Notices
Results 1 to 79 of 79
Like Tree12Likes
  • 1 Post By KJW
  • 1 Post By Farsight
  • 1 Post By Farsight
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 4 Post By Farsight
  • 1 Post By mayflow
  • 1 Post By AlexG
  • 1 Post By Useful Idiot
  • 1 Post By Jilan

Thread: "Mass Can be Converted to Energy"

  1. #1 "Mass Can be Converted to Energy" 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Pop Physics Fan says, "Mass Can be Converted to Energy."

    Next we hear, "E=mc^2". An immediate contradiction.

    A) Where did this persistent fallacy of energy conversion come from?

    B) Why is it persistent?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Pop Physics Fan says, "Mass Can be Converted to Energy."

    Next we hear, "E=mc^2". An immediate contradiction.

    A) Where did this persistent fallacy of energy conversion come from?
    Probably from the atomic bomb.


    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    B) Why is it persistent?
    Probably for the same reason that just about everybody knows .
    tk421 likes this.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    That's what I figure. I would be interesting to trace the dynamics of information metamanglement at the time. Perhaps there was a key NY Times article.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Mass is readily converted to energy. Ancient tribespeople knew this - when they had to hunt excessively hard for food, i.e. expending energy, they lost mass and became thin.

    Anti-obesity workout clinics and the like also know how to convert mass into energy!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Pop Physics Fan says, "Mass Can be Converted to Energy."

    Next we hear, "E=mc^2". An immediate contradiction.

    A) Where did this persistent fallacy of energy conversion come from?

    B) Why is it persistent?

    If you put an electron and a positron (anti-electron) together, they convert into a bunch of high energy photons. Even if the conversion is incomplete and some smaller particles come out of it, the total mass of those particles will be less than that of the positron and electron.

    Electron


    So, really all you've got to do in order to convert matter into energy is collide it with antimatter. How you would convert energy into mass is a more difficult problem.
    A mathematician and an engineer were at a party. An older colleague of theirs was there with his daughter. The two each asked if they could speak to her. He said it was ok, but they had to approach her by going half way across the room, then stop, then half way again and stop and proceed in that manner. The mathematician realized that he would never reach her and gave up. The engineer determined that he could get close enough to talk. --Approximate retelling of a joke by my math teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Potential energy has changed to kinetic energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    268
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Pop Physics Fan says, "Mass Can be Converted to Energy."

    Next we hear, "E=mc^2". An immediate contradiction.
    Where is the contradiction?
    You can do everything right, strictly according to procedure, on the ocean and it'll still kill you, but if you're a good navigator at least you'll know where you were when you died.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Where is the contradiction?
    Here is a conversion equation; a simple Bernoulli equation for an element of fluid.



    Energy density can change from pressure to kinetic and back again, so long as the sum remains constant.

    would be a conversion equation between mass and energy in the center of momentum frame.

    But it is .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Here is a conversion equation; a simple Bernoulli equation for an element of fluid.



    Energy density can change from pressure to kinetic and back again, so long as the sum remains constant.

    would be a conversion equation between mass and energy in the center of momentum frame.

    But it is .
    You are talking about different types of energy, if I understand you correctly, I think you would have to add the kinetic energy to the internal energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Potential energy has changed to kinetic energy.
    Have you considered the possibility that energy stored in a potential is all that matter really is?
    A mathematician and an engineer were at a party. An older colleague of theirs was there with his daughter. The two each asked if they could speak to her. He said it was ok, but they had to approach her by going half way across the room, then stop, then half way again and stop and proceed in that manner. The mathematician realized that he would never reach her and gave up. The engineer determined that he could get close enough to talk. --Approximate retelling of a joke by my math teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax View Post
    Have you considered the possibility that energy stored in a potential is all that matter really is?
    I have and it is a weird thought. Do you go along with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax View Post
    Have you considered the possibility that energy stored in a potential is all that matter really is?
    Do you mean mass?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    748
    Kojax: Have you considered the possibility that energy stored in a potential is all that matter really is?

    cinci: Actually most of what we usually call mass is kinetic energy. The sum of the masses of the three quarks that make up a proton are only 2% of the mass of a proton according to this article: Mass of the Common Quark Finally Nailed Down | Science/AAAS | News.

    The rest is the kinetic energy of the quarks.
    *******************
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4
    Hello guys,
    I am new to the forum and would like to ask you a question - does anybody read original paper "DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?" by A. Einstein?
    I would highly recommend, just 3 pages and much more flaws - real fun.
    Let me put my comments on derivation of this famous equation.
    1. "Let the body send out plane waves of light.." - what if this body could not emit the light?
    2. The following is calculating the energy of light in different reference frames and (important part!) the final expression was simplified under condition V<<C! Does anybody who are using this equation thinking about speed?
    3. Now when some energy was flew away, Einstein concludes that the energy of the body will diminished by the same amount, but the "energy" under consideration is kinetic energy! How according to current theory atom emits the light? The electron jumps to lower energy level and emits photon, what kind of energy is that? Potential of course. I would say the theory of light emitting mechanism contradict Einstein, he did not even considered potential energy!
    4. The most interesting part - kinetic energy is proportional to mass and velocity squared, but you don't want to change velocity - what would you do? Exactly! And the very beginning of the paper said: "..and simultaneously an equal quantity of light in the opposite direction"! Voila! Since total momentum of light is zero, then velocity would not change.

    Basically the paper claims that if energy was emitted BY LIGHT, emitted IN TWO DIRECTIONS, POTENTIAL ENERGY was not changed and VELOCITY << C then the mass will diminish.

    Let me also show another derivation, which could be done in 2 seconds. The energy of photon: E=PC, so P=E/C=MV. For photon V=C and E=MC^2. All we need to do is replace mass of the photon with zero.

    When the formula was derived, there were no nuclear reactions. For quite some time I am trying to find original paper who and when extrapolated Einstein's formula to the nuclear world, if somebody know - please share. Nuclear binding energy is potential energy by the way.

    Regards!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    *Total energy is rest mass + K.E
    * E=mc2 +1/2 mv2
    * E = mc2 is only applicable in macroscopic world.
    * At sub atomic level you could run into trouble, because the distinction between mass and energy isn't that sharp there.
    * Nevertheless the total energy will not change.
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`´)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Senior Member MaxPayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    India
    Posts
    236
    So, really all you've got to do in order to convert matter into energy is collide it with antimatter. How you would convert energy into mass is a more difficult problem.
    Or, accelerate a mass up to light speed.
    ┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`´)ノ︵ ┻━┻
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    The nuclear binding energy of an atomic nucleus. The mass of a nucleus is less than the sum of its constituent nucleons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by pikpobedy View Post
    The nuclear binding energy of an atomic nucleus. The mass of a nucleus is less than the sum of its constituent nucleons.
    Where did the mass go? Did it disappear?

    Consider a positron and an electron that annihilate into a pair of photons. The photons are massless particles. What happened to the mass?

    What happens if we have a kilogram of matter and antimatter in a perfectly reflective massless box in orbit around the earth, and all the matter annihilates into gamma rays. Does the box suddenly change orbit?

    No. It won't.

    Does its inertia change? No. It won't change either.

    Maybe light is not as massless as you think.




    You probably also think that the speed of light is c; the proportionality constant between spatial and temporal quantities. It is not.

    Very little about what you think you have learned about physics is more than simplified, watered-down bs, and crap generated by physicist who have overstepped their intellectual capacity.

    Do you want to fluster some random PhD, physics? Ask him these questions until he's cornered in the box, and resorts to mumbling nonsense. These guys are a dime a dozen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #19  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    Where did the mass go?
    The mass is radiated away. If all this occured in a closed impervious reflective container the total mass of the container would be unchanged. If the container absorbed radiation and reradiated it away or directly transmitted the incident radiated energy into the rest of the universe the total mass of the container would be reduced by the radiated amount.To my knowledge most physicists do not dispute this. The same with the matter and antimatter annihalation into radiation. It is understood photons are their own anti-particle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #20  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Where did the mass go? Did it disappear?

    Consider a positron and an electron that annihilate into a pair of photons. The photons are massless particles. What happened to the mass?
    Although energy and each component of momentum are conserved, mass is not, and the change in total mass is indicative of an inelastic process.


    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Maybe light is not as massless as you think.
    A single photon or several photons in parallel motion are massless, but several photons with non-parallel motion have a total momentum that is less than the total energy and therefore will have a positive non-zero mass.
    A tensor equation that is valid in any coordinate system is valid in every coordinate system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post

    What happens if we have a kilogram of matter and antimatter in a perfectly reflective massless box in orbit around the earth, and all the matter annihilates into gamma rays. Does the box suddenly change orbit?
    It's a curious thing that trapped light exhibits all the properties we associate with mass.
    Einstein: "E = m (c squared)"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #22  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    What happens if we have a kilogram of matter and antimatter in a perfectly reflective massless box in orbit around the earth, and all the matter annihilates into gamma rays. Does the box suddenly change orbit?
    No. The question sort of misses the point anyway, because so long as the box is very much less massive than the central body, its free fall orbit - which is a geodesic in space-time - does not depend on its mass or composition, just like in good old Newtonian physics.

    Maybe light is not as massless as you think.
    Light carries energy and momentum, with all associated effects, as KJW has pointed out.

    You probably also think that the speed of light is c; the proportionality constant between spatial and temporal quantities. It is not.
    It is in vacuum, pretty much by definition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    165
    Quote Originally Posted by Amateur View Post
    Hello guys,
    I am new to the forum and would like to ask you a question - does anybody read original paper "DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?" by A. Einstein?
    I would highly recommend, just 3 pages and much more flaws - real fun.
    Let me put my comments on derivation of this famous equation.
    1. "Let the body send out plane waves of light.." - what if this body could not emit the light?
    If the body doesn't emit light, then how would we observe it?
    A mathematician and an engineer were at a party. An older colleague of theirs was there with his daughter. The two each asked if they could speak to her. He said it was ok, but they had to approach her by going half way across the room, then stop, then half way again and stop and proceed in that manner. The mathematician realized that he would never reach her and gave up. The engineer determined that he could get close enough to talk. --Approximate retelling of a joke by my math teacher.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #24  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by Kojax View Post
    If the body doesn't emit light, then how would we observe it?
    Through its gravitational effects on its surroundings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #25  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by pikpobedy View Post
    Where did the mass go?
    The mass is radiated away. If all this occured in a closed impervious reflective container the total mass of the container would be unchanged. If the container absorbed radiation and reradiated it away or directly transmitted the incident radiated energy into the rest of the universe the total mass of the container would be reduced by the radiated amount.To my knowledge most physicists do not dispute this. The same with the matter and antimatter annihalation into radiation. It is understood photons are their own anti-particle.
    The thought experiment i proposed is that the massive particles annihilate in an ideal reflective box, such that it does not radiate away. So now we must quantify the mass, given we have a box and photon radiation under consideration where nothing can escape.

    Rather than belaboring the issue, I'll give it up. The light has mass in this model. Each mode of radiation within the container is a standing wave, so has zero valued momentum. This leaves .

    However, the problem with this solution (so I've been told) is that the energy seems to have doubled upon annihilation of the massive matter. The solution is that the tension in the container due to the pressure of the light reduces the mass of the container. So we can't really have an ideally massless box, or the pressure will result in a negative mass box. We have to use a real box.

    This still leaves us with a massive photonic field. The mass of the photon field it twice original matter. The mass of the container is reduced by that of the contained matter and antimatter combined.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #26  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Pop Physics Fan says, "Mass Can be Converted to Energy."

    Next we hear, "E=mc^2". An immediate contradiction.

    A) Where did this persistent fallacy of energy conversion come from?

    B) Why is it persistent?
    Nothing I have seen in science has ever said mass cannot be converted to energy or energy to mass. Personally. I think everything is energy. Either more or less condensed, either more or less potential or more or less kinetic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #27  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    ...However, the problem with this solution (so I've been told) is that the energy seems to have doubled upon annihilation of the massive matter. The solution is that the tension in the container due to the pressure of the light reduces the mass of the container...
    Who told you that? When you annihilate a 511keV electron with a 511keV positron you typically get two 511kev gamma photons. There is no doubling of energy, conservation of energy applies and E=mc² = hc/λ = hf. See Light is heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft (not the Nobel 't Hooft) for light in a box. Potential energy is kinetic energy in the guise of a standing wave. It's still kinetic energy, but it looks motionless. Only it isn't. If you open the box the light comes out at c. It didn't accelerate to c from a standing start.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #28  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Who told you that? When you annihilate a 511keV electron with a 511keV positron you typically get two 511kev gamma photons. There is no doubling of energy, conservation of energy applies and E=mc² = hc/λ = hf. See Light is heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft (not the Nobel 't Hooft) for light in a box. Potential energy is kinetic energy in the guise of a standing wave. It's still kinetic energy, but it looks motionless. Only it isn't. If you open the box the light comes out at c. It didn't accelerate to c from a standing start.
    Can you explain what hc/λ = hf means? Is lambda wavelength?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #29  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Yes. See the photon article on Wikipedia, but note that it's ν for frequency there rather than f. The h is Planck's constant of action and c is the speed of light. If you trap a massless photon in a box, the mass of that system increases. When you open the box the mass reduces. Like Einstein said in his E=mc² paper, a radiating body loses mass. NB: Einstein used L instead of E for energy.
    mayflow likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #30  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post

    Each mode of radiation within the container is a standing wave, so has zero valued momentum. This leaves .
    No way. The energy of a photon involves the magnitude of its momentum, p =square root (px2 + py2 + pz2) . So in a state of the photon which has equal probabilities of positive px > 0 and an equal-magnitude but opposite px < 0, the energy of each part of the wavefunction is given by E = c |p|, so the photon's energy is c |p|, not 0 .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #31  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Maybe you misread what Useful Idiot said, mvb. When you trap a massless photon in some kind of cavity or box, it adds mass to the system. Imagine it's a gedanken box with no mass of its own. When you trap a 511KeV photon in the box, the mass of the box increases from zero to 511KeV/c². That's because the photon is effectively "at rest". The photon is still going back and forth at c within the box. It still has its p=hf/c momentum. But the box isn't going anywhere, so the box doesn't have momentum. It has mass instead. That box is harder to move because that photon is in there. And when you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. Then the radiated photon is off like a shot. At c. It can't do that from a standing start. It might have looked like it was standing, but all the while it was going back and forth at c.

    You know about the wave nature of matter, you've heard of spinors and electron spin. You know that in atomic orbitals electrons "do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". They exist as standing waves in atomic orbitals, so what do they exist as when they aren't in an atomic orbital? Lumps of cheese? No. Because you can diffract electrons. Think of it as something like this:

    Momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c.
    Mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating back and forth or round and round at c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #32  
    mvb
    mvb is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Maybe you misread what Useful Idiot said, mvb. When you trap a massless photon in some kind of cavity or box, it adds mass to the system. Imagine it's a gedanken box with no mass of its own. When you trap a 511KeV photon in the box, the mass of the box increases from zero to 511KeV/c². That's because the photon is effectively "at rest". The photon is still going back and forth at c within the box. It still has its p=hf/c momentum. But the box isn't going anywhere, so the box doesn't have momentum. It has mass instead. That box is harder to move because that photon is in there. And when you open the box, it's a radiating body that loses mass. Then the radiated photon is off like a shot. At c. It can't do that from a standing start. It might have looked like it was standing, but all the while it was going back and forth at c.

    You know about the wave nature of matter, you've heard of spinors and electron spin. You know that in atomic orbitals electrons "do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". They exist as standing waves in atomic orbitals, so what do they exist as when they aren't in an atomic orbital? Lumps of cheese? No. Because you can diffract electrons. Think of it as something like this:

    Momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c.
    Mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating back and forth or round and round at c.
    What I was objecting to was UI's statement that "This still leaves us with a massive photonic field. The mass of the photon field is twice original matter. The mass of the container is reduced by that of the contained matter and antimatter combined." The photon field is not massive.

    As a retired univeristy professor, I also don't especially like your two statements about momentum and mass at v=c. They will tend to lead people who are currently learning physics into writing equations for the motion of particles, especially the photon, which are simply not correct. A nonzero value for the mass of a particle prevents it from travelling at the speed of light. It is important that our qualitative statements about motion match the quantitative equations as closely as possible. The universe is inherently a mathematical construction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #33  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    What I was objecting to was UI's statement that "This still leaves us with a massive photonic field. The mass of the photon field is twice original matter. The mass of the container is reduced by that of the contained matter and antimatter combined." The photon field is not massive.
    I objected to that too. Maybe I misread you. Sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    As a retired university professor, I also don't especially like your two statements about momentum and mass at v=c.
    I presume you mean what I said about a wave propagating linearly at c, and a wave going back and forth / round and round at c? I'm sorry you don't like them, but if you trap a massless wave in a box you really do increase the mass of that system. As Einstein said, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and a radiating body loses mass. I like to think I'm absolutely in line with Einstein with this sort of thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mvb
    They will tend to lead people who are currently learning physics into writing equations for the motion of particles, especially the photon, which are simply not correct.
    I didn't think I was suggesting anything misleading. I've already referred to E=hc/λ and p =hf/c and to the Wikipedia article which I think is pretty good.

    Quote Originally Posted by mvb
    A nonzero value for the mass of a particle prevents it from travelling at the speed of light. It is important that our qualitative statements about motion match the quantitative equations as closely as possible. The universe is inherently a mathematical construction.
    IMHO it's important to really understand why that mathematics applies. Take a llok at photon effective mass. If you slow down a photon to less than c in say glass, it exhibits some "effective mass". If you slow it down further, it exhibits more. If you effectively slow it down to zero by trapping it in a box, all of its energy-momentum is effective as mass. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. It's a measure of how much energy-momentum is "at rest" in aggregate with respect to you. You cannot have some amount of energy-momentum that is at rest with respect to you that is also moving at c with respect to you. You cannot have light moving back and forth or round and round at c, and moving linearly at c.

    The above is perhaps unfamiliar to you, but note how in his E=mc² paper Einstein refers to an electron and to a body. And note how in atomic orbitals electrons "exist as standing waves".
    mayflow likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #34  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Nothing Farsight posts should be included in the relativity sections. We need a crank section just for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Let him or her have their say. You can too if you ever think of something to say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #36  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    Let him or her have their say. You can too if you ever think of something to say.
    John Duffield ,aka Farsight, is a prolific crank who's been posting his own version of physics for the last decade. This forum is dedicated to mainstream science, which is something Farsight rejects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #37  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Nothing Farsight posts should be included in the relativity sections. We need a crank section just for him.
    Please see the link in my post # 21
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #38  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Jilan View Post
    Please see the link in my post # 21
    Which has to do what with what? The author lists his occupation as 'explorer', and seems to be a proponent of Aether. It seems to be a well constructed crank site.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    No way. The energy of a photon involves the magnitude of its momentum, p =square root (px2 + py2 + pz2) . So in a state of the photon which has equal probabilities of positive px > 0 and an equal-magnitude but opposite px < 0, the energy of each part of the wavefunction is given by E = c |p|, so the photon's energy is c |p|, not 0 .
    I didn't say the energy was zero. This is your own spin.

    Edit: Sorry about that. Change 'spin' to 'interpretation'. My impolite side is showing.
    Last edited by Useful Idiot; 04-01-2014 at 03:58 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #40  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Nothing Farsight posts should be included in the relativity sections. We need a crank section just for him.
    I agree in principle, but on the other hand I think having his misconceptions properly and publicly addressed by knowledgeable academics such as mvb and KJW can be of great education value to the casual reader. I'll keep on eye on things, though.
    Robittybob1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #41  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
    I agree in principle, but on the other hand I think having his misconceptions properly and publicly addressed by knowledgeable academics such as mvb and KJW can be of great education value to the casual reader. I'll keep on eye on things, though.
    With respect Markus, you should keep an eye on people like AlexG harming this forum. And you shouldn't agree in principle unless you or anybody else can point out any errors in my posts above, or any misconceptions I might hold. I'm referring to Einstein here. I'm not making this up. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and a radiating body loses mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #42  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by mvb View Post
    What I was objecting to was UI's statement that "This still leaves us with a massive photonic field. The mass of the photon field is twice original matter. The mass of the container is reduced by that of the contained matter and antimatter combined." The photon field is not massive.
    Quoting myself, so I don't have to repeat:

    Let's say we have a container of matter and antimatter in equal proportions. We give is a small push and note record it's acceleration. After annihilation the impedance to a force is the same, resulting in the same acceleration.
    The pressure due to the electromagnetic field, or photons--or whatever we wish to call it--induces a tension on the
    container reducing its mass according to the stress-energy equation. We can invoking conservation of mass for a relatively flat region of spacetime, and can ask where the mass went. It is difficult to see anyway around this except by assigning mass to the same region as the em field.

    What if the mass deficit offset is not *directly* attributed to the em field? Is there a pressure stress in a volume containing an electromagnetic field?
    Last edited by Useful Idiot; 04-09-2014 at 01:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #43  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    ...I could explain it as emf standing waves possessing mass...
    And then you could refer to atomic orbitals on Wikipedia and point to the sentence that says this:

    "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves.

    You could refer to positrons too, and to electron-positron annihilation, whereafter the standing waves aren't standing any more, and there are no containers to boot. Like I said to mvb, think along these lines:

    Momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c.
    Mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating back and forth or round and round at c.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #44  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    I agree in principle, but on the other hand I think having his misconceptions properly and publicly addressed by knowledgeable academics such as mvb and KJW can be of great education value to the casual reader. I'll keep on eye on things, though.
    And Alex G has contributed to science here how? These are science in you eyes?

    "Nothing Farsight posts should be included in the relativity sections. We need a crank section just for him."

    "John Duffield ,aka Farsight, is a prolific crank who's been posting his own version of physics for the last decade.

    "This forum is dedicated to mainstream science, which is something Farsight rejects."

    "Which has to do what with what? The author lists his occupation as 'explorer', and seems to be a proponent of Aether. It seems to be a well constructed crank site."

    Really, you think that is worth defending as science as your principle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #45  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    And you shouldn't agree in principle unless you or anybody else can point out any errors in my posts above, or any misconceptions I might hold.
    Reviews of Farsight's book on Amazon.

    WARNING: This book contains a lot of personal theories about space, time and matter, and doesn't bother to highlight for the reader what is established physics and what is not. Parts of it flatly contradict what modern theoretical and experimental physics have discovered.

    In addition, a lot of what is claimed here was written long before the recent important discoveries at the LHC, and has been rendered obsolete as a result.

    If you'd like to learn actual physics, even at a basic level, I recommend getting a book by an actual physicist instead.
    This is a work of pure imagination. The author has come up with an imaginative idea (that does NOT meet the criterion for being considered a theory) about what comprises the universe we live in. This book claims that matter, energy and space are the same thing, with the particles we observe being 'knots' of space.
    Unfortunately, his ideas simply don't work. When one creates even the most rudimentary mathematical model of his theories, one finds predictions that contradict what we know about the universe. Even without doing any math, it is possible to find errors and false predictions in his ideas based on simply finding the logical conclusions of his claims.
    This book is self-published, after having been rejected by a number of publishers. I find it quite telling that even a company that would publish works by Deepak Chopra would turn down this author.
    Duffield has been shopping this theory around the internet for several years now. In that time, he's been banned from numerous science forums for various reasons, including refusing to accept correction, presenting his ideas as established science, and even attempting to intimidate others by describing his claimed prowess at boxing and willingness to travel.
    In short, this book is a waste of time, for the author as well as any reader. I would recommend that anyone wishing to learn more about physics purchase a book by an actual physicist. If one is determined to read this work, it was available on the web in HTML format as of 2008. An archival search would likely provide a free copy, which would be a far more appropriate price than what is listed.
    Farsight's posts damage the reputation of science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #46  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Reviews of Farsight's book on Amazon.





    Farsight's posts damage the reputation of science.
    Your point about science being?
    That you do not like what someone else's web sight is, is NOT a point of science. It is simply trying to discredit what someone else said, while at least he or she was saying things they thought about science.

    Say to me something about science? Do it! I really ask you to talk to me about science instead of saying how others are dumb. You say absolutely NOTHING about science.
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #47  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by mayflow View Post
    Your point about science being?
    That you do not like what someone else's web sight is, is NOT a point of science. It is simply trying to discredit what someone else said, while at least he or she was saying things they thought about science.

    Say to me something about science? Do it! I really ask you to talk to me about science instead of saying how others are dumb. You say absolutely NOTHING about science.
    We've gone through this on the science forums. Learn some physics, then we'll discuss it. But I've had enough of your ignorance and refusal to learn.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #48  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Oh good, the ignore function works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #49  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    We were talking about mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #50  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    We were talking about mass.

    Please continue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #51  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Energy, momentum, and mass are different aspects of the same thing. You'll have heard of energy-momentum? At the simple level, imagine a 1kg cannonball moving at 1000m/s. It has considerable kinetic energy KE=½mv². It also has considerable momentum p=mv. Let's say you seek to slow down the cannonball to a halt and reduce its kinetic energy to zero. You can't do this without also reducing its momentum to zero. The essential difference* between the two is that you divide by c to go from energy to momentum. And what is c? Yes, it's the speed of light, but what it really is, is a conversion factor between distance and time. The kinetic energy is essentially a measure of the stopping distance for the cannonball. The momentum is essentially a measure of the stopping time. They're just two different measures of the same thing. Now try to replace the cannonball with a standing wave in a gedanken box which has no mass of its own. And try to think about what Einstein said: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Mass is just another measure, where you divide by c again.

    * momentum is directional too, it's a vector quantity rather than a scalar. But in this scenario direction doesn't matter, we can talk safely about the magnitude of the momentum |p|.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #52 at vaskhoroshiysayt 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2
    Thanks to the author , a very necessary thing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #53  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4
    But, hypothetically, what if you create a new energy that converts the states of matter, say from gas to plasma, and from plasma to itself? It requires the induction of the electromagnetic impulses travelling through an energy tunneling device, similar to a particle accelerator. The use of plasma is required. The neutral between electric energy and electromagnetic energy has to be electro-transformative and electro-gravitational energy, therefore the plasma mixing its control quarks (hypothetical) with the catalyst quarks of a nuclear fission energy release requires the light energy and heat energy from the plasma and the nuclear explosion, converting them into a electro-gravitational hadron particle (hypothetically) which can potentially enhance synthetic gravitational forces and nuclear fusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #54  
    Senior Member AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Nethendol View Post
    But, hypothetically, what if you create a new energy that converts the states of matter, say from gas to plasma, and from plasma to itself? It requires the induction of the electromagnetic impulses travelling through an energy tunneling device, similar to a particle accelerator. The use of plasma is required. The neutral between electric energy and electromagnetic energy has to be electro-transformative and electro-gravitational energy, therefore the plasma mixing its control quarks (hypothetical) with the catalyst quarks of a nuclear fission energy release requires the light energy and heat energy from the plasma and the nuclear explosion, converting them into a electro-gravitational hadron particle (hypothetically) which can potentially enhance synthetic gravitational forces and nuclear fusion.
    This post belongs in personal theories. It's a bunch of words strung together at random.
    Jilan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #55  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    Word salad indeed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #56  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    This post belongs in personal theories. It's a bunch of words strung together at random.
    Indeed, if one examines the optical paradigm of consensus physics, one is faced with a choice: either accept the presemioticist paradigm of the control quark context or conclude that the raison d’etre of the electro-gravitic structure is deconstructed of quantum foam, given that mass and momentum speaks to interchangeable with string theoretic context. Therefore, as Foucault suggests, the use of substructural fields desituationalizes the analyse to societal construct.


    .........Anyway, that's about what you get when taking on the twin tasks of word composition and smoking ganga.
    Jilan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #57  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    How you would convert energy into mass is a more difficult problem
    Easy, if that energy is made of boson (like photon) you crammed enough of them inside a small enough region of space, until a small black hole forms, and then watch it Hawking-evaporate in nice random fermions.

    ...well easy ... ;-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #58  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Easy, if that energy is made of boson (like photon) you crammed enough of them inside a small enough region of space, until a small black hole forms, and then watch it Hawking-evaporate in nice random fermions.

    ...well easy ... ;-)
    In two-photon physics when the energy of each photon is high enough, such as in the gamma ray spectrum, the result of the collision of two gamma rays results in the production of an electron-positron pair.

    I'd like to point out that it's incorrect to say that you can convert mass into energy since each is conserved in all reactions. All that changes is the form of the mass and the form of the energy.

    See http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wra...-pub-11581.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #59  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    A positron and an electron would annihilate each other to produce energy. In what sense is that not converting mass into energy?
    Gerry Nightingale likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #60  
    Senior Member Boing3000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    194
    I also though that the energy "stored/borrowed" in covalent bound also actually make H2O lighter than H2 + 0 (of about some small hot value of E) without changing the amount of fermions in the mix. Hasn't that been measured a long time ago ?

    And while I am at super layman remarks, isn't a rotating flywheel heavier than one at rest ? (and no I won't try to create a black hole by spinning very fast ;-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #61  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Useful Idiot View Post
    Pop Physics Fan says, "Mass Can be Converted to Energy."

    Next we hear, "E=mc^2". An immediate contradiction.

    A) Where did this persistent fallacy of energy conversion come from?

    B) Why is it persistent?
    I've studied the mass-energy equivalence a great deal and in the process have collected a lot of articles on the subject. The article that describes it all the best is Does nature convert mass into energy? by Ralph Baierlein, Am. J. Phys., 75(4), Apr. (2007).
    Scitation|Does nature convert mass into energy?
    The abstract reads
    First I provide some history of how the equation arose, establish what “mass” means in the context of this relation, and present some aspects of how the relation can be understood. Then I address the question, Does mean that one can “convert mass into energy” and vice versa?
    If you or anybody else would like to read it then I'd be more than happy to e-mail the PDF file to you.

    The other ones I have are

    Did Einstein really discover by W.L. Fadner, Am. J. Phys., 56(2), Feb. (1988)

    by Mitchell J. Feigenbaum and N. David Mermin, Am. J. Phys., 56(1), Jan. (1988)

    Note on a Famous Derivation of by Carl J. Rigney and Roy H. Bisner, Am. J. Phys., 34(1), Jan. (1966)

    An elementary derivation of by Fritz Rohrlich, Am. J. Phys., 58(4), Apr. (1990)

    On the Meaning of by Mendel Sachs, Int. J. Theo. Phys., 8 (1973)

    Teaching : Mass Without Mass by Art Hobson, The Physics Teacher, 43, Feb. (2005)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #62  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    Physicist: I take an interest in original works. Please can you email pdfs to me at myname at btconnect dot com. Thanks in advance.

    Can I chip in to say that IMHO the word "mass" tends to mean "rest mass" nowadays. If I tell somebody that a photon has a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass, they sometimes say "no it doesn't, everybody knows the photon has no mass".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #63  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Physicist: I take an interest in original works. Please can you email pdfs to me at myname at btconnect dot com. Thanks in advance.

    Can I chip in to say that IMHO the word "mass" tends to mean "rest mass" nowadays. If I tell somebody that a photon has a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass, they sometimes say "no it doesn't, everybody knows the photon has no mass".
    People in the know tell you that you have no clue, John. You are being told this several times a day. Doesn't seem to stop you from embarrassing yourself via posting more fringe ideas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #64  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Physicist: I take an interest in original works. Please can you email pdfs to me at myname at btconnect dot com. Thanks in advance.
    Okay. Will do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Can I chip in to say that IMHO the word "mass" tends to mean "rest mass" nowadays.
    Yep. That's a well known fact. I read a article by Gary Oas from Stanford University who did a study on this. He did a count using about 350 recently published text books on relativity and about 40% of the physicists used relativistic mass. When people do that in texts it means they think that way at least some times. And I accept the hypothesis that what appears in text books represents the physics community. I know physicists who think like that but who don't use it in their published work only because they don't find a need for the subscript or the need to keep repeating "rest" or "proper
    ". But they do think that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    If I tell somebody that a photon has a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass, they sometimes say "no it doesn't, everybody knows the photon has no mass".
    That depends on who they ask. See Relativistic mass

    You can also point them to the Feynman lectures because Feynman says that photons have mass by virtue of their energy. However its easy to show that if you have a box of photons then the box has more mass then the same mass without the photons, regardless of how you define mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #65  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist
    You can also point them to the Feynman lectures because Feynman says that photons have mass by virtue of their energy.
    Nowhere does he say such a thing, you simply made it up, Peter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #66  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    So....all of theoretical physics regarding the manifestation of quantum-energy can be reduced to "magic firewood!" Way cool!

    I like this! If something doesn't "work" properly...just create more "firewood" magic particles until it does work! I think I'm really starting to understand things now.

    Ta ra!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #67  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    Yep. That's a well known fact. I read a article by Gary Oas from Stanford University who did a study on this. He did a count using about 350 recently published text books on relativity and about 40% of the physicists used relativistic mass.
    Thanks for the Gary Oas reference, Physicist. His article was "On the abuse and use of relativistic mass".

    Another author (Poovan Murugesan) in a letter in Physics Today(see http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.bro...ndler_okun.pdf) suggests (in my own terminology)

    When is the speed, and

    becomes where Here is just the time expansion factor. That would be for an inertial frame.

    I think the same argument can be made for a rotating frame (i.e. non-inertial) when is for angular velocity.

    Therefore relativistic mass is analogous to the time factor of expansion in a non-inertial frame. Accordingly, the atoms don’t increase in number; but they can be visualised to expand along with the visualised expansion of time (for example, if signal frequency is expressed as the radius of a disc or sphere). Since everything expands in the non-inertial frame, including measuring rods, there is no apparent expansion at all. And hence no contradiction.

    Not everybody will use this conceptualisation. Relativistic mass is just the "volume of time", nothing more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #68  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Can I chip in to say that IMHO the word "mass" tends to mean "rest mass" nowadays. If I tell somebody that a photon has a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass, they sometimes say "no it doesn't, everybody knows the photon has no mass".
    I thought that it'd be interesting to point out how the educators at the Large Hadron Collider explain this. See
    LHC machine outreach FAQ

    What need is there for such large dimensions of your particle accelerator as you cannot accelerate particles beyond speed of light?

    For the answer to this we have to turn Einstein's special theory of relativity.

    Basically the relativistic mass of a particle increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light.

    In practical terms our protons are moving a very small fraction below the speed of light. As we increase the energy (and momentum) they only get a very small fraction closer to the velocity of light - never reaching it. However, their energy and momentum do increase considerably.

    For a given momentum, our magnets need to provide a force necessary to bend the beam around in the 27 km. The increase in momentum is exactly reflected in the increased force we have to apply with these magnets as we increase the energy of the beam.

    The size of the LHC is basically determined by the maximum strength of our dipole magnets. If the ring were smaller they would have to be a lot stronger.

    For a more detailed discussion see:

    Relativistic mass

    or any basic relativity text.
    Note how they say or any basic relativity text?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #69  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    748
    cinci: I thought maybe I could settle this issue by googling physics terms lexicon and I actually found one.

    GLOSSARY OF HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS TERMS

    Don't get your hopes up. It says "When physicists use the term mass they mean rest mass." Seems like that covers it; however, the lexicon doesn't have a definition for the term "relativistic mass".

    One thing that is true is that physicists use the unit "electron volt" for mass which is a unit of energy.

    This site, Time dilation/length contraction, has a section entitled "Relativistic Mass", but in the article it uses the terms "effective mass" and "relativistic effective mass".

    Looks to me as if the field is wide open and you can use any term you wish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #70  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by cincirob View Post
    [B]cinci: I thought maybe I could settle this issue by googling physics terms lexicon and I actually found one.
    GLOSSARY OF HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS TERMS
    Don't get your hopes up. It says "When physicists use the term mass they mean rest mass." Seems like that covers it; however, the lexicon doesn't have a definition for the term "relativistic mass".
    That is not what that glossary says. It specifically states
    Some textbooks on special relativity identify gamma m as the ``mass'' of a moving gamma particle; this definition is not used in particle physics.
    The glossary is a bit off though since it doesn’t really mean that gamma is a “moving particle”.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #71  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    748
    [B]cinci: Actually this is the exact sentence to which I referred: When particle physicists use the word ``mass,'' they always mean the ``rest mass'' (m) of the object in question. copied verbatim.

    The reference to some text books is there also but "they always mean" seems a bit stronger than "some text books".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #72  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    Physicist: I take an interest in original works. Please can you email pdfs to me at myname at btconnect dot com. Thanks in advance.

    Can I chip in to say that IMHO the word "mass" tends to mean "rest mass" nowadays. If I tell somebody that a photon has a non-zero inertial mass and a non-zero active gravitational mass, they sometimes say "no it doesn't, everybody knows the photon has no mass".
    I found a website where you can download these articles for yourself for free. Go to Electronic library. Download articles free. Finding articles
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #73  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    3
    Mass is mathematical relation between external force on a body and its acceleration. Energy is a functional entity. That is no one knows its form, structure, mechanism of action, place of existence, etc., if it has any. Therefore, except for mathematical operations, what is the significance of their equivalence in physical terms.
    Nainan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #74  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Energy in all its forms is activity, is doing something.
    Quote Originally Posted by matterdoc View Post
    Mass is mathematical relation between external force on a body and its acceleration. Energy is a functional entity. That is no one knows its form, structure, mechanism of action, place of existence, etc., if it has any. Therefore, except for mathematical operations, what is the significance of their equivalence in physical terms.
    Nainan
    Matter in the form of mass embodies such energy in a static form e.g. the endless spin of subatomic particles.

    I only highlight your above comment in red, matterdoc, since it is rather misleading since what your phrasing refers to creates some ambiguity re the difference between 'mass' and 'weight'.

    Mass is the 'amount of matter' in an object. I.e. mass is a scalar quantity.

    Weight is the force such matter undergoes when subject to gravitational force.I.e. weight is a vector quantity because it has a direction (down!).

    Thus, subjecting mass to an "external force" and "acceleration" could also imply a body's weight. Nevertheless, weight & mass are distinct and their difference is obvious on the moon!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #75  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Energy in all its forms is activity, is doing something.
    That is incorrect. Potential energy and rest energy are but two counter examples. A particle at rest in a field has only potential energy and such a particle isn't doing anything at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    Matter ....
    Is a term that has no well define meaning in physics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #76  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to AIP's this thread, re: energy

    What is next? More "magic bean" particles? Here is something that can be proven..."matter cannot annihilate itself by its actions".

    I.E., atoms are not tiny bits of firewood...just think on it a bit, instead of relying on models that use "magic" to convert matter into a manifestation of energy. This concept dates to the

    Stone Age, and for some reason has never advanced from the posits of observing a fire and concluding that "matter is converted into energy".

    A.E.'s EMC2 is valid...but valid "how?" EMC2 carries an inherent implication...a "pre-cursor" of possibility, in that energy WILL become manifest. If so, then it is correct to say that the

    potential of energy was always "there", always present. By this rationale, it is not unreasonable to assume that "matter enables energy to become manifest".


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #77  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    TFOLZO: Energy in all its forms is activity, is doing something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Physicist View Post
    That is incorrect. Potential energy and rest energy are but two counter examples. A particle at rest in a field has only potential energy and such a particle isn't doing anything at all.
    Potential energy is latent but it still connected with the motion that could be released.

    Hence potential energy and rest energy are not disproofs of what I have said about energy per se but are merely qualifications of the status of the energy. The 'rest' in rest energy refers to some form of energy embodied in mass e.g. a spinning particle. 'Potential' as in 'potential energy' is an adjective with a subjunctive meaning - i.e. it refers to maybe motion, future possible activity, not the energy itself.

    The potential motion may only ever remain that - hence its potential may NEVER be revealed. That is, energy & its matter embodiment as mass can be interconverted but not created nor destroyed. The potential energy can be calculated e.g. the fall thru a gravitational field, but if the gravitational field were removed the potential would change - and that's the point.

    Matter is embodied energy - the spin of particles reveals the fluid constituent of these particles swirling around their magnetic poles. Hence a subatomic particle is always spinning - it is not "isn't doing anything at all."

    Nor did Einstein discover the energy-mass relation. Obese natives lose their fat through energetic activity - and regain it from eating energy from the environment, converting that plant & animal food into energy (sugar) then into mass (muscle & fat).

    Your dogmatic hairsplitting of the issues only adds confusion. The 'non-active' embodiments of energy are labelled 'mass' but energy & mass together constitute matter.

    In contrast space is NOT matter but another type of being altogether.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #78  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post
    TFOLZO: Energy in all its forms is activity, is doing something.


    Potential energy is latent but it still connected with the motion that could be released.

    Hence potential energy and rest energy are not disproofs of what I have said about energy per se but are merely qualifications of the status of the energy.
    You're wrong. What you did write was Energy in all its forms is activity, is doing something.

    What you didn't write was Energy in all its forms can be activity, can doing something.

    We can only assume you mean what you actually write. Not what you were thinking about writing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #79  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to TFOLZO, re: your #77 post.

    Have you considered that "electron spin" is a pro-forma state of energy at work? What serves as motivation for "spin/orbit?" If you consider gravity as an ab initio "causation" (the "spin" as an

    analogue of "fall") then from whence the source of gravity? To say for instance, that "the existence of the atom served as a "curve" of timespace, and therefore is mandated doesn't

    work...this is equivalent to denying "action and reaction!" In the instance of the atom, the "curve" would mean the atom is "creating" gravity OF ITSELF.

    I cannot see this as plausible...the atom "creates" it's own energy and gravity!?!? By the fact that it exists?

    ......

    A "potential" of any factor such as energy or gravity carries with it the implication that "some action must occur" to ENABLE the factor to become manifest...unless of course atom are

    creating energy and gravity from themselves in some unknown manner.

    (even "rest" energy is still "energy at work"...quiescent doesn't mean "not there")

    ......

    The real question? What is "energy" when it is not "there?" Does this not indicate that "energy exists as a "potential?"

    (I have an answer, but I would like to hear your "take" on this first..."Physicist" too, if you have an answer you know of)


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •