Why does mass curve space-time?

[alpha2cen]

Think about this scenario.

.

In order to relate mass to energy, we can describe energy to mass transfer mechanism like this.

Give energy to the vacuum.

energy ----------------------------------------------------------->proton + anti-proton

.........................................................................................mass.........mass

........................................................................................gravity.......gravity

.

more energy -------------------------------------------------->more many proton + more many anti-proton

........................................................................................more mass................more mass

........................................................................................more gravity.............more gravity

.

more more energy ------------------------------------------>more more proton + more more anti-proton

......................................................................................more more mass.......more more mass

......................................................................................more more gravity ....more more gravity

......................................................................................fusion........................fusion

more more more energy----------------------------------->more more more energy + more more more energy

.....................................................................................more more more mass........more more more energy

.....................................................................................more more more gravity.....more more more gravity

.....................................................................................black hole...........................black hole

more more more more energy--------------------------->???

.

No one tell about this. This is not perfect, but for next better model.

We assume mass as mixed waves.(artificial model)

.

The object which has large mass emits mixed strong waves to the space, and the object which has small mass emits mixed weak waves to the space. We call this wave as mass wave.

When the two waves interfere, space contraction force is occurred.

This is a gravity force.

This opinion is the other side of the current theory. But we can relate to origin of the mass to gravity.

Edited December 18, 2010 by alpha2cen

[D H]

Please use words strung together to form meaningful sentences, sentences strung together to form meaningful paragraphs. Your lack of structure, your use of dots, arrows, bolded text, underlined text, might make sense to you, but it makes sense to nobody else.

 

Learn how to communicate.

 

Also, learn to express your ideas mathematically. Without math you are not doing science.

[swansont]

Where did the "energy" and "more energy" come from? You can't create it from nothing. Wherever you got it, gravity already existed there.

[alpha2cen]

I modified above post again.

This is not perfect, but it is useful for the future more good model.

 

Modified post

In order to relate mass to energy, we could describe energy to mass transfer mechanism like this.

We think about this case when we give some energy to the vacuum. Where we consider one of the mass particles, proton.

energy ----------------------------------------------------------->proton + anti-proton

.........................................................................................mass.........mass

........................................................................................gravity.......gravity

.

more energy -------------------------------------------------->more many proton + more many anti-proton

........................................................................................more mass................more mass

........................................................................................more gravity.............more gravity

.

more more energy ------------------------------------------>more more proton + more more anti-proton

......................................................................................more more mass.......more more mass

......................................................................................more more gravity ....more more gravity

......................................................................................fusion........................fusion

more more more energy----------------------------------->more more more proton + more more more proton

.....................................................................................more more more mass........more more more mass

.....................................................................................more more more gravity.....more more more gravity

.....................................................................................black hole...........................black hole

more more more more energy--------------------------->???

.

Next.

No one tell about this. This is not perfect, but for next better model.

.

We assume mass as mixed waves.(artificial model)

The object which has large mass emits mixed strong waves to the space, and the object which has low mass emits mixed weak waves to the space.

Let's call this wave as mass wave.- unseen

When the two waves overlap, space contraction force between two objects is occurring.

This is a gravity force.

.

This opinion is outside of the current theory. But we can relate to origin of the mass to gravity.

Edited December 23, 2010 by alpha2cen

[Incendia]

...Protons aren't made of energy they're made of quarks...

[alpha2cen]

...Protons aren't made of energy they're made of quarks...

 

When we make anti-proton, proton is created, too.

We make anti-proton by colliding proton with metals.

The reaction is like this.

P-----------------> 2P + P^-

 

So energy = P + P^-

Edited December 18, 2010 by alpha2cen

[Incendia]

...but protons are made from quarks. Proton = 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.

[alpha2cen]

...but protons are made from quarks. Proton = 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.

 

Protons are consists of quarks. At the beginning of the Universe protons were made from quarks.

But here I,d like to say is the relationship between mass and energy.

One of them is the proton.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This opinion is outside of the current theory. But we can relate to origin of the mass to gravity.

Speculative material should be kept in the Speculations forum, if you don't mind. You could open a discussion on your hypothesis there.

[swansont]

When we make anti-proton, proton is created, too.

We make anti-proton by colliding proton with metals.

The reaction is like this.

P-----------------> 2P + P^-

 

So energy = P + P^-

 

And the energy already curves space. You would not increase gravity by creating a particle/antiparticle pair.

[Incendia]

Speculative material should be kept in the Speculations forum, if you don't mind. You could open a discussion on your hypothesis there.

 

Indeed speculative material should be in speculation...

 

...but you should post a link to your speculation here if it is relevant to the topic.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No. Please see rule 10.

[Incendia]

...well then I posted this in the wrong place...Could you please move it?

[lemur]

If you are referring to your response to pioneer, your "basic generalization" is basically word salad. It has no real physics meaning to it. It's not surprising, because the post to which you were responding was nonsense.

It's a bit arrogant on your part to assume something is nonsense before you understand it's meaning, don't you think?

 

 

Saying "energy gets separated into distinct particles" is meaningless, since energy is not a substance.

BBT presumes, to my knowledge, that energy preceded the formation of matter in the early universe. In general, matter is currently thought of as being constituted of energetic fields. Are those fields fundamental and not ultimately reducible to (radiant) energy or composed of it? If so, where did the fields come from separate from the energy? If not, there must have been some moment where (radiant) energy formed into particles. I say "get separated into distinct particles" because it seems logical to me that in a very dense early-universe, all forces were equally strong to strong nuclear force because of dense volume. Thus, I believe that a point of expansion was reached where gravity and EM fields expanded beyond the nuclear force, which would have allowed the initial macro-nucleus to begin fissioning/separating into distinct particles. It's not "word salad," but a reasoned hypothesis. If you have some reason(s) why it's invalid besides it being different than what you've read, please state those.

 

I don't know what "tendency toward radiation" is supposed to mean.

It means that when energy is bound up in a particle, it could have the tendency to become radiant again as the particle approaches C. Since all radiation travels at C, it has to become bound as a particle of matter to move slower than C, which becomes possible once it develops inertia. A more concrete example would be to say that a heavy particle has a tendency to radiate some of its binding energy when it decays and splits.

 

There's a reason physicists define terms and use math to describe phenomena. It cuts down on the twaddle and multiple interpretations of language. Analogies and descriptions may facilitate knowledge (e.g. thinking about entropy as order/disorder) but all analogies fail at some point, and it causes problems when you try and push them too far.

That's the reason you dissect them critically. Too many people reject them outright because they have a fear of such critical dissection. Nevertheless, that is the process of deductive modeling. You formulate a theoretical explanation/model and begin deducing tests that falsify it. I recently read an example in which gravity was modeled/explained as being caused by particles flowing around in space and getting blocked by the sun and the Earth in such a way that a vacuum would form between the two causing them to be attracted. This model was falsified by noting that if such particles were indeed present, they would cause friction as Earth proceeded in its orbit, which would slow down the orbit. It was NOT falsified by either claiming it didn't have math to back it up OR that it was different from other models.

 

 

[steevey]

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.

 

Although relativity can be described as a bending of the fabric of space time, that doesn't necessarily mean there is a fabric of time. The reason the fabric of space time appears to bend as a 2D plane is because the Gauge Boson for gravity has no mass, which means it travels indefinitely, which being energy, can also effect light without changing it, but also gravity gets weaker by the square of the distance. In mathematics, on a graph, using a square of a variable is usually two dimensional or forming a square, so the reason the "fabric" bends as a 2D fabric type of fashion is because gravity mathematically 2D, but is 2D in every direction since Gauge Bosons are given off in a spherical manner.

Edited December 19, 2010 by steevey

[D H]

It's a bit arrogant on your part to assume something is nonsense before you understand it's meaning, don't you think?

When something obviously has zero meaning, no, its not arrogant. Pioneer's post, like yours, was word salad.

 

BBT presumes, to my knowledge, that energy preceded the formation of matter in the early universe.

What, exactly, do you think energy is? What do you even mean by this? Energy is not a thing in and of itself. All of the forms of energy that we know of, except for gravity and dark energy, involve particles. Dark energy doesn't count (yet), because nobody has any idea what it is (yet). Gravity is in a sense in the same boat as dark energy. We don't know what causes it (yet) as a deep theory of physics. Developing a model that unifies quantum mechanics and gravitation is the Holy Grail of physics. We're not there yet.

 

In general, matter is currently thought of as being constituted of energetic fields.

No, it's not. Where did you get this idea?

 

It means that when energy is bound up in a particle, it could have the tendency to become radiant again as the particle approaches C. Since all radiation travels at C, it has to become bound as a particle of matter to move slower than C, which becomes possible once it develops inertia. A more concrete example would be to say that a heavy particle has a tendency to radiate some of its binding energy when it decays and splits.

This is word salad.

 

You are traveling at 0.999999 c with respect to some object in the universe. Why haven't you become radiant again?

[swansont]

It's a bit arrogant on your part to assume something is nonsense before you understand it's meaning, don't you think?

 

These words have precise meanings in physics, and you and pioneer used them in a way that makes little sense. I understand the meaning of the words. It took years of study and work, included repeatedly being wrong about something and being told that, to gain a level of understanding of the physics. What is arrogant is to think one has arrived there via a shortcut.

 

What you posted was conceptually wrong.

[lemur]

When something obviously has zero meaning, no, its not arrogant. Pioneer's post, like yours, was word salad.

Regardless of how much expertise you have in any field, that doesn't give you the authority to determine the meaning of text you don't understand the author's meaning in writing. If you would understand it and show where it fails empirical viability, that would be a different story.

 

What, exactly, do you think energy is? What do you even mean by this? Energy is not a thing in and of itself. All of the forms of energy that we know of, except for gravity and dark energy, involve particles. Dark energy doesn't count (yet), because nobody has any idea what it is (yet). Gravity is in a sense in the same boat as dark energy. We don't know what causes it (yet) as a deep theory of physics. Developing a model that unifies quantum mechanics and gravitation is the Holy Grail of physics. We're not there yet.

Photons may be particles, but they do not have inertia-mass, so they can't slow down below their maximum speed in a given medium. Another way to describe this is to say that are purely radiant energy (whether they consist of particles, fields, or fairies). If inertia-particles consist of the same basic energy configured in a way that allows them to have inertia and move at variable sub-C speeds, I think what you call, "word salad," says something interesting about that relationship between photons and other (inertia) particles.

 

No, it's not. Where did you get this idea?

What is a point-particle except the center of a field?

 

This is word salad.

It's not 'word-salad' if you read it and understood the meaning in order to criticize it (don't use insulting exaggerations that aren't true).

 

You are traveling at 0.999999 c with respect to some object in the universe. Why haven't you become radiant again?

Idk but the point is not that what hasn't become radiant (again) hasn't. The point is that if photons somehow get "bound" as sub-C particles, they could have the tendency to re-emerge as radiant photons under certain conditions, which I do not know.

 

These words have precise meanings in physics, and you and pioneer used them in a way that makes little sense. I understand the meaning of the words. It took years of study and work, included repeatedly being wrong about something and being told that, to gain a level of understanding of the physics. What is arrogant is to think one has arrived there via a shortcut.

What is just wrong is to think that one's credentials give one the right to "own" language and concepts. You may have a broader range of reasoning at your disposal because of your years of study that give you the power to show where amateurs' ideas fail, but you have to provide those reasons for us to see it. We're not just going to fall on our knees and believe we are totally lost because you say so. You have to ground your claims in specific reasoning.

 

What you posted was conceptually wrong.

See, there you go. Claim without giving any reason. Your credentials don't give you the right to make unreasoned claims. If anything they're supposed to have learned you that unreasoned claims are valueless.

 

 

[D H]

See, there you go. Claim without giving any reason. Your credentials don't give you the right to make unreasoned claims. If anything they're supposed to have learned you that unreasoned claims are valueless.

What a bunch of hogwash.

 

Who is more qualified to remove a tumor from your brain, a trained neurosurgeon, or someone who has read the wikipedia article on brain surgery? Who is more qualified to argue a case before the Supreme Court, a practiced constitutional lawyer, or an amateur pundit who has some twisted view of what the constitution means? What we have here is one of the key problems of the 21st century, the silly notion that people with no training in a specialized field can add any value to that field. If anything, this internet cult of the amateur subtracts value from society.

 

Moreover, this is not how science works. When someone throws out a bunch of excrement and someone knowledgable in the field calls BS, it is not our job to prove the person who made those excremental claims false. The burden of proof lies solely on the person who made the claims. In the field of physics, those claims need to be backed up with mathematics. Words alone are just armchair philosophizing, aka mental masturbation.

 

 

 

[michel123456]

This thread is going out of tracks.

 

To Lemur: please stop.

 

To DH: bad wording do not help and may be interpretated erroneously as lack of arguments.

 

To staff: do something.

Edited December 19, 2010 by michel123456

[steevey]

 

In the field of physics, those claims need to be backed up with mathematics. .

 

 

Except then, you can come up with any sort of crazy theory to describe something and just make up equations for it, which is how things like string theory and particles which aren't even proven to exist are assumed to exist.

 

Well I'm claiming that the gravity on Earth is 20 times as high as you think it is, so here's my equation for gravity on Earth: 196m/s^2. Or I could say that energy isn't equal to matter and that it's just that there's yet another force which matter gets converted into and the energy comes from super-subatomic potatoes which release more energy the more they are forced together which is why in particle colliders when particles are smashed together they release large amounts of energy.

 

 

[D H]

Well I'm claiming that the gravity on Earth is 20 times as high as you think it is, so here's my equation for gravity on Earth: 196m/s^2.

Oh please. Obviously a conjectured model of physics first and foremost must agree with already-accumulated evidence.

 

 

 

[lemur]

What a bunch of hogwash.

Can't you get banned for rudeness or something?

 

Who is more qualified to remove a tumor from your brain, a trained neurosurgeon, or someone who has read the wikipedia article on brain surgery? Who is more qualified to argue a case before the Supreme Court, a practiced constitutional lawyer, or an amateur pundit who has some twisted view of what the constitution means? What we have here is one of the key problems of the 21st century, the silly notion that people with no training in a specialized field can add any value to that field. If anything, this internet cult of the amateur subtracts value from society.

When you talk about brain surgery, that's a situation where any mistake can be life-threatening. Adversarial justice is supposed to work by both parties being able to argue their case and, technically, shouldn't require technical expertise although many lawyers will tell you that's not the case any more. When it comes to science, there's no real substitute for grounding things in rigorously reasoned arguments and empirical factuality. You can't just make a claim to your credentials to be right about an unreasoned claim.

 

Moreover, this is not how science works. When someone throws out a bunch of excrement and someone knowledgable in the field calls BS, it is not our job to prove the person who made those excremental claims false. The burden of proof lies solely on the person who made the claims. In the field of physics, those claims need to be backed up with mathematics. Words alone are just armchair philosophizing, aka mental masturbation.

You're throwing out a bunch of pejorative "BS" instead of reasoning what you're saying. The only basis you have for demanding mathematics in some general way is some general reasoning you have about it. If someone uses a spectrometer to show that some element is present in some star, where is the math? The point is that you can't even logically expect math for something without knowing what that something is.

 

You are calling the discussion of radiant vs. bounded-energy particles BS because of a lack of math. How does that make any sense? It is just a generic argument you use to call anything BS that you don't know how to discuss.

 

[steevey]

Oh please. Obviously a conjectured model of physics first and foremost must agree with already-accumulated evidence.

 

 

 

 

But do you see what I'm getting at? You can come up with any explanation for how anything works using math since we don't know everything. We know that E=mc^2, but we don't know all the details as to why, so that's where all these other ideas come form, which still claim to have the evidence from the fact that E=mc^2.

 

Can't you get banned for rudeness or something?

 

He/she's a moderator, he/she's not on probation anymore...but, it's the only way most people can think for a forum to work properly.

 

Edited December 19, 2010 by steevey

[md65536]

Can't you get banned for rudeness or something?

Considering that you called a member of the staff "arrogant", I'm sure you'll be the first to know.

 

 

My post is off-topic but this thread's a train-wreck! I have to take the side of "proper science" on this argument. I'm a crackpot scientist myself, but I've learned at least 2 things:

1. It's a waste of time to engage with argumentative crackpots. They typically refuse to acknowledge accepted understanding, so any attempt to help them be better informed will be brushed aside.

2. Math really is the key to go from idea to theory. An idea may be judged good or bad depending on opinion (the wilder the idea, the better it will seem to some and the worse to others). All of our wild ideas are typically vague, with parts that "make sense" but leave room for interpretation or simply let the details remain clouded in a mental fog. There are so many ways that the details can manifest, that it's unlikely to get them right via a guess based on common sense. So you take an idea, and you express it mathematically, and it lets you determine if your idea makes precise sense (whereas "word salad" can be shown neither true nor false because it's so vague). BUT BETTER YET, if the math doesn't work you can change it and fix it, and make it work, and in doing so that will give you the details needed to let you express the idea in words properly. Either by making the ideas precise, or by changing them completely, a good idea can become a good theory that may look nothing like the original idea. An idea in words may be good or bad, but the same idea in math can be right or wrong, and "good" doesn't always correspond directly with "right".

 

An example is Mach's Principle, which "was a guiding factor in Einstein's development of the general theory of relativity," "but because the principle is so vague, many distinct statements can be (and have been) made which would qualify as a Mach principle, and some of these are false." Through words, Mach's principle doesn't tell you much about how the universe works. But Einstein did the math, and the math tells us how the idea works, and tells us so much more and in precise detail, than what Mach's principle says.

 

Mach's principle on its own sounds like crackpot science. Yet it is a useful idea. I'm sure that Mach didn't have to fight with Einstein to prove his idea was right, and that if he had tried he wouldn't have been able to.

Edited December 19, 2010 by md65536