3881

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?

« on: 06/06/2014 05:35:00 »

Then there is Mark McCutcheon!!!  He believes there is no gravity.  He believes that all the matter in the Universe is expanding.  If we drop something, what we perceive is not that object falling to the ground, it is the ground coming up to meet the object.

I heard this back in the sci.physics newsgroup many years ago. I explained to that person why he was wrong (i.e. what observations of the world around him contradict his claim) and I was promptly ignored.

Suppose he was right.  Then the earth would be getting larger and larger and larger while the same thing would be happening to the sun. Since, according to him, there’s no gravitational force both the earth and the sun move in straight lines. If what he said were actually true then both the earth, moon and the sun would be getting larger and larger with time. That means that the surface of all three of those heavenly bodies would be getting closer and closer to each other. Since observation tells us that this is not the case it follows that Mr. McCutcheon is quite wrong. However I doubt he’d admit it.

People like that must truly think that each and every physicist in the world is an absolute moron.

3882

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?

« on: 06/06/2014 05:09:09 »

The warp of space-time is a mathematical description of the effect of gravity, …

I assume by ”warp” that you really mean “curvature”.  The term “warp” as defined at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/warp
is not a synonym for curvature.

And curved spacetime is not a mathematical description of the effect of gravity. It’s the description of gradients in the gravitational field.  It’s what Newton would have called a tidal force. Gravity and tidal forces are not the same. They are merely related to each other. As I explained above you can have a gravitational field with no spacetime curvature. I fact that was the very first gravitational field that Einstein himself considered.

Space-time is curved because gravity bends the path of light in Euclidean space, and Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light.

Actually you have it backwards. Spacetime is not curved merely because gravity bends light. You can bend light in flat spacetime as a matter of fact. You made a serious mistake here. Spacetime is not Euclidean. For a space to be Euclidean it has to use the metric that is used in Euclidean space. Flat spacetime is not Euclidean because the metric is non-Euclidean. Also Minkowski did not redefine ”straight line.”  Mathematicians such as Gauss and Riemann came up with the idea of how to generalize the concept of straight line in a curved space by introducing the concept of the geodesic. But the assertion that Minkowski redefined "straight line" as the path of light is quite wrong.

I believe gravity, ….

Why? A belief without a good reason for it is absolutely useless.

and all the other forces of nature, result from exchange of momentum between regular energy and dark energy.

Quite wrong. Absolutely no justification for such an assertion. Nobody knows anything about Dark Energy so making such a claim is wishful thinking, not physics.

3883

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?

« on: 06/06/2014 04:51:22 »

My thought, gravity is simple thing,,matter-density.

That's wrong. Matter is the source of gravity. It's not the mechanism. The source of a field is quite different than the mechanism that generates it.

3884

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?

« on: 06/06/2014 04:47:30 »

Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?

Mass splits up grains of an ether and throws away them. Shared grains slip through other mass and do not touch it. The return stream of large grains of an ether touches mass and pushes it to the big mass. Shared grain of an ether gradually incorporates in the whole. [:I]

Is this a joke or something?

3885

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?

« on: 06/06/2014 04:45:29 »

There seem to be two ways of looking at gravity.  G R says it is not a force, it is a distortion of spacetime. 

Hi Bill. It’s nice to see your posts again. I haven’t been here for some time.

GR doesn’t say that GR is not a force. It says that the gravitational force is an inertial force. For those who are unfamiliar with that term please see
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/inertial_force.htm

Some physicists think that inertial forces aren’t “real” and it’s for that reason some people to think that there’s no force in GR. It’s still incorrect to think of gravity as a distortion in spacetime. It’s a curvature in spacetime, not a distortion. Distortion means something quite different. The surface of a sphere is curved. However if you were to tell someone that the surface of a basketball is distorted they’d have no idea what you’re talking about. The term “distorted” doesn’t really mean that anyway. “distorted” doesn’t refer to a state of something. It refers to a change from something. I.e. to say that a surface is distorted is to mean that it was altered from its original shape. Therefor a flat surface could actually be a distored spherical surface. Perhaps you’re thinking that flat spacetime is “natural” and that anything different from flat spacetime is unnatural thus a distortion?

In anycase its quite possible for the gravitational force to be non-zero in a non-curved spacetime such as a uniform gravitational field.

3886

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is the mechanism of gravity?

« on: 06/06/2014 04:25:20 »

Although gravity is clearly related to the mass or matter of a body, what is the mechanism which causes bodies to attract?

Nobody knows the answer to that question yet. All we know is that matter creates a gravitational field and when matter is in that field it acclerates. Why it happens is something that nobody knows. Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity doesn't describe such a mechanism. I.e.

Gravitation and the Principle of Relativity by A.S. Eddington, Nature, March 14, 1918, page 36

The purpose of Einstein’s new theory has often been misunderstood, and it has been criticized as an attempt to explain gravitation. The theory does not offer any explanation of gravitation; that lies outside its scope, and it does not even hint at a possible mechanism. It is true that we have introduced a definite hypothesis as to the relation between gravitation and a distortion of space; but if that explains anything, it explains not gravitation, but space, i.e. the scaffolding constructed for our measures.

Perhaps if someone creates a quantum theory of gravity it will contain the description of such a mechanism.

3887

New Theories / Re: What are electrons?

« on: 06/06/2014 02:51:58 »

I am familiar with Einstein's famous E=mc2 equation which states that mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass.

That is not what the mass-energy relationship means. To obtain a proper understanding of what it does mean one should read the derivation of the relationship. I’ve posted it on my website at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm

I’ve posted Einstein’s other derivation of the relationship on my website as well. That derivation is often referred to as Einstein’s box thought experiment. In this experiment Einstein used the principle of the conservation of the center of mass of a system to derive the mass-energy relationship. It’s at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm

Here Einstein derived an expression for the mass density of radiation. The question of whether mass is converted into energy is addressed by Ralph Baierlein in the American Journal of Physics in the article Does Nature convert mass into energy? Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys. 2007. See
See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/Baierlein_2007.pdf

See also http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/05.02.TPT.pdf

But Einstein doesn't go into detail as to how energy can be turned into mass, …

That’s not true. In his original 1905 paper he spoke of it when he said

It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. radium salts) the theory may be successfully be put to the test. If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies
[/quotes]
This means that it could be done using bodies whose energy content is highly variable. Instead of radium salts it was done with nuclei of atoms.

However Timothy Boyer showed examples of mechanisms using electrostatics in the following papers

Electrostatic potential energy leading to an inertial mass change of a system of two point charges by Timothy H. Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 46(4), Apr. (1978)
http://link.aip.org/link/ajpias/v46/i4/p383/s1

Electrostatic potential energy leading to a gravitational mass change for a system of two point charges by Timothy H. Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 47(2), Feb. (1979)
http://link.aip.org/link/ajpias/v47/i2/p129/s1
Example of mass-energy relation: Classical hydrogen atom accelerated or supported in a gravitational field by Timothy H. Boyer, Am. J. Phys., 66(10), Oct. (1998)
http://link.aip.org/link/ajpias/v66/i10/p872/s1
The mechanism is different for each form of energy. Take as an example two charged particles. Let’s measure their weight by placing them in a uniform gravitational field, each charge being located at z = 0. Let them be supported by an electric field. The gravitational field distorts the electric field and causes them to point down. However the closer together the charges are, thus the greater the energy of the two-charge system, the greater the electric field is directed downward. This requires a greater electrostatic force to support them. However the oppositely directed force required to support the two charges is exactly what is meant by the weight and hence the mass of the body. That’s why an increase in energy causes an increase in mass. You wanted the mechanism and now you have one of them. There isn’t just one single mechanism though. For each modality of energy there is a different mechanism in the change in mass.

Apparently light (energy) seems to somehow defy physics and ball up to form complex quark arrangements and electrons not to mention gluons, neutrinos and mass.

That’s absolutely wrong. Why you think that light balls up to form other particles is beyond me. Perhaps you’re thinking in terms of analogous objects in your every day existence? I.e. a car is made of an engine, drive shaft, wheels, a frame, etc. and so those things make up the car. I.e. if you take those things and put them together you have a car. That is not how particle physics works. Take as an example a hydrogen atom that is composed of a proton with an electron orbiting it. If the electron is moving in such a manner corresponding to a state of higher energy (at least higher than the “ground state” which is the state of minimum energy) then the state of motion of the electron can change, the new state now corresponding to a lower energy state. The difference in energy is carried off in the form of a photon. That means that a photon was actually created out of nothing, the energy coming from the decreased energy state of the atom. So you see, the atom didn’t “contain” a photon that was later vomited up.

How can simple light make these things?

It can’t. Where did you get the idea that it could?

I was learning about a concept called "gravitons" from alan hess, another member on this forum. He postulated that gravitons travel with light and that is why light can be bent by gravitational fields.

I don’t see any connection other than the fact that gravitons, by definition, quantize the gravitational field and the gravitational field can deflect light. However just because some gravitational fields can deflect light it doesn’t mean that they all do.

Suppose you have an incredibly powerful laser beam which lying on the x-axis and directed in the direction of increasing x. There are three sources of gravity here; stress, energy and momentum. Light has all three. Since light has energy the mass density of the light is non-zero. Therefore the beam of light creates a gravitational field and can deflect light. If you have photon moving in the gravitational parallel at a distance R from the beam moving parallel to the beam, i.e. also moving in the +x direction. Calculation shows that this light is not deflected. However a photon moving in the opposite direction will be.

Some of the calculations are online at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/grav_light.htm

The rest can be found in Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Richard C. Tolman, Dover Pub, Sections 112-115. If you want to follow the derivation then the text is online at http://bookos-z1.org/book/1129690/7d3171

Thus suggesting that light has an incredibly tiny gravitational field which is too small to measure.

The reason for the small gravitational field of light is because the mass density of the sources if light that you’re familiar with are very small. Therefore a small mass gives rise to a small gravitational field.

For this I need you to pull an Einstein and imagine yourself as a photon traveling at the speed of light.

John Wheeler thought about that many decades ago. The object was called a Geon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

However the object formed this was is unstable and falls apart and is far too large to be thought of as a particle.

… now imagine another photon traveling next to you in the same direction, relative to you the second photon is standing still, because its traveling at the same speed in the same direction. If alan hess is right and photons can attract each other via a tiny gravitational effect then it might be possible for the 2 photons to orbit each-other, thus slowing down, because the light isn't traveling straight anymore. it's still going at light speed but in a rotational way.
I hope this makes sense, it's not that complex.

That’d be quite impossible. The field are far too weak for one photon to create a gravitational field large enough for another photon to orbit it. There are other complications which preclude such things from existing.

3888

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are mass and energy really interchangeable?

« on: 05/06/2014 18:40:24 »

I find that impossible to believe. If what you claim is true for "many" physicists then you should be able to name just one. Please do so.

Juliana Brooks Mortenson at [NO SPAMMY LINKS PLEASE]

You have to be kidding me!! There's nothing on that page but a companies website. Merely posting that URL in no way addresses my question

3889

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are mass and energy really interchangeable?

« on: 05/06/2014 18:37:34 »

Hi PmbPhy. I was talking about the Quantum of Action. If you can define and explain this entity, then I take my hat off to you. Care to have a try?

Why? You already know what it is and what it means, don’t you? It’s what most people call Planck’s constant. In fact some texts, such as Principle of Modern Physics by Leighton refers to this constant on page 65 as Planck’s quantum of action and is given the symbol h. In case you don’t know your physics history and don’t know why Planck define this term I’ll explain: There were problems in thermodynamics for which all attempts using classical physics failed to solve the problem. Planck was working on the problem of black body radiation. He was able to solve the problem theoretically by making a few assumptions, namely that the walls of the cavity inside a black body contained harmonic oscillators and that each oscillator could only radiate energy having the value E = nhf where n is a positive integer and f the frequency of the oscillator. In order for Planck’s theory to fit the observed data Planck’s constant has to have the value h = 6.6252x10^(-34)Js

You are aware, I assume, that all quanta contain the same amount of action.

Not only is that wrong but it’s meaningless. Quanta such as a photon can never be said to “contain” action. It’s total nonsense to suggest such a thing

I am sorry to say that many physicists do not understand Planck's constant ..

Quite wrong. All physicists know what Planck’s constant is. You don’t know what youre talking about.

- at least that is what I glean from my adventures on physics forums.

Then you gleaned wrong. Worst case scenario –physicists don’t recall that Planck’s constant used to sometimes be referred to as Planck’s quantum of action. That’s about it. However that’s merely history. Not physics. Or perhaps they don’t know why Planck’s constant is also called Planck’s quantum of action. But certainly not what you’re claiming.

In fact, many physicists seem unaware of the Quantum of Action (this discussion of mine on Physics Forums makes this quite clear http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=367434).

That’s merely a name. A simple alternate term which hardly ever used. Not knowing this alternate terms means nothing other than people don’t memorize dictionaries.

3890

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Can Mass M escape from Gravitation?

« on: 04/06/2014 23:44:01 »

When you post like that people don't tend to respond because it's not clear what you want to ask. No place in that post did you ask a question.

3891

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are mass and energy really interchangeable?

« on: 04/06/2014 23:31:37 »

Judging by the number of people in physics asking the meaning of e=hf, it is reasonable to ask if the equation is correct. Many in the physics community are deciding that it is not.

That's quite untrue. That postulate has been around for nearly 105 years now and is has been born out buy experiment countless times during the last 105 years. No professional physicist would ever make such an assertion.

I explain why in http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=41125.0.

Seriously flawed. That it has to be in the New Theories forum tells us as much. I read that page and it's clear that it's written by someone who never sat down and studied physics head to toe but only picked up small disconnected peices all over the place and can't make heads or tales out of it as a result.

The post has been viewed by 1537 people and only one reply has been forthcoming.

That's because it's meaningless.

Not certain what this means but am sure if I was talking rubbish I would get many challenges.

No. That's not the reason. The reason is that we recognize that you'd be unable to understand the responses. After many years experience in doing this we've come to see first hand what happens when we tried and it's never pretty. So we stop trying. For example:

"A photon IS one cycle of an electromagnetic wave."

All physicists know that one of the reasons that classical EM fails on the subatomic level is that such a continuos electromagnetic wave interacting with atoms doesn't behave in the way that it's predicted to when one does the calculation. We know that photons don't behave like electromagnetic waves. Your comment here shows us that you're not taking that into account and are ignoring experimental facts.

Basically, the proposition being put by many physicists (and me) is that the quantum is one of energy, not action.

I find that impossible to believe. If what you claim is true for "many" physicists then you should be able to name just one. Please do so.

This proposition takes so much weirdness out of quantum mechanics. Lets face it, no one really knows how a quantum of action relates to reality.

Total nonsense. All physicists know what Planck's constant is and how it relates to reality.

No wonder I don't like this subforum.

3892

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are mass and energy really interchangeable?

« on: 04/06/2014 23:03:32 »

My reading of a quantum is that h equals energy times 1 second.

That's quite wrong. If you wrote it out then you'd see that your statement is dimensionally incorrect. I.e. Let

J = Joule = dimension of energy
S = Second = dimension of time

E = hf ==> E[J] = h[J*S] f[1/S]

h = E/f ==> h[J*S] = E[J]/f[1/S] = (E/f) [J*S]

That’s how you’d check to see whether an expression is dimensionally correct. Let’s try your assertion. You claim that if you multiplied Planck’s constant, h, by 1s then you’d get energy (although you never told us what this quantum is. Is it a photon?). Let’s try it

h[J*S] 1s = h [J*S^2]

which is wrong. QED

Here is what E = hf means. First off it applies to zero mass particles only.

The energy, e, in e=hf is energy per second.

That is incorrect. That expression has units of energy, not power. It is the energy of one quantum. For example; if there is a photon whose frequency is f then the energy that the photon has is E = hf

All quanta, no matter what their frequency contain h amount of energy in total.

That’s incorrect. h is not an amount of energy. You’ve never studied quantum mechanics, have you?  Let’s take photons an example. Different quanta can have different values of energy. You’re incorrectly claiming that’s wrong. The expression E = hf is the expression which tells you how much energy a photon has given the frequency of the photon. The greater the frequency of the photon the greater the photon’s energy. What you said above is quite wrong

The frequency relates to the power of a quantum, i.e. how fast the h amount of energy is transferred. Energy is a constant but power varies.

No. You have it all wrong. See above. Energy is delivered in lumps, not the way you think it does.

Where on Earth did you get these ideas from?

3893

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What is time?

« on: 04/06/2014 22:23:04 »

The mystery of Time

Your comments please?

When you write something so long merely to state facts that most members already know and then don't pose a question only seeking comments then you shouldn't expect very much for a response. Most people don't like reading posts which are that long.

The best treatment on time that I know of is here
http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

Does time advance is ever smaller discrete moments?

That can't be known at this time. However I believe that's related to quantized time which gives quantum foam.

Does time have a beginning and an end?

Or does time it flow like a continuous river?

Is there a place where time does not exist, like an eternal now?

Answers to such questions can't be given at this point in time and guessing is meaningless.

God created time, space and energy then falls asleep.

Sure. Only if you buy that kind of fairy tale.

That is my whole science book. The rest is story.

I guess you're not much into science then.


The best easily accesible treatment online of what time is can be found here- http://users.wfu.edu/brehme/time.htm

3894

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are mass and energy really interchangeable?

« on: 04/06/2014 20:02:10 »

I should point out that what's going on in situations like pair annihilation/production is that the form of the matter is what's being converted.

3895

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Are mass and energy really interchangeable?

« on: 04/06/2014 19:53:28 »

The famous e=mc2 equation seems to imply that mass and energy are interchangeable.

It depends on what you mean by that. To understand what it means you should follow the derivation at http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/mass_energy_equiv.htm

I wrote a very highly detailed article on mass. It's online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687

See also
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/inertial_mass.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/invariant_mass.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/einsteins_box.htm

 Here is what it means. If you have an object which is at rest in your frame of reference and its energy decreases by the amount dE then the mass decreases by the amount dm where dE = dm*c². Energy is never converted to mass and mass is never converted to energy because if there is a conversion process going on then there must be a change in energy. However since energy is a conserved quantity it means that no conversion can possibly take place. What is actually going on is that things like photons are created from particles which have non-zero proper mass and vice versa.

Most people have this view.

Not the ones who know what they’re talking about. One has to be very careful when discussing this subject because its easy to go astray. This is all explained very carefully in the article Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys., 75(4), Apr. (2007). The abstract reads

First I provide some history of how the equationE=mc 2 arose, establish what “mass” means in the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, DoesE=mc 2 mean that one can “convert mass into energy” and vice versa?

However, most bosons in the standard model are massless but do contain energy. This seems to strongly refute the interchangeability theory.

It has to do with not being careful on the definition of mass. I’ve read your posts and it’s clear to me that when you use the term “mass” you mean “relativistic mass” since that’s define as the M in p = Mv. When defined like that even a photon has mass by virtue of its momentum. If this seems strange to you then don’t worry about it. I know what I’m talking about and can site you all the references in the best relativity textbooks that are out there to confirm what I’m saying. When you say ”The mass of a photon is zero.” What you’re really doing is contradicting what you said elsewhere since you used a different definition of mass when you said it. You meant the same thing that JP did when he defined mass. When you plug in the relationship between momentum and energy in his equation you’ll get zero.

I have also read recently that e=mc2 is just a conversion of mass units into energy units.

Whoever said that doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

This makes just so much sense when you try and think where the weird "speed of light squared" fits into the picture. So it may be that the equation is all about concepts rather than reality.

And also, how do I convert quanta into mass?

Please explain what you mean by this

Thx JP. Problem with this equation is that p is momentum which is mass * velocity and many bosons do not have mass.

Your dilemma is easily resolved when it is realized that the term mass hasn’t been defined yet and there are definitions being used here, one by you and one by JP.

Mxplxxx: the M in p = Mv

JP: the m in E² = m²c⁴ + p²c²

The two are related by the expression

M = m/sqrt[1 – (v/c²)]

If you’d like to see a list that someone put together regarding a sampling of books on special and general then I recommend looking at On the abuse and use of relativistic mass by Gary Oas, Education Program for Gifted Youth, Stanford University, Feb 2, 2008. It’s online at http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0504110.pdf

As you can see most of the authors in that list in the years leading up to the publication of the articleuse relativistic mass. If an author uses the term in his text or a book then it doesn’t necessarily mean that they use it in their professional work. However it seems to me that they probably think in those terms at times. For example; a friend of mine is a well-known cosmologist who doesn’t use it in his work but uses it in his lecture notes at one point. He told me that “Sometimes its useful to think of photons has having mass.” For example; if you were to look at Principles of Physical Cosmologyby P.J.E. Peebles, Princeton University Press, (1993), page 643, Peebles states the expansion rate equation in Eq. (25.60) and refers to the second term as the relativistic mass in radiation…

Before I go on to addressing the question at hand I want to explain why JP wrote That equation only works for masses at rest with respect to you? He wrote this because he’s using a different definition of mass than you are.

Any questions?

3896

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is there a centre of the Universe?

« on: 04/06/2014 17:58:13 »

I don't get this "no center of the center of the universe" thing.

If I take an elastic band ….

You used an elastic band that has bounds to it. However when it is said that there is no center of the universe it is in reference to the theory that the universe has no bounds. In order to make your analogy more accurate try instead of using a finite elastic band/strip use a band that is closed, i.e. that forms a loop/circle instead. I worked something out here
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/circle_universe.htm

Since sound doesn't travel through space there could not have been a big bang []

The “bang” in “Big Bang” is only meant as an analogy to our experiences with the rapid release of energy and matter. It was never meant to mean that there was actually something like a sound. In fact if there was an instant where some sort of “big bang” when our universe started expanding then it’s not in the standard model of cosmology as it stands today.

I think the problem arises when mathematicians try to define a model and if there is no maths to calculate where the center is, then by default the theoretical model is going to conflict with our intuitive ideas of a center.

If the standard model is correct in that the geometry of the universe is one of the three possible ones that are commonly discussed in cosmology. There is simply no center to the surface or anything that can be thought of as a center just as there is no point on the surface of a sphere, which is so special that it stands out from the rest, unlike, for example, the vertex of a cone.

3897

Physiology & Medicine / Re: How rapidly is tolerance established to opioids?

« on: 04/06/2014 10:38:18 »

How does the brain know the difference? I knew an old lady who took OCs for pain from an abdominal operation. When her prescription ran out, she went cold turkey and felt like she had the flu. I'm not talking addiction as in a granny robbing a pharmacy of its OCs, or turning tricks to pay for OCs on the street.

I decided to come back to this subject now that I've been on opiods for a long time. What I realize from your response is when I said People who take opioids for chronic pain typically don't get addicted to it. you misunderstood what I meant. As Cheryl pointed out, people use the term addicted to mean different things. When I use that term I mean nothing more and nothing less than a psychological craving of the substance where as you thought I was referring to physiological dependence which can lead to abuse very easily. This confusion over meaning causes a lot of problems.

However what you meant when you wrote

Whether the withdrawal symptoms leads to addiction is another story.

Is beyond me. Can you please explain what you were talking about here and how it differs from the old lady story above? Thanks.

For the curious out there; now that I'm on opiods for my chronic pain I'm doing very well. I'm no longer suffering at the level I used to. The pain is now down to tolerant levels. There's no temptation for me to abuse them because my body has become acclimated which means I don’t experience euphoria yet the opioids yet they still control the pain nicely. I now live a comfortable existence. And all those idiot doctors who claimed I wouldn’t work or that I’d abuse it were all wrong.