Energy and Speed of Light

[search]

Now lets complicate <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />:

 

[why06]

I think we have two definitions of energy going here.<br /><br />Light: is a particle<br />heat: is the movement of particles<br />radiation: be more specific <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

Give me an example of energy that is NOT composed of particles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[search]

Light is not a particle....<br /><br />All info from wiki. To access the links just use the following key words:<br />LIGHT<br />PHOTON<br />HEAT <br />RADIATION<br /><br />LIGHT is electromagnetic radiation.<br />Light elementary particle is the photon. <br />Photons have zero invariant mass <br />"The invariant mass or intrinsic mass or proper mass or rest mass or just mass is a measurement or calculation of the mass of an object that is the same for all frames of reference. For any frame of reference, the invariant mass may be determined from a calculation involving an object's total energy and momentum").<br />Light simultaneously exhibits properties of both waves and particles.<br /><br /><br />HEAT is energy in transit. <br />"Heat is a form of energy transfer associated with the different motions of atoms, molecules and other particles that comprise matter when it is hot and when it is cold")<br /><br />RADIATION is the process of emitting energy in the form of waves or particles.<br />Radiation by type of emission<br /><br />Electromagnetic radiation, a stream of photons.<br />Gamma radiation, which is high-energy electromagnetic waves.<br />Ultraviolet radiation, also known as UV.<br />Infrared radiation, also known as heat.<br /><font color="black">Gravitational radiation, a predicted consequence of general relativity.</font><br />Particle radiation, radiation by means of particles that have a rest mass.<br />Alpha radiation, composed of the nuclei of helium-4 atoms.<br />Beta radiation, consisting of energetic electrons or positrons.<br />Neutron radiation.<br />Within fluid dynamics, an energy source within a fluid may cause radiation: rossby waves in atmospherics dynamics; or sound waves.

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

You misunderstood my view a little, my view about energy-matter is not as radical as bonzelite's. I have no quarrel with E=mc². In fact, Yevaud's defintion of energy, <font color="red">Energy is unbound matter; matter is bound energy. </font> perfectly matches the equation E=mc², when the object (mass) is at rest. <br /><br /><br /><br />What I wanted to know , we can somehow directly or indirectly convert mass into energy, but why can't we directly convert energy into mass? Is this something to do with our space-time, the vacuum, the empty space?<br /><br /><br />In fact, even Bonzelite may be correct about this mass-energy battle. I dont know if there is any new experimental works or not, so correct me. Even in nuclear bombs, mass is not converted into energy, but energy is RELEASED which was stored in the nuclei. Total number of neutrons and protons (or nucleons)remain the same after a fission reaction. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />In fact, even Bonzelite may be correct about this mass-energy battle. I dont know if there is any new experimental works or not, so correct me. Even in nuclear bombs, mass is not converted into energy, but energy is RELEASED which was stored in the nuclei. Total number of neutrons and protons (or nucleons)remain the same after a fission reaction. <br /></font><br /><br />see, this issue is a pandora's box. your above ^^^ idea is closer to what i'm talking about. the "Energy" is not created. it is <i>released.</i> and then what is this "release" all about? the energy is not something for nothing. there is no free lunch; the energy must be "something." it's not aetherial. it's substantiative. <br /><br />the energy "converted" to matter in accelerators is pre-existing as matter in the first place. it does not go from aether to material, and then material to aether. even when something is totally vapourised it isn't entirely converted to this aetherial "Energy" or "radiation." <br /><br />E=mc^2 is about momentum of light. not conversion of "state."

 

[bonzelite]

Gamma radiation, which is high-energy electromagnetic waves. <br />Ultraviolet radiation, also known as UV. <br />Infrared radiation, also known as heat. <br /><br />these are states of matter ^^^<br /><br />waves are material structure

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">What I wanted to know , we can somehow directly or indirectly convert mass into energy, but why can't we directly convert energy into mass? Is this something to do with our space-time, the vacuum, the empty space? </font><br /><br />Because mass is a very concentrated form of energy.<br /><br />Create particles?<br /><br />If you could convert all of the energy contained in 1 kg of sugar, or 1 kg of water, or 1 kg of any other stuff, you could drive a car for about 100'000 years without stopping! Why? In 1905 Albert Einstein wrote down the famous equation E=mc2. This says that mass is a very concentrated form of energy.<br /><br />But how can energy be transformed into matter, or vice versa?<br /><br />Big meteorites traverse our solar system with a typical speed of about 30 km/sec. If such a meteorite enters the Earth's atmosphere, its energy of movement is converted into heat. The meteorite - or "shooting star"- reaches 100'000 °C or more and most of its material melts.<br /><br />Using accelerators we can make single particles (like a proton) go as fast as the speed of light (300'000 km/sec). If a particle moving at this speed hits a block of material, its energy is also transformed, producing temperatures of 10'000'000'000'000 °C or more. Under these extreme circumstances, the energy set free in the collision can transform into matter.<br /><br />However, nature does not allow energy to be converted into just any kind of matter. It allows only "particles", which correspond to a precisely defined amount of energy and have some other particular properties.

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Even in nuclear bombs, mass is not converted into energy, but energy is RELEASED which was stored in the nuclei. Total number of neutrons and protons (or nucleons)remain the same after a fission reaction.</font><br /><br />Nuclear bombs can be of two types:<br />1.Nuclear fission (like the old A bomb or atomic bomb)<br />2.Nuclear fusion (hydrogen bomb or thermonuclear bombs)<br /><br />The total rest masses of the fission products (Mp) from a single reaction is less than the mass of the original fuel nucleus (M). The excess mass (Delta m) = M - Mp is the invariant mass of the energy that is released as photons (gamma rays) and kinetic energy of the fission fragments, according to Einstein's relation E=mc².<br /><br />Fission products tend to be beta emitters, emitting fast-moving electrons to conserve electric charge as excess neutrons convert to protons inside the nucleus of the fission product atoms.<br /><br />Fission products have, on average, about the same ratio of neutrons and protons as their parent nucleus, and are therefore usually unstable because they have proportionally too many neutrons compared to stable isotopes of similar mass.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"> the energy set free in the collision can transform into matter. </font><br /><br />E=mc^2 is a momentum of light equation. <br /><br />moreover, E=mc^2 describes no such conversion anywhere and does not mean that it occurs. energy already = matter; it does not require a conversion from energy to matter. nor matter to energy. they are the same thing. you might as well say it is a matter-to-matter change of face or guise. or state, if you will. energy is not a byproduct of matter, but is exactly matter. there is no conversion. otherwise, energy is undefined in our physics and has no specific meaning. <br /><br />our material existence is composed of matter, primarily the electron as a particle and subatomic particle. you can then call them whatever you wish. whatever you wish to call the things "orbiting" the nucleus are ---whatever they are-- composing all of material existence. protons and neutrons are particles built of electrons, and all exotic particles that scatter in accelerator experiments are nothing but free electrons broken off larger clusters of electrons as particles or as "clouds" of "pure energy." <br /><br /><br />

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

The examples Tigerbiten and you have provided are not good examples of mass creation from energy or energy creation from mass. <br /><br />Tigerbiten, one 4GeV proton(I guess you used relativistic mass) and one .938GeV (proton rest energy) created, according to your experiment, 1 proton and 1 anti-proton. Note, in the experiment there are already 2 protons involved. No new protons are created. Transformation between protons and neutrons are well known. Your experiment just knocked off the charge of the proton to replace it with a negative one. In theory, 4 GeV and .938 GeV should produce at least 5 protons, instead you are back to 2 speeding nucleons taking up the remaining energies. <br /><br /><br />SEARCH, in all these examples you have given, if you look carefully you'll notice no new nucleons (discounting neutrino type particles) are created. The energy we see in fission or fusion are merely the released energy which are used to hold the nucleons(protons and neutrons) together. <br /><br />More and more it appears E=mc² is simply a new UNIT of energy in terms of mass, not a conversion formula. <br /><br />Someone needs to hammer in a nail in my head. How can all these textbooks be wrong in their interpretation? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[search]

<font color="yellow"> protons and neutrons are particles built of electrons, and all exotic particles that scatter in accelerator experiments are nothing but free electrons broken off larger clusters of electrons as particles or as "clouds" of "pure energy." <br /></font><br /><br />Ouch...very big mistake bonzelite...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />Electron is a lepton and it is viewed as one of the fundamental particles.<br /><br />Neutrons and protons make up the nucleus of atoms and they are held together by the strong force. According to Quantum Mechanics the proton is a baryon and is considered to be composed of two up quarks and one down quark.<br /><br />Quarks and Leptons are the building blocks which build up matter, i.e., they are seen as the "elementary particles".

 

[bonzelite]

up, down, strange, charm "quark" --they're renaming the electron --that thing whatever it is that orbits the nucleus, call it "chocolate ice cream" if you want-- that is the fundamental particle making others. <br /><br />there is no "strong force;" that is an ad hoc idea to smooth over the violation of physics that like particles are somehow not repelled by each other in the hypercompact space of the atom. the nucleus should fly apart. but it doesn't because of the "strong force of darth vader." <br /><br />the atom does not fly apart because it is not containing literal + and - charges. that is a model only. but does not "actually" exist in nature. a strong force may be more akin to muhammed ali in the prime of his fighting career, but not in the atomic nucleus. <br /><br /><br />

 

[search]

bonzelite<br /><br />The content of your posts is "only" denial. <br /><br />Denial is ok as long as there is a base for it.<br /><br />You are not producing that base.

 

[search]

No need of a hammer. Just read my post again.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">SEARCH, in all these examples you have given, if you look carefully you'll notice no new nucleons (discounting neutrino type particles) are created. The energy we see in fission or fusion are merely the released energy which are used to hold the nucleons(protons and neutrons) together.</font><br /><br />I did not say that matter was created from fission or fusion. I answered to your comment. <br /><br />As you well say it is release of the energy contained in the nucleus (strong force).<br /><br />I believe people are confusing transformation of energy into matter with creation of energy or matter. <br /><br />The Principle of Conservation of Energy says that "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed".<br /><br />This means in an isolated system the total energy remains constant. <br /><br />What the particle accelerators do is not creating matter or energy. They convert energy into matter or matter into energy and in the process new particles are created (very unstable particles that may have existed during the Big Bang but did not survive and are now being replicated when we recreate the conditions in CERN or Fermilab) but the total matter or total energy remains the same.<br /><br />Isolated system implies a collection of matter which does not interact with the rest of the universe and as far as we know there are really no such systems since there is no shield against gravity, and the electromagnetic force is infinite in range. It is however useful to postulate such a system to clarify the nature of physical laws. In particular, the conservation laws can be presumed to be exact when referring to an isolated system.

 

[search]

<font color="yellow">Give me an example of energy that is NOT composed of particles.</font><br /><br />First tell me what you mean by "particles"? <br /><br />I believe one of the reasons for the confusion going on in this thread as been created by people using different definitions of "particles".

 

[bonzelite]

the flow chart is nice and cute, but it represents an antiquated view of particles. you need to shave with a razor. <br /><br />there is no such thing as + and - charges within the atom; there is no strong force. the fundamental particle of nature is outside the nucleus of the atom and composing the larger particles within the nucleus. <br /><br />that chart is far too complex and reaching.

 

[search]

Show me your fundamental particle chart and I will tell which type of shaver you use...<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[SpeedFreek]

This chart is up to date but its too large to post here, so I linked to it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i use a Wahl beard trimmer/ shaver, actually. it's pretty good. a regular non-beard trimmer doesn't work on my facial hair for some reason. <br /><br />and there's no chart. it's just: electron. then you have proton and neutron --composed of electrons. and there is no charge involved. so there's no need to have a mysterious and unexplainable strong force. <br /><br />but that shaver works the charm. by Wahl. i think that is what it is.

 

[search]

The chart is excellent so your shaver should be also very good speedfreek. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[search]

I do not know which Wahl it is since there is quite a range of them...but you tend not to be very specific. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />All elementary particles and composite particles are either bosons or fermions (depending on their spin)<br /><br />A composite particle (made up of more fundamental particles) may either be a fermion or a boson, depending only on the number of fermions it contains:<br /><br />Composite particles containing an even number of fermions are bosons, such as a meson, or the nucleus of a carbon-12 atom.<br />Composite particles containing odd number of fermions are fermions, such as a baryon, or the nucleus of a carbon-13 atom.<br />A composite particle may contain any number of bosons with no effect on whether it is a boson or a fermion.<br /><br />Fermions are particles with half-integer spin and there are two types:<br />Leptons and Quarks<br /><br />Bosons are particles having integer spin.<br />The nucleus of Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen<br />Helium-4 nuclei<br />Sodium-23 atoms<br />Any nucleus with integer spin<br />Photons, which mediate the electromagnetic force<br />W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak nuclear force<br />Gluons<br />Higgs bosons<br />Phonons<br /><br />Baryons are the family of subatomic particles which are made of three quarks. The family includes the proton and neutron, which make up the atomic nucleus (nucleon or nucleous), but many other unstable baryons exist as well<br /><br />Now forget the Bosons and concentrate on the Fermions;<br /><br />Neutrons, Protons, Electrons and Quarks are Fermions.<br /><br />The atom is composed by a Nucleon (nucleous) formed by Neutrons and Protons. <br /><br />Neutrons and Protons are formed by Quarks (there are 3 types and 6 flavours).<br /><br />Around the Nucleon (nucleous) there is an area (cloud) of Electrons which exact location is not possible to detect. Electrons are also Leptons.<br /><br />Lepton is a particle with spin-1/2 (a fermion) that does not experience the strong nuc

 

[docm]

Is there enough time for that? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[search]

Depends but I do not know his agenda...yet agendas do not exist, they are the product of wrong theoric concepts about time<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />All elementary particles and composite particles are either bosons or fermions (depending on their spin) <br /><br />A composite particle (made up of more fundamental particles) may either be a fermion or a boson, depending only on the number of fermions it contains: <br /><br />Composite particles containing an even number of fermions are bosons, such as a meson, or the nucleus of a carbon-12 atom. <br />Composite particles containing odd number of fermions are fermions, such as a baryon, or the nucleus of a carbon-13 atom. <br />A composite particle may contain any number of bosons with no effect on whether it is a boson or a fermion. <br /><br />Fermions are particles with half-integer spin and there are two types: <br />Leptons and Quarks <br /><br />Bosons are particles having integer spin. <br />The nucleus of Deuterium, an isotope of Hydrogen <br />Helium-4 nuclei <br />Sodium-23 atoms <br />Any nucleus with integer spin <br />Photons, which mediate the electromagnetic force <br />W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak nuclear force <br />Gluons <br />Higgs bosons <br />Phonons <br /><br />Baryons are the family of subatomic particles which are made of three quarks. The family includes the proton and neutron, which make up the atomic nucleus (nucleon or nucleous), but many other unstable baryons exist as well <br /><br />Now forget the Bosons and concentrate on the Fermions; <br /><br />Neutrons, Protons, Electrons and Quarks are Fermions. <br /><br />The atom is composed by a Nucleon (nucleous) formed by Neutrons and Protons. <br /><br />Neutrons and Protons are formed by Quarks (there are 3 types and 6 flavours). <br /><br />Around the Nucleon (nucleous) there is an area (cloud) of Electrons which exact location is not possible to detect. Electrons are also Leptons. <br /><br />Lepton is a particle with spin-1/2 (a fermion) that does not experience the strong nuclear force. The leptons form a family of elementary particles that are distinct from the other known famil</font>