Gravity never zero

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What was my prize for getting the answer right Emil?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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 .

 

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.