Gravitational mass and Inertial mass

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by chinglu, Aug 29, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. chinglu Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,637
    Can anyone explain with references how the standard model explains the equivalence of gravitational mass and inertial mass?

    Thanks
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/concepts/gr.pdf


    http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/education/spring06/komatsu/secure/lecture11.pdf


    http://www.theoryofeverything.co.uk/gravitational_inertial_mass/


    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/287363/inertial-mass



    Now chinglu you have the general standard accepted explaining intertial and gravitational mass.

    Naturally I predict that for some creationist inspired illogical, reason, you will probably see that differently.
    If so, please provide PROOF of what you see as proper explanation for both.
    If not, just as has happened to your other nonsense claims, this should also be shifted to alternative section.
    But let's see how you handle it, shall we?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Here's some more chinglu......

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1988
    ABSTRACT:

    Inertial and gravitational mass in quantum mechanics

    E. Kajari, N.L. Harshman, E.M. Rasel, S. Stenholm, G. Süßmann, W.P. Schleich
    (Submitted on 10 Jun 2010 (v1), last revised 15 Jun 2010 (this version, v2))
    We show that in complete agreement with classical mechanics, the dynamics of any quantum mechanical wave packet in a linear gravitational potential involves the gravitational and the inertial mass only as their ratio. In contrast, the spatial modulation of the corresponding energy wave function is determined by the third root of the product of the two masses. Moreover, the discrete energy spectrum of a particle constrained in its motion by a linear gravitational potential and an infinitely steep wall depends on the inertial as well as the gravitational mass with different fractional powers. This feature might open a new avenue in quantum tests of the universality of free fall.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    http://cds.cern.ch/record/489609/files/0103008.pdf
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    http://www.the-origin.org/Inertial-GravitationalIdentity.pdf

    CONCLUSION:
    Thus gravitational attraction is caused by the same mechanism in the encountered center
    as Coulomb attraction between opposite charges.
    Both masses depend on the “target” that the encountered center is for the incoming waves
    from the source center.
    All centers are always simultaneously in both roles: source and encountered.
    The magnitudes of the Coulomb and Gravitational effects are different because they
    employ different mechanisms of affecting the encountered center with the same medium wave
    flow.
    Inertial mass and gravitational mass are not merely equal; they are identical.
     
  8. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    None of the references you gave actually explains the cause of the equivalence.

    I liked that the Cambridge lecture states that mI and mg are equivalent to 1 part in 10^13

    Baryonic matter is physically not capable of ANY sort of interaction, either on a quantum level or a macroscopic one, that we yet understand that could possibly do the job of directing the force of gravity for something situated on the surface of the Earth toward the EXACT DEAD CENTER of that gravitating mass, much less provide a reason for gravitation and inertial mass equivalence. That's a fact that has no equivalent mathematical model to explain -- yet.

    The interaction of matter with the Higgs mechanism is actually the only thing that could possibly FIND the center of a gravity of such a mass in order to direct acceleration of things on the outside to that point. It does this indirectly only, so this view is still consistent with the standard model's precept that the Higgs mechanism provides only inertial (not gravitational) mass. The hypothetical Gravtiton of quantum loop gravity does not even have an appropriate mechanism for interaction with vacuum energy. It was devised only to interact with matter, and that is its principle flaw, and the reason this idea also does not set well with General Relativity.

    There just isn't any other way gravity could possibly work the way it does to exactly balance mI and mg so precicely.
     
  9. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    In it's most simplest form, inertia is


    ...''the resistance for a body to change velocity or a state of rest.''


    Newton found the relationship in this intuitive form


    \(F=Ma\)


    Where the mass is strictly the inertial mass. The weak equivalence principle states that mass and inertia are the same thing,
    at least, all measurements to determine this fact have found inertial mass to be equal to the gravitational mass. It seems that
    both are the same thing. The equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass can be given as


    \(F = M_g g = M_ia\)


    The definition of two masses with acceleration



    \(F_{XY} = M_{X}a_{X}\)


    and


    \(F_{xy} = M_{Y}a_{Y}\)


    such that


    \(F_{YX} = M_{Y}a_{Y}\)


    and



    \(F_{XY} = -F_{YX}\)


    plugging this into our equivalence we get


    \(\frac{M_X}{M_Y} = - \frac{a_Y}{a_X}\)


    This is a well-known statement.


    \(\frac{M_g}{M_Y} = -\frac{a_i}{a_g}\)
     
  10. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    There is no explanation: They are equivalent, assuming you use the correct units.

    Einstein realized that this equivalence was important & thinking about it was the start of his developing General Relativity.
     
  11. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181



    Yes there is. I gave it as an explanation of equiv. in the previous post - it's not only an equivalence by the way ... it is one of the most accurately tested theories of GR.
     
  12. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I think Dinosaur simply meant that once it's been established that they are equivalent, then there is no basis for chinglu to attack further.

    Chinglu likes to try to attack science by questioning basic principles, with no interest in the experiments that gave rise to the postulates upon which they are based, and hoping to trip folks up, merely as a obsessive need to troll the site, ostensibly to shore up some unspecified religious views.
     
  13. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181

    Well, forgive me, but a theory can never be proved per se. What is a chinglu attack, I don't understand?
     
  14. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Science Theory is all quod erat demonstrandum and I doubt you needed that explained in your current incarnation. No point playing dumber than you have to now.
     
  15. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    Dumb and dumber... was a very good film ... you should watch it.
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    That's the classical error in thinking of a crank.

    The name of the troll who started the recent exchange I was responding to. And already banned for the umpteenth time, I see.
     
  17. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    No, classical thinking allows us to accurately measure within reasonable certainty classical systems. It's a whole new ball game when you talk about quantum physics, it's not only difficult to prove a theory, in totality, it's impossible to actually prove one without uncompromising evidence in negation... which is rare.
     
  18. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    I don't need to. I just see Reiku #1 and Sockpuppet #2, we don't need a matinée or an encore to boot.
     
  19. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    Oh, I see. You must be confusing me with someone else... another moniker perhaps?

    The matinée won't finish remember until the fat lady sings.
     
  20. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    At approx the same time I nailed this fool as Reiku in the Speed of Light Thread.

    /high five/
     
  21. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    You appear more delusional than I suspected. You never nailed me, nor has anyone else but a strange conspiracy to attack what you don't know or don't understand.
     
  22. Manifold1 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    181
    You pick.
     
  23. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Reiku or whatever moniker you want to claim to be, every time you get called out you end up turning nasty, it's the main reason why you have been banned from this place countless times before, purely due to that streak of temperament, it's consistent even if you claim not to be.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page