[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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

[Kryptid]

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.