How Cn Gravity Affect Light When Light Has No Mass?

[Banned]

While there is an apparent relationship between gravity, mass and space time curvature, the theory that they cause each other hasn't been proven.
But as someone already mentioned, it is reasonable to assume that ST curvature bends practically everything, including massless items.

[Rhondazvous]

Is it possible there is no gravitational field?

No, even within the context of your proposal you're simply wondering whether or not some other x might effect that grav field...there's a grav field in that proposition all the same.   Regardless of what gravity is a property of, gravity, then, would exist as a property of that x.

To demonstrate this in another context.  We don't know whether or not there are gravitons, a hypothetical fundamental particle in qft that mediates the force of gravitation.  We've never identified one.  Suppose there aren't.  There's still gravity, there are still grav fields.

If there’s a gravity field, there has to be a fundamental particle that mediates that field. Just like it to decades to find the mediator of the higgs field

However, we’re not understanding each other about the difference between a field and a property. I’m thinking of gravity as a property, not field. Just like there’s no heat field. No fundamental property that mediates heat. It’s just a property of matter to get hot when it’s energy increases. Maybe, it’s a property of massive bodies and energetic particles like light to gravitate toward other such bodies. Or maybe it’s a property of time space to warp in the vicinity of such. Then no fundamental particle is needed.

[vorlon13]

The gravitational field of the sun also represents a great deal of energy. Energy is equivilized to mass in the famous E=MC\2 equation. So, therefore, the gravitational field of the sun has a gravitational field of it's own. IOW, nearish to the sun, the gravitational field is detectably stronger (slightly) because of this effect.

The result of the effect was a subtle shift in subsequent points of perihelion in Mercury's orbit that took Einstein to explain.

Pretty freaking amazing.

And again, there is NOTHING in Scripture equally effing amazing.

[polymath257]

And this explains why although photons existed before recombination, there was no matter and therefore no gravity to counter the dark energy pushing everything apart. only after things got so apart that they lost energy was the strong force able to bring quanta together to form atoms and then large bodies with measurable gravity.

I don’t believe that is accurate for two reasons:

1.  Recombination refers to electrons pairing up with protons.  They existed separately as ionized plasma before.   So there were matter before recombination, just not electrically neutral matter.
2.  Even if there were not electrons and protons, If there were photons, there were gravity.  Gravity is an artifact of energy in all forms, not just in matter form.   If I am not mistaken, most of the gravity of normal matter is not from the rest mass of the particles with rest mass, but from binding energy that holds These particles together.

Yes, that is correct. For example, most of the mass of the proton is due to the binding energy of the quarks and gluons (the mediators of the strong force). As far as we know, the gluons are massless and the up and down quark have very little mass.

[Rhondazvous]

And this explains why although photons existed before recombination, there was no matter and therefore no gravity to counter the dark energy pushing everything apart. only after things got so apart that they lost energy was the strong force able to bring quanta together to form atoms and then large bodies with measurable gravity.

I don’t believe that is accurate for two reasons:

1.  Recombination refers to electrons pairing up with protons.  They existed separately as ionized plasma before.   So there were matter before recombination, just not electrically neutral matter.
2.  Even if there were not electrons and protons, If there were photons, there were gravity.  Gravity is an artifact of energy in all forms, not just in matter form.   If I am not mistaken, most of the gravity of normal matter is not from the rest mass of the particles with rest mass, but from binding energy that holds These particles together.

In relation to this discussion, I must disagree with both your points.
1.Quanta is not matter but the constituent parts of matter, just as hydrogen and oxygen are the constituent parts of water. That's why quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics because qunta doesn't follow the laws of matter. The smallest unit of matter is the atom. There are hydrogen atoms. There aren't any hydrogen protons.
2. subatomic particles are held together by the strong force (gluons) which is entirely different from gravity. Before quanta were brought together by the strong force during recombination, there were no atoms, ergo, no matter. Photons may have produced gravity but gravity is a weak force. It wan't enough to held quarks together.

[vorlon13]

Energy of motion of the constituent quarks contributes to a given protons mass by about 40% as I recall.  The energy of their motion being equivalent to a certain amount of mass via E=MC\2  again . . . .

It also means when we interact with matter, we are in fact not interacting with 'pure' (by my lights) matter.  We are made of and interact with a material that isn't 100% "The Real Thing" whatever that might mean . . .  .

[Anomalocaris]

I don’t believe that is accurate for two reasons:

1.  Recombination refers to electrons pairing up with protons.  They existed separately as ionized plasma before.   So there were matter before recombination, just not electrically neutral matter.
2.  Even if there were not electrons and protons, If there were photons, there were gravity.  Gravity is an artifact of energy in all forms, not just in matter form.   If I am not mistaken, most of the gravity of normal matter is not from the rest mass of the particles with rest mass, but from binding energy that holds These particles together.

In relation to this discussion, I must disagree with both your points.
1.Quanta is not matter but the constituent parts of matter, just as hydrogen and oxygen are the constituent parts of water. That's why quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics because qunta doesn't follow the laws of matter. The smallest unit of matter is the atom. There are hydrogen atoms. There aren't any hydrogen protons.
2. subatomic particles are held together by the strong force (gluons) which is entirely different from gravity. Before quanta were brought together by the strong force during recombination, there were no atoms, ergo, no matter. Photons may have produced gravity but gravity is a weak force. It wan't enough to held quarks together.

You have different definition of matter than is commonly used in physics and chemistry. Plasma is commonly referred to as the 4th phase of matter after solid, liquid, and gas. Plasma is atoms with one or more electrons separated from the nucleus. Prior to recombination the universe is suffused with a sea of Plasma.

But definition aside, it does not take neutral atoms to cause gravity. It does not even take protons or neutrons or electrons to create gravity. Smash matter into their continue to quarks, the shattered subatomic particles together with the liberated binding energy that formerly held together excertd precisely the same gravity as their when they were assembled into anything you might call matter.

The total gravitational energy of the universe is fixed, however the constituent parts of the universe evolves.

[Banned]

...
But definition aside, it does not take neutral atoms to cause gravity. It does not even take protons or neutrons or electrons to create gravity. Smash matter into their continue to quarks, the shattered subatomic particles together with the liberated binding energy that formerly held together excertd precisely the same gravity as their when they were assembled into anything you might call matter.

The total gravitational energy of the universe is fixed, however the constituent parts of the universe evolves.

I know the textbook answer, but do you think matter/mass causes gravity or space time curvature?

[polymath257]

...
But definition aside, it does not take neutral atoms to cause gravity.  It does not even take protons or neutrons or electrons to create gravity.   Smash matter into their continue to quarks, the shattered subatomic particles together with the liberated binding energy that formerly held together excertd precisely the same gravity as their when they were assembled into anything you might call matter.

The total gravitational energy of the universe is fixed, however the constituent parts of the universe evolves.

I know the textbook answer, but do you think matter/mass causes gravity or space time curvature?

Yes. gravity *is* spacetime curvature. Mass and energy (as well as momentum density) created the curvature of spacetime via Einstein's equations.

At least for physicists, protons, neutrons, and electrons are matter whether or not they are combined in atoms. And all of those existed before recombination. In fact, they all existed *very* in the expansion phase with most atomic nuclei being formed from protons and neutrons in the first 3 minutes or so.

The recombination phase didn't hit until about 300,000 years into the expansion.

---

I don’t believe that is accurate for two reasons:

1.  Recombination refers to electrons pairing up with protons.  They existed separately as ionized plasma before.   So there were matter before recombination, just not electrically neutral matter.
2.  Even if there were not electrons and protons, If there were photons, there were gravity.  Gravity is an artifact of energy in all forms, not just in matter form.   If I am not mistaken, most of the gravity of normal matter is not from the rest mass of the particles with rest mass, but from binding energy that holds These particles together.

In relation to this discussion, I must disagree with both your points.
1.Quanta is not matter but the constituent parts of matter, just as hydrogen and oxygen are the constituent parts of water. That's why quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics because qunta doesn't follow the laws of matter. The smallest unit of matter is the atom. There are hydrogen atoms. There aren't any hydrogen protons.
2. subatomic particles are held together by the strong force (gluons) which is entirely different from gravity. Before quanta were brought together by the strong force during recombination, there were no atoms, ergo, no matter. Photons may have produced gravity but gravity is a weak force. It wan't enough to held quarks together.

OK, 'quanta' were NOT brought together during recombination. Nuclei (that had already formed much earlier) and electrons combined at that point to form neutral atoms. But there was plenty of matter long before that in a plasma form. The strong force reactions were mostly completed by about 3 minutes into the expansion, with the light elements formed by that point. Heavier elements weren't formed until the development of stars much later on.

Second, there is no type of particle called a quantum. Instead, ALL fundamental particles are considered to be quanta for their fields. So, photons are quanta of light, up quarks are quanta of the up field, etc.

Actually, a proton is a hydrogen nucleus, so a bare proton is often symbolized as an H^+ ion. In that sense, 'hydrogen proton' is redundant, not contradictory.