alt.sci.physics

nottoooily@ wrote:
> On Aug 13, 12:03 am, "amygdala" wrote:
>> So basically, what you are saying is, that: a moving particle will
>> have mass just up until it reaches the speed of light, but on
>> reaching c it all of a sudden doesn't have mass anymore, or
>> theoretically can't be mass anymore? That sounds a bit odd doesn't
>> it? Well, at least to me it does.
>
> It is odd because it doesn't actually happen :P You can't accelerate a
> massive particle to c, so it won't suddenly convert into a massless
> one. Although I suppose you can break down massive particles and
> generate new massless ones (such as releasing photons from a nucleus
> during a nuclear reaction).
>
>>
>> What would be the 'state', if you will, of mass when it is gaining
>> speed? My gutfeeling tells me this state should somehow change while
>> gaining momentum.
>
> Yes, the total energy and the momentum increase asymptotically as
> speed aproaches c. They increase more rapidly than the classical E=1/2
> mv^2 and p=mv.
>
> A particle's total energy is the sum of two energies:
> - The rest energy, given by E0=mc^2, and remains constant with speed -
> no suddenly vanishing or fading away
> - The relativistic kinetic energy, given by Ek = mc^2 / sqrt(1-v^2/
> c^2) - mc^2
>
>
>> I looked at it more like this: I sort of think of atoms, molecules,
>> particles, etc. as very compact strings, or fields, or boals of
>> energy, which therefor feel like having mass, but actually aren't
>> mass at all, just very powerfull, almost unpenetratable, fields of
>> energy, that expand into less dense fields of energy while gaining
>> momentum. Or something along those lines. :-)
>
> If you mean "mass is energy" as you say in the next post, then yes.
> When I was studying these things I found it easier to describe
> particles by their "rest energy" and avoid using mass at all. As for
> all that about "fields of energy" I don't know. Are you talking about
> the quantum mechanical description of particles as being waves
> distributed in space?

Yes exactly! That is what I perceive it to be. And these 'waves' are somehow
so compact, so dense, that they appear to be inpenitratable, and therefor
seem to have 'mass', but actually are just very dense energy fields, or
complexly wrapped strings/waves of energy. (Here I'm thinking of when you
twist a string of cloth long enough it eventually starts to curl up, because
it can no longer twist along it's length axis, hopefully this is a clear
enough example)

> To go as far as saying "aren't mass at all" implies that nothing made
> from particles is mass, so what does mass mean? To me mass is just a
> redundant property that's handy for describing non-relativistic
> situations, but not essential. I think perhaps you're trying to say
> "aren't solid matter", which is true in that they can often pass
> through each other. "solid matter" is only a macroscopic idea that
> relates to things we can poke our fingers into.

Well, this is exactly what I'm getting at! Yes! Is this a common accepted
theory in physics?