[Farsight]

Nice try, but no cigar. Sure, all those things that fall together in a gravity field experience similar-ratio mass changes, but GR requires their ratio of mass, to that of the planet, ALSO to be unchanged.

Give me a reference. As I said, there are significant issues with the way GR has been reinterpreted and is no longer in accord with Einstein's original. Pmb will tell you more about that.

Get away from gravity for a minute and consider the in-some-ways-similar ElectroMagnetic Force. This force can cause an electron and a proton, initially distant from each other, to fall together and form a hydrogen atom, and release some energy in the process.  Potential-energy-stored-as-mass becomes kinetic energy (with the electon getting 1836 times as much KE as the proton) becomes radiant energy.

Vernon, this isn't right. You must know that p=mv and KE=1/2mv², and that force is rate of change of momentum.  If we share momentum equally between two bodies of different masses, the lighter mass ends up moving faster, but the v² means the kinetic energy is not shared equally. Search on this to check it out: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=en-GB&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_en-GBGB240GB240&q=momentum+%22kinetic+energy%22+shared

Physicists can study the two particle independently and measure their masses. Those masses are what physicists use in Quantum Mechanics to compute the "orbitals" in a hydrogen atom. Now, if mass has actually been lost, when the hydrogen atom is compared to the separates constituents, how can those calculations be accurate? (And they are indeed very accurate!) Answer: The RATIO of masses of electron to proton must be identical both in the separated situation and in the atomic situation. That means that the proton needs to lose 1836 times as much mass as the electron, during their mutual fall, even though the electron acquires 1836 times the KE. This is still not a huge amount of mass (13.6ev) altogether, and one might wonder if the calculations/measurements are really THAT accurate...but the same sort of thing happens to a much greater degree (very measurable!) when a proton and a neutron get together to form a deuterium nucleus under the influence of the Strong Nuclear Force. Their mass ratios are not changed by the event!

It isn't as you describe. That binding energy and the emitted photon represents a loss of mass/energy, but it isn't true to say the proton loses 1836 times as much as the electron.

I hold the view that concepts associated with "potential energy stored as mass" must be consistent across all physical forces, if ever it is to be possible to create a Grand Unified Field Theory. And that means the constancy of mass ratios is a requirement for Gravitation, just as it is observed for the Strong Force, and possibly observed for the EM Force.

You need to look into this further, see above, and you have to appreciate that the forces aren't identical.    

Your mere CLAIM that the ratios must change, during gravitational interactions, has no supporting evidence, simply because the amounts of mass that convert to energy are far too tiny to measure. But my claim has consistency-with-other-forces on its side, not to mention its being required by General Relativity, to allow easy reference-frame-switching.

It does have supporting evidence, but you're not understanding it because you don't appreciate what I mean by an "immersive scale change". What I'm saying is vindicated by the Pound-Rebka experiment and the GPS clock adjustment, both of which are extremely sensitive. Do you remember what I said about a spinning plate? If it's spinning extremely fast it has more energy. Move this into an extremely time-dilated environment, and it's spinning slower, and hence has lost energy. Then I said you should consider a plate to be made up of "tiny spinning plates" called electrons and protons. It's really simple Vernon, but it's not what you've been taught.
 

I see below you asked for a reference. I'm sorry, but my reference was a UseNet discussion that is about a decade old now, when I asked for a review of my original 1995 "Stubbed T.O.E." essay, which described a falling object as converting its own mass into the kinetic energy it acquired --- and access to the discussion appears to no longer be available. I thoroughly rewrote the essay as a result of that discussion.

Shame. You were on the right track then, and got talked out of it. The kinetic energy of the falling plate comes from somewhere. It maybe comes out of the planet. It maybe comes out of the space surrounding the planet. Or it maybe comes out of the plate. The first two options demand magical-mysterious action-at-a-distance and an undetectable transfer of energy through some invisible undetectable particles. There is no scientific evidence to support this.

Nice, but that has nothing at all to do with "extra dimensions", which is what you originally said (instead of talking about magnitudes of ordinary dimensions).  Please try to be more precise in the future.  (Hmmmm.... I do wonder why so much fuss was raised, though, if the requirments are actually as extreme as indicated in the Wikipedia article.)

I said I didn't think quantum black holes are going to get created in the LHC and I've given you ample reason.  

In physics a singluarity is a place where the laws of physics no longer work, the VOLUME (not a surface) that INCLUDES a special mathematical point, where the thing exists that CAUSES the surrounding region to misbehave. The proposed law of cosmic censorship keeps all such places INSIDE an event horizon (which is indeed a surface, despite being purely mathematical and immaterial).  That's why they are two different things, and why you are still dead wrong.

You're being too argumentative, and you're defending your argument with too many hypotheticals.

False. The one that becomes real does so at the expense of the mass of the black hole (talk to Hawking about how). That's why the hole evaporates if enough of them escape. So, any that do not escape just give their real-ness back to the black hole, and energy-conservation is maintained.

I can only reiterate that a significant number of physicists consider Hawking radiation to be an unproven hypothesis. You can't use it to assert the truth of falsehood of something else.  

Wrong again. The fluctuations of the event horizon are due to the Uncertainty Principle, which is very very real. That is, the mass of the black hole, however large, is still finite and still fluctuates due to Uncertainty, and therefore its event horizon, mathematically PRECISELY dependent upon the mass of the hole, fluctuates also.  Thus (QED) any infalling real massy particle that gets close enough WILL be swallowed by the hole.

This is not what the uncertainty principle says. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

I repeat, we are talking about quantities of mass too tiny to measure such side-effects. AND, we need not be part of the system to raise the plate, if you assume (an extremely unlikely but not totally irrational assumption) the plate can absorb a gravity wave that arrives from Outside and acquire kinetic energy thereby, and rise to a height in a gravitational field, similar to an electron absorbing a photon arriving from Outside and rising to a new level in an atomic electrostatic field.

Anything arriving from outside the system adds energy to the system. When it lifts the plate, it gives the plate potential energy. The energy goes into the plate. Hence its mass is increased. Simple.  

Wrong again; your imagination is missing something. As preparation, return to the mutually-distant electron-proton analogy. QM describes exchanges of virtual photons between them as the basis of the EM Force between them. While photons travel at light-speed and the distance can be considerable, there is nothing at all preventing lots of them to simultanously exist along the path between the two particles. Focussing on the electron, it interacts with one virtual photon after another, that is already en-route between them. It does not NEED to wait for a single virtual photon to go back-and-forth between them, before the next phase of the interaction happens.

And they're virtual. They aren't real. They're a calculation tool. Feynman didn't ascribe them the same sort of reality as you do. You know what they really are? Collectively they're something called the evanescant wave.

QM for Gravitation can work the same way, no delay needed between a sequence of interactions. Now getting to your mental block, each virtual-graviton travelling from the planet to the plate consists of POTENTIAL energy from the planet, so any that are absorbed by the plate means the plate can acquire that energy; it can become real only if planet loses mass (ditto for electron absorbing virtual photon and acquiring KE at expense of proton's mass). Remember the virtual particle that becomes real at the expense of the mass of the black hole, if its companion particle is swallowed! What was the connection there?  But even without referencing the Hawking Radiation hypothesis again, WE ALREADY HAVE PROVED "spooky action at a distance" is a Real Thing (see any recent development in Quantum Encryption); this is just more of the same. What is your problem with that?

The same as Newton's:

“That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it”

That the planet's mass should disappear due to the number of external absorptions? Ah, but that is exactly balanced (most of the time) by the number of absorptions of virtual gravitons by the planet, from those external objects! Any unbalance results in an acceleration, of course (so the planet and plate fall toward each other).

Gravitons remain hypothetical, and virtual gravitons even more so.

That's only one of the two possible explanations, and no, it is not necessary that the laws of physics be violated if a graviton can travel faster than light.  I'll get back to that in a minute.

I dispute that. And do note that I've got a couple of old friends backing me up on this. One is Isaac Newton, and the other is Albert Einstein.

The standard model does not include gravitons simply because Physics does not have a Grand Unified Quantum Field Theory yet.

And when it does, this grand unified theory will be one where "the concept of field is no longer appropriate". And it will not include gravitons.

The second possible explanation for how a graviton can get out of a black hole involves the "interaction cross section" of a graviton.  We know they must be able to interact with each other; that is a requirement for consistency with General Relativity, since the existence of a gravitational field counts as mass/energy that contributes to the gravitational field. But "being able to interact" and "always interacting" are two different things.  A low-enough rate of mutual interaction can easily suffice to let vast numbers of virtual gravitons out of a black hole, no matter how fast or slow they travel.

No, we don't "know" they interact with one another. We don't even know that they exist. It's all just hypothesis on top of hypothesis.

As you have stated so many times, gravitons are hypothetical. That means even if they exist, we don't know for sure what they are like. So this variation of the hypothesis is as good as any (and may be better than most): What if a graviton is not describable as 'energy in motion"?  See, "energy in motion", such as is a photon, and also is a common hypothesis about gravitons, is required to always move exactly at light-speed. Meanwhile, "mass in motion" is allowed to have any speed less than light-speed..

Good stuff Vernon. This is more like it.

..and "imaginary mass in motion", should it exist, is required to always move faster than light-speed. You are aware, I think, that if tachyons exist, the laws of physics will not be violated?  Well, a graviton doesn't necessarily have to be any of those three things in motion, and like tachyons its speed does NOT have to be associated with a violation of Physics.

Aaaargh!

See my "Simple Quantum Gravitation" knol for the details (which actually talks about very-slow gravitons, not fast gravitons, though fast ones are not ruled out).

Like I said, I'll check it out.

Vernon, these posts are getting too long. I'm giving you a great deal of my time here but you're going to extraordinary lengths to avoid the obvious: the kinetic energy of the falling plate comes from that plate. The plate had the potential energy. We gave it to the plate. Go with the flow of this. Once you do, everything gets a whole lot simpler. Apologies, Friday night is calling, and the wife. Gotta go.

[Farsight]

Pete: sorry I haven't back to you before now. Here's a little something on the Schwarzschild singularity.

http://everything2.com/title/Schwarzschild+metric

See where he says:

"Well, it is a little more serious than that in fact: a particle observed (from outside) to fall towards the Schwarzschild Singularity will appear to take an infinite time to reach it, whereas the particle itself will think that it did reach r=2M in a finite time. Something odd is definitely happening here, and the conclusion to be drawn is that time (t) is not a sensible coordinate to be dealing with in this region (there is a better coordinate system - see below)".

There isn't a better coordinate system. That better coordinate system is counting time on a stopped clock. Hence we get back to the original frozen star concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole and note this section:

"Because of this property, the collapsed stars were briefly known as "frozen stars,"[citation needed] because an outside observer would see the surface of the star frozen in time at the instant where its collapse takes it inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is a known property of modern black holes, but it must be emphasized that the light from the surface of the frozen star becomes redshifted very fast, turning the black hole black very quickly. Many physicists could not accept the idea of time standing still at the Schwarzschild radius, and there was little interest in the subject for over 20 years.

In 1958, David Finkelstein introduced the concept of the event horizon by presenting Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, which enabled him to show that "The Schwarzschild surface r = 2 m is not a singularity, but that it acts as a perfect unidirectional membrane: causal influences can cross it in only one direction".[6] This did not strictly contradict Oppenheimer's results, but extended them to include the point of view of infalling observers. All theories up to this point, including Finkelstein's, covered only non-rotating black holes".

But time does stand still. Every observer in this universe will agree on it. The time dilation at the event horizon is infinite. The proper time of the infalling observer never ever happens. Never. Finkelstein was wrong. The black hole ends up more like a gravastar, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravastar. See where it says "This region is called a gravitational vacuum, because it is a void in the fabric of space and time". What you end up with is even more of a hole that the traditional black hole. The event horizon is the end of events, and the end of space. It's a spherical surface of infinite time dilation and infinite radial length contraction, and you can never get past it.   

[VernonNemitz]

Several of your remarks in the last message stressed the hypothetical nature of certain things.  But one variety of thing is not hypothetical at all: virtual particles.  WHILE they exist, they are exactly as real as ordinary particles.  And their temporary existence can detectably though indirectly affect real things; see the "Casimir Effect" for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

If you want to argue that virtual particles are ignorable/merely-hypothetical, then you are fighting (a losing fight!!!) against the Uncertainty Principle.  The UP requires that even a volume of space that is absolutely empty of any real particles or energy must nevertheless have an Uncertain energy content.  Therefore virtual particles must exist; they are the form taken by those Uncertain energy-variations, and the Casimir Effect is the proof they exist everywhere and all the time.

Next, regarding piling hypothesis on hypothesis, that's not true.  It is perfectly straightforward logic, that if gravitons exist, they must be able to interact with each other.  The key point is that a Quantum Mechanics theory for Gravitation must be able to yield results that are basically identical to the results of General Relativity; we know the GR results are quite realistic, and a QM theory cannot be less realistic and also be correct.  So, if a gravitational field counts as a type of mass/energy that can add to a gravitational field, then in terms of virtual gravitons making up that field, the virtual gravitons must be sources of additional virtual gravitons, in order for that description to be consistent with the GR description.  And Time Reversal Symmetry requires that anything that can emit something must also be able to absorb it (the essence of "interact").  Simple ironclad logic; only one hypothesis needed, the one that says it ought to be possible to devise a QM theory for Gravitation, involving gravitons, consistent with observations (not to mention GR).  Do note that gravitons are supposed to be the smallest possible type of gravity wave (the theoretical existence of that generic thing appears to be supported by the measured behavior of close-orbiting neutron stars: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm ).  Because of various Conservation Laws, gravity waves are not considered to be any more hypothetical than radio waves from your favorite AM station.  We know that those kinds of radio waves are made up of lots of photons; we can logically deduce, if things like Space and Time are themselves quantized, then there must be a minimum-size gravity wave; why NOT call it a "graviton"?  (If spacetime is not quantized, then of course there would be not have to be a limit to smallness of a gravity wave; they would not need to exist as quanta.) (Getting off-track now, there is a Law Conservation of Information that physicists have been taking very seriously in recent decades, and one problem with that has involved black holes.  If they can evaporate via Hawking radiation, how does the information that fell into them get out again?  http://www.space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html  --The answer relates to space-time being quantized.  YOU probably won't be impressed if you think that Hawking Radiation can't exist; my only point here is that QM has survived another test of overall self-consistency --with the consequence that gravitons are more likely to actually exist than to be merely hypothetical.  For more on Information Conservation and quanta, try to get this book: http://www.librarything.com/work/378995 --and this link might count as a sample of the material: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b43670p553581tv8/  )

Another aspect of "piling" hypotheses is presented by you in this statement:

Gravitons remain hypothetical, and virtual gravitons even more so.

Sorry, but if they exist at all, then both types, virtual and real, will exist.  Period.  Any particle that can exist at all can also exist virtually; any particle that exists virtually can become real if it absorbs the appropriate quantity/type of real energy.  There is no "hypothetical" AT ALL, regarding virtual existence; one of the best pieces of evidence involves gamma-ray photons that turn into particle-pairs; pair-production is maximized at certain energies called "resonant energies".  Resonant with what, eh?  Virtual particles!

Finally, from your message #270459 (Aug 19, 2009, 17:15:59), I quote (regarding quantum black holes):

"None will be produced by such a collision, because the required extra dimensions do not exist."

  You have yet to show why any extra dimensions are required.  You have presented OTHER reasons why quantum black holes will not be created, which I find satisfactory.  But don't try to make me think you didn't say what you actually said!

After your faulty mind-set has been corrected, regarding the above matters, then we can move on to other aspects of the discussion.

[VernonNemitz]

Wrong again. The fluctuations of the event horizon are due to the Uncertainty Principle, which is very very real. That is, the mass of the black hole, however large, is still finite and still fluctuates due to Uncertainty, and therefore its event horizon, mathematically PRECISELY dependent upon the mass of the hole, fluctuates also.  Thus (QED) any infalling real massy particle that gets close enough WILL be swallowed by the hole.

This is not what the uncertainty principle says. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

You need to see the proper part of that page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Energy-time_uncertainty_principle
(want more evidence?  The units of Planck's Constant are in "erg-seconds", i.e., energy multiplied by time)
To the extent that mass is equivalent to energy, the mass of a black hole will indeed fluctuate on the very-small time scale.  Meanwhile, as I stated previously, the event horizon is purely mathematical in its description and is EXACTLY correlated with the mass of the hole.  Therefore if the mass fluctuates, so does the event horizon.  The hole will be perfectly able to gobble any close-enough thing, regardless of General Relativity's time-slowing effects.

[Ron Hughes]

Back to the original question. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Any particle, group of particles or molecules accelerated in any way will gain mass, not because of the new velocity but because of the acceleration.

I find it difficult to believe that a clock in a mathematical boundary of an event horizon is stopped. If I'm observing this clock from outside the horizon it may appear stopped to me but I also know that if I zoom down to the clock I will find it happily ticking along. Not only that, as we fall toward the center it will still be ticking. If I look back at the rest of Universe I will see everything moving very very fast. Gravity can escape from a BH because time dilation can escape.

[VernonNemitz]

Back to the original question. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Any particle, group of particles or molecules accelerated in any way will gain mass, not because of the new velocity but because of the acceleration.

Ummm, the original question was about potential energy, not about accelerated particles.

Regarding already-accelerated particles, they have extra mass as seen from the perspective of a relatively stationary frame of reference.  There is no way, from the perspective of the accelerated particles, to detect that increase in mass, though.  For example, consider that galaxies very far away have a spectrum that indicates they are moving at a large fraction of light-speed.  Pick one at random.  We might think its mass has increased as a result of its speed, relative to us.  On the other hand, US relative to IT could be considered as having increased in mass, instead!  Do you suddenly feel more massive as a result of that realization?  No?  Like I said, there is no way to tell, at least when constant velocities are involved.  You are right, though, in that it is the acceleration toward a high velocity, and especially the energy it takes to cause that, that is the ultimate source of relativistic mass.

Please note some of this discussion is about locations of objects inside a gravitational field gradient.  Objects that are allowed to fall in that gradient will of course accelerate and acquire kinetic energy and relativistic mass in consequence.  But that kinetic energy has to come from somewhere; the explanation being talked about here concerns mass as the "storage" form of the potential energy that becomes kinetic energy.

I find it difficult to believe that a clock in a mathematical boundary of an event horizon is stopped. If I'm observing this clock from outside the horizon it may appear stopped to me but I also know that if I zoom down to the clock I will find it happily ticking along. Not only that, as we fall toward the center it will still be ticking. If I look back at the rest of Universe I will see everything moving very very fast. Gravity can escape from a BH because time dilation can escape.

Not bad, except for that last bit.  In terms of General Relativity and curved space-time, a black hole is not a problem; ANY mass is just a mass causing curvature.  It is only Quantum Mechanics, should it be applied to explain gravity, that has a problem.  Its generic explanation for a force involves something called "exchange particles", and it is those particles that somehow have to get out of a black hole to interact with other things.

[Ron Hughes]

Time is relative to the observers frame of reference which we all know. A clock in another moving frame of reference slows with respect to our observer.If we had a one kg block setting on a frictionless surface and apply a force of 1kg.m/sec^2 it will accelerate at 1m/sec^2. The only way to increase this acceleration is to increase the applied force OR slow the observer's clock. Isn't this exactly what happens in a gravity well?”

I hope the reader will agree that any particle can be considered it's own clock ( an observer ) and that a clock even one nanometer higher in a gravity well will run slightly faster than a clock one nanometer lower. Suppose we had a frictionless tube, one meter long, whose inside diameter is just large enough to allow a diatomic hydrogen molecule to move freely up and down in the tube. We fill the tube with diatomic hydrogen at STP and stand the tube up perpendicular to the surface of the Earth. Each molecule is moving up and down in the tube colliding with the molecule above and below. Let’s observe the path of a particular molecule which we call B. The molecule above we call A and the one below we call C. We start watching B as it moves down the tube toward C with velocity d/t. The molecule B (clock/observer) will calculate it's momentum, at the instant before the collision with C, using it's clock which is running slightly slower than when it collided with A. B will find it's momentum at C to be greater than the momentum of the collision with A. Doesn't this suggest that gravity is strictly a function of time dilation? Inertial forces can be considered as the same process. Particles accelerated in free space exhibit the same time dilation which would explain why we can't tell the difference between inertial forces and gravitational forces.

[VernonNemitz]

Time is relative to the observers frame of reference which we all know. A clock in another moving frame of reference slows with respect to our observer.If we had a one kg block setting on a frictionless surface and apply a force of 1kg.m/sec^2 it will accelerate at 1m/sec^2. The only way to increase this acceleration is to increase the applied force OR slow the observer's clock. Isn't this exactly what happens in a gravity well?

Please remember that in General Relativity, gravity involves curvature not just of space only but of space-time, caused by the presence of a mass.  You are describing things associated with gravity's distortion of time.  And no, you cannot conclude from that, that gravity is a consequence of the distorted time.

Another problem that Quantum Mechanics has, with respect to trying to describe gravity, involves the need to provide "matching" explanations for such things as time dilation in a gravity well.  A simple explanation brings potential-energy-stored-as-mass into the picture.  An object that loses mass while falling into a gravity well, due to potential energy being converted to kinetic energy, is an object that will have less mass at the bottom of the well, after it hits bottom and its kinetic energy is lost/radiated-away.  And in QM a lesser mass can be associated with a lesser vibration rate (per the wave-particle duality), or, in terms of what you wrote that I didn't quote, a slower internal clock.  (Note Farsight and I have been arguing about some of the details of that idea, but not the main idea itself.)

[Ron Hughes]

So my post is wrong, not because of the logic but because it's not a QM explanation? Do you ever question the fact that QM must invent hypothetical particles to explain mass and gravity? When asked to explain the gravitational anomalies they invent dark matter and energy? The propagation of light requires virtual particles that have no proofs in reality? Pretty neat, they invent Qm and when it can't explain something just add a particle.Now if someone else pulls a stunt like that they are grasping at straws to maintain their theory. Suppose for a second that my post above is correct. It would mean that the value of F = ma is not the same everywhere. That would explain the Pioneer anomaly and the rotation curve of galaxies, but I guess one should never use Occam's razor in science. A quote from Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

[PhysBang]

So my post is wrong, not because of the logic but because it's not a QM explanation? Do you ever question the fact that QM must invent hypothetical particles to explain mass and gravity? When asked to explain the gravitational anomalies they invent dark matter and energy? The propagation of light requires virtual particles that have no proofs in reality? Pretty neat, they invent Qm and when it can't explain something just add a particle.Now if someone else pulls a stunt like that they are grasping at straws to maintain their theory. Suppose for a second that my post above is correct. It would mean that the value of F = ma is not the same everywhere. That would explain the Pioneer anomaly and the rotation curve of galaxies, but I guess one should never use Occam's razor in science. A quote from Newton, "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."

And Newton applied this principle by identifying causes as those theoretical principles that we could get agreeing measurements of from multiple sources. Does you explanation have any measurement behind it? Do you explain the Pioneer anomaly and the differences in galaxy rotation curves with a deviation from Newtonian mechanics that has accurate and agreeing measurements from both phenomena?

[VernonNemitz]

So my post is wrong, not because of the logic but because it's not a QM explanation?

I'm keeping my explanations of GR stuff separate from QM stuff; please do not confuse them.  Your post was wrong partly because its logic fails to explain the source of time-dilation for different gravity wells.

Each molecule is moving up and down in the tube colliding with the molecule above and below. Let’s observe the path of a particular molecule which we call B. The molecule above we call A and the one below we call C. We start watching B as it moves down the tube toward C with velocity d/t. The molecule B (clock/observer) will calculate it's momentum, at the instant before the collision with C, using it's clock which is running slightly slower than when it collided with A. B will find it's momentum at C to be greater than the momentum of the collision with A.

Also, of course, there is the fact that for molecule B to reach A after colliding with C, it has to climb a gravitational field gradient.  You are aware that anything rising in such a gradient tends to lose velocity/momentum (converts to potential energy)?  So, no need to invoke time-dilation there as a cause for its lesser momentum (and that would be backward, anyway, since clocks tick FASTER higher-up in a gravity gradient).

Regarding dark matter and dark energy, these things are proposals resulting from analyzing lots of cosmological data.  Aspects of those proposals are subject to change as more data is gathered/analyzed.  To the extent that current data/analysis is real and correct, then that means we have observed some things that cannot be explained without modifying in some way the usage of existing theories such as General Relativity (for example, by putting a proposal by Einstein regarding a "cosmological constant" back into the theory).  And, adding new/oddball types of matter or energy are ways of extending the application of existing theory without actually modifying the theory itself.

Back to QM.  It has a long history of inventing particles and later discovering them (the first was the anti-electron or positron, but also see the stories behind neutrinos and pions and the Weak Force exchange particles and all the quarks).  Do not assume that just because a proposed particle is currently hypothetical, it must be ignorable.  When such a proposal is widely accepted --such as is currently true for the Higgs boson, which was accepted enough to get the Large Hadron Collider built specifically to find it-- there MUST be good reason for it (usually it's necessary for theoretical logical self-consistency).  If dark matter and/or dark energy exists (and the current interpretation of the data can be taken to mean: "it exists on a large scale and has certain large-scale properties"), then it should be relatively obvious that it would have small-scale properties, also.  QM, of course, is the essence of our study of small-scale properties.  Why shouldn't QM researchers propose new particles?

[Ron Hughes]

You are correct I don't, but if someone with the necessary skills doesn't try using the idea we will never know. QM uses the graviton, a hypothetical particle, my idea has none. Because the vast majority of scientists buy into the standard model that makes it right. In 1905 the vast majority thought time was a constant. The reason for time dilation, I suspect has something to do with the density of electromagnetic radiation around matter. An impossible test of that would be if we could take any matter down to absolute zero it's weight should be zero.

[lightarrow]

Back to the original question. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Any particle, group of particles or molecules accelerated in any way will gain mass

No, mass stays constant (it's also called "invariant" mass exactly for this reason).

[lightarrow]

Please note some of this discussion is about locations of objects inside a gravitational field gradient.  Objects that are allowed to fall in that gradient will of course accelerate and acquire kinetic energy and relativistic mass in consequence. 

Of course they will accelerate even in the absence of any gradient, provided there is a gravitational field...

[Farsight]

Several of your remarks in the last message stressed the hypothetical nature of certain things.  But one variety of thing is not hypothetical at all: virtual particles.  WHILE they exist, they are exactly as real as ordinary particles.  And their temporary existence can detectably though indirectly affect real things; see the "Casimir Effect" for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

There's certainly something real there, Vernon. The Casimir effect is real. But those vitural particles are virtual. It's wrong to ascribe them the degree of reality that you do.  

If you want to argue that virtual particles are ignorable/merely-hypothetical, then you are fighting (a losing fight!!!) against the Uncertainty Principle.  The UP requires that even a volume of space that is absolutely empty of any real particles or energy must nevertheless have an Uncertain energy content. Therefore virtual particles must exist; they are the form taken by those Uncertain energy-variations, and the Casimir Effect is the proof they exist everywhere and all the time.

Like I said, there's something there that's real, and that energy is real. But to claim that this is proof of virtual particles popping in and out of existence is on a par with saying it proves the existence of tiny dancing angels. Think of virtual particles as the evanescent wave.  

Next, regarding piling hypothesis on hypothesis, that's not true.  It is perfectly straightforward logic, that if gravitons exist, they must be able to interact with each other. The key point is that a Quantum Mechanics theory for Gravitation must be able to yield results that are basically identical to the results of General Relativity; we know the GR results are quite realistic, and a QM theory cannot be less realistic and also be correct. So, if a gravitational field counts as a type of mass/energy that can add to a gravitational field, then in terms of virtual gravitons making up that field, the virtual gravitons must be sources of additional virtual gravitons, in order for that description to be consistent with the GR description.

Vernon, gravitons do not exist. A photon conveys energy. Energy causes gravity. There are no actual gravitons zipping back and forth between a photon and everything else. And nor are there any virtual gravitons. It's all hypothesis.

And Time Reversal Symmetry requires that anything that can emit something must also be able to absorb it (the essence of "interact").  Simple ironclad logic; only one hypothesis needed, the one that says it ought to be possible to devise a QM theory for Gravitation, involving gravitons, consistent with observations (not to mention GR).  Do note that gravitons are supposed to be the smallest possible type of gravity wave (the theoretical existence of that generic thing appears to be supported by the measured behavior of close-orbiting neutron stars: http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm ). Because of various Conservation Laws, gravity waves are not considered to be any more hypothetical than radio waves from your favorite AM station.

Radio waves are quite measurable. Photons are detectable. Gravity is detectable. Gravitons are not. And nor are virtual gravitons.

We know that those kinds of radio waves are made up of lots of photons; we can logically deduce, if things like Space and Time are themselves quantized, then there must be a minimum-size gravity wave; why NOT call it a "graviton"? (If spacetime is not quantized, then of course there would be not have to be a limit to smallness of a gravity wave; they would not need to exist as quanta.) (Getting off-track now, there is a Law Conservation of Information that physicists have been taking very seriously in recent decades, and one problem with that has involved black holes. If they can evaporate via Hawking radiation, how does the information that fell into them get out again?  http://www.space.com/news/hawking_bet_040716.html  --The answer relates to space-time being quantized. YOU probably won't be impressed if you think that Hawking Radiation can't exist; my only point here is that QM has survived another test of overall self-consistency --with the consequence that gravitons are more likely to actually exist than to be merely hypothetical.  For more on Information Conservation and quanta, try to get this book: http://www.librarything.com/work/378995 --and this link might count as a sample of the material: http://www.springerlink.com/content/b43670p553581tv8/  )

Again, Hawking radiation is hypothesis. We were talking about where the energy of a falling plate comes from. You're defending your stance that it doesn't come from the plate, with hypothesis after hypothesis, for which no evidence exists whatsoever. Your stance is not supported. Mine is, by the spinning plate, which spins at a reduced rate in a region of gravitational time dilation, the same applying to its component electrons and their spin. It's really very simple.  

Another aspect of "piling" hypotheses is presented by you in this statement:

Gravitons remain hypothetical, and virtual gravitons even more so.

Sorry, but if they exist at all, then both types, virtual and real, will exist. Period. Any particle that can exist at all can also exist virtually; any particle that exists virtually can become real if it absorbs the appropriate quantity/type of real energy. There is no "hypothetical" AT ALL, regarding virtual existence.

It is hypothesis.

One of the best pieces of evidence involves gamma-ray photons that turn into particle-pairs; pair-production is maximized at certain energies called "resonant energies". Resonant with what, eh? Virtual particles!

It's no proof of virtual particles the way you think of them.  

Finally, from your message #270459 (Aug 19, 2009, 17:15:59), I quote (regarding quantum black holes):

"None will be produced by such a collision, because the required extra dimensions do not exist."

  You have yet to show why any extra dimensions are required. You have presented OTHER reasons why quantum black holes will not be created, which I find satisfactory. But don't try to make me think you didn't say what you actually said!

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole and please do your own research. This extra dimensions thing isn't my claim.

After your faulty mind-set has been corrected, regarding the above matters, then we can move on to other aspects of the discussion.

My mindset isn't faulty, Vernon. The energy of the falling plate came from the plate.

[Farsight]

Of course they will accelerate even in the absence of any gradient, provided there is a gravitational field...

If a gravitational field is there, there's a gradient there, lightarrow. There has to be some form of gradient, otherwise things wouldn't fall down.

Ron: Quantum mechanics is good stuff. Read up on Quantum Electrodynamics and what Feynman actually said, and it's all perfectly fine. He stresses that the virtual particles are virtual, and nobody actually knows what's going on under the covers. But some people get this wrong and ascribe a physical reality to virtual particles that Feynman and others never ever intended. The problems are in the interpretation, and people then misapply their misunderstanding and try to take it too far. You can't quantize gravity, because a photon causes gravity and it doesn't approach you in steps. It approaches you smoothly.

[Ron Hughes]

farsight, I didn't quantize gravity anymore than I quantized time. I have suggested it is a function of time and time is a function of electromagnetic density. If anyone wanted to they could calculate the momentum of the diatomic hydrogen molecule B just before the collision with C and A. I don't know how to do that but I'm sure there are members who do.

[VernonNemitz]

Several of your remarks in the last message stressed the hypothetical nature of certain things.  But one variety of thing is not hypothetical at all: virtual particles.  WHILE they exist, they are exactly as real as ordinary particles.  And their temporary existence can detectably though indirectly affect real things; see the "Casimir Effect" for details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

There's certainly something real there, Vernon. The Casimir effect is real. But those vitural particles are virtual. It's wrong to ascribe them the degree of reality that you do.  

PROVE IT.  Because the definition of "virtual" that I use is "temporary".  Their existence, By Definition, is a violation of Energy Conservation --an allowed temporary violation.  Consider the difference between a modern very thin/lightweight folded-up inflatable-strut tent and its deployed state; the shelter the deployed tent provides is very real and can be very temporary.  Consequently we could call the deployed tent a "virtual shelter", right?  The very small folded-up tent merely has potential; it is normally considered to have zero shelter associated with it, in that state.  (I'm saying the shelter is virtual, not the tent.)

If you think "virtual" means something else, that's your problem, not mine.  I know exactly what I'm talking about in this context; temporary existence can be Very Real.  And that's why the Casimir Effect is a very real side-effect.

Like I said, there's something there that's real, and that energy is real. But to claim that this is proof of virtual particles popping in and out of existence is on a par with saying it proves the existence of tiny dancing angels. Think of virtual particles as the evanescent wave.  

I don't need to think of that, when virtual particles are much better at explaining things.  Look up the history of the pi-meson (pion).  Predicted to have certain properties, to exist as temporary particles to explain why protons stay together in an atomic nucleus, the "real" form of that particle was later found to possess the specified properties.  What overcomes the electrostatic repulsion of protons if not virtual pions? (Certainly not virtual gluons; those are locked inside protons and charged pions, holding those particles' constituent quarks together.  --Oh, I forgot, since separated quarks have never been seen, you probably "dis" them as being merely hypothetical.  Nevertheless, they actually have been detected as individual particles (while not especially separated): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parton_(particle_physics) )  Your evanescent wave hasn't got a chance, to explain complex stable nuclei, and therefore is a wrong explanation.  Worthless.  So if you want to claim virtual particles aren't real enough, then you need a better alternative, also able to explain the existence of atoms more complex than hydrogen.

Vernon, gravitons do not exist.

PROVE IT.  You are essentially saying it will be forever impossible to devise a quantum theory of gravitation.

There are no actual gravitons zipping back and forth between a photon and everything else.

Your bald claims are totally worthless without supporting evidence.  You don't even have logical self-consistency on your side, as was pointed out to me years ago in that UseNet discussion, while I do now have logical self-consistency on my side (and possibly a tiny amount of evidence; have you read that "Simple Quantum Gravitation" knol yet?  Here's a related teaser: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AIPC..699.1138M ).

Gravity is detectable. Gravitons are not. And nor are virtual gravitons.

Gravitons are not yet detectable.  Unless you have proof they cannot exist, you would be foolish to say they will never ever be detectable.  Meanwhile, no physicist expects to directly detect any particle that exists virtually; doing so would be a violation of Energy Conservation, so why do you even bring that up?  Can you directly detect the virtual shelter of a folded-up tent (especially if you don't know that the thing is a tent)?

We were talking about where the energy of a falling plate comes from.

We were, indeed.  And while I mentioned this before, it bears repeating: General Relativity states that the behavior of a system does not change when the frame of reference is changed (the viewpoint used to describe the system).  Nuclear physicists use this to specify that the masses of proton and neutron in a deuterium nucleus are the same as their masses when they exist as separate particles, despite the fact the nucleus has less total mass than the sum of the individual particles.  Their math works; at the very least the mass ratios of the two particles are unchanged by fusing them together.  Ditto does similar math work for separated electron and proton, compared to a hydrogen atom in the ground state; their mass ratios are unchanged.  If you want the plate-and-planet system to behave differently, you need a valid reason.  And your inability to accept the Real Fact of "spooky action at a distance" is not a valid reason!!!

One of the best pieces of evidence involves gamma-ray photons that turn into particle-pairs; pair-production is maximized at certain energies called "resonant energies". Resonant with what, eh? Virtual particles!

It's no proof of virtual particles the way you think of them.

It certainly is.  A simple gamma of about 1.022Mev will not, all by itself, easily transform into a separated electron/anti-electron pair.  It will only do it in the presence of a strong electric field. http://geant4.cern.ch/UserDocumentation/UsersGuides/PhysicsReferenceManual/BackupVersions/V9.0/html/node27.html  Why?  If virtual particles are present everywhere and all the time, the gamma should be interacting with them all the time (heh, that's why the gamma --and any other photon-- only travels at light-speed and not faster!).  The electric field is needed to separate a pair of virtual particles that have absorbed the gamma and become temporarily detectable (temporary in the sense that if the electric field wasn't there, the two particles would mutually annihilate and the gamma ray would continue on its way, thanks to Momentum Conservation).

 

"None will be produced by such a collision, because the required extra dimensions do not exist."

 You have yet to show why any extra dimensions are required. You have presented OTHER reasons why quantum black holes will not be created, which I find satisfactory. But don't try to make me think you didn't say what you actually said!

This extra dimensions thing isn't my claim.

Then why did you even bother to mention it, especially since (A) it is hypothetical and (B) you "dis" stuff that is hypothetical!?!?

After your faulty mind-set has been corrected, regarding the above matters, then we can move on to other aspects of the discussion.

 Worth repeating.

[VernonNemitz]

You can't quantize gravity, because a photon causes gravity and it doesn't approach you in steps. It approaches you smoothly.

Bad logic.  I mentioned before the possibility that a photon might interact gravitationally at a high frequency; you would not be able to distinguish between a step-wise approach and a smooth approach, because the steps would be too small to notice.

[Ron Hughes]

Vernon when you say, "Prove it." that is somewhat like a bible thumper telling me I can't prove God doesn't exist therefore that is proof God does exist. The onus should be on the bible thumper to provide the proof of Gods existance.