# Relativistic Mass

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Little Bang, Jul 1, 2015.

1. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,497
Ha ha - 'field pancakes' aren't very tasty so I believe

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Anyway, I picked up that terminology via the relativistic electrodynamics case of a moving charge. See e.g. last passage p339, and following fig 10.10 p440 here: http://sces.phys.utk.edu/~dagotto/electromag/scanned-lectures/Griffiths.radiation.one.pdf
Invariance of electric charge vs frame-dependent energy/mass, and a few other subtleties makes the analogy fairly good but not perfect.

2. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
3. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,497
Oops - I must correct again. Starting from last sentence, 2nd para in #178:
It was only after thinking about that referenced EM case the mistake made earlier hit me! The factor 1/γ^4 for gravitational case must have just subconsciously seemed too severe. In the weak gravity regime considered, there is no net velocity dependent force on a mass having purely radial motion (i.e longitudinal in A & B scenario) in a given gravitoelectric field [other than it's energy content that is]. Hence 1/γ^4 field reduction factor is necessary for correct SR transformation. Apologies.

Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
5. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
I've been going on about the stress energy tensor. This is nice.
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/current/teach/module_home/px436/notes/lecture6.pdf
On the last page the author puts this comment [boxed].
"This equation plays a key role in GR where the stress-energy tensor replaces the simple density, p, of Newtonian gravity."
So that's it.

Another good chapter on cosmology.
http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro616/lectures/lecture_ch30.pdf

Last edited: Jul 6, 2015
6. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

to hide all adverts.
7. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,497
None of this provides any real answer to my #162. So where is this new thread that will do so, and apparently also blow away the very foundations of modern physics and maths?!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

danshawen likes this.
8. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,942
I'm still working on it, and when it is ready for consultation I will put all or part of it up. I have nothing to prove or to hide; I'm here to learn also.

It's hard to undervalue the idea that the calculus dt not being constant is a game changer. Mathematics handles this LITERALLY by pretending that nothing ever moves anywhere (or equivalently, that the rate at which time passes is absolute, everywhere, which is a lie), and finishes their analysis as if everything in the universe were constructed of an infinitely rigid material, anchored into the very fabric of a luminiferous aether that is perpetually in the doldrums (no wind). This isn't just cheating; it's applied ignorance at its absolute best. There is a great deal of inertia against consigning the Greek gods of mathematics to Hades where they belong. But in order to do that, they would have to fall, wouldn't they? What are the chances of that ever happening? Something would have to actually move, and like falling into a black hole, that would take an infinite amount of time, from our perspective, wouldn't it?

Or to put it in more 'modern' terminology, G-d evidently cannot make a stone or black hole so large that he / she cannot move it, because G-d can't actually move either. So big, doesn't need to, 'cause he / she already ate it. Like a "yo mama so fat" joke, only without a punch line, see?

Over the years, I've analyzed GR's principle of equivalence and it is far from perfect, but apparently it is about as good as it gets. It would be good to understand why this is the case. Particle physicists evidently have already dismissed the principle of equivalence entirely where the Higgs mechanism (the source of inertia) is concerned. They have good mathematical reasons for doing so, and of this I am certain. They just don't square with a physical principle known to be accurate to a large number of decimal places. Yes, I know the spin of the Higgs boson is wrong for it act like a graviton. Yes, I know Higgs is a scalar field, but there is already one model that suggests this can mimic an inverse square field. Working with math as fundamentally flawed as what we currently have, who really expects them to come up with the right answers?

Any analysis that is more rigorous must therefore restrict the tools used to construct it to analysis that is verifiably the correct interpretation. That really doesn't leave very many tools with which to construct a reasonably airtight proof, or even get a handle on how to get there. Only SR seems to work as a tool at all, and I have no idea how far that will hold true. Looks like it stopped cold at the barrier that is the propagation of energy.

This isn't my fault. I didn't ask the mathematics establishment to cheat, and then teach their flawed ciphers to everyone including me as though it were absolute truth. At least I understand, absolute truth as it relates to a finite mind using mathematical symbols to try and noodle out what the universe is doing, means exactly nothing. They only get a little slack because e^(i * pi) really does = -1, and that has some beauty in it. Even though in this universe, pi is evidently NOT a constant (aka the Ehrenfest paradox). Ask them for a way to analyze dynamics, and all you ever get from them is still life, or block universes (multiple still life universes), string theory, infinite Hilbert spaces, or some such utter unobservable non science. You understand what it is we are dealing with? Might as well be turtles; really FAT turtles. All the way down. It's a joke.

To anyone here tempted to do so, please start any "yo mama so fat" jokes in a separate thread.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
Little Bang likes this.
9. ### SchmelzerValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,603
I can appreciate the poetic language, but that's all I can appreciate here. The problem with the ether being, at the one hand, extremely rigid, and, on the other hand, not presenting an obstacle, has long been solved by recognizing that everything (including usual matter) is a wave of the ether, because it is described by a wave equation with the ethers sound velocity as its basic velocity.

No. The Higgs field is simply a scalar field which somehow interacts with other fields. This does not break any principle of equivalence.

There is nothing fundamentally flawed with the math of QFT. The only thing which is flawed is the assumption that it remains valid for arbitrary small distances. This is something some string theoriests seem to believe, reasonable scientists have recognized, instead, that QFT is an effective field theory, which is fine as a large distance approximation, similar to continuous condensed matter theory being fine as the long distance limit of atomic theory.

Sorry, this is already on the level of absurdity of Sokal's hoax. $\pi$ is of course a constant. It may be that for nonzero curvature $u\neq 2\pi r$, but this does not change $\pi$.

danshawen likes this.
10. ### Q-reeusValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,497
Great.
A strong claim I severely doubt. Anyway it will need something special in the way of a solid conceptual framework and rigorous maths to be taken seriously.
Some consider it profound but for me essentially trivial. Assuming Mach's principle as fundamental, gravity becomes a natural 'byproduct' of inertia.
Hmmm...Higgs mechanism is not an explanation for inertia or otherwise the great preponderance of 'mass' in particle physics - e.g.:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64232/your-mass-is-not-from-higgs-boson
An Argand rotation of 180 degrees is beautiful? All in the eye of the beholder I guess. Euler certainly gave us something elegant and powerful.
False dilemmas can arise from misapplying perfectly fine concepts outside of domain of applicability.
Well anyway try and take especial care not to find yourself wrapped up in self-referential logic loops and such. Good luck.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

11. ### Little BangRegistered Member

Messages:
65
It seems to me that we treat what we were taught in school with to much reverence and not enough logic.

RajeshTrivedi and danshawen like this.
12. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,942
The Higgs boson gives inertial mass to electrons, quarks (all flavors and colors), W and Z bosons, and their respective antiparticles, basically everything in atomic structure except gluons, charge, and color charge, yet somehow it does so without imparting even a speck of gravitational mass, known to be equal to inertial mass to an accuracy greater than 1 part per billion. Matt Strassler says so. Why would he even think that was the case?

I like Matt. He has been referenced on this forum and others many times. He worked on the poorly synchronized OPERA super luminal neutrino project.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
13. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,942
Don't say it too loud. Some folks paid a lot of hard earned money to buy into that. Imagine the outrage. Figures don't lie, but more and more liars figure. So many, I can't begin to count them all. Some of them even manage to do so using supercomputers. Think of this as a means for adding inertia to what was a flawed concept from the start. Like proving the Earth is flat by means of a statistical analysis. On large numbers of small local patches, of course. Who dares deny the validity of the results? There can be no doubt, we should only need one time zone.

Some evidently haven't yet realized they are lying either. That much I can easily believe. It is very old news.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
14. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,366

One of the posters, in the past conceded that he will give more credence to what comes from the professor's mouth rather than a layman's. This is suggestive of lack of logic, and more of colonial reverence.

I have noticed a very peculiar phenomenon here, especially about certain theories, barring a few almost all the posters who object to dissent, object for the sake of objecting. They draw blank beyond basics, but still they stoutly defend......I wonder what is at stake for them.

danshawen likes this.
15. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,225
Of course! I mean who in their right mind would give any credibility or credence to the musings of a glorified electrician with no phd, no knowledge, but just a highly over inflated ego problem that leads to much delusions of grandeur. Then totally re-enforced by said glorified electrician refusing to read reputable links and ignoring questions that are obviously asked to reveal his/her true nature.

The situation is like this my friend.....These forums are open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, that would have you believe they are capable of rewriting 21st century cosmology, when in actual fact, they are more suited to redesigning commodes and using toilet paper.
Of course these forums are the only outlets that such dregs of society have.

Last edited: Jul 9, 2015
16. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,225
I don't believe that is totally true.
What in general we are taught in school is fundamental basics in a generalised fashion......Once we leave school, we in general will specialise in a particular area of those fundamentals, and extend our learning to cover all aspects of that territory.
The Professionals that then develop from any particular area of that learning, will then undoubtedly be treated with due respect, just as he should.
The lack of logic rears its ugly head, when those who are "half educated" suddenly believe that they should be believed over the established accepted opinions of academia.
Of course there will always be a non zero chance [closer to zero then one though] that we could have an Einstein out there somewhere, who already has the truth but is being denied a hearing.......But you can bet your short and curlies that we have none on this or any science forum to date.
That just aint gunna happen my friend for obvious reasons!

danshawen likes this.
17. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,942
Absolutely nothing is at stake for me. I'm not a student in a college, a teacher, no security clearance. I'm not a government employee or member of the military. I have nothing to gain by increased views of my postings on sciforums or anywhere else. I have no website, no Facebook or twitter account, no published papers or publications to my credit under my name or any other. I'm not running for president. I really have no axes to grind. There's nothing up my sleeve. Anything else you would like to know, just ask. I'm pretty uninteresting in every respect.

I do have an intense interest in physics (again) since the discovery of the Higgs. I had this interest in my youth also, (including four years undergraduate degree in physics) but life happened and I finally made most of my career as a telecom engineer.

18. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,225
Same here.
Ditto....
Ditto again.
Same here.....
Again, ditto
I'm not running for Prime Minister
I will plead guilty on that score. My only axe that I grind, are to brandish before those that come to a science forum, any science forum, claiming the establishment and all those giants of the past and present are wrong, and that they somehow hold the enlightened truth in their hands.
They tend to frequent all science forums to gain whatever credibility they need to booster their ego....
My Mrs reckons I'm still the most interesting person she knows, even after 40 years of marriage. Any more details just ask.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My interests are science in general and astronomy and cosmology in particular.
Had the good fortune around 15 years or so ago to tangle with an astronomer and a GR physicist, who nurtured me and guided me on the straight and narrow path of truth, evidence and reality.

Fact is science forums are sprinkled with a few professional people, a heap of lay persons like myself, and a great handful of "would be's if the could be's"

brucep and danshawen like this.
19. ### RajeshTrivediValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,366
My post was in support of LB's observation and then your concurrence to that.......It was targeted at those who defend for the sake of defending sans logic..........Science does not require defending, it just demonstrates itself.

danshawen likes this.
20. ### paddoboyValued Senior Member

Messages:
21,225
People here are not so much defending science, as revealing the total stupidity, and pseudoscience from alternative hypothesis pushers such as yourself.
And of course that is only a local concern for this forum, and established accepted science progresses onward as usual oblivious to such ratbaggery.
Do better rajesh.

21. ### danshawenValued Senior Member

Messages:
3,942
I probably forgot to mention that I like to dance.
Thanks for the bio. It works for me. I might actually vote for your bid as prime minister, if you should change your mind.

22. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
This is nonsense. The scholarship we've attained deserves respect. The problem with folks that think like you is you don't have any so it makes you feel smarter to pretend it's not that important. So how about you giving me an example where scholarship is being treated with "to much reverence and not enough logic" other than religious scholarship. Something that has to do with science and the empirical tests associated with the predictions of theoretical models. Do you really know what reverence and logic means? I seriously doubt it based on your use of the words.

23. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
An undergraduate degree in physics. I never would have thunk that based on the bullshit you post.