Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Right twice a day.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Gravity Waves2

Production of Gravity Waves: Another Experiment
  (+1, -11)(+1, -11)
(+1, -11)
  [vote for,

1) The prior Gravity Waves idea should be read before reading this. It presents the notion that a graviton may also be a fundamental 'quantum of momentum'. In this description, the phrase 'quantum of momentum' is shortened to 'momenton'.

2) So far as I know, outside of the idea of momentons, Standard Physics has almost no place for such a notion as 'storage' of momentum. (A momenton contains some fixed amount of momentum, and may be described as moving in some direction that is totally unrelated to the 'vector' of the carried-along momentum.) For Standard Physics, there is only and always mass/energy-in-motion, and no quanta of momentum at all.

3) However, there is one widely-known phenomenon which is so simple ("obvious") that perhaps it has never been properly analyzed. As you will see, a kind of 'storage' of momentum is indeed involved here! I'm sure you are familiar with the toy that consists of a row of suspended steel balls ("Newton's cradle"). Pull one ball away from the row and then release it; it swings down and collides with the next ball in the row. Promptly the LAST ball in the row swings out, and eventually back...

4) Standard Newtonian descriptions of this device ASSUME that the last ball INSTANTLY moves, when the first ball collides. However, we know that mere mechanical events always involve such things as the speed of sound in (in this example) steel, (which is roughly 5 kilometers per second). So, when the first ball collides with the next, a tiny fraction of a second passes while a mechanical-force/sound/shock-wave traverses the row of steel balls, to reach the last one.

5) WHAT <FORM> DOES MOMENTUM TAKE, during that fraction of a second? We cannot truly say it is "in storage", because the momentum DOES transfer from the first to the last ball. But it most certainly isn't in the Standard form of Moving Mass, either! There is only a sound/shock-wave of slightly-compressed steel. The atoms involved, moving forward as part of that wave, move BACK almost immediately. But the momentum of the first ball transfers to the last ball WITHOUT moving back with those atoms!

6) Now, as a variation of this toy, imagine a 5-kilometer-long row of suspended steel balls. Roughly one whole second is going to pass between the first ball striking the next, and the last ball swinging out. This is NOT going to happen that simply, though! Instead, the first ball will BOUNCE off the row! The last ball swings just a trifle, after that one-second time-delay. The reason the first ball bounces is because all the other balls, together, are vastly more massive, and it is well-known that a lesser mass usually bounces off a greater mass. The Standard mathematical description of this event requires that all the other balls in the long row be treated as if they were a single massive (and thus not very movable) object.

7) So, at the moment of collision, most of the momentum of the first ball bounces back with it, and a small portion is treated as being applied TO THE 5-KM ROW AS A WHOLE. This description now has a problem, because in reality only the very last ball in the long row will do any moving! How much will it be moving? That is the essence of the experiment, to compare with theory and hypothesis.

8) In the first Gravity Wave idea it was suggested that heavy impacts will produce gravity-waves/momentons. Here we are not dealing with a heavy impact, but instead with a one-second time-delay. How should this be incorporated into the mathematical description of the experiment? As you will see, the time-delay factor is not unrelated to the high-impact factor.

9) Let us begin with ordinary forces and accelerations; it is widely known that they are directly proportional to each other, according to the good old formula F=ma. Now think of the phrase "dimensional analysis", which means you take a close look at the measurement-units. On both sides of the equals-sign we would have, for example, kilograms multiplied by meters, and divided by seconds and divided by seconds again. Tht total collection of dimensional units MUST be the same on both sides of any '='.

10) In the early 1960s an assumption was made that there is also a force that is proportional to 'jerk', which is the rate of change of acceleration with time. (If the assumption is NOT made, engineers building such things as guide-yokes for aircraft-ejection systems discover that the yokes break too easily.) It should be obvious that some amount of jerk will exist in every high-impact situation. Now, if velocity equals distance divided by time, or v=d/t, and acceleration equals velocity divided by time, or a=v/t, then it follows that j=a/t. An appropriate equation relating force to jerk is F=mjt. Dimensional analysis of the 'mjt' reveals WHY that 't' is vital: kilograms multiplied by meters multiplied by seconds, and divided by seconds and divided by seconds and divided by seconds. The net result is that some of the 'seconds' cancel each other out, which is the ONLY way for the dimensional units on the right side of '=' to be the same as the units of force, on the left side.

11) So what is the MEANING of the 't' or time or seconds value in the equation F=mjt? This is that one-second delay between impact of the first ball of the 5-kilometer row, and the motion of the last ball! So, not only could a force be directly proportional to jerk, it would also directly proportional to size (since speed of sound in a material is constant, time-delay relates to size). That cliche` about "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" was never so thoroughly explained before!

12) Our new description of the first ball striking the long row will still involve a force of impact, and that force will still be F=ma for that single ball. But, for the long row, we need to accommodate both that standard equation and the jerk equation: F=ma+mjt. This 'F' has the same magnitude as the 'F' for the first ball; we merely break it down into two parts, for the benefit of the long row. (In theory we should use the longer equation for the first ball also, but because it's a small object, 't' is close to zero in value; thus 'mjt' is so negligable as to be very difficult to detect experimentally.)

13) Yet our usage of the longer equation, breaking 'F' into two parts for benefit of the long row, has to be done very carefully. I THINK that everything except the 't' will refer to the single ball at the far end; it will take actual experiments to justify that opinion. If I'm right, then the simple way of looking at the situation is this: The 'F' applied to the long row gets split; part of it is the 'ma' that the last ball will actually experience. The other part of the 'F' will seem to be unaccounted-for! THIS is the effort that creates an invisible piece of radiant momentum...(as would the high-impact experiment of sledgehammer striking anvil, in the other Gravity Waves idea).

14) Thus we have a hypthotical discrepancy, in that when 'mjt' is part of the math, the computed motion of the last ball will be less than when 'mjt' is not part of the math. The acid test is to do the experiment, and measure the actual motion of that last ball. Will the mathematical description of its motion be more accurate with or without 'mjt'? (Probably it will not be necessary to actually use a 5-kilometer row of balls. Just two balls and a long long steel rod separating them should work, too. The essential thing is that the first ball encounter so much mass that it MUST bounce significantly.)

15) I am not suggesting that an attempt be made here to detect any supposedly-resultant momentons. All I need, for Standard Physicists to take notice, is an experiment that can noticeably deviate from Standard Predictions. And if some momentum does appear to become unaccounted-for, in this experiment, THEN it will be time to bring on the gravity-wave detectors.

Vernon, Mar 08 2001

AstroJax Toy http://www.astrojax...ence/scienceset.htm
Fun Toy. [Wes, Mar 08 2001]

Tap Tap Tap http://www.optics.a...es/singleshell.html
A novel method, whereby an oscillating reading arm can be used to detect configurations without actually touching them. [reensure, Mar 08 2001]

It's Slinky! http://www.slinkytoys.com/main.htm
A body at rest tends to remain at rest unless....oh, nevermind. [reensure, Mar 08 2001]

The search for gravity waves http://www.cnn.com/...avity.reut/?related
Uses a split beam interferometer [reensure, Feb 01 2002]

This idea is definitely going to need this. A lot. http://www.halfbake...m/idea/Clue_20Spray
Pfff sss SSSSSS ssssssss t! PFFff zzz ss zz sssssst!! [neelandan, Mar 08 2002]

Gravity Waves Gravity Waves
As referenced in Vernon's preamble. [zen_tom, Aug 15 2006]

Some additional explanations http://www.halexandria.org/dward133.htm
Refers to original work done in the early 1960s. I have my doubts about the stuff on other pages of that web site, but much of this one page is reasonably solid. [Vernon, Aug 15 2006]

A speculation in conceptual logic http://knol.google....on/131braj0vi27a/2#
"Simple" quantum gravitation, using certain of the notions that were posted here years ago. [Vernon, Oct 29 2008]

Modulus of Elasticity http://en.wikipedia...iki/Elastic_modulus
mentioned in an annotation [Vernon, Oct 30 2008]


       Perform the experiment, then we'll talk. Be prepared for some of the energy to change into heat and sound.   

       By the way, can you restate your hypothesis in one or two sentences?
centauri, Mar 08 2001

       Any description of these tricks, Peter? These seem interesting!   

       See link at bottom: I want one of these toys for a fidget widget. (I'm not sure if this is what you were envisioning).
Wes, Mar 08 2001

       Oh, hey. Vernon's back.
francois, Mar 08 2001

       centauri, even a reasonably simple experiment like this takes money, measuring equipment, time, etc. You provide the stuff, and I'll be happy to do the test. And yes, I know that there are more factors for such a test than were described in the essay, just as there is rather more to the Standard equation for Force than simply F=ma.   

       Please remember that not everyone reading the ideas posted on the Halfbakery know all the background information needed to fully understand what an idea might be about. I do not want to be accused of being obscure, abstruse, or otherwise difficult to understand.   

       So: In essence this is merely a 'verification' experiment. Standard theory says one thing, but does reality match?   

       In greater detail: With respect to the long row of balls, the first ball will impact with some amount of momentum. After the impact, it will bounce and possess some other amount of momentum. Standard theory says that the last ball will acquire the difference, after an interval of time related to the speed of sound in steel, and the length of the row. But will it really, or will that delay-time introduce a non-Standard consequence ('disappearing' momentum)?   

       ---------- PeterSealy, you must not have read the first Gravity Waves essay, in which there is a description of what can be left over when a negative MASS encounters and 'nullifies' an ordinary mass: pure momentum only! There can be zero kinetic energy left over. Be assured that Momentum is a distinct thing in its own right.   

       Furthermore, in the super-long Newton's cradle described in this essay, there will indeed be some time delay between the impact of the first ball, and the motion of the last ball. (Interpreting one way what you wrote about "no delays": Are you planning to spout nonsense about faster-than-light events?)   

       I agree that Standard theory claims that the time-delay will have no effect upon the momentum that the last ball acquires. I do not agree that Standard theory must automatically be accepted as Truth in this matter, with no testing. To the best of my knowledge, this tiny piece of Standard theory has NEVER been tested or measured rigorously. Hmmm...title of paper: Concerning Time-Consuming Transference of Momentum Through a Moveable-Yet-Not-Expected-To-Move Intermediary Mass (---yuck! :)   

       -------- waugsqueke, the primary idea was presented in the other Gravity Waves essay; this here is merely a notion concerning how it might be partially tested.
Vernon, Mar 09 2001

       PeterSealy: You are being inconsistent about "no delays". SEE: -------- Vern: I said no delays in the momentum transfer, not in the ball flying off. (The delay in the ball flying off will be a measure of the speed of sound in steel.) -------   

       Note that the essay DOES specify a delay related to the speed of sound in steel, and the ball CANNOT fly off until the momentum arrives. But if the momentum arrives with no delay -- which is what you say -- then why does the ball need to wait for anything else?   

       Part of the pupose of the proposed test concerns "rate of change of acceleration". If I hit one end of a long steel rod with a hammer, does the far end accelerate instantly? No, it has to wait for the force-wave to arrive, propagated at the speed of sound in steel. Therefore the steel rod as a whole, WHILE that force-wave propagates, is experiencing "rate of change of acceleration", or "jerk". This is a situation in which, IF there is such a thing as a force proportional to jerk, then it must be included in the overall mathematical description of the event. The proposed test is a variation on the theme, and allows us to consider the question: Just what form DOES momentum take, while traversing the distance between the first and last balls, when nothing in-between is in overall motion?   

       As for negative mass, there is nothing in Physics saying it can't exist, so we are free to play with it in a hypothetical way. I only need the stuff for a thought-experiment: The notion of combining negative & normal masses can yield nothing except momentum. Meanwhile, General Relativity states that when mass is destroyed, a gravity wave should appear! So the implication is that quanta of momentum are gravitons. Which explains why we observe that inertial and gravitational masses are identical.
Vernon, Mar 09 2001

       Since 'rate of change of acceleration' is a factor here, to propose an explanation, it's necessary to involve laws of the preservation of momentum applied to a distance (5 mi, whatever) that are true when constrained by the increasing division of that distance into more units of measure (ball diameter). This is near to imparting insignificance to the mass of the ball, their number, and to the constant time.

Since you've already assumed the influence ot time (t) in your equation F=mjt, then consider that as distance approaches zero (ball diameter as a proportion of the distance involved), (j) becomes the change in velocity per second squared. It doesn't take a minute to guess that a standard statement of kinetic energy (œmv²) explains any release of force equal to an oppositely reacting force, call it bounce, jerk, or conservation of energy.

There are a slew of phenomina affecting objects in motion, some readily observable like lift on a thrown ball, some mysterious like dampening of motion at the subatomic level by interplay of matter with negative particles, still others just cute like why one smacks as hard as possible on one end of a lever and still fails to lift a weight at the far end high enough to ring a bell.
reensure, Mar 09 2001, last modified Mar 11 2001

       PeterSealy, I am not the one confused about delays; I am merely interested in the consequences. You, on the other hand, are NOW implying that there is no delay in the transfer of energy ("Don't confuse the delay between one ball hitting and the other flying off with a delay in the transfer of energy.") Shame on you. The last ball is going to wait until the shock wave from the first ball, after traversing all the intermediary steel at merely the speed of sound in steel, arrives carrying BOTH kinetic energy and momentum with it. IF THEY COULD arrive ahead of the shock wave, the ball would have all it needed to fly off at whatever instant they did arrive. Yet we both know that the last ball WILL wait for the shock wave. Momentum and kinetic energy are both delayed, due to the sheer length of the intermediary steel.   

       So we return to wondering about the fact that no overall intermediary mass is actually in motion, during the delay! So Mechanics needs to correctly describe the FORM of momentum and kinetic energy during the delay, when they are temporarily dissociated from an overall-moving mass. (What is a shock-wave made of, such that when atoms in a substance go one way they transmit kinetic energy and momentum, but when those same atoms 'snap back' to their original positions, moving the other direction, they don't transmit kinetic energy and momentum in that direction?)   

       ----------- reensure, I'm afraid I'm having difficulty deciding whether you are agreeing on the need for the test described here, or not. SOME of what you wrote seems to be pretty similar to what I wrote in the 12th paragraph of the essay.
Vernon, Mar 10 2001

       Moving ball impacts one end of row. Two balls are temporarily deformed. Kinetic energy goes momentarily to zero as it transforms into potential energy of a deformed atomic lattice. The next moment, the atoms in the first ball spring back into shape and it pushs back off. The atoms in the second ball also spring back, giving an added push to the first ball, but also pushing the second ball into the third. Well, the third doesn't really have anywhere to go, but the energy, changing rapidly from potential to kinetic, travels down the row.   

       The metal atoms undergo a great deal of vibration, but in vibration, there is no net movement. When the atoms divest themselves of the energy they eventually come to rest right where they were.   

       Energy that reaches the edges of the balls, turns into noise or reflects back into the metal.   

       It's quite complicated when trying to keep track of all the energy and its forms, but it's all there.
centauri, Mar 10 2001

       Thank you, centauri; I neglected to remember that the moving deformation of the crystal lattice represents kinetic energy, in potential form, in motion. Note that there is no need for that form to change back until the last ball is reached.   

       Now, what about momentum?
Vernon, Mar 11 2001

       Now class, repeat after me...
"Momentum equals mass times velocity!
Force equals mass times acceleration!
Yank equals mass times jerk! [I'm inclined to substitute 'torque' for Yank]
Tug equals mass times snap!
Snatch equals mass times crackle!
Shake equals mass times pop!!
reensure, Mar 11 2001, last modified Mar 13 2001

       Momentum, p, is mass times velocity, mv, a vector. Kinetic energy is .5mv^2 (sorry, I can't remember how to make "1/2" or superscript 2), or (m^2v^2)/2m or (p^2)/2m, a scalar. In the case in point, we can count on the two being inextricably tied in this way.   

       There is no such thing as "kinetic energy, in potential form, in motion." At least that's not the conventional way to speak of it. If something is in motion, it can have potential and kinetic energy. The two can switch places rather freely but potential is potential, and kinetic is kinetic. By definition and equation, kinetic energy is energy of motion and potential is "stored up" and not in use.   

       Whether or not the form of the energy changes as it is transmitted across the length of the row is just a matter of how precise you wish to be. As I posted before, movement is taking place at an atomic level, so energy does take a kinetic form if only for brief moments. That's what vibration is all about.   

       Further discussion of this largely baked idea should probably take place over email. Find mine in my profile.
centauri, Mar 11 2001

       Maybe instead of abbreviating pop as p, since momentum uses p, it should be abbreviated pop=speed of sound=n. :-P
reensure, Mar 11 2001

       reensure, be careful about using 'torque', because it is associated with angular and not merely linear motion.   

       centauri, as you indicated, the deformed crystal lattice represents potential energy. Since the deformation moves along the length of the steel, you cannot escape concluding that the potential energy moves. Hey, re-read tje first couple of sentences in Paragraph 3 of the essay. (Regarding that kinetic energy formula, I suppose what you write depends on what convention you follow. I am comfortable with 1/2(mv^2), for example, and if the ^ was substituted with ** I could accept that, too.)   

       The problem with your explanation is that you only have POTENTIAL ENERGY in motion, not mass in motion. Possibly, due to good old E=mc^2, we could let that explain it and be done with it. However, that is not a Newtonian answer! Newtonian Mechanics wants MASS in motion before it will say that momentum exists. Okay, so the moving shock-wave consists of atoms moving slightly in the crystal lattice, each receiving an impact and passing it on, but how exactly does this translate back into overall motion of the last ball? How can you be sure that the process will be perfect (given no heat-associated losses)? Aren't jerk-related events worthy of some study?   

       As a trivia item, you may be aware that when Max Planck proposed the existence of quanta of energy, he created the notion out of nothing more than the need to solve a problem related to spectroscopy. Then Einstein showed that quanta were also useful for explaining the photoelectric effect, something completely different. And consequences of Quantum Mechanics have been appearing ever since.   

       Well, in the early 1960s, some folks were working with the mathematical consequences of the simple notion that maybe there was a force proportional to jerk. One of the things they were able to DEDUCE, after adding that single detail to Newtonian Mechanics, was the quantization of energy! I would say that that kind of theoretical agreement with reality is worthy of some experimental investigation into 'jerk'.
Vernon, Mar 12 2001

hippo, Mar 12 2001

       I think contestant number 1 is bluffing, Bob.
DrBob, Mar 12 2001

       Folks, as of July 2003, NONE of the links attached underneath the main idea work any more. If alternatives cannot be found, I suppose the thing to do is delete those links. I'm willing to do the deletion in a month or so, but I thought that those who posted them may want to do that themselves, or want to provide alternatives. Thanks!
Vernon, Jul 07 2003

       Ok, so you want to produce gravity waves. I've read about neutron stars doing this, due to their intense rotational speed and their dense mass. Well, what if instead of the car crash or anvil-based experiment, you set one up involving a rotating mass?      

       In physics class they never did explain why the rotating bicycle wheel likes to pull one way over the other...      

       So if "the graviton is the quantum of momentum", perhaps a dense, rotating mass would create some useable gravity waves. For some reason, I am envisioning a sphere inside a shell of another sphere, both spheres rotating in opposite directions but having the same mass. Perhaps some sort of harmonic effect would occur where a directed beam of gravitons would be pushed out. Who knows, it seems simple, usually simple works the best.      

       You'd probably need a lot of energy and dense mass, but not more than the mass you were trying to move, for example, right?      

       Now if you could somehow phase-shift some regular mass out of spacetime such that existed within a gravity "bubble", perhaps the graviton source could work as a propulsion system. I mean you couldn't use a regular rocket, we're not talking about "motion", we're talking about folding the medium and riding the wave so to speak.   

michaels, Jul 07 2003

       The swinging ball toy always reminds me of an installation at the 1964 World's Fair in Queens, New York. A column of steel balls were stacked on top of each other about 25" high, each ball was about 1 1/2" in diameter, they were encased in a tubular cage the bottom of which was a turned back upwards 180 degrees, like a big letter 'J'. At the bottom of the 'J' more tubing formed a kind of rollercoaster for the balls, once a ball would go down this track, it would whirl around picking up speed and momentum, eventually it would spin around the track to a point directly over the top of the 'J', hit a stop and drop down on top the column from a height of 10" or so. This would knock the last ball in line at the bottom on to the chute. Hate to say perpetual motion, but it sure seemed perpetual to me.
ty6, Jul 07 2003

       Heh. ty6, steel balls have always been fun toys (think "steelie marbles"), but steel is a magnetic material, and so it isn't hard to imagine some hidden electromagnets built into the gadget you described, to keep it running.
Vernon, Jul 08 2003

       drivel, SOME of the wave will dissipate in a long column of steel. Not all of it, though, or at least not all of it quickly. For proof, think about railroad tracks: They are welded these days so as to make many miles of continuous steel. You can put your ear to a rail and hear the vibes of a train coming, from pretty far away. Sound waves ARE "waves of mechanical force" inside the steel. A pretty feeble force, sure, but steel is a pretty good conductor of those forces.   

       Anyway, the sort of loss that you describe is known-about and can be anticipated by the experimenters. It will also show up as heat, and can be measured. If any energy escapes as a gravity wave, it will escape such measurement, leaving an imbalance in energy-in-vs-energy-measured. Good!   

       Today I'm deleting two links that were attached to this Idea, because both destinations no longer exist. See my post dated July 7 2003
Vernon, Aug 19 2004

       Newtons cradle works because the collision is elastic. Steel on steel can be as good as 98%. I suppose if the row is 100 balls long there would be very little left. Since it is 2% off the remaining energy lost it isnt all gone in 50 balls.
Kirkmcloren, Aug 14 2006

       Kirk, not sure what you're saying here.. at 98% efficiency, 36.4% of the energy remains after 50 transfers, 13.26% after 100. ... think 0.98^x where x is the number of transfers, or impacts. It's a bit like those annoying compound interest calculations from highschool. -no offence if i misread your statement, it was a little unclear-   

       As to Vernon's idea, I'd really like some close up high speed photography of the steel balls in a newton's cradle, before I start inventing new theories based on some crass assumptions about what really happens.   

       Are we entirely sure that the row of balls you assume to be perfectly stationary are, in fact so? Likewise for the timing of the balls at each end being propelled outward? If you accept the fact that the balls compress slightly, and that this is in fact the mode of transfer for KE (in the form of a travelling shockwave, being PE from compression of the steel), well then you can clearly see that the centre of mass of each ball will in fact move slightly in the direction of the shockwave, simply because for each ball, the side towards the incoming shockwave will compress before it's leading edge. I'd really like to think that this slight movement is in fact the method of momentumn transfer.   

       Your analysis, is in my opinion quite brilliant, a well written essay (a wee bit sensational, with a hint of "haha you physicists are all wrong"). I'd just like to see some justification of your assumptions, as per any well written esaay. List them. Justify them. Summarise.   

       looking forward to your retort.
Custardguts, Aug 15 2006

       I suspect it might be a question of bondage. Partially filled with air rubber balls will react one way. The same amount of air in smaller rubber balls (even with the same weight of rubber), should react differently.   

       I suspect a material deformation wave travels through the material in the easiest path, transfering energy in this way. A Newton's cradle with pillows just wouldn't work.
Zimmy, Aug 15 2006

       [Custardguts], the assumption you are asking about was not originally made by myself. I've added a link to a page that refers to some of the original work. If you can get hold of the May 1962 or the June 1976 issues of Analog, you will find far more reasons for that assumption that I can present here! Here I will only point out that if the assumption is wrong, then some consequence of that assumption should conflict with other data elsewhere in Physics, and according to the article in the June 1976 Analog, no such conflict was ever found, by several physicists working on the math, including Dr. Henri M. Coanda ("father of fluidics", "Coanda effect"). Indeed, that single assumption, adding 'jerk' to the F=ma of Newtonian Mechanics, allowed the deducing from it of the quantum condition, as well as computation of Planck's Constant.... So, while this assumption disagrees with pure Newtonian Physics (known to be inaccurate per General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics), it allows connecting NP to the more-accurate realm of QM, at least.
Vernon, Aug 15 2006

       Only at the halfbakery would scientific references point to Analog!
ldischler, Aug 15 2006

       Perhaps so, mate, I really didn't want to get into the detail of your proposal (what with all the shortcomings of newtonian VS QM, etc), as I don't have the time to go chasing articles. I really just want to challenge the assumption that the row of balls is purely stationary. I've got a sketch right here, and I cannot see how the first stationary ball can deform slightly (as it will) upon impact, without moving (albeit very slightly, in the order of magnitude of the deflection of the sphere) toward the next ball. Otherwise, how is the force transferred? It has to move slightly (unless it "bulges" in the forward direction: unlikely), in order to produce deflection in the next sphere, and so on. Otherwide the spheres would be out of contact. I would argue that this slight movement, coupled with the high shockwave speed (in the 1000's of metres per second) is the mechanism of not only PE and hence KE transfer, but of momentumn transfer. The interesting thing would be to use high speed photography to track exactly what the movements are. Possibly even track ball deflection, etc, maybe by using a different ball material with a much lower shockwave speed (and a higher deflection).   

       If I get a bit more time i'll burn up some maths on this. I can't accept that KE, PE or momentumn could be transferred with no deflection of the steel balls. And if they deflect, they will move slightly. Ergo they are not "purely" stationary.   

       Question: can the experiment be duplicated using rods end-to-end, suspended by two strings each (to keep them colinear). If so, the maths would be easier, reduce it to a 1-d problem, gets rid of all those deflection issues with spheres etc...   

       This is really quite interesting, if i have time I'll see if I can work out how to post illustrations.   

       Keep up the dialogue.   

       ol' Custy-G
Custardguts, Aug 15 2006

       [Custardguts], I do not see an answer in your posts, to a question implied in the original text (the last part of paragraph 5): "The atoms involved, moving forward as part of that wave, move BACK almost immediately. But the momentum of the first ball transfers to the last ball WITHOUT moving back with those atoms!"   

       So, when each ball un-deforms (the deformation you are associating with the notion of energy/momentum transfer is temporary, after all) why isn't that change associated with momentum and KE in the direction of that un-deformation?
Vernon, Aug 16 2006

       oh god i'm boning this too. Drop a large steel ball on a concrete surface. it bounces. In the same fashion that forms a linear relationship, through the wooden ball, through the rubber ball, all the way to the balloon filled with water. THEY ALL BOUNCE THE SAME WAY. It is preposterous to argue that somehow the steel ball is a special case different from the water balloon and that this somehow proves anything. Absurd.
WcW, Oct 30 2008

       [WcW], you are being ridiculous. Different substances bounce differently mostly because most of them deform differently; they don't all have the same "modulus of elasticity". And only an infinitely rigid substance, something that does not exist, will exhibit PERFECT Newtonian behavior during a bounce. This Idea involves the notion that there is another factor besides elasticity involved, one that is not so easily noticed (else there would be as much scientific literature on it as there is about elasticity).
Vernon, Oct 30 2008

       The fact that your Special Case shows a very low level of specialness doesn't concern you? How can you use the example unless you can somehow distinguish the behavior of one material from another?
WcW, Oct 30 2008

       [WcW], the goal here isn't to worry too much about different materials, it is to observe a particular thing about a particular material (steel). Why do you have a problem with that?
Vernon, Oct 30 2008

       the "problem" is that you are using fallacious logic. The fact that magnetism gravity and inertia do not behave in a wave or particulate fashion requires us to develop a new model not try to grease them into the old model when evidence indicates that they don't fit. It seems desperately counter intuitive to assume that a moving object contains Kinetons and that masses emit Gravitons when neither case is supported by any evidence. An explanation or postulation unsupported by evidence is a theory and unless you can provide an apparatus or method for making measurements then the idea belongs elsewhere.
WcW, Oct 30 2008

       [WcW], the whole point of this Idea is to suggest an experiment that might be able to provide relevant evidence for a particular hypothesis. Your last bit of blathering is far less logical than that; it appears to be saying that since we currently have no good quantum theory for gravity, nor evidence for such a theory, we shouldn't bother devising either theory or experiment. How much progress can be made with logic like that?
Vernon, Oct 31 2008

       i propose that you perform the experiment and publish the results in a peer reviewed journal. Your "invention" is a poor way to test your thesis. Correct theory or not your approach is crankery and you should take it elsewhere.
WcW, Oct 31 2008

       [WcW], you appear to be forgetting that this place, where this Idea is posted, is called the "HalfBakery" for a reason....
Vernon, Oct 31 2008

       you are a prince.
WcW, Oct 31 2008

       Vermon: there is a "help" link on the left part of the page. Please follow it, and read the resulting page completely.
kamathln, Oct 31 2008

       Here's his idea in short:
The Newtonian cradle toy, possibly has an anomaly which can be checked experimentally.

       Idea claim: A new form of energy unknown to Newtonian science MAY be found during the clash of two balls in a Newtonian cradle. And its worth checking.   

       The first ball compresses, emits a sound, and heats up, while the second ball does not move for a fraction of a second, and immediately begins moving later. During that time, there is "momenton storage" the momenton being a "quantum" of momentum" to soon be moving with the second steel ball, but currently intrinsic in the system, NOT being any of the energy forms known to "standard science".   

       The experiment is to take a 3 km long Newtonian cradle, where two things will happen. The second ball being hit by the first ball will almost immediately bounce back (with a fraction of a second delay) and the last ball will bounce, but only after a full second!   

       This is because of the speed of sound barrier which is 5km per second. Or something like that....   

       and, the last ball bouncing off in the end, will move in a direction not in the exact same line as the original cradle. If we carefully check the energy that will cause the last ball to (supposedly or hopefully) move off its original root path, would somehow find and prove the missing energy (from where?)   

       Vernon, 1+1 =2 it's true, but that doesn't prove why green is not blue. Just because two words rhyme doesn't mean you deserve a dime. Even you can grasp the math and physics, given enough time.
pashute, Apr 04 2011


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle