What generates gravity?

[Anilkumar]

Hello Michel123456, hello everybody,

 

We have to see it like this. This sounds a bit offbeat but it gives the necessary insight. I am not being speculative here. I am just trying to give the theoretical interpretation of the mathematics.

 

The nature is governed by this law, [subject to correction by the knowledgeable];

 

"Any particle with mass cannot move at the speed of Light. And any particle without mass moves at the speed of Light."

 

Here Mass & c are constraints on matter.

Matter has either Mass or c. If Matter has mass it has no c. If it has c, it has no mass.

Accordingly, Momentum has two definitions. It is either mass times its velocity or it is Energy conveyance [light propagation] at c.

There are dual definitions because Matter is dual in nature. Its manifestations either have mass or is pure mass-less energy at c.

I.E. Matter is either a mass moving at a velocity less than c or a mass-less manifestation [named as Photon] at c.

Therefore, accordingly.

Momentum of Matter is either a mass moving at a velocity less than c times it's velocity or a mass-less manifestation moving per c.

To put it simply,

Matter either has mass or c and accordingly Momentum is, either m*v or E/c.

Or,

Matter/Energy either has mass or c and accordingly Momentum is, either m*v or E/c.

Let me put it in another way, 'If you transform a matter particle with mass into a mass-less one it starts moving at c and vice versa'. So,

Matter either has mass or c and accordingly Momentum is, either m*v or E/c.

It is the same thing. A massive particle moving at less than c or a mass-less particle at c. Both have Momentum. They don't lose that Momentum when they are transformed into one another. That Momentum does not vanish just because Matter gets transformed into a different manifestation.

 

If we are concerned about the units, even there too there is nothing much complex to understand.

 

 

And,

This thread has become interesting, with the why? and other things. Let us see if the OP gets answers to his why's & how's.

I liked Steven Weinberg thoughts & Juanrga's 'the descriptive science is just a part of science. Answering "why" is another part of science'. I think man will be able to answer everything including all the why's in the very near future.

 

Have a nice day.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

The nature is governed by this law, [subject to correction by the knowledgeable];

 

"Any particle with mass cannot move at the speed of Light. And any particle without mass moves at the speed of Light."

Hello,

but what you do "with the neutrino" ? In which classification we can put ?

Only the energy can be faster. Otherwise why we call it energy ?

Cordially.

[swansont]

Let me put it in another way, 'If you transform a matter particle with mass into a mass-less one it starts moving at c and vice versa'.

The problem with this explanation is that this never happens. You might annihilate massive particles and you might create massless ones, or you might destroy a massless particle and create a pair of massive ones, but you never "transform" one into the other. The transformation of a massive particle to a massless one or vice-versa that conserves energy would violate conservation of momentum.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Good evening. I saw that as we talked about several topics. I wish therefore plublier that pattern below. Many thanks.

asymmetry monodynamic ; pic link resized http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/362657ArnaudAntoineANDRIEUasymmetry.jpg

I must say that I drew this diagram. Cordially

Edited November 26, 2012 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[swansont]

Good evening. I saw that as we talked about several topics. I wish therefore plublier that pattern below. Many thanks.

asymmetry monodynamic ; pic link resized http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/362657ArnaudAntoineANDRIEUasymmetry.jpg

I must say that I drew this diagram. Cordially

What does this have to do with gravity?

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

What does this have to do with gravity?

That represent the main gravity. We can conclude that the temperature bring the superconductivity to report in gravity.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

Please do not use your own new theory to answer questions on the main boards. You already have a thread in Speculations - please keep all discussion of your ideas to that thread.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Hello. but that already works like this (Dirac sea). The perfect planeity of M1 represent the strings to rest. The strings are the centre of gravity, because in first they are stretched. I'll be careful. Thank you.

[Salonis]

The Newtonian view:

- Mass results in the gravitational force.

- The gravitational force makes masses move.

 

 

 

 

The relativistic view:

-.

- The curvature of spacetime tells mass-energy how to move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You say: The curvature of spacetime tells mass-energy how to move.

 

Yes, but how the curvature "tells" to mass-energy how to move? Or what of physical language "tell" the curvature how to move? If Einsteins ansver is insufficient and lame, I recomment to you reading of Socrates web pages http://qarton.sweb.cz, Socrates statement is: The cause of gravitional and common moving must be identical!

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

You say: The curvature of spacetime tells mass-energy how to move.

 

Yes, but how the curvature "tells" to mass-energy how to move? Or what of physical language "tell" the curvature how to move? If Einsteins ansver is insufficient and lame, I recomment to you reading of Socrates web pages http://qarton.sweb.cz, Socrates statement is: The cause of gravitional and common moving must be identical!

!

Moderator Note

Salonis, the warning about hijacking someone else's thread with personal speculation goes for you as well. If you wish to start your own thread in our Speculations section, please do so.

[Anilkumar]

Hello,

but what you do "with the neutrino" ? In which classification we can put ?

Only the energy can be faster. Otherwise why we call it energy ?

Cordially.

 

If neutrinos are mass-less, they must travel at c. However, if they have mass, they cannot attain c.

 

What if neutrinos have a velocity greater than the speed of light [even by a fraction]?

 

Does that violate SR?

 

No. I am aware that there is a lot of debate going on, on that. However, I have different opinions.

 

If the speed of the neutrinos is superluminal, then what happens is; the value of c changes. That's all. And it also shows that the mass-less photons lose [that there is some hindrance, that we have not been able detect] some of their speed during their journey, and we have not been able to detect/accommodate that. Since the neutrinos mostly do not interact with other matter, they don't lose their speed. Therefore, it is natural that they could show superluminal speed. However, that doesn't change the fact that 'the speed of a mass-less particle in vacuum is a constant denoted by c'.

 

What if neutrinos have superluminal speed and yet have a slight mass? Then, the value of c changes further, and we will have to struggle harder to determine the exact value of c [or realize the exact length of the meter since c has been exacted].

 

SR will not be violated. SR is mathematics. There could be error in measurement, but there can be no error in mathematics. Einstein aptly said, and I side with it.

 

"If facts don't agree with the theory, change the facts".

 

c remains constant and inviolate. It is the unhindered speed with which mass-less particles and fields including Gravity, travel in vacuum. How much is that speed? We don't know exactly, would be the answer, if neutrinos are superluminal & massive. As found by Einstein 'the parameter c has relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism'. c is the speed at which all mass-less particles and fields including Gravity, must travel in vacuum.

 

Any of the changes to c [the unhindered speed of the mass-less particle in vacuum] would be fractional.

 

I feel that, the invariance of c was, the first law written by nature in its constitutional book before creation. However, as of now I have inadequate logical proof to show that.

 

All this is hypothetical until we have concrete evidence on the speed & mass of neutrinos and the measurement of the µ & ε of perfect vacuum. It is better not to discuss hypothetical issues at this instance, I suppose.

 

Whether neutrinos are superluminal or not, SR will not be breached because;

 

• SR is a physical law which says, every observation [m, l, t] made in this Universe is a function of Speed [i.e the ratio of Speeds of the measured/observed quantity to the speed of light or to put it exactly; highest Speed light can achieve at that instant. There is no denying that. Observations are not Absolute. They are relative to the states of reference frames from which the observation is made and the observed quantity is into. And these observations shall continue to be the functions of the ratio of the above mentioned speeds, irrespective of what is the value the Speed of the Neutrinos!! And the law that observations are the functions of the ratio of the above mentioned speeds; itself is SR.
• Vacuum permittivity and vacuum permeability are dependent on 'perfect classical vacuum'.
   
  
  

  
  Perfect classical vacuum is difficult to achieve, which could be the reason where light loses some of its speed. Both theory and experiment show that this vacuum still contains measurable energy. Both µ & ε are directly proportional to the energy density. It therefore follows that any increase in the energy density of the vacuum will not only result in a proportional increase in µ₀ & ε₀, but will also cause a decrease in the speed of light, c.

• c was not revealed by SR but by, Maxwell's equations. So, what the value of c is, does not affect SR. I.E. though Speed of Light is related to both Maxwell's equations & SR, the relation is entirely different. I.E. what the exact value of c is, is related to Maxwell's equations. However, only the fact that c, 'has a finite value', is related to SR. These are entirely two different aspects. To put it more simply, SR does not concern itself with what the exact value of c is. It only concerns itself with the fact that, Light, with which we observe the world, has a finite speed.
• And this law [sR] is mathematical, which just takes into consideration that Light, has a finite speed, with the help of which we observe the world, i.e. our observations are dependent on that very c. So, SR cannot be breached. Only the absolute value can be perfected.

 

__________________------------ 0000000 ------------

 

 

 

The problem with this explanation is that this never happens. You might annihilate massive particles and you might create massless ones, or you might destroy a massless particle and create a pair of massive ones, but you never "transform" one into the other. The transformation of a massive particle to a massless one or vice-versa that conserves energy would violate conservation of momentum.

 

I was referring to the very 'creation of a pair of mass-less particles by annihilating massive ones and vice versa', itself as 'transformation of matter from massive to mass-less'. And also, I never spoke anything about the conservation of energy during the process. You felt/assumed it. Whatever I said was strictly about the 'swapping' of mass & c, in nature. I was only referring to the fact that, Nature restricts that;

 

"you can have either mass or c, and in both cases, you have momentum, because mass is nothing but E/c² and just because mass became [or is converted/transformed/anything else] E/c² the momentum doesn't disappear. Mass & E/c² are one and the same thing, but with different attributes and physical units but both can have momentum".

 

If use of any word doesn't give the above meaning or gives any superfluous meaning, from my last post, that word needs to be changed. If the use of the word 'transformation' leads to a semantic error and leads to assuming of the violation of a physical law, we could use a different word like 'creation' as you said. Alternatively, perhaps, you could help and correct the semantic error.

 

To put it simply, I have not discussed anything about the conservation of Energy or Momentum. What I have attempted to do is to compare the identical mathematical equations and answer the question;

 

'How could a mass-less particle [like photon] have Momentum?',

 

or make it comprehensible, or just get an idea of, how Matter behaves, by comparing the identical components of the two identical equations.

 

Momentum = factor 1 x factor 2

---------- = Attribute of Matter [mass or energy] x Velocity

---------- = Mass or energy x respective velocity

---------- = m or E/c^2 x v or c respectively

 

I was saying that, in the equations, since the factors are identical i.e. mass and energy are identical and the other factors [both are velocities] too are identical they lead to identical products i.e. both massive particles & mass-less energy have momentum. And consequently, I have tried to derive the physical meaning by comparing the identical mathematical equations i.e. 'Matter can Either be massive with lesser velocity than c OR it can be mass-less at c but in both cases it has Momentum'.

 

Or still simply,

 

'The Matter in motion, in all its manifestations, cannot be devoid of Momentum'.

 

If everything above is not convincing; we can put this in another way.

 

Consider this; when a force does work to increase the kinetic energy of a particle it also causes the mass of the particle to increase by an amount equal to the increase in energy divided by c². [some of us don't like the statement that mass increases with speed, they feel that the word "mass" should be restricted to only the actual mass or the rest mass of an object.] In fact, this result is exactly true over the whole range of speeds from zero to very near the speed of light. Alternatively, work done on the body, i.e. its kinetic energy, is just equal to its mass increase multiplied by c².

 

And here, the mass of a photon is all kinetic energy mass. I.E. a photon is all kinetic energy.

 

For example: Consider an electron moving at a very high speed.

 

The energy of the electron would be,

 

However, in the equation, the kinetic energy of the electron would be very high compared to its mass.

Therefore, we can neglect it. Then the above equation reduces to;

 

Similarly, for a photon, which has no mass, it still has momentum. The momentum comes from its kinetic energy. A photon is all kinetic energy.

 

Edited November 30, 2012 by Anilkumar

[swansont]

For example: Consider an electron moving at a very high speed.

 

The energy of the electron would be,

 

No, this is wrong. It is not what you get when you take the square root of [math]E^2 = m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math]

[Arjun Artro]

First of all, you need to know what makes mass. It has been proposed that Higgs -Boson(the so called God particle) is responsible for giving mass to any object. And gravity is thought to be a force that is made by the interaction of gravitons.

Although these particles are not identified experimentally, recently there were experiment data from CERN giving heavy clues to the existence of Higgs Bosons.

You can find more about Gravitons and Higgs Bosons in Wikipedia.

[timo]

First of all, you need to know what makes mass. It has been proposed that Higgs -Boson(the so called God particle) is responsible for giving mass to any object.

Actually, the Higgs Boson doesn't give mass to anything. The interaction with some of the non-Higgs-Boson part of the Higgs-Field results in mass. But that's the mass of the known elementary particles, only. The origin of e.g. the mass of protons is the strong interaction. And the existence of (sane) people calling the Higgs boson "God particle" is an urban myth.

Edited December 1, 2012 by timo

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

Anilkumar, seriously, we've JUST posted *another* friendly reminder about thread hijacking, and immediately after that you post "in my opinion" post.

So let's be clear: This is a mainstream topic, asking a mainstream-science question and as such will be receiving mainstream-supported answers. No ifs, no buts, no exceptions, and we're trying our best to be extra-nice about this, but it's getting ridiculous.

If anyone thinks their idea of physics is better than the mainstream, they are more than welcome to open a new thread in the speculation forum and show us how well their idea works in reality.
We'll be happy to discuss the merits of whatever opinion you share with us (with proper substantiated support) there.

Posting your own opinion as an answer to a physics question in a mainstream thread is against the rules. It is confusing the original person who asked the question, and it is thread hijacking.

This moderation note is also valid to anyone ELSE who thinks their ideas about physics are superior to mainstream science. Speculation forum is the right place to do it, not here.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

Anilkumar

 

There are numerous moderations within this thread and yet there are continued attempts to answer the questions with speculative new theories. This is unacceptable!

 

Also the staff will not enter into a discussion of the rights and wrongs of a moderation within the thread. Being told to stop hijacking threads is not permission to post a long defence of your position and your need to hijack. This applies to all members - please do not argue the toss on moderation issues within the thread; instead send a PM, or report the post.

 

I have deleted your last post - as the physics part was merely a correction, and the vast bulk was an unwanted justification of a rule breach.

 

 

[mooeypoo]

!

Moderator Note

 

Dear community,

 

We usually don't like to take drastic measures as to erase or delete posts.

 

However, our job here is to make sure discussions continue on their proper path without being derailed into off-topic or pseudoscience or get out of focus. This is true especially for mainstream-thread questions, where the original poster may get seriously confused about what the real science actually says if and when people interject with their own interpretations. This, I'm afraid, is non negotiable, as we've posted multiple notes in this thread to explain in a friendly manner.

 

So, when a moderation note is posted in a thread for the third time, over the same subject, and is then (AGAIN) challenged with once more the same type of content we objected to, we are left with little choices. While we'd rather not delete anything, we sometimes have to. These decisions are not made lightly, and are not made by a single moderator. We must have consensus when this action is to be taken. As we did in this case.

 

If anyone wants to challenge a moderation action, please click the "Report" link and explain your concerns (as some of you have done), so the moderators can discuss the issue as a team. I can assure you, we go over *all* the reports we're getting, and we don't ever dismiss a report off hand. We always discuss and make a decision as a team, along with the administrators, in light of the forum rules AND the members' enjoyment.

 

Now, please, get back on topic. That would be the mainstream topic, not an opinionated response one. Feel free to open a new thread if you wish to proclaim your own ideas have their own merit in science. Our experts will surely go over those in their proper place.

 

Please don't discuss moderation actions (or your own view of science) in this thread anymore. It's colorful enough.

 

Thanks,

 

Your Friendly Moderation Team

[alpha2cen]

What is a mass?

These are mass properties.

1) Mass is energy. E=mC²

2) Mass makes an object having it's own inertia strength. E_k=1/2 mv²

3) Mass induces it's own gravity. F=GMn/r²

 

Among these, gravity causing factor, i.e., mass or other factors which is provided in the objects is uncertain.
At the beginning , the light dragging phenomena is predicted by the theory of relativity, and then later , we proved the theory's correctness by the experiment.

 

The light does not have mass, but is dragged from heavy mass objects.
So we think about the connectivity between mass and gravity again.

mass---> Gravity. Objects which has no mass has no gravitational force ( X )

gravity----> case 1) Objects with mass

case 2) other objects, i.e., light.

 

Having mass -----------> Having gravity(O)

Having gravity----------> Having mass (X)

 

Till now, the light has no mass.

Edited December 8, 2012 by alpha2cen

[alpha2cen]

Including force term is reasonable.

Acceleration gives the same effect as the gravity.

 

So

These are mass properties.

1) Mass is energy. E=mC²

2) Mass makes an object having it's own inertia strength. E_k=1/2 mv², F_k=ma

3) Mass induces it's own gravity. F_G=GMn/r²

 

When we move to the opposite direction of the Gravity acting. F= F_k+F_G

Gravity gives the same effect as acceleration.