Why does mass curve space-time?

[Mordred]

Energy is a property of particles, it doesn't exist on its own. Waves is the influence on particles whether virtual or real. The influence is carried particle to particle by the force carrying boson.

 

Mass does not mean matter, see the previous posts.

All particles have particle and waveform properties

Edited January 23, 2015 by Mordred

[Robittybob1]

Energy is a property of particles, it doesn't exist on its own. Waves is the influence on particles whether virtual or real. The influence is carried particle to particle by the force carrying boson.

 

Mass does not mean matter, see the previous posts.

All particles have particle and waveform properties

Previous post said "mass describes the amount of matter in an object"

OK can you find the other statements of yours in articles?

"Energy is a property of particles"

"The influence is carried particle to particle by the force carrying boson." Which boson was that?

A photon must come pretty close to being energy ("energy on its own").

Edited January 24, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Mordred]

4 forces

 

Photons carry electromagnetic

Quarks carry the strong force

W and Z bosons carry the weak force

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

 

 

The common name is gauge bosons.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

Graviton should be for gravity. However we haven't found the graviton.

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/elementary_particles_part_1_fos_v7n4.pdf

[Robittybob1]

4 forces

 

Photons carry electromagnetic

Quarks carry the strong force

W and Z bosons carry the weak force

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

 

 

The common name is gauge bosons.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson

Graviton should be for gravity. However we haven't found the graviton.

http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/elementary_particles_part_1_fos_v7n4.pdf

So photons are bosons as well, and photons can have energy values over a very large range. Every increment in frequency represents a higher energy content.

I'm quite new at understanding the subatomic families. I'm wondering if it is really worth the effort. I was just trying to understand the relationship with mass and matter and energy, and whether it is matter, mass or its energy content that warps spacetime.

[Mordred]

The most accurate of the three is mass/ energy density keeping in mind mass and energy is interchangeable. Energy being a property of particles.

 

Matter isn't needed to bend space. As fundamental bosons isn't matter particles.

 

 

You don't need a strong particle physics understanding to understand GR. However it's good to know the basics.

[Robittybob1]

The most accurate of the three is mass/ energy density keeping in mind mass and energy is interchangeable. Energy being a property of particles.

 

Matter isn't needed to bend space. As fundamental bosons isn't matter particles.

 

 

You don't need a strong particle physics understanding to understand GR. However it's good to know the basics.

You say mass and energy is interchangeable but between the two is the C^2 factor with unit of m^2/sec^2 which nearly fits with the concept of density kg/m^3

E=mC^2

 

m = E/C^2

 

With kinetic energy = 0.5 * m* V^2 , do you know why Einstein was able to drop the factor of 1/2 out of the energy equation?

Done some searching and found E^2 = (pc)^2 + (m_0c^2)^2, which

 

If the body's speed v is much less than c, then (1) reduces to E = m0v^2/2 + m0c^2; that is, the body's total energy is simply its classical kinetic energy (m0v^2/2) plus its rest energy.

Edited January 24, 2015 by Robittybob1

[david345]

Energy = Mass * C^2 so mass and energy are related somehow. Does that mean matter (is that the same as mass??) is constructed of energy? So whether it is the mass or the energy that dilates time (warps spacetime) which then results in gravity the result is much the same.

 

In the above quoted article (http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2) they used the words equivalent, "Mass and Energy are equivalent" (via the formula) but I always wonder what a speed (velocity) squared does? Yet it comes up in a similar relationship for Kinetic Energy, KE = 1/2 M * V^2.

I think of an area when I think of something "squared", (m/sec)^2, an area of space divided by areas of time??

 

The c in mc^2 is a constant. The v in 1\2m*v^2 is a variable. C can be set to 1 and mc^2 becomes m. You can't do the same with v because it is a variable. Einstein's equation for energy has one variable on the right m. The old equation has two variables on the right m and v. Pounds=kilograms*2.2. Pounds and kilograms are both weight. If the constant is set to 1 then you get pounds=pounds. Edited January 24, 2015 by david345

[Robittybob1]

The c in mc^2 is a constant. The v in 1\2m*v^2 is a variable. C can be set to 1 and mc^2 becomes m. You can't do the same with v because it is a variable. Einstein's equation for energy has one variable on the right m. The old equation has two variables on the right m and v. Pounds=kilograms*2.2. Pounds and kilograms are both weight. If the constant is set to 1 then you get pounds=pounds.

I see what you are saying but even if C=1 it still has units, so E doesn't become M unless it is multiplied by that factor. Doesn't that make a difference, for mass is not energy but modified energy?

[Strange]

I see what you are saying but even if C=1 it still has units, so E doesn't become M unless it is multiplied by that factor.

 

Corrct. The only reason c is in the equation is to relate the different units (dimensions) of mass and energy. The value of c we use is based on the arbitrary choices we made when defining metres, kilgorams, seconds, etc. A different choice of units can lead to the value of c being 1, but it is still 1 length per time.

[Robittybob1]

 

Corrct. The only reason c is in the equation is to relate the different units (dimensions) of mass and energy. The value of c we use is based on the arbitrary choices we made when defining metres, kilgorams, seconds, etc. A different choice of units can lead to the value of c being 1, but it is still 1 length per time.

That must be a first: That you agree with me, did I read it right?

[david345]

I see what you are saying but even if C=1 it still has units, so E doesn't become M unless it is multiplied by that factor. Doesn't that make a difference, for mass is not energy but modified energy?

"The relativistic mass is always equal to the total energy (rest energy plus kinetic energy) divided by c2.[3] Because the relativistic mass is exactly proportional to the energy, relativistic mass and relativistic energy are nearly synonyms; the only difference between them is the units. If length and time are measured in natural units, the speed of light is equal to 1, and even this difference disappears. Then mass and energy have the same units and are always equal, so it is redundant to speak about relativistic mass, because it is just another name for the energy. This is why physicists usually reserve the useful short word "mass" to mean rest mass, or invariant mass, and not relativistic mass."

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence

"According to Einstein's famous equation E = mc2, the energy (E) of a body is numerically equal to the product of its mass (m) and the speed of light © squared. It is customary to refer to this result as "the equivalence of mass and energy," or simply "mass-energy equivalence," because one can choose units in which c = 1, and hence E = m. An important consequence of E = mc2 is that a change in the rest-energy of a body is accompanied by a corresponding change to its inertial mass. (This is discussed further in Section 1.) This has led many philosophers to argue that mass-energy equivalence has profound consequences for ontology, the philosophical study of what there is. There are two main philosophical interpretations of E = mc2. The first is that mass-energy equivalence teaches us that "mass" and "energy" designate the same property of physical systems. This is the weaker of the two interpretations because no further ontological claims are made. The second interpretation is that E = mc2 entails that there is only one sort of fundamental stuff in the world."

http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/archives/spr2004/entries/equivME/

e(relativistic)=m(relativistic)c^2

e(invariant)=m(invariant) c^2

e(relativistic)^2=(PC)^2+(m(invariant) c^2)^2

The third equation is the energy-momentum relation. It is the only equation where e is not exactly proportional to m. The equation relates relativistic energy to momentum and invariant mass.

(mod note: feel free to split this into a separate subject)

Edited January 25, 2015 by david345

[Robittybob1]

@David or anyone else prove that to me please.

What are these units where the speed of light is 1? 1 what? Then shall we think if science could have ever got off the ground had we used these standards? Just off the top of my head I think that would be like measuring things in Planck Lengths to get rid of other SI units

I read something a couple of days ago that one country's weight standard was based on Carob seeds! For length arm lengths (cubits) are better than Planck Lengths in many respects as we can relate to them.

We could call 299,792,458 m a "Robitty" so the speed of light becomes 1 Robitty/sec but why stick with the second as that too is some sort of human invention? (A Robitty is now defined as the distance light travels in 1 second.)

So now Energy becomes Mass times 1 Robitty^2/sec^2 and what is a Robitty squared? Note: now 1 Robitty/sec becomes equivalent to c

or 1 Robitty^2/sec^2 = 1 c^2

Edited January 25, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

What are these units where the speed of light is 1? 1 what?

 

One example is Planck units: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

In which case it is 1 Planck length / Planck time. (By definition.)

 

Other choices can be made to give the same result.

 

 

A purely natural system of units is defined in such a way that some set of selected universal physical constants are each normalized to unity; that is, their numerical values in terms of these units are exactly 1. While this has the advantage of simplicity, there is a potential disadvantage in terms of loss of clarity and understanding, as these constants are then omitted from mathematical expressions of physical laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

[Robittybob1]

 

One example is Planck units: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

In which case it is 1 Planck length / Planck time. (By definition.)

 

Other choices can be made to give the same result.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_units

After posting that I remembered about the light second. Oh well a Robitty and a light second are much the same!

[Robittybob1]

Was there any more discussion on Energy -Mass equivalence?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The hijack about photons having curved trajectories has been split off to Speculations. If pcalton wishes to expound on his idea further, please join him there.

 

Please stay on the topic of this thread.

[swansont]

 

With kinetic energy = 0.5 * m* V^2 , do you know why Einstein was able to drop the factor of 1/2 out of the energy equation?

 

 

He didn't have to. E=mc² is an expression of rest energy, and is not derived from the equation for kinetic energy. The one commonality is that the units have to be consistent, so there has to be a term with m²/s² in the equation to make that happen, but there's no further fundamental connection.

 

The 1/2 in the KE equation is the result of how it's derived (the integral of vdv is v²/2)

[Robittybob1]

 

He didn't have to. E=mc² is an expression of rest energy, and is not derived from the equation for kinetic energy. The one commonality is that the units have to be consistent, so there has to be a term with m²/s² in the equation to make that happen, but there's no further fundamental connection.

 

The 1/2 in the KE equation is the result of how it's derived (the integral of vdv is v²/2)

Thanks.

[AnHypothecitalTheorum]

I came across this post via Google (shocker right?) when I had the same question. Turns out, after 4 hours of reading through the very large thread (incredibly entertaining by the way - I suspect there might be trolls among us), we don't know the mechanism of how yet.

 

My first thought was, it seems to be the opposite of how air moves from areas of high pressure to low filling the voids. Nature seems to like equilibrium. Seems the larger universe doesn't always play by the same rules we see here on Earth, or more likely has rules we haven't quite worked out yet.

 

The math involved here is lightyears over my head so I appreciate the efforts of the experts to dumb things down a bit where possible. My brain can handle the concepts just not the math that gives you an answer.

 

Thanks to Incendia for the original post and all those that spent time on the discussion.

[TheGeckomancer]

Science rarely deals with WHY, for the most part that question is left to philosophy. Science likes Who, Where, When, What, and How.