Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: franklinhu on 9 Apr 2010 23:33 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.govfor 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? > 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. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: franklinhu on 9 Apr 2010 23:53 On Apr 9, 8:26 am, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > 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 You ought to at least read the article I have in the previous post. In it, you would find that matter and energy are conserved abosolutely, never "converted" as in your idea of "conservation" which is really a conversion. The energy which is actually conserved is the kinetic energy gained by the positron and electron as they are accelerated to the speed of light as they collide. When they collide, their velocity becomes zero and in order to conserve the energy of the collision which is 1/2mc^2 +1/2mc^2, it releases it as an electromagnetic wave with energy mc^2. See, energy is absolutely conserved. The original positron and electron are not destroyed. They are instead converted into a nearly impossible to detect neutral particle. The presence of the resultant particle in no way implies that less energy should result from the original collision as you would imply in your so called "conservation" of energy. Explain me one thing - just how does matter turn into energy and how does energy turn into matter? Can't explain that, can you - no one can. This the so called "science" that you tell me to learn about. Nothing to learn about here, science has no clue how the conversion happens, so I choose not to believe it and come up with my alternate explanation which doesn't require any such magical conversion. As an analogy, consider fish scientists swimming in water performing and experiment with hydrogen and oxygen. They observe the "annhiliation" of hydrogen and oxygen which produces only energy. They cannot observe anything but "empty" space which looks exactly like the empty space that existed before the reaction. Similarly, if they run electricity through "empty" space, it produces oxygen and hydrogen. So they conclude that matter and energy convert to each other. That would be a silly conclusion wouldn't it? A conclusion as silly as the one that we are making that matter and energy convert into each other.
From: BURT on 10 Apr 2010 00:03 On Apr 9, 4:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 9, 1:15 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. 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 > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 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
From: Koobee Wublee on 10 Apr 2010 02:54 On Apr 7, 3:37 pm, Tom Roberts wrote: > You are supposed to READ what I write. I was quite careful to say mass is > converted to KINETIC energy, not to "energy". The distinction is important. You only try to be careful when dealing with mysticism. If you really understand the physics, you can afford to be more relaxed. <shrug> There is no such quantity as the kinetic energy or potential energy. These energies are merely Newtonian interpretation to the overall "energy". > For this annihilation one has: > > State: Initial Final > ------- ----- > Total mass (MeV/c^2) 1.022 0 > Kinetic energy (MeV) 0 1.022 > Total energy (MeV) 1.022 1.022 > Total momentum (MeV/c) 0 0 <turning thumbs passing time in reading that interpretations to energy> > A simple glance shows that kinetic energy increased by the exact same amount > that mass decreased, and we say "mass was converted to kinetic energy"; the > total energy and total momentum are unchanged. This _IS_ how these words are used. A better interpretation is that mass remains the same due to the conservation of energy. <shrug> > Please remember that when I say "mass", I use the word in the current sense of > modern physics, in which it is invariant. Mass can never be invariant. It is observer dependent quantity. This goes even for what you call the rest mass. For example, under the Schwarzschild metric, energy must be conserved. As mass increases with more energetic motion, a counter balance must take place to decrease the rest mass. You can easily see what I am talking about by examining the Euler-Lagrange equation associated with the time variable under the geodesic model of spacetime. Mathematically, it shows an object in greater curved spacetime should have a lower rest mass with more energetic motion. The math is very simple. For Christ's sake, it is almost 300 years old, but the self-styled physicists remain ignorant of the Lagrangian Method. Why? Their primary goal is to promote Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god and nothing else. > Most of your confusion is due to your use of the word "mass" > where today the correct phrase is "relativistic mass". Note > also that the latter is not really a mass, it is an ENERGY > (that's the primary reason it is an anachronism). The confusion is on your part, but again what do I expect a very confused self-style physicist to un-confuse himself anyway? > Some of your confusion is between objects and systems. When we say "the mass of > a system", we don't mean the norm of the system's 4-momentum, we mean the sum of > the norms of its constituents' individual 4-momenta. This is a holdover from > Newtonian physics, and can be confusing to novices -- to assist the reader, > careful authors say "total mass" here. Your interpretation of mass is drastically more complicated. It allows you to indulge yourself in greater mysticism. <shrug> > Note also that in SR and GR it is rare to mention the total > mass of a system, as it is really only useful when comparing > to Newtonian mechanics. In relativity that quantity has no > special meaning or useful purpose. In contrast, the mass of > an object does have special meaning and is essential; this can > apply to systems that are considered as objects (which > requires they be bound). Like any other specialized field, > physics has a technical vocabulary all its own, and one must > learn it before one can be conversant in the subject. As I said, it is the lack of mathematical skills of the self-styled that allow themselves to mystify themselves for over 100 years. <shrug> > Neither is of universal validity. One should not "accept" them, one should > UNDERSTAND them. And their limitations. You don't even understand them. Hint: Claiming so does not constitute as "understand". You need to lend mathematical support. I guess that is too much to ask among the self-styled physicists whose #1 goal is to promote Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar as a god. Sickening, isn't it? > The correct way to discuss this is to apply the theory, not just grab a few > sound bites and think they are all one needs. They aren't. Wrong! The correct way is to apply the mathematics. A theory is merely a conjecture, a postulate, or an assumption. However, mathematics can never lie if applied correctly. Mathematics is exactly what engineers do to explain the physical model not more "theories", "conjectures", "postulates", or "assumptions". <shrug> > [blah blah blah with Tom promoting the nonsense of self-styled physicists] > > If Tom admits that energy and momentum are conserved for a system, > then the norm of its 4-momentum is conserved as well. Conservation > of 4-momentum implies conservation of 4-momentum, there's no way > around it! [your E=mc2 is untranslatable.] Hmmm... Your 4-momentum can be as slimy as a lamprey eel. You need to come down clean and deal with what you can observe and quantify. That is the energy. <shrug> > Again this is just plain not true. Energy and mass are different. If you accept mass (never invariant) to be an observed quantity, then energy is certainly ALWAYS the same as mass through a constant. <shrug> > Note also that the equation "E=mc2" cannot be applied to > photons, independent of your later statement of what your > "m" means. Nonsense. "E = m c^2" can easily be applied to photons where the observed energy of the photon is proportional to its observed mass. <shrug> Learn some basic modern physics, please. > When you use words with nonstandard meanings you cannot expect other people to > understand what you say. I hope no self-styled physicists are as clueless as the late Franz Heymann who did not understand what "observed" mean. <shrug> > This is NOT what Einstein meant in his original equation. Who gives a damn on a question proposed by a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar? > He was discussing the > REST ENERGY of an object. The new notion that relativity introduced was that an > object at rest has nonzero total energy related to its mass, and it was > essential to include this in the equations of the theory. Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar represents a total imbecile. This nitwit failed to connect the rest mass as an observer dependent quantity where it is dependent on the curvature of spacetime. <shrug> > [blah blah blah... Totally philosophical remarks with no backings by sound mathematics] > > This is wrong. For the mass of the system to be conserved requires that its > momentum also be conserved. That is, 4-momentum conservation implies "mass" > conservation, but energy conservation alone does not do so. And this also > requires the rather nonstandard use of "mass" of a system to refer to the norm > of its total 4-momentum. Your assumption is totally wrong. Mathematically, the geodesic equations prove you wrong. To claim a conservation of energy, the only requirement is to have the Euler-Lagrange equation associated with the temporal dimension to be independent of any temporal variations. <shrug> > For systems like the two diverging gammas in the above final state, we normally > don't apply the term "mass" TO THE SYSTEM, because it is essentially useless > (the mass of each gamma is of course zero, and this is standard usage). For > "mass" to be useful, it must be measurable, and that requires a single object or > a bound system, not a collection of unbound objects. It is only useless if you think you can find an invariant mass. In reality, mass is an observer dependent quantity. So, the mathematics based on observer dependency (relative) becomes ever more sound and clear than invariant mass (absolute). <shrug> > > One must keep in mind that there is ONLY ONE MASS. > > This is just plain not true. There are MANY aspects of an object to which the > term "mass" could be applied: > > 1. (NM) the m in F=ma (inertial mass 1) > 2. (NM) the m in F=GMm/r^2 (passive gravitational mass) > 3. (NM) the M in F=GMm/r^2 (active gravitational mass) > 4. (NM) the m in p=mv [3-vectors] (inertial mass 2) > 5. (SR) the m in E=mc^2 (rest mass) > 6. (SR) the m in E=\gamma m c^2 (rest mass) > 7. (SR) the m in P=mV [4-vectors] (inertial mass 3) > 8. (**) the m in E=mc^2 ("relativistic mass") > 9. (**) the m in F=ma ("transverse mass") > 10.(**) the m in F=\gamma^2 m a ("longitudinal mass") > ** is nonstandard usage in SR. <sigh> It is a shame that a man of your educational level cannot relate all of them. <shrug> > A defining characteristic of "mass" is that it is INTRINSIC to an object. > Traditionally it measured "how much stuff is present". Being intrinsic, it > cannot possibly depend on observer (coordinates), and must therefore be > invariant. In relativity this implies that only 5, 6, and 7 apply. Again, mass cannot be invariant or intrinsic. It must depend on who is doing the observation of this mass. <shrug> > Purists generally take 4 to be the definition of mass in NM, > and the corresponding 7 to be the definition in SR. <shrug> > But now, with this understanding in SR, there is indeed only one mass (5, 6, and > 7 are all the same). But it is NOT what you think it is. > > Tim Little wrote: > > E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2 is the *correct* equation in relativity, with > > p representing momentum. The greatly publicized E = m c2 is a > > simplification, in the case where p = 0. > > Yes. Yes, it is correct if m only applies to be the rest mass. However, the following equation is equally valid and much simpler if m is taken to be the observed mass. E = m c^2 Where ** E = Observed energy ** m = Observed mass ** c = (Observed) speed of light <shrug>
From: Carlo Vitali on 10 Apr 2010 04:00
On Apr 9, 12:05 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 6:50 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. > > ------------------ > the one that is deteched in head is --PD!! &CO. > he cant see that > E=mc^2 > is mass in motion (kilogram meter ^2/second^2 ) > if the professional parrot will say that this m > is 'relativistic mass'?? > than > let the genius PD tell us > > what is the****Gamma factor*** > that makes that > m relativistic ???!!! > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------ > ----------------------- OK dear, Carlo |