It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Angry Danish
For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.
Source
The solution to your problem;
t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.
Allow me to explain:
This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.edit on 8/23/11 by Angry Danish because: made it prettier
all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.
Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?
Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by Angry Danish
The solution to your problem;
t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.
Allow me to explain:
This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.
Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?
Care to elaborate instead of just calling me stupid and walking away?
The Lorentz-contraction equation is used in special-relativity to calculate differences in length and time due to velocities(WRT c). Mass does not even come into the equation.
Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by OccamAssassin
Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?
The photon does not have any mass, considering it travels at the speed of light it would be infinite if it did. I am starting to think that our particle explanation of the photon is also wrong. Firstly there is how light acts as a wave and a particle. Then there is how the electron is responsible for the effects of light and other electromagnetic radiation that we are aware of. Different materials also affect the speed that light travels at indicating there is a clear relationship between matter and light. The photon does appear to be the explanation of how one atom communicates to its neighbour and is based on energy and not mass.
Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume.
Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by OccamAssassin
You said the Lorentz factor is not used to calculate masses. But the factor is used to calculate the relativistic mass. Of course the real mass is invariant, but to an observor at rest the mass appears appears bigger the faster the frame travels, even though the mass is not bigger.
Originally posted by kwakakev
The photon does appear to be the explanation of how one atom communicates to its neighbour and is based on energy and not mass.
Ahhh but to calculate the relativistic mass you must have the "rest/actual/invariant mass" first.
The OP's equation deals primarily with observed contraction
[gamma] = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)
To inversely calculate the mass we need it within the equation
Hence the equation
M = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Then explain solar sails.
Originally posted by Angry Danish
For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.
Source
The solution to your problem;
t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.
Allow me to explain:
This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.edit on 8/23/11 by Angry Danish because: made it prettier
If they are one in the same, matter would be spacetime wouldnt it ?
No, it’s the light itself that exerts pressure.
Photons have no rest mass. But then, photons are never at rest. The actual physical situation is rather difficult to comprehend. Photons are theoretically massless, but they do have momentum, whose value is dependent on their wavelength. When a photon impacts another particle (such as an atom in a solar sail) some of this momentum is imparted to the other particle. That’s how a solar sail works.
Our explanations of how a solar sail operate are very close, expect I use the term energy and you use momentum when describing how a photon interacts with an atom.
By using the term momentum for the photon it gives the impression that an object in motion continues that motion unless another force is acted upon it. What happens with light though is that as it passes through different materials is the speed of propagation changes, it can slow down and speed back up again depending on the material. There is no external force to account for the light accelerating after being slowed down, only the properties of the medium that the light travels through.
I am of the impression that the photon is an imaginary particle and does not exist, just like there is no particle specificity for sound waves.
As sound waves are transferred the compression of all atoms and molecules, electromagnetic radiation is transferred through the compression of electrons.