Has anyone studied the changes to inertia as objects pass through magnetic fields?

My observations here would indicate that not only are ferro objects attracted but also their inertia seems to be also......any one?

The distinction between attraction and inertia.....the magnetic field seems to alter the inherant inertia beyond what I would call just attraction.

What do you mean by "inertia"? Inertia is usually equated with mass in physics, but you seem to be using the term in some other sense.

would I be right in stating inertia is mass and its tendancy to follow a straight line. Inertial mass being mass in movement.

or maybe mass weight in movement

or maybe mass weight in movement
No mass is mass and weight is weight, they are two different things.

The inertia is the mass.

And as for your original question: when you take an electric charge in motion in a magnetic field, the equation of motion (for the non relativistic case) will be:
ma = qv X B.
a is the acceleration, m is the mass, q is the electric charge, v is the velocity, B is the magnetic field and X stands for the cross product. As you see, the mass is constant, it s m and not m(B), it does not depend on the magnetic field.

In the relativistic case, you will have a somehow different equation which reduces to the non relativistic one for slow velocities. And again the mass that enters the relativistic equation is the rest mass and does not depend on the magnetic field.

Remark: One could argue that since the solution of the equation of motion depends on the magnetic field, the velocity will depend also and then the "relativistic" mass is a function of the magnetic field. But this is not true, since for example, if we have a constant magnetic field, the solution of the equation of motion depends on the initial conditions, so that the at each time , you can have a different velocity, therefore you will have a different "relativistic" mass, even though the magnetic field is constant.
I have put the word relativistic inside of quotation marks, since there was here a discussion if to speak of relativistic mass or no. I don't want to start a discussion on the subject, but whatever your opinion is, what we find is that anyway, the mass does not depend on the magnetic field.

thanks 1100f, it's just that I get the impression that when mass eneters the magntic field it's inertia is somehow combined with that of the magnets in that the stationary magnet now has a moving extension to itself...this is the impression any way.

From what I understood from your post the object is always treated as separate.

QQ, your obs are founded, IMO.

If you calculate the mass of Mercury (or any planet) a figure will be derived (in a circular orbit,,,, inertial, where the magnetic/electric properties are resonant)
Now when resonance is not achieved the mass changes and thus the inertia (this situation is not inertial )
This occurs (most dramatically) with Mercury as its orbit is highly eccentric...
There is evidence that the calculations mirror actual events (surface changes and ion concentrations in the atmosphere as well as solar wind deflection )

To extrapolate what we experience here on Earth, or in our Solar System, to the rest of the Universe is fatal. Modern atronomy has fallen foul of this assumption, IMO, and thus black holes (fantasy IMO) can be conceived.

Yep I would say inertia is a product of the surrounding resonant magnetic/electric field
BUT ????

Now mass can be defined as the degree a piece of matter couples to inertial...

Sorry this is circular but ??

Yep I would say inertia is a product of the surrounding resonant magnetic/electric field
BUT ????

Would you extend this logic to include the effect of gravity ( field) as distinct to magnetic fields?

>> Would you extend this logic to include the effect of gravity ( field) as distinct to magnetic fields?

In my view (from a mathematical analysis) I expect gravity is the consequence of the SPIN (induced from eg on Earth, the Sun's field spin) of the resonant crossed electric/magnetic field (Poynting vector) induced by the superposition of the fields of all the particles that make up the Earth. Mass (and inertia) is a measure of the stickiness of a particle locked in this field.....

QQ, your obs are founded, IMO.

If you calculate the mass of Mercury (or any planet) a figure will be derived (in a circular orbit,,,, inertial, where the magnetic/electric properties are resonant)
Now when resonance is not achieved the mass changes and thus the inertia (this situation is not inertial )
This occurs (most dramatically) with Mercury as its orbit is highly eccentric...
There is evidence that the calculations mirror actual events (surface changes and ion concentrations in the atmosphere as well as solar wind deflection )

To extrapolate what we experience here on Earth, or in our Solar System, to the rest of the Universe is fatal. Modern atronomy has fallen foul of this assumption, IMO, and thus black holes (fantasy IMO) can be conceived.

Yep I would say inertia is a product of the surrounding resonant magnetic/electric field
BUT ????

Now mass can be defined as the degree a piece of matter couples to inertial...

Sorry this is circular but ??

IMHO, what you say is not exactly correct since there exist around mercury a supersymmetric resonant spinor field which reacts with the hypermagnetic field generated by the vacuum contained between the different parts of the unikef field. These different parts cancel each other, separating the mass of mercury from its pseudo vector mass
So, you can see that the mass does not depend on the magnetic field.

I think I field sick!!

In the relativistic case, you will have a somehow different equation which reduces to the non relativistic one for slow velocities. And again the mass that enters the relativistic equation is the rest mass and does not depend on the magnetic field.

That's why its always best to express the above equation as

dp/dt = qv X B.


Remark: One could argue that since the solution of the equation of motion depends on the magnetic field, the velocity will depend also and then the "relativistic" mass is a function of the magnetic field.

I don't understand what you mean here. Can you please clarify for me? Relativistic mass depends, not on velocity, but on speed. A pure magnetic field can't change the speed of a particle, it can only change the velocity. Therefore once a charged particle is in a magnetic field the relativistic mass will remain constant for all possible magnetic fields, so long as the electric field vanishes.

Pete

Has anyone studied the changes to inertia as objects pass through magnetic fields?

I know of no such effect. However there is an effect called radiation damping. Basically it refers to the self force on a charged particle which is being accelerated. I've always thought that one can think of this, not as a self force, but as an increase in inertial mass.

By the way. The term inertial mass is a synonym for relativistic mass. When speaking of mass in relativity there are two types: relativistic mass and proper mass. The former many people, and myself, simply call this mass. The later is called rest mass.

Inertial mass is defined as the quantities m such that mv is a conserved quantity. The quantity mv is then called "momentum". So sometimes (e.g. Special Relativity, A.P. French) you'll see inertial mass defined as the ration m = p/v.

Pete

pmb, I suppose you are also familiar with synchrotron radiation. It is radiation from
a particle given off in accelerator rings, resulting in a decrease in 'relativistic mass'
of a particle without a decrease in the speed or velocity of the particle. It is a
problem for some low energy particles because they can decay quickly even though
their speed does not decrease, suggesting their lifetime is related to their energy
and not to 'time dilation'. Also, I suppose you have read of 'missing momentum' and
'missing mass' in papers from particle accelerator experiments. The relativistic equations give too high a value for the momentum or mass of the accelerated particles. Is their 'relativistic mass' actually closer to the kinetic energy predictions
of Newtonian equations?

>> Would you extend this logic to include the effect of gravity ( field) as distinct to magnetic fields?

In my view (from a mathematical analysis) I expect gravity is the consequence of the SPIN (induced from eg on Earth, the Sun's field spin) of the resonant crossed electric/magnetic field (Poynting vector) induced by the superposition of the fields of all the particles that make up the Earth. Mass (and inertia) is a measure of the stickiness of a particle locked in this field.....

If you believe that is true I would be interested to see your calculation for the moons gravity to earth since its rotation on its axis is synchronized to its orbit with earth.

IMHO, what you say is not exactly correct since there exist around mercury a supersymmetric resonant spinor field which reacts with the hypermagnetic field generated by the vacuum contained between the different parts of the unikef field. These different parts cancel each other, separating the mass of mercury from its pseudo vector mass
So, you can see that the mass does not depend on the magnetic field.


Cute but it is UniKEF. :D

pmb, I suppose you are also familiar with synchrotron radiation...

Yes. I believe the loss in rel-mass is due to an effect similar to radiation damping. When one uses the force equation above one is ignoring such effects. Howver the losss in mass is not a result of work done by the B-field.


It is radiation from a particle given off in accelerator rings, resulting in a decrease in 'relativistic mass' of a particle without a decrease in the speed or velocity of the particle.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you arrived at that conclusion. There is a 1-to-1 relationship between relativistic mass and speed. One cannot change without the other. To see this consider the relationship between the inertial energy E and the speed v

v = c*sqrt[1 + (E_o/E)^2]

If E_o remains constant then E changes with v.

Sorry. I never heard of this missing mass or missing momentum thing.

Pete

I have put the word relativistic inside of quotation marks, since there was here a discussion if to speak of relativistic mass or no. I don't want to start a discussion on the subject, but whatever your opinion is, what we find is that anyway, the mass does not depend on the magnetic field.

Yep. That sure does start heated debates. I've come to believe that if, in forums at least, one wishes to speak of mass in relativity that one should state once in a discussion whether by "mass" they mean "proper mass" (aka "rest mass") or "relativsitic mass". That way everyone knows what it means. After all this is what all relativity textbooks do. The "rest mass" people can interpret the adjective "proper" to mean "correct" while the "relativistic mass" people can interpret "proper" as "inherent".

Then everyone is happy :)

Pete

>> If you believe that is true I would be interested to see your calculation for the moons gravity to earth since its rotation on its axis is synchronized to its orbit with earth.

Hi MacM,

Just to clear up.. its rotation on its axis

Rotational motion is not relevant to field spin
If you assume an orbit is inertial, and that motion is driven by field spin (magnetic electric vectors), it is easy to calculate that these motions are interlocked. That is the Galactic spin, differentially spins the Sun's field, which in turn spins each of the planets fields, and these spin the fields of the moons....

This is a model that produces equations that are consistent and coherent and accurate. Planet rotation seems to be associated with the expressed size of the planet in the interplanetary (Sun's) field.... thus Jupiter is larger than it should be... etc.

The parameters of the Moon lead to accurate results. I have analysed the Moon from every angle I can think of, each independant of the other and the results are all consistent.

The Moon was of interest to me to see if Gnewton was a universal constant for our Solar System... it appears it is...
ie Moon analysis was carried out from observed orbit, langarian points, taking the spin back to the surface and then calculating the gravity that would be expected...
or using Gnewton as an energy field constant.....
or using observed gravity values and working backwards to inferred mass....
all equivalent results.

pmb, I have read in more than one article of the synchrotron radiation being a problem
for lighter particles. Here is a cut and paste to one accelerator site which addresses it:

"As its name suggests, the LC would be straight rather than circular - for a very good reason. LEP was ring-shaped, so allowing bunches of the colliding particles to keep circulating with the aid of magnetic fields. However, a more powerful electron-positron machine can't be circular because of a physical limitation: the particles radiate electromagnetic waves as their path is bent around the ring, so that they lose energy. At high energies, this 'synchrotron radiation' is a serious obstacle for light particles like electrons but less so for protons which are much heavier.

The alternative, therefore, is to accelerate the electron and positron beams in opposite directions down a long, straight path before colliding them head-on."
http://policy.iop.org/v_production/v7.html
================================================== ============

The purpose in accelerating particles, as I understand it, is to increase their kinetic energy so heavier particles can be produced. For example, if an electron is accelerated
to 1.022 MeV of kinetic energy, it can then produce a positron and another electron,
both of which have a rest mass of .511 MeV. The mass increases in the particles
is from the electricity in the accelerator linacs or rings, energy is converted into mass.
'Time dilation' is not calculated or considered in particle accelerator physics, it is all
about kinetic energy and mass.

The mass increases in the particles is from the electricity in the accelerator linacs or rings, energy is converted into mass. 'Time dilation' is not calculated or considered in particle accelerator physics, it is all
about kinetic energy and mass.

True. Simply put - potential energy is changed into kinetic energy and kinetic energy increases the relativistic mass of the particles. Since relativistic mass is a conserved quantity one has to obtain a relativistic mass of the sum of the particles to be greater than or equal to the proper mass of the partilce that you wish to create.

Time dilation comes into play only when you need to the particle to exist long enough for the particle to be detected.

Pete