Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: franklinhu on 18 Apr 2010 00:44 On Apr 17, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 3:18 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 11, 9:57 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > rapidly -> swiftly > > move -> draw, drag, drift, drive, fare, go, shift, budge, stir... > > You never read my posts. Neutrinos are not energhy quanta--they are > > leptomesòns, two- or three-body sýstems with hihher harmonics, and > > belong above (or below, in my build) protium/hydrogen in the ecsotic > > group of the perihodic tabul of elements. Cosmic "wimps" (Weak is > > such a misnomer as it means not well, or near death, whereas not > > strong is limp.) would stell beside them to make a full shell. PDG > > fellows still don't know the structure of neutral leptòns but I do! > > > -Aut > > Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit? > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Neutrinos are more likely to be energy quanta related to photons since they appear to travel at light speed and do not appear to have much, if any measurable mass. Therefore, they have more in common in photons than electrons, mesons or any such ponderable mass object. As for why energy relates to the square, haven't you been reading my posts? Unlike most, I do have a simple answer to this question. I will repeat my answer: When a positron encounters an electron, it is acclerated to the speed of light prior to the collision. This is because they acclerate to the universal speed limit C. In the collision, this amounts to a kinetic energy of 1/2mc^2 (positron KE) + 1/2mc^2 (electron KE) = mc^2. In order to conserve energy, the KE of the particles is converted into gamma photons. Yes, I can explain why C is in the equation while no one else can. I can derive E=mc^2 using nothing more than the kinetic energy formula and addition.
From: BURT on 18 Apr 2010 00:53 On Apr 17, 9:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 3:18 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > On Apr 11, 9:57 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > rapidly -> swiftly > > > move -> draw, drag, drift, drive, fare, go, shift, budge, stir... > > > You never read my posts. Neutrinos are not energhy quanta--they are > > > leptomesòns, two- or three-body sýstems with hihher harmonics, and > > > belong above (or below, in my build) protium/hydrogen in the ecsotic > > > group of the perihodic tabul of elements. Cosmic "wimps" (Weak is > > > such a misnomer as it means not well, or near death, whereas not > > > strong is limp.) would stell beside them to make a full shell. PDG > > > fellows still don't know the structure of neutral leptòns but I do! > > > > -Aut > > > Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit? > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Neutrinos are more likely to be energy quanta related to photons since > they appear to travel at light speed and do not appear to have much, > if any measurable mass. Therefore, they have more in common in photons > than electrons, mesons or any such ponderable mass object. > > As for why energy relates to the square, haven't you been reading my > posts? Unlike most, I do have a simple answer to this question. I will > repeat my answer: When a positron encounters an electron, it is > acclerated to the speed of light prior to the collision. This is > because they acclerate to the universal speed limit C. In the > collision, this amounts to a kinetic energy of 1/2mc^2 (positron KE) + > 1/2mc^2 (electron KE) = mc^2. In order to conserve energy, the KE of > the particles is converted into gamma photons. Yes, I can explain why > C is in the equation while no one else can. I can derive E=mc^2 using > nothing more than the kinetic energy formula and addition.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Neutrinos never accelerated so they must be pushed like light. I believe they have a gamma of infinity for their time flow rate. Time is infinitely slow for them because of their just below and infinitely close to light speed quantity. Mitch Raemsch
From: Y.Porat on 18 Apr 2010 03:33 On Apr 17, 3:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 3:24 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 7, 3:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 6, 10:33 pm, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 3:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 6, 7:58 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). > > > > > > One must be a little bit careful about the meaning of mass here. > > > > > The invariant mass of the system (m^2 = E^2 - p^2) is indeed .... > > > > > well ... invariant, but you'll notice this quantity is not the > > > > > summative mass, namely the sum of the rest masses of the particles > > > > > involved. Where mass-energy conversion takes place, it is summative > > > > > mass that is usually being referred to. > > > > > Yes PD, one must be careful about the meaning of mass, especially when > > > > talking about "rest" or "invariant" mass. This will surely confuse a > > > > lot of people. One must keep in mind that there is ONLY ONE MASS. The > > > > problem is that the VALUE of that one mass is observer dependent. In > > > > order to provide a common ground for all the observers scientists have > > > > defined these standard frames of reference. If everyone measures the > > > > mass in the same standard frame of reference then they will all get > > > > the same value. For the "rest" mass (which applies to one particle) > > > > the frame of reference is at rest with that particle. The "invariant" > > > > mass applies to systems of particles and is defined in the frame of > > > > reference in which the system is at rest, even though individual > > > > particles in the system are not. But we know there is no preferred > > > > frame of reference in relativity, and it's postulated that all the > > > > laws of physics are the same in any of them, so these standardized > > > > frames are no more special than the infinite number of other frames of > > > > reference one can choose. (I'm talking about inertial frames in SR > > > > here.) The equation E = m c^2 IS the general form for the TOTAL ENERGY > > > > in any arbitrary frame of reference, where m is the relativistic mass > > > > in that frame of reference. > > > > Well, perhaps this is being pedantic, but I would quibble with your > > > claim that there is only one mass and that that one mass is the > > > relativistic mass. This is precisely what has gone out of disfavor in > > > recent decades. > > > ---------------- > > the idiot PD still ddint get that > > > there is JUST ONE KIND OF MASS!! > > AND IT IS NOT RELATIVISTIC > > BECAUSE IN > > > E=MC^2 > > > there is no GAMMA FACTOR > > TO MAKE IT 'RELATIVISTIC!! > > That depends on the meaning of the terms that are in that equation, > and for that you need the context. > > In the original context, E was not the total energy but the rest > energy, and so there was no gamma because the object was at rest. In > this context, of course, it did not apply to the photon, because both > the mass and the rest energy of the photon is zero. > > There was an adapted context, where E did mean the total energy, and > then m was the relativistic mass, which did in fact include the gamma > factor, because relativistic mass m = gamma*m0. This, however, has > fallen out of disfavor. > > In modern context, the equation E=mc^2 is avoided entirely because of > the confusion introduced above, and the more relevant equation does > become E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 = (gamma*mc^2)^2. This equation works > for both massive objects and for photons and is therefore both more > general and unambiguous. > > You have been struggling with old equations and confused yourself with > conflicting contexts. It would do you good to catch up. > > > > > the gamma factor > > DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PHOTON !! > > therefore not to energy !!! > > > will you stick it once and for > > all into your tough skull ??? > > > one of the great disasters > > that was inflicted on physics > > since more than the last half century > > is > > that dumb mathematicians > > took over physics !! > > > Y.Porat > > -------------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --------------------- (:-) what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! 2 the formula E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 is not for net energy it is for a mixture of particles and energy BESIDES if you take only the momentum of energy you have here p=mc SO WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy is V=c ???!!! 3 i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** that you alone are responsible for them I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA GIVES US !!! (including the*** momentum formula** ) (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative interpretations ) 4 did you stil didnt understand all my multI proves that THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? though al the long spoon feedings based on the E=hf formula ???!!! (that is time dependent !!!??? and that he scalars there that are linearly related to mass AND energy !! can be related only to the mass ?? because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first degree and not ^2 degree !! it is not even physics it is your mathematics !!! ( i know it is very revolutionary and original it is not written yet in any of your books (:-) it is not your fault that you have difficulties to digest it- but still !!.....) TIA Y.Porat --------------------- TIA Y.Porat -----------------------------
From: Autymn D. C. on 18 Apr 2010 06:20 On Apr 17, 9:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 12:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > Neutrinos are more likely to be energy quanta related to photons since > they appear to travel at light speed and do not appear to have much, > if any measurable mass. Therefore, they have more in common in photons > than electrons, mesons or any such ponderable mass object. Lots of massive radiation appear to fare upon celerity. It's fotòns' job to jump quantals only, whereas neutrinos are reactands and products in nuclear reactions and therefore share the role of nuclides or atoms. They are not fundamental motes. > As for why energy relates to the square, haven't you been reading my > posts? Unlike most, I do have a simple answer to this question. I will Momentum was already taken. > repeat my answer: When a positron encounters an electron, it is > acclerated to the speed of light prior to the collision. This is > because they acclerate to the universal speed limit C. In the > collision, this amounts to a kinetic energy of 1/2mc^2 (positron KE) + > 1/2mc^2 (electron KE) = mc^2. In order to conserve energy, the KE of > the particles is converted into gamma photons. Yes, I can explain why > C is in the equation while no one else can. I can derive E=mc^2 using > nothing more than the kinetic energy formula and addition. Whiles their [static] mass wanes toward nouht. There is no mc^2 /2. Take E_dýnètic = E_enthalpic = -mc^2 and solv for E_cinètic := mv^2 /2: E_mekanic := E_cinètic + E_dýnètic = 0 => E_cinètic = mc^2 2/2 = m(2^·5 c)^2 /2.. or m(â2 c)^2 /2 => v = â2 c. (That must be elèctric and magnètic speeds.) Another of fysysysts' misnomers is "static and dynamic friction"-- dýnamic means potamenic (or potamenial.. nonetheless it goes as potential); it's "static and cinètic friction". -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 18 Apr 2010 06:58
On Apr 17, 12:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > So no, it is not like 4pi which doesn't match up with any other > measured physical constant, it represents a very specific value and 4ð(1 1) is the area of a unit ball. |