[General] relativistic mass

[Mark, Martin van der]

Andrew, very good questions indeed.
I do not know all the answers and must think about it anyway.
Until later,
Best regards, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 9 okt. 2015 om 19:34 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:

Dear Martin,

I fully agree with your paper; however, I was asking a different question on what I think is a related subject. Unfortunately, I did not give the adequate context. I don't think that you understood what I was asking.

The context:

  1.  An accelerated electron radiates EM energy.
     *   often this EM energy can be measured as radiation separated from the electron
     *   is it always so? or can the EM energy be bound to the electron in the same manner as that from a constantly accelerated atomic electron that is constantly emitting radiation (a la Maxwell) that does not leave the source.
  2.  When the acceleration stops,
     *   does the radiation field go/decay to zero?
     *   or does the bound radiation simply stop increasing?
     *   in a lossless system, how does a standing wave diminish?
  3.  I contend the latter and the bound radiation increase is reflected in the relativistic increase in mass (gamma).
     *   My question was related to any publications that might support my claim.
  4.  neutrons, being neutral, are not expected to radiate when accelerated.
     *   nevertheless, they experience a relativistic increase in mass with velocity.
     *   would this argue against my claim above or against the concept that the neutron is really neutral (and not just 'net' neutral)?
  5.  Now that it is known that neutrons have a charge distribution:
     *   can we assume that, when accelerated, they have a bound-radiation EM field?
  6.  In the case of electron/positron annihilation, restmass is converted to relativistic mass (as they come together) & then to radiation.
     *   is the relativistic mass actually bound radiation?
     *   since net energy does not change in the annihilation process, the conversion of rest mass (an expression of the Coulomb potential) to EM radiation is continuous until the mass and potential are gone.
     *   I have an unpublished paper on this process, if anyone is interested.
  7.  The story and its implications continue.

Andrew

_________________________
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Mark, Martin van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:
Dear Andrew,
The paper "light is heavy" is no more, and no less, than a supposedly didactic and the only consistent explanation of special relativity and its consequences. Most important points are that there are some confusions:
1) mass is not matter
2) energy is equivalent, exactly the same as, mass: E=mc^2
3) light is massive, both in the inertial and gravitational sense, as is obvious from experiment
4) the greatest confusion is about light being massless, which indeed it would be if it couldn't/didn't move. The whole point is that light is always moving at the speed of light, so it is a non-existing limit.

Weighing a box with a molecular gas, or that of a "photon" gas give the same kind of result: the gravitational mass of the gas plus the weight of the box. Light is gravitationally deflected by large masses, experimentally. Light carries momentum and energy.

There is nothing new in what i say, it is consistent with Einsteinian relativity an represents the vision of Herman weyl too, and many others

Best, Martin

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

> Op 8 okt. 2015 om 19:52 heeft Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com<mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Dear Martin,
>
> In your "Light is Heavy" you state:
>
> "In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."
>
> Do you have any reference for my contention that the relativistic mass of particles is bound EM-radiation?
>
> In the case of electron/positron annihilation, restmass is converted to relativistic mass & then to radiation. However, I do not know of any text or paper that identifies relativistic mass as bound EM-radiation. Your statement is close to that.
>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at martin.van.der.mark at philips.com<mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/martin.van.der.mark%40philips.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

________________________________
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20151009/74ea0c7f/attachment.htm>