Thread Tools
Old January 10, 2003, 12:50   #61
shade
Civilization II Democracy Game
King
 
shade's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of bribery.
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally posted by GP


They don't have mass? Or don't have rest mass?

Shouldn't they have a mass based on their energy?
euhm if the formulas of the theory of relativity are true then both statements mean the same thing.
(m=(m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)²)) )
... a second hint would be that they move at speed of light...every particle that moves at that speed must have restmass=0 (otherwise their mass would become infinite)...

On the other hand, it might be pretty interesting to have photons with mass/restmass different of zero and moving at the speed of light .

Quote:
read my following post.
I'm studying my second course Quantum physics
but it doesn't say much about photons.(the course Relativity on the other hand uses the photons a lot...they are used as example for mass-less-fields(and it seems to work)

Shade
__________________
ex-president of Apolytonia former King of the Apolytonian Imperium
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)
shameless plug to my site:home of Civ:Imperia(WIP)
shade is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 12:57   #62
Rogan Josh
Prince
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally posted by GP


They don't have mass? Or don't have rest mass?

Shouldn't they have a mass based on their energy?
When physicists say 'mass' they invariably mean what you call 'rest mass'. So yes, I mean that they don't have rest mass.

It is a bit of a shame that kids are taught in school that a particle's mass increases with velocity, since it is really not a good way of looking at it. It is much better to think of the mass as fixed (independent of the velocity) and just have the relation between energy and velocity non-linear (actually, velocity isn't the best thing to think of either - momentum is better).

So the energy is E= m c^2 /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m is mass and c is the speed of light. This is a nonlinear relation, and is the best way to think of it.

If you were to define the mass by E=m c^2, then the mass would increase with energy according to:

m= m0/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

so it would increase with energy.

(Really it is best to use E^2=m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 as SD wrote earlier)

Last edited by Rogan Josh; January 10, 2003 at 13:08.
Rogan Josh is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 13:07   #63
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Thanks dude.
TCO is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 13:08   #64
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Originally posted by GP


They don't have mass? Or don't have rest mass?

Shouldn't they have a mass based on their energy?
A question that I want to have answered experimentally is if photons have a gravitational mass (e.g If a matter and anti-matter planet collided, turning everything to photons, what would happen to the gravitation field that they were producing? Does it remain linked to the photons?). If the photons do retain the net effect of the field, then presumably they have an inertial mass as inertial and gravitational masses are equal.

Back on subject, its all about terminology and how you define things. Photons don't have mass, they have momentum and energy from which a mass equivalent can be deduced. It tends to be better not to consider it in terms of mass though.
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 13:13   #65
Zero
PtWDG Glory of WarInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamACDG The Human HiveC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG3 SpartansPtWDG2 Monkey
King
 
Zero's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Halloween town
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh

E= 1/2 m v^2 /(1-v^2/c^2)
Why not just type "gamma" instead of writing out the whole v^2/(1-v^2/c^2)? Does anyone know how to do that funky symbol?

actually its been awhile and forgot what gamma is... but theres no need to scare us with drawn out formulas and make it look simpler~

EDIT:Wait was it 1/(1-v^2/c^2)?
__________________
:-p
Zero is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 15:06   #66
Craig P.
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 147
gamma = g
Craig P. is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 16:02   #67
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


A question that I want to have answered experimentally is if photons have a gravitational mass (e.g If a matter and anti-matter planet collided, turning everything to photons, what would happen to the gravitation field that they were producing? Does it remain linked to the photons?). If the photons do retain the net effect of the field, then presumably they have an inertial mass as inertial and gravitational masses are equal.

Back on subject, its all about terminology and how you define things. Photons don't have mass, they have momentum and energy from which a mass equivalent can be deduced. It tends to be better not to consider it in terms of mass though.
Or just a positron/electron combination.
TCO is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 16:10   #68
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh


When physicists say 'mass' they invariably mean what you call 'rest mass'. So yes, I mean that they don't have rest mass.

It is a bit of a shame that kids are taught in school that a particle's mass increases with velocity, since it is really not a good way of looking at it. It is much better to think of the mass as fixed (independent of the velocity) and just have the relation between energy and velocity non-linear
Ok. So just so that I have this all down. If I accelerate a mass to relativistic speeds (say an electron in the f orbital of a uranium atom), does it's mass change in terms of gravitational effects? I.e. will it exert a force based on its rest mass or on its "relativistic mass"?
TCO is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 17:21   #69
Rogan Josh
Prince
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally posted by GP


Ok. So just so that I have this all down. If I accelerate a mass to relativistic speeds (say an electron in the f orbital of a uranium atom), does it's mass change in terms of gravitational effects? I.e. will it exert a force based on its rest mass or on its "relativistic mass"?
Yes. Gravity comes from the energy - not the mass (or to be exact the energy-momentum tensor). It is just that for normal slow moving objects most of the energy is in the mass, so we tend to think of gravity as being generated by the mass.
Rogan Josh is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 17:32   #70
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Yes. Gravity comes from the energy - not the mass (or to be exact the energy-momentum tensor).
Is that true of potential energy aswell? I guess it must be.
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 18:50   #71
Rogan Josh
Prince
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Is that true of potential energy aswell? I guess it must be.
hmmmm..... yes, I think so, but I don't think you would look at it in that light. GR is all about curving space-time so I suppose you are really asking does that curvature of space-time where the source is sitting affect the source's ability to curve spacetime.

I suppose that answer must be yes, but I would have to sit down and calculate the energy-momentum tensor to see......
Rogan Josh is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 19:30   #72
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh


Yes. Gravity comes from the energy - not the mass (or to be exact the energy-momentum tensor). It is just that for normal slow moving objects most of the energy is in the mass, so we tend to think of gravity as being generated by the mass.
hmmm. Well. I guess it is just a question of terms. And I don't want to bog the physics down into philosiphy. But that seems to make it more reasonable to call it mass. Harder to accerate and gives a greater gravity force...walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.
TCO is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 19:44   #73
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Is that true of potential energy aswell? I guess it must be.
Does a compressed spring have more gravity than a relaxed one? Anybody ever test this?
TCO is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 19:52   #74
shade
Civilization II Democracy Game
King
 
shade's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of bribery.
Posts: 2,196
Quote:
Originally posted by GP


Does a compressed spring have more gravity than a relaxed one? Anybody ever test this?
euhm ... now I think of it...potential energy isn't about gravity...it's about the forcefield you're in(wich is in most examples the gravitational field)...but you could also calculate the potential energie of a electric particle in an ellectric field.

Shade
__________________
ex-president of Apolytonia former King of the Apolytonian Imperium
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)
shameless plug to my site:home of Civ:Imperia(WIP)
shade is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 20:02   #75
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh


hmmmm..... yes, I think so, but I don't think you would look at it in that light. GR is all about curving space-time so I suppose you are really asking does that curvature of space-time where the source is sitting affect the source's ability to curve spacetime.

I suppose that answer must be yes, but I would have to sit down and calculate the energy-momentum tensor to see......
If you have a system with all the energy oscillating between kinetic and potential, presumably there should be no variation in gravitational field strengths observed from a suitable distance. Else you have a problem with conserving gravitational potential energy (?).

This leads onto the point - how much of a gravitational effect would the gravitational potential energies of distance galaxies have?
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old January 10, 2003, 21:55   #76
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by shade


euhm ... now I think of it...potential energy isn't about gravity...it's about the forcefield you're in(wich is in most examples the gravitational field)...but you could also calculate the potential energie of a electric particle in an ellectric field.

Shade
The potential enrgy involved in different combinations of nucleons has measurable mass effects. Think chemical would be the same but real small.
TCO is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 02:40   #77
Seeker
Emperor
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Yongsan-Gu, Seoul
Posts: 3,647
Lars:

It's an assumption based on many, many posters on space.com who vaguely remembered or had heard about the S o L changing theory.

It always came back to van Flandern, usually to parts of his article copied onto different sites with the name changed to stop people from immediately disregarding it (Yes, Creationists ARE that low).

He starts with his explanation of why the Michelson-Morely experiment was wrong and goes from there, and he has a chart of different 'experiementally derived' values for c over time.

Maybe you have read something else I haven't heard of, but in 99% of posts similar to yours, the culprit was ultimately van Flandern, usually 'repackaged' to fake credibility, which fools a lot of people.
__________________
"Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
Seeker is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 02:48   #78
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
Great Clarification on 'energy creates gravity', RJ. Thanks.
__________________
urgh.NSFW
Az is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 03:07   #79
Lars-E
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
Lars:

It's an assumption based on many, many posters on space.com who vaguely remembered or had heard about the S o L changing theory.

It always came back to van Flandern, usually to parts of his article copied onto different sites with the name changed to stop people from immediately disregarding it (Yes, Creationists ARE that low).

He starts with his explanation of why the Michelson-Morely experiment was wrong and goes from there, and he has a chart of different 'experiementally derived' values for c over time.

Maybe you have read something else I haven't heard of, but in 99% of posts similar to yours, the culprit was ultimately van Flandern, usually 'repackaged' to fake credibility, which fools a lot of people.
Maybe Flandern's stuff is just modified? copies of stuff he found somewhere. Maybe he even got it from credible sources, but there's no references on his site?
Lars-E is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 03:20   #80
Seeker
Emperor
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Yongsan-Gu, Seoul
Posts: 3,647
True, true, and double true!

In which case you could have seen something earlier that he mangled, or possibly something he used, and then a piece of his stuff that was used by something else, like a telephone game of pop. sci.
__________________
"Wait a minute..this isn''t FAUX dive, it's just a DIVE!"
"...Mangy dog staggering about, looking vainly for a place to die."
"sauna stories? There are no 'sauna stories'.. I mean.. sauna is sauna. You do by the laws of sauna." -P.
Seeker is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 08:52   #81
Dauphin
Civilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Dauphin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seouenaca, Cantium
Posts: 12,426
Quote:
Originally posted by GP


Or just a positron/electron combination.
Sure, but the idea of matter & anti-matter planets colliding is more fun for the minds eye.
__________________
"Everybody knows you never go full retard. You went full retard man. Never go full retard"
Dauphin is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 13:38   #82
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Sure, but the idea of matter & anti-matter planets colliding is more fun for the minds eye.
As a nuclear geek, I prefer the positron death spiral (oh...the sad fate of being born into an electron world.) Mix in some Compton scattering and I'll really get off.
TCO is offline  
Old January 12, 2003, 16:13   #83
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
Btw, are cosmologists already positive on the fact that there is more matter than antimatter?

Could it be that there is a place where galaxies of anti matter escape into the vast distance of space, and matter is considered to be something of an exotic feat?
__________________
urgh.NSFW
Az is offline  
Old January 16, 2003, 16:40   #84
Eli
Civ4 SP Democracy GamePtWDG Vox ControliC4DG VoxCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton Team
Emperor
 
Eli's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Israel
Posts: 6,480
Speed of Gravity Results 'Incorrect,' Physicist Says

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/gr...ed_030116.html
__________________
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Commissioner Pravin Lal.
Eli is offline  
Old January 16, 2003, 17:52   #85
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:02
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Eli
Speed of Gravity Results 'Incorrect,' Physicist Says

http://space.com/scienceastronomy/gr...ed_030116.html
I feel very justified in pushing for a tangible explanation of what was actually measured. Whether it is a business thang or a science thang, it often pays to unravel the ball of yarn to understand exactly what is going on.

It sounds like the matter is still in dispute. I would love to at least get a geometric desciption of what was measured.
TCO is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:02.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team