Message from discussion Are the Concepts of Mass in Quantum Theory and General Relativity
Received: by 10.68.73.229 with SMTP id o5mr17910337pbv.7.1324329712298;
Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:21:52 -0800 (PST)
From: "Anon E. Mouse" <agall...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Are the Concepts of Mass in Quantum Theory and General Relativity
Date: 19 Dec 2011 21:21:51 +0000 (GMT)
Approved: hel...@astro.mNuOlStPiAvMax.de (sci.physics.research) X-Mod-No.: 02
X-Trace: chiark.greenend.org.uk 1324329711 10835 188.8.131.52 (19 Dec 2011 21:21:51 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:21:51 +0000 (UTC)
Originator: @hydra.herts.ac.uk ([184.108.40.206])
On Dec 4, 2:54 pm, ar...@umich.edu wrote:
> I just finished a short paper with this title in which I basically
> argued that there exists an experimental loophole which allows at least
> in principle (and, of course, highly improbably under the current
> paradigm) the answer to this question to be no. The ideal experiment to
> close the loophole would be the measurement of the gravity field of
> radiation in transit.
> The link can be found here:
> My purpose for drawing attention to it in this forum is twofold:
> 1. The paper is intended to hopefully motivate experimentalists to
> attempt the experiment. I suspect the fact that such an experiment would
> be both extremely challenging and is not expected to produce any
> surprises may dissuade experimentalists from even considering it, so I
> tried to make the case for the logical possibility of an unexpected
> outcome, although I think even the expected outcome would make this a
> very significant experiment.
> 2. An unexpected outcome would have extremely broad implications.
> Although I have tried to educate myself about the implications, I must
> honestly acknowledge that I don't have enough knowledge about the
> implications in all the fields that would be affected if the prediction
> in the paper were confirmed. Perhaps someone with expertise in a
> particular field might care to share their view about whether the
> prediction given in the paper is not already contradicted (or supported)
> by some empirical results not mentioned in the paper. I would certainly
> appreciate that.
> My motivation for bringing this up stems from some ideas about what the
> underlying meaning of quantum mechanics is, but in this context that is
> not important, I have only tried to address the question above.
In a sense the falsification experiment you propose has already been
done. The behavior of super-fluids which are believed to exist in a
state of superposition do not respect the "rules" of gravitation in
effect, they seem to oppose them.
I do not know if a measure mass deficit in super-fluids has been
established in any experiments to date, but I do know that absent a
plausible theory that might account for such a finding many
researchers would be cautious in drawing attention to such a result.
Similarly, the cosmological literature for Solar mass is replete with
references to an apparent deficit of light elements. If your
supposition is correct, photons could be the missing light element.
"Transport Phenomena and Light Element Abundances in the Sun and Solar
Type Stars" is an example, although not necessarily an explicit
example - there are likely to be better.
Quite a remarkable paper sir, keep up the good work.