Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userConcepts of inertial, gravitational and elementary particle masses
115
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
In this article the concept of mass is analyzed based on the special and general relativity theories and particle (quantum) physics. The mass of a particle (m=E(0)/c^2) is determined by the minimum (rest) energy to create that particle which is invariant under Lorentz transformations. The mass of a bound particle in the any field is described by m<E80)/c^2 and for free particles in the non-relativistic case the relation m=E/c^2 is valid. This relation is not correct in general, and it is wrong to apply it to the radiation and fields. In atoms or nuclei (i.e. if the energies are quantized) the mass of the particles changes discretely. In non-relativistic cases, mass can be considered as a measure of gravitation and inertia.
rate research
Read More
Using the discrete-scale invariance theory, we show that the coupling constants of fundamental forces, the atomic masses and energies, and the elementary particle masses, obey to the fractal properties.
In this work we definitely prove a possibility that Milgroms modified Newtonian dynamics, MOND, can be consistently interpreted as a theory with the modified kinetic terms of the usual Newtonain dynamics, simply called k-MOND. Precisely, we suggest only a functional dependence between inertial and gravitational mass tending toward identity in the limit of large accelerations (characteristic for Newtonian dynamics and its relativistic generalizations) but which behaves as a principal non-identity in the limit of small accelerations (smaller than Milgroms acceleration constant). This functional dependence implies a generalization of the kinetic terms (without any change of the gravitational potential energy terms) in the usual Newtonain dynamics including generalization of corresponding Lagrange formalism. Such generalized dynamics, k-MOND, is identical to Milgroms MOND. Also, mentioned k-MOND distinction between inertial and gravitational mass would be formally treated as dark matter.
Mass spectrum of localized states (elementary particles) of single quantum system is studied in the framework of Heisenbergs scheme. Localized states are understood as cyclic representations of a group of fundamental symmetry (Lorentz group) within a Gelfand-Neumark-Segal construction. It is shown that state masses of lepton (except the neutrino) and hadron sectors of matter spectrum are proportional to the rest mass of electron with an accuracy of $0,41%$.
It is well known that simultaneity within an inertial frame is defined in relativity theory by a convention or definition. This definition leads to different simultaneities across inertial frames and the well known principle of relativity of simultaneity. The lack of a universal present implies the existence of past, present and future as a collection of events on a four dimensional manifold or continuum wherein three dimensions are space like and one dimension is time like. However, such a continuum precludes the possibility of evolution of future from the present as all events exist forever so to speak on the continuum with the tenses past, present and future merely being perceptions of different inertial frames. Such a far-reaching ontological concept, created by a mere convention, is yet to gain full acceptance. In this paper, we present arguments in favour of an absolute present, which means simultaneous events are simultaneous in all inertial frames, and subscribe to evolution of future from the present.
Gauge invariance, a core principle in electrodynamics, has two separate meanings, only one of which is robust. The reliable concept treats the photon as the gauge field for electrodynamics. It is based on symmetries of the Lagrangian, and requires no mention of electric or magnetic fields. The other depends directly on the electric and magnetic fields, and how they can be represented by potential functions that are not unique. The first gauge concept has been fruitful, whereas the second has the defect that there exist gauge transformations from physical to unphysical states. The fields are unchanged by the gauge transformation, so that potentials are the necessary guides to correctness.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
