Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Philosophy of Physics Philosophy of Physics Forum - Philosophical questions about our universe

Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By HallsofIvy
  • 1 Post By Pmb
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Feb 28th 2018, 06:26 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 290
Active mass

Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Let's get a fresh start here.
-Dan
Good idea Dan .....

Deep breath ....

Dear friends .... I have seen in literature the terms "active gravitational mass" and "passive gravitational mass" , here's a quote ...

"We might distinguish two kinds of gravitational mass, active and passive. The active gravitational mass is the source of the object's gravitational field, while the passive gravitational mass responds to it. "

I wonder if someone could explain these terms , why it was necessary to introduce them ... any experimental evidence to justify their use ...

Please keep it simple , with minimal technical jargon , imagine you are explaining things to a 16 year old with good physics knowledge.

Many thanks ....oz
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 05:34 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 320
We know that the gravitational force between two objects with masses m and M and distance r apart is $\displaystyle \frac{GmM}{r^2}$. m here, because the force is proportional to it, so it "causes" the force, is the "active mass". We also know that, subject to a force, F, a body of mass m reacts by accelerating with acceleration $\displaystyle \frac{F}{m}$. m here, because it is "reacting" to the force, is the "passive mass". There is no "a-priori" reason that these two masses should be the same but repeated experimentation has shown that they are which is why we don't often use the terms "active" and "passive" mass.
topsquark likes this.
HallsofIvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 09:33 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 470
Was it not Newton's intention, when defining the Gravity equation, that the masses referred to should be the same physical property as the mass in Force = Mass x Acceleration?

If there is no theoretical requirement that these quantities be the same,
I would suggest that the fact that they do seem to be the same,
points toward a gap in the theory where this requirement link should be.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 09:41 AM   #4
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,488
Originally Posted by Woody View Post
Was it not Newton's intention, when defining the Gravity equation, that the masses referred to should be the same physical property as the mass in Force = Mass x Acceleration?

If there is no theoretical requirement that these quantities be the same,
I would suggest that the fact that they do seem to be the same,
points toward a gap in the theory where this requirement link should be.
I would love to know why everyone keeps ignoring one simple fact - that there is zero evidence that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal, that they can only be shown to be proportional.

I've said this before and I was ignored. Why?
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 10:11 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Somerset, England
Posts: 911
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
I would love to know why everyone keeps ignoring one simple fact - that there is zero evidence that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal, that they can only be shown to be proportional.

I've said this before and I was ignored. Why?
Perhaps because there is more too it than that.

I have never come across the terms active and passive mass before and frankly I don't see the need for them, in fact they obscure Newton's laws as does the idea of proportionality.
studiot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 06:30 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 290
Again we have slipped into a discussion of the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass .

This is not the question ... for the moment lets forget all about mass's inertial properties ..

We are solely discussing gravitational effects ...

Someone has put forward the idea of of two components in the gravitational effect .

Here's the quote again ...

"We might distinguish two kinds of gravitational mass, active and passive. The active gravitational mass is the source of the object's gravitational field, while the passive gravitational mass responds to it. "

I can understand confusion over this , because it doesn't make sense !
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 06:52 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 290
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
I would love to know why everyone keeps ignoring one simple fact - that there is zero evidence that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal, that they can only be shown to be proportional.

I've said this before and I was ignored. Why?
Well you have to spell out what you mean , again in more detail ...

Think of the many readers who never post... explain everything as if talking to a 16 year old ...

Let me have a go at explaining why they're proportional

F=Ma .... we have defined the meter ,and defined the second , and defined the Killo and by these definitions we can say 1N causes a mass of 1 Kg to accelerate by 1 m sec 2...

Now to gravity .... F= G mM/r2 ...... Look at that G !!

We have a G in there ... so gravitational and inertial mass are proportional .

If G was 1 then they would be equal !!
oz93666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 1st 2018, 07:06 PM   #8
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by oz93666 View Post
Well you have to spell out what you mean , again in more detail ...

Think of the many readers who never post... explain everything as if talking to a 16 year old ...

Let me have a go at explaining why they're proportional

F=Ma .... we have defined the meter ,and defined the second , and defined the Killo and by these definitions we can say 1N causes a mass of 1 Kg to accelerate by 1 m sec 2...

Now to gravity .... F= G mM/r2 ...... Look at that G !!

We have a G in there ... so gravitational and inertial mass are proportional .

If G was 1 then they would be equal !!
Where is the r in F = ma?

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10th 2018, 03:57 AM   #9
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,488
He'll never get it. Not to mention that there's no way that a 16 year old can understand everything in physics. But I'm certain most will understand what active, passive and inertial mass is.

What he'll never understand is why the entire physics community doesn't think like he does.
topsquark likes this.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10th 2018, 10:11 AM   #10
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,488
This reminds me of electrodynamics. The terms active charge and passive charge can be used there too. Active charge would be described by the 4-current 4-vector while passive charge by the scalar charge of a particle.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Philosophy of Physics

Tags
active, mass



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Difference between nuclear mass and atomic mass? ling233 Quantum Physics 1 Oct 10th 2014 10:01 AM
Air with mass...Help me! hansolo Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 1 Jun 19th 2014 06:21 PM
Describe the main stages of an active noise control system. George321 Waves and Sound 0 Feb 14th 2010 05:14 PM
mass on spring accelerating 2nd mass robp Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Feb 25th 2009 05:35 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed