Butch

Quantum physics attempts to describe physics at the smallest level... Ultimately aren't we seeking the point at which there is something from nothing, the edge of existence?

Inevitably, some cultures will clash, often this is polarised by things such as religion, ethics, race... The best we can do is to allow freedom of belief and speech, however we have laws and if your beliefs cause you to cross the line into unlawful acts... You will be imprisoned!

All very interesting! Y'all a incredible! While investigating my proto-particle (which I believe now is a graviton) I realized there was no identifiable limit to shells or number in shells of closely interacting gravitons, so I focused on just a pair... It appears to me that a pair of interacting gravitons is indeed a photon! As such it should provide a basis for some math... More on this when I have more time and math.

Thx again everyone!

I have been working on modeling my "proto-particle" some of you are familiar with it... as it turns out my proto-particle is actually a graviton, so I have been doing some reading on that. It is encouraging to see the same problems with math that I have encountered (recently I believe I found a basis for math describing the graviton, more on that later).

Can someone explain to me why a graviton must be a spin 2 entity?

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

We’re in the physics section, and there is no mainstream physics of which I am aware that corroborates your feeling.

Can you point to any support for this?

No I can't.

23 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe not. One possible answer to the question "why does mass cause spacetime curvature?" could be: "that is the definition of mass."

And as space-time is continuous and the curvature is not quantised, that suggests that there is no quanta of mass.

I understand, however a gravitational system of perturbations interacting might produce what we perceive as a particle with mass, that is the mass I am seeking.

23 hours ago, studiot said:

How many times, Butch?

do we have to tell you that without mass there is no gravitational perturbation.

Mass is the cause not the effect and we do no know of any other cause.

Cause v effect is a very long running question, chicken or the egg?

It would seem that a mass could not exist without spin, however can spin exist without mass? Perhaps even this has roots? Could it be that mass and spin are the result of a system in which the two preserve one another? This is off topic however!

I am simply looking for the smallest possible mass. This is a matter of opinion obviously, I guess what I am truly looking for is inspiration! I usually find that there is plenty of that here, on this forum!

23 hours ago, Strange said:

They are components of the stress-energy tensor that contribute to the curvature of space time. (And writing that makes me realise I mean stress not strain. As you say, it is late.)

I think there are some (extreme) contexts where the pressure component can be the dominant effect.

If we ignore time... The problem becomes simpler I believe. We then have a single frame of reference. Tensors can be expressed without time as part of the equation. Of course that is not suitable in all cases, but it is sufficient for my problem, what is the smallest possible "rest" mass?

12 hours ago, swansont said:

Hadrons are composite particles, and, as such, are not fundamental.

It's not that difficult a question. If it's a fermion, or made of fermions, it's matter (or, possibly, antimatter)

It is my feeling that any entity with more than a single property, has underlying structure.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

Volume is not mass.

Hmm, mass is defined as the resistance to a change in momentum. Is mass really any different than a gravitational perturbation?

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Careful here. You know you can't introduce pet theories in mainstream discussions. It's off-topic here.

 

Understood.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

I assume this is for the curve y = -1/x² ?

Can you show the proof of this?

I get roughly -1.645

You are correct, and your math is correct. I was a bit loose with terminology... Point is no matter what value of x > 0 you choose, you will get a real number as a result for x to infinity and the result for x to zero will be infinity.

7 hours ago, Strange said:

What is the "mass density"? How does it relate to x or y?

What is the "ratio" of the mass density? (ie. mass density divided by what?)

X is distance, y is mass density / gravitational influence. (Yes this is my particle that is a gravitational well.)

The ratio is (sum of y for x to infinity : sum of y for x to zero) 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Are and volume of what? How do these relate to x or y?

Space, the formula -1/x^2 provides the mass density along a single line. Cubing then would provide overall mass for the space outside of x (Which would be infinite, if the universe is infinite, a real number if it is not) : overall mass of the space inside of x. The end result of this is that such an entity would reduce to a single point with infinite mass density... Imaginary mass. Of course such a particle could only exist as a primordial and would have to belong to a system that preserved it. That system would have a quanta of true mass, hence I am trying to determine what that mass would be, then x becomes a real value I can work with.

Thank you for your patience, I know this is out there stuff (please no wisecracks!).

On 12/27/2018 at 2:51 PM, Strange said:

Yes. (I thought that might be what you meant...)

The math! If you pick a point on x say x=1 for example and sum the values of y to x=infinity the total will approach 2.

If you sum the values of y to x=0 the total will approach infinity.

Regardless the x you start at, the sum of the y values will approach a finite value and infinity.

The ratio of mass density indicates that the mass density beyond x=0 approaches 0

This gives you a factor to work with when you consider area and volume, both will produce infinity, however they are different infinities!

Imaginary mass!

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes.

But because the spectrum is continuous you can also get photons that are a smidge larger or smaller. If the spectrum were quantized, there would be a gap.

Yes, the explanation Strange gave cleared it up for me... Can you define smidge in scientific units? Lol

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The photons at any given frequency have quantized energy, i.e. the energy is delivered in packets. But the spectrum of frequencies is not quantized. If you used a diffraction grating to separate the wavelenghts, you would get a continuous spectrum, rather than series of bright lines like the lines of an atomic emission spectrum.

All of the values of f in the spectrum are present.

So say we have a photon of 300ghz, it can only have the energy provided via Planck, correct? If so the

2 hours ago, Strange said:

To put it another way, a single photon can have any energy (the energy level is not quantised) but that photon is indivisible (ie. is a quantum).

OK, I get it. BTW did you see my correction from "mass" to "mass density"? It is important if I am to provide the math for Imaginary mass.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

The issue was quantized frequencies. Any frequency in the emission spectrum is possible.

OK, now I am confused, if black body radiation is quantized photons(energetically) and the energy = hf, it follows that the spectrum would have to be quantized...

55 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. Blackbody radiation, for instance, is a continuum.

Understood.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

I don't know what "approach zero in all respects" means.

It is not clear why angular momentum is relevant to a gravitational well (apart from the fact that, in GR, it implies more energy).

I assume by "the curvature of the well becomes a right angle" you mean that the slope of the curve becomes 1 (vertical). Except it never does, it gets ever closer to it.

And the mass would not change.

So, yes, I think it would help if you showed the math.

Just a note, I stated "a single point with infinite mass" that is incorrect, it should read "a single point with infinite mass density".

50 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. But that’s not the same as being quantized.

I assume you are saying that photons can have non quantized frequencies, however at their source the frequencies are quantized by the physics. Is this correct?

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

I thought you were looking for something with minimum mass; the Higgs is really massive. Only the top quark is more massive, I think.

Why?

 

Like I said, I do not believe the Higgs is my entity, I mention it only because it demonstrates that at least some of my thoughts are not so far fetched. Such an entity as an infinitely deep gravity well would approach zero in all respects. Plot the curve -1/x^2 Since there is no angular momentum the well falls off infinitely precipitously... I can explain this more succinctly with the math if you wish. The curvature of the well becomes a right angle, it reduces to simply a single point with infinite mass. This quandary is what led me to pursue the smallest possible mass, not that my entity would have such mass, rather a system of these entities would produce a quanta of mass. When I can determine that mass, I can produce a mathematical model. Of course this entity would have to be primordial.

15 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sorry, the notation wasn't very clear. That was supposed to be J.s (joule-seconds) so the units work out as you say.

 I got it just fine! Thx. What I got from Planck however is that photon frequencies are quantitative, is that correct?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I missed this before, but thanks for listening.

 

 

What gravitational field would this be ?

 

It seems you consider whatever causes a 'gravity well' to be somehow separate from any other gravitational field.

How does this work?

It may seem that way, but no... I just assume the reader understands that no well is an island.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s not a perturbation. They are different representations of the same thing. The field tells you the force or acceleration at any point. The well is the energy at that position.

The force is the gradient of the potential

Very well put, better than my explanation!

I still do not accept the Higgs boson as my entity, it is however close... In thinking through my ideas, I clearly understand where the term imaginary mass comes from. A gravity well that was infinitely deep with infinite mass density at a single point would have such imaginary mass. As to spin! I came across this encouraging bit! https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson%23Properties_of_the_Higgs_boson&ved=2ahUKEwjE47mqn77fAhWFTt8KHUMzANMQygQwD3oECAQQAw&usg=AOvVaw3IWVIt89ajqHcTWiogq-g_

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Not having spin would mean it has a spin of 0. You can’t make angular momentum a nonexistent concept.

True! That is why multiples of such an entity would have to be engaged in a primordial system that produced spin and the most basic particle! (I have found in my candidate that they produce spin, mass, polarity and charge!)

I just do not have a handle on what that mass would be!

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That’s not it. A photon can’t spontaneously turn into a single massive particle.

I understand, I am speaking of a limit to f of a photon... Just doing it badly.

1 hour ago, jajrussel said:

I’m confused. I thought that the gravitational effect on a photon was due to kinetic energy displaying mass. Take away the momentum then there would be zero energy thus zero mass. This would basically mean that a photon would not exist at rest, but that then there should be some minimum energy level where a photon would exist.

I got my thinking here from past conversations. So, basically I managed to get the wrong understanding from those past conversations? Lol, and it made so much sense for me to be completely wrong.

Sorry, my fault for creating confusion.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

From a purely theoretical viewpoint...

We have massive particles that interact with the Higgs field, and massless particles that do not.
The particles that do interact, gain the property of mass through the Higgs mechanism.
This is an energetic interaction, and like all others, there is a certain threshold that this quanta of action must meet for the interaction to be realized.

Would that not indicate that the property of mass would only be evident above a certain threshold, I.E. mass is quantized ?

I'm still trying to come to grips with the Higgs mechanism, so I have my doubts about this.
( Timo was always good for clarifying Higgs interactions, if he's around )

I have been reading up on Higgs, I am looking for something less than Higgs. My thinking is that an entity with more than one property (mass and spin for example) must have underlying structure... Granted my "thinkin' may be stinkin'" but for now that is the direction I am going in, I am looking for an entity with only mass, and that mass must be a quantum.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

A photon can’t do that on its own. You violate conservation of momentum, if you conserve energy.

This is physics you need to learn. As long as you resist learning it, your idea is going nowhere. 

Sorry, I really did not mean that a photon would increase in f, obviously I am a bit foggy... To much thinking! But once again you have all been very helpful!

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

A "gravity well" (curvature of space-time) is caused by the presence of energy. Usually this means mass. But energy also contributes to gravity. So a photon, for example, will cause a gravitational well.

Which means it will have lower energy and will therefore cause less space-time curvature / gravity.

Yes and yes! Careful though! You are treading dangerously close to unifying fields!

I have been trying to resolve this in the wrong direction of course, your statements are the right direction.

Again, thank you!

18 minutes ago, studiot said:

However a field that has energy acts as though it has mass (albeit very small) from relativity theory, not quantum theory.

This is why I inquired to what is the difference between a gravity well and a mass, of course a mass has a periphery, you can refer back to see my conjecture on this... You have all been very helpful! I am seeing much more clearly now! I have been trying to resolve this backwards! I had hypothesized that a photon(as a gravitational phenomena) at some point would be very much like a gravity well. This would not be at an extremely short wavelength but rather at a very long wavelength!

This forum has been so helpful! Without it I fear my head would explode!

Merry Christmas!

24 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, you could do the calculation and see for yourself that this is a non-starter. The energy associated with that wavelength is around a million times bigger than the proton mass

That should have been the first thing you checked. 

I guess you must have done the calculation, much appreciated!

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why? What about a photon with a wavelength of 0.9 Planck lengths? Or 0.5 or ...

From what I have read such a thing may not be possible?

If a photon were to have sufficiently short wavelength to decay into mass what would happen to its velocity, the mass could not be at rest as c is constant regardless of frame... Am I thinking correctly? Can you clarify my thoughts a bit Strange? You are very good at that!

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Planck units are not based on any particular phenomenon. This conjecture isn’t based on any science.

I guess I need more study time on Planck units. Thx.

I realize that a gravity well is a perturbation of the gravitational field which has influence that extends to infinity, mass on the other hand has a periphery... The model I am working on pertains to an entity that is a gravitational well and combinations of these would produce a perturbation that has a periphery, that perturbation would have a single quanta of mass... Before I can apply math to see if it fits with current science I need to know what that mass is!

40 minutes ago, Strange said:

The value of h (not H) is normally defined in terms of m² kg / s, or J s. So the result will be joules. 

So, a photon with a wave length equal to one Planck length would be the greatest energy a photon could have? If so, E= mc^2 should derive to a quanta of mass?