A forgotten theory of mass

[Aethelwulf]

A counter example is the contribution to the mass of a body due to thermal energy. That mass increase is due to kinetic energy, not electromagnetic energy.

 

I don't know much about thermal increases of mass, but it sounds an awful lot like a relativistic increase of mass which is often seen being down to kinetic energy. I wish to quote Taylor and Wheeler here:<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "><br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">''The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself.''

 

So I ask you once again.

 

You have stated in so many words exactly and precisely that mass is an electrical phenomenon.

 

I disagree and ask you to prove your claim.

 

Please address the question asked not something else.

 

 

 

I said that there can be contribution of mass, I have never stated that it was entirely an electromagnetic phenomenon. I think you should read up on electromagnetic theories of mass

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_mass

 

Because you are distorting what i say.

[studiot]

I have never stated that it was entirely an electromagnetic phenomenon.

 

For the second time in 5 posts I will quote this passage from your own post, penned by your own hand.

 

In a sense, mass has been shown to be an electrical phenomenon derived from first principles.

 

 

Because you are distorting what i say.

 

Are you calling me a liar?

Edited June 28, 2012 by studiot

[Aethelwulf]

For the second time in 5 posts I will quote this passage from your own post, penned by your own hand.

 

 

 

 

 

Are you calling me a liar?

 

But after that I clearly state that if there is an electromagnetic mass, then it is a ''contribution'' of some of that mass. You're hung up on something but it wasn't intended to be taken as my absolute word on something. Besides, you've quoted something I am saying that has been pretty much extracted from one of the citations I gave. Don't ask me which one. I'd need to look through them all again.

 

Thus, I said it in the OP a few times and I will say it to you again. If mass is an electromagnetic phenomenon, then its a contribution to some of the mass of the system.

 

Here read this, touches on many reasons why contributions of electromagnetic energy to mass is considered http://ivanik3.narod.ru/EMagnitizm/JornalPape/ParadocsCullwick/hnizdo_ajp_65_55_97.pdf

[studiot]

If you would like to hold a meaningful discussion don't state something to be categorically the source then go on sometime later to qualify it as only part of the total.

 

Make the important points clear from the outset.

 

Further if you are going to mix other folk's work with your own you need to clearly distinguish which is which.

 

You have clearly put in a deal of work writing those long posts, and even acknowledged this yourself somewhere along the line when you metaphorically wiped your brow.

 

Why do you expect me to read all of your writing when you only ever respond to half of my points?

I do try to keep my posts short.

 

So we are now looking at mass as not fundamental but created multifactorially.

 

So should we now follow a process, similar to that undertaken a couple of hundred years ago, to prove that all froms of energy were equivalent?

That is should we have some validation to prove that all sources of 'mass' create the same thing?

Edited June 28, 2012 by studiot

[pmb]

I don't know much about thermal increases of mass, but it sounds an awful lot like a relativistic increase of mass which is often seen being down to kinetic energy.

No. They're quite different. If you heat an object you are infusing it with thermal energy which means that the average kinetic energy of the atoms which make up the body increases. This happens without an increase in velocity. This causes an increase in the proper mass of the object. There is zero increase in the kinetic energy of the object and therefore the relativistic mass has nothing to do with it. Thermal energy is just one example of an energy increase and mass increase accordoing to E₀ = m₀c², Here it is the m₀ that increases by the addition of E₀ in the form of thermal energy.

 

But relativistic mass increase due to an increase in kinetic energy is another form of mass increase and I do subscribe to relativistic mass being a valid definition of mass. I disagree with Taylor and Wheeler on this point. They believe that relativistic energy and relativistic mass are the same thing. I disagree. I gave an example in my paper on mass where they havve different values.

 

I don't understand your objection to relativistic mass though, given what you've said about mass in the past. E.g. in response to my giving the value of passive gravitational mass (which is identical to relativistic mass) you wrote

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66737-what-is-mass/page__view__findpost__p__686760

That's fine, no probs with that in my eyes

Edited June 28, 2012 by pmb

[Aethelwulf]

If you would like to hold a meaningful discussion don't state something to be categorically the source then go on sometime later to qualify it as only part of the total.

 

Make the important points clear from the outset.

 

 

I thought I had, when I was making my conclusions of the work at the end.

 

 

Further if you are going to mix other folk's work with your own you need to clearly distinguish which is which.

 

 

Point taken.

 

 

 

You have clearly put in a deal of work writing those long posts, and even acknowledged this yourself somewhere along the line when you metaphorically wiped your brow.

 

 

Yes, it was.

<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">

 

Why do you expect me to read all of your writing when you only ever respond to half of my points?

I do try to keep my posts short.

 

So we are now looking at mass as not fundamental but created multifactorially.

 

So should we now follow a process, similar to that undertaken a couple of hundred years ago, to prove that all froms of energy were equivalent?

That is should we have some validation to prove that all sources of 'mass' create the same thing?

 

Mass is definitely not fundamental, because it is a low-energy phenomenon. Mass appeared alongside geometry in geometrogenesis, when the universe had sufficiently cooled. Fotini Markopoulou has made some interesting contributions to this area of understanding.

 

As for all forms of energy are equal, I would not agree with that statement. Energy is allowed to come in different forms, thinking it didn't would be unwise. However, there might be a fundamental particle - one in which all other types of energy decayed from. Some have even speculated that the universe arose in a soup of gamma radiation. Others, its a quark plasma.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[studiot]

This happens without an increase in velocity.

 

I don't follow this?

 

Are you perhaps saying because the energy increase is due to oscillator frequency increase or some other cause?

 

Some have even speculated ......

 

There is too much speculation and not enough hard fact IMHO.

 

This was not aimed at you or anyone in particular.

 

I would not agree with that statement (about energy)

 

Would you like to elaborate?

Edited June 28, 2012 by studiot

[Aethelwulf]

I don't follow this?

 

Are you perhaps saying because the energy increase is due to oscillator frequency increase or some other cause?

 

 

 

There is too much speculation and not enough hard fact IMHO.

 

This was not aimed at you or anyone in particular.

 

 

 

Would you like to elaborate?

 

Well, you said, ''So should we now follow a process, similar to that undertaken a couple of hundred years ago, to prove that all froms of energy were equivalent? ''

 

I certainly can't say a photon = gluon. So not all forms of energy are equivalent. As for the velocity quote, can you refresh my memory what it was I was talking about... maybe quote a larger piece for me.

 

 

[studiot]

As for the velocity quote, can you refresh my memory what it was I was talking about... maybe quote a larger piece for me.

 

 

Tthat would be because it was addressed to pmb and his post#30.

 

Sorry if there was some confusion but I originally posted just the velocity quote and my question to pmb, then when I submitted it I saw you had replied to my earlier post.

I meant to make a new post, but somehow it came out as an edit to the first one.

 

If you cannot say that all forms of energy are equivalent how can you compare them and why do they deserve the term energy, not for instance energy typeI, typeII etc?

 

This is not a trick question it is seriously fundamental. Just remember how long it took to establish that heat and mechanical energy are the aspects of same thing.

Edited June 28, 2012 by studiot

[Spyman]

Tip: If you don't want to use the reply/multiquote button located at the bottom of each post to get a quote tag with name, timestamp and a link, then you could alternatively write

Quoted Text Part

to get a quote like this:

 

Quoted Text Part

 

Also the forum software automatically merges follow up posts within a shorter timespan.

[pmb]

I don't follow this?

 

Are you perhaps saying because the energy increase is due to oscillator frequency increase or some other cause?

Sorry for the delay. I didn't know you were addressing this question to me.

 

I meant that you can give the particles in the body an increase in kinetic energy, without chaging the velocity of the object. I meant to say that so people wouldn't confuse this mass increase with an increase in relativistic mass of the object as a whole. I see that it didn't work though.

[studiot]

Spyman, thank you, particularly if your tip was aimed at me.

 

pmb, thank you for the follow up.

Edited June 28, 2012 by studiot

[pmb]

Spyman, thank you, particularly if your tip was aimed at me.

 

pmb, thank you for the follow up.

You're very welcome studiot. Sorry for the delay. Next time please kick me in the cyber pants so I know that I'm supposed to respond. PM me if I seem to not notice. I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

[Aethelwulf]

 

If you cannot say that all forms of energy are equivalent how can you compare them and why do they deserve the term energy, not for instance energy typeI, typeII etc?

 

This is not a trick question it is seriously fundamental. Just remember how long it took to establish that heat and mechanical energy are the aspects of same thing.

 

Energy can be different forms, we know not all energy can be equal because they quite evidently, possess different attributes. A gluon is a quantum glue capable of gluing the quark particles together. It travels at the speed of light like a photon, but photons don't interact with each other - while gluons can.

 

So you tell me please, how can all forms of energy be the same thing?

 

 

[studiot]

So you tell me please, how can all forms of energy be the same thing?

 

 

Presumably the particles referred to (and others besides) are different in some way. That is they may possess energy but they also posses other attributes that are not the same.

 

Otherwise there would be no point in differentiating them.

 

I further presume you are not suggesting either named particle is pure energy and nothing else.

 

In fact I do not know of a particle of 'pure energy and nothing else'

[Aethelwulf]

Presumably the particles referred to (and others besides) are different in some way. That is they may possess energy but they also posses other attributes that are not the same.

 

Otherwise there would be no point in differentiating them.

 

I further presume you are not suggesting either named particle is pure energy and nothing else.

 

In fact I do not know of a particle of 'pure energy and nothing else'

 

Well, there is no such thing as a pure energy. Some nowadays like to refer to photons as being a ''pure energy'' but often if one thinks about it, there's little sense about it.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Aethelwulf

[studiot]

Please remember this is your thread not mine.

 

I am examining your propositions critically and trying to draw conclusions about the implications which you have not yet stated.

 

This question about energy is one such.

 

Thus I am not advocating that all forms of mass are the same thing or that they are not. I am saying that a logical result of your statement to the latter effect is if they are not then we have to label the different forms in some way.

 

I am then drawing a parallel with energy, which as far as I am aware, nobody has so labelled because we consider all forms of energy interchangeable aspects of the same attribute.

 

So over to you for further explanation of your proposition.

[Aethelwulf]

Yes, we label them with names. A photon is a photon, a gluon is a gluon for instance. I certainly have never heard in physics that we consider that all forms of energy are interchangeable. Can you elaborate on this?

 

I understand this is my thread, but give me something to work with first, like statements in physics I might be able to recognize. The only thing I can associate what you have said to, is the indistinguishable principle of certain particles. This might interest you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles