Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 5 Apr 2010 18:15 On Apr 5, 11:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thank you all for your comments. I asked the question because when I > > was taught the mass-energy equivalence principle, back in high-school > > physics, they only presented it in the context of nuclear fusion/ > > fission reactions. I wanted to confirm for myself that it has general > > applicability to all the other "conventional" forms of energy, and > > more than that, a change in energy literally means a change in mass, > > without exception, and it's not just a "loose correspondence" like > > someone here said. The magnitude of the change is irrelevant as I do > > not plan to measure it. It was a purely theoretical question. > > The post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory > called Aether Displacement. > > The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever > ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether > Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether > are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the > physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the > neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions to aether is > energy. > > Just to be clear, the post you are responding to is not generally > accepted, to date. > > Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. Aether is energyless of itself. But energy always co exists with an aether. Ordering energy is what it is all about. Even space effects energy. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 5 Apr 2010 18:24 On Apr 5, 6:15 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Apr 5, 11:03 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 5, 11:21 am, Tony M <marc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thank you all for your comments. I asked the question because when I > > > was taught the mass-energy equivalence principle, back in high-school > > > physics, they only presented it in the context of nuclear fusion/ > > > fission reactions. I wanted to confirm for myself that it has general > > > applicability to all the other "conventional" forms of energy, and > > > more than that, a change in energy literally means a change in mass, > > > without exception, and it's not just a "loose correspondence" like > > > someone here said. The magnitude of the change is irrelevant as I do > > > not plan to measure it. It was a purely theoretical question. > > > The post you are responding to, which is mine, is part of my theory > > called Aether Displacement. > > > The conventional 'wisdom' is mass 'converts to' energy (whatever > > ridiculous nonsense that means). What I am stating in Aether > > Displacement is mass does not transition to energy. Matter and aether > > are different states of the same material and in terms of E=mc^2, the > > physical effect the expansion in volume the mass has on the > > neighboring matter and aether as the matter transitions to aether is > > energy. > > > Just to be clear, the post you are responding to is not generally > > accepted, to date. > > > Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. > > Aether is energyless of itself. But energy always co exists with an > aether. Ordering energy is what it is all about. Even space effects > energy. > > Mitch Raemsch Aether and matter are different states of the same material. Matter is compressed aether and aether is uncompressed matter. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy.
From: Tom Roberts on 5 Apr 2010 23:40 waldofj wrote: > I have a recording of E saying mass and energy are both equivalent > manifestations of the same thing. You must beware of the evolution of language. Einstein may well have said "mass", but probably meant what we would call "relativistic mass" today -- the language has evolved since his day. This usage of "mass" is archaic, and today is tantamount to being wrong (even though some textbooks persevere in using it). Note that an object's energy is, as I said before, the time component of its 4-momentum. So is the object's "relativistic mass" -- they are more than equivalent, they are actually the same. But they are NOT what we mean by "mass" today (which is the norm of the object's 4-momentum). I put "relativistic mass" in quotes to warn the reader that this is an anachronism, and is not actually a mass. > So, as per the mass-energy > equivalence, all of the above is correct. As I said before, not all of Tony M's statements are correct. At least some of them depend on the meanings of words. For instance consider his first: "electric energy flowing through power lines is equivalent to a mass flow => mass is transferred from the source to the load". Let the source be a battery and the load a resistor, so we have definite objects and can measure their masses. Select any surface between them, and you will note that there is no net mass crossing the surface -- energy crosses, but no net mass does [#]. So this is not "mass flow". But then, one could measure the masses of battery and resistor (+heat) before and after current flows, and they will change: the mass of the source decreased and the mass of the load increased, which is "mass transfer" in a different sense than "mass flow". As I said, the validity of this statement depends on the nuanced meanings of the words involved. [#] For every electron crossing the surface in one direction inside one wire, there is one crossing in the other direction inside the other wire. The only way to know there is energy crossing the surface is to measure the EM fields. Tom Roberts
From: Tony M on 6 Apr 2010 08:58 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).
From: Sue... on 6 Apr 2010 09:14
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... |