Gravity vs Mass

[Native]

Just to clarify, light *does* have energy, just not *infinite* energy. And yes, the photons being massless is why they *can* move at the speed of light (technically, a massless particle *has* to).
More specifically, the energy of a photon is directly related to the *frequency* of the light. A higher frequency corresponds to a more energetic photon.

I thought I read the term of "clarity" in your first sentence In fact it mostly express the very contradictory "particle/wave duality".

As Albert Einstein wrote - Wave–particle duality - Wikipedia
"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".

Of course the solution to this ghostly duality perception is to differ between electromagnetic energy waves and particle mass and exclude the nonsense term of a "photon particle".

 

[Native]

Well, that's the point. It is physically impossible to get anything massive to the exact speed of light. It would take an infinite amount of energy.

But, for example, at SLAC, we regularly accelerate electrons so that their 'mass' has increased by a factor of 100,000. Their speed is then about 99.999999995% of the speed of light, which is about half an inch/sec less than the speed of light, which is about 186,000 miles per second.

I fully understand that you type *mass* because it´s NOT mass the accelerated electrons gains, but energy - from the electromagnetic power in the accelerator. You are NOT increasing mass but EM energy = motion.

 

[Heyo]

I fully understand that you type *mass* because it´s NOT mass the accelerated electrons gains, but energy - from the electromagnetic power in the accelerator. You are NOT increasing mass but EM energy = motion.

Energy is mass.
E = mc^2.
That's why particle physicist speak of 'mass' and give the value in Electron Volts, not in kg.

 

[Native]

Energy is mass.
E = mc^2.
That's why particle physicist speak of 'mass' and give the value in Electron Volts, not in kg.

Thanks. I know of this unprecise and dualistic definition. Energy is more precise MOTION and not mass and the particle physicists should use the term "charge" instead of "mass".

 

[Polymath257]

Energy is mass.
E = mc^2.
That's why particle physicist speak of 'mass' and give the value in Electron Volts, not in kg.

I would say it the other way around. Mass contributes to the total energy. Kinetic energy is another form.

 

[Native]

Heyo said: ↑
Energy is mass.
E = mc^2.
That's why particle physicist speak of 'mass' and give the value in Electron Volts, not in kg.

I would say it the other way around. Mass contributes to the total energy. Kinetic energy is another form.

Of course you would as a cemented "gravitationalist" . But what then about the hypothesized "Higgs Boson" which is thought to "give mass/weight to everything" by it´s about 125 gigaelectronvolts (GeV)?

It´s not a question of "another way around" but of sampling the dots together. If you ascribe mass to have energy, you have to count on the atomic masses to have charged EM energies and properties.

But of course: This doesn´t count in the Newtonian way of thinking on mass. Which again is why that other modern and valid scientific theories have difficulties incorporating the ancient "gravity model".

It´s simply logically outdated on the universal scales.

 

[Thief]

maybe I said so earlier in this thread...

Albert E. made comment of having made a blunder

then later in life he continued working and someone did ask...….
what are you working on now

I'm trying to catch God in the act

I get it
Albert sought the relationship between energy and mass
and used a constant doing so

the equation is correct even without numbers
energy DOES equal mass

what he gave us we in turned used to destroy mass....releasing the energy

but what Albert really wanted...….
how did God put all of that energy INTO the mass

Albert was seeking the power of creation

 

[viole]

You so right science doesn't for causality. It just assumes everything happens magical

You mean like when it is created by some imaginary being?

What I meant is that causality is not a fundamental trait of modern science. It can still be used, but, again, it is not fundamental. Like a ball is not fundamental, since it is made up of more fundamental stuff. For instance, causality is useless to discuss things like plank scale objects, and their interactions.

Unless your knowledge of science is stuck at a time when scientists were wearing funny wigs. If that is the case, then I suggest a knowledge upgrade, before speaking about the subject with ridiculous counter arguments involving magic and stuff. .

Well, it cannot be a fundamental trait of modern physics. For the simple reason that causality, in order to make sense, assumes an asymmetry, for instance, a macroscopic arrow of time. Ergo, a time going in a predefined direction. If not, you could not say what is cause and what effect.

Alas, that asymmetry is a macroscopic effect of something not fundamental, since it already assumes a macroscopic context which is not in thermodynamical equilibrium. Ergo, a pretty mature Universe. Therefore, questions like : what caused the universe? Are meaningless.

not to speak of geometric theories, like relativity, where time might not even flow at all. Good luck in defining causality in an eternal and unchanging spacetime block.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

What I meant is that causality is not a fundamental trait of modern science. It can still be used, but, again, it is not fundamental.

oh oh...….SERIOUS...….oh oh

When I was soooooooo much younger ….the instructor stated
cause and effect CANNOT be separated

in that moment.....as if a epiphany was upon me
I did ask with the naivete' of the innocent......

never?...…...always one AND the other?

absolutely
science carries itself upon experimentation
the result is to be expected.....planned for.....
and must be repeatable

cause and effect CANNOT be separated

 

[viole]

oh oh...….SERIOUS...….oh oh

When I was soooooooo much younger ….the instructor stated
cause and effect CANNOT be separated

in that moment.....as if a epiphany was upon me
I did ask with the naivete' of the innocent......

never?...…...always one AND the other?

absolutely
science carries itself upon experimentation
the result is to be expected.....planned for.....
and must be repeatable

cause and effect CANNOT be separated

If results were repeatable, then quantum mechanics would not exist. Yet, it exists. And it is part of modern science. And it is full of causeless phenomena.

Ergo, your instructor needed a knowledge upgrade, too, apparently. Unless he instructed you 200 years ago.

but if these very old, outdated and flat out wrong conceptions of science justify and make you confident of your beliefs, be my guest.

ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

If results were repeatable, then quantum mechanics would not exist. Yet, it exists. And it is part of modern science. And it is full of causeless phenomena.

Ergo, your instructor needed a knowledge upgrade, too, apparently. Unless he instructed you 200 years ago.

but if these very old, outdated and flat out wrong conceptions of science justify and make you confident of your beliefs, be my guest.

ciao

- viole

not so fast.....

science simply has not found the means to deal with the little things

and science would insist on belief in dark energy and dark matter
they do insist

I'm fine with that

but without the repeatable results of experiment
nothing is proven

 

[Polymath257]

oh oh...….SERIOUS...….oh oh

When I was soooooooo much younger ….the instructor stated
cause and effect CANNOT be separated

in that moment.....as if a epiphany was upon me
I did ask with the naivete' of the innocent......

never?...…...always one AND the other?

absolutely
science carries itself upon experimentation
the result is to be expected.....planned for.....
and must be repeatable

That depends on what you mean by a 'result'. For example, if you create a bunch of muons in an identical way in a particle accelerator, those muons will NOT all decay at the same time. So, if you have a single muon, there is NO WAY to determine when it will decay.

BUT, if you have a LOT of muons, the *average* decay time can be predicted quite accurately. THAT result is very predicable and repeatable.

So that is the problem: individual results are usually NOT predictable and repeatable, but what happens with a LOT of these put together *is* predictable and repeatable. We can predict *probabilities* and *correlations* but not specific events.

Causality, as classically understood, is simply false. Given initial conditions it is usually not possible to predict the specific outcome of a single experiment, even in theory.

cause and effect CANNOT be separated

Well, then, your instructor needed to update his/her understanding of modern science. As stated, this is simply false.

 

[Polymath257]

not so fast.....

science simply has not found the means to deal with the little things

This is wrong. Science *has* found out how to deal with these things. It is quantum mechanics. It predicts the *probabilities* and *correlations* quite accurately.

Also, there are situaitons where a cause/effect relationship involving 'hidden variables' has been experimentally ruled out. We *know* there is not a cause/effect relation in these cases, while QM still gives accurate probabilities.

and science would insist on belief in dark energy and dark matter
they do insist

I'm fine with that

but without the repeatable results of experiment
nothing is proven

This depends on what aspects of the experiment are repeatable. In QM, the probabilities and correlations are predictable and repeatable. This is enough to allow science to be done even when *specific* events are not predictable or repeatable.

 

[Thief]

NO WAY to determine

individual results are usually NOT predictable and repeatable,

We can predict

but not specific events.

it is usually not possible to predict the specific outcome of a single experiment,

not very sure of yourself......are you?

 

[gnostic]

Yes, the Theory of Gravitation is also known as General Relativity, first published 104 years ago and confirmed in countless tests. We'd have no space program or satellite technology without it.

is that the same item Albert referred to as his greatest blunder?

Wow, thief.

You keep making one claim after another, and each time, you keep making one blunder after another.

You really don’t understand physics...no, you don’t understand science whatsoever, and you keep blabbering nonsensically.

General Relativity wasn’t his greatest blunder, **mod edit**

The blunder was Einstein applying the “Cosmological Constant” to his own cosmology - the “Static Universe” (1917).

In the 1920s, three independent theoretical physicists came up with the same hypothesis of the “Expanding Universe” cosmology (which you would later know it as the Big Bang cosmology, from 1949 and onwards), and all three of them use General Relativity as framework.

They are -

1. Alexander Friedmann, Russian, 1922
2. Howard Percy Robertson, American, 1924-25. (Note that Robertson would continue to work on his model, during 1930s with Arthur Geoffrey Walker, to come up with metric).
3. Georges Lemaître, Belgian, 1927.

Each one came up with exact solution to Einstein’s field equation, that used a metric, that were known as the following:

• Friedmann’s Metric
• Robertson-Walker Metric
• Lemaître’s Metric

These metrics provide the same negative value, and itself are right solutions. These days, this metric is named Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker Metric (FLRW Metric).

What does it all this have to do with Einstein’s blunder, you may ask?

Einstein was competing against these 3 physicists’ Big Bang theory with his own cosmological model the Static Universe model, using his own General Relativity, but his blunder was using the wrong constant/metric.

Einstein created the Cosmological Constant, which has positive value, and applied to his field equation, and he was wrong.

It wasn’t General Relativity wrong. And it wasn’t his field equation.

What was wrong was Einstein using his Cosmological Constant on his Field Equation for General Relativity.

The correct constants were the FLRW metric, the wrong constant was Einstein’s Cosmological Constant.

The Cosmological Constant was Einstein’s greatest blunder.

But as others have already informed you, the Cosmological Constant (CC) have some values after all.

The CC can be used in the current standard model of the Big Bang theory - Lambda CDM Model.

The Cosmological Constant is now used as solution to Dark Energy, which is the force that make universe continuing in accelerating in expansion, instead of contracting.

You have clearly not understood what Einstein’s blunder was. **mod edit** You make false claims without understanding the situation.

 

[Thief]

You really don’t understand physics...no, you don’t understand science whatsoever, and you keep blabbering nonsensically.

General Relativity wasn’t his greatest blunder, you ignorant thief.

looks like a personal attack

turn yourself in

 

[Polymath257]

not very sure of yourself......are you?

Well, I understand QM (in the sense of being able to use it to make predictions of probabilities and correlations), but what I said is the result of observations over the last century. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal description of the universe even though it is the best scientific description we have ever had.

 

[gnostic]

looks like a personal attack

turn yourself in

How about trying trying to learn something instead of making misinformed claims?

You got nothing on the rest of my reply, learned nothing about what’s Einstein’s real blunder was?

Well?

 

[Thief]

Well, I understand QM (in the sense of being able to use it to make predictions of probabilities and correlations), but what I said is the result of observations over the last century. Quantum mechanics is NOT a causal description of the universe even though it is the best scientific description we have ever had.

if it's not a description of our universe

what good is your science?

what does it do for you?

 

[Valjean]

if it's not a description of our universe

what good is your science?

what does it do for you?

What does utility have to do with theoretical physics?
Science does try to describe the universe accurately. It's a research tool and follows the facts wherever they lead. Consequences of the facts have no bearing on their veracity.