Mass Established by Relative Motion: Implications in GR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaketodd
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Circular Mass
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of mass and its determination through relative motion, questioning whether the process is circular. Participants clarify that mass is defined relative to a standard unit, with gravitational and inertial mass being equivalent. They emphasize that while mass can be measured through gravitational effects, the gravitational constant (G) is less precisely known, complicating mass calculations for celestial bodies. The conversation also touches on the implications of General Relativity and the distinction between rest mass and relativistic mass, indicating that rest mass is considered absolute. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexities of defining mass across different scales and contexts, particularly in relation to quantum mechanics and the Higgs field.
  • #31
jaketodd said:
The only question left in this thread is if having to use virtual particles to model interactions shows that we don't have the whole picture yet - I mean: Stuff that we haven't found to exist, and instead things acting as if those stuffs were there.

Thanks all,

Jake

To my limited knowledge on the subject, virtual particles are a result of doing the math a certain way. Whether this actually means anything or not is beyond me. It certainly works though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Drakkith said:
To my limited knowledge on the subject, virtual particles are a result of doing the math a certain way. Whether this actually means anything or not is beyond me. It certainly works though.

Yes it works, but not being able to detect the particles leaves me wondering.
 
  • #33
jaketodd said:
Yes it works, but not being able to detect the particles leaves me wondering.

I look at it like one of the following:
1) There aren't actually an virtual particles, it's just a mathematical construct or whatever
2) They aren't detectable because if they were they would have to be real and thus not virtual. So kind of like trying to figure out the position and momentum of a particle down to any precision, it just isn't possible.
 
  • #34
Drakkith said:
I look at it like one of the following:
1) There aren't actually an virtual particles, it's just a mathematical construct or whatever
2) They aren't detectable because if they were they would have to be real and thus not virtual. So kind of like trying to figure out the position and momentum of a particle down to any precision, it just isn't possible.

So this takes a turn to the Uncertainty Principle. I forget, but aren't all quantities there; it's just not possible for us to measure the two pairs of information at the same time, which the UP lays out? If we broaden the UP to cover virtual particles, and there is a pair of information, one of which is detecting a virtual particle, then we should be able to detect them if we forget about the other piece of information. But a) is there even a pair of information for virtual particles, and b) is it possible to ignore the piece of information that would lead to detection of virtual particles, so they'd be particles, not virtual particles? Well wait a second, in the UP, there is the relation between energy and time. We can get the time of our virtual particles interacting if we ignore their energy? But we can't measure the energy of our virtual particles because they are traveling at the speed of light (virtual photons, for example) and thus time stands still for them, so they remain virtual?

Jake
 
  • #35
I tried answering again, but I can't explain it well enough. I suggest making a thread in the Quantum Physics forum for this jaketodd. Try the FAQ there as well along with searching for related threads. There should be plenty.
 
  • #36
A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

Thanks,

Jake
 
  • #37
jaketodd said:
A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

Thanks,

Jake

They are not transferring their own energy. They are mediating the force between 2 particles.
 
  • #38
Drakkith said:
They are not transferring their own energy. They are mediating the force between 2 particles.

Analogy: A messenger arrives with a message, not empty handed.

In other words, why can't a virtual particle be the carrier of force between two particles?

Jake
 
  • #39
jaketodd said:
Analogy: A messenger arrives with a message, not empty handed.

In other words, why can't a virtual particle be the carrier of force between two particles?

Jake

Virtual particles are considered to be. Did you mean real?
 
  • #40
Maybe this will help. Both real and virtual particles carry the force. When you turn on a laser, a light bulb, or your cell phone's antenna, you create real photons that stream out. These photons will eventually hit a mirror, the wall, or a receiving antenna and will exert a force on whatever it hits. You could say the light source exerted a force on the distant object and the force was carried by real photons. Real photons are created whenever an electromagnetic system radiates. But what if we have perfectly static electromagnetic fields (which is actually much rarer than you think)? Static fields don't radiate and therefore don't emit real photons, but we still observe experimentally that one object can exert a force on another object through a static fields. In the world of quantum field theory, everything is described by creation, destruction, and exchange of quanta (particles), so if there are no real photons to carry the force, the force must be carried by virtual photons. So virtual particles are more of a special limiting case where fields become static. But don't think of virtual particles as invisible balls being emitted and absorbed, but rather as just quantized pieces of a whole field.
 
  • #41
jaketodd said:
A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?

I still think there could be something to this.
 
  • #42
jaketodd said:
A better way to say my last post is: We can't ignore the energy of virtual particles because that's what they are solely doing (transferring energy). So since we can't ignore their energy, we can't observe them in time. Anybody?


I still think there could be something to this.

I'm sorry I don't understand what that means.
 
  • #43
Drakkith said:
I'm sorry I don't understand what that means.

Well, according to the uncertainty principle, the more you know either time or energy, the less you know the other. If virtual particles exist as pure energy transmission (vs. for example, regular photons having momentum (virtual particles do not always result in momentum being transferred in the direction they hit another particle; only if it matches the direction of the force they are carrying to another particle)) then their energy can never be neglected to any extent, thus making only their energetic transmission observable, and never their existence in time observable. I know that's pretty complicated and hard to read, but I've thought through it several times, and it makes sense to me.
 
  • #44
then their energy can never be neglected to any extent

What? What does this mean? I don't understand what you mean by saying the virtual particles energy can never be neglected, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Am I misunderstanding something?
 
  • #45
Doesn't the relativistic relationship (E)^2-(pc)^2=(m0c^2)^2 give an absolute scale for mass?
 
  • #46
Drakkith said:
What? What does this mean? I don't understand what you mean by saying the virtual particles energy can never be neglected, it just doesn't make any sense to me. Am I misunderstanding something?

Maybe from this angle: You can't detect it as a real particle because it's purely a transmission of energy; no physical form. And the uncertainty principle comes in and says: Since you can only detect it by measuring it's energy, then it's hidden from existing in time. This is getting philosophical =)

If someone wants to shoot me down, please don't be too harsh, I'm trying here.
 
Last edited:
  • #47
I don't know jaketodd. Again, I recommend posting in the Quantum Physics forum about this if you really want to know.
 
  • #48
To understand how free or non-free fields mediate force or transport energy it is not important to refer to their quantum properties. So why speak of virtual or real particles?
 
  • #49
DrDu said:
To understand how free or non-free fields mediate force or transport energy it is not important to refer to their quantum properties. So why speak of virtual or real particles?

I'm bringing the uncertainty principle into it because it seems to appropriately have an interesting implication and explanation.
 
  • #50
One counter argument I've thought of is: Energy transfer can be timed. However, what is really being measured is the particle that the virtual particle is effecting, not the virtual particle itself.
 
  • #51
jaketodd said:
One counter argument I've thought of is: Energy transfer can be timed. However, what is really being measured is the particle that the virtual particle is effecting, not the virtual particle itself.

Counter argument to what?
 
  • #52
Drakkith said:
Counter argument to what?

It's a counter argument to virtual particles not being detectable in time.
 

Similar threads

B Understanding gravity: mass and gravity relation
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
14K
I New Developments In The Search For Planet X
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
I Kepler orbits for planets of similar masses
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
I How does GR deal with pointlike objects with mass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
524
I Balloon experiment - Classical Physics vs. Statistical Physics
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
B What if we use a non physical reference point to measure an object's mass?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Theoretical Possibility of "Opposite" Gravitational Mass?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Can the "measurement problem" just be an "epistemological ambiguity"?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
A Effects of a spatially nonuniform diffusion parameter
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
I How Can We Measure Properties of Distant Planets and Stars?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K