Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:02 On Apr 6, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Tony M wrote: > > 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. > > Again this depends on the meanings of your words, including nuances. With > standard meanings we do say "mass is converted into kinetic energy". See below. When there's a dative postdicand (This is English sýntacs, so there is no predicand.), the genitive is often omitted: mass converts to cinetic energhy fro potential energhy. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:10 On Apr 6, 11:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > "This result may be interpreted by noticing that, in the present > theory, the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave > where the amplitude is very large, and it therefore seems quite > natural that the internal motion rythm of the particle should always > be the same as that of the wave at the point where the particle is > located." > > de Broglie's definition of wave-particle duality is of a physical wave > and a physical particle. The particle occupies a very small region of > the wave. This classic/popular model of the mote is wrong; the mote is everywhere between its Coulomb radius and de Sitter radius--it is at its univers. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:44 On Apr 9, 1:48 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Apr 9, 4:14 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: > > > > 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? I guys? Dumbass. > > > > 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? > > BURT doesn't know. Half baked slogans come to > him through a Ouji board like: > > 'Light is is the radiation of EM along a path; > gravito-inertia is the conservation of EM > along a path'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity Uh, isn't this Casimir effect? > My Ouji board is better however because it > points to clickable references. :-)) Ouija--there is no Weejee.
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:48 On Apr 9, 9:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 4:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Your theory will be better once you lose the 'poselectron'. > > > "[The ether] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which > > allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." - Albert > > Einstein > > > When an electron and positron 'annihilate' each other they return to > > their base state of aether. > Anti matter doesn't exist and the scientists are going to be > emberassed about that. > For example how can an anti electron make it through the atmosphere? > Mitch Raemsch if it's hýpervolic
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:51
On Apr 9, 8:33 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.govforthe 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. You forgot the other neutral 22keV elepositron. |