If matter is the same as energy, then...

The question was why mass and energy should ever be related at all, and why c² turned out to be the relationship between them. By minimizing the meaning of c² - reducing this to a "units conversion", that relationship remains obscured.

This is why you can't call it a conversion factor. You'll never get the point.

As opposed to . . . understanding received on another world . . . perchance the planet Remulak?

:bugeye:

Which ratio?

:yawn:

And where does that lead you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it's not.

None of the above, to my knowledge. :shrug:

If you would be so kind as to clarify what you are referring to.

Isn't that a little ironic, coming from a sock puppet of a banned user?

You must first remove the "banned" from your own eye, so that you may see, to remove the "brand" from mine.

I didn't know banned users had bragging rights to site rules and norms of cooperation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Change to geometric units and say that again. If you really want to know what this means review how we derive the constants of motion energy per unit mass and momentum per unit mass to build the relativistic energy equation. When the relativistic momentum = 0, the requirement at boundary, far away at rest in flat spacetime, E=M. The total energy at boundary is

E=M

E/M=1 This is a really important derivation since it predicts the total rest energy,at boundary, is 1 while Newton predicts the total rest energy at boundary is 0. In GR/SR energy is conserved over the entire natural path of an object through the universe. So is momentum and angular momentum. So the relativistic energy equation has two components that are constants of the motion and an invariant component [mass]. In relativity gravitational potential energy is an irrelevant Newtonian concept.
Pick Chapter one 'Speeding'. Most the chapter is on building this derivation.
http://www.eftaylor.com/download.html#general_relativity

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is no 'bragging rights' invoked in reminding you of the site rules. And management has made it clear to me and others that bringing 'personal baggage' into the picture as you keep doing is against the rules. If you have any problem with that, please take it up with the management. Thanks.

Yes, I will clarify what I mean.

1. You asserted that 'bond energy' was an energy. I point out that bond energy refers to the needed extra energy required to 'break' that bond; and that in order to form a bond some energy has to be released from the event centre and the energy of the participating particles which do not go on to become part of the particle matter/mass. Your turn to clarify what you claimed to be "correcting" ChessMaster about.

2. You implied that matter was created in colliders and that all else was irrelevant. I point out that it is the energy density at the event centre that creates the matter once the energy differentiates itself into matter particles and the excess radiated away (I gave the Big Bang example and the pair annihilation/creation example of said energy-to-matter process as stated by accepted theory). Your turn to clarify what it was you claimed to be "correcting" ChessMaster about.

And when people are banned due to abuses of power by biased mods and the trolls who collude with them, it is a bit rich to use said bans as justification for further unfair comments by you in lieu of sticking to the science point discussion and leave out the baiting and personal baggage, yes? Thanks for your cooperation with the rules and the common science method mandates regarding objective discourse in future.

 

I heard Leonard Susskind say in a lecture once that all string theory is, is the ability to square variables in an equation. That would then be a line from one side of a particle to another. From this, you would think that the speed of light squared is just a line in particles that has to do with the speed of light that makes them two aspects of the same thing.

 

So far you are the only one with issues with management. :shrug:

That wasn't directed to him but to Motor Daddy (unless you are admitting to be all three people). The purpose of my comments to him were to disabuse him of his error in insisting that all energy is the result of expending power over time. I offered chemical energy as a case of those systems in which power is either irrelevant or has no physical interpretation. The rest of what you said is therefore irrelevant. However, note that chemical energy does not enter into the mass-energy equivalence, since the chemicals do not gain or lose mass simply from making or breaking bonds. Your conclusion is therefore incorrect.

Again, you are responding to a Motor Daddy claim which reinforces my belief that you and he may be the same person. His claims and rants were to deny that energy can convert to mass. There is only one piece of evidence needed to rehabilitate him, which is the example of particle creation in a collider. The rest is irrelevant since that closes his argument.

Let me know when management withdraws their warrants against you and we can pick this discussion up then. In the meantime, I'm tracking the trolls and cranks here with the same outlook as anyone else who is capable of recognizing pseudoscience when they see it.

 

You really need to find a way to make yourself better understood, cos that sounds like gibberish.

 

Me reminding you of the site rules and that management has advised everyone that baiting and bringing personal baggage into a discussion is not on, and all of a sudden you make it about me? That's a new twist: you offend against the rules; I remind you of the rules; and according to you it's me who has the problem? That's the king of 'logic' you bring to the threads? Not objective; not good.

About the 'bond' energy. Doesn't matter who. And I didn't say it entered into the mass-energy equivalence. I only pointed out that you asserted that 'bond energy' is energy. I pointed out that it is the energy 'lacking' that makes the bond come about; and that the energy to 'break' that bond is the energy, not the bond itself. You now admit that you were in error to assert that. Thanks for admitting to your error.

And to break a bond, a certain amount of energy input per unit time is required (ie, certain frequency and or density). Isn't that a Power factor involved in the transference of energy from environment (radiation) to particle system whose 'bond' must be broken by that energy input of the correct minimum power of energy transference? So Motor Daddy is not so far off when he talks of 'power' in this context as well, since the greater excitation energy of the particle system comes from the power transfer of the added input energy over time during the interaction 'event' at the event centre of energy-space volume?

And you did not address my pointing out that collision is not necessary to produce matter, since the Big Bang energy differentiated into matter particles by dent of 'cooling' as the initial energy 'ex nihilo' spread out over the energy-space volumes over time. Also the creation of a particle pair (electron or other) matter from gamma radiation does not involve collision, but self-differentiation once the energy-density in the volume of energy-space is sufficient to allow such a process (which is reversible, again, without actual collision, but mutual field interactions). Your own assertions left much to be desired. So now you know.

Take care to obey the rules if you don't want to be thought a troll. That goes for everyone, as the management has already made quite clear. Thanks for your future cooperation in obeying the site rules and objective discussion without personal baitings or baggage, thanks.

 

your trollish behaviour has taken new levels... whatever you discuss with ''motor'' daddy fair be it, but don't you dare make us out to be the same person or I will run your ass through the mill with physics you won't understand. And trust me, I will.

 

ChessMaster. Please do not get baited to rash actions and/or words. That is what the trolls want, so you can be 'framed for banning'. Keep your cool and stick to the objective discussions as best you can. Ignore the trolls wherever possible, else the thread will be cluttered with their poisonous rubbish and I can't read through quickly whenever I do come in for a quick readthrough of the most interesting threads. Thanks.

 

In other words, energy equals mass times a line of photons or the total energy of a mass is the number of lines of photons you have in the particle. E = m c^2 I think any explanation of this mathematical equation would be considered gibberish. That is just the best form of gibberish I could come up with that explains why they are related to each other, or what is actually going on that makes this statement true. It is just from the idea that if c is squared than it could be considered to be a line like in string theory.

 

That is total gibberish.

 

I wish Layman could be "normal" for once.

 

If I was normal I wouldn't be here talking in these forums.

 

Only because you are the banned user Reality Check.

Anything you say, RealityCheck.

To you, no, since you wouldn't know MotorDaddy's approach to mechanics if it hit you with a feeler gauge.

Which makes it moot, doesn't it.

I clarified that it's usually treated as energy per mole. Not an assertion, a definition.

Nope, that's you just wishing that was what I said. Nice try. And way to stomp the dead horse.

Who said anything about radiation? This is about chemistry. Defend Motor Daddy all you want. Go explain to him how many "watts per mole" are associated with the reaction of 1 mol of Cl[sup]-[/sup] with 1 mol of Na[sup]+[/sup] to form salt, and be sure to make that fits his equation E = P × t. Then go re-read my response to him, and see if you can figure out what you're railing about here or -- more important -- why.

Way to tag team, Reality Check. Crankdom². Now, put aside the gibberish, go solve a spontaneous reaction problem--in Watts--and get back with me, and be sure to explain how MotorDaddy's prediction, that power is linear over the life of the reaction, compares with the real deal.

Rather than confront your rant, Reality Check, we note that it's all moot since the question of creation of matter in a collider already killed Motor Daddy's claim that energy cannot create matter. But way to flog the dead horse.

Reality Check, just because you have been perma-banned all over again doesn't mean you should take your liberties here too far. At some point I presume they will catch up with you.

 

I believe that's the first time I've encountered those particular concepts in the same sentence. You read it here first on SciForums, folks.

Well go for it dude. You might actually be onto something. Maybe you're just pretending to be a crank. :grumble:

 

The question is, if you have nothing reasonably intelligent to say about the topic, why post nonsense?

 

That's right sweetheart, you heard it here first.

 

I take it that you don't like string theory, and then squaring a term doesn't mean that it forms a line?

 

That's all you got? :shrug: Where's that ass-kicking physics ?