A question about gravity and photons

Originally posted by beezzer
The force of gravity itself has no mass.

It is the expression of mass.

Isn't it?

If gravity is meditated by a boson, and is not just the effects of mass bending spacetime, then the force of gravity has no mass, like the electromagnetic force has no mass. Its complicated quantum field theory.

If its just geometetric bending then gravity is indeed a result of mass.

We don't know yet!

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The EFFECT of Gravity can create Potential Kinetic Energy in any Falling Object but as Gravity is Space/Time Curvature...it will change the Space/Time surrounding a Celestial Body of sufficient mass to the point that Quantum Particle/Wave Forms such as Photons or Light to travel that Curvature toward the Gravity Well.

In essence Light is not be FORCED into say a Black Hole but rather traveling at 186,300 mps...just as usual and not changing direction or vector as the 4-D distance and Space/Time relationship between the Black Hole and the Photons is being changed. This is why GRAVITY IS NOT A TRUE FORCE as the Photons are NOT FORCED in their direction through Space/Time....but rather it is Space/Time that is CHANGING.
Split Infinity

This is the relativistic persons ideas, haha. But even Roger Penrose doesn't take it completely anymore

reply to post by SplitInfinity


So gravity is neither force nor energy but a manefestation of the curvature of space-time.

Did I get that right?

We're experiencing it right now, but our observation of gravity is only our "local" interpretation of the in situ curvature of space-time.

I think.

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by beezzer
The force of gravity itself has no mass.

It is the expression of mass.

Isn't it?

If gravity is meditated by a boson, and is not just the effects of mass bending spacetime, then the force of gravity has no mass, like the electromagnetic force has no mass. Its complicated quantum field theory.

If its just geometetric bending then gravity is indeed a result of mass.

We don't know yet!

If memory serves,a boson "gives" mass to an element.

Right

(forgive me if this is too elementary to you)

reply to post by beezzer


No they are non fermionic particles that for the most part mediate the forces. Photons are bosons. So are gluons and W and Z bosons. The higgs boson is the mediatior for the higgs field. Which gives invariant mass.

As far as gravity is just spacetime bending, its all in what you wanna believe haha.

reply to post by beezzer


Beez...Even if the supposedly now discovered at the LHC Higgs-Boson does what has been advertised to do...all that means is that is the Quantum Particle Wave Form that is responsible for allowing Protons and Neutrons to obtain Mass.

Just because they obtain Mass has nothing to do with why Mass Warps Space/Time. Gravity STILL has been consistent in Effect with GENERAL RELATIVITY. Don't let anyone tell you different. Gravity is still the Curvature of Space/Time Geometry. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beez...Even if the supposedly now discovered at the LHC Higgs-Boson does what has been advertised to do...all that means is that is the Quantum Particle Wave Form that is responsible for allowing Protons and Neutrons to obtain Mass.

No it means a sub atomic particle that had no experimental inclination to be there, was found out of the mathematics of quantum field theory. So thats pretty much evidence the standard model is atleast mostly right.

reply to post by ubeenhad

UB...which standard model do you refer to...there are so many. LOL! Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

UB...which standard model do you refer to...there are so many. LOL! Split Infinity

Well it's getting narrowed down now. With all the data from the LHC.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by ubeenhad
reply to post by beezzer

 

NO.
A force is not potential energy.

According to Einstein gravity is JUST geometric bending of space time, and not really in the sense that the others are considered.

Yet momentum and velocity can be affected by gravity, yes?

The force of gravity itself has no mass.

It is the expression of mass.

Isn't it?

OK, perhaps I can clear up things a bit.

When we talk of fundamental particles (Photons etc) we are actually talking of things in the quantum realm. These things are so vanishingly small that we cannot reliably know all the information about them at once (indeterminacy). We speak of these particles and their attributes in terms of probabilities.

Currently, we use what is called "the Standard Model" to describe these particles. Because everything on this scale seems to have a discrete minimum size, that you cannot further subdivide, they can all be treated as if they are elementary particles. This goes for both matter (Fermions) and for force mediators (Gauge Bosons). Said another way, matter and forces both become particles in the standard model.

The Standard Model now is incomplete. It has no "dark matter" descriptions and is inadequate in terms of an explanation of how Gravity arises in line with general relativity. Recently, the Higgs Boson has been (possibly) detected and it adds an explanation of how mass arises (from a quantum particle perspective), making the model one bit closer to complete.

Then we come to 'real-world sized' science: Special and General Relativity theories describe most of what we observe from our sized perspective but are inadequate for explaining many facets we have observed at the quantum level.

My opinion is that neither are explicitly right or wrong (and I'm happy to fence sit till we have a TOE).

Many have tried to unify the quantum and macro worlds under a single all encompassing theory (TOE or Theory Of Everything) but no-one has yet achieved this fully enough to be able to dispense with the previous two views, which while incomplete are the best of all conflicting theories.

My personal view is that there are fundamental paradigms 'under' the reality of these theories that we have not explored fully, that may lead towards a TOE. Things that would explain why we cannot see into dimensions higher than 4 and why we only have a unidirectional and constrained view into the time dimension. I believe these are related and that they can be explained by alternate number spaces (like unreal numbers), somehow, but this is just a gut feeling and a complete solution eludes me. < [entirely speculative paragraph, just needed to ramble]

reply to post by ubeenhad


What we know for sure is that the presence of Mass without doubt Warps Space/Time. This has been proven again and again by various experimentation including Time Dilation, Gravitational Lensing which if you would like to see a spectacular example of this...google Abell 1689 which is 2.2 Billion Light Years away and google Abell 2218 which is 3 Billion Light Years out.

These two Galactic Clusters are two of my favorites and it is easy to visually see Space/Time Warping in Abell 1689 and an excellent example of Gravitational Lensing in Abell 2218 as this Galactic Cluster Lenses a Galaxy that is one of the First to Exist and is on the very edge of our Universe. Check it out. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Split Infinity

reply to post by chr0naut


The word elude is a good one to descibe the UFT or Unified Field Theory. I believe we cannot currently solve this because of two reasons. 1. We are looking at the issue in to small of terms and directing our thoughts to a Multiversal System and in particular one Group of Infinite Divergent Universal Realities where it may be possible that on going Quantum Particle Exchange is Par for the Course.

2. Human Being may simply not have the Mental Capacity to understand even the Math required to solve the UFT.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by chr0naut
(Fermions) and for force mediators (Gauge Bosons). Said another way, matter and forces both become particles in the standard model.

edit on 5/11/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Love the post. But this part is misleading, and incorrect I believe you might agree after I explain.

You should never explain to laymen that the sub-atomic particles are in categories of 'fermions and guage bosons'. This is mis-leading. The correct way to divide them is 'fermions and bosons' as there are other bosonic particles than just gauge bosons.(ex: Mesons)

Its important to understand the main difference between fermions and bosons. Its not just that the known force carriers are all bosons*. If you look at it from a standard quantum mechanical viewpoint it has to do with spin**
Bosons have integer spin. The Higgs Boson has 0, the gluon, the photon, the W and Z all have 1. the graviton is thought to have 2 units of spin. Quarks, electrons and neutrinos are fermions, and all have a half unit of spin.

Because of their integer spin, bosons can occupy the same quantum state. In QM no two fermionic particles may occupy the same state. This is why they are fermions, because the obey whats called the pauli exclusion principle.

*known - The graviton is not yet been experimentally proven to exist but if it does it is most surely a gauge boson. (That was for all the people...I mean the person who doesn't believe in the standard model lol)
**Spin is a misleading term. Before trying to visualize fermion-boson interactions like QED, please learn some calculus and then quantum field theory if you plan on making a god/goddess/godly/alternative/plasma/pseudo anything, that involves quantum mechanical phenomenon. Just general advice not directed at any one person.

reply to post by ubeenhad


You are correct, but I was going to leave the Hadrons out as they aren't exactly fundamental and would probably require us going into color charge, spin and flavor/isospin. Explaining all this in a post or two would be a headache enough even if it wasn't for the unfortunate nomenclature!

reply to post by chr0naut


Thats why I didn't go all out before!

But you inspired me with your lengthy explanation

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

What we know for sure is that the presence of Mass without doubt Warps Space/Time. This has been proven again and again by various experimentation including Time Dilation, Gravitational Lensing which if you would like to see a spectacular example of this...google Abell 1689 which is 2.2 Billion Light Years away and google Abell 2218 which is 3 Billion Light Years out.

These two Galactic Clusters are two of my favorites and it is easy to visually see Space/Time Warping in Abell 1689 and an excellent example of Gravitational Lensing in Abell 2218 as this Galactic Cluster Lenses a Galaxy that is one of the First to Exist and is on the very edge of our Universe. Check it out. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Split Infinity

None of those observations of gravitational lensing prove that space and time are being warped by gravity. They prove that the path of the photons emitted from the stars or galaxies we observe are being bent. Gravity can alter the path of photons in the same way it can alter the path of any other particle or piece of matter. Warping of time and space is a completely unnecessary invocation here.

The warping is in the equations. The dimensions fed into the equations are being warped to account for the complexity of the motions being observed. Space and time do not actually warp in physical reality.

Folks, it may seem like I'm ignoring this thread, but in reality I'm reading each post carefully and am trying to come to grips. Thank you all for this.

The politics is fun on this site, but here, this is the real gem of ATS.

The raw, unadulterated knowledge that can be gained here is priceless!

*applause*

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

What we know for sure is that the presence of Mass without doubt Warps Space/Time. This has been proven again and again by various experimentation including Time Dilation, Gravitational Lensing which if you would like to see a spectacular example of this...google Abell 1689 which is 2.2 Billion Light Years away and google Abell 2218 which is 3 Billion Light Years out.

These two Galactic Clusters are two of my favorites and it is easy to visually see Space/Time Warping in Abell 1689 and an excellent example of Gravitational Lensing in Abell 2218 as this Galactic Cluster Lenses a Galaxy that is one of the First to Exist and is on the very edge of our Universe. Check it out. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

Split Infinity

None of those observations of gravitational lensing prove that space and time are being warped by gravity. They prove that the path of the photons emitted from the stars or galaxies we observe are being bent. Gravity can alter the path of photons in the same way it can alter the path of any other particle or piece of matter. Warping of time and space is a completely unnecessary invocation here.

The warping is in the equations. The dimensions fed into the equations are being warped to account for the complexity of the motions being observed. Space and time do not actually warp in physical reality.

edit on 17-11-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)

From what ive heard from all the "smart" guys on ATS, and what i think is pretty common accepted theory of gravity... is that it is non other then a mass distorting space-time.... they believe that photons bend and travel this curvature of space-time ...

when you say gravity can alter the path of photons the same way it can alter the path of any other particle or piece of matter..... the perception is that cosmologically,, gravity alters other pieces of matter ( asteroids, moons) by the curvature of space-time created by mass in space......

Originally posted by ImaFungi


From what ive heard from all the "smart" guys on ATS, and what i think is pretty common accepted theory of gravity... is that it is non other then a mass distorting space-time.... they believe that photons bend and travel this curvature of space-time ...

when you say gravity can alter the path of photons the same way it can alter the path of any other particle or piece of matter..... the perception is that cosmologically,, gravity alters other pieces of matter ( asteroids, moons) by the curvature of space-time created by mass in space......

I should probably correct myself and say that gravitational effects may or may not be the cause of the bending of the path of starlight. Gravity might be the cause of some or none of the observed phenomena. I obviously don't really know the full causes of these observations, and neither does anyone else. The science is based on scant, changeable data, modelled by heuristics and supported by theory written by metaphysicians, so this isn't really surprising.

I'm not sure I agree that being able to recite the banalities of the standard model makes you smart. But I used to believe those banalities too, so I don't really blame them for their performance.

People here (and professional physicists too) are very confused about where reality and equations overlap.

Originally posted by yampa

Originally posted by ImaFungi


From what ive heard from all the "smart" guys on ATS, and what i think is pretty common accepted theory of gravity... is that it is non other then a mass distorting space-time.... they believe that photons bend and travel this curvature of space-time ...

when you say gravity can alter the path of photons the same way it can alter the path of any other particle or piece of matter..... the perception is that cosmologically,, gravity alters other pieces of matter ( asteroids, moons) by the curvature of space-time created by mass in space......

I should probably correct myself and say that gravitational effects may or may not be the cause of the bending of the path of starlight. Gravity might be the cause of some or none of the observed phenomena. I obviously don't really know the full causes of these observations, and neither does anyone else. The science is based on scant, changeable data, modelled by heuristics and supported by theory written by metaphysicians, so this isn't really surprising.

I'm not sure I agree that being able to recite the banalities of the standard model makes you smart. But I used to believe those banalities too, so I don't really blame them for their performance.

People here (and professional physicists too) are very confused about where reality and equations overlap.

okok..... one argument they will give you is that Einstein concept of time dilation because of gravity is true,, because the metaphysicians that designed and established communication and gps satellites had to take into account the differences in "time" of a body in orbit around earth and a body on the surface of earth...

going back... what was your original point, or qualm with what someone said?