Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #590833

Re: More Physics Heresay

Show all headers | View raw

Yousuf Khan wrote:

> […] according to General Relativity, gravity itself is a form of
> negative energy. In this case, the energy locked up in the mass of
> objects is counteracted by the negative energy of gravity, which
> altogether should add up to precisely zero energy.

Not even wrong, Sam.  Instead, according to GR, gravity is just an 
*apparent* force, an observable *effect* of the curvature of spacetime on 
objects that is produced by interaction with stress–energy–momentum (that 
can be transformed away by choosing suitable coordinates).  In the rest 
frame of what interacts with spacetime this way (say, a planet), its total 
energy is equivalent to its *positive* mass.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity>
 
>> Is the electron/positron the mass quantum or has it been replaced by
>> the new massive neutrinos?
> 
> No, the Higgs boson is the closest thing to a mass quantum right now,
> […]

Wrong.  It is interaction with the Higgs field that gives particles mass, 
_not_ the Higgs boson.  IOW, by contrast to e.g. the photon, the Higgs boson 
is _not_ a gauge boson.  (You elaborate on this in some way later, but ISTM 
that it is not at all clear to you.)

>> Could photons be the ultimate charge and mass quantums with a tiny
>> amount of both?
> 
> No photons have neither mass, nor charge. Remember the photon was the
> first object ever discovered to be travelling at the speed of light,

By contrast to other particles, the photon was never discovered.  It arose 
out of the necessity to explain the photoelectric effect in 1905.

> hence that's why we call it the speed of light.

[“hence that’s why”?]

You have it backwards.  We call it “photon” (from Greek φῶς /phôs/ „light“) 
because it was *defined* to be the quantum of light in accordance with 
Planck’s 1900 quantum hypothesis; in particular, Gilbert N. Lewis named it 
and Arthur Compton was the first to use that term in 1928.

Einstein’s 1905 work on what came to be called “(the) special (theory of) 
relativity” was based on Maxwell’s electrodynamics from ca. 50 years 
earlier, so the photon also became the quantum of the electromagnetic field 
because it had been determined that light is an electromagnetic wave.
 
> Without mass, every particle would've been travelling at the speed of
> light.

Every particle with mass _zero_ *is*/*must be* traveling at the speed of 
light.

>> And back to my favorite, WHAT IS CHARGE? I still (after decades of
>> patiently waiting) have received no satisfactory answer from the world
>> of physics.
>>
>> Is it just a "magic dollop" that is bestowed on some particles without
>> any detectable change to the particles themselves other than the way
>> they interact with other particles with the same or opposite
>> "dollops"? So is charge invisible? Is it massless?
> 
> Nobody knows what causes EM charge yet. Same thing for Color charge
> inside the Strong Nuclear force, which is a 3-way type of charge.

Once again, Sam, there is no “Strong Nuclear force”.  There is the strong 
interaction“/force between quarks, which has a residual component also 
called “the nuclear force” because that acts between nucleons.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/funfor.html#c2>

> Charge and color charge is a property, just like mass is. Asking if
> charge is massless is like asking if your height has weight.

ACK :)

>> If you could crawl up close to (and inside of) an electron and a
>> positron, wouldn't they have to "look different" to "be different? I
>> say they must.
> 
> They would be different as they would have the opposite charges. Whether
> opposite charges actually look different is unanswerable.

Depends on how you define “look different”.  See my other follow-up.

> As far as we know opposite charges are exactly equal and opposite to each
> other, so they should "look" very similar to each other.

Not even wrong.
 
> Now, if you believe Superstring theory,

String theory suffices.  Superstring theory (supersymmetric string theory) 
only also deals with fermions.

> charge and mass and all of the other properties of particles are all
> related to different vibrations of tiny strings.

Not different vibrations, but different _vibrational states_.

(Do you read threads before you are posting a follow-up?)

> But of course Superstring theory has a long way to go to be proven yet.

Physical theories are not proven, they are either falsified or confirmed by 
experiment.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

More Physics Heresay Michael J. Strickland <michael06582@comcast.net> - 2016-07-21 03:05 -0400
  Re: More Physics Heresay Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:15 -0700
  Re: More Physics Heresay Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-07-21 10:22 -0500
  Re: More Physics Heresay Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-24 18:18 +0200
    e.e hearsay, here said ... that sylli poet? noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:59 -0700
      Re: e.e hearsay, here said ... that sylli poet? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 07:39 +0200
    Re: More Physics Heresay "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 01:08 -0700
      Proton mass (was: More Physics Heresay) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 15:35 +0200
        Re: Proton mass Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 17:05 +0200
          Re: Proton mass john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:09 -0700
    Negative mass (was: More Physics Heresay) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:05 +0200
  Re: More Physics Heresay Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-07-26 13:03 +1000
  Re: More Physics Heresay Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-07-26 12:43 -0400
    Re: More Physics Heresay Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-26 20:31 +0200
      Re: More Physics Heresay noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:57 -0700
    Re: More Physics Heresay Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-07-31 09:07 +0200
      Re: More Physics Heresay ben6993 <ben6993@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 00:19 -0700
  Re: More Physics Heresay ben6993 <ben6993@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:10 -0700
    more sloganeers noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 12:19 -0700
      Re: more sloganeers noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-28 14:26 -0700

csiph-web