The black hole "frozen star" interpretation is the one that's right

[Farsight]

Actually, if OnlyMe were your astronaut, the above again would be fantasy.., because it is OnlyMe's belief that long before he reached anything near the event horizon organic life would have become impossible, so he could not observe anything, and at least by the time the substance he was composed of reached the event horizon, his clock would no longer be a clock... Thus again there would be not only no one to observe it there would be no clock.

Good stuff. Note above where I said what I'm not accounting for is gamma ray bursters.

Perhaps it is my own interpretations, but it seems all to often that you fail to maintain a firm grasp on the line between what is known and real and what is theory and/or often even fantasy.

Not so. I have the firm grasp on what's real. Others mistake abstraction for reality.

Einstein qualified the above with the first part in black bold, "If the theory corresponds to the facts,.... That first would is very important!

The theory corresponds to the facts. E=mc² is not wrong.

Then pay attention to the second red bold portion, "radiation conveys inertia, where he uses the word inertia not inertial mass. The inertial energy of the photon only becomes mass as it is absorbed by an atom!

The photon has inertial mass. It's the same as active gravitational mass. Neither are really mass. Like relativistic mass these are really measures of energy.

The authors of the paper you linked made the same mistake...

They didn't make any mistake. You have. Now go and look up active gravitational mass.

 

[OnlyMe]

The photon has inertial mass. It's the same as active gravitational mass. Neither are really mass. Like relativistic mass these are really measures of energy.

They didn't make any mistake. You have. Now go and look up active gravitational mass.

You are just playing with words Farsight!

Whether you proceed the word mass with inertial or gravitational, it still refers to the same thing as an object's rest mass.

While there still remains some limited discussion whether a photon has any mass at all, it is generally accepted to be massless!

The fact that current theory includes energy as a source of gravitation does not mean that energy has mass.

And the authors of the paper under discussion are crackers... They are playing the same word game you are.

Before any of your argument on this issue can be taken with in crediblity, you need to clearly define both mass and inertia.., and I don't mean by just referencing either or both as fundamental?

Is there a contradiction, somewhere between the quote above and the one below?

... but the photon doesn't have any mass, it's nothing but kinetic energy...

 

[Write4U]

How do you arrive at this interpretation or conclusion?

I was implying that a photon does not add to the mass of a black hole until it interacts at a quantum level.., at which time it is no longer moving!.... And is no longer a photon!

That is why I referenced, DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?, where Einstein addressed the issue, of a photon's energy adding mass to a system, though he was not talking about black holes at the time.

It is current popular consensus that photons have no rest mass, but they do convey momentum... And that a photon's energy content contributes to the total energy content of an atom when it is absorbed.., which adds to the rest mass of the atom.

I did not imply anything about a photon moving inside a black hole. In a more literal sense I was saying that photons don't contribute to an object's rest mass, as photons. Only once their energy has been incorporated at a quantum level, as in absorbed, does it contribute to the object's rest and gravitational mass. And at that point it is no longer a photon.[/QUOTE]

OK, I understand this and the illustration below shows the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stimulatedemission.png

However, if the photon has cloned, where does it obtain the additional mass for it's clone. This energy must come from the atom and the atom at the top of the illustration must be heavier than when at the bottom, while it has been robbed of energy by the cloned photon.

Can anyone answer the question in relation to conservation principles?

 

[OnlyMe]

OK, I understand this and the illustration below shows the process. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stimulatedemission.png

However, if the photon has cloned, where does it obtain the additional mass for it's clone. This energy must come from the atom and the atom at the top of the illustration must be heavier than when at the bottom, while it has been robbed of energy by the cloned photon.

Can anyone answer the question in relation to conservation principles?

I am unsure I understand what is intended in that image.

The way it looks you have an atom and a photon in the first frame.

In the second frame you have the same atom the same photon and the atom emits a second photon, with an electron moving to a lower energy state as the photon is emitted.

The third frame shows the atom and the two photons with the atom at a lower energy state.

There is no energy conservation issue. All three frames show equal total energy. The middle frame just shows the electron transition and photon emission. A change in the distribution of total energy so to speak.

 

[Undefined]

@Farsight. Anyhow, I have made all the observations/inputs I can at this time, so it's back to you and your discussions with others, mate! Thanks for the great threads/discussions. It's been a pleasure to read/watch it unfold. Will continue to read-only with great interest. Cheers Farsight, everyone, and bye for now!

 

[Farsight]

Undefined: note what I said here. One thing leads to another. You start with time, then the speed of light, then gravity, then black holes. But it doesn't stop there. The evolution of the universe can be likened to pulling away from a black hole. And if a black hole isn't what you think, nor is the early universe. Which means inflation is superfluous. Not expansion, inflation. And the inflaton.

 

[paddoboy]

Undefined: note what I said here. One thing leads to another. You start with time, then the speed of light, then gravity, then black holes. But it doesn't stop there. The evolution of the universe can be likened to pulling away from a black hole. And if a black hole isn't what you think, nor is the early universe. Which means inflation is superfluous. Not expansion, inflation. And the inflaton.

You proceed under a false premise. The casting doubt on Inflation is only because other alternatives may be possible. It still is favourite to hold out without modification or scrapping.
And naturally the thing you seem to forget, the discovery of this extra data now being investigated and researched, was from mainstream sources anyway.
It wasn't some outside, Maverick renegade physicist.

 

[paddoboy]

Undefined: note what I said here. One thing leads to another. You start with time, then the speed of light, then gravity, then black holes. But it doesn't stop there. The evolution of the universe can be likened to pulling away from a black hole. And if a black hole isn't what you think, nor is the early universe. Which means inflation is superfluous. Not expansion, inflation. And the inflaton.

And therein lies your problem. You see that the whole of 20th/21st century cosmology as needing to be rewritten.
You realize how unlikely that is?
A non zero possibility, but not much above zero.
It doesn't. Many giants have taken us to where we are today, and as a layman who has read plenty of reputable material, i stand in awe and admiration of their successes and abhore the nature of the arrogance of some of the alternative pushers that have graced this forum.
Give credit where credit is due, and forget any delusions of grandeur and/or tall poppy syndrome.

 

[Farsight]

Sorry, I missed this post:

You are just playing with words Farsight!

Whether you proceed the word mass with inertial or gravitational, it still refers to the same thing as an object's rest mass.

No it doesn't. A photon has a non-zero active gravitational mass and a non-zero inertial mass, but a zero rest mass.

While there still remains some limited discussion whether a photon has any mass at all, it is generally accepted to be massless!

The fact that current theory includes energy as a source of gravitation does not mean that energy has mass.

But something that results in gravity has an "active gravitational mass".

And the authors of the paper under discussion are crackers... They are playing the same word game you are.

They aren't crackers. Go and look up the physics instead of getting it wrong and digging your heels in.

Before any of your argument on this issue can be taken with in crediblity, you need to clearly define both mass and inertia.., and I don't mean by just referencing either or both as fundamental?

I don't need to do that, you need to go and look up photon inertial mass. When you have, you can apologise.

Is there a contradiction, somewhere between the quote above and the one below?

No. When we say mass without qualification we mean rest mass.

 

[PhysBang]

Like I've been saying, once you understand one thing in physics it’s easy to understand the next.

I doubt that there is understanding of one thing in physics here. Is it possible for you to show us where your theory of black holes shows up in a rigorous description of a black hole? Even a toy description?

 

[PhysBang]

For the purposes of doing a mathematical analysis (as he mentioned earlier) he is of course correct. However, for the purposes of declaring physical existence today we cannot do this. The reason has to do with our treatment, as observers, of the temporal dimension. The map presumes the globe's complete preexistence, which is easy for us to relate to. However, if we used the Southerly direction to indicate moving forward in time then we could only proclaim that the equator existed for those people already there. In his analogy saying that somebody "could" be walking on the equator, concluding that it therefore it exists, is equivalent to saying that somebody "could" be stepping across the event horizon in the infinite future.

That seems to be the opposite of what he is saying. His analogy is a map that doesn't properly represent the equator is fine for the area near the North Pole. This is like the metrics that do not extend to the interior of the black hole: they are fine outside the black hole.

 

[PhysBang]

I took a quick look at the paper you linked, Light is Heavy.

Good on you to take the time to look through it.

For those without the time, this paper ( http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm ) can be a good exercise in judging the authority one should give to a paper.

1) It does not appear to be published in a journal or scientific proceeding. (Less and less are these days, but it is not put somewhere that one can check citations.)
2) It is hosted on a clearly crackpot site.
3) The authors are from a technology research place, not a scientific institute.
4) It's really weird that it has two authors with names almost like those of famous physicists.

 

[Grumpy]

Farsight

Like I've been saying, once you understand one thing in physics it’s easy to understand the next.

And it's corollary, once you get one fact wrong you will be wrong from then on. It becomes impossible to understand anything about the subject at all.

Fact one: The speed of light is invariant and constant in all frames and between all frames, period. This is the one fact that all of Relativity is built from, step by step. Relativity itself is the description of the relationships and changes in all other properties of the Universe that make that first fact so in all frames. You deny this, you even lie about what Einstein said about it(it was his second postulate), so every other conclusion you reach based on that single misunderstanding is wrong(except by accident, I guess. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day). You are not even talking about reality when you deny facts up front. c is a fact.

Grumpy

 

[PhysBang]

And it's corollary, once you get one fact wrong you will be wrong from then on. It becomes impossible to understand anything about the subject at all.

My take on the history of physics:

Since at least Newton, much of physics is designed so that just getting something wrong isn't usually entirely fatal. That's because the physics is written in such a way that it establishes approximation. So the theory can be approximately true and be very useful even if something is incorrect.

This requires that we have a measure of approximation, which requires that we can look at how accurately a physical theory represents phenomena, which requires mathematics and measurement.

 

[OnlyMe]

Sorry, I missed this post:

No it doesn't. A photon has a non-zero active gravitational mass and a non-zero inertial mass, but a zero rest mass.

But something that results in gravity has an "active gravitational mass".

They aren't crackers. Go and look up the physics instead of getting it wrong and digging your heels in.

I don't need to do that, you need to go and look up photon inertial mass. When you have, you can apologise.

No. When we say mass without qualification we mean rest mass.

As I said before, this reduces to a word game. Using the label, relativistic mass, has been dealt with repeatedly as an outdated description of momentum. Here you seem to be just substituting active gravitational mass where relativistic mass would have been used. You cannot correct faulty reasoning by just relabeling things.

It has been argued (and is generally accepted) that the momentum of a massive object, which is a fundamental component of its relativistic mass, does not change its gravitational mass. Where the idea that any momentum of a massive object does not change its gravitational mass has been discarded, it is flawed to assume that the momentum of a massless photon, does result in gravitational mass.

It is far more likely that the momentum of EM radiation, here referred to as a photon, is the result of the interaction between the EM waveform and matter, where both momentum and the quantifiable particle character we refer to as a photon emerge from that interaction. Yes, what I am suggesting is that the particle character of the photon is emergent rather than inherent.

The first page of the link you included, results in a google search, that is filled with links to discussion groups and blogs, with one exception, a paper The rest mass of a system of two photons in different inertial reference frames: 0+0=0 and 0+0>0. A paper published at arXiv in 2007 which appears to have been cited by no other papers since. I have not read the whole of that paper yet by it begins with, "We show that the rest mass of a system consisting of two photons is a relativistic invariant having the same magnitude in all inertial reference frames in relative motion". Granted an abstract is not a complete description of the authors' intent, but is does begin both with what appears to be an association between relativistic mass and a system of two photons.., not individual photons...

Farsight's, your statement above, A photon has a non-zero active gravitational mass and a non-zero inertial mass, but a zero rest mass. can be read as decoupling the relationship between inertial mass and the equivalence principle, where it is a massive object's inertial resistence to accelleration that is compared to gravitation.

You are just using the term active gravitational mass in place of relativistic mass, in an apparent attempt to hold on to the historical concept of a fundamental association between mass and gravity and the extend that fundamental association to energy.., or the photon.

The mechanism of gravity at a fundamental or in terms of quantum quantum gravity has not yet been worked out. But I at least am fairly certain that attempting to hold on to archaic concepts like relativistic mass, by relabeling it as active gravitational mass is not the answer.

Do photons contribute to a gravitational field? At present the way we theoretically interpret what we observe of the universe at cosmological scales, suggests the answer is yes. But that does not automatically lead to the necessity of any photon mass, active or otherwise. What it does lead to is a need to better understand the emergence of gravitation as a quantum phenomena, with classical implications.

 

[Write4U]

As I said before, this reduces to a word game. Using the label, relativistic mass, has been dealt with repeatedly as an outdated description of momentum. Here you seem to be just substituting active gravitational mass where relativistic mass would have been used. You cannot correct faulty reasoning by just relabeling things.

It has been argued (and is generally accepted) that the momentum of a massive object, which is a fundamental component of its relativistic mass, does not change its gravitational mass. Where the idea that any momentum of a massive object does not change its gravitational mass has been discarded, it is flawed to assume that the momentum of a massless photon, does result in gravitational mass.

It is far more likely that the momentum of EM radiation, here referred to as a photon, is the result of the interaction between the EM waveform and matter, where both momentum and the quantifiable particle character we refer to as a photon emerge from that interaction. Yes, what I am suggesting is that the particle character of the photon is emergent rather than inherent.

The first page of the link you included, results in a google search, that is filled with links to discussion groups and blogs, with one exception, a paper The rest mass of a system of two photons in different inertial reference frames: 0+0=0 and 0+0>0. A paper published at arXiv in 2007 which appears to have been cited by no other papers since. I have not read the whole of that paper yet by it begins with, "We show that the rest mass of a system consisting of two photons is a relativistic invariant having the same magnitude in all inertial reference frames in relative motion". Granted an abstract is not a complete description of the authors' intent, but is does begin both with what appears to be an association between relativistic mass and a system of two photons.., not individual photons...

Farsight's, your statement above, A photon has a non-zero active gravitational mass and a non-zero inertial mass, but a zero rest mass. can be read as decoupling the relationship between inertial mass and the equivalence principle, where it is a massive object's inertial resistence to accelleration that is compared to gravitation.

You are just using the term active gravitational mass in place of relativistic mass, in an apparent attempt to hold on to the historical concept of a fundamental association between mass and gravity and the extend that fundamental association to energy.., or the photon.

The mechanism of gravity at a fundamental or in terms of quantum quantum gravity has not yet been worked out. But I at least am fairly certain that attempting to hold on to archaic concepts like relativistic mass, by relabeling it as active gravitational mass is not the answer.

Do photons contribute to a gravitational field? At present the way we theoretically interpret what we observe of the universe at cosmological scales, suggests the answer is yes. But that does not automatically lead to the necessity of any photon mass, active or otherwise. What it does lead to is a need to better understand the emergence of gravitation as a quantum phenomena, with classical implications.

I am still confused about the relationship between energy and mass. If a massless particle has no momentum, does it still have energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Also, here is a tidbit that may add to the conversation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

 

[Aqueous Id]

I am still confused about the relationship between energy and mass. If a massless particle has no momentum, does it still have energy?

Yes. The energy is proportional to its wave frequency.

 

[OnlyMe]

I am still confused about the relationship between energy and mass. If a massless particle has no momentum, does it still have energy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Also, here is a tidbit that may add to the conversation.

https://blu179.mail.live.com/defaul...mid=6e48b89d-bcdd-11e3-8e25-002264c17d04&fv=1

Your second link goes to a Microsoft login page?

First, photons being massless particles have no mass or so small a mass they make neutrinos seem massive, and yet they do carry momentum. This has been proven.

It is unlikely that the momentum associated with a photon, follows from the same kind of classical mechanics we experience in everyday life. I am no expert but it seems that it is more likely the result of rebound or boundary conditions, associated with the absorption and emission process, at atomic and quantum levels.

As far as the relationship between energy and mass is concerned, definitions are an important part of the answer.

There are too many kinds of energy included in the generic term, for any clear answer to be universally true.

Mass on the other hand has an unknown origin. Traditionally, as used in the context of relativity, it is understood to be an inherent property or characteristic of, matter or rather the "massive" particles like protons, electrons etc., that matter is composed of, but that is a bit circular. The picture becomes more uncertain within the context of quantum mechanics, where particles become fields and mass a property or characteristic of the field.

So, my answer reguarding the relationship between energy and mass, would be that it is uncertain. More clear information is needed about what both mass and energy are to arrive at a clear and concise answer.

It seems that within a fundamental context, the mass of a particle field is related to its inherent energy. So at the level of quantum mechanics, a particle's mass emerges from the energy associated with the particle field. But that same particle's kinetic or classical motion, does not appear to change the particle's mass. Which leads to, objects like baseballs do not have a mass associated with the kinetic energy and momentum that carries them across home plate.

Note, when I use the word mass I almost always am referring to rest mass, which is the same as inertial or gravitational mass. Adding the additional labels of rest, inertial or gravitational, just adds dynamic context. Relativistic mass should be avoided as it confuses differentiation between mass and momentum. And active gravitational mass be thrown out with the bath water.

 

[Write4U]

Your second link goes to a Microsoft login page?

First, photons being massless particles have no mass or so small a mass they make neutrinos seem massive, and yet they do carry momentum. This has been proven.

It is unlikely that the momentum associated with a photon, follows from the same kind of classical mechanics we experience in everyday life. I am no expert but it seems that it is more likely the result of rebound or boundary conditions, associated with the absorption and emission process, at atomic and quantum levels.

Sorry, link should have been to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_psychology

As far as the relationship between energy and mass is concerned, definitions are an important part of the answer.

There are too many kinds of energy included in the generic term, for any clear answer to be universally true.

Mass on the other hand has an unknown origin. Traditionally, as used in the context of relativity, it is understood to be an inherent property or characteristic of, matter or rather the "massive" particles like protons, electrons etc., that matter is composed of, but that is a bit circular. The picture becomes more uncertain within the context of quantum mechanics, where particles become fields and mass a property or characteristic of the field.

So, my answer reguarding the relationship between energy and mass, would be that it is uncertain. More clear information is needed about what both mass and energy are to arrive at a clear and concise answer.

It seems that within a fundamental context, the mass of a particle field is related to its inherent energy. So at the level of quantum mechanics, a particle's mass emerges from the energy associated with the particle field. But that same particle's kinetic or classical motion, does not appear to change the particle's mass. Which leads to, objects like baseballs do not have a mass associated with the kinetic energy and momentum that carries them across home plate.

Note, when I use the word mass I almost always am referring to rest mass, which is the same as inertial or gravitational mass. Adding the additional labels of rest, inertial or gravitational, just adds dynamic context. Relativistic mass should be avoided as it confuses differentiation between mass and momentum. And active gravitational mass be thrown out with the bath water.

Yes, that analysis feels right to me. I guess, unless one studies the "local changes" introduced by all the pertinent forces and conditions at that level, It may be imposssible to address this with a simple elegant equation such as E = Mc^2, which needs a specific condition to be confirmed and can be falsified when certain conditions are not met. (just probing).

 

[Farsight]

As I said before, this reduces to a word game. Using the label, relativistic mass, has been dealt with repeatedly as an outdated description of momentum. Here you seem to be just substituting active gravitational mass where relativistic mass would have been used. You cannot correct faulty reasoning by just relabeling things.

It isn't my label. No go and look it up.

It has been argued (and is generally accepted) that the momentum of a massive object, which is a fundamental component of its relativistic mass, does not change its gravitational mass. Where the idea that any momentum of a massive object does not change its gravitational mass has been discarded, it is flawed to assume that the momentum of a massless photon, does result in gravitational mass.

A concentration of energy causes gravity. Again, go and look it up.

It is far more likely that the momentum of EM radiation, here referred to as a photon, is the result of the interaction between the EM waveform and matter...

What? The photon momentum is p=hf/c. It isn't the result of some interaction.

where both momentum and the quantifiable particle character we refer to as a photon emerge from that interaction. Yes, what I am suggesting is that the particle character of the photon is emergent rather than inherent.

The quantum nature of light relates to the h in E=hf or p=hf/c. The photon is a wave, not some billiard-ball.

The first page of the link you included, results in a google search, that is filled with links to discussion groups and blogs, with one exception, a paper The rest mass of a system of two photons in different inertial reference frames: 0+0=0 and 0+0>0. A paper published at arXiv in 2007 which appears to have been cited by no other papers since. I have not read the whole of that paper yet by it begins with, "We show that the rest mass of a system consisting of two photons is a relativistic invariant having the same magnitude in all inertial reference frames in relative motion". Granted an abstract is not a complete description of the authors' intent, but is does begin both with what appears to be an association between relativistic mass and a system of two photons.., not individual photons...

So find something more robust.

Farsight's, your statement above, A photon has a non-zero active gravitational mass and a non-zero inertial mass, but a zero rest mass. can be read as decoupling the relationship between inertial mass and the equivalence principle, where it is a massive object's inertial resistence to accelleration that is compared to gravitation.

No it can't. The active gravitational mass is the same as the inertial mass because of the equivalence principle.

You are just using the term active gravitational mass in place of relativistic mass, in an apparent attempt to hold on to the historical concept of a fundamental association between mass and gravity and the extend that fundamental association to energy.., or the photon.

Stop making up accusations based on ignorance. Go and look up active gravitational mass.

The mechanism of gravity at a fundamental or in terms of quantum quantum gravity has not yet been worked out. But I at least am fairly certain that attempting to hold on to archaic concepts like relativistic mass, by relabeling it as active gravitational mass is not the answer.

Do photons contribute to a gravitational field? At present the way we theoretically interpret what we observe of the universe at cosmological scales, suggests the answer is yes. But that does not automatically lead to the necessity of any photon mass, active or otherwise. What it does lead to is a need to better understand the emergence of gravitation as a quantum phenomena, with classical implications.

Go and look up the physics before you play the naysayer.