In my opinion, the concept of gravitation viewed from the perspective of mass must be rectified to the perspective where gravitation could be defined not by mass but in terms of how Energy plays a role in this.

If we were to look at it from that perspective, mass seems to be behaving like energy under some circumstances, as energy in simple term- spreads unlike mass which gathers (by what we call gravity) and this reduction in mass has got to do with what gravitation actually is...

Mass reduction (which is not matter reduction, of course) is needed to keep the total energy of an isolated system constant.

And total energy of a system is the sum of the values of each subsytem (considered as isolated from the rest) and the interaction energy.

Interaction means a modulation of the involved fields (the gravitational one, or metric field, in our case) in the space surrounding the sources (the masses in our case)-

Just to fix the idea, if you have only two planets in the entire classica universe, which by itself is an isolated system, the total energy contained in that

universe is the sum of masses of the two planets (multiplied by c squared) and the interaction energy among them, that is the energy contained in the

omni-pervasive g field, and nothing more (we are talking of a classic, not quantum, universe).

At a time t0 the two planets are so far away from each other that no significant interactions takes place between them, that is theg fileld distribution in the space-time separing the two planets can be considered unaffected (that is warped) by the existence of the planets, except than in the close vicinityy of each of them.

In this case the total energy in the universe is the sum of the two masses (including for simplicity the g-field contribution close to each of them), and the vacuum energy (flat space energy) in the very large spacetime separating

the two planets is zero.

Of course, this is not exactly true because of the infinite range of gravitational interaction, that is a very small but non-zero attraction is acting between the two planets.

So, let them move towards each other due to gravity. While the two planets approach each other, the gravitational interaction between them increases, which

can be viewed as providing energy to the g-field in the separating space in order to provoke a always and always more significant curvature of the same space-time...

but the total energy in our model universe must be conserved. While approaching each other, the two planets are giving part of their energy to the separating g-field,

which turns to be viewed as a reduction in the localized planetary energy content... the mass.

In other words, is the total energy of the g-field (including its localized content where the planets are) that must be conserved, not the masses of planets.

The above approach is perfectly consistent with GR as far as we accept that everything in the universe is a a field (or fields) distribution that ultimately possesses and exchanges energy

The Daon Theory tells us that the neutral potential surrounding each mass, attract all masses in the surrounding. The bigger mass will have a stronger potential surrounding the smaller mass; i.e. the bigger mass will "eat" the excess mass (energy) of the smaller one. So the total mass will be constant.

JES

Thank you SB, GC, and SG for your opinions. The mass reduction, and increase, are real, and have thermodynamic effect on other systems. That is fine, because mass is not conserved in SR and GR. But the absence of a quantum description in GR, is in conflict with Nature.

Dear Ed Gerck

What is your proof that quantum description is in conflict with nature?!

JES

SG: Quantum effects exist, and cannot be described by a continuous field, as in GR. Changes must be in discontinuity. These results are described for SR and GR in:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340133193_Quantum_Computer_Scalability_Measurements_and_Decoherence_in_Quantum_Theory

EG: According to the Daon theory, all forces are continues and QM is only a superficial phenomenological theory, based on the associated wave. This hides the fact that there is no knowledge of the source of such an associated wave. So, the Daon Theory is in complete opposition to your theories.

JES

SG: Yes, and that adds to what one sees in Nature. The basis is quantum, and continuity comes as asymptotic freedom (interactions between particles to become asymptotically weaker as the energy scale increases and the corresponding length scale decreases), in collaborative effects of many such sources superimposed -- but each such source is quantum, digital, a finite mathematical field in Galois theory, providing continuity as a construction, that we observe in the macroscopic -- never in the microscopic.

And what can code represent? Not a mythical continuityvariable in one .variable. Every variable used in CS or code is digital, quantum. Yet, continuity can appear as universality, also called asymptotic freedom. As a collective effect that blurs the quantum lines into what seems to be a continuum, that, however, cannot exist as continuum -- it has a different Fourier spectrum.

If computer code cannot provide a continuous variable, just a quantized representation of it, then anything simulated by a computer code can work equally well if it is provided by a quantized variable! If one does not need continuity to represent reality -- then, reality does not depend critically on contitinuity.

TG: Yes, if computer code could not represent a part of reality, then one should investigate that part and see how it could be represented. That does not happen, from quarks to black-holes, from SR to GR, at any time in the Universe. Thus, computer codes can represent reality at any scale and, thus, at any scale reality should be digital, quantum, discrete. The homomorphism between reality and computer code is called in mathematics by the equivalence of structural logic and computer code, so that one can prove any proposition in mathematical logic by showing working code, providing space for automatic theorem provers.

Now it's getting interesting.

See:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-close-are-computers-to-automating-mathematical-reasoning-20200827/

As explained in DC, In programming language theory and proof theory, the Curry–Howard correspondence (also known as the Curry–Howard isomorphism or equivalence, or the proofs-as-programs and propositions- or formulae-as-types interpretation) is the direct relationship between computer programs and mathematical proofs.

EG: The Daon Theory is based on a single object (the Daon) so in a certain sense you can say that it has a quantum, but for example the electron contains an equivalent of 10^9 of "effective" Daons. There is no border or well defined sizes. The electron's radial force equilibrium is the charge, this is varying at shorter distances. But, this is very close to continuity since the large number of Daons make any discontinuity invisible.

JES

SG: we respect your opinion, but we rely on experimentation to affirm the quantum theory as fundamental and pervasive in Nature.

What experiment confirms quantum theory?

JES

SG: Your question is answered in the history of Physics. We no longer treat RG discussions as old-style duels, see

https://www.researchgate.net/post/On_RG_discussions_as_modern_duels

EG: If you refuse to discuss physics, then I wounder why you participate in RG.

JES

SG: We no longer, after the lessons of civility of COVID, do modern duels in RG. Your question is answered in the history of Physics. This question is in Physics, history is off-topic here.

EG: If you don't want to discuss physics or propose a scientific proof of your proposals. Maybe you should make your lessons of civility in a social media type facebook...

History has been rewritten many times, so this is not pertinent.

JES

SG: You have been forwarded to history in Physics, already.

Reposting, correcting some typos. The biggest fault of GR is considered that it does not allow QM. GR is based on field continuity, thus it considers mass and takes mass as continuous. The concept of mass itself has revealed to be ill-defined, and matter seems to be best accounted for by energy, but could be, or only be, accounted by vibration, modelled as frequency. There is, e.g., NO "energyless" mass but there is matterless energy. Mass is also not conserved in SR, but energy is. So, that what we once called "particles" have a quantum, discrete basis, with no mass.These, and other points, present a treatment according to the Euler-Lagrange equation and the PLA, and have been reviewed in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343537642/

Now, with this question, one goes into the second false aspect of GR: it does not obey QM. Both aspects can hope to find a solution in energy: gravity effects could be modelled by energy. Perhaps one can also create a hypothesis on gravity (that Newton famously did not do, and Einstein neither). GR currently defines the effects of gravity, as the curvature of spacetime, hiding what gravity might be. This has been unsatisfactory.

Thus, by considering that the possibility exists, that mass defect in gravitation is quantum, one may be addressing three problems in current GR:

(1) not quantum;

(2) depends on mass; and

(3) gravitation is not described.

Yes, and it connects to E=mc^2. But if mass is no longer going to be a valid measure of matter, as explained in [1], then one could try to deprecate it further. This brings in the model of Joel Sheinmel in [2], to wit:

"The energy equation E=mc^2 becomes E = psf, where p is momentum, f is vibration as frequency, and s is the displacement between vibrations. The displacement s is a loop in non-Euclidean geometry; the s term is normally equal to the particle's wavelength times c, the speed of light in vacuum. The product in sf need not equal c in every case. It will equal c for nucleons and will be nearly equal to c for high energy electrons and high energy positrons. But it will be substantially below c for low energy electrons and low energy positrons and this can be validated experimentally. All electrons inside atoms have sf values below c. The equation psf is universally valid. This holds as E = psf, both inside and outside the atom. The product of ps in the equation E = psf, is equal to Planck's constant. This would be true also inside and outside the atom."

This formula in [2] reduces to the formula E=mc^2 for comoving objects, when m is valid, p =mc and, s=c/f.

[1] Ed Gerck and Joel Scheinmel, "Mass or Momentum: Comoving or Not", in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343537642/

[2] Joel Scheinmel, private communication.

The quote [2] above, indicates also that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in QM seems, thus, to have to be modified -- as it is, in contradiction with itself, based on continuity by using the Fourier transform.

Can we express this in QFT terms (not based on continuity)? Can that influence LIGO and other applications?

See also Sean Carroll recently at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpR0LBsUfM and after the 45 minute mark specially.

Thus, there is only one (not two or even three) case of photon interference in the two-slit experiment, and that is the case that is often neglected -- the quantum wave case. See the two-slit experiment at low-intensity, for example at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U

The probability doctrine of quantum mechanics (QM) asserts that the indetermination, of which we have just given an example, is a property inherent in Nature, and not merely a profession of our temporary ignorance from which we expect to be relieved by a future better and more complete theory.

Such more complete theory appears to be a Quantum Field Theory (QFT). The Heisenberg uncertainty principle in QM may then have to be reexamined.

Obviously, then, E/h = f is not the correct answer to the energy of a photon. It would require infinitesimals, infinite time.

Nothing is infinite in Nature. We can't wait forever to measure a photon, and nothing can. The Universe would not exist.

The answer is to realize that something is wrong with the QM picture of a photon. The frequency of a photon is defined by its physical conditions in a QFT, not by itself.

And it is not described by a Fourier transform either, which is a mathematically "continuous" procedure -- with the hypothesis of infinitely close frequencies -- and should never be used to represent a discrete phenomena, or artifacts of the interpolation will appear.

QM is based on two deep untruths, as revealed by Nature, in addition to the rather formalist easy-to-solve fact that QM is not combining the principles of Lorentz invariance (SR-MINKOWSKI-EINSTEIN).

The untruths are:

1. One needs to abandon the single-particle approach of QM (subjectivity). In any relativistic quantum theory, particle number need not be conserved, since the relativistic dispersion relation in SR, that E^2 = c^2p^2 + m^2c^4, implies that energy can be converted into particles and vice versa. This does NOT require QM, but requires a multi-particle framework (intersubjectivity), a many-body interaction with SR included and can use QM. It is a many-body-relativistic-QM, not just QM.

2. Unitarity (basically, preserving the inner product) and causality cannot be combined in a single-particle approach, requires intersubjectivity.

QFT solves these two problems by using a different approach:

A. The fundamental entities are not the particles, but the field, an abstract object that penetrates spacetime.

B. Particles appear as the vibrations of the field.

The physical model of the photon, for example, is given as a vibration of the EM field, and follows QFT. Then, in QFT the frequency of the photon does NOT depend on the photon itself and only (that would be subjective), but on its physical conditions in a many-body-relativistic-QM (intersubjective).

Then, that intersubjectivity can obtain objectivity to different observers, in different experiments, at differing spacetimes.

So, let's stop trying to explain what is far greater and older than us -- we need to see experiments (i.e., see what Nature says). Either we favour explanation, or experimentation. We cannot do both, and acts speak louder than words. We choose experimentation, let people talk. But some cannot accept... oh, well.

Yes, we no longer see particles in the entire universe, present and past for 13.8 billion years. Therefore, we also should not consider mass -- but we can consider matter and energy. What replaces then, the most famous equation in Physics, E = mc^2?

If one is comoving, then E=mc^2 is valid, and mass measures matter.

I believe the opposite may be the case. As two bodies are brought closer together in space they will tend to orbit one another. This orbiting generates additional energy in terms of the orbital vibrations they both gain. This vibrational gain will tend to increase the amount of matter of the system. In GR all forms of energy are responsible for bending spacetime. And orbiting bodies are felt to be a form of additional system energy.

JS: This sounds like a confusion. The comoving case is the ONLY case when:

(1) mass is well defined;

(2) mass and speed can be uniquely divided from momentum as p = mv;

(3) E= mc^2 is certainly valid;

(4) it is experimentally easy to confirm; and

(5) has been confirmed in 100% of the cases.

The case that requires more analysis is non-comoving, where E=mc^2 may be a better approximation than E=psf [2, above, op.cit.]. It certainly is right as E=mc^2 for waves with very large duration (low spread), and m is calculated as thermodynamically valid for energy in terms of matter.

In particular, thermodynamic work can be defined by (1) crossing a barrier; and (2) lifting a weight of mass m against gravity. Here, crossing a barrier is fundamental for a non-comoving situation. This might supply the expression for calculating E=mc^2 when the duration of the wave is not infinitely ly large (i.e., in a real case). Anyway, any doubt is, therefore, limited to a non-comoving observer.

Non-comoving is also when length contraction and time dilation set in. Comoving observers experience zero length-contraction and zero time-dilation, always.

Homework assignment: The answer may be found in

"Quantum Gravity Mechanisms"

http://www.bitchute.com/video/t2njflTjo8Rm/

If you need help to find it, please let me know.

JK: This a research forum. Homework assignments usually say that physics is deterministic. 100 years ago, without QM, Poincaré proved otherwise. GR is just incorrect without QM, and it is not a small correction. It should define an open orbit for Mercury. Students usually overreact when facing an error, but that is how we advance. COVID teaches us to be more patient...

A PM asks me about string theory. I will open the question, first, to the forum.

Dear Ed Gerck,

I am not an expert on this field.

What I believe is that mass doesn't change with velocity as many people thinks so.

mass is a constant which comes from action principle.

I like to ask you, whether you believe in mass change or not ?

Is there any specific difference between mass in Gravitation and charge in EM theory ?

Please give me an idea .

I want to remove my confusion.

Thanks

N Das

ND: Many researchers share your question. No, in SR, mass does not change when the observer is comoving. But, in SR, if the observer is non-comoving, the mass measured by that observer, changes. This is clarified in the preprint, which presents mass in comoving and non-comoving situations, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343537642/

The preprint also shows that there are no particles in Nature -- only waves, vibrations. And that what we once called "particles" have a quantum, discrete basis, with no mass.

Matter surely exists, and we can see and measure it, as an expression of energy, not as a result from the Higgs boson.

General relativity can also be viewed as a QFT, or an ‘effective quantum field theory’ describing the long-distance behavior of a massless spin 2 "particle", the graviton, as it interacts with the "particles" from the rest of the SM.

In that sense, string theory provides the QFT, adding the existence of non-euclidean geometry loops, called "strings." To wit:

"String theory is an ambitious project. It purports to be an all-encompassing theory of the universe, unifying the forces of Nature, including gravity, in a single quantum mechanical framework.

The premise of string theory is that, at the fundamental level, matter does not consist of point-particles but rather of tiny loops of string. From this slightly [seemingly] absurd beginning, the laws of physics emerge. General relativity, electromagnetism and Yang-Mills gauge theories all appear in a surprising fashion. However, they come with baggage. String theory gives rise to a host of other ingredients, most strikingly extra spatial dimensions of the universe beyond the three that we have observed. "

In https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf

Dear Ed Gerck , thanks a lot for your valuable words .

But ,I have a question regarding the basic difference of mass and energy.

Do you think that there is no basic difference between a massive particle , say " electron " and an energy quantum , " Photon " ?

If not then how to modify the Equation E² = m²c⁴+ p²c² ? Here , we all know that m indicates the mass of a particle, which is zero for photon.

So, I think there is a basic difference in energy form and mass form.

I request your opinion for my understanding.

Please.

Thanks and Regards

N Das

ND: My opinion is in the preprint I qoted. Namely, there is matterless energy but there is no energy-less matter. They are asymmetric, and not equivalent, in type, although they may share the same value syntactically -- as a number.

This maybe further clarified by noting that mass is ill-defined in physics, except for our routine case of a comoving observer (i.e., sharing the same speed and position).

If one does not use mass, and writes the dispersion equation in terms of momentum, all becomes the same, for the comoving and non-comoving cases. This is compatible also with string theory, even if the basic strings are different.

We achieve (as we see in the quark model) "asymptotic freedom" or universalism, where the far-reaching behavior is just weakly sensitive to the details of the close interactions. Thus, we can see "continuity" in the macro, even though nothing is continuous in the micro.

In other words, "asymptotic freedom" says that one can see continuity in GR, in the macrocosm, although dealing with a totally discrete, quantum nature in the microcosm.

The quantum aspect of reality is further hidden by the irreality of mass, which is a rather persistent illusion created by vibrations, local oscillations of the field, that can be created, destroyed, or preserved in interactions, without any conservation requirement for their number. We call them "particles" and they are, clearly, not conserved. But energy is conserved, which is another difference between energy and what people may call mass. Instead of calling it mass, and increasing the confusion because different inertial observers may assign different values to it, we do not split momentum (into mass and speed) and do not think that mass "changes" with speed, nor that is anything "special" although it may seem so. The existence of mass is due to the observer, not to the reality itself.

Physical laws should not depend on the observer, which is accomplished by not considering mass in physical laws. Thus, every ocurrence of mass must be changed. Not just in GR. Also in electromagnetism, or elsewhere.

The explanation of quantum entanglement, follows as given in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339988557_On_the_Sun's_Gravity_and_the_Topology_of_Mercury's_Orbit

with the self-similar (fractal dimension) equivalence SNM ⇔ SN/M where N, M and S are natural numbers, linking energy and geometry. We show in the cited work that one can directly connect geometry with energy, through quantum entanglement, so that the curved geometry of spacetime can emerge naturally from the wave function. This includes a quantization of spacetime also without gravity, in special relativity (SR).

This approach introduces QM first into the topology, which becomes discrete, then into SR, and finally into GR, achieving continuity in asymptotic freedom.

Then, the gravitational mass defect (also called "mass deficit"), is the effect that what one calls the mass of the object is always less than the sum of the individual masses of the components of the object. This, which is a collective effect, happens because energy reduces when the object is formed, and this answers the question -- Why two masses reduce their mass when put closer together?

This mass, known as the mass defect, is missing in the resulting object, in that frame of reference, and represents the energy released when the object is formed. This energy presents itself in the field, and is subject to quantum entanglement. So, it may appear non-locally.

The above is discussed in several references in RG and published worldwide by Amazon, free of cost or at a nominal price online, see:

amazon.com/author/edgerck

The authors welcome feedback. May this help to reach you, in these COVID isolation times. Thank you.

In the routine case of a comoving observer (i.e., sharing the same speed and position), mass is well-defined in physics. But non-comoving observers may not agree.

This was solved 100+ years ago, by SR, with the Lorentz transformation. About 50+ years ago, this has lead to thinking that mass itself was changing, and even Einstein proposed it shortly. Now, the majority of physicists do not see a "relativistic mass" and consider the effect caused by observation, not inherent to the object. Physics follows today the modern interpretation of Einstein-SR by Minkowsky.

We can avoid this controversy by focusing on momentum and energy, not mass. This was presented in [1]. Mass is realized to be an overly-variable concept, and is better left out. The Euler-Lagrange method in mechanics can be used, without ever mentionIng mass, as well as SR and QM [1].

Joel Scheinmel, in [2], introduces the concept of a loop in non-Euclidean space, and uses it also to represent charge. This is similar to string theory, when one views such loops as strings. What can one say about the predictions?

By avoiding the use of mass, [1] also can lead directly to string theory [3]. Everything is a quantum wave, and a localized vibration can appear to be a "particle". For a comoving observer, the "particle" has mass. This is known to also consider that mass is ill-defined in physics, and provides a quantum mechanical theory of gravity, where the quantum of gravity has been called the "graviton". But [1] does more, in which SR is also modified to include QM. A future paper may discuss [1-3] together.

[1] Ed Gerck, Joel Sheinmel, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343537642/

[2] Joel Scheinmel, unpublished result.

[3] https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/string/string.pdf

For a quick review of Special Relativity in the Minkowski interpretation, and extend it easily to accelerated, even zig-zag or arbitry motion, including also to General Relativity in that basis of SR-MINKOWSKI-EINSTEIN, please see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329629829_Special_Relativity_Applied_to_Arbitrary_Motion

The extension of special relativity (SR) to general relativity (GR), in terms of the same spacetime formulation, presents a consistent theory. The GR principle of equivalence, however, is shown to have problems, when not formulated as originally stated by Einstein – a freely-falling observer in a gravitational field does not feel gravity. There is no statement that acceleration produces gravity.

All accelerated particles can be transformed and seen as in uniform motion.

Time cannot be uniquely split from spacetime, and the same is true with space; where a future work extends this observation to mass and speed, in the quantity known as momentum.

In general, time seems to tick slower for a comoving (i.e., same position and velocity) clock than for a non-comoving one (this is due to the finite speed of propagation). This observation also only controls observation, not inherently to the object.

The cited work serves too as a basis for GR, although GR is not regularly offered at undergraduate level. The laws of SR are just simpler when they work in-between inertial frames, as originally stated by Einstein, but they are now also the same for any arbitrary motion. This is much more satisfying, and avoids apparent paradoxes.

The view, cited above, that there are no particles in Nature -- only waves, vibrations-- and that what we once called "particles" have a quantum, discrete basis, with no mass, is presented in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343537642/

This view provides a much needed explanation of the apparent "absurdities" of string theory, and extends it to SR itself, and to the Minkowski interpretation. This may further show that physics and mathematics, together, are much more capable, and inform QM. It is a loss for physics to do otherwise.

The change of mass, especially in special relativity, is related to the inertial mass, as it is related to momentum, which is an incremental change as it cannot be less than the rest mass that corresponds to the gravitational mass. As for the gravitational mass, its changes are related to the bonding energy, and the dynamics appear clearly in the nuclear fission anomalies. And I see that bringing two masses closer together increases the energy linking them, which leads to a decrease in the gravitational mass of both of them as much as the increase in the energy linking between them

MAA: Mass is a false concept as shown below. There is no "inertial mass" or "gravitational mass" either.

Mass, and we have to be careful that the "bathwater vs the baby" is valid, and ok in physics and life, for comoving observers.

Using a kitchen's scale, or a bathroom scale, anyone can measure mass, and consider it correctly. Even work maids, and not literate people, can use it. One does not have to be educated.

The problem is for non-comoving observers, when the last 100+ years brought in some changes!

First, 100+ years ago, special relativity brought the strange notion of speed change to mass.

That upended people's perception of day-to-day life! Then, still being thought about 50 ago, or less, physics considered the very odd thing called "relativistic mass" -- and Fermilab as well as CERN, and many college physicists as well as professors in general, as in chemistry and other disciplines, and laypersons, still recently considered it.

In RG and other fora, it is still today thought acceptable to be for and against it. Actually, to believe in "relativistic mass" Is be against causality, a bedrock of scientific thought, what distinguishes science from magic.

We, physicists, no longer consider "relativistic msss" -- and take the interpretation of Minkowski. The object does not have to change with speed, just the observation of it changes.

But, still, the object and time seems to change with speed. People are rightly confused, especially with the multitude of what seems to be "particles" appearing in Nature, in the Standard Model. And we cannot explain more than 4% of the known universe.

What gives rise to the old "mass "? In comes the Higgs model, and the Higgs particle seems discovered, but we cannot still explain mass. Speed seems to influence.

Now, in 2020, we call attention to the non-answer: one does not have to use mass at all, even when it seems right, even for comoving objects.

It is better to use momentum and energy, which seem to work always, albeit in the Euler-Lagrange formalim.

The formalism is no longer the old Newton's laws, but the Euler-Lagrange equation, and one has to use variational theory in mathematics, not just calculus. The infinitesimals are gone, and never existed. Continuity itself becomes a construct, not how Nature is. The basis is discreet like computer code, quantum.

This sub-sumes Newton's laws, and goes beyond It, creating on-ramps to special relativity and quantum mechanics, two essential parts of Nature itself, that can now join the mathematical symphony.

But we still had to add one more component to our understanding of Nature, otherwise we fail to be causal with observations. That is the Principle of Least Action (PLA).

With the addition of the PLA, we can tackle new problems and explain better, or at all, the problems. For example, mass defect in gravitation, the effect of gravitation itself, and how time can be modeled. The future awaits.

Yes, it is ok to use mass if you are comoving, but it is a concept "that does not have legs."

Or, be careful to NOT discard the essential while eliminating the superfluous, due to excessive zeal!

"Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is an idiom that derives from a German proverb; das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten. It means that one should NOT risk an avoidable error, in which something good or essential is eliminated when trying to get rid of something bad, or in other words, rejecting the favorable along with the unfavorable....

Physics in the 1930's was dominated by "relativistic mass", a strange idea. It is easier today, to break free from what is conveniently conventional. The Internet helps everyone to become a publisher... and to reach out.

It is wrong to eschew msss where it works, for comoving observers. Zealots of all kinds, can go fanatically on a corner, and "throw the baby with the bathwater", an idiom explained by Tiffany above. One needs to be careful.

Mass can be better explained away, once understood on a simple case, the only case: comoving. The simple has a function. Everything helps.

“Why two masses reduce their mass when put closer together?”

Because the energy density of the gravitational field is negative!

The energy density of the gravitational field is proportional to the square of the field strength. The force on an object is given by the derivative of the overall field energy in respect to the object position.

WK: Why do you think that response answers the question, which is not on attraction but on reducing the masses? It seems to only answer why the masses are attracted to each other.

In Newton's law of gravity, the energy density of the gravitational field is truly negative, but masses are constant. There is no mass deficit.

Think also of other cases, the fact that two opposing magnetic poles, or electric charges, are attracted to each other, does it mean that they must therefore become weaker?

In Einstein GR, also the distance changes, but the masses do not reduce. Mass does not change with distance in GR nor in Newton's laws. There is no mass deficit.

Mass defect in gravitation cannot be described as WK suggested, using a conventional theory, like Newton's or even Einstein's. They cannot account for changes in what they consider to be immutable: mass.

One needs to abandon mass as physically significant, as even definable in the general case, for any observer -- comoving and non-comoving. Instead, one can focus on momentum and energy.

Momentum is to be understood as in SR, with the 4-momentum, and energy is conserved, also as in SR. This includes QM as allowing matter-energy conversions, but not only.

Matter can be converted to energy also by the new mechanism, that we call by the same name, the mass defect, and vice-versa. In those two senses, one can say that matter always includes energy, but energy may not include matter. There is NO energyless matter, but there is matterless energy.

A single photon is an example of matterless energy; two photons may include matter, as calculated by John Archibald Wheeler.

The surrounding gravitational field belongs to the mass. If this field loses energy, it is a mass reduction, because energy is equivalent to mass.

WK: Energy is not equivalent to matter in type, while there is NO energy-less matter, there is massless energy. Mass is not conserved in SR. Mass is only measurable by comoving observers.

What means, you doubt E=mc²?

MK: It is, as It says, same numerical value but different types. Like 1 Liter =1 Kg. There are conditions, and they are different substances, obeing different laws. Energy, for example, is conserved but mass is not.

Mass can reduce, or increase but energy does no have to. Mas can only be calculated for comoving observers. This can be avoided by not using mass at all, but momentum and energy.

BTW, one needs to pay attention that Eo = mc^2 as rest energy, comoving. Everything at rest.

If the body seems to be moving, Eo = mc^2 is no longer valid. There is always energy in mass, but not always mass in energy. A photon has NO mass, but has energy. Mass can change in an isolated system, but not energy. This is straight from Minkowski-Einstein-SR.

Wolfgang Konle Did you read any of the previous posts in this thread?

" Energy, for example, is conserved but mass is not. "

This is a strange concept. We have three kinds of energy, kinetic energy, field energy,(electric/electromagnetic/gravitational), and mass. Energy conservation allows conversion between this three kinds.

Ann Gerck

Yes I did and I think that some of these posts are off-road.

WK: We no longer do the modern version of duels, on RG, as linked above.

I am just informing you that mass is not conserved but energy is, and referenced that as Minkowski-Einstein-SR. It is not an option. See also searches.

Ed Gerck

It seems you are not interested in a discussion. What you want is a confirmation of your private concept.

But if you are denying E=mc², which means that mass and energy are different appearances of the same thing, you cannot get your desired validation.

It also seems that your private concept conflicts with the two terms “rest mass” and “relativistic mass”.

With E=mc², the difference between both exactly is the kinetic energy. This equality (m-m0=Ekinc²) is Lorentz invariant.

If you do not want to see factual arguments contradicting to your private concept, you should not start a discussion.

WK: you seem to want an old style duel. That is denied here. Mass is not conserved, and there is no discussion on that here -- it has already been decided in physics 100+ years ago; we are not relitigating everything. It is off-topic to insist. Please delete any opinion otherwise.

You really think controversial discussions are duels or motivate to duels?

But maybe, you accept the description of a nuclear fusion reaction as a discussion contribution and not as an affront, motivating to a duel.

The reaction is: D+T=He(3,5Mev) + n(14,1Mev)

Deuterium and tritium fuse to Helium and a neutron with the specified kinetic energy.

The mass balance is that D+T have a larger mass than He+n. Remarkable is however, that the mass deficit multiplied by c² is equal to 17,6MeV.

This means, mass is not conserved in the fusion reaction, but energy. However, if instead of considering the kinetic energy and the rest mass, we consider the relativistic masses of the reacting components we get: mrel(D+T) = mrel(He+n), which means that (relativistic) mass is conserved.

In conclusion, there is no law or even theory in Physics, that explains mass defect under gravitation. An excited or radioactive atom could decay, and release mass, but how about ground-state lead (Pb)? A new mechanism seems needed, in gravitation, and is not GR. Or, as mass is not conserved also in GR, one might not have to explain it in terms of mass. What is your opinion?

“Relativistic Mass is not real and not used in physics”

Relativistic mass is even used on the engineering level. Cyclotrons, as an example, must be adapted to the increased mass of high energy electrons. Also, CERN must adapt the magnetic fields in the accelerator line to be capable handling the considerably increased mass of the hadrons.

WK: Listen to FERMILAB in the US, and CERN, condemning any use of "relativistic mass" -- Ouch! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM

EG: What is your problem with relativistic mass? Cyclotron technique shows that it is real. If in the interior of earth, the rest mass is reduced with 100g per second due to radioactive decay, the gravitational mass is not reduced, because the relativistic mass counts for gravity.

The video did not present any proof, why we should not use the relativistic mass = gamma*m0.

Einstein’s principle “gravitational mass” equals “inertial mass” only is applicable to the relativistic mass. The momentum/energy relation also is valid with relativistic mass.

If you compare relativistic mass with a canary bird, then you are perfectly right if you consider it as a metaphor for reappearance.

WK: This is my discussion and "relativistic mass" is off-topic. Please go to history of Physics. Please also delete your entry. Off-topic answers can be reported by anyone as against the RG ToS.

“Why two masses reduce their mass when put closer together?”

Because the energy density of the gravitational field is negative and because of m=E/c².

The energy density of the gravitational field is negative and proportional to the square of the field strength.

If two masses become put closer together, the gravitational field becomes stronger. Because of the negative energy density, the field then loses energy. The mass equivalent of the lost energy is the mass reduction.

MK: You seem to be trying to use the failed concept of "relativistic mass" without mentioning it.

Your statements are in direct contradiction. According to them, "the field then loses energy" while "the "gravitational field becomes stronger". This seems to be caused by supposing a gravitational attraction of "relativistic mass", warned against in the FERMILAB video I posted.

EG: There is a misunderstanding. “Losing energy because the field becomes stronger”, just is fact because the field energy is negative. It has absolutely nothing to do with relativistic mass. (The value of a big negative number is smaller than the value of a small negative number. -5

The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detection of gravitational waves seems to take away 5 per cent of the total mass of two merging black holes. This points out to varying gravitational mass of a system in the framework of Einstein GR.

The generation of gravitational waves by far does not transact as much energy as approaching masses.

The same process we measure using LIGO for black-holes, is in play as in, for example, the Moon and Earth. The mass is reduced by radiating gravitational waves.

This also shows that mass is not conserved, and maybe is a poor physical quantity. Remember that mass is split arbitrarily from speed, in well-defined momentum. Different observers might choose a different value in SR, as with spacetime in Minkowski-Einstein-SR. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343537642/

Perhaps the mass defect is indeed overly-variable, as different observers will measure different values. Physics laws, however, should not depend on observers.

Deprecating mass, does not mean necessarily eschewing the Einstein equation Eo=mc^2. The Einstein equation uses mass in the only condition we can define and measure it -- at rest, when the observer is comoving with it. But, as shown, momentum can be used in both cases -- comoving and non-comoving. So, one can measure all using momentum.

Mass defect when it occurs is converted to other energy of that does not curve space the same way gravity does.

Four energies are related to four fundamental forces in amounts that provide a small cosmological constant in a universe filled with energy. Lagrangian functions balance long range forces of potential and kinetic types to describe how groups of objects move. Other short range forces are also balanced on a small scale.

In previous decades there was debate about the amount of energy in vacuum. Then Higgs field was confirmed in experiments.

EG: " The mass is reduced by radiating gravitational waves. "

No, the kinetic energy is reduced by radiating gravitational waves.

(You insisted, that the concept of relativistic mass has been banned)

EG:" The Einstein equation uses mass in the only condition we can define and measure it -- at rest "

Inertia is the capability of mass to store kinetic energy. Gravitation is the capability of mass to store (negative) energy in the gravitational field. The energy density of the gravitational field is proportional to the squared field strength. Mass is equivalent to energy multiplied by c squared.

We do not need more than the rules above to explain the nature of gravitation, inertia and mass.

If a massive object gains or loses kinetic energy, then because of the mass/energy equivalence, it means that it also gains or loses mass.

MK: making nonsense statements in a public forum is the hallmark of idiocy. It is also off-topic. Please delete

EG: You are lucky that with “MK” your impertinent eruption does not personally address one of the contributors to this thread.

But if you think that statements made within the last few hours are nonsense, then at least you should describe why you think so.

Today, anyone can read in Wikipedia, that "The word mass has two meanings in special relativity: invariant mass (also called rest mass) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames; while the relativistic mass is dependent on the velocity of the observer."

This is wrong. There is only one kind of mass, and used to be called "rest mass", or simply, mass. That is also why Wikipedia should NOT be used to inform RG discussions. Do not continue on that as this is, in physics, the correct view of mass. See

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334960559_24_Common_Misconceptions_of_Mass_and_Energy_in_Special_Relativity

MK: Your days of disrupting this public forum ended. Life is a school. You are not the first nor the last to learn it.

EG: " Your days of disrupting this public forum ended "

With impertinent personal attacks and unspecific grumble about factual contributions, you are disrupting your own forum. Your forum obviously already has been disrupted because only contributions are allowed, which pass your census.

Please specify, which point of my contributions contradict to your fixed personal conception.

EG: "The mass is reduced by radiating gravitational waves. "

EG: “There is only one kind of mass, and used to be called "rest mass", or simply, mass “

These two statements are contradicting. If there is only one kind of mass, then this mass is absolutely fixed, because all atoms(of the same kind) at rest are equal, which also means that they have the same rest mass.

Also, note that "at rest" is a technical term in physics Nothing is really "at rest" in Nature. It means comoving (sharing the same position and velocity, but not necessarily identical).

A comoving observer maybe at a speed greater than c, the speed of light in vacuo, if sufficiently distant from that point. This is due to the Hubble drift, in cosmology.

If "at rest" or "not at rest" plays a role for the property of mass, then this is in contradiction to the second statement:

EG: “There is only one kind of mass, and used to be called "rest mass", or simply, mass “

Which of the two contradicting statements is correct?

Therefore, when in physics one says "at rest", it means comoving. That also means that there is only one kind of mass, which used to be called "rest mass", or simply, mass. There is no other kind.

EG: "The mass is reduced by radiating gravitational waves."

How can this only kind of mass then be reduced? Does this reduction create another kind of atoms with a reduced mass?

If one is comoving with a colliding, spiraling, speedy, even accelerated black-hole, one is "at rest" in that frame. All motions, even accelerated, can be converted to inertial motion, then stopped to an absolute rest, "at rest". SR applies then to all motions, not just at constant velocity. See references op. cit.

One, then, can measure mass that is comoving. This is the only kind of mass, and used to be called "rest mass", or simply, mass.

The only kind of mass is that which is at rest with the observer, even if they are in a fast ship, going around the Earth, with it, in a 24 hour period, going around the Sun, and moving with the Sun around another star system, and all moving at high speed due to Hubble drift. Or, if is oscillating and radiating gravitational waves. One is "at rest" with the mass, with no movement, and sees the mass measurably decrease. Mass is not conserved, in SR.

The problem of splitting momentum into mass and velocity, becomes indeterminate. Different observers will get different values in SR. See references op. cit. The same happens, mutatis mutandis, with splitting time and space from spacetime.

We see, again, that everyone helps. The noise defines the signal. The signal is what the noise is not. To further put the question in perspective, in terms of discordant behaviors, and not following rules that exist for the benefit of all, life is a school. Everyone learns. Everyone helps.

" If one is comoving with a colliding, spiraling, speedy, even accelerated black-hole ...."

What has this to do with the mass defect in gravitation?

It seems that you are breaking your own rules.

WK: You helped. In gratitude, and to answer your question, please read the second and third paragraphs.

I am pleased to have helped to link the mass defect in gravitation to the negative energy stored in the gravitational field and to the field energy deficit caused by bringing masses closer together.

Because some discursive posts have caused confusion, here are again the facts, which lead to this statement.

The facts now have a number. If one of these facts should be considered as wrong, it is now easy to mention the number and to specify why.

(1) The energy stored in the gravitational field is negative.

(2) The energy density of the gravitational field is proportional to the field strength squared.

(3) Bringing bodies closer together, enhances the field strength and because of (2) and (1) reduces the energy content of the common gravitational field.

(4) Because of E=mc² the energy reduction E corresponds to a mass reduction of m-m’=E/c². m is the original mass of both bodies. m’ is the mass after the bodies have been brought together. E is the energy deficit of the gravitational field in both situations (separated/brought together)

I hope that mentioning these facts does not cause an outburst of fury, but if not accepted, will initiate a fruitful discussion. Please consider that the banned term “relativistic mass” does not appear in the chain of proofs presented here.

WK: No, your help was of a different kind.

Then do you think that one or more points of (1) ... (4) is/are inapplicable?

Do you think that something else as the energy deficit of the gravitational field causes the mass deficit in gravitation?

WK: As I wrote, No. I trust your help was good for readers of RG, albeit in a different kind. Everyone helps, and you are not an exception.

Wolfgang Konle : I think we just lost time. Everyone in college knows, today, not to use "relativistic mass" and that Wikipedia is often wrong. We also know that mass can only be defined at rest. What else? Maybe go walk around, take a break. Life is not RG, life is love.