drag), the speed at which all objects fall towards or orbit a larger common object (caused by larger object's gravitation pull) is constant and the fact that "free" flowing photons always move at a constant speed (light) that maybe a cause for that movement could be because they're being pulled by an&nbsp;invisible gravitational force of something very distant and very large. Could it be the Universe itself or possibly something outside and engulfing the "boundaries" of what we call our "visible" Universe. Either could provide the mass neccessary to cause such a field of gravitational with quantum omni-directional orbital paths for&nbsp;our "free falling" photons,&nbsp;as its "center of gravity" would be out in all directions quite litterally. So, once photons are "let loose" (in my thinking here) they will lock to my theorized&nbsp;gravitation field&nbsp;and begin to free fall in any direction quantumtatively. If we are engulfed by this unknown object, or this is the inside out effect of the Universe, then all objects captured by its gravity move towards it at a constant speed. Since this field surrounds us (in what I'm proposing here), then the "direction" of "towards it" is any direction away from where it came and provide a clue as to why the speed of light is constant. Is this possible? <br /> Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="2">Interesting question. I read a few years back, some scientists performed some experiment on this topic. According to them, Newton's law of gravity breaks down at some microscopic distances. Sorry, I forgot the exact distance they gave.&nbsp; I thought it was a very important experiment.&nbsp; Any one here can jump in and fill&nbsp; the gap or more. </font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[vogon13]

<p>&nbsp;</p><p>The gravitational interaction between protons in isolation is tiny in the extreme.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Having said that, I recall'thermal' neutrons have been observed in free fall in lab conditions on the earth's surface. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wondering what effect gravity has on the behavior of subatomic matter... For instance, in theory would it be possible to "free fall" or "bounce" particles or possibly atoms through the crust of&nbsp;our planet's mantle and on to the core, slowing down once through the core to eventually reversing direction and catipulting back to the opriginal spot it was dropped. Or does the Earth not have enough gravitation pull on something of not considerable mass such as single atoms or particles to trigger an attraction to our planet's core?</DIV></p><p>Good questions!&nbsp; According to newtons universal law of gravitational&nbsp;2 masses will attract each other so if&nbsp;we are talking about a proton or a neutron then&nbsp;yes gravity will have an affect on them.&nbsp; The thing to remember though is that the maximum velocity that the particle or&nbsp;any mass can have (due to gravity alone from earth) is 25,000 mph.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now this seems like a pretty high velocity - but it is not at all high for a subatomic particle.&nbsp;&nbsp;Only 10% of neutrons moving&nbsp;at 90% the speed of light (670 million mph) will make it through 24" of water.&nbsp; That is to say if 100 neutrons moving at relativistic speeds passed through 24" of water only 10 would make it through.&nbsp; The reason they don't make it through is that the neutrons will hit the hydrogen atoms in water (H2O} and transfer much of there energy to them.&nbsp; So you can see that a neutron moving at the slow speed of 25000 mph won't go anywhere.&nbsp; The neutrons will then be absorbed into atoms when they slow.</p><p>Protons will only make it about a couple of inches into water before they are stopped, because the charge on the proton will cause a lot of ionozation events with the atoms and the proton will transfer it's energy that way.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, I was wondering, if (minus atmospheric drag), the speed at which all objects fall towards or orbit a larger common object (caused by larger object's gravitation pull) is constant</DIV></p><p>No the acceleration is the same.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and the fact that "free" flowing photons always move at a constant speed (light) that maybe a cause for that movement could be because they're being pulled by an&nbsp;invisible gravitational force of something very distant and very large. Could it be the Universe itself or possibly something outside and engulfing the "boundaries" of what we call our "visible" Universe. </DIV></p><p>I see&nbsp;3 problems with this:</p><p>1 If photons were experiencing this gravity all mater will also be experiencing this gravity so we all would be moving at c.</p><p>2.&nbsp; If you have one photon moving to the left at c and one photon moving right at c, how could a gravitational field be responsible for acclerating the photons in different directions.</p><p>3.&nbsp; The <em>acceleration</em> of gravity is constant not the velocity!&nbsp; The velocity is not constant or that means that if you jumped off a 1000 foot cliff you would have the same velocity as jumping off a chair!&nbsp; Terminal velocity is 25,000 mph for earth so that means that&nbsp;if an object at rest far from earth is released it will continue to accelerate until it hits the earth at 25,000 mph (excluding the slowing affects of the atmosphere).&nbsp; So that means if light was moving due to a gravitational field light would NOT be at a constant speed - it would have many different velocities depending on where it was in the gravitational field.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Either could provide the mass neccessary to cause such a field of gravitational with quantum omni-directional orbital paths for&nbsp;our "free falling" photons,&nbsp;as its "center of gravity" would be out in all directions quite litterally. So, once photons are "let loose" (in my thinking here) they will lock to my theorized&nbsp;gravitation field&nbsp;and begin to free fall in any direction quantumtatively. If we are engulfed by this unknown object, or this is the inside out effect of the Universe, then all objects captured by its gravity move towards it at a constant speed. Since this field surrounds us (in what I'm proposing here), then the ,direction" of "towards it" is any direction away from where it came and provide a clue as to why the speed of light is constant. Is this possible? <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV><br /><br />Omni-directional orbital paths?&nbsp; Hmmmm.&nbsp; This is a real reach - I think you are saying that is there some sort of gravitation&nbsp;field that could pull objects in any direction at&nbsp;the same time.&nbsp; If that is what you are saying I am afraid that&nbsp;would completely destroy physics as we know it.&nbsp; By definition if the&nbsp;acceleration was the same in all directions they would cancel each othere out and the force applied would be&nbsp;zero.&nbsp; Plus there is no way there could&nbsp;even be some sort of gravitational&nbsp;force that could&nbsp;put out an omni-directional&nbsp;field.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><font size="1">Edited to replace velocity with accleration.&nbsp; Made clear that the 25,000 mph terminal velocity is for earth. and spelling and an arithmetic error (geez).</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Also, I was wondering, if (minus atmospheric drag), the speed at which all objects fall towards or orbit a larger common object (caused by larger object's gravitation pull) is constant and the fact that "free" flowing photons always move at a constant speed (light) that maybe a cause for that movement could be because they're being pulled by an&nbsp;invisible gravitational force of something very distant and very large. Could it be the Universe itself or possibly something outside and engulfing the "boundaries" of what we call our "visible" Universe. Either could provide the mass neccessary to cause such a field of gravitational with quantum omni-directional orbital paths for&nbsp;our "free falling" photons,&nbsp;as its "center of gravity" would be out in all directions quite litterally. So, once photons are "let loose" (in my thinking here) they will lock to my theorized&nbsp;gravitation field&nbsp;and begin to free fall in any direction quantumtatively. If we are engulfed by this unknown object, or this is the inside out effect of the Universe, then all objects captured by its gravity move towards it at a constant speed. Since this field surrounds us (in what I'm proposing here), then the "direction" of "towards it" is any direction away from where it came and provide a clue as to why the speed of light is constant. Is this possible? <br /></font>Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p><font size="2">Sorry, I misread your post the first time. I think when it comes to subatomic particles or photons we should be more concerned with curvatures of space by strong gravitational force &nbsp;rather than gravitational pull, according to Einstein. IMO, curvature of space will have more significant effect on subatomic particle's path than&nbsp; Newtonian force on the particle.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[PJay_A]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good questions!&nbsp; According to newtons universal law of gravitational&nbsp;2 masses will attract each other so if&nbsp;we are talking about a proton or a neutron then&nbsp;yes gravity will have an affect on them.&nbsp; The thing to remember though is that the maximum velocity that the particle or&nbsp;any mass can have (due to gravity alone from earth) is 25,000 mph.&nbsp;&nbsp;Now this seems like a pretty high velocity - but it is not at all high for a subatomic particle.&nbsp;&nbsp;Only 10% of neutrons moving&nbsp;at 90% the speed of light (670 million mph) will make it through 24" of water.&nbsp; That is to say if 100 neutrons moving at relativistic speeds passed through 24" of water only 10 would make it through.&nbsp; The reason they don't make it through is that the neutrons will hit the hydrogen atoms in water (H2O} and transfer much of there energy to them.&nbsp; So you can see that a neutron moving at the slow speed of 25000 mph won't go anywhere.&nbsp; The neutrons will then be absorbed into atoms when they slow.Protons will only make it about a couple of inches into water before they are stopped, because the charge on the proton will cause a lot of ionozation events with the atoms and the proton will transfer it's energy that way.No the acceleration is the same.I see&nbsp;3 problems with this:1 If photons were experiencing this gravity all mater will also be experiencing this gravity so we all would be moving at c.2.&nbsp; If you have one photon moving to the left at c and one photon moving right at c, how could a gravitational field be responsible for acclerating the photons in different directions.3.&nbsp; The acceleration of gravity is constant not the velocity!&nbsp; The velocity is not constant or that means that if you jumped off a 1000 foot cliff you would have the same velocity as jumping off a chair!&nbsp; Terminal velocity is 25,000 mph for earth so that means that&nbsp;if an object at rest far from earth is released it will continue to accelerate until it hits the earth at 25,000 mph (excluding the slowing affects of the atmosphere).&nbsp; So that means if light was moving due to a gravitational field light would NOT be at a constant speed - it would have many different velocities depending on where it was in the gravitational field.Omni-directional orbital paths?&nbsp; Hmmmm.&nbsp; This is a real reach - I think you are saying that is there some sort of gravitation&nbsp;field that could pull objects in any direction at&nbsp;the same time.&nbsp; If that is what you are saying I am afraid that&nbsp;would completely destroy physics as we know it.&nbsp; By definition if the&nbsp;acceleration was the same in all directions they would cancel each othere out and the force applied would be&nbsp;zero.&nbsp; Plus there is no way there could&nbsp;even be some sort of gravitational&nbsp;force that could&nbsp;put out an omni-directional&nbsp;field.&nbsp;&nbsp;Edited to replace velocity with accleration.&nbsp; Made clear that the 25,000 mph terminal velocity is for earth. and spelling and an arithmetic error (geez). <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Wow, I really appreciate you taking your time to answer my questions! First, I guess the fact that gravity and light's variable "constant" apply differently (accelleration and velocity, respectively), my thinking&nbsp;here becomes fundamentally flawed. Yet, the fact still remains that the two still has a characteristic in common with one another and that is both have variables that can be calculated as constants (nevermind the fact the property characteristics of each appear to have little in common). I guess one could make the aurgument that the circumfrence of a circle and an arc could be very different property types (afterall, one's flat and the other is round). But when we apply pi, both variables in this example become one of the same no matter what numbers we assign to either variable. Of course, the same is true when we look at energy and matter as if they were two unrelated properties, but applying&nbsp;Einstien's famous equation, both become one of the same. There may be something similiar going on between accelleration and velocity that could find common ground possibly through equations.</p><p>Another thing I wasn't clear in my OP was that I was assuming that current bonds (graviational or otherwise) would keep my theorized photons from influence of my theoretic unknown gravity force. But once all bonds are broken, then the photon becomes propelled by it, as if captured into some strange orbit. It would have equal pull from all directions initially but once captured, the random direction of its capture becomes singular and locked, as it would become however microscopically closer to the mysterious gravitational field's source, which is all it would take to free itself from the influence of that source from all other directions (as it will also become a tad microscopically further from the rest of its gravitational influence). Then after the initial micro-unit of time and space of the photon's initial movement and "orbital" capture, it's actual distance to the source of the mysterious gravity will remain the same for the life of the photon or influences.</p><p>This is much like when objects in space lock into orbit of larger bodies. They remain the same distance indefinitely from the larger object it orbits. Also, these orbits are 2-dimensional. While the smaller object "thinks" it's going one possible direction ("down" toward the larger object), in reality it's moving (orbiting) indefinately around in a looped 3-dimensional circle, where 2D (its orbital path) rules apply in a 3D (spherical object being orbitted) reality. Somehow in this reality, "down" becomes any direction but up. Without being "pushed" into a degree of orbit, our theoretical object will randomly choose its orbital&nbsp;degree&nbsp;of inclination.</p><p>Apply this line of thinking to my proposed mysterious gravitational source and look at it as if it were the large spherical object of the paragraph above but with the properties of 4 dimensions. To orbit this in 4D, our photon's potential path of orbit would have 3D probabilities, just like the smaller object in my example above takes an orbit around the larger spherical object in one of any 2D directional probabilities,&nbsp;but its indented direction is "down" (a direction that's not an option available in a choice of available 2D probabilities. The direction our photons would need to travel to get closer to the mysterious gravitational source is not an available in our 3D space, thus the direction the light will travel becomes any direction 3 dimensionally, as it "thinks" it is going toward the direction of our mystery source, just how 3D objects in orbit around a larger spherical object "thinks" it's falling to that larger object but in reality it's caught into looped orbit.</p><p>And the initial randomness of direction could be within the realm of quantum physics, which embraces ideas of randomness. Since photons are subatomic, quantum mechanics would apply here.</p><p>Do you know if any other ideas have been offered as to what's propelling the movement of photons?</p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First, I guess the fact that gravity and light's variable "constant" apply differently (accelleration and velocity, respectively), my thinking&nbsp;here becomes fundamentally flawed. Yet, the fact still remains that the two still has a characteristic in common with one another and that is both have variables that can be calculated as constants (nevermind the fact the property characteristics of each appear to have little in common)</DIV></p><p>It is very important before proceeding that you realize that they have nothing in common.&nbsp; There is no reason to believe they are remotely related.&nbsp; The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, that is to say it is never slower and never faster than c (~186,000 mps).&nbsp; The speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer, if you were traveling at 180,000 mps and a beam of light was passed you, you would measure&nbsp;the beams&nbsp;speed at c.&nbsp; This constant is clearly different than gravity which shows that the acceleration of gravity is&nbsp;proportional to the mass of the two objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess one could make the aurgument that the circumfrence of a circle and an arc could be very different property types (afterall, one's flat and the other is round). But when we apply pi, both variables in this example become one of the same no matter what numbers we assign to either variable. </DIV></p><p>This is a poor comparison, it is not in the ball park to help convince me that the acceleration due to gravity and the speed of light are in any way connected.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course, the same is true when we look at energy and matter as if they were two unrelated properties, but applying&nbsp;Einstien's famous equation, both become one of the same. </DIV></p><p>Matter and energy are not the same.&nbsp; E=mc^2 shows how matter and energy are related.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There may be something similiar going on between accelleration and velocity that could find common ground possibly through equations.</DIV></p><p>They are related through equations Newton showed that the derivative of velocity is accleration.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another thing I wasn't clear in my OP was that I was assuming that current bonds (graviational or otherwise) would keep my theorized photons from influence of my theoretic unknown gravity force. But once all bonds are broken, then the photon becomes propelled by it, as if captured into some strange orbit.</DIV> </p><p>1. some sort of bonds. 2.&nbsp;Unknown graviitational force. 3. broken bonds, strange orbits.&nbsp; </p><p>All of this is pure conjecture,&nbsp;guesses.&nbsp; That is how science fiction works not science.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It would have equal pull from all directions initially but once captured, the random direction of its capture becomes singular and locked, as it would become however microscopically closer to the mysterious gravitational field's source, which is all it would take to free itself from the influence of that source from all other directions (as it will also become a tad microscopically further from the rest of its gravitational influence). Then after the initial micro-unit of time and space of the photon's initial movement and "orbital" capture, it's actual distance to the source of the mysterious gravity will remain the same for the life of the photon or influences.</DIV></p><p>This is not physics - there is no known mechanism that would allow a bunch of forces to not affect an object becasue it locked on to only one of the forces, this makes no sense.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is much like when objects in space lock into orbit of larger bodies. They remain the same distance indefinitely from the larger object it orbits.</DIV></p><p>It is nothing like that.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is only one&nbsp;source of gravity so of course&nbsp;the object&nbsp;will be attracted it does not lock on it is pulled into the gravity well.&nbsp; A stable orbit is&nbsp;only one of several things that could happen.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, these orbits are 2-dimensional. While the smaller object "thinks" it's going one possible direction ("down" toward the larger object), in reality it's moving (orbiting) indefinately around in a looped 3-dimensional circle, where 2D (its orbital path) rules apply in a 3D (spherical object being orbitted) reality. Somehow in this reality, "down" becomes any direction but up. Without being "pushed" into a degree of orbit, our theoretical object will randomly choose its orbital&nbsp;degree&nbsp;of inclination.Apply this line of thinking to my proposed mysterious gravitational source and look at it as if it were the large spherical object of the paragraph above but with the properties of 4 dimensions. To orbit this in 4D, our photon's potential path of orbit would have 3D probabilities, just like the smaller object in my example above takes an orbit around the larger spherical object in one of any 2D directional probabilities,&nbsp;but its indented direction is "down" (a direction that's not an option available in a choice of available 2D probabilities. The direction our photons would need to travel to get closer to the mysterious gravitational source is not an available in our 3D space, thus the direction the light will travel becomes any direction 3 dimensionally, as it "thinks" it is going toward the direction of our mystery source, just how 3D objects in orbit around a larger spherical object "thinks" it's falling to that larger object but in reality it's caught into looped orbit.And the initial randomness of direction could be within the realm of quantum physics, which embraces ideas of randomness. Since photons are subatomic, quantum mechanics would apply here.Do you know if any other ideas have been offered as to what's propelling the movement of photons? <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV><br /><br />I am not sure what you are trying to say here.&nbsp; </p><p>It seems you have thought about this a lot and you seem bright, but you are lacking in understanding basic physics.&nbsp; I recommend that you take some physics courses - my guess is that you would enjoy them and get quite a lot out of them.</p><p><strong>I think this is another candidate for the unexplained.</strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[PJay_A]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is very important before proceeding that you realize that they have nothing in common.&nbsp; There is no reason to believe they are remotely related.&nbsp; The speed of light is constant in a vacuum, that is to say it is never slower and never faster than c (~186,000 mps).&nbsp; The speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer, if you were traveling at 180,000 mps and a beam of light was passed you, you would measure&nbsp;the beams&nbsp;speed at c.&nbsp; This constant is clearly different than gravity which shows that the acceleration of gravity is&nbsp;proportional to the mass of the two objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance separating them.&nbsp; This is a poor comparison, it is not in the ball park to help convince me that the acceleration due to gravity and the speed of light are in any way connected.Matter and energy are not the same.&nbsp; E=mc^2 shows how matter and energy are related.They are related through equations Newton showed that the derivative of velocity is accleration. 1. some sort of bonds. 2.&nbsp;Unknown graviitational force. 3. broken bonds, strange orbits.&nbsp; All of this is pure conjecture,&nbsp;guesses.&nbsp; That is how science fiction works not science.This is not physics - there is no known mechanism that would allow a bunch of forces to not affect an object becasue it locked on to only one of the forces, this makes no sense.It is nothing like that.&nbsp;&nbsp;There is only one&nbsp;source of gravity so of course&nbsp;the object&nbsp;will be attracted it does not lock on it is pulled into the gravity well.&nbsp; A stable orbit is&nbsp;only one of several things that could happen.I am not sure what you are trying to say here.&nbsp; It seems you have thought about this a lot and you seem bright, but you are lacking in understanding basic physics.&nbsp; I recommend that you take some physics courses - my guess is that you would enjoy them and get quite a lot out of them.I think this is another candidate for the unexplained. <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /><br />Yes, I probably would enjoy such classes, but unfortunately don't have the time required. I do read what I can that I find&nbsp;available on the net and watched every documentary I can find on the subject (all those produced by the BBC, on Nova, and the cable networks). That said, let me explain why all this is nagging at me.</p><p>As a kid, I tried to imagine a 4-dimensional world. Without any education on the subject or coaching froom others, I challenged myself to image how a cube would look like in 4D. After some period of time, I saw it clear as day in my vivid imagination. I took a stack of paper and tried to draw a 2D representation of it. Several garbage pales later, I drew it perfectly. It consisted of six cubes interconnected within shared common 3D space. Only recently I read about terasects (sp?) and - to my surprise - are exactly 100% what I had imagined and drawn years and years ago!</p><p>I've always held on to the idea that humanity has just really started to find a&nbsp;basic scientific understanding of the nature of the Universe. Slowly old understandings will be replaced by new ones and new clues will arrive linking old clues. What I am saying here is that firstly nothing should be taken for granted. Everything that happens in nature happens because it's an effect of something (known or unknown) else that happens. And the more we learn, the more clues to this "giant puzzle" can be unveiled. Only be consciously seeking to find relationships between clues will we ever edge closer to what's been painstakenly sought&nbsp;after - a theory of everything.</p><p>Last year, I learned general details about concepts behind "M Theory". What got me riled up was the fact that this throry seriously suggests the possibility that dimensions beyond 3 + time my be real and other concepts exactly as I had imagined so long ago. Extra dimensions give answers to&nbsp;so many scientific mysteries, explaining so many unknowns. Many things begin to make sense and many "effects" begin finding "cause".</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wondering what effect gravity has on the behavior of subatomic matter... Posted by PJay_A</DIV></p><p>At the usual distance scale for subatomic particles, the effect of gravity is negligible.&nbsp; That is one reason that quantum field theories, which do not include gravity, are so successful in describing particle physics.</p><p>However, there is some very sound thought to the effect that at still smaller distances gravity may be very important, and that is at the heart of attempts to develop viable theories of quantum gravity, for instance in string theory.&nbsp; </p><p>The remainder of your question is pretty much indecipherable. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the usual distance scale for subatomic particles, the effect of gravity is negligible.&nbsp; That is one reason that quantum field theories, which do not include gravity, are so successful in describing particle physics.However, there is some very sound thought to the effect that at still smaller distances gravity may be very important, and that is at the heart of attempts to develop viable theories of quantum gravity, for instance in string theory.&nbsp; The remainder of your question is pretty much indecipherable. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Also, I believe work in the nano tech field is finding that the Casimir effect at atomic scales it quite strong but can be either repulsive or attractive depending on the shape of the particles</p>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Also, I believe work in the nano tech field is finding that the Casimir effect at atomic scales it quite strong but can be either repulsive or attractive depending on the shape of the particles <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV><br /><br />Huh?&nbsp; Care to elaborate? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Huh?&nbsp; Care to elaborate? <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /><br />That is correct. Some recent research has shown that while the Casimir effect is attractive for flat plates, it is repulsive for a ball shape (IIRC) over a flat surface. It was in Nature or Science, I can't recall which. I'll see if I can dig up a refereence, or find the article in the "read" pile over in the corner.</p><p>I should point out, that&nbsp;the Casimir effect&nbsp;is not gravitaional, so is a bit off topic for this thread.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is correct. Some recent research has shown that while the Casimir effect is attractive for flat plates, it is repulsive for a ball shape (IIRC) over a flat surface. It was in Nature or Science, I can't recall which. I'll see if I can dig up a refereence, or find the article in the "read" pile over in the corner.I should point out, that&nbsp;the Casimir effect&nbsp;is not gravitaional, so is a bit off topic for this thread. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Really,&nbsp;that seems odd, which&nbsp;probably means I do not have a very good grasp of the casimir&nbsp;effect,&nbsp;I will look it up.&nbsp; Thanks</p><p>Edited to add - The article is in Nature, and I was off on what I thought; I did not realize the electrical nature of the Casimire effect.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Really,&nbsp;that seems odd, which&nbsp;probably means I do not have a very good grasp of the casimir&nbsp;effect,&nbsp;I will look it up.&nbsp; ThanksEdited to add - The article is in Nature, and I was off on what I thought; I did not realize the electrical nature of the Casimire effect. <br />Posted by origin</DIV><br /><br />I don't think electrical is the correct description. It is more of an effect from Quantum Mechanics, if I understand it correctly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think electrical is the correct description. It is more of an effect from Quantum Mechanics, if I understand it correctly. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Sorry didn't mean to change the topic of the thread&nbsp;just wanted to point out that forces other than gravity take over at small scales and distances. It is a quantum electrodynamic effect due to the existence of zero-point energy,&nbsp;wiki has a good explanation. There is also lots of info to be found, here's one: http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/37261&nbsp;but a search will reveal plenty of other articles, it seems to be a bit of a hot topic these days</p>

 

[origin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Sorry didn't mean to change the topic of the thread&nbsp;just wanted to point out that forces other than gravity take over at small scales and distances. It is a quantum electrodynamic effect due to the existence of zero-point energy,&nbsp;wiki has a good explanation. There is also lots of info to be found, here's one: http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/37261but a search will reveal plenty of other articles, it seems to be a bit of a hot topic these days <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV><br /><br />I don't think this is really off topic and it is much more interesting than the earlier comments.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>