Re: Rest mass

valls@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1185052864.986642.112930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

On 20 jul, 20:35, bz <bz+...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
va...@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote
innews: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 make some massive trims because this article is getting too big]

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.

We are analysing the Einstein's 1905 Sep 27 paper. Why do you say that
"I" am departing from 'what everyone knew in 1905'? Is Einstein in
1905, not me, who is showing something new in science (and you said
before that you are in agreement with 1905 Einstein).

Two reasons: What 'everyone knew' in 1905 consists of what was generally
accepted BEFORE his paper was published. Even after his paper was
published it was NOT accepted by everyone.

AND

He speaks of mass [total] not rest mass.


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.

You are describing exactly what all physicists thought about "rest
mass" BEFORE 1905

Yes.

Einstein discovering the universal mass-energy
relationship in the paper we are analysing. If you are saying now that
after accepting 1905 Einstein's discovery the "rest mass" concept
remains without any change, this is what we are not in agreement.

YOU were the one saying you only wanted to consider what was know up to his
1905 paper and that we could not talk about post 1905 discoveries.

I am saying that 'rest mass' is the mass as it would be determined by an
observer in the inertial frame of reference of the mass. That is an
observer 'at rest' with respect to the mass, and that this excludes the
consideration of any mass-energy due to either the motion of an object or
to its postion from being part of the 'rest mass'.

I am saying that THIS way of looking at 'rest mass' is consistent with the
way science looked at mass before 1905 and is consistent with what
Einstein published in 1905.

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.

Total disagreement here. Einstein conclusion is "The mass of a body is
a measure of its energy-content".

He did NOT say 'the REST mass of a body is a measure....'.

I understand his statement as 'The [total] mass of a body....'

What makes you think he intended to restrict the term 'mass' to just the
'rest mass'?????

I don't see any special treatment
for the rest mass in the paper.

Exactly. Nor is there any special treatment for potiential energy.

You can't derive from the paper that
rest mass is not related with potential energy.

Nor can you conclude that he said they were equivalent, but that is
exactly what you have been trying to do.

Just the opposite is
the true. You can derive from the paper that rest mass measures
potential energy

If you make such a conclusion, you abuse the rules of logic.
You also abuse science and Einstein.

, because a rest body has zero kinetic energy and
total energy must be equal to potential energy in this case.

A body, at rest, has no 'potential energy' in its inertial Frame of
Reference. It only has 'potential energy' when considered together with an
accelerating force, such as gravity.

You don't
accept that total energy is kinetic energy plus potential energy?

I accept that TOTAL MECHANICAL energy is kinetic energy plus potential
energy.

I do NOT accept that total ENERGY = total MECHANICAL energy.

Total energy = total mechancial energy + total energy equivalence of rest
mass + other forms of energy [some may be, as of yet, undiscovered, hence
it is a good idea to add an arbitrary constant as a 'catch all']

Einstein used the principle of Energy Conservation in this way in the
paper, see the formulas of the form H-E=K+C or H=K+(E+C), where H is
total energy and K Kinetic Energy. What do you think is (E+C)? Do you
know any type of energy E with an arbitrary additive constant C
different from the potential one?

See my statements above.

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.

Even if it were the case, we are analysing here the 1905 Sep 27 paper.
Yes, Einstein was the first introducing the concept of a quantity of
light with particle properties, having at the same time energy and
mass. And why you relate this with a mass to energy transformation? In
the paper we are analysing he uses that, putting out of a body at rest
with energy E some quantity of light with energy L. That the light
extracts also some definite quantity of mass from the body is a basic
fact here.
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.

Of course, is it not clear that we are analysing all the time the Sep
27 paper?

If it were clear, I would not have asked the question.

You will notice that R was published before Q.

The universal mass-energy relationship was discovered by Einstein in
the Sep 27 paper, not in the Jun 30 one.

Exactly my point.

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

Not at all. The energy of the body also diminishes, not only its mass.
And the light energy extracted also has the corresponding mass.

He said that if a body gives off energy, its mass diminishes.
He did NOT say that the energy of the body ALSO diminishes.

You are adding the same thing into the equation TWICE.

You are misunderstanding what he is saying.

[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

I am just using here what I am claiming Einstein discovers in 1905,
that mass measures energy,

Observer measure. Mass IS energy, it doesn't 'measure' energy.

including as a particular case rest mass
measuring potential energy.

You keep putting potential energy into the wrong term in the equation

total energy = mechanical energy + mass equivalence energy

I know that this discovery was not used
until today. My intention is precisely to use it and see what
happens!

So you finally back off from claiming that your definition of 'rest mass'
is the same as the one used by Einstein and everyone since his 1905 paper.

He did discover in 1905 that mass and energy were interconvertable.
He did NOT conflate 'rest mass' and 'potential energy'. I am glad that you
have stopped claiming that he did.

And, I say that you should keep 'rest mass' and 'potential energy mass
equivalence' as separate terms in computing 'total mass' rather than
confusing everyone [including yourself] by calling treating 'total mass'
as if it were the same as 'rest mass'.


(measured by the particles rest mass)

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

From where you derive that conclusion? If you accept the general
conclusion of Einstein in 1905 that "The mass of a body is a measure
of its energy-content", what type of energy is measuring the rest mass
in 1905? What type of energy is (E+C) in the formula H=K+(E+C) that
you can see in the 1905 Sep 27 paper? I repeat that question to you
many times, and you ALWAYS avoid to answer it! Why? I know why,
because the potential energy is the UNIQUE possible answer, potential
energy is the unique energy type with an arbitrary additive constant
C. You reject to admit that rest mass measures potential energy
because it is not present in today Physics knowledge. And you can't
believe that something discovered by Einstein since 1905 remains
without use until today!

Total mass is what Einstein was talking about, NOT 'rest mass'.

Total mass includes the mass equivalence of the potential energy AND the
rest mass.


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.

Yes, I can accept that it has never been the rest mass, for some
perhaps yet unknown reason. Einstein discovery about potential energy
being both, the energy of position and the rest mass, is not part of
today Physics knowledge. Don't you find interesting to see

You are conflating total mass and rest mass. Einstein was dealing with
total mass, not rest mass in his 1905 paper.

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.

I am not the one making the discovery, he is 1905 Einstein. OK, I can
admit my responsibility saying that Einstein discovered in 1905 that
rest mass measures the ABSOLUTE potential energy. Or that I derived
that from his 1905 Sep 27 paper. Prove that I am wrong.

I have shown that you continue to confuse 'rest mass' with 'total mass'.

But if you
can't do it, see at least the consequences of 1905 Einstein being
right in the following thread that I opened here recently:
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 There I found
the rest mass m_0 of a body as a function of its distance r from a
material point of mass M, being m_0m the limit maximal value of m_0 when
r tends to infinite. G: Newtonian gravitational constant; c: vacuum
light speed. m_0=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2)

Stop calling the total mass by the term 'rest mass' and your so called
'discoveries' melt away. Potential energy has its place as part of the
mass equivalent of energy that goes into making up the 'total mass' but it
should not be taken to be part of the rest mass.

If you see some similarity of this result with General Relativity
formulas, it must be pure coincidence, because I am using only 1905
knowledge (time and space separated, Euclidean Geometry only,
gravitational potential in the Newtonian form, total mass m remaining
constant for a body free to move under the influence of the static
gravitational field, not use of tensors, etc.)


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'.

I know that the words "potential energy" are not present in the paper,
but I know that the "potential energy" concept is present. Try putting
a meaning to (E+C) different from the "potential energy" one! Try
putting a meaning to the Principle of Energy Conservation (PoE)
different from Total Energy equals Kinetic Energy plus Potential
Energy!
"The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content"

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

What other meaning for the PoE you suggest?
He says nothing at all about potential, much less 'absolute potential'.

He manages "energy arbitrary additive constants", obtaining a final
result where they don't appear. Mass doesn't have any arbitrary
additive constant. If mass measures energy, by sure it doesn't
measures an energy with an arbitrary additive constant. Einstein found
a way to put the adequate physical value to the arbitrary additive
constants used when the universal mass-energy relationship were yet
unknown.

He is computing 'total mass' not 'rest mass'.

Therein is your problem.

If you had said that the 'total mass' [as measure from any particular
frame of reference] includes both the rest mass AND the mass equivalent of
the various forms of energy [as seen from that frame of reference] then
few c could disagree with you.

But you keep insisting that he was speaking of rest mass. You are wrong.



--
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
    ... said before that you are in agreement with 1905 Einstein). ... He speaks of mass not rest mass. ... Exactly why mass must be 'total mass' and not 'rest mass'. ... body at rest with energy E_0 has some definite mass? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativistic Lagrangian and limitations of field theory
    ... formulae" you are referring that "does not apply to relativity" are ... "On the inertia of energy required by the relativity ... Einstein start referring to its 1905 Sep 27 paper and then writes the ... developed with rest mass measuring an absolute and total Potential ...
    (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)
Loading