home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!ames!lll-winken!imager!dk
- From: dk@imager (Dave Knapp)
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Subject: Re: Converting the masses
- Message-ID: <131163@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
- Date: 22 Jul 92 22:32:18 GMT
- References: <mcirvin.711489157@husc10> <9868@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1992Jul22.193837.18095@sfu.ca>
- Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
- Organization: Laboratory for Experimental Astrophysics
- Lines: 28
- Nntp-Posting-Host: imager.llnl.gov
-
- In Article <1992Jul22.193837.18095@sfu.ca> palmer@sfu.ca
- (Leigh Palmer) writes:
-
- > In order to illustrate my point, do you claim that a lump of
- > condensed matter has a the same mass as the sum of the masses of
- > its elementary constituents? Of course you don't. That only
- > begins the parade of difficulties attendant to using the currently
- > fashionable definition outside its proper area of use.
-
- > To further confuse the beginning physics student you could explain
- > that the mass of that lump of matter is independent of its
- > temperature.
-
- This caricature of the "currently fashionable definition of mass"
- is pretty twisted. Surely you can't be claiming that the use of
- "rest mass" as "mass" implies that one must use the sum of
- constituent masses to obtain the mass of an object? If you are, then
- how do you think particle physicists define the proton mass? As the
- sum of the masses of the constituent quarks? Not likely.
-
- Hmmph. I think I smell a straw man. -- Dave
-
-
- --
- *-------------------------------------------------------------*
- * David Knapp dk@imager.llnl.gov (510) 422-1023 *
- * 98.7% of all statistics are made up. *
- *-------------------------------------------------------------*
-