Mass-Energy Equivalence [Math]

Prev: Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer 6th Edition Incropera, DeWitt Solutions Manual
Next: From the book: "How to Succeed in College Mathematics - A Guide for the College Mathematics Student", Richard M. Dahlke, Ph.D., 2008.

From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 12:52

On Apr 10, 1:54 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> There is no such quantity as the kinetic energy or potential energy.
> These energies are merely Newtonian interpretation to the overall
> "energy".

And KW now announces that he and he alone correctly understands
Newtonian physics also.

From: PD on 10 Apr 2010 12:59

On Apr 9, 10:33 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.govforthe 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.

Izzat so? Pray tell, then, how neutrons, photons, neutrinos, neutral
kaons, and so on are routinely detected....

> 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.

May? Or does? Quantitative prediction of reaction rates would be
useful here.
Keep in mind that what you are talking about would interact
electromagnetically (see for example, positronium - which is another
neutral entity made up of electrons and positrons), which is a sizable
interaction rate, much more than what neutrinos do.

>
> 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.

"Unexplained events"? What is the event signature? What are the
*detectable* features of the event that would signal the creation of
this particle?

> 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: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:01

On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

Actually, it's pretty straightforward. Any process which respects
conservation laws is permitted.
If you look at the Feynman diagrams of electron-positron annihilation,
all conservation laws are respected.

The key question is what you think would *prevent* matter being
converted to energy, since all conservation laws are respected?

>
> 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: PD on 10 Apr 2010 13:03

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

From: J. Clarke on 10 Apr 2010 15:02

On 4/9/2010 11:53 PM, franklinhu wrote:
> 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.

How does your model explain the mass defect in chemical and nuclear
reactions?