That's the principle. The law of conservation of energy (and mass is energy) applies to a closed system. As long as the Universe is considered to be a closed system, it must apply. However, there are those cosmologists who espouse the idea of a multiverse, where the Universe that *we* see and measure is not the only one.

So, one way out of the conundrum is to suppose that virtual particles (and potentially other matter, as well) can exist in, and transfer between, another Universe and our own.

There is also an important corollary to the uncertainty principle: you can't know simultaneously any two things about a particle (e.g., its velocity and location). Quantum theory must allow no violations to the uncertainty principle, or the whole house of cards collapses.

It's important on the macro scale, since microscale electron degeneracy pressure and the nuclear forces keep the house standing.

That's important.

I read somewhere recently (I think it was in The Quantum Zoo, to which another member referred me recently), that if you could remove all the empty space from atoms, leaving only the particles, then the entire human race would have the volume of a sugar cube.

darkmatter4brains :You asked quote, "If these guys don't annhilate before time delta t mentioned above, wouldn't they be violating the conservation of energy.", No, because they still exist in the black hole and it has not left the universe, however my question is how do we know the black hole isn't composed of anti-matter ( maybe this is where the major amount of anti-matter exists) and instead of becomming smaller it would gain a visible matter particle or even it the black hole is composed of "matter" as we know it, the only thing that would happen is an event where matter and anti-matter annihilate and produce an increase in energy ( in the form of a photon ) in the black hole, both scenario's produce and increase in the energy content of the black hole.

darkmatter4brains:

I've always understood that the "virtual" in virtual particles basically comes from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, specifically the enery-time uncertainty relation - that you can create a particle of energy delta E out of "nothing" and this will not violate the conservation of energy as long as it disappears out of existence in a delta time (2 delta E / hbar). This is what virtual particles are doing all the time in the vacuum right? A particle-antiparticle pair comes into existence and they annihilate themselves before delta t.

Well, doesn't Hawking Radiation have one escaping to infinity and another falling into the black hole. If these guys don't annhilate before time delta t mentioned above, wouldn't they be violating the conservation of energy.

Another thread mentioned grabbing one in the lab - wouldn't this have the same problem.

Or, am I totally getting mixed up here .... it wouldn't be the first time!

Thanks!

Darkmater4brains

Your post must be exactly what SH was wondering when he discovered that black holes radiate.

 Virtual particles interact with other particles regularly.  Bosons that transmit forces can be virtual particals and always are when the distances over which they act are short...because as you point out they exist for so short a time their energy can be any value required to transmit the force.

 Virtual particles become normal particles  if the interactions they have cause them to exist long enough.  For this to happen as you point out net energy must be supplied.  In the case of black holes the energy comes from the gravitational field which itself has mass because it has energy.  Therfore a little mass-energy is lost from the black hole whenever one of the virtual particles gets captured by the hole and the other is not ... and this is Hawking radiation.   It exists because energy must be conserved.  energy supplied = 2 particles.  energy sucked in = 1 particle.

 I have no idea what happens in the parallel universes 

Primordial:

how do we know the black hole isn't composed of anti-matter

Good question. The question highlights the importance of symmetry in nature. The conservation laws of physics, such as the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass, for example, are predicated on the assumption that certain processes occurring in nature are symmetrical. Experience tells us that, in general, symmetry is conserved (with certain exceptions), and consequently quantities such as energy, momentum and electrical charge are, in general, conserved.

To reiterate what has already been pointed out elsewhere, matter-antimatter particle pairs are continually popping in and out (of the vacuum). Near the event horizon of a black hole there is a certain probability that one of such a pair will fall into the black hole, with the other particle flying off into space. There is, however, no way of knowing for certain which particle falls into the hole-whether it would be the particle or the antiparticle. Assume that the probabilities are equal. We may then reasonably expect an equal mixture of matter and antimatter particles to be radiating from the hole. In other words the process (of radiation from the black hole) would, in that case, be perfectly symmetrical with respect to matter and antimatter. Eventually the protons and antiprotons radiating from the black hole would annihilate each other (being converted into pure energy, perhaps) so that, though the total energy of the universe, not counting the black hole, would be increasing as a consequence of the radiation,  the overall number of protons in the universe would not be significantly affected by that radiation. Likewise, though the black hole is losing energy by radiation, the matter content of the black hole would not be affected.

Are we entitled to assume that the process referred to would be symmetrical? In most cases the answer would be no, because in most cases the assumption would lead to a contradiction.

How so?

Suppose that the black hole formed originally by gravitational collapse of ordinary matter. As a consequence of that collapse the amount of matter (e.g., the number of protons) in the universe would have diminished by an amount equal to the amount of matter that collapsed originally to form the black hole. And suppose that the black hole were radiating energy, which it must do according to quantum theory (it would at the same time be absorbing energy from outside of the black hole, but I'll ignore that aspect since it does not affect the principle I am discussing). Energy is equivalent to mass, and so the black hole would be losing mass at a rate equivalent to that of the energy being radiated. Eventually the black hole would have radiated away all of its mass so that there would be nothing left of the black hole. The contradiction is that if the process were symmetrical with respect to matter and antimatter then the universe as a whole would end up with less matter than it started with, even though the black hole no longer exists. And that would constitute a violation of one of the conservation laws, known as the law of conservation of baryon number (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/particles/parint.html).

To avoid the contradiction we would have to assume that the process is asymmetrical with respect to matter and antimatter. The law I just mentioned implies that a black hole that initially formed from ordinary matter would have to radiate ordinary matter particles faster than it radiates antimatter particles. Equivalently, we could say that that such a black hole would be absorbing antimatter particles at a rate faster than it is absorbing ordinary matter particles.

Does this mean that all black holes are made of ordinary matter? Well, no, not necessarily.

If a black hole is formed by the collapse of ordinary matter then, yes, it will (must) radiate predominantly ordinary matter particles, along with other kinds of particles, such as photons. But this is not the only possibility. There are at least two other possibilities.

One possibility, a very remote possibility, is that a black hole might have formed by collapse of antimatter. That possibility is so remote that I doubt it would ever have happened, though it might, I suppose, have happened at the moment of the big bang because a lot of strange things could have happened then. Anyway, for that to happen there would have to have been a sufficient concentration of antimatter to collapse into a black hole and I'm not aware that such a concentration has ever existed in nature. But if such a hole did form then the law of conservation of baryon number implies that such a black hole would radiate predominantly antimatter particles. In effect, a black hole made of antimatter would be distinguishable from one made of ordinary matter by reason of the kind of particles of matter or antimatter) that it radiates (or absorbs).

The other possibility is that a black hole might have formed by collapse of pure energy. This could only have happened in a matter-neutral environment and, as in the case of the previous possibility, I doubt that such an environment ever existed in our universe. But if such a black hole did form it would, I suggest, radiate energy that is matter-neutral, which it must do for the reason I have given (which, if you will remember, is to avoid violating the law of conservation of baryon number). Such a black hole would have the same basic properties as any other black hole, namely, mass, spin and electrical charge, but it would be distinguished by the kind of radiation it emits: in the latter respect the black hole would behave as if it did not contain any matter at all, at least not matter as we know it.

It is all a question of symmetry and the conservation laws.

archimedes : I like your idea, keep working on it. I would like for you to look at another aspect of something sort of related, but complex, it is the energy obtained by the photon over the complete spectrum from a wave length of Planck length to the radius of the present universe as it enters the black hole, it may be important to your idea, some coverage is under the title of the Trans-Planckian problem.

archimedes:

Primordial:

how do we know the black hole isn't composed of anti-matter

... The contradiction is that if the process were symmetrical with respect to matter and antimatter then the universe as a whole would end up with less matter than it started with, even though the black hole no longer exists. And that would constitute a violation of one of the conservation laws, known as the law of conservation of baryon number

Archimedes,

THhank you for the link

What a paradox!  How has this been resolved in the literature?

The matter in the black hole must eventually evaporate else GR is violated.  The original energy to make the virtual particles real are supplied by the gravitational field then somewhere mass must be reduced inside the horizon.  Is it in this process that bayon number is somhow conserved?

Near the singularity our physics breaks down but even far enough away where GR and quantum mechanics are still viable models but temperatures are high (quark soup), GUT theories indicate that the srong, weak and electromagnetic forces may all be the same force and that no protons exist.  Baryon nuymber would then be preserved by individual quarks.  Is it in this region that the paradox can be resolved?

 ph

porcupinehill : Your statement, quote, " The contradiction is that if the process were symmetrical with respect to matter and antimatter then the universe as a whole would end up with less matter than it started with, even though the black hole no longer exists. And that would constitute a violation of one of the conservation laws, known as the law of conservation of baryon number ", consider this, fermi lab use what to form their collisions, are they baryons? Can Gamma photons of 1876.4 Mev be converted into 2 baryons?

I think the way it works is if you generate a anti-proton (Baryon) to keep conservation you must generate a proton (baryon) each have their own baryon number B (+1, -1). Conservation is to balance the Baryon number. Same is thue for matter, anti-matter.

Primordial:

I think the way it works is if you generate a anti-proton (Baryon) to keep conservation you must generate a proton (baryon) each have their own baryon number B (+1, -1). Conservation is to balance the Baryon number. Same is thue for matter, anti-matter.

Thanks Primordial.  That is my understanding also and I believe  that in accelerators, the law has not been observed to be violated.  (I wonder who counts the particles in the jets to check?!?)

 Archimedes points out though that a black hole emits Hawking radiation (partially) in the form of protons and anti-protons.  Sometimes one...sometimes the other.  Hawking claims that if you wait 10^100 years or so the black hole will evaporate. 

gone....

phhhht. 

It left by scattering  radiation into the same universe the black hole formed in, and that radiation consisted of (among other particles) gazillions of baryons and anti-baryons but it had a baryon number of just about 0 since about 50% of the emitted baryons were anti-matter.

 The baryon number of a black hole at the beginning of the process was >>1.  At least he assumes (reasonably) most of the stuff that went in to create it was normal +1 matter...

So he points out...if the hole evaporates over the eons it violates the conservation of baryon number.

 This is news to me...

porcupinehill : My problem with Mr. Hawking is, regardless of the baryon exchanged the net total of a virtual pair reduction that allowes either the matter or the anti-matter part to enter the black hole results in a gain in energy, which to me is a gain in mass because during matter, anti-matter annihilation only energy is the end product to evaporate the black hole the particle would need to be anti-energy not anti-matter, if the one particle is of the same type of matter, this would result in a gain in mass, how the information (quantum information, that information that keeps Baryon balance) is handled happens the same as usual, after all the information that negotiates gravity's increase due to the increase in energy would be an observed change across the event horizon, where the selected virtual pair originated. I can't see the black hole evaporating if it is a primordial black hole with an origin starting with the big bang before the gravitational interaction diverged from the GUT interaction.

Primordial:

My problem with Mr. Hawking is, regardless of the baryon exchanged the net total of a virtual pair reduction that allowes either the matter or the anti-matter part to enter the black hole results in a gain in energy, which to me is a gain in mass because during matter, anti-matter annihilation only energy is the end product to evaporate the black hole the particle would need to be anti-energy not anti-matter, if the one particle is of the same type of matter, this would result in a gain in mass, how the information (quantum information, that information that keeps Baryon balance) is handled happens the same as usual, after all the information that negotiates gravity's increase due to the increase in energy would be an observed change across the event horizon, where the selected virtual pair originated.

Agree that the same energy is gained by the black hole whether the particle or antiparticle goes in.  Anti-matter is opposite spin and charge but is still positive energy!

In your energy balance where does the mass-energy come from to convert the virtual baryon anti-baryon pair to a real pair?  If this energy is subtracted from the black hole then the mass gained by the particle or anti-particle falling in is more than offset by the particle creation.  The mass-energy of a proton or anti proton is about  10^9eV so the mass energy balance is:

10^9eV - 2(10^9eV) = -10^9eV

 for each such event.  There are no collisions or other energy sources identified so a control volume surface at the event horizon exibits this energy balance and the event horizon by definition is the black hole.

The exact mechanism for the conversion of black hole mass-energy to a baryon-anti baryon pair is at the heart of the process and the paradox.  Can this process for example favor the anti-baryon falling into the hole such that the radiation contains mostly baryons thus eliminating the conservation violation?

ph

porcupinehill : I think you are missing my point, I admitt I can't convey Information the way I would like , but I'm trying to present the problem I have with Mr. Hawkings radiation, which has several problems.

#1. His anti-particle must be anti-gravity( or anti-energy which is by his standards a vector quanity of mass ) which would involve trans-Planckian transfers of energy(electromagnetic) to gravity(space-time energy).

#2. His problem of change of gravity with gains or losses of energy, which connects the universe with his black hole is unable to connect the virtual transfer back from the black hole to the universe.

Just look at his concept and do the balance.

Thanks for your viewing my problem.

Time will tell.

Primordial:

I would like for you to look at another aspect of something sort of related, but complex, it is the energy obtained by the photon over the complete spectrum from a wave length of Planck length to the radius of the present universe as it enters the black hole, it may be important to your idea, some coverage is under the title of the Trans-Planckian problem

Thanks for the suggestions. I would like to offer some thoughts that may be of interest.

When a photon falls in a gravitational field it gains (kinetic) energy. We explain this by saying that the photon obtains its energy from the gravitational potential energy of the field. And, because of the extreme gravitational field at the event horizon of a black hole, a photon falling into a black hole would (according to general relativity theory) gain an infinite amount of energy (see Kip Thorne's book "Black Holes and Time Warps"). This is not quite the same thing as the trans-Planckian problem (http://locutus.cs.dal.ca:8088/archive/00000358/01/husain&winkler4-2005.pdf) but there is a connection in that both phenomena involve photons having (theoretically) infinite energy.

The case of a photon being radiated or absorbed at the event horizon of a black hole is particularly interesting. It is not hard to see that a photon that is being absorbed at the horizon is not very much different, in principle, from a photon that is being radiated from the horizon. In a sense, either process can be thought of as kind of time-reversed video play-back of the other. In other words, there is a definite symmetry between the processes of absorption and radiation. And so if, on the one hand, a photon gains infinite energy as it is being absorbed at the horizon then, on the other hand, we might expect that another photon would start off with infinite energy as it is being radiated from the horizon.

It would seem that we have a paradox of infinities here. The paradox has two parts.

The first part is that infinity, by definition, is an unattainable quantity. It would take all of the energy sources of the universe, and more besides, to generate infinite energy. So, how can a photon that is being absorbed at the event horizon of a black hole, or one that is being radiated from the event horizon of a black hole, acquire infinite energy?

The second part is that a photon, or indeed any object falling through the event horizon of a black hole would also gain infinite energy, because it would take infinite energy for that photon or that object to subsequently escape from the black hole (otherwise there would be nothing to stop that photon or object from coming back out of the black hole).

The difference between these two parts of the paradox is that, in the first part, the photon is radiated or absorbed at the event horizon whereas, in the second part, the photon or object actually passes through the event horizon and continues on (inexorably) to the singularity.

The first part of the paradox is much easier of the two to explain. The short explanation is that a photon that is generated as (Hawking) radiation from a black hole does not originate from a definite location in space time, but rather it originates (from the vacuum) in a fuzzy region of space time that is the quantum-theoretical equivalent of the event horizon of GR (general relativity theory). According to GR this region has a precisely-defined location in space-time, but the uncertainty principle of quantum theory tells us that this cannot be so because quantities like space and time cannot be precisely measured (or defined). And by the same principle, the energy of a photon that is being absorbed at or radiated from this region of space-time cannot be precisely defined. Therefore one could argue that a photon that is being absorbed at or radiated from the event horizon could have any energy between (but not including) zero energy and infinite energy. The energy of the photon would simply be a function of probability. This energy cannot be zero because zero is a precise number (it implies zero probability), and that would be forbidden by the uncertainty principle. The energy cannot be infinite because the inverse of infinity is zero (infinite energy implies unit probability hence certainty) and so this too would be forbidden by the uncertainty principle.

The second part of the paradox is much harder (I would suggest impossible) to explain away. I might point out that this part of the paradox arises only because practically everyone assumes (as established fact, which it is not) that a photon heading straight toward a black hole must pass through the event horizon. Quantum theory tells us that this is not true in at least one case, for, as I have already mentioned, it is possible for a photon to be absorbed at the event horizon without passing through it. Suppose, however, that a photon is not absorbed by the horizon, what then? Intuitively, we might assume (and this is what the textbooks tell us) that the photon will (must) pass through the horizon and continue on toward the singularity. That intuition, however, is not justified by GR because the space-like, time-like world lines of space-time reverse their roles at the event horizon (because of this the event horizon also constitutes a mathematical singularity, known as the Schwarzschild singularity, but one that is quite different from the singularity at the centre of a black hole in that space-time is not crunched up into a mathematical point but looks just like (to a local observer) ordinary four-dimensional space-time). But if that intuition were justified then we really would have a paradox of infinities. Firstly, we would have to assume that such a photon gains an infinite amount of energy because GR tells us quite unequivocally that, once having passed through the event horizon, such a photon can never escape from the black hole but must continue on to the singularity (I should point out here that GR does not insist that the photon actually passes through the horizon, it merely states that if the photon passes through the horizon then the photon must continue on. See, for example, Jerzy Plebanski, Andrzej Krasinski "An Introduction to General Relativity and Cosmology", Cambridge University Press, p 200). By definition such a photon would have acquired infinite energy and, as I have already explained, that is forbidden by the uncertainty principle.

So, what do you think we should conclude from this?

One possibility is that the uncertainty principle is wrong, or that it doesn't apply to black holes, because it conflicts with our intuitive notion of what happens (or ought to happen) to a photon as it enters a black hole.

The only other possiblitiy that I can think of is that quantum theory is right and our intuition is wrong.

The point here is that we cannot have it both ways.

I would argue that, of these two possibilities, the latter is more likely to be correct.

porcupinehill:

How has this been resolved in the literature?

porcupinehill:

The matter in the black hole must eventually evaporate else GR is violated.  The original energy to make the virtual particles real are supplied by the gravitational field then somewhere mass must be reduced inside the horizon.  Is it in this process that bayon number is somhow conserved?

As far as I know no one has published the idea of asymmetric radiation from a black hole. For example the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation) seems to make no mention of it. So, if anyone has published the idea I would be very interested.

As to your question: (Is it in this process that baryon number is somehow conserved?), the answer is yes. Remember from quantum theory that virtual particle-antiparticle pairs are created out of the vacuum. The basic process is quite simple in principle. Think of the vacuum as consisting of (hypothetical) particles having zero energy (yes, I know that zero energy violates the uncertainty principle, but please bear with me for a little while).  Mathematically, a particle of zero energy can be thought of as a composite of two particles, one having positive energy +ΔE and the other having negative energy -ΔE, where ΔE can be any value you like. So long as the quantum numbers add up to zero there is no violation of any law of physics should the two particles appear spontaneously out of nothing. In fact, it would be very strange if at some time or other such particles did not appear spontaneously. The only caveat is that the lifetimes of those particles, when they appear, are determined by their energies according to the famous uncertainty principle.

As I have intimated in my previous post, there is no way of knowing, beforehand, which of these particles acquires the positive energy (+ΔE) and which acquires the negative energy (-ΔE). There is also no way of knowing beforehand which of the particles radiates away and which is left behind. If the particle having positive energy radiates away then we would perceive this as Hawking radiation. The particle that is left behind, in that case, would have negative energy (hence negative mass) to balance out the numbers. The negative mass of the particle that is left behind, therefore, will reduce the total mass of the black hole by a corresponding amount. To an outside observer, it would appear as if a particle of matter were plucked out of the black hole and hurled into space. the correct explanation, however, is that the particle originates from the vacuum surrounding the black hole and not from some unspecified location deep inside the black hole. 

Alternatively, if it is the particle having negative energy that radiates away then, sooner or later, that particle will be annihilated by an encounter with its corresponding antiparticle. We would perceive such a process as absorption of energy by the black hole, though the actual absorption need not take place precisely at the event horizon of the black hole. In this case the particle that is left behind would have positive energy (mass) and so the mass of the black hole would increase by the corresponding amount. To an outside observer it would look as if a particle of matter fell into the black hole from the outside but this is not the correct way of describing it. The correct way, I would suggest, is to say that the particle of matter having negative energy emerged out of the vacuum surrounding the black hole while the particle having positive energy was merely left behind. To go further and assume that the particle actually fell into the hole, though convenient from an intuitive point of view, is not justified (in my opinion) by any law of nature--despite what some people might tell you (How could we know that the particle fell into the hole?)

But the point I am trying to make here is that radiation and absorption are two sides of the same coin. Hence black holes absorb energy as well as radiate energy. Most of the time they absorb energy from the surroundings, e.g., the cosmic microwave background, and, so long as there is energy available, black holes will absorb some of that energy, though not necessarily at the same rate at which they radiate energy.

Baryon number is always conserved because, whenever a particle of baryon number +1, say emerges from a black hole a particle of the baryon number -1 will be left behind. Conversely, whenever a particle of baryon number -1 emerges from a black hole a particle of the baryon number +1 will be left behind.

The biggest difficulty most people who might be reading this are likely to have with this explanation is with the concept of negative energy. But really, there is nothing strange about this concept. Energy, like temperature is a relative concept: the energy of one particle is always measured relative to that of some other particle, or some equivalent reference. Whenever a (virtual) particle of negative energy appears somewhere in the universe a (real) particle of positive energy must appear somewhere else in the universe. It is like a wave propagating along the ocean; when a dip appears in the ocean at one location then a hump appears at another location, and vice versa.

Since a black hole may either radiate or absorb particles, the obvious question arises: what determines which of these predominates?

The answer is temperature. As Jacob Bekenstein originally suggested in the 1970's, and as Stephen Hawking subsequently proved, all black holes have temperature, which is inversely related to their masses. Incidentally, black holes are gravitationally unstable because of that relation. But anyway, the hotter a black hole is the faster it will radiate particles compared to the rate at which it absorbs particles. Conversely, the colder a black hole is the faster it will absorb particles compared to the rate at which it radiates particles. Symmetry comes into the picture because, at some critical mass, the temperature of a black hole will be the same as that of its environment. Such a situation would (temporarily) be completely symmetrical with respect to the rate at which particles are being absorbed by the black hole and the rate at which particles are being radiated by the black hole; i.e., the two rates would be exactly equal. In general, the rates are not equal.

As you can see, it is easy to understand why a black hole might radiate and absorb at different rates. The explanation is based on a purely thermodynamic principle.

It is not so easy, however, to understand why a black hole might radiate or absorb matter particles at a different rate from that of antimatter particles. Up till now, the "no hair" theorem implied that the two rates ought to be equal (because, according to the theorem, the only information that can come from a black hole is its mass, its spin and its electrical charge. Everbody assumed, for example, that one couldn't tell by any set of measurements whether a black hole was made of matter or of antimatter. What I have tried to demonstrate is that this assumption is wrong.

Finally, with regard to the last paragraph of your post, I think that the paradox only exists if one ignores the conservation laws. The asymmetrical behaviour of black holes with respect to their radiations does not arise in violation of those laws but in order that those laws should be observed. So, in that regard, I would agree with you. It follows from what I have said that the gravitational force is not symmetrical with respect to time because black holes behave asymmetrically (over time) and because it is gravity that determines how black holes behave. The weak force also appears to be asymmetrical with respect to time because it gives rise to CPT violations, which is the reason scientists think that matter predominates over antimatter. I'm not sure about the strong and the electromagnetic forces, but I rather suspect that these are intrinsically symmetrical. If I am right then, in a perfectly symmetrical universe only these last two named forces would exist. Particles like protons could still exist but only transiently, in the sense that virtual protons and antiprotons would spontaneously pop out of the vacuum, but they would be very short-lived because there would be just as many antiprotons as protons and they would very quickly annihilate one another.

archimedes : Right, You are on the right track, I think the longer you work with this idea the clearer it will become keep up the work. I just want to add a little thought, I think the more energy the photon obtains the more like the GUT interaction it becomes. Energy must convert the photon as it approaches the Planck epoch. What do you think. Your thoughts are perfectly aligned with mine. But I just need a way to get to the GUT completely.

I conceive the photon as the weakened (less energetic) form of the Grand Unified Theory Interaction with the singularity setting at the edge of space-time seperating the Anti-Gravity from the Positive Gravity, where the anti-gravity starts at the present and continues into the future ,and the charge seperation at this same singularity functioning in time produces the magnetic and reflects the relativistic energy content of the photon into the present, if the energy content reaches a relativistic threshold the gravitational interaction becomes the apparent energy potential because the event horizon forms at the total of the wave length freezing the interaction of the electromagnetic interaction just before the Planck epoch and now becomes the gravitational interaction only, however there remains the difference between where this forms and where the Planck epoch exists my problem is in this final connection to the GUT, which I think lies in this difference.

Just keep up your work your on the right path.

Primordial:

I think the more energy the photon obtains the more like the GUT interaction it becomes

From the point of view of an outside observer the answer, I think, would be yes.

However, from the point of view of an observer falling into the horizon the answer, I would argue, would be no. I know that sounds counter-intuitive but let me explain:

Imagine that you are the observer. You are in a space ship and you accidentally get caught in the gravitational field of a black hole and it is too late to escape (you are within a critical region from which no escape is possible). Rather than try to resist the gravitational force, (which would be the worst thing you could do), you allow yourself to fall freely into the hole. The immediate problems you would be facing are the tidal forces arising from the curvature (non-uniformity) of the field. These forces would act to simultaneously stretch you (in the radial direction of the field) and squeeze you (in the transverse direction of the field). An excellent description of these forces, incidentally, is given in Kip Thorne's "Black Holes and Time Warps", which I would thoroughly recommend if you have not already read it. Anyway, the tidal forces diminish as the mass of the black hole increases and so, if the hole is massive enough, these forces would be quite manageable for a human being. So the only immediate problem you are being faced with is that of the radiation (the photons) falling into the hole with you. As you have correctly stated, these photons would be gaining kinetic energy (they would be blue-shifted) by virtue of the fact that they are falling into the gravitational field of the hole. If you were to find that the photons are blue-shifted into the X-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum, for example, then you would have a real problem on your hands.

The problem, however, won't arise. The reason is that you, like the photon, too are falling into the gravitational field and so you too are gaining kinetic energy. And, as I have stated in one of my previous posts, energy is relative. It is not the absolute energy gained by the photon that matters; it is the difference between the kinetic energy gained by the photon and the kinetic energy gained by yourself that matters.

As it happens, the difference in energy is exactly zero. Why? It is because, the energy gained by you and the energy gained by the photon, are both dependent upon the gravitational potential existing at every point along your trajectory. Since the gravitational potential is the exactly same for the photon as it is for you then you have both gained, relatively speaking, the same amount of energy, which is nothing. If that seems hard to believe then look at it this way: Imagine that there is a lamp burning in your spaceship. Would you expect light from this lamp to be blue-shifted as both you and the lamp are falling into the black hole? No, because, as Einstein pointed out, the lamp and you are both moving through the same gravitational field. In a manner of speaking, neither you nor the lamp is moving, and so you would not perceive anything unusual about the light from the lamp. If the hole were big enough that you wouldn't feel any tidal forces then you would not even be aware that you are falling into a black hole and you wouldn't be burnt to a crisp by the infalling radiation.

The conclusion here is that, except for tidal forces, which do not affect any of the principles here, there is nothing unusual about the properties of space-time at the event horizon of a black hole. If the circumference of the hole were large enough then space-time would appear to be flat, just as it appears to be flat in the world around us.

There are a couple of salient points that arise from what I have said above.

The first point is that if you tried to resist the gravitational pull of the black hole you would indeed be putting yourself in great danger. For then, you would effectively be accelerating away from the black hole, whereas the photons from outside would be falling freely. They would be gaining energy and you wouldn't, because you would be using up a lot of energy in trying to resist the pull of the black hole. And so from your point of view those photons would be blue-shifted to very high energies. In that case, if you had an enormously powerful engine, you might find yourself approaching the realm of GUT. Of course you don't need a black hole for this purpose; all you need is a sufficiently powerful engine and lots and lots of fuel.

The second point does not directly answer your question, but I would like to raise it anyway, with your permission, because I think it is interesting.

What most people seem to miss, when they talk about an object falling (accelerating) into a black hole is that the object is not accelerating in any absolute sense. The classical notion of an accelerating object is one that moves faster and faster. But this is not what GR tells us. For example, when an object "falls" into a black hole it does indeed initially appear to be moving faster and faster, but as the object gets close to the event horizon it actually appears (from the viewpoint of a distant observer) to slow down. The intuitive concept of acceleration always having to do with increasing speed is inconsistent with the principles of GR. As Einstein pointed out, acceleration is a purely relative concept.

Not only is acceleration relative, so also is the structure of space-time, and these two concepts-of gravitational acceleration and the structure of space-time-are inextricably entwined.

We frequently talk about concepts such as gravitational fields, space-time curvature and all that sort of jazz as though these are physical concepts. These are not physical concepts at all but are purely mathematical concepts. To illustrate the difference, consider a spherical physical object such as a billiard ball. Such an object has length and breadth and depth. It has a 2D skin, or surface, and it has stuff inside of it. Some balls, like the billiard ball are solid. Others, like a football, are hollow and are filled with air. But in every case, when we see a ball, of whatever shape or size, we infer, on the basis of our experience rather that on the basis of any physical law, that beyond its two-dimensional outside surface there must be something inside it-perhaps rubber, perhaps air or whatever-but definitely something. By comparison, a mathematically defined sphere, for example, is quite a different animal. The mathematical sphere is defined completely by its surface characteristics. There is no "inside" of a mathematically defined sphere unless we choose to define such an inside. And the surface of such a sphere need not have two dimensions; it can have virtually any number of dimensions-three dimensions, ten dimensions, ninety eight dimensions-whatever you like, or it need have nothing inside it at all.

Now, when we visualise a black hole, for example, what we tend to see in our mind's eye (being prejudiced by our experiences), is a kind of three-dimensional spherical ball sitting somewhere in four- dimensional space-time. That mental image is wrong, wrong, wrong! A black hole is not a ball, it is not solid and it is not hollow; it is simply a mathematically defined surface. I stress the last word "surface", because that is most important. A black hole is completely defined by its surface; hence there is no "inside" of a black hole because it is not a physical object. From the point of view of some fixed observer outside of the black hole, the hole consists of a two-dimensional surface (in space) with no dimensions of time (it has no apparent dimension of time because time effectively stops at a black hole from the point of view of that observer). If that isn't paradoxical enough, there is a related apparent paradox, which is that, from the point of view of a moving observer "falling" into a black hole, nothing strange is happening at all. To that observer there appears to be just the three ordinary dimensions of space and one ordinary dimension of space. To the outside observer it appears as if, by some apparent magic, two of the dimensions, one of space and one of time, have simply vanished at the event horizon. That is the paradox that seems gets most non-experts confused and that is the paradox that I will now try to explain.

As I stated before, we must not think of a black hole as a physical object but as a mathematical object.

In general relativity theory, we determine the behaviour of objects in a gravitational field by mathematical techniques called transformations of coordinates. In our example, in order to avoid the paradox to which I referred earlier, it is necessary that the transformation of coordinates of any point in space-time as measured by the fixed observer to the coordinates of that same point as measured by the moving observer be mathematically consistent. Such a transformation requires, for example, that if the outside observer chooses a system of coordinates for which the axes are orthogonal at one point in space-time then the axes must be orthogonal at every point is space-time (as measured by that observer). Likewise, if the moving observer choses a system of coordinates for which the axes are orthogonal at one point in space-time then the axes must be orthogonal for every point in space-time.

I'm going to get a bit technical now and the language is going to be a bit formal, but please bear with me.

Suppose that the fixed observer chooses a coordinate system consisting of a set of orthogonal axes labelled t, x, y, z, respectively. And suppose that the moving observer chooses a coordinate system consisting of a set of orthogonal axes labelled t', x', y', z', respectively. Assume that the moving observer starts off very slowly from the same position as that of the fixed observer and that, initially, the axes t, x, y, z are aligned respectively with the axes t', x', y', z'. Let t and t' be the time coordinates of any point in space-time as measured by the respective observers, and let the other coordinates be all space coordinates. Finally, let's arbitrary assign the x axis (of space) so that it points in the same direction as that in which the moving observer is moving and for convenience assume that the observer is moving along a radial trajectory towards a black hole. The y and the z directions are, by our choice of coordinate systems, at right angles to both the x and the t directions.

(It would have been helpful if I could have drawn you a diagram, but unfortunately that's not easy to do here so we'll just have do without. Sorry.)

Initially, the respective axes of the two observers are aligned (by choice of coordinate systems) and the coordinates (t, x, y, z) and (t', x', y', z') of any point in space-time as measured, respectively, by the two observers, are the same. Nothing much interesting happens until the moving observer gets close enough to the black hole that its gravitational effects become significant.

If we could watch the goings on from an independent position what do you think we might see? For one thing, we would see that the y and the y' axes are still be aligned (because they are orthogonal to the line along which the second observer is moving and because the gravitational field is symmetrical about this line. Hence the gravitational field cannot affect the orientation of these lines). For the same reason the z and z' axes are also aligned. Additionally, we would find that y = y' and z = z'.  

Following me so far?

Ok, let's continue.

Unlike the situation with the y and z axes, the x and x' axes, are no longer aligned. Similarly, the t and t' axes are no longer aligned.

Why?

It is because if they were aligned then we would have a mathematical contradiction. Also, x is no longer equal to x' and t is no longer equal to t'. Comparing their measurements, it seems to the fixed observer as though time (t) in the frame of reference of the moving observer is slowing down and intervals of distance as measured in the direction (x) of the moving observer are shrinking. From our independent position we would see that the t' and the x' axes of the moving observer are rotated by some angle relative to the t and x axes, respectively, of the fixed observer. That is very strange, but as I said, it must be so otherwise we would have a mathematical contradiction.

It seems, therefore, as though space-time behaves as though it has more that four dimensions, in fact as many dimensions as are necessary, in order to allow for a rotation of some of the axes in one frame of reference relative to that of some of the axes in another, without necessarily affecting the alignment of all the axes. But of course neither observer, in the situation we are considering, could possibly perceive those extra dimensions, because they are purely of mathematical origin and have no physical existence.

Getting back to the previous line of reasoning, by the time the moving observer reaches the black hole's horizon, the apparent angles of rotation of the x' and t' axes will have increased to a maximum of 90 degrees. Remember that, originally the x' direction pointed in the radial direction-toward the centre of the black hole. Now, it is pointing in a direction at right angles to the radial line. To the outside observer it seems as though the two dimensions, t' of time, and x' of space, have vanished completely. To the moving observer nothing unusual (locally) has happened. In fact to describe this observer as moving would be inappropriate. It was never moving, in any absolute sense, it was merely floating freely in a gravitational field that happens to be non-uniform.

If I am right in my arguments, and I believe I am right, it would be nonsense to assume that as the "moving" observer goes through the event horizon he continues on to the central singularity. The singularity exists, it is true, as a mathematical concept, but is irrelevant, for once the observer enters the horizon he is not moving in any sense along a line toward the singularity but rather is moving in a direction along a line at right angles to that line.

I hope that I have been able to answer some of your questions and maybe given you something to think about too. If I have not answered all your questions then I apologize. Your questions regarding GUT are rather tough and I need to think more about them before I can give any kind of reasonable answer.

Cheers for now.

archimedes : Thanks for you answer

i've been a little bussy today but I'll digest your answer later tomorrow, I know it will be interesting. I think you understand what I' m working on, I would like to fully understand the gluon.

 I just finished the first look, and I do see your point of view, it is good, very good.

Primordial:

I would like to fully understand the gluon

As I said earlier, you have raised some tough questions and I am not sure that I can answer them fully. However I shall try.

I'm sure a lot of people would like to understand this enigmatic gluon, but I can assure you that nobody does. So if you are having difficulty coming to grips with this concept then you are certainly not alone in that regard.

I'm hve just been reading Lee Smolin's book "The Life of the Cosmos". It's a fascinating book and there's a heck of a lot of stuff in it to digest and I will probably want to re-read it a few more times before I can take it all in fully. This book may be of interest to you, if you have not already read it, as the author has a lot to say in it about GUT.

Somewhere in his book Smolin makes the important point that at extremely high temperatures the four fundamental forces converge. Until I started to read the book I could not understand why, or how, temperature determines this behaviour. However, when I thought about it, it made sense, because temperature is related to entropy and it is ultimately entropy, not temperature that is the determining factor.

To understand why entropy should determine the relative strengths of the fundamental forces (temperature determines this quantity only indirectly) you would have to realise that the action of a force on a system of particles can be thought of essentially as nothing more or less than something that causes a rearrangement of those particles.

Consider any system of particles you like, such as a gas inside a bottle, for example. Provided that the molecules of this gas are not at absolute zero temperature they must be continually rearranging themselves by reason of their energies. Even in a solid the molecules are continually rearranging themselves (they are vibrating).

We define the temperature of a system of vibrating particles as being the average energy of the particles. As the temperature of the system increases then so too do the rates of those vibrations. And that means that the higher the temperature the more quickly the particles rearrange themselves.

When an object behaves in some unusual way or when a collection of objects behaves in some unexpected way, we describe such an event by saying that some force must be acting to explain that behaviour, even if it is not always apparent why that behaviour occurs. In every case, a particular behaviour is associated with a change in the arrangement of particles of a system. And so it is reasonable to define a force as being an (implied) action on a particle in a system, or on a collection of particles in a system, which results in a change in the arrangement of particles.

Therefore, if we observe that the particles in a system are rearranging themselves in a particular way then, according to that definition, we may infer that some kind of force (or set of forces) must be acting on those particles.

The important point here is that this definition of a force is consistent with the actions of the four fundamental forces of nature: the electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak forces and the gravitational force.

Consider now how these four fundamental forces behave and how they are different from each other.

The electromagnetic force manifests itself as an attraction or repulsion between atoms. It is also a conservative force. By that I mean that the action of the electromagnetic force is (ideally) time-symmetrical. And that means if you reverse the sense of time the action of the electromagnetic force is also reversed. A conservative force, by definition, is one that is completely symmetrical with respect to time.

The strong force acts sometimes between nucleons (protons and neutrons) but mostly it acts inside nucleons. If two nucleons are close to each other they somehow sense each other's presence whereupon it seems as though a bit of the force leaks out of each nucleon and reaches inside the other. If the nucleons are close, but not too close, the force leaking out of the nucleons acts to strongly bind the nucleons. If the nucleons get too close, however, then, like excited couples at a disco, they begin to repel each other. Unlike the electromagnetic force, the strong force is fundamentally an internal force, not an external force, because it acts inside of atomic nuclei rather than between atoms.

Inside a nucleon the strong force acts in a very peculiar manner. As you undoubtedly know, it seems to allow the quarks to move freely without any hindrance whatsoever. And the force seems to never extend outside the boundaries of the nucleon unless those boundaries are being disturbed by the presence of a nearby nucleon. And so we never see a naked quark, for example. In this respect, the nucleon behaves like a resonant cavity (a cavity is anything that is bounded by walls), and the strong force acts to ensure that the walls of the neucleus remain intact.

An example of a resonant cavity is a magnetron, which is used to generate microwaves. A characterising feature of a resonant cavity is that it produces standing waves-a set of waves that bounce back and forth between the walls of the cavity and generate a pattern of peaks and nodes inside the cavity. In a classical cavity, the peaks and nodes would be fixed (hence the name "standing waves"), but a nucleon is bound by the rules of quantum theory, so the descriptive term "standing waves", though conceptually useful, is not a completely apt term when applied to this object. But that's only a minor point, for the principles in both cases are essentially the same. If the nucleon (cavity) is disturbed by outside influences we would reasonably expect that the pattern of standing waves insidethe nucleon would be disturbed as well, which may explain the strong binding between protons, even though they are being strongly repelled by their positive electrical charges. The quarks that go to make up a nucleon seem to behave, not so much like literal particles, but more like resonance peaks (like the the resonance peaks of electromagnetic waves inside a magnetron) that one would expect to occur inside any resonant cavity.

 Like the electromagnetic force, the strong force is, ideally, a conservative force, that is to say, it is time-symmetric in its action.

The weak force manifests itself in the process of radioactive decay. Unlike the electromagnetic and the strong forces, the weak force is a non-conservative force. When an atom decays into two or more particles, those particles tend not to recombine to form the original atom. Therefore the action of the weak force is asymmetric with respect to time. The weak force is also said to violate what is called CPT symmetry (see Coughlan, Dodd, Griplaios "The Ideas of Particle Physics", Cambridge University Press, chapters 5 & 6), which is just another way of saying that the weak force is a non-conservative force. The weak force can be thought of as the antithesis of the strong force because it tries to undo what the strong force is doing. It is the strong force that is holding the nucleon together. If the weak force disappeared then radioactive decay would not occur. And if the weak force were very much stronger than it is now then no atom could survive for long because radioactive decay would then be the rule rather than the exception. The weak force, therefore, is a measure of by how much the strong force departs from the ideal of a conservative force.

The gravitational force is like the electromagnetic force in that it acts between rather than inside atoms, and in that it acts over long distances. Moreover, it acts as an attractive force on particles having (positive) mass, and it seems to act as though it were a repulsive force on space-time. This behaviour seems to imply that space-time has negative mass. And like the weak force, but unlike the electromagnetic and the strong forces, the gravitational force is a non-conservative force. In other words, gravity behaves asymmetrically with respect to time. This is easily demonstrated by the unstable behaviour of black holes (black holes may increase in mass or they may decrease in mass, but they can never be constant in mass, that is, black holes can never be in thermal equilibrium with their environment; see, for example, Sean Carroll "The Cosmic Origins of Time's Arrow", Scientific American, June, 2008, p 26). Further proof, if you really need it, of the time-asymmetric behaviour of gravity is the overwhelming weight of evidence obtained by astronomers in recent times that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

The fact that gravity is a non-conservative force and that it seems to act between atoms rather than inside atoms seems to suggest that, just as the weak force is the antithesis of the strong force in the realm of the very small, so also gravity is the antithesis of the electromagnetic force in the realm of the very big. However, the electromagnetic force, like the strong force, cannot be perfectly conservative in its action, for if it were then gravity would disappear. If you want proof, consider that, according to general relativity theory, in a world dominated by gravity, even the electromagnetic force behaves ever so slightly like a non-conservative force. Conversely,  if the electromagnetic force were perfectly symmetrical with respect to time then it would be impossible for gravity exist (you can have one or the other but you cannot have both). The obvious inference is that somehow the strength of gravity is a measure of how much the electromagnetic force deviates from the ideal of a conservative (time-symmetrical) force

The characterising feature of a conservative force (like the electromagnetic force and the strong force) is that it conserves entropy.

The characterising feature of a non-conservative force is that it always increases entropy

This brings me to what I said earlier, that entropy, and not temperature, is the factor that directly determines how a force behaves.

Let's see how all of this might fit together.

Consider any system of particles. I shall assume, for convenience, that the number of particles is fixed. The entropy of that system, by definition, is a measure of how many different ways it might be possible to rearrange the particles of the system. Equivalently, we could define it to be a measure of the number of ways in which it is possible to rearrange the energies of those particles.

Each time we boil water to make a cup of tea, for example, we increase the entropy of the water. This is because water consists of molecules (that behave like particles) and when the water is heated there is more energy available for distribution amongst the molecules of the water and so there are more ways in which to distribute that energy. And since a re-distribution of energy amongst the molecules constitutes a rearrangement of those molecules, we infer that a force (or a set of forces) must be acting upon those molecules (according to our definition).

So, how many different ways are there, in general, in which to rearrange particles in any random system?

Fundamentally, there are just two ways.

One way is to rearrange them in a reversible manner.

The other way is to rearrange them in a non-reversible manner.

The reversible way neither increases nor decreases the entropy of the system.

The non-reversible way always increases the entropy of the system.

Hence we immediately infer that there must be at least two fundamentally different kind of forces acting on any system.

Every system, or collection, of particles, can be thought of as either being open or closed.

An example of an open system is the surface of the earth. It is an open system, because particles (like photons) are free to come down to this surface from the (apparently limitless) sky above. Conversely, those same particles are free to escape from this surface back into the sky.

An example of a closed system is a resonant cavity. A resonant cavity is a closed system because in a certain sense particles are not free to move in or out of the system, though they may be perfectly free to move within that system. I have already mentioned one example of a resonant cavity-a magnetron. Another example would be an organ pipe. In such a pipe sound vibrations resonate strongly, hence they do not readily escape from the pipe. Of course some particles (phonons) can escape, otherwise we could never hear the sound of an organ pipe, and so an organ pipe is not a perfectly resonating cavity-it is not a strictly closed system.

A nucleon is another example of a resonant cavity. Like organ pipes, nucleons are closed systems, but also like organ pipes, nucleons are not always perfect resonating cavities, at least not in the case of neutrons, because if they were perfect then neutrons would never decay.

Let me now summarise what I have said.

First, I said, on purely logistic arguments, that there have to be two fundamental kinds of forces acting on any system of particles. These are the conservative forces and non-conservative forces, respectively.

These are the major divisions of forces as predicted by those arguments.

Secondly, I said that there are two fundamental kinds of systems of particles. These are the open (non-resonant) systems and the closed (resonant) systems, respectively.

Hence we can subdivide the two major divisions of forces into two minor divisions: those that act on open systems and those that act on closed systems, respectively.

Count them. These are:

• 1. Conservative forces acting on open systems
• 2. Non-conservative forces acting on open systems
• 3. Conservative forces acting on closed systems
• 4. Non-conservative forces acting on closed systems

Thus there are four fundamental ways of rearranging particles.

There are also, as you know, four fundamental forces in nature.

What conclusion do you think we should make from that?

I haven't quite answered your question yet, I know, but I'm getting to that, so please be patient.

As I understand it, you are concerned about how GUT affects our understanding of the photon (the carrier of the electromagnetic force) and the gluon (the carrier of the strong force).

Scientists have long known that the relative strengths of the fundamental forces increase as the temperature increases. As Lee Smolin points out in his book, which I mentioned previously, GUT predicts that the four fundamental forces converge into a single force in the limit as the temperature approaches infinity. To explain this mathematically would be tedious, and who would understand it anyway? But we don't need a lot of complicated math to get the basic idea.

Recall that temperature and entropy are related, though they are not quite the same thing. As the temperature increases, for a system with a fixed number of particles the entropy increases also. The number of ways in which the particles of the system can rearrange themselves depends on the temperature. In the limit as the temperature approaches infinity there are infinitely many ways in which particles may rearrange themselves.

Consider a closed system (or any system if you like). Here we have just two basic ways in which the particles of that system can rearrange themselves: reversibly and non-reversibly. Consequently there are just two categories of basic forces: conservative and non-conservative. We can divide these into two additional subcategories depending upon whether the system is closed or open.

Suppose that, in the system we are considereing, it is much easier for the particles to rearrange themselves reversibly than it is for the particles to rearrange themselves irreversibly (you can understand how this might be if you've ever played solitaire on a computer). Thus it appears, in this case, as though the conservative force is stronger than the non-conservative force.

There is an easy way to define the relative strengths of these two forces. Count up the number of ways in which the particles can be rearranged reversibly. Then count up the number of ways that the particles can be rearranged irreversibly. Finally, calculate the ratio of these two counts and the answer gives us a measure of the relative strengths of the two forces.

Suppose that this system of particles is at absolute zero temperature. At this temperature the system will have some very special properties. One such property is that any change in state of the system is completely reversible (known as the third law of thermodynamics. See, for example, Kenneth Wark Jr "Advanced Thermodynamics for Engineers", McGraw Hill, chapters 7 and 13). Hence the only forces that can act at absolute zero temperature are conservative forces. Score one for conservative forces one, zero for non-conservative forces. Accordingly, since gravity is a non-conservative force, gravity disappears at absolute zero temperature. The same must also be true for the weak force.

Suppose that the temperature were only slightly above absolute zero. Immediately both the conservative and the non-conservative forces would come into effect because now the particles can rearrange themselves in various ways, some of which are reversible and others of which are non-reversible. The number of reversible ways would still be much greater than the number of non-reversible ways, because the temperature is only slightly above absolute zero. And so, at this temperature, the conservative force would be much stronger than the non-conservative force.

This is what we find in everyday situations because the conservative forces-the strong and the electromagnetic forces-are much, much, stronger than the non-conservative forces-the gravitational and the weak-forces, respectively.

Let's see how this line of reasoning applies at ever increasing temperatures.

As the temperature increases, the system departs more and more from the ideal in which only conservative forces apply, to the non-ideal in which the non-conservative forces become progressively more important. At the same time the non-conservative forces become more important relative to the conservative forces, because the overall number of possible rearrangements of particles of the system increases and so the number of possible irreversible rearrangements must also increase. Hence the non-conservative forces increase in strength at the expense of the conservative forces as the temperature increases.

You can see from my arguments, I hope, how the gluon is related to the photon. To summarize, the gluon is the carrier of the strong force and acts only inside the closed system of an atomic nucleus. The photon is the carrier of the electromagnetic force and acts outside of an atomic nucleus. Both forces (ideally) are time-symmetrical, hence the reason I call them conservative forces.

How do we know that the prediction (that the fundamental forces converge at infinite temperature) according to GUT is right? That's the big question.

If GUT is right, and if I have interpreted the fundamental principles correctly then, intuitively, the  temperature should affect the relative strengths of the two long range forces (electromagnetic and gravitational) in the same way as it affects the two short range forces (strong and weak nuclear forces). That seems to imply that the respective ratios should be the same at any given temperature. Let's investigate whether this is so.

The relative strengths of the four forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction) are:

• 1. Strong force: 10³⁸
• 2. Weak force: 10²⁵
• 3. Electromagnetic force: 10³⁶
• 4. Gravitational force: 1

Obviously the ratio of the strong force to the weak force is not the same as the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force. Hence we have a discrepancy (by a factor of 10²³ no less).

How can I explain the discrepancy? I said previously that, "intuitively", the ratios should be the same, but I haven't backed that statement up with a proof. I haven't demonstrated that the ratios must be the same by a rigid mathematical argument, and intuition doesn't count for much in science. In this case, I think intuition is wrong. A deeper instinct tells me that relativistic effects at sub-atomic levels would distort the ratio, hopefully by the exact amount needed to explain the discrepancy. The main problem is the size of the discrepancy; it is hardly trivial.

Is my instinct right? I don't know, but I think it would be interesting to find out.

Have I answered your question?

Thank you for your helpful suggestions and kind comments. It was fun.

archimedes: Thanks for your info. I'll read and check it out tomorrow, I've been sort of busy lately. Thanks you are very informative. Thanks for your help.

I,ve been working on an idea, I refer to, as relativistic energy dependent divergence of bosons. It allows energy density to quantize other bosons from the photon. It's relativistic. I think I have found the graviton. The photon's relativistic mass quantizes into the graviton, it has zero mass, but a finite energy. The way I derive this is through some old physics and a little math.

Primordial:

I,ve been working on an idea, I refer to, as relativistic energy dependent divergence of bosons. It allows energy density to quantize other bosons from the photon. It's relativistic. I think I have found the graviton. The photon's relativistic mass quantizes into the graviton, it has zero mass, but a finite energy. The way I derive this is through some old physics and a little math.

It would be a tremendous discovery if you're right. I'll be most interested in your idea.