|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 08:25:59 [Permalink]
|
They have finally been able to detect it?
Groovy! |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
 |
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 10:23:01 [Permalink]
|
Ahh crap, I got new data to mess everything up, Dark Flow they are calling it. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080923-dark-flows.html though it helps my idea with extra speed for everything.
Essentially they think it is some form of super massive structure which lies beyond the observable universe which is pulling clusters towards it. It may be that our section of space time (observable universe) is not homogeneous with the rest of the universe.
http://www.space.com/news/cosmic_shear_000512.html
heres an article on the Dark Matter map. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 09/26/2008 : 17:16:40 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
You lecture:| Next time you ask for help, you might want to think about not rejecting the help that's offered. |
I appreciate the correction, Dave, but where was the help?
1. I first asked:| If we have a person well trained in these disciplines reading here, I, for one, would appreciate an elaboration of these concepts, i.e. the actual mechanics of the mass increase of matter traveling at speeds approaching C. Perhaps Dave can help? |
You did not respond at that time:
2. Next, I asked:| What happens to the molecular, atomic, or sub-atomic structure of an object that is (theoretically) accelerated to nearly the speed of light? What does "increase in mass" mean in bricks and mortar descriptive terminology? |
and I further asked:| Dave? Your elucidation of the gamma equation was precise, mathematically accurate, and highly illuminating. What is your understanding of the mechanics of mass increase? |
You responded:| That'll have something to do with the Higgs field (if it exists). I haven't looked into the mechanism, actually. |
OK, I asked the wrong guy! Anybody else?
3. My third attempt was:| Can the movement of and interaction of sub-atomic particles with each other and with energy fields be visualized in any constructive way? |
You did not respond
4. In the same post, I asked:| Is it as simple as this: one pattern, arrangement, or concatenation of certain particles constitutes that which we call matter or mass; and another arrangement of certain particles is what we call energy? If this is so, then exactly how does the first particle collection become changed into the second? What exactly happens to transform one pattern into another? By what agency are the chess pieces rearranged? |
As I now understand you, this is pretty much your view of energy-mass-energy conversions , so the question should be germane.
You responded:| the real point that you seem to be missing is that matter is energy. E=mc2 is an equation describing the mass/energy equivalence. Thinking of it as a "transformation" is to miss what's probably reality: everything is energy, some of it is just found in little organized bunches that we call "particles." |
Oddly, I was aware of the equivalence equation. You then state that my thinking of it as a transformation was a mistake, demonstrating a clairsentience that I did not know existed or that you possessed!!
I wrote of the process using the word "transformation" because I had seen that word commonly used in the many sources I had read on the subject. I guess one expert's transformation is another expert's equivalence. Dictionary and wiki don't think so, but I now understand that it's bad form to use onomastics to direct one's thinking processes. I am diligently practicing thinking without using language since reading your comment, however! It's hard!
My point was, if mass is a specific arrangement of particles, and energy another arrangement, what agency controls and directs the rearrangement of particles when the mass state of energy is transformed into the "energy" state of energy? When a small part of the mass of the plutonium in a fission bomb is transformed into the energy of a nuclear explosion, what entity structures the particle rearrangement?
5. In response to my plea:| Anybody have any ideas? Without using differential derivatives, definite or indefinite integrals; without using linear operators or algebraic formulas? Just words hopefully engendering images? |
you responded,Some things are better expressed in math than in language.
|
Yes, a magnificent truism. Some things are better expressed in German than in English - schadenfreude, for example! But that's not not much help to a would-be translator!
6. In a vain attempt at clarification, I tried a metaphor:| In that sense, I believe that I used the word "transformation" correctly. Surely you wouldn't deny that ice and steam have significantly different forms and functions and one cannot substitute for the other; even though both assuredly are different expressions of the same compound - water!. |
Your response:| Steam condenses into liquid water, which condenses into ice. The individual water molecules don't transform in the state changes of water, they simply bond together differently based on their temperature. |
A totally correct description of the transformation states of water at atmospheric pressures, but not much help in addressing the question of mass-energy-mass transformations! My bad; - bad metaphor. GIGO!
However here, you first express this peculiar assumption that I somehow have expressed a mass-energy transformation in which the actual atomic/sub-atomic particles involved are themselves changed into something else - as though I believed that "matter" was comprised of certain kinds of particles and "energy" was constituted of quite a different kind of particles, or was not part of the "particle" analog at all!
My querulous statement early in this thread.....| Apparently, basic mass particles such as protons are being created. Not out of nothing, rather, out of energy! |
.....is probably the root of this misunderstanding. Unlike the word "transformation" I will certainly admit to a poor choice of words here. According to your precepts, better would have been: "Not out of nothing, rather out of a new and different arrangement (or possibly rearrangement) of various particles"
Additionally, I am not at all comfortable with the concept that protons are "created" (bad semantics); as I have not found that statement anywhere, but no one yet, either here or in the many sources I have consulted recently, has contradicted it. Various subatomic particles apparently do appear and disappear magically, but not the basic atomic building blocks! Or not? Sources?
I am still curious about the mechanics of this process and seeking a clear English explanation sans the frequent segués into higher mathematics.
7. Next, I made this attempt:| I am unclear as to how not to think about a new concept that I have read about, other than using the meaning of the words that I have read that described that concept! How do you do it? If you will describe the cognitive process to me, I will certainly try it, but as of now, I just don't know how! |
You dismissed my request thus:| And now you want me to describe the cognitive process of not getting sidetracked? |
..... as though I was asking you asking you for directions on how to "sidetrack" my thinking. I was not trying to sidetrack my thinking or yours, I was attempting to learn the process of thinking that you advocate that does not use words as both the tools and the substance of the process. In any event, not much help on the matter under discussion, rather a comment on the invalidity of my thinking processes with no suggestion as to how to improve them by emulating your superior methods of cognition.
8. You then ask:| What about when you think about them? |
I answered flippantly, and that was a cheap shot!
The answer is, I generate extremely fuzzy mental images that roughly comply with the thousands of words, many of them contradictory, that I have read about the subject. From this imagery, I select, to the best of my ability, words to attempt to describe the process and then write them in a largely futile attempt to clarify the images.
You then offered the child's blocks simile, which is useful if one is to visualize the mass-energy transformation process as one simply of particle rearrangement. You ask| What happens to individual child's blocks in a tall stack when that stack transforms into a pile when jostled too hard? Do the individual blocks "transform" in any macroscopic way? |
My answer would be:| Of course not, other than in their spatial relationship to one another and to the floor, walls, etc. of the room they are in - their physical macroenvironment. The system transforms, the particles do not. |
Next question:| Now what about a single iota of kinetic energy in a bullet? When it transforms into heat energy due to drag with the atmosphere, what physical difference does it have? |
The question obviously does not make sense in your interpretation of particle physics An iota does not describe a particle or group of particles. What is the iota? Apparently, it is your conviction that energy is properly defined as a specific arrangement of particles. That may very well be true, I just have not been able to find corroboration for it! As I asked before, I would greatly appreciate a reference for that position. Sources?
9. I lightly enquired:| Show me a distinquished nuclear physicist or two that argues with the validity of the word "transformation" used in this context, and I'll stop poking fun at you and listen a little more carefully |
I realize that was a foray into tender turf, and I understand your prickly reply:| Next time you ask for help, you might want to think about not rejecting the help that's offered. Except, of course, that would mean changing your cognitive processes, which is what you asked for help with, so I can see why you're lashing out |
Although I rather savor the image of myself expertly cracking a bullwhip over an uppity pragmalectual that dares to demean my god-like pronouncements on subjects of which I know next to nothing; I really was asking for a description of a cognitive process that differs (how could that be?) from mine!
Easing back into territory with which I am much more familiar, I really think a good deal of this little spat has to do with semantics - the meanings of the words we use. Your understanding of the meaning of the word "tranformation" obviously differs from mine. This is not really very important except when a word has only one, rigidly defined, non-inclusive meaning. I don't think that is so with this particular word. So transform, change, convert, transmute -whatever floats your particular boat, I'm OK with!
Summary:
A. I seek to more deeply understand the details of energy-mass conversion, with specific focus on your concept of the particle patterns of mass entities and energy entities. I recognize that e0 = m0c2 is an equivilance statement and energy and mass are different manifestations of the same entity, mass-energy. In your view, what are the basic references to access for information on these processes?
B. Do the basic atomic particles; fermions (Elementary - electrons and Composite - protons, neutrons, baryons, the nuclei of some atoms; and bosons (Elementary - The four gauge bosons and the Higgs boson plus possibly the gravitron;) and (Composite - hadrons, some nuclei, certain atoms, and mesons) - qualitatively change in any way when there is an energy-mass conversion; or is there merely a restructuring of particles when such an event occurs? Do basic atomic particles appear and disappear, or are they immutable? Again, what references do you suggest for information on these questions?
C. Finally, I asked:What produces the heat energy when you ignite a pile of logs?
Is the entire ensuing process of combustion properly described by e0 = m0c2 ? |
I did not hear your answer to this question. I am unclear on the proper answer, as there seems to be some uncertainty in the literature. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/27/2008 00:20:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2008 : 23:14:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I appreciate the correction, Dave, but where was the help? |
You rejected it as soon as you began arguing the definition of "transformation." You now seem to be in full-bore political defense mode, where who did what to whom is more important than understanding the concepts you claim to want to understand (I cite your massively pedantic response as evidence). So I don't think it's possible to help you now. But...| Apparently, it is your conviction that energy is properly defined as a specific arrangement of particles. |
Even after re-reading your post, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, which isn't backwards, it's just wrong.
Particles are energy. Mass and energy are equivalent. You claim you understand this, but you clearly do not, because you say things like, "energy and mass are different manifestations of the same entity." They are not. Mass is energy. Energy is mass.
When scientists discuss the mass of particles, they use electron-volts (a measure of energy) as the unit. Accelerating a single particle adds mass to it by adding energy. They are equivalent.
Finally, the combustion of wood is extremely complex, but would indeed "obey" E=mc2, in that the total mass and energy of the combustion products would be equal to the total mass and energy of the logs and air before combustion. Combustion, in other words, follows the law of conservation of mass and energy.
A simpler example might be the burning of hydrogen molecules (H2) with oxygen (O2). Though the binding energies are tiny (less than a billionth the rest energy of the atoms), with a sensitive enough scale, one should be able to determine that the total mass of the hydrogen and oxygen gasses before combustion was larger than the total mass of water molecules (H2O) that remain after combustion. The difference in mass is due to the differences in molecular binding energies, which was released as heat during burning. The masses of the individual atoms never change during combustion, only their binding energies change. Simply put, 2H2 plus O2 equals 2(H2O) plus energy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2008 : 19:13:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Originally posted by bngbuck
I appreciate the correction, Dave, but where was the help? |
Answer as offered by Dave:
You rejected it as soon as you began arguing the definition of "transformation." |
If you will read the above again, you may notice that my question was not answered. I did not ask whether or not I rejected or accepted your "help" (I did not understand it), rather, I asked where it was. I'm still looking!
| Originally posted by Dave You now seem to be in full-bore political defense mode, where who did what to whom is more important than understanding the concepts you claim to want to understand |
I'm a little uncertain as to how you equate my admitted ignorance of physics with a political defense mode, and I am sorry that you find it boring, but then; I'm not an forum editor and the job must be stressful. I feel your pressure, man!
As to "who did what to whom", I gather that you don't appreciate quote comparisons being cited as exact evidence of who said exactly what to whom in the course of a long post. It can be painful, and obviously the only proper retort is to call it a name.
I offer my deep apologies for reiterating what you did and did not say in earlier segments of this discussion. I did not understand that this was so offensive to you. I hope not to be banned for this transgression.
With regards to the pedantry, think of as a testament to your intellectual superiority. Your brevity of post and verbiage conveys far more than my tedious exposition of thought. Look how Johnny McPalin cut Barack to ribbons last night
As to my alleged "rejection" of your opinions. I have stated several times that I emphatically am not trained in the intense complexities of particle physics, and I really have no convictions of my own as to the actual nature of the processes that apparently govern the very nature of existence. I am not sufficiently educated!
I am not qualified to reject your opinions, Dave! Unlike you, I am a raw neophyte in this area. It is beginning to pique my curiosity, 'tho!
You, on the other hand, obviously have been deeply educated in this field, as evidenced by the certitude of your statements; and I am, by comparison, but a mere grasshopper in the presence of a Master.
I am not "rejecting' your opinions, Dave, I just don't fucking understand them. This is either due to my ignorance or your inability to communicate.
Naturally, I must attribute it to the former; as the latter is extremely unlikely given your total mastery of the subject.Originally posted by bngbuck
Apparently, it is your conviction that energy is properly defined as a specific arrangement of particles. |
Answer by Dave
Even after re-reading your post, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, which isn't backwards, it's just wrong. |
Dave, I didn't come to that conclusion, your presentation was so muddled, I really thought that you had indeed concluded that! I am happy to hear that you now think it was 'just wrong,' as I had some suspicions that that might be the case.
Originally posted by Dave
Particles are energy. Mass and energy are equivalent. You claim you understand this, but you clearly do not |
No, Dave, I do not, not in the god-given-graven-in-stone sense that you do. I do not think that A and B are identical, despite A = B!
If A was identical to B, it wouldn't be named A, it would be named B and, in fact, would be B!
I do however, appreciate the opportunity of exposure to your dogmatic opinion of the meaning of equivilance. I am certain that an entire thread could be devoted to this subject.
Listening to your views is one of many methods I am attempting to use to lessen my abject ignorance of this complicated subject.
You state unequivocally that I went to the wiki article on Elementary Particles. I read it carefully twice, and nowhere did it define an elementary particle as being energy.
I then read the wiki article on Energy. Again, I read it twice, slowly. Nowhere did it state that energy is particles.
Now please don't get angry again, Dave, none of this proves that your opinions are wrong! I simply would like some references that clearly delineate this statement that energy ≡ mass ≡ particles. I have asked several times before for some source material or links to articles that clearly state these total identities in form, function, and attributes:
I have asked here:| Hmmmnn..."Everything is energy" I am going to have to think and research a bit on that proclamation. Any suggestions where to start, like where you did? |
and here| Show me a distinquished nuclear physicist or two that argues with the validity of the word "transformation" used in this context, |
and here| Various subatomic particles apparently do appear and disappear magically, but not the basic atomic building blocks! Or not? Sources? |
and again here| As I asked before, I would greatly appreciate a reference for that position. Sources? |
Also here:| In your view, what are the basic references to access for information on these processes? |
Finally, here:| Again, what references do you suggest for information on these questions? |
When I first came to SFN over a year ago, I was subjected to much castigation, quite properly, for not backing up my statements with source material, references, links! May I respectfully ask the same of you? I have little doubt that you are correct in your statement that mass and energy and particles are all just different names for the same exact entity, I would just like to see it stated in different terms by recognized authorities. As you have noted frequently, I can be uncommonly dense, and the cutting edge of authority may be able to cut that fog.
With respect to the burning pile of logs. I askedWhat produces the heat energy when you ignite a pile of logs?
Is the entire ensuing process of combustion properly described by e0 = m0c2 ? |
You responded:| the combustion of wood would indeed "obey" E=mc2 |
I found an interesting dialog on Google Answers that is relevant to this question.Throw a log on the fire. Watch as matter is transformed into heat
energy. Note that this is happening in time and space, and we have
arrived the core of Einstein?s equation."
Is E=MC2 really that simple, in its essence? |
Answer:Hi, thank you for submitting your question to Answers.Google, I
believe I can provide the information you are seeking.
Sorry to say, your idea has no relationship to Einstein's discovery or the famous equation.
What the equation says is that matter and energy are two forms of the same thing and that you convert between the two by either multiplying or dividing by the speed of light squared.
But this conversion is just like converting between inches and
centimeters, it isn't an explanation, it is just a number.
The equation says nothing in particular about time or the speed of
conversion, in fact, although time is a component of speed, this
equation squares speed and time squared is meaningless, at least in
this context.
See http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/sep2001/1000903792.Ph.r.html
This irreverent look at the question actually offers a pretty good explanation:
http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html
How he came up with the equation is relatively simple, so to speak. He saw that an easy way to explain some experimental results by others was to assume that the speed of light was constant.
By using the speed of light as a constant in some earlier equations of physics, one result that popped out was that e=mc*2 which surprised a lot of people, including Einstein. The equation says nothing about how to convert either direction, it just provides an equation for determining the magnitude of the conversion.
You will find a simple, algebraic derivation at:
http://www.kineticbooks.com/physics/17467/17514/sp.html
Space time is not a single dimension; Relativity says that space and
time are made up of 4 dimensions. This has since been surpassed most
recently by super string theory or M (manifold) theory which, the last time I checked, required 11 dimensions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory
You can find a calculator and explanation of the equation at
http://www.1728.com/einstein.htm
You'll find a simplified explanation of Relativity vs Classical Mechanics at:www.newtonphysics.on.ca/EINSTEIN
There is an FAQ on mass energy conversion at:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/faq/generalization.html
Find a look at the famous equation at:
http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/
Go to www.discovery.com and search on relativity:
Please don't feel bad about getting the idea so wrong.
A friend of mine at Harvard won the Nobel Prize for his work on quantum mechanics. It took almost 50 years for experts to realize what he had actually contributed and award the prize.
Also, quantum mechanics was essentially invented twice in two
different mathematical forms and it took years to even demonstrate
that they were equivalent.
Modern physics is complicated and you can make contradictory
statements about it in English which are both true because they aren't contradictory in the language of physics which is math.
Another thing to remember when people say one theory has proven
another wrong and such is that Einstein worked mostly with constant
velocities, not acceleration. Google search term is: meaning of mc squared
Thank you again for turning to Answers.Google for help. I ask you to remember that this was a simplified explanation of something which takes years of study and an understanding of mathematics at the level of differential equations at a minimum and preferably a working familiarity with tensor analysis to really explain and, unfortunately, also to fully understand the explanation.
One rule we had when I studied physics was, if it makes sense it is
probably wrong. We also used to say about some relatively easy
problem, "Hey, it's only rocket science, not quantum physics."
I hope I have encouraged you to continue delving into the fascinating
field of modern physics rather than turning you off completely. |
I hope I haven't offended you by offering a different view of the matter/energy relationship than yours. There seem to be many alternative explanations of this fascinating subject.
The balance of your response to my "logs" question was| .....in that the total mass and energy of the combustion products would be equal to the total mass and energy of the logs and air before combustion. Combustion, in other words, follows the law of conservation of mass and energy. |
I believe that few here or anywhere would doubt that burning a log is a demonstration of the first law of thermodynamics. But it appears there is some conflicting opinion on whether e0 = m0c2 has any relevance to the event of ordinary combustion!
Oh yeah, and what produces the heat energy? All of the heat?
However, it gets much more complicated as one pursues the links that AIG has given! I am deep in that process as we speak.
I hope you have managed to stay awake throughout this stupefyingly euphistic post, and I do hope you don't banish me for paralyzing the constituency of SFN! After a necessary absence, I haven't had as much fun in months. Sometime in the next forty to fifty years you'll learn the truth of the adage, "If you don't use it, you lose it! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 09/27/2008 19:31:49 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/27/2008 : 22:03:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
If you will read the above again, you may notice that my question was not answered. I did not ask whether or not I rejected or accepted your "help" (I did not understand it), rather, I asked where it was. I'm still looking! |
Then you're obviously blind, and so my trying to help you see is a waste of time for both of us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
greatdane_80
New Member
Denmark
5 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 06:40:22 [Permalink]
|
The important point is, as Dave W pointed out, the equivalence between mass and energy expressed in E=mc^2. When we talk about the mass of an elementary particle, we talk about the rest mass of that particle - that is the mass the particle has when at rest in our frame of reference. When the particle is accelerated to near light speed, the increase in mass is seen in our reference frame. If you were to 'sit' on top of a proton travelling at 0.999999c, you would still measure the mass of that proton as being 1.6726...x10^(-27) kg, which is the rest mass of the proton.
There are no mysterious extra particles created to give pass to the accelerated particle, and the 'intrinsic' (rest) mass of the particle is not changed. Energy and mass are simply equivalent! It is not in any way intuitively obvious that this is the case, but nevertheless this is how the world works. Hope that helped a bit bngbuck, if not, I'd be happy to try to expand on my explanation.
I'm relatively new to this website, so forgive the bad math notation - if someone could explain how it is done properly here, that would be great. My background is in astrophysics - I'm actually supposed to be finishing my masters thesis right now (due date 1st of October), but I really enjoy reading the discussions in here, so took a little time off to read the latest posts. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 13:57:34 [Permalink]
|
In order to write 1.6726*10-27 you need to use the [sup]-tag.
1.6726*10[sup]-27[/sup]
For writing chemical formulae, use the [sub]-tag.
H[sub]2[/sub]SO[sub]4[/sub] --> H2SO4 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 21:14:09 [Permalink]
|
greatdane 80.....
Welcome to the strange little world of SFN, great dane!
| Hope that helped a bit bngbuck, if not, I'd be happy to try to expand on my explanation. |
Your explanation was extremely lucid and directly to the point. Far better than anything else I have read anywhere in the past week or so, including many articles in wiki, and the strugglings of Stephen Hawking!
I particularly like your metaphorical seat on top of a travelling proton:If you were to 'sit' on top of a proton travelling at 0.999999c, you would still measure the mass of that proton as being 1.6726...x10^(-27) kg, which is the rest mass of the proton.
|
You write well, GD80, and if astrophysics doesn't work out for some reason, you would do well as a science writer/populizer.
As a result of all this SFN palaver and a lot of reading, I have a pretty clear picture of the fact that rest mass is a different conceptualization and entity than relativistic mass; and the subsequent conclusion that one is really talking about the energy of an highly accelerated particle; perhaps "mass" is not even a relevant concept in this particular context! Wiki states:| The concept of mass in general relativity (GR) is more complex than the concept of mass in special relativity. In fact, general relativity does not offer a single definition for the term mass, but offers several different definitions which are applicable under different circumstances. Under some circumstances, the mass of a system in general relativity may not even be defined. |
I think the problem develops from the largely heuristic explanations of these phenomena made by folks like myself who attempt to use a language (English in this case) to explain events that can really only be fully explained or understood in an entirely different language, mathematics.
The petty pissing on shoes that Dave and I engage in has much more to do with theater than it does with substantive discussion. A weakness of mine, really! Just one of the odd parlor games played here!
English depends entirely upon twenty-six arbitrary symbols (an alphabet), a group of manipulation symbols (punctuation), rules of structure and meaning (grammar and semantics),usage and combination (morphology, syntax and stylistics) and numbers.
The mathematical language of calculus and it's derivative discipline, differential equations, depend upon an entirely different set of symbols and rules; and they use numbers in some distinctly different ways than English does. Unlike French or German into English, the two languages (English and Mathematics) don't cross-translate well enough to allow an very effective description of particle physics behavior to be possible in English.
GD80, I would be interested in your response to this question:
Do you see any difference in conveying meaning in these several expressions? Are they all saying exactly the same thing? If any have unique meanings, what are they?
1. Mass is another form of energy, and energy is another form of mass.
2. Mass is equivalent to energy, and energy is equivalent to mass.
3. Mass is equal to energy, and energy is equal to mass. m = e
4. Mass is identical to energy, and energy is identical to mass. m ≡ m
5. Mass is energy and energy is mass.
6. There is no need for two names for "massenergy."
7. There is no need for a word like "massenergy", pick either mass or energy and destroy the other word.
There is more to this train of thought, even the blind can see that, but the mass/energy/English relationship needs to be clarified before going there.
I'm off to the opthamologist, but I hope I'll be seein.. hearing from you soon!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 21:27:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
The upside of my newly acquired optical condition is not having to blindly type out all those tedious links and http://references anymore, as obviously that's not a priority here now! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 22:22:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
The upside of my newly acquired optical condition is not having to blindly type out all those tedious links and http://references anymore, as obviously that's not a priority here now! |
Had I thought that throwing a bunch of links at you was "help," then that's what I would have done. What you seem to have taken from the links you've supplied suggests that more of them wouldn't have made much of a difference. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 04:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Energy is to mass as a cloud is to a raindrop,
and yes I spelled my name correctly. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 09:04:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by greatdane_80
The important point is, as Dave W pointed out, the equivalence between mass and energy expressed in E=mc^2. When we talk about the mass of an elementary particle, we talk about the rest mass of that particle - that is the mass the particle has when at rest in our frame of reference. When the particle is accelerated to near light speed, the increase in mass is seen in our reference frame. If you were to 'sit' on top of a proton travelling at 0.999999c, you would still measure the mass of that proton as being 1.6726...x10^(-27) kg, which is the rest mass of the proton.
There are no mysterious extra particles created to give pass to the accelerated particle, and the 'intrinsic' (rest) mass of the particle is not changed. Energy and mass are simply equivalent! It is not in any way intuitively obvious that this is the case, but nevertheless this is how the world works. Hope that helped a bit bngbuck, if not, I'd be happy to try to expand on my explanation.
I'm relatively new to this website, so forgive the bad math notation - if someone could explain how it is done properly here, that would be great. My background is in astrophysics - I'm actually supposed to be finishing my masters thesis right now (due date 1st of October), but I really enjoy reading the discussions in here, so took a little time off to read the latest posts.
|
Welcome Great Dane.
That was very clear thanks!
So; if I understand clearly, the interaction of the particle with the surrounding environment increases rather than the mass of the particle.
You do not increase the numbers of particle, rather the Higgs field of each particle? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2008 : 09:35:44 [Permalink]
|
| We may not hear back from greatdane_80 right away....seeing as he's down to CRUNCH time on his astrophysics thesis. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 09/29/2008 09:36:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The speed of light and mass
