Re: Rest mass

valls@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1184970390.448070.65650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 20 jul, 07:53, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote
innews:1184932068.244376.210330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 18 jul, 12:41, bz <bz+na...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote
innews:1184632857.045429.307730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 16 jul, 10:42, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

.....
I repeat, I am using "potential energy" as it was in 1905 and as
it continue being until today, recognizing that rest mass measures
potential energy, fixing an absolute zero point where rest mass
equals zero.

If I take a test in most physics classes and they ask for me to
calculate the potential energy for a man standing on the ledge of a
building, 500 feet above the street, and I produce a figure that
would level the city, I will get an F on the test.

The only classes where the energy equivalent of his mass might
produce an answer that the teacher would consider correct would be
those where the problem goes on to state that the street below is
made of pure anti-matter.

.....

Let us see if we reached agreement after my explanations.

I disagree with you on your idea of the meaning of Potential Energy.

My idea about the meaning of Potential Energy? I am no making any
change in it, but I am claiming that Einstein in 1905 derived from
its Relativity Theory that rest mass measures absolute potential
energy. You can be in disagreement with Einstein, or with my
interpretation about the content of Einstein's 1905 Sep 27 paper.
Which is the case?

Definitely with your interpretation. See expanded comments below.

Then you must refer only in the future to the Einstein's 1905 Sep 27
paper in its 1905 knowledge context. Don't think that it is trivial or
easy. We are running the risk to put in 1905 Einstein's mind concepts
developed later (even ones developed by himself!).




I have a textbook from 1936, 'Foundations of Physics' by Lindsay &
Margenau. It mentions potential energy on page 123. It say "It is
therefor natural to look upon V[potential energy in their equation]
as a kind of energy whose value depends on the position of the
particles only. We call it the potential energy, and the sum [PE +
KE] the total mechanical energy of the particle."

I am sure that 1905 Einstein is in total agreement with that.
They go on to develop to concept of 'conservation of energy'.

Precisely Einstein used in his 1905 derivation the "Principle of
Energy Conservation" (PoE). He takes for granted it.
The book has some very good chapters on relativity and 'what is
reality', also.

As the book was written in 1936 (long time after 1905), it will be
useful to understand the meaning of the 1905 paper only if it doesn't
use any concept developed after 1905 to interpret the content of that
paper.

When one looks at an object, to discover its shape, it is often useful
to look at it from several different perspectives. The 1936 book is a
different perspective from today and thus gives useful information.

Yes, but you must never forget that analysing a 1905 paper in its
epoch context you can't use any concept developed later. We are not
talking about different possible perspectives for 1905R, but only
about the ones compatible with the 1905 epoch knowledge context. Once
you said that you are not in disagreement with 1905 Einstein, but with
my interpretation of him, you must be consequent with this. I can't
accept then that you change anything in the paper supported in
perspectives developed later.
Restricting yourself to looking at something from only one point means
that you must ignore the fact that others have explored the same kinds
of questions as those you are asking. If you want to re-invent the
wheel, every time you need to move a heavy load from one place to
another, you are going to waste a lot of time. Please feel free to do
so, but stop wasting the time of others.

My goal is selected from today problems. In special, I am searching
for new roads that permit the development of a Relativity full
compatible with Quantum Mechanics. In any case, every person selects
in what use his time. I am beg to you for the time used to consider my
posts. If you want to see examples of what can be derived from 1905
relativity, see the following threads in this group:

Gravitational time effects explained with Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/threa
d/21961de826abb587/2889a8d9c4d72ac4?hl=es#2889a8d9c4d72ac4

Hierarchical Inertial System (HIS) in Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/threa
d/66654597fa9beb77/176b2ccdb1ef7ff6?hl=es#176b2ccdb1ef7ff6

There is no hint of including the mass energy equivalent as part of
the potential energy, despite many citations of Einstein and even
E=mc2.

Yes, I know very well that today potential energy is not mentioned at
all when considering the relativistic mass-energy relationship. This
is precisely why I am referring to the 1905 paper. If the paper wrong
in this? I am wrong interpreting the paper in its 1905 knowledge
context? Fix your position (if you have a definite one).

You said:

I repeat, I am using "potential energy" as it was in 1905 and as
it continue being until today

I do NOT find any indication that anyone before Einstein used
"potential energy" to refer to anything other than positional potential
energy.

Yes, and I also not find any indication of something after Einstein
doing it. Potential Energy is position dependent, and I am not
changing it. From where do you take that idea?

You seem to agree that PE is the postionally dependent energy available
for easy extraction [conversion into kinetic energy] by allowing forces to
accelerate the mass in question. [this agrees with my position]

I do NOT find any indication that Einstein used "potential energy" to
refer to anything other than positional potential energy.

Total agreement.
I believe that you have invented your own definition of the words
"potential energy" and it is in conflict with all common usages of the
term.

Total disagreement, I am using potential energy in the same way that
any person in 1905, including Einstein.

Everyone in 1905, including Einstein used PE in the same way, as the
positionally dependent portion of the total MECHANICAL energy, with
kinetic energy being the other portion. Total Mechanical energy = KE + PE



If your intention is to communicate with others, you will confine
yourself to using terms in the way that they use them, not invent your
own definitions.

Total agreement.
If you want to define a special term, I suggest that you use non
standard word to do it, and make it clear that this is YOUR definition,
don't try to say that others used it.

Total agreement.
Otherwise, you will sound like KS with his non standard use of the word
'absolute'.

Sorry, I don't know who is KS, please pardon my infinite ignorance.

Ken Seto. Google and read his writings here in sci.physics.relativity and
his web site.

Einstein's manages in his paper very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants of the energies E and H" (using his own words). Do
you know any type of energy in 1905 (different from the potential
one) with an arbitrary additive constant?

ANY indefinite integration produces an arbitrary additive constant.
Anyone
attempting to develop a general formula will include an arbitrary
additive constant and later try to see what actual parameter would fit
into that place. That is part of defining the boundary conditions for
the problem.

We know that since the creation of Integral Calculus. By the way, in
Einstein's 1905 Sep 27 paper is not used differentiation or
integration. And the answer to my question? I will repeat it:
Einstein's manages in his paper very explicitly the "arbitrary
additive constants of the energies E and H" (using his own words). Do
you know any type of energy in 1905 (different from the potential one)
with an arbitrary additive constant?
By the way, I know that the arbitrary additive constants
characteristic of potential energies is the result of an indefinite
integration. It seems that Einstein resolved in 1905 the general
problem to assign a value to them using Relativity. Read the paper (it
is very short!)
I see nothing in Einstein's words or equations to indicate that he
intended to include the rest mass of an object as PART OF the
'potential energy' of the object.

Neither I. I am claiming that Einstein proved that ALL the rest mass
measures in an ABSOLUTE way ALL type of potential energies that can be
present.

Here is where you depart from 'what everyone knew in 1905'. And I think
you depart from science because determination of the rest mass of an
object requires applying a force and measuring the response to that force.

As far as I know, 'the rest mass' of an object is 'independent' of things
like potential energy and kinetic energy [and in the frame of reference of
the object, independent of even the relativistic velocity of the object].

The rest mass is also independent of the temperature of the object, and
independent of any energy stored in the object as a voltage field, etc.

While any of those might add the mass equivalence of the energy to the
TOTAL mass of the object, it does NOT add to the rest mass, as that
represents the mass when all of those things are removed.

Although he developed the idea that mass could be converted into
energy,
Negative, he doesn't mention in the paper any conversion between mass
and energy.

Not in THAT paper, in his paper on the photo electric effect.
He, undoubtably, had both the idea of relativity and quanta of energy
'running around in his head' at the same time in 1905.

The principal conclusion of the paper is "The mass of a
body is a measure of its energy-content".

That is from the 1905Q[quanta of energy paper]DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY
DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? September 27, 1905 not 1905R[relativity]ON
THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES June 30, 1905.

You will notice that R was published before Q.

You need the existence of
both things at the same time in order to be one of them a measure of
the other.
the
practicality of that conversion was (in 1905) in the far future and
there would have been no reason for him to imagine that the mc^2 energy
would EVER be available for any common object as anti-matter had yet to
be discovered and it would ONLY be through the availability of large
quantities of anti- matter that one could ever access that energy, so
from Einstein's point of view, as indeed from our current point of view
the 'potential energy[RVHG definition]' of most mass can not be
realized so it is NOT really potential at all.


As I said before, Einstein is not mentioning any mass-energy
conversion in his paper,

You just quoted where he implies exactly that.

but if you are referring to the
transformation of electron-positron, proton-antiproton or any other
particle-antiparticle pair in photons, they are common events in today
Physics.

[quote]
If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2.
[unquote]

MASS --> energy conversion

[quote]
The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body
becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are
led to the more general conclusion that the mass of a body is a measure of
its energy-content....It is not impossible that with bodies whose
energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the
theory may be successfully put to the test. If the theory corresponds to
the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing
bodies. [unquote]

Pure potential energy

here is exactly where you mis-use 'potential energy' because NEVER before,
during, nor after Einstein, has 'potential energy' been used for what you
say next

(measured by the particles rest mass)

Do you see my point???? The rest mass is NOT the potential energy.

is transformed to the pure kinetic energy of photons (measured by
their relativistic mass) and vice versa.
The transformation of potential and kinetic energies between them was
a common physical event before Einstein, as it continues being until
our days (with the new knowledge about the associated transformation
between rest and dynamic mass).

Potential energy is ONLY the energy of position, NOT the rest mass. It has
never been the rest mass.

Thus, the use of the word 'potential' to describe THAT energy is an
abuse of language. I strongly recommend that you STOP using the word in
the way you have been attempting to use it.

I repeat once more that I am not doing any change in the potential
energy concept.

But you just did exactly what you just said you didn't do.

The discovery about rest mass measuring it correspond
to 1905 Einstein, as part of it general (universal) mass-energy
relationship. I am only claiming that this is included as a particular
case in the general conclusion reached by Einstein in his 1905 Sep 27
paper: "The (rest and dynamic) mass of a body is a measure of its
(absolute potential and kinetic) energy-content".

He does NOT use the term 'absolute potential'. He uses only
'energy-content'.

"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content"

He does NOT say 'of its absolute potential and kinetic energy-content'.

He says nothing at all about potential, much less 'absolute potential'.

.....



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+spr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rest mass
    ... before that you are in agreement with 1905 Einstein). ... He speaks of mass not rest mass. ... things like potential energy and kinetic energy [and in the frame of ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... modeled also by a high hierarchy HIS. ... >> body set where we can compute its center of mass. ... >> the only energy a rest body could have is potential one. ... I consider rest mass as kinetic energy: ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is Lorentz contraction a real process
    ... >> the body set of a higher hierarchy HIS. ... with its center of mass considered always at rest. ... >> and adding all of them you obtain the total energy of the system. ... >> Einstein) rest mass measures potential energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is the mass of a free falling body increasing?
    ... kind of stored kinetic energy. ... > photon with zero rest mass (pure kinetic energy with only dynamic ... "relativity" is irrelevant for determining the rest mass. ... implied to include gravitation at that point, as it was also not included in ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rest mass
    ... recognizing that rest mass measures ... potential energy, fixing an absolute zero point where rest mass ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast