Gravity vs Mass

[Polymath257]

Einstein was wrong about a lot of stuff including entanglement.

But he was correct about the photoelectric effect.

 

[Polymath257]

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

At the quantum level, there are probabilities and correlations, but not causes (in general). Causality as we generally understand it comes from the huge number of events with different probabilities averaging out.

 

[Darkforbid]

At the quantum level, there are probabilities and correlations, but not causes (in general). Causality as we generally understand it comes from the huge number of events with different probabilities averaging out.

And was he talking about QM.

 

[Polymath257]

What is does mean is that there is something missing in the understanding of quantum entanglement/ mechanics, or in the understanding of Eisenstein's general theory or relativity, or both, as they describe two different worlds. At some point someone will find the link between them.
At the moment both are usable in practice, but not together.

That isn't perfectly true. It is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a general relativity background geometry. The problems come when you want to apply quantum principles to gravity itself. In essence, the quantum fluctuations that are inevitable in QM would produce fluctuations in the geometry, which would, in turn affect the fields of the particles involved. The feedback produces divergences that have not been resolved (the theory is not renormalizable).

We have proposed theories (loop quantum gravity and string theory) that resolve these theoretical issues, but we don't have the technology to test them and there is a good possibility that neither are correct.

 

[Polymath257]

digressing slightly.....

with extreme acceleration……..mass increases

I heard somewhere.....as the numbers play out
mass runs to infinity as the speed of light is obtained

I don't buy that

any support?......one way OR the other

Yes, in particle accelerators, it is necessary to take the mass effect into account or the accelerator will simply not work as planned. Remember that we are regularly getting particles to withing a cm/sec of the speed of light. So relativistic effects are often dominant in such machines.

Technically, it isn't the acceleration that increases the mass, but the (relative) speed.

and let's not forget.....
gravity and mass are related

Yes. So?

 

[Thief]

so....if I find my way to acceleration all the way to the speed of light

mass equals infinity?

and the universe follows me......wherever I may go

hehehehehe

 

[We Never Know]

At no 'point' was there non-existence. it only makes sense to talk about 'after the Big Bang' in standard BB cosmology.



No change without time.

"At one point, at a point, at no point" it's all the same. It's simply a way to substitute "point" in place of "time"

No time without change
If nothing changed as in decayed, aged, moved, etc, i.e. never changed, there would be no way to measure time, time would have no meaning without change

 

[Polymath257]

so....if I find my way to acceleration all the way to the speed of light

mass equals infinity?

and the universe follows me......wherever I may go

hehehehehe

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.

 

[Thief]

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.

186,256miles per sec.....last I heard

but not the point

to be struck by a particle moving that fast...….
should hurt a LOT
as the mass would be......massive

don't the numbers run in that direction?
heard they did

 

[Polymath257]

186,256miles per sec.....last I heard

but not the point

to be struck by a particle moving that fast...….
should hurt a LOT
as the mass would be......massive

don't the numbers run in that direction?
heard they did

Well, how much it hurts would depend on the original mass. Like I said, we get electrons to the point their mass has been multiplied by a factor of 100,000. But 100,000 times the mass of an electron is not all that much.

We can get similar speeds for protons, which are considerably more massive, but 100,000 times the mass of a proton is still quite small by humans standards.

We detect cosmic rays that have multipliers much higher than that on a regular basis. If one of those hit you, you *might* notice it as a slight pinprick.

The point is that subatomic particles are *small*.

Now, if you could get a cc of water to speeds like that, an impact would be equivalent to several times more than the largest nuclear explosion.

 

[Thief]

so I hear......the numbers run all the way to infinity

the mass increase as you approach the speed of light

 

[Polymath257]

so I hear......the numbers run all the way to infinity

the mass increase as you approach the speed of light

But the energy it takes to get them to those speeds also goes to infinity, which means that speeds close to the speed of light don't usually happen to macroscopic objects.

 

[Valjean]

186,256miles per sec.....last I heard

but not the point

to be struck by a particle moving that fast...….
should hurt a LOT
as the mass would be......massive

don't the numbers run in that direction?
heard they did

You're body's being riddled by countless neutrinos all the time. They just zip right through. You're mostly empty space.

 

[Thief]

But the energy it takes to get them to those speeds also goes to infinity, which means that speeds close to the speed of light don't usually happen to macroscopic objects.

Does light have infinite mass?

 

[Thief]

You're body's being riddled by countless neutrinos all the time. They just zip right through. You're mostly empty space.

Does light have infinite mass?

 

[Polymath257]

Does light have infinite mass?

The 'particle' of light, the photon, has zero 'rest mass'. So the equation relating energy to mass is

E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2

For a photon, we get E=pc, NOT E=mc^2.

So, no, light does not have infinite mass (or energy).

 

[Thief]

The 'particle' of light, the photon, has zero 'rest mass'. So the equation relating energy to mass is

E^2 =m^2 c^4 +p^2 c^2

For a photon, we get E=pc, NOT E=mc^2.

So, no, light does not have infinite mass (or energy).

moves rather quick and consistent for not having either

 

[Polymath257]

186,256miles per sec.....last

Actually, 186,282.397 mi/sec

 

[Polymath257]

moves rather quick and consistent for not having either

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.

 

[Native]

That isn't perfectly true. It is quite possible to do quantum mechanics with a general relativity background geometry. The problems come when you want to apply quantum principles to gravity itself.

Why is it that I´m not surprised It demands scientists to understand the assumed concept of gravity before all other scientific theories can be included into the "works of gravity".