Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

You need high energy photons for pair production, so at best that would shave off the short wave part of the spectrum. But, more importantly, I don't think it's a good idea to use GR intuitions in the quantum world. It's not like the particles are actual tiny balls with localised mass that can be said to spiral anywhere.

[wierd]

The same is true of even much larger, more massive particles, otherwise tunneling would not happen, and fusion would be impossible. At best, all massed particles are fuzzy clouds of potentials. Gwaves are still a thing.


For electrons and positrons, the masses they have are damned tiny.  The gravitational interaction between the pair will be *absurdly small*, but not zero. It will be massively dwarved by the spin/charge interactions between them, to the point of the gravitational interaction being merely academic-- Sure-- but still not zero.

[Il Palazzo]

We both know you're talking out of your behind, since you can't make such predictions without a quantum theory of gravity, and it doesn't exist yet.

[wierd]

Institute of Physics › iopscience › pdf
Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008/pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiP6O2zm-HlAhWRiOAKHZ0DAVIQFjARegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw1e9cg7lOx-nFN5ZETFqGF9

Which considers application of gravitational potentials between e- e+ pairs to QED.

Not that far fetched.

[Il Palazzo]

Yes - it's a paper, and it's got all those words in it, since that's what you googled for.

[wierd]

It is. Did you read it?

The result of integrating the gravitational potentials of the two particles results in a local slowing of effective lightspeed which matches the fine grain constant.

Meaning the particles have gravitational interaction. (shock, they have mass. Of course they do.)


Unless you have a specific argument other than "It's not in my theory of how the world works, physical evidence for that kind of thing be damned!", let's hear it.

[Il Palazzo]

1. it's not a quantum theory of gravity. It's just an interesting result they obtained after juggling the equations a bit. You can't use it to predict that e.g. photons should lose energy through gravitational waves via pair production.
2. what they show is unphysical, but simply happens to fairly agree with that one measurement

i.e. it's unrelated to the discussion and you're just doing your thing again

[wierd]

Fair enough, I am not gonna argue with you.  (I am literally too tired to do that right now, I am barely functional.)


However, if point masses like black holes are able to evaporate mass into gwaves from collisions, so should smaller point masses.  A physical mechanism should not be so discerning.

Add to that, if these virtual particle pairs are able to have real interaction times, then they should be able to engage in that mechanism, since they have real effective mass (and can interact with mass producing fields).


I cannot give a definite prediction to the degree, but they should.  Clearly such an occurrence must either happen very rarely, or the result of the interaction is so small that it falls inside instrument error.  (otherwise it would have been headline news.) 


Astrophysical sources would be an ideal place to look, but teasing a signal out of hubble redshift from expansion would be torturous.

I'll just be content to wait and see.

[Il Palazzo]

but they should.

My point here was that it's an intuition from a classical theory applied outside its domain, and this alone is a good reason not to trust it. It's analogous to using classical electromagnetism to predict that electrons should gradually fall onto their nuclei since those are moving charges so they must induce changing magnetic fields thus losing energy - which of course doesn't happen.

[Egan_BW]

Would it be valid to say that I shouldn't worry about something because if I were to worry about that thing it would only make sense to worry about it constantly and being constantly worried would be unhealthy?

[Kagus]

Would it be valid to say that I shouldn't worry about something because if I were to worry about that thing it would only make sense to worry about it constantly and being constantly worried would be unhealthy?

Perfectly. It's the only way we can function.

Pick your battles, including the where and the when if at all possible.


This is of course easier said than done at times, but the theory is sound.

[Iduno]

Would it be valid to say that I shouldn't worry about something because if I were to worry about that thing it would only make sense to worry about it constantly and being constantly worried would be unhealthy?

Anxiety. Not even once.

[Naturegirl1999]

Would it be valid to say that I shouldn't worry about something because if I were to worry about that thing it would only make sense to worry about it constantly and being constantly worried would be unhealthy?

I feel like this whenever I think about how even if were to stop emissions now, the planet is still going to be messed up due to our actions. We ar emaking it worse putting ever more CO2 into the atmosphere. I hope we and other life can adapt to what is now happening

[methylatedspirit]

I realize thst I've been waking up at weird times (3 am, 4 am) despite sleeping at normalish times (9 pm to 11 pm) and I feel the need to correct that. How do I wake up later without sleeping later?

[Naturegirl1999]

I realize thst I've been waking up at weird times (3 am, 4 am) despite sleeping at normalish times (9 pm to 11 pm) and I feel the need to correct that. How do I wake up later without sleeping later?

I have this happen too, usually I just wake up thirsty. Do you wake up thirsty? If so, try drinking more water before going to sleep