Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 07:00 On Apr 14, 1:48 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > thus: > darn; I thought, from the header, > you were using a multiplier of 7 ... and that > made me realize, the professors who do that, > are subverting the "big Oh" and "little oh" formalism. There is no h in O or o. Sizes go as a littel, a bit, a fitt, a lot, and a mickel. Do not call O and o by sizes; they aren't the same vowel.
From: mpc755 on 17 Apr 2010 07:45 On Apr 17, 1:10 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Apr 6, 11:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > "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. > > This classic/popular model of the mote is wrong; the mote is > everywhere between its Coulomb radius and de Sitter radius--it is at > its univers. > > -Aut '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. A C-60 molecule displaces the aether. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. The C-60 molecule itself occupies a very small region of the wave. The C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment. The associated aether displacement wave enters and exits the available slits. When the aether displacement wave exits the slits it creates interference which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detecting the C-60 molecule causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (i.e. turns it into chop) and there is no interference.
From: PD on 17 Apr 2010 09:27 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 -
From: BURT on 17 Apr 2010 15:27 On Apr 17, 12:24 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!! > > 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 - Gamma is universal math. Mitch Raemsch
From: franklinhu on 17 Apr 2010 15:44
On Apr 12, 6:36 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 12, 12:43 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 10, 1:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 10, 10:03 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > This is the fundamental mistake that is made by many a crank. > > > > "I *choose* not to believe it, because it does not make sense given my > > > > set of preconceptions about how nature should work. Rather than > > > > believe it, I will instead invent another model that does fit my set > > > > of preconceptions and therefore makes sense to me." > > > > This is not how science works or should work. > > > > > PD > > > > Why does energy relate to the square of the universal speed limit PD? > > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes, why the value of C? Why not some other big number like a > > 6.02X10^23 or 5 or 3C or some random number? > > > Strangely, it is exactly C - always C, never anything else. What on > > earth does that have to do with matter? > > You are under the illusion that c represents something other than it > is. > It is a *conversion* factor that is an accident of historical and > arbitrary assignment of units. The relationship between meters and > seconds is no more physical than the relationship between meters and > miles. In a *physically* sensible system of units (so-called natural > units, and you can look them up), the value of c is 1. > > Asking why c appears in E=mc^2 is like asking why 4pi appears in > Coulomb's law or why 16.387 appears in an expression between cubic > centimeters and cubic inches. It is an *arbitrary* artifact of the > units we have chosen for m and for E. > It is not a random conversion factor like G in the gravitational force equation. It is true that it could be any particular number depending on the units - be it miles/hour or meters/second, but this is a very special number which in whatever units you choose, represents the speed of light. My point is that it could have been a random conversion factor which wasn't the same as any other constant in the universe, but in this case, no matter what units, no matter what planet, no matter what civilization you are , you would find it to be a huge coincidence that the conversion factor for E=mc^2 just happens by accident to be exactly equal to what you measure for the speed of light in any units. 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 has the units of speed and matches the speed of light. Since it does match up with a specific physical measured constant, one must wonder why it matches up. It could be total coincidence, but I don't think so. The speed of light is in that equation due to the relation to the kinetic energy formula where v = the speed of light. It is in no way an arbitrary conversion factor. > > > > > > I can easily explain what C is doing there. When positron/electron > > collide, the accelerate to C, the maximum universal speed limit. That > > is why C appears in E=MC^2. It is just part of the newtonian kinetic > > energy formula KE=1/2Mv^2 where v = C. > > > Now you can be like Tom and claim "duh, we'll never know", but that is > > a cop out.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |