Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Jolly2 on 23/01/2021 20:24:05
-
I was wondering if gravity couldn't be an emergent property of the strong and weak necular forces?
Gravity doesn't effect them, which would make sense if they created Gravity.
-
This sounds like a New Theory, so I'll move it there.
Gravity doesn't effect them
How do you know that? The vector bosons that transmit the weak force have a rest mass (and quite a bit of it, at that). The mesons that transmit the strong force between nucleons do as well. The gluons inside the mesons, though lacking an invariant mass, would have a mass associated with their energy.
-
This sounds like a New Theory, so I'll move it there.
Gravity doesn't effect them
How do you know that?
I dont I heard it stated recently on something I was watching.
The vector bosons that transmit the weak force have a rest mass (and quite a bit of it, at that).
But that could be the cause, mass creates gravity no? Mass curves space ...
The mesons that transmit the strong force between nucleons do as well. The gluons inside the mesons, though lacking an invariant mass, would have a mass associated with their energy.
Ok.
Just thinking about the univsere as a hologram.
Hologram being a sheet not the image the sheet produces.
That the week and strong force as the building blocks of the hologram sheet, the mass they create then bends the sheet, hence gravity.
These forces allow mass to form.
-
But that could be the cause, mass creates gravity no? Mass curves space ...
So why exclude the electromagnetic force?
That the week and strong force as the building blocks of the hologram sheet, the mass they create then bends the sheet, hence gravity.
These forces allow mass to form.
Photons have relativistic mass but do not interact with either of the nuclear forces.
-
But that could be the cause, mass creates gravity no? Mass curves space ...
So why exclude the electromagnetic force?
I'm not was about to add that, electro magnetic fields also would be
That the week and strong force as the building blocks of the hologram sheet, the mass they create then bends the sheet, hence gravity.
These forces allow mass to form.
Photons have relativistic mass but do not interact with either of the nuclear forces.
Aren't they a bi-product, an explosion from a sun or a torch? To have a sun or a torch to create that by product of radiation you need the foundation of strong and weak forces. So I would suggest it doesn't matter if they dont interact they are them selves a bi product of the strong or weak forces acting upon an area.
You point is like saying "urine isnt effected by DNA" as a terrible analogy. DNA builds the body that can produce urine, but it's a bi product in many ways there is no direct relationship with DNA and urine.
So I wouldn't expect photons to interact with the strong or weak forces because they are late stage development, the strong and weak forces are foundational forces and photons emerge in a world already created, photons would not be involved in the process of the foundations... trying to think of a good analogy... walking in a desert compared to walking in the street? Terrible.
-
Aren't they a bi-product, an explosion from a sun or a torch?
Nope, all you need is a changing electromagnetic field.
To have a sun or a torch to create that by product of radiation you need the foundation of strong and weak forces. So I would suggest it doesn't matter if they dont interact they are them selves a bi product of the strong or weak forces acting upon an area.
Not based on known physics. The only force needed is electromagnetism.
You point is like saying "urine isnt effected by DNA" as a terrible analogy. DNA builds the body that can produce urine, but it's a bi product in many ways there is no direct relationship with DNA and urine.
So then explain why a changing electromagnetic field producing photons has anything to do with the nuclear forces.
-
Aren't they a bi-product, an explosion from a sun or a torch?
Nope, all you need is a changing electromagnetic field.
Another process for another byproduct.
Electron waves also
To have a sun or a torch to create that by product of radiation you need the foundation of strong and weak forces. So I would suggest it doesn't matter if they dont interact they are them selves a bi product of the strong or weak forces acting upon an area.
Not based on known physics. The only force needed is electromagnetism.
Still a byproduct, a radiation caused by a reaction.
You point is like saying "urine isnt effected by DNA" as a terrible analogy. DNA builds the body that can produce urine, but it's a bi product in many ways there is no direct relationship with DNA and urine.
So then explain why a changing electromagnetic field producing photons has anything to do with the nuclear forces.
I'm sure you really talking about electron waves.
Because the weak and string forces are building the structure on with those reactions can take place.
-
Another process for another byproduct.
Still a byproduct, a radiation caused by a reaction.
So which part of the changing electromagnetic field producing a photon involves the nuclear forces?
I'm sure you really talking about electron waves.
No, I'm not. Electrons don't have to be involved at all.
Because the weak and string forces are building the structure on with those reactions can take place.
How, exactly?
-
Another process for another byproduct.
Still a byproduct, a radiation caused by a reaction.
So which part of the changing electromagnetic field producing a photon involves the nuclear forces?
Doesnt necessarily involve any dircetly as an emergent property
That's like asking, what part of the brain s DNA made a person think about coffee.
Because the weak and string forces are building the structure on with those reactions can take place.
How, exactly?
I believe the science behind the strong and weak force is fairly well understood. We are all here because these forces allow atoms to combine.
-
That's like asking, what part of the brain s DNA made a person think about coffee.
The nuclear forces aren't remotely akin DNA. They don't encode information, mutate or replicate.
I believe the science behind the strong and weak force is fairly well understood. We are all here because these forces allow atoms to combine.
Which has nothing to do with how objects come to produce gravity. Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.
-
Jolly seems to be wondering if all nigeoos are thuctanable.
Maybe they are , maybe they aren't.
But since he has little idea what an nigeoo is, and no idea what thructaning is, there's no way he will ever know.
-
That's like asking, what part of the brain s DNA made a person think about coffee.
The nuclear forces aren't remotely akin DNA. They don't encode information, mutate or replicate.
They dont have to be it was a simile.
I believe the science behind the strong and weak force is fairly well understood. We are all here because these forces allow atoms to combine.
Which has nothing to do with how objects come to produce gravity. Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.
Sure, but my idea relates to gravity emerging with their combination. Doesnt matter that they have some mass before they combine. They have more mass after wards.
The maths we have is predictive it explains what gravity will do, they dont explain the why of gravity.
-
If you look at how gravity acts in nature, mass will attract, accumulate, and concentrate, which causes local space-time to contract; GR. In the limit, of the black hole, space-time contracts and begins to approach a space-time point, similar to what one would see traveling at the speed of light. I would conclude gravity is one of several paths, for returning matter and inertial reference back to the ground state at the speed of light reference.
You guys are looking at his backwards. You are assuming that inertial reference is the ground state, since light moves faster than inertial states. This is based on the long standing tradition of the earth being the relative center of the universe. However, matter and antimatter only form at the upper limits of energy. This places matter and inertial at highest potential in terms of particles.
When energy, as photons, is given off by the other three forces of nature, inertial particles give off particles at the speed of light. They give off particles defining lower potential, while lowering their own potential. All four forces are integrated, by the same inertial need to reach the same ground state at the speed of light. Sequential application of these forces allows all higher levels of inertial to head toward the ground state.
The main confusion in this model and orientation are photons. These move at the speed of light, however, they also contain finite and inertial attributes in space and time; wavelength and frequency. These are not part of the ground state. Photons are not exactly in the ground state due to these inertial aspects. They contain inertial potential relative to the ground state. This potential is lowered via the universal red shift which causes all photons to lower energy; increase wavelength. In the limit, they will all reach infinite wavelength and zero frequency; ground state.
If we look at the speed of light ground state, this model assumes it has zero energy. The question becomes how can a ground state with zero energy, create matter and inertial references, that all contain potential energy relative to this zero ground state?
The answer is, this zero energy state has to do with free energy G= zero, where G =H-TS. H is enthalpy or internal energy, S is entropy and T is temperature. Enthalpy and internal energy H, such as zero point energy, can be positive and even infinite, as along as entropy S approaches infinite, we will still have zero free energy.
When we go the speed of light, space-time breaks down due to the mathematical discontinuity caused by division by 0 in SR. At the c-ground state, time and space can act independently of each other, thereby allowing infinite entropy, since all restrictions in space-time become moot. One reason this is so, is at the speed of light, the inertial universe would appear to be contracted to a point-instant. This means we can overlap the entire inertial point-instant universe in an instant, and be everywhere, simultaneously. This omnipresence artifact is caused by space-time breaking down at the c-reference. It also allows for infinite entropy; any state is possible.
To form the universe from nothing, all we need to do is lower entropy, to release some of the contained energy within entropy, Entropy absorbs anergy as it increases and releases this energy when it is induced to decrease. A return to infinite entropy, then drives the evolution of the inertial universe. This takes back the energy, in many ways, simultaneously, in all places.
If you look at the imagination, one can pretend to fly to the moon, without gear and without a spaceship. Although this fantasy is possible by consciousness, this is not possible in space-time. There are physical limitations imposed by space-time. The imagination would need to be able to include extra time and/or extra space, compared to someone acting exclusively and instinctively to the limits imposed by space-time. With the imagination, comes changes in nature, that can step outside the natural trajectory of space-time.
If you look at probability, this phenomena is not exactly based on cause and affect. It uses fuzzy dice since the output affect can be variable in terms of space-time. For example, say we assume a random series of event started the first life on earth replicators. These event may not have followed, sequentially, in space and time from other things, or else it would be reproducible. Instead it is unique event in space-time, yet it will go on to define a ripple affect within the future of space-time. Life has the property of increasing entropy, as it reproduces and metabolizes. It appears to be connected to the impact of the ground state.
-
Sure, but my idea relates to gravity emerging with their combination. Doesnt matter that they have some mass before they combine. They have more mass after wards.
So now you need to provide evidence that this is the case. What experiment can be used to test your idea?
Why do the electron, muon and tau particles have very different masses despite the fact that they all interact with the nuclear forces the same?
-
However, matter and antimatter only form at the upper limits of energy.
This is still wrong, no matter how often you post it.
It uses fuzzy dice since the output affect can be variable in terms of space-time
Postmodern poetry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_dice
-
Sure, but my idea relates to gravity emerging with their combination. Doesnt matter that they have some mass before they combine. They have more mass after wards.
So now you need to provide evidence that this is the case. What experiment can be used to test your idea?
I think you're running ahead, I made a guess, first you have to compute the implications, experiment has to come later.
Gravity as an emergent property of gluons
Why do the electron, muon and tau particles have very different masses despite the fact that they all interact with the nuclear forces the same?
No idea, Those three Leptons are all electrically charged. Do the other three neutral Leptons also interact with the necular forces the same way?
Still the attraction and repulsion of magnetism seem to atleast appear similar to the weak forces attraction and repulsion causing particles to change. They work in a similar way...
-
Let's start at the beginning.
I was wondering if gravity couldn't be an emergent property of the strong and weak necular forces?
For gravity to be an emergent property of the strong and weak nuclear forces it would have to be a property of them.
But it isn't.
If you disagree, please provide evidence.
-
I think you're running ahead
Without evidence, there's no reason to think that your guess is correct.
Do the other three neutral Leptons also interact with the necular forces the same way?
Yes.
Still the attraction and repulsion of magnetism seem to atleast appear similar to the weak forces attraction and repulsion causing particles to change.
The weak force doesn't have attraction and repulsion. It doesn't work that way.
-
I think you're running ahead
Without evidence, there's no reason to think that your guess is correct.
Until you calculate the Implications of it being true, you cant make an experiment to test it.
Do the other three neutral Leptons also interact with the necular forces the same way?
Yes.
Still the attraction and repulsion of magnetism seem to atleast appear similar to the weak forces attraction and repulsion causing particles to change.
The weak force doesn't have attraction and repulsion. It doesn't work that way.
I'm talking about the semantics, when particles come into close enough contact, one can expel an electron or collect one, repulsion as expulsion and attraction as reception are just words possibly expressing a similar function. Is the election expelled or repulsed?
-
Let's start at the beginning.
I was wondering if gravity couldn't be an emergent property of the strong and weak necular forces?
For gravity to be an emergent property of the strong and weak nuclear forces it would have to be a property of them.
No it wouldn't, as an emergent property, it would emerge after they have influenced atoms to join together and be related to the atomic masses they help create.
-
Let's start at the beginning.
I was wondering if gravity couldn't be an emergent property of the strong and weak necular forces?
For gravity to be an emergent property of the strong and weak nuclear forces it would have to be a property of them.
No it wouldn't, as an emergent property, it would emerge after they have influenced atoms to join together and be related to the atomic masses they help create.
If it had emerged as a property then it would be a property.
It isn't, because it didn't.
-
Until you calculate the Implications of it being true
Then please do so.
Is the election expelled or repulsed?
By what?
No it wouldn't, as an emergent property, it would emerge after they have influenced atoms to join together and be related to the atomic masses they help create.
You seem to have missed this:
Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.
-
Until you calculate the Implications of it being true
Then please do so.
What am I a physics major?
If I wanted a noble prize I might be bothered.
I posted a guess, rather then asking me to prove it. I believe the point of a discussion forum was to discuss the implications- The first step in the designing an experiment.
So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledge
to rather say "if that was true then A would be true or if it was true then B would be"?
Is the election expelled or repulsed?
By what?
Exactly.
No it wouldn't, as an emergent property, it would emerge after they have influenced atoms to join together and be related to the atomic masses they help create.
You seem to have missed this:
Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.
Doesnt matter, as
Def:-Emergent properties are properties that manifest themselves as the result of various system components working together, not as a property of any individual component.
Sub atomic particles may have mass, gluons hold atoms together and the weak force allows decay and for elements to change, the guess is that they together cause gravity to emerge.
-
rather then asking me to prove it.
I never did. I asked for evidence. There is no proof in science.
So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledge
to rather say "if that was true then A would be true or if it was true then B would be"?
That's what I've been doing. If the nuclear forces had anything to do with mass (and therefore gravity), then the electron, muon and tau would all have the same mass. They don't.
Exactly.
A very unhelpful response.
the guess is that they together cause gravity to emerge.
But you haven't given us any reason to believe that your guess is right.
-
rather then asking me to prove it.
I never did. I asked for evidence. There is no proof in science.
So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledge
to rather say "if that was true then A would be true or if it was true then B would be"?
That's what I've been doing. If the nuclear forces had anything to do with mass
Considering gluons with the strong force hold atoms together thus allowing their combimed mass to increase I fail to see how you claim the strong force has nothing to do with mass.
(and therefore gravity), then the electron, muon and tau would all have the same mass. They don't.
How does it follow that if the strong force increases mass(allows mass to increase through combinations), that the three Leptons would have the same mass?
The strong force doesnt give energy, it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.
-
allowing their combimed mass to increase
Citation needed.
How does it follow that if the strong force increases mass, that the three Leptons would have the same mass?
Because they all interact with the strong force in an identical manner.
The strong force doesnt give energy, it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.
Citation needed.
-
How does it follow that if the strong force increases mass, that the three Leptons would have the same mass?
Because they all interact with the strong force in an identical manner.
Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act. It's action gathers different elements of mass.
The strong force doesnt give energy, it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.
Citation needed.
Gluons are massless.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-glue-that-holds-the-world-together
above all, gluons, which transmit the force that binds the quarks together. Gluons are massless and evanescent, but they carry most of the proton's energy.
That is probably what allows they to serve the function they do. They carry energy but dont have any they combine masses but don't have any.
-
Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act.
I don't recall anyone saying that it was.
It's action gathers different elements of mass.
What evidence is there that mass is made up of anything more fundamental?
Gluons are massless.
Their invariant mass is zero, but they still have a relativistic mass.
That also doesn't give a citation for your claim that gluons allow "energy to concentrate." Gluons have nothing to do with the electron's energy, for example.
They carry energy but dont have any they combine masses but don't have any.
And how is something supposed to carry energy without having energy?
-
Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act.
I don't recall anyone saying that it was.
Somehow you were, your claim was that leptons with different masses, are influenced the same way under the strong force. Ergo there mass isnt important, regardless of the mass they have they act the same way ergo mass isnt an issue with regards to the strong force.
It's action gathers different elements of mass.
What evidence is there that mass is made up of anything more fundamental?
Yeah Energy.
Gluons are massless.
Their invariant mass is zero, but they still have a relativistic mass.
Relative to what they are connecting
That also doesn't give a citation for your claim that gluons allow "energy to concentrate." Gluons have nothing to do with the electron's energy, for example.
Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together, the elections are floating around the neculas
They carry energy but dont have any they combine masses but don't have any.
And how is something supposed to carry energy without having energy?
The same way it can hold mass without having any?
-
Ergo there mass isnt important, regardless of the mass they have they act the same way ergo mass isnt an issue with regards to the strong force.
So then why are you arguing that the strong force has anything to do with mass?
Yeah Energy.
Energy has mass, so that didn't answer the question.
Relative to what they are connecting
Which is still mass.
Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together, the elections are floating around the neculas
So you are now agreeing with me by saying that the gravity produced by an electron's mass has nothing to do with the strong force?
The same way it can hold mass without having any?
They do have mass:
they still have a relativistic mass.
-
Ergo there mass isnt important, regardless of the mass they have they act the same way ergo mass isnt an issue with regards to the strong force.
So then why are you arguing that the strong force has anything to do with mass?
That the mass of a particle the strong force acts upon isnt important, doesnt mean once the strong force has acted the mass isnt.
It means the strong force acts regardless of mass, but the result is more mass.
Yeah Energy.
Energy has mass, so that didn't answer the question.
Mass and energy are completely interlinked E=Mc2 you cant have forgotten that. Are you suggesting mass is something else?
Relative to what they are connecting
Which is still mass.
Sure, so your point? The relative mass of a gluion relates to its attachments.
Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together, the elections are floating around the neculas
So you are now agreeing with me by saying that the gravity produced by an electron's mass has nothing to do with the strong force?
Hardly I would be suggesting that gravity is being produced by the atom, electron and nucleus combined.
I might start defending Mr Feynmans idea that there is only one electron in the entire universe
The same way it can hold mass without having any?
They do have mass:
a relative mass.
they still have a relativistic mass.
[/quote]
Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarks
-
That the mass of a particle the strong force acts upon isnt important, doesnt mean once the strong force has acted the mass isnt.
There's no evidence that the strong force acts on mass.
but the result is more mass.
And this is the claim I want you to support.
Mass and energy are completely interlinked E=Mc2 you cant have forgotten that. Are you suggesting mass is something else?
I wouldn't have said that energy had mass if I had forgotten that. That was my entire point.
Sure, so your point?
My point is that your claim that gluons don't have mass is wrong.
The relative mass of a gluion relates to its attachments.
Gluons travel at the speed of light, so there is no reference frame where they don't have mass.
Hardly I would be suggesting that gravity is being produced by the atom, electron and nucleus combined.
So are you claiming that free electrons don't produce gravity?
a relative mass.
Which is always non-zero.
Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarks
No, relative to everything.
-
That the mass of a particle the strong force acts upon isnt important, doesnt mean once the strong force has acted the mass isnt.
There's no evidence that the strong force acts on mass.
Exactly so why are you going on about leptons?
but the result is more mass.
And this is the claim I want you to support.
Gluons connect quarks together, after they are connected into a new atomic form they have more mass altogether then when they where separate. They act as a mass body not a mass individually hence more mass in a more concentrated area.
Think I'll call it 'unified mass density' leading to emergent gravity.
Mass and energy are completely interlinked E=Mc2 you cant have forgotten that. Are you suggesting mass is something else?
I wouldn't have said that energy had mass if I had forgotten that. That was my entire point.
Sure, so your point?
My point is that your claim that gluons don't have mass is wrong.
Wasnt my claim.
The relative mass of a gluion relates to its attachments.
Gluons travel at the speed of light, so there is no reference frame where they don't have mass.
Sure you dont mean protons?
"A proton is made of three quarks, yes, but the quarks are infinitesimal—just 2 percent or so of the proton's total mass. They're rattling around at near light speed inside the proton"
Gluons are holding the quarks together.
Hardly I would be suggesting that gravity is being produced by the atom, electron and nucleus combined.
So are you claiming that free electrons don't produce gravity?
Not sure actually.
a relative mass.
Which is always non-zero.
Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarks
No, relative to everything.
Relative to the universe?
-
Exactly so why are you going on about leptons?
Because they are a refutation of your claim that the strong force has anything to do with mass, as they don't interact via the strong force.
Gluons connect quarks together, after they are connected into a new atomic form they have more altogether then when they where separate. They act as a body not individually hence more mass in a more concentrated area.
All you did was repeat the claim. I want you to support your claim that they have more mass together than when separate (with evidence, not with more claims).
Sure you dont mean protons?
Yes, I am sure.
Relative to the universe?
Relative to anything.
-
Exactly so why are you going on about leptons?
Because they are a refutation of your claim that the strong force has anything to do with mass, as they don't interact via the strong force.
Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass, tell me another one.
Gluons connect quarks together, after they are connected into a new atomic form they have more altogether then when they where separate. They act as a body not individually hence more mass in a more concentrated area.
All you did was repeat the claim. I want you to support your claim that they have more mass together than when separate (with evidence, not with more claims).
What happens when they break atoms in the Hadron collider? Do they have more mass or less once broke into their constituent parts?
Sure you dont mean protons?
Yes, I am sure.
Well then at best gluons travel at near light speed.
Relative to the universe?
Relative to anything.
Like a banana?
-
Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass
Good to see that you accept it.
Do you understand that it proves your hypothesis to be wrong?
-
Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass
Good to see that you accept it.
Do you understand that it proves your hypothesis to be wrong?
Your consistent inability to actually add to the discussion is sad.
No, that which holds atoms together allows their mass to increase. Especially when those atoms combine with others.
The analogy is the drops of water becoming a waterfall.
The drops are the strong force the waterfall is gravity
-
Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass
Correct. Gravity is so weak that it is practically non-existent on the quantum scale.
tell me another one.
Another what?
What happens when they break atoms in the Hadron collider? Do they have more mass or less once broke into their constituent parts?
The total mass is conserved.
Well then at best gluons travel at near light speed.
They travel at exactly light speed. That's true for any particle that has an invariant mass of zero (by the way, "invariant mass" is not necessarily the same as a particle's actual mass. It instead represents the lower limit on a particle's mass. A particle with an invariant mass of zero, like a photon, can have an arbitrarily low mass-energy based on its frequency. There seems to be no lower finite limit to that energy, but it technically can never actually be zero. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a particle anymore).
Like a banana?
If you want, yes.
No, that which holds atoms together allows their mass to increase.
I'm still waiting for evidence for this. That sounds like it would violate the law of conservation of mass.
-
Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass
Correct. Gravity is so weak that it is practically non-existent on the quantum scale.
That has nothing to do with the point I made. The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combine if too many do their combined mass density can cause a black hole to form.
tell me another one.
Another what?
Joke
What happens when they break atoms in the Hadron collider? Do they have more mass or less once broke into their constituent parts?
The total mass is conserved.
Yes but density is lost as the masses become independent
Well then at best gluons travel at near light speed.
They travel at exactly light speed.
Not according to the citation I gave.
That's true for any particle that has an invariant mass of zero (by the way, "invariant mass" is not necessarily the same as a particle's actual mass. It instead represents the lower limit on a particle's mass. A particle with an invariant mass of zero, like a photon, can have an arbitrarily low mass-energy based on its frequency. There seems to be no lower finite limit to that energy, but it technically can never actually be zero. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a particle anymore).
Gluons appear to be a different type of particle
Like a banana?
If you want, yes.
The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with that
No, that which holds atoms together allows their mass to increase.
I'm still waiting for evidence for this. That sounds like it would violate the law of conservation of mass.
Conservation of mass isnt related I am speaking of density. Of atoms combining increasing the over all mass once combined. A brick have less mass then a wall.
The wall producing gravity as a emergent function of the strong and weak force allowing the wall to hold together.
-
The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combine
Actually, the weak force has nothing to do with it.
if too many do their combined mass density can cause a black hole to form.
Which is because of their mass, not because of the nuclear forces.
Yes but density is lost as the masses become independent
So?
Not according to the citation I gave.
You never posted a citation about gluons traveling at less than light speed. That was quarks.
Gluons appear to be a different type of particle
They are "luxons", which means any particle that travels at the speed of light.
The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with that
It's not my theory. It's special relativity.
The wall producing gravity as a emergent function of the strong and weak force allowing the wall to hold together.
Given that each individual "brick" has gravity, then the strong and weak forces have no role in the fact that gravity exists.
-
The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combine
Actually, the weak force has nothing to do with it.
Not clear, weak force allows atoms to change, I'm sure in certain areas that might allow for more density.
if too many do their combined mass density can cause a black hole to form.
Which is because of their mass, not because of the nuclear forces.
Explain that, if the strong force is what holds atoms together then it is inherently a part of what allows mass to form into bigger and bigger groups
Yes but density is lost as the masses become independent
So?
So 3 quarks combined have more mass than 1. Obviously.
Not according to the citation I gave.
You never posted a citation about gluons traveling at less than light speed. That was quarks.
Even if gluons can, how does it invalidate the idea of emergent gravity? Any mass they may have which the citation claims they dont is irrelevant to the actual issue. Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.
Gluons appear to be a different type of particle
They are "luxons", which means any particle that travels at the speed of light.
The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with that
It's not my theory. It's special relativity.
I don't remember einstein ever mentioning a banana
The wall producing gravity as a emergent function of the strong and weak force allowing the wall to hold together.
Given that each individual "brick" has gravity, then the strong and weak forces have no role in the fact that gravity exists.
Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick
Ultimately this is a thread relative to the process by which the force of gravity exists. I'm suggesting the process that creates gravity is emergent from the weak and strong forces after they have allowed mass and density to form.
Its strong force weak force mass and density in combination creating gravity as an emergent process. That's the idea.
-
Not clear, weak force allows atoms to change
It doesn't bind them together, though.
Explain that, if the strong force is what holds atoms together then it is inherently a part of what allows mass to form into bigger and bigger groups
But that doesn't have anything to do with how much gravity there is. If the total mass remains constant, then the total gravity remains constant. That's guaranteed by the gravitational constant.
So 3 quarks combined have more mass than 1. Obviously.
It doesn't increase the total mass (and therefore the total gravity) of the system in question.
Even if gluons can, how does it invalidate the idea of emergent gravity?
It doesn't. I never said it did. What I was refuting was your idea that gluons have no mass.
Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.
How?
I don't remember einstein ever mentioning a banana
He didn't have to. Special relativity applies to everything (bananas, dolls, cars, whatever you feel like talking about).
Ultimately this is a thread relative to the process by which the force of gravity exists.
You've yet to supply evidence (or even a good argument) that gravity emerges because of the existence of the nuclear forces. Let's say we switch the nuclear forces off. Explain to me why that would suddenly make all of the mass and gravity in the Universe go to zero.
I'm suggesting the process that creates gravity is emergent from the weak and strong forces after they have allowed mass and density to form.
What reason do we have to believe that? Density isn't even relevant to the strength of gravity. If the Earth was crushed into a black hole, the astronauts in a space station wouldn't feel any difference. Mass and distance are what determines gravitational force, and that wouldn't change despite the Earth's exponential increase in density from collapsing into a black hole.
Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick
Yet all of the subatomic particles that otherwise would have composed that brick would have the same mass and thus the same total gravity.
Its strong force weak force mass and density in combination creating gravity as an emergent process. That's the idea.
So far, it's only that: an idea.
-
Gravity doesn't play a role in the sub atomic area. Which supports the idea of gravity as emergent.
How?
If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms, that allows bigger masses to form, and ultimately suns to be made, gravity would be a later development a residual result of the actions of the strong and weak force, if gravity had interfered with the strong force it may well have destabilise it and everything would fall apart. So my idea relates to the force of gravity not being able to disturb the forces responsible for its creation if it did they wouldn't sustain it.
Ultimately this is a thread relative to the process by which the force of gravity exists.
You've yet to supply evidence (or even a good argument) that gravity emerges because of the existence of the nuclear forces. Let's say we switch the nuclear forces off. Explain to me why that would suddenly make all of the mass and gravity in the Universe go to zero.
Yeah I'll just go in the garage and play with my hand on collider.
This is nothing more than an idea I am seeking to expore, to provide evidence I need an experiment, to ddesign an experiment I need calculations of what would be the case IF the idea is correct.
So again, rather then taking about proff, we should be talking about the implications if it is the case.
I'm suggesting the process that creates gravity is emergent from the weak and strong forces after they have allowed mass and density to form.
What reason do we have to believe that? Density isn't even relevant to the strength of gravity.
More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.
If the Earth was crushed into a black hole, the astronauts in a space station wouldn't feel any difference. Mass and distance are what determines gravitational force, and that wouldn't change despite the Earth's exponential increase in density from collapsing into a black hole.
Justify the claim. If there was no strong force there could be no brick
Yet all of the subatomic particles that otherwise would have composed that brick would have the same mass and thus the same total gravity.
Brick yes wall no.
Its strong force weak force mass and density in combination creating gravity as an emergent process. That's the idea.
So far, it's only that: an idea.
I am very aware
-
If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms
Which we know isn't the case, because objects that aren't a part of atoms or affected by the strong force still have gravity.
to provide evidence I need an experiment
Not necessarily. You could use data that has already been obtained. Just as I can use the data about the mass spectrum of the leptons to show that it doesn't make sense for the strong or weak force to cause gravity because they all interact with the nuclear forces the same but still have very different masses.
we should be talking about the implications if it is the case.
I have been. If what you say is true, then the leptons should all have the same mass. They don't.
More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.
Yet the gravity is the same.
-
If gravity is emergent, a force created as part of the process of the strong force working on atoms
Which we know isn't the case, because objects that aren't a part of atoms or affected by the strong force still have gravity.
Example?
You know that doesnt matter right?
Doesnt matter that things that are not effected by the strong force are affected by gravity. Because they are different forces, again you point doesn't address the issue.
to provide evidence I need an experiment
Not necessarily. You could use data that has already been obtained. Just as I can use the data about the mass spectrum of the leptons to show that it doesn't make sense for the strong or weak force to cause gravity because they all interact with the nuclear forces the same but still have very different masses.
Nice that wasn't my idea, my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter, increasing mass. The idea makes gravity a force of processes
we should be talking about the implications if it is the case.
I have been. If what you say is true, then the leptons should all have the same mass. They don't.
That in no way follows.
More atoms in a tighter configuration means more energy, in smaller space.
Yet the gravity is the same.
How so? The more mass causes more gravity.
-
Example?
Muons, tau particles and photons.
Doesnt matter that things that are not effected by the strong force are affected by gravity. Because they are different forces, again you point doesn't address the issue.
Then what does the strong force have to do with gravity at all?
my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter
Things that aren't matter (such as light) have gravity too. How does your idea account for that?
That in no way follows.
If gravity is caused by the strong and weak forces, it does. Otherwise, how does the exact same amount of weak force/strong force produce different masses between the six leptons?
How so?
The mass is the same, therefore the gravity is the same.
The more mass causes more gravity.
But you aren't increasing mass. You can't make new mass. That would violate conservation of mass. Greater density does not equal greater mass.
-
Example?
Muons, tau particles and photons.
Leptons again. We've been over this
Doesnt matter that things that are not effected by the strong force are affected by gravity. Because they are different forces, again you point doesn't address the issue.
Then what does the strong force have to do with gravity at all?
Its relationship to atomic structure and mass.
my idea was gravity emerging as a result of the strong and weak forces acting on matter
Things that aren't matter (such as light) have gravity too. How does your idea account for that?
Light is generally effected by gravity. Depending on its strength.
That in no way follows.
If gravity is caused by the strong and weak forces, it does.
Again a simplification of my idea, I'm speaking about gravity as an emergent property. Not only the strong and weak force alone, but working in tandem with mass and density and space. Exactly how many elements and forces would be combined to cause gravity, I'm not sure, I'm just exploring the idea, maybe eletromanetics also plays a role.
.Otherwise, how does the exact same amount of weak force/strong force produce different masses between the six leptons?
As above.
How so?
The mass is the same, therefore the gravity is the same.
The more mass causes more gravity.
But you aren't increasing mass. You can't make new mass. That would violate conservation of mass. Greater density does not equal greater mass.
No but it potentially means more impact on space and increased curvature due to the increased energy.
Let's reverse engineer the question what is essential for gravity to exist?
-
Looks like I found my camp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Atleast I'm not the only one to suggest it although my idea is slightly different
-
Leptons again. We've been over this
Yes, yes we have.
Its relationship to atomic structure and mass.
It has a relationship to atomic structure, but not to mass.
Light is generally effected by gravity. Depending on its strength.
But how does your idea allow for light to generate its own gravitational field? Neither the strong nor weak force have any effect on light.
I'm speaking about gravity as an emergent property. Not only the strong and weak force alone, but working in tandem with mass and density and space.
But if gravity doesn't require the nuclear forces in order to emerge (such as in the case for gravity produced by a light ray), then how is gravity emergent from those forces?
No but it potentially means more impact on space and increased curvature due to the increased energy.
The energy, like mass, is a conserved property.
Let's reverse engineer the question what is essential for gravity to exist?
Mass (or equivalently, energy) and space-time.
Looks like I found my camp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropic_gravity
Atleast I'm not the only one to suggest it although my idea is slightly different
Yes, emergent gravity theories do exist, but I don't know of any that claim the nuclear forces produce it.
-
Could Gravity be an emergent property?
You may be familiar with the technique of Feynman diagrams, where the result of a quantum interaction is calculated as the sum over all possible interactions?
In a podcast primarily about the black hole information paradox, towards the end they mention some progress towards a theory of quantum gravity, based on an ensemble of all possible interactions.
Listen: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2020/09/21/115-netta-engelhardt-on-black-hole-information-wormholes-and-quantum-gravity/
-
If you believe in the modern theory, which states that gravity is fathered by mass.........then yes......gravity has to be emergent, because mass is emergent from energy.
The real question is......what is energy........and what is mass?
Energy is SIMPLY........motion. Whether it's a mass or a field. Any and all physical motion is energy. Mass is a configured, confined motion. It requires at least two, perpendicular motions, to confine a motion.
If you take an energy(e for instance)........and push it at c.......while at the same time, turning it at c........c times c..........c squared......then you get mass......by confining that motion.
Do you know why e is in motion? Do you know why anything moves at all? One simple force is the father of all motion. The self repulsive force of charge. All other motion comes from this.
At last estimate, the repulsive force of charge, can power and rotate a charge for 10 to the 60th power years.
That's fairly good efficiency.
-
At last estimate, the repulsive force of charge, can power and rotate a charge for 10 to the 60th power years.
I'm not sure what that means, but an object (with the correct properties) should be able to rotate indefinitely. An electrically-charged, extremal black hole would be one such object. Due to conservation laws, it can't decay like other black holes. That means it will keep on spinning forever (unless disturbed by an outside force).
-
No charge anywhere, can rotate freely. It's constantly being peppered and disturbed with external stimuli. Even one isolated charge in a vacuum is being hammered with static. It has to be powered.
A charge is in the mist of, the process of, exploding. Driven by the self repulsiveness of the charge itself. It's like a super nova.....BUT the radius of that super nova explosion is set with rotation. The explosion is not stopped.....it is continuously turned. The explosion is still and continuously happening.....just turned. If that rotation slows or stops.......the explosion will continue out into space. Self powered rotation is what keeps the charge together.
Be very wary of conservation laws. They are conditional. Both mass(confined motion) and energy(any motion) has been lost since the beginning of motion. And continues this loss today.
Accounting for mass and energy, does not preserve/conserve it. Any and all emissions has a proportion of loss. That loss, can not be recovered.
-
Even one isolated charge in a vacuum is being hammered with static.
From where?
A charge is in the mist of, the process of, exploding. Driven by the self repulsiveness of the charge itself. It's like a super nova.....BUT the radius of that super nova explosion is set with rotation. The explosion is not stopped.....it is continuously turned. The explosion is still and continuously happening.....just turned. If that rotation slows or stops.......the explosion will continue out into space. Self powered rotation is what keeps the charge together.
Evidence please.
Be very wary of conservation laws. They are conditional. Both mass(confined motion) and energy(any motion) has been lost since the beginning of motion. And continues this loss today.
Citation needed.
Accounting for mass and energy, does not preserve/conserve it. Any and all emissions has a proportion of loss. That loss, can not be recovered.
Citation needed.
-
If you believe in the modern theory, which states that gravity is fathered by mass.........then yes......gravity has to be emergent, because mass is emergent from energy.
Thankyou this was my contention. Ofcourse this is missing space, as gravity ultimately emerges from the relationship with mass to space.
The real question is......what is energy........and what is mass?
I add what is space?
Leaves the point and the point of this thread if that is true what are the implications that could allow an experiment design to prove it?
-
The emptiness of space is not apparent in the space, in and around this cosmos. It's been polluted for eons with generated static that continues today. If you went 100 cosmos diameters away, you would find clean pristine space. Absolute emptiness. No temp. No static.
So empty space can not be found around here. So I can not prove this. But kindly look at this in a different manner. Why is space NOT empty. The only reason space needs a density.......or to be related to time.........is to explain the constant velocity of light.
What if I told you, that the only reason they think light is constant c, is because of the way they keep measuring it.
I believe I have a way to detect the relative velocity of light. And if this proves true, why do we need space-time.
Even after learning that light has a relative velocity.........they would still keep space-time for gravity.
They must have magic. If it ain't star trek, it ain't science.
-
The emptiness of space is not apparent in the space, in and around this cosmos. It's been polluted for eons with generated static that continues today. If you went 100 cosmos diameters away, you would find clean pristine space. Absolute emptiness. No temp. No static.
So empty space can not be found around here. So I can not prove this. But kindly look at this in a different manner. Why is space NOT empty. The only reason space needs a density.......or to be related to time.........is to explain the constant velocity of light.
What if I told you, that the only reason they think light is constant c, is because of the way they keep measuring it.
I believe I have a way to detect the relative velocity of light. And if this proves true, why do we need space-time.
.
I was recently watching this: time causes gravity.
-
I do not believe in space-time......... not because I don't understand it............the reason I do not believe in space-time..........is because I do understand it. I understood it decades ago, when I was taught it. They tried. I refused.
And it's nonsense. This is why they can't measure the relative velocity of light.
The period of ANY oscillation changes with a gravity gradient. And with acceleration.
When they learn to use a rotational period, instead of an oscillatory period, then one can measure the proper universal constant rate of time.
Connect a 10,000 ft rod to a spinning gyroscope. Affix another scope at the top. A oscillatory clock will measure different speeds. But they are the same speed.
Remove rod. They are still spinning at the same speeds.
-
@Hayseed You should start your own thread about this instead of taking up space in Jolly2's thread.
-
Please pardon me. I thought I was conversing with Jolly2, I didn't realize that I was interfering with his thread. I thought it was a conversation. I didn't know I was taking his space. And time.
I shall retire.
-
Please pardon me. I thought I was conversing with Jolly2, I didn't realize that I was interfering with his thread. I thought it was a conversation. I didn't know I was taking his space. And time.
I shall retire.
No it's fine, your not taking space from"MY" thread the thread is to discuss the idea of emergent gravity as a possibility
-
No it's fine, your not taking space from"MY" thread the thread is to discuss the idea of emergent gravity as a possibility
So long as you're fine with it.
-
I do not believe in space-time......... not because I don't understand it............the reason I do not believe in space-time..........is because I do understand it. I understood it decades ago, when I was taught it. They tried. I refused.
And it's nonsense. This is why they can't measure the relative velocity of light.
The period of ANY oscillation changes with a gravity gradient. And with acceleration.
When they learn to use a rotational period, instead of an oscillatory period, then one can measure the proper universal constant rate of time.
Connect a 10,000 ft rod to a spinning gyroscope. Affix another scope at the top. A oscillatory clock will measure different speeds. But they are the same speed.
Remove rod. They are still spinning at the same speeds.
You're arguing against einstein's theory of relativity?
-
Thank you. I was just trying to show you how easy it is to disprove space-time. Two locked wheels on an axle and two clocks is all it takes. Most lab clocks should be able to detect 3-4 ft of axle elevation. But the mathematics of space-time tells you the the speeds are different. Because the "time" is different. But only the clock is different with a altered tic rate. Not the real time.
If you have access to a lab, give it a try.
The "constant velocity of light" can be disproved also, with a simple experiment. But RF experience is needed for that one.
To be able to determine if gravity is emergent, we need to find out what it actually is.
One hundred years and still waiting. Many heavily invested careers and reputations are one the line.
Is true knowledge really that important with those stakes?
Thank you for your tolerance and patience.
And I hope you find something new(or even old) in your studies.
-
But only the clock is different with a altered tic rate. Not the real time.
If there is a difference between the clock's tick rate and real time, then what experiment would show the difference?
-
Thank you. I was just trying to show you how easy it is to disprove space-time. Two locked wheels on an axle and two clocks is all it takes. Most lab clocks should be able to detect 3-4 ft of axle elevation. But the mathematics of space-time tells you the the speeds are different. Because the "time" is different. But only the clock is different with a altered tic rate. Not the real time.
If you have access to a lab, give it a try.
The "constant velocity of light" can be disproved also, with a simple experiment. But RF experience is needed for that one.
To be able to determine if gravity is emergent, we need to find out what it actually is.
A relationship between mass and space
-
Take a long vertical axle. Put locked wheels along the axle. Put an atomic clock at every wheel elevation. Spin axle. Measure wheel RPM with clocks.
What did you see? What should have you seen?
There is no such thing as a time gradient........only a clock gradient.
Use rotational clocks to prevent this.
-
What did you see?
The wheels will rotate at the same velocity.
What should have you seen?
The wheels rotating at the same velocity. Just because time is dilated more on one wheel than the other doesn't prevent this, but let's consider an extreme example in order to illustrate this. You have one wheel located right above a black hole's event horizon and the other is so far away from the black hole that it is practically in zero gravity.
In scenario one, we will put the motor on the wheel that is near the horizon. To an observer at the distant wheel, both wheels will appear to spin slowly because the motor looks to be highly time dilated (and the speed of that distant wheel depends upon that time dilated motor).
In scenario two, we will place the motor at the distant wheel and make it so powerful that it spins the distant wheel at 99% the speed of light. That would make the wheel near the horizon look like it is spinning beyond the speed of light (according to the speed of light near the horizon, that is). If the rod connecting the wheels was perfectly rigid. And that's the big "if" here. Special relativity forbids any material from being perfectly rigid. So actually, if the motor was spinning the wheel fast enough, the rod would experience shear forces and break before it could spin the near-horizon wheel beyond the speed of light.
@Halc Correct me if I'm wrong about that.
-
There is no such thing as a time gradient........only a clock gradient.
Not sure what you think either terms means, so unclear what point you're trying to make.
What did you see?
The wheels will rotate at the same velocity.
That is what any given observer sees, yes. But it doesn't mean that all observers will observer the same angular rate, as you correctly illustrate below.
let's consider an extreme example in order to illustrate this. You have one wheel located right above a black hole's event horizon and the other is so far away from the black hole that it is practically in zero gravity.
In scenario one, we will put the motor on the wheel that is near the horizon.
No need for a motor if it's already spinning. Not like we're worried about friction.
To an observer at the distant wheel, both wheels will appear to spin slowly because the motor looks to be highly time dilated (and the speed of that distant wheel depends upon that time dilated motor).
In scenario two, we will place the motor at the distant wheel and make it so powerful that it spins the distant wheel at 99% the speed of light. That would make the wheel near the horizon look like it is spinning beyond the speed of light (according to the speed of light near the horizon, that is). If the rod connecting the wheels was perfectly rigid. And that's the big "if" here. Special relativity forbids any material from being perfectly rigid. So actually, if the motor was spinning the wheel fast enough, the rod would experience shear forces and break before it could spin the near-horizon wheel beyond the speed of light.
All good. Something will break, or at least the far motor will not be able to spin the local wheel beyond some fairly low angular rate.
Careful, since conclusions drawn from positing perfectly rigid things are often invalid. But we don't need perfect rigidity to demonstrate this point. Wheels spinning at relativistic rates are going to break whether there is gravity involved or not. The relativistic distortions put arbitrarily large strain on the wheel no matter its strength. So let's just spin it slow and have the one observer note the RPM that's say 10x that seen by the other.
-
There is no such thing as a time gradient........only a clock gradient.
Not sure what you think either terms means, so unclear what point you're trying to make.
I think his point is that a clock represents Time, yet has necessarily no actual relation to Time. The gradient is In our instruments not in time.
What's your position in the idea that gravity could be emergent Halc?
-
https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/425638-a-new-generation-of-experiments-aims-to-answer-the-gravity-quantum-question
So I have been looking at this experiment..."The ultimate goal is to be able to isolate gravity as a coupling force between objects that can be controlled in the quantum regime"
As a coupling force isnt that an expression of gravity emerging from the strong force?
Halc what do you think?
-
As a coupling force isnt that an expression of gravity emerging from the strong force?
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
-
As a coupling force isnt that an expression of gravity emerging from the strong force?
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
The strong force causes OBJECTS therefore a force that holds those objects together could be emergent from that same force.
Gravity as a residual effect, weaker as the majority of its power is used holding atoms together.
-
The strong force causes OBJECTS
It doesn't cause electrons, quarks or photons to exist.
-
The strong force causes OBJECTS
It doesn't cause electrons, quarks or photons to exist.
There never was a suggestion they did.
-
There never was a suggestion they did.
You did when you said this:
The strong force causes OBJECTS
Electrons, quarks and photons are objects.
-
There never was a suggestion they did.
You did when you said this:
The strong force causes OBJECTS
Electrons, quarks and photons are objects.
This is all just semantics.
You got my point.
-
This is all just semantics.
You got my point.
I'm not sure that I do. The Earth would still have just as much gravity even if you broke all of its atoms and atomic nuclei apart.
-
This is all just semantics.
You got my point.
I'm not sure that I do. The Earth would still have just as much gravity even if you broke all of its atoms and atomic nuclei apart.
No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.
-
No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.
Then let's say we have a shell around the Earth. Then we inject the heat necessary to turn it into a plasma that is hot enough to dissociate nuclei. We use the necessary magnetic fields to hold the plasma away from the shell so it won't melt. So you still have all of Earth's original mass inside of the shell (plus whatever mass-energy came from the heat you used to vaporize it).
-
No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.
Then let's say we have a shell around the Earth. Then we inject the heat necessary to turn it into a plasma that is hot enough to dissociate nuclei. We use the necessary magnetic fields to hold the plasma away from the shell so it won't melt. So you still have all of Earth's original mass inside of the shell (plus whatever mass-energy came from the heat you used to vaporize it).
Then you would have the same gravity, but you would also have the strong and weak necular force as well as the all the other mater like quarks and leptons.
Returning to einstein that gravity shouldn't be seen as the earth pulling but as space pushing.
Maybe it's not mass persay but space. Like if space was like a liquid. The inclusion of mass displaces the liquid. That displacement then forces space to compact between masses. That then increase a desire for space to return to its original position which it cant, but there is a force generated by the desire of space to do so.... umm
Liquid sheet. Like the bowling ball on a trampoline but the trampoline is made of a liquid.
An emergent relationship
-
Then you would have the same gravity, but you would also have the strong and weak necular force as well as the all the other mater like quarks and leptons.
Then you can fill the sphere with an Earth's mass-energy worth of light. No strong or weak nuclear forces there.
-
Then you would have the same gravity, but you would also have the strong and weak necular force as well as the all the other mater like quarks and leptons.
Then you can fill the sphere with an Earth's mass-energy worth of light. No strong or weak nuclear forces there.
The photon is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. Photons are massless
So there would be no mass, just energy, and the electromagnetic force.
Light is radiation, it's an end process.
-
Photons are massless
No, they aren't. They have a mass that depends upon their energy. It's their invariant (rest) mass that is zero.
We know for a fact that light produces its own gravitational field. Gravitational lensing is a phenomenon confirmed by observation, so we know that the Sun's gravity pulls on light. However, due to conservation of momentum, the Sun itself must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction by that same light. So, in the process, light must have its own gravity that pulls on the Sun.
-
Dissolving dipoles is a bad idea. It would accelerate the earth's mass into a earth wind thru-out our system.
-
Photons are massless
No, they aren't. They have a mass that depends upon their energy. It's their invariant (rest) mass that is zero.
We know for a fact that light produces its own gravitational field. Gravitational lensing is a phenomenon confirmed by observation, so we know that the Sun's gravity pulls on light. However, due to conservation of momentum, the Sun itself must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction by that same light. So, in the process, light must have its own gravity that pulls on the Sun.
wow now that's a theory "must" have it's own gravity? Could not another force be aiding lights escape?
In the end light is radiation. It can only emerge at the end of a process, you have to have a sun, to get photons to radiate from, as light is a radiation, the weak force must play a role in the decay process. Could it not be the weak force that allows light to escape the gravity?
Either way, light Is the end result of all the other processes that cause a sun to exist .
-
Dissolving dipoles is a bad idea. It would accelerate the earth's mass into a earth wind thru-out our system.
What are you referencing?
-
wow now that's a theory
No, it isn't.
"must" have it's own gravity?
Yes, otherwise Newton's third law is violated.
Could not another force be aiding lights escape?
I didn't say anything about light escaping from anything.
In the end light is radiation.
So what? It still has gravity.
to get photons to radiate from, as light is a radiation, the weak force must play a role in the decay process.
No it doesn't, because nothing has to decay in order to produce photons.
Could it not be the weak force that allows light to escape the gravity?
Escape? Again, when was my argument about light escaping anything?
-
wow now that's a theory
No, it isn't.
So it's a laW?
"must" have it's own gravity?
Yes, otherwise Newton's third law is violated.
Not if something else instead of gravity, another force is causing the movement by light that you see.
Could not another force be aiding lights escape?
I didn't say anything about light escaping from anything.
In the end light is radiation.
So what? It still has gravity.
to get photons to radiate from, as light is a radiation, the weak force must play a role in the decay process.
No it doesn't, because nothing has to decay in order to produce photons.
Yet other forms of decay also produce light correct? Relative to heat the colours change
Could it not be the weak force that allows light to escape the gravity?
Escape? Again, when was my argument about light escaping anything?
"so we know that the Sun's gravity pulls on light. However, due to conservation of momentum, the Sun itself must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction by that same light. So, in the process, light must have its own gravity that pulls on the Sun."
If the sun and light both pull each other surely light wouldn't escape. This statement "must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction " is a push not a pull, from the light
-
What is space? Should I start a new thread?
-
So it's a laW?
Conservation of momentum is a law, yes.
Not if something else instead of gravity, another force is causing the movement by light that you see.
Then why does it behave exactly as general relativity predicts that it should under the force of gravity, specifically?
If the sun and light both pull each other surely light wouldn't escape.
That doesn't make any sense. Rockets are pulled by gravity but they can still go into orbit.
This statement "must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction " is a push not a pull, from the light
If the Sun was pushed instead of pulled, then conservation of momentum would be violated.
What is space? Should I start a new thread?
If you want to (unless you can related it back to this thread).
-
So it's a laW?
Conservation of momentum is a law, yes.
I was.suggeting the law of photnic gravity
Not if something else instead of gravity, another force is causing the movement by light that you see.
Then why does it behave exactly as general relativity predicts that it should under the force of gravity, specifically?
Correlation does not mean causation.
Looking at the sun billions of photons are radiated together, they could be interacting and it's the electromagnetic force that drives them more then gravity.
If the sun and light both pull each other surely light wouldn't escape.
That doesn't make any sense. Rockets are pulled by gravity but they can still go into orbit.
Because the booster create a greater push then the gravity, if the rocket was pulling not pushing it would never take off.
This statement "must also be pulled by an equal force in the opposite direction " is a push not a pull, from the light
If the Sun was pushed instead of pulled, then conservation of momentum would be violated.
Conservation laws relate to energy loss, never suggested radiation from the sun was losing energy just that another process could explain what we see rather then gravity
What is space? Should I start a new thread?
If you want to (unless you can related it back to this thread).
It relates completely gravity is clearly an interplay between mass and space.
Has anyone ever gone into space with a giant jar, scooped up some space sealed it so nothing could escape and brought it back to see if there was anything strange about the jars contence?
-
I was.suggeting the law of photnic gravity
Conservation of momentum, along with gravitational lensing, lets us know that light has gravity (as explained before). The only way it couldn't have gravity would either be if gravitational lensing didn't exist (but we know it does), or if conservation of momentum is violated (which would go against Noether's theorem).
Correlation does not mean causation
So Einstein got the numbers right purely coincidentally? I didn't realize you were a relativity denialist.
Looking at the sun billions of photons are radiated together, they could be interacting and it's the electromagnetic force that drives them more then gravity.
Photons very rarely interact with each other. Flashlight beams pass through each other unimpeded.
Regardless, we know from observation that gravity does affect them.
Because the booster create a greater push then the gravity
Which is (more or less) why light can escape from objects with gravity (except for black holes): they expend energy traveling up against the gravitational potential, which results in gravitational redshifting of the light.
if the rocket was pulling not pushing it would never take off.
The goes without saying.
Conservation laws relate to energy loss
That's only conservation of energy. Conservation of momentum is different.
never suggested radiation from the sun was losing energy just that another process could explain what we see rather then gravity
If it isn't gravity, then Einstein got the numbers right by coincidence.
Has anyone ever gone into space with a giant jar, scooped up some space sealed it so nothing could escape and brought it back to see if there was anything strange about the jars contence?
It should be almost completely empty (aside from a few atoms here and there).
-
I was.suggeting the law of photnic gravity
Conservation of momentum, along with gravitational lensing, lets us know that light has gravity (as explained before). The only way it couldn't have gravity would either be if gravitational lensing didn't exist (but we know it does), or if conservation of momentum is violated (which would go against Noether's theorem).
I think this is applies and pears. You dont need gravity for conservation of movement, light and suns just push each other it's simply impulse.
And gravational lensing is simply that light as it is effected by gravity doesn't relate to photons having a gravity.
Its clear photons are influenced by gravity, but are you seriously saying photons make/produce gravity?
Correlation does not mean causation
So Einstein got the numbers right purely coincidentally? I didn't realize you were a relativity denialist.
Looking at the sun billions of photons are radiated together, they could be interacting and it's the electromagnetic force that drives them more then gravity.
Photons very rarely interact with each other. Flashlight beams pass through each other unimpeded.
Regardless, we know from observation that gravity does affect them.
Yet if you cross two laser beams you will. Bigger picture then simply saying they don't interact.
Because the booster create a greater push then the gravity
Which is (more or less) why light can escape from objects with gravity (except for black holes): they expend energy traveling up against the gravitational potential, which results in gravitational redshifting of the light.
Doesnt answer if photons are just influenced by gravity or if they produce gravity.
If they produced gravity they would influence each other, they would pull together, attract each other and then focus into a beam, that doesnt happen. As you pointed out they dont
"Flashlight beams pass through each other unimpeded"
So therefore they cant have a gravity
-
You dont need gravity for conservation of movement, light and suns just push each other it's simply impulse.
They're not pushing each other. I think you are under the impression that I'm talking about light that is being emitted by the Sun, but I'm not. I'm talking about light from distant stars having their path deflected by the Sun's gravity. That is a pull, not a push.
And gravational lensing is simply that light as it is effected by gravity doesn't relate to photons having a gravity.
Yes it does. If photons didn't have gravity, then that same beam of light being deflected by the Sun wouldn't be able to pull back on the Sun itself. That results in a violation of conservation of momentum.
are you seriously saying photons make/produce gravity?
Yes, because conservation of momentum demands it.
Yet if you cross two laser beams you will.
What lasers have you been looking at?
Doesnt answer if photons are just influenced by gravity or if they produce gravity.
Yes it does. Anything that is influenced by gravity must also produce gravity. Otherwise, conservation of momentum is violated.
If they produced gravity they would influence each other, they would pull together, attract each other and then focus into a beam, that doesnt happen. As you pointed out they dont
Do you have any idea of just how incredibly tiny the gravitational pull between two beams of light would be? Please do the math if you think it should be large enough to notice in everyday life.
-
You dont need gravity for conservation of movement, light and suns just push each other it's simply impulse.
They're not pushing each other. I think you are under the impression that I'm talking about light that is being emitted by the Sun, but I'm not. I'm talking about light from distant stars having their path deflected by the Sun's gravity. That is a pull, not a push.
And gravational lensing is simply that light as it is effected by gravity doesn't relate to photons having a gravity.
Yes it does. If photons didn't have gravity, then that same beam of light being deflected by the Sun wouldn't be able to pull back on the Sun itself. That results in a violation of conservation of momentum.
are you seriously saying photons make/produce gravity?
Yes, because conservation of momentum demands it.
Yet if you cross two laser beams you will.
What lasers have you been looking at?
Doesnt answer if photons are just influenced by gravity or if they produce gravity.
Yes it does. Anything that is influenced by gravity must also produce gravity. Otherwise, conservation of momentum is violated.
If they produced gravity they would influence each other, they would pull together, attract each other and then focus into a beam, that doesnt happen. As you pointed out they dont
Do you have any idea of just how incredibly tiny the gravitational pull between two beams of light would be? Please do the math if you think it should be large enough to notice in everyday life.
Right let me get this straight, conservation of momentum that has nothing to do with gravity, proves photons have gravity, proves they produce gravity.
Even though this gravity of the photon is soo infinitesimally small it wont cause them to attract each other , yet is somehow strong enough to pull back on a suns gravity, that's your position?
I want a third opinion. Halc what do you say to this?
-
conservation of momentum that has nothing to do with gravity
Yes it does. Gravity is a medium by which momentum can be transferred.
proves photons have gravity, proves they produce gravity.
It isn't just conservation of momentum. Gravitational lensing is the other part of the matter.
Even though this gravity of the photon is soo infinitesimally small it wont cause them to attract each other
It does cause them to attract each other. The attraction is just too small to notice yourself. A pair of dust particles have gravity but it's so weak that you won't see them pulled towards each other with your own eyes.
yet is somehow strong enough to pull back on a suns gravity, that's your position?
The force of gravity between two objects is the product of the mass of both objects. A photon has a very small mass, but the Sun has an enormous mass. So the gravitational attraction between a photon and the Sun is many, many orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational attraction between a pair of photons.
-
conservation of momentum that has nothing to do with gravity
Yes it does. Gravity is a medium by which momentum can be transferred.
As the magnetic force would be doesnt mean anything. That which propels photons out of a sun, the impulse that starts the journey has little to do with gravity if they had gravity it would hammer their action.
Conservation of momentum for a photon does not require gravity.
proves photons have gravity, proves they produce gravity.
It isn't just conservation of momentum. Gravitational lensing is the other part of the matter.
Which is simply gravities effect on a photon as it passes through curved space. Its gravitys effect on light, again nothing to do with light producing gravity.
Even though this gravity of the photon is soo infinitesimally small it wont cause them to attract each other
It does cause them to attract each other. The attraction is just too small to notice yourself. A pair of dust particles have gravity but it's so weak that you won't see them pulled towards each other with your own eyes.
You cant compare dust to photons
yet is somehow strong enough to pull back on a suns gravity, that's your position?
The force of gravity between two objects is the product of the mass of both objects. A photon has a very small mass, but the Sun has an enormous mass. So the gravitational attraction between a photon and the Sun is many, many orders of magnitude larger than the gravitational attraction between a pair of photons.
Sure but if photons produced gravity I doubt they would escape the sun at all.
We are just going round in circles I would like @Halc opinion on this.
-
New idea Looking at the gravaton, and the "gravity" wave,(space wobble) it is merely energy expressing itself as it flows through space. So I really I dont believe it should be called a "gravaton" or linked to gravity, it effects gravity, interferes with gravities strength and influence over space but I can see it as actually gravity, just energy expressing itself as it travels in space.
So Quarks have mass which combine into larger masses and displace the space arround them?
I was thinking about the trampoline with the bowling ball, really the material of the trampoline which represents space would envelope the ball, as space envelopes planets.
Following the metaphor the material of the trampoline(space) appears to be stretched around the ball, and seeks equilibrium so squashes the ball. Seeing the trampoline material as elastic, as it is stretched around the ball it also stretches the other parts of the trampoline material. Space around the planet
Hence should you have two balls on the trampoline both enveloped by the material, the stretch they cause and the desire of the material to seek equilibrium causes them to pull at each other. If they are too close they would pull together and both become one mass enveloped and causing a greater stretch of the trampoline.
So that's a mass effect on space Side of the gravity idea. Then you have mass itself causing attraction to other masses.
Implies the idea space is actually something, could space be dark matter? And a "gravity wave" is an energy ripple over that matter?
I also realise when you look at it, space if full of photons, they are everywhere the universe is a photon soup.
I think We should stop calling black holes, black holes, they are surely better described as Black suns. They have 3 dimension. They are not flat discs, but black spheres.
What do you think?
Its where I am now at in my exploration of gravity as emergent.
I mean if gravity is an emergent phenomenon of the relationship between mass and space, trying to crame gravity into quantum theory is like trying to crame a Lenox program into binary code. My best analogy so far.
-
As the magnetic force would be doesnt mean anything.
I don't know what you mean by this sentence, as I didn't mention magnetism.
That which propels photons out of a sun, the impulse that starts the journey has little to do with gravity if they had gravity it would hammer their action.
At no point did I say that gravity has anything to do with light being emitted by the Sun.
Conservation of momentum for a photon does not require gravity.
It does when it involves gravitational lensing.
Which is simply gravities effect on a photon as it passes through curved space. Its gravitys effect on light, again nothing to do with light producing gravity.
It does if you want momentum to be conserved. The change in momentum of the beam of light has to be equal and opposite to the change in momentum of the Sun in order to satisfy that law. That requires that the Sun be attracted to the beam of light every bit as strongly as the beam of light is attracted to the Sun.
You cant compare dust to photons
I can in this particular example. It's a clear illustration that, just because something has gravity, it doesn't mean that the gravity must be strong enough to be noticeable by the human senses.
Sure but if photons produced gravity I doubt they would escape the sun at all.
Show the math on that, because I'm skeptical. Show that the energy of a photon (at any desired frequency) is insufficient to raise it out of the Sun's gravitational potential (consider the photon's mass equal to its energy via E=mc2).
We are just going round in circles I would like Halc opinion on this.
If you want to get his attention, you should put an @ sign in front of his name, like @Halc.
Implies the idea space is actually something, could space be dark matter?
There is another theory that goes along similar lines. The idea is that there some kind of "fluid" that is intrinsic to all space that acts like dark matter under some circumstances and dark energy under others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid
-
As the magnetic force would be doesnt mean anything.
I don't know what you mean by this sentence, as I didn't mention magnetism.
That which propels photons out of a sun, the impulse that starts the journey has little to do with gravity if they had gravity it would hammer their action.
At no point did I say that gravity has anything to do with light being emitted by the Sun.
Conservation of momentum for a photon does not require gravity.
It does when it involves gravitational lensing.
I don't see how when gravity bends space and light follows the bend, light isn't effected by gravity its effects by space curvature.
Which is simply gravities effect on a photon as it passes through curved space. Its gravitys effect on light, again nothing to do with light producing gravity.
It does if you want momentum to be conserved. The change in momentum of the beam of light has to be equal and opposite to the change in momentum of the Sun in order to satisfy that law. That requires that the Sun be attracted to the beam of light every bit as strongly as the beam of light is attracted to the Sun.
That's your evidence for photons having gravity as I suggested before electromagnetic force could be causing that interaction not gravity
You cant compare dust to photons
I can in this particular example. It's a clear illustration that, just because something has gravity, it doesn't mean that the gravity must be strong enough to be noticeable by the human senses.
Wasnt interested in human senses this was about gravity and its influence on surrounding particles.
Sure but if photons produced gravity I doubt they would escape the sun at all.
Show the math on that, because I'm skeptical. Show that the energy of a photon (at any desired frequency) is insufficient to raise it out of the Sun's gravitational potential (consider the photon's mass equal to its energy via E=mc2).
We are just going round in circles I would like Halc opinion on this.
If you want to get his attention, you should put an @ sign in front of his name, like @Halc.
Implies the idea space is actually something, could space be dark matter?
There is another theory that goes along similar lines. The idea is that there some kind of "fluid" that is intrinsic to all space that acts like dark matter under some circumstances and dark energy under others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fluid
Thanks for the link, Im not sure I agree with the dark energy side of the equation, space would be dark matter that is energy less like a Kinda energy less photon
-
I don't see how when gravity bends space and light follows the bend, light isn't effected by gravity its effects by space curvature.
It is affected by the curvature, but it produces its own curvature as well.
That's your evidence for photons having gravity as I suggested before electromagnetic force could be causing that interaction not gravity
Light is neither attracted to nor repelled by electromagnetic fields, so we know that's not the cause of gravitational lensing. So again, do you think Einstein got the right numbers by accident?
Wasnt interested in human senses this was about gravity and its influence on surrounding particles.
Then you realize that just because we don't see two beams of light pulled towards each other that doesn't mean they don't have gravity, right?
Thanks for the link, Im not sure I agree with the dark energy side of the equation, space would be dark matter that is energy less like a Kinda energy less photon
Space by itself can't be dark matter. If space itself had mass, then it would pull all matter equally in all directions because it already exists in all places (obviously). So there would be no anomalous galactic rotation curves. Besides, something that has no energy would have no gravity.
Also, where is the math showing that light shouldn't be able to escape the Sun if it had gravity?
-
I don't see how when gravity bends space and light follows the bend, light isn't effected by gravity its effects by space curvature.
It is affected by the curvature, but it produces its own curvature as well.
That's your evidence for photons having gravity as I suggested before electromagnetic force could be causing that interaction not gravity
Light is neither attracted to nor repelled by electromagnetic fields, so we know that's not the cause of gravitational lensing. So again, do you think Einstein got the right numbers by accident?
Wasnt interested in human senses this was about gravity and its influence on surrounding particles.
Then you realize that just because we don't see two beams of light pulled towards each other that doesn't mean they don't have gravity, right?
Thanks for the link, Im not sure I agree with the dark energy side of the equation, space would be dark matter that is energy less like a Kinda energy less photon
Space by itself can't be dark matter. If space itself had mass, then it would pull all matter equally in all directions because it already exists in all places (obviously). So there would be no anomalous galactic rotation curves. Besides, something that has no energy would have no gravity.
Right you are now arguing that space, SPACE has gravity?
If space can curve, there has to be something curving. Cant be nothing curving.
Maybe dark matter doesn't have a mass, that was my suggestion, I suggest space being a mass less dark matter.
Why you feel the need to add mass I dont know, because I never suggested it.
-
Right you are now arguing that space, SPACE has gravity?
I said the exact opposite of that...
-
Right you are now arguing that space, SPACE has gravity?
I said the exact opposite of that...
We were talking about space as dark matter you said
"Besides, something that has no energy would have no gravity"
The implication is a suggestion space as dark matter, would have a gravity.
-
"Besides, something that has no energy would have no gravity"
Right.
The implication is a suggestion space as dark matter, would have a gravity.
Which is why I said, and I quote, "space by itself can't be dark matter".
-
"Besides, something that has no energy would have no gravity"
Right.
The implication is a suggestion space as dark matter, would have a gravity.
Which is why I said, and I quote, "space by itself can't be dark matter".
Ok you are missing that my suggestion of dark matter, is not the same as the dark matter currently suggested. I am arguing for a dark matter with different qualities.
To save confusion, I'll call it space matter.
A suggestion space is made of space matter. Energy less, yet somehow able to hold toghter and bend under the force of gravity.
-
Dark matter has mass (and therefore energy), so your space matter doesn't fit the observations.
-
Dark matter has mass (and therefore energy), so your space matter doesn't fit the observations.
Hence space matter and dark matter are different things.
-
So what is space matter supposed to do, exactly? What problem in physics does it solve?
-
So what is space matter supposed to do, exactly? What problem in physics does it solve?
The what is space question.
-
No, the earth wouldn't exist to have any gravity if you did that.
Then let's say we have a shell around the Earth. Then we inject the heat necessary to turn it into a plasma that is hot enough to dissociate nuclei. We use the necessary magnetic fields to hold the plasma away from the shell so it won't melt. So you still have all of Earth's original mass inside of the shell (plus whatever mass-energy came from the heat you used to vaporize it).
Actually if you did that the earth potentially would become a miniature sun, and could therefore have a stronger gravity as forces once used to hold the earth together would be free.
Umm
-
would become a miniature sun, and could therefore have a stronger gravity
No
-
NO! I know what gravity really is, what really causes it, but I can't tell U,
coz I can't risk giving my TOE away, OK?
Then what was the point of making this comment?
-
NO! I know what gravity really is, what really causes it, but I can't tell U,
coz I can't risk giving my TOE away, OK?
Then what was the point of making this comment?
I think this cat is intent on littering this forum.
If so then s/he is right, one of nine will end.
-
Do U really expect me to address this (thread) seriously?
I expect you to not spam.