A Purely Hypothetical Question regarding Special Relativity Theory.

MacM:

What the HELL!?!?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are pathetic.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html#c5

See Einstein quote.


***********************************
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

Of the two, the definition of invariant mass is much preferred over the definition of relativistic mass. These days, when physicists talk about mass in their research, they always mean invariant mass. The symbol m for invariant mass is used without the subscript 0. Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion, and is less useful in advanced applications such as quantum field theory and general relativity. Using the word "mass" unqualified to mean relativistic mass is wrong because the word on its own will usually be taken to mean invariant mass. For example, when physicists quote a value for "the mass of the electron" they mean its invariant mass.
********************************

Added second point: Extract:

The preference for invariant mass is stressed and justified in the classic relativity textbook Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler who write

"Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
*********************************************


So much for "Boo-o-oom" and "and this is a firework on the parade of stupidity!"

The stupidity is really starting to show.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Care to elaborate? What is the problem?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, that's ok. Just:

"Although the idea of relativistic mass is not wrong, it often leads to confusion..."

 

QQ,

Here is some information:

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3770&stc=1

Note that the fissions occur over a wide range of by-products. The double curve is because the splits must add to the original mass + amu deficit.

The highest probability is around 7% for 90 - Americium and 140 - borium.


http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3769&stc=1

Note SL's 0.1% is specified in the last sentance.

 

I believe I stated it is not in common usage today.

 

Mel Gibson should have stayed were he belongs, in cops and robbers, and "Payback" I liked. But what if, just what if, Mel Was the guy you should have believed in even though he was also popular. Tell your wife that MG wasn't totally excluded because being popular doesn't make you a bad person.

And by the way how do ou know just how popular MG is? What if Moe of the three stooges was more popular? Then you could reject Moe because of his obvious excesses of popularity, too too much, and then slide down to MG as one you can believe in. Even though MG is popular, he isn't that popular.

It is good thing that SuperLum has tight control over his belief mechanism instead of the other way around. Woe to the planet if it were umsonst, Superlum, Ja?

Question: Why does hot/warm water freeze before cooler water freezes?

Geistkiesel

 

I did a post on that once. There was some discoveries made by an amature from africa, with a really strange name on this. The process was named after him. I'll see if I can find it. It was interesting.

Didn't take long. The "Mpemba Affect"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html

 

Feynman explained the twin paradox away by stating the acceleration of the moving frame is the difference in the condtions that made is conclusory that the ship accelerating away from earth that held the twin did not age as fast as his sister who remained on earth.

Of course Feynman has a problem in all this and that is the equivalnece of inertial frames . As described by RF the ship and earth were not equivalent inertial frames, though RF likes to treat it as such by ignoring the equivalence problem. But only by letting us see the ship motion was mostly equivalent and the the diversion from SRT was only intended to end controversy. There was no inyention to define a new physical law.

To state the acceleration affect as significant, even though the frame and earth bound twins were moving uniformly the vast majority of time, RF says it as all acceleration.

Some have stated that the acceleration rate is insignificant because acceleration is insignificant wrt SRT.

A human body is ejected from a cylinder tube 3 meters in length with a muzzle velocity of 11.5 km/sec.
1. What would be the physical condition of the subject, probably an SRT theorist, and
2. what would the equation of motion of the body from t= 0 when the body mass at the 3 meter mark with the appropriate muzzle velocity be?
3. Consider a description of frictional forces if any.
4. Consider electro-chemical implications including any predictions regarding significant oxidation effects re the body.

Consider that the acceleration of a body places that body in an energy state above that of a test body that remained unaccelerated. The so called 1/2mv^2 of the accelrated body is greater than the 0 accelerated body isn't it?

A space ship that has accelerated to a velocity of 1 unit measured wrt earth and coasts for a year. The ship meets a sister ship moving uniformly in a near collision course. The measured relative velocity of the two ships is 2 speed units.

What will SRT say about the absolute velocity of each of the two ships?

Which one warms your fuzzy?
Wasn't fuzzy was he?

Geistkiesel

 

Are you asking a question re math or physics? If physics I am sceptical about asserting universally that 1 + 1 = 2 without some description of the physical attributes of 1 and 1 separately. The + is an addition of phyiscal attributes in a particlular environment. What is 2? The sum of masses, the velocity of the system, or it just the square root of 4?

E = mc^2 is not an energy conversion process. You have misused the words above by asserting that energy is "converted by E = mc^2".

You are not saying that all or any of the protons in the uranium explosion are converted into a form of physical stuff, unidentifiable for all time as protons.

What are the products of the fission and to what elements (from where) of the uranium structure do the fission products originate?
Like what is the time history of the fission product processes? and where do the implication of energy conversion reside?

Geistkiesel

 

I thought I was introducing another pardox on the level of the "twin paradox". That's the same place I got the question MacM. I met B's daughter a number of years ago.

I heard one explanation from a momentum rate perspective. The hot water develops a "motion to cool" that passes the slower momentum to cool potential of the cooler water.

Yes, very interesting water problem, isn't it (must be spoken with a thick German accent)? You know the drill.

Geistkiesel

 

The thing with this increase in mass when doing so you are also increasing it's energy potential.....E=mc^2 remains true regardless of velocity.....so are we increasing mass or are we increasing energy or is it simply both?

 

So, Albert Einstein said:

and MacM immediately made his "historic conclusion of educated man with forgotten math":

Boo-o-oom! Get a firework on the parade of stupidity!

 

well guys I got to admit, there certainly isn't a lack of interest in physics, in this thread we have gone from thought experiment about absoloodles to hot water freezing faster than cool water to mass to energy conversions to the fireworks mentioned by Yuriy.
Maybe we should throw in the water evaporative air conditioners while we are at it or some other pheno like the green sunset that my family and I witnessed tonight. Yes green, and quite bright as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

QQ, We explored this increase in mass due to movement at length in another forum. It only made sense when we realized that if you take away all the movement, including electron patterns (orbits?) etc from mass, there is nothing that remains of the mass. When you consider that MASS is electromagnetic change, mass increase due to movement makes more sense.

 

1) "if you take away all the movement, including electron patterns (orbits?)"
So, charged particles held "stationary" in a magnetic trap will disappear? And how can you say all the movement is "taken away" in an absolute sense when that can only be done relative to an observer, since there is no such thing as absolute rest?

2) Mass is electromagnetic change? Never heard thatone before.

 

And:

I believe you said REJECTED.

 

Generally Yes but if used carefully and properly couched it still can be used. But as I pointed out even Einstein said it is best not used. It is indeed rejected by most physicists.

I guess Yuriy is just behind the times a bit.

 

.

But Yuriy will love this

Rejected is a proper word here MacM. You can inform Superlum to crank uo the speed a bit..


MacM, We have discussed the matter of the efficiency of accelerated particles to absorb [accelerating] EM energy decreases after the particle reaches some critical value Vc. Below Vc the energy of the field does not impose any measurable mass increases and all input energy is used in predicted velocity increases.

At particle velocity v > Vc the input energy is observed to be diverted to separate processes of the particle motion. As the energy of the electron increases due to acceleration, the frequency of the electron increases. This increase in frequency is equivalent to the mass increase of the accelerated particle vibration rate. As the frequency of vibration increase the total process time for :
1. the storing of energy ,
2. applying the energy for velocity increases and
3. radiation processes,
at a minimum, overwhelms the process design structure of the electron that cannot function with the same efficiency as at lower frequencies. The ever more violently vibrating electron the more the energy shift to mass frequency increases and less to velocity increases.Think of the obvious the violent motion of vibration prevents an orderly and efficienct energy exchange process. At more sublime velocities when v < Vc the energy exchange process is in a state of equilibrium. All input energy is used for velocity increases; the energy exchange system of field and electron is at an equilibrium state.

Eventually the vast majority of the input energy is confined to mass increases with a small percentage resulting in velocity increases..

Using the expression for mass m = 2E/v^2 and treating v^2 as a physical operator that returns a number: the velocity squared, which is substituted for with the velocity function f(v - f ). v and f are the linear and frequency velocity terms of the particle respectively. The expression m = 2E/f(v + c) follows. The velocity schematic in vector form is seen in the
attachment here The frequency line shos direction arrows for vibration stages consecutive or suceeding frequency vibration directions.

At equilibrium the flip-flop direction of the vibration of the electron mass periodically adds and subtracts frequency velocity to the linear velocity of the particle. As the electron mass is not a rigid substance it is justified to consider different areas in th electron surface as moving asymetrically to an other areas at least before the electron is fully polarized.polarized. A net zero velocity of the addition proceses produces or defiens a state of equilibrium. Also, at equilibrium, a net zero mass and velocity increase degradation processes are not observed, This when a velocity equilibrium state is a net zero.

At higher velocities V > Vc, the effect of vibration on the linear velocity is significant as seen in the variation from the velocity term of particle energy when v < Vc.

From the mass term m increases as v ^2 increases confirmed experimentally, Looking at m = 2E/v^2 there is a question presented : how can the inverse velocity term increase mass? No mystery here. By an increasing of the energy of the particle. Rewriting m = 2E/f(v - f) when the velocity and frequency terms add they add alternatively plus and minus. As the absolute value of f approaches v the energy is such that when v ~ f the mass is undefined.

Hence the so called relativistic mass of accelerated particles is fopund to be nothing more than a frequency component of the accelerated rest manss of the electron.

Now a question: From the mass expression term the velocity term, this is clear enough intuitively as a physical process. Likewise the velocity function suggests a complex physical process with the the interaction of a-similar velocity systems. This information from v^2 is indirect and more abstract in form..

The Energy term seen functionally as a combination of a linear velocity of the electron and frequency time history is a proper schematic of the linear-frequency interface modes. Recognizing the mass term is ultimately quantitative the mass itself can be pictured by familiar understanding with ordinary and non-esoterically scientific massive things. The abstraction of the ratio removes any schematic intuitive potential. when attemting to assign familariity to the energy-velocity ratios The reulsting product mass is not a slam dunk first chloice guess as a product.

Using the four corners of the “mass expression”, and the two schematics of energy and velocity processes I am hard pressed to see any mass schematic as easily as the energy and velocity are pictured msomewhat intuitively. The functional interplay with energy and velocity do not intuitively suggest that mass is the product. W observe mass with unambiguous understanding that the mass, the stuff is not an abstraction, it is “real”.,. Now the energy and velocity schematics do not define mass singularly, yet the interference of the processes do produce mass. There is no fundamental difference between the mass term and two hole diffraction: 1 hole, 1 hole, frame. The transition of an electron and its associated non-local attribute through a two –hole screen arrangement does not suggest a product of the observed pattern on the scintillation screen..

However, the observed mass , or observable mass, is unmistakably present and it is easy to intuit a stability to the observed, mass state, even when considering the ratio dwefining mass. Hiwever justification for the application of nonlocal forces that guarantee the existence of the observed state maby=e neither intuitive or real, but nonlocal forces of nature are absoluely necessar foe a complee physical moel but are necessary as a minimum acceptance level of usefulness. The mass is observable tand the crucialf forces of existence associated with those processes are nonlocal in the strictest sense

Geistkiesel.

 

I certainly concur that the issue of Relavistic Mass is one of illusion associated with energy transfer efficiency. I am not yet prepared to adopt a preferred mechanisim of how that might occur.

Historically I have claimed it is a bifurcation of the input energy which follows the pathagorean z = (x^2 - y^2)^.5, where z is the propelling force the unused input being stored in space behind the accelerating mass. Simular to a coil storing its flux in space.

On stopping the mass this energy would catchup like a flywheel or the coil returning the energy and would cause it to appear to have an increased momentum.

But during the flight there would be NO actual mass increase. That is mass can have kenetic energy but that kenetic energy is not (or does not) form mass. That is why one does not see gravitational affects of the purported mass change. While mass and energy or different forms of the same thing it is like solid, liquid and vapor, all are states of the same thing but it is not appropriate when working with steam to refer to so many pounds of ice.

The solid and vapor form have different properties just as mass and energy have different properties.

I do have aquestion on your version.

You mention electons but not other sub-atomic components. Is it possible that there is also internal energy changes in protons and neutrons as well?

I do have a bit of trouble envisioning atomic components gaining such radical internal energy so as to account for the affect.

Indeed I have seen it said that the change is in time space and not the mass itself which would favor the external storage I think.