0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
What is the minimum mass required to distort space and time ?
According to Einstein's General theory of relativity .Mass distorts Space and Time. Well Quantum Physics does not satisfy with General theory of relativity.
Quote from: Kiran The King KaiWhat is the minimum mass required to distort space and time ?Any amount of mass will destort spacetime to some extent. A single subatomic particle can do that. It just destorts it by an extremely small amount.Quote from: Kiran The King KaiAccording to Einstein's General theory of relativity .Mass distorts Space and Time. Well Quantum Physics does not satisfy with General theory of relativity.Not as currently known. It is assumed that a quantum theory of gravity will exist someday.
(Any amount of mass will destort spacetime to some extent. A single subatomic particle can do that. It just destorts it by an extremely small amount.)Well as you ... Small amount of mass as Sub atomic particles .. it sounds good but is there any proof!.....?? is there any ?
I believe the GPS satellite atomic clocks have to be adjusted every day to take into account the drift caused by the distortion in space time.
Hi Naked scientist !What is the minimum mass required to distort space and time ?According to Einstein's General theory of relativity .Mass distorts Space and Time. Well Quantum Physics does not satisfy with General theory of relativity.So, it asks a Question does G exist in quantum size world ?well ,My question is that ....."What is the minimum mass required to distort space and time ?"I mean Does asteroid can distort space and Time ?Does big comet can distort space and time ? Does astronaut can distort Space and time ?I mean What is the minimum MASS limit to distort Space and time ?I call it "Einstein space time distortion limit !"
Oh string theory is not my cup of tea. The math is really quite difficult. But, worth the dream of it
Yes Mr scientist is correct in stating that photons warps space.How they do it is an open discussion though Some see it as mass, other as momentum.I lean towards momentum.Take two parallel light beams traveling f ex."The curvature of spacetime is related to the stress energy (the Ricci tensor). Light would contribute to this. But the contribution is mind bogglingly small, so two parallel rays would not be drawn together in the scale of this universe."It will make light bend as the stress energy momentum curves SpaceTime and as I see it, velocity gains momentum. And with that momentum you will get a stress energy tensor which in its turn means a curvature. So photons will curve SpaceTime too.
You could not have matter without having all the above.
Yep, now for your theory to become perfect Define energy.
The most important and most fruitful concepts are those which it is impossible to attach a well-defined meaning.
Because of the mathematical equivalances that arise in the field equations. For instance, it would be unheard of in relativity to find parts of spacetime to be gravitationally-stressed without the presence of matter, just as much as if the presence of gravitationally-stressed bodies exist, then there is some acceleration present.
The special theory of relativity has led to the conclusion that inert mass is nothing more or less than energy, which finds its complete mathematical expression in a symmetrical tensor of second rank, the energy-tensor. Thus in the general theory of relativity we must introduce a corresponding energy-tensor T^a_s, which, like the energy-components t_s … of the gravitational field, will have a mixed character, but will pertain to a symmetrical covariant tensor.
There is a fact that seems to evade most people regarding energy as a source of gravity. Emnergy is a source of gravity because mass is defined to be the source and mass is proportional to energy. As Einstein wrote in his 1916 GR paper
I am truly amazed at the power of Google. I just did a search with the string: Vernon Brown GravityGoogle then showed me what the actual cause of gravity is.  BTW; this thread was number four in the search results. I guess BenV knows what he's about.
It is a good feature to know about search engines. When searching for the work (or play, in my case) of a certain person, include the name in the search string helps find it.
They are a little too crude to be real theories. I just call them hunches. My goal was to develop a reasonable cause for every effect I knew about. I started in 1986. My first attempts were with the Standard Model and the Copenhagen interpretation. I found right away that didn't work. Then I came across an old idea that Einstein wrote about. Einstein attributed the idea to Maxwell. Poincare and Lorentz knew about the idea when they developed the Lorentz transformations.The idea is easy to convey. It is simply: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field.Within that concept I was successful. I found a reasonable cause for every effect I knew about.
I am at that point in life where I no longer work. What I do is play.  Physicists have known about the reality of which I write for about two hundred years. Ever since Einstein, they all dismiss it without much thought. However, the old idea withstands every test for reality that has ever been devised. To me it seems that everyone knows it is real but everyone would rather it not be real. So they just dismiss it an continue to pursue their fancies.I suspect that there is no possibility that the old notion of Maxwell is not what is real in the universe. My own speculations about it may not be exactly the way things work.  They are self consistent. They could be the way nature works.
Maxwell's notion has worked well for me in my electronics career. Remembering that nature behaves exactly as if its final irreducible constituent is the electromagnetic field will serve you well. You will understand natural observations that others may not understand.
I suspect you are correct; distances will seem to contract as the craft gains speed.
Further, ground control has confirmed his messages, and simply explain two things. First, from CG point of view he is traveling at .5 C and will arrive as precicted in two years. However, since his clock is running half speed, the reason he THINKS he is traveling a C is simply that from his perspective, SPACE has been cut in half.
Quote from: Vern on 31/10/2009 21:52:55I suspect you are correct; distances will seem to contract as the craft gains speed.as speed increases to words speed of light. clocks tick slows down.Length contraction occurs.mass will be heaver.