The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How does mass increase at higher speeds?  (Read 45843 times)

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #50 on: 22/12/2012 01:23:46 »
Quote from: Phractality
I don't accept the claim that a photon has no mass.
Smart man! :)

If that is your opinion then you might enjoy reading my article on the subject. It’s at
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0687
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #51 on: 22/12/2012 01:27:23 »
Quote from: lightarrow
You can't localize a photon, so you can't do that.
Everything I’ve seen in this thread speaks mostly about classical physics, e.g. relativity. In relativity one uses classical photons, which is basically a point particle having a classical trajectory but zero proper mass. Such a thing can be localized.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #52 on: 22/12/2012 06:17:40 »
Maybe I am unclear?

Are you telling me that gravity is observer dependent?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #53 on: 22/12/2012 06:30:05 »
As for why I doubt it is that all experiments in a uniformly moving body is said to act out the same, meaning that whatever relative motion you achieve does nothing to change it. If I now assume that the relative motion indeed is non-relative, meaning that there is a definite change in the gravitational field locally measured then that should invalidate that statement. If we on the other hand treat gravity as something locally unchanging, but when involving two bodies measuring one, observer dependent? I need to think about that one, a damn lot. My original thought is that gravity is constantly dynamically updated in a universe, obeying 'c' as information between relatively moving bodies, but not that they also will measure a different gravity, depending on from where you do the measurement? That would hurt my head terribly to assume :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #54 on: 22/12/2012 07:08:30 »
Or maybe not? But I still need to think about it :) One could assume that the 'energy' of a universe is a constant one, the same no matter what observer dependencies exist, and then include gravity into that. But it still makes my head ache a little.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #55 on: 22/12/2012 22:46:41 »
Actually been thinking a little and I think it must be correct. Gravity is observer dependent, meaning that when you measure the gravity of other uniformly moving objects that should change with your relative speed. But locally it won't change for you, meaning that different uniform motions, locally measured, won't change your weight, as you measuring it on a weight scale. Then there is this other type of description in where some solutions to a non-rotating black hole present you with a 'infinite space' and so a weaker gravity, as observed inside the event horizon (locally). Can that also be called a observer dependency? I guess it can :) thinking of it.

If now that was what you meant?
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #56 on: 23/12/2012 00:09:01 »
Maybe I am unclear?

Are you telling me that gravity is observer dependent?
Depending on what youi mean by "gravity" yes.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #57 on: 23/12/2012 15:59:12 »
Quote from: lightarrow
You can't localize a photon, so you can't do that.
Everything I’ve seen in this thread speaks mostly about classical physics, e.g. relativity. In relativity one uses classical photons, which is basically a point particle having a classical trajectory but zero proper mass. Such a thing can be localized.

Classical photons? Which movie is it?  :D
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #58 on: 27/12/2012 06:25:21 »
Quote from: lightarrow link
Classical photons? Which movie is it?  :D
I don't understand what you mean, "Which movie is it?"

lightarrow - Have you ever heard of the terms "classical photon" and "classical electron"? Perhaps some use the term “scalar photon” or “scalar electron” instead. I read an article where similar such term(s) were used, rather than forcing someone to explain that what it means. While you may be using it as some sort as slang, I have no idea what it means which means that other people don’t either. It you mean photon then please say photon and he same with electrons. We then won’t have to waste space by trying to explain terms or explain what was a joke and then razz the person who didn’t get the joke.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #59 on: 27/12/2012 18:32:10 »
Quote from: lightarrow link
Classical photons? Which movie is it?  :D
I don't understand what you mean, "Which movie is it?"

lightarrow - Have you ever heard of the terms "classical photon" and "classical electron"?
"classical electron": yes
"classical photon": no. The reason is because of qm history: a classical electron was a starting point for Bohr and Sommerfeld when they described the atom. But a classical photon couldn't have any meaning, because m = 0 in this case.
But that was history. Now we know that a precise trajectory of particles is impossible, they don't have at all. Wavefunctions are wat replaced them.

Phractality wrote about defining the centre of a system of two photons: you don't even know where is a photon, and you want to find such a thing?
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #60 on: 28/12/2012 01:18:49 »
I believe a "classical photon" would be a ray.  You get ray optics from light waves using the same procedure that you can use to get particle-like electrons from a more thorough quantum wave theory.  But it sounds like Pmb's classical photons are like little bullets, not rays.  I'm not sure how to get to those from the wave theory.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #61 on: 28/12/2012 21:13:46 »
Geometrical optics is the (classical) limit of em radiation when frequency goes to infinite. While this gives a perfect geometrical ray (no diffraction, possibility to create infinitely thin rays) it's a mistake talking of "classical photons" even in this case because you can never know where exactly the photon is along the ray.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #62 on: 29/12/2012 00:37:48 »
I agree that a ray isn't a photon.  You can hand wave a bit and define the ray as carrying a density of photons proportional to the power transported along it (divided by frequency, perhaps?), but I don't see how you can define a single photon in this way.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #63 on: 29/12/2012 00:58:03 »
Quote from: lightarrow link
Classical photons? Which movie is it?  :D
I don't understand what you mean, "Which movie is it?"

lightarrow - Have you ever heard of the terms "classical photon" and "classical electron"?
"classical electron": yes
"classical photon": no. The reason is because of qm history: a classical electron was a starting point for Bohr and Sommerfeld when they described the atom. But a classical photon couldn't have any meaning, because m = 0 in this case.
A classical photon is defined as a point particle whose energy i related to its momentum by E = pc, whose speed is c, and whose momentum is p = Mv = mc where M = E/c^2. M is defined as the photon's inertial mass.

Worrying about m = 0 is confusing inertial mass (a pre-relativistic notion) with proper mass (a relativistic notion)
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #64 on: 29/12/2012 01:00:36 »
I believe a "classical photon" would be a ray.  You get ray optics from light waves using
 the same procedure that you can use to get particle-like electrons from a more thorough
quantum wave theory.  But it sounds like Pmb's classical photons are like little bullets, not rays.
 I'm not sure how to get to those from the wave theory.
A ray would be approximated as a stream of classical photons. Picture a laser beam as an approximation
of a ray.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #65 on: 29/12/2012 14:47:50 »
But a beam isn't a point particle.  I understand that you can express a beam roughly as a density of classical point particle photons moving along raytrajectories at the speed of light, but the case of two classical photons seems a rather unphysical approximation to me.  Can you point out a case that is well approximated by two classical photons?
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #66 on: 29/12/2012 18:29:47 »
A ray would be approximated as a stream of classical photons. Picture a laser beam as an approximation of a ray.
It's the same mistake that one makes stating that an electron's track in a bubble chamber means that elementary particles have a precise trajectory. QM teaches us they actually don't have.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #67 on: 30/12/2012 01:11:14 »
But a beam isn't a point particle.
Since nobody suggested or inferred otherwise this comment confuses me. Can you elaborate please?

I understand that you can express a beam roughly as a density of classical point particle photons moving along raytrajectories at the speed of light, but the case of two classical photons ...
Where did you get the idea of using only two photons from?
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #68 on: 30/12/2012 01:20:25 »
A ray would be approximated as a stream of classical photons. Picture a laser beam as an approximation of a ray.
It's the same mistake that one makes stating that an electron's track in a bubble chamber means that elementary particles have a precise trajectory. QM teaches us they actually don't have.
Hence the term "approximation". In classical mechanics we're most often concerned with physics only down to, perhaps, the micron level. At that level and over small distances such as a mile we don't much need to worry about the non-exact nature of the trajectory of the photons.
I've been thinkig of this stream of photons as a laser beam and when I studied ray optics as an undergrad I always had a laser beam in mind.
I never worried about the cross sectional area of the laser beam either.

This is getting off course of the reason I mentioned classical photons.

As I said, in relativity one uses classical photons, which is basically a point particle having a classical trajectory but zero proper mass. Such a thing can be localized.

I had in mind this notion when I was reading Exploring Black Holes and working with GR and SR and when they used photons. Never in that work does anybody ever worry about te photon being localized or it not having a classical trajectory.

Remember this is an analogy which, by definition, means that its alike in some ways and not alike in other ways.
Let is not forget why it was brought up rather than dwell on what each of us knows all to well about how real photons behave,shall we? Otherwise it gets over pedantic and that's when I go back to watch my brand new 60" plasma TV :)
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #69 on: 30/12/2012 01:32:10 »
Heh :)

I can see you and Pete gearing up to a argument Lightarrow :)
Ain't gonna happen. I had several months of too much quite to come out and worry about such trivia.

There are many terms in physics for which you must know the context and perhaps the authors views in order to determine the precise definition of a term. E.g when some people use the term "weight" they refer to the quantity mg. Others refer to weight only when the object of mass m is being supported at rest in the field while only defining weight as mg could mean that a body in free-fall has weight.

Then there is the definition of momentum. In Newtonian physics it means p = mv. In analytical mechanics and quantum mechanics it means canonical momentum. And you have to know that when reading QM material - the authors won't just tell you.

So nope. Nore more debating things anymore for me. I have no desire to let people know the complete picture of things. If they think they're gonna get a complete picture on the internet then they deserve whatever it is they get.
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #70 on: 30/12/2012 01:42:53 »
[quote author=PhractalityI'm wondering, now, if I should consider the center of the two-photons to be the center of energy; equivalent to center of mass. Applying inverse square law to the energy of each photon to get a ratio of each photon's distance from the center. My brain hurts; maybe I'll just play solitaire, instead.  :-\
[/quote]
If you're speaking of the geometric center of the two photons then no. The center of enegy is not the same as the geometric center of the two photons.

Note - See http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/center_of_mass.htm

I see that this is where all this photon stuff started. This was a discussion of a classical photon and not a quantum mechanical one. Don't sweat the small stuff. Look how far off track it took this thread even though everyone knew what was meant by a classical and quantum photons.

In relativity we speak of point particles such as electrons, protons etc. even when we're speaking about classical relativity (since there is no quantum theory of relativity yet). When talking classical relativity and one is speaking of photons then what is being discussed is trivially simple: A classical particle having a well-defined trajectory, having its energy related to its mometum by E = pc and whose mass is given by p = mv = mc or E = mc^2.

This is how we speak of all particles in relativity. If you see a relativity text or article speaking of electrons, protons etc then they are treating them as classical particles. There is no difference with photons.
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #71 on: 30/12/2012 12:52:35 »
It's the same mistake that one makes stating that an electron's track in a bubble chamber means that elementary particles have a precise trajectory. QM teaches us they actually don't have.
Hence the term "approximation". In classical mechanics we're most often concerned with physics only down to, perhaps, the micron level.
No. When interactions among elementary particles are involved, you have to use the full wavefunctions treatize of QM, so: diffraction, interference, non existence of an exact trajectory. Ask particle physicists. Classical limits are used in macroscopic system *of non zero mass*, so singular photons are excluded by definitions. About lasers, you are using the geometrical optics approximation, so you are not talking of singular photons by definition.

--
lightarrow
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #72 on: 30/12/2012 15:50:20 »
Quote from: lightarrow
No. When interactions among elementary particles are involved, ...
Then you have to use QM. You did understand, didn't you, that I was speaking about classical relativity? I wasn't speaking of quantum relativity since it doesn't exist yet. If you have a problem which requires QM then you have to use QM. The context of my post tells you that I was referring to classical mechanics problems, not QM problems.

In relativity one speaks of light cones. In a 2-D spacetime diagram a photon moves on a straight worldline, i.e. a straigh in spacetime. We don't speak about quantum trajectories in classical relativity. When QM is required then we've gone outside the realm of classical relativity. In classical relativity one assumes that whatever we are speaking above can be approximated to move on worldlines, and that includes elementary particles too.

Clearly, when one is speaking of a particle moving on a null geodesics one is thinking about classical luxons. And that's what I've been explaining here.
« Last Edit: 30/12/2012 15:58:27 by Pmb »
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #73 on: 31/12/2012 10:30:58 »
Quote from: lightarrow
No. When interactions among elementary particles are involved, ...
Then you have to use QM. You did understand, didn't you, that I was speaking about classical relativity?
So you can't speak of photons...
Quote
I wasn't speaking of quantum relativity since it doesn't exist yet.
You are joking! It was created in the 30' of the previous century, one of the first was Dirac, have you haver heard of "Dirac equation"? Have you ever heard of QED quantum electrodynamics?
Maybe you intended "quantum gravity", that is, a theory who would unify quantum mechanics and *general* relativity. But we are talking of laser beams, so we don't need gravity here.
Quote
Clearly, when one is speaking of a particle moving on a null geodesics one is thinking about classical luxons. And that's what I've been explaining here.
Don't know what they are, but certainly they are not photons.
« Last Edit: 31/12/2012 10:34:43 by lightarrow »
 

Offline Pmb

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1838
  • Physicist
    • View Profile
    • New England Science Constortium
Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #74 on: 31/12/2012 13:27:53 »
Quote from: lightarrow
So you can't speak of photons...
While I disagree with you last post I've decided to end my contribution of quantum/photon thing since I've basically lost interest (of course I'm always available inPM for anything).

Plus I don't like endless debates on subjects, especially when most of it contains rephrasing of statements already made.

I'll end this with one reference: Inertia of energy and the liberated photon by Adel F. Antipa, Am. J. Phys., Vol (44) No.(9) Sep. 1976
Quote
Abstract
We follow through the different variants of Einstein's intuitive photon-in-a-box derivation of the inertia of the inertia of energy, then  end with a very simple "radiating atom" derivation
See section 7. The Radiating Atom

This article is basically a modern derivation of Einstein's famous "Photon in a Box" experiment. See my web site at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/einsteins_box.htm

In the first section I outline Einstein's derivation. In the later section I outline Atipa's derivation.

Einstein uses a pulse of radiation to prove the mass-energy relation while Antipa uses an atom and a photon.
In both cases the center-of-mass is calculated and used.

The more general definition of center of mass of radiation is given in my web page at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/sr/conservation_laws.htm

The center of mass is in Eq. (15).

« Last Edit: 01/01/2013 01:47:51 by Pmb »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How does mass increase at higher speeds?
« Reply #74 on: 31/12/2012 13:27:53 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length