Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 14 days
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24714757 - 10/16/17 05:01 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
Quote:

this entire time you've been venturing pretty far into the purview of general relativity




And yet again, vauge claims with no specific example.



I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've given you specific critiques several times over.  If you're having trouble understanding something in particular that I said then you're allowed to ask what I mean, but if the issue is that you just don't like how the criticism is ending up being put together then that's more personal than mathematical.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: chibiabos]
    #24715809 - 10/17/17 03:31 AM (6 years, 5 months ago)

I dont really see any specifics worth considering.  Here are some claims you could clarify.

Quote:

this entire time you've been venturing pretty far into the purview of general relativity




Where is the general realativity?  Quote it. It shouldnt be needed or included.


Quote:

I also think that you're confusing a metric tensor with a distance function.  So stop doing that.




Where was the metric confused with the distance function? Quote it.


Quote:

Special relativity isn't really concerned with defining a metric tensor.





Special realativity is built on its metric. How are you going to have spacetime without it? Anyway, the minkowski metric is all we need to worry about here. In special relativity there is only one metric, only one spacetime. I dont know why you brought up general relativity. You didnt appeal to it for anything.


Quote:

Quit equation shopping.




What equations did I shop for? I recall only appealing to the energy momentum relation. Quote where I used a different equation.


Quote:

You're trying to extrapolate the properties of a point in a geometry to properties of the the entire space that don't really depend on any geometry in particular.




Quote where I did that. I tried to use consistent terminology of a system throughout. Energy and mass are properties of a system.


Quote:

And you do have issues with algebra




Where? Quote the mistake.


Quote:

That's why I keep linking people to Judson's textbook.




Quote the part of the book that is relevant to the topic.

Quote:

You also never defined a system of photons.




I did in post #1. "But now consider a two photon system with each photon traveling in the opposite direction.
--->Photon      Photon<----
Here they have opposite momentum. One has momentum +p, the other has momentum -p. The system has zero net momentum. "

Quote:

I don't think that Noether's theorem says anything about whether mass is conserved or not.




Are you claiming the difference between two conserved quantities is not conserved? Noethers theorem applied to the symmetries of the poincare group entail both energy and four momentum conservation. And what is energy minus the magnitude of the four momentum? The invarient mass!


Quote:

I'm not even sure that you're picking the right equations, to be totally honest.




Then you dont understand the energy momentum relation, the only equation I appealed to before this post.

Quote:

It also seems to assume that there's a scalar with a definition that's frame dependent, which contradicts the property of being a scalar.





Not true at all. Energy is a scalar that is frame dependent. Invarient mass is not, hence the invarience.


You have posted lots of vague, mostly irrelevent and occasionally flat out wrong stuff.  All for a simple conservation idea involving one equation and a caveat that describes old thinking, which I acknowledged (the sum of particle invarient masses does not equal the system which contains those particles invarient mass. The sum of particle invarient masses is not conserved. The invarient mass of a system is conserved.)

I like debating this stuff, but I really wish uou would be more specific

Edited by DieCommie (10/17/17 03:39 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,833
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24715910 - 10/17/17 06:19 AM (6 years, 5 months ago)

I thought the difference between mass and matter was that matter is undefined in quantity and mass is defined in quantity.

Also how do u "weigh" mass without gravity?

:strokebeard:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24716052 - 10/17/17 08:14 AM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Thats a good question. On the space station they have to weigh themselves to see how their body's mass and bone density, etc are holding up. But since they are in freefall a scale wont work. So they basically do something like vibrating the person. Like a mass on a spring, with a known applied force and then a measured displacement one can infer how much mass. A scale does the same thing, but the force is gravity.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24716746 - 10/17/17 01:04 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Diecommie, are you saying that when a nuclear bomb blows up the mass of the uranium/plutonium is still there and not converted into energy?

And/or that the amount of energy released can't be calculated by the formula E=MC2 ?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 14 days
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24717967 - 10/17/17 07:57 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

DieCommie said:
I dont really see any specifics worth considering.



So you do see some "specifics," then.  :deal:

Quote:

Where is the general realativity?  Quote it. It shouldnt be needed or included.



Do you mean where are the topics that fall under that purview?  You pretty much began by discussing a problem that involves acceleration, and then you started talking about cosmic inflation.  Just because you don't instantiate it it doesn't mean that you don't need to take it into consideration.

Quote:


Where was the metric confused with the distance function? Quote it.



You seem to be under the impression that defining the metric tensor for spacetime is a problem is special relativity.  Special relativity already constrains geometries to the property of being Euclidean.  There's really no need to take the metric tensor into account.

Quote:


Special realativity is built on its metric. How are you going to have spacetime without it? Anyway, the minkowski metric is all we need to worry about here. In special relativity there is only one metric, only one spacetime. I dont know why you brought up general relativity. You didnt appeal to it for anything.



See above.  I'm really not sure what makes you think that spacetime depends on a metric.  There are properties of a spacetime that are a result of particular definitions of the metric tensor, but the statement that "there exists a spacetime" doesn't really require that it even be metrizable until you start defining some other constraints that require that property.  But, in general, you don't need a metric (or even a distance function) to demonstrate that a space exists.  That goes double for when that space being extant is a postulate, the results of which you are trying to describe.

Quote:

[quote[
What equations did I shop for? I recall only appealing to the energy momentum relation. Quote where I used a different equation.




Like I said...Don't appeal to your formula sheet.

Quote:



Quote where I did that. I tried to use consistent terminology of a system throughout. Energy and mass are properties of a system.



That's sort of your entire argument.  I'm not sure why you think that "consistent terminology" is really relevant here.

Quote:


Quote:

And you do have issues with algebra




Where? Quote the mistake.



Sort of the entire thread.

Quote:


Quote the part of the book that is relevant to the topic.



The entire book (and then some) is relevant.  Quit looking for handy snippets of text.  Math ain't a spectator sport.

Quote:


Quote:

You also never defined a system of photons.




I did in post #1. "But now consider a two photon system with each photon traveling in the opposite direction.
--->Photon      Photon<----
Here they have opposite momentum. One has momentum  p, the other has momentum -p. The system has zero net momentum. "



Yeah, I can see why that confused you.  I should have said that you never defined what a system is.  Calling them Bob and Al and defining some sense for their velocities means a lot less than you seem to think it is.  Right now I could stick them into separate spacetimes that don't even intersect, and I'd still be able to put them in a set that satisfies the constraint that "this set contains two photons."

Quote:


Are you claiming the difference between two conserved quantities is not conserved? Noethers theorem applied to the symmetries of the poincare group entail both energy and four momentum conservation. And what is energy minus the magnitude of the four momentum? The invarient mass!



No.  I'm claiming that hypothesis that's given in Noether's theorem doesn't make any explicit predictions about whether mass is conserved or not.  If you want to work on a corollary to that end, then that's on you.

Quote:


Quote:

I'm not even sure that you're picking the right equations, to be totally honest.




Then you dont understand the energy momentum relation, the only equation I appealed to before this post.



Like I said, ditch the formula sheet.

Quote:


Not true at all. Energy is a scalar that is frame dependent.




Scalars don't depend on a coordinate system.  I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "frame dependent" either.  You can define a scalar with components that depend on your choice of a coordinate system, but if the scalar itself depends on your choice of a coordinate system then it fails to have the property of being a scalar.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: chibiabos] * 1
    #24729023 - 10/22/17 09:46 AM (6 years, 5 months ago)

No quotes, no specifics, no algebra mistake, no surprise.

Some mistakes you have made:
  • Minkowski space is flat, but non-eucledian. The time component has a different sign than the spatial components. The metric is important. It defines the unique nature of space-time.
  • I did not invoke acceleration in my situation. But if I did that would be just fine within special relativity. It's a common mistake to think that special relativity can only cope with constant velocities. Use a path integral and you can investigate acceleration within special relativity. General relativity is only needed for gravity.
  • A system is well defined in physics. Two particles in two different space-times do not define a system.
  • A lorentz boost is a transformation in Noether's theorem that corresponds to an invariance of mass. The three-momentum and energy conserved implies the four-momentum is conserved because a lorentz boost is a transformation in space and time.
  • "Frame dependent" is a very important concept in physics and relativity. If you don't know what it means then you aren't going to get anywhere.



I don't think you understand relativity well enough to discuss it.

Regardless of your complaints and digressions, my claims hold:


Mass is not matter and the two should not be confused.
Mass in conserved in a system during interaction.
The sum of rest masses that make up the particles in a system is not conserved.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 14 days
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24729851 - 10/22/17 05:10 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

The first one of those three statements is true, in the same way that blue isn't the same thing as paint.  The second one is kind of meaningless without actually defining what "conserved," "in a system" and "during an interaction" mean and I'm not sure what you mean by conserving a sum.  YOU NEED TO DEFINE YOUR TERMS.

Other than that, "well defined" doesn't mean "everybody ought to already know what you mean when you use this word."  If you can't define a problem then you damned sure aren't going to be able to understand your own attempt at a solution...And again, if you're going to argue in terms of a corollary to Noether's theorem then you actually need to prove it.  I'm not even sure that you've managed to stay with the same argument, apropos conservation of mass (vis a vis Noether's theorem).

You also seem to be confusing local properties with global properties.  Or at least some results that arise from particular constraints on a valid spacetime with results that arise, in general, from a valid spacetime itself.  And, germane to that, the property of being a Minkowski space doesn't really proscribe a Euclidean geometry.  Even double checking the definition on Wolfram, it looks like it just lets you define a distance function in terms of the hyperbolic inner product.  And, on that note, the sign of any of the components of a point in a Minkowski 4-space (i.e. the entries in some 4-tuple) is sort of irrelevant since the whole thing is pretty much just a sum of squares (with an additive inverse thrown into the mix, by definition).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleteknix
π“‚€βŸπ“…’π“π“…ƒπ“Š°π“‰‘ 𓁼𓆗⨻
 User Gallery


Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24729864 - 10/22/17 05:16 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

What about when a positron meets an electron?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 14 days
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: teknix]
    #24730135 - 10/22/17 07:07 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Then you end up with a particle with zero rest mass (which is invariant with respect to your reference frame).  The trick is that mass and energy are sort of the same thing and it can either look like mass or look like energy, depending on the context.  And you'll actually see a lot of people start talking about the masses of particles in terms of electron-volts, at some point.  Which is to say that at some point you're discouraged from speaking of the masses of particles in terms of units like grams or kilograms, since the numbers look really fucking ugly.

At any rate, there's a total energy of a particle which all observers agree on, and all observers agree on how much of that total energy is the result of the particle just existing (i.e. there's sort of a minimum value that anybody can observe as the mass of the particle), but not everybody agrees on how much of that energy is the result of its motion (since not everybody agrees on how to describe its motion, with respect to their own basis for a coordinate system).  And this is within the context of me, personally (for the purposes of this discussion) totally ignoring the possibility that there may be some force acting on the particle to change its motion at all since that's beyond the scope of this topic.

Edited by chibiabos (10/22/17 07:10 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: teknix] * 1
    #24730570 - 10/22/17 10:38 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

teknix said:
What about when a positron meets an electron?




When a positron meets an electron you get two photons out. You have to get at least two in order to conserve momentum. The two photon system has a mass equal to the positron & electron system. The systems have equal invariant masses. But the individual particle's, the photons, they have zero mass on their own individually. But when part of the system they contribute mass. :eek:

This is another way to look at the "mass deficit". A hydrogen atom on its own has less mass than a system of a free electron and proton. The system's mass and the constituents mass do not add up to each other.  Bring an electron and proton together so they bind, and a photon gets emitted. The system of electron, proton and photon (the new hydrogen atom and released photon) has the same mass as the unbound proton and electron. By letting them bind, then emitting a photon away you lose energy and thus lose mass - by opening your system.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,833
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: DieCommie]
    #24730578 - 10/22/17 10:51 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

That is fuckin amazing.

Where didnu learn that? Incredible.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 14 days
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24732187 - 10/23/17 05:26 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Pretty much any introductory chemistry series.  Or a high school AP chemistry textbook.  :shrug:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLogicaL ChaosM
Ascension Energy & Alien UFOs
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/12/07
Posts: 69,833
Loc: The Inexpressible... Flag
Last seen: 1 hour, 12 minutes
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: chibiabos]
    #24732405 - 10/23/17 06:40 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Is there a name for this action?

I vaguely remember something about the positron hitting the electron but cant remember anything else.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinechibiabos
Cosmic Pond Scum
I'm a teapot User Gallery


Registered: 03/16/17
Posts: 4,180
Last seen: 1 year, 14 days
Re: What is the matter with mass? [Re: LogicaL Chaos]
    #24732456 - 10/23/17 06:55 PM (6 years, 5 months ago)

Annihilation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Clean energy? Cyber 1,184 9 08/16/04 12:44 PM
by psilomonkey
* Perpetual Energy Devices
( 1 2 all )
ShroomismM 5,023 38 05/10/12 09:23 AM
by Stonehenge
* What energy source shall we use when fossil fuels run out/become economically unviable? The_Walrus 2,391 19 03/11/05 01:20 PM
by trendal
* aether energy MarioNett 1,232 10 09/27/03 08:02 PM
by trendal
* looking for mass e-mail retriever program runnerup 729 6 01/01/05 12:23 PM
by John
* Hyping Hydrogen: The Energy Scam
( 1 2 all )
Ellis Dee 4,789 37 05/14/03 06:02 PM
by Papaver
* Mass Media Storage? EffedS 1,388 18 08/22/03 09:00 PM
by wingnutx
* Light to heat energy formula? Drink_Punk_Soda 2,664 7 02/12/05 04:26 PM
by TinMan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: trendal, automan, Northerner
2,200 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.