Is inertia correlated to mass?

[Inchworm]

Hi Again!

For those who did not see that info on the physics forum yet, I'm actually discussing a way to simulate my model with David Cooper on NSF (with Java), so I might have a more precise answer to my questions soon. Here is the link for those who would like to help build the simulation, or simply to learn how to build one for their own model:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/foru ... #msg520175

[Inchworm]

I shall report the progress of the simulation here from now on. For the moment, David thinks it will be impossible to use light as a carrier of information because it is too fast to simulate slow speeds, so I suggested that we use sound as in my example with cars, and I suddenly realized that at close to the speed of the wave, his simulation of MMx shows that light would take more and more time between the mirrors, what means that the cars would take more and more time to accelerate, which is equivalent to mass increase in the case of particles. I knew mass increase would happen because of the limited speed of the waves between my two particles, but I didn't realize that they would take more time to accelerate since I didn't believe in time dilation at that moment.

[Inchworm]

Hi everybody, I have good news!

With the help of David, I succeeded to make my own simulations, and I got surprising results. I started with a twins paradox simulation where light has to be detected by the particles to know when to turn around or to have any action on the particles, which is a bit different from David's simulations that use calculations to tell light what to do, then I began simulating acceleration. (For a fast display of the simulations, Edge or Chrome are a lot better than Firefox.)

Twins paradox
Acceleration on two bonded particles
Opposite accelerations on two bonded particles
Acceleration on four bonded particles

If you have any idea on the next simulation I should try, tell me and I might try it.

[Faradave]

Congratulations! That looks like fun. What a great way to learn!

[Andrex]

Bravo!

Quite interesting.

I'll have another look at the whole proposition. Thanks.

[Inchworm]

Thanks Dave!

I agree with you, I think that simulations are a great tool to learn relativity. David's simulation of MMx immediately changed my mind about relativity, what ten years on the forums didn't do. I'm actually trying to convince specialists on scientific forums that this kind of simulation is a good tool to teach relativity, with no success until now. The screen is like a medium for light, and I think that specialists can't accept a medium because it contradicts the relativity principle. If there is a medium, then light is not going at c all the time, only when we measure it on a roundtrip. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light anyway, but specialists consider that it would always be c if we could. If it was so, the simulations where no acceleration is involved couldn't give the same numbers than relativity, and they do. I'm still wondering what that contraction stuff means when acceleration is involved though, so if you have any idea, don't hesitate to tell me.

[Inchworm]

Thanks Andrex!

I saw you were moving on too, but unfortunately, we took two different roads, and they don't cross very often. :0)

[mitchellmckain]

The concept of inertia (that which resists a change of motion) has been pretty much replaced in modern physics by the more precise definitions of mass, momentum, and force: mass being the constant property of the object, momentum be the conserved quantity, and force being what changes the motion. Thus the first of Newton's three laws captures the idea of motion in two mathematical relationships: 1) momentum = mass times velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Force = the change of momentum with respect to time.

The word "inertia" is still used in rotational motion in the phrase "moment of inertia" which is the rotational analogue to mass (calculated from the arrangement of mass in an object by summing up the mass times the perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation squared). Then the two mathematical relationships become 1) angular momentum = moment of inertia times angular velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Torque = the change in angular momentum with respect to time.

[ralfcis]

I too would like to showcase my science knowledge on this subject. Science prides itself on precision yet it still allows the word "mass", a word rendered completely imprecise by relativity. to confuse the masses. It used to be a measure of matter which under the force of gravity expressed itself as weight. But since Einstein proved that gravity and acceleration produced the same force, that meant inertia and weight became the same,.

But then Einstein further muddied the waters with his formula E=mc^2.. Now mass became a property of both matter and energy. Confusing because energy had mass and comprised of massless particles. When people say massless they really mean restmassless (which should be written as one word so people no longer forget to mention it and confuse it with the word "mass". Restmass is now what used to be called matter which is also mass. The mess gets even worse.

When Einstein came up with E=mc²m there was no concept that energy and mass can be converted into each other in a nuclear or quantum physics way. His derivation was based on kinetic energy imparted to restmass (which he called mass) converted into momentum which is mv, Velocity was now in the domain of relativity and was subject to Y. But he grouped gamma with m instead of leaving it with v where it belonged and now mass was subject to Y. When you integrate the new formula for momentum, it becomes E=mc² but leaves one with the impression that the "mass" increases with velocity. The restmass (matter) does not increase but the more energy (also defined as mass) you put into it, the more massive (not to be confused with matter) it becomes. So you add mass and shockingly there's more mass but none of that mass you're talking about is matter.

When Eisntein came up with his formula, he asked what would happen if you imparted kinetic energy into matter and instead of motion, the matter would just sit there. The kinetic energy would then be converted into mass but not the form of mass we call matter. Later on quantum physics changed the formula and added hf which is a true conversion of energy into matter not just energy into mass which is no conversion at all. Einstein's mass was analogue while energy to matter conversion was digital and only came in discrete packets.

Nuclear conversion of matter into energy was also quite different. The matter that was converted was more like energy gelled by the nuclear force. It was not like free matter at all where in quantum physics free particles arose from energy and vice versa. The nuclear conversion was more like gelled energy un-gelling. None of this seems really related to Einstein's original derivation of his formula so it really seems like a fluke that his formula did pertain somewhat to unenvisioned phenomena. I guess my point in all this is the word mass is too confusing to use without constantly defining what you mean by it.

[ralfcis]

" It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light anyway, but specialists consider that it would always be c if we could."

As Don Lincoln said it's very easy to measure the one way speed of light. Sync 2 co-located atomic clocks and separate then a few yards very slowly to minimize the relativistic affects of imparting one with half-twin age difference. Then shine a laser from one to the other and measure how long that laser takes to get there. No incredible mystery appears like the 1 way speed of light is really infinite like some here keep insisting may be masked by the 2 way speed of light using only 1 clock.

[Inchworm]

The concept of inertia (that which resists a change of motion) has been pretty much replaced in modern physics by the more precise definitions of mass, momentum, and force: mass being the constant property of the object, momentum be the conserved quantity, and force being what changes the motion. Thus the first of Newton's three laws captures the idea of motion in two mathematical relationships: 1) momentum = mass times velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Force = the change of momentum with respect to time.

The word "inertia" is still used in rotational motion in the phrase "moment of inertia" which is the rotational analogue to mass (calculated from the arrangement of mass in an object by summing up the mass times the perpendicular distance to the axis of rotation squared). Then the two mathematical relationships become 1) angular momentum = moment of inertia times angular velocity, and it is conserved, 2) Torque = the change in angular momentum with respect to time.

Hi Mitchel,
The OP was posted two years ago. At that time, I figured that, because of the limited speed of the information that was bonding the atoms, a molecule made of two atoms could not accelerate as a whole. I thought that one of the atoms had to accelerate before the other, so that the force exerted to accelerate it would work against the one exerted by the second atom to keep the two atoms at the right distance. In other words, I thought that it was the information from the atoms that was keeping them at the right distance, not the atoms themselves. Mass was then the result of the first atom resisting to get closer to the second atom than the bonding distance. But the motion mechanism is less obvious: the second atom starts to get away from the first one once it knows that it is too close, but the information it is sending automatically tells the first atom that it is doing so, and if that first atom has stopped moving closer because it is no more accelerated, it has to start moving towards the second one to stay at the right distance.

If information is not instantaneous, the two bonded atoms have to run after one another to stay at the right distance, and it is not because they have a mass that they move, it is those steps that keeps them in motion. At that time, I was looking for people that could simulate the process. Two years later, I found one: David Cooper. He had made a simulation of the MM experiment with a laser as a source of light, and I could follow the photon moving along the laser in the moving interferometer. I immediately understood the beaming phenomenon, what nobody succeeded to explain to me in ten years on the forums. After a few discussions on my two atoms, David decided to show me how to make my own simulations, and the impossible happened: I succeeded. Here is the one on the acceleration of two atoms. Notice that it is the left atom that accelerates first, and if we stop the acceleration, imagine that the two atoms keep on executing small steps, but not necessarily at the same time. Their steps are synchronized with the incoming information, but from an instantaneous viewpoint, the two atoms are not necessarily synchronized.

Inertia has two opposed meanings, resistance to move and motion, and those two meanings become only one if I am right about the small steps. Maybe you can understand better now why I asked if inertia was correlated to mass.

[Inchworm]

" It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light anyway, but specialists consider that it would always be c if we could."

As Don Lincoln said it's very easy to measure the one way speed of light. Sync 2 co-located atomic clocks and separate them a few yards very slowly to minimize the relativistic affects of imparting one with half-twin age difference. Then shine a laser from one to the other and measure how long that laser takes to get there. No incredible mystery appears like the 1 way speed of light is really infinite like some here keep insisting may be masked by the 2 way speed of light using only 1 clock.

Thanks for your showcase on mass Ralph, I need that king of refreshing from time to time. Now, about the one way speed of light, wiki is implacable: there is no way to measure it and nobody succeeded yet, so why insist? On the other hand, I could not design simulations with moving light clocks if the light exchanged between the mirrors would have to take the same time back and forth, and those simulations give the same numbers than relativity. Here is my version of the twins paradox. With the light clock moving at .866c to the right, we can easily observe with our own eyes that light takes a lot less time going left than going right.

[ralfcis]

You can choose to believe that or you can google Raskar photo and watch the TED talk of Raskar filming the one way speed of light. Easy to calculate the one-way speed of light from that or the experiment I laid out for you.

[BurtJordaan]

Now, about the one way speed of light, wiki is implacable: there is no way to measure it and nobody succeeded yet, so why insist?

Ralf is right, you know. It is almost trivial to measure the one-way speed of light through the precise method of slow clock transport - move each one slowly, but in opposite directions, so that any effects of the movements on time are not only negligible, but cancel out.

With the light clock moving at .866c to the right, we can easily observe with our own eyes that light takes a lot less time going left than going right.

A deeply flawed "absolute framer" way of thinking. After the "slow clock transport" method, it does not matter in which direction you measure the one-way speed - it is always the same, perfectly isotropic.

[Inchworm]

Let me guess: those people succeeded to measured the one way speed of light, and they got the same speed both ways, is that it? Fine! Then it means that all the experts that wrote that article on wiki are wrong and that nobody from the mainstream does anything to correct them. Excellent! Do you think that the same thing is happening to all the articles wiki published on SR?

Let's get that straight! Do you realize that what you believe in is physically impossible? No wonder your discussions on SR don't end. I am the first one to think that we need to believe in uncertain stuff to make any progress, but that one-way stuff falls under religious beliefs, and there is certainly no progress to make with them. Whatever light is made of, if we can compare its speed to ours, it cannot always be traveling backward from a moving source at the same speed it is traveling forward, and it cannot always be striking the front and the back of a moving observer at the same speed either, and to avoid the SR argument that constant speed is like no speed at all for light (even if it is for us when we can look around), consider that the source or the observer is accelerating, and try not to get away with it by saying that acceleration is not part of SR. Speed is speed whether we are accelerating or not.

I'm probably looking a bit direct guys, but as a consolation, think that it's probably also what Jehovah people feel when I'm explaining to them that god cannot travel faster than light. :0)

[Inchworm]

With the light clock moving at .866c to the right, we can easily observe with our own eyes that light takes a lot less time going left than going right.

A deeply flawed "absolute framer" way of thinking. After the "slow clock transport" method, it does not matter in which direction you measure the one-way speed - it is always the same, perfectly isotropic.

There is absolutely no other way to make a simulation of the twins paradox than to let the light get reflected between the two moving mirrors, and it gives exactly the same numbers than SR. How is it possible? Is it chance?

[ralfcis]

Sorry inchworm, I read this and wonder what on earth is faradave congratulating you on. Maybe it's good to just be nice to others, I don't know, I've never tried that. Here's a list of your greatest hits from just the last 2 posts:

There is absolutely no other way to
what you believe in is physically impossible
we need to believe in uncertain stuff to make any progress

Nope, you're definitely not an absolutist.

[Inchworm]

Faradave simply realized that simulations were a great tool to learn relativity, and I think he is ABSOLUTELY right! :0) Did you try the one with four particles? It shows that if contraction really happens in one arm of an interferometer while the speed is increasing, it might also happen in the other arm. Simulations do not only help us to learn, they also help us to progress. The SR problems you are discussing with Burt can be simulated, and simulations don't lie: they are a representation of what is going on for real.

[ralfcis]

Then I should simulate the perpetual motion machine I designed in high school. Otherwise i'll never know if it could have worked or not.

[BurtJordaan]

There is absolutely no other way to make a simulation of the twins paradox than to let the light get reflected between the two moving mirrors, and it gives exactly the same numbers than SR. How is it possible? Is it chance?

There are no moving mirrors in the "twins paradox". I think you have meant the MM-experiment. There are also no moving mirrors in the MM-experiment, just mirrors stationary relative to each other and both could be moving relative to some arbitrary reference frame, which is irrelevant. To simulate it using SR is pretty trivial.

You seem to have a deep mistrust/misunderstanding of inertial frames of reference. This is sad, because they are absolutely necessary in order to do proper science. What you are doing is mixing up two inertial frames, using A's time with B's distances. That's fine if one knows what you are doing, realizing that apparent speeds then can tend to infinity and can hence not be true speeds.

About Wiki's and experts - the two just don't mix in physics. To keep correcting the false perceptions created by some articles is a fruitless exercise, because those problems just reappear quite soon. There are some articles that are excellent, but unless one knows the stuff already, it is hard to tell the difference. Wiki mostly tells us about a subject, it is not intended to teach a subject.

[Inchworm]

Then I should simulate the perpetual motion machine I designed in high school. Otherwise i'll never know if it could have worked or not.

No need to simulate it if you can build it, but if it works, a simulation should give the same result.

[Inchworm]

There is absolutely no other way to make a simulation of the twins paradox than to let the light get reflected between the two moving mirrors, and it gives exactly the same numbers than SR. How is it possible? Is it chance?

There are no moving mirrors in the "twins paradox".

The twins paradox mind experiment needs to compare two clock, one at rest and one moving, and my simulation shows two light clocks, one at rest and one moving.

I think you have meant the MM-experiment. There are also no moving mirrors in the MM-experiment, just mirrors stationary relative to each other and both could be moving relative to some arbitrary reference frame, which is irrelevant. To simulate it using SR is pretty trivial.

I never saw any SR simulation. Can you show me one on the net?

You seem to have a deep mistrust/misunderstanding of inertial frames of reference. This is sad, because they are absolutely necessary in order to do proper science. What you are doing is mixing up two inertial frames, using A's time with B's distances.

There is only one clock at rest all the time, and what I did is move the other one at .866c, move the photons at c, change their direction when they collides with the mirrors, reverse the direction of the moving clock when it displays 8 ticks, and stop the simulation when the rest clock displays 32 ticks. As you can see, at the end, the moving clock displays 16 ticks, which is what SR predicts. I did not use the time of the clock at rest to determine the one of the moving clock, and I did not decide the distance traveled by the moving clock either if it is what you mean. Each clock has an independent counter, and it is the counter of the moving one that determines the moment it will turn around.

That's fine if one knows what you are doing, realizing that apparent speeds then can tend to infinity and can hence not be true speeds.

No, the speed cannot exceed c, because at that speed, the light cannot reach the particles anymore. Let the speed of the particles get to 1c in this simulation, and observe what is happening: the particles cannot exceed c because there is no more light to accelerate them.

About Wiki's and experts - the two just don't mix in physics. To keep correcting the false perceptions created by some articles is a fruitless exercise, because those problems just reappear quite soon. There are some articles that are excellent, but unless one knows the stuff already, it is hard to tell the difference. Wiki mostly tells us about a subject, it is not intended to teach a subject.

In the case of the one way speed of light, wiki can't be more precise: they repeat in the minutest detail that it hasn't never been measured, and they explain why as well. Can you show me a paper from the main stream that contradicts wiki's one?

[BurtJordaan]

The twins paradox mind experiment needs to compare two clock, one at rest and one moving, and my simulation shows two light clocks, one at rest and one moving.

Hmm..., nope. The twins paradox compares two clocks, one staying inertial and one making a non-inertial trip and comes back to the first one. It is only the difference in spacetime paths that creates the time difference.

To simulate it [the MM experiment] using SR is pretty trivial.

I never saw any SR simulation. Can you show me one on the net?

It is so trivial and self-explanatory that nobody has ever wasted time on simulating it. I can refer you to many beginner's text books that have the sketches and explanation for the SR version. The point is that there are no 'moving clocks' in SR, only clocks moving relative to each other. But I do not expect "absolute framers" to accept or even understand that statement.

In the case of the one way speed of light, wiki can't be more precise: they repeat in the minutest detail that it hasn't never been measured, and they explain why as well. Can you show me a paper from the main stream that contradicts wiki's one?

Whoever "they" are, if they wrote that, they were wrong! It has been measured umpteen times with exquisite accuracy. What they confuse it with is that umpteen measurements do not prove that that the speed of light is necessarily the same in all directions in all inertial frames. No amount of measurement can ever prove that hypothesis - they can only support the hypothesis. And it will fall on its face if anyone ever comes forth with an irrefutable and verifiable observation that falsifies it.

In case anyone here is interested in modern physics, the current experimental precision by which an anisotropy of the speed of light can be excluded, is at the 10⁻¹⁷ level. That's better than one part in ten thousand-trillion.

Mainstream papers? The modern term is "Lorentz violation". Have a look at the references list of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation.

Don't worry too much about the Wiki article itself, just look at titles of the papers referenced. There are arguments and counter-arguments and refutations among them. Still, no Lorentz violations have been found and confirmed so far. It is many a physicist's dream to find one, because it is bound to lead to some interesting new physics (and fame).

[ralfcis]

Yay Jorrie, you're on a roll. Now surely you can spank down my theory once and for all on the contentious issue of length contraction I've laid out in the last 2 posts.

[BurtJordaan]

Sorry, no. I only came here to assist you against the absolute framers. I've just gave Inch over a 100 references that say that you were right. This may not convince him, but then nothing will. I'm out of the personal theories now.

[Inchworm]

The twins paradox mind experiment needs to compare two clock, one at rest and one moving, and my simulation shows two light clocks, one at rest and one moving.

Hmm..., nope. The twins paradox compares two clocks, one staying inertial and one making a non-inertial trip and comes back to the first one. It is only the difference in spacetime paths that creates the time difference.

If a difference in spacetime paths was different than a difference in the ticks of a light clock, then either my simulation wouldn't work, or it would only work by chance. I'm so lucky that I thing I'm going to buy a lottery ticket! :0)

To simulate it [the MM experiment] using SR is pretty trivial.

I never saw any SR simulation. Can you show me one on the net?

It is so trivial and self-explanatory that nobody has ever wasted time on simulating it. I can refer you to many beginner's text books that have the sketches and explanation for the SR version. The point is that there are no 'moving clocks' in SR, only clocks moving relative to each other. But I do not expect "absolute framers" to accept or even understand that statement.

My moving clock moves relatively to the one at rest too, it just happens that the screen is in the same reference frame as the one at rest. I could move the two clocks with regard to the screen if I wanted to, and keep the speed of light at c with regard to the screen. Whatever the reference frame I would chose, I think that the difference between the two clocks would stay the same, because their relative speed would stay the same. Do you see how easily simulations could help to solve SR problems?

Don't worry too much about the Wiki article itself, just look at titles of the papers referenced. There are arguments and counter-arguments and refutations among them. Still, no Lorentz violations have been found and confirmed so far. It is many a physicist's dream to find one, because it is bound to lead to some interesting new physics (and fame).

The reason why it is impossible to measure the one way speed of light is very simple: we need clocks that count the light pulses to measure it, and the atoms that send those light pulses automatically adjust them to their relative speed the same way my moving clock does.

[mitchellmckain]

Yay Jorrie, you're on a roll. Now surely you can spank down my theory once and for all on the contentious issue of length contraction I've laid out in the last 2 posts.

Length contraction has measurable results in scientific experiments.

Here one from a list in Wikipedia

Heavy ions that are spherical when at rest should assume the form of "pancakes" or flat disks when traveling nearly at the speed of light. And in fact, the results obtained from particle collisions can only be explained when the increased nucleon density due to length contraction is considered.

But from my discussion with ralfcis, it seems that his denials consist of mere semantics insisting on attributing all effects to time dilation dilation instead. It seems to be part of some philosophical dogma which does not interest me enough for me to make an effort to describe it.


I suppose you can make some comparison with my own disdain for the idea of relativistic mass, which I have often thought should be discarded as useless. But then someone pointed out to me that there are some areas of research where it has some utility. I remain skeptical of this but I will not insist. At most I would leave it out of my own presentation when I teach an introductory course on relativity.

[ralfcis]

You have missed the point. I don't care if length contraction exists or not. I care that it is a pillar of relativity and my math can get the right answers without it. I can kick out one of the table legs of relativity without the table falling. I do not need a rhombic coodinate system or Lorentz transforms. I get around it by using Alice's time and Bob's space similar to an Epstein STD but without the transposition of the t and t' axes.. If you are not familiar with STD's, you are not in a position to find mathematical flaws with my proposal. If you have problems with comprehension I will gladly answer any specific questions you may have. Learning does require willingness and an open mind though.

P.S. I also have little need for reciprocal time dilation. except to maybe mark the time units on the t'-axis. It is useless for figuring out the persistent reality of age difference. I prefer realities that remain after the conditions that created them don't. Show me in relativity where length contraction has a persistent form like age difference.

[Inchworm]

I can't imagine how my simulations could work without contraction. Do you think it is possible to simulate your idea Ralf?

[ralfcis]

If you're asking is it possible to provide a detailed description with the accompanying math, yes it is and it's all in the Ralfativity 2.0 thread.