Is this the time travel breakthrough?

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
That would suck for you, the time traveler, but we'd be okay here in our timeline.

Yea, if the time traveler did skew off into a different time line but do you really think that is possible?

Originally posted by Springer

Originally posted by disownedsky
This is a pathetic, cringeworthy example of cargo cult physics abuse. The writer neither understand relativity or even basic physics. I'd waste no further time on it.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by disownedsky]

Just out of curiosity, how many peer reviewed publications do you have to your credit? I am not trying to be snide here, I am trying to discover if you are a genuine expert in physics or someone simply "popping off" at something he doesn't really understand.

Springer...

Hi Springer..

Just thought I should pop in and tell you that disownedsky is correct to criticise the original post.

This is the kind of pseudo science that creates negativity amongst serious scientists.
As a teacher of physics it makes me feel a little angry that this kind of poppycock is common place. I would also say that raising funding for real cutting edge research is hard enough without people trying to muddy the waters.

Simply put, light has no mass and so regardless of how much of it there may be it will never be able to deform space-time. In fact we physicists often use the exact opposite when calculating the location of objects in space.

As light like all moving objects likes to travel in a straight line, light will follow the curvature of space caused by an object that has mass.

This type of phenomena is called Gravitational lensing... The appearance of light to bend around a significant mass.

You may want to check here.

wiki: - Gravitational_lensing

The only place the OP's quoted text would stand up is in a children’s science fiction book.

I have run out of time... if you would like further information on Gravitational lensing, pm me and I will forward links to a few interesting white papers.

All the best.

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Neon Haze]

Wow! Talk about blowing that fantasy wide open!

Originally posted by Neon Haze


Simply put, light has no mass and so regardless of how much of it there may be it will never be able to deform space-time. In fact we physicists often use the exact opposite when calculating the location of objects in space.

As much as I hate to support Dr Mallett here, while it is true that photons have no rest mass, they do have an equivalent mass (which used to be called the relativistic mass) which is related to their energy. This effective mass of a photon is given by hv/c^2.

Energy does exhibit gravitational attraction. There are a number of papers by Dr Wheeler dealing with it. If you check out the two papers I put links to, you'll find that Mallett is using the energy-momentum tensor of electromagnetic radiation in the GR equations in just this way.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
As much as I hate to support Dr Mallett here, while it is true that photons have no rest mass, they do have an equivalent mass (which used to be called the relativistic mass) which is related to their energy. This effective mass of a photon is given by hv/c^2.

Energy does exhibit gravitational attraction. There are a number of papers by Dr Wheeler dealing with it. If you check out the two papers I put links to, you'll find that Mallett is using the energy-momentum tensor of electromagnetic radiation in the GR equations in just this way.

Could I respectfully request the above to be translated into layman's English please? Especially the last paragraph. It really may as well have been written in runes for all the sense it made to me. I'm fascinated by physics, but need spoon feeding at my age. Been a long time since I sat in a classroom.

Thanks,
Grey

Grey:

You're not the only one. I have a bachelor's in physics,
about 3 classes and a dissertation away from a masters.

This stuff is all general relativity, which I'm going to sidestep.

My doctoral emphasis is going to be on the physics of
acoustic signal processing.

GR people are generally smarter than I am.

Basically, energy and mass both cause gravitational fields,
or "geodesic bending" or however you want to look at it.
Since energy is usually pretty thin compared to mass in
terms of its effects, you don't generally have to consider that
energy of fields term in the gravitational calculations.

But Dr John Wheeler did a lot of work on just this aspect
of physics. He not only coined the term "black hole", he did
a lot of physics on a thing called a "geon" which is a structure
composed of light held together by the gravitational attraction of
its own energy.

From one of Wheeler's papers "The Lesson of the Black Hole":

"Then why not consider a star containing no matter at all, an object
built exclusively out of light, a "gravitational electromagnetic entity" or
"geon", deriving its mass solely from photons, and these photons held in orbit solely by the gravitational attraction of that very mass?"

Wheeler is one of the most preeminent GR physicists, and worked with
Einstein at Princeton on the unified field theory. So he's sort of hard to
dismiss with a "Bah!" and a hand wave.

Thomas

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
As much as I hate to support Dr Mallett here, while it is true that photons have no rest mass, they do have an equivalent mass (which used to be called the relativistic mass) which is related to their energy. This effective mass of a photon is given by hv/c^2.

You may want to review this paper.

What is the mass of a photon?

If the particle is at rest, then p = 0, and E = mrestc2.
If we set the rest mass equal to zero (regardless of whether or not that's a reasonable thing to do), then E = pc.

In classical electromagnetic theory, light turns out to have energy E and momentum p, and these happen to be related by E = pc. Quantum mechanics introduces the idea that light can be viewed as a collection of "particles"--photons. Even though these photons cannot be brought to rest, and so the idea of rest mass doesn't really apply to them, we can certainly bring these "particles" of light into the fold of equation (1) by just considering them to have no rest mass. That way, equation (1) gives the correct expression for light, E = pc, and no harm has been done. Equation (1) is now able to be applied to particles of matter and "particles" of light. It can now be used as a fully general equation, and that makes it very useful.

Because the energy of a particle just equals its relativistic mass times c2, physicists have learned to economise the language by only ever referring to a particle's energy. When they use the term "mass", they mean rest mass. This is purely a linguistic convention. When the two sorts of mass are referred to together, relativistic mass is usually written m and rest mass is written m0. But when only rest mass is being used, then the word "mass" is assumed to mean rest mass, and it tends to be written simply as m.

One reason why the term relativistic mass is sometimes avoided is because there is actually a directional dependence to a particle's resistance to being accelerated; it's much easier to push a fast-moving particle sideways than it is to alter its speed in its direction of motion. Another reason is that physicists do not want anyone thinking that relativistic mass can be used in the newtonian relations F = ma and F = G m1 m2 /r2. There is no definition of mass for which these equations are true relativistically; they must be generalised. The generalisations are more straightforward using the idea of rest mass, as opposed to using relativistic mass. For more discussion of the term "relativistic mass"

Energy does exhibit gravitational attraction. There are a number of papers by Dr Wheeler dealing with it. If you check out the two papers I put links to, you'll find that Mallett is using the energy-momentum tensor of electromagnetic radiation in the GR equations in just this way.

You really should read this.

If you go too fast do you become a black hole?

In fact objects do not have any increased tendency to form black holes due to their extra energy of motion. In a frame of reference stationary with respect to the object, it has only rest mass energy and will not form a black hole unless its rest mass is sufficient. If it is not a black hole in one reference frame, then it cannot be a black hole in any other reference frame.

In part the misunderstanding arises because of the use of the concept of relativistic mass in the equation E = mc2. Relativistic mass, which increases with the velocity and kinetic energy of an object, cannot be blindly substituted into formulae such as the one that gives the radius for a black hole in terms of its mass. One way to avoid this is to not speak about relativistic mass and think only in terms of invariant rest mass

Although I applaud your intentions in studying physics, try to avoid re-iterating what you have learned directly, try to think outside of the box and you will become a scientist of distinction.

Above all keep thinking.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Neon Haze]

Leaving Wiki aside, you should review:

Geons: J.A. Wheeler, Physical Review, Volume 97, Number 2

The Lesson of the Black Hole: J.A. Wheeler, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol 125, No 1

Also, the definition of the stress-energy-momentum tensor in GR, which unmistakably allows the equivalence of energy and mass in determining gravitational fields.

You might also try the two papers I cited above by Mallett and Olum. You'll note that both papers are published in well-known refereed journals, and while Olum and Everett question Mallett's mathematics, they did not quibble at the concept of a sufficiently dense cloud of photons causing a gravitational field by the stress-momentum tensor.

That's four scholarly references. I try to avoid popular references off the net because I've occasionally found them to be suspect. You'll have to have access to some of the ones I cited, I find that few scholarly references are available on the net for free, but then I'm sure you've got an institutional access.

I'm sure that you know Wheeler's work on the subject, he's written many papers on it. Einstein called him "Geon" Wheeler but he didn't call him "Ignorant incorrect fool" Wheeler. While that's not exactly a proof, mind you, it tends to go a long way with me. Not to mention that Wheeler is one of the best known GR physicists. Did I mention he taught Feynman? We're not talking some random guy with a website.

However, let's consider what you posted:

Because the energy of a particle just equals its relativistic mass times c2, physicists have learned to economise the language by only ever referring to a particle's energy. When they use the term "mass", they mean rest mass. This is purely a linguistic convention. When the two sorts of mass are referred to together, relativistic mass is usually written m and rest mass is written m0. But when only rest mass is being used, then the word "mass" is assumed to mean rest mass, and it tends to be written simply as m.

You'll note that they do not say there IS no such thing as relativistic mass. They concede that it exists...they should because it does. Their comment is that the TERM relativistic mass is seldom used, and one simply refers to the particle's energy. Again, the "relativistic mass" if that's the way you want to think of the property, is h times nu over c squared.

Let's see, there's this on mass-energy equivalence:

Of course, electromagnetic waves are classically regarded as linear, meaning that photons don't ordinarily interfere with each other (directly). As Dirac said, "each photon interferes only with itself... interference between two different photons never occurs". However, the non-linear field equations of general relativity enable photons to interact gravitationally with each other.

www.mathpages.com...

The author then pulls GR tensors out of the bag to show how this works, but it's pretty accessible even if you aren't good at working with them. Personally, it takes me a pile of texts, Mathcad, and a strong shot of scotch. This entire chapter is a nice explanation of how the energy of a particle adds to its mass. With tensors and a liberal sprinkle of Minkowski.

Here's an analysis of a black hole comprised of nothing but photons, which was a concept coined also by Wheeler, you know, the guy that invented the term? He called it a "kugelblitz". Anyway, it's in a journal whose scholarly standing I'm not familiar with, but they hit all the high points:

www.smf.mx...

Another scholarly paper you'll have to have access to PROLA to get:

Formation of Geons and Black Holes, Ulrich Gerlach, Volume 25, Number 26

Gerlach goes on to discuss some aspects of black holes formed strictly by the energy of massless particles.

Here's one you'll like. Co-authored by Randy Dumse and published in General Relativity and Gravitation, not exactly wiki or some "Mr Physics Answers" website:

xxx.lanl.gov...

The abstract says in part:

"An explanation is proposed for the fact that pp-waves superpose linearly when they propagate parallely, while they interact nonlinearly, scatter and form singularities or Cauchy horizons if they are antiparallel."

Now I don't know if you actually read Mallett, but Cauchy horizons and closed timelike curves are the meat of that publication.

Dumse comments: "In GR, it is mass-energy that gravitates, and not just mass. Even photons (and even pressure!) participate. If you put two photons in a mirror box, its mass would increase (a tiny, but non-zero, amount). Fill
the mirrored box with many photons, and externally, you can't tell the
difference between the box with photons in it and the box with an
equivalent mass."

At any rate, anything with a Lagrangian, and EM fields are definitely included there, exhibits a gravitational field through the stress-energy tensor in GR.

So there's you a pile of scholarly journal references to it, from well-known physicists in the field. It's not all I could come up with, but what I found in the first few minutes of looking.

Just when I thought I was grasping all of this the complexity goes a step further.

Don't worry Grey, I thought I was intelligent enough to follow along but I am sadly mistaken.

Just not my field of knowledge....Now, show me a small shiny kitchen appliance and watch out! So I can see it better I mean....

Don't worry jbondo, most of the time when I have to do GR stuff in class, I end up saying "you got to be f---g kidding me" and rechecking my math a dozen times.

Which is why I'm getting a doctorate in something a bit more tangible, like sonar. The tensors of continuum mechanics I can handle. Penrose twistors suck.

Originally posted by Urn
heres a video about this very same guy...i saw a video that was WAY longer, but it seems to have disapeared from youtube...so this is the best that i can find...

www.youtube.com...

pretty interesting stuff, i must say...

This is it I think.


video.google.com...

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Dumse comments: "In GR, it is mass-energy that gravitates, and not just mass. Even photons (and even pressure!) participate. If you put two photons in a mirror box, its mass would increase (a tiny, but non-zero, amount). Fill
the mirrored box with many photons, and externally, you can't tell the
difference between the box with photons in it and the box with an
equivalent mass."

I'm sorry but I am in total disagreement with your analysis.

I question your motives as you appear to be stating that a light bulb in a box of mirrors will eventually create a black hole.....

You obviously have not read the links I provided and have totally ignored the main point of my post.

Come on.... you know some of us here at ATS actually have already achieved a PHD and may also be in the class room but not as students!!

Best regards,

NeoN HaZe

Originally posted by Neon Haze


I'm sorry but I am in total disagreement with your analysis.

I question your motives as you appear to be stating that a light bulb in a box of mirrors will eventually create a black hole.....

You obviously have not read the links I provided and have totally ignored the main point of my post.

Come on.... you know some of us here at ATS actually have already achieved a PHD and may also be in the class room but not as students!!

Best regards,

NeoN HaZe

Then surely you are aware of the stress-energy tensor in GR which equates the gravitational effects of mass and energy.

Come now, I've posted a lot of well-respected scientists' work from respected refereed journals on the point.

From one of your own links, only up and over a bit -

The stress-energy tensor, which, oddly you seem unfamiliar with: math.ucr.edu...

and, from Dr Baez' own mouth:

math.ucr.edu...

a few excerpts...

Einstein's equation can be expressed as a statement about the relative acceleration of very close test particles in free fall. Let us clarify these terms a bit. A `test particle' is an idealized point particle with energy and momentum so small that its effects on spacetime curvature are negligible.

Emphasis mine.. note that he says that both energy and momentum of a particle causes a spacetime curvature around the particle (that's the stress-energy tensor).

next..

This equation says that positive energy density and positive pressure curve spacetime in a way that makes a freely falling ball of point particles tend to shrink. Since E = mc2 and we are working in units where c = 1, ordinary mass density counts as a form of energy density. Thus a massive object will make a swarm of freely falling particles at rest around it start to shrink. In short: gravity attracts.

Again, emphasis mine, and he's describing the stress-energy tensor once more - note that energy density is a component.

Another remarkable feature of Einstein's equation is the pressure term: it says that not only energy density but also pressure causes gravitational attraction.

Yet another...getting the picture here?

Some more from other pages on the website you cited:

As Nathan Urban has replied, two parallel beams of light
will not attract each other. Two antiparallel beams,
on the other hand, will attract each other with twice
the relative acceleration you would expect from ascribing
each of them a mass of E/c^2.

math.ucr.edu...

Seen that before? You would if you read my links from refereed journals I posted...

again:

As others have remarked, it's really the stress-energy tensor
that affects spacetime in general relativity. This is a
complicated object that includes masses, energies, pressures,
and stresses.

It's sometimes a good approximation, though, to consider
"relativistic mass" as the mass that creates and responds to
gravity. Specifically, if you have a small bound system in a
weak gravitational field, to a first approximation it behaves
as if it had a gravitational mass E/c^2 in Newtonian gravity.
For example, if you have a mirror-sided box of light (so the
light is trapped, and the system is thus bound), then on the
average you'll have as many photons moving in one direction
as the opposite direction, and the two effects I described
above average to an effective mass of E/c^2.

O..M..G!! Almost word-for-word what I said from the beginning. From Dr Carlip, UC Davis. From the website you cite. Oh, by the way, E in this term is h times nu, which when you sub it in, you'll get the effective mass to be what I said at the first of this exchange...hv/c^2.

Seriously, NeonHaze, do I need to pull Einstein out of the bag? Surely you recognize the photons-in-a-box as being a classic gedanken experiment first proposed by the grand master himself? If not, how not? We all had to address it in Modern Physics 1!

Hey, just for fun, MORE from Professor Carlip...
xxx.lanl.gov...

Yet ANOTHER refereed paper from a respected GR physicist...Carlip's paper starts off:

The principle of equivalence—the exact equality of inertial and gravitational mass—is a cornerstone of general relativity, and experimental tests of the universality of free fall provide a large set of data that must be explained by any theory of gravitation. But the implication that energy contributes to gravitational mass can be rather counterintuitive. Students are often willing to accept the idea that potential energy has weight—after all, potential energy is a rather mysterious quantity to begin with—but many balk at the application to kinetic energy. Can it really be true that a hot brick weighs more than a cold brick?

BTW, in that paper he once more addresses the "weight" of light and how the gravitational field of light is related to its electromagnetic energy..that would be the "h nu" part of it.

So, let's see how you explain away Einstein, Wheeler, Carlip, Mallett, Olum, Baez, Gerlach et al. Dude, this is low level first semester Intro to GR. And I'm tossing your guy Baez' website at UC Riverside back at you. You quoted him as an authoritative source. Here you go.

I would think that if in fact light is made of particles and waves then it would have mass or weight, no?

Originally posted by jbondo
I would think that if in fact light is made of particles and waves then it would have mass or weight, no?

Photons have no rest mass. That is, if you could somehow "stop" a photon and measure its mass, it would be zero.

However, the point we're batting back and forth is the gravitational effect of energy. An otherwise massless particle, such as a photon, behaves as if it has mass according to the energy that it has.

So the shorter the wavelength, the higher the value of nu (looks like a v, sort of), and the more "relativistic mass" a particle has.

A classic in GR is what's called "Einstein's Box", which I tossed out without naming it the first time, when it went unrecognized.

Anyways, here is a website with a good explanation.

www.geocities.com...

A quote from the site:

In section 2 Einstein uses this expression by assigning mass to the energy of radiation. Einstein makes the substitution of the energy density of radiation with a mass density when he stated that If we assign the electromagnetic field too a mass density ...

Einstein explicitly states that the energy of radiation behaves as if it has mass. I'm sure I can dig up a copy of the original paper if needed. It in fact has to act that way, there are all sorts of issues with GR if not.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

The stress-energy tensor, which, oddly you seem unfamiliar with: math.ucr.edu...

Let me ask you two questions.

Firstly where exactly have I refuted or stated in opposition to The Einstein field equations?? though I will openly admit right here that I think they only scratch the surface of the reality of reality

I am more than well aware of what stress-energy tensor equations are about, and if you are studying Sonar you will more than likely be studying them a lot more than I did when I studied Quantum Mechanics.

Secondly and this is the crunch..... Tom are you trying to say that photons in a box of mirrors will eventually warp space-time and create a black hole or worm hole where you can travel through time ????

Cause that is the premise of the OP's post and you appear to be attempting to argue for.

So, let's see how you explain away Einstein, Wheeler, Carlip, Mallett, Olum, Baez, Gerlach et al. Dude, this is low level first semester Intro to GR.

Look I'm a quantum physists so I am never going to agree with you on your use of relativistic mass.

I have no need or desire to explain away any of the scientist you quote. I may not agree with all of their conclusions though as you should know science builds upon conjecture.

Dr. John Wheeler who you were so keen to quote earlier I believe actually put together quite a strong case against the use of Relativistic mass in the book 'Spacetime Physics Second Edition'

If you can place your hands on it, it makes for an excellent read.

W.H Freeman - Spacetime Physics

"Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."

source: Spacetime Physics Second Edition - Edwin F Taylor
John Archibald Wheeler

In addition Here is a paper by baez that details the history of the use of relativistic mass and arguments on why relativistic mass should not be used.

Does mass change with speed?

I only ever touch on relativistic mass with our students because we wish to create clarity with forward looking attitudes and avoid bogging people down in confusion.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Neon Haze]

Originally posted by Neon Haze

Firstly where exactly have I refuted or stated in opposition to The Einstein field equations?? though I will openly admit right here that I think they only scratch the surface of the reality of reality

Simply put, light has no mass and so regardless of how much of it there may be it will never be able to deform space-time.

The stress-energy tensor in GR says that they do. Not because they have mass, but because they have energy.

Secondly and this is the crunch..... Tom are you trying to say that photons in a box of mirrors will eventually warp space-time and create a black hole or worm hole where you can travel through time ????

Cause that is the premise of the OP's post and you appear to be attempting to argue for.

As far as warping space-time, since photons have energy, even one is enough, by the stress-energy tensor in GR. This is the substance of Einstein's paper, and Carlip's, among several others which I cited above.

As far as photons being able to cause a singularity, Wheeler certainly thought so, but only at hell's own energy density. This is the center of his geon work.

Look I'm a quantum physists so I am never going to agree with you on your use of relativistic mass.

I have no need or desire to explain away any of the scientist you quote. I may not agree with all of their conclusions though as you should know science builds upon conjecture.

Ok, well, it's pretty much a given in GR that photons do deform space-time due to their energy. If you don't want to use relativistic mass as an approximation, then let's use the stress-energy tensor. You seem to be quibbling over this "relativistic mass" term. Chuck it right out. Ok, now you still have to deal with the fact that photons DO have this behavior, due to the stress-energy tensor, and I think I've cited many a reference to it, all the way back to Einstein's 1906 paper.

I don't doubt that you don't want to explain away the papers I cited. Some of them are pretty to the point on this matter, and the authors are not what I would normally call 'cranks'.

May I recommend "On the Gravitational Field Produced by Light" by Tolman, Ehrenfest and Podolsky? None of whom are cranks either, I might add. Physical Review, volume 37, issue 5. PROLA gets money for their back issues; I have a subscription to it through work. Unfortunately it's in a scanned PDF format, not too good for cutting and pasting here.

Edit: I've asked Drs Baez and Carlip for a tie breaker. Maybe I can get them to show.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
The stress-energy tensor in GR says that they do. Not because they have mass, but because they have energy.[\quote]

As far as warping space-time, since photons have energy, even one is enough, by the stress-energy tensor in GR. This is the substance of Einstein's paper, and Carlip's, among several others which I cited above.

This is where I believe you have it all wrong, and I'm not alone.

Does Light Produce a Gravitational Field?

As far as photons being able to cause a singularity, Wheeler certainly thought so, but only at hell's own energy density. This is the center of his geon work.

This is absolute nonsense. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that a photon could never increase in energy.

If I may be blunt I would also state that the term Photon is not an actual particle but moreover a unit of measurement.

You seem to be quibbling over this "relativistic mass" term. Chuck it right out. Ok, now you still have to deal with the fact that photons DO have this behavior, due to the stress-energy tensor, and I think I've cited many a reference to it, all the way back to Einstein's 1906 paper.

I'm not hung up on anything. I am however attempting to make you see the light pun intended.

let's have a look at a quote from the above link....

The fact that the scientific "establishment" believes that freely moving light in vacuum (space) produces a gravitational field continues to be a major conceptual roadblock in their ongoing effort to unify gravitation with the other forces. This is a major (and crucial) point of difference between my theory of gravity's origin and "established" physics. Of course, when captured by the electron shell of an atom, light loses its intrinsic motion and symmetric non-local energy state, and in this bound condition its energy contributes to the atom's overall gravitational field. But it is no longer light or free energy, it is bound energy with a specifiable location - the atom's center of mass.

The error apparently goes back to Einstein, one of his very few (his denial of the validity of quantum mechanics and his "cosmological constant" are others - unlike the Pope, Einstein was humanly fallible). The problem seems to begin with E = mcc; from this justly famous equation it seems everyone assumed, including Einstein, that light has mass and so produces a gravitational field. But light obviously does not have mass, it has momentum and energy which is equivalent to mass, not mass itself. Light is manifestly different from bowling balls: light has intrinsic motion c, light is two-dimensional, light has a zero Interval; bowling balls have a time dimension and are four-dimensional with a positive Interval. And the fact that light is "bent" by a gravitational field does not mean it produces a gravitational field. Light follows the geodesic paths of spacetime, and is a co-mover with spacetime, like every other form of energy which spacetime carries. But light does not "warp" spacetime nor produce a gravitational field; light is the primordial symmetric state of electromagnetic energy. Gravitational fields and the time dimension they produce are only associated with secondary, massive, asymmetric forms of energy, derived from light.

As I mentioned earlier I am an advocate of a unifying theory called Loop Quantum Gravity.

The EM field in LQG is described in terms of vibration of braided space time. Mass comes from space braid density and Gravitation in LQG is caused by surface area differentials within space-time.

You and everyone else in the field will hear a lot more about LQG after Cern makes an announcement that the Higgs Boson isn't the mass propagator so many people thought it was.

Mark my words…

all the best,

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 13-3-2007 by Neon Haze]

Originally posted by Neon Haze

This is where I believe you have it all wrong, and I'm not alone.

Does Light Produce a Gravitational Field?

Oh, my.

Are you really sure you want to quote this fellow? Here, let me:

From the "author's" website:

"Disclaimer: while the author treats Astrology, the I Ching, and various religions and mythologies as valid and time-tested intuitive General System models, realizations, or expositions of Cosmic order (this is a General Systems webpage), he makes no claim, either positive or negative, for these systems, their authors, or their practitioners, in any other context ."

So, this guy thinks astrology is a valid 'general system model'.

"Esther and I both are retired from Cornell University where we worked as support staff in the Biological Sciences."

He's even less well educated in physics than myself. He's the lab tech. He majored in agriculture and English. Somehow quoting this fellow against the likes of Carlip, Baez and Wheeler seems so wrong.

As far as photons being able to cause a singularity, Wheeler certainly thought so, but only at hell's own energy density. This is the center of his geon work.

This is absolute nonsense. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that a photon could never increase in energy.

If I may be blunt I would also state that the term Photon is not an actual particle but moreover a unit of measurement.

Ah, what to say here. Yes, photons do increase in energy, decrease as well, and one way is by interacting with gravitational wells. Further, are you trying to say that all photons have the same energy?

Edit: To be more clear, if you read the geon literature by Wheeler and many others, the key factor is energy density, not absolute energy of a particular photon. One needs a sufficient number of photons of sufficient energy in a small enough volume to cause a geon formation. Writ large, you get a photon black hole or "kugelblitz".

A photon is most categorically a particle, it is a boson, and the quantum of electromagnetic energy.

You and everyone else in the field will hear a lot more about LQG after Cern makes an announcement that the Higgs Boson isn't the mass propagator so many people thought it was.

Mark my words…

all the best,

NeoN HaZe.

Should be interesting.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Ah, what to say here. Yes, photons do increase in energy, decrease as well, and one way is by interacting with gravitational wells. Further, are you trying to say that all photons have the same energy?

Photons must increase and decrease in energy or our understanding of space/time is all sorts of screwed up since the RedShift of photons is what is used as the measurement of universal exapansion. (Not to say our understanding of spacetime isn't all sorts of screwed up....heh just that huge chunks of SM are based on it).