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: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:02

On Apr 6, 7:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Tony M wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Again this depends on the meanings of your words, including nuances. With
> standard meanings we do say "mass is converted into kinetic energy". See below.

When there's a dative postdicand (This is English sýntacs, so there is
no predicand.), the genitive is often omitted: mass converts to
cinetic energhy fro potential energhy.

-Aut

From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:10

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

From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:44

On Apr 9, 1:48 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:14 am, Link <marty.musa...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 10:26 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 8, 10:15 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > 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?

I guys? Dumbass.

> > > > fhuemc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Mass is infinitely dense energy C squared in a mathemtical point
> > > particle. Particles are infinitely small point energies.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > What are the criteria required to meet a scientific definition (or
> > characteristics qualifying) for "infinitely dense" and "infinitely
> > small", please?
>
> BURT doesn't know. Half baked slogans come to
> him through a Ouji board like:
>
> 'Light is is the radiation of EM along a path;
> gravito-inertia is the conservation of EM
> along a path'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gravity

Uh, isn't this Casimir effect?

> My Ouji board is better however because it
> points to clickable references. :-))

Ouija--there is no Weejee.

From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:48

On Apr 9, 9:03 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 4:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

> 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

if it's hýpervolic

From: Autymn D. C. on 17 Apr 2010 01:51

On Apr 9, 8:33 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. 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.

You forgot the other neutral 22keV elepositron.