The Concept Of Mass

[Moronium]

Did you know there was once a duel to the death over a math equation and someone lost their eye.

 

Naw, I aint never heard that, but it doesn't really surprise me.  I did hear-tell that Wittegstein once threatened to beat Karl Popper to death with a fire-stoking poker over some lame-azz philosophical argument, though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Naw, I aint never heard that, but it doesn't really surprise me.  I did hear-tell that Wittegstein once threatened to beat Karl Popper to death with a fire-stoking poker over some lame-azz philosophical argument, though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker

 

Speaking of Popper he (along with John Stuart Bell) is one of the better known scientific theorists to insist that it would be better to return to  what you would call "pre-unification" physics.

 

They both regarded SR as fatally flawed, and advocated a return to a "Lorentzian" theory of relative motion.  They are far from alone, but what the hell would anybody else (apart from you, I mean) know about it, eh?

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Vmedvil2]

Naw, I aint never heard that, but it doesn't really surprise me.  I did hear-tell that Wittegstein once threatened to beat Karl Popper to death with a fire-stoking poker over some lame-azz philosophical argument, though.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein%27s_Poker

 

Listen to me here, back during high school me and a friend of mine got into a argument about whether the CO² emissions of the Earth would cause the atmosphere to become of unbreathable and I was obviously right and he took the opposite position, then we got into a physical argument after I did the calculations "perfectly" for it to be around 5000 to 10,000 years before the atmosphere became unbreathable with plant life O² Production, I ended up taking a sock and putting a roll of duck tape in it and hitting him several times with it, to show I was correct, he look stunned and I said "Like in the military Lead,Follow, or get out of the way" and that they used to put bars of soap into socks to in the military to people that caused problems for the unit, none the less, I thought I was right which took me to places i never knew were possible.

Edited April 13, 2019 by VictorMedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Any way... feel free to ask questions. Here is my few cents on the OP question - need to be careful here, the concept of mass and definition are two different things but I might end up exchanging between the two from time to time - bottom line, despite what wiki-burp may inform you electromagnetic contributions to mass was and still is with competent scientists

 

Planck introduced a variant/correction term of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence of the form

 

[math]E_0 = mc^2 + PV[/math]

 

The pressure is related fundamentally to a number of terms related to the temperature and the gas constant:

 

[math]PV = N k_BT = \frac{N}{N_A}\mathbf{R}T[/math]

 

[math]\mathbf{R} = N_Ak_B[/math]

 

In which [math]N_A[/math] is the number of moles in the gas. As it can be noticed, when speaking about the pressure we can also talk about the internal thermodynamics of the system - intended by Planck. The relationships to the pressure would imply the rest energy as:

 

[math]E_0 = mc^2 + PV = mc^2 + Nk_BT = mc^2 + \frac{N}{N_A}\mathbf{R}T[/math]

 

Let’s talk a bit about electromagnetic mass and how different it is to the suggestion I have made about corrections to relative charges and measurable inertia. When electromagnetic mass was talked about, it was tended to be done so in terms of an electrostatic energy and the mass of an electron at rest:

 

[math]E_{em} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{R}[/math]

 

[math]m_{em} = \frac{2}{3}\frac{e^2}{c^2R}[/math]

 

Where in such cases, the charge is uniformly distributed, either over the sphere itself, or perhaps through the sphere itself. The radius of the electron has to be non-zero to avoid non-trivial singularities that arise within the self-energy of the system.

 

The formula then proposed in literature for the electromagnetic-mass relation was to be:

 

[math]m_{em} = \frac{4}{3} E_{em}{c^2}[/math]

 

Concepts that where pretty much identical before the revolution of special relativity involved transverse and longitudinal definitions of the mass. Today those important idea's that had been developed by Lorentz incorporated the famous length contraction in both space and time. It was shown by Bucherer and Langevin that an electron would be contracted in the line of motion and expands perpendicular to it so that the volume remains constant. However, it has been shown by Penrose that a perfect sphere would never be seen to be contracted, though its apparent size may seem smaller.

 

Erroneously by wiki, it states that eventually electromagnetic theories had to be given up, in respect to Poincare stresses. Electromagnetic theories cannot simply ''be given up'' when the contribution of electric charge seems to have measurable effects on the mass of electromagnetic bodies. The Poincare stress is not a true problem in the sense it forbids or overly complicates the issue of an electromagnetic theory of mass. Poincare indeed himself persued the electromagnetic mass theory and attempted to find the stresses that contribute to a non-electromagnetic component of energy to the electrons. He found that it contributed [math]\frac{1}{3}[/math] of their electromagnetic energy. Poincare takes a more black and white view, believing that electromagnetic energy was the only energy to contribute to the mass of an electron.

 

Though, this kind of view would seem at odds with how Feynman later came to explain situation, in which it was the presence of a charge that contributed some mass to a system, not the entirity of it. This of course was the motivation for me to explore a relative concept on the charge, where the mass consisted of two parts

 

[math]\frac{Gm^2}{R} + \frac{\hbar c}{R}[/math]

 

The contribution of Poincare stress became known as the [math]\frac{4}{3}[/math]-problem simply because the contribution to whole energy does not contain the fraction. He goes on to find a solution in which the total energy in a contribution also of two terms:

 

\frac{E_{tot}}{c^2} = \frac{E_{em} + \frac{1}{3}E_{em}}{c^2} = \frac{4}{3}\frac{E_{em}}{c^2} = \frac{4}{3}m = m_{em}[/math]

 

The problem of ‘’how’’ much electromagnetic mass is contributed to the system from the presence of charge I think, can be more elegantly explained through the method I have chosen. If we be rash and say the entire mass of the system is provided from the electromagnetic energy, we would need to explain how a neutrino, expected to have zero charge, has a mass at all. Both terms, (\frac{Gm^2}{R}, \frac{\hbar c}{R}) are structurally and dimensionally similar to the electrostatic energy:

 

[math]E_{em} = \frac{1}{2}\frac{e^2}{R}[/math]

 

And so we may expect correcting coefficients arising within the theory suggested involving relative charges. I find something important about the concept of the pressure term as a correction in the equation

 

[math]E_{em} = \frac{e^2}{R} + pV[/math]

 

Because, while the first term on the right hand side wants to rip the system apart, the question of the role of the pressure could act as the sought-after Poincare stress. If there is a contribution, the charge only makes a particle only slightly more heavier as Feynman suggested from comparing particles on the standard model - but not so insignificant if it is noticeable.

 

To understand how the pressure term would balance the electrostatic repulsion will have to be something to be investigated at a later point. What would be interesting though, is if the unsuspecting term [math]\frac{Gm^2}{R}[/math] could play a vital role in the balancing of the electrostatic energy which could be encoded in [math]\frac{\hbar c}{R}[/math]. Is it possible gravity is playing a role of a Poincare stress? Lloyd Motz was the first physicist I know of to entertain this idea - the basic premise relied on a scale dependent theory of gravity, or one in which discontinuities in the gravitational field change over the boundary of the particle. Either way, the theory would look similar to this:

 

[math]\frac{E_{tot}}{c^2} = \frac{Gm^2 + \hbar c}{c^2R} = m_{tot}[/math]

 

The non-electromagnetic Poincare stress in this case, would turn out to be the gravitational equivalent of the electrostatic repulsion/charge. For a primer on the importance of electromagnetic mass, here is a link to a Feynman lecture:

 

Electromagnetic Mass

 

Notice again, I refuse to make reference to any coefficient on the charges, but this is because it really depends on what kind of charge distribution we are speaking about. For instance, for a charge uniformly distributed throughout the volume of a sphere, the [math]\frac{2}{3}[/math] gets replaced by [math]\frac{4}{5}[/math[ so though technically there will be correcting coefficients, we won’t rush into that because the physics depends on the situation. In our case, we did explore the notion of a uniformly distributed charge through a sphere, but we will come back to these idea’s on a later date.

 

It is possible to associate the combination of charge to some ‘’normal’’ charge case such as:

 

[math]E_{tot} = \frac{e^2}{R} = \frac{Gm^2}{R} + \frac{\hbar c}{R}[/math]

 

And this is the equaion, for now, that tells me that an energy measure, is in fact a condensed set of charges. You throw a coupling consant in there an at least the second term gives up some excellent calculations on the parameters of the electrons observables. The last equation can be taken as a rest Hamiltonian

 

[math]\mathbf{H}_{rest}=  \frac{Gm^2}{R} + \frac{\hbar c}{R}[/math]

 

Let's compare with Einstein's equation,

 

[math]E_0 = mc^2[/math]

 

the right hand side, expresses the total energy which is encoded in the gravitational and electromagnetic charge contributions.

 

 

The intuitive definition, even though you did not ask for one...

 

 

According to David Bodanis, from his best seller ''E = Mc^2'' was that

 

 

''mass is but a concentration of light while light is a diffused form of mass.''

 

 

It works for me and it should work in general with most people.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Dubbelosix

[Moronium]

 us crazy white boys sometimes know our science.. Trust me either way they both thought they "knew the truth".

 

 

Well, I suppose it's satisfying to have a devout belief in your own righteousness, and all, but looky here:

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell)

 

 

Russell, by the way, was present at the Wittgenstein/Popper altercation.  Maybe he learned something there, who knows?

 

Mark Twain once said something similar, to wit:

 

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

 

[Moronium]

Planck introduced a variant/correction term of Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence of the form

 

E0=mc2+PV

 

 

Maybe so, but I think the accepted version these days is simply  Eo=Mc2.  PV has nothing to do with the "rest energy."

 

The current thinking also seems to be that the concept of mass is invariant even if it's relationship to energy supposedly varies with motion.  "Relativistic mass" in a concept that Einstein (and many others) flatly rejected.

 

I'm trying to focus on the concept of mass. 

 

''mass is but a concentration of light while light is a diffused form of mass.''

 

It works for me and it should work in general with most people.

 

 

Don't do nuthin for me.  

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe so, but I think the accepted version these days is simply  Eo=Mc2.  PV has nothing to do with the "rest energy."

 

The current thinking also seems to be that the concept of mass is invariant even if it's relationship to energy supposedly varies with motion.  "Relativistic mass" in a concept that Einstein (and many others) flatly rejected.

 

I'm trying to focus on the concept of mass. 

 

 

Don't do nuthin for me.  

 

 

No you are wrong, the rest state system is mc^2, but macroscopic object can get hot and the constituent particles will gain energy inside the system. The result is that the moving kinetic constituents must add mass to the rest mass. So its not that it has to do with the movement of any rest system, but the kinetic energy inside of it.

 

A good analogy is when you allow a photon to enter a box. The photon has momentum and energy.

 

Question, does it raise the mass or inertial content?

[Dubbelosix]

The correction term, was simply to take into account internal thermodynamics contributions to the rest object.

[Moronium]

The correction term, was simply to take into account internal thermodynamics contributions to the rest object.

 

Well, things like temperature, altitude, pressure, etc. can cause variations in lots of things, but those nuances are generally ignored in idealized formulas.  Either that or a given standard is expressly adopted, e.g., mean sea level, 20 degrees centigrade, etc.

[Moronium]

A good analogy is when you allow a photon to enter a box. The photon has momentum and energy.

 

Question, does it raise the mass or inertial content?

 

I hear-tell that a photon has no mass, eh?

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

A photon has no rest mass, but when have you ever seen a photon resting?

 

A photon has energy and momentum.

 

If you take the total energy of a system and divide by c^2, you will have calculated the invariant mass of that system.

 

If you are doing this with photons, the elites no longer say "relativistic" mass, that is a term reserved for the unwashed "masses" who are not in the know. 

 

 

[Moronium]

A photon has no rest mass, but when have you ever seen a photon resting?

 

 

 Well, Popeye, there are probably different "schools of thought" on this, but it is often claimed that a photon has no mass, resting or not.

 

Light indeed carries energy and accomplishes this without having any mass..... Since photons (particles of light) have no mass, they must obey E = pc and therefore get all of their energy from their momentum....How can an object have momentum without mass? It can do this if it is a wave....In addition to being a particle, light is also a wave. This allows it to carry momentum, and therefore energy, without having mass.

 

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Here's a "second opinion" on the photon/mass question, from John Baez's website:

 

Light is composed of photons, so we could ask if the photon has mass.  The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle.  According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits.  Even before it was known that light is composed of photons, it was known that light carries momentum and will exert pressure on a surface.  This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass.

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon.  Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2.  They also say that a photon has momentum, and momentum p is related to mass m by p = mv.  What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an old concept that can cause confusion...In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass, which is zero for a photon.

 

 

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

A good analogy is when you allow a photon to enter a box. The photon has momentum and energy.

 

Question, does it raise the mass or inertial content?

 

 

According to this guy:

 

if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in both directions symmetrically in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the box's frame of reference but the energy is not.  Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box.  This could be measured--in principle at least--either by the greater force required to accelerate the box, or by an increase in its gravitational pull.  You might say that the light in the box has mass, but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light.  You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

 

 

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

 

He seems to be saying that "the box" may have gained some mass, but that light still has no mass, the way I read it.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

According to this guy:

 

 

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

 

He seems to be saying that "the box" may have gained some mass, but that light still has no mass, the way I read it.

 

Yeah, that one is a real gem!

 

Consider the following as my personal musing on the subject:

 

We all know that [math] E=m{ c }^{ 2 }[/math]

 

And it follows from that, energy = mass;  photons have energy therefore photons have mass.

 

But, we are discouraged from using the term relativistic mass, and photons only have energy because they are in motion (have no rest mass).

 

One school is might say that photons are at rest in their own frame of reference and therefore dividing the total energy, E by c^2 does give the invariant mass of the photon.  I believe the Wiki page I quoted earlier uses this procedure. However, if you really like the term relativistic mass, as I do, go ahead and use it! It is not against the law!

 

Other schools of thought use the full equation:

 

[math]{ m }^{ 2 }=\frac { { E }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 4 } } -\frac { { p }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } }[/math]

 

And when you consider that E=pc,

 

 That equation becomes:

 

[math]{ m }^{ 2 }=\frac { { { p }^{ 2 }{ c }^{ 2 } } }{ { c }^{ 4 } } -\frac { { p }^{ 2 } }{ { c }^{ 2 } }[/math]

 

And that equals 0.

 

So, following the math this time, photons have no mass, no rest mass, no relativistic mass, no invariant mass, nothing, nada zip. They are massless particles, period.

 

In my humble opinion, this is all mathematical semantics, and it can all change tomorrow on somebody’s whim.

 

Speaking freely, I am past the point of trying to be politically correct by using the latest approved version, especially when there is so much confusion out there. So, I will still use the concept of relativistic mass when talking about photons and other quantum particles. Maybe it should be called quantum mass? If I wrote the physics books, it would be!

 

When it comes to objects that do have intrinsic, invariant, rest mass, that are travelling at relativistic speeds, I just use their kinetic energy to account for their apparent increase in mass. This is valid since energy = mass. That way I avoid the term relativistic mass for all real (not quantum) particles.

 

 

I don't expect that to clear anything up for you, but it felt good to write it down!

[Moronium]

As I've already said, here's the real source of the confusion, in my view:

 

When a particle is at rest (p = 0), this general equation reduces down to the familiar E = mc2....if the object travels at some speed v that is less than the universal speed limit c, we can always choose a reference frame traveling along with the object so that the object will be at rest in this reference frame

 

.

http://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/04/01/light-has-no-mass-so-it-also-has-no-energy-according-to-einstein-but-how-can-sunlight-warm-the-earth-without-energy/

 

A particle is always "at rest" in some frame, so Eo=Mc2  "always" holds true "sometimes."  So is it at rest, or not?  When is it at rest?  If you can't answer that, they you really can't say anything definitive about it.  That's the problem with the "relativistic" analysis.

 

"Always sometimes" just doesn't make sense.  As I said back in post #11:

 

The attempt to eliminate a preferred frame can do nothing other than create confusion and conceptual chaos while generating irresolvable inconsistencies and contradictions.

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Moronium

[OceanBreeze]

Well, energy is frame dependent.

 

Mass is invariant, not frame dependent.

 

The confusion comes from energy = mass in relativity

 

The resolution is that there is only one mass and we need to get away from using the term relativistic mass if you want to be a physicist.

 

I am an engineer, not a physicist so you shouldn't ask me any more questions and I shouldn't be answering them but even if you ask two physicists, you may get two different answers depending upon how old they are!