Handy andy Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) Inertia is included in GR via the stress energy momentum term [latex]T_{\mu\nu}[/latex] of the Einstein field equation. It is also included in the energy momentum equation. [latex]E^2=(pc^2) +( m_oc^2)^2[/latex] also the principle of equivalence tells us that inertial mass and gravitational mass are identical [latex]m_i=m_g[/latex] the last is part of the Einstein elevator lesson in basic SR. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle Clearly I need to get my hands on some good text books, and revise my maths before responding. I am getting too much from the internet and Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your response. Without an actual example to discuss, there is no way to evaluate your claim. As we have a rule against that behavior, you need to either stop making such claims, or back them up with concrete examples. I was commenting on your remark, my comment was not meant to start another discussion, sorry again. I think I have already started too many threads and don't wish to start a new one just yet. ( However this is not part of this thread, but worryingly might result in a new speculation in the future. I commented a few posts ago. Ref fermions and bosons having spin and space not. When a particle is destroyed it becomes a gamma ray. A fermion can therefore become a boson. In a black hole can this be reversed, bosons becoming fermions? Does a photon become a fermion or inside an atom, and then decays back to a photon, when it is released? Matter forms heavier elements inside stars, can photons combine in gravity wells to become stable particles. etc. ) I have a barrow full of other ideas swirling around in my head, it could be the onset of early dementia. I wish to go quiet for a while now. Mordred and others have given me some ideas I want to think about, I am not sure what concrete examples you are looking for, but I will give the concrete a whirl too, to see if I can come up with a solid mix. Thank you all for your comments. Edited June 2, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 ( However this is not part of this thread, but worryingly might result in a new speculation in the future. I commented a few posts ago. Ref fermions and bosons having spin and space not. When a particle is destroyed it becomes a gamma ray. A fermion can therefore become a boson. In a black hole can this be reversed, bosons becoming fermions? Does a photon become a fermion or inside an atom, and then decays back to a photon, when it is released? Matter forms heavier elements inside stars, can photons combine in gravity wells to become stable particles. etc. ) No, that's not how it works.
Strange Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 A fermion can therefore become a boson. In a black hole can this be reversed, bosons becoming fermions? Does a photon become a fermion or inside an atom, and then decays back to a photon, when it is released? Matter forms heavier elements inside stars, can photons combine in gravity wells to become stable particles. etc. No it can't. No. No. And no. OK?
Handy andy Posted June 4, 2017 Author Posted June 4, 2017 I will use as an excuse for this light hearted response one used by a friends kid "I cant help it, its not my fault" Electrons colliding with positrons become gamma rays with 511eV of energy. A gamma ray is a boson. Yes Does anyone know what goes on in a black hole and how matter is created. Maybe not Does anyone know what goes on inside a particle. The individual fermions have inertia, they move in space and will distort space as they move through it. Where does all matter in the universe come from. Don't really know do we. Heavier elements are formed, in suns, black holes, super novaes. Yes Blackholes pull all bosons especially those with low energy back in, the graviton if it existed is low energy and would be pulled back into a blackhole, and the blackhole would disappear up its own ???? No I do not believe in Gravitons. OK In any mathematical solution approximations are always made, what is considered irrelevant is dropped out and an approximation is arrived at. GR does not take into account the movement of the fermions inside an atom, which affects atomic clocks. Gravity is a field, without spin, unlike bosons and fermions, which have spin. Bosons and fermions exist within the gravitational field, as waves, causing fluctuations in the field due to their own movement. Yes Yes and Yes I am guessing the additional -ve points come from someone who exist in a coffee shop at the other side of the world.
swansont Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 I will use as an excuse for this light hearted response one used by a friends kid "I cant help it, its not my fault" Electrons colliding with positrons become gamma rays with 511eV of energy. A gamma ray is a boson. Yes Positronium (e- + e+) is a composite boson. It is not an example of a fermion becoming a boson, it is an example of two fermions becoming a boson (yes, the distinction matters). Also, it becomes two (or more) photons, another example where the details matter a great deal.
Strange Posted June 4, 2017 Posted June 4, 2017 Electrons colliding with positrons become gamma rays with 511eV of energy. A gamma ray is a boson. Yes That is a fermion and an anti-fermion becoming a boson. That is possible because it doesn't violate conservations laws. A fermion cannot become a boson because that would violate conservation laws. Does anyone know what goes on in a black hole and how matter is created. No-one knows what happens inside a black hole. According to current theory, it is unknowable. What do you mean by "creation of matter"? Does anyone know what goes on inside a particle. If it is a fundamental particle, then nothing goes on inside (that is what "fundamental" means). In the case of, say, protons that are made of quarks, we have a reasonably good idea of what goes on. (But it is complicated and beyond my understanding.) Where does all matter in the universe come from. Don't really know do we. Hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed in the early universe. All other elements were formed in stars (mainly supernovae). Heavier elements are formed, in suns, black holes, super novaes. Yes Not black holes. (Or, if they are, then they stay in the black hole and so are not really relevant.)
Handy andy Posted June 5, 2017 Author Posted June 5, 2017 The answer was not no no ok, thankyou both for your improved answers, ref positronium this is not what I was referring too. positrons are created in thunderclouds and from radioactive decay I have some one at the door
swansont Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 The answer was not no no ok, thankyou both for your improved answers, ref positronium this is not what I was referring too. positrons are created in thunderclouds and from radioactive decay You cited an electron annihilating with a positron. That's Positronium.
Handy andy Posted June 5, 2017 Author Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) You cited an electron annihilating with a positron. That's Positronium. I cited positrons and electrons both exist in nature in large thunderclouds http://www.nature.com/news/rogue-antimatter-found-in-thunderclouds-1.17526 These have been detected by various scientists including NASA Positrons can be created in the lab using positronium I think and are very very expensive, but nature creates positrons FOC in thunderclouds, they also can appear as a result of radioactive decay. Edited June 5, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 I cited positrons and electrons both exist in nature in large thunderclouds http://www.nature.com/news/rogue-antimatter-found-in-thunderclouds-1.17526 These have been detected by various scientists including NASA Positrons can be created in the lab using positronium I think and are very very expensive, but nature creates positrons FOC in thunderclouds, they also can appear as a result of radioactive decay. None of that is in question. Nobody is denying the existence of positrons. You specifically cited annihilation of an electron and positron ("Electrons colliding with positrons become gamma rays with 511eV of energy"). The combination of an electron and positron comprises a bosonic system; it has integral spin. This is not an example of a fermion changing into a boson, as noted by both Strange and me.
Handy andy Posted June 5, 2017 Author Posted June 5, 2017 None of that is in question. Nobody is denying the existence of positrons. You specifically cited annihilation of an electron and positron ("Electrons colliding with positrons become gamma rays with 511eV of energy"). The combination of an electron and positron comprises a bosonic system; it has integral spin. This is not an example of a fermion changing into a boson, as noted by both Strange and me. I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, ref the gamma rays emitted after electron positron annihilation. Can you clarify? Are you in actual fact stating that an electron can orbit around a positron as a particle, or are you agreeing with me that when a positron or electron is destroyed, the result is gamma rays which are bosons. Positron colliding with Electron = 2 gamma rays 511eV = 2 bosons Yes? https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html (The concept of electrons and positrons orbiting each other is interesting from the perspective of lightning balls, which have some reportedly interesting properties like being able to pass through walls, which would rule out heavier atoms, in the air, gas can't flow through walls.) That is a fermion and an anti-fermion becoming a boson. That is possible because it doesn't violate conservations laws. A fermion cannot become a boson because that would violate conservation laws. No-one knows what happens inside a black hole. According to current theory, it is unknowable. What do you mean by "creation of matter"? If it is a fundamental particle, then nothing goes on inside (that is what "fundamental" means). In the case of, say, protons that are made of quarks, we have a reasonably good idea of what goes on. (But it is complicated and beyond my understanding.) Hydrogen, helium and lithium were formed in the early universe. All other elements were formed in stars (mainly supernovae). Not black holes. (Or, if they are, then they stay in the black hole and so are not really relevant.) Nothing is beyond speculation, what goes on inside a particle or black hole is massively interesting, and may have similarities, please feel free to speculate I find it is very useful All things are waves even photons trapped inside an atom consisting of fermions which are a different sort of wave. Unstable particles decay into bosons do they not. There is no violation of conservation of energy rules outside of the KNOWN universe. Waves colliding in a confined space inside a black hole or an atom might become distorted and develop a different shape, that could become a stable shape and become a fundamental particle wave.
Strange Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me, ref the gamma rays emitted after electron positron annihilation. Can you clarify? No one is disagreeing with this. It is well known. However, you started off saying a fermion can turn into a boson. Which it can't. And I have no idea how you drifted off into this from a discussion of gravity. Focus, man! Focus! All things are waves even photons trapped inside an atom consisting of fermions which are a different sort of wave. There are no photons trapped inside atoms. Unstable particles decay into bosons do they not. A muon, for example, usually decays into an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. (All fermions.) Waves colliding in a confined space inside a black hole or an atom might become distorted and develop a different shape, that could become a stable shape and become a fundamental particle wave. Things that fall into black holes might also be converted into chocolate unicorns. But let's stick to science. Edited June 5, 2017 by Strange 1
Handy andy Posted June 5, 2017 Author Posted June 5, 2017 No one is disagreeing with this. It is well known. However, you started off saying a fermion can turn into a boson. Which it can't. And I have no idea how you drifted off into this from a discussion of gravity. Focus, man! Focus! There are no photons trapped inside atoms. A muon, for example, usually decays into an electron, an electron antineutrino, and a muon neutrino. (All fermions.) Things that fall into black holes might also be converted into chocolate unicorns. But let's stick to science. -------------------------------digression alert Mystery I wrote: I was digressing, but then you noticed only my digression on the post and ignored everything else I wrote stating "No No No OK" I visualised you slowly banging your head on the wall whilst writing your comments I guess people can believe in teapots orbiting the sun or Chocolate Unicorns in space if they want too, but these are arguments used to avoid looking at possible real solutions, so I suspect you are being silly . But when you think about it where would the ingredients for chocolate unicorns in space come from, and what would one look like squished in a black hole, would it melt ---------------------------------end of digression I will try and be simple. When electrons (which are fermions and fundamental particles) hit positrons (which are fermions and fundamental particles), is the result gamma rays or is it not??. Antimatter destroys matter when it collides am I right or wrong???? Or am I going mad Gamma rays are bosons aren't they?? Photons are absorbed and released by atoms as they raise and lower energy levels. This was fact when I was in school, has it changed. Focusing: what I was speculating about was the blurring of what happens to a photon which is a boson, when it is absorbed by an atom, which is made up of lots of fermions, swirling around inside the space taken up by the atom. I was also wondering about what happens to a photon captured by an intense gravitational field whilst spiralling down into a black hole, where it finally spirals into tighter and tighter orbits until it catches up to the back end of its own wave. A bit like the Oozalem bird which flies around and around in every decreasing circles until it disappears up its own orbital path. What I am digging at "is their any way that a boson could be twisted, constrained etc and become a fermion" I know quantum matter, matters here, Feynman diagrams might also momentarily at least. For the religious folk, In the beginning was there light which was twisted, constrained etc and became a particle. Would Feynman diagrams even help here. Could string theory cast some light on it.
swansont Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 I will try and be simple. When electrons (which are fermions and fundamental particles) hit positrons (which are fermions and fundamental particles), is the result gamma rays or is it not??. Antimatter destroys matter when it collides am I right or wrong???? Or am I going mad Gamma rays are bosons aren't they?? Yes, and yes. The description of the interaction is not what I am objecting to. It has been pointed out that this is not an example of a fermion (i.e. one) becoming a boson. It is an example using two fermions. Can you at least acknowledge that you see the difference between these cases? Or if you don't? Rather than going off and tilting at yet another windmill?
Strange Posted June 5, 2017 Posted June 5, 2017 What I am digging at "is their any way that a boson could be twisted, constrained etc and become a fermion" Fermions cannot become bosons and bosons cannot become fermions. Because conservation laws. Photons are absorbed and released by atoms as they raise and lower energy levels. But they are not "stored" in atoms. They are destroyed and their energy transferred to an electron (well, to the whole system, really).
Handy andy Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) Yes, and yes. The description of the interaction is not what I am objecting to. It has been pointed out that this is not an example of a fermion (i.e. one) becoming a boson. It is an example using two fermions. Can you at least acknowledge that you see the difference between these cases? Or if you don't? Rather than going off and tilting at yet another windmill? I understand that both positrons and electrons are fermions. These two fermions annihilate each other, ie they cease to exist as fermions and gamma rays with equal energy are the result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation even Wikipedia agrees with me. I also understand gamma rays are bosons. I see no windmills, not even through the fog, if there is something I have missed you are not making it clear. Fermions cannot become bosons and bosons cannot become fermions. Because conservation laws. But they are not "stored" in atoms. They are destroyed and their energy transferred to an electron (well, to the whole system, really). Conservation laws are not broken an electron with 511eV has the same energy as the gamma rays released. Nothing is lost nothing is gained. Every one will find this link interesting ref what is inside an atom. That energy has shape and fluid properties, which would be like vortices. Almost like the space is a fluid making up the fundamental particles, inside the atom. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-deepens-dynamics-quark-gluon-plasmas.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter The quark gluon soup is moving around like a liquid with a few vortices representing particles in the soup, which are drawn together and pulled into each other. Ah Windmills One can imagine a photon coming into this soup like the blades of a windmill, and being caught in or around the vortices adding to the energy in the nucleus, where it can combine with other vortices or break up into even smaller vortices. Once released the photon becomes a windmill again. Windmills are not a god analogy for photons who put that idea into my head . Light flows like a liquid interesting idea, someone has thought of it already. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-stream-superfluid.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu -------------------------- I was trying above to draw comparisons between the interior of atoms and black holes in space, the following link is something I was going to post on another thread ref gravity but didn't, because of risk of hijacking. I was contemplating creating a gravity anomaly above an object to do something sci fi . http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/06/05/scientists-create-molecular-black-hole-in-laboratory-using-worlds-most-powerful-x-ray-beam.html In the links above inside the atom fermions and even bosons are referred to as a superfluid. Speculative Question to all : is a superfluid like a none detectable liquid that can move in ways like a particle or a photon and is most likely not detectable if it isn't moving? could a version of the ether be a super fluid that all things flow in ..) ?. Edited June 6, 2017 by Handy andy
swansont Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 I understand that both positrons and electrons are fermions. These two fermions annihilate each other, ie they cease to exist as fermions and gamma rays with equal energy are the result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–positron_annihilation even Wikipedia agrees with me. I also understand gamma rays are bosons. I see no windmills, not even through the fog, if there is something I have missed you are not making it clear. TWO fermions is not the same as ONE fermion. 1
Strange Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) Conservation laws are not broken an electron with 511eV has the same energy as the gamma rays released. Nothing is lost nothing is gained. No one claimed conservation laws are broken when an electron and a positron annihilate. (Note that the mass of an electron is equivalent to the energy of one gamma ray photon. The total energy released as gama rays is equivalent to the mass of the two particles.) But still, a fermion cannot change into a boson. TWO fermions is not the same as ONE fermion. Can't make it much simpler than that. (Especially when one of them is an anti-particle.) Edited June 6, 2017 by Strange
Handy andy Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) TWO fermions is not the same as ONE fermion. I know 2 fermions are not 1 fermion, are you arguing about some perceived typographical misunderstanding. Each fermion results in a gamma ray being emitted, when they are destroyed, a can not make it any clearer than that, even Wikipedia agrees, as I have stated above. Edited June 6, 2017 by Handy andy
Strange Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Each fermion results in a gamma ray being emitted. No it doesn't. A fermion cannot turn into a boson.
Handy andy Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) Wikipedia agrees with me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation I understand that both positrons and electrons are fermions. These two fermions annihilate each other, ie they cease to exist as fermions and gamma rays with equal energy are the result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron%E2%80%93positron_annihilation even Wikipedia agrees with me. I also understand gamma rays are bosons. I see no windmills, not even through the fog, if there is something I have missed you are not making it clear. Conservation laws are not broken an electron with 511eV has the same energy as the gamma rays released. Nothing is lost nothing is gained. Every one will find this link interesting ref what is inside an atom. That energy has shape and fluid properties, which would be like vortices. Almost like the space is a fluid making up the fundamental particles, inside the atom. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-deepens-dynamics-quark-gluon-plasmas.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter The quark gluon soup is moving around like a liquid with a few vortices representing particles in the soup, which are drawn together and pulled into each other. Ah Windmills One can imagine a photon coming into this soup like the blades of a windmill, and being caught in or around the vortices adding to the energy in the nucleus, where it can combine with other vortices or break up into even smaller vortices. Once released the photon becomes a windmill again. Windmills are not a god analogy for photons who put that idea into my head . Light flows like a liquid interesting idea, someone has thought of it already. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-stream-superfluid.html?utm_source=menu&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=item-menu -------------------------- I was trying above to draw comparisons between the interior of atoms and black holes in space, the following link is something I was going to post on another thread ref gravity but didn't, because of risk of hijacking. I was contemplating creating a gravity anomaly above an object to do something sci fi . http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/06/05/scientists-create-molecular-black-hole-in-laboratory-using-worlds-most-powerful-x-ray-beam.html In the links above inside the atom fermions and even bosons are referred to as a superfluid. Speculative Question to all : is a superfluid like a none detectable liquid that can move in ways like a particle or a photon and is most likely not detectable if it isn't moving? could a version of the ether be a super fluid that all things flow in ..) ?. This post is way more interesting. Edited June 6, 2017 by Handy andy -1
Strange Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 This post is way more interesting. If you think wild guesses, complete misunderstandings and meaningless collections of buzzwords is interesting, then yes. 1
Handy andy Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 If you think wild guesses, complete misunderstandings and meaningless collections of buzzwords is interesting, then yes. I would call them reasoned lines of speculation and interesting. Are you able to reason sensibly and speculate, or are you going to carry on with your trolling insults as you do on almost every thread I see you post on. You actually started the flowing space line of thought with your inaccurate post, which I reposted at the beginning of this thread, the links above are interesting and I would think might also be to others. Maybe I am wrong maybe I am right, but without speculating we don't get to explore the concepts, and the BS ideas put forward by some posters, which we all do from time to time. A troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement. Are you amused -3
Strange Posted June 6, 2017 Posted June 6, 2017 Every one will find this link interesting ref what is inside an atom. That energy has shape and fluid properties, which would be like vortices. Almost like the space is a fluid making up the fundamental particles, inside the atom. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-deepens-dynamics-quark-gluon-plasmas.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletterThe quark gluon soup is moving around like a liquid with a few vortices representing particles in the soup, which are drawn together and pulled into each other. I'm sorry if you think that my attempts to correct your misunderstandings are trolling. So lets look at some points in a bit more detail. 1. It is not about what goes on inside atoms. It is about quark-gluon plasmas. 2. Energy does not have shape or fluid properties. Energy is a property of, for example, particles. 3. It doesn't say anything about space, especially not that it is a fluid making up particles. 4. The word vortex does not appear anywhere in the article so it does say that particles are represented by vortices. I can't really see the benefit of linking to an, admittedly very interesting, article and then just making up stuff that isn't in, or even related to, the article. I was trying above to draw comparisons between the interior of atoms and black holes in space, the following link is something I was going to post on another thread ref gravity but didn't, because of risk of hijacking. I was contemplating creating a gravity anomaly above an object to do something sci fi . http://www.foxnews.c...x-ray-beam.html That has nothing to do with gravity nor black holes in the cosmological sense. is a superfluid like a none detectable liquid that can move in ways like a particle or a photon and is most likely not detectable if it isn't moving? A superfluid is detectable (otherwise we wouldn't know they exist). They have been studied for some time using liquid helium, for example. They have very interesting properties - they are, as the name suggests, very fluid and so are almost the opposite of particles. Every one will find this link interesting ref what is inside an atom. That energy has shape and fluid properties, which would be like vortices. Almost like the space is a fluid making up the fundamental particles, inside the atom. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-deepens-dynamics-quark-gluon-plasmas.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-nwletterThe quark gluon soup is moving around like a liquid with a few vortices representing particles in the soup, which are drawn together and pulled into each other. I'm sorry if you think that my attempts to correct your misunderstandings are trolling. So lets look at some points in a bit more detail. 1. It is not about what goes on inside atoms. It is about quark-gluon plasmas. 2. Energy does not have shape or fluid properties. Energy is a property of, for example, particles. 3. It doesn't say anything about space, especially not that it is a fluid making up particles. 4. The word vortex does not appear anywhere in the article so it does say that particles are represented by vortices. I can't really see the benefit of linking to an, admittedly very interesting, article and then just making up stuff that isn't in, or even related to, the article. I was trying above to draw comparisons between the interior of atoms and black holes in space, the following link is something I was going to post on another thread ref gravity but didn't, because of risk of hijacking. I was contemplating creating a gravity anomaly above an object to do something sci fi . http://www.foxnews.c...x-ray-beam.html That has nothing to do with gravity nor black holes in the cosmological sense. is a superfluid like a none detectable liquid that can move in ways like a particle or a photon and is most likely not detectable if it isn't moving? A superfluid is detectable (otherwise we wouldn't know they exist). They have been studied for some time using liquid helium, for example. They have very interesting properties - they are, as the name suggests, very fluid and so are almost the opposite of particles. Are you amused No, just slightly saddened by seeing multiple people try and explain your misunderstandings, only for you to repeat them and even more extravagant flights of fancy. 2
Handy andy Posted June 6, 2017 Author Posted June 6, 2017 This has to be one of the most extensive answers you have given on the forum. You obviously put a lot of effort in It raises more questions than it answers, but never the less well done +1 for effort.
Recommended Posts