Kramer on energy (hijacked from "What exactly is energy?")

[Kramer]

 

From this debate I, a lay-man, am more confused than illuminated.
It is simple:

Electron and positron, two mass particles of mater have:

Stationary energy E = 2 * me * C^2 = 2*8.187*10^-14 joule.
Interacting, they transform in two mass less particles (gamma) with
Run-away energy E = 2 * h*1.2359006*10^20Hz = 2*8.187*10^-14 joule.
All the mess is created by the ill term: “ annihilation of matter”

[Strange]

From this debate I, a lay-man, am more confused than illuminated.

It is simple:

Electron and positron, two mass particles of mater have:

Stationary energy E = 2 * me * C^2 = 2*8.187*10^-14 joule.

Interacting, they transform in two mass less particles (gamma) with

Run-away energy E = 2 * h*1.2359006*10^20Hz = 2*8.187*10^-14 joule.

All the mess is created by the ill term: “ annihilation of matter”

 

Why are you confused? Mass and energy are equivalent.

[Kramer]

 

Mordred
Why are you confused? Mass and energy are equivalent.

That’s right but not so simple:

They are equivalent. But are they the same?

How you explain the transformation of each other in each other, if they have not common, in their essence, something “unique”?

Where is gone mass, or electric charge of mass particles, when they become mass-less.?
How come that from relative stationary mass particle, transforms in run away photons?

Those kind of explanation is eager a lay-man curious to listen about.

[swansont]

Mordred

Why are you confused? Mass and energy are equivalent.

That’s right but not so simple:

They are equivalent. But are they the same?

How you explain the transformation of each other in each other, if they have not common, in their essence, something “unique”?

Where is gone mass, or electric charge of mass particles, when they become mass-less.?

How come that from relative stationary mass particle, transforms in run away photons?

Those kind of explanation is eager a lay-man curious to listen about.

 

The mass has been converted into some other form of energy. Photons, for example, or kinetic energy of some other particle.

 

The charge has not gone anywhere, as it's a conserved quantity. If a +1e particle annihilates with its -1e antiparticle, the net charge is zero, both before the interaction and afterward.

 

These are properties of things, not things unto themselves.

[Strange]

They are equivalent. But are they the same?

 

Of course they are not the same. But one can be converted into the other (by various processes).

 

 

How you explain the transformation of each other in each other, if they have not common, in their essence, something “unique”?

 

The explanation is that they are equivalent and one can be converted into the other (by various processes).

 

I'm not sure what sort of explanation you are looking for. In the end, some things can only be explained by "that's the way the universe is".

 

 

Where is gone mass, or electric charge of mass particles, when they become mass-less.?

 

The mass is converted to energy.

 

The net charge is the same before and after (usually zero). For example, an electron (negative) and positron (positive) can be converted to two photons (zero charge = +1 + -1). Note that two photons are required to conserve spin, angular momentum, etc.

 

 

How come that from relative stationary mass particle, transforms in run away photons?

 

Because photons are required to travel at the speed of light. (Note that they go in opposite directions so the net momentum is conserved.)

[Kramer]

 

Swanson

The mass has been converted into some other form of energy. Photons, for example, or kinetic energy of some other particle.

Sorry but this is known in eons, now seems like a jargon.

Something new, please?!

How mass-particle with its gravity ability “disappear”, and a new kind mass-less particle appears. What have they in common to “flip” vice-verse in each other?

The mass is not “a property” that you can get rid easily. Instead is the toughest thing as show the fact, that change (disappear) only from interaction with “anti matter “.

 

The charge has not gone anywhere, as it's a conserved quantity. If a +1e particle annihilates with its -1e antiparticle, the net charge is zero, both before the interaction and afterward.
The answer seems to me tricky. Conserved quantities? They are “zero”. So they can be:

0 = (+1) – (-1) That’s logically not true, even math is right! From zero, appears only zero.
It is different equation (+1) – (-1) = 0 This means that first exist two entity (+1) and (-1) which in them selves never disappear. The disappearance, when they are together, is false. They exist but are hidden, like in atom of hydrogen.

These are properties of things, not things unto themselves.

“The mass-particles” and “mass-less particles” I am convinced that are things. They exist independent of what I or which other say.
Electric charges are entity that structures both above mentioned kind of particles, even in one kind they are hidden.
The mass abilities “MUST BE” entity that structures both above mentioned kind of particles, even in one kind are hidden.

[Strange]

Sorry but this is known in eons, now seems like a jargon.

 

Something new, please?!

It is still true. Why do you need a new explanation when the old one works fine.

 

 

How mass-particle with its gravity ability “disappear”, and a new kind mass-less particle appears. What have they in common to “flip” vice-verse in each other?

 

The mass is converted to energy. (The "gravity ability" doesn't change.) What they have in common is mass-energy. A couple of centuries ago, these were thought to be the same thing, but now we know better.

 

 

The mass is not “a property” that you can get rid easily. Instead is the toughest thing as show the fact, that change (disappear) only from interaction with “anti matter “.

 

Interacting with anti-matter isn't that tough, it happens all the time. It is widely used in technology.

 

Also, it isn't the only way to convert mass into energy; fusion and fission both do it. And are very, very common.

 

 

It is different equation (+1) – (-1) = 0

 

That is wrong: (+1) – (-1) = 2.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

I'm not sure what sort of explanation you are looking for. In the end, some things can only be explained by "that's the way the universe is".--- Your answers are in unison of mister Swanson. So I think my doubts there, are valid even for your explanations. If your explanations have not satiated my curiosity this has to do with my doubt that electron-positron-photon must have been structured with “the same kind of sub particles”. This reasoning gave me some answers that I not find in “ that the way the universe is”. Please don’t take this as lack of respect.

[Strange]

If your explanations have not satiated my curiosity this has to do with my doubt that electron-positron-photon must have been structured with “the same kind of sub particles”.

There are various hypotheses along those lines but no one has been able to produce a working model (as far as I know). And there is no evidence for any such sub-particles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

 

If you want to believe in things with no evidence, that is fine. But it is nothing to do with science.

[swansont]

Swanson

The mass has been converted into some other form of energy. Photons, for example, or kinetic energy of some other particle.

Sorry but this is known in eons, now seems like a jargon.

Something new, please?!

How mass-particle with its gravity ability “disappear”, and a new kind mass-less particle appears. What have they in common to “flip” vice-verse in each other?

The mass is not “a property” that you can get rid easily. Instead is the toughest thing as show the fact, that change (disappear) only from interaction with “anti matter “.

Yes, you need antimatter to make the mass completely disappear.

 

But if an atom absorbs a photon, it gets heavier by E/c², and gets lighter by that amount if a photon is emitted.

 

The charge has not gone anywhere, as it's a conserved quantity. If a +1e particle annihilates with its -1e antiparticle, the net charge is zero, both before the interaction and afterward.

The answer seems to me tricky. Conserved quantities? They are “zero”. So they can be:

0 = (+1) – (-1) That’s logically not true, even math is right! From zero, appears only zero.

It is different equation (+1) – (-1) = 0 This means that first exist two entity (+1) and (-1) which in them selves never disappear. The disappearance, when they are together, is false. They exist but are hidden, like in atom of hydrogen.

These are properties of things, not things unto themselves.

 

 

“The mass-particles” and “mass-less particles” I am convinced that are things. They exist independent of what I or which other say.

Electric charges are entity that structures both above mentioned kind of particles, even in one kind they are hidden.

The mass abilities “MUST BE” entity that structures both above mentioned kind of particles, even in one kind are hidden. [/size]

 

You are subtracting, not adding. +1 + (-1) = 0

 

The particles are the things. The mass is a property.

[Kramer]

 

Strange

There are various hypotheses along those lines but no one has been able to produce a working model (as far as I know). And there is no evidence for any such sub-particles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

If you want to believe in things with no evidence, that is fine. But it is nothing to do with scienc
----- If you are sure that science has explained all the “how” and “why”(obtained this by your high education), that means to me that a lay-man must hush , ( because by lack of education). But I am not so sure. Your post , seems to me not explain “how” and “why”.
To doubt doesn’t means to believe, but to ask, to questions those that are illuminated, to search reading, and again to ask when you are not satiated by answers, that i think is legitimate.

Swanson

Yes, you need antimatter to make the mass completely disappear.
---You admit that needs antimatter “to disappear” the mass? But not “the anti gravity”?
Can you please explain “what” you mean by “antimatter” and “how” it can make “disappear” mass without “anti mass”?
IN analogy with electric charges that +e and –e, do hide each other for, out of radius, observer, ---- so Must act mass gravity in micro-cosmos.

+ F = ((+(sqrtG)*M) * ((+sqrtG)*M)) / R^2

- F = ((-(sqrtG)*M) * ((+sqrtG)*M)) / R^2

But if an atom absorbs a photon, it gets heavier by E/c², and gets lighter by that amount if a photon is emitted.

___ With ”get heavier” you means obtain plus the “mass of photon”? What about proton, which absorbs so many photons during acceleration, gets heavier?

You are subtracting, not adding. +1 + (-1) = 0
--- (+1) – (-1) = 2 --This means that are two unity. Do you think has any relevance in the debate a lapsus? What are + and – it depends. THE RELEVANCE OF DEBATE IS : Are the charges annihilated, or is “annihilated” their presence for the observer out of radius , where they dance with each other.This is question.

The particles are the things. The mass is a property.
----Who know for sure? Maybe --- electric charge and mass, are pillars that structure particle, the fields and the C movement are property of matter.

[Strange]

If you are sure that science has explained all the “how” and “why”...

 

I never said that. That would be a ridiculous thing to say.

 

 

Your post , seems to me not explain “how” and “why”.

 

How: annihilation of antimatter, fusion, fission, breaking chemical bonds, etc. Why: energy and matter are equivalent.

 

I honestly don't understand what sort of explanation you are looking for.

 

 

You admit that needs antimatter “to disappear” the mass? But not “the anti gravity”?

 

Because we know anti-matter exists and how it behaves. There is no such thing (as far as we know) as "the anti-gravity". You might as well ask, "why not unicorns?"

 

 

Can you please explain “what” you mean by “antimatter” and “how” it can make “disappear” mass without “anti mass”?

 

Anti-matter are particles with opposite values for various properties. This does not include mass because there is no such thing as negative mass.

 

 

IN analogy with electric charges that +e and –e, do hide each other for, out of radius, observer, ---- so Must act mass gravity in micro-cosmos.

 

Apparently not.

 

 

With ”get heavier” you means obtain plus the “mass of photon”?

 

Obtains the energy of the photon (photons are massless, remember).

 

 

Are the charges annihilated, or is “annihilated” their presence for the observer out of radius , where they dance with each other.This is question.

 

It may be a question, but I'm not sure what it means. The two opposite charges cancel, sum to zero, or "annihilate" (if you must, although that has a more specific meaning).

 

 

C movement are property of matter.

 

That cannot be a property of matter as anything with mass cannot move at c.

[swansont]

Swanson

Yes, you need antimatter to make the mass completely disappear.

---You admit that needs antimatter “to disappear” the mass? But not “the anti gravity”?

Nobody in this thread has discussed anti-gravity except you. It's not a thing.

 

IN analogy with electric charges that +e and –e, do hide each other for, out of radius, observer, ---- so Must act mass gravity in micro-cosmos.

+ F = ((+(sqrtG)*M) * ((+sqrtG)*M)) / R^2

- F = ((-(sqrtG)*M) * ((+sqrtG)*M)) / R^2

 

While gravity and electrostatics are similar, they are not identical.

 

 

But if an atom absorbs a photon, it gets heavier by E/c², and gets lighter by that amount if a photon is emitted.

___ With ”get heavier” you means obtain plus the “mass of photon”? What about proton, which absorbs so many photons during acceleration, gets heavier?

A photon has no rest mass, which is what I mean by "mass". The system gets more massive because it has more internal energy.

 

I don't know what you're referring to with protons absorbing photons and getting heavier. That might refer to relativistic mass, which is another discussion. There's no point in making this more difficult by adding in more terminology to confuse things.

 

 

You are subtracting, not adding. +1 + (-1) = 0

--- (+1) – (-1) = 2 --This means that are two unity. Do you think has any relevance in the debate a lapsus? What are + and – it depends. THE RELEVANCE OF DEBATE IS : Are the charges annihilated, or is “annihilated” their presence for the observer out of radius , where they dance with each other.This is question.

 

I hope you can see that those two equations, which I've bolded, are not the same.

 

 

The particles are the things. The mass is a property.

----Who know for sure? Maybe --- electric charge and mass, are pillars that structure particle, the fields and the C movement are property of matter.

 

We're discussing mainstream physics here. Charge and mass are properties.

[Sensei]

I honestly don't understand what sort of explanation you are looking for.

He is searching for unified theory, that doesn't explain everything as excitations on fields.

 

That cannot be a property of matter as anything with mass cannot move at c.

That brings us back to the main question of this thread - what is energy, and what is mass.

 

Can you please explain “what” you mean by “antimatter” and “how” it can make “disappear” mass without “anti mass”?

 

Photons produced during annihilation of electron, and its antiparticle, positron have positive energy,

so the same mass of electron and positron is positive value.

Dirac was mistaken.

There is no need to exists negative mass to cancel positive mass.

 

Energy-mass is equal on both sides of equation..

 

e+ + e- -> y + y

in terms of energy can be written:

 

m_e*c^2 + m_e*c^2 = h*f_C + h*f_C

 

f_C - Compton Frequency = 1.23559*10^20 Hz

 

Compton Wavelength = c/f_c = 299792458 / 1.23559*10^20 = 2.42*10^-12 m = 2.42 pm.

 

in terms of charge:

+1e - 1e = 0e + 0e

___ With ”get heavier” you means obtain plus the “mass of photon”? What about proton, which absorbs so many photons during acceleration, gets heavier?

 

Suppose so we have electron and positron in black-box (or billions of them), that is put on precise weight,

They have total mass 2*m_e before annihilation.

After annihilation weight will not measure any change of total mass. Photons will be created, absorbed, another 2nd created, absorbed and so on.

Mass won't change at all. We don't know that they annihilated or not - it's inside of black-box.

 

Earth's core and internal have a lot of radioactive isotopes that decay, mass changes to energy (see mine signature to learn how to calculate it),

For alpha, proton and neutron decay, that doesn't make Earth decreasing mass in time.

As long as no neutrino is emitted to outer space.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sensei

[Kramer]

 

Strange

I never said that. That would be a ridiculous thing to say.

---- And I want to know “why” and “how”. Without it, ones may fudge what ones wants, and call it science.

How: annihilation of antimatter, fusion, fission, breaking chemical bonds, etc. Why: energy and matter are equivalent.

------ Do you understand what means “annihilation”? And how many tales you may create with it? Every your explanation lack the essence of debate “how” and ”why”.

Because we know anti-matter exists and how it behaves. There is no such thing (as far as we know) as "the anti-gravity". You might as well ask, "why not unicorns?

------ And I am not convinced how anti matter ( I mean your concept of antimatter ) “annihilates” mass. So I am free to wonder about different concept of antimatter. (like your sarcasm unicorn)

==== Anti-matter are particles with opposite values for various properties. This does not include mass because there is no such thing as negative mass.
-----Then what is “mass”? Because “mass-particles” of both, matter and antimatter, have mass.

“Mass-less) particles have not? How it disappears? What it is after you “mass”.

Do you think my question is senseless?

It may be a question, but I'm not sure what it means. The two opposite charges cancel, sum to zero, or "annihilate" (if you must, although that has a more specific meaning).

---It means , I think, that there is not any “annihilation” of mass or of “electric charge” ,which I think further , are pillars of matter.

That cannot be a property of matter as anything with mass cannot move at c.

---- For me, matter has two kind of display: in form of mass –particle, in form of mass-less particles. Velocity “C”, I think, is property of “unicorns!!??” sub-particles of matter.

Swanson

Nobody in this thread has discussed anti-gravity except you. It's not a thing.

---- Sorry, but I am not convinced how is “annihilated” mass. What has happen with its gravity? You see this doubt senseless?

While gravity and electrostatics are similar, they are not identical.
----- I don’t say are similar. I say are “nemeses” of each other in the structure of matter.

A photon has no rest mass, which is what I mean by "mass". The system gets more massive because it has more internal energy.

I don't know what you're referring to with protons absorbing photons and getting heavier. That might refer to relativistic mass, which is another discussion. There's no point in making this more difficult by adding in more terminology to confuse things.

----- That’s confuse me: “ gets more massive” ---- do you means having more “internal” energy, posses ability to create more mass particles? Like proton in cyclotron? ( please me, don’t think it is a straw-man) It is in line of thought and debate: What is energy and what is mass.

I We're discussing mainstream physics here. Charge and mass are properties.

---- I suppose we are debating about diverse interpretation of mainstream. If somebody doubt about some kind of interpretation is this a taboo!?

Sensei

He is searching for unified theory, that doesn't explain everything as excitations on fields.
---- “Exitations of fields” are the most difficult physics phenomena that can understand a lay-man like me which think:

Particles of matter are source of fields, and not vice-verse.

Suppose so we have electron and positron in black-box (or billions of them), that is put on precise weight…….

----- I didn’t understand well this example. Please explain for me:

Summa of billions of electrons and positrons inside black-box:

before the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 2*10^9*me kg.?
after the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 0 kg?

How do you explain?

As long as no neutrino is emitted to outer space.

---- I doubt to have decay without emission of neutrinos.

[Strange]

 

Do you think my question is senseless?

 

Yes.

 

 

Sorry, but I am not convinced how is “annihilated” mass. What has happen with its gravity?

 

Nothing "happens to its gravity". Mass and energy are equivalent; they both contribute to gravity.

 

 

do you means having more “internal” energy, posses ability to create more mass particles?

 

Yes. Nearly all the mass of the matter around you comes from the energy binding it together, not from the mass of the particles.

[Sensei]

As long as no neutrino is emitted to outer space.

---- I doubt to have decay without emission of neutrinos.

 

Neutrinos (from unstable nucleus) are ONLY produced by beta decay-, beta decay+ and electron capture,

Proton emission in proton-rich nucleus,

Neutron emission in neutron-rich nucleus,

Alpha decay,

are always neutrinoless.

 

Double beta decay+ or double beta decay- are occasionally neutrinoless.

 

That are facts.

 

Neutrino is classic old quantum theory is needed only to conserve lepton number, and to explain mismatch of mass-energy between mass of parent isotope and daughter and other products of decay.

But later have been found reactions that violated conservation of lepton number.

 

Read carefully articles before proceeding:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_emission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_emission

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay

Edited July 26, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

Summa of billions of electrons and positrons inside black-box:

before the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 2*10^9*me kg.?

after the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 0 kg?

How do you explain?

 

For example, the gravitational effect of the "black box" would be the same before and after. In other words, the total mass of the black box would be the same. (Sorry if that confuses you further.)

[Sensei]

----- I didn’t understand well this example. Please explain for me:

Summa of billions of electrons and positrons inside black-box:

before the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 2*10^9*me kg.?

after the “annihilation” is not (10^9 * me+) + (10^9 * me-) = 0 kg?

How do you explain?

 

Mass of black-box before and after annihilation remain constant. And is 2*10^9*m_e kg

[swansont]

Swanson

Nobody in this thread has discussed anti-gravity except you. It's not a thing.

---- Sorry, but I am not convinced how is “annihilated” mass. What has happen with its gravity? You see this doubt senseless?

 

Nothing happens to its gravity, since the energy is the same.

 

A photon has no rest mass, which is what I mean by "mass". The system gets more massive because it has more internal energy.

I don't know what you're referring to with protons absorbing photons and getting heavier. That might refer to relativistic mass, which is another discussion. There's no point in making this more difficult by adding in more terminology to confuse things.

----- That’s confuse me: “ gets more massive” ---- do you means having more “internal” energy, posses ability to create more mass particles? Like proton in cyclotron? ( please me, don’t think it is a straw-man) It is in line of thought and debate: What is energy and what is mass.

 

Increasing internal energy will increase rest mass. Kinetic energy is accounted for separately in the way we do physics. Motion does not increase mass.

 

I We're discussing mainstream physics here. Charge and mass are properties.

---- I suppose we are debating about diverse interpretation of mainstream. If somebody doubt about some kind of interpretation is this a taboo!?

 

Hijacking threads is taboo (and you've been warned about that). Here, in a physics thread, we are discussing mainstream physics.

[Kramer]

 

 

Strange

Yes.
---Thanks for evaluation. The same I think about your answers: “rubber-stamps”

Nothing "happens to its gravity". Mass and energy are equivalent; they both contribute to gravity.

--- That mass is linked with gravity I knew long ago. Please explain to an ignorant the gravity of photon.

Yes. Nearly all the mass of the matter around you comes from the energy binding it together, not from the mass of the particles.
----- Are you so sure? Are you really convinced that mass is created by energy? And energy is created by ??????. At, least they say, that very rarely photons with high energy may create mass. I have a ” think” that only “black bodies” in the center of galaxies re-cycles and re-new the matter.

Sensei.

Neutron emission in neutron-rich nucleus.

----Isn’t neutron emission decay in the end, results in spiting out neutrino?
I wonder why equations of dis-integrations don’t go to the ending? I mean in the basic common component of matter: photons, protons, electrons, neutrinos and their antimatter components. In fact all unstable compositions – natural or man made -- mass or mass-less -- , they ends not only in energy particles (photons) but even in mass basic particles. This means that mass and mass-less particles are both side of the same coin: matter.

 

Mass of black-box before and after annihilation remain constant. And is 2*10^9*m_e kg-

---- That astonished me. Photons have mass, I mean “mass” in kg.! ? I shush.

Swanson

Nothing happens to its gravity, since the energy is the same.

----- Again astonished. There are different kind of energy! You mean gravity energy stay the same?

Increasing internal energy will increase rest mass. Kinetic energy is accounted for separately in the way we do physics. Motion does not increase mass.
---- Till now I thought that motion is the result of interaction of mass particles with photons of free energy, or with photons of fields by the other mass particles (gravity or electromagnetic) and those “photons absorbed” by particle in movement.
Doesn’t it happen when electron bounce?

Hijacking threads is taboo (and you've been warned about that). Here, in a physics thread, we are discussing mainstream physics.

----- I don’t think to have hijacked thread. I am debating in the line of thread about all aspects linked with energy.

[Mordred]

you might want to look up the different types of mass photons have no rest mass but they do have a mass equivalence

 

Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc² this formula however isn't complete for total energy, or rather the full detail isn't presented in this form

 

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html

 

"mass of a photon is really all K.E. mass"

e=cp

[Strange]

 

Are you really convinced that mass is created by energy?

 

Yes.

 

It will be the 110th anniversary of Einstein's annus mirabilis next year.

[Sensei]

Neutron emission in neutron-rich nucleus.

----Isnt neutron emission decay in the end, results in spiting out neutrino?

But that's neutron decay, 15+ minutes later..

 

If free neutron will be absorbed by some nucleus, and final isotope will be stable, then no neutrino, but f.e. photon or other particle will be emitted..

 

f.e.

n0 + Li-6 -> T+ + He-4 + 4.784 MeV

[Strange]

 

Yes.

---Thanks for evaluation. The same I think about your answers: “rubber-stamps”

 

OK. Let me expand on that.

 

Your questions, such as "what is mass" or "what is energy," could only be meaningful if those things could be defined in terms of something else.

 

For example, "what is an omelette" can be answered in terms of eggs and other ingredients, prepared in a particular way.

 

Even the question, "what is a proton" can be answered in terms of quarks, gluons, quantum chromodynamics, etc.

 

But questions such as "what is an electron" and your questions cannot be answered in this way. These are (as far as we know) fundamental things. We can we can quantify them and describe them in terms of their interactions with other things. But they are what they are.

 

So, again, I don't know what sort of answer you are looking for. I don't even know what sort of answer you could be looking for.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Strange