Precursor562
13th August 2006 - 10:10 PM
QUOTE
Now if photons themselves have no mass, and create no gravitational field then imagine one of these bodies being converted to energy at some point during this.
Photons have mass. E=MC^2 or rewritten as M=E/C^2 where each photon has an energy level (E) and they travel at the speed of light. Violet photons have an energy level of 3 electron volts (eV). Where 1 eV = 1.602*10^-19 Joules than Violet light photons have 4.806*10^-19 Joules. We can now fit this into the equation.
M=E/C^2
kg=J/(299 792 458 m/s)^2
kg=4.806*10^-19/89875517873681760
kg=5.347396169393673*10^-36
Now although the energy level varies it doesn't vary that greatly and so you can see that photons have an extremely light mass.
Not to mention if photons were massless they would be unaffected by gravity. If you compare a photon to an object like a rock than there are some similarities. The photon has mass because it has energy and its energy is motion. Specific motion. The rock has mass and it too has mass because of the energy contained within it. This energy (like the photon) exists because of movement (energy) whether it be on a molecular scale or an atomic scale or a subatomic scale (like the photon). This would make light a particle and a small ingredient of a larger mixture. So it can be said that light has mass because light is photons and is a particle of matter. That would make light matter, very fast moving and very low density matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Now if photons themselves have no mass, and create no gravitational field then imagine one of these bodies being converted to energy at some point during this.
|
Photons have mass. E=MC^2 or rewritten as M=E/C^2 where each photon has an energy level (E) and they travel at the speed of light. Violet photons have an energy level of 3 electron volts (eV). Where 1 eV = 1.602*10^-19 Joules than Violet light photons have 4.806*10^-19 Joules. We can now fit this into the equation.
M=E/C^2
kg=J/(299 792 458 m/s)^2
kg=4.806*10^-19/89875517873681760
kg=5.347396169393673*10^-36
Now although the energy level varies it doesn't vary that greatly and so you can see that photons have an extremely light mass.
Not to mention if photons were massless they would be unaffected by gravity. If you compare a photon to an object like a rock than there are some similarities. The photon has mass because it has energy and its energy is motion. Specific motion. The rock has mass and it too has mass because of the energy contained within it. This energy (like the photon) exists because of movement (energy) whether it be on a molecular scale or an atomic scale or a subatomic scale (like the photon). This would make light a particle and a small ingredient of a larger mixture. So it can be said that light has mass because light is photons and is a particle of matter. That would make light matter, very fast moving and very low density matter.
then there's a core component to mass that can't be converted to energy
If energy is nothing more than motion than matter can't be converted to energy it can only continue to exist as matter but the energy the matter contains may change form (be transfered to another body of matter).
StevenA
13th August 2006 - 11:14 PM
Ok, let's say that light and matter are the same - a virtual mass moving at light speed that only exist as a mass in the typical sense over time. Gravitational forces are always created by this virtual mass, but only readily observed when this motion is contained and effectively focused in a small area (which we observe as matter) and we can assume a photon moving through space would emit a gravitational field as well, but it's so diffused over the path that we can't measure it.
Now the question here is about this equation:
E=(p^2c^2+m^2c^4)^0.5
If we assume conservation of E is maintained, then this equation states kinetic and potential energies are convertable, but if a gravitational emitting mass is already travelling at light speed, how can it go "faster" in a sense to acquire a kinetic energy unless the mass is traded off in this equation, and if the mass is traded off, does that also imply a loss in the gravitational field associated with it or is the gravitational component associated with the energy instead? If it's associated with the energy then the mass would only seem to apply in terms of inertia, but what does inertia mean to something already moving at light speed?
I assume there's an energy to space itself that's not associated with a photon that holds mass localized in its motion (maybe this would be more accurately described as a lack of energy as it detracts from the kinetic energy).
It just seems that there's a violation of conservation laws here if a gravitational field is moved by using a free conversion from mass to kinetic energy, at least if the conversion is reversible back into mass.
And if we assume light emits a gravitational force, then consider two pulses of light right behind each other. If gravity is limited to light speed propogation then it would seem only the lead pulse could attract the pulse behind it and the second pulse would be constantly attracted to the first pulse and continually blue shifting toward the first pulse (then again this might be the mechanism that keeps wavefronts in lock step).
I sadly only know enough to see lots of problems and not enough to answer them, but maybe someone else has a clearer picture of what's going on.
Turanyanin
14th August 2006 - 02:16 PM
Hi StevenA and Precursor,
What you are asking for is from the “edge” (gravity, SR/GR, photon mass, Lorentz symmetry etc). Be aware that it is mostly a question of “new cosmic dynamics”, i.e. a deep change of the established physical picture. I could jump into answering and discussion considering your very open-minded line of reasoning, but it would take to much time of me at the moment. So, if you have a time and interest, please read two articles of mine from the core of your bright questioning:
1.
“On Interaction of motional masses, JOT, 2004Especially see Addendum and Ref. of this article considering changeable G-mass (also Abraham, Nordstrom, Richterek, Vankov etc.)
2.
“Wave Dynamics of Quantum Gravity-Space”, 2006one version of it now is in per-review process. Among others, directly explains dynamics (resonances) of gravyphoton and its mass.
Kindest regards.
StevenA
14th August 2006 - 10:15 PM
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Aug 14 2006, 02:16 PM)
Hi StevenA and Precursor,
What you are asking for is from the “edge” (gravity, SR/GR, photon mass, Lorentz symmetry etc). Be aware that it is mostly a question of “new cosmic dynamics”, i.e. a deep change of the established physical picture. I could jump into answering and discussion considering your very open-minded line of reasoning, but it would take to much time of me at the moment. So, if you have a time and interest, please read two articles of mine from the core of your bright questioning:
1.
“On Interaction of motional masses, JOT, 2004Especially see Addendum and Ref. of this article considering changeable G-mass (also Abraham, Nordstrom, Richterek, Vankov etc.)
2.
“Wave Dynamics of Quantum Gravity-Space”, 2006one version of it now is in per-review process. Among others, directly explains dynamics (resonances) of gravyphoton and its mass.
Kindest regards.
Thank you for the links. I'll check them out.
I do see one mechanism that could help resolve this to a limited extent - light climbing out of a gravity well loses energy and if a mass travels slower than light speed for any period of time, if gravity propogates at light speed as well, then that mass would have to climb out of its own "well". As long as it was travelling at light speed this self interaction between a mass and its own gravity may not be possible.
If we compared this to an electromagnetic field, gravity would be similar to electronic self-induction - the field around a charge adds an effective inertia resisting change in velocity because it requires changing the field as well, so in many ways, the field and the particle are complimentary aspects of the same effect through a recursion. (Tough to imagine mentally but I think it's true)
So in the example of the two masses colliding, if they're converted to energy early then each only has to escape it's own field, and loses less energy "climbing" out of this, whereas for the conversion to energy after they've gained kinetic energy and are close to colliding, they each have to climb out of a larger mutual field and thus lose more energy in the process.
For this to work, the field could not instantly disappear when a conversion to energy occured.
I don't like the idea of fields though as they seem to require yet another mechanism to describe how they propogate and in what manner information about a field is retained. It seems more likely that there is no vacuum in space but instead the apparent vast continuum of space is do to recursive relationships between a smaller number of particles interacting. So instead of needing an effectively infinite sea of potential, you could have a finite number of possibly plank scale mechanisms propogating discrete information between them to create both space and time.
Turanyanin
15th August 2006 - 12:22 PM
QUOTE (StevenA+Aug 14 2006, 10:15 PM)
...
I don't like the idea of fields though as they seem to require yet another mechanism to describe how they propogate and in what manner information about a field is retained. It seems more likely that there is no vacuum in space but instead the apparent vast continuum of space is do to recursive relationships between a smaller number of particles interacting. So instead of needing an effectively infinite sea of potential, you could have a finite number of possibly plank scale mechanisms propogating discrete information between them to create both space and time.
You are very close to my basic picture of quantum wave steredynamics. Field as concept is only at the surface (basically virtual one). You mentioned Planck scale and I'm repeating constantly: where come from that scale really? All so-called quantum gravity theories assumed it in one way or another. From this picture you can see how it follows in very simple resonance way. That is realisic dynamics not speculations.
Your term "propagating discrete information" is somewhat ambigious, and what in this context "time" really means? I think "information" but time also are that basic dynamics itself, otherwise it is pure "virtuality", which mostly "modern science" is.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.