[General] relativistic mass
Wolfgang Baer
wolf at nascentinc.com
Tue Oct 13 12:33:43 PDT 2015
Yes, of course, one can calculate the energy and momentum exchange when
a Photon is absorbed, reflected
but when we equate EM energy with mass
we have mass as a source and sink of gravity, mass in kinetic energy and
momentum
How do we know these are all the same, that is what we are discussing?
I tend to favor thinking of EM as one domain of force, energy, etc where
charge is the source and sink
while Gravity and inertia as a second dominant force category where mass
is the source and sink parameter
An electromagntic disturbance can effect material absorption, emission,
reflection but
Whether on its own an EM disturbance has gravitational properties?
Albrecht says light bending is a refraction process.
Does an excited atom , not ionized, actually weigh more than one in a
ground state?
Certainly a Uranium atom weighs more than its fission products.
best
wolf
Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com
On 10/9/2015 5:00 PM, John Williamson wrote:
> Dear Wolf,
>
> Although light in a bottle has not been done (there is an interesting
> argument about whether light entering a bottle would suck it towards
> or push it away from source as it travels through the glass), many
> experiments have measured light pressure per-se. There are now even
> (photon tweezer) engineered systems one can buy in the shops using
> this principle.
>
> If you want to chase this look at light-sails for spaceships
> literature and understand three things: firstly why silver sails are
> faster (two times!) than black ones, secondly why the sail force
> reduces both inverse-square and by the (Doppler) redshift as one
> recedes from the source and thirdly - special relativity. After that
> it is a simple matter to do the sums!
>
> Regards, John.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* General
> [general-bounces+john.williamson=glasgow.ac.uk at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
> on behalf of Mark, Martin van der [martin.van.der.mark at philips.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, October 09, 2015 12:08 PM
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [General] relativistic mass
>
> Dear Wolf,
>
> No
>
> Yes
>
> 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 *Wolfgang Baer
> *Sent:* vrijdag 9 oktober 2015 6:24
> *To:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Subject:* Re: [General] relativistic mass
>
> Has anyone ever measured the gravitational weight of light in a bottle?
> Does a hot hollow ball weigh more than a cold one?
>
> WOlf
>
> Dr. Wolfgang Baer
> Research Director
> Nascent Systems Inc.
> tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
> E-mailwolf at NascentInc.com <mailto:wolf at NascentInc.com>
>
> On 10/8/2015 3:51 PM, Adam K wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Yes, general relativity. That link references the book I keep
> quoting in this discussion list, which is all about general
> relativity. Schrodinger introduces the basic idea and its
> consequences very lucidly.
>
> The origin of mass was always the sticking point of this theory,
> and was where Einstein focused his efforts for many decades. He
> called the representation of mass in the theory an /asylum
> ignorantiae/.
>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Mark, Martin van der
> <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com
> <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>> wrote:
>
> Dear Adam K,
>
> Thank you for the quote, and isn't it a puzzling one? "The
> deflection is due to gravitation AND mass!!" Well that is one mass
> too many, in my opinion, but i think this should be interpreted as
> if not just Newtonion gravitation is working but, instead, general
> relativity (which includes corrections to the former).
>
> John D, i have not recently responded to your comments, but thank
> you very much indeed for the useful explanations combined with
> your great sense of humor! The helicopter one with not finding the
> hard bits actually made it physically impossible for me to hit the
> small keys on my phone for a while.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Very best regards, Martin
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>
> Op 8 okt. 2015 om 23:23 heeft "davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>" <davidmathes8 at yahoo.com
> <mailto:davidmathes8 at yahoo.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Adam
>
> For the light rays near the sun, wouldn't one need not just E
> & M fields. To identify the gravitational component,one would
> have to rigorous eliminate effects from the weak and strong
> forces as well.
>
> Also, there may be some value in considering Dirac's symmetric
> version of the Maxwell equations. In doing so, magnetism
> should be considered as a separate force, a fifth force if you
> will.
>
> David
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Adam K <afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com>>
> *To:* Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2015 12:41 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [General] relativistic mass
>
> With the danger of producing the impression that I have
> only read one book, Martin I thought you would enjoy this
> quote:
>
> /The deflection of light rays that pass near the sun is
> not a purely gravitational phenomenon, it is due to the
> fact that an electromagnetic field possesses energy and
> momentum, hence also mass./
>
> From page 1, here:
> http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/schrodinger-st-struc.pdf
>
>
> Adam
>
> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:33 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.
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> afokay at gmail.com <mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
>
>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the
> Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at
> davidmathes8 at yahoo.com <mailto: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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of
> Light and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <mailto:afokay at gmail.com>
> <a
> href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atWolf at nascentinc.com <mailto:Wolf at nascentinc.com>
>
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
>
> Click here to unsubscribe
>
> </a>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.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/20151013/7a19b66d/attachment.htm>
More information about the General
mailing list