It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 337
72
<< 334  335  336    338  339  340 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

Space-time you may say. So I can ask what is space time made of, that it can warp? Fabric warps, wood warps, a dented car is warped, what is the nature of that which space time is composed of, that it can warp?


The degree and nature of the warping is governed by Einstein's theory which has been tested experimentally and observationally numerous times. Other competing theories have been tested, and many have been successively refuted by experimental observation.



What is the nature of this warpable (whats the word???) stuff/substance/medium, what is the nature of the parts that compose it, how tightly are they bound, how small are they, on average how many exist in a square mile?


What you are asking is whether gravitation is a "collective effect" of "smaller" entities which have their own microscopic physics, in the same analogy to how sound is a collective effect of fluid mechanics which is a collective effect of smaller atoms in kinetic theory in certain thermodynamic limits.

So far, there is no experimental evidence there is any underlying physical property explaining either gravitation or electromagnetics as a collective effect of something else, despite a century of searching.

Various proposed theories which suggest such things (which may induce observational effects such as cosmological index of refraction of vacuum/dispersion relation or the like) have not been validated, or have been refuted with observational tests.

Recently there is a theory of Verlinde regarding gravity, but it is very controversial to say the least. And some experimental evidence---that gravitation works as classical Einstein suggests on wavefunctions of individual neutrons at a QM level---appears to contradict the concept of gravity as a collective effect of something else.




posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I've often expected we look at gravity the wrong way. Energy is the key energy warps space and energy of course creates mass. We know gravity is a force and supposedly not energy. But yet we can extract energy from gravity. For example we can extract energy from the tidal forces caused by the moon. But we can't get energy without it existing all ready. Which brings in the second part of gravity momentum. Which we know can effect energy these two things somehow cause gravity. If gravitons exist then this would make sense they would be attracted to energy and effect a Higgs field. And would allow all Einsteins equations to work.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I don't think that makes sense. Energy is a property of a configuration of 'stuff', which in physics is particles and fields and their interactions.

It's more correct to say that tidal forces can cause motion in fluids through gravity which can be transformed by mechanical machines, everywhere the chain of physical causality is forces.

It so happens that (in Newtonian space) energy is a net constant, it is a transformational symmetry in the laws of motion which result in this revealed fact.

Gravitons would be quantized versions of the field representing space-time in the same way that photons are quantized versions of a classical electromagnetic field. It means that the smallest possible perturbation vs frequency or wavelength is finite, like in quantum electromagnetics, and unlike in Maxwellian electromagnetics where it is an arbitrary non-negative real number.




EInstein's equations already work---but the interaction with fundamental quantum mechanics isn't fully known. it is known by experiment that gravity (classically) interacts with quantum mechanical particles like neutrons in the way exactly as predicted, this is though classical gravity interacting with quantum particles. It's probably not possible experimentally to find any circumstance where the quantum nature of gravity (if any) is observationally distinguishable from classical gravity. It's not clear that the quantum mechanical gravity will be like quantization of the other fields, as gravity classically already works differently, somehow interacting with everything.

In QM of E&M fields, it turned out to be harder than anticipated---the true quantum nature of E&M (quantum optics) was not appreciated for decades after the start of quantum mechanics. EInstein proposed the photon as the explanation for the photoelectric effect (and his insight about photons was right) but in fact that isn't quite so clearly quantized E&M fields. In quantum optics experiments (very very dark) where you have photomultiplier tubes and measure detailed records of statistics and interactions can you finally distinguish true quantum E&M from classical.

Speaking of which---that's what would be the ultimate sci-fi breakthrough "photo"-multiplier tubes, but for gravity, gravito-multiplier tubes amplifying the quanta of gravity enormously.
edit on 21-8-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

According to Einstein theory of relativity, Mass and Energy are different manifestations of basically the same thing. One can be converted to the other we've even done experiments using energy to create mass.

General Relativity says that any form of energy is a source of gravity. Think about light it has no rest mass now suppose we took something to contain the light so it distributes evenly in all directions.From the outside, that area has energy but no momentum, exactly like a particle with rest mass that's not moving (in our frame). Its gravitational field looks just like that of a rest mass.

So judging from that what if it's not mass that causes gravity but energy itself this explains why photons still interact with gravity. Light has energy and momentum which creates mass were talking photons. So energy creates mass however gravity is sort of an unknown here but if we say energy creates gravity it begins to make sense. Energy creates a force it also would explain why it's do weak as well because it's an effect.

Now when I add momentum I can get something called invariant mass. Sending two photons with zero mass in opisit directions the mass will still be zero but the invariant mass will not. So what happened here? Momentum becomes rest mass. As are two photons zoom away from each other depending on our frame of refrence.

OK let's say we heat up an object both the same one we do not heat it. Mass increased on the object we provide heat to. Why simple it has more energy. It the other effect is it will have increased gravity as well as its mass increses. This is one of the reasons I think we have sort of hooked gravity to the wrong thing and it's energy that creates gravity. And ma's itself is another side effect.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the Earth stopped spinning, aside from the atmospheric impact and the sun frying one side, how strong would Earth's gravity be? Assuming that it would be greater without the centrifugal force caused by the planet's spin.

I've been wondering this for years



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: FleetAdmiral
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the Earth stopped spinning, aside from the atmospheric impact and the sun frying one side, how strong would Earth's gravity be? Assuming that it would be greater without the centrifugal force caused by the planet's spin.

I've been wondering this for years


Not enough to notice the polls really wouldn't change much but the equator would have a very slight change roughly .35 percent decrease. This is the bulhe at the equator disaperaing. But I think the most drastic effect would be everyone and everything being slung eastward at 1038 mph. Let's just say a bad day for people on the equator. Another odd side effect centrifugal force though it's not a real force sort of distorts gravity. Centrifugal force runs from the nOrth and south pole while gravity is from the centerm of the earth. Now I haven't done the math but this would mean everything built would lean slightly. Not sure if the effect would be noticeable but it might be. But the mass overall wouldn't change and as such the gravity wouldn't change.
edit on 8/21/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



I don't know why you singled me out at the beginning but at least you opened it up to others at the end. No I haven't looked at the math yet, I'm not sure if I will. I'm not sure your model addresses what I consider to be the bigger problems with mainstream models and I'll feel more satisfaction if I can solve any of those.


First, what do you consider to be the bigger problems? I'd be interested in your thoughts!

Second, I singled you out because I recalled you saying you were going to spend some time with my absolute theory article and I assumed that meant you'd eventually delve into the math and respond with comments once your study was complete. (My assumption was apparently in error; I should learn not to assume.) Today I searched back to find what I had recalled and it was this, from July 22, about 60% of the way down on page 329:



originally posted by: delbertlarson
I would still appreciate any comments on my other thread concerning an absolute theory without a Lorentz/Fitzgerald length contraction.




Yes I haven't replied yet but I want to give it a fair shake and that will take some time since it's not part of my normal thought process.


You have indeed replied since then with multiple comments, which I used to improve the article. Whenever I communicate, I know what I mean to convey, but I often find that others take what I say or write to mean something different from what I mean. So I do appreciate the comments you have already made, as they enhanced the clarity of the eventual article. I was thinking you might still be going to get deeper into the math, but I now see that may not be the case. Thanks again for taking a look.

a reply to: DanielKoenig

Your desire for some sort of material body throughout space is of course what was known for millennia as the aether. My InfoGalactic article (see link below) presents an aether model that provides answers to some of what you are seeking as it does treat electrodynamics, but it does not (yet) have a gravitation component. It would be great if you and others could check it out, and perhaps extend it to gravitation. I think it is the real deal.

a reply to: All

I remain hopeful that some serious scientists will study the math of my works, because it is there that the science becomes most clear. If the articles can stick on Wikipedia then I believe the math will be investigated over time. In the meantime I am hoping to have some in depth discussions here on ATS, and honestly, I'd like to find a few scientists to support my point of view. Getting validation from others is crucial for getting a conversation started on new ideas.

For me it takes about an hour to 90 minutes to validate all of the math on each of the works below. (I check it every time I put in on a new venue.) I would expect it will take a bit longer for those unfamiliar with it, so I know this is a bit of a big request. On the other hand, the subject matter is of some importance so I hope some of you will take the time.

I have done what Maxwell tried and failed to do and I still think that is a pretty important accomplishment. But it has proven difficult to gain support or even awareness of my work, since the modern relativistic view prevails so strongly at the moment.

As a reminder:

Here is my InfoGalactic article on the aether.

And here is my Wikipedia article on Absolute Theory.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel


What you are asking is whether gravitation is a "collective effect" of "smaller" entities which have their own microscopic physics


The (waveable) ocean would be to 'warpable space time' as h20 (as h, as o, as protons, as neutrons, as quarks, as electrons, as....gluons...) would be to ________ what, is what I am curious about.

Warpable space time either is composed of parts (like the warpable ocean is) or it is not. If it is not...what could that even mean, how can something that covers a square foot of space (let alone all of space) be partless? Maybe you will say something like plasma is not composed of parts. A piece of plasma a square foot is 1 part, irreducible. A piece of space time...there is only 1 piece of space time, irreducible, it has only 1 part, its total self, and it stretches the entire universe. If you say so, I guess.

But, even in the plasma scenario, if plasma was pieceless, a singular substance covering a cubed foot, we can hypothetically imagine it being cut in half, and leaving two parts. Would that inherently imply it was in fact partful the whole time?

Can space time, even if you theorize to be partless, be cut in half, cut into parts?

The problem is not even considering the possible types and nature of possible substances that could compose space time. You just think 3d/4d blank empty space. The concept of warping. Very abstract and bare bones, not trying to probe into the nature of the substance that is warping. That is all I am trying to get at with my questions. What is it that is warping, I am not looking for a man made word answer 'eblobe', Oh thats 'sdlghdsgs', oh what is warping, space time is warping. What is space time made of? Space time is made of space time. No but what is warping, what is the way space time is warping, what is the qualities of that which is warping, space time warps in relation to mass present. Ok is space time little parts, like water is little parts, or is space time partless. If space time is partless how is that possible, I already attempted to express it seemingly is impossible with the plasma cutting expression.

Similarly, by the very fact of mass existing, must space time be cuttable, and therefore, arguably, to be composed of parts? When a singular partless substance is cut, do the edges have different qualities than the center of the substance, partlessness/piecelessness/componentlessness substance is a strange concept.

If partless plasma is cut into two parts, is that cheating? Its not the same as how a pool of water can be separated into two parts. The concept of the parts of water, is the concept of building blocks. The concept of this splitting of plasma, would not make a concept of building blocks, but just two partless but parted substances. They are not composed of little bits. Its so strange to think about the possibility of this concept. Ok, so that is the plasma is cut into two pieces, and then those are cut into two pieces, and so on and so on until the singular partless piece of plasma is in a million partless pieces of plasma.

Ok, this is merely the idea, of, lets say quarks are partless/componentless, if quarks could blob together to form a big quark, the little quarks would have to lose all appearance of 'having sides', of 'having independent movements', for that big quark to be considered partless/componentless?

When a mass is present in space time, it is separating the space time from above the mass from below it (...warping). This is a kind of 'cutting the plasma', this is not evidence space time is composed of little independent pieces, (though all of what I am attempting to get at is, how can anything exist which is not composed of little (potentially, as in the plasma split into a million parts) pieces) but it is evidence that space time obviously must be partable (like moses), obviously because the tiniest planck point A cannot contain electrons, quarks, gluons, photons, and gravitons (unless you are a psychopathic moron who invents nonsense with squiggly lines and cheats to make a false reality check out on paper). Oh yes it can! dimensionless points substance, blah blah, yada yada. everything all the substance stuff mass energy in the universe was condensed into a 0 dimension point.... Oh... is this what im speaking to? is this what I am trying to have a deep rational exploratory probing open minded hungry to solve mystery and seek truth conversation with? Absolutely blatant tom dumbery.




So far, there is no experimental evidence there is any underlying physical property explaining either gravitation



The key word is explaining. "there is no experimental evidence there is any underlying physical property explaining ice (grass, clouds, etc. on and on the early stages of science. You dont know the underlying physical properties, but the onus is to assume they are there, which is the essence of my break down question and distinction.

Either, space time is pieceless, or it is composed of pieces (water is composed of pieces, metal is composed of pieces, atoms... I am not suggesting space time is composed of atoms, you know this, I am suggesting how it might be possible for space time to not be composed of pieces.

If warpable space time is composed of pieces/parts, as warpable water and warpable metal is, then it is absurdly interesting to attempt to understand and probe and think about how those parts might be.

Right now it seems as if, you can measure how ocean waves drag this buoy and that drift wood, and can predict their forces on these, and if other types of mass were placed in the waves how they would be effected, but you do not know anything about H2o. You seem to be claiming there is no H2o, but there is only the water field, the water medium, the space time of water, a singular pieceless/componentless/partless pure singular substance.

I am suggesting there are not many examples in nature of hypothetical theory of substances taking up large 3d quantities of space and being pieceless/componentless/partless.

Another thing to ask I guess is, does it matter if a 'emergent substance' is composed of parts, is it as if it is not composed of parts when it is acting as one substance? Does water cease to be 100000000 h2o parts, and become a single substance (under certain classical conditions)?

Metal or playdoh is composed of atoms, but it acts like it may as well not be, it may as well be 1 single pure partless substance. A shirt has many fibers but woven it as if there is only 1 shirt substance. When parts are smushed closed enough together and stay there, it as if there are no parts?


So, in conclusion: Space time is something, not nothing. Either it is composed of parts or it is not. Either of those cases are interesting and deserve discussion, consideration, experimentation and contemplation.

The key question I would like to ask is: From everything you have seen on the subject, what do you currently think is the case, space time is a singular pieceless substance, or space time is composed of pieces?



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
Mass and Energy are different manifestations of basically the same thing.

You must have missed the 1000 times arby has posted that to be a misconception of e=mc^2 equation. There is a relation, and equivalence, but mass itself while mass, is mass and not energy. Energy, while energy, is energy, not mass. Adding energy to mass can give the appearence of increased mass...but its not really. If you get hit by a 100 rest mass car going a 1 unit of energy, the car will feel less massfull as if you get hit by that same 100 rest mass car going given 100 units of energy speed.

The nature of the photon throws a kink in conceptualization, the term mass, saying photon is 0 mass, saying photon is 100% energy. All because the photon apparently cannot actually slow down (it can be caught up in matter that appears to slow its A to B, but it is not that the photon ever slows its auto speed, its that the photon hits speed bumps, called matter). Mass defined as, 'things that can be slowed down'.

There is Nothing, there is That Which Is Not Nothing, and there is The Real Concept Of Movement.

Usually, That Which Is Not Nothing, has, that which is called mass.

Usually, The Real Concept Of Movement, is that which is called energy.

Mass is the stuffness of stuff. Energy is the movementness of stuff.

But Photon/EM radiation appears to be Not Nothing but at the same time Not Stopable, therefore 100% moving, therefore 100% energy, therefore 0% stoppable, therefore 0% mass.



One can be converted to the other we've even done experiments using energy to create mass.


Where is the mass created from? *crosses fingers, dont say out of thin air, dont say out of thin air, dont say particles randomly pop in and out of existence, dont say it*

Would you say this is an example of using energy to create mass:

You have a 10 mass units pile of clay shaped into a cube, you have 10 massfull men

The men are just sitting there...they are not moving.

"Hey men, go around and collect 10 mass units of clay in the ground!"

Woah... now the men that were resting, are moving... energy!!

Woah... wait... wow... the men are using energy to collect mass. They are digging clay and bringing it near the 10 mass units clay cube. They are using the mass of their body and the energy of their potential and actual movements to form another 10 mass units clay cube to place on the first. They placed it on and sealed it nice. Now its a rectangle block, 20 mass units. We just used energy to create mass. In this local space there existed only 10 units of mass. We used energy to make 20 units of mass exist in that local space. The men randomly popped in and out of existence.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

The conversion between mass and energy isn't even really a conversion. It's more that mass (or "mass energy") is a name for some amount of an object's energy. But the same energy that you call the mass can actually be a different type of energy, if you look closer. For example, we say that a proton has a specific amount of mass, about 2×10−27 kg" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: normal; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 18px; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; display: inline; text-indent: 0px; text-align: left; text-transform: none; letter-spacing: normal; word-spacing: normal; word-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">2×10−27 kg2×10−27 kg. But if you look into the structure of a proton, about half that mass (or more, depending on conditions) is actually kinetic energy of the gluons.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FleetAdmiral
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the Earth stopped spinning, aside from the atmospheric impact and the sun frying one side, how strong would Earth's gravity be? Assuming that it would be greater without the centrifugal force caused by the planet's spin.

I've been wondering this for years
yes the gravity would be greater at every point on the earth without the spin. calculation is pretty simple. work it out on your own



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=22585293]Arbitrageur
As for the secrets of the universe that only you know but you can't even talk about, I have a circular bin where I file those claims. Considering your demonstrated misunderstanding of pendulum clocks as refuting General Relativity, it's hard to take what you say seriously.


Heck even a school kid can tell the pendulum on its own ( not necessarily limited to the pendulum clock ) refutes general relativity



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

we say that a proton has a specific amount of mass, about 2×10−27 kg2×10−27 kg. But if you look into the structure of a proton, about half that mass (or more, depending on conditions) is actually kinetic energy of the gluons.


Parts of the protons are always moving. So its true pure rest mass cannot be known, since it as an entity hinges on its components motions, the motions must be included in the common detection of the entities mass. A bowling ball dropped into your hands from 1 foot, feels less heavy than a bowling ball dropped into your hands from 30 feet. Both feet heavier, more massive, then a bowling ball resting in your hands. A proton depends on having parts that do not rest, we don't know if a proton as a thing, can exist without its parts moving. Therefore the proton as an entity, always has its 'heaviness' detected, as if it is one of the dropped bowling ball instances.

It is interesting, and difficult to get to the part of, how much does the parts existence depend on its own movement and/or the movements of other parts. Quarks, gluons, how much is a quarks solid existence depends on its movements, and other quarks movements, and gluons movements, how much of a gluons nature and existence depends on quark movements. If the movement of gluons and quarks could be stopped, how different in that moment would the gluon and quarks be.

There is substance/thing and movement. But because we are late to the party, medias res, because we are measuring always moving cars and dropped bowling balls, we do not fully know that if the bowling ball, if the car were stopped, how much that would change the nature of the bowling ball and car. As if the movement of heart or lungs is stopped, it changes the nature of human.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Hi:
I have a question about the "Top" quark. How can it be so big? It's the size of a tungsten atom (atomic mass 183)! I'll also ask how the Higgs particle can be so big? It's slightly larger than a hydrogen atom (atomic mass 1)!

Thanks!



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: delbertlarson
First, what do you consider to be the bigger problems? I'd be interested in your thoughts!
Ever hear of the "worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics?" According to that source observation disagrees with prediction by 120 orders of magnitude but even if you change all the assumptions to do the best job you can to get them to match you still come up with a disagreement of many orders of magnitude, maybe 60 orders of magnitude.

Nima Arkani-Hamed said he spent 80% of his time for ten years trying to solve this problem and make a theoretical prediction that matches observation, and he says despite the very lax standards which are allowed in considering solutions to this problem and despite throwing out the assumption that "Einstein was right" and assuming he was wrong and many other "wild" assumptions, all he got was a few crappy papers and failure after failure in trying to solve this problem so he's so desperate to solve it now that he's considering ideas that have never been proven in any experiment, like string theory.


So it's a tough problem but at least it's one that needs a solution.

In some respects, even if your model is correct, it's a solution in search of a problem, because if I read your paper correctly your model is consistent with the same experimental results that appear to be consistent with relativity. This doesn't mean I reject your idea or the Lorentz Ether Theory, and I think you make a valid point that it was shouted down though I think a more accurate assessment would be something along the lines of an "Occam's Razor" choice, in that given a choice between two models and both work, let's go with the one that requires the least number of assumptions, which means no ether in the case of Einstein's model. While there is some logic behind Occam's razor, it's not a robust means of choosing a model, and it could be that sometimes nature follows the model that requires more assumptions, but when the experimental results so far are indistinguishable between the models there's no obvious way to choose one and then the Occam's Razor choice is understandable.

But the Cosmological Constant problem really needs a solution because there is no theoretical prediction that comes anywhere close to observation, so there's either something wrong with the math, something wrong with the model, or something wrong with the assumptions used in the model.


originally posted by: FleetAdmiral
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If the Earth stopped spinning, aside from the atmospheric impact and the sun frying one side, how strong would Earth's gravity be? Assuming that it would be greater without the centrifugal force caused by the planet's spin.

I've been wondering this for years


a reply to: dragonridr
Dragonridr's got the right idea but I'll attempt to explain it a little more clearly.

He's right that there are two potential effects involved:

1. Your motion would stop, which if effect #2 didn't occur would result in a scale showing a 0.3% increase in your weight because fictitious "centrifugal force" would stop decreasing your apparent weight by that amount. It's really a reduction of your momentum that causes the scale to show a different weight.

2. Potentially the shape of the Earth would change. Right now it has a bulge around the equator from the spinning. If the spinning never happened the bulge wouldn't be there, but if the spinning stopped, the bulge would probably go away though I don't know exactly how long that would take. Again the Earth's total gravity would be unchanged (so there would be no effect on the moon for example), but at the equator once the bulge disappeared you'd be closer to the center of the Earth where gravitational acceleration would be larger, so this would add another 0.2% to your weight on a scale.

Adding the 0.3% from 1 and the 0.2% from #2, the total effect would be a 0.5% increase in your weight at the equator. but the total gravity of the Earth wouldn't be any different, there would just be a change in the shape of the Earth and less of the fictitious "centrifugal force" at the equator.


originally posted by: dragonridr
Mass and Energy are different manifestations of basically the same thing.



originally posted by: DanielKoenig
You must have missed the 1000 times arby has posted that to be a misconception of e=mc^2 equation.
Let's make it 1001 and see if you get it this time. I don't really object to dragonridr's characterization if he refers to E=mc^2 of an object "at rest" with no momentum, but what I've tried to impress upon people is that if there is momentum involved the correct equation to use is this one with the momentum term added:


edit on 2017822 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: mbkennel

According to Einstein theory of relativity, Mass and Energy are different manifestations of basically the same thing.

One can be converted to the other we've even done experiments using energy to create mass.


No that's a fuzzy confusion of what is happening!

Particles in the Standard Model can be converted by processes in the Standard Model which are allowed by conservation of momentum and energy expressed in proper relativistic computations (which apply to all interactions) as well as the particular 'matrix elements' controlling the underlying interactions that depend on the nature of the fields & particles in question. Weak interactions can change neutrons in to protons plus neutrino plus electron. Does this mean a proton is "the same thing" as a neutron? No it isn't. Precisely because an interaction was needed to convert from one to the other. So when something with rest mass is converted into something with less rest mass plus massless particles, it means only that the conservation law governing the Universe must add mass and energetic terms to be correct. An invariant of interactions does not imply that the components obeying that invariant "are the same thing".




General Relativity says that any form of energy is a source of gravity. Think about light it has no rest mass now suppose we took something to contain the light so it distributes evenly in all directions.From the outside, that area has energy but no momentum, exactly like a particle with rest mass that's not moving (in our frame). Its gravitational field looks just like that of a rest mass.


Almost, but not quite the same, all of that goes into the Einstein stress-energy tensor. But just because it adds up in GR doesn't mean it is all the same thing.



So judging from that what if it's not mass that causes gravity but energy itself this explains why photons still interact with gravity. Light has energy and momentum which creates mass were talking photons. So energy creates mass however gravity is sort of an unknown here but if we say energy creates gravity it begins to make sense. Energy creates a force it also would explain why it's do weak as well because it's an effect.


No, that's not it. According to GR everything in the universe reacts to the space-time metric, mass or not. Photons, like rest mass, are sources of gravitation (i.e. cause warping) because there is a term in the stress-energy tensor for electromagnetic fields as well as rest masses. It is true that massless photons can cause gravity, and Einstein showed how, at least with classical Maxwell electromagnetic fields. It is also true that in almost all experimental and even astronomical circumstances, the contribution from EM fields is tiny compared to that from rest masses of atoms.




Now when I add momentum I can get something called invariant mass. Sending two photons with zero mass in opisit directions the mass will still be zero but the invariant mass will not. So what happened here? Momentum becomes rest mass.


WTF? That's not it. An atom which has a transition which allows a two-photon emission: the charges in the excited atoms transition to a lower state which emits two photons. The process happens by the interaction of charged particles with the EM field. Momentum and energy are conserved as usual.


OK let's say we heat up an object both the same one we do not heat it. Mass increased on the object we provide heat to. Why simple it has more energy. It the other effect is it will have increased gravity as well as its mass increses. This is one of the reasons I think we have sort of hooked gravity to the wrong thing and it's energy that creates gravity. And ma's itself is another side effect.


You're muddling it along. Einstein got it right in the beginning. The gravitational warping from thermal motion plus rest mass (plus black body radiation?) is computable and inserted in the source term of GR. In quantitative magnitude, the contribution from thermal motion is insignificant relative to rest mass in usual accessible experimental circumstances.
edit on 22-8-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-8-2017 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



In some respects, even if your model is correct, it's a solution in search of a problem, because if I read your paper correctly your model is consistent with the same experimental results that appear to be consistent with relativity.


A Solution In Search of a Problem

The problem my models address is the departure from classical physics. Said another way, the problem is to return to objective reality in physics. Or said yet another way, the problem is to return to common sense in physics.

Einstein opened a new door wherein people could play with math and if everything worked then there was no longer a need to try and understand a physical mechanism behind the math. This new door enabled fantasists and magicians (modern day sophists) to rush in with all sorts of wondrous and wild mathematics to explain our world. But it left the old school physics behind. And when it did so, physics became populated with the fantasists and magicians. Those who "just didn't get it" ended up going into engineering where they could build useful things. Often, the latter crowd believed that they indeed "just didn't get it", and I don't think that they did. In fact, the whole point of "modern physics" seems to be that you aren't supposed to "get it". What this has led to is a rather large confirmation bias. Those who get to judge climb the success ladder through "modern physics".

Now I will hasten to admit that "modern physics" is not all bad. It is indeed one way to look at our world, and it is an interesting way, and one that can yield insight. It also, for the most part, works. Where it doesn't work is in the basic understanding of things, and since that basic understanding has been set aside, most people working in physics don't even consider that to be a problem. But I do. And I am not alone. We are a minority in physics, but we do exist. So the problem being solved by my efforts is to bring back a basic understanding to physics. I believe everything does make sense.

The Importance of Tests

Except for my quantum philosophy, my works all have potential tests to differentiate them from existing theory. For my derivation of the Lorentz Equations without a length contraction I have proposed two experiments: a group velocity equivalent of Michelson Morley and measuring a shadow of a high velocity projectile. For my derivation of Maxwell's Equations I have proposed that atomic clocks immersed in EM radiation should run slow - but I do not know by how much.

It is true that the above two works must be probed rather deeply to arrive at experimental differences from the status quo. That follows since the above two works arrive at the same equations of the status quo but with different assumptions leading to them. It is only when the assumptions are scrutinized that the above few differences between my work and the status quo is found - and it is in those differences that the basis for testing exists.

My ABC Preon Model on the other hand has plenty of tests possible. I make 18 predictions from 3 free parameters. 9 of the 18 have been seen. 8 of 9 have the correct mass, but it does predict what is known as the Higgs to have a mass of 126 GeV, which we have discussed above in this excellent thread.

For my high velocity quantum mechanics the equations are quite specific, and numerous tests are in principle possible. I always think it is in tests that we see which theory best represents nature.

Of my five theoretical works, only my quantum philosophy, discussed in this blog starting on page 287, does not have a test proposed for it as it is primarily philosophical at this time.

Also, on the subject of tests, I don't know if you saw my response to your raising of the test issue on my two-component aether thread. And others may not have seen it, so I will repeat it next.



Yes, tests are the key. Unfortunately, they are not the only thing that comes into play. If they were the only thing then Einstein, Podolski, Rosen (EPR) tests would have already led to setting relativity aside. While I think I've hit this note before, I'll bang the drum again:

EPR showed how quantum mechanics and relativity could not both be correct. Bell refined EPR to enable tests. Aspect, Dalibard and Roger performed the tests and quantum mechanics was correct. (See here.) But rather than set relativity aside, philosophical arguments were put forth to "save" it. Now, people talk about "non-local", and "information transfer", and other hocus-pocus. At the end of the day, the proposal is that objective reality as humans understand it no longer holds in quantum entanglement experiments. So you can always dodge and hustle your way out of facts. Humans are good at that. That's why lawyers profit so handsomely.

I have always believed that we should maintain our belief in an objective reality, and that alone should be our philosophical touchstone. We should then defer to tests to decide which hypothesis better represents nature. Hence, for each of my fundamental works I have proposed tests. And on one such effort I have a sad tale to relate.

I realized early on that a group velocity equivalent of the Michelson Morley test might yield a non-null result if no length contraction exists. It would cost under $50,000 to do. It would be rather simple to set up. So we proposed it to the NSF. You needed straight A's on the reviews to have a chance at the money, since "so much valuable science is out there to do." We got two F's and a D. The reviewers were unanimous that any further test of relativity was a complete waste of valuable taxpayer funds. After rejection, I worked to get the costs down to under $1000, I would have, and still would, pay for it myself. But we needed machine time on a half million dollar ultra-short laser device. Although the device already existed, the team would not do any test unless the NSF approved. There was fear it could endanger future grant money if we did something that was not approved. At that time I realized things were very, very wrong in science. It is not a search for truth. It is a search for money.

I think when most people go into science they do it to advance mankind. But there are far too many scientists for the number of dollars. So there must be some way to choose what gets funded and what does not. In my two decades of earning a living in science I spent a lot of time proposing and reviewing, and far less time doing. I noticed that just about everyone else in science did the same thing. When I interviewed after my last successful accelerator build, no one could get $15K for hardware. All the money went to salaries since the view was that we didn't want to lose valuable scientists. Well, they lost me. If you can't ever build any hardware to do any tests, what is the reason to stay in? It is a shame.

We need to do the tests. We should not be afraid of them. They are what will tell us what is right.


Please note that my comment above on lawyers is not meant negatively. It is meant to illustrate how creative people can be in their arguments.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: smokybarnable
Hi:
I have a question about the "Top" quark. How can it be so big? It's the size of a tungsten atom (atomic mass 183)! I'll also ask how the Higgs particle can be so big? It's slightly larger than a hydrogen atom (atomic mass 1)!

Thanks!
You looked up the mass of the top quark. Did you also look up the expected life? Shouldn't the question be "how can a quark which only lasts less than a trillionth of a trillion of a second have that much mass?" That's part of the answer, it has a short life. The other part of the answer is, where do you find top quarks? Answer: In high-energy collisions. So what do you need a lot of to create massive particles? Energy. And what do you get a lot of in high energy collisions? Energy. So that's the answer, right? This of course also applies to the Higgs boson which took even higher energy collisions to discover than the top quark.

Nima Arkani-Hamed said he'd like to see a particle accelerator with 10 times the LHC energy test for even more massive particles, whose existence or non-existence has a bearing on some work he's doing, so I don't think he'd be surprised if heavier particles were found but the LHC may not have the energy to find them. China is talking about building a larger supercollider which might be able to do the job.


originally posted by: delbertlarson
A Solution In Search of a Problem

Einstein opened a new door wherein people could play with math and if everything worked then there was no longer a need to try and understand a physical mechanism behind the math.
What about this quote from Isaac Newton?

Newton's law of universal gravitation

"I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses.... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."
In other words, he presented the mathematics of gravity's behavior but he didn't understand the physical mechanism behind the math. How is that so different?

In the context of Newton's law, a problem eventually emerged and a solution was needed: The unexplained precession of Mercury. So this was a problem in need of a solution.

In the context of relativity, this is the kind of boost an alternate theory could benefit from, if an observation is made that relativity can't explain, then there will be another problem looking for a solution.


The Importance of Tests

Except for my quantum philosophy, my works all have potential tests to differentiate them from existing theory. For my derivation of the Lorentz Equations without a length contraction I have proposed two experiments: a group velocity equivalent of Michelson Morley and measuring a shadow of a high velocity projectile. For my derivation of Maxwell's Equations I have proposed that atomic clocks immersed in EM radiation should run slow - but I do not know by how much.

It is true that the above two works must be probed rather deeply to arrive at experimental differences from the status quo. That follows since the above two works arrive at the same equations of the status quo but with different assumptions leading to them. It is only when the assumptions are scrutinized that the above few differences between my work and the status quo is found - and it is in those differences that the basis for testing exists...

I worked to get the costs down to under $1000, I would have, and still would, pay for it myself. But we needed machine time on a half million dollar ultra-short laser device. Although the device already existed, the team would not do any test unless the NSF approved. There was fear it could endanger future grant money if we did something that was not approved. At that time I realized things were very, very wrong in science. It is not a search for truth. It is a search for money.
So are you saying you submitted a proposal to the NSF to pay for the costs of the experiment and only machine time was required on an existing machine? And the NSF rejected that request? If so on what basis?

edit on 2017823 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




What about this quote from Isaac Newton?

Newton's law of universal gravitation

"I have not yet been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena and I feign no hypotheses.... It is enough that gravity does really exist and acts according to the laws I have explained, and that it abundantly serves to account for all the motions of celestial bodies."

In other words, he presented the mathematics of gravity's behavior but he didn't understand the physical mechanism behind the math. How is that so different?


I guess one difference is that apparently Newton had spent at least some time trying to discover the cause. At least that is how I read the quote. Saying "not yet" indicates to me that perhaps he had at least thought about it. People always ask what underlies whatever we now know, and the answer I like is that while there may be another layer, and we should keep looking, this is what we know now. Einstein took a different approach. Einstein embraced Mach, who from my readings I believe followed Hume. Positivism (Mach) moves us away from underlying realities and models, and makes experimental result and reason (math) the sole essence of truth. Einstein, following Mach, set the underlying models aside.

Thus freed from classical constraints, one departure Einstein made was treating space and time as mathematical entities that we can manipulate, rather than the primary fundamental stage upon which we do physics. A second departure of Einstein was the abandonment of the luminiferous aether as a cause for (underlying model of) the observations of electromagnetism. Those are two significant departures that Einstein made, and with his success at experimental prediction, that really opened up physical theory to abandon underlying physical models. With Newton we still had the classical physical concepts of space, time and mass. With Einstein all of what once were primary physical concepts became simply manifestations of mathematics. I believe this is where we lose a lot of people. It also separates our thinking from the physical nature of what is around us, imho. Positivism is all well and good philosophically, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying reality!



So are you saying you submitted a proposal to the NSF to pay for the costs of the experiment and only machine time was required on an existing machine? And the NSF rejected that request? If so on what basis?


We put more than just machine time into the proposal. I don't recall the specifics anymore; it was over 25 years ago now. I believe we put in a request for beam pipe, piezo electric stabilizers, mirrors, a conventional laser, and probably staff time. It's a pretty standard thing to propose to pay grad students and maybe even summer salaries. I just don't remember the details.

The proposal was rejected because I included my theory that showed that a non-null result was possible. That assertion was strongly denounced by the reviewers, leading to the two F's and a D. The review stipulated that relativity had been proven via Michelson-Morley (MM) results in many ways already, so one new way was certain not to yield anything new. I realized later that had we instead framed it as a new test to show the glorious success of Einstein's relativity in a way never done before that we would likely have gotten much better grades. But I don't like playing such games.

FYI - here is how you do would do it. You pull a vacuum on some pipes at 90 degree angles. You put mirrors at the end of each pipe and a half-reflecting one at the cross point. You then use a normal laser (HeNe I think is what we proposed) and have it come back and interfere just like the original MM. You then use piezo-electric spacers and a feedback loop to lock the HeNe interference pattern to a fringe. Since it is known from the original MM test that fixed length arms will give you no fringe shift, this means that when you lock on a fringe you get no length changes. That allows you to not need to worry about thermal effects. Next, you pass in an ultra-short laser pulse while the locking system is still in place. (There are two lasers here, the HeNe and the short pulse.) When the short pulses come back, you pass them through a doubling crystal. Since the doubling is non-linear, you can see of the overlap of the pulses change if there is a differential effect in their round trip time. Then you just let the earths rotation rotate it around. If the group velocity is a constant with respect to an aether you should be able to see a non-null result. If physics is a search for truth, such an experiment should be done. But the problem is that all too many believe that certain truths are already known, so there is no reason to test them any more.

After the rejection I saw we had some parts we could have scrounged up. We probably only needed a cheap vacuum pump and some pvc pipe. But without government approval, the team didn't want to do anything. It's rather chilling.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
If a Higgs boson is the same mass as a hydrogen atom, would a Higgs field in the universe be equivalent to dark matter? And would maintaining a homogeneous Higgs field be equivalent to dark energy? Thanks again!




top topics



 
72
<< 334  335  336    338  339  340 >>

log in

join