Physics

[superball]

Greetings all, going out on a limb for gravity.

 

If mass equals energy, and quantitatively energy can be derived from mass, and gravity is inherently derived from mass, is it safe to say material contains gravity as energy?

 

Stepping on a bear trap now, if a graviton is a mass-less hypothetical particle, and has a tensor quantity to describe density, energy, and flux, could gravity actually be a particle of some size or mass?

 

If it is spinning, then something must take the form of matter in order for it to spin.

 

:blink:gravity wow. its spinning, its spinning, are you getting dizzy?

 

jokingly super-ball.

[Bullseye]

Theoretically, there could be a particle which "gives gravity" to other masses. I believe it is referred to as the Higgs Boson if I am not mistaken. Also, enlighten a moron: What signifigance does spin have on a particle?

 

 

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand, because I am just starting on this stuff, but isn't the anthropic principle basically saying that the universe is the way it is because we couldn't live if it wasn't the way it is?

 

 

[superball]

Theoretically, there could be a particle which "gives gravity" to other masses. I believe it is referred to as the Higgs Boson if I am not mistaken. Also, enlighten a moron: What signifigance does spin have on a particle?

 

 

 

Forgive me if I misunderstand, because I am just starting on this stuff, but isn't the anthropic principle basically saying that the universe is the way it is because we couldn't live if it wasn't the way it is?

 

 

 

Greetings, I have not done to much study in this field, so I had some questions also. I had assumed it to be spinning, in wiki the description of the boson said this.

"the Higgs boson is expected to be in a class of particles known as scalar bosons. (Bosons are particles with integer spin, and scalar bosons have spin)"

 

So yea something is spinning. I asked a few questions related to induction to aid in my understanding. Is there a particle boson? Not yet according to wiki. best ask the experts on that one.

 

Spin dictates energy IMO, because there needs to be a changing magnetic field in order for a changing electric field.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/61077-the-higgs-and-a-gravitational-field-assumption/

Edited November 21, 2011 by superball

[swansont]

Spin dictates energy IMO, because there needs to be a changing magnetic field in order for a changing electric field.

 

What does one have to do with the other? Neutrinos have spin; they are uncharged and do not interact electromagnetically. Plenty of particles with the same spin but have different energy.

[superball]

What does one have to do with the other? Neutrinos have spin; they are uncharged and do not interact electromagnetically. Plenty of particles with the same spin but have different energy.

 

Hmm, I was talking about only 2 particles at the time, you introduced a variable.

One particle the Higgs Boson, the other the mysterious gravitational energy particle if one did exist.

 

I have more questions about neutrino, and I could not elaborate on the reason why they are uncharged, although they do have spin, so we have that. Perhaps they are a perfect insulated particle.

Honestly, I don't have a clue why.

 

mass=energy, anti particles = energy, neutrinos = energy, all of these particles are spinning is the common denominator. all exist within the medium, or electric field.

 

I am happy I found the classical physics forum, or else i would really be in trouble.

 

cheers Respectfully super-ball.

Edited November 21, 2011 by superball

[swansont]

Hmm, I was talking about only 2 particles at the time, you introduced a variable.

One particle the Higgs Boson, the other the mysterious gravitational energy particle if one did exist.

 

I have more questions about neutrino, and I could not elaborate on the reason why they are uncharged, although they do have spin, so we have that. Perhaps they are a perfect insulated particle.

Honestly, I don't have a clue why.

 

mass=energy, anti particles = energy, neutrinos = energy, all of these particles are spinning is the common denominator. all exist within the medium, or electric field.

 

I am happy I found the classical physics forum, or else i would really be in trouble.

 

cheers Respectfully super-ball.

 

It's not really a variable — you mentioned spin, and that's a property of all QM particles, so if you are going to claim that spin dictates energy there has to be reason that applies to all particles. Charged particles in a magnetic field will have an energy shift, because there's a magnetic moment owing to the spin. Uncharged fundamental particles, no. And no shift if there is no field.

[superball]

It's not really a variable — you mentioned spin, and that's a property of all QM particles, so if you are going to claim that spin dictates energy there has to be reason that applies to all particles. Charged particles in a magnetic field will have an energy shift, because there's a magnetic moment owing to the spin. Uncharged fundamental particles, no. And no shift if there is no field.

 

 

Greetings again, I remember reading about the detectors when the 2 scientist mention had used different methods to detect neutrino. I did read what was available at the time, and it was fascinating.

I also did little investigation at the time, because It was a new study. Today I located some of the research, and would like to share. I cannot draw any conclusions due to a lack of research on my part.

I include a link for further study on the subject, and I take note of this particular excerpt from the paper. It may have been suggested, assuming only one possible solution. Time will tell. I also take note of the amount of heat involved during the solar process. The seemingly oscillating, and morphing neutrino was found to have a very small mass. The category of electron type flavors of neutrino is also noted.

In conclusion I am following classical electrical mechanics. Oscillatory movements suggest something is changing in relation to the medium. What ever it may be, it must be in relation to change.

 

You put me on the ropes, and this is the best I can do. cheers.

 

 

"The standard model of particle physics assumes that neutrinos are massless. In order for neutrino oscillations to occur, some neutrinos must have masses. Therefore, the standard model of particle physics must be revised.

 

The simplest model that fits all the neutrino data implies that the mass of the electron neutrino is about 100 million times smaller than the mass of the electron. But, the available data are not yet sufficiently definitive to rule out all but one possible solution. When we finally have a unique solution, the values of the different neutrino masses may be clues that lead to understanding physics beyond the standard model of particle physics.

 

two equivalent descriptions of neutrinos, one that is expressed in terms of the masses of the neutrinos and one that is expressed in terms of the particles with which the neutrinos are associated (electron neutrinos with electrons, muon neutrinos with muon particles, or tau neutrinos with tau particles). The relations between the mass description and the associated-particle description involve certain constants, called "mixing angles," whose values are potentially important clues that may help lead to an improved theory of how elementary particles behave.

 

Solar neutrino research shows that neutrinos can change their personalities or types. The mathematical description of this malady determines quantities that we hope will be useful clues in the search for a more general theory of how fundamental particles behave.

What Does All This Mean for Astronomy?

 

The total number of neutrinos observed in the SNO and Super-Kamiokande experiments agrees with the number calculated using the standard computer model of the Sun. This shows that we understand how the Sun shines, the original question that initiated the field of solar neutrino research. The solution of the mystery of the missing neutrinos is an important triumph for astronomy. The standard solar model predictions are vindicated; the standard model of particle physics must be revised. Four decades ago, when the first solar neutrino experiment was proposed, no one would have guessed that this turn of events would be the outcome.

 

In order to predict correctly the number of neutrinos produced by nuclear reactions in the Sun, many complicated phenomena must be understood in detail. For example, one must understand a smorgasbord of nuclear reactions at energies where measurements are difficult. One must understand the transport of energy at very high temperatures and densities. One must understand the state of the solar matter in conditions that cannot be studied directly on Earth. The temperature at the center of the Sun is about 50,000 times higher than the temperature on Earth on a sunny day and the density in the center of the Sun is about a hundred times the density of water. One must measure the abundances of the heavy elements on the surface of the Sun and then understand how these abundances change as one goes deeper into the Sun. All of these and many more details must be understood and calculated accurately."

 

 

My link

Respectfully super-ball.

Edited November 22, 2011 by superball

[swansont]

Not sure where you're going with this. How did we get from spin to neutrino mixing? (I split this off because it's off-topic for the gravity discussion where it was originally located. Please try and stay on topic and refrain from answering science questions with speculation)

 

If it is spinning, then something must take the form of matter in order for it to spin.

 

Spin is a quantum mechanical term for intrinsic angular momentum. Like some other QM concepts, it would be a mistake to interpret it classically. Nothing is claimed to be physically spinning.

 

Photons have spin, so no, it does not have to be matter to have spin.

[superball]

Not sure where you're going with this. How did we get from spin to neutrino mixing? (I split this off because it's off-topic for the gravity discussion where it was originally located. Please try and stay on topic and refrain from answering science questions with speculation)

 

 

 

Spin is a quantum mechanical term for intrinsic angular momentum. Like some other QM concepts, it would be a mistake to interpret it classically. Nothing is claimed to be physically spinning.

 

Photons have spin, so no, it does not have to be matter to have spin.

 

 

Yea, I was thinking the same thing. When I looked back, I was surprised to find the information spinning off, and the change to the speculation board. Pun intended.

 

 

Respectfully super-ball.

 

Baryon said: Schrödinger's hat

 

Well certainly I can go along with that principle, except "here" is not the same temperature and gradient condition as "everywhere". And "now" is not the same temperature and gradient condition as "always".

 

It does not seem to me that one should consider the conditions of a particular place at a particular time as the "same" conditions that exist always and everywhere. If there were only "one" condition, already, then where is the possibility of a "particular" condition going to come from?

 

For instance, the conditions available in the void between strings of galaxies, are different than those inside the string. And one could use the anthropic principle to state that since we arose inside a string of galaxies, the conditions inside a string of galaxies provide a temperature gradient sufficient for the task, which may not be available in the void between galaxies. It (the principle) does not necessarily apply to the complete universe, always.

 

Besides, even if the void and string contain different conditions, and are taken as composing together, one system, the "timing" of any change in conditions, or averaging out that may be in process, is rather extensive and important. The conditions will not average out instantly, but instead will attempt to do so at a rather creeping (at that scale) speed of light.

 

Here, always can be understood as one thing. Everywhere now can be understood as one thing.

But everywhere always is everything. And I am not sure there is a way to write that equation. You have to take a perspective and hold something stationary for anything to make sense.

 

So what is the difference between void and string? More Matter in the string. More "gravity" in the string. More gradients in the string.

 

What is possible in the string might well not be in the void.

So "collecting matter together" may be important for life. Regardless of the average temperature of the universe. at first, now or later.

 

Regards, TAR

This post has been edited by

 

 

I relay like your take on this, I added it here, I hope you don't mind.

 

super-ball

 

Axioms

Quark 1) What is holding us against the Earth?

2) Why is it able to do so?

3) What interaction is there between matter and space?

4) How is it relevant to what is keeping us from being flung from the Earth?

5) What exactly is gravity?

6) Why is G found is both Einstein and Newtons equations?

(curvature of space-time) = (mass-energy density) * 8 pi G / c⁴ Fg=Gm1m2/d^2

 

These are just a few questions to get the discussion going. I think this topic will clarify a lot of what was said in a different topic called "do objects fall at the same speed? no" or something close to that. The arguments mainly revolved around gravity so here is a chance to explain your understanding of what it actually is.

 

 

Gravity

 

Please Delete this thread in its entirety is the best we can do, cheers..

 

Please Delete this thread in its entirety is the best we can do, cheers..

Edited November 23, 2011 by superball