Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 6 Apr 2010 12:50 On Apr 6, 11:47 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Apr 6, 10:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Normally we apply the word "mass" to OBJECTS, not to collections of unbound > >> objects. In the initial state the electron and the positron EACH have a mass, > >> and the total mass is 1.022 MeV/c^2. In the final state the gammas each have > >> zero mass, and the total mass is 0. The total energies of the initial and final > >> states are the same. The total kinetic energy of the initial state is 0, but the > >> total kinetic energy of the final state is 1.022 MeV. These units have c=1, and > >> it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy. > > > Stating the 'total mass is 0' is misleading. The mass still exists. > > No. I am using these words with their standard meanings in modern physics.. There > is no mass in that final state. > > > [... attempt to invoke undefined concepts to "explain" this] > > Tom Roberts MPC says mass is conserved because he says so. He also says the mass becomes invisible as mass and appears in some other supposed substance. This occurrence is evidence, for him, of the existence of the supposed substance. MPC is a little tetched in the head, perhaps.
From: mpc755 on 6 Apr 2010 14:23 On Apr 6, 12:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Apr 6, 10:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Normally we apply the word "mass" to OBJECTS, not to collections of unbound > >> objects. In the initial state the electron and the positron EACH have a mass, > >> and the total mass is 1.022 MeV/c^2. In the final state the gammas each have > >> zero mass, and the total mass is 0. The total energies of the initial and final > >> states are the same. The total kinetic energy of the initial state is 0, but the > >> total kinetic energy of the final state is 1.022 MeV. These units have c=1, and > >> it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy. > > > Stating the 'total mass is 0' is misleading. The mass still exists. > > No. I am using these words with their standard meanings in modern physics.. There > is no mass in that final state. > Of course there is still the same amount of mass in that final state. It doesn't disappear. It doesn't vanish. Saying "it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy", is completely not understanding the physics of nature. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. 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: mpc755 on 6 Apr 2010 14:26 On Apr 6, 12:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 11:47 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 10:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > >> Normally we apply the word "mass" to OBJECTS, not to collections of unbound > > >> objects. In the initial state the electron and the positron EACH have a mass, > > >> and the total mass is 1.022 MeV/c^2. In the final state the gammas each have > > >> zero mass, and the total mass is 0. The total energies of the initial and final > > >> states are the same. The total kinetic energy of the initial state is 0, but the > > >> total kinetic energy of the final state is 1.022 MeV. These units have c=1, and > > >> it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy. > > > > Stating the 'total mass is 0' is misleading. The mass still exists. > > > No. I am using these words with their standard meanings in modern physics. There > > is no mass in that final state. > > > > [... attempt to invoke undefined concepts to "explain" this] > > > Tom Roberts > > MPC says mass is conserved because he says so. > He also says the mass becomes invisible as mass and appears in some > other supposed substance. This occurrence is evidence, for him, of the > existence of the supposed substance. > MPC is a little tetched in the head, perhaps. You must have missed this post: Quote from poster stating science does not understand gravity: 'Therefore, in order to understand gravity, you must not try to understand current theory as it has gotten us absolutely nowhere in the past 100 years. That would be like trying to understand a flat Earth theory. If you don't believe me, then just ask any real scientist and the answer will still come back "we really don't understand gravity" if they are honest.' Your model can not explain how matter causes space to be unflat but not move. Your model can not explain how matter causes space to be unflat. Your model can not explain how an unflat space causes gravity to physically exist. You are making the point. Gravity is pressure exerted by aether displaced by matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." 'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory Louis de BROGLIE' http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-classiques/aflb124p001.pdf "I called this relation, which determines the particle's motion in the wave, "the guidance formula". It may easily be generalized to the case of an external field acting on the particle." "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. In AD, the external field is the aether. In a double slit experiment the particle occupies a very small region of the wave and enters and exits a single slit. The wave enters and exits the available slits. For example, in the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment There are waves propagating both the red and blue paths towards D0. One of the downgraded photon 'particles' is traveling either the red or blue path towards D0. The lens causes the waves to create interference which alters the direction the particle travels. One set of downgraded photons is creating one of the interference patterns at D0 and the other set of downgraded photons is creating the other. It's all very easy to understand once you realize 'delayed-choice', 'quantum eraser', and the future determining the past is simply misinterpreting what is occurring in nature. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experiment When the downgraded photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, the original photons momentum is maintained. This means the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. We will describe one of the photons as being the 'up' photon and the other photon as being the 'down' photon. One of the downgraded photons travels either the red or blue path towards D0 and the other photon travels either the red or blue path towards the prism. There are physical waves in the aether propagating both the red and blue paths. The aether waves propagating towards D0 interact with the lens and create interference prior to reaching D0. The aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels prior to reaching D0. There are actually two interference patterns being created at D0. One associated with the 'up' photons when they arrive at D0 and the other interference pattern associated with the 'down' photons when they arrive at D0. Both 'up' and 'down' photons are reflected by BSa and arrive at D3. Since there is a single path towards D3 there is nothing for the wave in the aether to interfere with and there is no interference pattern and since it is not determined if it is an 'up' or 'down' photon being detected at D3 there is no way to distinguish between the photons arriving at D0 which interference pattern each photon belongs to. The same for photons reflected by BSb and arrive at D4. Photons which pass through BSa and are reflected by BSc and arrive at D1 are either 'up' or 'down' photons but not both. If 'up' photons arrive at D1 then 'down' photons arrive at D2. The opposite occurs for photons which pass through BSb. Photons which pass through BSa and pass through BSb and arrive at D1 are all either 'up' or 'down' photons. If all 'up' photons arrive at D1 then all 'down' photons arrive at D2. Since the physical waves in the aether traveling both the red and blue paths are combined prior to D1 and D2 the aether waves create interference which alters the direction the photon travels. Since all 'up' photons arrive at one of the detectors and all 'down' photons arrive at the other an interference pattern is created which reflects back to the interference both sets of photons are creating at D0. Figures 3 and 4 here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9903/9903047v1.pdf Show the interference pattern of the 'up' and 'down' photons. If you were to combine the two images and add the peaks together and add the valleys together you would have the interference pattern of the original photon. This is evidence the downgraded photon pair maintain the original photons momentum and have opposite angular momentums. Nothing is erased. There is no delayed choice. Physical waves in the aether are traveling both the red and blue paths and when the paths are combined the waves create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Experiments which will provide evidence of Aether Displacement: Experiment #1: Instead of having a single beam splitter BSc have two beam splitters BSca and BScb. Have the photons reflected by mirror Ma interact with BSca and have the photons reflected by mirror Mb interact with BScb. Do not combine the red and blue paths. Have additional detectors D1a, D2a, D1b, and D2b. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BSca be detected at D1a and D2a. Have the photons reflected by and propagate through BScb be detected at D1b and D2b. If you compare the photons detected at D1a and D1b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. If you compare the photons detected at D2a and D2b with the photons detected at D0, the corresponding photons detected at D0 will form an interference pattern. What is occurring is all 'up' photons are being detected at one pair of detectors, for example D1a and D1b, and all 'down' photons are being detected at the other pair of detectors, for example D2a and D2b. Interference patterns do not even need to be created in order to 'go back' and determine the interference patterns created at D0. Experiment #2: Alter the experiment. When the downgraded photon pair are created, have each photon interact with its own double slit apparatus. Have detectors at one of the exits for each double slit apparatus. When a photon is detected at one of the exits, in AD, the photon's aether wave still exists and is propagating along the path exiting the other slit. When a photon is not detected at one of the exits, the photon 'particle' along with its associated aether wave exits the other slit. Combine the path the aether wave the detected photon is propagating along with the path of the other photon and its associated aether wave. An interference pattern will still be created. This shows the aether wave of a detected photon still exists and is able to create interference with the aether wave of another photon, altering the direction the photon 'particle' travels. Your inability to physically explain the following is evidence you feign hypothesis: - The future determining the past - Virtual particles which exist out of nothing - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair - A C-60 molecule can enter, travel through, and exit multiple slits simultaneously without requiring energy, releasing energy, or having a change in momentum. - Matter causes physical space to be 'unflat' but not move The following are the most correct physical explanations to date: - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - The aether displaced by the matter which are the plates extends past the other plate. The pressure exerted by the aether displaced by the plates forces the plates together - Conservation of momentum does apply to a downgraded photon pair. When a photon is detected its wave collapses which determines its spin. In order for the original photons momentum to be conserved, the downgraded photon pair have opposite angular momentums. - A C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the associate aether displacement wave enters and exits available slits - Physical space is displaced by matter. Aether is displaced by matter.
From: mpc755 on 6 Apr 2010 14:46 On Apr 6, 12:47 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Apr 6, 10:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> Normally we apply the word "mass" to OBJECTS, not to collections of unbound > >> objects. In the initial state the electron and the positron EACH have a mass, > >> and the total mass is 1.022 MeV/c^2. In the final state the gammas each have > >> zero mass, and the total mass is 0. The total energies of the initial and final > >> states are the same. The total kinetic energy of the initial state is 0, but the > >> total kinetic energy of the final state is 1.022 MeV. These units have c=1, and > >> it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy. > > > Stating the 'total mass is 0' is misleading. The mass still exists. > > No. I am using these words with their standard meanings in modern physics.. There > is no mass in that final state. > Of course there is still the same amount of mass in that final state. It doesn't disappear. It doesn't vanish. Saying "it is obvious that mass was indeed converted to kinetic energy", is completely not understanding the physics of nature. Mass does not convert to energy. Matter transitions to aether. Matter expands in three dimensional space as it transitions to aether. Matter increases in volume as it transitions to aether. The physical effect this transition has on the neighboring aether and matter is energy. What do you think you are witnessing when you watch a video of an atomic bomb explode? You are going to answer you are watching mass convert to energy. What you are watching is the physical effect matter expanding in volume as it transitions to aether has on the neighboring matter and aether: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16heorrfsgY 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: PD on 6 Apr 2010 15:22
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. |