- #76

- 2,552

- 3

And vice versa if we collide an electron and positron and we get a photon out, It seems like the G field of the electron and positron would get transferred to the photon.

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Tantalos
- Start date

- #76

- 2,552

- 3

And vice versa if we collide an electron and positron and we get a photon out, It seems like the G field of the electron and positron would get transferred to the photon.

- #77

- 15,415

- 687

Caveat: I am not an expert in GR.I do not believe the topic is whether photons gravitate, the topic is whether a single photon can create a gravitational field, these are in my mind two different things.

My understanding is that a single photon does not create a gravitational field. A collection of photons can, however. The intrinsic mass of a collection of particles is

[tex]m = \frac{\sqrt{E^2 - p^2c^2}}{c^2}[/tex]

where

For a single photon, E=pc, so the intrinsic mass of a single photon is zero. Now consider photons created by an electron-positron annihilation. In the rest frame of the (former) electron-positron pair, the created photons have zero net momentum. The total energy of these photons is equal to the 2m

Last edited:

- #78

- 32,410

- 9,395

If you believe that GR is correct and that we are wrong then you do not understand GR. I recommend further study. In particular, you should learn about pp-wave spacetimes.No, im saying you are all wrong.

- #79

- 32,410

- 9,395

I like this. That is a good point.But we don't need a quantum theory of gravity to answer this question. All we need is QED in curved spacetime, and that is no problem at all.

- Observationally, we know single photons fall.
- GR says that momentum is conserved (in this case).
- Therefore, single photons must gravitate.

That conclusion can only be escaped by asserting GR is incorrect.

This one is the dangerous approach. How can you define T when the photon does not have a definite energy, momentum, and location at any given time? Actually, I am not even sure that spacetime can be represented by a manifold at sufficiently small scales due to quantum effects.Alternatively, one can put in a single photon inTand again GR shows the effect onG.

- #80

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2021 Award

- 27,691

- 11,973

A single photon does create a gravitational field, because T is non-zero. If T is non-zero, so is G.

- #81

- 32,410

- 9,395

If T is non-zero then what is T?

- #82

- 67

- 0

"everything" distorts/curves/interrupts etc space-time

thats what gravity is

thats what gravity is

- #83

- 10,124

- 1,280

While GR is a classical theory, and doesn't have anything to do directly with photons per se, you can model a photon in GR as a packet of light. Which is essentially what Tolman et al did in the 1931 paper I mentioned earlier, with the results I mentioned - parallel light packets don't attract each other, there is no "self focusing" effect of light due to gravity, but beams in opposite directions do interact gravitationally.

- #84

- 267

- 2

Please!!! In this thread there has been nothing but manipulation of Albert’s general relativity to produce a theoretical scenario where imaginary particle states can produce gravitation. Its not the photon with gravitation that is bugging me, it’s the use of Albert’s notions in producing general relativity to prove your hypothesis of bosons produce gravity is false because the theory in its entirety didn’t explain theoretical zero mass particles producing gravity and your existence to interpret the information in such a way to try and change theoretical understandings of a particle. What are you suggesting number 1? Where in Einstein’s formulas does it produce an explanation of zero mass particles producing gravity 2. And please note that a wave’s propagation can be seen as action at a distance but not gravity. How can you compress a field for density not field compression or amplification which will create distortion not density . Propagation is not gravity.Waves like light (sigh), do not produce gravity

This thread is in the relativity section, and according to GR, "light" does produce gravity.

If you looked at a completely "empty" Universe that was void of any form of energy, matter, radiation, etc., in a 4 dimensional spacetime where

[tex]

\mathbf{R(X,Y)Z}=R^{a}_{\ bcd}X^{c}Y^{d}Z^{b}=0=R_{bd}

[/tex]

and then let a wave of radiation pass through then you get the interesting scenario where calculating the Ricci tensor will still give you zero

[tex] R_{bd}=0 [/tex]

but the Riemann tensor isn't required to vanish and you can find calculations where [tex] R^{a}_{\ bcd}X^{c}Y^{d}Z^{b}\neq 0 [/tex], ie., the radiation causes curvature of the spacetime (in 4 or greater dimensions).

The fact that GR predicts that light alters the spacetime geometry is much more general, but that is a situation where nothing exists to cause curvature, so "gravitational" curvature is entirely from the radiation.

- #85

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

2021 Award

- 27,691

- 11,973

If T is non-zero then what is T?

It's been a while, but I believe the upper left 2x2 is 1 and the other components are 0.

- #86

- 6,723

- 426

I posted information about experimental tests in #4, but your #8 showed no signs of having looked at that information. I posted more about experimental tests in #23, #26, and #31, but your #34 showed no signs of having looked at that, either. In #35, I asked whether you had read any of the four references to experimental peer-reviewed scientific papers I gave in #31. You replied in #37 without giving any signs that you had looked at any of those references. Therefore it is simply not true that this thread has consisted of nothing but theoretical arguments. You have been provided with evidence about experiments, but you've simply chosen not to read it.Please!!! In this thread there has been nothing but manipulation of Albert’s general relativity to produce a theoretical scenario where imaginary particle states can produce gravitation.

- #87

- 32,410

- 9,395

I believe that is correct for aIt's been a while, but I believe the upper left 2x2 is 1 and the other components are 0.

- #88

atyy

Science Advisor

- 14,714

- 3,197

- #89

- 46

- 0

I like this. That is a good point.

This one is the dangerous approach. How can you define T when the photon does not have a definite energy, momentum, and location at any given time? Actually, I am not even sure that spacetime can be represented by a manifold at sufficiently small scales due to quantum effects.

The QM theory gives only probability distributions of photon location, its momentum and energy, but photon must have a definite energy, momentum and location in time that we cannot know by QM.

- #90

- 10,124

- 1,280

Furthermore, I already posted a link to a book by Zee which discusses how you get quantum gravity for the photon perturbatively - though it's outside the scope of GR.

So, I'd suggest continuing the QM side of the debate in the "beyond the standard model" forum.

I'd also encourage people interested to look at the reference by Zee, perhaps it got lost in the shufle.

- #91

- 370

- 0

No. According to GR the source of gravity is the stress-energy tensor. There are 10 independent components in the stress-energy tensor. Energy is only one of those 10 components.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor

We do not have a working theory of quantum gravity at the time so I cannot answer your question wrt photons, however I can answer it wrt classical pulses of light. Pulses of light have energy, they also have momentum, so several of the components of stress energy tensor will be non-zero. So light can be a source of gravity.

I wonder what you think of the following thought experiment by Dimitry67 that seems to show that parallel beams of light will not converge. Thus it is as though light can't be a source of gravity.

Consider two massive objects, separated by some distance, flying in the same direction at velocity v according to an observer. In their inertial system they collide, say, in 1s. For the observer this process takes longer because of the time dilation. The faster the two objects are flying the longer it takes. In the limit where v --> c they never converge according to the observer.

- #92

- 32,410

- 9,395

Dimitry67 is correct, but you should not take the quote out of context. The bolded conclusion above does not follow, as you can clearly see by considering the full quote:I wonder what you think of the following thought experiment by Dimitry67 that seems to show that parallel beams of light will not converge.Thus it is as though light can't be a source of gravity.

This is correct, light beams create gravity.

However, when it was discussed here about 1 or 2 y ago, I remember that someone (with much deeper knowledge of GR - I am just a layman) told me that:

2 parallel light beams goingin the same directiondo not attract (even they attract the surrounding objects)

2 parallel light beams goingin opposite directionsdo attract.

The first fact might be clear if we look at 2 massive objects, separated by some distance, flying in the same direction. In their inertial system they collide, say, in 1s. For an external observer, this process would take longer because of the time dilation. The faster 2 objects are flying the longer it takes. You can think about the case N1 as a limit where v --> c (it takes forever)

- #93

- 456

- 12

What's the verdict? Threadmark has no idea, or Threadmark is ahead of his time?

What percentage of the universe's net gravitational field would be due to electromagnestism?

GrayGhost

- #94

- 370

- 0

Dimitry67 is correct, but you should not take the quote out of context. The bolded conclusion above does not follow, as you can clearly see by considering the full quote:

I stand corrected - I did take Dimitry67's argument out of context.

I did it for two personal reasons I guess.

1/ I like the argument.

2/ I have a "pet theory" that the inertia of a particle with rest mass is caused by retarded gravitational waves impinging on the particle from all the other massive particles in the Universe. I believe that initially massless particles respond to this by following circular orbits whose rotation energy gives half the mass/energy of the particle (the rest being in the mutual gravitational energy between the particle and the rest of the Universe). I am trying to formalise Mach's Principle. I want to argue that light is different so that it does not pick up an inertia. I probably need to think about my theory more before I can decide what it says about light. I'm not using GR itself but an approximation to it called gravitomagnetism that is like Maxwell's theory. In fact I should probably just stick to trying to understand electromagnetically induced inertia for the moment as i feel on safer ground with EM. (I only have at best an undergraduate understanding of physics).

Last edited:

- #95

- 32,410

- 9,395

Hmm.I have a "pet theory" ... I only have at best an undergraduate understanding of physics

- #96

- 32,410

- 9,395

Threadmark is wrong. Was there any ambiguity?What's the verdict? Threadmark has no idea, or Threadmark is ahead of his time?

- #97

- 6,723

- 426

What percentage of the universe's net gravitational field would be due to electromagnestism?

If you mean the gravitational field as defined in Newtonian mechanics, that isn't an unambiguously well defined thing in GR. By the equivalence principle, the gravitational field at a given point can be anything you like, depending on your frame of reference. In the frame of an observer at rest with respect to the cosmic microwave background, the gravitational field is zero by symmetry (in a homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model).

Interpreting your question more loosely, the answer is that the universe was radiation-dominated at one time, then matter-dominated, and is now vacuum-dominated.

- #98

- 456

- 12

All I meant was that if photons gravitate, then they produce gravitation. The cosmos has some net collective gravitational feild. Given photons are everywhere, I was just wondering what percentage of the cosmic gravitational field would owe to EM?

GrayGhost

- #99

- 6,723

- 426

The cosmos has some net collective gravitational feild.

That's incorrect, for the reasons given in #97.

- #100

- 456

- 12

That's incorrect, for the reasons given in #97.

hmm.

Share: