Do plasmas, particles and atoms behave strictly the same in a gravitational field?

@Bracewell,

I'm curious. In what way is this question directed towards philosophy? I'm not complaining or anything like that, and also think it may be a valid question, but does the study (for example) of quantum mechanics (which I would suppose bears the closest relation to your question) in anyway supposes some deeper philosophical issue? I'm curious to see the blend here.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Quantum mechanics surely has much philosophical scope. However the specific dynamics of plasmas does seem more suited to a physics forum, of which there are many.

In any case, the answer to the question is yes: classically, anything with mass interacts via the gravitational force and, relativistically, anything with energy curves and is directed by spacetime. However, gravity is a very weak force, especially for light particles such as those in plasmas. Plasmas are, by definition, composed of electrically charged particles and the electric force is many orders of magnitude stronger. Including gravity in the dynamics of plasmas is usually a waste of time.

0 Replies

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

I'm curious. In what way is this question directed towards philosophy? I'm not complaining or anything like that, and also think it may be a valid question, but does the study (for example) of quantum mechanics (which I would suppose bears the closest relation to your question) in anyway supposes some deeper philosophical issue? I'm curious to see the blend here.

I am surprised. As i can see from your profile, you are an experienced user, however you wonder if and how quantum mechanics could lead to philosophical issues.
Doesn't this question the philosophy of science in general?
Certainly there is a large number of scientists who feel like the pureness of nature science should not be touched by something foggy like philosophy.
But the old greek philosophers were nature scientists of first grade.
Next to observation and verification their work was a bit more dominated by speculation than this is the case for modern scientists.
But isn't that pretty much what made them philosophers?
Their exploration was quite dependent on speculation. That might also have been a cause for them to define major rules and tools of science such as logic.
Logic is a way of reaching into areas of reality that you can't put your finger on.
And this is why logic is a discipline of philosophy. As well is rhetorics by the way, because language for the greek philosophers was itself a tool of exploring reality.
Greek philosophers pretty much were themselves nature scientists.
Some of their ideas turned out wrong, others right. But even though nowadays we have much more secure knowledge about things they could only speculate about, major parts are still missing.
Quantum physics is definitely an area where science reaches its limits. Thinking beyond these limits, speculating, can already be considered philosophical if it's done within the rules of philosophy. A physicist who speculates about the consequences of e.g. string theory is always in danger to slide from physical to philosophical science. And an amateur who doesn't know how to work scientifically is always in danger to slide from philosophical theory to simply fantasizing.
It doesn't take a nature scientist however to be a philosopher. Physics have their disciplines as well as philosophy has it's own, such as logic.
But apart from scientific speculation being a philosophical act i would go even further.
The question should be: How can quantum physics NOT lead to deeper philosophical issues.
Quantum physics question the whole web of our reality.
What is matter, what is energy? Science explanes reality based on the idea of matter and energy, everything seems to be based on it.
But none of these theories explane reality ad ultima ratio because the nature of quantums is paradox.
How can a reality have a reliable behaviour if it's based on paradox components? That doesn't sound logical.
It is not a coincidence that discussions about quantum physics tend to come hand in hand with cosmology because their problems are connected.
The question of what a photon looks like when you travel right next to it, was the origin of Einsteins relativity theory.
And it totally blew our concept of time and space.
These questions of microscopic dimensions are directly touching the fabric our reality is made of. And reality is a major issue of philosophy.
All questions about quantum physics are in a way questions of philosophical relevance.

1 Reply

@Exebeche,

Categories or even Metaphysics, Zeta, Book 7-8-9. However, the sciences have developed into distinct doctrines. Not to say the sciences are removed from philosophy, but the two doctrines have moved farther apart in the past few millennia. Also, I would not go so far as to assume that they(the ancients) depended primarily on speculation. Empirical observation was a prime factor in many of the ancients views. Hesiod for example, who isn't really even considered a philosopher was praised by Aristotle in Metaphysics, Book Alpha

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

Vide - you seem to be doubtful about these being philosophical questions.

I understand that experiments have shown that individual atoms do behave normally in a gravitational field. If true, then it must be asked, was there ever any doubt and why were the experiments not carried forward into particles and plasmas? Is it possible there are subtle interactions between the gravitational and the electro magnetic effects at extreme temperatures both hot and cold? E.G. what would the plasma loops in the sun look like without gravity? Why do galaxies typically have a Mexican hat shape with a swollen ball-like hot centre that eventually cools and stretches out to a thin disc? Surely the gravitational forces on a spinning disc of stars would have a more even effect?

Witnesses have reported all types of ball lightning, some externally coloured and some with layered internal colours, there is even a report of a blue one seen outside a flying aircraft that passed through the fuselage skin without damage then disappeared inside the cabin. Most ball lightning, however, seems to be very dangerous with many reports of death and burn injuries. Physics seems to have little to say about ball lightning so why not let the forum have it.

It seems that physics is dominated by ideas formulated in a cosy condensed matter environment when the normal environment is uncondensed and there has been little experimentation to explore it.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

It's not that I doubt that issues in physics and so on can be philosophical, only the nature of the question which I believe has more to do with applied science rather than abstract. The first full paragraph of your post #6 exemplifies scientific empiricism. Evidential hypothesis, analysis, and renumeration. Descartes took to heart those very concepts, but within a metaphysical context. He understood at least a rough separation. Your context and his are completely different. Heck, you could ask why the universe looks like a brain cell? Philosophical? Superficially, but not really. The questions you posit suppose scientific axioms and facts and perhaps are best answered within that discipline.

In a way though, it would be as though I were to "philosophize" about the nature of the human heart. I am not a doctor, and I only know as much as my pre-medical education instructed me in. So... is it right for me to philosophize on the nature of the relationship of the right atrium and vesicle with the tricuspid valve as controlled by the will of the body rather than what does make it do what it does? Not really, it takes a much deeper understanding of anatomical workings to delve deeper into the subject. In some cases then, isn't it irresponsible to philosophize about things we don't know fully and distinctly given the nature of scientific advancement available? I would think so. But then again, that is taking philosophy way too seriously.

Look at your second full paragraph. You point out "witness" and so on. Scientific empiricism by precedence. Even the manner of your prose suggests summarization of empiricism rather than pure abstraction. Again, I will say that it is not to say that physics cannot utilize philosophy, but this issue in context does not fit.

1 Reply

@VideCorSpoon,

Cosmology is empirical metaphysics, but so is theoretical science in general.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

It could be said these classes of material entities are affected equally by an outside force such as gravity. Whether they act alike would depend on their intrinsic energetic construct which of course determines how they would act, be and last out their existence.

On the other part of the question as to whether or not this question bears at all on science, speculation or philosophy it could be presented that - at this stage of humanity's mental evolvement - these topics are one and the same humanly speaking, with exceptions. Take for instance the concept of sympathy or as modern science chooses to relabel it - entanglement. The base idea behind sympathy/entanglement is that individuated constructs of similar wave length or frequency are "entangled" or in sympathy with one another and then behave as one. Should one be disturbed the other, regardless of distance, is likewise disturbed. This is established physics as seen in music, music instrumentation, architecture, engineering, quantum mechanics, etc. It just so happens the same phenomena is evidenced in human emotions and can be seen in various behaviors such as love, panic scenarios, mass psychology, simultaneous ideas, etc. It can also be postulated that since sympathetic association or entanglement is universal and all things of similar frequency are therefore entangled and in a state of oneness that this state of universal entangled oneness may well be that spiritual descriptive so many have in the past referred to as omniscient 'God' and/or that exulted mind-set of Cosmic or Christ Consciousness?

1 Reply

@dalesvp,

I am an no scientists and i find the unknown a wonderful area of speculation.It is where even the modest philosopher and amateur scientist can converse with professional scientist or philosopher and learn from each other.
In this world where knowledge of a particular field becomes more and more specific, those who have a broader interest can actually give those studying a certain subject a new perspective.I think its ideal for a philosophy forum.

1 Reply

@xris,

Holiday - Cosmology is empirical metaphysics, but so is theoretical science in general.

Empirical - 'Relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system or theory' (Webster's).

I am not at all sure what this word hopes to convey?

If you observe some strange behaviour then surely it is reasonable to ascribe a theory to explain it. A test of the worth of a theory is if behaviour can be predicted. However, predictions validated through calculation can be misleading and lead to amendments that are not much more than wishful thinking (ancient stone circles and the like and perhaps even current circles) but as these well meant amendments are based on impeccable logic they become entrenched. When experiments show that the world is less certain than before, then the predictions based on certainty become difficult to remove, especially if the original predictions were good. It is the wonderful human condition of 'nagging doubt' that makes the difference, yep even in the face of impeccable logic. What a wonderful condition doubt is; seemingly mirroring experiments with particles.

But enough on 'Empirical'; what is wanted is some input on Ball Lightning. Surely someone has an anecdote or comment? How many have seen or know of someone who has witnessed dancing lights in the sky or similar? Are these lights ball lightning and are they some kind of magnetic tangle of matter that can temporarily store energy in an unusual gross form perhaps expanded from some underlying basic construction? Maybe the phenomenon is unique but what in the 'quantum' could explain these balls of light?

Has anyone been daft enough to try to create plasma inside their micro-wave oven and what was the result? How many survived the blast?

Already, there has been a comment that gravity is not worth the candle in particle experiments as the 'force' is so weak on tiny masses that it is not worth experimenting with. Can I take it then that the gravitational effect on particles ejected from a star is not worth bothering with?

Sure, an all powerful god can be the explanation for everything but let's pretend this is a science forum where powerful god explanations are taken as read and instead try to speculate on what is going on all by ourselves (perhaps with divine inspiration of course).

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

I said 'usually'. I might be biased in what I think of as usual. I did no cosmology at all during my degree. For an astrophysicist, I suppose space plasmas are the usual.

Plasmas in stars are created by fusion reactions which yield very high energy particles. I should certainly think that gravity could be neglected for lighter particles, even near a star. Heavier ions are created more violently, more energetically, and so again I imagine gravity can be neglected (though of course gravity has to be accounted for in plasma creation). But honestly, you'd need to speek to an astrophysicist.

Ball lightening... no idea. I vaguely researched it for a presentation on lightening years ago, but I think it's a total mystery. Then again, much of lightening is. Even the most basic explanations of lightening are still controversial, charge separation for instance.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

I saw one from my bedroom window as a child of six in my neighbours garden it was an unforgettable experience.It was frightening, beautiful and very short lived.

1 Reply

@xris,

Bones - I think the escape of particles from a star might be worth some speculation. Obviously, it must involve subtle inter-reactions between gravity and the electro magnetic and yet we are bathed in photons daily but the heavier particles only some times. Why should there be a difference - something to do with charge maybe?
Xris - I think you now have a healthy respect for this phenomenon.
However, I read in one witness report that a man watched frozen as a football sized white ball approched which eventually contacted his chest and killed him.
In another report a grapefruit sized white ball passed a car on a minor road. They said it was following a wire fence bordering a field and it was doing about 80MPH.
In both these reports and in many more the ball behaved contrary to what would be expected for anything with a mass. Are the witnesses wrong - surely everything with a mass or an energy content must react to gravity. Surely, something with enough energy to explode and sear must react to gravity?
So, there you are, now you know why I asked the question and the forum might do as well in speculation as any other forum.

2 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Bones - I think the escape of particles from a star might be worth some speculation. Obviously, it must involve subtle inter-reactions between gravity and the electro magnetic and yet we are bathed in photons daily but the heavier particles only some times. Why should there be a difference - something to do with charge maybe?

We are bathed in plasma daily too: the difference is the plasma that reaches the Earth's surface is more highly localised, and this localisation is due to magnetic, not gravitational effects. Also, the Sun produces a heck of a lot more photons than charges.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Bones - I think the escape of particles from a star might be worth some speculation. Obviously, it must involve subtle inter-reactions between gravity and the electro magnetic and yet we are bathed in photons daily but the heavier particles only some times. Why should there be a difference - something to do with charge maybe?
Xris - I think you now have a healthy respect for this phenomenon.
However, I read in one witness report that a man watched frozen as a football sized white ball approched which eventually contacted his chest and killed him.
In another report a grapefruit sized white ball passed a car on a minor road. They said it was following a wire fence bordering a field and it was doing about 80MPH.
In both these reports and in many more the ball behaved contrary to what would be expected for anything with a mass. Are the witnesses wrong - surely everything with a mass or an energy content must react to gravity. Surely, something with enough energy to explode and sear must react to gravity?
So, there you are, now you know why I asked the question and the forum might do as well in speculation as any other forum.

As far as my memory serves me it was luminous, very bright, hovered around almost acting like a soap bubble, about six feet across.I was glad it was in next doors garden , my family did not really believe me at the time.I can remember it as being one of those summer electrical storms that my mother insisted we turned the mirrors around and put the cutlery away.

1 Reply

@xris,

Bones - sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant particles with different charges. What I am driving at here is if some particles leave the Sun easily while others do not then surely the composition of the star would eventually be affected, unless of course, particles are ground down as if in a giant pepper mill?
Perhaps gravity and the magnetic/electrical effects at the surface of the sun act like a filter for particles?

Xris - it is easy to see why people would prefer to call these things UFO's because there is no earthly explanation for their existence.
Can you remember any sound or strange smell or perhaps colours inside the sphere as has been reported in other cases?
Is it possible that particles can join up like small soap bubbles making a large soap bubble. I believe something like that has been reported at very low temperatures. Of couse this would be very, very unfundamental.

2 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Bones - sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant particles with different charges. What I am driving at here is if some particles leave the Sun easily while others do not then surely the composition of the star would eventually be affected, unless of course, particles are ground down as if in a giant pepper mill?
Perhaps gravity and the magnetic/electrical effects at the surface of the sun act like a filter for particles?

Ah, I see. I don't believe some charges do leave the Sun more easily than others. The compositions of the solar winds are much the same as the parts of the Sun from which they originate (the corona and the photosphere), suggesting that all charges tend to escape in equal proportions.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

E.G. Ball lightning seems to be plasma with some very odd behaviours (see the eye witness report sites).

Is the behaviour of particles at all influenced by gravity?

However, it does seem that individual atoms do behave strictly as expected.

I'd say the most of these particles have such little mass that grivity doesn't effect them as much.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Bones - sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant particles with different charges. What I am driving at here is if some particles leave the Sun easily while others do not then surely the composition of the star would eventually be affected, unless of course, particles are ground down as if in a giant pepper mill?
Perhaps gravity and the magnetic/electrical effects at the surface of the sun act like a filter for particles?

Xris - it is easy to see why people would prefer to call these things UFO's because there is no earthly explanation for their existence.
Can you remember any sound or strange smell or perhaps colours inside the sphere as has been reported in other cases?
Is it possible that particles can join up like small soap bubbles making a large soap bubble. I believe something like that has been reported at very low temperatures. Of couse this would be very, very unfundamental.

It was summer and no it was nothing like a soap bubble just its movements.The window was shut so i did not get to smell it.I have heard similar sightings have been seen before earthquakes.You may be right about ufos,some could be explained by this unknown phenomena.I know a ufo that was reported recently near me had strange white ball lighting characteristics.

0 Replies

Do plasmas, particles and atoms behave strictly the same in a gravitational field?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know