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

[Kramer]

 

Sensei

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
----- We have debated elsewhere about the role of neutrinos in the process of disintegration and have quit with agree to not agree.

 

 

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

------ And where lead your logic: photons have different mass-equivalence, because of different Energy? What make them to have different energy?

Oh -- I know your answer: E = h / dt --- from 0 to infinite. And “they are what they are”. Doesn’t this absurdity reason on you, that photons must have structure?

 

 

Strange

Yes.

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

---- It is a pity that He has not have explained how this happen.

 

Strange

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.

----- We are debating about energy and the link of it with mass, about photons and the link of them with electron particle and positron. Here I introduced the idea about them -- having the same alleged sub-particles in their structure.

This yours quote divides your trust and my doubt. But to continue further I am warned. Let close our debate with disagreement.

 

 

 

Sensei

It can be answered by analyze of what happens to electron while annihilation with positron, and production of gamma photons.

They are later absorbed and emitted with less, and less energy, with more quantity...

 

Single pair of electron-positron has enough energy to heat 1.3 billions of H₂O molecules for 1^o C.

 

------ May be you can solve (with your analyze) the problem why an electron particle, in upper Plank size area, degraded and stops in Compton size.?!!

 

Strange

Absolutely, you can describe it properties and behaviour, etc.

But that does not say what it "is"; and there seem to be people, like member Kramer, who want to know what an electron or mass or energy "is." And there is no reasonable answer to that.
------ Because people, like Kramer, doubt about some weird assertions of science linked with behavior of things, without knowing nothing about what things are.

[Sensei]

We have debated elsewhere about the role of neutrinos in the process of disintegration and have quit with agree to not agree.

Because you're giving neutrino special role that it does not have.

 

At least there is no experiments that would show it. Am I mistaken?

 

May be you can solve (with your analyze) the problem why an electron particle, in upper Plank size area, degraded and stops in Compton size.?!!

Sorry, but I don't understand what you even want from me.. Can you explain?

Planck size area?

Compton size?

 

Planck length is 1.6*10^-35 m

Compton wavelength is 2.42*10^-12 m

Planck length is ~1.5*10^23 smaller value than Compton wavelength..

 

[Strange]

 

Let close our debate with disagreement.

 

Disagreement because you choose to ignore all the theory, math and evidence; preferring to make up random stuff.

[Kramer]

 

Sensei
Because you're giving neutrino special role that it does not have.

At least there is no experiments that would show it. Am I mistaken?

------ When Fermi named it “neutrino”, they had not any idea what kind of particle was. He was based only in fact that was without electric charge, and that during nuclear reaction this “something” stole a formidable quantity of energy. As a no physicist, I think that this is enough for calling neutrinos “important”.

I doubt only about assertion that “neutrino” pops out, from nothing, in to existence. My conviction now is that common particles are structured by sub particles, and neutrino is one of them, no less important than others.
It is only my conviction, based in the “final product” of dis-integrations of all kind of unstable natural or man-made compositions.

Sensei

Sorry, but I don't understand what you even want from me.. Can you explain?
Planck size area?
Compton size?

Planck length is 1.6*10^-35 m
Compton wavelength is 2.42*10^-12 m
Planck length is ~1.5*10^23 smaller value than Compton wavelength..

---- In fact nothing I want from you.

It is kind of a joke on myself, like a debunk of my hypothesis about the structure of whatever common particles. I think that electron particle, the same as all the others, has:

1) An electric energy:
Ee = (e+e)^2 / (4 * (4*pi*ε0 )* R) where charge “e” can be + or – , and R – is a distance between two extremes of Plank area, but no zero and no infinite.

2) An inner gravity energy: Eg = ((Sqrt(G) * M)^2 / R Where Sqrt(G) may have + or - sign.

3) An outer observers “mass” m = Ee / C^2 or Eg / C^2
In my hypothesis, determine factor about energy and mass -- is the distance between two sub particles “R” .
And here I am stuck: Why Compton radiuses?

( you are scandalized that I doesn’t use, instead of “radius”, “wave - length”?

Because I think that wave-lengths depend by radiuses)
Ups! Waite and see the last warning.

 

Strange
Disagreement because you choose to ignore all the theory, math and evidence; preferring to make up random stuff
------ Not all the theory. Part of it. For example E = h / 0 that you dodge to explain.

[studiot]

 

kramer

An electric energy:

 

 

 

So far as I'm aware, there has never been a formula for charge, equivalent to E=mc² for mass, relating charge to energy.

 

An electric charge only has energy by virtue of its interaction with another electric charge or charges.

 

A mass has intrinsic energy by virtue of its mass.

Edited July 29, 2014 by studiot

[Sensei]

------ When Fermi named it “neutrino”, they had not any idea what kind of particle was. He was based only in fact that was without electric charge, and that during nuclear reaction this “something” stole a formidable quantity of energy. As a no physicist, I think that this is enough for calling neutrinos “important”.

 

I thought so you're talking about something else.

 

Neutrino needed for conservation of energy, without any doubts.

 

It is kind of a joke on myself, like a debunk of my hypothesis about the structure of whatever common particles. I think that electron particle, the same as all the others, has:

1) An electric energy:

Ee = (e+e)^2 / (4 * (4*pi*ε0 )* R) where charge “e” can be + or – , and R – is a distance between two extremes of Plank area, but no zero and no infinite.

2) An inner gravity energy: Eg = ((Sqrt(G) * M)^2 / R Where Sqrt(G) may have + or - sign.

3) An outer observers “mass” m = Ee / C^2 or Eg / C^2

In my hypothesis, determine factor about energy and mass -- is the distance between two sub particles “R” .

 

Then solve your own equations for instance for m_e = 9.11*10^-31 kg

What you will get?

What will be Ee and Eg and R for such input mass?

 

If R is constant ("distance between two extremes of Plank area") then I see no way to match experimental data..

 

And here I am stuck: Why Compton radiuses?

( you are scandalized that I doesn’t use, instead of “radius”, “wave - length”?

 

Yes, a bit.

 

Because I think that wave-lengths depend by radiuses)

 

But how they correlate?

 

For example E = h / 0 that you dodge to explain.[/size][/font]

 

But what is it?

Why are you dividing by 0?

E = h * c / wavelength, where wavelength = 0?

[Strange]

 

Because people, like Kramer, doubt about some weird assertions of science linked with behavior of things, without knowing nothing about what things are.

 

They are NOT "assertions" (I might forgive you as English is not your first language. But it needs to be said, anyway.)

 

An assertion is a statement with no supporting logic or evidence. (Something you should be familiar with. )

For example E = h / 0 that you dodge to explain.

 

What is there to explain? It is a meaningless equation.

[studiot]

 

strange

It is a meaningless equation.

 

 

Worse, in fact it is not even an equation, despite the equals sign.

 

[Mordred]

 

 

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

------ And where lead your logic: photons have different mass-equivalence, because of different Energy? What make them to have different energy?

Oh -- I know your answer: E = h / dt --- from 0 to infinite. And “they are what they are”. Doesn’t this absurdity reason on you, that photons must have structure?

 

 

 

you obviously didn't open the link I provided energy and momentum +Lorentz transformations, ah well, I won't waste my time if your not going to bother looking at the references. All particles have set properties, spin, momentum, rest mass (except the photon), and energy. Nothing unusual by that, all particles not just the photon can gain energy and become relativistic at high enough temperatures. Though a particle with rest mass will never =c. Why should the photon be any different? e=mc² is a mass equivalency to energy. see the link for the full formula with the momentum term.

 

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

 

and no this principle has been tested, numerous times. So I don't find anything unusual about it. If you do then you aren't looking at the research of others. Or the advise of others that have, if you think about it they test this principle every single day in particle accelerators.

 

"is that a particle's effective mass increases as it approaches the speed of light. The relativistic mass is related to the rest mass by see equation 2.33 page 29 of 82."

 

"Principles of Charged Particle Acceleration"

http://www.cientificosaficionados.com/libros/aceleradores1.pdf

 

what that section boils down to is that as the particle gains relativistic mass (using the same terminology as the article) it takes more energy to continue to accelerate it. They can measure the energy requirement increase

Edited July 30, 2014 by Mordred

[Kramer]

 

 

Studiot

So far as I'm aware, there has never been a formula for charge, equivalent to E=mc² for mass, relating charge to energy.

An electric charge only has energy by virtue of its interaction with another electric charge or charges.

A mass has intrinsic energy by virtue of its mass.

------ In Plank area we have an reasonable equivalence for all kind of energies, if we extrapolate Plank mass, and Plank length:

R = Lplank * sqrt(α) and M = Mplank*sqrt(α)

Ee = e^2 / ((4*pi*ε0)* R = 1677113637.7 joule
Eg = M* C^2 = 1677113638 joule
EM = (G* M^2) / R = 167113638 joule
Eh = h * (C / (2*pi/α) * R = 1677113637.8 joule

….

From above we may solve :

M = e / (4*pi* ε0 * G) ^ 0.5 kg = e / g = 1. 859389987* 10^ -9 (kg.?)
R = e * (4*pi* ε0 * G)^ 0.5 / C^2 = e*g / C^2 = 1.380543856*10*-36 m.

Those are the characters of “ unique sub particle” that sure will scandalizes you with its huge “mass” if we call it mass, but maybe you will admit it, if I consider it “gravity energy”, the only factor able to hold photons around.
The mass of common elementary particle will be:
mx = e^2 / (4*pi* ε0 C^2* Rx ) = (SQRT(G) * M)^2 / Rx Here Rx Compton radius.
And, for outer radius observers, it drastically diminished, in comparison with Plank mass.
They differs from each other by different signs of electric charge and Sqrt(G) gravity.

Short: I suppose that elementary common particles are composite of two “unique sub particles”, associated with a third unique particle, that get them out from rest status.

Example: proton composed by [(+e / - g) + (+e / - g)] +(- e / + g) “joke three quarks”.
Electron composed by [( - e / - g) + ( - e / - g )] + ( + e / + g)
Positron composed by [ ( +e / +g) + ( +e / +g)] + ( - e / - g )
Photon composed by [( + e / +g ) + ( - e / - g )]
Neutrino composed by [ ( + e / + g) + ( - e / + g)]

------------------

Now, being sure that nobody, is interested in my beloved naive hypothesis of simple structure of energy-matter by alleged “unique particles”, (and attracted by this, I am violating rules of this site), I will quit further debate.
Please, don’t take my interruption of debate as disrespect.

[studiot]

 

Kramer

 

R = Lplank * sqrt(α) and M = Mplank*sqrt(α)

Ee = e^2 / ((4*pi*ε0)* R = 1677113637.7 joule

Eg = M* C^2 = 1677113638 joule

EM = (G* M^2) / R = 167113638 joule

Eh = h * (C / (2*pi/α) * R = 1677113637.8 joule

 

 

Perhaps you would like to explain your calculation, including defining your terms and stating what laws you are invoking.

[Sensei]

 

M = e / (4*pi* ε0 * G) ^ 0.5 kg = e / g = 1. 859389987* 10^ -9 (kg.?)

 

This mass is GIGANTIC... from point of view of particles that we know...

m_p = 1.67*10^-27 kg

m_e = 9.11*10^-31 kg

IMHO any sub-particle should have mass smaller than anything what we know currently.

 

 

Those are the characters of “ unique sub particle” that sure will scandalizes you with its huge “mass” if we call it mass, but maybe you will admit it, if I consider it “gravity energy”, the only factor able to hold photons around.

Mass of Earth is equal to sum of all masses of all particles.

Mass of Sun is equal to sum of all masses of all its particles.

That's pretty known for centuries.

So your sub-particles must have smaller mass, smaller energy, than anything they're making when you compose couple or more of them together.

Otherwise it wouldn't have any bit of sense.

 

Deuterium has mass almost double proton.

Helium has mass almost quad proton.

etc. etc.

 

And, for outer radius observers, it drastically diminished, in comparison with Plank mass.

 

Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass...

 

[swansont]

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.

 

No, they have energy. If you increase the rest energy of a system, the mass increases. E=mc^2

 

 

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?

Energy is still energy, and gravity depends on the energy of the system.

 

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?

 

I don't know what a photon of free energy is, or what an electron bounce refers to. Nothing in what I said made mention of a mechanism for motion, simply that we account for kinetic energy separately from rest energy in relativistic kinematics. KE is frame-dependent. Rest energy (and thus rest mass) is not.

 

 

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. [/size]

 

The minute you start talking about your ideas about physics, it's a hijack. This is clearly laid out in the rules.

[Sensei]

Now, being sure that nobody, is interested in my beloved naive hypothesis of simple structure of energy-matter by alleged “unique particles”, (and attracted by this, I am violating rules of this site), I will quit further debate.

 

Not anymore, since now it's in speculations. You are free to speak.

 

Please explain - how gigantic mass of your sub-particles (10^-9 kg) can create billions time less massive particles that we all know?

[robinpike]

 

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.

 

Swansont, that line could be interpreted in two ways...

 

1) The TOTAL charge has not gone anywhere, as it's a conserved quantity.

2) The INDIVIDUAL charges have not gone anywhere, as they are a conserved quantity.

 

I assume that you mean that the total charge does not go anywhere?

But individual charge can disappear as long as an 'opposite' individual charge also disappears at the same instant?

 

Just out of interest, how is it proved that the individual charges have disappeared?

Or the converse, how is it disproved that the individual charges are present?

 

 

Thanks

[swansont]

Total charge is the conserved quantity. Asking if it "goes anywhere" might lead one into a misconception that charge is a "thing" rather than a property of the system. A system with zero charge, i.e. neutral, can mean nothing in the system has any charge, or that there is an equal amount of + and -.

 

We know the individual charged particles disappear because we stop detecting them, e.g. in a cloud chamber. The tracks stop (or in pair production, start) and you get tracks from charged particles. We can also detect the gammas from the pair annihilation showing conservation of momentum and energy, but nothing else is detected.

[robinpike]

Total charge is the conserved quantity. Asking if it "goes anywhere" might lead one into a misconception that charge is a "thing" rather than a property of the system. A system with zero charge, i.e. neutral, can mean nothing in the system has any charge, or that there is an equal amount of + and -.

 

We know the individual charged particles disappear because we stop detecting them, e.g. in a cloud chamber. The tracks stop (or in pair production, start) and you get tracks from charged particles. We can also detect the gammas from the pair annihilation showing conservation of momentum and energy, but nothing else is detected.

 

Thanks

 

However, neutrons don't leave tracks in a cloud chamber, and yet they have positive and negative charges inside them (with the charges being on the quarks).

 

If someone were to think that individual amounts of charge cannot be created or destroyed, are there other pieces of evidence that could be used to refute that idea?

[swansont]

 

Thanks

 

However, neutrons don't leave tracks in a cloud chamber, and yet they have positive and negative charges inside them (with the charges being on the quarks).

 

If someone were to think that individual amounts of charge cannot be created or destroyed, are there other pieces of evidence that could be used to refute that idea?

 

Electron/positron annihilation doesn't have the energy to create a neutron, by a factor of almost 1,000.

 

There might be instances that are consistent with it, but a refutation requires you look at all the evidence. All you need is one counterexample to refute an absolute, i.e. the idea that something cannot happen, or something must happen.

 

e-e+ annihilation does that.

[Kramer]

 

Sensei

Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass.
----- With distance diminish the energy of interaction. Hence the mass.

Swanson

I don't know what a photon of free energy is, or what an electron bounce refers to. Nothing in what I said made mention of a mechanism for motion, simply that we account for kinetic energy separately from rest energy in relativistic kinematics. KE is frame-dependent. Rest energy (and thus rest mass) is not.

---- With free energy photons I intend those that are free to move in linear movement , differ from those linked in one point from “something” that create field. With bounce I visualize electrons in orbit of atom that bounce when absorb or release free photons.

About mechanism of movement of particles I have different concept. Movement it is result of intrinsic ability of subs. of matter. Two kind of different subs, create stationary status of four basic elementary common particles: electron, proton, and anti’s, (on their movement in spherical trajectories). This will be in ideal case. In fact electron or proton get “kinetic movement” when they are associated (pushed, dragged from) with one or more subs of photons or neutrinos .Which we know move ( on itself ) with C velocity.

Sensei
Please explain - how gigantic mass of your sub-particles (10^-9 kg) can create billions time less massive particles that we all know?

------ Here is the conundrum where wriggle my hypothesis, and I think even modern theory. In my theory the energy of an “electron in Plank area” ?!! is:
Eplank = h * ( C / ((2 * pi / α) * Rplank) = h * (2.5220631*10^41) = h * νplank

But we my say:

1) Plank energy is equal summa of 2.5220631*10^41 time photons of frequency 1.

2) Plank energy is equal summa of 2. 5220631*10^41 loops of movement of electric charge, in spherical trajectore.

3) Plank energy is equal summa of 2. 5220631*10^41 electromagnetic vibration.
Yours is 1) . My is 2) . and 3) is approved. All they are disputable.

[Sensei]

Sensei

Mass doesn't diminish with distance. Especially if you have it on weight and measuring its mass.

----- With distance diminish the energy of interaction. Hence the mass.

 

You misunderstand what is mass, what is energy, what is force.

 

You can place object on weight, and measure its mass (rest-mass). It doesn't diminish with distance. We're in the same frame of reference as measured by us object.

If you have 1 gram of water it's 1/18 = 0.055555 mol = 3.3456*10^22 molecules of H₂O. Equal to 3.3456*10^22 atoms of Oxygen and 6.69*10^22 atoms of Hydrogen..

Each of them have mass 0.018 kg / 6.022141e23 = 2.989*10^-26 kg. Mass of single molecule of water multiplied by above quantity = 1 gram.

If you move 1 meter or 1 km or 1 billion km from it, it's still the same quantity of particles.

For pretty pure materials like water it's easy to make such calculations.

 

What is diminishing with inverse-square law is force of electrostatic attraction/repelling between charged particles, and force of gravitational attraction between any particles.

 

1) Plank energy is equal summa of 2.5220631*10^41 time photons of frequency 1.

 

Planck energy = 1.956 × 10⁹ J

 

But 2.5220631*10^41 * 6.62607e-34 = 167113666.45 J

 

I pay no attention to Planck units, except to Planck const (and reduced).

 

And you're overestimating them (like in thread about Planck charge year ago, which has no meaning in quantum physics)..

Edited July 31, 2014 by Sensei

[robinpike]

 

Electron/positron annihilation doesn't have the energy to create a neutron, by a factor of almost 1,000.

 

There might be instances that are consistent with it, but a refutation requires you look at all the evidence. All you need is one counterexample to refute an absolute, i.e. the idea that something cannot happen, or something must happen.

 

e-e+ annihilation does that.

 

I meant that the neutron is an example of a neutral particle that has charge inside it, showing that a neutral particle in itself is not proof that the charge no longer exists.

 

On that basis, therefore it does not follow that the e-e+ conversion into neutral photon / photons is proof that the charge has been 'destroyed'.

 

Is there any other evidence that supports the hypothesis that charge - and + can be destroyed?

[swansont]

 

I meant that the neutron is an example of a neutral particle that has charge inside it, showing that a neutral particle in itself is not proof that the charge no longer exists.

 

On that basis, therefore it does not follow that the e-e+ conversion into neutral photon / photons is proof that the charge has been 'destroyed'.

 

Is there any other evidence that supports the hypothesis that charge - and + can be destroyed?

 

e-e+ annihilation gives you the (uncharged) photons, but there is nothing else. That's the evidence.

[Kramer]

 

Sensei
You misunderstand what is mass, what is energy, what is force.

------ I think, that in Plank area, “mass of a particle” M = E / C^2 = G*M^2 / (R*C^2)
It is the only kind of alleged “particle” that has gravity mass equal with “subs”.

F = G*M^2 / R^2 = E / R

You can place object on weight, and measure its mass (rest-mass). It doesn't diminish with distance. We're in the same frame of reference as measured by us object.
-- I think it is false. Weight it in International Station and you will see that distance count.

By the way: You are Okey with mass of W boson , (which pops out from?? in one of neutrons ), that has a mass “more large than that of atom of iron”.

Why you rebuke the existence of “subs” by the cause they have an enormous mass, but by those enormous mass they can be able to conserve basis particle of matter?

If you have 1 gram of water it's 1/18 = 0.055555 mol = 3.3456*10^22 molecules of H₂O. Equal to 3.3456*10^22 atoms of Oxygen and 6.69*10^22 atoms of Hydrogen..

Each of them have mass 0.018 kg / 6.022141e23 = 2.989*10^-26 kg. Mass of single molecule of water multiplied by above quantity = 1 gram.
If you move 1 meter or 1 km or 1 billion km from it, it's still the same quantity of particles.
For pretty pure materials like water it's easy to make such calculations.
---- ?

What is diminishing with inverse-square law is force of electrostatic attraction/repelling between charged particles, and force of gravitational attraction between any particles.
----- And force between them multiplied by radius gave energy. And energy divide by C^2 gave mass.

Kramer, on 31 Jul 2014 - 12:51 PM, said:

1) Plank energy is equal summa of 2.5220631*10^41 time photons of frequency 1.

Planck energy = 1.956 × 10⁹ J

But 2.5220631*10^41 * 6.62607e-34 = 167113666.45 J
------- And, Plank energy divided by corrected Plank area energy, equal Sqrt (α)

 

I pay no attention to Planck units, except to Planck const (and reduced).

 

And you're overestimating them (like in thread about Planck charge year ago, which has no meaning in quantum physics).
----- But has meaning in equivalence of all kind of energies.

Robinpike

 

Is there any other evidence that supports the hypothesis that charge - and + can be destroyed?

----- I am eager to know too.

 

Swansont

e-e+ annihilation gives you the (uncharged) photons, but there is nothing else. That's the evidence.
------Where There? In photons? What create electric field and magnetic field (that we call electromagnetic waves) ? When we know that those field are linked with electric charges as the only source of them?

[swansont]

 

Swansont

e-e+ annihilation gives you the (uncharged) photons, but there is nothing else. That's the evidence.

------Where There? In photons? What create electric field and magnetic field (that we call electromagnetic waves) ? When we know that those field are linked with electric charges as the only source of them?

 

e- and e+ are charged, and it's an electromagnetic interaction. Is the presence of the field really a big mystery?

 

And, more to the point, that's what we see. Regardless of the specifics of the mechanism, that's the result of the interaction.

[Sensei]

You can place object on weight, and measure its mass (rest-mass). It doesn't diminish with distance. We're in the same frame of reference as measured by us object.

-- I think it is false.

No, it's not false. It's fact.

 

Weight it in International Station and you will see that distance count.

 

On ISS weight device won't work, but you can easily make experiment: take 1 kg ball of iron, 2 kg ball of iron, 4 kg ball of iron. Then apply the same known force F to all 3 objects. And you will see that the more massive 4 kg is accelerated less than 2 kg, which is accelerated less than 1 kg. You need to spend more energy for acceleration to the same velocity, the more heavy is object.

 

The same applies to quantum world - in uniform known electric field, more massive ion will be accelerated to smaller velocity than less massive one. Thus revealing their masses. It's used by mass spectrometry

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

 

Electron (with mass m_e=9.11*10^-31 kg) in 1 Volt potential difference has 1 eV kinetic energy.

1 eV = 1.602*10^-19 Joules.

 

E.K.=1/2*m_e*v^2

so

v = sqrt( E.K.*2/m_e ) = sqrt( 1.602*10^-19 * 2 / 9.11*10^-31 ) = 593044 m/s

 

Now replace m_e by m_p mass of proton, helium or other particle and repeat calcs..

 

v= sqrt( E.K.*2/m_p ) = sqrt( 1.602*10^-19 * 2 / 1.67*10^-27 ) = 13851 m/s

 

 

The more mass has particle, or object, the more you must spend energy to accelerate it. You're completely ignoring it in your hypothesis.

Sum of masses of your sub-particles that are in electron must be 9.11*10^-31 kg

Sum of masses of your sub-particles that are in proton must be 1.67*10^-27 kg

etc. with the all other isotopes of all elements.

 

By the way: You are Okey with mass of W boson , (which pops out from?? in one of neutrons ), that has a mass “more large than that of atom of iron”.

Nope. But I don't know details how it was calculated/measured. And it's not subject of this thread.

 

Why you rebuke the existence of “subs” by the cause they have an enormous mass, but by those enormous mass they can be able to conserve basis particle of matter?

That's exactly reverse - because of their ridiculous high masses, conservation of mass-energy won't be possible.

 

 

If you have 1 gram of water it's 1/18 = 0.055555 mol = 3.3456*10^22 molecules of H₂O. Equal to 3.3456*10^22 atoms of Oxygen and 6.69*10^22 atoms of Hydrogen..

Each of them have mass 0.018 kg / 6.022141e23 = 2.989*10^-26 kg. Mass of single molecule of water multiplied by above quantity = 1 gram.

If you move 1 meter or 1 km or 1 billion km from it, it's still the same quantity of particles.

For pretty pure materials like water it's easy to make such calculations.

---- ?

Mass of substance, that's uniform (made of the same particles, same molecules), tells us quantity of particles.

And this knowledge is used by chemists for at least 250 years.

 

f.e.

12 grams of Carbon-12 has 6.022141*10^23 atoms of Carbon.

56 grams of Iron-56 has 6.022141*10^23 atoms of Iron.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Sensei