Real quick question guys,
If you could measure the individual masses of all electrons to an infinite degree of specificity, would they all have the exact same measurments, or would there be some discrepancies between these values?
If there was a discrepancy, what would account for this difference?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Can't wait for the user who has found a way to measure electrons with this kind of precision to answer your question.
rest mass? no
inercial mass? yes
What did he mean by this?
well E=Mc^2 will tell you the mass can fluctuate based on their energy differences alone
why is spin left hand rule
just is
Mass seems to not be a intrinsic property of nature, its an effect,
Mass can be defined better than "the amount of matter", and the best definition is: The resistance to acceleration.
So, effect of what?
-a simple tought game, can explain this pretty well: Imagine a box whit no mass, and inside you have photons. the photons are bouncing inside the box, so the "pressure" is equal in every point (There's no energy dissipation), but if you move the box, then some photon will be "energized" due to the impulse of the box, and some will lose energy due to the bounce will be at less speed. this unequal distribution of energy, creates a RESISTANCE TO ACCELERATION, due you need more energy to move it, that energy that need to exist.
Inercial mass: mass reguled by the ecuation m=E/(c^2), best known as E=mc^2.
So the rest mass is the relation between the energy in a particle.
The inercial mass is the one obtained by the interactions whit the Higgs Field, that allow to quarks to have mass and be able to have energy, like kinetic and potential.
Your box analogy is interesting.
Say you moved the box to the right. The particles heading left would all hit the wall earlier, creating a larger number of total collisions on the left hand side in that time slot that it took you to move the box some arbitrarily small distance. The particles heading right would have to move further to hit the right wall, meaning you would get fewer collisions on the right wall. So you would essentially get a "drag" as you moved the box. Is my understanding correct?
I guess I should probably rephrase my question then. I should say:
Are all electrons the same, if you were somehow able to capture one and hold it in some sort of stasis wherein it is frozen in time. Would an observer, with infinitely accurate tools, be able to find any difference between various electrons?
>mass can fluctuate
deprecated concept
yes, is that the point, sorry fot the bad explanation my english is not that well.
Newton create the "force" concept from the derivative calculus of the momentum, that is the change of movement that can be understand as kinetic energy, so its consistent whit the energy theory
This is the rigth concept of mass, is not the amount of matter, but the capacity of change the inner energy
Let's see if we can figure that out:
What is the charge of an electron?
What's the right hand rule for charged particles in motion?
How does charge come into this right hand rule?
Based on this, are the magnetic field and angular momentum vector parallel or antiparallel at the spinning electron's (just a picture) north pole?
Now, let's make it more interesting. What's the rule look like for protons? How about for neutrons? What is it for He-3 atoms?
btw is not "my" analogy, its actually the way I understand it.
Here 2 videos whit better explanation:
youtube.com
youtube.com
>measure the individual masses of all electrons
Measure one, know them all.
en.m.wikipedia.org
That's the craziest thing I've ever read
I like it
>What is the charge of an electron?
Its the interaction that we detect in the electromagnetic field.
>What's the right hand rule for charged particles in motion?
Is the mathematical expression based on a 3D euclidian space to calculate the properties that we defined as energy.
>How does charge come into this right hand rule?
The physicists had studied the nature of this electromagnetic field, and whit pre-concepts and math, they were able to calculate the properties. this question is like asking, how we know that the linear speed of a rotating object is the angular speed times the position vector, its just a math development,
>Based on this, are the magnetic field and angular momentum vector parallel or antiparallel at the spinning electron's (just a picture) north pole?
Thats seems to be a yes, Maxwell equations and all the actual modern mechanics are based on them, so it works.
>Now, let's make it more interesting. What's the rule look like for protons? How about for neutrons? What is it for He-3 atoms?
have no fucking idea.
what about amount of matter? Does that vary among electrons?
Despite the flaws in your English, this is the best explanation of anything I've ever read on Veeky Forums.
They're just pulling this shit out their asses at this point
I think you got a bit too tied up in the semantics. What I meant was that, in the 'spinning electron' picture of spin angular momentum producing a magnetic moment, the vector description of spin angular momentum is a right hand rule. The vector description of a magnetic field due to a spinning charged particle is a right hand rule multiplied by the charge of the particle. For electrons, since their charge is negative, this means an upward oriented spin angular momentum results in a downward oriented magnetic moment. Simply, a right hand rule multiplied by the negative electron charge produces a negative right hand rule --> a left hand rule.
Apply this 'spinning particle' to a proton and you correctly derive that the proton's spin angular momentum and magnetic moment vectors are aligned (instead of anti-parallel, which was the case for the electron). Right hand rule multiplied by a positive charge reproduces the same right hand rule.
The last two questions were meant to point out that this line of thinking--spin charged particle intrinsic angular momentum charged particle magnetic moment--doesn't actually work except in some nice cases. Neutons are electrically neutral particles, but have spin-1/2, and so an intrinsic magnetic moment. They actually follow a left hand rule, like electrons (spin up electron/neutron downward pointing magnetic moment). The microscopic (just a phrase, really subatomic) structure of the neutron becomes important, it's a composite structure made up of quarks which are themselves spin 1/2 particles in a bound state governed by quantum chromodynamics--a more complicated theory similar to quantum electrodynamics. Their composite interactions determine the magnetic structure of the neutron.
I actually have no clue about the He-3 atom, I'm not sure off the top of my head how proton/neutron couplings operate in bound nuclei. A quick Google search provides a neat answer.
by your own anology, the energy spent pushing on one side of the box is gained by the other side of the box, so the net should be zero (assuming equal probability distributions of position and initial energy) and therefore, it should cost nothing to move the box.
your analogy sucks, and people who are praising you for it belie their own lack of understanding of basic statistical physics.
Feinman would be the first to agree with you on that, as "pulling it out of your ass" is the point and the only way to really move forward.
Come up with a theory. Test it.
That is the foundation of science, and at the forefront of physics, we need crazier and crazier ideas if we want to actually break thru and begin to understand things.
If you move too fast, will you become a black hole?
All mass is rest mass and invariant. 'Relativistic' mass M was introduced by his epigones as a pedagogical shortcut, but Einstein himself never* used it nor did the GR saints like Taylor & Wheeler:
"Ouch! The concept of 'relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass - belonging to the magnitude of a 4-vector - to a very different concept, the time component of a 4-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."
* There seems to be one documented exception where he addressed lay people.
I'd say it's acceptable as a hermeneutic approach as long it is understood that M is a virtual ('as if') mass ascribed to represent the real energy/momentum thing. "It could have its uses in special relativity at an elementary level."
See ftp://ftp.desy.de/pub/userWWW/projects/Physics/mass.html and elsewhere.