Why does mass curve space-time?

[Incendia]

I was talking about Insane_Alien's post. Not yours...yours still doesn't sound right...

[lemur]

I was talking about Insane_Alien's post. Not yours...yours still doesn't sound right...

Could you at least attempt to explain grounds/reasoning for your assessment? Or should the holiness of your intuition or maybe your level of educational attainment be sufficient to accept your hunches at face value?

Edited November 23, 2010 by lemur

[Incendia]

I feel as if I should be insulted...

 

Well...As I understand: Mass causes space-time curvature. Without mass there would be nothing to curve space-time and it would be uniform. What you are saying is that the gravity was already concentrated where all the stars and planets [etc.] would be. That must mean that the movement of things in space is actually the motion of these curves in space-time and the mass inside is simply just stuck there and pulled along. And wait wut...space-time never exists without the presence of mass/energy. Are you suggesting they create space-time? How did you reach such a conclusion. Space-time supposedly fills the entire universe.

[michel123456]

I feel as if I should be insulted...

 

Well...As I understand: Mass causes space-time curvature. Without mass there would be nothing to curve space-time and it would be uniform. What you are saying is that the gravity was already concentrated where all the stars and planets [etc.] would be. That must mean that the movement of things in space is actually the motion of these curves in space-time and the mass inside is simply just stuck there and pulled along. And wait wut...space-time never exists without the presence of mass/energy. Are you suggesting they create space-time? How did you reach such a conclusion. Space-time supposedly fills the entire universe.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

It is indeed a common conception.

In this way of view, Space-time is a receptacle in which all things happen: when there is nothing Space-time is flat, when there is something Space-time is curved.

 

I don't know what exactly is the standard accepted position on this but it seems all wrong to me.

 

Look at things the following way:

Take a planet, a rock, a pebble, even a grain of sand. You look at it, and it seems that any of those "things" are restricted in space. They occupy a certain amount of volume, you can measure it, and say it is blahblah cube meters. But we know that all these objects have a gravitational field around them. Even the grain of sand has a gravitational field that extents all around it till infinite. And we know that there is no way to dissociate the grain of sand from its gravitational field. In other words the grain of sand and the gravitational field are the one and the same thing. It means that when tou look at an object, a planet, or a pebble on the beach, what you see is only a tiny part of the object reality. So, the object and Space-time around it are the one and same thing. There is no immense Space-time receptacle in which objects are. There are only interacting immense objects (like the grain of sand).

Edited November 25, 2010 by michel123456

[Rhiaden]

It is worth checking this book out:

 

Why does e=mc2, and why do we care

 

Goes into depth with regards to all things Einstein related, including proofs with minimum mathematics, and explains the concepts of matter, speed of light, space-time etc in very easy to get to grips with (without having a patronising tone) terms.

[Incendia]

At michel123456: It does not mean they are they same...the Earth has a magnetic field...doesn't mean it is made of a magnetic field...same applies to a gravitational field.

 

 

...i'm not buying a book...I have little/no money...

[michel123456]

At michel123456: It does not mean they are they same...the Earth has a magnetic field...doesn't mean it is made of a magnetic field...same applies to a gravitational field.

 

 

...i'm not buying a book...I have little/no money...

 

I know it is hard to swallow.

My posts reflect my own ideas. I have a serious doubt you will find anything of it in any book. That's the reason why I have some difficulty to backup my claims. So you are free to consider all I say as complete crap.

 

As you said, a gravitational field is used to be considered as something radiating, emanating from matter. But since we cannot find anything "emanating", I came to the idea that maybe something different happens.

 

Beware of crap:

 

My precedent post is slightly wrong. I should not have stated that a the grain of sand and his gravitational field are the one and the same thing. Since we know that a gravitational field extends both in Space and in Time, the corrected statement should have been : the gravitational field of a grain of sand was the same thing as the grain of sand.

 

Which is even more difficult to swallow.

[lemur]

My precedent post is slightly wrong. I should not have stated that a the grain of sand and his gravitational field are the one and the same thing. Since we know that a gravitational field extends both in Space and in Time, the corrected statement should have been : the gravitational field of a grain of sand was the same thing as the grain of sand.

My understanding is that the magnetic-field surrounding a magnet is caused by the alignment of the magnetic fields of the electrons in its atoms. It seems that as force-fields come into close enough proximity to intersect, they can integrate into a single field with the additive magnitude of the constituent fields, much like the way wave amplitudes are additive when multiple waves overlap. I assume that this same process occurs when particles of matter start lumping together due to gravitational attraction.

 

Why wouldn't you think that a grain of sand doesn't exist as several different fields in the same point, or rather within a tight configuration of multiple points? E.g. the sand expresses gravitation but also electromagnetism, etc. Its chemical properties are due to nuclear forces expressed within the nuclei, which influence the electrostatic relations between nuclear protons and electrons etc., right? Why does there need to be a distinction between a point-particle and the field surrounding it? On the other hand, maybe the centers-of-force of point particles orbit with each other in configurations that produce tensions within their integrated fields. In that case, it seems like there would be some very fuzzy logic to figuring out how force-fields interact, which may be why QP has to come up with so many tricky methods for dealing with Heisenberg uncertainty, etc.

 

 

[Simpleton]

Hello reader,

According to general relativity mass curves space-time giving the effect of gravity...

 

I have a challenge for you. Think of (a) reason(s) why mass causes space-time to curve. I have tried...You people are more qualified than I. So you should try too.

There is no prize.

Why am I making this thread? ...Because I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this question of why.

 

If you think of a reason you like I encourage you to make our own thread in the speculations section.

 

I don't like equations...Try to not use them. You can add them to your post in the speculations section later.

...And the challenge begins in...1...2...3...Now...Enjoy! I will be interested by your attempts to think of why mass = space-time curvature.

 

To me, Simpleton, the most probable and closest to corect answer so far is Jacques. Post #19

To everyone. Please take this with a pound or two of salt, not jest with a grain or two. I would have felt more comfortable to put this answer in speculation. Let it be clearly understood that this is my personal opinion and does not in any way, shape or form claims to represent acknowledged Physics. It is only my simplistic view. My reasoning is as simple as I am. I don't believe that there is change or motion wthout cause or energy input. This starts with the internal movement of every atom, sometimes called Zitterbewegung.

At any rate, this is my personal, humble opinion.

My simpleton view of space is an Ocean filled and full of radiation energy. Everything in this Ocean is reliant and exists because of this radiation

Everything Mass requires and consumes some part of this radiation in order to be. The more Mass is concentrated in any one location, the more of this radiation is consumed and the stronger the inflow to replace this radiation to equalize pressure in space. My simplistic view and believe is that this quantity of flow dictates the amount of Space Time Curvature.

Of course, when something is consumed, there must be something else left over or exhausted.

[Incendia]

... Physicists...anything to say to Simpleton's answer?

 

All answers should probably be in speculations...

[lemur]

I don't believe that there is change or motion wthout cause or energy input.

So you don't believe that a body or particle in motion can remain in motion by its own inertia along a recursive (i.e. looped) path? Aristotle, I think, believed that objects in motion required constant addition of energy to remain in motion, but that was probably because he was dealing with wagons with very high rolling friction. Newton, I think, came up with inertia as the tendency of objects in motion to remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force - but do you reject this?

 

My simpleton view of space is an Ocean filled and full of radiation energy. Everything in this Ocean is reliant and exists because of this radiation

Everything Mass requires and consumes some part of this radiation in order to be. The more Mass is concentrated in any one location, the more of this radiation is consumed and the stronger the inflow to replace this radiation to equalize pressure in space. My simplistic view and believe is that this quantity of flow dictates the amount of Space Time Curvature.

This is interesting to me because I have been wondering if EM radiation can express gravitation. If so, I think this could contribute to understanding the relationship between energy and matter, since the gravitational behaviors of each could maybe give clues about how matter is configured from energy.

 

According to your thinking, then, where would you find relatively lower or higher concentrations of radiation except in correlation with the locations of stars? Are you basically saying that spacetime would be more curved around a highly radiant star than around a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole? Or are you saying just the opposite, that radiation straightens spacetime from the curvature due to its gravitation?

 

 

[Simpleton]

So you don't believe that a body or particle in motion can remain in motion by its own inertia along a recursive (i.e. looped) path? Aristotle, I think, believed that objects in motion required constant addition of energy to remain in motion, but that was probably because he was dealing with wagons with very high rolling friction. Newton, I think, came up with inertia as the tendency of objects in motion to remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force - but do you reject this?

 

No. It required energy to attain motion.

 

 

This is interesting to me because I have been wondering if EM radiation can express gravitation. If so, I think this could contribute to understanding the relationship between energy and matter, since the gravitational behaviors of each could maybe give clues about how matter is configured from energy.

 

According to your thinking, then, where would you find relatively lower or higher concentrations of radiation except in correlation with the locations of stars? Are you basically saying that spacetime would be more curved around a highly radiant star than around a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole? Or are you saying just the opposite, that radiation straightens spacetime from the curvature due to its gravitation?

 

Mass does not consume jest any radiation, only some type(s)or form. Like radiation that is somewhat aged and has lost its density. Like, there was no mass till there was the type of aged radiation available that was consumable as fuel. Energy of negative value is absobed. Vacuum energy.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Simpleton

[lemur]

I feel as if I should be insulted...

Thank you for sincerely responding to my thoughts. I apologize for my insulting tone.

Well...As I understand: Mass causes space-time curvature. Without mass there would be nothing to curve space-time and it would be uniform. What you are saying is that the gravity was already concentrated where all the stars and planets [etc.] would be.

No, that the gravity-fields are part and parcel of the particles that make up the bodies that fill the bottoms of the gravity-wells. I think/suspect that the relationship between gravity and matter is that between the gravitational fields and the EM and nuclear force that generates "matter." So it's not the matter/mass that is curving spacetime; it is that gravitation IS spacetime and gravitational fields are parallel to the EM and nuclear fields that share the same "particle" centers. So, for example, if you have a hydrogen atom, it has a strong nuclear field that is very strong but dissipates rapidly, surrounding by an EM field that is less strong but also dissipates quickly and then a gravitational field that extends beyond the nuclear and electric fields. Thus, the gravity-field functions as "spacetime" for the nuclear and EM fields once it intersects with the gravity fields of other particles. Without the ability to extend beyond their EM fields, particles would not experience "spacetime," except to the extent that nuclear force is stronger than EM force. Are you following my logic?

 

That must mean that the movement of things in space is actually the motion of these curves in space-time and the mass inside is simply just stuck there and pulled along. And wait wut...space-time never exists without the presence of mass/energy. Are you suggesting they create space-time? How did you reach such a conclusion. Space-time supposedly fills the entire universe.

I don't think it makes sense to think of "spacetime" as a substance independently of field-force. It's like Goethe's idea that dark has a positive existence parallel to that of light. I think "spacetime" has to consist of gravitational field-force. Where the gravity-field of one gravity-well does not connect with another, there is no spacetime route connecting them, right? Of course, this assumes that gravity can reach absolute-zero, which it may not. Still, I think you could say that when two stars are expanding away from each other at a rate that exceeds the speed of light, their gravity fields are no longer connected. Therefore spacetime between them has breached, no? I.e. spacetime only remains intact as long as gravity-wells are connected so as to allow matter to crossover from one orbit to the other.

 

 

 

[michel123456]

(..) it is that gravitation IS spacetime (...)

 

I partialy agree.

My position is that time, distance and gravitation are different expressions of the same thing.

So maybe I agree completely.

But agreement from an insignificant forum member is not enough. We need proof.

[lemur]

I partialy agree.

My position is that time, distance and gravitation are different expressions of the same thing.

So maybe I agree completely.

But agreement from an insignificant forum member is not enough. We need proof.

 

Agreement among all the kings of the universe together with all their subjects (including everyone working in every university everywhere) wouldn't be enough. Science does not build truth by consensus. You state that "[your] position is that . . ." but that doesn't really matter either, without reason to back it up. Proof comes when you have a detailed enough theoretical position to deduce tests that are repeatable, for instance by reference to commonly observable empirical facts of nature.

[md65536]

This thread i think is a good example of the problem dividing scientists and non-scientists, and the resistance of each to the other.

 

Scientists:

Obviously ProcuratorIncendia was wondering HOW mass and spacetime are related, but rather than saying "No one really knows, exactly," you argue semantics and say that the question is not really important.

If he instead had asked "Why does an apple fall?" you would have answered "gravity" and maybe even explained it. I'm certain no one would say "Well that's not science!"

I assure you, if you had a simple answer for a causal connection between mass and spacetime, you would think that it is science, and you would think that it is important.

 

ydoaPs: "'Why?' is a question regarding the intention of a causal agent with respect to the effect said agent caused." -- I'm sorry but "cause and effect" DOES fall in the realm of science. "Why" can refer to both "what causes the effect" and "what is the predetermined reason for wanting the effect" or whatever. If you had an answer to either, you would give it. Instead, you argue semantics.

This "That which I do not understand is not important" attitude will hold back science if you all take on that stance.

Non-scientists:

ProcuratorIncendia: You say "I don't like equations...Try to not use them.", and "i'm not buying a book". What I'm hearing is "Explain this to me and I don't want to put in any effort."

You might as well be asking "Explain science to me, without talking about any science."

Or, "Make me understand, but I don't want to do any thinking."

Or more to the point, I think you are asking that people simplify the explanation of some scientific aspect for you, rather than making it simple by understanding all of the related science (including math) behind it.

I'm sorry for this rant and it's nice to see each side indulging the other to a degree, but I think a change in attitude would be helpful.

Scientists: The simple fact is that not everything can be easily explained because we don't understand everything yet. That is an opportunity, not a problem to brush aside.

Non-scientists: If you want to understand something that is on or beyond the boundary of mankind's understanding, you must go to that boundary and push it. If you want someone to bring the understanding to you on a platter, you must patiently wait for someone else to figure it out completely for you and write a "for dummies" book*.

* That's just a joke by the way. Everyone in this thread is obviously well above average intelligence. Thank you.

[ydoaPs]

Scientists:

Obviously ProcuratorIncendia was wondering HOW mass and spacetime are related, but rather than saying "No one really knows, exactly," you argue semantics and say that the question is not really important.

He was quite clearly told how mass distorts spacetime.

 

If he instead had asked "Why does an apple fall?" you would have answered "gravity" and maybe even explained it. I'm certain no one would say "Well that's not science!"

"Why does an apple fall?" gets the same answer I gave earlier.

 

ydoaPs: "'Why?' is a question regarding the intention of a causal agent with respect to the effect said agent caused." -- I'm sorry but "cause and effect" DOES fall in the realm of science. "Why" can refer to both "what causes the effect" and "what is the predetermined reason for wanting the effect" or whatever. If you had an answer to either, you would give it. Instead, you argue semantics.

Where is this causal agent capable of intent? I'll wait while you find it. Nice red herring, though.

 

This "That which I do not understand is not important" attitude will hold back science if you all take on that stance.

What a wonderful straw man you have there, friend.

[swansont]

He was quite clearly told how mass distorts spacetime.

 

 

I think why gravity distorts spacetime is what was explained.

[md65536]

[...] red herring [...] straw man [...]

Perhaps my arguments were unfair. I apologize. I've also realized that speaking of scientists and non-scientists in general based on a few posts, let alone based on all people who post to science forums, is a gross overgeneralization. However I don't want to hijack this thread so I won't argue semantics.

 

Back to the original topic... in another thread by the same poster, I basically said in this post in the Speculations forum that the main mystery for me on this topic is how mass/energy in one place can affect the length of measurements at distant locations around it. If that could be explained, then I believe I could piece together a very loose, very speculative explanation of how energy/mass effects (as in "brings into existence") space-time, whose curvature dictates the path of energy (which includes matter), wherein the path of mass energy in an inertial frame manifests as gravitational acceleration.

 

I was looking up "frame dragging", and I found this: "Static mass increase is a third effect noted by Einstein in the same paper. The effect is an increase in inertia of a body when other masses are placed nearby."

 

Could static mass increase explain space-time curvature? If it explains how the presence of one quantity of energy affects the measurements of another quantity of energy, it would mean (to me at least) the missing piece to the puzzle.

 

Unfortunately, I can't quickly find much info on it, and the wikipedia "talk" page says "I'm pretty sure this was shown by Carl Brans in 1962 to be a coordinate effect, and not fundamental." So it's more likely that static mass increase is an effect of space-time curvature, rather than a cause of it. Can anyone speak to this?

Edited December 13, 2010 by md65536

[36grit]

If you think of a reason you like I encourage you to make our own thread in the speculations section.

 

 

 

According to the model in my head (that is more artistic than scientific) Mass does not bend space time but radiates past time as distance. See infinite theory by Mark Beal in the speculation forum.

[Incendia]

...I'm a GCSE student...trying to teach me complex physics equations is like attempting to teach a fish how to walk. Math is there is show the evidence.

Why is an important question to answer. Currently there is an explanation of what and how...but if why was discovered that disproves the previously accepted what and how then you know your why is either wrong or your previous what and how are wrong...why would you take the risk of your previously accepted what and how being wrong?Perhaps the answer you got to why is right and it turns out you have been wrong about what and how.Do you really want to risk it?

I think why gravity distorts spacetime is what was explained.

...I thought gravity was caused by space-time distortion and space-time distortion is caused by mass...

[swansont]

According to the model in my head (that is more artistic than scientific) Mass does not bend space time but radiates past time as distance. See infinite theory by Mark Beal in the speculation forum.

 

!

Moderator Note

36grit, please take this opportunity to review the rules, particularly the parts dealing with not hijacking threads to promote your pet theories, and not posting such material outside of speculations. (2.5 and 2.10)

 

 

...I thought gravity was caused by space-time distortion and space-time distortion is caused by mass...

 

I think ajb has already explained this; you need curved spacetime to explain what happens in accelerating frames, i.e. the presence of gravity when you are not in freefall. And we know mass does this. But why mass does this has not been explained, and I then refer you back to my original post in the thread. We don't need to know why mass does this in order to do physics.

 

You can always ask "Why?" in response to any explanation. Eventually, you can't answer the question.

[Incendia]

I know you don't have to know why...but knowing why can disprove your other ideas of how, what, when, and where...

 

...So again...why does mass curve space-time?

Edited December 15, 2010 by ProcuratorIncendia

[lemur]

I know you don't have to know why...but knowing why can disprove your other ideas of how, what, when, and where...

 

...So again...why does mass curve space-time?

Has it occurred to you that maybe spacetime curvature is just another way of referring to gravity, just in terms of the effect it has on objects with inertia in motion in the absence of external force? Saying "gravity curves spacetime" may be like saying that food causes nutrition. Food and nutrition aren't two separate things; just different ways of looking at the same thing in terms of functional multiplicity. So while the term "gravity" refers primarily to centripetal force surrounding a massive body, "spacetime curvature" may refer to the way gravitation of multiple massive bodies interact to influence the motion of objects moving in the vicinity of those bodies. E.g. when you go from Jupiter to Venus, you are going "downhill" in the sun's gravity-well, and if Mars or Earth is close enough as you pass, you will also "dip" into its gravity-well a bit, if not completely. You're going in a straight-line in the sense of an unimpeded object taking the shortest path between points A and B, only the line curves when point C is in between A and B. Am I stating what's already known and just complicating it unnecessarily, or does this help?

 

 

[swansont]

I know you don't have to know why...but knowing why can disprove your other ideas of how, what, when, and where...

 

...So again...why does mass curve space-time?

 

We don't know. It's not a question that needs to be answered for current science to progress.

 

What would be falsified if we have a mechanism? Would spacetime no longer be curved? Would any experimental results change?