Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: Sue... on 9 Apr 2010 09:42 On Apr 6, 3:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 8:14 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > You don't have photons 'till there is a causally > > related absorption somewhere else and AFAIK no more > > fundamental particles are known of. > > Fascinating. So let's see if I have this right. > The sun has a certain power output, which corresponds to a certain > number of photons per second by a rather straightforward calculation. > But only a fraction of them are ever absorbed, and only a fraction of > those are identified in an Earth laboratory as being photons. > According to you, we are permitted to presume that the photons that > are absorbed somewhere else are in fact photons, but that the ones > that are not absorbed at all are not photons. So if the bulk of the > sun's power output is not carried away by photons, then by what is all > that energy carried? << The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology, photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on which the prize decision rested only in connection with emission and absorption processes. The Committee says that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/ekspong/ See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect#Modern_view Sue... > > PD
From: PD on 9 Apr 2010 09:54 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 at http://pdg.lbl.gov for the 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? > 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
From: J. Clarke on 9 Apr 2010 10:15 On 4/9/2010 1:22 AM, franklinhu wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:14 am, "Sue..."<suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: >> 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...- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Reversability is trival. If you assume a poselectron forms when a > positron and electron combine, then reversing it just means you hit > the poselectron with enough energy to accelerate the particles to the > speed of light = mc^2 and it will separate back into a positron and > electron. What could be simpler than that? Who needs a Dirac Sea and > pseudo particles? All you need are the particles we know and love > (positrons/electrons) and the poselectron which awaits someone to > discover which will instantly award them the Nobel prize. Too bad > nobody is interested in finding it. I bet you could find it by > analysing all the so called "garbage" accelerator collisions looking > for signs of a hidden neutral particle coming out of positron/electron > reactions. So apply for a grant to do that. Let us know how you make out. It would help if you first actually got a physics degree.
From: Tom Roberts on 9 Apr 2010 11:26 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
From: BURT on 9 Apr 2010 14:34
On Apr 9, 1:14 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: > > > > 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. 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 - > > > 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? > > Thanks, > > meami.org > > advertising free Google search platform- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein said that energy is concentrated in mass. But if mass is a point particle it will be finite energy in an infinitely small place. Point particles of infinite energy density have mass. Mitch Raemsch |