Gravity and gravitons

[alpha2cen]

Gravitational fields for instance, is due to a gravitational energy.

 

 

Why gravity is proportional to mass? Graviton?

[Aethelwulf]

Why gravity is proportional to mass? Graviton?

 

It's most likely that a graviton doesn't exist.

 

Anyway, they are proportional because, you can't have gravity without the presence of mass - mass is the presence of gravity, is the present of distortions, is the presence of spacetime curvature and acceleration.

 

The acceleration understanding comes of Einsteins elevator experiment and the weak equivalence principle. The curvature appears from Einstein's Field Equations which explains how matter warps spacetime and how spacetime tells matter how to move in the presence of gravity.

[alpha2cen]

It's most likely that a graviton doesn't exist.

 

Anyway, they are proportional because, you can't have gravity without the presence of mass - mass is the presence of gravity, is the present of distortions, is the presence of spacetime curvature and acceleration.

 

The acceleration understanding comes of Einsteins elevator experiment and the weak equivalence principle. The curvature appears from Einstein's Field Equations which explains how matter warps spacetime and how spacetime tells matter how to move in the presence of gravity.

 

Why do two masses have a property to draw each other? Light , which has no mass, has not such property. It likes to spread through the space. Something is affecting around a mass object. If they are too apart , they will have small influences each other. But If they are close, the interactions between them is high. So, I dare suppose" a phenomena, mass giving to objects, is related to this phenomena." Macroscopically we call it Gravity.

Edited June 13, 2012 by alpha2cen

[Aethelwulf]

Light does cause gravity, but it is very weak. Whilst the photon does not contain a gravitational mass, it can cause the curvature of space because any type of energy can do this.

 

Large masses and even small particles draw each other in because they distort the spacetime fabric/continuum.

[alpha2cen]

We do not know the detail process about giving mass to a object. But the getting mass process seems to related to getting gravity. General relativity has no problem to say like this.

[Aethelwulf]

We do not know the detail process about giving mass to a object. But the getting mass process seems to related to getting gravity. General relativity has no problem to say like this.

 

Well Lloyd Motz a cosmologist who did work on quantum gravity actually defined mass as a gravitational charge.

 

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

 

Charge is just the coefficients of the Lie Algebra.

 

I wrote something up on it not long ago if you care to read it http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66985-a-forgotten-theory-of-mass/

[alpha2cen]

So, the universe is composed of gravitational charge field. We have not known the field property quite well yet. LHC results will tell whether it is true or not.

[Aethelwulf]

So, the universe is composed of gravitational charge field. We have not known the field property quite well yet. LHC results will tell whether it is true or not.

 

The Higgs Field was such a field - it provided a similar charge to particles. The Higgs mechanism occurs whenever a charged field has a vacuum expectation value.

 

The only slight difference, is that in Motz' work, we don't know what the field is that he defines as the field which causes the charge. I've likened mass to the idea that an electron experiences an electric charge by moving in an EM-field, so the question is why a particle with mass moving in a gravitational field would not be the same? There is obviously going to be unique dynamics however, such as a type of coupling to the field, but there are similar couplings in a Higgs Field.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[alpha2cen]

Does a Higgs field have a gravitational force? Gravitational charge field, I'd like to say, is a field which a particle or a object in the field has a mass and a mass comparable gravity simultaneously. Mass giving step is the same as the gravity getting step, I suppose. The cause of getting mass is the same as getting gravity. It has only attractive force depending on the charge size. LHC experiment results will make everything clear. If Higgs finding is absolute... Mass and relative theory will make everything clear?

Edited June 13, 2012 by alpha2cen

[alpha2cen]

Does a Higgs field have a gravitational force? Gravitational charge field, I'd like to say, is a field which a particle or a object in the field has a mass and a mass comparable gravity simultaneously. Mass giving step is the same as the gravity getting step, I suppose. The cause of getting mass is the same as getting gravity. It has only attractive force depending on the charge size. LHC experiment results will make everything clear. If Higgs finding is absolute... Mass and relative theory will make everything clear?

 

Gravity charge field main concept.

The universe is composed of gravitational charge field.

Property of the field.

A particle in there has a mass.

A particle in there has a mass comparable gravity.

We definite m.g^0.5 as a gravitational charge.

Gravitational charge in the field has a gravitational force, F=(m1g^0.5)(m2g^0.5)/( r^2).

r: distance between two objects.

The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same.

Above all is the main stream.

[ACG52]

We definite m.g^0.5 as a gravitational charge.

 

Who does?

 

All you've done is rewritten F=(Gm1m2/r^2). So?

[alpha2cen]

Who does?

 

All you've done is rewritten F=(Gm1m2/r^2). So?

I changed a little. "The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same."

 

 

http://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/pdf/awarded/1971/motz.pdf

[Aethelwulf]

Does a Higgs field have a gravitational force? Gravitational charge field, I'd like to say, is a field which a particle or a object in the field has a mass and a mass comparable gravity simultaneously. Mass giving step is the same as the gravity getting step, I suppose. The cause of getting mass is the same as getting gravity. It has only attractive force depending on the charge size. LHC experiment results will make everything clear. If Higgs finding is absolute... Mass and relative theory will make everything clear?

 

Yes, it's not the gravitational field per se, but the Higgs Field is composed of Higgs Bosons which get their own mass from it's own field as well. So not only do other particles acquire mass from the Higgs Field, the Higgs Field gives a mass to its own particle... So.. since these Bosons contain a mass, then this means they interact gravitationally as well.

 

I changed a little. "The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same."

 

 

http://www.gravityre...d/1971/motz.pdf

 

Yes, I would presume they are the same by the Weak Equivalence principle - here we freely exchange the use of ''inertia'' and ''gravitational mass''.

 

I do believe I read an article by Wheeler who was saying that the treatment of mass as a charge would not be so strange - I have never found this article since mind you.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[StringsNThings]

alpha2cen, on 13 June 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

 

I changed a little. "The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same."

 

 

 

Gravitational Aberration is instantaneous, this would seem to imply an association with gravity (extending throughout the universe). While a graviton is associated with time (propagation) and a local effect. Might the curviture of space/time be related to the interaction of gravity with some fabric of time propagation? What we are calling time being something ... different.

 

What is another description of "time propagation"? Maybe "Consequence"?

 

If time propagation passes through fields of instantaneous gravity, what is the resulting qualities of the interacting fields?

 

Substituting Consequence for time propagation.

 

If Consequence passes through fields of instantaneous gravity, what is the resulting qualities of the interacting fields?

 

Maybe "causality"?

 

 

"The cause of obtaining mass and the cause of obtaining gravity are the same."

 

 

If causality is a fundamental characteristic, might graviton and mass be the same, but mass is causally connected to additional factors, while graviton without reference to those other causal factors only become apparent when systems of causality interact? Something like observation when related to quantum entanglement.

Edited June 27, 2012 by StringsNThings

[juanrga]

Why gravity is proportional to mass? Graviton?

 

The source of the gravitational field is the stress-energy-momentum tensor (SEM).

 

For massive particles this tensor is proportional to mass. For massless particles such as the photon this tensor is proportional to photon momentum.

 

Gravitons are massless particles which are believed to be the quanta of the own gravitational field.

[pmb]

Light does cause gravity, but it is very weak. Whilst the photon does not contain a gravitational mass, it can cause the curvature of space because any type of energy can do this.

Anything which is affected by gravity is said to have passive gravitational mass. Therefore a photon has passive gravitational mass. It's equal to its inertial mass by

 

[math]m = p/v = p/c = P^0/c[/math]

 

where P is the photon's 4-momentum. The source of gravity is given the name active gravitational mass, by definition, and is described by the stress-energy-momentum tensor T.

Edited June 27, 2012 by pmb

[Aethelwulf]

Anything which is affected by gravity is said to have passive gravitational mass. Therefore a photon has passive gravitational mass. It's equal to its inertial mass by

 

[math]m = p/v = p/c = P^0/c[/math]

 

where P is the photon's 4-momentum. The source of gravity is given the name active gravitational mass, by definition, and is described by the stress-energy-momentum tensor T.

 

I was aware of this, which is why I think a new distinction needs to be made. A photon does not contain an intrinsic gravitational charge for instance, but it still can warp spacetimes surrounding it. But of course, I see your point.