1. Originally Posted by Emil
OnlyMe, look over these reversible chemical reactions and tell which side is heavier and wich lighter? Left or right?
Emil, when an electron in a hydrogen atom emits a photon, does it stop being hydrogen? If not then the argument above has no merit, as all you are doing is comparing the atoms involved, not their mass.

Edit: I should add that the mass involved with a single photon emission or even likely a billion (a wild guess) would not be measureable and without changing actual particle balances even chemical reactions have little measureable impact on total mass. Keep in mind many chemical reactions really just involve how a group of atoms share an electron charge. Unless you actually remove an electron in the process of an interaction the total mass at that scale is unaffected.

2. A simplified version question.

A light source emits a light sphere.
Surface of the light sphere, at a distance of 1m, is 12.56 square meter.
Surface of the light sphere, at a distance of 1 light year, is 1256X10 ^ 30 square meter.
The question is: what has increased? Photon or distance between the photons?
What is the distance between the photons?

3. Originally Posted by Emil
A simplified version question.

A light source emits a light sphere.
Surface of the light sphere, at a distance of 1m, is 12.56 square meter.
Surface of the light sphere, at a distance of 1 light year, is 1256X10 ^ 30 square meter.
The question is: what has increased? Photon or distance between the photons?
What is the distance between the photons?
Firstly, this would likely only be true in flat space/time. In the curved spacetime of GR the "light sphere" would be deformed by the dynamic curvature of space, in a relatively short period of time.

As to the question of photon density, the answer to that question would be dependent entirely upon the initial photon intensity. Are we talking about a flashlight or a supernova?

The obvious issue mentioned above aside, it does sometimes seem as though, even while we think of photons as packets. There is subtle question within your question that may suggest that light also propagates as a true 3D wave and is experienced in the form of photons only when observed. This perhaps originating in the nature and limitations of the fact that all methods of measurement and observation involve atoms, whose interaction with "light" seems to be defined in a quantifiable way. In a sense, a case of the act of observation or measurement having an influence over the results.

Disclaimer: Most of the above is the product of free thought and even then not a great deal of serious consideration.

4. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Emil, when an electron in a hydrogen atom emits a photon, does it stop being hydrogen? If not then the argument above has no merit, as all you are doing is comparing the atoms involved, not their mass.
Rubbish.
Atomic weight and number of atoms are strictly related to the mass. (Learn chemistry!)
Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Edit: I should add that the mass involved with a single photon emission or even likely a billion (a wild guess) would not be measureable and without changing actual particle balances even chemical reactions have little measureable impact on total mass. Keep in mind many chemical reactions really just involve how a group of atoms share an electron charge. Unless you actually remove an electron in the process of an interaction the total mass at that scale is unaffected.
More rubbish.
Photon emission does not change the structure of the atom, giving the atomic weight.
Please don't spam. Every time you say the same thing.
Energy conservation law and mass conservation law is valid, regardless of your opinion.
Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Firstly, this would likely only be true in flat space/time. In the curved spacetime of GR the "light sphere" would be deformed by the dynamic curvature of space, in a relatively short period of time.

As to the question of photon density, the answer to that question would be dependent entirely upon the initial photon intensity. Are we talking about a flashlight or a supernova?

The obvious issue mentioned above aside, it does sometimes seem as though, even while we think of photons as packets. There is subtle question within your question that may suggest that light also propagates as a true 3D wave and is experienced in the form of photons only when observed. This perhaps originating in the nature and limitations of the fact that all methods of measurement and observation involve atoms, whose interaction with "light" seems to be defined in a quantifiable way. In a sense, a case of the act of observation or measurement having an influence over the results.

Disclaimer: Most of the above is the product of free thought and even then not a great deal of serious consideration.
If you are not interested in the problem, instead of giving bogus answers, please do not interfere.

5. Originally Posted by Emil
Rubbish.
Atomic weight and number of atoms are strictly related to the mass. (Learn chemistry!)

More rubbish.
Photon emission does not change the structure of the atom, giving the atomic weight.
Please don't spam. Every time you say the same thing.
Energy conservation law and mass conservation law is valid, regardless of your opinion.

If you are not interested in the problem, instead of giving bogus answers, please do not interfere.
An example could be when you make a sandwich and a couple of crumbs fall of the slice, you might argue that either the bread has lost mass or not depending on how technical you want to be.
I agree with OnlyMe but I also see your point too for the mass loss is neither here nor there in the bigger picture.

6. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
An example could be when you make a sandwich and a couple of crumbs fall of the slice, you might argue that either the bread has lost mass or not depending on how technical you want to be.
I agree with OnlyMe but I also see your point too for the mass loss is neither here nor there in the bigger picture.
What you say is words salad.
We talk very specifically about the conservation law of mass and conservation law of energy .
You must first make a clear statement !
You agree with these laws or not.

7. Originally Posted by Emil
Rubbish.
Atomic weight and number of atoms are strictly related to the mass. (Learn chemistry!)
If what you are referring to by "atomic weight" is what you find on a periodic chart of elements, it is not the atom's mass. Particle masses are in Electron Volts, the atomic weight is the total number of protons and neutron. (Atomic number being the number of protons alone.)

Originally Posted by Emil
More rubbish.
Photon emission does not change the structure of the atom, giving the atomic weight.
Please don't spam. Every time you say the same thing.
Energy conservation law and mass conservation law is valid, regardless of your opinion.
I refer you to Einstein.... DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?.

In this paper where he introduced the formula E = mc^2, he used "L" instead of "E", later standardized to the familiar "E" for consistency. The whole point of the paper was that an atom's mass varies with the emission and absorbtion of photons. Even while photon's do not have a rest mass of their own.

Originally Posted by Emil
If you are not interested in the problem, instead of giving bogus answers, please do not interfere.
I thought I was giving an answer. And yes I do tend to run on it is a failing, I must live with. I do forget you are depending on translators. By the way it is not as obvious as it was when you first joined the discussion group. But I have no way to know what my words will look like to a translator or even anyone reading them directly.

It seems you must have taken something I said or the way I said it personally. You are not usually so short tempered, in your response.

As for the rubbish, I set it out daily. I bathe on occassion also...

8. Originally Posted by Emil
What you say is words salad.
We talk very specifically about the conservation law of mass and conservation law of energy .
You must first make a clear statement !
You agree with these laws or not.
I first want to point out I was making a sandwich not a salad! Right!

Of course I agree with those laws and so does OnlyMe. The difference we are pointing out is this conservation is only as good as the containment of the exothermic heat of reaction. Unless you can forever contain that heat energy it will be lost to the environment, and that implies a mass gain to the environment, OK it is still conserved in the environment, but the mass won't be in the reagents but elsewhere.

9. Originally Posted by Emil
What you say is words salad.
We talk very specifically about the conservation law of mass and conservation law of energy .
You must first make a clear statement !
You agree with these laws or not.
There may be a misunderstanding of terms and intent here.

It is fair to say that mass and energy are conserved, allowing that while total mass is not always constant, it is conserved in the mass/energy relationship.

I would agree that energy is conserved without exception. My reservation is that while in theory we treat mass as "nothing" more than a special expression of energy "and nothing else", I am not as certain about the nothing else part.

The formula E = mc^2 can, for my part be clearly interpreted to be an expression of the total energy associated with a given mass. I am not as certain that mass has no component which is not energy. There is something unique about mass and the energy assciated with it, that differs from energy not direct associated with mass itself.

Mass has a well defined relationship with gravitational interaction that cannot be extended to the kinetic energy associated with velocity. While acceleration results in conditions that are equivalent in all measureable respects, to gravity, velocity which does involve energy has no such similarity. Even in the case of acceleration, the acceleration of an object does not increase its gravitational field, though it can have significant effect on the shape of the field.

There I go again, another essay. Perhaps it is because the questions you have raised, make me think..., that is generally a good thing. Perhaps because I just don't have a clear and definitive answer so I explore possibilities as they arise...

10. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
If what you are referring to by "atomic weight" is what you find on a periodic chart of elements, it is not the atom's mass. Particle masses are in Electron Volts, the atomic weight is the total number of protons and neutron. (Atomic number being the number of protons alone.)
Yes, I should have to write atomic mass instead of atomic weight.
But what you write about atomic mass and atomic weight is stunning.
Originally Posted by OnlyMe
I refer you to Einstein.... DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT?.

In this paper where he introduced the formula E = mc^2, he used "L" instead of "E", later standardized to the familiar "E" for consistency. The whole point of the paper was that an atom's mass varies with the emission and absorbtion of photons. Even while photon's do not have a rest mass of their own.
As I said. We talk about about the conservation law of mass and conservation law of energy and not on GR.
If you do not agree with these laws, please open a thread in alternative theories.
If you do not have a theory, then in pseudoscience.
Originally Posted by OnlyMe
I thought I was giving an answer. And yes I do tend to run on it is a failing, I must live with. I do forget you are depending on translators. By the way it is not as obvious as it was when you first joined the discussion group. But I have no way to know what my words will look like to a translator or even anyone reading them directly.

It seems you must have taken something I said or the way I said it personally. You are not usually so short tempered, in your response.

As for the rubbish, I set it out daily. I bathe on occassion also...
So, what increases? The photon or distance between them?
If none, then give a logical explanation.

11. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
The formula E = mc^2 can, for my part be clearly interpreted to be an expression of the total energy associated with a given mass. I am not as certain that mass has no component which is not energy. There is something unique about mass and the energy assciated with it, that differs from energy not direct associated with mass itself.
You even read what I post?
Originally Posted by Emil
Mass–energy equivalence:

"Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy. Through all such conversions, mass remains conserved, since it is a property of matter and any type of energy. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the system of precursors and products of such reactions, as a whole, retain both the original mass and energy, with each of these system properties remaining unchanged (conserved) throughout the process."

12. It is amazing how I have to fight for conservation law of mass and conservation law of energy on a science site.
Follows invalidation of Pythagorean theorem, because space is curved.
Conclusion: no law is valid. We cannot define the new laws, we know only that the old ones are not valid.
Yes, this is "hard" science.

13. Originally Posted by Emil
You even read what I post?
Originally Posted by Emil
Mass–energy equivalence:

"Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matter to be converted to energy. Through all such conversions, mass remains conserved, since it is a property of matter and any type of energy. In physics, mass must be differentiated from matter. Matter, when seen as certain types of particles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the system of precursors and products of such reactions, as a whole, retain both the original mass and energy, with each of these system properties remaining unchanged (conserved) throughout the process."

Yes Emil, I did read that without the red letters and responded. You asked for a reference and I supplied a reference to Einstein's 1905 paper where he associated a change in the mass of an atom with the emission and absorption of a photon. Total energy is conserved in the process, while until the photon which has been emmited is absorbed by another atom, total mass is not.

Mass is exchanged between atoms in the form of photons. It is very small amounts but never the less, if an atom emits a photon and loses mass in the process, while the energy associated with that mass is conserved in the photon, as long as the photon flys free the total mass is in and of itself not conserved except in the total energy balance.

The extreme case can be made that some 14 billion plus year past many atoms emitted photons, thier mass diminished in the process, and traveled passed through space as energy, until now 14+ billion years later an astronomer somewhere has observed them, in the process of their absorbtion by atoms now. During that 14+ billion years the total energy was conserved but the total mass existed in part wholly as energy in the form of photons with no intrinsic mass of their own.

My point was not to suggest that mass and energy are not conserved. It was that total energy is always conserved and constant, while total mass at any given instant may not be equivalent to the total mass at another.

And the E = mc^2 paper is not GR, it follows from SR, Einstein's earlier work with the photo electric effect and Maxwell's work.

14. Moderator note: RealityCheck's complaints and comments have been split to a new thread, here:

Ban the sociopaths

15. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
Of course I agree with those laws and so does OnlyMe. The difference we are pointing out is this conservation is only as good as the containment of the exothermic heat of reaction. Unless you can forever contain that heat energy it will be lost to the environment, and that implies a mass gain to the environment, OK it is still conserved in the environment, but the mass won't be in the reagents but elsewhere.
Rubbish, photon emission or absorption does not change the structure of the atom, giving the atomic mass.

16. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
Mass is exchanged between atoms in the form of photons.
Bullshit, photon emission or absorption does not change the structure of the atom, giving the atomic mass.

17. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
[/color]

Mass is exchanged between atoms in the form of photons.
I think the case with the particle photon is a bit different , because as we know photon has a zero mass but non-zero momentum .

So, particle photon may carry energy but not mass .

18. A photon is absorbed or emitted by an atom . An atomic structure consists of Electron , Proton , Neutron and Empty-Space .

Where is the location of particle Photon in this atomic structure ?

19. Originally Posted by Emil
Bullshit, photon emission or absorption does not change the structure of the atom, giving the atomic mass.
You are like a person confusing a house with a home. Does the house have the same mass as the home? When you move house what bit do you move?

20. Originally Posted by Robittybob1
You are like a person confusing a house with a home. Does the house have the same mass as the home? When you move house what bit do you move?