physical mass vs real mass

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

spacehugo

Guest
physical mass contains 99,99999999 empty space and energy, rest is "real" mass. real mass must be separeted from this components before it can fall into a blak hole, which contains only real mass, the forces who keep the atoms with electron in orbit around the protons and neutrons is not known, when looking at a black hole which has exceeded the physical laws who made it possible to become a black hole, there is only gravity and real mass left in a singularity(so small is real mass) and gravity is separeted from those forces keeping atoms together. is there a connection between dark energy (outwards), dark mass and gravity. is dark energy force opposite equal to dark mass and gravity force together so they can keep an atom in existence .
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
spacehugo..

Your terminology is so mangled it's hard to tell what you are trying to say. What makes it even harder is that you write one long sentence without proper punctuation so it's all a blur. Please slow down and try and write in coherent sentences. It will make it much easier to read what you are saying so we can try and respond to it.

If I get the gist of what you are trying to say, this is probably a duplicate of a number of other topics, so I may merge it into one of the other ones. In the meantime, pleae take my advice, slow down, and write more clearly.
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
spacehugo":1iyr50i5 said:
physical mass contains 99,99999999 empty space and energy, rest is "real" mass. real mass must be separeted from this components before it can fall into a blak hole, which contains only real mass, the forces who keep the atoms with electron in orbit around the protons and neutrons is not known, when looking at a black hole which has exceeded the physical laws who made it possible to become a black hole, there is only gravity and real mass left in a singularity(so small is real mass) and gravity is separeted from those forces keeping atoms together. is there a connection between dark energy (outwards), dark mass and gravity. is dark energy force opposite equal to dark mass and gravity force together so they can keep an atom in existence .
I can't tell if this is a question or a hallucination.

Mass is mass.
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Based off his first sentence, I believe he might be referring to something similar to the binding energy of quarks in a proton making up 95% of the mass of the proton. The rest mass of the 3 quarks only make up 5% of the rest mass of the proton. The other 95% is the binding energy created by the massless gluons...

In other words... E=mc^2. Welcome to Special Relativity :)
 
K

kg

Guest
Going by the topic heading I thought he was somehow asking something about inertial vs gravitational mass.
 
O

origin

Guest
I think he is talking about the space between the nucleus of the atom and the electrons. Regardless mass is mass.
 
S

spacehugo

Guest
ok, but inside electrons,protons and neutrons, there is also particles and these also contains empty space. even more empty space in % than atoms, so what is mass ?
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
spacehugo":20998t0y said:
ok, but inside electrons,protons and neutrons, there is also particles and these also contains empty space. even more empty space in % than atoms, so what is mass ?
Electrons are an elementary particle... there is no 'inside' to them.

Protons and neutrons are made up of quarks. Each have three. Protons have 2 Up quarks and 1 Down quark, while neutrons have 2 Down quarks and 1 Up quark. The total rest mass of the 3 quarks is only about 5% of the total rest mass of the individual proton or neutron. The other 95% of the mass is in the binding energy of the 3 quarks.
 
S

spacehugo

Guest
"The other 95% of the mass is in the binding energy of the 3 quarks." but my question will then be "is energy mass and is heat energy ?the reason why I ask this question is that heat can escape the gravity of black holes.
 
B

Boilermaker

Guest
spacehugo":2tgb547a said:
"The other 95% of the mass is in the binding energy of the 3 quarks." but my question will then be "is energy mass and is heat energy ?the reason why I ask this question is that heat can escape the gravity of black holes.
I have a couple of questions, what makes spacehugo think heat can escape Black Holes and for the others, if E=Mc2

how can you say that the other 95% of the mass is in the energy?


isn't that saying simply E=M which isn't true?
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Heat is typically just the random motion of atoms (and is just energy), and as such cannot escape a black hole directly. Spacehugo is likely refering to Hawking Radiation, in which some particles are generated by the black hole, and allowed to escape, via the use of 'virtual particles'. This allows the BH to radiate particles/mass, which can be considered heat, giving the BH a temperature.

And in conversations such as these, it is perfectly applicable to consider E=M, as c^2 is merely a constant and tells us only the amount energy that is bound up in mass.

To be completely accurate the equation is a bit longer than just E=mc^2, as it has to contain the kinetic energy of the mass as well...which includes the heat energy bound in the object, as heat is merely the motion of atoms (their kinetic energy).
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
Saiph":3lard0d5 said:
Heat is typically just the random motion of atoms (and is just energy), and as such cannot escape a black hole directly. Spacehugo is likely refering to Hawking Radiation, in which some particles are generated by the black hole, and allowed to escape, via the use of 'virtual particles'. This allows the BH to radiate particles/mass, which can be considered heat, giving the BH a temperature.
...in the form of black body radiation.
 
S

spacehugo

Guest
what about the fact that there is not sufficient energy in the universe to accelerate not even the smallest physical particle to the speed of light and that its mass will increase to an impossible amount. and why is it that everything ,also the birth of a b.h. and mass falling into b.h. implies to "burn" of energy . and if mass truly falls into singularity, the speed of that mass must be faster then the speed of light when beyond event horizon on its way to the center, or corrct me if I´m wrong.
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
spacehugo":542yw3s2 said:
what about the fact that there is not sufficient energy in the universe to accelerate not even the smallest physical particle to the speed of light and that its mass will increase to an impossible amount. and why is it that everything ,also the birth of a b.h. and mass falling into b.h. implies to "burn" of energy . and if mass truly falls into singularity, the speed of that mass must be faster then the speed of light when beyond event horizon on its way to the center, or corrct me if I´m wrong.
You're wrong.
 
S

spacehugo

Guest
thank you for many good replies (in other topics too) and I will apologize my not proper way of behavior(excused by english is not my primal language, I hope), but this last one I think maybe you could ,with your expertise, give me a little bit more. "what about the fact that there is not sufficient energy in the universe to accelerate not even the smallest physical particle to the speed of light and that its mass will increase to an impossible amount." (impossible=infinite). According to SR (Special relativity ) and/or STR (special theory of relativity) Have I got this wrong too?
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
That is correct. No mass can be accelerated to light speed, as it would take more than the E=MC^2 mass of the Universe to do so.

It really is basic Physics at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts