I heard a very interesting concept the other day.
One type of Gravity holds everything, including the planet to a nucleus.
The other type of gravity is contained within atoms. More specifically it's what holds the nucleus together. Anyways there are these elements that are not on the periodic table and they have really high numbers. Over 100.
They cannot be manufactured or at least the effort has never been great to achieve this because of the misconception that elements are unstable and dont last long when they are outside the scope of the periodic table.
The thing is the guy was saying that if you could create these elements one of them actually "emits" this second type of gravity and it could be amplified to create this second type of gravity. 
You're confusing 'gravity' with the 'strong nuclear force' that holds particles like protons and neutrons together and the 'electromagnetic force' that holds atoms together. They are entirely different forces mediated by different particles (gravitons, gluons, and photons, respectively). There are four fundamental forces in nature: gravity, weak nuclear force, electromagnetic force, and strong nuclear force.
The periodic table includes all of the known elements, including some very rare and very unstable elements which are not believed to occur in nature, so there aren't any elements that are "outside the scope" of the table. Anything else is a molecule. FYI, the heaviest atom is 118, and the idea that superheavy elements are unstable isn't a misconception, it's scientific fact!
Also, the strong nuclear force is very powerful but dissipates very quickly as you move away from the source of the force. Likewise with the electromagnetic force (although it is still relevant at macroscopic scales). The only force that can exert an effect over interstellar distances is gravity, and that's probably how it will always be.
Whoever told you all that was making it all up, I'm sorry to say. I hope you didn't pay to see him talk!
| chasbeen wrote: |
I heard a very interesting concept the other day.
One type of Gravity holds everything, including the planet to a nucleus.
The other type of gravity is contained within atoms. More specifically it's what holds the nucleus together. Anyways there are these elements that are not on the periodic table and they have really high numbers. Over 100.
They cannot be manufactured or at least the effort has never been great to achieve this because of the misconception that elements are unstable and dont last long when they are outside the scope of the periodic table.
The thing is the guy was saying that if you could create these elements one of them actually "emits" this second type of gravity and it could be amplified to create this second type of gravity. |
Well...nearly but no coconut 
There are 4 (or 3 depending on which line you take) FUNDAMENTAL forces in the universe. Gravity is one of them. The other 3 are :
Colour Force - the force that holds the quarks inside the nucleus of an atom together
Electromagnetic Force - light, heat, microwaves etc
Weak Force - the force responsible for radioactivity
In the Standard Model of particles the Weak force has now been united with the Electromagnetic force to form the ElectroWeak force. Some people prefer to keep them separate - so there are 3 or 4 forces depending.
Gravity acts on all matter but is by far the weakest of the forces.
Electromagnetic force is familiar to us as heat, light and the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum
Weak force acts on Leptons and Quarks
Colour Force (used to be called the Strong force) acts on quarks and gluons. This is by far the strongest force.
If you are interested then the following link provides more information. I suspect you will need to read up a bit first though. I suggest starting with the standard model of particles which I'll give a link to below.
Table of forces here
Large table of Standard Model here"Producing the theoretically stable super-heavy elements is very
difficult because the reactant nuclei of these nuclear reactions do
not have enough neutrons to result in a product nucleus with enough
neutrons to obtain theoretical stability"
In 2004, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, in collaboration with researchers from the Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia (JINR), announced that
they discovered two new super-heavy elements, Element 113 and
Element 115
It is speculsted that Element 115 could produce this "second type of gravity"
As a layman the forces you talk about inside an atom could be labelled
a "second type of gravity" but i'm getting really out of my depth here 
| chasbeen wrote: |
"Producing the theoretically stable super-heavy elements is very
difficult because the reactant nuclei of these nuclear reactions do
not have enough neutrons to result in a product nucleus with enough
neutrons to obtain theoretical stability"
In 2004, scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, in collaboration with researchers from the Joint
Institute for Nuclear Research in Russia (JINR), announced that
they discovered two new super-heavy elements, Element 113 and
Element 115 |
Yes, this is correct. The results have not yet been confirmed however.
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/2/1
| Quote: |
| It is speculsted that Element 115 could produce this "second type of gravity |
Not by any scientists of repute. The speculation is mainly by the UFO community and is regarded by most as pseudo-science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ununpentium
| Quote: |
As a layman the forces you talk about inside an atom could be labelled
a "second type of gravity" but i'm getting really out of my depth here |
Yes, I'm afraid you are. The forces I describe are completely distinct from gravity and, as far as we currently know, there is no link.
Physics is seeking to show how all the fundamental forces can be 'unified' into one symmetry at the time of the BB but this is a different argument since the conditions necessary for that are extreme and do not apply in our current universe.It's all speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point in the near or distant future, physicists discover a common link between the four fundamental interactions that's still mathematically relevant in modern times, even if the conditions aren't right for them to behave in a unified fashion.
| Gagnar The Unruly wrote: |
| It's all speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point in the near or distant future, physicists discover a common link between the four fundamental interactions that's still mathematically relevant in modern times, even if the conditions aren't right for them to behave in a unified fashion. |
It depends what you mean by mathematically relevant. We know what the comparative strengths are. Electromagnetism and Weak have already been linked in 1979 (Glashow/Weinberg/Salam - Nobel Prize). We know that those two 'come together' (or more correctly display gauge symmetry as aspects of the same force) when the temperature hits 10^15 degrees and the 'Higgs ocean' of the vacuum evaporates. I think it was Glashow (but I could be wrong on this, it could have been Geogi) that proposed the 'Grand Unified Higgs field' that would 'unite' the colour force with the ElectroWeak at temperatures above 10^28. This later unification has not been confirmed, however, and looks a bit dodgy.
Superstring theory actually does unite all 4 forces and so I suppose we can say that there is already a mathematical framework for linkage.We are always trying to use Mathematics and Mathematical Modelling to describe reality. I'm not convinced that we could not say for sure there is only one type of gravity. Thanks for the last comment. | chasbeen wrote: |
| We are always trying to use Mathematics and Mathematical Modelling to describe reality. I'm not convinced that we could not say for sure there is only one type of gravity. Thanks for the last comment. |
You are welcome.
Nobody has said 'for sure' that there is only one type of gravity. All our evidence supports that view and as far as I know there is no credible evidence to support a view of more than one type. There are various hypotheses - some of which have been mentioned - but these are also based on mathematical modelling. I'm not sure how else you would try to build a coherent picture of the universe.Damn, I loves me some physics nerds!
I wanted to ask some questions, but seeing as I left physics behind in college, I'm woefully underprepared to ask correctly. Bear with me, please...
1) What is the "official" name for the theory about all the matter we can identify being just the tiny percentage of matter that hasn't yet met it's unique antimatter counterpart? All I know is that there were two Japanese physicists with involved with it (and the finding of the secondary set of quarks, if I remember correctly).
2) Is the "graviton" or "some particle we haven't discovered yet that is the cause of gravity" idea still in play in the modern physics world? Or was is discredited?
3) If so, would the antiparticles of the theoretical graviton exude a real, directional force opposite to the vectors of gravity, or would they just be the un-particles for the graviton?
Please teach me! ^_^
| quex wrote: |
Damn, I loves me some physics nerds!
I wanted to ask some questions, but seeing as I left physics behind in college, I'm woefully underprepared to ask correctly. Bear with me, please...
1) What is the "official" name for the theory about all the matter we can identify being just the tiny percentage of matter that hasn't yet met it's unique antimatter counterpart? All I know is that there were two Japanese physicists with involved with it (and the finding of the secondary set of quarks, if I remember correctly). |
Could be the duality theory http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9901003
Or perhaps the mirror-matter theory http://www.geocities.com/mirrorplanets/
| Quote: |
| 2) Is the "graviton" or "some particle we haven't discovered yet that is the cause of gravity" idea still in play in the modern physics world? Or was is discredited? |
No it is not discredited. Gravitons are part of the Standard Model from particle physics.
http://bikerman.info/resources/GeneralPhysics/standardmodel/chart_2006_4.jpg
| Quote: |
3) If so, would the antiparticles of the theoretical graviton exude a real, directional force opposite to the vectors of gravity, or would they just be the un-particles for the graviton?
|
The graviton is a force carrier (boson) and, as such, does not necessarily have an associated anti-particle. The photon, for example, as the force carrier for EM is its own anti-particle. | Bikerman wrote: |
| No it is not discredited. Gravitons are part of the Standard Model from particle physics. |
Ah, i may be wrong here, but i don't think the graviton is part of the standard model. i think it is a logical extension of the standard model that does not really contradict or change it in any way, under normal conditions. | Indi wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | No it is not discredited. Gravitons are part of the Standard Model from particle physics. |
Ah, i may be wrong here, but i don't think the graviton is part of the standard model. i think it is a logical extension of the standard model that does not really contradict or change it in any way, under normal conditions. |
Fermilab are closest to observing the graviton or its signature :: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/today03-09-18.html :: whilst the LHC@CERN is gearing-up for its November 2007 switch on*
So, with Indi, the 'logical extension to the standard model' is, like all science, ready for the next test. 
* e.g. the dashboard here:: http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/ :: where Sector 78 is 'tuning 1.9 K conditions'I think there is only one type of "gravity", or "force" shall we say. According to the Newton's theory, can't remember which one, all mass produce gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity. Atoms, protons, electrons, nucleus are mass too.
| Shin wrote: |
| I think there is only one type of "gravity", or "force" shall we say. According to the Newton's theory, can't remember which one, all mass produce gravity. The greater the mass, the greater the gravity. Atoms, protons, electrons, nucleus are mass too. |
According to Einstein's theory published in 1915 in the Ann. Physik (German), General Relativity theory in 4 dimensions of Minkowski space-time, the 'field' around massive objects also contributes to the total and when this field is distorted enough: equivalently through continued accelerated motion or an increase in density (the mass per unit volume), things of more general interest are seen.
The objects you list do indeed have the property mass=true and also in the proportion you cite (the more the heavier) but there are other, massless entities out there too. ed. Bikerman, purely awesome. That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Thanks kindly!
| quex wrote: |
Bikerman, purely awesome. That's exactly what I wanted to know.
Thanks kindly! |
Most welcome, but I must also accept Indi's point that the Graviton is (one possible) extension of the standard model rather than, as I said, a part of the model itself, and would highlight Newolder's link to more reading on the issue.
