Matter made of space not energy?

[maddog]

Are you sure? A photon is either absorbed or emitted from an electron. That happens with no time lapse so there can be no "curvature"

I think paultrr is referring to just before absorption. A photon is a quantization of energy. In GR mass

bends space. E=mc^2, so one can say energy bends space. It is just so inconceivably small for an average

photon to bend space such that it could be measured.

 

Maddog

[WebFeet]

Gravity exists even at microscopic scales. The problem is the masses involved are so small that we simply have no way to actual measure the curvature of say a light beam in the vecinity of say an electron.

Why would you want to measure the gravitational effect of an electron.

To make any measurement, it would have to be done over large distances where a cummulative effect could be observed.

Basically, to get a curve in space we can actually measure one needs a mass large enough to produce a measurable curvature in the first place which rather limits us to macroscale bodies. But, in theory everything that actually has mass/energy warps spacetime.

It just so happens that we have macroscale bodies dotted around our solar system which could be used.

 

There are a number of possible results that would have impacts on various theories, depending on the outcome.

 

1. There is no lensing of gravity. Gravity is uneffected by other gravitational fields. This would imply that unlike photons, which are effected by gravity due to their energy, the particle carrying the graviational force does not possess energy. This would provide proof to the concept of spacetime being warped merely by the presence of mass/energy.

 

2. There is a lensing effect, where the graviton particle does exist and is effected in the same manner as any other object having mass/energy. This should be in agreement with the SM.

 

3. There is half-lensing. This is where the results are half of those expected from the results of #2. This would be in agreement with the photon theory, in that gravity is the interaction of two photons and only one of them would be effected by the gravitational lensing.

[maddog]

1. There is no lensing of gravity. Gravity is uneffected by other gravitational fields. This would imply that unlike photons, which are effected by gravity due to their energy, the particle carrying the graviational force does not possess energy. This would provide proof to the concept of spacetime being warped merely by the presence of mass/energy.

Not unless you desire to rewrite Newton's Laws of Motion.

Work is Force times a distance. Energy is a time derivative of Work.

So no energy measured over finite time and distance yields no Force.

2. There is a lensing effect, where the graviton particle does exist and is effected in the same manner as any other object having mass/energy. This should be in agreement with the SM.

So now the Graviton does exist ?

3. There is half-lensing. This is where the results are half of those expected from the results of #2. This would be in agreement with the photon theory, in that gravity is the interaction of two photons and only one of them would be effected by the gravitational lensing.

:cup: What is this ?? :)

 

Maddog

[Tormod]

To come up with a test that no other theory has already provided, and predict the results, which can be verified.

 

Webfeet, I see only predictions but nothing about how the test should be performed. I think that's the real McCoy here.

[WebFeet]

Webfeet, I see only predictions but nothing about how the test should be performed. I think that's the real McCoy here.

 

We have enough macroscopic bodies in our solar system to allow for a suitable test.

 

A deep space probe is launched from Earth and given a predetermined course, using various of the planets as sling shots and fly-bys.

Using existing formulae the exact position can be calculated for any point along its path.

The same should be done taking into account lensing of the gravitational fields.

 

If there is no gravitational lensing, then the probe should be exactly where it is predicted using the standard calculations.

If the probe differs significantly from its predicted position, then comparison can be made against the other two sets of calculations to determine if one of those provides a more accurate result.

[Tormod]

Cassini should fit the bill, then, having used Earth, Venus (twice), and Jupiter for its ride to Saturn.

[WebFeet]

Cassini should fit the bill, then, having used Earth, Venus (twice), and Jupiter for its ride to Saturn.

Better still, use the two Pioneer probes, 10 and 11, that were launched in the early seventies. Each of these probes is heading in virtually the oppisite direction, so any results can be verified.

 

The probes are currently 1/4 million miles short of where they should be.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html

[Tormod]

The Pioneer anomaly is being studied of course and there is as of yet no explanation. According to this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059 the most likely cause is the spacecraft design itself.

 

It would be difficult to use the Pioneer spacecraft for studies now since it is difficult to pinpoint their eact position to the level you would need to test your photon theory.

 

I hope there is some other way to test your theory - it's not often that spacecraft is sent on planet hopping missions like these, and AFAIK not a single one is being planned at the moment (at least none has left the drawing board)... ESA is currently focusing on Venus and Mercury (and Mars, of course), and NASA might eventually launch their Pluto mission but who knows when.

[WebFeet]

It would be difficult to use the Pioneer spacecraft for studies now since it is difficult to pinpoint their eact position to the level you would need to test your photon theory.

The same would probably be said for any deep space probe. There is always going to be a degree of inaccuracy. Unfortunately, the mission would have to be over a considerable distance to get large enough results.

 

AFAIK all the tests and checks that have been carried out on the Pioneer spacecraft have failed to come up with anything that can account for the descepancy.

 

They've known of the discrepency with Pioneer for over a decade, so although exact positioning now may be difficult, using the historical figures from the point it was first noticed would provide a greater degree of accuracy.