When two particles collide

[chrispenycate]

A photon has mass; what it doesn't have is any rest mass, but since they never stop moving, this is no handicap. Since energy =k X mass,(where, as every schoolboy knows, k is cee squared) to have any energy it's forced to create a small quantity of gravity, and de diverted by large quantities of it.

Gravity operates in three dimensions. We know this because it drops off as the square of the distance from the centre of gravity of the generating mass ( unless you are inside a hollow body in which case– oh, never mind) Which demonstrates that a constant quantity is spreading out over an ever larger area, not volume.

Einstein's theory of special relativity is just that; a theory. It is not Revealed Truth, and is almost certainly wrong. In fact, if quantum entanglement can be proved it kicks out one of the basic premises; that simultaneity has no meaning, and any frame of reference is as valid as any other. What it is is better than any competing model at describing the universe as we see it, and whatever theory supersedes it will definitely contain elements of it, or even be a mildly corrected version of the original.

[Ursa major]

I understand that for all practical purposes, c is the maximum possible velocity observed in our universe (putting entanglement to one side, for a moment).

However, doesn't the current theory include events which are not bound by this limit. Inflation, for one. Isn't one of the desired effects of Inflation that it explains the rather uniform universe we see (with respect to background radiation), even though the passage of photons through that universe is limited to c?

[GrownUp]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I understand that for all practical purposes, c is the maximum possible velocity observed in our universe (putting entanglement to one side, for a moment).

However, doesn't the current theory include events which are not bound by this limit. Inflation, for one. Isn't one of the desired effects of Inflation that it explains the rather uniform universe we see (with respect to background radiation), even though the passage of photons through that universe is limited to c?

Yep. Inflation = superluminal expansion.

(I was going to just say yep, but the forum wouldn't let me post a reply of less than 7 characters. Wonder why?
I mean, sometimes yep is all you need...)

[Ursa major]

Yep....

[GrownUp]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Yep....

How did you do that?

[Boneman]

Highlight his speech as if you were going to copy it, keep going - all will be revealed!

[GrownUp]

Ah! Yer a divil.

[Chinook]

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

A photon has mass; what it doesn't have is any rest mass, but since they never stop moving, this is no handicap. Since energy =k X mass,(where, as every schoolboy knows, k is cee squared) to have any energy it's forced to create a small quantity of gravity, and de diverted by large quantities of it.

No wonder schoolboys have so much energy. (When I was a schoolboy I always wanted a 'k' for X mass.) *groan*

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

Gravity operates in three dimensions. We know this because it drops off as the square of the distance from the centre of gravity of the generating mass ( unless you are inside a hollow body in which case– oh, never mind) Which demonstrates that a constant quantity is spreading out over an ever larger area, not volume.

Didn't you mean an ever larger volume, not area?

Originally Posted by chrispenycate

Einstein's theory of special relativity is just that; a theory. It is not Revealed Truth, and is almost certainly wrong. In fact, if quantum entanglement can be proved it kicks out one of the basic premises; that simultaneity has no meaning, and any frame of reference is as valid as any other. What it is is better than any competing model at describing the universe as we see it, and whatever theory supersedes it will definitely contain elements of it, or even be a mildly corrected version of the original.

Yep. And gravity can be shown to travel much faster than light. If folks care to see the pure mathematics, and science, they are here:
The Speed of Gravity - What the Experiments Say

Essentially, if it took gravity the same amount of to reach Earth as does light (8.3 minutes) the effects would be largely noticeable in measurements taken to determine the mass, and angular velocity of the planets. The delay involved would accumulate to the extent that the planets would no longer stay in a near perfect orbit around the sun, and would in fact slowly spiral out further and further. From the abstract:

If gravity from the Sun propagated outward at the speed of light, the transmission delay would progressively increase the angular momentum of bodies orbiting the Sun at so great a rate that orbital radii would double in about 1000 revolutions.

I read somewhere (now I can't find it! ), that experiments were done showing that lights' trajectory upon hitting a flat surface on the moving Earth could be shown to take on the slightest trace of momentum (like throwing a ball at a moving train - only the speeds involved would be much greater). The light is "shifted" ever so slightly when it "bounces" back. I guess this has more to do with proving Chris's first statement (photons have mass). Anyway, the paper comes to this conclusion:

The Speed of Gravity is ( 2x10 to the power of 10) times (C) (at least)

[BookStop]

What's the difference between mass and rest mass? The Higgs boson is supposed to give mass to objects with no rest mass? How does it supposedly do this?

(byt he way, when I picture particles in my head, I picture solid chunks of ...I was going to say mass, but maybe stuff is better here...stuff, like grains of sand or balls. However, seeing as particles can be be enegry an not solid stuff, I'm not sure how to picture the photon or the corresponding quarks, glouns, and definitely the boson that the science geeks* are trying to find)

*when I say science geeks, I mean the brilliant minds that think these things up and whose intellect is far superior to mine (likely) and it is a term of respect in my household. I have a science geek kid, but she's not so educated yet as to be able to explain these concepts in simple terms to her mother

[Chinook]

Originally Posted by BookStop

What's the difference between mass and rest mass? The Higgs boson is supposed to give mass to objects with no rest mass? How does it supposedly do this?

Particles simplified:

An atom was once thought to be the smallest part of individual matter that we could find. As technology marches on, we find new ways of "measuring" smaller and smaller parts of things and it seems the deeper we go, the more mystery we keep finding. We now know that an atom is made up of a nucleus with paired up neutrons and protons circled by spinning electrons (I'm sure you've heard this). What is not stressed as often is the relative size of these things, or the difficulty involved in actually observing them. The distance in relative terms between the nucleus and the electron (even in the simplest atom - Hydrogen) can be compared to the distance (if a nucleus were as big as the sun) between the sun and Jupiter. What's interesting to me about that is that the whole of our existence is mostly empty space. (as far as we can tell) It is the speed (of light) at which the electron whirls around the nucleus that makes it seem solid. A photon seems to exist only in it's "moving" form. Even if we try to freeze it (literally) we cannot get it below a certain level of energy. This is why it is said that a photon has no "rest mass". It's totally restless. When we try to "look" at atoms, if we bombard them with light (bunches of photons) the photons impart their energy to the atoms, nuclei, etc., and knock the particles around like balls on a pool table. That's why they have to "smash" them together and surround them with detectors to see what's inside. Each basic particle has a force that acts upon it. Boson is another word for the force acting upon the photon. The standard model I have referred to has been developed by physicists over the last century, partly because they can also use mathematics to "predict" the existence of various particles, and much of what has been predicted has been found in the labratory or in particle accelerator experiments. Some of these particles only exist for millionths of a second before they get absorbed back into whatever is around. The accelerator has a very fast shutter so it can "catch" a picture of the particles before they dissipate, disappear, etc. The Higgs boson is a theoretical particle (also described as a "field") that is predicted by the mathematics of particle physics. If we could reproduce it, even for the tiniest flash of a second, we could watch how it gives mass to the other so called "mass-less" things, basically converting them into neutrons, protons, electrons, and such. I hope that clarifies it a bit and didn't confuse things even more.

[BookStop]

Originally Posted by Chinook

Particles simplified:

A photon seems to exist only in it's "moving" form. Even if we try to freeze it (literally) we cannot get it below a certain level of energy. This is why it is said that a photon has no "rest mass". It's totally restless. When we try to "look" at atoms, if we bombard them with light (bunches of photons) the photons impart their energy to the atoms, nuclei, etc., and knock the particles around like balls on a pool table. That's why they have to "smash" them together and surround them with detectors to see what's inside. Each basic particle has a force that acts upon it. Boson is another word for the force acting upon the photon. The standard model I have referred to has been developed by physicists over the last century, partly because they can also use mathematics to "predict" the existence of various particles, and much of what has been predicted has been found in the labratory or in particle accelerator experiments. Some of these particles only exist for millionths of a second before they get absorbed back into whatever is around. The accelerator has a very fast shutter so it can "catch" a picture of the particles before they dissipate, disappear, etc. The Higgs boson is a theoretical particle (also described as a "field") that is predicted by the mathematics of particle physics. If we could reproduce it, even for the tiniest flash of a second, we could watch how it gives mass to the other so called "mass-less" things, basically converting them into neutrons, protons, electrons, and such. I hope that clarifies it a bit and didn't confuse things even more.

Thank you, Chinook, I think I am starting to have a glimmer of understanding. The bold text was exactly what I was having trouble getting my head around. Turns out it is because I was thinking things that were not correct, not correct at all. This seems simple now