The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?  (Read 7476 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #25 on: 30/10/2011 16:56:18 »
It's conflicting views. If you define 'energy' as some ground state then everything, possibly, should confirm to that idea, including 'Gravity'. And that is the 'quantum particle view' in where everything somehow should be related to 'particles', bosons or fermions, as I understands it. Einsteins view was that the 'Gravity' we saw was a result of SpaceTime geometry, as I got it sometime long ago. But in his general theory of relativity he also defined a equivalence between a acceleration and 'Gravity', so it becomes a tricky subject in that a acceleration definitely uses energy to become 'Gravity'.

Against it you can use the uniform motion of a planet, also creating a 'Gravity', although not transforming it (energy).

It may well be a geometry anyway, as I see it. But then I do not know what 'energy' really is.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #26 on: 31/10/2011 07:56:28 »
I have seen the argument that a mirrored box full of photons will weigh marginally more than the same empty box.  If so then that would imply that photons have mass and can therefore be a source of gravity.  What I haven't been able to find is the argument describing why a box full of photons would weigh more.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #27 on: 31/10/2011 10:23:46 »
imatfaal
That was obviously a mistake and should have read "gravity and acceleration are the same".
Locally yes - gravity will always have a tidal component tho.

Quote
What is the reasoning behind the hypothesis that energy has gravity and what experimental evidence is there to confirm it?
The "hypothesis" is now generally accepted as a well tested theory - it is called General Relativity.  It is as well tested as any theory in science.

Quote
I know that Einstein's field equations talk about the stress-energy tensor but what does this mean in non mathematical jargon.  There must have been some logic that led up to it?
well yes the logic is based upon mass/energy equivalence

Quote
The alleged gravity of energy (light) being so weak that it cannot be measured.  If so, then it is conceivable that energy does not have gravity?
  Who says it cannot be measured? And no with physics as it is it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp.
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #28 on: 02/11/2011 08:06:55 »
imatfaal
That was obviously a mistake and should have read "gravity and acceleration are the same".
Locally yes - gravity will always have a tidal component tho.

Quote
What is the reasoning behind the hypothesis that energy has gravity and what experimental evidence is there to confirm it?
The "hypothesis" is now generally accepted as a well tested theory - it is called General Relativity.  It is as well tested as any theory in science.

Quote
I know that Einstein's field equations talk about the stress-energy tensor but what does this mean in non mathematical jargon.  There must have been some logic that led up to it?
well yes the logic is based upon mass/energy equivalence

Quote
The alleged gravity of energy (light) being so weak that it cannot be measured.  If so, then it is conceivable that energy does not have gravity?
  Who says it cannot be measured? And no with physics as it is it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp.

General Relativity covers a lot of ground and I was specifically asking if energy has gravity.  I have not been able to find any research confirming that it has been measured.  All I have found are articles saying it is too weak to be measured.  I agree that when looking at it from the mass/energy equivalence principle mass can be seen as energy and hence energy has mass and therefore gravity.  But that is when looked at from the energy equivalence of mass.  Energy is equivalent to mass but energy is not mass.  I still don't see why energy by itself should have gravity.  I can't see the logic behind it.  What am I missing?

You say that "it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp".  Does that not imply that if it is energy that causes spacetime to warp that gravity is a force, not geometry?

I am sorry to labour the point but I really am trying to understand.  If energy has gravity then at the moment of the big-bang, the universe was born with gravity.  If energy does not have gravity then the universe was born initially without gravity.
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #29 on: 02/11/2011 12:01:38 »
imatfaal
That was obviously a mistake and should have read "gravity and acceleration are the same".
Locally yes - gravity will always have a tidal component tho.

Quote
What is the reasoning behind the hypothesis that energy has gravity and what experimental evidence is there to confirm it?
The "hypothesis" is now generally accepted as a well tested theory - it is called General Relativity.  It is as well tested as any theory in science.

Quote
I know that Einstein's field equations talk about the stress-energy tensor but what does this mean in non mathematical jargon.  There must have been some logic that led up to it?
well yes the logic is based upon mass/energy equivalence

Quote
The alleged gravity of energy (light) being so weak that it cannot be measured.  If so, then it is conceivable that energy does not have gravity?
  Who says it cannot be measured? And no with physics as it is it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp.

General Relativity covers a lot of ground and I was specifically asking if energy has gravity.  I have not been able to find any research confirming that it has been measured.  All I have found are articles saying it is too weak to be measured.  I agree that when looking at it from the mass/energy equivalence principle mass can be seen as energy and hence energy has mass and therefore gravity.  But that is when looked at from the energy equivalence of mass.  Energy is equivalent to mass but energy is not mass.  I still don't see why energy by itself should have gravity.  I can't see the logic behind it.  What am I missing?
What you are missing I am afraid is a full physics education and a solid grounding in maths.  Your argument from personal incredulity is not convincing
Quote
You say that "it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp".  Does that not imply that if it is energy that causes spacetime to warp that gravity is a force, not geometry?
That is a complete non-sequitur.  Mass/energy cause space time to curve - curved space time gives rise to the effects of gravity

Quote
I am sorry to labour the point but I really am trying to understand.  If energy has gravity then at the moment of the big-bang, the universe was born with gravity.  If energy does not have gravity then the universe was born initially without gravity.
Yes both your if..thens are correctly constructed - however the only one with experimental evidence to back it up is that energy curves space time and gives rise to gravitational attraction; but this is experimental evidence from a very different, colder, less denser and mass-dominated universe
 

Offline MikeS

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1044
  • The Devils Advocate
    • View Profile
Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #30 on: 04/11/2011 09:29:55 »
imatfaal
That was obviously a mistake and should have read "gravity and acceleration are the same".
Locally yes - gravity will always have a tidal component tho.

Quote
What is the reasoning behind the hypothesis that energy has gravity and what experimental evidence is there to confirm it?
The "hypothesis" is now generally accepted as a well tested theory - it is called General Relativity.  It is as well tested as any theory in science.

Quote
I know that Einstein's field equations talk about the stress-energy tensor but what does this mean in non mathematical jargon.  There must have been some logic that led up to it?
well yes the logic is based upon mass/energy equivalence

Quote
The alleged gravity of energy (light) being so weak that it cannot be measured.  If so, then it is conceivable that energy does not have gravity?
  Who says it cannot be measured? And no with physics as it is it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp.

General Relativity covers a lot of ground and I was specifically asking if energy has gravity.  I have not been able to find any research confirming that it has been measured.  All I have found are articles saying it is too weak to be measured.  I agree that when looking at it from the mass/energy equivalence principle mass can be seen as energy and hence energy has mass and therefore gravity.  But that is when looked at from the energy equivalence of mass.  Energy is equivalent to mass but energy is not mass.  I still don't see why energy by itself should have gravity.  I can't see the logic behind it.  What am I missing?
What you are missing I am afraid is a full physics education and a solid grounding in maths.  Your argument from personal incredulity is not convincing
Quote
You say that "it is inconceivable that energy does not cause spacetime to warp".  Does that not imply that if it is energy that causes spacetime to warp that gravity is a force, not geometry?
That is a complete non-sequitur.  Mass/energy cause space time to curve - curved space time gives rise to the effects of gravity

Quote
I am sorry to labour the point but I really am trying to understand.  If energy has gravity then at the moment of the big-bang, the universe was born with gravity.  If energy does not have gravity then the universe was born initially without gravity.
Yes both your if..thens are correctly constructed - however the only one with experimental evidence to back it up is that energy curves space time and gives rise to gravitational attraction; but this is experimental evidence from a very different, colder, less denser and mass-dominated universe


What is this experimental evidence please?
I know that it is part of general relativity and general relativity is a well tested and tried theory. But what specific experimental evidence is there to confirm that energy curves space time.
« Last Edit: 04/11/2011 09:41:27 by MikeS »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Was this the cause of inflation in the big bang?
« Reply #30 on: 04/11/2011 09:29:55 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums