20090909

Does Energy Have Mass?

Bill:

Glad you are enjoying www.scientificphilosophy.com and TTAOS (Borchardt, 2004). I hope you were able to see the media file (Borchardt, 2009a).

Your question was:

Re: E=MC2, if I do the algebra and if c is constant, then c=(sqrt) E/M. Since M can't be 0 (as far as our physical universe is defined), then doesn't E have to have some mass, even if vanishingly small? If the above is true, then could the (even vanishingly small) amount of mass in all the electromagnetic radiation in all of the universe contribute a significant portion of the 'missing mass' problem in cosmology? This question also gets into the current 'solution' to the missing-mass problem that proposes the existence of dark matter. Seems to me that it's fundamentally based on a refusal to question the assumption whether Newton's Law is universal. It seems so much simpler to both me and Occam's razor to admit we may be ignorant about the cosmos and then look at Modified Newtonian Dynamics instead of hypothesizing a theoretical substance that we can't detect but that simply MUST exist so that Newton Law can remain valid. Anyway, just some thoughts for your consideration (or amusement :)


Another interesting question. It’s a logical solution for c that I don’t remember seeing before. You might want to review the chapter in TTAOS on INSEPARABILITY along with my abstract on “The Physical Meaning of E=mc2” (Borchardt, 2009b). I am writing the paper now, so your question is specially apropos. I included that section in the video conference, so maybe that will help. In brief, E has no mass, because it is a matter-motion term for an idea. Likewise, radiation has no mass, if one assumes, as I do, that radiation is the motion of matter. Thus, ether is the medium for the motion called light, just as air is the medium for the motion called sound. Few would think of sound as having mass, but, as you have picked up on, well studied modern physicists would be remiss if they did not consider light to be material (although a contradictory matterless particle, at that). Like most of us, you are playing with the cards that we have been dealt, so it is not surprising that we might think of “dark energy” as a “thing” having mass. The ether, like the air, indeed has mass (Borchardt, 2007, p. 203), and is an absolute necessity for Infinite Universe Theory. The Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence for the presence of the ether, which, like all matter, vibrates to produce temperature.

Remember that many of the paradoxes and many of the questions still being asked by Big Bangers and relativists are based on indeterministic assumptions. Once the correct assumptions are used, those disappear. I haven’t studied the “dark matter” problem well enough to make up my mind whether or not it is an artifact of the BBT. It could be that the mass of the forbidden ether is enough to satisfy some of the math once we assume that the universe is infinite and not expanding.

As Einstein admitted, Newton’s great work will remain so for all time. Newton’s error, similar to Einstein, was to assume finity. Your somewhat prescient call for a Modified Newtonian Dynamics was answered in the “Neomechanics” chapter of TSW (Borchardt, 2007, pp. 127-151). Instead of getting rid of the ether, however, it absolutely required it. So no luck with that for saving the BBT.

References:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The ten assumptions of science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 411 p.

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009a, The Ten Assumptions of Science: First Steps in the Overthrow of the Big Bang Theory (Part 1), Natural Philosophy Alliance Video Conference, Natural Philosophy Alliance ( http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=243 ).

Borchardt, Glenn, 2009b, The physical meaning of E=mc2 [abs.], in 16th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, Natural Philosophy Alliance (http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=3002&tab=2 ).

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was wondering if E=MC(squared) can also lead to the conclusion that time has mass. Can we not discuss distance / time in relation to C, and then discuss E = (M(D/T))Squared .... and solve for time?

Glenn Borchardt said...

In other words: t = d*[(m/E)^0.5)]?

Yes, one could make that mistake in the same way that one might consider energy to have mass. But as I explained in the paper, energy is an idea, in which we multiply a term for matter (m) times a term for motion (c^2). Energy is neither matter nor motion. Energy is a concept. Solving for t by using any equation, including the one above, however, does not make time have mass. Time is motion, it occurs, but does not exist. Existence is given only to matter, which always has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other portions of the universe. For time to have mass, it would have to fulfill these criteria. I would love to have a pocket full of time (no matter what it weighed), but that ain't never going to happen.

AlisonH2O said...

Following on that note, since energy is the ability to do work and work is Fd, and Force =Mass x Acceleration, wouldn't energy ~have~ to have mass?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Alison:

Thanks for the comment. Remember that all these matter-motion terms are used in physics to describe and understand matter in motion. They are simply calculations to that effect. In each case, a microcosm (necessarily having mass and xyz dimensions) interacts with its macrocosm (except for momentum). Momentum, force, and energy have no separate existence apart from their motions [see the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion)].

Anonymous said...

Happened onto this page searching for a different question, but it looked interesting. I'm sure this is a silly question for those that read this page, but for a neophyte math and physics guy in high school like me I would like to ask a question if I may.

If light is energy and (possibly) has no mass how can light travel? With no mass what "equal and opposite force" could act on it to cause movement? I understand that the light we see may be nothing more than reflections of "light energy" bouncing off other matter and causing the "illusion" of travel, but light at the end of a fiber optic cable still carries with it the energy to do work. If we see light traveling as an "illusion" then how does the energy travel with (possibly) no mass?

Thank you for your time.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Anon:

Remember that energy does not exist. It is only a calculation. Today’s Blog post (Blog 20160420) explains how matter-motion calculations work. Sound does not have mass either, because it too is wave motion in a medium (air). Light is wave motion in a medium (aether). Motion, of course, does not have mass, that is why aether deniers such as Einstein have so much trouble explaining light. His theoretical photon therefore must be massless and he must imagine this imaginary particle to have properties not found for any other known particles. Real particles and real objects are affected by the velocity of their source. For example, a 100 mph fastball travels at nearly 170 mph when thrown from a vehicle traveling 70 mph. The velocity of light, like the velocity of sound, is a property of the medium. The aether medium transmits wave motion at a relatively constant 300,000 km/s and air transmits sound at about 700 mph. Aether waves, like sound waves and water waves transmit motion with enough impact to break eardrums or knock you over.

Ben Gingrich said...

is a battery lighter after it has been used?

Ben Gingrich said...

do fresh batteries have more mass than spent ones? if so, would this demonstrate our theory that energy (at least in some forms) has mass? I don't know the details of how a battery works, but it would seem a way to test the idea, no?

Glenn Borchardt said...

Ben:

Thanks for the questions. I will answer them in this week's Blog (Blog 20161207).

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html