Gravity never zero

[Emil]

Robittybob1, maybe if we just both wait, Emil will get impatient and just give us the answer!

A clue.
Not the answer! But my answer!
Do you have one?

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes, it's true.
So if you say that is particle, I can argue and say that it is wave, and I could give examples.
But conversely, if you say that is wave, I can argue and say that it is particle, and I could give examples.
What conclusion can you draw from this? I could give my conclusions, but I don't want to influence you.

Conclusion drawn: depending on your view point you can be right or wrong.

 

[Emil]

Conclusion drawn: depending on your view point you can be right or wrong.

That is also my point of view.
Since we do not know exactly what is. It resembles nothing of what we know so far.
That's why we made a model and we need a model.
When we find out exactly what it is, then we drop the model.

 

[Robittybob1]

What was my prize for getting the answer right Emil?

 

[Emil]

What was my prize for getting the answer right Emil?

You think you slick, huh?

 

[Robittybob1]

You think you slick, huh?

Go to the thread on CO2 absorbing Photons and solve the problem there then even you will be slick too. It has got me trying to solve it subconciously too. It's a mystery!

 

[hansda]

[/color]

Yes Emil, I did read that without the red letters and responded. You asked for a reference and I supplied a reference to Einstein's 1905 paper where he associated a change in the mass of an atom with the emission and absorption of a photon. Total energy is conserved in the process, while until the photon which has been emmited is absorbed by another atom, total mass is not.

Mass is exchanged between atoms in the form of photons. It is very small amounts but never the less, if an atom emits a photon and loses mass in the process, while the energy associated with that mass is conserved in the photon, as long as the photon flys free the total mass is in and of itself not conserved except in the total energy balance.

The extreme case can be made that some 14 billion plus year past many atoms emitted photons, thier mass diminished in the process, and traveled passed through space as energy, until now 14+ billion years later an astronomer somewhere has observed them, in the process of their absorbtion by atoms now. During that 14+ billion years the total energy was conserved but the total mass existed in part wholly as energy in the form of photons with no intrinsic mass of their own.

My point was not to suggest that mass and energy are not conserved. It was that total energy is always conserved and constant, while total mass at any given instant may not be equivalent to the total mass at another.

And the E = mc^2 paper is not GR, it follows from SR, Einstein's earlier work with the photo electric effect and Maxwell's work.

I think Einstein's Equation E = MC*C , should not be considered for photon . Rather the Equation E = pc , should be considered .

This is obtained from the Relativistic Equation E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2 * c^4 (where m = 0 and p is momentum of photon and c is velocity of light ) .

Energy and momentum of photon depends upon its frequency or wavelength and not upon its mass as rest mass of photon is zero .

So there is no mass loss with photon , though there is a energy loss with photon .

 

[OnlyMe]

I think Einstein's Equation E = MC*C , should not be considered for photon . Rather the Equation E = pc , should be considered .

This is obtained from the Relativistic Equation E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2 * c^4 (where m = 0 and p is momentum of photon and c is velocity of light ) .

Energy and momentum of photon depends upon its frequency or wavelength and not upon its mass as rest mass of photon is zero .

So there is no mass loss with photon , though there is a energy loss with photon .

It sounds from this that you disagree with, my understanding of Einstein's interpretaion of the paper.

There is no question that the momentum of a photon cannot be determined in the same way classical momentum is defined. That was never an issue. What the paper presents is that the energy and momentum of photon emission and absorption, corresponds with a decrease and increase in an atom's mass. It lies at the foundation of the association of mass with energy, and is the basis of the equation E = mc^2.

I have no reason to discard the conclusions in that paper. If you do not agree with my description and interpretation of the intent and conclusion, then we have arrived at a difference of interpretation and/or opinion. If this is not the case how do you interpret the intent and conclusions, of this reference.

 

[Robittybob1]

I think Einstein's Equation E = MC*C , should not be considered for photon . Rather the Equation E = pc , should be considered .

This is obtained from the Relativistic Equation E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2 * c^4 (where m = 0 and p is momentum of photon and c is velocity of light ) .

Energy and momentum of photon depends upon its frequency or wavelength and not upon its mass as rest mass of photon is zero .

So there is no mass loss with photon , though there is a energy loss with photon .

I think there is a connection between what you are saying here and what is being discussed on the other thread. A photon can't just transfer its energy to something without also transferring its momentum, yet they seemed to be based on the same factor Planck's constant X frequency.
It can't just make something vibrate but there also has to be forward motion.
If they both can't be satisfied the interaction is not completed.
There must be conservation of momentum and energy.

 

[Gravage]

The point is that the equation E = mc^2, is a description of the total energy associated with a specific rest mass. It is not a complete description of mass. It does not exclude that there is anything other than energy involved in what we understand as mass.

That said.., assuming one accepts the big bang as accurately describing of the universe over time, the big bang created mass from energy, which implies there was a time when there was no mass.

It is arrogant to believe on one hand all of the mass in the universe was created and at the same time maintain, that it must remain constant.

While it does appear a sound and logical position to maintain that the TOTAL energy in the universe remains constant and conserved, the same does not automatically follow for what we experience as mass. If and when the energy content associated with a given mass, is conserved through any process, that moves it from its contribution to mass, to any other form or expression of energy.., while the total energy is conserved the total mass is not.

And as I said earlier, I believe that it is likely that a mechanism or mechanisms, do exist in the universe where mass is created, which requires an energy contribution and that while the total energy is conserved and stable, the total mass, may change over time through process(es) of destruction and creation.

This is not so hard to see, in practice. The equation E = mc^2, originates in Einstein's recognition that as an atom emits and absorbs photons! its mass is diminished and increased accordingly. In a sense, when a photon which has no rest mass is emmited, mass is converted to energy and while total energy is conserved, total mass is not. Only should one assume that every photon that is emitted from an atom, is at some time absorbed by another atom, could the process be said to, "OVER TIME" represent a conservation of total mass. But we have no evidence that suggests that every photon emmited is reabsorbed by another atom. We observe photons today we believe we're originally emitted over 14 billion years ago. They represent energy which may once have been a component of mass, that has remained energy throughout the elapsed 14+ billion years.

There is simple reason, if there is no energy there wouldn't be universe, very simple. Everything needs energy just to exist.
You said: "But we have no evidence that suggests that every photon emitted is reabsorbed by another atom. We observe photons today we believe we're originally emitted over 14 billion years ago. They represent energy which may once have been a component of mass, that has remained energy throughout the elapsed 14+ billion years."

But does that mean this is some kind of entropy, if every photon emitted is NOT re-absorbed by another atom-you know useable form of energy and unusable form of energy (entropy)?
I don't see why this can't be explained by entropy, perhaps?
Cheers.

 

[Gravage]

I am not denying BB . I am not denying the event of BB . BIG BANG might have happened 13.7 billion years ago to expand our Universe from the tiny point to its present infinite size .

But, what I am trying to say is that ; BB did not created the energy of our Universe . This energy was already existing before BB . So, it should not be considered that BB created our Universe ; as the energy was pre-existing .



I dont think so . We can lead a better life , if we know it all ; as the goal of science is to know the truth .

Exactly, if there was no energy before the universe, the universe wouldn't even have "the energy fuel" to start to exist at the first place.

 

[hansda]

It sounds from this that you disagree with, my understanding of Einstein's interpretaion of the paper.

There is no question that the momentum of a photon cannot be determined in the same way classical momentum is defined. That was never an issue. What the paper presents is that the energy and momentum of photon emission and absorption, corresponds with a decrease and increase in an atom's mass. It lies at the foundation of the association of mass with energy, and is the basis of the equation E = mc^2.

I have no reason to discard the conclusions in that paper. If you do not agree with my description and interpretation of the intent and conclusion, then we have arrived at a difference of interpretation and/or opinion. If this is not the case how do you interpret the intent and conclusions, of this reference.

In Einstein's paper , he corelated light energy with change in kinetic energy of a mass .

I dont think if particle photon has any kinetic energy because photon's energy depends upon its wavelength/frequency (its rest mass is zero.) .

So, i think he meant non-zero atomic-mass ; which has kinetic energy .

 

[OnlyMe]

In Einstein's paper , he corelated light energy with change in kinetic energy of a mass .

I dont think if particle photon has any kinetic energy because photon's energy depends upon its wavelength/frequency (its rest mass is zero.) .

So, i think he meant non-zero atomic-mass ; which has kinetic energy .

I believe you are mistaken, take a look at this discussion of the subject, The Concept of Mass, where Lev Okun does a pretty good job of discussing the issue surrounding the equation E = mc^2 and it's history.

 

[Robittybob1]

I believe you are mistaken, take a look at this discussion of the subject, The Concept of Mass, where Lev Okun does a pretty good job of discussing the issue surrounding the equation E = mc^2 and it's history.

One thought that came out of reading that paper was that Einstein had no problem that the energy in a photo took away mass from its source.
So I was thinking does that mean an electron in its ground state is less massive than a free electron.
I have not tried to research this yet, so please no hostile responses please.

 

[James R]

Yes, it does mean that. Or, more precisely, the atom-with-bound-electron is lighter than the equivalent atom (minus one electron) plus one free electron.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes, it does mean that. Or, more precisely, the atom-with-bound-electron is lighter than the equivalent atom (minus one electron) plus one free electron.

The electron and atom interaction is based on the EM force and not changes within mass/energy. One way to explain this is to compare the behavior of the hydrogen proton and electron, versus the electron and positron. The electron-positron will totally lower the potential and annihilate. The proton and electron will not. The difference is the large mass of the proton, which the positron does not have. This makes it harder to fully lower EM potential.

The force that is closest to gravity, by sharing the parameter of mass, is the strong nuclear force which creates mass burn (below iron). The strong nuclear force cause the mass to fall and therefore can impact gravity, by directly changing the mass that defines gravity. The mass/energy heat given off will also fluff matter reversing the impact of gravity. This is not antigravity but will increase entropy.

Interestingly, atoms above iron have positive heats of formation. Such atoms will add mass via the nuclear force, to enhance gravity.

 

[origin]

The electron and atom interaction is based on the EM force and not changes within mass/energy. One way to explain this is to compare the behavior of the hydrogen proton and electron, versus the electron and positron. The electron-positron will totally lower the potential and annihilate. The proton and electron will not. The difference is the large mass of the proton, which the positron does not have. This makes it harder to fully lower EM potential.

uh, No it has to do with one pair is matter and the other pair is a matter anit-matter pair.

 

[Robittybob1]

uh, No it has to do with one pair is matter and the other pair is a matter anit-matter pair.

This discussion will sort out the ones that have it and those that don't.

 

[hansda]

I believe you are mistaken, take a look at this discussion of the subject, The Concept of Mass, where Lev Okun does a pretty good job of discussing the issue surrounding the equation E = mc^2 and it's history.

What I understand is that in Einstein's Equation E = MC^2 ; E is the Light energy and M is rest mass (Newtonian mass) which is diminished and its kinetic energy is converted into light energy .

As this equation was deduced from SR , which is only caused by non-zero mass at a relativistic speed . This M is a non-zero mass . Particle photon does not cause SR . So, in the case of photon E = pc only should be considered .

 

[Robittybob1]

Yes, it does mean that. Or, more precisely, the atom-with-bound-electron is lighter than the equivalent atom (minus one electron) plus one free electron.

So we've got the nucleus - we know the mass of that.
We know the mass of a free unbound electron.

We know the energy an electron gives of as it becomes bound.

In the classical particle electron would it have relativistic mass at its lowest energy level?

If there is relativistic mass this is being weighed when measuring an atom's mass.