[General] relativistic mass

Sat Oct 10 05:31:11 PDT 2015

Dear Andrew,
please find some answers below, in red

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: vrijdag 9 oktober 2015 20:11
To: Andrew Meulenberg
Cc: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
Subject: Re: [General] relativistic mass

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.
Indeed, inside the atom the radiation is reabsorbed. This is in fact Bohr's fundamental postulate for atom stability. I do not really know how this works in any detail, there may be papers that treat this subject but I am not aware of any. In general case, a combination of two non-zero fields that have the same far-field configuration, but opposite phase interfere destructively and cannot radiate. In fact, as an example,the combination of a dipole and a so-called anapole field can do this perfectly. Important is that these fields have different topology and their combination is non trivial. Therefore, there exists a non-zero field close to the source.

  1.  When the acceleration stops,

     *   does the radiation field go/decay to zero? No, except for the source (Coulomb) field, it radiates away. Locally it disappears, therefore
     *   or does the bound radiation simply stop increasing?
     *   in a lossless system, how does a standing wave diminish? It may only radiate away or be suppressed locally by destructive interference

  1.  I contend the latter and the bound radiation increase is reflected in the relativistic increase in mass (gamma). Local to the source, the amount of energy in the field increases (this may be in the form of bound radiation, according to some electron models). What is radiated away does not lead to increase in the mass, quite the contrary.

     *   My question was related to any publications that might support my claim.

  1.  neutrons, being neutral, are not expected to radiate when accelerated. agree

     *   nevertheless, they experience a relativistic increase in mass with velocity. agree
     *   would this argue against my claim above or against the concept that the neutron is really neutral (and not just 'net' neutral)? The neutron is not a so-called "stricktly neutral particle", see Landau and Lifschitz relativistc quantum mechanics for definition. Clearly, such particles that have no intrinsic electro-weak coupling are hard to find (literally)

  1.  Now that it is known that neutrons have a charge distribution:

     *   can we assume that, when accelerated, they have a bound-radiation EM field? In any case, I do strongly believe so

  1.  In the case of electron/positron annihilation, restmass is converted to relativistic mass (as they come together) & then to radiation. The way you put it is very sensitive to the interpretation of the meaning of the words, and so will be my answer. Restmass is something that is best determined by putting a system in a box (make a closed system, no leaks) on a weighing scale. This is not always appreciated or understood.

     *   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 do not necessarily disagree. However, you are implicitly dividing up the system, the mas that is gone has now leaked out of the system, it has been radiated away, therefore it seems to be gone.
     *   I have an unpublished paper on this process, if anyone is interested. If it seems consistent with my answers ;-)

  1.  The story and its implications continue. It is my favorite system to contemplate and explain the nature of stuff!

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/20151010/ee8bcd6f/attachment.htm>