Junk elas threw up

[elas]

Energy is a measurement of two items, one entity (mass) and one action (speed). Entities can change form but not their total content therefore mass is conserved. Speed can be transfered between entities therefore although speed is conserved (conservation of momentum) it is not necessarily conserved by the same entity; but total content of the system (speed and mass) is conserved (decay does not occur). Heat is a measure of (particle) speed, sound is a measure of pressure. Speed and pressure cause changes of form (deformation).

[swansont]

Energy is a measurement of two items, one entity (mass) and one action (speed). Entities can change form but not their total content therefore mass is conserved. Speed can be transfered between entities therefore although speed is conserved (conservation of momentum) it is not necessarily conserved by the same entity; but total content of the system (speed and mass) is conserved (decay does not occur). Heat is a measure of (particle) speed, sound is a measure of pressure. Speed and pressure cause changes of form (deformation).

 

In short, NO.

 

Mass and speed are not conserved quantities, massless particles have energy, heat is not a measure of particle speed, and sound is not a measure of pressure.

[elas]

Swansont

 

massless particles have energy,

E=m(c squared)

If a massless particle has energy then E=0(c squared). please explain.

 

heat is not a measure of particle speed

If heat is not the expansion of a system due to particle movement, what is it?

 

sound is not a measure of pressure

When I was in the Civil Defense we measured sound with an instrument that recorded overpressure. When I was near the flight path of a plane traveling faster than sound at a height of 200 ft the sound wave threw me (and other spectators) to the ground, what were we subject to other than the pressure of a sound wave?.

 

I will not express my views on the conservation laws on a SM forum.

[ydoaPs]

Swansont

 

massless particles have energy,

E=m(c squared)

If a massless particle has energy then E=0(c squared). please explain.

E=mc² isn't the whole story; it doesn't account for momentum. This equation assumes a reference frame in which the system in question is at rest relative to you. Since we know massless particles are never at rest, perhaps we should use the whole equation.

 

E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

If we plug m=0, we get:

E=pc

[math]c=\nu\lambda[/math](where [math]\nu[/math] is the frequency and [math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength) so, [math]E=\rho\nu\lambda[/math]

Quantum mechanical description of momentum is [math]\rho=\frac{h}{\lambda}[/math].

This makes:

[math]E={\frac{h}{\lambda}}\nu\lambda[/math]

This means:

[math]E=h\nu[/math] which is the equation for the energy of a massless particle.

 

heat is not a measure of particle speed

If heat is not the expansion of a system due to particle movement, what is it?

Heat is energy in transit from one system to another due solely to a temperature difference. Temperature, however is a measure of the average random molecular kinetic energy of a substance(you could say it's related to the speed of the molecules).

 

sound is not a measure of pressure

When I was in the Civil Defense we measured sound with an instrument that recorded overpressure. When I was near the flight path of a plane traveling faster than sound at a height of 200 ft the sound wave threw me (and other spectators) to the ground, what were we subject to other than the pressure of a sound wave?.

Sound is a compression wave(it's vibrations in the air).

 

I will not express my views on the conservation laws on a SM forum.

SM?

[iNow]

SM?

 

Scientifically moderated?

[Sisyphus]

Scientifically moderated?

 

I think he's calling Swansont a sadomasochist.

[MrMongoose]

E=mc² isn't the whole story; it doesn't account for momentum. This equation assumes a reference frame in which the system in question is at rest relative to you. Since we know massless particles are never at rest, perhaps we should use the whole equation.

 

E²=(mc²)²+(pc)²

If we plug m=0, we get:

E=pc

[math]c=\nu\lambda[/math](where [math]\nu[/math] is the frequency and [math]\lambda[/math] is the wavelength) so, [math]E=\rho\nu\lambda[/math]

Quantum mechanical description of momentum is [math]\rho=\frac{h}{\lambda}[/math].

This makes:

[math]E={\frac{h}{\lambda}}\nu\lambda[/math]

This means:

[math]E=h\nu[/math] which is the equation for the energy of a massless particle.

 

Heat is energy in transit from one system to another due solely to a temperature difference. Temperature, however is a measure of the average random molecular kinetic energy of a substance(you could say it's related to the speed of the molecules).

 

Sound is a compression wave(it's vibrations in the air).

 

SM?

 

You forgot to mention

 

[math]p=\rho[/math]

[thedarkshade]

heat is not a measure of particle speed

If heat is not the expansion of a system due to particle movement, what is it?

Particle speed determines the heat of a system, because heat is actually due to kinetic energy (energy of movement). When particles have greater kinetic energy, they move with higher velocities so the probability that particles will hit each other is bigger. And when particles hit each other, heat is produced, so higher particle speed = greater heat.

[ydoaPs]

Particle speed determines the heat of a system, because heat is actually due to kinetic energy (energy of movement). When particles have greater kinetic energy, they move with higher velocities so the probability that particles will hit each other is bigger. And when particles hit each other, heat is produced, so higher particle speed = greater heat.

You're confusing heat with temperature.

[elas]

yourdadonapogos

 

Being able to plug 0 into an equation does not prove that massless particles exist. I have shown on a different forum that an alternative formula produces the same answer in a manner that indicates the impossibility of massless particles. But, this is not the forum to continue with this point so I will refrain from further elucidation.

 

Heat is energy in transit from one system to another due solely to a temperature difference

 

I would put it differently by saying heat is the transfer of high speed to an area of lower speed this is the logical consequence of movement at different speeds, particles keep bumping into each other transferring momentum until stability is achieved in the form of equality of speed. Nothing physical is actually transferred, hence the total content of the system (and the content of each individual particle) remains unchanged. Energy is a measure of the work done in the form of speed changes and/or changes in particle state; during particle collisions.

 

Sound is a compression wave

 

So in a volume of particles being compress all but the centre particle has to move inwards,

 

Heat, sound, compression and mass are expressions of either movement or compaction, or both. Heat, sound and compression tell us how we sense particular movements and compactions they are not entities.

Mass is not clearly defined by the Standard model (SM), But I think I am safe in saying that it is related to the quantity of matter. In a system with a given maximum this can be measured in two ways namely: the quantity of matter present and the quantity of matter not present (i.e. a quantity of something; and a quantity on nothing). However, while the quantity of nothing can be compacted to 0 dimensions the quantity of something can only be compacted to its maximum density. This is the cause of something well known to engineers; it is that more work can be done by a quantity of nothing (vacuum) than can be done by an equal quantity of something (matter). That is to say that within each particle the linear force of vacuum acts over a greater radial distance that the linear force of matter (elasticity of matter).

 

thedarkshade

I think we are saying the same thing although I did not make that clear in my reply to Swansont

[Phi for All]

I will not express my views on the conservation laws on a SM forum.

There is SO much to be thankful for today.

[elas]

Phi for All

 

That sounds just like a typical sarcastic reply one would expect from a salesman, clearly you have not read my paper and hopefully you will not bother to do so. This is supposed to be a debating forum; I am always open to correction any time you have the intelligence to make one.

[Klaynos]

Could someone split the psydoscience out of this thread PLEASE!!!

 

And I never thought I'd say this sober, but please listen to yourdadonapogos he speaks the understood truth.

[Phi for All]

Phi for All

 

That sounds just like a typical sarcastic reply one would expect from a salesman,

As a sales professional, I understand when someone is being sarcastic. You clearly don't understand the meaning of the word. There was no sarcasm in my remark.

clearly you have not read my paper and hopefully you will not bother to do so. This is supposed to be a debating forum; I am always open to correction any time you have the intelligence to make one.

When have you demonstrated this openness to correction? Certainly not in this thread. It must be on one of the other (non-SM) forums where you express your views on the conservation laws.

[elas]

It must be on one of the other (non-SM) forums where you express your views on the conservation laws.

 

Science Forums, The Original > Physics > Classical Physics>

Particle structure

[Phi for All]

I see no openness to correction there. I see elas trying to push shoddy goods on customers who aren't buying (to use a lowly salesman's terminology).

 

But now I know that SM stands for Snakeoil Medicine.

[elas]

Phi for All

 

I see elas trying to push shoddy goods on customers who aren't buying

 

So far you have expressed your personal opinion. How about some constructive criticism our a debatable point. Take the above reply, are you referring to my submissions to this forum or to the forum on my work?

[Phi for All]

I am always open to correction any time you have the intelligence to make one.[/quote']When have you demonstrated this openness to correction?

Science Forums' date=' The Original > Physics > Classical Physics>

Particle structure[/quote']I see no openness to correction there. I see elas trying to push shoddy goods on customers who aren't buying.

Take the above reply, are you referring to my submissions to this forum or to the forum on my work?

Please try to follow along here. I was referring to the thread you pointed out (if you copy the URL of the thread, then insert a hyperlink, you can paste in the url and even type in the name of the thread so it appears like this: Particle Structure). In that thread, you state several times that you are open to correction but then proceed to argue with several experts in the field who try to offer those corrections.

 

My personal favorite line, versions of which we get from so many people attempting to offer alternatives to concepts they find non-intuitive, was this one:

As annoying as this ignorance (of mine) is to me personally, I do not see that it alters the validity of the concept.

You are eligible for some kind of prize for *that* sentence {unfortunately the wizard already gave the brain to the scarecrow).

 

Now I'm very impressed that you have managed to cobble this concept together (I certainly wouldn't have been capable), given that you seem unable to learn the forum quote system, but that doesn't change the fact that you are not listening to the advice that's being given to you. You are essentially stating your concept and then plugging your ears when the criticism threatens to topple it.

 

I've been told that this is not the only forum where you do this. I will try to get hold of the folks over at PhysicsForum today to see what they have to say about your track record there, but I have to tell you, people who aren't interested in learning from their mistakes are inconsistent with our purposes.

[ydoaPs]

{unfortunately the wizard already gave the brain to the scarecrow)

 

Naughty naughty, Phi......ad homs aren't a very good way to argue.

[Phi for All]

Naughty naughty, Phi......ad homs aren't a very good way to argue.

If elas would like to apologize for his sad attempt to use my profession to belittle me, I will apologize for wanting to offer him a prize, otherwise my personal advice to elas is, when your IQ reaches 6, sell.

[ydoaPs]

He hurt your feelings, so it's okay for you to hurt his? Don't you think that's somewhat immature?

[Phi for All]

Don't you think that's somewhat immature?

Hey, watch the Flaming, ATOMIKPSYCHO! Your gayness does not go unnoticed!

[swansont]

I think he's calling Swansont a sadomasochist.

 

It's insulting, but then, I enjoyed it.

 

Swansont

 

massless particles have energy,

E=m(c squared)

If a massless particle has energy then E=0(c squared). please explain.

 

heat is not a measure of particle speed

If heat is not the expansion of a system due to particle movement, what is it?

 

sound is not a measure of pressure

When I was in the Civil Defense we measured sound with an instrument that recorded overpressure. When I was near the flight path of a plane traveling faster than sound at a height of 200 ft the sound wave threw me (and other spectators) to the ground, what were we subject to other than the pressure of a sound wave?.

 

I will not express my views on the conservation laws on a SM forum.

 

 

Yourdad has already addressed the first point, and most of the other two points. I would add that you can have radiative heat transfer (which is always at the same speed) and a system with constant static pressure that is free of sound as counterexamples which falsify your claims.

[ydoaPs]

yourdadonapogos

 

Being able to plug 0 into an equation does not prove that massless particles exist.

You didn't ask anyone to prove massless particles exist. You asked how a massless particle could have energy.

 

Swansont

 

massless particles have energy,

E=m(c squared)

If a massless particle has energy then E=0(c squared). please explain.

I not only did what you asked, but in the process derived the standard equation for the energy of a photon(which is one kind of massless particle). Please refrain from the shifting of goalposts.

 

I have shown on a different forum that an alternative formula produces the same answer in a manner that indicates the impossibility of massless particles. But, this is not the forum to continue with this point so I will refrain from further elucidation.

If you stick around, I'm sure you'll find that your hypothesis is much more likely to be taken seriously if you have math to back it up. I've shown you a bit of my math, now let's see yours.

 

Hey, watch the Flaming

 

There is a difference between criticizing the behaviour of a person and flaming.

 

Energy is a measurement of two items, one entity (mass) and one action (speed).

Kinetic energy is just one kind of energy. For instance, what about the gravitational potential energy of a book on a shelf?

 

Entities can change form but not their total content therefore mass is conserved.

Did you know the mass of an atom is different than the mass of the sum of its constituent nucleons?

 

Speed can be transfered between entities therefore although speed is conserved (conservation of momentum) it is not necessarily conserved by the same entity; but total content of the system (speed and mass) is conserved (decay does not occur).

In a perfectly elastic collision where the objects colliding are of equivalent mass, then yes, the sum of the speeds of the objects before the collision would equal the sum of the speeds of the objects after the collision. However, the real world isn't an ideal scenario. Some of the energy in a collision is given off as sound, some is given off as heat, some energy is used to deform or break the objects colliding. The energy of the system is conserved, but not the speed or even the momentum.

[JaKiri]

Lets take a little trip down Special Relativity road, shall we?

 

The first thing to do is to note that SR relies on two basic principles: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant for all observers, and that physical laws are the same in all intertial frames¹. These are well supported².

 

What do these things mean? Well, from these we get certain relationships. We get the things called the Lorenz Transforms, which state that the mass of an object that you observe moving relative to you is increased depending on the amount by which it is moving, proportional to the gamma factor³, a factor that is 1 when the object is at rest relative to you⁴ and approaches infinity as the relative speed of the object approaches the speed of light, c. Similarly, the rate at which you observe time passing for the object and the length of the object in the direction of motion are dependent on 1/gamma, a factor which is 1 at relative rest and 0 as the relative speed of the object appraoches c.

 

Now what does this mean? Well, it means that you have to take relative velocity into account when determining the mass and decay rate of particles we find in particle accelerators as they're moving a sizeable fraction of the speed of light. With GR⁵, it produces things like the twin paradox, it means we have to take account of time dilation if we want to measure our position by GPS satellites and predicts that if you fly an atomic clock around the world a few times it'll show a different time on it than one which was sitting where it started.

 

All of these things, and many more, we have observed to be true in line with the predictions of SR, as best we can measure.

 

So what does this mean?

 

Well, for one it means that your statement in the O/P that "mass is conserved" is incorrect. Have something accelerate, and the total mass you can measure changes due to the Lorenz transform!

For another thing, it means that particles that travel at the speed of light must have zero rest mass, otherwise their mass when travelling at c (which they must travel at by definition) would be infinite.

What else does it mean? We've already seen the famous equation E=mc^2 in this thread, and it's more correct brother E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4⁶. It is remarkable that you use the first of these equations in an argument which also uses conversation of mass, as E=mc^2 is an equation which describes the equivilence between rest mass and energy, which kind of puts the nix on mass conservation.⁷

It is also remarkable that you ignore the full equation. If you like, you can derive it yourself from E = gamma*mc^2 and p = gamma*mv.

 

If, as you state, you cannot have massless particles I think it is only polite if you provide new versions of Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Maxwell's Equations, and all the other things that suggest or require that you can have them, that fit with this statement. An explanation of why all reproduceable experimental evidence⁸ on the topic suggests that massless particles can exist and yet they somehow do not would also be helpful.

 

¹In fact only the latter of these is required. You can derive that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant from all observers from the first principle and from Maxwell's Equations.

²Michaelson-Morely is an obvious experiment to mention.

³The reciprocal of the square root of the relative speed squared divided by the speed of light squared, and subtracted from 1. 1/(SQRT 1-(v^2/c^2))

⁴This is the origin of the concept of the rest mass, which we shall come back to later.

⁵You need General Relativity to deal with acceleration/gravity.

⁶An interesting sidepoint is that whilst both E and p (momentum) are observer dependent, the right hand side is observer independent as it depends on rest mass, m. Using Taylor expansions, you can also derive the classical definitions of kinetic energy and momentum from this and its related equations.

⁷If mass is conserved, nuclear power (of any sort) doesn't work, because nuclear power is from things with a mass m combining (or splitting apart) to form a body of particles of mass less than m, with the resulting energy being given off in the order E=mc^2. I have to admit that I cannot see the sun at this precise moment as it's a cloudy day in Cambridge, but I'm pretty sure it's still there.

⁸With accuracies of the order of 10^-20, which is pretty hefty as these things go.