| Author |
Message |
| < Science ~ The relativistic mass of light? |
|
 Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:42 am
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
| Nick wrote: |
Hemetis.
The wave is the body of light.
Momentum and velocity aren't a wave.
The mass/energy is in the wave!
Mass is fundumantal.
I see it is not a derived phenomenon.
What are you getting at?  |
Nick,
There is no need to get too excited as we exchange knoweldge.
Check this out first, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CGPM
and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kgf
_________________
Hemetis
Last edited by HEMETIS on Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:53 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:49 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
Ok. I see mass and measures and kilogram-force.
I don't think it has anything to do with mass coming from the wave of light.
But give it a shot.  |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:12 am
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
| Nick wrote: |
Ok. I see mass and measures and kilogram-force.
I don't think it has anything to do with mass coming from the wave of light.
But give it a shot. |
The foundations of what I posted is in the most modern QFT and MQM discipline.
You shall find three concepts of mass defined here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
But check this too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_%28disambiguation%29
Yet here is what counts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight
Because weight is the property with which mass is estimated.
Notice the definition:
{Weight is the force exerted upon an object by virtue of its position in a gravitational field. It is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the magnitude of the gravitational field.}
Now focus on the terms:
{Weight is the force}
{It is equal to the mass}
To get my point, you need to imagine a balance in which masses are under comparison.
What we have is the gravitational constant and the forces acting through the material of the balance to exact the quantification of mass.
That is;
Mass = Force / acceleration
But we can estimate mass by more than one method, depending on its definition, and in all cases it is mathematically derived rather than directly measured.
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:19 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
But you aren't showing me anything I don't already know.
How do you get rid of the mass in a light wave? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 8:42 am
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
| Nick wrote: |
But you aren't showing me anything I don't already know.
How do you get rid of the mass in a light wave? |
I see now.
I do not get rid of something that does not exist.
I already gave you many links explaining that mass is an abstract with multiple definitions.
What scientists monitor with devices is the path or the trajectory as it evolves.
They measure length intervals and time intervals regularly to decide velocities and accelerations.
Through a comparative system of arbitrations, we have designed a system of units.
Mass is an easy concept for abstracting momentum per velocity and force per acceleration.
Constant speed light waves are obviously out of the league of force per acceleration, therefore what we have left is the momentum per velocity. As I said measuring length and time is practically easier and we can measure velocities. What remains is the momentum is fundamental due to being the product of force and time.
Momentum has two forms, impulse and persistent. The impulse form is responsible for accelerating a body and changing its inertial mass (force applied for a finite time interval), while the persistent form of momentum is inherent inertially as a constant force per unit of time continuously.
It is that inertial momentum per unit time that drives a light wave indefinitely across the universe.
This had been called the equivalent mass.
If you suspend six solid spheres of nickel from one rail such that they are aligned and touching one another.
You can propagate a wave from side to side and knock out the extremes creating a pendulum.
No physical mass is being displaced from side to side (evident by numbering the solid spheres).
However, the momentum and the velocity carry an equivalent mass that is fully expressed on the limits.
Then the wave itself is massless as it propagates through a medium.
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 7:39 pm
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
I believe in E=mc^2 Hemetis.
You can use either mass or energy to decribe
the momentum of light.
No one can say one is better than the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Jun 24, 2005 11:50 pm
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
Hemetis, you are of the belief that light is massless?
I have to ask you then why only some energy is mass?
Other energy is mass. Why is light the exception?
I believe the people who claim light is massless are
arguing against E=mc^2. From this equation equivalence
goes both ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:23 pm
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
E = mc^2 is not an equation that represent any physical meaning, it is only mathematics.
The correct relation is quite classic and has no relation to Einstein at all.
Energy can have two different forms of dimensions:
[ML^2T^-2] which means, mass * acceleration * length-interval, or
[LF], because mass * acceleration = force.
Coincidentally, [L^2T^-2] = acceleration * length-interval = v^2
Einstein found on Minkowski spacetime that (-ct)^2 /t^2 is the gravitational equivalent of acceleration for the path of light equivalent to the displacement yielding work.
Thus all what Einstein did was replacing the variant velocity vector with the constant speed scalar _c_.
How can you empirically verify that a mass at rest not accelerated for any distance is equal to the said energy!
If you accelerate it for a distance how can you claim that that mass is at rest!
Nick, I already posted the full formula in which (mc^2) = 0 for light waves, so what is it that you are arguing!
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:05 pm
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
Einstein said E=mc^2 has physical meaning. He said:
Matter and energy are but both different maninfestations
of the same thing.
You say you can show mc^2 for light equals zero.
How can that be if the other side of the equation isn't? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sun Jun 26, 2005 9:00 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
I take back my above argument Hemetis.
You're right. Light is not massive. It is not mass.
The wave of light is energy. 
I believe that its nature is in its name.
| HEMETIS wrote: |
E = mc^2 is not an equation that represent any physical meaning, it is only mathematics.
I already posted the full formula in which (mc^2) = 0 for light waves, so what is it that you are arguing! |
Will you please show the formula for (mc^2) = zero again? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sun Jun 26, 2005 10:08 pm
|
|
|
Expert
Joined: Nov 17, 2004
Posts: 158
Location: Egypt
|
|
| HEMETIS wrote: |
E = sqrt(m^2.c^4 + p^2.c^2)
Where:
m is the mass at rest with the system measuring the energy.
p is the momentum
c is a constant scalar of the speed of light in vacuum.
E is the total energy.
|
In that equation for a massless wave quanta that may never be at rest we get::
m^2.c^4 = 0
then
E = sqrt(p^2.c^2)
E = pc
_________________
Hemetis |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Jun 27, 2005 1:24 am
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
Thankyou Hemetis.
So the conclusion of this post is the relativistic energy
of a light wave is what is directional.
Head toward a source of light and it is blueshifted
(has more energy); head away and it is redshifted
(has less energy). |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:29 pm
|
|
|
Addict
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 69
|
|
Might I add that relativistic energy is a pretty awkward idea too. The light itself does not gain energy nor lose energy depending on how you are moving in relation to it. Instead you see it at a different wavelength simply because you are moving (i.e. you now have some kinetic energy due to your motion.) Relativistic energy is a misnomer. Light's energy + your kinetic energy = relativistic energy of the light wave.
Am I right? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Thu Aug 04, 2005 9:56 pm
|
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Jun 21, 2005
Posts: 271
|
|
| cwes99_03 wrote: |
| Am I right? |
No because light's energy depends on the direction you are traveling with respect to it. Toward it is is more. Away from it it is less.
So you see your kinetic energy doesn't apply! |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:27 pm
|
|
|
Addict
Joined: Aug 04, 2005
Posts: 69
|
|
Obviously you don't understand much about physics at all thus leading me back to the comments others have made about you being uneducated.
I suppose next you'll tell me that if a rocket traveling at 1/2 the speed of light were to launch another ship traveling at a velocity relative to the first ship of 1/2c that the second rocket then must be going c.
The light does not gain or lose energy. Your perspective makes it appear to gain or lose energy hence the word relative energy. |
|
|
|
|
|
News
Predictions
Community
Links and Downloads
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-rss.GIF "Validate my RSS feed")
![[Valid Atom 0.3]](http://www.zapfuture.com/images/valid-atom.GIF "Validate my Atom 0.3 feed")