The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What effect does mass-energy density have on gravitational field strength?  (Read 19564 times)

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
I have often thought that collapsing systems such as black holes and neutron stars can only exist in an expanding system.
I can't see why? What leads you to believe this?

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the system were collapsing we should see white holes.
What system are you referring to and why would you expect to see white holes. There's no evidence that such objects even exist.

Quote from: jeffreyH
I This is why white holes are unstable ...
Do you have a source for this assertion? I can't imagine why it would be so.

Jeff - You seem to enjoy black holes. You should consider reading Exploring Black Holes - 2nd Ed by Taylor, Wheeler and Bertschinger at http://exploringblackholes.com/

I think you'd also get a great deal of satisfaction reading Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. Thorne is the worlds leading theorist on black holes.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
I have often thought that collapsing systems such as black holes and neutron stars can only exist in an expanding system.
I can't see why? What leads you to believe this?

Quote from: jeffreyH
If the system were collapsing we should see white holes.
What system are you referring to and why would you expect to see white holes. There's no evidence that such objects even exist.

Quote from: jeffreyH
I This is why white holes are unstable ...
Do you have a source for this assertion? I can't imagine why it would be so.

Jeff - You seem to enjoy black holes. You should consider reading Exploring Black Holes - 2nd Ed by Taylor, Wheeler and Bertschinger at http://exploringblackholes.com/

I think you'd also get a great deal of satisfaction reading Black Holes and Time Warps - Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. Thorne is the worlds leading theorist on black holes.

Sorry this is getting to be a personal theory and this topic isn't really the place for that. I will get the references you suggest and may pursue this further.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
No apology necessary. Let me know when you get the reference in a PM please. Iím curious as to what thatís all about. Thanks.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
I was wondering if the Pauli exclusion principle could be one of the principle mechanisms of gravitational interaction. Note I didn't say gravitational generation, because I still doubt that gravitation comes out of matter. The spin combinations may be a clue.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
I was wondering if the Pauli exclusion principle could be one of the principle mechanisms of gravitational interaction.
Yes. In some cases it plays a role. Neutron stars is a perfect example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
Quote
Astronomy provides a spectacular demonstration of the effect of the Pauli principle, in the form of white dwarf and neutron stars. In both types of body, atomic structure is disrupted by large gravitational forces, leaving the constituents supported by "degeneracy pressure" alone. This exotic form of matter is known as degenerate matter. In white dwarfs atoms are held apart by electron degeneracy pressure. In neutron stars, subject to even stronger gravitational forces, electrons have merged with protons to form neutrons. Neutrons are capable of producing an even higher degeneracy pressure, albeit over a shorter range. This can stabilize neutron stars from further collapse, but at a smaller size and higher density than a white dwarf. Neutrons are the most "rigid" objects known; their Young modulus (or more accurately, bulk modulus) is 20 orders of magnitude larger than that of diamond. However, even this enormous rigidity can be overcome by the gravitational field of a massive star or by the pressure of a supernova, leading to the formation of a black hole.

Thanks for asking this question. I learned asomething today, i.e. a new term "degenerate matter" - an exotic form of matter!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
In my mental musings over the past few days it appears to me that the most crucial component of e=mc^2 is actually the distance c. This distance bears a direct relationship to Planck scales which is critical to the understanding of forces in the universe.

We can rewrite this as e=m(Planck length)^2.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2013 10:15:52 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
In my mental musings over the past few days it appears to me that the most crucial component of e=mc^2 is actually the distance c. This distance bears a direct relationship to Planck scales which is critical to the understanding of forces in the universe.

We can rewrite this as e=m(Planck length)^2.

That "c" is the speed of light, which is not a distance.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
In my mental musings over the past few days it appears to me that the most crucial component of e=mc^2 is actually the distance c. This distance bears a direct relationship to Planck scales which is critical to the understanding of forces in the universe.

We can rewrite this as e=m(Planck length)^2.

That "c" is the speed of light, which is not a distance.

If you do not believe this is a distance then e=mc^2 must be telling us how fast energy is travelling rather than how much of it relates to the mass. To expand on this c is important in the relationship between energy and inertia. When viewed that way yes c is a speed.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2013 17:18:16 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
If I throw a ball, presumably the mass of the ball will increase since I have imparted some kinetic energy to it but would I lose energy? My arm would be travelling at the same speed as the ball before I let it go so the ball and arm would experience the same kinetic energy. However, I must have used up some energy in the process of throwing the ball so what is the net result of all this?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Mostly transformed into heat, as I understands it, the 'thing' missing from your muscles etc, costing 'energy' for you. But if you mean that there seems to be something weird about the concept that everything just transforms, and nothing ever is lost, the universe being in a equilibrium I agree :) Just turn it around and ask yourself why accelerations and life exist, if there just is a equilibrium? Doesn't mean it has to be wrong though, but there is some aspect missing to it. The one explaining why accelerations and life exist.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Mostly transformed into heat, as I understands it, the 'thing' missing from your muscles etc, costing 'energy' for you. But if you mean that there seems to be something weird about the concept that everything just transforms, and nothing ever is lost, the universe being in a equilibrium I agree :) Just turn it around and ask yourself why accelerations and life exist, if there just is a equilibrium? Doesn't mean it has to be wrong though, but there is some aspect missing to it. The one explaining why accelerations and life exist.

Acceleration is one of the things Einstein should have concentrated on a bit more. Dimension and momentum have a relationship that brings into play a weird effect regarding density. I have only just started putting this together. If I start discussing too much of it now it will only cause a lively debate without the mathematics in place to back it up.
 

Offline webplodder

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
If I throw a ball, presumably the mass of the ball will increase since I have imparted some kinetic energy to it but would I lose energy? My arm would be travelling at the same speed as the ball before I let it go so the ball and arm would experience the same kinetic energy. However, I must have used up some energy in the process of throwing the ball so what is the net result of all this?

Mostly transformed into heat, as I understands it, the 'thing' missing from your muscles etc, costing 'energy' for you. But if you mean that there seems to be something weird about the concept that everything just transforms, and nothing ever is lost, the universe being in a equilibrium I agree :) Just turn it around and ask yourself why accelerations and life exist, if there just is a equilibrium? Doesn't mean it has to be wrong though, but there is some aspect missing to it. The one explaining why accelerations and life exist.

Ok, I see. So, most of the energy used in throwing the ball would be expended as heat although a tiny amount of mass in my arm would be increased due to acceleration.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
If you do not believe this is a distance ...
It's a given that nobody believes that's distance, not just Supercryptid. c is, by definition the speed of light and thus a speed which is distance/time it's given that tis is not distance. But you know that already, right. Since you surely know that this is different than distance what exactly are you trying to imply here?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2013 11:09:31 by Pmb »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
If you do not believe this is a distance ...
It's a given that nobody believes that's distance, not just Supercryptid. c is, by definition the speed of light and thus a speed which is distance/time it's given that tis is not distance. But you know that already, right. Since you surely know that this is different than distance what exactly are you trying to imply here?

There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked. This is not the actual momentum but the amount in that time. The speed component of c translates into amount of energy per second squared with no implicit momentum. I know what I mean but sometimes explain it in a bad way.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

But also E=Pt where multiplying by a time element gives energy. So power is energy over time. The time is implicit.
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Time may be implicit in power, but it isn't in energy. Power and energy are two different concepts. E=mc2 deals with energy, not power.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

But also E=Pt where multiplying by a time element gives energy. So power is energy over time. The time is implicit.
You're twisting things to meet what you'd like to see written. That's bad science.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
There is a time element to energy, kilowatt hours being an example, because that is the most sensible way to view it as energy and momentum are linked.
That's incorrect. It's wrong to say that there is a time element to energy because time is related to power by P = E/t. This is like saying that a spatial location has a time element because v = S/t 

You need to rethink your response.

But also E=Pt where multiplying by a time element gives energy. So power is energy over time. The time is implicit.
You're twisting things to meet what you'd like to see written. That's bad science.

OK. Bear with me a while. Humour me in other words.
Firstly c is distance travelled over time taken. So yes in respect to light that is a speed. Can we agree on that first? Then I will proceed to the next step in my thinking.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
OK. Bear with me a while. Humour me in other words.
Firstly c is distance travelled over time taken.
Yes. That is correct.

Quote from: jeffreyH
So yes in respect to light that is a speed. Can we agree on that first? Then I will proceed to the next step in my thinking.
And I will do the same in my thinking as well. Space and time are primative quantities. That means that they are not defined in terms of other quantities. Defined terms such as speed v = distance/time are defined in terms of other quantities.

Words such as "element" as in "There is a time element to energy, .." are not defined in physics. However without such a definition we use the one found in a dictionary

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/element

However your use is far from clear as it can be found in a dictionary. Otherwise when you start solving for variables in equations and saying "There is an x element to this physics because x is in the equation" isn't a very useful notion.

It'd be far better if you clearly stated what you mean by ""element".
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
OK. Bear with me a while. Humour me in other words.
Firstly c is distance travelled over time taken.
Yes. That is correct.

Quote from: jeffreyH
So yes in respect to light that is a speed. Can we agree on that first? Then I will proceed to the next step in my thinking.
And I will do the same in my thinking as well. Space and time are primative quantities. That means that they are not defined in terms of other quantities. Defined terms such as speed v = distance/time are defined in terms of other quantities.

Words such as "element" as in "There is a time element to energy, .." are not defined in physics. However without such a definition we use the one found in a dictionary

See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/element

However your use is far from clear as it can be found in a dictionary. Otherwise when you start solving for variables in equations and saying "There is an x element to this physics because x is in the equation" isn't a very useful notion.

It'd be far better if you clearly stated what you mean by ""element".

Let's ditch the element issue for now. Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a link between inertia and energy. Inertia is applicable in two situations. when a mass it at rest or moving at a constant velocity as long as no external forces are applied. Acceleration, deceleration and change of direction are the external forces. This is the next issue to agree upon.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a link between inertia and energy. Inertia is applicable in two situations. when a mass it at rest or moving at a constant velocity as long as no external forces are applied. Acceleration, deceleration and change of direction are the external forces. This is the next issue to agree upon.
The essence of his derivation is found in my website here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
Take a look at it and let me know what you think.
[/quote]
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
Einstein came to the conclusion that there was a link between inertia and energy. Inertia is applicable in two situations. when a mass it at rest or moving at a constant velocity as long as no external forces are applied. Acceleration, deceleration and change of direction are the external forces. This is the next issue to agree upon.
The essence of his derivation is found in my website here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm
Take a look at it and let me know what you think.

Very interesting. The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating. It is the simplified e=mc^2. I will post some more points when I get some time to put a document together. One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime? The answer to this has a great bearing on how the search for a workable theory of quantum gravity.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Quote from: jeffreyH
The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating.
Sorry, but I don't see your point. I never mentioned that.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It is the simplified e=mc^2.
Huh? What does that mean? I.e. what is the simplified e=mc^2? Do you believe that there is there a non-simplified e=mc^2?

Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime?
Yes. I believe so.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Quote from: jeffreyH
The energy-momentum relation is not what I am investigating.
Sorry, but I don't see your point. I never mentioned that.

Quote from: jeffreyH
It is the simplified e=mc^2.
Huh? What does that mean? I.e. what is the simplified e=mc^2? Do you believe that there is there a non-simplified e=mc^2?

Quote from: jeffreyH
One thing to ponder. Is the Planck scale invariant with regard to the distortion of spacetime?
Yes. I believe so.

Not E^2=(pc)^2+(m0c^2)^2.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length