Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-8 Poor

About MPMin

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

483 profile views
  1. I think you might have misunderstood my query. The example I used was actually for collecting photons from a source of light within the box as curiosity while on the subject of photons of . To phrase it differently, can photons be accumulated? Imagine if you could see into the box without losing any photons, would the inside of the box become brighter and brighter as the photons were being emitted inside the box because they couldn’t escape? Does this also apply to the magnetic fields of magnets?
  2. I tend to disagree with you on this point, a regular mirror reflects around 90% of light but the mirror will not reflect 90% of magnetic field. A perfect reflector of light might not reflect any magnetic radiation at all but instead allow it to pass through. The above is why a magnetic field would pass through it. Just because a direct current is constant doesn’t mean the magnetic field it produces is static, the magnetic field emanates out from the wire just as light does from a filament wire.
  3. Ok help me understand this then: if you could trap photons in a perfectly mirrored box, the box would have more mass because of the photons trapped inside, however an emp or magnetic field can pass straight through the box (because we know magnets work through mirrors) does that mean then that an emp doesn’t have relativistic mass? Further to that, if an incandescent bulb was in the perfectly mirrored box with its own power supply ( assuming the bulb and power supply did not absorb any photons and all the photons produced were perfectly reflected within the box) the magnetic field produced by the filament could pass through box but the photons could not would the box lose mass due to the magnetic field escaping the box? And if the box could perfectly trap photons, would opening the box after some time release all the trapped photons at once producing an explosion of photons so to speak or would it make no difference and opening the box after some time would look the same as opening the box at any time?
  4. Yes though relativistic mass is replaced by variant mass in modern terminology. Both rest mass and relativistic mass originated in SR treatments where one inertial frame was considered at rest. But if relativistic mass is frame dependent how can it actually contribute gravitational mass? In different frames can an object really have different gravitational mass values?
  5. What’s the difference though? It would seem then that GR and SR don’t agree on how to quantify mass so how do we actually quantify mass?
  6. But when is an object ever really at rest? Does relativistic mass contribute to gravitational mass?
  7. If you are all saying that KE doesn’t contribute to an object’s mass then m=E/c^2 should really be m=(all E except KE)/c^2
  8. The context of this was to demonstrate that Einstein’s logic isn’t absolute.
  9. Quoted from: https://curiosity.com/topics/the-worlds-biggest-quantum-entanglement-experiment-proved-einstein-wrong-curiosity/ The results, published in May 2018 in the journal Nature, are robust: "The observed correlations strongly contradict local realism," the authors write. Sorry, Einstein. You'll always have relativity. sorry not codependence but entanglement which is basically the same concept... No matter how you word it, this is still a user dependent point of view. Wether a reference frame is preferential or not doesn’t change the fact that a frame of reference can still be chosen at will. How is the KE being accounted for when it’s not included as part of the mass of the object and the frame of reference can be user defined? How am I saying this or even like saying this? And what’s going is only ever a clue in any case!
  10. Einstein, apparently, wasn’t right about everything especially as you mention two photons, I seem to recall some evidence has been discovered which contradicts what Einstein said about two simultaneous photons being co dependant on each other so I think it’s fair to question even what Einstein has said in the past. I can see why KE is not classically considered to contribute to mass but I don’t agree with it. To exclude an energy because a frame of reference can’t be determined is in its self user dependant. This is exactly the same problem I had in the other thread here talking about the actual KE of an object. Just because we don’t have a universal frame of reference at this time doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be one to determine the true KE of an object. Imagine you could change your perspective to being on one of the the atoms (as if your standing on it) within an object with vibrating atoms, from that perspective you can only see the atoms in your immediate vicinity and you can’t see all the other atoms. This would seem as though the atoms you can see are all moving around randomly and there’d be no way to choose a frame of reference. In that situation you could perceive that the atom you are standing can not have its KE determined. Just because you can’t see all the other atoms of that object doesn’t mean they are isolated from everything else. It seems unintuitive to ignore some types of energy while counting the more easily quantifiable types of energy as mass contributors.
  11. So does a magnetic field or an emp have relativistic mass?
  12. I did, I thought my explanation of vibrational KE vs translational KE was quite clear. Im not disagreeing with E=mc^2, in fact I’m agreeing with it, I don’t see why translational KE doesn’t add to the mass of an object when vibrational KE does. I described how vibrational KE can be seen as translational KE to illustrate my point. If you’re going to say that translational KE is frame of reference dependant then that’s just another way of saying there is no way of choosing how to quantify it because we can’t decide where to look at it from but that doesn’t mean there isn’t an actual quantity to the translational KE which would add to the mass of the object. I do get to have a different point of view though, not everyone interprets information the same way. If everyone completely agreed on every aspect of science there’d be nothing to discuss.
  13. I disagree with your point of view. I don’t see Vibrational KE and transitional KE being any different. Anything that vibrates is still transitioning around a centre point just because it’s average centre doesn’t change doesn’t mean it’s not transiting a small distance back and forth. If you were to look at an atom vibrating for time frame of one vibration you could say it transitioned in that moment. If an entire object were to transition a short distance then return to its point of origin so it’s centre of mass didn’t change you could say it vibrates did it’s mass increase in that moment?
  14. I meant identical in composition. I just find it odd that internal KE of the atoms increases the mass of the object but translational KE of the entire object doesn’t.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.