Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: J. Clarke on 9 Apr 2010 10:15 On 4/9/2010 1:22 AM, franklinhu wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:14 am, "Sue..."<suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> On Apr 6, 8:58 am, Tony M<marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..."<suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> >>>>> On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee<koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: >> >>>>>>>> Tony M wrote: >>>>>>>>> As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is >>>>>>>>> valid? >> >>>>>>>> In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy >>>>>>>> are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain >>>>>>>> circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. >> >>>>>>> This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m >>>>>>> c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked >>>>>>> tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture >>>>>>> according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art >>>>>>> schools, I guess.<shrug> >> >>>>>> E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more >>>>>> than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. >> >>>>>> The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical >>>>>> variables. That's what equations do. >> >>>>>> If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some >>>>>> sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. >> >>>>> <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass >>>>> of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt >> >>>>> Sue... >> >>>> Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note >>>> that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces >>>> a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are >>>> equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>> I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe >>> "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The >>> way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one >>> cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of >>> energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of >>> mass, as per E=mc2. >> >>> Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit >>> misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, >>> when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the >>> electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass >>> before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron >>> and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles). >> >> You don't have photons 'till there is a causally >> related absorption somewhere else and AFAIK no more >> fundamental particles are known of. >> >> Not meant to mislead. The story isn't complete >> without reversibility and that, thus far seems >> to occur only in mathematical models with >> pseudo-particles. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea >> >> Perhaps a rare occasion where PD and I >> find a bit of agreement so take a picture >> and pinch yourself to ensure you are awake. >> >> Sue...- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Reversability is trival. If you assume a poselectron forms when a > positron and electron combine, then reversing it just means you hit > the poselectron with enough energy to accelerate the particles to the > speed of light = mc^2 and it will separate back into a positron and > electron. What could be simpler than that? Who needs a Dirac Sea and > pseudo particles? All you need are the particles we know and love > (positrons/electrons) and the poselectron which awaits someone to > discover which will instantly award them the Nobel prize. Too bad > nobody is interested in finding it. I bet you could find it by > analysing all the so called "garbage" accelerator collisions looking > for signs of a hidden neutral particle coming out of positron/electron > reactions. So apply for a grant to do that. Let us know how you make out. It would help if you first actually got a physics degree.
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Apr 2010 11:26 franklinhu wrote: > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > particle which has yet to be discovered. Such a HEAVY "poselectron" could not possibly be missed. The production of such a particle in e+ e- annihilation would COMPLETELY invalidate the observed conservation of energy in this annihilation. You really ought to learn what is already known about such things before attempting to postulate new stuff. Tom Roberts
From: BURT on 9 Apr 2010 14:34 On Apr 9, 1:14 am, Link <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 8, 10:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 5:58 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Tony M wrote: > > > > > > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > > > > > > > > > valid? > > > > > > > > > > In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy > > > > > > > > > are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain > > > > > > > > > circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > > > > > > > > > This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m > > > > > > > > c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked > > > > > > > > tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture > > > > > > > > according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art > > > > > > > > schools, I guess. <shrug> > > > > > > > > E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more > > > > > > > than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. > > > > > > > > The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical > > > > > > > variables. That's what equations do. > > > > > > > > If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some > > > > > > > sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. > > > > > > > <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass > > > > > > of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt > > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > > Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note > > > > > that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces > > > > > a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are > > > > > equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe > > > > "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The > > > > way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one > > > > cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of > > > > energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of > > > > mass, as per E=mc2. > > > > > Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit > > > > misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, > > > > when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the > > > > electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass > > > > before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron > > > > and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles)..- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I think you have hit the on the main point which is that mass is not > > > "converted" into energy. You suggested that it gets converted into > > > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > > > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > > > particle which has yet to be discovered. It has been universally > > > ignored since it forms the "aether" of space and forms the medium > > > through which light travels. This is the actual higgs boson which > > > gives everything mass as well. I have previously suggested ways to > > > reveal the presence of the poselectron through experiments in my other > > > posts. > > > > See my article: > > > >http://franklinhu.com/emc.html > > > > I don't understand why you guys totally ignore this most obvious of > > > suggestions for the meaning of E=mc^2. Too simple for you, huh? > > > > fhuemc- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Mass is infinitely dense energy C squared in a mathemtical point > > particle. Particles are infinitely small point energies. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > What are the criteria required to meet a scientific definition (or > characteristics qualifying) for "infinitely dense" and "infinitely > small", please? > > Thanks, > > meami.org > > advertising free Google search platform- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein said that energy is concentrated in mass. But if mass is a point particle it will be finite energy in an infinitely small place. Point particles of infinite energy density have mass. Mitch Raemsch
From: franklinhu on 9 Apr 2010 23:33 On Apr 9, 6:54 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 12:15 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 6, 5:58 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:35 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:53 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 3, 10:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > > Tony M wrote: > > > > > > > > > As per the mass-energy equivalence, can I assume the following is > > > > > > > > > valid? > > > > > > > > > In relativity, which I assume is the context for your question, mass and energy > > > > > > > > are not "equivalent" in the manner you seem to think. They are in certain > > > > > > > > circumstances inter-convertible, but are most definitely not the same. > > > > > > > > This is unbelievable. Self-styled physicists came up with (E = m > > > > > > > c^2). Now, they are walking away from it and speak with a forked > > > > > > > tongue. These clowns are very liberally interpreting the scripture > > > > > > > according to their religion. That's what you get for liberal-art > > > > > > > schools, I guess. <shrug> > > > > > > > E=mc^2 in no way implies that mass and energy are equivalent, any more > > > > > > than F=ma implies that force and acceleration are equivalent. > > > > > > > The equation relates the quantitative values of two distinct physical > > > > > > variables. That's what equations do. > > > > > > > If you cannot read an equation, then perhaps you should read some > > > > > > sentences that precede and follow the equation where it is presented. > > > > > > <<...an electron and a positron, each with a mass > > > > > of 0.511 MeV/c2, can annihilate to yield 1.022 MeV of energy.>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronvolt > > > > > > Sue... > > > > > Yes, indeed. There is the numerical equality I was talking about. Note > > > > that a processes where the collision of two objects with mass produces > > > > a predictable amount of energy does not imply that mass and energy are > > > > equivalent. Perhaps you have the same difficulty that KW is having.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I think you're right PD, mass and energy are not the same thing. Maybe > > > "equivalence" is not the best word, "duality" is probably better. The > > > way I see it, mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, one > > > cannot convert mass to energy and vice-versa. For a certain amount of > > > energy in a system there will always be a corresponding amount of > > > mass, as per E=mc2. > > > > Sue's example of electron-positron "annihilation" can be a bit > > > misleading, making one believe that mass gets converted to energy, > > > when that's not the case. The isolated system consisting of the > > > electron and positron has the same total energy and corresponding mass > > > before and after the "annihilation", except now instead of electron > > > and positron we have gamma photons (and maybe some other particles).- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I think you have hit the on the main point which is that mass is not > > "converted" into energy. You suggested that it gets converted into > > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > > particle which has yet to be discovered. > > The 1 MeV space has been thoroughly searched at numerous facilities. > You can look athttp://pdg.lbl.govfor the particle spectroscopy in > that region. What properties other than mass would you expect this > particle to have, so that it can be searched for among the catalog of > particles in that energy range? > Neutral particles are notoriously difficult to detect as they generally leave no trace in normal particle accelerators. The space has been searched, but a 1 MeV neutral would easily escape detection because the detectors are designed to capture neutrals. This particle may interact with normal matter like neutrinos do which is hardly anything at all and may be extremely difficult to detect. The signature you would need to look for is a positron and electron which are generally heading in the same direction, come together to produce gamma rays and if a particle is produced in this reaction, it will still have the substantial kinetic energy of the positron/ electron and it may interact with matter in the calorimeter portion of the detector by producing new positrons and electrons generally in the original path of the positron and electron that reacted. So look for unexplained events in the calorimeter which can be traced back to a positron/electron annhiliation event. Simple, isn't it - find it and you will garner yourself a Nobel. I have also suggested doing a dedicated experiment of firing parallel beams of positrons and electrons and examining if any reactions occur after the point where the positrons and electrons have annhiliated. This is all experimentally verifiable and I'm sure someone more familiar with accelerator experiments could devise other more clever ways of detecting the neutral poselectron. > > > > It has been universally > > ignored since it forms the "aether" of space and forms the medium > > through which light travels. This is the actual higgs boson which > > gives everything mass as well. I have previously suggested ways to > > reveal the presence of the poselectron through experiments in my other > > posts. > > > See my article: > > >http://franklinhu.com/emc.html > > > I don't understand why you guys totally ignore this most obvious of > > suggestions for the meaning of E=mc^2. Too simple for you, huh? > > >fhuemc- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: franklinhu on 9 Apr 2010 23:53
On Apr 9, 8:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > franklinhu wrote: > > "some other particles". I would say that the electron and positron do > > combine to form a "poselectron" which is a superlightweight (1 MeV) > > particle which has yet to be discovered. > > Such a HEAVY "poselectron" could not possibly be missed. The production of such > a particle in e+ e- annihilation would COMPLETELY invalidate the observed > conservation of energy in this annihilation. > > You really ought to learn what is already known about such things before > attempting to postulate new stuff. > > Tom Roberts You ought to at least read the article I have in the previous post. In it, you would find that matter and energy are conserved abosolutely, never "converted" as in your idea of "conservation" which is really a conversion. The energy which is actually conserved is the kinetic energy gained by the positron and electron as they are accelerated to the speed of light as they collide. When they collide, their velocity becomes zero and in order to conserve the energy of the collision which is 1/2mc^2 +1/2mc^2, it releases it as an electromagnetic wave with energy mc^2. See, energy is absolutely conserved. The original positron and electron are not destroyed. They are instead converted into a nearly impossible to detect neutral particle. The presence of the resultant particle in no way implies that less energy should result from the original collision as you would imply in your so called "conservation" of energy. Explain me one thing - just how does matter turn into energy and how does energy turn into matter? Can't explain that, can you - no one can. This the so called "science" that you tell me to learn about. Nothing to learn about here, science has no clue how the conversion happens, so I choose not to believe it and come up with my alternate explanation which doesn't require any such magical conversion. As an analogy, consider fish scientists swimming in water performing and experiment with hydrogen and oxygen. They observe the "annhiliation" of hydrogen and oxygen which produces only energy. They cannot observe anything but "empty" space which looks exactly like the empty space that existed before the reaction. Similarly, if they run electricity through "empty" space, it produces oxygen and hydrogen. So they conclude that matter and energy convert to each other. That would be a silly conclusion wouldn't it? A conclusion as silly as the one that we are making that matter and energy convert into each other. |