Mass is an interaction

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by arfa brane, Oct 20, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    I think it is the category distinction that James has mentioned a number of times. Consider a ball which is thrown from one person to another. The ball, while in motion, has kinetic energy, spin, color, mass, and other properties. Since energy does not have properties of spin or color, then the ball itself cannot be energy. Likewise for particles.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    But the mass of the ball is a form of energy, according to Albert Einstein. The ball is not the mass of the ball . . . ?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    I asked you to please clarify your claim, if possible. But instead you are asking questions about it, which is essentially the opposite of that.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Since mass does not have color or spin, and since the ball does have color and spin, then I would say that the ball and its mass have to be different things. That is what James has been saying anyway, and it does make sense to me.
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Well, that's your interpretation of what something physical actually "is".

    The ball "has" mass, color, volume; if you throw it, it has (locally) some kinetic energy, maybe some spin. Individually none of these are the ball. The ball is a sum of (distinguishable) "properties", right?

    For the ball at rest, there is no kinetic energy, and so no spin. The ball is still the same ball, right?
    Say you decide the color isn't the ball. Remove the color from the ball, what's left?
    Then you decide the mass of the ball isn't the ball, so you remove the mass, what's left?
    Does the ball still have a volume? Is the ball still at rest?

    In what sense is the mass, or the color, or the volume, of the ball "not the ball"?
     
  9. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    I would say that just before the light is absorbed, the light has a certain amount of energy relative to the object that is in front of it. When the light hits the object, the light is absorbed, and the energy it had becomes stored as potential energy in the object that absorbed it.

    You seem to be thinking of it slightly differently than that. You seem to be saying that just before the light is absorbed, it is a form of energy in and of itself. And then when the light hits the object, the light form of energy is transformed to a different form of energy in the object. The only problem with that is that light has other properties which energy does not have, such as spin and color (frequency). So thinking of it as a form of energy is technically not correct, which is the point James has been making.
     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Yep, more or less. But be careful about "just before the light is absorbed" because photons far from an object (far field) are different to photons which are near a matter-field.
    When the photon is absorbed, it doesn't have energy, it doesn't have spin or color, it's been annihilated.
     
  11. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    That's a lot of questions. I would prefer if you made statements, such as,"the ball's volume is the ball," if that is what you believe. Clearly that is not true though, because volume is only one of the properties of the ball.
     
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Statements:

    Particles in motion is/are a form of energy (the kinetic theory of gases, for example). But particles have wavelengths, even when a particle is "at rest" it's an oscillating field.
    Therefore any particle in the SM is a form of energy (because any particle in the SM is never at rest). This includes (of course) photons; photons are a local field oscillation and photons are never at rest.

    A form of energy is energy . . .
     
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    That's not what I believe, sorry if that disappoints you. Please, if you can manage it, try to answer some of those questions.
     
  14. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Thanks, at least that's fairly clear. You think a particle is a form of energy. You also seem to think a particle is energy.
     
  15. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    I kind of agree with you that the ball is the sum of all of its properties. But I would not say that just one property of the ball is the same thing as the ball.
     
  16. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Yes, any SM particle is a form of energy (see Schrodinger, Einstein, Planck etc). Mass is a form of energy and massive particles have mass-energy. But particles are oscillating fields, they have energy because of this--equivalently the particle is the energy of oscillation; the notion that a particle is an oscillation "in" a field, like waves in water are oscillations of water, isn't quite the goods. It isn't because it doesn't explain how photons can propagate in nothing--i.e. the vacuum.

    I think a form of energy is energy, yes. I don't think a form of energy is marshmallows, or croutons.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2019
  17. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Except for heat energy? Which by definition, is the kinetic energy of particles in a "gas", right?
    But I can't forgive you the mistake you make in the following, James.
    So, products can have more energy than the reactants? Where do they get this extra energy from? Wait, I think I know, it comes from the conversion of mass into kinetic energy!
     
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Ya think? If a vacuum has fields (say a gravitational field and an electric field), then there is energy in these fields, hence, there is energy in the vacuum.
     
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Nope. I know that a charged particle has an electric field, propagating at c, extending from it. Charged particles are after all, sources of electric fields.
    That's something I've said a few times, but since you're obviously intellectually challenged I guess I have to forgive that.
    Mass-energy is an interaction, James, remember? With the scalar Higgs field.

    Note that, the interaction is "continuous", much like the exchange of virtual photons between bound electrons and protons, in an atom. The mass of a particle, or the property of mass, is generated by the ongoing interaction. Although this interaction does not account for all the mass--protons are composite particles whose mass is largely the interactions between quark-fields. (And that's another thing I've already said)
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2019
  20. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Mass is a form of energy, it's called a form of energy because it doesn't exist by itself; there has to be one or more massive particles.
    Energy is an interaction. When you throw a cricket ball in the air, it interacts with a gravitational field.
    Particles that give mass to fermions are virtual Higgs bosons; mass is a form of energy; a form of energy is energy.
    When two fermions interact they exchange virtual photons; the virtual photons are the interaction.

    The list goes on (and on), because that isn't all there is to the question "what is energy?".
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    arfa brane:

    In my previous series of several posts to you, I presented you with arguments and asked you a number of direct questions about your position and your arguments. Your response to those questions has been piecemeal at best, and all indications are that - once again - you have simply ignored large parts of what I wrote.

    This is troll-like behaviour. Post ridiculous claims. Never attempt to back them up. Refuse to answer questions, or else answer questions with questions. Try to take the discussion off on tangents. Ignore what is inconvenient about opponents' responses. Repeat claims that have been previously debunked. Try to make sure that in each post the discussion has to start from exactly the same place as last time, and never progresses. Claim opponents are wrong, while never attempting to show why or how they are wrong.

    I'm getting very close to just closing this thread down, like I closed the previous thread where you trolled a similar line.

    Here are my responses to your latest errors.

    I'm starting not to care what you think. You appear unwilling to carry on this discussion in good faith.

    Yes. Heat is energy transferred from one system to another due to a temperature difference between them. That's the definition of heat - another piece of physics of which you seem to be blissfully unaware.

    Not necessarily. It depends on the details of the process in which heat is added, and what else is going on. You know the first law of thermodynamics?

    That looks like just one more category error to add to your list of many similar errors.

    Define "motion".

    Kinetic energy is energy. Motion, to me, is about something that particles do. Walking is a motion, but walking is not energy.

    That's like saying a speed is energy, or something (since "motion" is undefined at this point in your argument, it's hard to tell). Energy isn't speed. Speed isn't energy.

    That looks like an out-of-context fragment from a larger text. Quote the entire paragraph or something.
    So what? YOu haven't even said what you're talking about here. Which part of "what I say" contradicts which part of the linked discussion you refer to? Be specific. Also, why does it matter if somebody else on stackexchange is making mistakes, just like you are? Can't you come up with a better source than that?

    Your opinion is irrelevant. You've proven yourself completely unqualified to judge my competence in these matters.

    Ah yes, another troll move. "I can't be bothered". In other words: it's all too hard, so I'll pretend the discussion never happened and go back to repeating my initial errors, ignoring all the discussion and objections that have appeared in the meantime.

    You're treading on thin ice here, arfa brane.

    Try to do better. Seriously.
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2019
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    What on earth makes you think this contradicts anything I've written? It's also a complete non sequitur in terms of responding to what was put to you. It does nothing to support your claim that particles are "forms of energy". Neither does the followup quote from Einstein that you included.
    ---

    Now, let's be clear, once again. In response to Neddy Bate (why you didn't respond to me, since I asked the questions, is a mystery), you stated:
    • arfa brane believes that particles are energy.
    • arfa brane believes that particles are a "form of energy".
    • arfa brane believes that photons are a "form of energy".
    So, give us your argument for these beliefs. You've seen my counterargument already, many times now.

    What are your reasons for holding these beliefs? Explain. Explain clearly. If you cannot, or if you refuse, we are done here.
     
  23. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You can't parse the idea that a thing is not the same as one of its properties?

    Can you parse the idea that an apple is not the same as the colour red? I have used this example a lot, and you've ignored it every time I've used it. Is that because you can't parse it?

    If you weigh 80 kg, does that mean you are the same as 80 kg, or that 80 kg is the same as arfa brane?

    Can you parse that?

    Look, maybe I'm going in too hard on you. If you have an acquired brain injury or another disability that makes it difficult for you to process arguments of this nature, please tell me and we can leave the topic alone, or else we can try to tackle it in smaller chunks for you.

    Also, I'm interested in whether any similar problem makes it difficult for you to recall past conversations. Also, is there a problem that makes it hard for you to pay attention to posts if they are longer than the average tweet, say?

    I ask because I'm seeing multiple indications that you find it difficult to concentrate on any point or concept that takes more than a sentence or two to express, and even then you're apparently often "unable to parse" the meaning of simple statements.

    I'm willing to make allowances if you have a diagnosed disability. Please let me know. I'm serious.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page