The argument is that light has no rest mass but has
mass by virtue of its motion.
But its motion isn't relative. If its mass comes from
its kinetic energy or speed then all light particles would
have the same mass.
Not a valid argument you see.
If you are to argue light's relativistic mass then you
must argue it comes from its wave and would be
quantified/measured by its wavelength.
The relativity of the energy of a light wave though is
directional. The Doppler shift on light can make the
wavelength grow(lower energy) if you are moving
away from the light source; or it can make the
wavelength shrink (higher energy) by moving toward
it.
This is only energy. Its not necessarily mass in
my opinion.
It is interesting to note that for accelerated matter
relativistic mass goes up regardless of direction of
motion. It is only relative to speed not direction.
So you can see relativistic mass for light is a totally
different beast than relativistic mass for matter in
motion!
QUOTE
So you can see relativistic mass for light is a totally
different beast than relativistic mass for matter in
motion!
different beast than relativistic mass for matter in
motion!
Yes and no. In both cases, the concept of relativistic mass is not strictly necessary. It can simplify certain approaches to certain problems. But as we shall see later on, there is a difference in how it is conceptualized, how it is used, and possibly in how it behaves (I'm not sure!).
In the case of light, the relativistic (aka fictional) mass can be useful in visualizing interactions with particles, because of our everyday understanding of momentum. We know from everyday life that it is more difficult to significantly affect the momentum of heavy objects than of light objects. The same is true of high-frequency light as opposed to low-frequency light. So in certain cases, it can be "easier" to think of high-frequency light as being "heavier" than low-frequency light.
In the case of massive objects, relativistic mass is again useful in visualizing interactions between particles. So that thing they have in common. But there is a difference, as will become obvious in a moment. We know that relativity says that as the velocity of an object increases, it becomes exponentially more difficult (i.e. it takes more force) to continue to accelerate it at the same rate. What this means is that to increase the speed of something moving at .95c by 1m/s takes more force than it does to increase the speed of something moving at .90c by 1m/s. What other phenomenon causes it to be more difficult to accelerate one thing than another? Mass! So it can be convenient, in the case of high-speed massy objects, to think of the faster one as being heavier, because it takes more force to accelerate it by a given amount than for a slower object.
But in neither case is it strictly necessary to take these views. In the case of matter, the increase in force necessary for acceleration is built into relativity and the asymptotic velocity limit of c. And in the case of light, the momentum can be calculated by way of the frequency or wavelength, without involving any sort of mass at all.
I think the real test comes into play with gravity. We know that the bending of light by gravity is "achromatic" as someone else on the boards here put it. Meaning that the wavelength or energy of the photon does not affect the deflection angle at all. Only the mass of the body and the photon's distance from it. This would indicate that the relativistic mass of the photon is indeed fictional.
Again, with a massy object, a good question would be how gravity works with relativistic mass. If we can truly think of a particle travelling at 0.99c as being more massive than an identical particle travelling at 0.6c, then the faster one should be more affected by a gravitational body than the slower one. I confess I do not know if this is the case. But I have a sneaking suspicion it is not. Can anyone confirm or refute that?
If, in all cases, the relativistic mass of a massy object interacts in the same fashion as its rest mass, then maybe it could be just as valid to consider the relativistic mass as being "true mass". But not so for a photon, as noted above.
All I am saying is that its mass cannot come from its speed.
Its motion is not relativistic. Its speed is a constant.
Since this is true if you tried to say its mass comes
from its motion you would have to say all photons
have the same mass.
I know you can use frequency or wavelength in the
momentum equations for light but this proves nothing
since the mass(energy) of light would be in the wave
in the first place!
The relativistic mass depends on the wave and the wave
depends upon whether or not you are moving away from
or toward its source. Or not moving at all.
To repeat: The wave would be larger(lesser energy/mass)
if the source is moving away.
And the wave would be smaller(greater energy/mass) if
the source was moving toward the observer.
Its motion is not relativistic. Its speed is a constant.
Since this is true if you tried to say its mass comes
from its motion you would have to say all photons
have the same mass.
I know you can use frequency or wavelength in the
momentum equations for light but this proves nothing
since the mass(energy) of light would be in the wave
in the first place!
The relativistic mass depends on the wave and the wave
depends upon whether or not you are moving away from
or toward its source. Or not moving at all.
To repeat: The wave would be larger(lesser energy/mass)
if the source is moving away.
And the wave would be smaller(greater energy/mass) if
the source was moving toward the observer.
Well Nick you are keeping me from reading old novels.
Let us think em fields for a moment.
How many out there have encarta? raise your hands.
Encarta has one really messed up description of a photon(one wonders where the editors are).
Think three componants, frequency, speed, mass.
If the speed is set at C, then any mass componant will be either 0 or infinity.
(Well, the math is not the territory, but it is all we have.)
It was speculated a few years back that there were different types of infinity, that the infinity of whole numbers (for instance) is not the same as the infinity of fractional numbers.
So, what is the infinity of zero.
(see, done went all zen on your assets.)
But, that is the problem. Darn photon is doing C and has to have infinite mass, but has no mass at all.
Actually, I think you have to make the assumtion that the photon has no mass in order to do any calcuations.
*
For indiviual photons the energy levels involved depend only on frequency (blue has more energy than red).
*
As for as your (Doppler) moving to and from measurement, yes, you are correct, if it is moving away from you you will see a frequency shift toward the red *(less energy) and if it is comming at you (duck) then the frequency will be shifted towards the blue*.
Let us think em fields for a moment.
How many out there have encarta? raise your hands.
Encarta has one really messed up description of a photon(one wonders where the editors are).
Think three componants, frequency, speed, mass.
If the speed is set at C, then any mass componant will be either 0 or infinity.
(Well, the math is not the territory, but it is all we have.)
It was speculated a few years back that there were different types of infinity, that the infinity of whole numbers (for instance) is not the same as the infinity of fractional numbers.
So, what is the infinity of zero.
(see, done went all zen on your assets.)
But, that is the problem. Darn photon is doing C and has to have infinite mass, but has no mass at all.
Actually, I think you have to make the assumtion that the photon has no mass in order to do any calcuations.
*
For indiviual photons the energy levels involved depend only on frequency (blue has more energy than red).
*
As for as your (Doppler) moving to and from measurement, yes, you are correct, if it is moving away from you you will see a frequency shift toward the red *(less energy) and if it is comming at you (duck) then the frequency will be shifted towards the blue*.
Icy, the relativistic mass of light can't come from its motion.
Since C is a constant all mass of light would be the same.
There is really no rest mass for light because you can't
bring light to a rest ever. It is not that light has zero
rest mass;it is that rest mass doesn't apply to light.
Since C is a constant all mass of light would be the same.
There is really no rest mass for light because you can't
bring light to a rest ever. It is not that light has zero
rest mass;it is that rest mass doesn't apply to light.
We have to remember what is meant by the word frequency to understand what is implied by relativistic mass when it comes to light.
Frequency means how often the repeat state passes through a point.
Frequency does not talk about how far it is from one repeat state to the next (wavelength for waves) and it does not talk about how fast that distance is travelling; it only tells us how often.
That is why frequency is measured as number of repeats that occur per second. ie.:
frequency = velocity / wavelength
= (m/s) / m
= /s
(also know as a hertz)
The frequency will tell you nothing about the wavelength. The frequency will tell you nothing about how fast that length is travelling. (It is only because they assume that the speed of light is constant in all frames that they think they know the wavelengths of different frequencies of light).
This idea of frequency is in important distinction.
Nick is right in the notion that the relativistic mass can't come from the movement of the light as a whole. Instead it is directly proportional to its frequency or how often it cycles through a point in a given time. I even believe that this may even be the current accepted theory. Yipee!
I have my own ideas on other things that Nick is saying but I agree there.
The problem becomes how does light, which is said to be a wave, how can it also be said to act like a particle? A particle delivers an amount of momentum based upon its speed but we are told that light doesn't. This relates to what Nick was saying I believe.
This is where the irreconcilliable issue of light wave/particle duality remains even to today. In some experiments you have to say it is a wave. In other experiments you have to say it is a particle.
The doppler red/blue shift issue is a case in point where frequency through a point becomes relevant. If the point is moving (our eye for example) then this will change the frequency through that point. However according to Einstein the light as a whole will still be travelling at light speed relative to and through that moving point.
I know - as strange as that is to me - that nobody else seems to have problem with this notion.
Frequency means how often the repeat state passes through a point.
Frequency does not talk about how far it is from one repeat state to the next (wavelength for waves) and it does not talk about how fast that distance is travelling; it only tells us how often.
That is why frequency is measured as number of repeats that occur per second. ie.:
frequency = velocity / wavelength
= (m/s) / m
= /s
(also know as a hertz)
The frequency will tell you nothing about the wavelength. The frequency will tell you nothing about how fast that length is travelling. (It is only because they assume that the speed of light is constant in all frames that they think they know the wavelengths of different frequencies of light).
This idea of frequency is in important distinction.
Nick is right in the notion that the relativistic mass can't come from the movement of the light as a whole. Instead it is directly proportional to its frequency or how often it cycles through a point in a given time. I even believe that this may even be the current accepted theory. Yipee!
I have my own ideas on other things that Nick is saying but I agree there.
The problem becomes how does light, which is said to be a wave, how can it also be said to act like a particle? A particle delivers an amount of momentum based upon its speed but we are told that light doesn't. This relates to what Nick was saying I believe.
This is where the irreconcilliable issue of light wave/particle duality remains even to today. In some experiments you have to say it is a wave. In other experiments you have to say it is a particle.
The doppler red/blue shift issue is a case in point where frequency through a point becomes relevant. If the point is moving (our eye for example) then this will change the frequency through that point. However according to Einstein the light as a whole will still be travelling at light speed relative to and through that moving point.
I know - as strange as that is to me - that nobody else seems to have problem with this notion.
What does this mean for the relativistic mass of light? What it means to me is different frequencies of light will bend different amounts around gravitational bodies.
I do wish they would use frequency instead of wavelength in their formulas as frequency is the relevant thing as far as I'm concerned.
I do wish they would use frequency instead of wavelength in their formulas as frequency is the relevant thing as far as I'm concerned.
WaterBreath,
It would indeed. Except that I don't agree that the bending of light by gravity is achromatic. I don't believe we 'know' this but are assuming it and are eliminating evidence that suggests otherwise - the evidenced aberration that is currently being assumed to be because of refraction in the chronosphere.
It would indeed. Except that I don't agree that the bending of light by gravity is achromatic. I don't believe we 'know' this but are assuming it and are eliminating evidence that suggests otherwise - the evidenced aberration that is currently being assumed to be because of refraction in the chronosphere.
What this means is that to increase the speed of something moving at .95c by 1m/s takes more force than it does to increase the speed of something moving at .90c by 1m/s. What other phenomenon causes it to be more difficult to accelerate one thing than another? Mass!
I agree. But, I believe at the moment that there is more to that idea. I believe it is increasingly difficult to increase the speed due to the external affects surrounding the mass. In otherwords the mass is affected by its surroundings. It experiences resistance as it generates a larger relative force due to its super fast relative movement in relation to its surroundings. How are the particles accelerated? By magnets.
It is actually the other way round. Faster objects will describe a smaller deflection than slower objects.
Not quite. Firstly, there's a problem with saying that energy "has" mass. That's not true. Mass is energy. In a particular potential form. As far as I know though, not all energy can act as mass. (If someone more knowledgeable of relativity experiments can correct that, I'd be obliged. Of course, I'd probably have to recant the rest of this post in that case...) Anyway, mass is a form of energy. It can be converted to other forms of energy, just like other forms of energy can be converted to it. Not all energy "has mass". I daresay you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that there's mass floating in the emptiness of a vacuum tube in an old TV simply because there's a potential energy field running through it due to the electromagnets bookending it. Anyway, all mass is energy. But not all energy is mass. Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
While some people are in dispute about this on the boards, I have heard little, if any, real dispute in the scientific community. Doesn't mean anything for sure. Just means there's an expectation among a lot of very smart people that the current models are correct. Who am I, an amateur at best, to say one way or another? But I'll tell you what seems consistent and sensible to me. Energy forms are interchangeable, yes. But when energy is in one form, it acts in a manner befitting that form, and only that form. If you want it to behave as another form, you must convert it.
A note on the equation you posted. It's not commonly known that the m in that equation is the relativistic mass, so it has the effects of relativity built right in. It is "simplified". There are two other ways of writing it that are more expressive:
E = (gamma - 1)m*c^2, where m is rest mass, and gamma is the relativistic gamma as a function of velocity. But again, this is less expressive than it could be because it merges the KE and mass energy terms by way of the gamma.
E^2 = (m*c^2)^2 + (p*c)^2, where m is rest mass, and p is momentum. This is much more expressive, I think. Because it can be easily used for any particle, massy or massless. The first term is 0 for massless particles, but the second term is non-zero for all moving objects. With this equation you can really see what's going on.
(See here: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html and here: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Re...sticGamma.html)
QUOTE
We know that the bending of light by gravity is "achromatic" as someone else on the boards here put it. Meaning that the wavelength or energy of the photon does not affect the deflection angle at all. Only the mass of the body and the photon's distance from it. This would indicate that the relativistic mass of the photon is indeed fictional.
It would indeed. Except that I don't agree that the bending of light by gravity is achromatic. I don't believe we 'know' this but are assuming it and are eliminating evidence that suggests otherwise - the evidenced aberration that is currently being assumed to be because of refraction in the chronosphere.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We know that the bending of light by gravity is "achromatic" as someone else on the boards here put it. Meaning that the wavelength or energy of the photon does not affect the deflection angle at all. Only the mass of the body and the photon's distance from it. This would indicate that the relativistic mass of the photon is indeed fictional. |
It would indeed. Except that I don't agree that the bending of light by gravity is achromatic. I don't believe we 'know' this but are assuming it and are eliminating evidence that suggests otherwise - the evidenced aberration that is currently being assumed to be because of refraction in the chronosphere.
What this means is that to increase the speed of something moving at .95c by 1m/s takes more force than it does to increase the speed of something moving at .90c by 1m/s. What other phenomenon causes it to be more difficult to accelerate one thing than another? Mass!
I agree. But, I believe at the moment that there is more to that idea. I believe it is increasingly difficult to increase the speed due to the external affects surrounding the mass. In otherwords the mass is affected by its surroundings. It experiences resistance as it generates a larger relative force due to its super fast relative movement in relation to its surroundings. How are the particles accelerated? By magnets.
QUOTE
... then the faster one should be more affected by a gravitational body than the slower one. I confess I do not know if this is the case. But I have a sneaking suspicion it is not. Can anyone confirm or refute that?
It is actually the other way round. Faster objects will describe a smaller deflection than slower objects.
Does someone want to tell me what the legitimacy of this site is please?
The Mass of Light
The Mass of Light
Icecycle,
They treat the light as having momentum instead of mass. This momentum is treated as inversely proportional to its wavelength.
But they destinct matter from energy by saying that matter has momentum and weighs something and light has momentum but weighs nothing.
Go figure.
I do wish that instead of wavelength that they would use frequency which it is what I believe the momentum is actually proportional to. Mathematically that should be perfectly legitimate.
QUOTE
Actually, I think you have to make the assumtion that the photon has no mass in order to do any calcuations.
They treat the light as having momentum instead of mass. This momentum is treated as inversely proportional to its wavelength.
But they destinct matter from energy by saying that matter has momentum and weighs something and light has momentum but weighs nothing.
Go figure.
I do wish that instead of wavelength that they would use frequency which it is what I believe the momentum is actually proportional to. Mathematically that should be perfectly legitimate.
Gonegahgah,
I'm going to leave your argument alone for now. We've discussed this before. We differ on certain things that haven't been tested yet. I trust relativity will pull through those tests someday. You don't. That's fine, we can coexist peacefully until then
. But where Nick is coming from seems to be from within the realm of relativity, so that's where I will answer him from.
To use an analogy, he's digging holes in a field looking for buried treasure that he knows is in a field somewhere. I think the field he's in has the buried treasure, but he hasn't checked the whole thing yet. Rather than let him wander off to look at different fields I'm going to encourage him to finish scoping out the one he's in. It would really suck to leave the field without finishing only to find out later you were about 10 minutes away from finding it, wouldn't it?
Nick,
Yes, this is precisely true, if you are considering a photon as having relativistic mass. You don't have a problem with this do you? It's the velocity thing you're not liking right?
If so, that's perfectly fine too. But I think it's equally valid to say the same thing for a massy object. (Dun-dun-DUN!) We tend to think of velocity as a fairly natural and fundamental thing, but this is often misleading. I think it is helpful rather to consider the momentum of an object as more fundamental than the velocity. For a massy object, yes momentum is related to mass and velocity, but that's "incidental". For a photon, momentum is related to frequency/wavelength. But the momentum of the massy object and the momentom of the photon are still the same type of momentum. It is still conserved in an interaction. It is still exchanged the same, despite the fact that we consider its "origin" to be different.
But origin is the key word here. I think it might help to consider velocity changes, and frequency/wavelength changes, (and relatvistic mass changes) and all that stuff to arise from changes in momentum, rather than vice versa. In short, the momentu is the "origin" of the velocity (or frequency/wavelength for light), rather than vice versa. IMHO this really cleans up the picture. But I can hear everyone screaming "What about the kinetic energy? We need velocity to figure that out for matter!" Well, not strictly. If you know the momentum, then kinetic energy is easy:
p is a known value.
p = m*v
p^2 = m^2*v^2
p^2 / m = m*v^2
(1/2) * p^2 / m = (1/2) * m*v^2
(1/2) * p^2 / m = KE
Similarly for a photon, it's fundamentally defined that:
KE = p*c
So there you go. Now there is an unfortunate "issue" in that the best way we have of measuring momentum of an object of unknown momentum, is by way of mass, or velocity, or frequency/wavelength. This makes it tough to think of momentum as fundamental. We tend to think of calculated things as functions of fundamental things, rather than vice versa. But we (as scientists/geeks/what-have-you) learned that perception is not ultimately reliable way back when quantum theory was introduced. So, the idea of changing our thought process on things like this shouldn't shake too many people to the core.
Anyway, if you think of "relativistic mass" as arising from a change in momentum, rather than as a side effect of moving, then suddenly it is very easy to think of it as "the same" between light and massy objects. However, if you can think of all these measureables as arising from change in momentum, then it might just be a more logical step to consider momentum as "the important thing" in relativity, rather than simply velocity, and then there's no need for conceptions of relativistic mass at all. Then you can apply it to things like light and massy objects and all that with equal ease. If you know the "relative momentum" between one thing and another, then you can calculate all the rest, even including relativistic effects. If it's a photon, you just take the relative momentum and calculate the frequency, and boom, now you know how blue or red of a light the other guy is seeing. If the thing is a particle, then you just take the relative momentum and calculate the velocity, knowing what the mass of such a particle should be. If it's something like, say, a meteor, well, it's tough to measure mass from a distance, but there are many indirect ways of doing it, including observing the effect of a nearby gravitational body, or mass-spectrometry to figure out its composition, etc.
Anyway, again I think that helps clear the picture a bit. It does for me, anyway. Helps homogenize a certain portion of the thought process to apply similarly to both light and matter. Now the big difference arises only in how the momentum manifests itself, depending on whether the entity is light or matter. But since that's usually pretty easy to determine, it doesn't bother me much.... for now.
Hope that all makes sense!
I'm going to leave your argument alone for now. We've discussed this before. We differ on certain things that haven't been tested yet. I trust relativity will pull through those tests someday. You don't. That's fine, we can coexist peacefully until then
. But where Nick is coming from seems to be from within the realm of relativity, so that's where I will answer him from.To use an analogy, he's digging holes in a field looking for buried treasure that he knows is in a field somewhere. I think the field he's in has the buried treasure, but he hasn't checked the whole thing yet. Rather than let him wander off to look at different fields I'm going to encourage him to finish scoping out the one he's in. It would really suck to leave the field without finishing only to find out later you were about 10 minutes away from finding it, wouldn't it?
Nick,
QUOTE
The relativistic mass depends on the wave and the wave
depends upon whether or not you are moving away from
or toward its source.
depends upon whether or not you are moving away from
or toward its source.
Yes, this is precisely true, if you are considering a photon as having relativistic mass. You don't have a problem with this do you? It's the velocity thing you're not liking right?
If so, that's perfectly fine too. But I think it's equally valid to say the same thing for a massy object. (Dun-dun-DUN!) We tend to think of velocity as a fairly natural and fundamental thing, but this is often misleading. I think it is helpful rather to consider the momentum of an object as more fundamental than the velocity. For a massy object, yes momentum is related to mass and velocity, but that's "incidental". For a photon, momentum is related to frequency/wavelength. But the momentum of the massy object and the momentom of the photon are still the same type of momentum. It is still conserved in an interaction. It is still exchanged the same, despite the fact that we consider its "origin" to be different.
But origin is the key word here. I think it might help to consider velocity changes, and frequency/wavelength changes, (and relatvistic mass changes) and all that stuff to arise from changes in momentum, rather than vice versa. In short, the momentu is the "origin" of the velocity (or frequency/wavelength for light), rather than vice versa. IMHO this really cleans up the picture. But I can hear everyone screaming "What about the kinetic energy? We need velocity to figure that out for matter!" Well, not strictly. If you know the momentum, then kinetic energy is easy:
p is a known value.
p = m*v
p^2 = m^2*v^2
p^2 / m = m*v^2
(1/2) * p^2 / m = (1/2) * m*v^2
(1/2) * p^2 / m = KE
Similarly for a photon, it's fundamentally defined that:
KE = p*c
So there you go. Now there is an unfortunate "issue" in that the best way we have of measuring momentum of an object of unknown momentum, is by way of mass, or velocity, or frequency/wavelength. This makes it tough to think of momentum as fundamental. We tend to think of calculated things as functions of fundamental things, rather than vice versa. But we (as scientists/geeks/what-have-you) learned that perception is not ultimately reliable way back when quantum theory was introduced. So, the idea of changing our thought process on things like this shouldn't shake too many people to the core.
Anyway, if you think of "relativistic mass" as arising from a change in momentum, rather than as a side effect of moving, then suddenly it is very easy to think of it as "the same" between light and massy objects. However, if you can think of all these measureables as arising from change in momentum, then it might just be a more logical step to consider momentum as "the important thing" in relativity, rather than simply velocity, and then there's no need for conceptions of relativistic mass at all. Then you can apply it to things like light and massy objects and all that with equal ease. If you know the "relative momentum" between one thing and another, then you can calculate all the rest, even including relativistic effects. If it's a photon, you just take the relative momentum and calculate the frequency, and boom, now you know how blue or red of a light the other guy is seeing. If the thing is a particle, then you just take the relative momentum and calculate the velocity, knowing what the mass of such a particle should be. If it's something like, say, a meteor, well, it's tough to measure mass from a distance, but there are many indirect ways of doing it, including observing the effect of a nearby gravitational body, or mass-spectrometry to figure out its composition, etc.
Anyway, again I think that helps clear the picture a bit. It does for me, anyway. Helps homogenize a certain portion of the thought process to apply similarly to both light and matter. Now the big difference arises only in how the momentum manifests itself, depending on whether the entity is light or matter. But since that's usually pretty easy to determine, it doesn't bother me much.... for now.
Hope that all makes sense!
Hi WaterBreath,
Cool. Yep. It is good that you do so.
Cool. Yep. It is good that you do so.
makes sense, but, i'd rather be watching tv folks!!
u bunch of novices, whence will you ever learn, the fact is light has weight, in the simplest sense. infact, its one hundred billionth of a gram. the fact is, light is quite elusive as specimens cause they behave like both particles and waves. they're electromagnetic, a flux capacitor would show you what i mean
QUOTE (expert+Jun 24 2005, 10:11 AM)
a flux capacitor would show you what i mean
That and a bolt of lightning (or any other 1.21 Gigawatt power source) will get you to back to the future.
That and a bolt of lightning (or any other 1.21 Gigawatt power source) will get you to back to the future.
I think that by treating light as if it only has momentum
and no mass is trying to fight against E=mc^2.
Einstein said they are equivalent. And according to
that light's energy would have mass.
Otherwise I would have to ask why only some energy
has mass? And why would light be the exception?
They really are in denial of what Einstein had to say.
It goes both ways.
and no mass is trying to fight against E=mc^2.
Einstein said they are equivalent. And according to
that light's energy would have mass.
Otherwise I would have to ask why only some energy
has mass? And why would light be the exception?
They really are in denial of what Einstein had to say.
It goes both ways.
QUOTE
Einstein said they are equivalent. And according to
that light's energy would have mass.
that light's energy would have mass.
Not quite. Firstly, there's a problem with saying that energy "has" mass. That's not true. Mass is energy. In a particular potential form. As far as I know though, not all energy can act as mass. (If someone more knowledgeable of relativity experiments can correct that, I'd be obliged. Of course, I'd probably have to recant the rest of this post in that case...) Anyway, mass is a form of energy. It can be converted to other forms of energy, just like other forms of energy can be converted to it. Not all energy "has mass". I daresay you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that there's mass floating in the emptiness of a vacuum tube in an old TV simply because there's a potential energy field running through it due to the electromagnets bookending it. Anyway, all mass is energy. But not all energy is mass. Just like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
While some people are in dispute about this on the boards, I have heard little, if any, real dispute in the scientific community. Doesn't mean anything for sure. Just means there's an expectation among a lot of very smart people that the current models are correct. Who am I, an amateur at best, to say one way or another? But I'll tell you what seems consistent and sensible to me. Energy forms are interchangeable, yes. But when energy is in one form, it acts in a manner befitting that form, and only that form. If you want it to behave as another form, you must convert it.
A note on the equation you posted. It's not commonly known that the m in that equation is the relativistic mass, so it has the effects of relativity built right in. It is "simplified". There are two other ways of writing it that are more expressive:
E = (gamma - 1)m*c^2, where m is rest mass, and gamma is the relativistic gamma as a function of velocity. But again, this is less expressive than it could be because it merges the KE and mass energy terms by way of the gamma.
E^2 = (m*c^2)^2 + (p*c)^2, where m is rest mass, and p is momentum. This is much more expressive, I think. Because it can be easily used for any particle, massy or massless. The first term is 0 for massless particles, but the second term is non-zero for all moving objects. With this equation you can really see what's going on.
(See here: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html and here: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Re...sticGamma.html)
Both are true mass is energy and energy is mass.
E=mc^2 is for all mass; rest mass not just relativistic.
Light's relativistic mass; unlike matter; comes from its wave
and not its motion. If it came from its motion all light would
have the same mass since its motion isn't a relative.
Move toward a source of light and the light has more energy/mass.
Move away and it has less energy/mass.
If you are going to claim that light is massless you are going
to have to answer the question: Why only some energy is mass?
Why would light be the exception?
E=mc^2 is for all mass; rest mass not just relativistic.
Light's relativistic mass; unlike matter; comes from its wave
and not its motion. If it came from its motion all light would
have the same mass since its motion isn't a relative.
Move toward a source of light and the light has more energy/mass.
Move away and it has less energy/mass.
If you are going to claim that light is massless you are going
to have to answer the question: Why only some energy is mass?
Why would light be the exception?
Hi Waterbreath and Nick,
I must commend Waterbreath on his clear "exposition" of a lot of very important ideas and Nick for asking the questions.
Waterbreath's Exposition starts here
It is often very helpful and insightful to see this done. It is but a "hop step and a jump" away from the next "two" small steps... He he he! If I may I will just add a little embellishment to this work to show where this "went" over about 100 years.
The first is the statement of the Lagrangian so important to all particle physicists which is stated in the simplest possible form as...
L = T - V where T = Kinetic Energy (1/2MV
) and V = Potential Energy. (mgh)
This leads directly to the equations of motion of particles from only scalar quantities (energy)instead of vector quantities (position, velocity, acceleration). This is then "philosophically" related to the concept of the "Principle of Least Action".... You solve second order differential equations. You get your ordinary equations of motion in a gravitational field familier to high school students.
Once you are there it is just one more small step to the Hamiltonian which is most simply stated as...
H =
v
p - L
Where v is the first derivative in time of the position vector and k is a summation index over all particles. Sigma is the summation symbol. P is the momentum. You solve first order differential equations. This equation is now stating the conservation of energy of a system and is a simpler first order differential equations of motion rather than a second order differential equation of Lagrangians for the motion of particles of a system that is energy conservative. They are essentially the same equations just "easier" to deal with.
This last form leads "directly" to state equations for quantum systems and the Schrodinger Equation (not gravity but electrostatics).
Schrodinger's Equation
Need to fish around for this last step but it is "almost" easy after the first two steps provided you can solve differential equations.
Cheers
I must commend Waterbreath on his clear "exposition" of a lot of very important ideas and Nick for asking the questions.
Waterbreath's Exposition starts here
It is often very helpful and insightful to see this done. It is but a "hop step and a jump" away from the next "two" small steps... He he he! If I may I will just add a little embellishment to this work to show where this "went" over about 100 years.
The first is the statement of the Lagrangian so important to all particle physicists which is stated in the simplest possible form as...
L = T - V where T = Kinetic Energy (1/2MV
) and V = Potential Energy. (mgh)This leads directly to the equations of motion of particles from only scalar quantities (energy)instead of vector quantities (position, velocity, acceleration). This is then "philosophically" related to the concept of the "Principle of Least Action".... You solve second order differential equations. You get your ordinary equations of motion in a gravitational field familier to high school students.
Once you are there it is just one more small step to the Hamiltonian which is most simply stated as...
H =
vp - LWhere v
is the first derivative in time of the position vector and k is a summation index over all particles. Sigma is the summation symbol. P is the momentum. You solve first order differential equations. This equation is now stating the conservation of energy of a system and is a simpler first order differential equations of motion rather than a second order differential equation of Lagrangians for the motion of particles of a system that is energy conservative. They are essentially the same equations just "easier" to deal with.This last form leads "directly" to state equations for quantum systems and the Schrodinger Equation (not gravity but electrostatics).
QUOTE
The eigenvalues of the wave equation were shown to be equal to the energy levels of the quantum mechanical system.... The solution to this equation is a wave that describes the quantum aspects of a system. However, physically interpreting the wave is one of the main philosophical problems of quantum mechanics.
The solution to the equation is based on the method of Eigen Values devised by Fourier. This is where any mathematical function is expressed as the sum of an infinite series of other periodic functions. The trick is to find the correct functions that have the right amplitudes so that when added together by superposition they give the desired solution.
So, the solution to Schrondinger's equation, the wave function for the system, was replaced by the wave functions of the individual series, natural harmonics of each other, an infinite series. Shrodinger has discovered that the replacement waves described the individual states of the quantum system and their amplitudes gave the relative importance of that state to the whole system.
Schrodinger's equation shows all of the wave like properties of matter and was one of greatest achievements of 20th century science.
The solution to the equation is based on the method of Eigen Values devised by Fourier. This is where any mathematical function is expressed as the sum of an infinite series of other periodic functions. The trick is to find the correct functions that have the right amplitudes so that when added together by superposition they give the desired solution.
So, the solution to Schrondinger's equation, the wave function for the system, was replaced by the wave functions of the individual series, natural harmonics of each other, an infinite series. Shrodinger has discovered that the replacement waves described the individual states of the quantum system and their amplitudes gave the relative importance of that state to the whole system.
Schrodinger's equation shows all of the wave like properties of matter and was one of greatest achievements of 20th century science.
Schrodinger's Equation
Need to fish around for this last step but it is "almost" easy after the first two steps provided you can solve differential equations.
Cheers
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 25 2005, 12:26 AM)
If you are going to claim that light is massless you are going
to have to answer the question: Why only some energy is mass?
Why would light be the exception?
Because it isn't the only exception. Energy is never massive except when using the term of relative mass.
to have to answer the question: Why only some energy is mass?
Why would light be the exception?
Because it isn't the only exception. Energy is never massive except when using the term of relative mass.
Hi Javatool,
I am going to put a "tilt" on this for an ulterior motive...
The reason that light does not have mass is related to the idea that photons are the exchange particle for all (electromagnetic) forces in our Universe. They are the "one special" particle. There are two kinds of photon... virtual and real. An "artificially" massive photon would limit its range in our Universe as it does for bosons coming from within nuclear particles into our Universe.
The suspicion is that bosons inside the dimensional spaces of atomic particles have "infinite range" there ... that is until they escape the Calabi-Yaw Space of the particle. There the energy is "wrapped" inside its own Calabi-Yaw Space as a sort of bubble (6 dimensional compactified "bundle" of curved spacetime). The energy can no longer leak out but it has become a "hard" particle and not the 'soft" one that it was within its own space. This leads to a "pseudo-property" of mass and automatically limits its range. Every "massive" particle in the Universe has a pseudo-property of mass.
Cheers
PS: The process of "extraction" from its native space "inside" the particle will endow the "extracted" particle (boson) with "external" properties that it did not have inside the Calabi-Yaw Space. Because 'Supersymmetric String Theory" (or my interpretation of it) associates a fermion with a supersymmetric partner, a boson and visa versa... this extraction will be a "supersymmetric" operation on the (interior) boson creating an (exterior) "boson" (its supersymmetric partner). What we are seeing is not the "original" boson but a "boson" on the outside of its native space where it is an exchange force of infinite range. No experiment with high energy accelerators can tell what is happening on the "inside" of the Calabi-Yaw Spaces without this "extraction" process so that it can be detected by those huge particle detectors which must all happen on the "outside" space in our 3D + T spacetime. So what we call a "boson" with mass outside a Calabi-Yaw Space has a supersymmetric partner inside the Calabi-Yaw Space which is a boson without mass and infinite range as a force carrier. In fact I would not tend to call the external particle now a boson at all but a supersymmetric parter of a boson ... hence a fermion of a special kind.
I am going to put a "tilt" on this for an ulterior motive...
The reason that light does not have mass is related to the idea that photons are the exchange particle for all (electromagnetic) forces in our Universe. They are the "one special" particle. There are two kinds of photon... virtual and real. An "artificially" massive photon would limit its range in our Universe as it does for bosons coming from within nuclear particles into our Universe.
The suspicion is that bosons inside the dimensional spaces of atomic particles have "infinite range" there ... that is until they escape the Calabi-Yaw Space of the particle. There the energy is "wrapped" inside its own Calabi-Yaw Space as a sort of bubble (6 dimensional compactified "bundle" of curved spacetime). The energy can no longer leak out but it has become a "hard" particle and not the 'soft" one that it was within its own space. This leads to a "pseudo-property" of mass and automatically limits its range. Every "massive" particle in the Universe has a pseudo-property of mass.
Cheers
PS: The process of "extraction" from its native space "inside" the particle will endow the "extracted" particle (boson) with "external" properties that it did not have inside the Calabi-Yaw Space. Because 'Supersymmetric String Theory" (or my interpretation of it) associates a fermion with a supersymmetric partner, a boson and visa versa... this extraction will be a "supersymmetric" operation on the (interior) boson creating an (exterior) "boson" (its supersymmetric partner). What we are seeing is not the "original" boson but a "boson" on the outside of its native space where it is an exchange force of infinite range. No experiment with high energy accelerators can tell what is happening on the "inside" of the Calabi-Yaw Spaces without this "extraction" process so that it can be detected by those huge particle detectors which must all happen on the "outside" space in our 3D + T spacetime. So what we call a "boson" with mass outside a Calabi-Yaw Space has a supersymmetric partner inside the Calabi-Yaw Space which is a boson without mass and infinite range as a force carrier. In fact I would not tend to call the external particle now a boson at all but a supersymmetric parter of a boson ... hence a fermion of a special kind.
QUOTE (JavaTool+Jun 25 2005, 01:25 AM)
Because it isn't the only exception. Energy is never massive except
when using the term of relative mass.
Boloney Javatool, energy is massive in rest mass;
matter is energy.
when using the term of relative mass.
Boloney Javatool, energy is massive in rest mass;
matter is energy.
Thanks for the compliment, Good Elf. And for picking up the load to finish the journey where I could not continue. And also thanks to Nick for asking questions that cut to the heart of things.
I have to admit that often when I post it's as much to help things to "gel" in my own mind as it is to attempt to present or clarify things for others. Putting things into words helps me to order my thoughts and I often have more significant revelations while I'm expounding than I do when I'm ruminating.
In such cases, it's always nice to get a little validation.
I have to admit that often when I post it's as much to help things to "gel" in my own mind as it is to attempt to present or clarify things for others. Putting things into words helps me to order my thoughts and I often have more significant revelations while I'm expounding than I do when I'm ruminating.
In such cases, it's always nice to get a little validation.
QUOTE (Nick+)
Light's relativistic mass; unlike matter; comes from its wave
and not its motion. If it came from its motion all light would
have the same mass since its motion isn't a relative.
This is correct. But I would encourage you again to think in terms of momentum rather than motion. This resolves the "inconsistencies" between light and matter at that level. The relativistic mass of all things, light and matter, come from momentum. Momentum just manifests itself differently in matter than it does in light (velocity vs. frequency). Again, I'd argue that this is simply because the energy is in a different form.
And again I would encourage you to consider what the significance of mass is, as opposed to other forms of energy. And that is gravity. Arguably, light can be considered to have relativistic mass. But the big question is whethere there is an inherent difference between the nature of rest mass and relativistic mass. I suspect there is, as I've said before. I consider relativistic mass as a convenient way of viewing measurements in certain scenarios.
So I ask, does this relativistic mass interact with gravity in the same way as rest mass does? Does a higher momentum, and thus a higher relativistic mass, mean an extra oomph from gravity? I've heard people argue both ways on this, but I've never seen evidence or a paper myself. I suspect the answer is no. It seems to me if nothing else this would mean that heavy objects would fall slightly faster than lighter objects in a gravitational field. They acquire more momentum from the identical acceleration, due to their higher mass, and so this higher relativistic mass would feed back into the gravitational force on them. We'd need some very accurate tests to check this out for certain. Alternatively there's the lensing-by-an-atmosphere-less-planet test I mentioned a few posts ago.
Just some thoughts. I think if it turns out that relativistic mass doesn't interact with gravity like rest mass does, then the whole idea of relativistic mass might cause more harm than good in people trying to learn about relativity.
(P.S. Somewhat related is the "light-in-a-box" thought experiment. I must admit that I've never understood how people come to the conclusion they do from that thought experiment. If anyone is familiar with it and could help explain it, or debunk it, I'd greatly appreciate it.)
and not its motion. If it came from its motion all light would
have the same mass since its motion isn't a relative.
This is correct. But I would encourage you again to think in terms of momentum rather than motion. This resolves the "inconsistencies" between light and matter at that level. The relativistic mass of all things, light and matter, come from momentum. Momentum just manifests itself differently in matter than it does in light (velocity vs. frequency). Again, I'd argue that this is simply because the energy is in a different form.
And again I would encourage you to consider what the significance of mass is, as opposed to other forms of energy. And that is gravity. Arguably, light can be considered to have relativistic mass. But the big question is whethere there is an inherent difference between the nature of rest mass and relativistic mass. I suspect there is, as I've said before. I consider relativistic mass as a convenient way of viewing measurements in certain scenarios.
So I ask, does this relativistic mass interact with gravity in the same way as rest mass does? Does a higher momentum, and thus a higher relativistic mass, mean an extra oomph from gravity? I've heard people argue both ways on this, but I've never seen evidence or a paper myself. I suspect the answer is no. It seems to me if nothing else this would mean that heavy objects would fall slightly faster than lighter objects in a gravitational field. They acquire more momentum from the identical acceleration, due to their higher mass, and so this higher relativistic mass would feed back into the gravitational force on them. We'd need some very accurate tests to check this out for certain. Alternatively there's the lensing-by-an-atmosphere-less-planet test I mentioned a few posts ago.
Just some thoughts. I think if it turns out that relativistic mass doesn't interact with gravity like rest mass does, then the whole idea of relativistic mass might cause more harm than good in people trying to learn about relativity.
(P.S. Somewhat related is the "light-in-a-box" thought experiment. I must admit that I've never understood how people come to the conclusion they do from that thought experiment. If anyone is familiar with it and could help explain it, or debunk it, I'd greatly appreciate it.)
I understand that either mass or energy can be used
in light's momentum.
Noone can say one is better than the other.
in light's momentum.
Noone can say one is better than the other.
Hi Nick & Waterbreath,
The complement was well earned...
WaterBreath Posted on Jun 25 2005, 06:17 AM
Light has the ability to distort spacetime in a certain way. This is in an asymmetric way due to electromagnetisms "bipolar" nature. By way of contrast "mass" comes in only one sort, and is unipolar. Unless you have some kind of special electromagnetic field that is "contrived" to be symmetric then it will not exhibit "mass". Yet it is influenced by the curvature of spacetime. Light just travels on null geodesics no matter what frequency the light has.
It should not have any chromatic aberration in the region of a gravity field. The same light will be dispersed in a refractive medium. This will then break light up into its component frequencies because refractive media (usually) exhibits frequency dependent dispersion. You get all those pretty colors. This is because each frequency of light in a beam of white light will travel at a different velocity in the medium and will suffer a different deflection.. I have said something different recently invoking a different paradigm but I don't want to get too distracted here (strings).
There is another point... You can define "massless" as the property of not being attracted, through the effect of gravity, toward another gravitating body (say the Earth).
If at the same time it is uncharged (and in a vacuum) it will not accelerate toward that body (the earth). Why does it not accelerate toward the body since it surely will still sense the curvature of spacetime?... Well the answer is currently it is not going anywhere and there is no attraction toward the earth. So it stays where it has been placed. Now if I tap it with my finger (still massless) it will suddenly obtain a velocity relative to the earths gravitational field (the curved spacetime) and in that situation it will execute a path which will be a geodesic and be a path of least resistance. So it now gets its "orders" on how to move moment by moment from the "underlying" curvature of spacetime on the basis of a path of minimum energy. In the case of light.... naturally this is similar in most respects to this massless object mentioned previously. The main distinction will be found in the velocity of light compared with the velocity of that particle. In the case of light all light travels at the one speed... the speed of light. In the frame of reference of light particles themselves they will lose all passage of time compared with any other observer. This results in the light being on a "Null Geodesic". This is the shortest path between any two points in spacetime able to be defined and is also a path of minimum energy.
While light is on this "course" no time will pass relative to its own frame of reference and will suffer the most extreme case of length contraction along the direction of travel.... it will move on a "Null Geodesic".
External observers in "spacetime" will not see the same story and will observe light taking time to move between two points in space. This is a "fiction" created by the state of motion of the observer. The true state of the Universe and the light particle is that it experiences no time and no distances. Thank goodness we are not in that frame of reference and I never hope to be for any length of earthly time otherwise I wouldn't "have a life".
Your argument about momentum is correct and this momentum for light is not due to MV (where V=C and M being the "relativistic mass") but your P*C where P=h/
This is tied in with Einstein's Postulate about the work function of Photons. This is used in your equation you had in that previous post of...
E^2 = (m*c^2)^2 + (p*c)^2
...where the p is this one I have written based on Einstein's Photoelectric effect. P=h/ and E = hf knowing C=f
It is a chicken and egg kind of thing tied to Einstein and the Photoelectric effect. Subsequently they have taken to using relativistic mass, and relativistic mass is not MV where V = C and M is the relativistic mass since as you have indicated it does not really exist... just a form of shorthand. The photoelectric effect is a postulate in its own right and it is not possible to get it any other way (I think).
It is good to think this out and remember "our roots" He he he! You actually did very well and nearly fooled yourself! Well at least you "fooled" me eh!
You did well to nut it out.
Cheers
The complement was well earned...
WaterBreath Posted on Jun 25 2005, 06:17 AM
QUOTE
So I ask, does this relativistic mass interact with gravity in the same way as rest mass does? Does a higher momentum, and thus a higher relativistic mass, mean an extra oomph from gravity?
Light has the ability to distort spacetime in a certain way. This is in an asymmetric way due to electromagnetisms "bipolar" nature. By way of contrast "mass" comes in only one sort, and is unipolar. Unless you have some kind of special electromagnetic field that is "contrived" to be symmetric then it will not exhibit "mass". Yet it is influenced by the curvature of spacetime. Light just travels on null geodesics no matter what frequency the light has.
It should not have any chromatic aberration in the region of a gravity field. The same light will be dispersed in a refractive medium. This will then break light up into its component frequencies because refractive media (usually) exhibits frequency dependent dispersion. You get all those pretty colors. This is because each frequency of light in a beam of white light will travel at a different velocity in the medium and will suffer a different deflection.. I have said something different recently invoking a different paradigm but I don't want to get too distracted here (strings).
There is another point... You can define "massless" as the property of not being attracted, through the effect of gravity, toward another gravitating body (say the Earth).
If at the same time it is uncharged (and in a vacuum) it will not accelerate toward that body (the earth). Why does it not accelerate toward the body since it surely will still sense the curvature of spacetime?... Well the answer is currently it is not going anywhere and there is no attraction toward the earth. So it stays where it has been placed. Now if I tap it with my finger (still massless) it will suddenly obtain a velocity relative to the earths gravitational field (the curved spacetime) and in that situation it will execute a path which will be a geodesic and be a path of least resistance. So it now gets its "orders" on how to move moment by moment from the "underlying" curvature of spacetime on the basis of a path of minimum energy. In the case of light.... naturally this is similar in most respects to this massless object mentioned previously. The main distinction will be found in the velocity of light compared with the velocity of that particle. In the case of light all light travels at the one speed... the speed of light. In the frame of reference of light particles themselves they will lose all passage of time compared with any other observer. This results in the light being on a "Null Geodesic". This is the shortest path between any two points in spacetime able to be defined and is also a path of minimum energy.
While light is on this "course" no time will pass relative to its own frame of reference and will suffer the most extreme case of length contraction along the direction of travel.... it will move on a "Null Geodesic".
External observers in "spacetime" will not see the same story and will observe light taking time to move between two points in space. This is a "fiction" created by the state of motion of the observer. The true state of the Universe and the light particle is that it experiences no time and no distances. Thank goodness we are not in that frame of reference and I never hope to be for any length of earthly time otherwise I wouldn't "have a life".
Your argument about momentum is correct and this momentum for light is not due to MV (where V=C and M being the "relativistic mass") but your P*C where P=h/
This is tied in with Einstein's Postulate about the work function of Photons. This is used in your equation you had in that previous post of...E^2 = (m*c^2)^2 + (p*c)^2
...where the p is this one I have written based on Einstein's Photoelectric effect. P=h/
and E = hf knowing C=fIt is a chicken and egg kind of thing tied to Einstein and the Photoelectric effect. Subsequently they have taken to using relativistic mass, and relativistic mass is not MV where V = C and M is the relativistic mass since as you have indicated it does not really exist... just a form of shorthand. The photoelectric effect is a postulate in its own right and it is not possible to get it any other way (I think).
It is good to think this out and remember "our roots" He he he! You actually did very well and nearly fooled yourself! Well at least you "fooled" me eh!
You did well to nut it out.Cheers
Thanks Good Elf. A lot of points there that I've seen scattered around in pieces and posts. It's one thing to put them together in your head and another to see them woven together in a good explanation.
Hi WaterBreath,
I have to tell you that your efforts have not been in vein and as stubborn - though ready to listen - a student as I am that I have actually learnt from and because of you. I have a much deeper grounding now than I did at the beginning. You might be even stunned at where I am now on current theory when I know you have had to put up with where I have been going with my own. I still have far to go but am closer thank you.
I considered why anyone would want to post here and it occured to me that in teaching others and swimming through their ideas your own understanding would grow so much more thorough and solid as a side effect. Not a bad thing at all.
As to my theories, it seems that I have been able to provide what appears to be my own unique new ideas - which I wouldn't have thought was possible and surprises me actually - which may be of curiousity interest for bystanders if anything so I'm pleased that I can at least provide that entertainment. I'm not meaning to belittle my 'new ideas' but am pleased if it provides a new - and who knows maybe even plausible - kaleidoscope to experience.
I have to tell you that your efforts have not been in vein and as stubborn - though ready to listen - a student as I am that I have actually learnt from and because of you. I have a much deeper grounding now than I did at the beginning. You might be even stunned at where I am now on current theory when I know you have had to put up with where I have been going with my own. I still have far to go but am closer thank you.
I considered why anyone would want to post here and it occured to me that in teaching others and swimming through their ideas your own understanding would grow so much more thorough and solid as a side effect. Not a bad thing at all.
As to my theories, it seems that I have been able to provide what appears to be my own unique new ideas - which I wouldn't have thought was possible and surprises me actually - which may be of curiousity interest for bystanders if anything so I'm pleased that I can at least provide that entertainment. I'm not meaning to belittle my 'new ideas' but am pleased if it provides a new - and who knows maybe even plausible - kaleidoscope to experience.
So I ask, does this relativistic mass interact with gravity in the same way as rest mass does? Does a higher momentum, and thus a higher relativistic mass, mean an extra oomph from gravity? ... It seems to me if nothing else this would mean that heavy objects would fall slightly faster than lighter objects in a gravitational field. They acquire more momentum from the identical acceleration, due to their higher mass, and so this higher relativistic mass would feed back into the gravitational force on them.
I just want to help clarify what you have expressed as seeing as a contradiction.
Relativistic mass descibes how long a mass resides under a gravitational influence - hence the word relativistic.
Hence it doesn't apply to how heavy an object is in a gravitational influence but to how fast it is passing through.
Different frequencies of light are travelling at different relative speeds through the gravitational influences regardless of the actual light's speed.
This is the same as if you send for example a ball through the gravitational influences but at different speeds.
The faster you throw the ball the less it will deviate and the longer it will take to reach the ground.
That is what relativistic speed means.
Does this make it feel more non-contradictory? Please let me try more if it doesn't?
I've just had a look at the meanings at Dictionary.com/relativistic.
a. Of, relating to, or resulting from speeds approaching the speed of light: relativistic increase in mass.
b. Having to do with or based on the theory of relativity: relativistic mechanics.
Well the last one doesn't say 'special' or 'general' and hopefully can mean the old theory of relativity before Einstein so maybe it applies.
Good Elf,
I do want to thank you too for trying to begin me on the path to understanding string theory. I'm not looking to go there yet but thank you for your consideration.
But they destinct matter from energy by saying that
matter has momentum and weighs something and light
has momentum but weighs nothing.
Go figure.
In order to weigh something you need to bring it
to rest in the gravitational field. So you can't weigh light
because it can't be brought to rest.
Since gravity is everywhere light is always falling.
Unlike matter which both falls and can have weight.
QUOTE
I have to admit that often when I post it's as much to help things to "gel" in my own mind as it is to attempt to present or clarify things for others.
I have to tell you that your efforts have not been in vein and as stubborn - though ready to listen - a student as I am that I have actually learnt from and because of you. I have a much deeper grounding now than I did at the beginning. You might be even stunned at where I am now on current theory when I know you have had to put up with where I have been going with my own. I still have far to go but am closer thank you.
I considered why anyone would want to post here and it occured to me that in teaching others and swimming through their ideas your own understanding would grow so much more thorough and solid as a side effect. Not a bad thing at all.
As to my theories, it seems that I have been able to provide what appears to be my own unique new ideas - which I wouldn't have thought was possible and surprises me actually - which may be of curiousity interest for bystanders if anything so I'm pleased that I can at least provide that entertainment. I'm not meaning to belittle my 'new ideas' but am pleased if it provides a new - and who knows maybe even plausible - kaleidoscope to experience.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have to admit that often when I post it's as much to help things to "gel" in my own mind as it is to attempt to present or clarify things for others. |
I have to tell you that your efforts have not been in vein and as stubborn - though ready to listen - a student as I am that I have actually learnt from and because of you. I have a much deeper grounding now than I did at the beginning. You might be even stunned at where I am now on current theory when I know you have had to put up with where I have been going with my own. I still have far to go but am closer thank you.
I considered why anyone would want to post here and it occured to me that in teaching others and swimming through their ideas your own understanding would grow so much more thorough and solid as a side effect. Not a bad thing at all.
As to my theories, it seems that I have been able to provide what appears to be my own unique new ideas - which I wouldn't have thought was possible and surprises me actually - which may be of curiousity interest for bystanders if anything so I'm pleased that I can at least provide that entertainment. I'm not meaning to belittle my 'new ideas' but am pleased if it provides a new - and who knows maybe even plausible - kaleidoscope to experience.
So I ask, does this relativistic mass interact with gravity in the same way as rest mass does? Does a higher momentum, and thus a higher relativistic mass, mean an extra oomph from gravity? ... It seems to me if nothing else this would mean that heavy objects would fall slightly faster than lighter objects in a gravitational field. They acquire more momentum from the identical acceleration, due to their higher mass, and so this higher relativistic mass would feed back into the gravitational force on them.
I just want to help clarify what you have expressed as seeing as a contradiction.
Relativistic mass descibes how long a mass resides under a gravitational influence - hence the word relativistic.
Hence it doesn't apply to how heavy an object is in a gravitational influence but to how fast it is passing through.
Different frequencies of light are travelling at different relative speeds through the gravitational influences regardless of the actual light's speed.
This is the same as if you send for example a ball through the gravitational influences but at different speeds.
The faster you throw the ball the less it will deviate and the longer it will take to reach the ground.
That is what relativistic speed means.
Does this make it feel more non-contradictory? Please let me try more if it doesn't?
I've just had a look at the meanings at Dictionary.com/relativistic.
a. Of, relating to, or resulting from speeds approaching the speed of light: relativistic increase in mass.
b. Having to do with or based on the theory of relativity: relativistic mechanics.
Well the last one doesn't say 'special' or 'general' and hopefully can mean the old theory of relativity before Einstein so maybe it applies.
Good Elf,
I do want to thank you too for trying to begin me on the path to understanding string theory. I'm not looking to go there yet but thank you for your consideration.
Hi gonegahgah,
gonegahgah Posted on Jun 25 2005, 03:50 PM
Thanks for that.. I quite understand. The Universe is a "big empty place" and the things I speak about only make it "bigger" and "emptier". All you can do is to light a single candle and have its light swallowed by the immensity of the darkness that lies beyond.
As to "String Theory"... no one really "knows" String Theory. Most people will live their entire lives in total ignorance of it and it will not make their lives one bit better or worse for not knowing. It may be, at the end of the day, that man is not up to the task of understanding the inner workings of this Universe with nothing but his human mind... I hope I am wrong... For if this "conjecture" is true, man may not be "fit" to take his place as a species in the order of things. What more dangerous a creature exists that controls the raw powers of the Universe without the ken to understand it?
Cheers
gonegahgah Posted on Jun 25 2005, 03:50 PM
QUOTE
I do want to thank you too for trying to begin me on the path to understanding string theory. I'm not looking to go there yet but thank you for your consideration.
Thanks for that.. I quite understand. The Universe is a "big empty place" and the things I speak about only make it "bigger" and "emptier". All you can do is to light a single candle and have its light swallowed by the immensity of the darkness that lies beyond.
As to "String Theory"... no one really "knows" String Theory. Most people will live their entire lives in total ignorance of it and it will not make their lives one bit better or worse for not knowing. It may be, at the end of the day, that man is not up to the task of understanding the inner workings of this Universe with nothing but his human mind... I hope I am wrong... For if this "conjecture" is true, man may not be "fit" to take his place as a species in the order of things. What more dangerous a creature exists that controls the raw powers of the Universe without the ken to understand it?
Cheers
Good Elf "In the begining there was the light and the
darkness has never put it out."
I take something from string theory. Particles have an
internal structure.
That one insight is of value.
darkness has never put it out."
I take something from string theory. Particles have an
internal structure.
That one insight is of value.
That was me again Good Elf.
I keep forgetting that I need to log in.
Anyway!!!
I keep forgetting that I need to log in.
Anyway!!!
Hi Nick,
He He he....
Nick Posted on Jun 26 2005, 05:33 AM
I think you missed the point... I am not worried by those that understand the Universe, I am just worried by those that don't! They would be like "children" playing with matches in a "Powder Room".
He he he... Just kidding around.
Cheers
He He he....Nick Posted on Jun 26 2005, 05:33 AM
QUOTE
Good Elf "In the begining there was the light and the darkness has never put it out."
I think you missed the point... I am not worried by those that understand the Universe, I am just worried by those that don't! They would be like "children" playing with matches in a "Powder Room".
He he he... Just kidding around.
Cheers
QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jun 24 2005, 12:34 PM)
Icecycle,
They treat the light as having momentum instead of mass. This momentum is treated as inversely proportional to its wavelength.
But they destinct matter from energy by saying that matter has momentum and weighs something and light has momentum but weighs nothing.
Go figure.
I do wish that instead of wavelength that they would use frequency which it is what I believe the momentum is actually proportional to. Mathematically that should be perfectly legitimate.
Hi,
I just found this forum and thought I should mention my webpages http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm and http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/conservation.htm in this context.
The point is that the concepts of mass, momentum and energy are derived from classical mechanics and should not be applied to light at all. Phenomena that allegedly prove the particle nature of light (like the photoelectric effect) can still be explained with the wave picture. The particle picture on the other hand can not explain the photoelectric effect without leading to inconsistencies with regard to momentum end energy conservation.
Thomas
QUOTE
Actually, I think you have to make the assumtion that the photon has no mass in order to do any calcuations.
They treat the light as having momentum instead of mass. This momentum is treated as inversely proportional to its wavelength.
But they destinct matter from energy by saying that matter has momentum and weighs something and light has momentum but weighs nothing.
Go figure.
I do wish that instead of wavelength that they would use frequency which it is what I believe the momentum is actually proportional to. Mathematically that should be perfectly legitimate.
Hi,
I just found this forum and thought I should mention my webpages http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm and http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/conservation.htm in this context.
The point is that the concepts of mass, momentum and energy are derived from classical mechanics and should not be applied to light at all. Phenomena that allegedly prove the particle nature of light (like the photoelectric effect) can still be explained with the wave picture. The particle picture on the other hand can not explain the photoelectric effect without leading to inconsistencies with regard to momentum end energy conservation.
Thomas
QUOTE (Thomas+Jun 27 2005, 09:15 AM)
Hi,
I just found this forum and thought I should mention my webpages http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm and http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/conservation.htm in this context.
The point is that the concepts of mass, momentum and energy are derived from classical mechanics and should not be applied to light at all. Phenomena that allegedly prove the particle nature of light (like the photoelectric effect) can still be explained with the wave picture. The particle picture on the other hand can not explain the photoelectric effect without violating the law of energy conservation.
Thomas
Thomas, welcome aboard!
I just found this forum and thought I should mention my webpages http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/photons.htm and http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/conservation.htm in this context.
The point is that the concepts of mass, momentum and energy are derived from classical mechanics and should not be applied to light at all. Phenomena that allegedly prove the particle nature of light (like the photoelectric effect) can still be explained with the wave picture. The particle picture on the other hand can not explain the photoelectric effect without violating the law of energy conservation.
Thomas
Thomas, welcome aboard!
QUOTE
But they destinct matter from energy by saying that
matter has momentum and weighs something and light
has momentum but weighs nothing.
Go figure.
In order to weigh something you need to bring it
to rest in the gravitational field. So you can't weigh light
because it can't be brought to rest.
Since gravity is everywhere light is always falling.
Unlike matter which both falls and can have weight.
Sorry folks. I forgot to login. The above post is mine.
-- Light Falls --
-- Light Falls --
QUOTE (WaterBreath+Jun 24 2005, 03:40 PM)
QUOTE (expert+Jun 24 2005, 10:11 AM)
a flux capacitor would show you what i mean
That and a bolt of lightning (or any other 1.21 Gigawatt power source) will get you to back to the future.
From what unambiguous source of information, data, do we infer the mass of an accelrated particle undergoes an increase in mass? I assume it comes from a measurment of the collision of the particle with a stationary target. When thinking in terms of the accelerated particle manifesting an opposition to acceleration the first place to start would be considering the eletcromagnetic resisitance to accelerate by the particle. As the particle increases velocity its energy changes, which does not necessarily mean that mass changes.
Consider the motion of the accelerated particle as consisting of two basic modes, linear velocity and vibrational velocity. Each of these modes has an intuitive part to play in the ability opf the accelerating field to increase velocity linearly at all velocities.
First, the particle is running away from the incoming energy of a directed accelerating field. Secondly, the vibrational mode of the particle increases (which may be mistaken as a mass increase). The incrrease in vibrational mode means that the efficiency of the particle to process the accelerating energy decreases as the vibrational (and linear) velocity increases.
Mother nature does not allow instantaneous processes to ocur where the dt for the process is zero. The particle must input the energy and apply that energy to velocity inxcreses. If the energy is entering the particle at a rate faster than the particle can procees that energy, some of the energy must be stored as energy "fat" and not usefull as velocity increases.
Something to consider.
Geistkiesel.
That and a bolt of lightning (or any other 1.21 Gigawatt power source) will get you to back to the future.
From what unambiguous source of information, data, do we infer the mass of an accelrated particle undergoes an increase in mass? I assume it comes from a measurment of the collision of the particle with a stationary target. When thinking in terms of the accelerated particle manifesting an opposition to acceleration the first place to start would be considering the eletcromagnetic resisitance to accelerate by the particle. As the particle increases velocity its energy changes, which does not necessarily mean that mass changes.
Consider the motion of the accelerated particle as consisting of two basic modes, linear velocity and vibrational velocity. Each of these modes has an intuitive part to play in the ability opf the accelerating field to increase velocity linearly at all velocities.
First, the particle is running away from the incoming energy of a directed accelerating field. Secondly, the vibrational mode of the particle increases (which may be mistaken as a mass increase). The incrrease in vibrational mode means that the efficiency of the particle to process the accelerating energy decreases as the vibrational (and linear) velocity increases.
Mother nature does not allow instantaneous processes to ocur where the dt for the process is zero. The particle must input the energy and apply that energy to velocity inxcreses. If the energy is entering the particle at a rate faster than the particle can procees that energy, some of the energy must be stored as energy "fat" and not usefull as velocity increases.
Something to consider.
Geistkiesel.
Hi geistkiesel,
The laws of Physics do not change just because of some relative motion of a frame. Furthermore Relativistic Mass cannot be detected from the frame of rest of the "supposed mass increased" system.
It is the basic premiss of the Special Theory of Relativity and should be applied with some "common sense" by people who are talking about frame transformations.
The "energy" is relative to "systems" and is not an absolute thing as noted by many. It is all in Einstein's original accounts (unambiguous source) and corrupted ever since for what reason I do not know. Bad Physics.
Cheers
The laws of Physics do not change just because of some relative motion of a frame. Furthermore Relativistic Mass cannot be detected from the frame of rest of the "supposed mass increased" system.
It is the basic premiss of the Special Theory of Relativity and should be applied with some "common sense" by people who are talking about frame transformations.
The "energy" is relative to "systems" and is not an absolute thing as noted by many. It is all in Einstein's original accounts (unambiguous source) and corrupted ever since for what reason I do not know. Bad Physics.
Cheers
I believe they have accelerated lighter particles
together and got a heavier particle. It's like
taking two tenisballs smash them together
and a bowling ball comes out instead.
I have heard it has been done.
together and got a heavier particle. It's like
taking two tenisballs smash them together
and a bowling ball comes out instead.
I have heard it has been done.
Hi Nick,
Nick Posted on Jul 5 2005, 01:27 AM
Yes... quite right Nick... the key word is "together". That is an energy "system". "Alone" without that impact they are "ships that pass in the night" each one thinking the other is the "accelerated" entity. While it is true that sometimes a single particle is showing red and blue shifting in the external Universe it is (at least incrementally) "at rest" and the one thing Special Theory guarantees is that there are no "preferred" frames of "rest"... the inertial frame.
Neither is the mass increasing the atomic weight of the particle nor does it increase the lattice temperature such that it "melts" or "vaporizes". Neither is it physically compressed due to length contraction... in it's own frame. It is a "cross-frame" measurement. It is an understanding that 19th Century Scientists could not accept but is true and still is very true to as many decimal places as you can guess. One man asserted it and went on to glory... all the "rest" was already known and it was that "tiny" point that "made a difference".
The other point is that a true inertial frame of reference is one that is "falling freely". I have seen arguments where the frames are non-inertial. Must compare apples with apples.
If I stand on the surface of the earth and throw a ball to you it will execute an arc. This is the straightest line that can be drawn for that particle in spacetime. "We" are being accelerated by earths gravity and are the non-inertial ones. The ball goes straight and we are accelerated.
Cheers
Nick Posted on Jul 5 2005, 01:27 AM
QUOTE
I believe they have accelerated lighter particles
together and got a heavier particle. It's like
taking two tenisballs smash them together
and a bowling ball comes out instead.
I have heard it has been done.
together and got a heavier particle. It's like
taking two tenisballs smash them together
and a bowling ball comes out instead.
I have heard it has been done.
Yes... quite right Nick... the key word is "together". That is an energy "system". "Alone" without that impact they are "ships that pass in the night" each one thinking the other is the "accelerated" entity. While it is true that sometimes a single particle is showing red and blue shifting in the external Universe it is (at least incrementally) "at rest" and the one thing Special Theory guarantees is that there are no "preferred" frames of "rest"... the inertial frame.
Neither is the mass increasing the atomic weight of the particle nor does it increase the lattice temperature such that it "melts" or "vaporizes". Neither is it physically compressed due to length contraction... in it's own frame. It is a "cross-frame" measurement. It is an understanding that 19th Century Scientists could not accept but is true and still is very true to as many decimal places as you can guess. One man asserted it and went on to glory... all the "rest" was already known and it was that "tiny" point that "made a difference".
The other point is that a true inertial frame of reference is one that is "falling freely". I have seen arguments where the frames are non-inertial. Must compare apples with apples.
If I stand on the surface of the earth and throw a ball to you it will execute an arc. This is the straightest line that can be drawn for that particle in spacetime. "We" are being accelerated by earths gravity and are the non-inertial ones. The ball goes straight and we are accelerated.
Cheers
I know Einstein said: when the station comes to the train.
But I have to point out Good Elf only the train is moving
through space. That is the station is not moving through
space to get any closer to the train.
So I say that moving through space is an absolute.
And that the motion of the station to the train is only
a relative. Only the train experiences the effects
of acceleration; the blueshift of the stations clock
and the shrinking of space along the direction of
motion.
I believe relatives only exist in potential to absolutes.
This means there are no effects of reciprocity.
Why should there be?
But I have to point out Good Elf only the train is moving
through space. That is the station is not moving through
space to get any closer to the train.
So I say that moving through space is an absolute.
And that the motion of the station to the train is only
a relative. Only the train experiences the effects
of acceleration; the blueshift of the stations clock
and the shrinking of space along the direction of
motion.
I believe relatives only exist in potential to absolutes.
This means there are no effects of reciprocity.
Why should there be?
Hi Nick,
Nick Posted on Jul 5 2005, 05:52 AM
All the things you speak of are external to the frame of the train. Space is not "absolute" there are no "zero references" nailed throughout the Universe. The other point is Optical Phenomena are always part of special relativity. Keep your eye on the "ball" not the "distractions".
Special Relativity only works for inertial frames ... the objects you speak of are external to the inertial frame of the (non-inertial) train. The Universe works in such a way that it deals with only the inertial frame in the way suggested and it cannot be "held responsible" for external effects. This postulate "works" that other one does not "work".
You must deal with each separately.
The next point you speak of is "acceleration". Immediately you are dealing with general relativity if you want the full story. However you can cut the engines on a spacecraft for an instant and the frame of the spacecraft "becomes" instantaneously "inertial" at that point and that point alone can you invoke special relativity fully. Of course you can invoke it in a limited sense before that but the key is the inertial frame and the test for it will be "weightlessness".
All the things you speak of are external to the frame of the train. Space is not "absolute" there are no "zero references" nailed throughout the Universe. The other point is Optical Phenomena are always part of special relativity. Keep your eye on the "ball" not the "distractions".
Special Relativity only works for inertial frames ... the objects you speak of are external to the inertial frame of the (non-inertial) train. The Universe works in such a way that it deals with only the inertial frame in the way suggested and it cannot be "held responsible" for external effects. This postulate "works" that other one does not "work".
You must deal with each separately.
The next point you speak of is "acceleration". Immediately you are dealing with general relativity if you want the full story. However you can cut the engines on a spacecraft for an instant and the frame of the spacecraft "becomes" instantaneously "inertial" at that point and that point alone can you invoke special relativity fully. Of course you can invoke it in a limited sense before that but the key is the inertial frame and the test for it will be "weightlessness".
This means there are no effects of reciprocity. Why should there be?
I understand you.. if you keep to the rules there are none!
"Wide is the path to destruction, but narrow is the path to the kingdom"
Cheers
Nick Posted on Jul 5 2005, 05:52 AM
QUOTE
Only the train experiences the effects
of acceleration; the blueshift of the stations clock
and the shrinking of space along the direction of
motion.
of acceleration; the blueshift of the stations clock
and the shrinking of space along the direction of
motion.
All the things you speak of are external to the frame of the train. Space is not "absolute" there are no "zero references" nailed throughout the Universe. The other point is Optical Phenomena are always part of special relativity. Keep your eye on the "ball" not the "distractions".
Special Relativity only works for inertial frames ... the objects you speak of are external to the inertial frame of the (non-inertial) train. The Universe works in such a way that it deals with only the inertial frame in the way suggested and it cannot be "held responsible" for external effects. This postulate "works" that other one does not "work".
You must deal with each separately.
The next point you speak of is "acceleration". Immediately you are dealing with general relativity if you want the full story. However you can cut the engines on a spacecraft for an instant and the frame of the spacecraft "becomes" instantaneously "inertial" at that point and that point alone can you invoke special relativity fully. Of course you can invoke it in a limited sense before that but the key is the inertial frame and the test for it will be "weightlessness".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only the train experiences the effects of acceleration; the blueshift of the stations clock and the shrinking of space along the direction of motion. |
All the things you speak of are external to the frame of the train. Space is not "absolute" there are no "zero references" nailed throughout the Universe. The other point is Optical Phenomena are always part of special relativity. Keep your eye on the "ball" not the "distractions".
Special Relativity only works for inertial frames ... the objects you speak of are external to the inertial frame of the (non-inertial) train. The Universe works in such a way that it deals with only the inertial frame in the way suggested and it cannot be "held responsible" for external effects. This postulate "works" that other one does not "work".
You must deal with each separately.
The next point you speak of is "acceleration". Immediately you are dealing with general relativity if you want the full story. However you can cut the engines on a spacecraft for an instant and the frame of the spacecraft "becomes" instantaneously "inertial" at that point and that point alone can you invoke special relativity fully. Of course you can invoke it in a limited sense before that but the key is the inertial frame and the test for it will be "weightlessness".
This means there are no effects of reciprocity. Why should there be?
I understand you.. if you keep to the rules there are none!
"Wide is the path to destruction, but narrow is the path to the kingdom"
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
You will notice that the ball does not fallow the curve of spacetime. For instance, when you throw a ball it curves sharply toward the earth's core. If it fallowed spacetime, it wouldn't curve so sharply, am I right?
Ta-ta
You will notice that the ball does not fallow the curve of spacetime. For instance, when you throw a ball it curves sharply toward the earth's core. If it fallowed spacetime, it wouldn't curve so sharply, am I right?
Ta-ta
Good Elf, only one is moving through space! 
That is an absolute!
At any given time we can determine the distance from let's
say the Earth from the Sun. Or take any other measurable
distance for that matter. And that includes the entire
universe. Even that has a definite size.
I must point out to you good elf that if there is no
motion between objects then there are no relatives
at least to measurements regarding each other.
By introducing motion clocks and maps change.
Einstein never said that all things are relative!
That is an absolute!
At any given time we can determine the distance from let's
say the Earth from the Sun. Or take any other measurable
distance for that matter. And that includes the entire
universe. Even that has a definite size.
I must point out to you good elf that if there is no
motion between objects then there are no relatives
at least to measurements regarding each other.
By introducing motion clocks and maps change.
Einstein never said that all things are relative!
Hi 555Joshua and Nick,
555Joshua Posted on Jul 5 2005, 02:59 PM
Ummm... the path must also be taking into account of air resistance which is another variable. It should be done in a vacuum. The next point is that if you throw the ball with your arm, the Earth will definitely "get in the way". Use the boosters on the Space Shuttle and you will see that there is a way to extend the curve into a continuous one where the Earth no longer "gets in the way" (24,000 MPH). In that case it ends up on a "doubly coiled" spiral path as the motion of the Earth around the Sun is added in then the motion of the Sun in the spiral arm of our Galaxy.
Add a third motion if you like of our Galaxy moving away from the Galactic Center from "expansion" and then it is a triply coiled spiral. The periodicity of those later spirals is low but remember the velocities are heading up the scale of speeds rapidly so it is significant. Which frame of reference is "absolute" Nick? He he he!
Is it the Earth (surface or center?), The Sun or the Galactic Center or all three? .... Maybe it is the ball itself? The last is "good" but no Kewpie Doll. There can only be one... or none. Einstein says none.
The Earth's surface is not an inertial frame so it is ruled absolutely out.
Cheers
555Joshua Posted on Jul 5 2005, 02:59 PM
QUOTE
You will notice that the ball does not follow the curve of spacetime. For instance, when you throw a ball it curves sharply toward the earth's core. If it fallowed spacetime, it wouldn't curve so sharply, am I right?
Ummm... the path must also be taking into account of air resistance which is another variable. It should be done in a vacuum. The next point is that if you throw the ball with your arm, the Earth will definitely "get in the way". Use the boosters on the Space Shuttle and you will see that there is a way to extend the curve into a continuous one where the Earth no longer "gets in the way" (24,000 MPH). In that case it ends up on a "doubly coiled" spiral path as the motion of the Earth around the Sun is added in then the motion of the Sun in the spiral arm of our Galaxy.
Add a third motion if you like of our Galaxy moving away from the Galactic Center from "expansion" and then it is a triply coiled spiral. The periodicity of those later spirals is low but remember the velocities are heading up the scale of speeds rapidly so it is significant. Which frame of reference is "absolute" Nick? He he he!
Is it the Earth (surface or center?), The Sun or the Galactic Center or all three? .... Maybe it is the ball itself? The last is "good" but no Kewpie Doll. There can only be one... or none. Einstein says none.
The Earth's surface is not an inertial frame so it is ruled absolutely out.
Cheers
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.