Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 12 Apr 2010 03:45 On Apr 12, 7:11 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 - =-------------------- Fanklin just tell those blockhead parrots that **Energy is mass in motion!!!* E=mc^2 there you have the kilograms!! AND THERE IS NO THERE A FUCKEN GAMMA FACTOR TO MAKE IT 'RELATIVISTIC MASS !! and energy has mass!! it was proven dozens of times but not to fucken blockheads !! AND TELL THEM -SABOTAGE RS THAT **NO MASS = NO REAL PHYSICS !! so let them shameless fuckers mathematicians to go on and look for virtual particles **without mass** and waist huge human resources to the rest of their fucken lives !! Y.P ------------------------------------ Y.P --------------------------
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 09:09 On Apr 12, 12:11 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. That's correct. But some quantities are conserved in nature and others are not, a result that is obtained by *observation*. In observation, for example, kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. In observation, the quantity mv^3 is not a conserved quantity. In observation, mass is not a conserved quantity, either. > > 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. That's correct. > > 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). There is no law of conservation of mass. And, no, this does not violate the law of conservation of energy, either. The law of conservation of energy has to include the contributions from all energy terms: translational kinetic energy, rest energy, rotational kinetic energy, potential energy, configuration energy and so on. No single term is conserved on its own, but the sum is. This is basic freshman physics. > 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 - > >
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 09:31 On Apr 11, 11:57 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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.govfortheparticlespectroscopy 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, That is factually incorrect. You may want to look up cold neutron observations. > neutrinos are extremely difficult to > detect and take enormous setups like Super-Kamiokande or SNO to do the > detection. That is also factually incorrect. There are and have been fairly small neutrino detectors in neutrino beamlines at BNL, FNAL, and CERN. You need to read up more. > Kaons are presumed when you see a pair of oppositely > charged particles appear out of nowhere. That is *also* factually incorrect. This is the reason, Franklin, why I think it is incredibly important for you to learn more about particle physics, especially experimental particle physics, before you start designing your own experiments, which you have done so far on the basis of lack of information and misinformation. > > 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. No, that is incorrect, Franklin. If it had been the result of a neutral particle being split apart, then there would be many more experimental signatures to be checked. For example, one would reconstruct the mass of the decaying particle by measuring the momenta of the daughter particles, and there would be a resonance in the mass distribution. There would be a reconstructed spin, parity, and other quantum numbers, also based on measurements of the daughter product. You see, there is much more involved in identifying that the daughter particles come from a decaying parent particle than you perhaps thought. > > > > 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" And that's also incorrect. > > > 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. Why? Calculations are in order here. Neutrinos interact via the weak interaction only, which has a characteristic strength, which allows you to calculate rates not only for reactions involving neutrinos but other weak interactions as well. Your poselectron would interact via the electromagnetic interaction, which has a fundamentally different interaction strength. > 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. Actually, the first neutrino detection experiments were exactly that: a neutrino detector placed right next to a neutrino source like a nuclear reactor. You may want to look this up before proposing something that's been done decades ago. > > > > > > > > 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? The neutral here could well be a photon or a Z (or other particles). You need to distinguish the signature further. > > > > > > 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: PD on 12 Apr 2010 09:36 On Apr 12, 12:43 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 10, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit PD? > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Yes, why the value of C? Why not some other big number like a > 6.02X10^23 or 5 or 3C or some random number? > > Strangely, it is exactly C - always C, never anything else. What on > earth does that have to do with matter? You are under the illusion that c represents something other than it is. It is a *conversion* factor that is an accident of historical and arbitrary assignment of units. The relationship between meters and seconds is no more physical than the relationship between meters and miles. In a *physically* sensible system of units (so-called natural units, and you can look them up), the value of c is 1. Asking why c appears in E=mc^2 is like asking why 4pi appears in Coulomb's law or why 16.387 appears in an expression between cubic centimeters and cubic inches. It is an *arbitrary* artifact of the units we have chosen for m and for E. > > I can easily explain what C is doing there. When positron/electron > collide, the accelerate to C, the maximum universal speed limit. That > is why C appears in E=MC^2. It is just part of the newtonian kinetic > energy formula KE=1/2Mv^2 where v = C. > > Now you can be like Tom and claim "duh, we'll never know", but that is > a cop out.
From: PD on 12 Apr 2010 09:41
On Apr 12, 12:00 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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! It's not any more magical than the conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy. Do you find the law of conservation of energy to be a great mystery that is unexplained until someone explains to you how potential energy gets converted into kinetic energy and vice versa? Are you under the impression that kinetic energy is conserved? Are you under the impression that potential energy is conserved? > > 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???? The difficulty you're having is thinking that mass is conserved, and that if mass is not conserved, then there should be an explanation of why it isn't. This would be like someone thinking that the number of particles in a system should be conserved, and that if a reaction happens where there are two particles in the initial state and four particles in the final state, someone has to explain how new particles get made to account for particle number being violated. The problem is, there is no law of conservation of number of particles, and so it's foolish to claim that a changing number of particles should be a big mystery. > > No changing the subject now .... |