reply to H.G. Callaway, but first quotation: "Does a “Photon Box” have gravitational mass? The photon box is a thought experiment involving a massless, perfectly reflective box containing light." According to the special and general theories of relativity, each energy is equivalent to the corresponding mass, both in macro and micro scale. From here, we can probably conclude that the "Photon Box" has gravitational mass:-)

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Khripov,

This is an interesting question, though I have only thought about it fleetingly.

What seems basic to it is the identification of inertial and gravitational mass in classical GR. In consequence it seems best to start from that. "Mass-energy tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass-energy how to move."

Since the effects of gravitational mass (+energy) include a curvature of spacetime in GR, is there something similar involved in the effects of inertial mass?

For example, suppose you are traveling down the street in a street car or tram, and suddenly the driver slams on the breaks and you lurch forward. The de-acceleration of your inertial mass is resisted and this is experienced as a lurch forward in the street car.

Are we to think of this resistance of inertial mass to change in speed of motion as, say, a matter of the energy it takes to change (local) spactime curvature? Does the de-acceleration change the local configuration of spacetime?

H.G. Callaway

In General Relativity, movements are rectilinear and uniform in a curved Space-Time. Inertia, then, does not have the meaning that is given to it in Newtonian physics.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Georges & readers,

I suppose that the present question assumes classical GR. Wouldn't it then follow from that alone that inertia is to be understood in terms of GR?

No remark without remarkability.

H.G. Callaway

The STOE model suggests inertia is a property of the ether ( plenum, spacetime) because the ether supports wave action. A wave propagation according to the wave equation requires the medium to have inertia. The proportionality with gravitational mass happens because the mass must capture and hold some amount of ether that it must have if the matter causes a warp.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

Might it be helpful here to say something about the "Scalar Theory of Everything" (STOE)? I think you may need to fill the readers in about this.

It is perhaps somewhat odd to think of inertia as a "property of the ether." The usual account is that the ether went out with the acceptance of Einstein's STR. Might you mean to say, perhaps, that inertia is a property of (or arises from) the gravitational metric field? Would this be the same or different according to your account? You seem to equate "the ether," with "plenum," and "spacetime."

If inertia is a property of (or arises from) spacetime, say, would measurements of the inertial mass of a body differ depending on local spacetime curvature? Why or why not? Would gravitational mass vary? Why or why not?

What does it mean that "the mass must capture and hold some amount of ether that it must have if the matter causes a warp."?

Finally,

Could inertia of mass be described as some space-time curvature?

Is acceleration resisted because of some (local) property of spacetime or the metric field?

H.G. Callaway

The question is the topic of my project of something called purely en-tropic time... using Research Sample 7 Update

We conclude this is possible in a Euclidean sense of the vastness of creation I.E. the big bang or the creation of earth is just a point in time...

H.G. Callaway

Thanks for the opportunity.

The need for a paradigm shift is growing. Many ad hoc models and outlandish speculations abound to model many unexplained observations. The Scalar Theory Of Everything (STOE) audacious claim of a new paradigm is supported by corresponding to relativity and quantum mechanics; by explaining many problematical observations; and by making and fulfilling several predictions.

It posits 2 components of the universe emerge to form everything. "hods" are discrete and a surface. The "plenum" is continuous and is like an ether, spacetime, etc. but with some different properties. Hods warp and induce waves in the plenum, the plenum directs the hods. The properties of these 2 were determined by observation of what was required if only 2 objects emerge to form everything. Hods have the property of inducing change (gravity among the changes) in the plenum induces gravity potential. Something must support wave action - the plenum.

Your questions: the hod is suggested to capture an amount of plenum per hod which is part of inducing the warp/wave in the plenum. I've modeled it as capturing a constant amount (observed Equivalence Principle) but the plenum potential at a given radius changes according to the environment (background cause by all other Sources, Sinks, and matter in the universe - yes its Machian unlike GR). Gravitational mass is dependent on the number of hods bound in a body - the capture of plenum is part of the binding. The spacing between hods varies with plenum potential. Thus black holes form in higher plenum density near the Sources (center of spiral galaxies) and are compressed to yield radiation within 50 AU of the Source. The plenum density changes with density. the divergence of plenum density (only, there is a subtlety in that the plenum is not a "wind" because a wind implies some mass) creates the force on hods. So, no not plenum or spacetime curvature. Resisting changes is the very definition of inertia.

It models the universe as composed of cells with Sources (spiral galaxies - like QSSC) and Sinks (elliptical galaxies and matter). It forms the Universal Equations, one equation to define the potential at all points and one equation that uses the potential to exert forces on matter. The STOE expands on the QSSC model. These equations are applied the microwave background temperature, rotation curves, asymmetric rotation curves, galaxy redshift and discrete redshift, the pioneer anomaly, light interference, etc. The wave model of light is rejected by 2 experiments predicted by the STOE. Maxwell's Equations are modified. Life and society application of the STOE principles is suggested.

See my site on RG for the papers or the videos to get a quick (

I've often wondered if inertia is not some sort of analog of the "counter electromagnetic force" that occurs in a system when part of the system tries to change the voltage. It's been a long while since my college physics classes.

Dear Lowell,

Can you elaborate on what you mean exactly by "counter electromagnetic force"?

No.

Although mass causes a curvature of space-time which we call gravity, inertia refers not to the effect of that mass on other objects (their having to follow the geodesics of curved space-time), but to the difficulty of moving the mass. So although it is harder to accelerate a large mass than a small one, and a large mass produces a larger curvature of space-time, those two aspects of mass are not the same.

Why things have mass is obviously of great interest, and it was partly a search for the reason that led to the concept of the Higgs Boson. But mass is not created by curved space-time; that idea is literally putting the cart before the horse.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Seligman & readers,

I suspect your "No." needs to be aimed more precisely.

Consider the following characterization of GR:

"Mass-energy tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass-energy how to move."

Now, inertia also "tells mass how to move," or more precisely to resist changes in speed of motion. What is the relationship of spacetime to inertial mass in GR--given the equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational mass? Wouldn't the resistance to acceleration or de-acceleration as a function of inertial mass, be a matter of (curved) spacetime "telling" inertial mass how to move?

To reiterate:

For example, suppose you are traveling down the street in a street car or tram, and suddenly the driver slams on the breaks and you lurch forward. The de-acceleration of your inertial mass is resisted and this is experienced as a lurch forward in the street car.

Are we to think of this resistance of inertial mass to change in speed of motion as, say, a matter of the energy involved in change of (local) spacetime curvature? Does the de-acceleration change the local configuration of spacetime? Isn't the "difficulty of moving mass" and the energy expended to do so expressed in the change of local spacetime curvature?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Although mass causes a curvature of space-time which we call gravity, inertia refers not to the effect of that mass on other objects (their having to follow the geodesics of curved space-time), but to the difficulty of moving the mass. So although it is harder to accelerate a large mass than a small one, and a large mass produces a larger curvature of space-time, those two aspects of mass are not the same.

Hardly, Inertia is the tendency of a body to follow rectilinear motion with constant momentum in the absence of forces, a concept adopted as Newtons first law. Then you do not need GR concepts to describe this. Of course flat or empty space GR

would be like the Newtonian space.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Weisz & readers,

The framework of the present question is clearly classical GR--not Newtonian physics.

We are discussing the relationship of gravitational and inertial mass in GR & etc.

Right?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Hardly, Inertia is the tendency of a body to follow rectilinear motion with constant momentum in the absence of forces, a concept adopted as Newtons first law. Then you do not need GR concepts to describe this.

Ohh, then I would suggest that a general non-inertial system that GR usually deals with does not have

the principle of inertia as usually stated, which requires homogeneous space and translational invariance.

You usually state this as conservation of linear momentum.(in the absence of external force)

You then express conservational properties differently, a divergenceless energy-momentum

tensor in GR.

p,d. Inertial mass = gravitational mass from the principle of equivalence.

I think that for the above discussion it will be interesting to give a passage from the Dennis Lehmkuhl's paper from 2014: "He believed that even though a particle moves on a geodesic both in the absence and in the presence of a gravitational field, a coordinate system can be chosen such that the connection components Γ

vanish or appear, and thus a gravitational field appears or disappears given a certain choice of coordinates. As we shall see in the next section, this view is, for Einstein, intimately related to the principle of equivalence of inertia and gravity, and to the unification of inertia and gravity achieved in GR...."

Yes it is absolutely possible, because of curvature of space by the mass.

Mass is connected to the Higgs Mechanism and it means resistance against any change of the space. Inertia is the expression of this resistance.

Kurt Wraae

If this question is interpretated as asking if inertial mass is in some way relater with spacetime curvature,

the answer yes, since inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass, and this is linked to causing the curvature,

which is only significant for very large masses.

It would be a mistake to consider the motion of a massive object is determined by the spacetime curvature, since

we all know from comon experience that the motion of say a projectile depends on the kinetic energy it is given,

or on the initial condition with which it is sent. With light we can say with more confidence that a geodesic is followed.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hanckowiak & readers,

Thanks for your note.

I wonder if you can give a specific reference for the Lehmkuhl 2014, paper you quote from. What is the title?

What I came across was a later book:

Towards a Theory of Spacetime Theories (Springer)

Lehmkuhl, Dennis, Schiemann, Gregor, Scholz, Erhard (Eds.)

See:

https://www.springer.com/us/book/9781493932092

Equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is, again, much to the point here.

I think we may need to see the large context of the quoted passage.

H.G Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Wraae & readers,

The Higgs mechanism and its contribution to understanding mass and its relationship to energy arises from the Standard Model of Particle physics, and in consequence, from quantum field theory.

This is a further interesting connection between gravity and field theories, but not something arising specifically from GR. To go further along these lines, it looks like we would have to know something about how the Higgs field relates to the gravitational field?

My impression is that something of your point may be lost in vagaries of cross reference in your use of "it."

What is "absolutely possible"?

Why does the Higgs mechanism mean "resistance against any change of the space" ? Isn't it more a matter of inducing resistance to motion in particles-- inertia?

Your note is suggestive but I think you need to be more explicit?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

Yes it is absolutely possible, because of curvature of space by the mass.

Mass is connected to the Higgs Mechanism and it means resistance against any change of the space. Inertia is the expression of this resistance.

inertial mass and gravitational mass have the same origin......Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted

I consider Higgs mechanism to be still in the region of risky speculation. There are some new particles that have been detected at CERN, but do not consider the overall scenario to be solid enough; its not mainstream science yet. If it were solid, we could actually calculate particle masses, but this is far away.

In accordance with the Mach Principle (being realized through the Higgs mechanism or not), surely yes.

Mr. H.G Callaway

Thank You for a good and useful answer.

Kurt Wraae

The Hilbert Book Model Project Survey;http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0213

Explains our living space, spacetime deformation, mass and inertia.

Inertial mass creates curvature of space-time. If the mass does not rotate and gravitate, the space-time possesses only spatial curvature (well known models of expanding Universe). If mass gravitates (g_00 is not equal 1) and rotates (g_0i are not 0), the space-time possesses 4-curvature. Values g_00 and g_0i affect on temp of observed time. For example, the observe time is stopped if g_00 = 0 (collaps).

The discussion seems as rather strange, however. Inertia is property of a material object [particle, body, etc.; further “body] ” to hold the state of uniform and unidirectional motion at absence /zero sum of acting, forces; to change this state of motion is necessary to impact on the body by some force and to spend at that obligatorily some energy.

Since Matter is rather simple logical system that is built basing on rather small set of fundamental and universal for all material objects laws/links/constants, the inertia reveals itself at the bodies interactions universally, so it becomes be possible to introduce a universal measure of inertia, “inertial mass”.

Inertia, and so the inertial mass, however, reveals itself only at interactions of bodies, till a force acts and accelerates body. And even in the GR the main postulate is the “equivalence principle” [see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle], which “is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass”; in the GR there is no some “identity of gravitational and inertial mass principle”.

Gravity isn’t, of course, some action of some curvature of real Matter’s imaginary [mathematically] pseudo Riemannian space, as that the GR postulates; starting from what everybody always observes - that real Matter’s spacetime isn’t something imaginary, it is real [mathematically] [5]4D Euclidian “empty container”, where Matter exists and changes; and real [mathematically] [5]4D Euclidian spacetime as an adequate model of the container in correct physical theories. The emptiness cannot be impacted, i.e., “contracted”, “dilated”, “curved” by any body, in Matter no magic forces act; and the emptiness cannot impact on any body by the same reason.

In the reality Gravity is simply “fourth” [besides EM, Weak, and Strong forces] fundamental Nature force, which is, in some traits, like to the EM force, and has the force’s charge, which is called “gravitational mass”; the difference with the EM force is in that this charge has only one sign and corresponding force is only attractive; and so cannot be compensated. The gravitational mass of every body, unlike the inertial mass, acts/reveals itself always, independently on is impacted this body by some force or not.

Thus, in spite of that the force is extremely weak, it is the main force that makes Matter as it is, i.e., makes planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

Inertial mass has so no any physical relation to the gravitational mass, and their equivalence is, in certain sense, an accidental fact; simply they are equivalent because of inertia/inertial mass of a body is the sum of inertias/masses of every of all particles that constitute body, and gravity force that is created by some body is the sum of gravity forces that are created by every of all the body’s particles.

Cheers

To Mohammad Hassani:

Sir, you gave your opinion on gravity with respect to space time. Could you please also give your opinion on "virtual particles" as discussed in Quantum Mechanics?

I am interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject, because I have often wondered if inertia might be a result of some interaction between the charges in quarks etc that make up matter and the background framework that produces the virtual particles -- whatever that might be. That is, might inertia actually be more related to electromagnetism than to gravity. I know, the idea is probably naive.

I am wondering if your opinion on quantum fields is similar to your opinion on GR.

Dear Sirs,

Can my proposition "inertial mass curves space-time" be experimentally tested? I mean in astrophysical scale. Here is imaginary example. Let us two planets collide absolutely elastically. Then consider an observer located at the one planet. Will he experience the more strong gravitational attraction after the collision or not? Or can some physical processes on the two planets behave more slowly or more faster? Can we see something similar to my example today in space?

The other example. Let us a big asteroid is approaching to the Earth. Then GPS satellite time will obey general relativity theory or there are some discrepancies?

Anatoly A Khripov

Test inertia

Has inertia if gravity obeys the wave equation - look for diffraction effects.

What current science calls "gravity wave" is not a true wave (not necessarily obey the wave equation). see

http://intellectualarchive.com/?link=item&id=1847

Where the distinction between the 1/r form of gravity and the true wave with inertia form is made.

In Wikipedia (from the article entitled 'Mach's principle' ):

(However, Einstein was convinced that a valid theory of gravity would necessarily have to include the relativity of inertia: )

"So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest: 1.The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance. 2.The principle of equivalence. 3.Mach's principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added, "This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however." It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day, Mach's principle has not brought physics decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach's principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory. — Abraham Pais, in Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 287–288. "

“…It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach's principle may therefore have a future – but not without the quantum theory. …..”

So called “Mach's principle” was introduced in philosophy by a mainstream philosopher Mach in 19-th century, who had no understanding what are the fundamental in Matter phenomena "Matter", “Space”, “Time”; and what are “Mass” and “Inertia” as well, though. Correspondingly this principle has no relation to the objective reality, so claim in the quote seems as rather strange.

What are these phenomena/notions become be clear only in Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s new philosophical “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute

DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904 ]. About what are “Space” and “Time” see SS post above and SS posts and links in the posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_dimension_relate_to_cosmogenesis ;

so further more concretely – what the phenomenon “Inertia” is.

To understand what Inertia is necessary to understand before what two other [besides “Space” and “Time” here] absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions , “Change” and “Energy”, are.

What is “Change” is evident – that is some process, when at this process some sequence of different states of some object/system appears, however from that follows that the phenomenon “Change” is logically self-inconsistent: at every moment of the changing the recent state of changing object is simultaneously former, recent and future states, when, again, they are different by definition. I.e. any change is rigorously logically prohibited and so cannot exist.

This self-inconsistence was proven yet 2500 years ago by Zeno in his outstanding, indeed brilliant, aporias.

However changes evidently happen, however at that it turns out that to overcome this inconsistence and so to change something is necessary to pay by two things: first of all to change something is necessary to spend some active Essence “Energy”; however that isn’t enough, and at any finite energy value on some level/scale parameters of the object’s state become be uncertain, “illogical”; just therefore the quantum mechanics exists, which was predicted by Zeno.

By another words the above means that any object/system “logically resists” to changes, and just this resistance is called “inertia”. And, again – see the SS post above – since Matter is rather simple logical system, which is based, exists and changes in the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty containers in accordance with a small set of fundamental and universal for whole Matter, i.e. for every material object [particle, body, star…] laws/links/constants, including at any changes, which happen only at interactions of material objects,

it is possible to introduce universal characteristic of the inertia - ” inertial mass” that is used at analysis of objects and interactions, first of all in physics.

And, again, all above has no any relation to Gravity

Cheers

Jerzy Hanckowiak

Excellent point. The inability of GR to account for Mach's principle is a prime, philosophical issue. It is why this question is so subtle. It is wrapped up in the view of inertia.

The QSSC and it's extension, the STOE, is Machian. In these, the left side (G) of the field equation is more like a spacetime calculated for a T of radius of all the universe (cannot be measured). It does this by creating Sources at the center of galaxies continually creating the stuff of the universe rather than a single, primal source of the universe.

we must remember that inertial mass is not the gravitational mass they are equal but not the same. Einstein field equation deals with gravitational mass as source of curvature

Hi John. Can you decode the QSSC and STOE shortcuts? Thank u very much:-)

JH

Quasi-Steady State Cosmology (QSSC) is from the Steady State Cosmology (SSC) model of Hoyle, Narlikar, et al. of the 1970s. It was the main competitor to the Big Bang (BB) model before 1991. The Microwave Background Radiation (MWB called Cosmic CMB by BB) measured by WMAP and others supported the BB model - the SSC model was very weak describing such a nearly perfect black body characteristic. BB suggested a single creation event. The SSC had continuous creation of the stuff of our universe happening between galaxies. With the MBR measurement, the SSC was modified in the 1990s to move the continuous creation to the center of galaxies - the QSSC. This made the explanation of some galaxy observation such as rotation curves without dark matter better than the BB but still had the MBR problem. BTW BB has a problem with the MBR as well - it's initial calculation showed a temperature much higher than measured and still has no theoretical calculation of the 2.7K.

But QSSC did yield a Machian universe because the creation point was in the galaxies. BTW both QSSC and BB use Einstein's field equation in their models.

The Scalar Theory Of Everything (STOE) started in early 2000s. It suggests a Sink in elliptical galaxies in addition to the Source in spiral galaxies. Many more problematical observations of galaxies are explained, the theoretical universe temperature STOE calculates is 2.718 K., it is Machian, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not needed, and it suggests a model of light that a new diffraction experiment confirmed (ie it bridges the gap between Big and Small-QM).

Is this enough?

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

To help the current discussion along, readers of this thread may wish to consult the following article, "On the Origin of Inertia," (1952) by D.W. Sciama:

(The paper is available online with a bit of searching around.)

According to Sciama, Mach "maintained that inertial frames are those which are unaccelerated relative to the "fixed stars," that is, relative to a suitably defined mean of all the matter in the universe. This statement is usually known as Mach's principle." (Or, sometimes, "Mach's conjecture.)

Before setting off in the direction of more speculative cosmologies, I would suggest the need to clarify the relationship of Mach's conjecture to GR. It would seem that in accord with GR, the distant universe would have some (perhaps minimal?) influence on the local gravitational field.

In my impression the conflict assumed, between GR and Mach's conjecture is yet to be clearly explained in the foregoing discussion.

It also seem worth mentioning that a more conventional explanation of the inertial properties of mass seems to be on offer in the literature, in terms of confinement of energy.

H.G.Callaway

H.G. Callaway

Sciama's papers have been around and don't answer the issue.

GR can include Mach but only in the QSSC (so far). The Big Bang cosmology has not Mach idea in it. So, if a requirement is that Mach be use to describe inertia, BB needs a major band aid (ad hoc addition).

Therefore, given the amount of time and brain power expended on the BB, perhaps it is better to have a new paradigm.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hodge & readers,

I'm not against development of alternatives to the BB; and I recommended the Sciama paper, not because it solves all problems but because it clarifies what is meant by "the Mach principle."

The point is to clarify what is involved in the Mach conjecture, and to see what conflict there may be between the conjecture and GR. (The Big bang is not to be equated with GR. ) We don't have to do speculative cosmology to consider closely the relationship between GR and the Mach conjecture.)

This is a methodological point. By first examining and analyzing the more prominent and well accepted accounts, one becomes better aware of their strengths and weaknesses. Looking closely does not imply an ultimate commitment one way or the other.

Sciama wrote, in his opening "Summary" that,

This theory differs from general relativity principally in the following respects:

(I) It enables the amount of matter in the universe to be estimated from a knowledge of the gravitational constant.

(II) The principle of equivalence is a consequence of the theory, not an initial axiom.

(iii) It implies that gravity must be attractive

---End quotation

"[I]f a requirement is that Mach be use to describe inertia," you say, "BB needs a major band aid (ad hoc addition)." Perhaps so, but that is an awfully big "If." This question is much more basic than any exercise in cosmology. First you need the physics.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

On the origin of inertial mass, see the following question:

Does a “Photon Box” have gravitational mass?

The photon box is a thought experiment involving a massless, perfectly reflective box containing light.

When the box is accelerated in any direction it results in a difference of force being applied to the walls of the box that are in line with the acceleration. The "front" being pushed less and the "back" being pushed more. This results in a resistance to acceleration or inertial mass and this mass can even be given a value in Kilograms regardless of the fact that no individual components are massive.

While I understand that this box is "massive" I do not know whether the box would have "weight".

Would the box fall in a gravity field?

If so, why?

---End quotation

See:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/348892/does-a-photon-box-have-gravitational-mass/348896

Note that the "photon box" resists acceleration.

Nearly analogical arguments are current in the contemporary QFT of quarks and gluons--explaining, e.g., the mass of protons and neutrons.

H.G. Callaway

Any material body (including the observable Universe, as the Hubble sphere) has three interrelated characteristics: mass M; the radius of curvature of S space, which is bent under the action of its gravitational field; the delay time T of propagation of the light signal at a distance S. By knowing one of the three characteristics, one can find two others. See the article:

PLANCK UNIVERSAL PROPORTIONS. GRAVITATIONAL - ELECTROMAGNETIC RESONANCE.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01329094v1

The answer to your question is yes.

The physical space is a quantum medium. Therefore space-time curvature is not right model (see, Yu.A. Baurov "Nature of Inertia forces" // International Letters of Chemistry, Physics and Astronomy, 10 (2014) 14-24). But is a thought ito right direction

reply to John Hodge: It's not just enough, it's beautiful! Thank you, than you very much! JH

reply to H.G. Callaway, but first quotation: "Does a “Photon Box” have gravitational mass? The photon box is a thought experiment involving a massless, perfectly reflective box containing light." According to the special and general theories of relativity, each energy is equivalent to the corresponding mass, both in macro and micro scale. From here, we can probably conclude that the "Photon Box" has gravitational mass:-)

Dear all, Anatoly I think you are right , the answer is on this publication:

"Vacuum-Matter Interaction through Hyper-Dimensional Time-Space Shifting". January 2016 " -

Article Vacuum-Matter Interaction through Hyper-Dimensional Time-Spa...

So much talking about so called “Mach principle”, which was a bare declaration of a human who didn’t understand what are Matter, Energy and Inertia; when seems all was explained here in the SS post above already, including why this principle has no any relation to the objective reality.

As well as the GR was developed by the author who didn’t understand what are Matter, Energy, Inertia, Gravity, Space, Time, and Spacetime, and so ad hoc, having for that no rational grounds, postulated for these fundamental phenomena rather strange properties – that real Matter’s spacetime is imaginary [mathematically] 4D pseudo Riemannian space [though in this case the author develop the Minkowski’s equally strange “discovery” that Matter’s spacetime is imaginary [mathematically] 4D Minkowski space], that some “gravitational masses” by some magic forces “bend” spacetime, and this bended spacetime, again by some magic forces, forces, say, Erath to move along its orbit.

Real Matters spacetime [if we don’t consider QM] is real [mathematically] [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, which cannot be impacted/transformed by anything in Matter, and cannot impact on anything in Matter, more see the Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494; which is based on the “The Information as Absolute” conception [links see in the SS post above].

Again – every material object has both fundamentally different masses – gravitational and inertial; Gravity is the fundamental Nature force, which is like in a few traits to the fundamental Nature EM force; and so, for example, the postulate in the GR that gravity doesn’t impact on photons is incorrect. Including

“….Does a “Photon Box” have gravitational mass?....”

Yes it have, and will “fall in a gravity field”

Including, for example, GR predicts the “gravitational time dilation” [though the introducing of this “time dilation” was indeed important physical result; there is no, of course, some “time dilation”, however there is the slowing down of internal processes in gravitationally coupled bodies indeed really; and that wasn’t known in physics in 1916] which is very probably two times lesser then that GR predicts.

What is this effect is clarified in the model above, including in the model the experiment is suggested that allows, in contrast to the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiments, to measure this effect directly, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277710038_The_informational_model_-_gravity_a_next_experiment DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4502.800.

The experiment is very simple and cheap, so practically for sure was made, and the result was two times outside the GR, in other case about a next confirmation of the GR all media would write…

Cheers

If you accelerate the photon box, I think there are more photons impacting one wall that the other,

each will suffer a change of momentum equivalent to a force. So perhaps the is a resisting force,

not too large.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Hanckowiak & readers.

You neglect the central point. The light box argument concludes with a point regarding inertial mass and its relation to confined energy. It is, of course, perfectly consistent with the equivalence principle, but does not presuppose or assume it. The light box (and similar realistic configurations in QCD) will resist acceleration or de-acceleration.

In the QCD cases, no one doubts gravitational as well as inertial mass.

The argument is a development of Einstein's famous arguments in his paper on the photoelectric effect. The question concerning gravitational mass is subsidiary to the main conclusion of the photon box argument.

Consider, to go a step further: Does the conservation of angular momentum illustrate the nature of inertia?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

reply to H.G. Callaway, but first quotation: "Does a “Photon Box” have gravitational mass? The photon box is a thought experiment involving a massless, perfectly reflective box containing light." According to the special and general theories of relativity, each energy is equivalent to the corresponding mass, both in macro and micro scale. From here, we can probably conclude that the "Photon Box" has gravitational mass:-)

Angular momentum conservation refers to rotational symmetry, it is conserved in the absence of torques.

Again it is one of the important conservation principles along with linear momentum and energy in all forms.

Linear momentum has to do with translational symmetry. Noether theorem relates symmetries to conserved

quantities.

Conservation of angular momentum is an idealized view.

There is no confirmed case of experimental angular momentum conservation on record. When left to rotate in perfect vacuum, all crafts have progressively and systematically lost angular momentum, like both Pioneer crafts and all other spacecrafts made to rotate to stabilize antenna alignment.

People seem to constantly forget that macroscopic masses are made of massive submicroscopic elementary and charged particles that constantly change direction as they translate in perfect circular orbits about the macroscopic body's axis of rotation.

The 2nd principle of thermo still applies. There is no way that these elementary massive particles can constantly change direction without energy being expended as work being done to account for these constant changes in direction.

Except of course for bodies stabilized in natural least action equilibrium states, like most celestial bodies.

A reply to Andre Michaud - "The reason of angular momentum conservation violation is a global anisotropy of physical space (see my articles, books and last popular book: Theory of byuon and Global anisotropy of Physical space, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, Germany,2016)

Andre, you must be kidding.

Why is it that Keplers second law, that planets sustain equal areas for equal times in motion around the sun

is rather well satisfied?

Regards, JW

Dear Juan,

You wrote: "Why is it that Keplers second law, that planets sustain equal areas for equal times in motion around the sun" (Referring to my mentioning that conservation of angular momentum is an idealized view. )

Simply because the planets are stabilized into least action equilibrium states, in which states the energy spent as work is constantly replenished by the Coulomb force in action between the charged particles making up each body and the charges making up the Sun, as a function of the inverse square of the distances separating them, in full agreement with Maxwell's first equation.

This is not the case with bodies not stabilized in such states, like all spacecrafts sent in orbit on unnatural metastable orbits, and not the case with any body artificially set in rotation by any initial impulse.

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics cannot be circumvented.

If the state of motion of any mass is changed, be it macroscopic or submicroscopic, there is no way that energy will not be expended.

Or else, how would you explain that the 2nd law would not apply to some cases?

Best Regards, André

Andre

Yes, mechanics can be derived from the principle of least action, but you should really know that Keplers second law is equivalent to conservation of angular momentum. (you have to do the calculations) when there are only central forces.

regards, JW

Dear Juan,

I know all about Kepler's second law and the related calculations that inspired Newton a possible explanation. Both of them did their studies before electric charges were discovered, and before it was known and confirmed that all macroscopic massive bodies are made of electrically charged and massive elementary particles.

Seems to me that time has come to synchronize these old partial understandings with what we now know about these elementary particles of which all macroscopic bodies are made.

Unless you deny the recognized existence of the Coulomb interaction between the charged particles making up the masses of the planets and the charged particles making up that of the Sun, and also deny the recognized universal validity of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, of course.

On my part, I accept both, and worked from them to re-analyze the whole.

Best Regards, André

Andre, I do not have the vaguest idea why you mention all this other stuff.

It may have come later, but the old conservation laws have not lost their importance in any of the modern developments.

I do not deny other stuff.

There are very few solid sustainable points in physics, the three conservation laws I mentioned are essential.

The first law of thermodynamics is conservation of energy.

The second law is no violation of any of these I mentioned, just something different, along with charges, masses, etc.

Sorrry, but your ideas are very personal, very strange sounding.

Dear Juan,

You wrote: " Sorrry, but your ideas are very personal, very strange sounding."

I must say that it is the first time that I see someone finding strange the idea that macroscopic masses are made of atoms, each of which being made of charged elementary particles, which being electrically charged, are subject to Coulomb interaction.

From all the documentation I know of, published for the past hundred years, this is common knowledge, being discussed all over the place.

Best Regards, André

Could inertial property of mass be explained by some processes related to space-time curvature?

Yes. The energy density of a vacuum of a set volume turned inside out through time-velocity relativity is equivalent to a mass of a defined size. Turning things through time-velocity relativity requires the input of a dirac impulse (not an ordinary electrical theory of a dirac, but the equivalent of that in mechanical theory, something that turns out to be exact at when a rotational force is applied to a linear velocity mass, or a linear force is applied to a rotating mass when the applied force is infinitely powerful and lasts for the shortest instant of duration). It comes out as being tied to the static friction constant of a given substance. A friction constant that in touch-powder is equivalent to the energy cost of the chemical combustion reaction, a material which could have analogs from the same space-time curvature of inertia being equivalent to an energy density of a vacuum of a set volume. The fact the energy is held in a smaller space means the curvature of the space-time in that region causes the inertial mass projection.

Or at least that's the maths I can see in my head from class all interacting. Asking me to write it out is like actually doing my homework. That energy is equivalent to the interchange of what occurs on an infinitesimal scale with electron-photon barriers in LEDs with the mass conversion of the electron when it energises the photon. Because by the very same piece of maths you can show that light accelerates to it's destination at the instant it arises.

It comes from rearranging M0 in the relativistic equation into where the 1 is in the square-root on the denominator. And assuming it comes from the only variable in the equation. To which the only alternative is an alternative to Einstein. Or an alternative to the speed of light being a constant. Take your pick.

They cannot be related, because space-time curvature in its entirety negates inertial mass and adopts mass-energy and momentum tensor of space-time

Dear Andre! Please send to me ([email protected]) the articles with an angular momentum conservation violation for space craft. Thank you.

Dear Yuriy,

You will find an analysis of the spin history of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts starting on page 22 of this paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064.pdf

It is analyzed further in this other paper. You will find references to other experimental cases with active references to these other cases on page 5.

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/gravitation-quantum-mechanics-and-the-least-action-electromagneticequilibrium-states-2329-6542-1000152.pdf

Best Regards, André

I undersdtood Thank you

So animate discussion that has practically no relation to the thread’s question, when relates at that to seems as quite known parameter of mechanical objects/systems “angular momentum” , about which it is well known that the sum of angular momentums of elements of a closed systems conserves at the system’s evolution; and can only change, if system is open and interact with some outer objects/systems.

Including if some system is a “spacecraft”, it is rather closed system of functional modules, which consist of ordered molecules/atoms -à nuclei and electron shells –> quarks…,

The sum of angular momentums, including of the craft rotation as a whole, of spins of all atoms/molecules, particles, orbital momentums of electrons and particles in atoms and nuclei, etc., etc. is conserved at the craft motion; and even when some interactions inside the craft change some a-momentums and at that the craft’s rotation becomes be slowed, craft’s temperature increases, and, correspondingly the craft, say, radiates some photons; however these photons have a-momentums that are in accordance with that in the craft+the photons system the a-momentum remains be the same; etc…

Cheers

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Perhaps the following short quotation will help the discussion along:

Angular momentum is proportional to the moment of inertia, which depends on not just the mass of a spinning object, but also on how that mass is distributed relative to the axis of rotation. This leads to some interesting effects, in terms of the conservation of angular momentum.

A good example is a spinning figure skater. Consider a figure skater who starts to spin with their arms extended. When the arms are pulled in close to the body, the skater spins faster because of conservation of angular momentum. Pulling the arms in close to the body lowers the moment of inertia of the skater, so the angular velocity must increase to keep the angular momentum constant.

---End quotation

See:

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/AngularMo.html

You will recall that our question concerns inertia.

H.G. Callaway

It is analogous to the principle of inertia

Roughly L=I omega

I is moment of inertia tensor, omega a vector angular frequency.(Compares to p=mv)

The linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change.

The angular momentum will remain constant unless there are torques obliging it to change.

Regards, Juan

I have a problem with the question actually. There is a clear difference between "describing" and "explaining". Describing means that we can use one form of construction or mathematics to consider as nearly equal to another form we are trying to understand or study or explore. Describing can even be abstract, if it helps to gain understanding. Explanation , in comparison, requires an understanding and system of fundamentals that precisely model what we wish to understand, construct or explore. Explanation leads to an understanding of what underlies that construction, the "fine structure" or subsystems which provide that construction with it's properties. So....you can use almost anything to describe something else. But if you wish to explain something else, you need the details of both and the connection between the two constructs, hopefully with mathematics and definitions.

“…Angular momentum is proportional to the moment of inertia, which depends on not just the mass of a spinning object….”, etc.

Angular momentum doesn’t relate only to some “spinning objects”, that is, first of all, the physical variable that relates to any moving body including, of course, to every differential volume/mass of a spinning body, which moves, including can unidirectionally, somewhere, and is defined for any point in the 3D space.

In Newton mechanics that simply [a pseudovector] M=RxP [where bold means a vector, “R” is vector from a point to the body, “x” means the cross product, “P” is linear momentum of the body]. For a number of bodies M=Σ(RixPi), the sum is for every i-th body.

For fast moving bodies “4- angular momentum” till now is the 4-tensor, which has “Newton angular momentum” as spatial components; and the temporal components are some relations between energy, momentum, speed of light and the time coordinate. Though that is in accordance with the SR, and must be re-formulated in accordance with more correct Shevchenko and Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494; as that is now has done with the linear momentum in the model.

Returning to this thread’s question - this physical variable has, as any other the variable, has no relation to the “spacetime curvature”, because of such curvature simply doesn’t, because cannot, exist.

Cheers

Dear Juan,

You wrote: "The linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change."

This is an idealized representation. In physical reality there can exist no such thing as a moving body on which no force is applied.

You wrote: "The angular momentum will remain constant unless there are torques obliging it to change."

Still an idealized representation. Approximately valid short term only in physical reality due to the infinitesimal loss at each cycle of the rotation, but expected permanent constancy without expenditure of energy in a non naturally stabilized least action system the constantly replaces the expended energy, it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics as previously put in perspective, and also in Section VIII of this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue12/B06120711.pdf

Best Regards, André

Andre, have it your way, go back to the middle ages before Newton: "All motion must stop" ie. the earth will stop rotating

or moving around the sun. Or: The speed of an object is proportional to force.

These statements of mine are accurate, because frictional force is included among the forces.

Dear Juan,

You wrote: "go back to the middle ages before Newton: "All motion must stop" ie. the earth will stop rotating or moving around the sun. Or: The speed of an object is proportional to force."

This cannot happen because the Earth is stabilized into a natural permanently compensated least action equilibrium state.

Best Regards, André

This discussion is in a funny state, someone answer him.

It is in the Newtonian version that all forces are included, the frictional also, so Newton also admits that motion can eventually stop.

If you go through the principle of least action, Newtonian mechanics is deduced; you cannot use funny stuff like compensated action or similar.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

It seems that if Michaud's objection or criticism of the conservation of angular momentum were to hold up, then much the same objection could be brought against the concept of inertia--and inertial mass?

In that case, it would seem that he proves too much.

H.G. Callaway

Dear Juan,

Electric charges and the Coulomb energy inducing force were unknown in Newton's time, so it was impossible for him to even imagine that the energy of bodies made of charged particles could be permanently replenished by this force as a function of the inverse square of the distance between macroscopic bodies when these bodies stabilized in least action states into which the energy adiabatically induced by the force exactly compensates that expended by the constant change in direction of the macroscopic bodies.

So Newton is no reference for this aspect of the question. The first Maxwell equation, which is a generalization of the Coulomb equation, is the reference.

This is why all satellites placed on orbits about the Earth, that are not least action states, need to constantly be re-impulsed if they are to remain on their orbits, and why there is no need to re-impulse the Moon or the Earth or the other stable planets and satellites for them to maintain their natural stable orbits. They are stabilized into such natural least action orbital states. The same for electrons in their stable resonance orbitals, which is why they don't crash on nuclei.

Ref: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-adiabatic-processes-at-the-elementary-particle-level-2090-0902-1000177.pdf

and

https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

Induction of energy in charged particles by the Coulomb force is not "funny stuff", but a long established experimental fact.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics, by very definition, applies to all changes in the state of motion of all existing bodies, from the most massive celestial bodies, all made of elementary charged particles, to the smallest elementary charged particle.

Referring to Newton's state of knowledge in this case amounts to ignore all that has been learned over the past 350 years .

Best Regards, André

@Anatoly A Kripov

'Inertia' is absolutely relative to reference in space.

Not only 'Inertia' but also all physical quantities relatively in domain of specified space and 'Transformation' is a rule governing for stability of matter.

The moons orbit is not stable, it is drifting away from Earth. The model of electron in an orbit is a problem because of the discrete energy jumps. That electrons have their orbits determined by angular momentum is unlikely. DeBroglie suggested a wave.

Dear John,

The Moon is on a very stable orbit. The radius of its orbit is increasing simply because the whole solar system is nearing its perigalacticon on its galactic orbit.

See Sections XIV and following in this paper:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol8-issue1/B08011033.pdf

And electrons do not travel on orbits, but are captive into electromagnetic resonance states, which is something that de Broglie could not establish at the time:

Ref: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.95067

Best Regards, André

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

That this is an "idealization" seems beside the point. Suppose that "there can exist no such thing as a moving body on which no force is imposed." Still, if there is (or were) such a body, then its "linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change."

All physical laws provide for calculations or predictions, which may need to be corrected where extraneous factors are considered, or where they become more significant. So it is, too, with the orbit of the Moon --very stable, indeed, whatever the sources of the slight drift.

Back to confinement of energy as the source of inertia. Does this explain inertial mass--as in QCD?

H.G. Callaway

---Michaud wrote---

(replying to)

"The linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change."

This is an idealized representation. In physical reality there can exist no such thing as a moving body on which no force is applied.

Quark confinment is fairly well known; energy confinment I have not heard about, but I suppose that may be what a particle is about. To pack a huge amount of energy in a small space. Cannot see an inertia connection.

Dear H.G.

You wrote: "That this is an "idealization" seems beside the point. Suppose that "there can exist no such thing as a moving body on which no force is imposed." Still, if there is (or were) such a body, then its "linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change."

It is not besides the point that this statement is an idealization, because it induces people in error, making them take for granted that it applies as is in physical reality.

The problem with the absolute statement that "linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change." is that as stated, it comes out as an absolute truth applying to physical reality. It simply is incorrectly formulated.

You also state: "All physical laws provide for calculations or predictions, which may need to be corrected where extraneous factors are considered, or where they become more significant."

The thing is that the statement "linear momentum remains constant unless there are forces obliging it to change" does not establish a physical law, but an idealized mathematical asymptotic reference that allows for calculations and predictions only inasmuch as equations established from this idealized principle can be coherently resolve with real physical values.

For example, I would formulate this last statement as follows:

"All idealized mathematical statements provide for calculations or predictions about physical laws inasmuch as experimentally established values used to resolve them give valid results consistent with observation."

A better idealized formulation about linear momentum would then be one such as:

"In an idealized environment deprived of any force, linear momentum would remain constant."

What this does, is that it does induce people into thinking that in physical reality, where forces always apply, linear momentum may not remain constant, and even cannot possibly remain constant, thus inducing people to try understanding more deeply the behavior of momentum in physical reality, thus favoring research, instead of taking the statement as an insurmountable truth that thwarts all will to further investigate the case.

Such absolute statements all belongs to the idealized mathematical model, which is not real. The real momentum energy belongs to the physical reality where forces always apply.

You wrote: "Back to confinement of energy as the source of inertia. Does this explain inertial mass--as in QCD?"

First, the equations of QCD never could be formulated to exactly represent nucleons, as analyzed in an article by Rith K & Schäfer A (1999). The Mystery of Nucleon Spin, Scientific American, July 1999, page 60. QCD is thus defective and does not really mechanically explain inertial mass.

But from what I understand, "confinement of energy" as you formulate it, definitely can be the source of inertia, and even of mass.

The Einstein's photoelectric proof already demonstrates that photons possess longitudinal inertia.

Also, the very first experiments carried out with relativistically moving electrons by Walter Kaufmann demonstrated that the longitudinal inertia of relativistically moving electrons was higher that their transverse inertia, and that the faster they moved, the larger was the difference, which reveals that while the photoelectric proof proved that longitudinal momentum energy has inertia, the same momentum energy does not have transverse inertia, that is, momentum energy is impervious to forces applied transversely.

From the electromagnetic perspective, self-sustaining energy, that is, self-confining energy displays omnidirectional inertia, in other words, "mass".

This is analyzed in this paper, accepted by peer-review as being conform to Maxwell's equations:

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

For example, here is a possible mechanical process that possibly mechanically explains inertial rest mass:

http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf

and

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

Best Regards, André

The presumption of constant motion requiring a force to change its energy/motion is an assumption as part of the definition of a force. If there is a mechanics wherein a motion can change without an force to change a body's motion, what are the implications, what can such a model predict?

BTW the "arrow of time" is inconsistent with conservation of energy.

“…The presumption of constant motion requiring a force to change its energy/motion is an assumption as part of the definition of a force.…, etc..”

yeah, that is correct, though that is correct in any case, of course, also – in any case to analyze some objects/systems/processes is necessary to define previously some starting conditions, which are practically always idealized, and to compare relating to these conditions the objects/systems/processes in any other conditions. There is no other way to construct some physical analytic structure [a model, theory], and not only, that is necessary in any other case, if it is necsessary to make some rational and effective analysis.

Returning to the thread problem “Could inertia of mass be described as some space-time curvature? ” – last series of posts seems as too implicitly relates to this problem, so it seems as worthwhile to repeat a few points that answer on the thread’s question:

To understand what is the phenomenon “Inertia” is possible only if before the other phenomenon, “Energy”, is rationally defined, what is possible only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904,

where it is proven that everything is/are nothing else then some informational patterns/systems of the patterns; and that the absolutely fundamental phenomenon/Quantity “Energy” is absolutely fundamentally necessary at every change, including for creation of, of any pattern/system.

That is because of that the [absolutely fundamental also] phenomenon “Change” is logically self-inconsistent. Thus to change something is necessary to overcome this logical prohibition of changes, for that it is necessary to pay by two things: (i) - it is necessary to spend some quantity of energy, and (ii) – if the portion isn’t infinite, then the result of change always remains be only limitedly certain, just because of this point changes in Matter on the QM scale are fundamentally uncertain, or, by another words, “outside rigorous logic”;

Thus everything “resists” to any change, that happens in everything, including, say, at changes of mental structures as, say, existent theories, in politics, etc., just this resistance is called “Inertia”. In “mental” cases above practically it is impossible to define the relation “an energy: result of a change”, however Matter is rather simple logical system, which is organized and constantly, because of the energy conservation law, changes always only in rigorous accordance with the set of fundamental universal laws/links/constants, so the resistance/inertia can be measured by introducing universal physical variable [and using corresponding universal etalon] “inertial mass”.

Correspondingly everything in Matter has some inertial mass, including “restmassless” particles, for example photons. In

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494 it is shown that every particle, body, etc. always constantly are moving with 4D speeds of light in the 4D sub-spacetime of Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, thus the relation between energy, linear momentum and mass is E=Pc=mc2, m is the inertial mass.

Besides in the conception above the other absolutely fundamental and fundamental in Matter phenomena “Space” and “Time” are rationally defined, from what follows that nothing in anything in Matter can be described as “some space-time curvature”, because of such curvature is nothing more than some fantastic effect, which was postulated as real in the GR because of the author didn’t understand what these phenomena are; and so it fundamentally cannot, and so doesn’t, exist in the reality.

It could be possibly usful to read also the last SS post in the thread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_energy_have_mass#view=5c93f92da5a2e2711b2da288

Cheers

Spacetime is the left side of the defining field equation having the T on the right side. Providing it with a physical interpretation can be anything that yields a prediction when converted (inverse transform) to the T. One choice is it can be real in physical space. The choice to make it an inertia is acceptable and yields the idea that matter curves spacetime and spacetime directs (the inverse transform) matter. That is, the spacetime has the property of inertia (supports wave action). Now if the T can be made something that doesn't require homogeneous space and time such as a force, then the model might solve many cosmological problems and connect with QM as the medium that supports the wave action in the small world, also.

Considering that spacetime has inertia has many better possibilities than if not.

The model here I've mentioned takes inertial mass as being the arbitration of the arbitrary part of the mass vector in the dilation equation. That arbitration is itself a vector and can be moved proportionally, and the next most likely spot ends up with velocity variable over velocity constant all squared, so again, it's arbitrary. But the units come out to being components of metres and seconds, which, when transformed from kilograms ends up as, indeed, a force. The proportions themselves create a natural variable, not unlike a relativistic fluid dynamic. Illusion.

Now you can see why taking the recursive derivative of a sinusoid, being an endless procedure, never really can begin without starting way off in the distance already.

But I'm sure a closer look at deriving the derivative equation would yield further insight, as you can see in my paper on Alcalculus. The original lost the equations in exporting the file, so it is handwritten.

A better question is "does a photon box's gravitational mass exist at the start, middle or end of it's journey, and can it be infinitely far ahead of itself and attract itself by arriving?"

Aden,

Stratospheric discussion. Arbitration is when you want to settle some legal dispute. Mass does not have a vector, it is a scalar.

A box infinitely ahead of itself? What velocity constant? What is the component of a meter? A decimeter? The arbitrary part of a meter?

Forgive us if we cannot answer. You have to read basic physics and come right back to earth. Then try again (No one excluded)

pd . force is measured in Newtons, not in Kg.

Regards, Juan

I know what arbitration is, but there is no set word in mathematics for decomposing a vector into an arbitrary vector multiplied by a unit vector, and that seemed to suit.

Forgive me, I come up with new words every day.

No, the kg from the mass, in the metres and seconds from the velocity, creates the force. Please be careful reading my writing, it is often written with my intent ingrained.

Aden

linear momentum would be Kg mt/sec.(mass times velocity)

force would be mass times acceleration Kg mt/(sec sec)

Why would you multiply a vector by a unit vector? You could multiply it by a scalar.

You can decompose an arbitrary vector into its components.(As in some reference system)

The same recomendation as before, but again no one excluded.

Best regards, Juan

>> You will recall that our question concerns inertia.

The best equation to look at inertia must take into account it's full range of relativity. So the dilation equation works best. We could call it a delta between net mass and gravitation mass, but that doesn't produce predictions in high energy environments. Although, in that band of M0 -> 2M0, a constant is more indicative of the change in space-time curvature.

Assuming that I can re-arrange the dilation equation to give space-time curvature for inertia, I'll continue to discuss a constant of inertia as being equal to a constant of space-time curvature, and thus use the terms interchangeably.

Inertial mass itself is equivalent to a change in dilated mass, or a region of mass change over the dilation equation. The energy it corresponds to is tied to this, and the space-time curvature comes out with a m^2 s^-2, which unfortunately is not your m^3 s^-1 you were hoping for, so it's not immediately conformable to what you seem to imagine I meant. And to the guy using QM to say it should be energy-momentum duality at that point now that it's not mass-force, well, it turns out this re-arrangement ends up with a variable-constant velocity duality which can use the two boundary conditions to become momentum and energy. So yes, correct. But that momentum and energy occurs in a space, which is curved, by the interactions of both.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Michaud & readers,

Your remarks quoted below suggest some promise of understanding "mass," though we may disagree on the role of idealizations. It is not that i think idealizations must be unchanging or rigid.

But, if you see "confinement of energy" as plausible the source of mas, and inertial mass in particular, then what do you make of the idea in our question that "inertia of mass [could] be described as some space-time curvature."

Isn't it instead that, in accordance with GR, mass produces some spacetime curvature?

H.G. Callaway

---you wrote---

But from what I understand, "confinement of energy" as you formulate it, definitely can be the source of inertia, and even of mass.

The Einstein's photoelectric proof already demonstrates that photons possess longitudinal inertia.

Also, the very first experiments carried out with relativistically moving electrons by Walter Kaufmann demonstrated that the longitudinal inertia of relativistically moving electrons was higher that their transverse inertia, and that the faster they moved, the larger was the difference, which reveals that while the photoelectric proof proved that longitudinal momentum energy has inertia, the same momentum energy does not have transverse inertia, that is, momentum energy is impervious to forces applied transversely.

From the electromagnetic perspective, self-sustaining energy, that is, self-confining energy displays omnidirectional inertia, in other words, "mass".

Following

Dear H.G.

You ask: "But, if you see "confinement of energy" as plausible the source of mass, and inertial mass in particular, then what do you make of the idea in our question that "inertia of mass [could] be described as some space-time curvature." Isn't it instead that, in accordance with GR, mass produces some spacetime curvature?"

In electromagnetism, there is a mechanical explanation to the experimentally observed fact that massless electromagnetic photons of 1.022 MeV or more coming from cosmic radiation can convert to pairs of massive electron-positrons when grazing massive nuclei, first observed during Carl David Anderson's experiments in 1933, and verified countless times in high energy accelerators since:

https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.43.491

As recently as 1997, a team led by Kirk McDonald et al. at the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), during experiment #e144 confirmed that by converging two sufficiently concentrated massless photons beams towards a single point in space, one beam involving massless electromagnetic photons exceeding the 1.022 MeV threshold, massive electron-positron pairs identical to those observed by Anderson were created without any atomic nuclei being close by.

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

The second reference of the 3 that I gave previously offers a possible mechanical explanation of the process from the electromagnetic perspective.

But I have not come across in GR of any alternate corresponding mechanics explanation of experimentally verified conversion of photons of 1.022 MeV into the massive inertial mass of electrons and positrons, or even that this can be accounted for.

If you know of such a development, I would be quite interested in a link to the paper.

Best Regards, André

inertia and gravity have origin in vacuum fluctuations

Dear Amrit,

Yes, a relation between electromagnetic energy and mass can be established from QFT, because it is correctly grounded on the fundamental electromagnetism of Maxwell's equations and on the electromagnetic properties of energy, which, to my knowledge, is not the case for GR.

Best Regards

André

Dear Andre

important is that wee see the same phenomena from the different perspectives and we are aware we see the same phenomena.

Mass and energy in QFT and GR are the same phenomena.

Dear Amrit,

You wrote: "Important is that wee see the same phenomena from the different perspectives and we are aware we see the same phenomena."

I completely agree with this.

You also wrote: "Mass and energy in QFT and GR are the same phenomena."

Well, from what I understand, GR treats any mass as if it had no internal structure, just like classical mechanics and does not take into account that all macroscopic masses are made of charged and massive elementary electromagnetic particles stabilized into least action atomic structures.

The Coulomb force interaction at play between the charged particles of one macroscopic body and those of all other macroscopic bodies as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating them according to Maxwell's first equation (Gauss equation for the electric field) are deemed not to exist in GR, in which the concept of force is absent.

So, it seems to me that GR cannot deal with mass in the same way nor that it is considered the same phenomenon as from the electromagnetic perspective, which is at the root of QFT.

Best Regards, André

Andre, we will soon arrive to bijective models of reality where each element in physical reality will correspond to the exactly one element in the model. In today physics we we have quite a mess. We even do not know the difference between inertial mass and mass as the amount of energy. see our home page on bijective physics. www.bijectivephysics.com yours amrit

The discussion in the thread becomes be rather animate and sometimes outside the thread’s question and answers in a number of points. So seems it is worthwhile to remind some points that are adequate to the reality and to the thread [more see the SS post above, 2 days ago now]:

The physical phenomena “Energy” and “inertial mass” exist because of that the absolutely fundamental phenomenon “Change” is logically self-inconsistent, as that yet 2500 years Zeno proved in his outstanding aporias: every state of a changing object is simultaneously previous, actual, and future states, what is logical nonsense, because all these states are different by definition of “Change”.

Just to overcome this self-inconsistence to change something is necessary to spend some absolutely fundamental Quantity “Energy”, but that isn’t sufficient, and besides energy, on some scale the changes remain be uncertain, this fundamental uncertainty is observed in Matter on the QM scales.

Correspondingly any/every change is accompanied/is characterized by two parameters: (i) – by energy portion value, E, and (ii) – by “resistance” of the self-inconsistence to changes above, which is called “Inertia”. In Matter, which is rather simple logical system, which is based/organized on a set of basic universal rues/links/constants, inertia of changing objects can be measured by using universal parameter “inertial mass”.

Thus everything in Matter has some energy, E, and some inertial mass, m, which, though are quite different, but are linked phenomena; which are linked, because of all material objects move in Matter's absolute [5]4D spacetime’s 4D sub-spacetime only with 4D speeds of light, as E=Pc=mc2, P is an object’s 4D linear momentum’s module, c is the speed of light.

Including there cannot be some “massless electromagnetic photons”, every photon has an energy, and corresponding inertia/mass, m=E/c2.

Besides in Matter there exists the fundamental Mature force “Gravity”, which is in a few traits like to the other fundamental Nature force “EM”, which has corresponding charge, which is, like electrical charges in the EM force, source of gravitational field – “gravitational mass”. Inertial and gravitational masses, in spite of that they are fundamentally different parameters of material objects, are equivalent, and in pertinent dimensionality are equal. In contrast to the EM force every material object, including photons, have some gravitational mass; just therefore the equivalence above exists.

There is no and cannot be some “gravity” because of some “spacetime curvature”, that is incorrect postulate in the GR; and, correspondingly there is no, and cannot be principally some relations of inertia and spacetime curvature.

More see SS post above and in the tread

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_energy_have_mass#view=5c954481d7141b414a22fc13

and SS&VT papers that are linked in the posts.

Cheers

To Srecko and etc.. Only new physics can give a response for our discussion.

"The physical nature of inertia forces is shown on the base of theory of byuons, the theory of “life’ of special unobservable discrete objects – byuons from which the surrounding physical space (dark matter) and the world of elementary particles are formed. The theory of byuons predicts a new non-gauge force of nature which explains of physical nature of inertia forces."

Quality discussion, learning