Mass is transforming in energy activated by "c" as factor. Should this mean mass is some kind of "electrodynamical" phenomenon, e.g. some highly convoluted field?
Dear Giovanni,
Directly I think that there is no relationship, but if you look at the T00 position of the stress–energy tensor and compare it with the T00 position of the Electromagnetic stress–energy tensor, then there is
Dear Dr. Sydney Grimm,
I believe this is an interesting focusing, representing as discrete the sense of my answer. Trying to understand because mass ( inertia, gravity, energy ) is in its dynamical nature and not just having it as an external parameter could give a lot of keys to dynamically interact with it for energy or motility solutions.
With kind regards,
Giovanni Serrazanetti
Dear Dr. Sergio Chimeno,
the scope of my answer is to look for an insight for why mass is in its inertial, energetical and gravitational valence, since this could suggest a lot of solutions.
Macroscopic models are considering mass as an external parameter, on the other side the equivalence of mass and energy so significatively experienced in the nuclear energy sector is continuously suggesting some kind of vibrational/energetical/motional nature of matter/mass. Which is the ratio between this level of physics and the gravitational/macroscopical level?
Since almost everything we experience is due to "electrodynamics" ( solid constitution of bodies, molecular and atomical bindings, heat and light, chemical reactions... ) for a simplicity principle should be probable also other levels ( nuclear, subnuclear ... ) should be some dynamics of the same field/substance which we call "electromagnetic" or "electrodynamical", and the "c" factor which transforms nuclear mass in energy seems to tell this.
With kind regards,
Giovanni Serrazanetti
Dear Giovanni,
If you know the usual way to deduce E = mc ^ 2 you may suspect that E is a potential energy.
Here I confirm it (chapter 2.5)
You suspect that mass and gravity must be related to vibrational / energetical / motional nature of matter / mass
Look (chapter 2.6) (chapter 4)
Preprint ALL SPECIAL RELATIVITY EQUATIONS OBTAINED USING GALILEAN TRA...
I cannot be more specific because I do not know the answer, I have my suspicions and I am currently working on it (without any results at the moment)
“…Should E = mc2 be sufficient to understand that mass is some kind of "electrodynamical" phenomenon?….”
The formula E=mc2 is applied to any material item – particle, body, etc., and in any case, not only when the fundamental Nature EM force contributes something in an item/process.
Though at that firstly is necessary to understand – what are the phenomena/notion/physical parameters “Energy” and [in this case - inertial] mass are?
The answers on these questions see SS post November 6, 2019 in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Could_we_consider_anti-particles_as_having_negative_mass#view=5d77a1802ba3a1c2c77b5a84 ; other SS posts would be useful also; and links in the posts.
Including when Einstein published the paper with this formula, when before him this formula and its sometimes erroneous – but showing the link between mass and energy formulae already existed; and these formulae mostly were derived just for some purely electrodynamic cases. So what Einstein did is, first of all, that he claimed that this formula is universally applied.
Cheers
It is simply a mass-energy equivalence relation implying the universal energy conservation law; and, so forth
Dear Dr. Sergio Chimeno,
the perspectives you are opening with the Zoom language are interesting.
Personally I am not as much involved on the mathematical meaning of physics, when our minds refer too frequently to mathematics whitout a sufficient ponderation of concrete being I believe we are losing our real power and due.
I believe mathematics should be a "meter" or an instrument, for example to extrapolate how neutrons would transport in a nuclear reactor or to reconstruct a PET image and not the place where we should refer being of things.
This is for saying that I believe we should not as much be interested in writing cosmological equations or in detecting hundreds of particles as we should be in going to work without generating some Kgs of CO2 and others (poison), or as we should be in producing clean and not expensive energy, and this need us to be concentrated and measured with respect to the real dimensions of our knowledges and possibilities.
With respect to these dimensions my answer was posed, that is how can we make use of E = mc2 and its maybe deeper substantial meaning, so not in terms of formulas simplifying a concrete being up to a parameter, to do something good with it? It is first of all a moral meaning I am referring to.
Dr. Sergey Shevchenko, even if in the opposite direction than cosmological projections I believe this answer could be explanatory also with respect to the focusing you were considering.
With kind regards,
Giovanni Serrazanetti
P. K. Karmakar, lets say this was true. I believe that energy in forma of a little stone has not the same lifevalue of that energy in forma of electricity or heat.
Nice. Which life-value is more, of the former or latter, and why? Could please explain?
P. K. Karmakar are we not asking everyone for energy in form of electricity, or heat, or biological, and not in form of stones?
- Badges
- Science topic