Re: Since the electron's traveling at near "c" then what's it's inertial mass?

Randy Poe wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Randy Poe wrote:
guskz@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
If it were moving near c we would measure properties reflecting that.
We don't need to call any of those properties "relativistic mass".

Ok, so I believe your saying it is indeed a "relativistic mass"

What is "it"?

it is the mass of an electron such as in chemistry when they give the
mass of each electrons for each atom and element.

Such electrons are not moving near c.

Ok
but we
do not need to call it that since that is "always" the case?

No, I'm saying that we can always write things down in
terms of the rest mass, and not every have to call any particular
thing the "relativistic mass".

That's strange that it's rest mass?

What are you finding strange? Again, what is "it"? There
is only one mass, and that is the thing that used to be called
rest mass. The Newtonian gravitational force between two moving
objects is G*M*m/r^2 where M and m are their REST MASSES.

But there is a "term" called "relativistic mass"

No, that's what I'm trying to say. That term has fallen out of
favor. It leads to misconceptions.
There is no such term
any more. Erase it from your memory. It serves no purpose.

Noooo! It's one of the main building blocks in my memory, to remove it
would cause my mind and logic to implode into a black hole?

an the only reason
they bother to label it is because it does "affect" things based on
this "relativistic mass" which is much higher than the initial rest
mass?

Which things do you think are affected in this way? Not
gravitational pull.

If we tie two mass objects to both ends of a small rope and in the
middle of that small rope, we tie the end of a long rope:

a) If Randy holds the other end of the long rope and is comboy style
spinning the rope vertically on the moon (with no air
atmostphere).....wouldn't the mass now defy the gravity pull = less
massive (less heavier)?

b) If we put both "Randy and everything he's spinning" in a box, would
the box be heavier or lighter(since the spinning objects are trying to
move away from gravity since instead of pointing down the objects are
pointing horizontally parallel with the surface of the moon)?

c) Would the "box" in part b above, be harder to displace (have a
higher inertia and gyroscopic resistance to displacement)?


d) The box in part b and c above, as a "WHOLE UNIT" represents rest
mass (an object with spinning electrons inside it) and not kinetic
energy therefore would this rest mass be heavier or harder to
displace???

(I know the more a gyroscope spins the harder to tilt it, I'm not sure
about displacement or what is displacement if the gyroscope, like
electrons in an atom, is spinning along a zillion axises instead of
only 1 or 2 axises perpendicular to each other????)



Then when does the effects of "relativistic mass" come in to play,

There is no "relativistic mass" and therefore no "effects of
relativistic mass".

would an atom still have the same mass even the electron's velocity was
to slow down considerably in it???

The electron in an atom is not moving at high speed.

If an electron jumps up to a higher orbital, the "potential
energy" would be stored in the form of a tiny increase
in mass. This has nothing to do with velocity.


Are you sure it's potential, inertial and invariant energy and not
kinetic relativistic energy, since I read that it's the same as planets
orbiting a sun therefore the higher the orbit around a nucleus the
higher the velocity needed for the electron(since you said "this has
nothing to do with velocity")?

As near as I can tell, you think all electrons are flying around
with a gamma which is "near infinity" or "a trillion" or some other
large quantity.

That's what I thought.

Well, it's incorrect.

No, they aren't. It's easy to find slow electrons, with gamma
indistinguishable from 1, and measure their mass.

Ok but you said there's electrons that are motionless such as v =0

Yes.

that
sounds impossible, even static electricity or a cut off conductive
wire, the electrons are still in orbit in an atom even though they are
not flowing along the wire.

No, they are not.

(1) Electrons in atoms are not little planets in orbit. That is an
ancient and incorrect model.

(2) Not all electrons are in atoms.


Ahhh I aint going into that one for I have a feeling it will long and
complicated.


There are slow electrons and fast electrons in the world. None
of them are moving at the speed of light.


I thought that electrons move at near "c".

So you keep saying, but that is not true. They can be taken from
near rest to velocities near c in accelerators. But they don't
start out that way.

And when we accelerate an electron, we don't get gammas of
"trillions". "Hundreds" or "thousands" perhaps.

It is not true that all electrons are moving near c. And for those
moving near c, there's a difference between 0.999c and 0.9999c
and 0.8c and 0.9995c, etc. You seem to think that:

- there's only one electron in the universe
- it has a velocity close to c
you said that electrons have more than one velocity so I believe your
saying that this one electron in particular has a velocity near "c".

When did I mention a particular electron?

Oh, you mean this one electron that you think is the only
electron in the universe? Yes, but I think there are lots of
electrons in the universe, so I wouldn't be talking about the
velocity of the only electron in the universe.

Even in high energy accelerators, I don't think we've ever generated
an electron with gamma bigger than "thousands".

But gamma can be ANYTHING (>=1). What makes you think
the only possibility is "trillions"?

Ok I thought it's velocity was always near "c"

Again, "it", as if there is only one electron in the universe.

but then I saw someplace
calculations where it had a velocity at 4,000 km/s.

And again, "it". You saw a calculation about an electron under
some particular circumstances. That is not the same as an
electron in a wire, or an electron in an accelerator, or an electron
in an atom at rest.

There is more than one electron in the universe. Really. Some
of them are at 4000 km/sec, some of them are at 0.999c, some
of them are at v=0, and some are at other speeds.

Ok but I aint getting into this cause I know it's complex cause they
said an electron is more of a wave than a particle and there is no such
thing as wave with zero velocity = no wave at all........

Pour me another whisky Newton, no ice or electrons!@
- Randy

.

Relevant Pages
Loading