Yes, according to general relativity, time runs slower under higher gravity. This phenomenon is known as gravitational time dilation. Here's the explanation:
Gravity and Curvature of Spacetime: General relativity proposes that gravity isn't a force pulling objects together, but rather a curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy. The presence of mass and energy warps spacetime.
Time as Part of Spacetime: In this theory, time isn't a separate entity but rather one dimension of the four-dimensional fabric of spacetime. So, when spacetime is curved due to gravity, time itself is also affected.
Slower Clocks in Stronger Gravity: Imagine two clocks, one placed in a region of higher gravity (closer to a massive object) and the other in a region of lower gravity (farther away). The clock in the stronger gravity will tick slower compared to the clock in the weaker gravity.
Experimental Verification:
Gravitational time dilation is a well-established phenomenon and has been experimentally verified in a few ways:
Atomic Clocks: Highly precise atomic clocks flown on airplanes at high altitudes (where gravity is slightly weaker) have been shown to run slightly faster compared to identical clocks on the ground.
GPS Satellites: GPS satellites need to account for this time dilation effect to function accurately. Time runs ever so slightly faster for them in their higher orbits compared to clocks on Earth.
Time Dilation and Everyday Life:
The effects of gravitational time dilation are incredibly small for everyday situations on Earth's surface. The difference in time passage between you standing on the ground and someone a few feet above you is negligible. However, the effect becomes more significant as the gravitational pull increases.
Consequences of Time Dilation:
Gravitational time dilation has implications for various phenomena, including:
Black Holes: Near a black hole's immense gravity, time dilation becomes extreme. Objects and signals approaching a black hole would appear to slow down significantly for a distant observer.
Time Travel (Thought Experiment): In some theoretical scenarios involving very strong gravitational fields or near the speed of light, time dilation can be used to explore thought experiments about time travel, although the feasibility of such scenarios remains highly speculative.
In essence, time isn't absolute. Gravity can influence the rate at which time passes, with stronger gravity leading to slower time. This counterintuitive concept is a cornerstone of general relativity and has been experimentally verified.
profile picture so is time stationary inside a black hole? According to our current understanding of physics, based on general relativity, time inside a black hole isn't truly stationary, but it does become infinitely dilated relative to an outside observer. Here's a deeper look:
Singularity and Extreme Gravity:
At the center of a black hole lies a singularity, a point of infinite density and gravity. Our current theories, including general relativity, break down at this point. However, we can understand the behavior of spacetime outside the singularity.
Time Dilation to the Extreme:
As you move closer to a black hole's event horizon (the boundary beyond which nothing escapes), the gravitational pull intensifies. Gravitational time dilation becomes extreme. Time for an object falling into the black hole would appear to slow down significantly for a distant observer. The closer the object gets to the event horizon, the slower time appears to pass for it.
Infinite Time Dilation at the Event Horizon:
From the perspective of an outside observer, an object would never quite reach the event horizon. As it approaches, time dilation would become infinite, essentially stretching the object's time infinitely long. The object would appear to freeze in place at the event horizon, from the outside viewpoint.
What About Inside the Black Hole?
Here's where things get complicated. Once an object crosses the event horizon and enters the black hole, our understanding based on general relativity becomes limited. We cannot predict with certainty what happens to the object or time inside.
Possible Scenarios:
Some physicists theorize that the object would continue to experience time dilation and eventually be crushed by the immense gravity at the singularity. Others propose even more exotic possibilities involving the warping of time and space in ways we can't fully comprehend with our current knowledge.
The Unknown Remains:
The truth about what happens inside a black hole remains a mystery. It's a region beyond which no information can escape, making direct observation or experimentation impossible. However, the concept of infinitely increasing time dilation at the event horizon, based on our understanding of general relativity, paints a picture of time becoming an infinitely stretched dimension relative to the outside world.
In essence:
Time inside a black hole is a theoretical unknown due to limitations of our current physics understanding. Time dilation becomes extreme near the event horizon, appearing infinitely slow from an outside perspective. What happens beyond the event horizon remains an intriguing mystery. profile picture What is a proton made of? Protons, along with neutrons, are the building blocks of atomic nuclei. Previously thought to be elementary particles, we now know protons are composite particles made of even smaller fundamental particles called quarks.
The Quark Model:
Protons consist of three quarks: two up quarks and one down quark. These quarks are bound together by the strong force, mediated by particles called gluons. Up quarks have a charge of +2/3 e (where e represents the elementary charge), while down quarks have a charge of -1/3 e. The combination of these charges gives the proton its overall positive charge of +1 e. Beyond the Basics:
Valence Quarks vs. Sea Quarks: The two up quarks and one down quark are called valence quarks. They're the primary contributors to the proton's identity. However, there's also a constant churn of virtual particles popping in and out of existence within the proton. These are called sea quarks and contribute to the proton's mass and other properties. Gluons and the Strong Force: The strong force, mediated by gluons, is responsible for binding the quarks together within the proton. Gluons themselves can interact with each other, contributing to the complex internal dynamics of the proton. Understanding Protons:
While the basic picture involves two up quarks and one down quark, the actual behavior of protons is more intricate. The strong force interactions within the proton, along with the presence of sea quarks, create a dynamic system with properties beyond the simple sum of its parts.
Further Exploration:
If you're interested in learning more about protons and quarks, here are some resources:
DOE Explains...Protons: https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explains Proton
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton Inside the Proton, the 'Most Complicated Thing' Imaginable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton (This article uses vivid language to describe the complexities of protons) profile picture What are the quarks made of? Quarks, according to our current understanding of particle physics, are considered elementary particles. This means they are not thought to be composed of any further sub-particles. They are fundamental building blocks of matter, alongside leptons.
The Standard Model:
The Standard Model of particle physics is our current theory describing the fundamental particles and forces that constitute matter and radiation. In this model, quarks are classified as elementary particles.
Why are Quarks Considered Elementary?
No Substructure Observed: Scientists haven't been able to experimentally observe any substructure within quarks. High-energy particle accelerators haven't been able to break down quarks into smaller particles. Point-like Interactions: When quarks interact with other particles, they behave like point-like entities without any measurable size. The Limitations:
It's important to note that the Standard Model isn't a complete theory of everything. There are ongoing investigations into physics beyond the Standard Model, and some theories propose that quarks might have substructure at even smaller scales. However, with our current knowledge and experimental capabilities, quarks are considered fundamental particles.
Further Exploration:
If you're interested in learning more about quarks and the Standard Model:
Particle Adventure
Quarks: https://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/physics/discoveries/index.html Standard Model
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model The world of particle physics is fascinating and ever-evolving. While quarks are currently seen as elementary particles, future discoveries might reveal a deeper substructure.
profile picture So what is an antiproton made of? An antiproton, the antiparticle of a proton, is also made of quarks, but in a reversed configuration compared to a normal proton. Here's the breakdown:
Antiparticles and Composition: Antiparticles have the opposite properties of their corresponding particles in terms of charge, spin, and some other quantum numbers. Antiproton Composition: An antiproton consists of three antiquarks: two anti-up quarks and one anti-down quark. These antiquarks have properties opposite to their normal counterparts. An anti-up quark has a charge of -2/3 e, and an anti-down quark has a charge of +1/3 e. The combination results in an antiproton with an overall negative charge of -1 e, the opposite of a proton's positive charge. Essentially, an antiproton is like a mirror image of a proton in terms of its quark composition and electrical charge.
Similarities to Protons:
Structure: Both protons and antiprotons consist of three quarks bound together by the strong force. Internal Dynamics: Similar to protons, the internal structure of antiprotons involves the interplay of these antiquarks and the strong force, leading to a dynamic system with properties beyond the simple combination of its parts. Differences from Protons:
Quark Types: The key difference lies in the types of quarks. Protons have two up quarks and one down quark, while antiprotons have two anti-up quarks and one anti-down quark. Charge: This difference in quark types leads to the opposite electrical charges. Protons have a positive charge (+1 e), and antiprotons have a negative charge (-1 e). When a proton and an antiproton meet:
Annihilation: If a proton and an antiproton collide, they annihilate each other, converting all their mass into energy in the form of photons (usually gamma rays). Antiprotons in Particle Physics:
Antiprotons are used in particle physics experiments to study the properties of protons and other particles. By studying how protons and antiprotons interact, scientists can gain a deeper understanding of the strong force and the nature of matter.
In conclusion, antiprotons share the same basic structure as protons (three quarks bound by the strong force) but have opposite quark types, leading to opposite electrical charges and annihilation upon collision.
profile picture if quarks are an elementary particle, how could they turn into photons? You're right, according to the Standard Model of particle physics, quarks themselves are considered elementary particles and shouldn't directly turn into photons. However, there are a couple of ways to understand the situation you might be referring to:
Quark-Antiquark Annihilation: When a quark encounters its antiparticle (antiquark), they can annihilate each other. In this process, their combined mass isn't simply destroyed. Instead, according to the principle of energy conservation, it gets converted into other forms of energy, most often in the form of photons (usually high-energy gamma rays).
In this scenario, the quark and antiquark don't individually turn into photons, but their annihilation creates photons.
Quark Interactions via Bosons: Quarks interact with each other through the strong force, mediated by particles called gluons. These gluons can briefly transform into quark-antiquark pairs and vice versa.
It's important to remember that these transformations are virtual particles, meaning they exist for a very short time according to the uncertainty principle. They don't violate the idea of quarks being elementary, but rather demonstrate the dynamic nature of the strong force.
In these interactions, the quark itself doesn't disappear and become a photon. Instead, it interacts with a gluon (which can turn into a quark-antiquark pair virtually) and the overall process might involve the exchange of energy or creation of new particles.
To summarize:
Quarks, as fundamental particles, shouldn't directly turn into photons. The concept of quark transformation might be related to: Quark-antiquark annihilation: When a quark meets its antiparticle, they can annihilate, converting their mass into energy (often photons). Quark interactions via gluons: Quarks interact through the strong force, and gluons can transiently transform into quark-antiquark pairs as part of the interaction process. If you have any further questions about these concepts or specific scenarios involving quarks and photons, feel free to ask!
profile picture In my mind, e/c^2=m suggests that all mass is photons squashed until a force holds them together which accounts for the outburst of photons at mass annihilation That's an interesting thought experiment! While E=mc² does relate mass and energy, it doesn't directly translate to mass being made of "squashed photons." Here's a breakdown of why and some alternative explanations for mass annihilation:
E=mc² and Mass-Energy Equivalence:
E=mc² represents the equivalence of mass (m) and energy (E). It tells us that mass can be converted into energy and vice versa, under the right circumstances. Mass and Photons:
Photons are massless particles that carry energy. They are a fundamental type of particle distinct from massive particles like protons or electrons. Where E=mc² Comes In:
In processes like nuclear reactions or particle annihilation, when massive particles are destroyed, their mass isn't truly gone. According to E=mc², it gets converted into other forms of energy, often in the form of energetic photons (like gamma rays). Mass Annihilation:
When a particle and its antiparticle collide, they can annihilate each other, converting all their mass into energy. This is consistent with E=mc². Alternative View of Mass:
Modern physics views mass as an intrinsic property of particles arising from their interaction with the Higgs field, which permeates all of space. Particles acquire mass by interacting with this field. So, what's wrong with the "squashed photons" idea?
Photons are massless and have no intrinsic structure. The idea of squishing them together to create mass doesn't quite align with our current understanding of elementary particles. Better Explanation for Mass Annihilation:
During annihilation, the particle and antiparticle have opposite properties that annihilate each other. Their combined mass gets converted into the energy of the resulting particles, often photons. Further Exploration:
Mass–energy equivalence
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence Standard Model
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model The Higgs Boson Explained
Scientific American: https://home.web.cern.ch/science/physics/higgs-boson In conclusion, E=mc² showcases the convertibility of mass and energy, but it doesn't imply mass is composed of photons. Mass annihilation involves the conversion of the total mass of a particle-antiparticle pair into energy, often in the form of photons.
profile picture sure, but if you think about moving the c^2 below the E it resembles the inverse square law for the speed of light, which is what the gamma rays actually are
the speed of light crushed until energy has become mass. You bring up an interesting perspective! Here's why rearranging the equation doesn't fundamentally change the concept and why mass and energy are viewed differently in our current understanding:
Re-arranging E=mc²:
You're right that rearranging E=mc² as E/c² = m resembles the form of the inverse-square law for intensity or energy related to distance (1/distance²). However, it's important to remember that E/c² doesn't directly translate to energy per unit area (like intensity). Understanding Mass and Energy:
In modern physics, mass and energy aren't simply different quantities of the same thing. They are related through E=mc², but they have distinct properties.
Mass: Mass is an intrinsic property of a particle. It's associated with a particle's inertia (resistance to acceleration) and its interaction with gravity. In the Standard Model, mass arises from a particle's interaction with the Higgs field.
Energy: Energy is a more general concept related to the ability to do work. It can exist in various forms, including kinetic energy (motion), potential energy (stored energy), and radiant energy (carried by photons).
Gamma Rays and the Speed of Light:
Gamma rays are a form of electromagnetic radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum. They are photons with very high energy and frequency.
Light Speed Limit: The speed of light (c) is a fundamental constant of nature. It's not something that can be "crushed" or changed. Photons, by definition, always travel at this speed in a vacuum.
Energy of a Photon: The energy of a photon is related to its frequency (E = hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is frequency). So, gamma rays have high energy because of their high frequency, not because they are light compressed.
So, while the mathematical manipulation might be interesting, it doesn't represent a physical transformation of the speed of light.
Here's an analogy:
Think of mass as the weight of an object, and energy as the ability to lift that object. E=mc² tells us that the weight of the object (mass) can be converted into the ability to lift it (energy), and vice versa, under certain conditions. But the weight itself isn't the same as the ability to lift.
The world of physics is full of fascinating relationships and concepts. While your idea prompts creative thought, our current understanding suggests a different interpretation of mass, energy, and the speed of light.
profile picture Yes but you are talking from a perspective that continually fails to marry these different ideas, such as particles, waves and quantum. What if they're all the same thing and these preconceptions are just holding us back. What if everything is quantum and we are too busy worry about proofs that are just demonstrating distributions of probability rather than the actual presence of anything. I mean what is the double slit experiment? It is an event taking place. As soon as you start removing the idea of there being a particle and accepting that until an event is recorded, the 'particle' moved through both slits as it has not been forced to reveal it's location. I just think that we need to stop bickering and start again. You raise a very interesting point! The wave-particle duality and the nature of reality in quantum mechanics are indeed profound and challenging concepts. Here's how I can respond to your thoughts:
Unifying the Disparate:
You're absolutely right that physicists are constantly striving to unify seemingly disparate ideas in physics, like particles, waves, and the quantum realm. There are ongoing efforts to develop theories like string theory or loop quantum gravity that aim for a more comprehensive picture.
The Standard Model: The Standard Model of particle physics has been incredibly successful in describing fundamental particles and forces. However, it doesn't encompass gravity and might not be the ultimate theory.
Quantum Weirdness:
Quantum mechanics does present some strange phenomena that challenge our classical intuition. The double-slit experiment is a prime example, showcasing the wave-like behavior of particles.
Probability Distributions: Quantum mechanics often deals with probabilities rather than definite positions or trajectories. This probabilistic nature can be counterintuitive, but it has been experimentally verified with high precision.
Double-Slit Experiment:
You're right, the double-slit experiment can be interpreted as demonstrating the wave nature of matter. Until the particle interacts with the detection screen, it behaves probabilistically as if it passed through both slits simultaneously. Beyond Particles or Waves:
Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that particles or waves are not the fundamental reality, but rather emerge from a more underlying quantum description. Rethinking Our Approach:
There's always room for new ideas and challenges to existing paradigms. The history of science is filled with revolutions in thinking. Perhaps new experiments or theoretical frameworks will lead to a more unified understanding beyond our current models. Limitations of Current Knowledge:
It's important to acknowledge the limitations of our current knowledge. We might not have all the answers yet, and some things might be fundamentally probabilistic or unknowable at our current level of understanding. The Beauty of Exploration:
The fact that these questions are being raised and debated is exciting! It shows the ongoing exploration in physics to understand the universe at its most fundamental level. Here's what I can't do:
I can't definitively tell you what ultimate reality is, as that's an ongoing area of research in physics. However, I can share the established scientific knowledge and the different interpretations within quantum mechanics. Moving Forward:
Perhaps, as you suggest, new perspectives and a willingness to question current paradigms are necessary for future breakthroughs. Science thrives on open-mindedness and the pursuit of deeper understanding. I hope this response offers some food for thought. If you have any further questions or specific areas you'd like to explore within quantum mechanics, feel free to ask!
profile picture I totally agree with your 'Limitations of Current Knowledge' statement. I'm tired of people who can't get out of LEO telling me how the universe began. Show drafts
I understand your frustration. Cosmology, the study of the universe's origin and evolution, does rely on a lot of theoretical frameworks and evidence gathering from a distance. It's true that we haven't directly observed the very birth of the universe or traveled far beyond our own solar system.
Here's a way to look at it:
Building a Picture: Even without directly seeing the Big Bang, we can piece together a compelling story based on various lines of evidence:
Cosmic Microwave Background: This faint radiation left over from the Big Bang is a major piece of evidence supporting the hot Big Bang model. Redshift and Hubble's Law: The observation that distant galaxies are receding from us faster the farther they are suggests an expanding universe. Abundance of Light Elements: The observed abundance of light elements like hydrogen and helium aligns with predictions of Big Bang nucleosynthesis. The Limits of Observation: Directly observing the Big Bang itself is beyond our current technological capabilities. The universe was incredibly hot and dense in its early stages, and we don't have instruments that can probe those conditions directly.
Theoretical Frameworks: Cosmologists use theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics to develop models for the universe's evolution. These models are constantly being refined and tested against new observations.
Addressing Frustration:
Transparency about Limitations: Scientists are often upfront about the limitations of our knowledge in cosmology.
Focus on What We Can Learn: Despite limitations, there's still a lot we can learn about the universe's history and structure through observations and theoretical frameworks.
The Importance of Curiosity: The very fact that we are curious about the universe's origin and keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge is a testament to the human spirit of exploration.
Looking Forward:
Future Missions and Telescopes: New telescopes and space missions like the James Webb Space Telescope might provide even deeper insights into the early universe.
Unifying Theories: Theories that unify gravity with quantum mechanics, a quest for a "theory of everything," might offer a more complete picture of the universe's origin.
While we might not have all the answers yet, the exploration of the universe's origin is an ongoing scientific endeavor. It's a story constantly being refined and expanded as we gather more data and develop new theories.