Why does mass curve space-time?

[Robittybob1]

 

No, not really. It's not that simple. Time dilation depends on the gravitational potential. It's possible a body with a larger mass could have a smaller time dilation effect.

Yes, you have to also consider the effective radius (the distance from the center of mass). So the density of the material is important.

[Kairat]

Yes, you have to also consider the effective radius (the distance from the center of mass). So the density of the material is important.

These are the details.

The movement of a four dimensional body through three dimensional space might be very funny since we can not imagine that. It can also depend on other parameters. I just gave a general idea. There is no better explanation of "why a matter curves the space".

[Robittybob1]

These are the details.

The movement of a four dimensional body through three dimensional space might be very funny since we can not imagine that. It can also depend on other parameters. I just gave a general idea. There is no better explanation of "why a matter curves the space".

Who said there is no better explanation? An explanation that involves time dilation is what I'm trying to develop.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Strange]

Who said there is no better explanation? An explanation that involves time dilation is what I'm trying to develop.

 

Time dilation IS the curvature of spacetime. Mass-energy is the curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

[Robittybob1]

 

Time dilation IS the curvature of spacetime. Mass-energy is the curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

Could? Mass-energy CAUSES the curvature of spacetime. Time dilation IS the EVIDENCE there is curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the RESULT of the curvature of spacetime.

I'm trying to see if the concept that gravity could be the tendency of mass-energy to the maximum time dilation is viable. (In other words instead of saying "maximum" try saying mass-energy has a resistance of going through time.)

Edited January 10, 2015 by Robittybob1

[jajrussel]

Can I suggest in answer to the original question that mass has little to do with the curvature of space time. That the real cause is spacial density. Then present that the reason I would make such a statement is because a zero mass particle also curves space time.

Edited January 22, 2015 by jajrussel

[Robittybob1]

Can I suggest in answer to the original question that mass has little to do with the curvature of space time. That the real cause is spacial density. Then present that the reason I would make such a statement is because a zero mass particle also curves space time.

What evidence do you have? I know light is deviated by mass but is light deviated by light? You would need more light to go around just one side of mass and see the mass move. That seems just too problematic to measure in reality.

But what evidence do you propose?

[Mordred]

What evidence do you have? I know light is deviated by mass but is light deviated by light? You would need more light to go around just one side of mass and see the mass move. That seems just too problematic to measure in reality.

But what evidence do you propose?

Actually he is half right. What bends space time is energy/momentum, photons have both so they can bend space time. Note the effect from individual photons is negligible.

 

Density is involved as you have greater energy/mass per volume.

[Robittybob1]

Actually he is half right. What bends space time is energy/momentum, photons have both so they can bend space time. Note the effect from individual photons is negligible.

 

Density is involved as you have greater energy/mass per volume.

You could have an strong laser beam go to one side of suspended electrons (static electricity) and see if you can alter the charge distribution. Would that do it?

What about two parallel lasers and see it the spots illuminated differ when the lasers are shone at the same time as opposed to individually at different times? I'm expecting you might be right, but has it been proven?

Could? Mass-energy CAUSES the curvature of spacetime. Time dilation IS the EVIDENCE there is curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the RESULT of the curvature of spacetime.

I'm trying to see if the concept that gravity could be the tendency of mass-energy to the maximum time dilation is viable. (In other words instead of saying "maximum" try saying mass-energy has a resistance of going through time.)

I see I was struggling to say this precisely. I had been trying to propose that mass accumulates because the more mass that is in the one place maximizes the amount of time dilation at that place. So what we call gravity is the net result of all the particles moving toward regions of time dilation. Time dilation being the warping of spacetime (proposing the space dimensions are not changed but the time dimension is, so spacetime is still warped by mass).

[jajrussel]

What evidence do you have? I know light is deviated by mass but is light deviated by light? You would need more light to go around just one side of mass and see the mass move. That seems just too problematic to measure in reality.

But what evidence do you propose?

I should probably think about this a little more, but I will shoot from the hip then let you kick it around while I think about it some more.

 

Gravity is not a one sided affair, and it is easier to visualize in terms of mass. As I stand on earth I move toward earth, at the same time earth moves toward me. My effect on earth is negligible, it's effect on me is not. This effect should not break down simply because we talk about zero mass particles. If a photon or any other zero mass particle is affected by something with a large amount of mass the reverse should also be true though very negligible.

 

I suggested spacial density as the cause because photons have zero mass, yet both have spacial density.

Edited January 22, 2015 by jajrussel

[Mordred]

Look at mass-energy equivalence for tests.

 

 

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2

[jajrussel]

 

Time dilation IS the curvature of spacetime. Mass-energy is the curvature of spacetime. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime.

In my opinion Strange has it right here, though I would have said energy causes the curvature of space, and that gravity, and time dilation are effects of that curvature.

[Robittybob1]

In my opinion Strange has it right here, though I would have said energy causes the curvature of space, and that gravity, and time dilation are effects of that curvature.

Energy = Mass * C^2 so mass and energy are related somehow. Does that mean matter (is that the same as mass??) is constructed of energy? So whether it is the mass or the energy that dilates time (warps spacetime) which then results in gravity the result is much the same.

 

In the above quoted article (http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2) they used the words equivalent, "Mass and Energy are equivalent" (via the formula) but I always wonder what a speed (velocity) squared does? Yet it comes up in a similar relationship for Kinetic Energy, KE = 1/2 M * V^2.

I think of an area when I think of something "squared", (m/sec)^2, an area of space divided by areas of time??

Edited January 22, 2015 by Robittybob1

[jajrussel]

Energy = Mass * C^2 so mass and energy are related somehow. Does that mean matter (is that the same as mass??) is constructed of energy? So whether it is the mass or the energy that dilates time (warps spacetime) which then results in gravity the result is much the same.

 

In the above quoted article (http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2) they used the words equivalent, "Mass and Energy are equivalent" (via the formula) but I always wonder what a speed (velocity) squared does? Yet it comes up in a similar relationship for Kinetic Energy, KE = 1/2 M * V^2.

I think of an area when I think of something "squared", (m/sec)^2, an area of space divided by areas of time??

I am not even remotely qualified to answer your questions. I Google everything, then try to read as much as I can, then try to make sense out of what I am reading. I also like this forum. What I usually get here is most of my questions. Then I make a fool of myself by making a statement. The people here are generally very kind, and I am grateful. They usually don't hesitate to tell me when I am wrong, and for that I am even more grateful.

 

The least technical answer I have read about E=mc(squared) is that c is tied to relativity, and it is consistent no matter how you look at it, and out works.

 

It is squared in order to keep the units right. They didn't go into detail, so I make assumptions. The equation is derived, somewhere along the way squaring was necessary, and nearly every text book starts by telling you how important it is that your unit of measure needs to be consistent, or you stand the chance of crashing the mars orbiter.

 

Mass is kind of vague. It is one if those many physics words that I have a tendency to use wrongly. Should I have said matter, should I have said energy? I nearly always pick the wrong word, but Einstein was a lot smarter than I am so I am pretty sure he got it right.

 

The equation makes a statement presumed to be true until proven otherwise for must people.

 

The link supplied gives a reason for why one should still accept that the equations statement should still be considered to be true.

 

My own take on the equation is that the statement it makes is that under the specified conditions of the equation energy and mass are equal.

 

Then people connect it to the equivalence principle, which I think refers to a method of connecting different reference frames, but I am still not sure how the dots connect, or even if my understanding is correct.

[Robittybob1]

Well I'm much the same. In some calculations done some years back it appeared to me that gravity works at a super-luminal speed, well so I thought then, and I've been looking for a way that could happen. It seemed that if gravity was an emergent property it could influence matter at virtually any speed (like entanglement, that has no speed limit).

 

But like you, and for me too, it is back to study to see if the idea can be substantiated further.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Mordred]

Energy = Mass * C^2 so mass and energy are related somehow. Does that mean matter (is that the same as mass??) is constructed of energy? So whether it is the mass or the energy that dilates time (warps spacetime) which then results in gravity the result is much the same.

 

In the above quoted article (http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2005/emc2) they used the words equivalent, "Mass and Energy are equivalent" (via the formula) but I always wonder what a speed (velocity) squared does? Yet it comes up in a similar relationship for Kinetic Energy, KE = 1/2 M * V^2.

I think of an area when I think of something "squared", (m/sec)^2, an area of space divided by areas of time??

What constitutes as a matter particle depends on if the particle is dimensionless or if it takes up space.

 

Fermionic particles of the same quantum state cannot reside in the same space.

 

Bosons such as photons can occupy the same volume without limit.

 

So essentially only fermions count as matter particles.

 

Now into where momentum fits in e=mc^2 is not the complete formula

 

The formula you want is

 

[latex]e^2=(pc)^2+(m_0c)^2[/latex]

 

P in this case is momentum

 

The subscript of o on the mass denotes rest mass. Which isn't the total energy of particles with momentum. Rest mass doesn't include momentum.

 

inertial mass is based on total energy.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation

The use of relatistic mass has been replaced by inertial mass

[imatfaal]

What constitutes as a matter particle depends on if the particle is dimensionless or if it takes up space.

 

Fermionic particles of the same quantum state cannot reside in the same space.

 

Bosons such as photons can occupy the same volume without limit.

 

So essentially only fermions count as matter particles....

 

Can I just clarify Mordred's explanation - the above is the application of this division to fundamental particles. Fermions are the matter particles and bosons as elementary particles are not matter (photons, gluons, higgs etc.).

 

But Boson and Fermion as a division apply to all particles - composite as well as elementary; the helium atom (second most common in the universe) is bosonic and that must count as matter.

[Mordred]

Good point I should specify that only applies to fundamental particles. Ill try to remember that next time

[imatfaal]

Good point I should specify that only applies to fundamental particles. Ill try to remember that next time

 

With composite particles you still get the ability of bosons to share a quantum state that would be barred to fermions - ie superfluid supercooled helium and bose-einstein condensates.

 

I think that in the formalism of a BEC the composite bosons are technically sharing the same space and all other quantum states that apply - its just that the space is quite big so the statistics still apply

[Mordred]

Yeah I figured as much as the Bose-Einstein statistics apply to Bose-Einstein condensates. For the OP fermions is thermodynamically described by the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Though those two formulas are advanced. (Incredibly useful though )

The latter formula applies to the Fermi-condensate.

[imatfaal]

Yeah I figured as much as the Bose-Einstein statistics apply to Bose-Einstein condensates. For the OP fermions is thermodynamically described by the Fermi-Dirac statistics. Though those two formulas are advanced. (Incredibly useful though )

The latter formula applies to the Fermi-condensate.

 

I think I am right to say that Fermionic condensates occur when fermions can in some way (that is intrinsically different from the way composite particles form) work together (two halves make an integer spin) - an example being cooper pairs in super-conductors. two electrons with half spin acting together can share so many characteristics in a quantum mechanical entanglement that they act as a single boson (with integer spin) and thus some of the rules that would normally apply through FermiDirac Statistics do not apply - and they drift through medium and past other pairs without resistance.

[Mordred]

That's how I understand it as well.

 

Helium 3 is fermionic while helium 4 is bosonic.

[Robittybob1]

 

I think I am right to say that Fermionic condensates occur when fermions can in some way (that is intrinsically different from the way composite particles form) work together (two halves make an integer spin) - an example being cooper pairs in super-conductors. two electrons with half spin acting together can share so many characteristics in a quantum mechanical entanglement that they act as a single boson (with integer spin) and thus some of the rules that would normally apply through FermiDirac Statistics do not apply - and they drift through medium and past other pairs without resistance.

How does that relate to the OP question? Do all subatomic particles gravitate to mass?

[Mordred]

One of his questions was what defines matter. We got sidetracked on the answer lol.

 

Wiki has a good explanation on mass

 

 

"In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).

 

Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A woman standing on the Moon would weigh less than she would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but she would have the same mass.

 

For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any stationary body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction"

 

 

Keep in mind the word physical means anything that can be described by physics including energy.

 

All particles are affected by gravity

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Ps thanks for the reminder it's not often discussions on the Pauli exclusion principle comes up, we got sidetracked lol.

 

 

Just a side note advise, look closely at scientific definitions, there is numerous clues contained in them. The definition of mass is one such example

[Robittybob1]

One of his questions was what defines matter. We got sidetracked on the answer lol.

 

Wiki has a good explanation on mass

 

 

"In physics, mass is a property of a physical body which determines resistance to being accelerated by a force and the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction with other bodies. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).

 

Mass is not the same thing as weight, even though we commonly calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight. A woman standing on the Moon would weigh less than she would on Earth because of the lower gravity, but she would have the same mass.

 

For everyday objects and energies well-described by Newtonian physics, mass describes the amount of matter in an object. However, at very high speeds or for subatomic particles, special relativity shows that energy is an additional source of mass. Thus, any stationary body having mass has an equivalent amount of energy, and all forms of energy resist acceleration by a force and have gravitational attraction"

 

 

Keep in mind the word physical means anything that can be described by physics including energy.

 

All particles are affected by gravity

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Ps thanks for the reminder it's not often discussions on the Pauli exclusion principle comes up, we got sidetracked lol.

 

 

Just a side note advise, look closely at scientific definitions, there is numerous clues contained in them. The definition of mass is one such example

Mass reflects the amount of matter, and matter is composed of group of subatomic particles which ultimately behave as waves, well at least the electrons do. Can all subatomic particles be converted to energy waves?