Mass-Energy Equivalence
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Physics_For_Entertaiment
Next: PING: Steve Willner
From: Autymn D. C. on 18 Apr 2010 06:58 On Apr 17, 12:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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 4ð(1 1) is the area of a unit ball.
From: Autymn D. C. on 18 Apr 2010 07:01 On Apr 18, 3:58 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Apr 17, 12:44 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > 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 > > 4ð(1 1) is the area of a unit ball. grr 4Ï(1 1)
From: PD on 18 Apr 2010 08:39 On Apr 18, 3:33 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 3:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 - > > --------------------- > (:-) > > what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! You're quite right. The second half of that equation I wrote above doesn't apply in all cases. The first half does. > 2 > the formula > E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 > is not for net energy > it is for a mixture of particles and energy No. It is the total energy of a system. > > BESIDES > > if you take only the momentum of energy > you have here > p=mc > SO > WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! There isn't a gamma factor in the momentum. Why would you expect there to be? > > what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy > is V=c ???!!! There isn't any. > 3 > i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** > that you alone are responsible for them I'm not. I'm telling you what PHYSICISTS say. > > I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA > GIVES US !!! > (including the*** momentum formula** ) > (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative > interpretations ) And that's what I gave you. > 4 > did you stil didnt understand all my > multI proves that > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? > though al the long spoon feedings > based on the E=hf formula ???!!! > (that is time dependent !!!??? > > and that he scalars there that are linearly > related to mass AND energy !! > can be related only to the mass ?? > because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first > degree and not ^2 degree !! > it is not even physics > it is your mathematics !!! > ( i know it is very revolutionary and original > it is not written yet in any of your books (:-) > it is not your fault that you have difficulties to digest it- > but still !!.....) > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- > > TIA > Y.Porat > ------------------------------ Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Y.Porat on 19 Apr 2010 07:34 On Apr 18, 2:39 pm, PD > > > > > 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 - > > > --------------------- > > (:-) > > > what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! > > You're quite right. The second half of that equation I wrote above > doesn't apply in all cases. The first half does. > > > 2 > > the formula > > E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 > > is not for net energy > > it is for a mixture of particles and energy > > No. It is the total energy of a system. > --------------------- so ???? the total energy of the system includes ENERGY **AND** PARTICLES !! ARE YOU AGIN IN THE OBFUSCATION BUSINESS ??! ------------------- > > > BESIDES > > > if you take only the momentum of energy > > you have here > > p=mc > > SO > > WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! > > There isn't a gamma factor in the momentum. Why would you expect there > to be? if no gamma factor in p=m c what makes that m to be relativistic ???!! RELATIVISTIC WITHOUT A GAMMA FACTOR ??!! besides why because you or others said so because you said that the photon has no mass while i proved in 4 different ways THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! AND YOUR INVENTION OF NO MASS IS WHY ?? BECASUE OF YOUR PARADIGM THAT NO MASS CAN REACH c ?? while the experiment shows quite the opposite !! ie as the mass becomes smaller and smaller its velocity comes CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c !!! > > what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy > > is V=c ???!!! > > There isn't any. if there isnt any whare from you got that idea of relativistic mass ?? JUST btw DID YOU KNOW THAT EINSTEIN HIMSELF DIDNT LIKE THE IDEA OF 'RELATIVISTIC MAS' (IT IS RECORDED ) > > > 3 > > i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** > > that you alone are responsible for them > > I'm not. I'm telling you what PHYSICISTS say. the dumb mathematicians say not only a parrot like you !! relativistic mass to what is it relativistic to the rest mass to be the same by no relativistic factor ?? (:-)?? ??? > > > > I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA > > GIVES US !!! > > (including the*** momentum formula** ) > > (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative > > interpretations ) > > And that's what I gave you. you gave nothing but parroting > > > 4 > > did you still didnt understand all my > > multI proves that > > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? > > though al the long spoon feedings > > based on the E=hf formula ???!!! > > (that is time dependent !!!??? did you understand at last that E=hf is time dependent ?? or not still ??? doyou need again thew spoon feeding ?? that itis time dependent because of ***THE SCALAR PART OF f *** that still remains in the E=hf formula !! 2 the energy of hf is linearly related to the f factor THATIS AN EXPERIMENTAL;FACT!! AGAIN IT IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT !! SO if energy is directly related to the scalr part of f what should that scalar factor multiply ??!! SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE mETER ^2 SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE 1/T ^2 inorder to be linearily related to the hf ?? OR MAY BE THE ONMLY DIMENSION THJAT REMAINED LINEAR IS THE ??? WHAT ??? surprise it is the KILOGRAMS THERE !!! right ?? can you afford admitting anything to the Plebeian Porat ?? so ***is the only part of hf that can be multiplied by the f scalar is the kilograms ??? or not ??!!!!* please answer !! (and dont evade it !!) (and stil keep the formula hf linearly related to energy (BUY EXPERIMENT !!) and now that did we get?? NOW THE KILOGRAMS THERE ARE NOT ANYMORE JUST A 'MASS DIMENSION' BUT A MASS DIMENSION** MULTIPLIED BY A *SCALAR*!!! SO FROM NOW ON THE MASS THERE IS NOT ONLY A DIMENSION BUT A MASS VARIABLE !! AND THE scalar FACTOR THAT MULTIPLIES THOSE KILOGRAMS IS **NOT ZERO ***!!! GOT IT ONCE AND FOR ALL ??? IS THAT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR BOOKS ?? I WONDER !!! (but what can you do while i am a creative man that refuses to be a parrot ??) TIA Y.Porat --------------------------------- > > > and that he scalars there that are linearly > > related to mass AND energy !! > > can be related only to the mass ?? > > because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first > > degree and not ^2 degree !! > > it is not even physics > > it is your mathematics !!! > > ( i know it is very revolutionary and original > > it is not written yet in any of your books (:-) > > it is not your fault that you have difficulties to digest it- > > but still !!.....) > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------
From: PD on 19 Apr 2010 09:55
On Apr 19, 6:34 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 2:39 pm, PD > > > > > > > > > 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 - > > > > --------------------- > > > (:-) > > > > what is gamma wile v=c ???!!! > > > You're quite right. The second half of that equation I wrote above > > doesn't apply in all cases. The first half does. > > > > 2 > > > the formula > > > E^2 = mc^2^2 +mc)^2 > > > is not for net energy > > > it is for a mixture of particles and energy > > > No. It is the total energy of a system. > > --------------------- > > so ???? > the total energy of the system includes > > ENERGY **AND** PARTICLES !! > > ARE YOU AGIN IN THE OBFUSCATION BUSINESS ??! > ------------------- > > > > > > BESIDES > > > > if you take only the momentum of energy > > > you have here > > > p=mc > > > SO > > > WHERE DO YOU SEE A GAMMA FACTOR THERE ??!!! > > > There isn't a gamma factor in the momentum. Why would you expect there > > to be? > > if no gamma factor in p=m c > what makes that m to be relativistic ???!! > RELATIVISTIC WITHOUT A GAMMA FACTOR ??!! > > besides > why because you or others said so > because you said that the photon has no mass > while > i proved in 4 different ways > THAT THE PHOTON HAS MASS !! > AND YOUR INVENTION OF NO MASS IS > WHY ?? > BECASUE OF YOUR PARADIGM THAT > NO MASS CAN REACH c ?? > while the experiment shows quite the opposite !! > ie > as the mass becomes smaller and smaller > its velocity comes > CLOSER AND CLOSER TO c !!! > > > > what will be gamma while the velocity of enegy > > > is V=c ???!!! > > > There isn't any. > > if there isnt any > whare from you got that idea of > relativistic mass ?? > JUST btw > DID YOU KNOW THAT EINSTEIN HIMSELF > DIDNT LIKE THE IDEA OF 'RELATIVISTIC MAS' > (IT IS RECORDED ) > > > > > > 3 > > > i dont mind you additional **verbal interpretations** > > > that you alone are responsible for them > > > I'm not. I'm telling you what PHYSICISTS say. > > the dumb mathematicians say > not only a parrot like you !! > relativistic mass to what is it relativistic > to the rest mass to be the same > by no relativistic factor ?? (:-)?? ??? > > > > I MIND ONLY WHAT THE NET FORMULA > > > GIVES US !!! > > > (including the*** momentum formula** ) > > > (with no additional 'creative ' imaginary tentative > > > interpretations ) > > > And that's what I gave you. > > you gave nothing but parroting > > > > > > 4 > > > did you still didnt understand all my > > > multI proves that > > > THE PHOTON HAS MASS !!!??? > > > though al the long spoon feedings > > > based on the E=hf formula ???!!! > > > (that is time dependent !!!??? > > did you understand at last that > E=hf is time dependent ?? > or not still ??? > doyou need again thew spoon feeding ?? > that itis time dependent because of > ***THE SCALAR PART OF f *** > that still remains in the > E=hf formula !! > 2 > the energy of hf is linearly related to the f factor > THATIS AN EXPERIMENTAL;FACT!! > AGAIN IT IS AN EXPERIMENTAL FACT !! > SO > if energy is directly related to the scalr part of f > what should that scalar factor multiply ??!! > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE mETER ^2 > > SHOULD IT MULTIPLY THE 1/T ^2 > inorder to be linearily related to the hf ?? > OR MAY BE THE ONMLY DIMENSION THJAT > REMAINED LINEAR IS THE ??? > WHAT ??? > surprise > it is the KILOGRAMS THERE !!! > right ?? > can you afford admitting anything to the Plebeian Porat ?? > so > ***is the only part of hf that can be multiplied by the f scalar > is the kilograms ??? or not ??!!!!* > > please answer !! (and dont evade it !!) > > (and stil keep the formula hf > linearly related to energy (BUY EXPERIMENT !!) > and now that did we get?? > > NOW THE KILOGRAMS THERE > ARE NOT ANYMORE JUST A 'MASS DIMENSION' > BUT A MASS DIMENSION** MULTIPLIED BY A > *SCALAR*!!! > SO FROM NOW ON THE MASS THERE > IS NOT ONLY A DIMENSION BUT > A MASS VARIABLE !! > AND THE scalar FACTOR THAT MULTIPLIES THOSE KILOGRAMS > IS **NOT ZERO ***!!! > GOT IT ONCE AND FOR ALL ??? > > IS THAT WRITTEN IN ANY OF YOUR BOOKS ?? > I WONDER !!! > (but what can you do while i am a creative man > that refuses to be a parrot ??) > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------------------- > > > > > > and that he scalars there that are linearly > > > related to mass AND energy !! > > > can be related only to the mass ?? > > > because the mas there is the only dimension that is in the first > > > degree and not ^2 degree !! > > > it is not even physics > > > it is your mathematics !!! > > > ( i know it is very revolutionary and original > > > it is not written yet in any of your books (:-) > > > it is not your fault that you have difficulties to digest it- > > > but still !!.....) > > > TIA > > > Y.Porat > > > --------------------- > > |