MPMin

I disagree with your point of view. I don’t see Vibrational KE and transitional KE being any different. Anything that vibrates is still transitioning around a centre point just because it’s average centre doesn’t change doesn’t mean it’s not transiting a small distance back and forth. If you were to look at an atom vibrating for time frame of one vibration you could say it transitioned in that moment. If an entire object were to transition a short distance then return to its point of origin so it’s centre of mass didn’t change you could say it vibrates did it’s mass increase in that moment?

I meant identical in composition. I just find it odd that internal KE of the atoms increases the mass of the object but translational KE of the entire object doesn’t.

That’s only if you want to consider the translational KE in isolation

This is interesting and perhaps I’m getting confused here but if my understanding is correct then if the two atomically identical objects were both at rest but one had more thermal energy than the other then the one with more thermal energy would have a greater mass than the other, Interestingly greater thermal energy means the atoms have more KE. It would seem that when atoms have more KE it counts towards the mass of the object.

If two objects are identical atom for atom, does the object with the greater KE have the greater mass than the other? To be clear, mass and energy are properties of what exactly?

What do you mean by real photons?

I would use scales, what would you use seeing as it’s worth asking? Does this mean that, as an example, 2H2 + O2 weighs more than 2H2O? (at the same place on earth)

I don’t believe I was taking this discussion or your comments out of context. To bring a certain issue back to light (pun intended) consider the filament wire of an incandescent bulb conducting a direct current to emit light, under a steady current the light appears static but we know the light is emanating out from the wire and so is the magnetic field even though it appears static as well. So massless partials have no energy as without mass there’s no energy either? Or are matter and energy basically the same thing? If so then energy exists on its own in any case.

If standardised weights (on earth) are not satisfactory then what is the best way to quantify mass? Are you suggesting that energy cannot exist without matter?

But practically speaking what’s wrong with quantifying mass by weighing it on earth?

Does this apply to chemical reactions that balance? The mass of one side of the equation always equals the other side thus no loss of mass occurs according to chemical equations. Good point. (I did originally write "weigh less" as a more familiar concept in my "candle" example. Then realised it could cause more confusion!) What’s wrong with quantifying mass by weighing it?

I think you mean if a current is constant then the field is constant, I don’t think there is such a thing as a static current. I disagree that any magnetic field created by a current is ever static. An emp can be created by pulsing a direct current, also consider the instant moment a direct current begins, does the magnetic field immediately propagate the area it will eventually occupy or does the magnetic field have to emanate from the wire to propagate the area? Let’s say you burn the candle in the container and the container gets hotter from the candle burning (I know I should be saying the container gains thermal energy but I don’t want to because you know what I mean), does this mean the mass of the container was increased while the container was hotter?

Or you could just put all the mass of a system in a box and say momentum is conserved because the mass cant escape the box but can you say the same for energy?

Perhaps this is also point in contention in its own right, is the magnetic field around a wire actually static or is it emanating? My guess is that it’s constantly emanating outward from the wire. I don’t understand how there can be momentum without mass when p=mv? if you’re going to say p=E/c as well I’d ask you to please show me how momentum is conserved in a system that loses E out of the system? What I mean is mass is easily accounted for because doesn’t easily convert to energy but energy easily converts to other forms of energy which is why most energy systems are not 100% efficient

That’s not the same field, as it will change in time and also generating an electric field. It’s also not in the spirit of the question that was asked. Having thought about this; its not a different field either, its a segment of the same field. If a magnetic field around a wire doesn’t increase the mass of the wire (the wire system if you like) then can it be assumed that an emp has no mass?

All of the atom, obviously. What’s obvious about this when generally speaking matter is what is attracted to gravity. Are you saying that the energy of the atom is attracted to gravity as well the matter of the atom, or are you saying that at the atomic scale there is no matter as such it’s just energy acting as matter? Because the next thing I’m going to ask is when a wire carries a current and produces a magnetic field around itself (energy) does the wire’s attraction to gravity increase (or its mass increase) due to the additional energy around the wire? In other words if gravity can attract energy then a wire carrying a current should weigh more then when it’s not carrying a current.

It does? Yes it does sound uncertain when you choose to say ‘would’. This makes it sound expected rather than known. Is it a known? Yes, the magnetic field will briefly exist around the wire just after the current stops But this equation means thane by when energy is energy it isn’t mass and visa versa. If the mass of an atom is mostly energy, which part of atom experiences gravitational force?

When you say ‘would have mass’ this sounds uncertain? An emp exists independently of its source. When a magnetic field permeates a pemeable substance, does the permeable substance increase in mass? I’m guessing probably not.

Does the magnetic field of a wire carrying a current have mass?

And what about the ability of abstract thoughts and a sense of mortality perhaps these are necessary attributes of consciousness or maybe I’m just setting the bar too high for what consciousness is.

Perhaps consciousness in the most fundamental terms requires a rudimentary form of all these attributes collectively: The ability to learn A sense of self A sense of the environment The ability to make choices

I am at grips with this (theory), I was just curious about defining momentum in absolute terms.

I felt that my response addressed your question as well, I wasn’t ignoring you I just didn’t quote you as well. I just don’t understand how an object’s momentum can change by simply changing the frame of reference. For example, if you were to simultaneously fire two bullets side by side at the same target, the bullets while travelling to the target have almost no moment relative to each other but relative to the target they do. I just cant see the point of ignoring forces the bullets experienced while being fired. The bullets poses kinetic energy from the gun powder explosion and that kinetic energy still exists in those bullets wether you take the point of view from one of the bullets or not. I know that in this example you wouldn’t practically have time to only consider the bullets relative to each other but in much larger objects travelling far greater lengths of time the same principle should apply by choosing a fixed frame of reference.

You’re right, (except my friend could be ET) but this brings me back to the momentum query; with reference to the entire observable universe, assuming the Big Bang occurred out of nowhere we should be able to assume the universe as a whole has no momentum, its expanding but its centre-of-momentum is zero, with this frame of reference we can more accurately (and by accurately I mean consistently) determine the momentum of celestial objects. The universe has no centre - that we know of as we don’t even know if it is infinite or finite Yes I’m suggesting choosing a point to call the centre of the universe, if we can have a tentative beginning to the universe lets give it a tentative centre as well.

I’m not sure you know what a frame of reference is.   How can it be “more accurate” to say you are moving at an infinite number of different speeds in an infinite number of different directions at the same time? Like this: Quite the opposite. The center-of-momentum frame is often extremely useful. Or the center-of-mass. Or one object being at rest. The thing is that the physics works just as well in any other inertial frame. There is nothing special about any inertial frame, from a physics perspective. You can use whichever one makes the problem easiest to solve.  In any given problem, you may not know the history, so you can't tell if there had been a force applied to the object.  I’m suggesting picking a point that’s considered the centre of the universe as the frame of reference