1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Real mass vs movement mass

  1. Aug 6, 2004 #1
    According to the theory of relativity and according to observations, adding movement to mass makes it more massive. All the components of mass are in a jumble of related motion. Protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, and molecules comprise mass; they all vibrate and orbit and whiz around inside of mass. So rest mass can only be imagined, never really measured, but most scientists assume that there is a fundamental kind of massiveness called rest mass.

    So, now we have massiveness which is due only to movement, and another fundamental kind of mass called rest mass. How can it be that there are two fundamentally different kinds of massivness.

    It is easy to find that kind of mass that is due only to movement. If m = hv / cc is correct, it describes mass as movement; the only variable in the equation is the frequency, or rate of change ( movement ) of electromagnetic fields.

    How can we find that kind of mass that is rest mass? If we could take a still-motion snapshot of the innards of a chunk of mass so that there was no movement at all, would there be anything in the picture? Is there anything to mass other than movement? Is there an equation that would describe that kind of mass that is without movement?

    I could go on and on but I think you can get the point.

    Keeps me awake at night :smile:

  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2004 #2
    The total relativistic energy is given by

    [tex] E^2 = c^2p^2 + m_0^2c^4 [/tex]

    where [itex]c^2p^2 [/itex] is the total kinetic energy and [itex]m_0^2c^4 [/itex] is the total potential energy which include the rest mass energy and [itex]m_0[/itex] is really the rest mass.

    when the momentum [itex]p[/itex] is zero, the total energy is [itex]E = \pm m_0c^2[/itex]
  4. Aug 6, 2004 #3
    Since momentum can never be zero (absolute rest does not exist), both kinetic and potential energy always contribute to the total energy. But for photon, quantum of light, its rest mass can be zero (except in strong gravitational field of a black hole), its total energy is then purely kinetic and its momentum is given by [itex] p=\frac{E}{c}[/itex].

    The energy for the quantum of radiation is given by

    [tex] E= h \nu[/tex]

    where [itex] h [/itex] is Planck's constant and [itex] \nu [/itex] is the frequency of the radiation. From this, de Broglie was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1929 for saying that matter wave is possible and the wavelength is given by the following

    [tex] \lambda = \frac{h}{p} [/tex]

    where [itex] c = \lambda \nu[/itex]
  5. Aug 6, 2004 #4
    Great Antonio, but I still can't find mass where there is no movement. What I'm trying to discover is a way of describing mass that is not simply the movement of some other thing. Absolute rest mass does not exist, you say, I ask does rest mass, absolute or otherwise, exist. Now if it does not, we have made a great discovery, haven't we. :smile:
  6. Aug 7, 2004 #5
    Absolute rest as of no-motion does not exist. But rest-mass can be derived from relative rest. The motion that we commonly attributed to objects comes from broken symmetry of translational transformation (four kinds of transformation: 1. translation, 2. rotation, 3. reflection, 4. scaling) which is the conservation law of linear momentum. Locally (macroscopic human scale), we detect motion and say that linear momentum is not conserved and we used this broken symmetry to describe thermodynamic systems and irreversible processes hence we arrived at the 2nd of law of thermodynamics that entropy is increasing and established one type (there are four types) of time's arrow.

    Rest mass comes from the rotational symmetry found within the microscopic domain of reality which is the conservation of angular momentum equivalent to the principle of least action. It is this symmetry that established the quantum theory of radiation such as light. And the quantum of light is the photon. But the nature of rest mass is intimately linked to the concept of spin and the quantization of spin led to two basic groups of particles: the fermions and the bosons.

    Atoms are made from fermions, and the bosons are the exchange particles between fermions for the transfer of energy among them. Bosons are the force particles, the carriers of the four fundamental forces of nature. Even with all these concepts, the origin of mass still eluded the most profound hypothesis. The Higgs theory is the most recent counter assault on nature's subtlety to hide its hold on the meaning of mass. This is still a research in progress.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2004
  7. Aug 7, 2004 #6
    One possiblity is that rest mass results from charge spinning on its own axis.
    That way there is no mass that is not due to motion.
  8. Aug 7, 2004 #7
    This is a great proposition! But how do we quantize this axis? The answer could be found in the microscopic geometry of an intrinsic topology of spacetime itself. Still, we need to clarify the true concept of charge (there are three concepts: electric, electroweak, and color).
  9. Aug 7, 2004 #8
    I still haven't pinned anything down that I can chew on. If you took all the movement mass out of a chunk of something, would it satisfy the m = hv / cc equation or only partually satisfy it with something still remaining. :smile: Maybe we've beat on that enough.

    What about from another direction? Is there anything in nature that can not become nothing more than electromagnetic radiation? Would that be rest mass? It seems to me that rest mass must also be convertable to satisfy the rules.

    Keep on chuggin !!

  10. Aug 7, 2004 #9
    Can we go a step further and say mass as of no-motion can not possibly exist, even in theory. Because I haven't seen a discription of it that does not include the idea of motion. For example; we could say that rest mass is mass with all the motion removed. But then I would want to quantize the removed motion to see what percentage of the total it was. My guess is that it would be 100%.

    Keep on chuggin !!

  11. Aug 7, 2004 #10
    If we suppose that acceleration is absolute and also quantized, it can describe rest mass by Newton's 2nd law of motion.

    [tex]m = \frac{F}{a} [/tex]

    But in one dimension, the force is constant, hence we can hypothesize that the product of generalized mass and the magnitude of time rate of change of generalized acceleration is equal to unity.

    [tex] m \left|\frac{da}{dt}\right| = 1 [/tex]
  12. Aug 7, 2004 #11
    The integral form is given by

    [tex] \int m(a) da = \int_{0}^{\infty} dt [/tex]

    The geometry of this integral is a hyperbola and the space is non-Euclidean. So we need a corresponding formulation for 1D space

    [tex] \int m(a) da = \int_{0}^{\infty} dr [/tex]

    and the integral product is

    [tex] \int m^2 da^2 = \int \int dtdr [/tex]

    the geometry is formed by two ellipses linked together.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2004
  13. Aug 7, 2004 #12
    On the other hand, if we multiply the force by a metric, r, and the acceleration also by the same metric we get

    [tex] m = \frac{F \cdot r}{a \cdot r} [/tex]

    but [itex] a \cdot r = c^2 [/itex] hence [itex] m = \frac{E}{c^2}[/itex], where [itex]E=F \cdot r [/itex].
  14. Aug 7, 2004 #13
    The last integral of post#11 can be interpreted as saying that the sum of the square of mass integrated twice around acceleration is equal to the curvature of spacetime. This is saying the same thing (except for a factor of speed) as Einstein's field equations of general relativity.
  15. Aug 7, 2004 #14
    Ok Antonio; I can't get you to go where I was trying to get to :smile: But I think we might agree that some part of the massivness of mass is nothing more than electromagnetic change. The place I was trying to get to was that all of mass is electromagnetic change.

    And when we got there we would have discovered the photon theory of mass.

    Keep on chuggin !!

  16. Aug 7, 2004 #15
    Mass can be anything that stops a particle from moving freely - electrons moving through some crystals have a greater mass because of repulsion of like charges.

    But even a rotating charge might encounter resistance to its motion if space is filled with other particles -just as a spinning ball would be encounter friction from air.Like charges with different masses such as up quarks and charm quarks could just differ in mass becasue of the speed at which their charge spins on its axis.A faster spin would go with a greater mass.
    So a faster spin would be associated with greater resistance from other particles in space.Why would this happen? Perhaps as in a linear collision,
    a faster moving (spinning) charge can get closer to other particles and so experience a bigger "force" when it does so.
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2004
  17. Aug 7, 2004 #16
    This is true if the gravity force is proportional to the difference between electric force and magnetic force given by

    [tex] F_G \propto F_E - F_B [/tex]

    but we can also hypothesize an antigravity force given by

    [tex] F_A \propto F_B - F_E [/tex]
  18. Aug 7, 2004 #17
    True, but I still haven't found that kind of mass that we can say for sure is not simply electromagnetic change. We've already settled, I think, that some of mass is electromagnetic change, now we're trying to find out whether all of mass is electromagnetic change.

  19. Aug 8, 2004 #18
    In vacuum, away from any matter and gravitational field, the force of gravity is practically zero.

    [tex] E = vB [/tex]

    [tex] v = \frac{E}{B}[/tex]

    But what is this velocity of? There are no charge or matter in vacuum. So what is it that is moving? If v is the speed of light in vacuum, then the motion comes from the currents of space. Could this ratio be higher than the value of light speed? It seems possible if the magnitude of the magnetic field is lowered by some amount.
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2004
  20. Aug 8, 2004 #19
    In the vicinity of a gravitational field caused by matter, [itex]v[/itex] is less than light speed and hence the magnitude of magnetic field is larger by some amount relative to the electric field.
  21. Aug 8, 2004 #20
    further reduction of [itex]v[/itex] will cause the creation of inertial mass and hence the emergence of mass as a physical reality. In the case when [itex] v[/itex] is exactly zero as in the big bang singularity, the strength of the magnetic field must be infinite. At this point, we can hypothesize a duality between [itex]v[/itex] and angular velocity or continuous spin [itex]s[/itex] given by

    [tex] s = \frac{1}{v} [/tex]


    [tex] s = \frac{B}{E}[/tex]
  22. Aug 8, 2004 #21
    The cause of mass or the origin of mass is given by the ratio of the magnitude of electric field over magnetic field when this ratio has a magnitude that is less than the speed of light in vacuum.
  23. Aug 8, 2004 #22
    Since gravity is the difference between the electric force and the magnetic force and the magnetic field must be very strong relative to the electric field in order for mass to emerge, the gravity vector must be the vector difference when the EM field projected in an arbitrary axis. Since the forces are orthogonal, this axis is very nearly the diagonal of a Cartesian coordinate system.
  24. Aug 8, 2004 #23
    The main point we arrived at after a long chain of reasoning was that all of mass is due to electromagnetic change. In response to that conclusion you said:

    I guess I missed your equation in my snippit, but the point is that if what we discovered is really true it is a very important realization. We shouldn't let the train of thought that got us there get lost because that will have to be defended over and over through the years before the scientific community finally accepts it. :smile:

    Keep on chuggin !!

  25. Aug 8, 2004 #24
    Equivalently, this diagonal is the same as a 45 degrees rotation of the coordinate system. In a 1D spacetime coordinate system, the diagonal is the boundary of the light-cone separating timelike, lightlike, and spacelike region of spacetime where antigravity is more or less found in the forbidden spacelike region (a region that can only be traversed at superluminal speed).
  26. Aug 8, 2004 #25
    Furthermore, if we say that energy is equivalent to the product of a force and a metric then the gravitational energy is the different between magnetic energy and electric energy. If the magnetic energy is given by [itex] \frac{1}{2} LI^2[/itex] where [itex]L[/itex] is the inductance and [itex]I[/itex] is the current. This is analogous to kinetic energy. Similarly, the electric field energy is given by [itex] \frac{1}{2}CV^2[/itex] where [itex]C[/itex] is the capacitance and [itex]V[/itex] is the voltage. This is analogous to potential energy. Hence the similarity between the gravitational energy and the negative of the Lagrangian function is clear. Moreover, the extremum of this gravity Lagrangian form a principle of gravity's least action.

    [tex]A_G = \int L_G dt [/tex]
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook