[Tony_82]

E = mc2, The Big Bang and Gravity
 

We all know that a very small amount of matter can be converted to energy. (e=mc2)
 
So it stands to reason that a very large amount of energy can be converted to mass, is there anywhere in nature that this happens?
 
When and if there was a big bang, was everything pure energy to start off with, and due to the size of the universe at the time of expansion; did this cause some of it to convert to mass?
 
As it is believed, that gravity is a curve or warp in space, that cause's objects with mass to attract one another; is it possible that it could be the result of energy converting to mass? ( By the force of converting the energy to mass it could cause the fabric of space it's self to warp around the mass. )
 
 
Many thanks,

[Vern]

So it stands to reason that a very large amount of energy can be converted to mass, is there anywhere in nature that this happens?

Yes; energy does produce mass. This happens routinely in particle accelerators. But gravity is not only produced by matter. Energy also produces gravity and is attracted by gravity.


My speculation is that we can eliminate the middle man. Since matter is mostly energy, why not investigate whether it is the energy content of matter that is totally responsible for gravity. A consistent theory of gravity is possible within that concept.

[Tony_82]

I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

[Vern]

The fact that light produces a gravitational field is not my idea, although I need it to be so in my cause and effect speculations. It is one of the predictions of Einstein's General theory of relativity but Poincare and others suggested it before Einstein formalized it.

Einstein\'s theory of general relativity says that G_uv=-8(pi)T_uv. There is a way to formulate T_uv with respect to the electromagnetic field tensor F_uv=a_u,v-a_v,u where a is the electromagnetic potential. This would mean that energy actually creates a gravitational effect just like it\'s mass equivalent.

[Tony_82]

Would one way of testing it, to be the speed of light...

Gravity can speed up and slow down matter and change it's direction, because I believe all matter curves or warp space.

When it comes to light, gravity can merely change the direction of light, it cannot affect the speed.

When it comes to black holes, the curve or warp in space is so great that it bends the light back around.

[PhysBang]

My speculation is that we can eliminate the middle man. Since matter is mostly energy, why not investigate whether it is the energy content of matter that is totally responsible for gravity. A consistent theory of gravity is possible within that concept.

Indeed, it's called the General Theory of Relativity.

[Vern]

GR is a great theory but it does not provide the mechanism for gravity. It just describes the effects very accurately.

[Mr. Scientist]

I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

Photons have an acceleration aspect to them, so that they curve space and time as they move through the vacuum. This curvature is a generated gravitational field, this is why it can couple to other curvatures.

[Tony_82]

I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

Photons have an acceleration aspect to them, so that they curve space and time as they move through the vacuum. This curvature is a generated gravitational field, this is why it can couple to other curvatures.

Again, I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

[Mr. Scientist]

No, you should read what is being said first.

I said, a photon generates a gravitational field. I never said it instrinsically-possessed a gravitational mass, since the weak-equivalance principle forbids this.

[Tony_82]

OK, please tell me, how you know "a photon generates a gravitational field," or where you are getting your information from that states this? 

[Mr. Scientist]

...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

''According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.''

---Operative words: to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light

Photons do have a momentum through spacetime given as E^2=p^2c^2+M^2c^2, and therefore as a result, curves spacetime as it moves through spacetime and so creating its own gravitational field. Energy alone is enough to cause curvature (or distortions in spacetime) and so gravitational masses are not unique in this sense. Gravitationally-radiating bodies and bodies which cause spacetime gravitational field all cause distortions in spacetime.

[Tony_82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon [nofollow]

''Conversely, photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories may be bent by warped spacetime,''

-- operative words: bent by warped spacetime and effected by gravity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing [nofollow]

''According to general relativity, mass "warps" space-time to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light as a result.''

---Operative words: to create gravitational fields and therefore bend light

Photons do have a momentum through spacetime given as E^2=p^2c^2+M^2c^2, and therefore as a result, curves spacetime as it moves through spacetime and so creating its own gravitational field. Energy alone is enough to cause curvature (or distortions in spacetime) and so gravitational masses are not unique in this sense. Gravitationally-radiating bodies and bodies which cause spacetime gravitational field all cause distortions in spacetime.

I agree that energy is affected by gravity, no question of that,

However, I do not see how the above proves that light has a gravitational field.

You state that "Energy alone is enough to cause curvature," Again, I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

[Mr. Scientist]

what is the sun but pure gamma energy? Is this body not capable of causing curvature around it? All rhetorical questions, but the point you are missing is that curvature is actually the same thing as a gravitational field.

Realize your mistake now?

[Tony_82]

what is the sun but pure gamma energy? Is this body not capable of causing curvature around it? All rhetorical questions, but the point you are missing is that curvature is actually the same thing as a gravitational field.

Realize your mistake now?

"but the point you are missing is that curvature is actually the same thing as a gravitational field. Realize your mistake now?"

No, really, is it, never, thanks for pointing that out.

"All rhetorical questions"

No, don't worry about it, I will answer your questions,

"what is the sun but pure gamma energy?

No, I think, about three-fourths of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, most of the rest is helium. Less than 2% consists of other elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others.

"Is this body not capable of causing curvature around it?"

I never stated the sun has no gravity.

[Mr. Scientist]

what is the sun but pure gamma energy? Is this body not capable of causing curvature around it? All rhetorical questions, but the point you are missing is that curvature is actually the same thing as a gravitational field.

Realize your mistake now?

"but the point you are missing is that curvature is actually the same thing as a gravitational field. Realize your mistake now?"

No, really, is it, never, thanks for pointing that out.

"All rhetorical questions"

No, don't worry about it, I will answer your questions,

"what is the sun but pure gamma energy?

No, I think, about three-fourths of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen, most of the rest is helium. Less than 2% consists of other elements, including iron, oxygen, carbon, neon, and others.

"Is this body not capable of causing curvature around it?"

I never stated the sun has no gravity.

Evading your mistake again intentionally. Also, your sarcasm was uncalled for.

If you cannot understand that something which generates a curvature is also generating a field, then i cannot say anymore.

[Mr. Scientist]

EVEN a single quantum photon is a distortion of spacetime. And when i was talking about pur gamma energy, i was referring to light being generated in general, is still part of the suns makeup. Mass is not special when curvature is involved. Energy can also casue curvature, thus solidifying the arguement that photon generates its own gravitational field as it inexorably moves through the vacuum. It's not due to mass, but energy with momentum in general.

[Tony_82]

EVEN a single quantum photon is a distortion of spacetime. And when i was talking about pur gamma energy, i was referring to light being generated in general, is still part of the suns makeup. Mass is not special when curvature is involved. Energy can also casue curvature, thus solidifying the arguement that photon generates its own gravitational field as it inexorably moves through the vacuum. It's not due to mass, but energy with momentum in general.

Again, I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

[Vern]

The notion that a photon produces a gravitational field is part of Einstein's General theory of relativity. All theories of nature contain the notion; it is necessary for consistency. When you equate mass to energy, you must equate the whole of it. E = mc² does not allow you to somehow separate gravity from the m in the equation.

Now, you can continue to be sceptical; there is no experimental proof that I know about; but the maths work so well that we usually accept it. You would need some powerful experimental evidence to refute the notion that photons produce gravity.  []

[Tony_82]

The notion that a photon produces a gravitational field is part of Einstein's General theory of relativity. All theories of nature contain the notion; it is necessary for consistency. When you equate mass to energy, you must equate the whole of it. E = mc² does not allow you to somehow separate gravity from the m in the equation.

Now, you can continue to be sceptical; there is no experimental proof that I know about; but the maths work so well that we usually accept it. You would need some powerful experimental evidence to refute the notion that photons produce gravity.  []

I've asked http://madsci.org/ask.html [nofollow] the question now, they say it will take 2 or more weeks, I will let you know what they say.

"E = mc2 does not allow you to somehow separate gravity from the m in the equation."

I am still looking for information on energy converting to matter in particle accelerators.

You say that matter is mostly energy, earlier (08/11/2009 19:27:40) do you not believe that matter is 100% made up from energy.

[Mr. Scientist]

EVEN a single quantum photon is a distortion of spacetime. And when i was talking about pur gamma energy, i was referring to light being generated in general, is still part of the suns makeup. Mass is not special when curvature is involved. Energy can also casue curvature, thus solidifying the arguement that photon generates its own gravitational field as it inexorably moves through the vacuum. It's not due to mass, but energy with momentum in general.

Again, I agree that energy is affected by gravity, but does energy have gravity, you state it does, where are you getting your information from?

You are quite annoying.

Where did i ever state ''photons have gravity'' - that is a load of rubbish which was never spurted from my mouth. I said photons generate a gravitational field as they move through spacetime. That does not mean it has a gravitationally-radiating body. Secondly, if you are asking these questions in much the same mannor as you have presented them here, then i warn everyone to take whatever reply you get with a pinch of salt, considering you have consistently evaded admitting you where wrong, and then playing this silly cherade on words.

[Mr. Scientist]

The notion that a photon produces a gravitational field is part of Einstein's General theory of relativity. All theories of nature contain the notion; it is necessary for consistency. When you equate mass to energy, you must equate the whole of it. E = mc² does not allow you to somehow separate gravity from the m in the equation.

Now, you can continue to be sceptical; there is no experimental proof that I know about; but the maths work so well that we usually accept it. You would need some powerful experimental evidence to refute the notion that photons produce gravity.  []

I've asked ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

and yes... vern is right and so is every other physicist (or amature) who states that matter is but a different form of energy. This is what the equality between energy and matter(c)^2 means.

[Vern]

I am still looking for information on energy converting to matter in particle accelerators.

It should not be difficult for you to find this. It is routine. There are warehouses full of data about the CERN electron-positron colliding experiments. The experiments went on for several years. Electrons and positrons were accelerated to near the speed of light and allowed to collide head on. The collisions were spectacular and well documented. In general the first instant saw total collapse of the matter of the electrons and positrons into pure energy. Immediately after, there appeared a whole zoo of particles; many of them were very massive and very short lived. Then came more familiar particles; there were electrons, positrons, perhaps neutrinos, and yes; hadrons. Protons and neutrons are hadrons.

Most every sensible witness to these events concluded that matter was created out of the energy of the collisions.

I do not find your inquiry annoying; I see it as a dogmatic effort to obtain some understanding; I'll help if I can. []

[Mr. Scientist]

I would like to restate for the record why i said i was finding this annoying. It's because each time i explained why energy can create a gravitational field, you have persistently ignored or misread what i have said more than twice, and then repeating yourself. This is tiring, because then i have to repeat myself.

I understand that its not easy understanding physics, but its not a good idea to refute those theories with the highest impunity or dogmatism (as vern put it), after all, the very fact i have remained here to try and help you understand shows you the bredth of my magnaminity.

[Vern]

You say that matter is mostly energy, earlier (08/11/2009 19:27:40) do you not believe that matter is 100% made up from energy.

I suspect that matter is 100% made up of energy. However, others suspect that it is not. So I don't always advocate my own suspicions. I sometimes use the prevailing wisdom and subjugate my own suspicions.

[Mr. Scientist]

You say that matter is mostly energy, earlier (08/11/2009 19:27:40) do you not believe that matter is 100% made up from energy.

I suspect that matter is 100% made up of energy. However, others suspect that it is not. So I don't always advocate my own suspicions. I sometimes use the prevailing wisdom and subjugate my own suspicions.

It's like bread.

To begin, you add flour and then water, mix into a dough and let it set. Then after baking, do we still have essentially the same ingredients we began with?

Sure, it's just in a different form

[Tony_82]

I do appreciate your feedback, as I understand it there are two types of challenging,

One, able to challenge,
Two, able to be challenged.

I am not able to challenge the math side of it as much as I would like, all I am doing is making observation based theory.

[Tony_82]

The mass of an object is proportional to its total energy, including the kinetic energy. Mass and energy are related by the famous formula E=mc^2, where c is the speed of light, E is the energy, and m is the mass. If you put any kind of energy into an object (by heating it up, or making it move faster, or charging up a battery, etc.), the mass increases. We don't ordinarily notice this, because c is such a big number that a little mass goes a very long way in the energy department. G is a constant used when calculating gravitational force between two masses.

[yor_on]

I agree, mass and energy is the same.

Energy and matter is not though.
...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN
==

Which is really weird
If it's correct.

And also seems to put some emphasis to the 'classic' wave/particle duality actually being correct.
That means, there is a real difference between a particle and a wave.
So that when discussing wavepackets one moment, deeming them photons the next one's actually wrong.
Or would that be overstating it, as the photon only is defined by its momentum?
Ah, and energy of course
Awhh.