Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 10 Apr 2010 22:38 franklinhu wrote: > 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. I specified annihilation at rest, as it is simpler. There is no such "acceleration to the speed of light"; they come together and annihilate. The initial state is an e+ and an e- at rest and close together; the final state is two 0.511 keV gammas headed off in opposite directions at the speed of light (all measured relative to the initial rest frame of the e+ and the e-). The total mass in the initial state is 1.022 MeV/c^2, and the total kinetic energy is 0. The total mass in the final state is 0 and the total kinetic energy is 1.022 MeV. That numerical equality is not happenstance, and we say "mass was converted into kinetic energy", because that is the way these words are used. > The original positron and > electron are not destroyed. Not true -- they are OBSERVED to be gone. > They are instead converted into a nearly > impossible to detect neutral particle. This is just plain not true. If there were such a particle in the final state, with a mass of 1.022 MeV/c^2 (as you seem to claim), it WOULD be detected through failure of energy to be conserved. > 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. Right. Humans will always be unable to "explain" how nature actually works. We are limited by our minds, which process only thoughts. All we can do is process thoughts that are MODELS of what we observe about the world we inhabit. This is inherent in being human. Live with it (you have no choice). Tom Roberts
From: Y.Porat on 11 Apr 2010 04:25 On Apr 4, 7:53 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> > > > > - electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass > > > flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load > > > No. There is only a rather loose correspondence to mass transfer. Energy is > > transferred, not mass --------------------- it is unbelievable to see how physics was over taken by fucken mathematician that call themselves physicists !! and how such simple things are complicated by idiots: that make complications AS THEIR SOURCE OF ** income* AND LIVING !!! Energy is ** MASS IN MOTION!!** what could be simpler than that since the historic evolution of : E=mc^2 was discovered !!!??? the m ---mass is right before your eyes!! now the 'smarties willtell you 'it is relativistic mass '!! 1 who on earth allowed you to invent a new kind of mass !! 2 even formally where do you see a gamma factor to make that mass 'relativistic mass" ???!!! actually i could stop here by a FULL STOP !! but anyway i will add here some of my explanations of mine about how that 'relativistic mass' was born in sin (:-) it started again by dumb mathematician that saw theGamma factor and EXTRACTED (EXTRAPOLATED IT) IT TO SCOPE IT DOES NOT BELONG!!! stupid mathematicinace ddi not understand that **any physics formula is not always overlapping the mathematical scope **!! ANY PHYSICS FORMULA HAS ITS LIMITS OF VALIDATION !! now those smarties saw that while v=c gamma becomes infinit ' but still a who on earth told you that gamma belongs to the mass why not to the energy needed to ad more acceleration?? b who on earth told you that that gamma is valid to E=mc^2 while v=c !!! why not that in that case THE GAMMA FACTOR STOPS BEING RELEVANT (OR APPLY) TO THAT E=nc^2 ??!! iow there is an exception to the rule that NO MASS CAN REACH c !!!??? and we see it even by experimental data !! we see that as mass becomes smaller and smaller it CAN BE accelerated CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c ! in some cases it is unbelievable close !! yet what has all those experimental facts got to do with dumb mathematicians that make their living ??!!-- --FROM COMPLICATING SIMPLE THINGS ??!! and by that pose themselves to be the old new 'impressive' Shamans ! that 'understand' things that the 'Plebeian' cant understand .... iow the crook -sucker symbiosis WAS ALWAYS ' A WINNING GAME ' !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- 3 one of the big mistakes , in that you could not detect mass in transit between > > them. It is possible to use the increased energy at the load to increase its > > mass, and to use the reduced energy at the source to reduce its mass, but there > > is no necessity to do so. In many common cases there is no definite object with > > a definite mass at source, load, or both, so attempting to discuss "mass > > transfer" is useless and perhaps meaningless. > > Your interpretation of things is merely a philosophical > interpretation. <shrug> > > > > - a charged battery or capacitor has higher mass than a discharged one > > > Yes (identical batteries or capacitors). >
From: franklinhu on 12 Apr 2010 00:57 On Apr 10, 9:59 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 10:33 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.govfortheparticle 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. > > Izzat so? Pray tell, then, how neutrons, photons, neutrinos, neutral > kaons, and so on are routinely detected.... > I didn't say impossible, I said difficult. Neutrons can only be detected by their decay products, neutrinos are extremely difficult to detect and take enormous setups like Super-Kamiokande or SNO to do the detection. Kaons are presumed when you see a pair of oppositely charged particles appear out of nowhere. We have actually observed poselectrons in an identical manner. In pair production, we see the apparent appearance of a positron and electron out of nowhere like the neutral Kaon in response to the application of 1 MeV of energy. If this was any other particle, we would had declared long ago that this was the result of a neutral particle being split apart. Intstead, due to Einsteins assertion that matter/energy convert to each other - we ignore this most common of events that identify the presence of a neutral. > > 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. > Sorry, I meant to say "detectors are NOT designed" > May? Or does? Quantitative prediction of reaction rates would be > useful here. > Keep in mind that what you are talking about would interact > electromagnetically (see for example, positronium - which is another > neutral entity made up of electrons and positrons), which is a sizable > interaction rate, much more than what neutrinos do. I would predict that the quantative reaction rate would be similar if not identical to what we observe for neutrinos. In my model, neutrinos are a specific wave energy phenonmenon similar to photons except they act on single poselectron particles much like how a string a billiard balls react when struck at one end. A poselectron particle passing through a poselectron aether would be like detecting a single molecule of oxygen zipping about a room of air. However, it would still carry a significant kinetic energy and there will be some small chance that it will release that energy upon some other particle and create a detectable particle shower. It could be a neutrino is actually just a rapidly moving poselectron. Unfortunately, it may mean that you would need to park a SNO type experiment next to the acclerator experiment which would undoubtedly be impractical or impossible. > > > > > 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. > > "Unexplained events"? What is the event signature? What are the > *detectable* features of the event that would signal the creation of > this particle? The detectable features are a particle shower that can only be only be explained by the collision of a netural created by the prior annhiliation of a previously detected positron and electron. I'll try do draw you a picture: e- ----------------------\ /------ e- * ---- * -------? e+ ----------------------/ \------ e+ Separate positron/electron They collide and leave no track Further down, we see particle shower. Is it clear? > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: franklinhu on 12 Apr 2010 01:00 On Apr 10, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > This is the fundamental mistake that is made by many a crank. > "I *choose* not to believe it, because it does not make sense given my > set of preconceptions about how nature should work. Rather than > believe it, I will instead invent another model that does fit my set > of preconceptions and therefore makes sense to me." > This is not how science works or should work. > > PD You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't! This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the way science is to be conducted. Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter converted into energy???? No changing the subject now ....
From: franklinhu on 12 Apr 2010 01:11
On Apr 10, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > Actually, it's pretty straightforward. Any process which respects > conservation laws is permitted. > If you look at the Feynman diagrams of electron-positron annihilation, > all conservation laws are respected. > > The key question is what you think would *prevent* matter being > converted to energy, since all conservation laws are respected? > Look in the dictionary, "conservation" means that what starts in the beginning of the reaction remains in the product. Striclty speaking, this means if there is X amount of mass in the beginnning of a recaction, there is X amount in the product. That is CONSERVATION. On the other hand, what we have with mass turning to energy is a CONVERSION (as you say). Look in the dictionary, they are different words and mean completely different things. A conversion turns one thing into something else completely different. Like mass turning into energy - this is clearly a CONVERSION, not CONSERVATION. So, if mass is to become energy in a conversion, this would require both the violation of the principle of convservation of mass (mass dissappears) and conservation of energy (it appears out of nowhere). So yes, there is much to prevent the conversion of mass to energy in that it require the simultaneous violation of both conservation of mass and energy. These are conservation laws which are not violated in any other situation. Sheesh, could there be any more blatant violation of convervation laws than this? The only way this could work is to say that two wrongs make a right, but in this case, I think it is just really, really wrong. Now, my model conserves both mass and energy in perfect harmony. Nor do I have to explain how mass is somehow a "ball" of energy which it converts to. > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |