Charge Survey
Michael J. Strickland
What physical manifestation (e.g. spin) does it represent?
If you could see an electron & a positron up close how would
their appearances differ?
Can you remove the charge from an electron (or a quark)?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services quali...@att.net
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Reed
Michael J. Strickland <quali...@att.net> wrote:
>What is charge?
>
The conserved quantity that gives the coupling of a particle to the
electromagnetic interaction.
Or, if you prefer, the Q that shows up in Coulomb's law.
Or the conserved quantity associated (via Noether) with gauge invariance.
>What physical manifestation (e.g. spin) does it represent?
>
Having no alternatives, we describe what charge is by how it behaves. If
you're looking to grok its true essence in fullness, to know what it
"really is" rather than how it behaves, you're asking a meaningless
question.
>If you could see an electron & a positron up close how would
>their appearances differ?
>
By how they interact with this little charged particle you happen to be
carrying with you.
>Can you remove the charge from an electron (or a quark)?
From an electron? Sure, you turn it into a neutrino with the weak
interaction.
Bryan
Uncle Al
>
> What is charge?
>
> What physical manifestation (e.g. spin) does it represent?
>
> If you could see an electron & a positron up close how would
> their appearances differ?
>
> Can you remove the charge from an electron (or a quark)?
Charge is the conserved physical property arising through Noether's
theroem from U(1) symmetry. The Dirac equation describes electroncs
and positrons, or consider charge conjugation and Noether's theorem
again.
Can your remove the gauge symmetry from an electron or a quark?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Etherman
"student" <stu...@linuxbox.anom.com> wrote in message
news:slrnak1rik....@linuxbox.anom.com...
> Before one gets too comfortable with all this, he should be aware that
> for the original Lagrangian of the Standard Model, the U(1) symmetry
> is *not* associated with charge Q, but rather with hypercharge Y.
> It only breaks down to U(1)_Q after the Higgs symmetry breaking
> mechanism is applied. In GUT's even this U(1) of Y is embedded into
> a larger group, and has to break down twice before the U(1)_q is back.
Nice overview. However, we're flying a little blind here. No one knows why
nature prefers U(1) symmetry over SO(3), SU(478), or anything else.
Ultimately it would be nice to be able to derive which symmetries are
present from theory.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Pmb
> What is charge?
Simply put it is defined in terms of certain interactions between
bodies. Take as an example two charged particles. The force on one
with charge Q due to the other with charg q seperated by distance r is
is given by
f = kQq/r^2
> What physical manifestation (e.g. spin) does it represent?
It represents the forces between two bodies due to the electric
interaction between them (as opposed to the gravitational atraction
between the same two bodies).
> If you could see an electron & a positron up close how would
> their appearances differ?
This isn't a question that has an easy answer. By 'appearance' one
usually means what one 'sees'. However electrons aren't viewed in that
way exactly. While we can bounce light of of them we get nothing about
the charge from the interaction with light. In fact there's no way to
tell if one is an electron of a positron simply by the way it scatters
light. And all we can definitely say is that the charges repel. We
given them a mathematical description of positive and negative but the
assignment of + is arbitrary. All we can really do is assign the
electron a "-" sign. It then follows that the proton and positron has
a "+" sign. We could equally do the opposite though with no error.
>
> Can you remove the charge from an electron (or a quark)?
As it is now? No. Not that we know of.
Pmb
Pmb
> Charge is the conserved physical property arising through Noether's
> theroem from U(1) symmetry. The Dirac equation describes electroncs
> and positrons, or consider charge conjugation and Noether's theorem
> again.
>
> Can your remove the gauge symmetry from an electron or a quark?
That's a very poor description (if at all accurate). Do you really
think the person would understand that?
Pmb
Gregory L. Hansen
Etherman <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"student" <stu...@linuxbox.anom.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnak1rik....@linuxbox.anom.com...
>> Before one gets too comfortable with all this, he should be aware that
>> for the original Lagrangian of the Standard Model, the U(1) symmetry
>> is *not* associated with charge Q, but rather with hypercharge Y.
>> It only breaks down to U(1)_Q after the Higgs symmetry breaking
>> mechanism is applied. In GUT's even this U(1) of Y is embedded into
>> a larger group, and has to break down twice before the U(1)_q is back.
>
>Nice overview. However, we're flying a little blind here. No one knows why
>nature prefers U(1) symmetry over SO(3), SU(478), or anything else.
>Ultimately it would be nice to be able to derive which symmetries are
>present from theory.
Conservation of charge can also be shown from conservation of energy. If
charge were not conserved we could created it by some amount of work W1 at
a point with arbitrary potential V1, move it to a point with arbitrary
potential V2, and destroy it, recovering some energy W2. The energy of
the process would be
(V2 - V1) + (W2 - W1) = E
Since V2 and V1 can be anything (e.g. let the particle fly down a very
long track with an electric field), E can be anything, and energy need not
be conserved.
But I don't know if that kind of argument can be related to U(1) symmetry.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Franz Heymann
"Pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ac61757.02072...@posting.google.com...
electron + proton -> neutrino + neutron
Franz Heymann
student
>Nice overview.
Thank you.
>However, we're flying a little blind here. No one knows why
>nature prefers U(1) symmetry over SO(3), SU(478), or anything else.
>Ultimately it would be nice to be able to derive which symmetries are
>present from theory.
I rather agree, there is a degree of arbitrariness which makes the
theory rather less than satisfying. It gets even worse in the
Higgs sector, which hasn't even been mentioned yet.
student
>Conservation of charge can also be shown from conservation of energy. If
>charge were not conserved we could created it by some amount of work W1 at
>a point with arbitrary potential V1, move it to a point with arbitrary
>potential V2, and destroy it, recovering some energy W2. The energy of
>the process would be
>
> (V2 - V1) + (W2 - W1) = E
>
>Since V2 and V1 can be anything (e.g. let the particle fly down a very
>long track with an electric field), E can be anything, and energy need not
>be conserved.
>
>But I don't know if that kind of argument can be related to U(1) symmetry.
>
This actually looks like a nice argument for why there is
no uncertainty relationship involving charge.
The consequence of that is that charge cannot be a dynamical
variable, or for that matter a function of dynamical varibles,
since it would then be subject to some kind of uncertainty
condition. The alternative to a dynamic variable, and one which
is built into standard gauge field theory, is that it is one
of the generators of the gauge group.
More accurately, built from some combination of them.
(Perhaps that's not the only possibility by the way. There
exist topological symmetries and associated topological
charges for example. Why or why not that would be applicable
to electric charge might be interesting, but that's outside
the present context)
For U(1) this simply means that the photon must be neutral.
This is because there is only one generator, which is therefore
diagonal. Now there exist gauge bosons which are not neutral,
and which also participate in the electroweak interaction.
That's why I'm slightly uncomfortable with the "U(1)" answer
to the OP's question, since it neglects the weak interaction,
which seems equally important to me. For example, in standard
model, Q=T_3+Y/2, contains contributions from both SU(2) and U(1),
and not just U(1).
Paul Stowe
"Michael J. Strickland" <quali...@att.net> wrote:
> What is charge?
"Charge, a basic property of elementary particles
of matter. One does not define charge but takes
it as a basic experimental quantity and defines
other quantities in terms of it."
(Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, McGraw Hill)
> What physical manifestation (e.g. spin) does it represent?
Per Maxwell's vortex model, given a ring vortex (illustrated below)
_
` `
</ \>
V o ^ ^ o v --- Spin (poloidal Circulation)
>\ /<
` _ `
\_ Angular Momentum (Toroidal Circulation)
Spin is circulation, the question is, of what?
> If you could see an electron & a positron up close how would
> their appearances differ?
Poloidal & toroidal circulations would be mirror opposites of each
other.
> Can you remove the charge from an electron
I don't think so...
(or a quark)?
Quark, what quark?
Paul Stowe
Pmb
> > > Can you remove the charge from an electron (or a quark)?
> >
> > As it is now? No. Not that we know of.
>
> electron + proton -> neutrino + neutron
Of course my answer was based on what I believe that the person was
asking: I.e. whether you can remove the charge from an electon and
have a chargeless electron.
Pmb
Franz Heymann
I may be misleading myself, but I often think of the neutrino as being
simply a chargeless electron. It participates in all the interactions
(W and Z exchange) in which an electron participates, except for photon
exchange, which rewuires a charged particle.
Franz Heymann
Pmb
> > Of course my answer was based on what I believe that the person was
> > asking: I.e. whether you can remove the charge from an electon and
> > have a chargeless electron.
>
> I may be misleading myself, but I often think of the neutrino as being
> simply a chargeless electron. It participates in all the interactions
> (W and Z exchange) in which an electron participates, except for photon
> exchange, which rewuires a charged particle.
Actually I'd say that if you actually could remove the charge from the
electron (and charge conservation is still assumed) then you'd end up
with a charged 'something' plus something else. A particle is defined
according to its attributes so if the mass is different then it one
would consider it a different particle.
Pmb
Michael J. Strickland
Bryan Reed <bwr...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:ahpp4n$1p96$1...@nntp6.u.washington.edu...
> In article
<kAX%8.3489$pg2.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Michael J. Strickland <quali...@att.net> wrote:
> >What is charge?
> >
>
> The conserved quantity that gives the coupling of a particle
to the
> electromagnetic interaction.
...
Michael J. Strickland
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3D4073CD...@hate.spam.net...
> "Michael J. Strickland" wrote:
> >
> > What is charge?
> >
> > What physical manifestation (e.g. spin) does it represent?
> >
> > If you could see an electron & a positron up close how would
> > their appearances differ?
> >
> > Can you remove the charge from an electron (or a quark)?
>
> Charge is the conserved physical property arising through
Noether's
> theroem from U(1) symmetry.
A property (relationship?) determined by what? Is it variable?
Franz Heymann
The pi0 has less mass than the charged pions.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Michael J. Strickland" <quali...@att.net> wrote in message
news:17z19.10956$pg2.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Of the stuff that couples a particle to the electromagnetic interaction.
Franz Heymann
Michael J. Strickland
> Actually I'd say that if you actually could remove the charge
from the
> electron (and charge conservation is still assumed) then you'd
end up
> with a charged 'something' plus something else.
There's another question. Can you have charge without mass?
Could charge be radiated away without losing rest mass?
...
Franz Heymann
"Michael J. Strickland" <quali...@att.net> wrote in message
news:7dw39.25418$Kl6.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Pmb <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8ac61757.02073...@posting.google.com...
> > "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in
> ...
>
> > Actually I'd say that if you actually could remove the charge
> from the
> > electron (and charge conservation is still assumed) then you'd
> end up
> > with a charged 'something' plus something else.
>
> There's another question. Can you have charge without mass?
No. If a particle has charge, it has an ES field, hence an energy
density distribution. Energy gravitates. Hence our particle would have
gravitational mass, and if the equivalence principle holds, it will also
have inertial mass. But the electric field of a particle is not
necessary the only source of mass.
> Could charge be radiated away without losing rest mass?
Charge can never be "radiated away".
Franz Heymann
Pmb
> > > >
> > > > I don't follow your arguement.
> > >
> > > Please point out the line in which the logical flaw occurs.
> >
> > You're arguing that "no charge" implies "no mass".
>
> You are putting words into my mouth.
That is utter nonsense! I did *** ASK *** you what you meant! i.e.
"I don't follow your arguement.... A photon has both gravitational
mass and inertial mass. What does that have to due with charge?"
You refused to explain so I was FORCED to explain what I had thought
you were trying to say i.e.
"You're arguing that "no charge" implies "no mass"."
> Here it is for the third time . Please acknowledge that you have now
> read it:
>
> "But the electric field of a particle is not necessary the only source
> of mass."
You can read english right? This is NOT an aguement in support of your
claim and I STATED THAT explicitly!!!! All that means is that after
you strip a particle of charge then one might be able to find another
way to keep it from being massless.
But THAT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!! The question (and I'll repeat this yet
again) was
"Can you have charge without mass?"
By simply saying there are otherways of makeing it have mass is
meaningless. Suppose one says claims that there is a partilce that
once you take the charge away that is has no REST mass.
So yet once again please clarify. If you can't clarify but only repeat
then please don't repeat since what you've given so far is either
invalid or incomplete.
Let me REFINE my qestion since you can't give me a straight answer.
When you say that a charge has to have mass do you mean it has to have
REST mass or what some people call RELATIVISTIC MASS. It appears that
you meant the later since THAT is what inertial mass IS!!!!
>
> > While I agree
> > that's true I argee only because it means that a charge must at a
> > minimum have a mass m = E/c^2.
>
> Not necesarily, because we don't know how the various possible sources
> of mass interact. In fact, your statement is definitely wrong, because
> that mass is used to derive the classical radius of the electron, and
> its experimental value is now known to be very, very much less.
It was what YOU were using in your arguement NOT I. You were talking
about the energy in the field of a charged particle. Yet classically
that amount of energy is infinite. ie you claim
"If a particle has charge, it has an ES field, hence an energy density
distribution. ......"
This was YOUR arguement. NOT mine.
The
> electrostatic energy thus provides a mass contribution which is quite
> grossly more than the observed mass of the electron. Whatever else
> contributes to the electron mass, must interact with the
> "electromagnetic mass" in such a way as to reduce it by a lot.
So it appears to me that you're saying that your arguement is flawed.
>
> > However it's been my impression that
> > you don't use the term 'mass' to refer to what some people call
> > relativistic mass and it's that mass which must be non-zero.
>
> The mass of a particle is its energy in its rest frame (using c=1)
So it's the rest mass of which you speak.
> > A photon has zero rest mass and non-zero energy and therefore a
> > non-zero relativistic mass.
>
> The terms "rest mass" and "relaticvistic mass" are out of date.
Seems that you don't know what you're talking about. That absolutely
100% false. For example one of my favorite general relativity texts is
"Gravitation and Spacetime," Ohanian and Ruffini. The term "rest mass"
is defined and used if that text. In fact it's probably used in almost
all the texts I have. As well as the literature.
So once again - please explain you're arguement. A photon has energy
and hence it gravitates yet, according to your explanation, it has
mass.
> >
> >
> > Because it's irrelavant.
>
> If it was irrelevant, why did you choose to raise the matter twice now?
You're kidding right? The LAST PART is irrelavant. i.e.
"But the electric field of a particle is not necessary the only source
of mass."
is irrelavant.
> By the way, that quote is actually wrong. A photon is massless. Also,
> it is not mass which gravitates, but energy.
Incorrect. A photon has both gravitational mass and inertial mass.
One flaw in using the term 'mass' to mean 'rest mass' is that almost
100% of the time people will make this exact error.
This is a well known FACT. For example, if you like quotes from the
masters themselves then feel free to look it up. What they say is
CORRECT.
From the Feynman Lectures Vol -I page 7-11, Section entitled
"Gravitation and Relativity"
"One feature of this new law is quite easy to understand is this: In
Einstein relativity theory, anything which has energy has mass -- mass
in the sense that it is attracted gravitationaly. Even light, which
has energy, has a "mass". When a light beam, which has energy in it,
comes past the sun there is attraction on it by the sun."
Or if you prefer Einstein himself
"A beam of light carries energy and energy has mass." from "Evolution
of Physics," Einstein and Infeld, page 221. Read it in context since
it was how Einstein was explaining why a photon is deflected in a
g-field.
> I answered that question quite correctly.
Not in my opinion you didn't. However in your opinion, yes. I see that
you think so. But if you can't aswer my questions any further than you
have then please say so.
> I correctly added that there were other sources of mass. What is your
> quibble?
Seems that my "quibble" as you like to put it is that your so-called
arguement is totally invalid. But I spuspect that since you haven't
elaborated yet then you are unable to do so and are you are just
throwing up a smoke screen by saying that you did and insulting me
otherwise. That's a standard tactic.
> I will give it again: Charge -> field -> stored energy -> mass
> Lest someone tries to pick a bone again.I hasten to add that this is not
> the only way in which mass arises.
Fine. If this is what you hold to be true then you are saying that
there is "stored" energy because energy is present (although an
infinite amount!). Now you claim that because there is energy that
implies there is rest mass. However a photon has energy yet no rest
mass.
Your arguement is invalid. For example: Explain why an electromagetic
wave has no rest mass.
And if you can't respond without this childish sarcasm then DON'T
respond at all. I've been trying to keep this on a civil tone but you
make that impossible
Pmb
Franz Heymann
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't follow your arguement.
> > > >
> > > > Please point out the line in which the logical flaw occurs.
> > >
> > > You're arguing that "no charge" implies "no mass".
> >
> > You are putting words into my mouth.
>
> That is utter nonsense! I did *** ASK *** you what you meant! i.e.
>
> "I don't follow your arguement.... A photon has both gravitational
> mass and inertial mass. What does that have to due with charge?"
>
> You refused to explain so I was FORCED to explain what I had thought
> you were trying to say i.e.
>
> "You're arguing that "no charge" implies "no mass"."
>
> > Here it is for the third time . Please acknowledge that you have
now
> > read it:
> >
> > "But the electric field of a particle is not necessary the only
source
> > of mass."
>
> You can read english right? This is NOT an aguement in support of your
> claim and I STATED THAT explicitly!!!! All that means is that after
> you strip a particle of charge then one might be able to find another
> way to keep it from being massless.
>
> But THAT IS IRRELEVANT!!!!! The question (and I'll repeat this yet
> again) was
>
> "Can you have charge without mass?"
I agree that that was the original question which led to this sequence
of misundersatandings.
I have just extracted my full original answer to the question. Here it
is, verbatim copy & paste:-
"No. If a particle has charge, it has an ES field, hence an energy
density distribution. Energy gravitates. Hence our particle would have
gravitational mass, and if the equivalence principle holds, it will also
have inertial mass. But the electric field of a particle is not
necessary the only source of mass."
The first word, which I make to be "No" is the short answer to the
question. That is a correct answer.
In the next three sentences I said *why* I said no.
In the final sentence I said that there are other sources of mass.
Would you agree that that was a pretty complete answer to the original
question?
>
> By simply saying there are otherways of makeing it have mass is
> meaningless.
Well, we cannot put too much meaning into it until we lnow for certain
that the Higgs mechanism works. There may also, of course be yet other
sources of mass.
> Suppose one says claims that there is a partilce that
> once you take the charge away that is has no REST mass.
The word "REST" is redundant. The current definition of mass is that it
is the energy/c^2 of a particle in its rest frame. (I don't like it
much myself, but there you are)
>
>
> So yet once again please clarify. If you can't clarify but only repeat
> then please don't repeat since what you've given so far is either
> invalid or incomplete.
>
> Let me REFINE my qestion since you can't give me a straight answer.
>
> When you say that a charge has to have mass do you mean it has to have
> REST mass or what some people call RELATIVISTIC MASS. It appears that
> you meant the later since THAT is what inertial mass IS!!!!
The mass about which I have been speaking is what you incorrectly refer
to as the REST mass.
In the case of the EM contribution to it, you go to the rest frame of
the particle and you integrate the energy density in the electric and
magnetic fields of the particle over all space. Divide the result by c^2
and you have the required contribution.
By the way, the IN way of expressing that last sentence is not to refer
to relativistic mass at all, but to accept that it is energy which
gravitates.
However, I hope I have convinced you that the mass which I have been
talking about is a contribution to what you call the "rest mass".
> > > While I agree
> > > that's true I argee only because it means that a charge must at a
> > > minimum have a mass m = E/c^2.
> >
> > Not necesarily, because we don't know how the various possible
sources
> > of mass interact. In fact, your statement is definitely wrong,
because
> > that mass is used to derive the classical radius of the electron,
and
> > its experimental value is now known to be very, very much less.
>
> It was what YOU were using in your arguement NOT I. You were talking
> about the energy in the field of a charged particle. Yet classically
> that amount of energy is infinite. ie you claim
>
> "If a particle has charge, it has an ES field, hence an energy density
> distribution. ......"
>
> This was YOUR arguement. NOT mine.
I am very happy to acknowledge that it was indeed my argument, since it
is a correct argument.
I never even dreamt that you had made it.
I am not at all worried about the fact that it is infinite in the case
of a point particle. We have very little clue yet as to what physics to
expect at really small distances, like the Planck length. We already
know of two phenomena which will contribute to the resultant mass of a
particle, namely the Higgs mechanism, (if it is confirmed!) and gravity
itself. There is a very interesting feedback mechanism associated with
the latter, because, not only does the mass of the particle produce a
gravitational field, but this field itself provides a negative stored
energy density and therefore a negative contribution to the resultant
mass.
> The
> > electrostatic energy thus provides a mass contribution which is
quite
> > grossly more than the observed mass of the electron. Whatever else
> > contributes to the electron mass, must interact with the
> > "electromagnetic mass" in such a way as to reduce it by a lot.
>
> So it appears to me that you're saying that your arguement is flawed.
No, not even remotely so. Where there is any energy density, there is
mass density.
Do remember that there is one hell of a soup of virtual particles of all
sorts around a particle, and some of these may well contribute
negatively to the resultant mass. Just by way of illustration, the
virtual gravitons will do so.
If you would prefer it, I will paraphrase the last two sentences crudely
by way of a classical analogy :- A particle can partake in a number of
different interaction. Think of each of these as being represented by a
field which, by analogy with the electric case, has stored energy.
These sources of stored energy all contribute to the mass of the
particle. Some of these contributions will be negative. Specifically,
any ones which, in terms of my analogy, are attractive between
identical particles, wll contribute negatively.
> >
> > > However it's been my impression that
> > > you don't use the term 'mass' to refer to what some people call
> > > relativistic mass and it's that mass which must be non-zero.
> >
> > The mass of a particle is its energy in its rest frame (using c=1)
>
> So it's the rest mass of which you speak.
Yes, yes, yes. The term "rest" is redundant with the current definition
of mass.
>
> > > A photon has zero rest mass and non-zero energy and therefore a
> > > non-zero relativistic mass.
> >
> > The terms "rest mass" and "relaticvistic mass" are out of date.
>
> Seems that you don't know what you're talking about. That absolutely
> 100% false. For example one of my favorite general relativity texts is
> "Gravitation and Spacetime," Ohanian and Ruffini. The term "rest mass"
> is defined and used if that text. In fact it's probably used in almost
> all the texts I have. As well as the literature.
I don't care a blind damn what book you read. If the author refers to
"rest mass" he is out of date. I have a selection of books on
relativiy, all of which are also outdated in this matter. Please read
the FAQ on this topic to find what the current recommended nomenclature
is. I don't like it either, but I have to bow to the wind as far as
nomenclature goes, otherwise there will be misunderstandings.
>
> So once again - please explain you're arguement. A photon has energy
> and hence it gravitates yet, according to your explanation, it has
> mass.
My explanation does not say that it has mass at all. Don't put words in
my mouth. See the following argument, which is correct :-
The relationship between mass and energy is E^2 = p^2 * c^2 + m^2 * c^4
In he case of a photon, the relationship between energy and momentum is
E = p*c (this follows from Maxwell's equations, without even having to
bring in the concept of a photon. Just look at the energy density flux
and momentum densitiy flux as calculated from the Poynting vector )
Therefore, substituting into the energy equation, the mass of a photon
is zero.
I remind you that it is energy which gravitates, and "inerts", with the
appropriate sprinkling of "c" where needed.
> > >
> > > Because it's irrelavant.
> >
> > If it was irrelevant, why did you choose to raise the matter twice
now?
>
> You're kidding right? The LAST PART is irrelavant. i.e.
>
> "But the electric field of a particle is not necessary the only source
> of mass."
It is highly relevant. The electromagnetic contribution to the mass of
an electron is grossly too large. There had better be other
contributions to the mass in order to reduce the resultant value.
>
> > By the way, that quote is actually wrong. A photon is massless.
Also,
> > it is not mass which gravitates, but energy.
>
> Incorrect. A photon has both gravitational mass and inertial mass.
The photon is a massless particle otherwise it would have had an
infinite energy, since it travels at the speed of light. Since you are
probably going to be obdurate, I hasten to add that I am using the
curently recommended definition of mass.
>
> One flaw in using the term 'mass' to mean 'rest mass' is that almost
> 100% of the time people will make this exact error.
Particle physicists, who probably use it more than anyone else, have
been doing so for decades.
> This is a well known FACT. For example, if you like quotes from the
> masters themselves then feel free to look it up. What they say is
> CORRECT.
I try never to appeal to authority.
>
> From the Feynman Lectures Vol -I page 7-11, Section entitled
> "Gravitation and Relativity"
>
> "One feature of this new law is quite easy to understand is this: In
> Einstein relativity theory, anything which has energy has mass -- mass
> in the sense that it is attracted gravitationaly. Even light, which
> has energy, has a "mass". When a light beam, which has energy in it,
> comes past the sun there is attraction on it by the sun."
The Feynman lectures were written in 1963. The change in nomenclatuure
came after that date. One therefore must read Feynman bearing that in
mind.
>
> Or if you prefer Einstein himself
>
> "A beam of light carries energy and energy has mass." from "Evolution
> of Physics," Einstein and Infeld, page 221. Read it in context since
> it was how Einstein was explaining why a photon is deflected in a
> g-field.
Same comment as for Feynman.
>
> > I answered that question quite correctly.
>
>
> Not in my opinion you didn't. However in your opinion, yes. I see that
> you think so. But if you can't aswer my questions any further than you
> have then please say so.
>
> > I correctly added that there were other sources of mass. What is
your
> > quibble?
>
> Seems that my "quibble" as you like to put it is that your so-called
> arguement is totally invalid.
You have not succeeded in pointing out any solitary point in my argument
which was invalid. It would have been impossible to do so, since I have
not made any mistakes in presenting my argument.
> But I spuspect that since you haven't
> elaborated yet then you are unable to do so and are you are just
> throwing up a smoke screen by saying that you did and insulting me
> otherwise. That's a standard tactic.
Do you always end your discussions in this manner?
If you would point out any insult I made in this thread, I promise you
that if I agree that it was an insult, I will immediately apologise.
>
> > I will give it again: Charge -> field -> stored energy -> mass
> > Lest someone tries to pick a bone again.I hasten to add that this is
not
> > the only way in which mass arises.
>
>
> Fine. If this is what you hold to be true then you are saying that
> there is "stored" energy because energy is present (although an
> infinite amount!). Now you claim that because there is energy that
> implies there is rest mass. However a photon has energy yet no rest
> mass.
>
> Your arguement is invalid. For example: Explain why an electromagetic
> wave has no rest mass.
I did it higher up, but here it is again:
E^2 + p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4......................(1)
For an EM wave, E = p*c (provable from Maxwell's equations)
Square and substitute in (1) to give m = 0
Do you or do you not agree that the mass of a photon is zero?
By the way, one of the reasons why the "rest mass" has been replaced by
"mass" is that it is nonsense to talk about the rest mass of a photon,
since a photon does not have a rest frame at all
> And if you can't respond without this childish sarcasm then DON'T
> respond at all. I've been trying to keep this on a civil tone but you
> make that impossible
I have just looked at this thread line by line and I find that the
amount of shouting and sarcastic remarks from your side exceed those
from my side. Unless, of course, we have different opinions of what
sarcarm is, and what the significance of capitalisation in a ng is. I
invite you to do the same.
Franz Heymann
Pmb
> >
> > "Can you have charge without mass?"
>
> I agree that that was the original question which led to this sequence
> of misundersatandings.
> I have just extracted my full original answer to the question. Here it
> is, verbatim copy & paste:-
>
> "No. If a particle has charge, it has an ES field, hence an energy
> density distribution. Energy gravitates. Hence our particle would have
> gravitational mass, and if the equivalence principle holds, it will also
> have inertial mass. But the electric field of a particle is not
> necessary the only source of mass."
>
> The first word, which I make to be "No" is the short answer to the
> question.
Which remains to be seen. While I agree that's probably the answer I
only agree that is the case because I know of no example in which a
particle has charge and no rest mass.
> Would you agree that that was a pretty complete answer to the original
> question?
No. By no I mean that I don't see it as being a logical deduction.
i.e. it has holes in it.
> The word "REST" is redundant. The current definition of mass is that it
> is the energy/c^2 of a particle in its rest frame. (I don't like it
> much myself, but there you are)
That is incorrect. While it may be (and I believe that it is) the
popular definition it can't be said to be the current definition.
> The mass about which I have been speaking is what you incorrectly refer
> to as the REST mass.
That is where you are making a mistake on lingo. It is NOT incorrect
to refer to the rest mass as "rest mass". There is absolutely nothing
wrong with that terminology and if you came to believe that to be so
then you'd better check yourself quite carefully because that is the
most furthest thing from the truth. In fact it's logically incorrect
to say that a definition is not correct. A definition is a definition
is a definition.
For a more concise explanation of why you're wrong and from an
authority on the subject see Physics Today, May 1990, page 13, by
Wolfgang Rindler, which I posted here --
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/rel_mass.htm
> In the case of the EM contribution to it, you go to the rest frame of
> the particle and you integrate the energy density in the electric and
> magnetic fields of the particle over all space. Divide the result by c^2
> and you have the required contribution.
This is new. I have yet to see you refer to this as being done in a
rest frame. That was what I saw lacking in your arguement. Also as you
pointed out that yields an infinite quantity to point charges. Also
you are in fact assuming that which you are trying to prove.
Apparently you started off by trying to prove that are saying that
it's impossible for a charge to have a rest mass. So to do this you
assume that there is a frame of referance in which the charge is at
rest. But that implies rest mass. For example it may very well be that
there is a charge which has zero rest mass. In fact according to you
that is the question. i.e. Prove there is no rest mass.
> By the way, the IN way of expressing that last sentence is not to refer
> to relativistic mass at all, but to accept that it is energy which
> gravitates.
Actually the IN way as you call it, is to say that it is stress,
energy and momemtum which gravitates.
>Actually it's
> However, I hope I have convinced you that the mass which I have been
> talking about is a contribution to what you call the "rest mass".
No need to convince me. All you have to do is say "By 'mass' I mean
'rest mass'" and then there is no room for uncertainty.
> > > This was YOUR arguement. NOT mine.
>
> I am very happy to acknowledge that it was indeed my argument, since it
> is a correct argument.
> I never even dreamt that you had made it.
So then you're arguing that this infinite amount of energy leads to a
finite amount of rest mass right? So why did make a disparaging remark
to me when you thought it was I making this claim?
> >
> > Seems that you don't know what you're talking about. That absolutely
> > 100% false. For example one of my favorite general relativity texts is
> > "Gravitation and Spacetime," Ohanian and Ruffini. The term "rest mass"
> > is defined and used if that text. In fact it's probably used in almost
> > all the texts I have. As well as the literature.
>
> I don't care a blind damn what book you read.
Yes. I'm aware of that attitude of yours. But my point is that you
area making an unfound claim. In this case you're arguement is that
whoever disagrees with you is out of date. And that seems to go to the
extreme - that even if the entire physics community disgree's with you
then they too area out of date.
However what is IN date is what is in PRINT. And what is in PRINT is
what I'm refering to. And NO. Not older text. In fact BRAND NEW texts.
>Please read
> the FAQ on this topic to find what the current recommended nomenclature
> is.
The FAQ is incorrect and quite misleading. It quite clearly implies
something which is not true.
> I don't like it either, but I have to bow to the wind as far as
> nomenclature goes, otherwise there will be misunderstandings.
I won't choose someone else's incorrect view. I choose my own view.
pmb
Pmb
> The word "REST" is redundant. The current definition of mass is that it
> is the energy/c^2 of a particle in its rest frame. (I don't like it
> much myself, but there you are)
I've just been informed that Rindler used the concept again in his
recent book
"Relativity:special, general and cosmological" (OUP 2001).
> I have just looked at this thread line by line and I find that the
> amount of shouting and sarcastic remarks from your side exceed those
> from my side. Unless, of course, we have different opinions of what
> sarcarm is, and what the significance of capitalisation in a ng is. I
> invite you to do the same.
Sorry Franz. I forget that people use capital letters for shouting. I
keep making that mistake. I use them for emphasis. My mistake. But I
know of no other way to emphasize ... unless putting ** around the
item does the same thing.
And my frustration (with a comment, life, the universe and everything)
comes across as sarcasm. My applogies.
Pmb
Edward Green
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
>
> > The word "REST" is redundant. The current definition of mass is that it
> > is the energy/c^2 of a particle in its rest frame. (I don't like it
> > much myself, but there you are)
>
>
> I've just been informed that Rindler used the concept again in his
> recent book
> "Relativity:special, general and cosmological" (OUP 2001).
>
> > I have just looked at this thread line by line and I find that the
> > amount of shouting and sarcastic remarks from your side exceed those
> > from my side. Unless, of course, we have different opinions of what
> > sarcarm is, and what the significance of capitalisation in a ng is. I
> > invite you to do the same.
>
> Sorry Franz. I forget that people use capital letters for shouting. I
> keep making that mistake. I use them for emphasis. My mistake. But I
> know of no other way to emphasize ... unless putting ** around the
> item does the same thing.
For what it's worth, I inject emphasis by _underlining_. After a
while, it becomes second nature, and second nature to pretend the
whole word was underlined in ascii. :-)
Edward Green
> Spaceman wrote:
>
> > and 2 uncharged masses don't attract at all.
> > There is no reason for 2 uncharged particles to attract at all.
>
>
> Neutrons fall in a gravitational field, just as they should.
Don't reply to him.
He has no desire to learn anything, and it just creates noise.
(See "teaching pigs to sing").
Edward Green
> > a charge must at a
> > minimum have a mass m = E/c^2.
>
> Not necesarily, because we don't know how the various possible sources
> of mass interact. In fact, your statement is definitely wrong, because
> that mass is used to derive the classical radius of the electron, and
> its experimental value is now known to be very, very much less. The
> electrostatic energy thus provides a mass contribution which is quite
> grossly more than the observed mass of the electron. Whatever else
> contributes to the electron mass, must interact with the
> "electromagnetic mass" in such a way as to reduce it by a lot.
Out of curiousity, is the Coulomb potential known to hold down to a
radius below the classical radius of the electron?
tj Frazir
Pmb
> > Sorry Franz. I forget that people use capital letters for shouting. I
> > keep making that mistake. I use them for emphasis. My mistake. But I
> > know of no other way to emphasize ... unless putting ** around the
> > item does the same thing.
>
> For what it's worth, I inject emphasis by _underlining_. After a
> while, it becomes second nature, and second nature to pretend the
> whole word was underlined in ascii. :-)
Thanks. Yes. I've seen people do that. I have chosen not to for the
reason that I find the underlining to be confusing. But that's jsut
me. However I don't think I'll be using capitals anymore for emphasis.
This would be sooo much easier if we could use HTML here.
Pmb
Franz Heymann
"Edward Green" <null...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2a0cceff.02081...@posting.google.com...
Yes, unfortunately. The classical radius of the electron is 2.8 *
10^-15 m and if my memory serves me right, the electron scattering
experiments at LEP have established an upper limit of 10^-16 m for the
radius of the electron. (Some friend might help me out: is that upper
limit 10E-16 cm or metres?)
Franz Heymann
Michael J. Strickland
Using same density as a proton, I've calculated:
r_e = 8.2e-17m as an upper limit for the classical radius.
I also read 1e-18m (Washington Post 1995) citing Univ. of
Chicago.
The 2.8e-15m figure is twice the proton's radius, isn't it?
I think this was some other parameter not meant to be an actual
radius.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services quali...@att.net
703-560-7380
---------------------------------------------------------------
hanson
> "Edward Green" <null...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:2a0cceff.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:<aiur18$3rc$9...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
> > > "Pmb" <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:8ac61757.02080...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > a charge must at a minimum have a mass m = E/c^2.
> > >
[Franz]
> > > Not necesarily, because we don't know how the various
> > > possible sources of mass interact.
> > > In fact, your statement is definitely wrong, because
> > > that mass is used to derive the classical radius of the
> > > electron, and its experimental value is now known to be very,
> > > very much less. The electrostatic energy thus provides
> > > a mass contribution which is quite grossly more than the
> > > observed mass of the electron. Whatever else
> > > contributes to the electron mass, must interact with the
> > > "electromagnetic mass" in such a way as to reduce it by a lot.
> >
[Ed]
> > Out of curiousity, is the Coulomb potential known to hold
> > down to a radius below the classical radius of the electron?
[Franz]
> Yes, unfortunately. The classical radius of the electron is 2.8 *
> 10^-15 m and if my memory serves me right, the electron scattering
> experiments at LEP have established an upper limit of 10^-16 m for the
> radius of the electron. (Some friend might help me out: is that upper
> limit 10E-16 cm or metres?)
> Franz Heymann
[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=electron+radius+%2Bhanson%40quick.net&hl=
en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&selm=usbE8.620%24Ec.55792%40newsread2.prod.itd.ea
rthlink.net&rnum=5
Date: 2002-05-14 10:04:26 PST, where in it says in part:
"Haavikon" <haavikon_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ce01...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> check the electron electrical dipole moment work here
> http://www.susx.ac.uk/physics/scoap/research/TimeReversal/
[hanson]
in which it says:
"at present the most precisely known edm (electric dipole moment) of any
elementary particle is that of the electron, d e = (1.8±1.2±1.0) 10 -27
e.cm, obtained from electron spin resonance measurements of a beam of Tl
atoms in an electric field".
The above edm value, d e = (1.8±1.2±1.0) 10 -27 e.cm. is a great
*experimental* achievement. But it expresses really nothing more than
the classical radius of the electron, r_e, provided that e.cm means the
product of electron charge * centimeter.
You can check this easily, if you take d.e as 1.8E-27 e.cm and divide it
by the product of (e-charge * (a/2)^2). It will yield the same value as is
attributed to the electron's classical radius of r_e = 2.82 E-13 cm
Actually, Franz's comment from above,
> > > that mass is used to derive the classical radius of the
> > > electron, and its experimental value is now known to be very,
> > > very much less. The electrostatic energy thus provides
> > > a mass contribution which is quite grossly more than the
> > > observed mass of the electron. Whatever else
> > > contributes to the electron mass, must interact with the
> > > "electromagnetic mass" in such a way as to reduce it by a lot.
hits the nail precisely, AFAIAC.
There is a lot of unknown physics going on in these tiny realms,
for which to be accessed need ever larger amounts of energy.
I am falling more and more in love with the idea that nature's
graininess and discreteness goes on thru steps far beyond of
what we can measure and even imagine in the current paradigm.
I speculate, in a parable, that just like when one looks at a coast
line from space and then zooms in, one begins to see in a fractal
fashion eventually every tiny nook and cranny along the shore,
down to the collodial nano grains in the silt.
Then, even further down, N_A times down from a hand full of silt,
we finally hit the atoms, r_H, the H-Bohr radius, and then alpha^2
times still further down we are in company of the classical electron
radius r_e.
r_e = r_H * a^2 ~ 2.82e -13 cm
But this is not where it stops. Speculations can be carried out one
such fractal step, N_A times, further down into Plank's domain as
illustrated by
r_e = l_pl * a ^2 * (N_A*pi*sqrt(3)) ~ 2.82e -13 cm
where we could assign the Planck length, l_pl ~1.63e -33 cm
to be the gravitational mass radius of the electron and let r_e
~ 2.82e -13 cm remain to be the electrostatic classical electron radius.
For the aficionados of this subject, who are not into seeing nature in
terms of mols via N_A (Avogadro), there is another
Planck/Bohr/Hartree way to speculate that the "true" electron radius
hangs somewhere down there in the Plank domain at ~10^33 cm.
m_e = [c^2/G] * [sqrt(hG/(2pi*c^3)] * [1/(f_L*F)] * a*pi*sqrt(3)/3
This dimensionally correct and numerically close speculation says:
The electron consists of a classical
--- rotating Kerr blackhole limit or event horizon of (c^2/G) at
--- a radius of 1 Planck length sqrt(hG/2pi*c^3)
and is shrouded into
--- a Coulomb mantle accretion zone, being the product of 1/(f_L*F)
--- which is manifest in the Lyman series frequency limit (f_L), and
--- the Faraday Constant (F, the charge transfer handler), and is
further governed by geometry demands of (pi*sqrt(3)/3) and
--- EM/QM fine structure conditions set by [a]
So, we have shrunk now the classical radius of r_e ~ 2.82e -13 cm
down to r_pl ~ 1.63e -33 cm by some 20 magnitudes into the next
factal domain, and only God knows at this time what going on
down there. To me, these tiny event horizon limits are ever as
interesting as the cosmic event horizon at R_u, which interesingly
enough can be expressed simply as
R_u * = r_e ^3 / (2 *r_pl^2) ~ 1.6e + 28 cm
To me, these are really the places where the dreaming and the
fun begins, HUP or no HUP, Einstein or no Einstein.
Something is there. A Lot. For certain.
Dream, have fun and give a flying fuck !
hanson
Pmb
> In the case of the EM contribution to it, you go to the rest frame of
> the particle and you integrate the energy density in the electric and
> magnetic fields of the particle over all space. Divide the result by c^2
> and you have the required contribution.
I've been thinking about the energy of the electric field of a charged
particle and the referance level of energy.
It seems meaningless to think of the field of a charged particle as
having an energy associated with it. We typically associate the energy
of a field according to the work done to create the field i.e. by
assembling charges and current distributions etc. However no work is
done in assembling an electron so it doens't seem reasonable to think
of the field as having energy. Or at best that it's like a referance
level and can be added or subtracted without altering the physics.
Suppose you have an electron and a positron which start out very far
apart from each other. Then the total energy of each particle is the
rest energy plus the kinetic energy. If the energy in the fields were
to be taken account of then that energy would show up after the
electron and positron annihilated each other. However when doing those
calculations only the rest energy + kinetic energy is taken into
account and that matches experimental date. i.e. the total enery
results in energy of the resulting photons which are created. So if
there really was energy in the e-fields of the charges (and B-fields
since they are initially moving) where did that energy go to????
Unless part of the rest mass is the energy of the fields. There's
something to do with "bare mass" here but I forgot how it's defined.
Pmb
Franz Heymann
Have you considered taking that point up with the folk who wrote the
FAQ?
Incidentally, the folk who are most concerned with this is the particle
physics community. It is common currency to refer to the mass of a
particle as being its CM energy/c^2
>
> > I don't like it either, but I have to bow to the wind as far as
> > nomenclature goes, otherwise there will be misunderstandings.
>
> I won't choose someone else's incorrect view. I choose my own view.
The trouble with that is that you get into baseless arguments with folk
who choose another view.
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> > In the case of the EM contribution to it, you go to the rest frame
of
> > the particle and you integrate the energy density in the electric
and
> > magnetic fields of the particle over all space. Divide the result by
c^2
> > and you have the required contribution.
>
> I've been thinking about the energy of the electric field of a charged
> particle and the referance level of energy.
>
> It seems meaningless to think of the field of a charged particle as
> having an energy associated with it.
The meaning to be attached to it is that if the field is destroyed, an
energy Integral E^2 / (8 pi) dv
appears.
We typically associate the energy
> of a field according to the work done to create the field i.e. by
> assembling charges and current distributions etc. However no work is
> done in assembling an electron so it doens't seem reasonable to think
> of the field as having energy. Or at best that it's like a referance
> level and can be added or subtracted without altering the physics.
The electric field of the electron is an ordinary electrostatic field
and obeys (at the classical level) the usual laws of electroststics.
Its field energy density is therefore E^2 / (8 pi). If the electric
field of an electron was not identical with an electrostatic field, why
are you prepared (classically) to use it in calculating the force
between electrons?
>
> Suppose you have an electron and a positron which start out very far
> apart from each other. Then the total energy of each particle is the
> rest energy plus the kinetic energy. If the energy in the fields were
> to be taken account of then that energy would show up after the
> electron and positron annihilated each other. However when doing those
> calculations only the rest energy + kinetic energy is taken into
> account and that matches experimental date. i.e. the total enery
> results in energy of the resulting photons which are created. So if
> there really was energy in the e-fields of the charges (and B-fields
> since they are initially moving) where did that energy go to????
>
> Unless part of the rest mass is the energy of the fields. There's
> something to do with "bare mass" here but I forgot how it's defined.
Franz Heymann
Spaceman
>Rest if E is the same on all sides .
>
yup,
it is that simple
no push.
:)
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
http://www.realspaceman.com
Spaceman
>Don't reply to him.
Why,
affraid I can teach them what you could never do?
>He has no desire to learn anything, and it just creates noise.
Ny noise is natural.
you are the pollution noise.
and sometime the nothingness noise!
<LOL>
BTW:
FACT: 2 uncharged objects DO NOT ATTRACT.
you lose!
HA HA!
The song I sing is a song that is beautiful to those with
ears and heads not full of relativity crap.
maybe you need to empty your head of all that crap
to be able to hear the symphony I play at all.
Pmb
> The electric field of the electron is an ordinary electrostatic field
> and obeys (at the classical level) the usual laws of electroststics.
> Its field energy density is therefore E^2 / (8 pi). If the electric
> field of an electron was not identical with an electrostatic field, why
> are you prepared (classically) to use it in calculating the force
> between electrons?
Hold on. I never said that the field on an electron was "not identical
to an an electrostatic field". In fact classically I'd consider the
E-field of a point charge to be perfectlt legitimate in every way.
What I do have reservations on (as many physicists do) is that the
energy of the E-field of a point charge can't be thought of as the
work required to assemble the charge.
When you state "Its field energy density is therefore E^2 / (8 pi)."
what you're stating is what is typical of the energy "stored" in an
e-field. However that energy is, by definition, the work done in
assembling the charge configuration. For example: Consider a charged
sphere of uniform charge density. The energy required to assemble the
field is calculated to be Integral of E^2 /(8 pi) over all space. If
the charge remains a constant and you let the radius of this sphere go
to zero then the total energy "in the field" goes to infinity. So the
energy required to assemble a point charge from an infinite number of
infinitesimal charges is infinite. However an electron is not
assembled on that way. So it's questionable to consider the energy
density as E^2 /(8 pi). A similar arguement probably holds for time
dependant fields.
Pmb
Franz Heymann
The electrostatic field of an electron is an *electrostatic field*. It
is not any other kind of field at all. The energy density of an
electroststic field is E^2/(8 pi) at the classical level. There will be
either other contributions to stored energy at small distances which
will prevent the total stored energy from actually achieving energy, or
quantum effects which we do not yet understand, or the electron will
turn out not to have an indefinitely small radius, or space will be
quantised, or the massive boson fields of the electron plays a part at
small distances or ...............
In the meantime, the stored *electroststic* energy of the electron is
E^2/(8 pi)
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
"Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ajqsoh$aqk$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Typo. for the last word, read "infinity", not "energy".
Apologies.
Franz Heymann
TB
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
news:20020806084143...@mb-cu.aol.com...
> >From: "Michael J. Strickland" micha...@att.net
>
> >How does a chargeless particle gravitate then?
>
> The particle field of "the charged object"
> will push (the uncharged object) to the lowest
> energy space it can find.
>
> and 2 uncharged masses don't attract at all.
> There is no reason for 2 uncharged particles to attract at all.
>
James, James, James... By your very own gravitational theory (outer space
full of free electrons <undetectable, not spinning and therefore having
neutral charge> whose pressure "pushes" things together) it must be the
case that 2 uncharge particles feel a force accelerating them towards each
other.
Conventional gravitational theory also predicts that two uncharged
particles feel a force accelerating them towards each other.
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
>
-- TB
TB
"Spaceman" <agents...@aol.combination> wrote in message
Getting better, James, keep working on it and you'll be producing higher
quality poetry in no time...
>
>
> James M Driscoll Jr
> Spaceman
> http://www.realspaceman.com
>
-- tB
Spaceman
>Getting better, James, keep working on it and you'll be producing higher
>quality poetry in no time...
TB,
If you are going to keep up the childish insults.
I will just have to ignore your sad ass again.
Do you want to teach me or learn from me?
either one,you are going about wrong so far with the insult crap.
Grow up little tike brown.
Pmb
> > The electrostatic field of an electron is an *electrostatic field*.
> It
> > is not any other kind of field at all. The energy density of an
> > electroststic field is E^2/(8 pi) at the classical level. There will
> be
> > either other contributions to stored energy at small distances which
> > will prevent the total stored energy from actually achieving energy,
>
> Typo. for the last word, read "infinity", not "energy".
> Apologies.
Ah! Okay. Now that makes more sense.
I did some more thinking about it. I also did some reading on this
subject. I went to the Feynman Lectures (as well as Jackson). Seems
that this is a very troublesome area in classical EM. Feynman calls it
a failure if I recall correctly. And they seem to indicate that it's
still an unsovled problem.
A good point which I missed was that while you may give a value for
the radius and know the total charge, the total energy wil depend on
the charge configuaration even if you assume spherical symetry.
Ddo you have Feynman (and Jackson)? Look at the section on
Electromagnetic mass and let me know what you think.
Pmb
Franz Heymann
> "Franz Heymann" <Franz....@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
> > > The electrostatic field of an electron is an *electrostatic
field*.
> > It
> > > is not any other kind of field at all. The energy density of an
> > > electroststic field is E^2/(8 pi) at the classical level. There
will
> > be
> > > either other contributions to stored energy at small distances
which
> > > will prevent the total stored energy from actually achieving
energy,
> >
> > Typo. for the last word, read "infinity", not "energy".
> > Apologies.
>
> Ah! Okay. Now that makes more sense.
>
> I did some more thinking about it. I also did some reading on this
> subject. I went to the Feynman Lectures (as well as Jackson). Seems
> that this is a very troublesome area in classical EM. Feynman calls it
> a failure if I recall correctly. And they seem to indicate that it's
> still an unsovled problem.
You are dead right. The full details of stored energy / mass of
elementary particles / infinities associated with point structures are a
long way from being unserstood.
>
> A good point which I missed was that while you may give a value for
> the radius and know the total charge, the total energy wil depend on
> the charge configuaration even if you assume spherical symetry.
>
> Ddo you have Feynman (and Jackson)? Look at the section on
> Electromagnetic mass and let me know what you think.
I have a Feynman. I will read the section when I get a chance
Franz Heymann
Franz Heymann
>
>
> > The word "REST" is redundant. The current definition of mass is
that it
> > is the energy/c^2 of a particle in its rest frame. (I don't like it
> > much myself, but there you are)
>
>
> I've just been informed that Rindler used the concept again in his
> recent book
> "Relativity:special, general and cosmological" (OUP 2001).
OK. Let me admit: I am no longer in close touch with the publishing
world, but I, too, have not yet seen a text book in which this new
convention is adhered to.
In private, when I do a SR kinematics calculation, I still use the old
conventions of rest mass (aka invariant mass) and relativistic mass (aka
energy/c^2). In deference to what I had assumed from the FAQ to be the
generally accepted norm, I have in public spoken in the newspeak.
What is the correct attitude?
Who determines the language we should use?
When did they determine this particular convention?
Is it a fad being propagated by a small clique?
> > I have just looked at this thread line by line and I find that the
> > amount of shouting and sarcastic remarks from your side exceed those
> > from my side. Unless, of course, we have different opinions of what
> > sarcarm is, and what the significance of capitalisation in a ng is.
I
> > invite you to do the same.
>
> Sorry Franz. I forget that people use capital letters for shouting. I
> keep making that mistake. I use them for emphasis. My mistake. But I
> know of no other way to emphasize ... unless putting ** around the
> item does the same thing.
>
> And my frustration (with a comment, life, the universe and everything)
> comes across as sarcasm. My applogies.
Accepted with grace.
Franz Heymann
Pmb
> > I've just been informed that Rindler used the concept again in his
> > recent book
> > "Relativity:special, general and cosmological" (OUP 2001).
>
> OK. Let me admit: I am no longer in close touch with the publishing
> world, but I, too, have not yet seen a text book in which this new
> convention is adhered to.
I see it both ways myself. I see older texts claim that it's no longer
used and I see more recent text use it like it never went out of
style.
> In private, when I do a SR kinematics calculation, I still use the old
> conventions of rest mass (aka invariant mass) and relativistic mass (aka
> energy/c^2). In deference to what I had assumed from the FAQ to be the
> generally accepted norm, I have in public spoken in the newspeak.
Now that's the way to do it without any uncertainty whatsoever.
> What is the correct attitude?
No such thing!
> Who determines the language we should use?
Noby. Authors choose what they find the best. However it's very
misleading to make a broad and sweaping claim that indicates that all
authors do what they do. And authors ** do ** make such wide
statements.
> Is it a fad being propagated by a small clique?
Perhaps. I don't know what the precentage is and it'd probably be next
to impossible to state such a number with any proof.
Pmb
Pmb
> You are dead right. The full details of stored energy / mass of
> elementary particles / infinities associated with point structures are a
> long way from being unserstood.
I just happend to be reading about something veryu similar and related
to this.
Are you you familiar with the theory of the relationship between mass
and the Zero-Point Field?
Example - http://www.calphysics.org/articles/zpf_millis.pdf
Pmb
Franz Heymann
>
>
> > You are dead right. The full details of stored energy / mass of
> > elementary particles / infinities associated with point structures
are a
> > long way from being unserstood.
>
> I just happend to be reading about something veryu similar and related
> to this.
> Are you you familiar with the theory of the relationship between mass
> and the Zero-Point Field?
Yes, but not familiar enough to spout or argue about it.
>
> Example - http://www.calphysics.org/articles/zpf_millis.pdf
Franz Heymann
Pmb
> > > You are dead right. The full details of stored energy / mass of
> > > elementary particles / infinities associated with point structures
> are a
> > > long way from being unserstood.
It dawned on me recently that I was missing the two ways that the
electromagnetic mass could and is defined.
You and a few friends of mine have been defining it in terms of m -
"Energy in rest frame"/c^2
However that bothered me. I recall a factor of 3/4 somewhere and this
definition was missing it. I looked back and there it was in Feynman
and (other referances I have).
Feynman calculates this in a frame in which the electron is moving at
a speed v << c. He finds the total momentum of the field = P. It is
lineraly proportional to v. He *defines* this as the electromagentic
mass. It is then shown that this mass is *not* equal to "Energy in
rest frame"/c^2.
Here's why: The stress of the fiel is taken into account here where a
particle like a neutron has no field an thus no stress in the
stress-energy-momentum tensor. The "true" (for lack of a better word
... maybe 'complete' is a better term) thing to think ot here is the
stress-energy-momentum tensor. When no stress then that 3/4 factor is
not there.
Pmb