PSI Blog 20140114
Bob de Hilster writes:
I have attached a document that
includes the reason mass increases with an increase of energy.
[GB: See the Wikipedia document
below.]
Mainstream believes that E = mc2
is true even if it has no basis in nature.
[GB: Sorry, Bob but that equation is
true and has plenty of confirmatory evidence to back it up. I understand your
frustration with it. You can only understand its “basis in nature” by analyzing
the situation in terms of matter and the motion of matter as I did in:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical
meaning of E=mc2 ( http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/Downloads/The%20Physical%20Meaning%20of%20E%20=%20mc2.pdf
): Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31.]
If you add energy to an object,
the mass must increase.
[GB: You cannot “add energy” to an
object (microcosm). The best you can do is to allow the transfer of external motion to
become internal motion within the microcosm. The internal motion accelerates the
submicrocosms within the microcosm, producing an increase in momentum for the submicrocosms. The submicrocosms then impact the
microcosmic boundary, counteracting the force of whatever supermicrocosm is
being used to measure mass. Remember that mass is the resistance of an object to acceleration. You may be mistaking mass for matter. While the
total matter and motion in the universe is constant (The Fifth Assumption of
Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither
created nor destroyed)), the mass of each microcosm is constantly changing. This
is because all submicrocosms within microcosms are amenable to impacts from
supermicrocosms and are, in turn, amenable to contributing some of their
submicrocosmic motion across the microcosmic boundary to supermicrocosms in the
macrocosm. That sentence will not seem contorted once you understand
neomechanics. It is the essence of neomechanics that makes mass/energy
transformations simple once you break them down to interactions involving matter
in motion. What makes the lesson difficult is the required change in philosophy
in which one needs to relinquish the energy concept and adopt the aether
concept.]
Or maybe if you add energy, mass
stays the same and energy is still there.
[GB: You have learned your
regressive physics well. It is common to treat energy as though it were an
object. That was Einstein’s most important mistake. Please reread:
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most
important philosophical error, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy
Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf
), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.]
From Wiki[1]:
1. Add compression or expansion to a
spring, its mass increases.
2. Add heat to an object its mass
increases.
3. Add spin to a ball and its mass
increases.
So, if I take a spring and use one
Newton of force to accelerate the spring, it will have a given velocity.
[GB: True.]
If I take that spring and compress
it, and accelerate it using one Newton of force, it will have a lower velocity.
[GB: False. Acceleration always increases the
velocity of a microcosm.]
Hence more mass.
[GB: True. In neomechanics, acceleration always increases mass.
This is because the collision required for acceleration transfers
some external motion of the collider to the insides of the collidee. Ideally,
mass would remain constant when velocity remains constant during inertial travel through perfectly empty space.]
I don't think that is true. But who
has done the experiment?
Who has heated an object and checked
its velocity?
[GB: Bob, I think you mean mass
instead of velocity. The Wikipedia quote[2]
only mentions mass. They give an excellent example involving the effect of
temperature on the mass of the kilogram used as the metric standard.]
Who has measured the mass of a
ball that is spinning?
Just because energy is added, (energy
being a human invention), does not mean that mass has increased.
[GB: Bob, I completely understand
your reluctance to believe the claim that “energy” can increase mass. As
happens so often in regressive physics, this is an example of what I call an “Einsteinism.”
An
Einsteinism is a statement or prediction that is true, but for the wrong reason.
You are correct that energy is a human invention. In fact, “energy” is
a mere calculation. Being neither matter nor the motion of matter, energy can
do nothing at all. We can only understand the claims and the supporting data by
evaluating them in terms of matter and the motion of matter. Each of the Wikipedia
examples involves an acceleration, which requires a collision that not only changes
the velocity of the outsides of things, but also changes the velocity of the
insides of things (see the Neomechanics chapter in TSW for further details). In light of this, it is sometimes
helpful to substitute the word “motion” for the word “energy” in trying to understand
mass/energy discussions. Beware, however, that “energy” tends to be an errant
mistress just like the other matter-motion terms, force, momentum, and space-time.[3]
Each of these tends to be objectified as you did when you wrote that “energy is
added.” Not being an object, energy cannot be added to anything. The correct
visualization is the transfer of motion from one thing to another.
Note that Wikipedia finally mentions
its typically reworded belief in the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation
(Matter and the motion of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). That’s
right. An accelerated microcosm may gain mass (via absorption of internal
motion), but it will lose the same amount of mass upon deceleration (via
emission of internal motion). All we are doing here is transferring motion from
place-to-place. No matter or motion is being harmed in the process.
Also note that it is often claimed that
an object gains mass simply by traveling at high velocity in perfectly empty space. This is false. In perfectly empty space, it is
not the velocity that causes an increase in mass, but the process, acceleration,
by which that velocity is attained. Acceleration always requires a collision
from a faster microcosm. The presence of aether changes the situation. At "constant" velocity, collisions with aether particles would tend to cause deceleration and a temporary temperature and mass increase similar to what occurs when a space capsule enters the atmosphere.]
Rev. 20140403
[1] Whenever energy
is added to a system, the system gains mass:
·
A
spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its
added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is
bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the
spring.
·
Raising
the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass.
For example, consider the world's primary mass standard for the kilogram, made
of platinum/iridium. If its temperature is allowed to change by 1°C, its mass
will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10−12 g).[36]
·
A
spinning ball will weigh more than a ball that is not spinning. Its increase of
mass is exactly the equivalent of the mass of energy of rotation, which is
itself the sum of the kinetic energies of all the moving parts of the ball. For
example, the
Earth itself is more massive due to its daily rotation, than it would be
with no rotation. This rotational energy (2.14 x 1029 J) represents
2.38 billion metric tons of added mass.[37]
Note
that no net mass or energy is really created or lost in any of these examples
and scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are
some examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principle
of mass–energy conservation.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Borchardt,
Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Proceedings of
the Natural Philosophy Alliance, 18th Conference of the NPA, 6-9 July, 2011 ( http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5991.pdf
), College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy
Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, p. 64-68.
Posts
15 comments:
From henk korbee:
Hi Glenn, how are you? Hope you are fine. Sometimes I read your comments. By the way, it wasn't possible to post a comment at your blog so I'm writing you. The latest one and specially the examples of increasing of mass due to acceleration is intriguing as well as the inverse of it. I once read the question 'What is mass?' and now I repeat that question.
How can 'the mass of a body' increase if it is accelerated somehow? It also seems to be a fact that E=mc^2 holds but as far as I have read it is a result of a Taylor-series expansion or a Laurent one (rest mass?). But if it is experienced that this law holds then to my opinion nature shows that using 'Taylor' is a law of nature which is absurd to my mind, anyhow at the moment.
Thanks for paying attention
You are welcome, henk. The answer to your question ‘What is mass?’ bears repeating: Mass is the resistance of a microcosm to a change in motion. Thus, a large mass poses more resistance than a small mass. To measure the mass of an object, we must accelerate it in some way. It must be hit by a collider having a known mass and velocity (momentum, P=mv). In the ideal case presented by Newton's Second Law of Motion, we calculate the collidee’s change in velocity and call it acceleration due to a force (F=ma). Like momentum, the force neither exists nor occurs; only the collider and collidee exist and only their motions occur. All causes are the result of such collisions.
In neomechanics (see the chapter in "The Scientific Worldview") I apply the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) to classical mechanics. I define matter as that which contains other matter ad infinitum. A “microcosm” contains submicrocosms and submicrocosms contain subsubmicrocosms, etc. Everything outside a microcosm is defined as the “macrocosm.” The macrocosm contains supermicrocosms and supermicrocosms contain supersupermicrocosms, etc. Like Newton’s ideal “object,” the microcosm is the xyz portion of the universe with which we are concerned. Unlike Newton’s ideal object, the microcosm cannot contain solid matter or empty space.
In neomechanics, collisions never transfer 100% of the motion of the collider to the collidee. For instance, when the hammer collides with the nail, part of the motion of the hammer is absorbed internally by the nail, making it hot. In other words, the acceleration has not only affected the nail, but also some of its internal parts (submicrocosms). Think of each of those submicrocosms as having an increase in momentum. The next time we try to measure the mass of such a microcosm, our collider will have to counteract that increased momentum. This produces slightly more resistance, which we measure as an increase in mass. Note that this is not an increase in matter—the mass will decrease after the nail cools. Cooling reverses the initial process as motion transfers from submicrocosms in the microcosm to supermicrocosms in the macrocosm.
We can also calculate the above in terms of energy. Thus when a collider hits a fixed collidee on one side, the transfer of motion may be described as the absorption of kinetic energy (KE=1/2 mv^2). Subsequent emission of that motion as heat loss would not occur on only one side, but on both sides, with the energy transfer being calculated as: E=mv^2. Much of this transfer would involve supermicrocosms such as those in the wood and air. When any of the motion is transferred to the aether, it will occur at a velocity of c, and would be calculated with the equation: E=mc^2. Remember, however, that energy neither exists nor occurs. All we observe here is simply the transfer of motion from one microcosm to another.
As you can see, there is no need to bring the Taylor-series into the explanation of mass/energy transformations. It is interesting, however, that such infinite series have been considered as possibly applicable. Because the universe is infinite, one will occasionally see such results even in math, where infinity is generally resisted with as much vehemence as it is in physics.
Sorry Glenn, today I read your answer was forgotten the email I wrote you. Anyhow the change in speed must be visible or can be visualised by means of some apparatus. What is the outside of the table I am typing on? It can't be the surface according to your view if I understand you well. Isn't there any interaction between micrcosm and macrocosm? I don't see how you get mv^2 except as 1/2mv^2+1/2mv^2 but that is math.
Sorry henk, I do not quite understand what you are getting at about the typing table. You are right that E= mc^2 is the result of adding the kinetic energies (1/2mc^2) for both directions.
Sorry, I forgot to write: macrocosm is the outside of microcosm. So there isn't a border? You're out or you're in? Typing table is microcosm then the rest is the macrocosm. Isn't there any interchange between both? Microcosm(Mi):use 'P' for part then x is a part of Mi: P(x,Mi) only if x is a microcosm en part of Mi and hence for x holds the same as before for Mi. Reading what a macrcosm is I get the idea that it is some kind of a powerset. Take some submicrocosm x of a given micrcosm Mi. What is outside of x? If I read you well there exist solid matter and 'insolid' matter? About the difference between mass and matter: An astronaut living in a spacecraft somewhere high above us is 'walking around' in there without mass but with matter otherwise you can't be viewed by a camera? Hence the astronaut is not a microcosm thus a macrocosm or is it a supermacrcosm but then of what? By the way I agree that one has to argue in a recursive way to explain a collision but then soon your lost into details and how to measure all these details involved in that collisison? There are more questions then answers. Anyhow thanks for paying attention to it
I forgot to write that a table is a micrcosm and hence the outside is a macrocosm. So what is the border? A microcosm or a macrcosm? Mass versus matter: an astronaut in a spacevehicle somewhere far above us haven't mass but consists almost of matter as he is flying around in his vehicle? As matter consists of submatter it seems to be a micrcosm but it is also part of other matter thus it is a macrcosm? I get the idea that macrocosm corresponds to the notion of powerset. Is the cut of a microcosm and a microcosm y again a micrcosm z? x is a submicrocosm of a micrcosm y, hence x is a micrcosm too which has a submicrcosm too, ad infinitum. I would not be surprised if that is part of an already developped mathematical theory.
If still do not understand mv^2 but someday it will comes to my mind.
henk:
Some review:
1. A microcosm is an xyz portion of the universe. Its macrocosm is everything outside the microcosm.
2. The “border” or “boundary” between microcosm and macrocosm can be either real or imaginary.
3. There are always interchanges of matter and the motion of matter between microcosm and macrocosm.
4. As you note, submicrocosms exist inside microcosms. For instance, you have a submicrocosm called a “heart”. When our attention turns to this submicrocosm, we may consider it a microcosm. Again, everything outside your heart is then seen as a macrocosm.
5. In the current scientific world view, systems philosophy, microcosms are considered “systems,” with the macrocosm generally being ignored. Univironmental determinism considers both the microcosm and the macrocosm to be equally important.
Microcosms are not “powersets,” they are xyz portions of the universe. A power set is simply a mathematical equation that may or may not describe a microcosm. One rule in scientific philosophy is an admonition to never confuse the description of a thing with the thing being described.
I don’t know what you mean by “solid” and “insolid”. We sometimes use “solid matter” and “perfectly empty space” as idealizations, considering that real microcosms have characteristics of solid matter and empty space, but that neither could possibly exist.
You are not the only one to have trouble with the distinction between matter and mass. Matter always has mass, even though we may not be able to measure it in certain environments, such as the spacecraft you mentioned. The definition of matter is that which contains other matter ad infinitum . Mass is the resistance of a microcosm to a change in motion. Because everything in the infinite universe is moving with respect to everything else, mass is relative. By convention, physicists needed to choose one microcosm and one acceleration to use as a standard to which all other microcosms can be compared. The kilogram standard is a platinum cylinder that resides near Paris and the acceleration standard is Earth’s gravitational field. Indeterminists of the operationalist stripe often have trouble with the existence of mass they cannot measure. Microcosms, such as your astronaut, are xyz portions of the universe having mass regardless of whether we can measure it or not.
henk, you also mentioned that “I still do not understand mv^2 but someday it will come to my mind.” Just reread the Blog where I answered that one:
http://thescientificworldview.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-is-velocity-squared.html
If you have any more questions about mv^2, I would love to hear them.
Before I enter the equation KE=0,5*mv^2 I choose momentum P=mv. If mass(m) is the resistance of a microcosme against a change in velocity what interpretation momentum then has? First I take 'resistance of a microcosme(M) against a change in velocity(dv)'. Then M must be a function of v otherwise mass can't be calculated. By definition we have m=M(v1)-M(v0)=M(v1-v0)=M(dv). P.e. take a car in rest w.r.t the earth. As it has mass anyhow the rotation of the earth has to be taken into consideration. It is said that this rotation is constant depending on the location on the earth, there isn't a force working, dv/dt=a=0, so there must be some resistence for the earth to overcome in every small portion of time. Now I stop. P=M(dv)*v? What does that mean? Resistance of a micricosme times velocity?
henk:
[GB: I see you are still struggling with this business of what is mass. Remember that mass (m) is unknown until you determine its resistance to a change in velocity (e.g., weigh it in Earth’s gravitational field). Thus, momentum also is unknown. We cannot solve equations with more than one unknown.
Sorry henk, but the mass of microcosm M is not a function of velocity in this case, but of a change in velocity per unit time (acceleration, or dv/dt). BTW: This is a common mistake among relativists who sometimes imply that velocity can increase mass. It is not the velocity per se that increases mass, but the acceleration that is required to attain that velocity that increases mass. This is because the acceleration of microcosms always requires collisions produced by supermicrocosms. Those impacts not only accelerate the microcosm, but also the submicrocosms within the microcosm, thereby increasing their momenta. A second acceleration then becomes more difficult because it has to contend with head-on collisions with the faster submicrocosms impinging on the inside of the microcosmic boundary. The number of submicrocosms and their masses remain the same, only their velocity changes.
Sorry, but your equation: m=M(v1)-M(v0)=M(v1-v0)=M(dv) is incorrect. Mass is not equal to a change in velocity.
As to your car example: Again, without knowing the mass, you cannot calculate momentum. The rotation of Earth is irrelevant, as the velocity is constant (a = 0, as you mentioned) and the same as the car. The acceleration you want for determining the mass of the car is the acceleration of gravity. All you need to do is weigh it. Also, the equation: P=M(dv)*v is incorrect. The correct equation for momentum is P=mv. And as I mentioned, M(dv) is not equal to m.
It seems that what you are trying to do is impossible. One cannot derive mass from either velocity or acceleration. A small particle may have a great acceleration, but little mass; a large microcosm may have a low acceleration, but great mass, or vice versa. Because the universe is infinite, all masses are simply relative. By convention, we choose a particular mass to which all other microcosms may be compared (the kilogram standard in France, remember?). The upshot: the determination of mass must be experimental.
Eschewing anything to do with gravity, let us take that kilogram object, place it on a plane table, and push it a distance of a meter within one second (a=1 m/s/s). Now take an object twice the mass (2 kg) and push it with the same amount of effort. You will only be able to move the 2 kg mass half as far in one second (a=0.5 m/s/s). This tells you that the mass of the second object is twice that of the first. That is why we define mass as the resistance to acceleration and why it is relative. You might say that this is all circular. You would be right. Welcome to the infinite universe!]
.
Glenn, thank you for answering extensively. I now have some examples the way you think. Momentum, collison and kinetic energy: all you need is 'energy'. I had in mind that 'change in velocity' could also mean, within the context, 'change in velocity per unit time'. It is not the notion mass I am strugling with but the notion 'resistance' as mass is defined by resistance of .... Isn't that newton's first law in some form? Take an object with mass and constant velocity. The object got his velocity from an earlier state in which it had a speed either zero or positive, so there was a resistance against that change and that now is observed as mass?
You are welcome. Actually, I would say it this way: All you need is matter in motion. Forget about energy, which neither exists nor occurs. The First Law of Motion (P=mv) is only an observation. To determine mass, one must interact with the microcosm. We have to set up an experiment that causes a collision with that microcosm per the Second Law of Motion (F=ma). The mass of the microcosm exists whether or not we interact with it and regardless of its impact history. You are correct in implying that each microcosm has a velocity produced via collisions from other microcosms in the infinite universe. Remember, however, that resistance does not cause mass, it is only a measure of it.
Again, we define mass operationally, as the resistance to acceleration, while we define matter as that which contains other matter, ad infinitum.
Thanks, meanwhile I reread something about mass, matter and weight in p.e. Wikipedia. Resistance is a property and mass is a measure of it which is clear now. There are still vague ideas in physics to my mind, like restmass, derivation of E=mc^2 and of course the equation E=p*c. I use the word 'energy' as a metaphor like in 'a 1,5 year old bay has a lot of energy' in the sense of I am getting very tired if I am doing the same as the bay does. I myself do not use anymore the equality sign '=' as it is used in math but as 'corresponds to' like in 'time times velocity corresponds to distance'. Reading 'thought experiments' with boxes and radiation I got the idea that E=p*c is more fundamental than E=m*c^2.
[George:
You are welcome. Your questions are valuable in that the answers help all of us understand what are really simple concepts. They only seem difficult at times because they often have been enshrouded by the cloak of relativity.
Rest Mass
Rest mass, like time dilation and length contraction, is another of Einstein’s inventions needed to save his assumption that the velocity of corpuscular light was constant. The pertinent equation is:
m = M/(1-(v^2/c^2))^(1/2)
Where:
m = mass
M = rest mass
v = velocity
c = velocity of light,
This is where we are supposed to believe that mass depends on velocity, although it really depends on acceleration, as I pointed out before. The absurdity of anything, much less a tiny “photon,” approaching an infinite mass unfortunately did not lead Einstein to recheck his fundamental assumptions. After all, the math seemed to work, as it does in today’s celebrated abomination, string theory.
The idea of “rest mass” itself is not too bad. The electron, for instance, is never at rest, but then nothing else is ever at rest either. In practice, rest mass is seldom used in physics. Plain old mass is good enough for those of us who assume that light is motion, not matter.
Derivation of E=mc^2
This is the bidirectional application of the kinetic energy concept that I explained previously. From that, you know why kinetic energy is: KE=1/2 mv^2. It essentially describes a collision in which all of the motion of a microcosm is transferred to another. During the fission process, particles fly off in all directions. Half fly forward and half fly backward, so we observe twice the kinetic energy, which is: KE= mv^2. During the fission process, some of the kinetic energy of its submicrocosms exits the atom, not as matter, but as the motion of matter. That motion transfers directly to the aether, producing a wave in that medium, which consists of trillions of aether particles. Wave motion in aether occurs at c, the velocity of light, so we express the result as: E= mc^2.
E=pc
Because p = mv, E=pc is the same as E=mvc, which is the same as E=m c^2 when we are considering wave motion in the aether. These energy equations are equivalent, but because they only apply to bidirectional electromagnetic motion, they cannot be fundamental. Of course, KE=1/2 pv is equivalent to KE=1/2 mv^2. Both would be fundamental, because they apply to all microcosms, not just those involving electromagnetism.
George, glad to see that you getting closer to using the word “energy” properly. Unfortunately, “energy” is not a metaphor. A metaphor is defined by Wikipedia as "a figure of speech that describes a subject by asserting that it is, on some point of comparison, the same as another otherwise unrelated object.” In other words, I am saying that energy is not a metaphor because it is not an object (i.e., that which has xyz dimensions and location with respect to other objects). It also is not motion. Thus, energy neither exists, nor occurs; it is a calculation describing the motion or potential motion of matter. Try repeating this: Energy is a calculation. Energy is a calculation. Energy is a calculation…
BTW: I would not give up on the equal sign. “Corresponds to” is much too clumsy and you would not get much math done without the equal sign. However, I can understand how it might help you. It is a way of taming math to make it more accessible. Of course, it does not, for example, prevent anyone from saying that some imaginary thing corresponds to some multiplication of some other imaginary things or actions. That may be useful, but the true test is when the correspondence actually works to produce a predicted result.]
Glenn, I think you misspoke in your first (Jan 28) above reply to Henk. I think most people reading here know what you mean to say, but for the benefit of new readers, we should be persnickety.
You wrote, "I define matter as that which contains other matter ad infinitum. A “microcosm” contains submicrocosms and submicrocosms contain subsubmicrocosms, etc. Everything outside a microcosm is defined as the “macrocosm.” The macrocosm contains supermicrocosms and supermicrocosms contain supersupermicrocosms, etc."
I'm pretty sure that last sentence meant to say, "The macrocosm is contained within supermicrocosms and supermicrocosms are contained within supersupermicrocosms, etc."
Maybe you can say it even better than my attempted correction.
Thanks,
Rick Doogie
Allegan, Michigan
Rick:
Thanks for the comment, but the sentence is correct as written. Remember that the macrocosm is everything outside the microcosm. The stuff outside (called super this or that) always has stuff inside it. That is why we call it supersuper. It is the symetric form of the submicrocosms that contain subsubmicrocosms. Again, the macrocosm cannot be contained in anything, because it is everything outside of any particular microcosm.
Post a Comment