Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Are the Concepts of Mass in Quantum Theory and General Relativity the Same?
34 views
Skip to first unread message
ar...@umich.edu
Dec 4, 2011, 1:54:26 PM12/4/11
to
Hello,
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:
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87999
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.
Armin
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:
http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87999
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.
Armin
Frisbieinstein
Dec 6, 2011, 6:52:03 AM12/6/11
to
On Dec 5, 1:54=A0am, ar...@umich.edu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 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:
>
> http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87999
>
> 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 =A0the logical possibility of an unexpected
> Hello,
>
> 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:
>
> http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/87999
>
> 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
> 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.
>
> Armin
Interesting. I have a had a similar question. If the particle goes
> 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.
>
> Armin
through both slits, where does the mass go? Presumably this wouldn't
effect how the particle falls in gravity, but what about the
attraction it has on other objects? There could be some clever way to
find a difference in astronomical data, or something.
Anon E. Mouse
Dec 19, 2011, 4:21:51 PM12/19/11
to
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.
AAG
eric gisse
Dec 20, 2011, 3:27:20 AM12/20/11
to
==== Moderator's note ==================================================
I've shortened the full quotation to the essential point for this short,
but well justified, question.
========================================================================
"Anon E. Mouse" <agal...@gmail.com> wrote in news:df584627-e53a-44e8-
ba92-f07...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> 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.
..and do you have any evidence for this?
[...]
I've shortened the full quotation to the essential point for this short,
but well justified, question.
========================================================================
"Anon E. Mouse" <agal...@gmail.com> wrote in news:df584627-e53a-44e8-
ba92-f07...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> 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.
[...]
Anon E. Mouse
Dec 21, 2011, 3:37:03 PM12/21/11
to
On Dec 20, 4:27 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ==== Moderator's note ====================================================
>
> "Anon E. Mouse" <agall...@gmail.com> wrote in news:df584627-e53a-44e8-
> ba92-f07cd5326...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
state to superstate they climb up the walls of the container and will
climb out if not constrained. It takes really good seals on the
threads of the container to maintain confinement once the fluid
transitions. (These are closed vessel type experiments with secondary
external cooling.)
This result is so surprising and counter intuitive I have heard
several experimentalists comment on it.
If you would like to see a video that in part documents the effects I
am referring to you can follow this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI
It is perhaps possible that all observed effects are due only to the
transition to zero viscosity, but I have been told this question has
been examined and seems ruled out.
As for any measured change in mass, I'm sorry I but don't have a
published reference on this question. As I said, I do not know that it
has been publicly reported but I do believe it has been examined. The
following quotations from Wikipedia indicate the reality of the issue
and the references may indicate resources for further research in the
relevant literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid
Theories
L. D. Landau's phenomenological and semi-microscopic theory of
superfluidity of helium-4 earned him the Nobel Prize in physics, in
1962. Assuming that sound waves are the most important excitations in
helium-4 at low temperatures, he showed that helium-4 flowing past a
wall would not spontaneously create excitations if the flow velocity
was less than the sound velocity. In this model, the sound velocity is
the "critical velocity" above which superfluidity is destroyed.
(Helium-4 actually has a lower flow velocity than the sound velocity,
but this model is useful to illustrate the concept.) Landau also
showed that the sound wave and other excitations could equilibrate
with one another and flow separately from the rest of the helium-4,
which is known as the "condensate".
From the momentum and flow velocity of the excitations he could then
define a "normal fluid" density, which is zero at zero temperature and
increases with temperature. At the so-called Lambda temperature, where
the normal fluid density equals the total density, the helium-4 is no
longer superfluid.
Properties
Theoretically, a normal fluid phase of non-zero entropy can coexist
with a superfluidic phase with zero entropy. This leads to the strange
phenomenon of a two-fluid model, in which there can be a transfer of
mass without a transfer of energy: when such a fluid/superfluid system
is introduced in a setup that would normally trap a fluid, the
superfluid can flow out due to its zero-viscosity property, leaving
the normal fluid behind. Thus, part of the fluid system's mass is
transferred without any energy transfer (since the superfluid has zero
entropy).
Perhaps I should have said that superfluids do not respect the rules
of momentum and interia, instead of gravitation, but the
interconnectedness of these characteristics in classical mechanics is
well known and the disconnectedness of these characteristics in
superfluids is similarly well known.
> ==== Moderator's note ====================================================
> I've shortened the full quotation to the essential point for this short,
> but well justified, question.
> ==========================================================================
> but well justified, question.
>
> "Anon E. Mouse" <agall...@gmail.com> wrote in news:df584627-e53a-44e8-
> ba92-f07cd5326...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > 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.
>
> ..and do you have any evidence for this?
>
> [...]
When the fluid of a super fluid makes the transition from a normal
> > 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.
>
> ..and do you have any evidence for this?
>
> [...]
state to superstate they climb up the walls of the container and will
climb out if not constrained. It takes really good seals on the
threads of the container to maintain confinement once the fluid
transitions. (These are closed vessel type experiments with secondary
external cooling.)
This result is so surprising and counter intuitive I have heard
several experimentalists comment on it.
If you would like to see a video that in part documents the effects I
am referring to you can follow this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI
It is perhaps possible that all observed effects are due only to the
transition to zero viscosity, but I have been told this question has
been examined and seems ruled out.
As for any measured change in mass, I'm sorry I but don't have a
published reference on this question. As I said, I do not know that it
has been publicly reported but I do believe it has been examined. The
following quotations from Wikipedia indicate the reality of the issue
and the references may indicate resources for further research in the
relevant literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluid
Theories
L. D. Landau's phenomenological and semi-microscopic theory of
superfluidity of helium-4 earned him the Nobel Prize in physics, in
1962. Assuming that sound waves are the most important excitations in
helium-4 at low temperatures, he showed that helium-4 flowing past a
wall would not spontaneously create excitations if the flow velocity
was less than the sound velocity. In this model, the sound velocity is
the "critical velocity" above which superfluidity is destroyed.
(Helium-4 actually has a lower flow velocity than the sound velocity,
but this model is useful to illustrate the concept.) Landau also
showed that the sound wave and other excitations could equilibrate
with one another and flow separately from the rest of the helium-4,
which is known as the "condensate".
From the momentum and flow velocity of the excitations he could then
define a "normal fluid" density, which is zero at zero temperature and
increases with temperature. At the so-called Lambda temperature, where
the normal fluid density equals the total density, the helium-4 is no
longer superfluid.
Properties
Theoretically, a normal fluid phase of non-zero entropy can coexist
with a superfluidic phase with zero entropy. This leads to the strange
phenomenon of a two-fluid model, in which there can be a transfer of
mass without a transfer of energy: when such a fluid/superfluid system
is introduced in a setup that would normally trap a fluid, the
superfluid can flow out due to its zero-viscosity property, leaving
the normal fluid behind. Thus, part of the fluid system's mass is
transferred without any energy transfer (since the superfluid has zero
entropy).
Perhaps I should have said that superfluids do not respect the rules
of momentum and interia, instead of gravitation, but the
interconnectedness of these characteristics in classical mechanics is
well known and the disconnectedness of these characteristics in
superfluids is similarly well known.
eric gisse
Dec 22, 2011, 12:59:21 PM12/22/11
to
"Anon E. Mouse" <agal...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1bf29bb4-0c24-4d55...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
[...]
>> > 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.
>>
>> ..and do you have any evidence for this?
>>
>> [...]
>
> When the fluid of a super fluid makes the transition from a normal
> state to superstate they climb up the walls of the container and will
> climb out if not constrained.
Superfluids climbing walls is no more gravity defying than capillary
action.
[snip ramble]
Anon E. Mouse
Dec 23, 2011, 3:09:49 AM12/23/11
to
> [snip ramble]
One reference discusses the transfer of mass w/o the transfer of
energy in this phenomina, "Thus, part of the fluid system's mass is
operation. This phenomena is difficult to explain invoking capillary
action alone.
Another reference discusses the quantization of rotation inertia in
super fluids. A phenomena inconsistent with classical definitions of
mass and with relativistic definitions.
A fourth reference discusses difficulties associated with super fluid
density assessment and related problems explaining transfer of sound
wave energy a clear violation of momentum conservation, also possibly
explicable due to a complete lack of viscosity. However, how do you
"explain" the complete lack of viscosity. This leads directly to the
wave superposition model and the mass equivalence question raised in
Armin's paper.
I think the question raised in Armin's paper is interesting and
deserve a considered response. So, can you provide reference material
that supports the assumption of mass equivalence?
The best experimental evidence of this type of which I am aware come
from Eotvos balance experiments which only deal with classical masses
and are only valid when no change of elevation influences the
experiment. When a change in elevation within a gravitational field is
included then even the Eotvos balance spins and so equivalence is
broken even for classical masses because these appear to have a spin
component as an intrinsic part of their conserved inertial moment
(Relativity).
I repeat, can you provide ANY references to experimental evidence that
supports a presumption of mass equivalence across platforms of
relativity and quantum theory?
One reference discusses the transfer of mass w/o the transfer of
energy in this phenomina, "Thus, part of the fluid system's mass is
transferred without any energy transfer (since the superfluid has zero
entropy)."
Another references I provided shows a molecular fountain in continuous
entropy)."
operation. This phenomena is difficult to explain invoking capillary
action alone.
Another reference discusses the quantization of rotation inertia in
super fluids. A phenomena inconsistent with classical definitions of
mass and with relativistic definitions.
A fourth reference discusses difficulties associated with super fluid
density assessment and related problems explaining transfer of sound
wave energy a clear violation of momentum conservation, also possibly
explicable due to a complete lack of viscosity. However, how do you
"explain" the complete lack of viscosity. This leads directly to the
wave superposition model and the mass equivalence question raised in
Armin's paper.
I think the question raised in Armin's paper is interesting and
deserve a considered response. So, can you provide reference material
that supports the assumption of mass equivalence?
The best experimental evidence of this type of which I am aware come
from Eotvos balance experiments which only deal with classical masses
and are only valid when no change of elevation influences the
experiment. When a change in elevation within a gravitational field is
included then even the Eotvos balance spins and so equivalence is
broken even for classical masses because these appear to have a spin
component as an intrinsic part of their conserved inertial moment
(Relativity).
I repeat, can you provide ANY references to experimental evidence that
supports a presumption of mass equivalence across platforms of
relativity and quantum theory?
ANS
Jan 2, 2012, 1:04:30 PM1/2/12
to
Dear Anon E. Mouse,
Thank you for your extensive comments. I had considered some phenomena
in condensed matter, including superfluidity, but frankly, due to the
fact that I still have to learn a lot in this area I have been very
reluctant to draw any connections with the question raised in my paper
until I understand it better. I find your comments very useful as
leads to investigate further, if you could let me know which
references you cited that would be great.
A possibly related issue may be the highly controversial claim by
Podkletnov of having observed gravity modification effects in an
experiment involving a rotating superconductor. While I myself find
the substantial upward correction of the effect from his initial paper
suspect, I would have liked the refutation of his claims to have been
more conclusive. The purported existence of such an effect would have
such a profound effect on our fundamental understanding of nature that
a mere two experiments which he disputes seem like a rather meager
effort to investigate it. The scientific principle to follow would be
'when in doubt, just do another experiment' especially if it is not
relatively difficult to perform, but I have the impression that
somehow there is a taboo associated with his claim which may cause the
investigation of this question to follow a different principle. But
again, I am not comfortable with drawing any connections with the
quantum/classical mass equivalence, especially since at this time his
claim has a low probability of being correct.
I am trying to think of other unexpected effects that could be tested
for, and have a couple of possibilities in mind which I need to study
more thoroughly before I can be reasonably certain that they are
predictions of this idea.
Armin
Thank you for your extensive comments. I had considered some phenomena
in condensed matter, including superfluidity, but frankly, due to the
fact that I still have to learn a lot in this area I have been very
reluctant to draw any connections with the question raised in my paper
until I understand it better. I find your comments very useful as
leads to investigate further, if you could let me know which
references you cited that would be great.
A possibly related issue may be the highly controversial claim by
Podkletnov of having observed gravity modification effects in an
experiment involving a rotating superconductor. While I myself find
the substantial upward correction of the effect from his initial paper
suspect, I would have liked the refutation of his claims to have been
more conclusive. The purported existence of such an effect would have
such a profound effect on our fundamental understanding of nature that
a mere two experiments which he disputes seem like a rather meager
effort to investigate it. The scientific principle to follow would be
'when in doubt, just do another experiment' especially if it is not
relatively difficult to perform, but I have the impression that
somehow there is a taboo associated with his claim which may cause the
investigation of this question to follow a different principle. But
again, I am not comfortable with drawing any connections with the
quantum/classical mass equivalence, especially since at this time his
claim has a low probability of being correct.
I am trying to think of other unexpected effects that could be tested
for, and have a couple of possibilities in mind which I need to study
more thoroughly before I can be reasonably certain that they are
predictions of this idea.
Armin
eric gisse
Jan 2, 2012, 5:42:19 PM1/2/12
to
ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote in news:c39d0e32-f544-4354-b363-
cd7a6a...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> A possibly related issue may be the highly controversial claim by
> Podkletnov of having observed gravity modification effects in an
> experiment involving a rotating superconductor. While I myself find
> the substantial upward correction of the effect from his initial paper
> suspect, I would have liked the refutation of his claims to have been
> more conclusive.
Is there a reason that you do not consider the fact that nobody has been
able to replicate his work "conclusive" enough?
[...]
cd7a6a...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
[...]
> A possibly related issue may be the highly controversial claim by
> Podkletnov of having observed gravity modification effects in an
> experiment involving a rotating superconductor. While I myself find
> the substantial upward correction of the effect from his initial paper
> suspect, I would have liked the refutation of his claims to have been
> more conclusive.
able to replicate his work "conclusive" enough?
[...]
Dr BDO Adams
Jan 12, 2012, 9:39:49 AM1/12/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI
Isn't that just a Syphon, after the fluid has gone up the wall it is
pulled down the other side and then it drips. Thats not gravity defying.
Can the process start without the walls being helium wet first? Overall
the helium is finding its lowest energy in the gravitional potential as
normal. Wetting by thin film would also happen if helium as an
attraction to the glass.
Isn't that just a Syphon, after the fluid has gone up the wall it is
pulled down the other side and then it drips. Thats not gravity defying.
Can the process start without the walls being helium wet first? Overall
the helium is finding its lowest energy in the gravitional potential as
normal. Wetting by thin film would also happen if helium as an
attraction to the glass.
Dr BDO Adams
Jan 13, 2012, 5:39:38 PM1/13/12
to
would in the most straightforward way imply that its gravitational field must also be in a superposition."
But I would not like photons or EM radiation not to be an active source of gravity. In particular that would break the result that universe of just light and gravity would have zero total energy, only of the few cases in GR where global energy is well defined, and breaking that would also the only reason I know why the Higgs field doesn't generate a cosmological constant. (That the same Higg field can also be expressed as a Massless field in a different basis).
Barry Adams
ANS
Feb 18, 2012, 4:18:48 AM2/18/12
to
On Jan 2, 5:42 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote in news:c39d0e32-f544-4354-b363-
> cd7a6a9fa...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> ANS <ar...@umich.edu> wrote in news:c39d0e32-f544-4354-b363-
>
> [...]
>
> > A possibly related issue may be the highly controversial claim by
> > Podkletnov of having observed gravity modification effects in an
> > experiment involving a rotating superconductor. While I myself find
> > the substantial upward correction of the effect from his initial paper
> > suspect, I would have liked the refutation of his claims to have been
> > more conclusive.
>
> Is there a reason that you do not consider the fact that nobody has been
> able to replicate his work "conclusive" enough?
>
> [...]
Eric,
> [...]
>
> > A possibly related issue may be the highly controversial claim by
> > Podkletnov of having observed gravity modification effects in an
> > experiment involving a rotating superconductor. While I myself find
> > the substantial upward correction of the effect from his initial paper
> > suspect, I would have liked the refutation of his claims to have been
> > more conclusive.
>
> Is there a reason that you do not consider the fact that nobody has been
> able to replicate his work "conclusive" enough?
>
> [...]
Pardon the long delay in responding, I hadn't checked this thread in
some time. To answer your question, I would like to first point out
that I am only superficially familiar with Podkletnov's work. While I
agree that there are good reasons to be skeptical, I was simply
stating my preference for a greater number of attempts to replicate
his experiment, simply because if his results have any merit the
implications would be very important. Don't you think that if "nobody"
means 0 out of, say, 2 attempts it is less convincing of a refutation
than if it means 0 out of, say, 10? I have only found a few attempts
to try to replicate his experiments, and given the potential
significance if true, that would appear to lend credence to his claims
that there seems to be a reluctance for other scientists to get
involved in this type of experiment.
Armin
0 new messages