Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Gravitational Charge

  1. #1

    Gravitational Charge

    Gravitational Charge as Appearing From an Inertial field

    The nature of mass as a charge is quickly looked at, where a direct relationship between intrinsic rest energy and a system which has a gravitational charge is analyzed.

    Mass as Being Equivalent to Gravity and Acceleration

    The Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) in the format of General Relativity states that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, given as . This means that in the light of understanding this relationship lets you cancel the mass-terms on both sides of:



    To leave showing that acceleration and gravitation where completely synonymous; in fact, the WEP states that mass = gravitational charge. You can find this definition in any good relativistic textbook. Mass appears then in relativity, as being proportional to acceleration and gravity - you cannot expect the appearance of mass without the existence of a gravitational field and acceleration - this also goes along with curvature and if extended theories like the Einstein-Cartan theory is correct as a part of the full poncare group, then even torsion.

    Mass of course, has been defined mathematically in physics as being a symmetry-breaking. The idea of a particle having a mass however can be viewed in terms of a gravitational charge, analogous to how a particle experiences an electric charge as it moves through an electromagnetic field. The idea of viewing mass as a charge is often overlooked; though the relationship can be understood with the insight that:

    1.

    and

    2.

    Where is the electric charge, and the only thing which differs equation 1. with equation two, is that the electric charge is replaced with mass, making the first equation the energy in respect to the electric charge times the gradient, so the second equation can be said to be the mass charge times the gradient which makes the gravitational energy.

    Quantized Gravitational Mass

    Quantizing mass as a charge can be given as:



    This is shown by Motz (3) and (1), this is the gravitational quantization of , which is just the square root of the gravitational parameter in Newtonian physics. By this understanding, the gravitational charge denoted here as is therefore associate to an inertial energy by this relation. This means that the definition of an inertial energy (that is a particle with a rest mass) is directly related to the gravitational charge.

    The ''standard gravitational charge'' can be further seen in terms of the equation:



    Where denotes the total energy of our system. As always, the potential part of the equation always has the interesting dynamics. It could also be said, that this equation can see as a dynamical inertial field, or matter-field attributed to things that obtain a gravitational charge and thus a mass.

    Of course, it must be borne in mind that relativistic mass is the same as an invariant rest mass when observed from its rest frame. The idea that gravitational mass and invariant energy are related, comes from the indisputed fact that invariant mass infers rest mass and a rest mass must infer a gravitational charge if it is defined as a mass.

    [Can't post links, PM me if you want them]

  2. #2

  3. #3
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,030
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    ...The Weak Equivalence Principle (WEP) in the format of General Relativity states that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, given as .
    No problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    This means that in the light of understanding this relationship lets you cancel the mass-terms on both sides of:



    To leave showing that acceleration and gravitation where completely synonymous; in fact, the WEP states that mass = gravitational charge. You can find this definition in any good relativistic textbook.
    I'm cautious about the word "mass", in that it usually refers to rest mass rather than mass-equivalence, and it's energy that causes gravity. No, not even that, because if the energy density is uniform, there's no gμv gradient. And I'm not fond of gravitational charge I'm afraid, because it's describing something in terms of something that isn't explained at the fundamental level. Different particles have all sorts of different masses, but their charges are far more limited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    Mass appears then in relativity, as being proportional to acceleration and gravity - you cannot expect the appearance of mass without the existence of a gravitational field and acceleration - this also goes along with curvature and if extended theories like the Einstein-Cartan theory is correct as a part of the full poncare group, then even torsion.
    Nice to hear a mention of Einstein-Cartan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    Mass of course, has been defined mathematically in physics as being a symmetry-breaking.
    Can you tell me more about this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    The idea of a particle having a mass however can be viewed in terms of a gravitational charge, analogous to how a particle experiences an electric charge as it moves through an electromagnetic field...
    I guess it can. OK. I'll go with the flow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    Quantizing mass as a charge can be given as:



    This is shown by Motz (3) and (1), this is the gravitational quantization of , which is just the square root of the gravitational parameter in Newtonian physics. By this understanding, the gravitational charge denoted here as is therefore associate to an inertial energy by this relation. This means that the definition of an inertial energy (that is a particle with a rest mass) is directly related to the gravitational charge.
    I'd better read the Motz paper. Until then: OK, sounds good to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    The ''standard gravitational charge'' can be further seen in terms of the equation:



    Where denotes the total energy of our system.
    I've never heard of a standard gravitational charge. I went to look it up and could only find this google-cached thread of yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    As always, the potential part of the equation always has the interesting dynamics. It could also be said, that this equation can see as a dynamical inertial field, or matter-field attributed to things that obtain a gravitational charge and thus a mass.
    Hmmn. Sounds like a quantum-harmonic quintessence. A Higgs substance. An aether. Space itself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    Of course, it must be borne in mind that relativistic mass is the same as an invariant rest mass when observed from its rest frame.
    No probs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    The idea that gravitational mass and invariant energy are related, comes from the indisputed fact that invariant mass infers rest mass and a rest mass must infer a gravitational charge if it is defined as a mass.
    I didn't quite get that. Sorry. I'll look again after I've read some of those links.

    Meanwhile here's how I see it in simple terms: a free-falling cannonball isn't actually accelerating, instead it's you accelerating when you're standing on the surface of the earth. You feel "the force of gravity" on the soles of your feet. In similar vein a cannonball in free-fall isn't subject to force in the usual sense. But when you try to catch it, you're looking at a cannonball that's moving, exerting momentum that's hard to resist, hence . Equate this to special relativity when you're up in space accelerating towards a motionless cannonball. Then say your acceleration is due to the active gravitational mass of the cannonball. When you catch it, you don't feel its momentum, you feel its inertia. But you feel the same resistance to change-in-motion either way because it's the same cannonball, hence active gravitational mass and inertial mass are the same.

  4. #4
    Whilst I will reply to everything you said eventually, I will admit that other physics forum did not accept my references. They took most of it as a psuedoscience, without taking into consideration 1) and 3) ref. refer to each other.

  5. #5
    There is also nothing special about the term of a gravitational mass. The charges are the elements of the Lie algebra of the locally gauged group. Mass-charge is simply the term .

  6. #6
    Also ''standard gravitational charge'' is my own naming. See, the gravitational parameter is given as GM, so the quantization of this is developed from the gravitational charge, given by Motz. So the standard parameter is the standard charge, the calculatable charge; the volume of mass, or the weight of it, is itself a charge in a gravitational field, as much as an electron experiences an eletcormagnetic charge in a EM field.

  7. #7
    Different particles have all sorts of different masses, but their charges are far more limited.

    Which is what determines. Particle mass relys on the potential.

    Hmmn. Sounds like a quantum-harmonic quintessence. A Higgs substance. An aether. Space itself.

    A type of quantum aether... particles like those which do obide by is actually an oscillation of energy, at least, the interpretation is.

  8. #8
    ''Can you tell me more about this?''

    What do you want to know?

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Hmmn. Sounds like a quantum-harmonic quintessence. A Higgs substance. An aether. Space itself.
    Still can't resist throwing in buzzwords, unrelated to one another, which you don't understand.

    And you wonder why people think you're a hack.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    There is also nothing special about the term of a gravitational mass. The charges are the elements of the Lie algebra of the locally gauged group. Mass-charge is simply the term .
    Looks like another person who doesn't know their definitions. The charges are not elements of a Lie algebra, they are coefficients of Lie algebras terms. For instance, the Yang-Mills field term can be written as where g is a coupling but the Lie algebra terms are contained within the Fs.

    You also talk about as an equation, when its an expression. You talk about the potential term, which is not given or even described and then you talk about it being a dynamical field but at no point have you given anything to do with a time derivative. This sort of basic mistakes in descriptions, including not knowing what's an expression and what is an equation, is typical of a certain regularly banned (due to regularly returning) member.

    Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the specifics, addressing the issues I just highlighted. That way we can all see you've just slipped up and its not a sign you don't understand it. After all, you wouldn't want to be labelled with the same hack label as Farsight.

  10. #10
    I search and search, I can't find anywhere which treats as an expression: I did say the potential which is part of the equation, I never said it was an equation by itself. is an equation.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    The charges are not elements of a Lie algebra, they are coefficients of Lie algebras terms. For instance, the Yang-Mills field term can be written as where g is a coupling but the Lie algebra terms are contained within the Fs.
    I meant coefficients.

  11. #11
    Note this also the covers the potential part. is a potential energy - a very simple potential. So I don't understand what you mean at all, when I speak of as an equation, nor can I understand why you say I mention and not speak of a potential. This is the potential term in the equation. The equation holds in any physics textbook.

  12. #12
    Electromagnetic mass is given as:



    This can increase the normal mechanical mass of the body. The electromagnetic mass can increase with velocity, a rather distinguishable factor of Einsteins Relativity.
    Understanding that the electromagnetic field can contribute a mass to a particle then it can be also understood that the mass of a particle depends on it's connection to the inertial field. The inertial field is again:

    1.

    and the quantized gravitational charge of a particle is given as:

    2.

    Now we make the assumption that the inertial energy is an electromagnetic energy, which we will see we can take the mass to be an electromagnetic mass by substitution.

    3.

    the electromagnetic energy is given as:

    4.

    Equation 4. can be plugged into equation 3. to give

    5.

    The inertial energy is an electromagnetic mass - which typically must mean there is a presence of a gravitational charge in our field. So mass is obtained by the relation:

    6.

    In principle you can create particles with potential energy, the prototypical case is color confinement. If such cases exist, it is argued that potential energy can indeed contribute to the rest energy of a particle.

    The effects will remain local of course on the particle itself, and would imply that the potential field interacts with the structure of the particle. If indeed you can create particles from a potential field, then there is the suggestive thought that the potential has the dynamics in understanding negative and positive signs for mass charge. The gravitational potential energy, is just as real as a rest energy to particle.

    In our case above, most notably equation 5) we have a case where mass can be defined quite well by the electromagnetic charge case. This would mean that gravitational mass must be part of the same appearance of the electromagnetic mass case; the appearance of any mass calculatable by anything other than a graviational field, is still a contribution to the graviational charge.

  13. #13
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,618
    Joe,

    Just so you know the thread is not forgotten, I am still digesting and chewing the cud, so to speak.

    I do have some trouble with the whole gravitational charge idea and any connection between EM derived mass and gravitational/inertial mass.

    While I believe that inertia and gravitation are emergent phenomena, when compared to electromagnetism, EM would seem to be a 2nd generation emergent force, more closely associated with atomic structure and mechanics, than mass.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by OnlyMe View Post
    Joe,

    Just so you know the thread is not forgotten, I am still digesting and chewing the cud, so to speak.

    I do have some trouble with the whole gravitational charge idea and any connection between EM derived mass and gravitational/inertial mass.

    While I believe that inertia and gravitation are emergent phenomena, when compared to electromagnetism, EM would seem to be a 2nd generation emergent force, more closely associated with atomic structure and mechanics, than mass.
    Yes you don't need EM to explain why things have mass, EM charge can only contribute to an existing mass. EM however, is a charge even in the most fundamental of particles and this must be remembered. Even when a particle is electrically nuetral, there still exists a magnetic moment.

  15. #15
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    Yes you don't need EM to explain why things have mass, EM charge can only contribute to an existing mass. EM however, is a charge even in the most fundamental of particles and this must be remembered. Even when a particle is electrically nuetral, there still exists a magnetic moment.
    Both gravity and inertia seem to have a direct relationship with mass. I don't see the EM contribution to mass. While it is true that everything we are able to observe with current technology has a charge of some sort, that in itself does not make charge a contributing component when considering mass. It could be as easily argued that EM is emergent from the interaction of mass and energy.

    Some of this may be an artifact of limitations in our ability to perceive the world, which is completely dependent upon atomic and molecular interactions, which are charge related. We cannot just assume that because at it's most basic level our perception is so limited, the fundamental nature of anything must be similarly limited.

    And I don't believe I have seen anything that suggests that the neutrino has even a magnetic moment. It seems to interact only weakly with any matter and even then seldom.

    Some of what comes to mind for me in free thinking this is probably not relevant specifically to the topic. It is just I have a habit of challenging anything new to me against a fairly wide range of experience and observation.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    A type of quantum aether... particles like those which do obide by is actually an oscillation of energy, at least, the interpretation is.
    In what sense is that an energy oscillation

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    EM however, is a charge even in the most fundamental of particles and this must be remembered. Even when a particle is electrically nuetral, there still exists a magnetic moment.
    Photons, neutrinos, gluons, Z bosons, none of those have magnetic moments. The electrically neutral particles which have magnetic moments are not fundamental, they are composite and thus they still possess dipole effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    I meant coefficients.
    Somehow I don't believe you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Green View Post
    1.

    and the quantized gravitational charge of a particle is given as:

    2.
    Why? Why is it quantised and why is that the charge. Please demonstrate it. You've said certain things which might lead someone to think you're familiar with the sort of procedure of logic employed to examine such things but the actual mathematics you've done are trivial things, just subbing one ratio into another or taking roots of things. Quantisation procedures are much more involved in that. Rather than doing trivial (and I mean aged 13 trivial) mathematics and dropping high level buzzwords why don't you give the high level derivations? As yet you've don't really done anything. None of your methods start out from a well defined place. None of your equations, beyond those so basic they are pointless to examine, are placed in context or justified and no conclusion meaningful.

    What precisely as you trying to do, because presently it seems like you want to be seen to be 'doing physics', talking about relativity, quantum mechanics, quantisation etc but nothing you've done is mathematically beyond a competent 15 year old. If you truly know about Lie algebras you'd be familiar enough with physics and maths books to know what you present is terrible quality and trivial or pointless mathematically. Let's see the details, including clear and precise definitions, context and walk throughs.

  17. #17
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    2,618
    This is for both Joe and Alpha,

    While I have worked with this kind of math in the past, it has been a very long time ago. I can generally work my way through, but it often takes effort and sometimes I need to do a little homework style research.

    There have only been four of us posting. Though I don't contribute anything to the mathematical discussion, I do try to follow it. There are about 300 people who have dropped in.

    With that in mind when and if you do post the math to support your points of view it would be helpful if you also, clearly defined the terms. Make it a little easier to follow.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]In what sense is that an energy oscillation [QUOTE]

    Oscillations away from the ground state in the potential is the presence of a mass.

    [QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]Photons, neutrinos, gluons, Z bosons, none of those have magnetic moments. The electrically neutral particles which have magnetic moments are not fundamental, they are composite and thus they still possess dipole effects. [QUOTE]

    That is true, none of those particles have a charge. Perhaps I should have been more thorough; I meant it in the sense that some particles are electrically nuetral while others can still have a magnetic moment.

    [QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]Somehow I don't believe you.[QUOTE]

    Yet my only mistake in my sentance was confusing the elements with coefficients.

    [QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]Why? Why is it quantised and why is that the charge. Please demonstrate it. [QUOTE]

    I don't know many 13 year olds who can talk about quantum mechanics, let alone know about potentials and whatnot.

    Anyway, read my links. You will find out why is a quantized gravitational charge. Motz studies the enormously large value of G inside a particle.

    [QUOTE=AlphaNumeric;2797524]What precisely as you trying to do, because presently it seems like you want to be seen to be 'doing physics', talking about relativity, quantum mechanics, quantisation etc but nothing you've done is mathematically beyond a competent 15 year old. If you truly know about Lie algebras you'd be familiar enough with physics and maths books to know what you present is terrible quality and trivial or pointless mathematically. Let's see the details, including clear and precise definitions, context and walk throughs.[QUOTE]

    I linked my sources. Follow them through, and you wouldn't be asking the questions you are.
    Last edited by Joe Green; 08-14-11 at 07:03 PM.

  19. #19

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by OnlyMe View Post
    Both gravity and inertia seem to have a direct relationship with mass. I don't see the EM contribution to mass. While it is true that everything we are able to observe with current technology has a charge of some sort, that in itself does not make charge a contributing component when considering mass. It could be as easily argued that EM is emergent from the interaction of mass and energy.

    Some of this may be an artifact of limitations in our ability to perceive the world, which is completely dependent upon atomic and molecular interactions, which are charge related. We cannot just assume that because at it's most basic level our perception is so limited, the fundamental nature of anything must be similarly limited.

    And I don't believe I have seen anything that suggests that the neutrino has even a magnetic moment. It seems to interact only weakly with any matter and even then seldom.

    Some of what comes to mind for me in free thinking this is probably not relevant specifically to the topic. It is just I have a habit of challenging anything new to me against a fairly wide range of experience and observation.
    I was far too vague. I did not mean all particles, I meant that certain particles, like a nuetron can be devoid of an electric charge, but still have a magnetic moment. Also EM mass is not my own creation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

    Interestingly there was a time it was linked to inertial mass - but of course not all particles can have an EM contribution. Higgs also becomes quite obsurd when you realize that only 1% of all matter is actually effected by a Higgs field, not to mention some theories require 5 different higgs bosons.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 12-30-10, 10:07 AM
    Replies: 1953
  2. By BenTheMan in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 07-22-09, 11:36 AM
    Replies: 0
  3. By Vkothii in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 11-20-08, 06:46 PM
    Replies: 44
  4. By shalayka in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 10-29-07, 07:47 PM
    Replies: 10
  5. By boris16 in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 07-06-06, 09:31 AM
    Replies: 16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •