Energy increase effect on gravity

[Borson]

I've read there are studies that if you increase a system's energy while keeping it's mass constant, it's gravity increases. That increase is very small (related to E/(c^2)), insignificant on testable and relative scales, but perhaps significant at quantum scales (when rc < 1).

 

Point being, if changes in energy effects gravity while mass is constant, energy should be a variable in formulating gravity.

[Mordred]

Your going to have to reference those studies. Rest mass is constant, but any increase of energy does generate gravity via an increase in mass. You can't separate the two as energy density increases so does its force of gravity.

When you get right down to it energy and mass are equivalent. Energy being a property of particles. Gravity a property of mass

[Borson]

Are you saying adding energy to a system causes manifestation of particles? (I don't think you're trying to say that. If not, then your statement is in agreement with mine).

It's not the concept that's flawed, but the formulation. Studies deal with testing the inconsistency of Newton's gravitionial constant (specifically at non-normal testing tempuratures [thus implying energy change not properly represented by change in density/radius alone]).

 

That only explains the incorrectness of the current formula. (Energy being a seperate variable deals with a theory of nuclear thermal expansion. Heating an atom/nucleus causes electrons to jump to a higher orbit. [Further explains why electrons don't fall into nucleus and such]. I'm looking into that (not yet prepared to argue)).

 

I'll try to find links later (busy day for me).

[swansont]

Are you saying adding energy to a system causes manifestation of particles? (I don't think you're trying to say that. If not, then your statement is in agreement with mine).

 

 

No, and no. If you add energy, the mass changes. Which disagrees with saying it's constant.

It's not the concept that's flawed, but the formulation. Studies deal with testing the inconsistency of Newton's gravitionial constant (specifically at non-normal testing tempuratures [thus implying energy change not properly represented by change in density/radius alone]).

 

 

Which studies?

That only explains the incorrectness of the current formula.

 

Relativity is exceedingly well-tested, and the result of adding a photon and seeing the mass increase has been experimentally confirmed.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Are you saying adding energy to a system causes manifestation of particles? (I don't think you're trying to say that. If not, then your statement is in agreement with mine).

It's not the concept that's flawed, but the formulation. Studies deal with testing the inconsistency of Newton's gravitionial constant (specifically at non-normal testing tempuratures [thus implying energy change not properly represented by change in density/radius alone]).

 

That only explains the incorrectness of the current formula. (Energy being a seperate variable deals with a theory of nuclear thermal expansion. Heating an atom/nucleus causes electrons to jump to a higher orbit. [Further explains why electrons don't fall into nucleus and such]. I'm looking into that (not yet prepared to argue)).

 

I'll try to find links later (busy day for me).

One thing to keep in mind is that the rest mass of a system is greater than it's constituent parts. So adding energy does not require an increase in particles to effect an increase in mass.

 

For example, if you heat up a gas cloud, the number and rest masses of the individual particles will not have changed, but the individual velocities will have on average increased. This will add to the rest mass of the system.

 

Note that the rest masses of the individual particles are all relative to their individual reference frames, and the rest mass of the system is taken wrt the system as a whole.

[Borson]

Here's one such article regarding inconsistency of Newton's gravitional constant (though I'm not a fan of it's theory to explain such):

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

 

Do photons not have mass? (I thought it had very small, considered insignificant mass and thus considered massless, though not actually massless). Also, would it be the mass, or the gravity that increases (what is actually observed)?

 

Energy increase causes gravity increase by increase in velocities, and resultant compression/density (reducing radius). We measure this, and effectively explain it by energy to mass conversion. However, though gravity is increased (via energy, and simulated added mass by mathematical conversion), the particle mass has not increased.

 

I'm not against relativity, it works well in a near constant energy/tempurature environment (as most test suggest). However, does it not become erroneous in extreme tempuratures (Big Bang stuff)? [i feel this is due to the general exclusion/equalition of energy, and thus why relativity fails at quantum levels.]

Edited May 24, 2015 by Borson

[Delta1212]

The photon is thought to have zero mass, but as we haven't come up with a test for zero mass, the best we can do experimentally is but an upper bound on what it's mass could possibly be, and that upper bound is very, very small, which is not inconsistent with it having zero mass, we just can't experimentally confirm that.

[Borson]

-deleted-

Edited May 24, 2015 by Borson

[Strange]

It's not the concept that's flawed, but the formulation.

 

In general relativity, the equations inciude terms for mass, energy, energy flux, pressure, and other factors that contribute to the gravitation.

 

 

That only explains the incorrectness of the current formula.

 

Which "current formula" are you referring to? Newton's law of gravitation or Einstein's field equations or something else? And what evidence do you have that it is incorrect?

Energy increase causes gravity increase by increase in velocities, and resultant compression/density (reducing radius).

 

Why would reducing the radius increase gravity?

Bohr's model describes atoms but fails to explain why. Why don't electrons fall into the nucleus, or bounce/collide across/through it? What causes electrons to balance at certain orbits?

 

The Bohr model is wrong. Your questions are answered by quantum theory.

 

My speculation deals with nuclear thermal expansion.

 

As you admit it is speculation, we can ask the mods to move the thread.

 

Energy/friction of nucleus causes heat/repulsive/expansive force that pushes against electrons

 

What causes this friction? And why would heat repel electrons? And how can you have heat inside an atom? (Do you even know what heat is?)

 

In short: The observed force of gravity is the difference between the true attractiveness [strong force] (as a function of mass) and expansion (as a function of energy).

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

Further, as expansion deteriorates quicker with distance than attraction

 

Why?

[Borson]

First, forgive me. I thought this was in the speculation section.

(I'm new here, and this started with me responding to a thread in speculation).

 

 

 

In general relativity, the equations include terms for mass, energy, energy flux, pressure, and other factors that contribute to the gravitation.

Gravity on it's own is vastly missing Energy as a variable and is otherwise clumped in with mass. I expect it leads to the inconsistencies in Newton's gravitational constant (specifically at extreme temperatures.)

 

Which "current formula" are you referring to? Newton's law of gravitation or Einstein's field equations or something else? And what evidence do you have that it is incorrect?

Newton's Gravity, as mentioned above.

 

Why would reducing the radius increase gravity?

​1/(r^2) increases as radius decreases.

 

 

As you admit it is speculation, we can ask the mods to move the thread.

I approve.

 

 

What causes this friction? And why would heat repel electrons? And how can you have heat inside an atom? (Do you even know what heat is?)

Energy in the nucleus implies motion within, thus collisions and friction and such. Radiating such energy for balance, heat. It's no different than thermal expansion at the molecular level. Energy is the basis, adding more excites, removing "dullens".

 

 

 

What evidence do you have for this?

Still working on that. (Thus speculation and requiring test results).

 

Why?

If this is true. If they were equal we'd feel no gravity. If expansion exceeded attraction, well that goes into Big Bang implications and such. Overall, it's what's observed (electron's are not escaping atoms, except at extreme temperatures [plasma]. Thus the low temperature similar test of smaller particles (neutrinos?) replacing and behaving in place of electrons (that would fall into the nucleus).

Actually, I'm just gonna delete my speculation part and make a new post in speculation.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Borson

[timo]

I've read there are studies that if you increase a system's energy while keeping it's mass constant, it's gravity increases. That increase is very small (related to E/(c^2)), insignificant on testable and relative scales, but perhaps significant at quantum scales (when rc < 1).

 

It is not clear what an increase of gravity is supposed to mean. Unlike "mass", "energy" and "momentum", "gravity" is not a physical quantity. You wouldn't say that an object's electromagnetism or its color increase, would you? That may sound pedantic - because it is . The reason for being pedantic at this point is that in the context of your question, which implicitly begs for being treated in the framework of a relativistic theory of gravity, there are two possible statements to be made about an increase of gravity caused by an increase of energy. And they both conflict with each other (caused by two different interpreations of how to quantify gravity). And the reason for the conflict is not that the relativistic theory of gravity had flaws. The reason is that strictly speaking an "increase in gravity" is not a properly defined physical statement.

 

 

 

Point being, if changes in energy effects gravity while mass is constant, energy should be a variable in formulating gravity.

Energy kind of is a variable in the mainstream formulation of relativistic gravity. The famous equation for describing relativistic gravity are the Einstein equations (it is only one equation but for some reason the plural is commonly used ). This equation relates an origin of gravity, described via the energy-momentum-stress tensor, to the effects of gravity, described via the curvature of space-time. One variable in the standard representation of the energy-momentum-stress tensor is energy (as you might have guessed from its name).

Edited May 25, 2015 by timo

[Strange]

Gravity on it's own is vastly missing Energy as a variable and is otherwise clumped in with mass.

 

Not in GR.

 

 

Newton's Gravity, as mentioned above.

 

Newtonian gravity is known to be wrong for this, and other reasons.

 

 

​1/(r^2) increases as radius decreases.

 

r in the equations is the distance between the two bodies. Changing the radius of an object does not change it gravitation.