| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Physics - Electromagnetic Forum » European Journal of Physics, about
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:48 pm |
|
|
|
|
A. I. M. Rae, Editor of European Journal of Physics is guided by
resentment rather than by reader's interests. A. Rae rejected nine my
papers without consideration. As a result, the readers can not get to
know where electrostatic forces act on dielectric in reality [1 - 3],
that Griffiths' spring energy in polarized dielectric [4] is a myth,
and that classical electrodynamics spin exists.
A. Rae are offended by my paper "John Roche asks, What is mass?" where
I wrote that, in my opinion, Roche's concept of mass was fit for a
shop assistant which sells meat and bone at a market rather than for
an author of a respectable physical journal. I wrote at Newsgroups:
sci.physics.relativity on 23 Feb 2005:
European Journal of Physics has published a long paper "What is mass?"
by J. Roche [5]. In the author's opinion, mass is matter, or a mass is
a body itself rather than mass is a property of matter or of the body,
i.e. mass is synonymous with quantity of matter, and mass is
synonymous with body.
-- To illustrate the opinion the author presents a NASA spokesman's
statement that muscle mass and bone mass are lost during space
journeys. But, in my oppinion, this conception of mass is fit for a
shop assistant which sells meat and bone at a market rather than for
an author of a respectable physical journal.
-- In accordance with the opinion the author insists on the literal
meaning of the text of a simple problem: "A mass m_1 collides with a
mass m_2 ..". He does not think that a writer of the problem implied
that a body of mass m_1 collides with a body of mass m_2 .. . For
example, I present here such a problem from the textbook of R. Resnick
et al.: "A bullet of mass 4.54 g is fired horizontal into a 2.41 kg
wooden block .."
-- Considering a mass as a body itself, not as a property of the body,
the author discredits the trivial idea of three different properties
of matter: inertial mass, active gravitational mass, and passive
gravitational mass. He wrote: "Indeed, to say a given body has three
'masses' seems rather extravagant and contrived. Using this approach,
what is to stop us creating further 'masses'?"
-- Considering, following Newton, mass as the quantity of matter the
author does not give a modern definition of mass. Nevertheless, one
can conclude that the author implies some comparison of a body with
the standard kilogram. Therefore the Roche's mass is simply the common
rest mass with all its defects (see [6, 7]).
-- J. Roche disclaims an existence of the relativistic mass: "If we
wish to measure relativistic mass, then it is necessary to measure the
mass of the moving body using standard kilograms at rest. But this is
impossible. Clearly, relativistic mass is not a well-defined concept,
and seems to be no more than a mathematical artefact".
-- The author keeps silence about strict methods to measure mass of
moving bodies. For example, R. Feynman suggested: "We use the term
mass as a quantitative measure of inertia, and we may measure mass,
for example, by swinging an object in a circle at a certain speed and
measuring how much force we need to keep it in the circle. In this way
we find a certain quantity of mass for every object" (The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, V. 1).
-- R. Feynman also wrote: "The theory of relativity was developed,
which proposed that no matter what the origin of the mass, it all
should vary as m_0/\sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). .. When Einstein and others began
to realize that it must always be that U=mc^2, there was great
confusion" (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, V. 2).
-- J. Roche thinks that one must not interpret mass as inertia because
mass is matter itself but inertia is a property of matter. He is
afraid that such a "radical" interpretation will be almost a guarantee
of ambiguity . So he impedes the use of the concept of mass in
physical reasoning because of the separation the mass from inertia.
For example, when a dependence of the cyclotron angular velocity
\omega=qB/m on a speed of the moving particle is discussed, the author
is forced to write \omega=qB/i_t, where i_t=\gamma i_0 is the
"transverse inertia" of the moving particle. The author is proud that
the formula relates \omega, q, B, i_t, and not explicitly the mass.
-- J. Roche gives lots of references (more than 100) in favor that
mass is the quantity of matter. But he has ignored authoritative
objections against this Newton's concept of mass, for example, he has
ignored a Feynman's statement: "The mass of an object changes when it
moves, because of the conservation of energy. Because of the relation
of mass and energy the energy associated with the motion appears as an
extra mass, so things get heavier when they move. Newton believed that
this was not the case, and that the masses stayed constant. When it
was discovered that the Newtonian idea was false everyone kept saying
what a terrible thing it was that physicists had found out that they
were wrong. Why did they think they were right?" "Energy and mass are
equivalent, and so Newton's interpretation that the mass is what
produces gravity has been modified to the statement that the energy
produces the gravity".
-- M. Born wrote: "The mass of one and the same body is a relative
quantity. It is to have different values according to the system of
reference from which it is measured, or, if measured from a definite
system of reference, according to the velocity of the moving body. It
is impossible that mass is a constant quantity peculiar to each body".
"In physics, as we must very strongly emphasize, the word mass has no
meaning other than that gives by the formula P=mv".
-- Now R. Feynman and M. Born are dead, and people who can't
understand "What is mass?" came to light.
-- J. Roche did not refer to my paper "What is mass?" [6], though
there are arguments that he had read my paper: (1) he used the heading
of the paper, (2) in his survey of definitions of mass he mentioned a
"mass defined operationally without explanation". Possibly, he
mentioned my definition [6]: "Mass is a measure of inertia of a body,
i.e. the coefficient of proportionality in the formula p=mv. The
operation used to define a momentum is essentially as follows. When a
certain obstacle causes a moving body to stop, a force F(t) is
measured with which the body acts on the obstacle during retardation.
The body's initial momentum equals the integral P=\int F(t)dt by
definition".
-- It is important that I submitted a paper "What is mass?" to EJP on
Apr. 4, 2001, but the paper was rejected because "they did not feel
that my paper fell within the scope of the journal".
-- At large, we must recognize that Roche's paper is reactionary and
it impedes teaching because it presses on inadequate concept of mass.
The author is a supporter of the rudimentary concept of mass as
'quantity of matter'. He can't understand that mass is a property of
matter and especially he can't understand that "it must always be that
E=mc^2". He is not capable to accept an idea of relativistic mass the
same as early opponents of special relativity could not accept the
relativity of time. The lifetime of an unstable particle varies with
speed as its inertial mass: \tau=\tau_0/\sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
-- It is appropriate to quote here from Max Planck: "An important
scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over
and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes
Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and
that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the
beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with
youth. For this reason a suitable planning of school teaching is one
of the most important conditions of progress in science".
-- Unfortunately, the great idea of relativistic mass is carefully
isolated from youth.
[1] Dietz E R Force on a dielectric slab: Fringing field approach Am.
J. Phys. 72 1499 (2004)
[2] Utreras-Diaz C A Dielectric slab in a parallel-plate condenser Am.
J. Phys. 56 700 (1988)
[3] Margulies S Force on a dielectric slab inserted into a parallel-
plate capacitor Am. J. Phys. 52 515 (1984)
[4] Griffiths D J Introduction to Electrodynamics (N.J.: Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1989)
[5] Roche J "What is mass?" Eur. J. Phys. 26 225 (2005)
[6] Khrapko R I "What is mass?" Uspekhi Fizicheskich Nauk 170 1363
(2000), Physics - Uspekhi 43 1267 (2000), www.sciprint.org, physics/
0103051 http://www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/articles/num2/article12/auther.htm
[7] Khrapko R I "Rest mass or inertial mass?" physics/0103008;
http://www.mai.ru/projects/mai_works/articles/num3/article4/auther.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:08 am
|
|