[General] Position

Thu Apr 23 14:54:24 PDT 2015

Mark
I like invariant mass. 
Invariant mass may not solve frame of reference issues. 
In relativistic systems, we run into frame of reference issues in relativity all the time. While difficult and challenging, it's better than just throwing quantum dice. 
Invariant mass works for not only gravity, inertial and quantum but as a nice base for transient mass issues. (See ADM model, Woodward, etc.) 
Woodward speaks of transient mass to the where under frame dragging conditions (jerk or shock wave). Fearn gave a presentation worth viewing with math for Mark. 
http://aspw.jpl.nasa.gov/files/ASPW2014%20PRESENTATIONS/WEDNESDAY/Breakthrough%20Prop/Fearn.pdf

Best
David

      From: "Mark, Martin van der" <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
 To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> 
 Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2015 1:45 PM
 Subject: Re: [General] Position

#yiv9041848474 #yiv9041848474 -- _filtered #yiv9041848474 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv9041848474 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv9041848474 #yiv9041848474 p.yiv9041848474MsoNormal, #yiv9041848474 li.yiv9041848474MsoNormal, #yiv9041848474 div.yiv9041848474MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv9041848474 a:link, #yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9041848474 a:visited, #yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv9041848474 p.yiv9041848474MsoAcetate, #yiv9041848474 li.yiv9041848474MsoAcetate, #yiv9041848474 div.yiv9041848474MsoAcetate {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:8.0pt;}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474BalloonTextChar {}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474apple-converted-space {}#yiv9041848474 span {}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474EmailStyle21 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474EmailStyle22 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474EmailStyle23 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474EmailStyle24 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474EmailStyle25 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9041848474 span.yiv9041848474EmailStyle26 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv9041848474 .yiv9041848474MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv9041848474 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv9041848474 div.yiv9041848474WordSection1 {}#yiv9041848474 Dear John, You are very right about what you say, but you miss the point I try to make.    Perhaps I now see where some of the confusion is, and Richard is right in some sense about semantics. It is the word REST in rest mass that disturbs you, I presume. I am usually only talking about the physics and do not care a lot about names. Now this is the point, perhaps: In special relativity the inertia of a body, which is usually seen as a structureless thing, has oneinvariant property associated to it and historically this is called rest massand denoted by m0. This makes intuitively immediate sense in case of point particles or hard spheres when no gravitation is considered. But ingeneral relativity we do consider gravitation and now it is immediately clear that an electron lying at rest at the second floor must have a different energy and hence a different mass from one, also at rest, at ground level. So the term rest mass does not properly translate from special to general relativity. Perhaps better we should callm0 the invariant mass, it is the number you find in tables telling you that it is 9.1x10^-31 kg or 0.511 MeV/c^2.    There is another reason why the term rest mass may be confusing, it is because inside any body or object or particle or box there is usually a lot of kinetics. Doesn’t matter, as long as we are having a closed system.     Richard and John, please read what I wrote before and replace rest mass by invariant mass and see if it eliminates the problem. Hope to hear from you soon, Very best, Martin    Dr. Martin B. van der Mark Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare   Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025) Prof. Holstlaan 4 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands Tel: +31 40 2747548    

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: donderdag 23 april 2015 18:17
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Position    Martin:    When you lift that electron, you do work onit. You add energy to it. And the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. You added energy to it, so you increased its mass. The fact that you do the same with another electron and they still balance on your scale doesn’t mean their mass didn’t increase. In similar vein when they fall down and you dissipate the kinetic energy, that mass deficit is not some fiction. Nor is the 13.6ev mass decrease that occurs when the electron and proton form a hydrogen atom.        Note that when you lift the electron, conservation of momentum applies, but the Earth doesn’t move in any discernible way. So the energy you expended wasn’t shared equally. To all extents and purposes you didn’t do any work on the Earth. Thereafter the electron’s potential energy isn’t in the Earth, or in the space between the Earth and the electron. It isn’t in the gravitational field, it’s in the electron. You surely know this because you know that if you give the electron an upward lift of 11.2km/s, the kinetic energy is converted into potential energy, but the electron has escape velocity. It leaves the Earth, and wanders off into space. The electron hasleft the building. It has gone forever, taking all that energy with it. The original  511keV and the 11.2km/s worth of kinetic energy have gone. And you surely know that to balance the books, an electron at rest in free space has a greater mass than an electron at rest at the surface of the Earth. You surely know that mass varies with gravitational potential.       I look forward to being able to lubricate your intellect with copious alcohol in order to persuade you about the above.        Regards John D    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 23 April 2015 16:37
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position    Oh John, what I forgot to say, of course, is that you are right about the fact that the electron does gain potential energy when you lift it, but that is the same thing for the 1kg from Paris.     Rest mass is invariant. Period. That is why it is a very useful, no, an indispensable concept!    So the rest of what you say is quite right, but confusion is there again….    Sorry for producing the extra confusion, Cheers, Martin    Dr. Martin B. van der Mark Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare   Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025) Prof. Holstlaan 4 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands Tel: +31 40 2747548    From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: donderdag 23 april 2015 17:24
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position    Dear John,   Thanks but you are wrong. Itsweight increases in a strong gravitational field, not its mass. Note: Masses should be determined by weighing on a balance scale: a calibrated mass of, say 1kg made of platinum and kept in Paris (or something like that) is always going to give the same mass, but may have a different weight according to the planet you are on or the height you are at. This is how it works already between equator and north pole of the earth….. Cheers, Martin   Regards, Martin     Dr. Martin B. van der Mark Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare   Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025) Prof. Holstlaan 4 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands Tel: +31 40 2747548   From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of John Duffield
Sent: donderdag 23 april 2015 16:53
To: 'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'
Subject: Re: [General] Position   Martin:   “Only the rest mass m0 is the invariant of a particle’s (or closed system’s) motion”.   Chuckle, at this juncture I just have to say it for the benefit of the group: invariant mass varies! The electron’s rest mass increases when you lift it up. Then when you drop it, some of the internal kinetic energy is converted into external kinetic energy, and the electron falls down. Simplify your electron to light going round a square path, note that only the horizontals bend, and that light isdeflected twice as much as matter :      When you’ve dissipated the kinetic energy, the rest mass is reduced, and you have amass deficit. Note that in an extreme situation something must surely happen, as per Winterberg’s paper attached - I’m confident that the general sense of this is correct. Also note that when a photon descends, it doesn’t really get blueshifted. It’s all kinetic energy, conservation of energy applies.  Send a 511keV electron into a black hole, and the black hole mass increases by 511keV/c ². A descending photon only appears to have gained energy because you lose energy when you descend.   Regards John D   From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Mark, Martin van der
Sent: 23 April 2015 15:13
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position   Dear Richard, Thank you for calling “light is heavy” excellent and also thank you for presenting the example of being confused. Perhaps it proves that the paper is not so excellent after all in getting the idea across.   See my comments in blue….   Dr. Martin B. van der Mark Principal Scientist, Minimally Invasive Healthcare   Philips Research Europe - Eindhoven High Tech Campus, Building 34 (WB2.025) Prof. Holstlaan 4 5656 AE  Eindhoven, The Netherlands Tel: +31 40 2747548   From: General [mailto:general-bounces+martin.van.der.mark=philips.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]On Behalf Of Richard Gauthier
Sent: woensdag 22 april 2015 19:33
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position   Hello John D and John W. and others,    I read “Light is Heavy” many years ago and found it excellent. I don’t think it affects my argument. The energy of a set of photons has “rest mass” when they are confined in a box or confined by self-circulation. In its center-of-mass (center-of-energy?) frame the total momentum p of a set of confined  photons equals zero and so the rest mass m of this set of photons with total energy Etotal equals m= Etotal/c^2, as seen from the relativistic energy-momentum equation E^2=p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^2, which also applies to total E, p and m of a system of particles. If a box of photons is moving, the total mass m of these photons doesn’t change,   Wrong. They will receive a net extra impulse from the opposite walls of the box (p=mc with c constant), as you say yourself:   but their total momentum p=gamma mv increases as does their total energy E=gamma mc^2.    But p is not mv , the velocity of the photons is and remains c at all times, v is merely the velocity of the box. The momentum increases because the mass increases. This is true for ALL physical processes, in fact. A car moving at velocity v has an additional mass compared to its mass at rest (the rest mass m0) exactly equal to its kinetic energy divided by c^2: Ekin/c^2 = m which at low velocity (the non-relativistic limit) is very nearly equal to ½ mv^2. So   E = mc^2 = sqrt[m0^2c^4 + gamma^2 m0^2 v^2 c^2 ] So that E=m0c^2 sqrt[1+gamma^2 v^2/c^2] Which for v << c is E = m0c^2 + ½ m0v^2 + ….   Any form of energy is massive ; The mass m is the most universal form of energy, it is the essence of energy and it gravitates like a mass m.   Note to David: It is all about physics but I express it in mathematics since that is the language of physics.      In current usage in relativistic dynamics, the word “mass” and the letter m are taken to mean “rest mass”.   Some people do that. It is a mistake because it leads to confusion and has been introduced as a result of previous confusion. Only the rest mass m0 is the invariant of a particle’s (or closed system’s) motion.   As you know, this is an invariant of a particle’s motion. It doesn’t increase with a particle’s speed.   Correct   In this sense the mass of a single photon is zero, since it has no rest mass. But a single photon is still attracted by a gravitational field, since the photon carries energy.   Correct, and that energy is its mass times c^2   Saying that a photon has mass but not rest mass seems to me a statement more about semantics than physics.   Richard, from the above it should now be clear that it is not semantics.   Why not just say a photon has energy?    You are contradicting yourself, it has mass as can be concluded from the fact that the photon is attracted by gravity. It must have mass, gravitational mass so to speak.   For what it’s worth, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence .   Thanks for the links.     If an electron is composed of a circulating photon there is nothing “at rest” in a “resting” electron. The term “rest mass” of an electron may be dispensed with in the future by replacing it with Emin/c^2 = 0.511 MeV/c^2 (as is generally done now in particle physics) where Emin is the minimum total energy of a free electron.   Wrong. The electron as a whole has a center of mass that can be stationary, all dynamics happening inside. Note that it ( it = the particle, the whole thing including boundaries or stabilizing forces, for example photon plus box) may be shaking about at the Compton or Zitterbewegung frequency. This random or periodic zero-point motion (by the book, quite a natural thing to have for a quantum mechanical object) is averaged out by a proper weighing experiment if one wants to know the total mass (being the whole energy). Remember, that energy is subject to the uncertainty principle with the length of time you measure it: The precise mass can be determined only if one averages over many cycles.   Our task as scientists is to shift our perspective on nature such that everything fits exactly. No more, no less. You are one of the brave that have tried to do so, and you have been able to make a big step in the right direction, I believe. This is why I put my precious time into this answer. However, some further tuning is required because your present point of view contradicts itself as well as reality. This true for the above as well as for the charged photon concept. Again, I am not saying it is all wrong, but there is a fatal misfit in places. It is time to fine-tune your shift of perspective and I hope may comments will help you and others.           Richard   
On Apr 22, 2015, at 6:36 AM, John Duffield <johnduffield at btconnect.com> wrote:   Richard:   IMHO photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave moving linearly at c, whilst electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave going round and round at c. In a box of its own making. And when you open one box with another in electron-positron annihilation, each is a radiating body that loses mass, just like Einstein’s paper. All of it. And hen it isn’t there any more. Do read light is heavy. It’s very simple really.    Regards John D   From: General [mailto:general-bounces+johnduffield=btconnect.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Williamson
Sent: 22 April 2015 08:40
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] Position   Hello,

No. this is confusing mass and rest mass. Photons have "mass" by virtue of their energy. They are not massless but rest-massless and this is not the same thing. The popular literature confuses this. If photons were massless they would not be influenced by a gravitational field. Photons in a box make the box more rest-massive. You can weigh it! Free light cannot be weighed precisely because it is a gon. The box is at rest and whatever is in it it may be considered "at rest" as well. Forced to rest by being in the box.

Light confined in a box increases its effective rest mass in just the same way as any other mass-energy would. If the box is sufficiently sturdy then adding an effective number of joules of mass as a gas, as a photon gas or even as temperature would affect the rest-mass of the box in exactly the same way. The box aquires the properties of whatever is put into it by virtue of those things being confined in the box.

Regards, John. 
  The information contained in this message may be confidential and legally protected under applicable law. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, forwarding, dissemination, or reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 
_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/davidmathes8%40yahoo.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150423/c543201b/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2555 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150423/c543201b/attachment-0001.jpg>