I know about particle and antiparticle annihilation creating photons, but can't photons be " made " when mass converts to energy, other than particle antiparticle annihilation?
Best to all,
Pat
Well, yes, this is what happens in the core of a star, for example
I was delighted to read all your messages and I would like to thank you all. I think I have now a better understanding of dark matter and dark energy, and I try to fit it in my understanding of the universe. Nobody wrote that G = mc^2; gravity is equal to energy since Einstein held that E = mc^2. In my understanding, gravitational energy of a photon or quantum particle is only half the energy of the photon, the other half being kinetic energy (K). The total energy of a photon is E = G + K, because I proposed that the photon or the quantum particle consisted of two equal but opposite gravitational and kinetic forces and energies.
According to Nobody the dark energy is the gravitational energy and it is carried by the gravitons particles. I agree with that because the gravitational energy of the universe gives it its universal gravitational constant. Similarily, I think that the other opposite kinetic energy and kinetic force of the photon makes up the cosmological constant that Einstein speculated about. I think Einstein's biggest mistake was to accept the Big Bang theory and to reject his idea of the cosmological constant. To me the cosmological constant is the consequence of the kinectic force and energy of photons. I agree with Neutralino that it is the cosmological constant that is constantly driving the acceleration and the push for expansion of the universe. However, the cosmological constant is constantly equaled and opposed by the gravitational constant making the universe static as Einstein first proposed.
Neutralino seems to reject the idea that a photon could be a mini black hole. Certainly one can not see the mini black hole of a photon because it moves at the speed of light and according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it's size is zero. Thus in this regard, the mini black hole of a photon could be regarded as being virtual. However, the photon particle exhibits both gravitational and kinetic effects as shown according to Einstein's theory. If the photon particle consists of two equal but opposite kinetic and gravitational energies, as I speculate, than its gravitational potential energy is equal but opposite to its kinetic energy:
U = K; where (U) stands for the gravitational potential energy and (K) stands for the kinetic energy.
But (U) = (G m^2) / r where G stands for universal gravitational constant, m stands for the virtual mass of the photon and r stands for the virtual radius of virtual blackhoke of the photon particle. (K) = ( m c^2) / 2; where (K) stands for the kinetic energy of the photon particle and (c) stands for the speed of light.
Thus, if U = K; than (G m^2) / r = ( m c^2 ) / 2 ; and this would give:
r = ( 2 G m ) / c^2; and this the formula of the Schwartzchild radius of a blackhole.
I speculated that the photon particle had virtual mass because a photon particle exhibits both gravitational and kinetic effects on other particles as Einstein had speculated and it has be proven by science. According to Einstein, when an object with zero rest mass is accelerated by energy eg. by photons, it will increase both its gravitational and kinetic energies and mass. This could be possible if the photon has gravitational and kinetic energies and mass. Since the mass of a photon is not observable because it travels at the speed of light, it can be regarded as being virtual. This virtual mass of the photon could than regarded as being the dark matter of the universe.
Excellent read, cosvis. I think you're the first to perhaps explain things as I understand them - explain them better I might add.
The only exception might be the virtual particles as being unobservable, if the particles that are observed are virtual (longer-lived) themselves and result as the cumulation of energy transfers that require more time to be observed. I disagree with the interpretation that virtual particles do their thing when not observed, if that is what you were implying, but that space itself, bonding, redshifting, etc., are all due to time dilation as inforamtion is recreated over an infinite(?) number of scales - short-lived to "real."
I like the way you explained the balanced universe, as Einstein proposed. I think it is only possible to directly observe half the "truth" of the matter, as they say, with time in only one direction. As it is observed and defined, it seems to be related to matter in motion only, without the consideration that gravity must form matter in reversed time - as inertia - which is exactly balanced at zero relative to spatial expansion, the two relative forms of energy you speak of, to logically retain universal symmetry.
What do you mean by this? I don't see how it relates to the rest of your comment (which, by the way, is just a rewording of what I said, and thus I agree with)
I agree that lacked in clarity. What I meant was that if the universe is expanding, it would be a physical or molecular expansion, due to our imperfect vacuum, therefore dark energy would follow local laws at the point(s) of expansion, where they become baryonic to interact with matter. In other words, dark energy will possibly follow different sets of laws in different areas of the universe.
Just a thought.
Best regards
Zelta
__________________ "Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life"
"But although all our knowledge begins with experience, it does not follow that it arises from experience."
"Happiness is not an ideal of reason, but of imagination."
I was delighted to read all your messages and I would like to thank you all. I think I have now a better understanding of dark matter and dark energy, and I try to fit it in my understanding of the universe. Nobody wrote that G = mc^2; gravity is equal to energy since Einstein held that E = mc^2. In my understanding, gravitational energy of a photon or quantum particle is only half the energy of the photon, the other half being kinetic energy (K). The total energy of a photon is E = G + K, because I proposed that the photon or the quantum particle consisted of two equal but opposite gravitational and kinetic forces and energies.
What is 'G' here? Later, you go on to use G in the conventional way. You cannot mean that G is the gravitational constant here, or else all matter would have the same mass; this does not make sense.
Incidentally, I don't see why so many people try and play around with E=mc^2.
Quote:
According to Nobody the dark energy is the gravitational energy and it is carried by the gravitons particles. I agree with that because the gravitational energy of the universe gives it its universal gravitational constant.
This is wrong. The graviton is something that particle physicists have made up to be the mediator of the gravitational force. (In Quantum Field Theory, every force has a mediator; the mediator of the electromagnetic force is the photon, for example). The gravitational force is not synonymous with dark energy. I'm not sure whether you read what I wrote above, but that should make it pretty clear.
Quote:
Similarily, I think that the other opposite kinetic energy and kinetic force of the photon makes up the cosmological constant that Einstein speculated about.
There is no way that this can be true. Dark energy is not something that is attributed to matter, or to particles, but is something fundamental in the spacetime itself. If dark energy is a cosmological constant, then it will have the same value throughout the universe; if it is quintessense, then there could be variation, and the dark energy could be a function of time. But, however you look at it, dark energy is not related to a photon.
Quote:
I think Einstein's biggest mistake was to accept the Big Bang theory and to reject his idea of the cosmological constant. To me the cosmological constant is the consequence of the kinectic force and energy of photons. I agree with Neutralino that it is the cosmological constant that is constantly driving the acceleration and the push for expansion of the universe. However, the cosmological constant is constantly equaled and opposed by the gravitational constant making the universe static as Einstein first proposed.
So, you are proposing a static model for the universe?
Quote:
Neutralino seems to reject the idea that a photon could be a mini black hole.
Well, yes I do. Photons can be observed. If they were black holes, there would be no way to observe them. I think this is a rather bad idea, to be honest.
Quote:
But (U) = (G m^2) / r where G stands for universal gravitational constant, m stands for the virtual mass of the photon and r stands for the virtual radius of virtual blackhoke of the photon particle. (K) = ( m c^2) / 2; where (K) stands for the kinetic energy of the photon particle and (c) stands for the speed of light.
Thus, if U = K; than (G m^2) / r = ( m c^2 ) / 2 ; and this would give:
r = ( 2 G m ) / c^2; and this the formula of the Schwartzchild radius of a blackhole.
If, as you say, the photon is a black hole then it will need to have mass; it doesn't. In the above calculations, you use a mass for the photon, and do not explain what it is (it certainly isn't the rest mass!). Furthermore, if you want to talk about kinetic energy, or potential energy of a "black hole," you need to use relativity.
Quote:
I speculated that the photon particle had virtual mass because a photon particle exhibits both gravitational and kinetic effects on other particles as Einstein had speculated and it has be proven by science. According to Einstein, when an object with zero rest mass is accelerated by energy eg. by photons, it will increase both its gravitational and kinetic energies and mass. This could be possible if the photon has gravitational and kinetic energies and mass. Since the mass of a photon is not observable because it travels at the speed of light, it can be regarded as being virtual. This virtual mass of the photon could than regarded as being the dark matter of the universe.
Why does this all have to be about photons? If these weren't photons and you were just talking about small black holes then, yes, they could be candidates for dark matter. (Do a search for primordial black holes if you're interested). But attributed some "virtual mass," which is not measured, to a photon is just wrong.
What exactly do you propose happens inside stars, neutralino?
Nucleosynthesis. It should be noted that, for the most part, I believe in the standard models, and do not have "models of my own." For example, I think we know enough about stellar structure and formation to know pretty well what happens in stars.
Electrons and other particles emit photons, these photons are called virtual photons, in the sense that they are emitted and immediately reabsorbed.
Yes, but these photons don't really exist. To be honest, we don't even know if this is 100% true: what actually happens when the fundamental forces act between particles is still somewhat of a mystery.
Quote:
I am a little confused on your virtual mass concept, can you please elaborate further?
I don't understand this virtual mass concept either. Whatever it is, it cannot be "real" mass, and thus the photon cannot be a black hole.
The standard model is nothing more than a consensus based on synthesizing models and interpretations. I think that point is somewhat moot, debatable.
The graviton-dark energy connection was misconstrued as conforming with common interpretations of dark energy. Rather, not speaking for cosvis, the contraction of mass exactly equals spatial expansion. In effect, as it would be observed, spatail expansion is nothing more than black-body radiation. Redshifting would then be due to changing wavelengths, not "space expanding" in the literal sense because as Einstein noted, "objects are spatially-extended."
Also, the nucleosynthesis can be interpreted, as per SLAC's interpretation of mass being energy, as annihilation of matter and antimatter creating variable gamma bursts that create all forms of matter and antimatter, which continue the process of annihilation and creation. In-phase waves produce heavier elements.
Linear Mode
