Gravity never zero

Do you not believe that energy can be converted to mass (E = M C^2) So even though a photon has no mass it is affected by gravity so I wouldn't be so sure that once an electron absorbs a photon it has not gained gravitational mass as well.

Now you confirm or deny that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Boring! You are becoming more confused.

The only truth here:

The rest more words salad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only salad was your salad and in fact it has gone off. You failed to answer my challenging thought. Chuck the salad out!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This will be the third time I have provided a link to Einstein's 1905 paper, DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?.

In this paper Einstein connects the emission and absorption of photons, as resulting in changes to an atom's total mass. This was and is the basis of the equation \(E = mc^2\), which describes the total energy associated with a given mass. To keep things clear mass should be read as "invariant mass", which is equivalent to inertial, gravitational and rest mass.

The question..; Do you disagree with the interpretation of the equation, \(E = mc^2\), as presented by Einstein in that paper? Keeping in mind, for clarity, that in that paper Einstein uses "L" in the place of "E".

Atomic weight and number, while they can be associated with an atom's mass, when the individual mass of protons and neutrons is included, neither is an accurate description of an atom's mass, unless the mass of the associated electrons is also accounted for.

Again, referencing the linked document above, an electron's mass is affected by the emission and absorption of electrons. It then follows that though the difference is small, the atom's mass is also affected by that same emission absorption mechanism... And since a photon has momentum and energy and no mass, the total energy remains conserved while the total measureable mass changes. Note, the energy associated with total mass is conserved in this process. It is only the total measurable mass that is variable.

You are in part correct, photon emission and absorption does not change an atom's structure. This is not the same as saying that it does not affect an atom's mass.
___________

As an aside to the discussion, it concerns me that you have begun to find it necessary to include the kind of descriptive commentary highlighted in red above. If in any translation of posts by myself or others you are seeing any personal attack on yourself, I do not see the same thing reading them in English. I have intended no personal insult or comment myself.

I continue to assume this has been an issue of translation and understanding. Communication and discussion are often difficult when language barriers are present and it is likely that you have a better understanding of English than I do of you native language.

 

When we say the mass of the particle increases or decreases with absorption or emission of a photon, we are specifically talking about its kinetic energy increasing or decreasing.

 

When they measure the mass of an electron they don't weigh it while it is still attached to an atom but when they have added several photons to it and made it a free electron and then slowed it down. As far as I know those photons added don't radiate off till that electron goes back into the ionized partner.
So the weight of an electron changes and includes the mass of the additional photons (mass that is called kinetic energy by you.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Well that is my rough way of looking at it, but keep explaining it please!

 

Who is we?

 

There is a problem with the whole issue of the "complete" equivalence of mass and energy.

Energy can be in many forms and while we can find conditions where energy in one form is converted or transformed into another kind of energy, this in itself does not prove that energy in any form, is equivalent to the energy content associated with mass.

Mass has a very direct and stable association with gravitational interactions. Gravitational mass is not affected by any kinetic energy associated with an object's velocity. An object's gravitational field is not increased or decreased by the object's relative velocity, which can be described as kinetic energy. Though acceleration, can affect the shape of an object's gravitational field, based on a propagation limitation of c, but this is a different issue and discussion.

I am aware of arguments that suggest that the heat content of an object, which can be described as kinetic energy, contributes to its gravitational mass, but this is a phylosophical and theoretical argument arising largely from the fact that we have no way to separate an object's heat content from its invariant mass. It remains debatable....

I have seen no conclusive evidence that kinetic energy can be associated with mass. Even as one approaches the issue from the perspective of QM, the discussion is fuzzy.

 

OnlyMe,

I said clearly and concisely.
Atomic mass, is independent of photon emission or absorption.
Now I add the mass of the electron is independent of photon emission or absorption.
These things are true, regardless of your opinion.

 

How then do you interpret the intent within Einstein's 1905 paper, DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT??

 

You are expert in this field, not me.

 

Emil, though there are few areas that I have been considered by others to be an expert over the years, this in not one of them. I am just like you exploring what seems of interest and looking for answers and clarity.

 

Whoops ... I forgot !

So what increases?

 

Emil, Billy T raised what seems a good point and worth some consideration in another thread, "Will CO2 absorb Photon in all direction".

It may very well be that until we measure or observe it light should be thought of more as a wave, in which case you could think of the light sphere expanding out 3 dimentionally, much as a wave in a pond does two dimensionally.

Only when we then attempt to measure or observe it does it take on the character and nature associated with photons.

Note, at least a good portion of the above is my interpretation and application of Billy T's comments, and they should not be misunderstood as representing his understanding of the situation. I just saw a similarity in your question and some aspects of the other discussion.

 

Seriously, I do not know what you're talking !

This is also my opinion. But many do not understand the wave–particle duality. For that I asked.
Conclusion: photon, like any particle, exhibit both wave and particle properties.
That should never be forgotten.

 

Emil, keep in mind this is speculation of my own...

What came to my mind in the other discussion was that, if first we assume the EM radiation is a wave, the fact that our methods of observing and measuring EM radiation all depend on how it interacts with atoms, molecules and particles. Those interactions are well documented to be quantifiable, thus we name the quantum of that interaction a photon.

Our perception of photons may be the product of the quantifiable interaction with atoms, etc... and our methods of measurement and detection are all composed of atoms, etc..

This could explain why the "light" in a light sphere become weaker as the sphere expands and at the same time there does not appear to be any distance between individual photons on the sphere's expanding surface.

Again, just personal speculation. I have not given this more thought than involved in these two threads today, nor do I have any outside reference.

 

But isn't it true that this is never at the same time?

"photon, like any particle, exhibit both wave and particle properties but never at the same time."

 

Yes, it's true.
So if you say that is particle, I can argue and say that it is wave, and I could give examples.
But conversely, if you say that is wave, I can argue and say that it is particle, and I could give examples.
What conclusion can you draw from this? I could give my conclusions, but I don't want to influence you.

 

OnlyMe, I will give the answer later, as is the same conclusion as from the previous post.

 

Robittybob1, maybe if we just both wait, Emil will get impatient and just give us the answer!