What's Space?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Goldtop, Aug 3, 2018.

  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    I posted up above that the "gravity" was a typo and should have been "mass". My only point was the same as Keith made above. Most of the mass of an atom doesn't come from the Higgs field as the mass of the quarks is only a small percentage of that mass. I recalled it was about 2%. The video says 1% (which I'm sure is correct). Most of the mass of an atom comes from the strong force binding that kinetic energy and not from the Higgs.

    That is all I was trying to say, and I believe it's correct isn't it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    140
    Exactly. We also think gravity waves travel at c. It's a little odd that they would both travel at the same speed if it was thought this was a result of the properties of light and gravity as opposed to the properties of the medium they travel. This would again lead me to think it is space that possesses the properties that cause this phenomenon.

    But, we don't know much more than that.

    That would make it a much more interesting topic for discussion then if it were settled.

    Gravity was first to 'uncouple' from the other forces right after the moment of the Big Bang, this would lead me to believe that with the introduction of space, gravity came into existence as a result of space. Gravity didn't create space, it was the other way round. I keep coming back to the assertion that space has properties, that it is a something rather than just a nothing.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    i was attempting to raise this question(a second time more recently) some months back(maybe a year or soo).
    it appeared to fall on deaf ears.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    140
    There are problems to overcome with it, though.

    An experiment where we had a large object the size of the Earth and placed a spherical chamber dead set in the middle of the object. If we go inside the chamber (Star Trek Tranporter beam) it's thought that we should float in mid air due to the equivalent amount of mass on all sides of us keeping us floating there. How do we account for this phenomenon using the alleged properties of space?
     
  8. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,113
    i have read a few board members make vague reference to this concept though have not engaged on it as i am unaware of where the theory sits, conspiracy or science etc...

    i notice above the accounting for mass...
    density compresion of mass etc...
    ... not wanting to spin off into massles gravity thoughts etc...

    indeed
    like a big slowly washing sea
    being able to define a zero point is ideal yet only theory.
    being able to disregard potential unknown dark energy that may relate to mass/density in some form of odd relationship that negates its own mass effect on gravity etc...
    queue mathamaticians discussing infinity etc...
    this was where i was @ pondering if it only existed as a radiant field relative to other fields so it effectivly has no centre point.
    which if so(which is just a wild idea not a theory) means the only real centre would need to be artificaly created.
    it would appear the only working example we have to work with is black holes.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,633
    This is my POV also. We must look at the properties of space which grant and limit the behaviors of particles.
     
  10. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    140
    For the record, I'm not referring to any conspiracies. I know there is strong evidence and accuracy in General Relativity and how it predicts that curvature. And that's perfectly fine, there is no reason to discard any of it even if space does have properties.
     
  11. Goldtop Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    140
    I'm hoping some of the well educated physicists here could entertain these notions and help me understand why space can't have properties or why it maybe can.
     
  12. keith prosser Registered Member

    Messages:
    6
    We can be fairly sure the speed of gravitation waves is c because the recent graviation wave detection was accompanied by light and radio wave observations.
    https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/press-release-gw170817
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    I'm not an expert on this. However, look at it this way: the inertial of a proton depends on its effective mass. We can argue about how much of that mass is intrinsic to the quarks and how much of it is related to the gluons etc. But regardless of how that mass comes about, the inertia of the proton would be zero if the Higgs field wasn't there.

    So, a correct statement would be that most of the rest energy of a proton comes from the strong force binding the quarks together, but all of the mass is due to the Higgs interaction.

    At least that's my tentative understanding. Happy to be corrected by somebody more knowledgable.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
    No. Radiation trapped in a reflective container consists of zero rest mass photons (Higgs field doesn't interact with photons), yet it has an inertial/gravitational mass according to E = mc^2.
    If the Higgs field wasn't there to interact with quarks, or had zero value, the consequence would be zero rest mass quarks. And therefore impossibility of stable composites i.e. hadrons e.g. proton, to exist. But the zero rest mass quarks themselves would still possess inertial & gravitational mass just like zero rest mass photons do. Matt Strassler again:
    https://profmattstrassler.com/artic...known-particles-if-the-higgs-field-were-zero/
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Thanks, Q-reeus.

    Roughly speaking, I thought that the function of the Higgs field was to "give things mass".

    How would you describe what the Higgs field does?
     
  16. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
    Well the short and not very informative answer is "It gives certain fundamental particles rest mass." Meaning they have a rest frame in which they possess a proper non-zero mass-energy. Something not possible for 'massless' photons or gluons. The much more difficult question to answer is how? I'm nowhere near conversant with QFT, but this PBS vid imo does a nice job of giving a basic intro feel for what the Higgs mechanism is about:

    There are lots of sites that have this picturesque analogy where massive particles are 'moving like through molasses' thanks to Higgs field interaction. Which is pretty misleading because it suggests a preferred rest frame, in contradiction to Lorentz invariance of the vacuum.
     
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,633
    Is there not a clue in this quote from the link;
    Does this not suggest that mathematical values play a large role in the behaviors of particles?
     
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,633
    Would this not be simple resistance of some sort?
     
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
    No because 'simple resistance' implies dissipative drag forces that would make massive particles lose energy continually and slow down. But slow down to which rest frame? Read again last para in #53.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,633
    question: could it be a one way street?
    i.e. The greater the speed of a massless photon, the greater the kinetic mass and drag @ "c".
    The slower the speed of a massless photon, the smaller the kinetic mass and drag @ "c".

    This would allow the photon to move at "c" as a simultaneous minimum/maximum speed limit?

    As to the ability for movement at all, is "radiation" an energetic (dynamical) force?
     
  21. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,056
    Sorry can't pass much of that. The Higgs mechanism topic is extremely complex and only after years of study in advanced QFT could anyone make real sense of the actual theory e.g.:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
    re radiation - 'radiation reaction' in EM represents a drag force tending to damp e.g a dipole oscillator, but that has no bearing on Higgs field interactions.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,633
  23. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    That's a nice poster.
     

Share This Page