Energy and Speed of Light

[bonzelite]

but that's also part of the underlying problem. these people are regarded as untouchable; their theories sacrosanct despite the fact they they contradict themselves, often further mystified by the mythology that i am pointing out right now.<br /><br />tell me, then, how you derive energy-to-mass conversion from momentum of light equations that are exactly where E=mc^2 comes from? the two have not a damn thing to do with each other; energy-to-mass conversion nowhere proven nor seen in reality. you must believe in making gold from lead, too? <br /><br />"when all else fails, play dead" --indeed you are doing this <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[docm]

You <i><b>can</b></i> make gold from lead, just put it in a nuclear reactor under the right conditions. You can also turn Uranium into Plutonium and several dozen other combinations. It's called transmutation.<br /><br />Glenn Seaborg (1951 Nobel winner in Chemistry) demonstrated this with Lead/Gold in 1980 and test runs of an experimental reactor in Russia resulted in the accidental transmutation of part of its lead shielding into gold in 1972.<br /><br />Energy to mass? Happens every second, both man made and naturally.<br /><br />Every particle accelerator is a reactor in reverse, taking electrical power out of the grid and turning it into mass. Such things happen naturally as well. High energy gamma rays often convert into electron-positron pairs (pair production) when they have a glancing collision with a heavy nucleus. <br /><br />It doesn't matter if the gamma ray came from an accelerator and hit a secondary target or if it was emitted from a pulsar and struck the walls of the ISS. All that's required is that the photon have an energy equivalent to twice the rest mass of an electron (2x 1.022 MeV) and that it interact with a heavy nucleus.<br /><br />All the energies, new mass etc. can be neatly calculated using E=mc^2. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[billslugg]

bonzelite<br /><br />The fusion of nuclei to elements above iron requires the addition of energy. That energy results in mass. This is well established. What is your evidence to the contrary?<br /><br />What is it about the conversion of energy to electron-positron pairs that you object to? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">you must believe in making gold from lead, too?</font><br /><br /><br />Actually they did it already in a particle accelerator...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm<br />Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><i><br />What is it about the conversion of energy to electron-positron pairs that you object to?</i></font>/i><br /><br />they're not converted from pure energy to physical matter. the term 'energy' implies an aetherial existence of non-matter. in our physical existence, energy is really matter -- specifically electrons. <br /><br />there are only electrons and <i>clusters or clouds of electrons</i> in our physical existence, including electricity and light. there are no other particles in the atom, and matter does not appear out of nowhere from radiant energy or 'pure energy.' pure energy, ie, aether becoming matter, is a fallacy. accelerator experiments do not confirm matter deriving from pure energy of non-matter existence.<br /><br />

 

[why06]

bonz Im gonna stop you before you drive away all your audience,<br />What you are really questioning is what you just posted not that energy cant be converted into matter, but the nature of energy and matter it self. It doesn't matter SEARCH or Meteor Wayne how many experiment you bring up to support your idea. Bonzelite believes all energy is matter. I think? Or all matter is energy. It is your job to prove that they are to seperate forces. And you can't do that by relating them to heat and speed and all the other properties or matter. Talk about Electro magnetic waves. I believe this discussion hinges on that.<br /><br />Are electro magnetic waves energy? If so how?<br /><br />Like binzelite says, electrons, photons, etc. are all particles. The question is : "What IS Energy?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

And whers my: Food Sythesizer <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> !! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Thanks for the second link. But here you go again, they had to use electrons (for radiation) to create electrons. Interesting footnote. <br /><br />I jumped up the first time I saw the headline 'scientists succeeded in teleportation'. After reading the article I realized they teleported a 'photon'. I don't know I should laugh or cry reading these news.<br /><br />Anyway, its a good start though, but wake me up when they make a simple hydrogen atom from pure energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[search]

That is the problem bonzelite. You should know the scientific concept of energy...you and the local group...<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Transformations_of_energy<br />Energy can be converted into matter and vice versa, although both energy and matter continue to exhibit rest mass throughout any such process (thus in a closed system, conversion of matter to energy or energy to matter makes no difference in the system mass). The equation E=mc2, mathematically derived independently by Albert Einstein and Henri Poincaré reflects the equivalence between mass and energy. This equation states that the liberated active energy (light, heat, radiation) that is equivalent to a unit of inactive matter is enormous. This can be witnessed in the tremendous energies liberated by a nuclear bomb. Conversely, the mass equivalent of a unit of energy is minuscule, which is why loss of energy from most systems is difficult to measure by weight, unless the energy loss is very large. Examples of energy transformation into matter (particles) are found in high energy nuclear physics. However, all energy in any form exhibits rest mass, even if it has not been converted into new particles.

 

[why06]

Yes, but what is energy. Give me an example.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Yes, but what is energy. Give me an example....</font><br /><br />good job --- now you're thinking <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> hold that idea: <i>what is energy?</i> <br /><br />the word is thrown around so often that it's meaning is unknown. so let's keep with this thought for a while. energy is really an abstraction. and is not really known.

 

[yevaud]

Energy is unbound matter; matter is bound energy.<br /><br />*Now hear the sound of one hand clapping*<br /><br />It's as simple and basic as that one one level. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><i> The equation E=mc2, mathematically derived independently by Albert Einstein and Henri Poincaré reflects the equivalence between mass and energy.</i></font><br /><br />to correct that a bit, it reflects the equivalency of the momentum of light to it's energy content divided by it's speed; it's mass times it's speed. that's all that it means. mass is not appearing out of pure "energy" anywhere. <br /><br />there is no conversion of energy to mass to be found anywhere in deriving the equation, nor in nature. accelerator experiments do not verify this to be actually happening.

 

[billslugg]

bonzelite<br />"the term 'energy' implies an aetherial existence of non-matter"<br />That is correct.<br /><br />"in our physical existence, energy is really matter"<br />That is correct."<br /><br />"there are only electrons and clusters or clouds of electrons in our physical existence,"<br />That is correct. We only interact with the electrons surrounding nuclei.<br /><br />"there are no other particles in the atom."<br />That is not correct. There are protons and neutrons.<br /><br />"matter does not appear out of nowhere from radiant energy"<br />That is not correct. Acellerator production of trans Uranic elements, and detection of electromagnetic production of electron-positron pairs prove you wrong. <br /><br />What is it that you do not understand? Please do not reply with a simple refutation.<br /><br />Show me which fact is wrong.<br /><br />Show me where my logic is wrong.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

"there are no other particles in the atom." <br />That is not correct. There are protons and neutrons. <br />-----and those are composed of electrons<br /><br /><br />"matter does not appear out of nowhere from radiant energy" <br />That is not correct. Acellerator production of trans Uranic elements, and detection of electromagnetic production of electron-positron pairs prove you wrong. <br />---electromagnetism is material existence. it is not of the aether. it is created by electron behaviour. aetherial "energy" does not exist.

 

[why06]

Great reply bill<br /><br />Yevaud you lost me with the one hand clapping. What is unbounded energy. Any examples... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">no such thing is proven by such experiments. any results that "prove" it, then, disprove E=mc^2.</font><br /><br />You seem to be caught up in reading the equation from left to right. You know, it could just as easily be rendered as mc^2=E.<br /><br />Mass equals energy -- and energy equals mass. The relationship between mass and energy flows both ways.<br /><br />Now, like you, I cannot think of a practical example of energy being converted into mass. Nonetheless, the possibility that it might happen is implied in the equation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Now, like you, I cannot think of a practical example of energy being converted into mass</font><br /><br />cool. high five. <br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />You seem to be caught up in reading the equation from left to right. You know, it could just as easily be rendered as mc^2=E. </font><br /><br />doesn't make any difference. there is no conversion. the entire equation is not describing a conversion process. it describes <i>momentum of light</i> in relation to it's mass and "energy" content. <br /><br />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Yes, but what is energy. Give me an example....</font><br /><br />Light, heat, radiation...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<i><br />Light, heat, radiation..</i><br /><br />are....??? keep going.....

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">"there are no other particles in the atom." <br />That is not correct. There are protons and neutrons. <br />-----and those are composed of electrons <br /></font><br /><br />What on earth is going on in this forum reagarding to quantum definitions and concepts?<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

we're taking the wacky weed approach <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> and finding the genius seed in the insane <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">bonzelite <br />"the term 'energy' implies an aetherial existence of non-matter" <br />That is correct. </font><br /><br />What on earth (or should I say on ether) is aetherial and non-matter?<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">"in our physical existence, energy is really matter" <br />That is correct."</font><br /><br />Only in some people physical existance...<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

TIME OUT....this thread is going all over the place in terms of definitions and concepts and in physics if we do not know them we can be talking about onions and potatoes and never agree on anything.<br /><br />FORMS OF ENERGY<br />TYPES OF MASS AND ENERGY<br />ENERGY TRANSFORMATION

 

[search]

Guys and gals in very simple terms and lets not complicate yet (please <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />):<br /><br />EXTERNAL ENERGY vs INTERNAL ENERGY<br /><br />Two types:<br />1.External energy: in a very generalized way is directional energy<br />2.Internal energy. in very generalized way is multidirectional energy.<br /><br />Two common forms of external energy:<br />1. Kinetic energy <br />2. Potential energy<br /><br />Internal energy: is the multidirectional energy contained in the molecular and smaller motions that cannot entirely be converted into external energy.