Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Long Beach Ca.
    Posts
    185

    Default The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    When a celestial object or "normal matter " passes through space, gravity and matter interact with the "fabric of space-time" (for lack of a better term).
    I assume there must be some sort of energy associated with these events, if so , it would be a very interesting equation that described this. If Dark Energy is a property of space, would it have to be included in the equation?
    Could this energy be calculated for all the matter in the universe as it has traversed thus far.
    Would the amount of energy bound up in these interactions be significant enough to account for the missing matter holding galaxies together? (sense energy and matter are equivalent)

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Posts
    30

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Do you mean gravitons? Because they have no rest mass. It's kind of like light. Higher wavelength light (think the colors of the rainbow) carries more energy, but still has no mass. So, no, as far as I know (and I may be wrong) gravitons are not dark matter. If you want to learn about possible dark matter candidates, look up WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles).

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,761

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Gravity IS photon-on-photon interaction vis spin polarization. That IS the "density" of space-time, a change in "c" where the "rest mass" corresponds to a single wavelength - or series of cycles with the same "length", where length is identified with photon mass. In that sense, a photon is a WIMP.

    (We only observe gravitational effects either by observing variations light on the surface of the earth (or slightly above) or as images on focal planes, where it is impossible to measure cosmological distance by the precision called for (except for "red shift" - which are a photon loss in energy, NOT a change in Galilean velocity) or Einstein rings, in which "spin" over long distances produces the lateral shift from an imagined "center" (Einstein rejected "action at a distance", and understood that the "curvature" of geodesics in astronomy were cumulative effects of interaction over long distances, so that they correspond to a change in media, only far less in space than that of a local optical lens, which compresses that long distance into a short lateral distance on the focal plane).

    "Dark" matter, is therefore light you, uh, cannot see because it is not coming directly at you - we live on the business ends of geodesics.

    Sign on laser lab at LLNL "Do not gaze into laser with remaining eye..."
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 02-26-2017 at 11:30 PM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle Updates 03/02/2017 12:07 PM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  4. #4
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Gravity IS photon-on-photon interaction vis spin polarization. That IS the "density" of space-time, a change in "c" where the "rest mass" corresponds to a single wavelength - or series of cycles with the same "length", where length is identified with photon mass. In that sense, a photon is a WIMP.
    I had not realized that you had solved Gravity as well as Proving FLT...

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    (We only observe gravitational effects either by observing variations light on the surface of the earth (or slightly above) or as images on focal planes, where it is impossible to measure cosmological distance by the precision called for (except for "red shift" - which are a photon loss in energy, NOT a change in Galilean velocity) or Einstein rings, in which "spin" over long distances produces the lateral shift from an imagined "center" (Einstein rejected "action at a distance", and understood that the "curvature" of geodesics in astronomy were cumulative effects of interaction over long distances, so that they correspond to a change in media, only far less in space than that of a local optical lens, which compresses that long distance into a short lateral distance on the focal plane).
    This answer is much more tricky than that. The old question of, does a photon lose energy to redhsift is made more complex by Relativity, where a photon in our local space is not redshifted from our perspective but is redshifted from the perspective of a distant observer in another galaxy. The reverse is also true; where a photon passing their distant galaxy appears redshifted to us, but not to them.
    This means that a "loss of energy" is not a very accurate description. Rather, an exchange of Kinetic energy with Gravitational Potential Energy must not only take place, but also must balance out with Conservation of Energy.
    So if we examine a Local flat space, it will look like a loss of energy takes place because we can neglect to calculate in the curvature of space or the cosmological constant (Lambda).
    Once we start venturing out a distance though, those must be factored in and what we observe is that what appears to be be a Loss of Kinetic energy in either local or in distant observation balances into GPE which adds the lost value back into the end product.
    Thus: We can observe redshift at a distance because a minute portion of that energy is stored in GPE, but an alien in that local frame of reference would observe it to be the other way around since the GPE remains the same for that same amount of distance.

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    "Dark" matter, is therefore light you, uh, cannot see because it is not coming directly at you - we live on the business ends of geodesics.

    Sign on laser lab at LLNL "Do not gaze into laser with remaining eye..."
    This is a rare case where you and I have some common ground. The above ideas are NOT theory, at this time, but are hypothetical. But I do think that they are promising ideas.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,761

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    I had not realized that you had solved Gravity as well as Proving FLT...
    This answer is much more tricky than that..
    Nope, it is photon-on-photon (spin) interaction compared with the zero point energy in the parking lot, under the assumption that the source process is the reverse of the sensor process (photon collapse). At any rate, any other interpretation is imagination ("thought experiment") depending on whatever assumptions one wishes to make.

    (What are our actual methods of observing gravity if not by reflected light from the sun (whether light compared with that through a lens)or the sudden stop at the end of a fall that we either feel through our shoes or see in the parking lot.)

    (That is Einstein's whole point about simultaneity, and why light is characterized by the null vector locally.) And why light through a medium really does slow down..., and changes direction at the surface of a lens (diffraction and refraction - or through a steel plate in the parking lot) .

    But since you don't believe in diffraction or refraction through a lens where light slows down and bends at the surface and splits into a spectrum according to its energy wavelength (unless you've changed your mind), there is no point in discussing it further with you.

    (For all practical purposes, in an optical lens, the atoms do not move (acoustically); the incoming photon interacts with the periodic density of the electric field (otherwise called light also) within the lattice that makes up the lens. It is only when the steel plate melts, that the jiggling atoms change their physical state, break their valence bonds and the steel melts (PV=nkT). The periodic density is the averaged charge of the valence electrons around each atom in the lattice.

    The mathematical model for this in a semi-conductor (a lattice similar to a lens) are overlap integrals (periodic Bloch functioins)
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 02-27-2017 at 01:59 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle Updates 03/02/2017 12:07 PM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  6. #6
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    (That is Einstein's whole point about simultaneity, and why light is characterized by the null vector locally.) And why light through a medium really does slow down..., and changes direction at the surface of a lens (diffraction and refraction).

    But since you don't believe in diffraction or refraction through a lens (unless you've changed your mind), there is no point in discussing it further with you.
    The only issue there is that you are, as always, very dishonest about anything that relates to you getting the math or physics wrong. You are a Liar in claiming that I reject refraction or diffraction. That is your standard tactic of distorting Real Science in order to pander to your own deluded ego hoping it will make it look like you have half a clue what you are going on about.

    You do not understand "Group Velocity" of a beam of light; you do not understand what a constant is; you do not understand conservation of momentum and conservation of energy; you do not understand that photons are absorbed and also emitted and lastly, you have a long standing habit of making up "physicsy-sounding" things to make it look like you are all kinds of smart and know things, but you are actually self-deceived and wildly imaginative.
    Photons always move at "c." Always. Even when a beam of light moves at less than "c." The Group Velocity of a beam can be less than "c" when it interacts with a medium. The Group Velocity of a beam is the Average Velocity which includes the delays caused by Photon-Matter interaction that bring the total average to less than "c" even if each individual photon never moves at less than "c." That is Standard Theory Physics in spite of you (lying and) claiming that it isn't.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,761

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post

    (snip)
    Not in a cystal lattice (lens):

    Bloch wave (Wikipedia)

    Overlap Integral
    (Wikipedia)

    Kronig-Penney model (Wikipedia)

    You really don't know squat about physics ...
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 02-27-2017 at 02:18 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle Updates 03/02/2017 12:07 PM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

  8. #8
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Quote Originally Posted by BuleriaChk View Post
    Not in a cystal lattice (lens):
    Bloch wave

    Overlap Integral

    You really don't know squat about physics ...
    Red herring.
    Your claim is that "c" is a variable and that the value of "c" changes if a beam of light travels through a medium.

    EDIT: You edited in the link to "Orbital Overlap" while I was replying, without realizing that it is support for exactly what I described, above. Certain chemical structures can alter how photons interact with an electron.
    Last edited by Neverfly; 02-27-2017 at 02:12 AM.
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  9. #9
    Moderator Neverfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Utopia Planetia, Mars
    Posts
    1,779

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Chuck, if you are correct, here is a question you should easily be able to anwser:
    If a photon traveling in a vacuum at "c" encounters a droplet of Water and passes through it we can state the following:
    -Prior to interacting with the drop of water, the photon had velocity "c."
    -After interacting with the drop of water, the photon had velocity "c."

    YOUR claim is that the photon would move at less than "c" through the Drop of water; therefor, how do you calculate the acceleration of the photon upon leaving the drop of water to "c" given the photons rest mass?
    --Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges--
    “Science needs the light of free expression to flourish. It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, and the open exchange of ideas.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    "When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interaction is electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down." - BuleriaChk

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    2,761

    Default Re: The energy that is lost in the interaction of matter and gravity with space

    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Chuck, if you are correct, here is a question you should easily be able to anwser:
    If a photon traveling in a vacuum at "c" encounters a droplet of Water and passes through it we can state the following:
    -Prior to interacting with the drop of water, the photon had velocity "c."
    -After interacting with the drop of water, the photon had velocity "c."

    YOUR claim is that the photon would move at less than "c" through the Drop of water; therefor, how do you calculate the acceleration of the photon upon leaving the drop of water to "c" given the photons rest mass?
    When photons interact with electrons, they are interacting with the charge around a "bare" mass, and thus the interactionis electromagnetic, hence light. This light slows the photon down.

    A drop of water is a molecule with many atoms (not in a fixed lattice). c change because of interactions with electroms within the droplet (which have charges, and thus fields around them). The electromagnetic environment within a drop of water is more dense than that in the parking lot. This appears in a relativistic change in rest mass from ct to ct' (a new rest mass which encompasses the complete system of water +photon).

    STR characterizes this density as a change in mass (Planck's constant in classical QM). Your model of waves is classical, from Maxwell's interpretation where light has no mass (one doesn't feel light in the parking lot, except for sunburn). However, Maxwell's equations are derived from Ampere and Coulomb force laws, via the displacement current, which appears as a change via the D and H fields, as opposed to E and B fields via changes the permitivity/permeability
    constants (in the classical interpretation).

    STR is the foundation of modern physics, and you have to understand the relativistic unit circle to understand fermions (where charge is involved, and the foundation of atomic physics via the Schroedinger equation). One has to understand the Pauli-Dirac formulation to understand charged electron interaction.

    Your concept of "waves" (pilot waves, etc) is from Maxwell, in which such waves are massless and extend to infinity. If there were the sightest amount of classical mass in such a wave, it would eventually have infinite mass (i.e., group velocity is periodic to infinity - the groups extend to infinity - any mass in the group implies infinte mass for the whole wave). Therefore, the linear interpretation of QFT has a cutoff for re-normalization (a situation Richard Feynman found very uncomfortable).

    The RUC and the Relativistic unit circle shows why partical count cannot be preserved for n>2 in the Binomial theorem; a(b^2) is actually three particles and in the Binomial Expansion, b=a implies a^3 in this context (there is no interaction), but relativisticaly is not related to a "space-time" coordinate system, only conserved mass-energy (the same thing in STR).

    The problem with you is your pompous arrogance about your relative ignorance in theoretical physics and foundations of mathematics. At least you didn't bray "nonsense" like the donkey you usually are....
    Last edited by BuleriaChk; 02-27-2017 at 10:14 AM.
    _______________________________________
    "Flamenco Chuck" Keyser
    The Relativistic Unit Circle Updates 03/02/2017 12:07 PM PST
    Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem Updates 03/19/2017 8:23 PM PST
    Ignore List -The Peanut Gallery.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •