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: franklinhu on 12 Apr 2010 01:00

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

You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to
energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't!

This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions
that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the
way science is to be conducted.

Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter
converted into energy????

No changing the subject now ....

From: franklinhu on 12 Apr 2010 01:11

On Apr 10, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>

Look in the dictionary, "conservation" means that what starts in the
beginning of the reaction remains in the product. Striclty speaking,
this means if there is X amount of mass in the beginnning of a
recaction, there is X amount in the product. That is CONSERVATION.

On the other hand, what we have with mass turning to energy is a
CONVERSION (as you say). Look in the dictionary, they are different
words and mean completely different things. A conversion turns one
thing into something else completely different. Like mass turning into
energy - this is clearly a CONVERSION, not CONSERVATION.

So, if mass is to become energy in a conversion, this would require
both the violation of the principle of convservation of mass (mass
dissappears) and conservation of energy (it appears out of nowhere).
So yes, there is much to prevent the conversion of mass to energy in
that it require the simultaneous violation of both conservation of
mass and energy. These are conservation laws which are not violated in
any other situation.

Sheesh, could there be any more blatant violation of convervation laws
than this? The only way this could work is to say that two wrongs make
a right, but in this case, I think it is just really, really wrong.

Now, my model conserves both mass and energy in perfect harmony. Nor
do I have to explain how mass is somehow a "ball" of energy which it
converts to.

>
>
>
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Inertial on 12 Apr 2010 01:18

"franklinhu" <franklinhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6ab8c694-d090-4785-9cb9-0f1019cbd73b(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 10, 10:01 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> Look in the dictionary, "conservation" means that what starts in the
> beginning of the reaction remains in the product. Striclty speaking,
> this means if there is X amount of mass in the beginnning of a
> recaction, there is X amount in the product. That is CONSERVATION.
>
> On the other hand, what we have with mass turning to energy is a
> CONVERSION (as you say). Look in the dictionary, they are different
> words and mean completely different things. A conversion turns one
> thing into something else completely different. Like mass turning into
> energy - this is clearly a CONVERSION, not CONSERVATION.
>
> So, if mass is to become energy in a conversion, this would require
> both the violation of the principle of convservation of mass (mass
> dissappears) and conservation of energy (it appears out of nowhere).
> So yes, there is much to prevent the conversion of mass to energy in
> that it require the simultaneous violation of both conservation of
> mass and energy. These are conservation laws which are not violated in
> any other situation.
>
> Sheesh, could there be any more blatant violation of convervation laws
> than this? The only way this could work is to say that two wrongs make
> a right, but in this case, I think it is just really, really wrong.

There is no conservation of mass law.

Only conservation of total energy (both energy and mass-equivalent energy)

From: J. Clarke on 12 Apr 2010 01:11

On 4/12/2010 1:00 AM, franklinhu 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
>
> You still didn't ezplain how the magical conversion of matter to
> energy or vice vera happens, did you?, no you didn't!
>
> This is how legitimate scientists alwasy choose to answer questions
> that they cannot answer -by evading the question. Neither is this the
> way science is to be conducted.
>
> Now once again, how is energy converted into matter and how is matter
> converted into energy????
>
> No changing the subject now ....

Why do I read this drivel?

<plonk>

From: franklinhu on 12 Apr 2010 01:33

On Apr 10, 7:38 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> franklinhu wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I specified annihilation at rest, as it is simpler. There is no such
> "acceleration to the speed of light"; they come together and annihilate. The
> initial state is an e+ and an e- at rest and close together; the final state is
> two 0.511 keV gammas headed off in opposite directions at the speed of light
> (all measured relative to the initial rest frame of the e+ and the e-).

The situation that would be more likely to happen is that you have a e
+ and e- separated by some initial distance. Electrostatic attraction
would undoubtedly cause then to acclerate to each other. Now it is an
assumption in my model that no matter how close they are together,
that they gain the speed of light prior to collision. This is a bit
harder to believe if you somehow put them right next to eachother, but
in all likelyhood they will be far apart enough to gain kinetic
energy.

>
> The total mass in the initial state is 1.022 MeV/c^2, and the total kinetic
> energy is 0. The total mass in the final state is 0 and the total kinetic energy
> is 1.022 MeV. That numerical equality is not happenstance, and we say "mass was
> converted into kinetic energy", because that is the way these words are used.

But lets take the case where they are separted far apart that they do
gain significant kinetic energy and collide, wouldn't this have to
show up a excess energy in the products? The resulting energy should
be 1.022MeV plus any gained by the positron/electron prior to the
collision, but we don't see any excess energy do we? Not one bit ever.
How is this to be explained? The only way I can see is if the observed
energy comes only from the kinetic energy of the impact which always
occurs at C.

>
> > The original positron and
> > electron are not destroyed.
>
> Not true -- they are OBSERVED to be gone.
You're a fish looking at a water molecule in a sea of water molecules,
of course you don't observe anything but the background which looks
like nothing. You would have to explictly look for this particle by
giving it a large kinetic energy (large KE e+ e- both heading in the
same direction) and hope you can detect energtic collisions from the
neutral particle.

>
> > They are instead converted into a nearly
> > impossible to detect neutral particle.
>
> This is just plain not true. If there were such a particle in the final state,
> with a mass of 1.022 MeV/c^2 (as you seem to claim), it WOULD be detected
> through failure of energy to be conserved.

Didn't I just explain how energy is really conserved, read my post
again. You seem to think that if the 1.022 Mev poselectron particle
was produced, that you would see no 1.022 MeV gamma photons since all
the energy was used up in the product. It is like clapping your hands
together. The kinetic energy of your hands is converted into heat and
sound, no mass is lost in my hands in doing the clapping. Neither is
mass lost in a e+e- collision, the energy you see is actually the
energy of the collision, there is NO conversion of any kind. Also see
my comments to PD about how conversion is not conservation.

>
> > 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.
>
> Right. Humans will always be unable to "explain" how nature actually works. We
> are limited by our minds, which process only thoughts. All we can do is process
> thoughts that are MODELS of what we observe about the world we inhabit. This is
> inherent in being human. Live with it (you have no choice).

Nope, I think that we humans will be able to explain how nature works,
that is what science is about isn't it. If you think we can't then you
might as well quit right now, you don't think we can even do it.

At least you admit you don't know instead of trying to change the
subject or fling useless insults. I'm just trying to get you to
recognize a big, huge (like you could drive a truck through this one)
gap in your knowledge about how matter can be converted into energy.
So much relies upon this assumption and if you cannot explain it, then
you are indeed building castles in the air.

On the other hand, I prefer to build castles on the ground, starting
with things we can fully explain, like positrons/electrons and plain
old newtonian mechanics. I have fully explained E=MC^2 using only
those concepts.

Wound springs do not contain more mass and an unwound spring - that is
just silliness sprouting out of this crazy idea that mass and energy
are somehow interchangable.

>
> Tom Roberts