0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/01/2021 22:12:29Let's start at the beginning.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/01/2021 20:24:05I 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.Quote from: Jolly2 on 23/01/2021 20:24:05I 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.
I was wondering if gravity couldn't be an emergent property of the strong and weak necular forces?
Until you calculate the Implications of it being true
Is the election expelled or repulsed?
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.
Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 14:06:36Until you calculate the Implications of it being trueThen please do so.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 14:06:36Is the election expelled or repulsed?By what?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 14:08:59No 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:Quote from: Kryptid on 24/01/2021 05:25:09Subatomic particles have mass and energy without having to combine into atoms.
rather then asking me to prove it.
So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledgeto rather say "if that was true then A would be true or if it was true then B would be"?
Exactly.
the guess is that they together cause gravity to emerge.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 22:12:58rather then asking me to prove it.I never did. I asked for evidence. There is no proof in science.Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 22:12:58So rather then go round in circles can you not use your knowledgeto 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.
allowing their combimed mass to increase
How does it follow that if the strong force increases mass, that the three Leptons would have the same mass?
The strong force doesnt give energy, it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 23:09:23How 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.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 23:09:23The strong force doesnt give energy, it allows the energy that is present to concentrate.Citation needed.
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.
Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act.
It's action gathers different elements of mass.
Gluons are massless.
They carry energy but dont have any they combine masses but don't have any.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 23:32:04Meaning mass isn't an element in what causes the strong force to act.I don't recall anyone saying that it was.
QuoteIt's action gathers different elements of mass.What evidence is there that mass is made up of anything more fundamental?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 23:32:04Gluons 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.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 25/01/2021 23:32:04They 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?
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.
Yeah Energy.
Relative to what they are connecting
Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together, the elections are floating around the neculas
The same way it can hold mass without having any?
they still have a relativistic mass.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:36:11Ergo 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?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:36:11Yeah Energy.Energy has mass, so that didn't answer the question.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:36:11Relative to what they are connectingWhich is still mass.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:36:11Why would they? gluons are holding the nucleus together, the elections are floating around the neculasSo 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?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:36:11The same way it can hold mass without having any?They do have 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.
but the result is more mass.
Mass and energy are completely interlinked E=Mc2 you cant have forgotten that. Are you suggesting mass is something else?
Sure, so your point?
The relative mass of a gluion relates to its attachments.
Hardly I would be suggesting that gravity is being produced by the atom, electron and nucleus combined.
a relative mass.
Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarks
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02That 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.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02but the result is more mass.And this is the claim I want you to support.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02Mass 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.Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02Sure, so your point?My point is that your claim that gluons don't have mass is wrong.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02The 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.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02Hardly 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?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02a relative mass.Which is always non-zero.Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 00:59:02Yes absolutely relative to their connected quarksNo, relative to everything.
Exactly so why are you going on about leptons?
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.
Sure you dont mean protons?
Relative to the universe?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:19:28Exactly 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.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:19:28Gluons 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).
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:19:28Sure you dont mean protons?Yes, I am sure.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:19:28Relative to the universe?Relative to anything.
Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with mass
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:33:19Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with massGood to see that you accept it.Do you understand that it proves your hypothesis to be wrong?
tell me another one.
What happens when they break atoms in the Hadron collider? Do they have more mass or less once broke into their constituent parts?
Well then at best gluons travel at near light speed.
Like a banana?
No, that which holds atoms together allows their mass to increase.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:33:19Ok the thing that holds atoms together has nothing to do with massCorrect. Gravity is so weak that it is practically non-existent on the quantum scale.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:33:19tell me another one.Another what?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:33:19What 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.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:33:19Well 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).
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 02:33:19Like a banana?If you want, yes.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 26/01/2021 15:13:58No, 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.
The strong and weak forces allow atoms to combine
if too many do their combined mass density can cause a black hole to form.
Yes but density is lost as the masses become independent
Not according to the citation I gave.
Gluons appear to be a different type of particle
The kryptid relative banana theory... good luck with that
The wall producing gravity as a emergent function of the strong and weak force allowing the wall to hold together.