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

[Kramer]

 

Sensei

Kramer, on 01 Aug 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

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.

----- Right. I know difference between mass and weight. Your accuracy “in calculations”, I think failed in this your conceptual sentence.

Kramer, on 01 Aug 2014 - 11:38 AM, said:

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?

------ I don’t know if you are a lay-man like me, that navigate blindly, or a specialist knowing a lot much more, in physic.
I brought the example of “ W boson “ (or others) which possess mass, to argue that it is not indispensable that mass --- must be added. In this case, after your logic, an unstable neutron that posses a “W boson” must have a total mass equal that of iron atom, because of adds of mass of “W boson”.
I allege that two ‘subs’ possess ability to create a mass particle, with out indispensable to be the mass of this particle , created by them.
Even in alleged Plank area particle, created by two ‘subs’, total mass of this particle is half of summa of two 'subs'. Because common mass of particles depend by gravity energy of ‘subs’ divided by C^2, and not by the mass of ‘subs’.
Now I foresee in the future yours rebuke, the role of “dt”--------

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

----- Maybe there is the cause that we have common particles with mass "around":

central-------- mx = sqrt(Mplank*M1) = 3.702478156*10*-30 kg.
And maybe particles with higher mass are possible in the center of B.B.

Swanson

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.

----- Leaving aside evasive answers, please don’t take this as disrespect, but “that’s what we see” is not enough for me. So please don’t take for rudeness, if I am lost and have some questions:

1--Are electric charges that create fields, or are fields that create charges?

2--- What is the cause (source) of movement. Is it an intrinsic property of charges? mass particles? mass-less particles? fields? or an out-side general cause?
If you think this question are senseless, don’t answer.

[Strange]

“that’s what we see” is not enough for me.

 

So reality is not good enough for you!?

[Sensei]

I brought the example of “ W boson “ (or others) which possess mass, to argue that it is not indispensable that mass --- must be added. In this case, after your logic, an unstable neutron that posses a “W boson” must have a total mass equal that of iron atom, because of adds of mass of “W boson”.

Kramer, you don't understand how particle accelerators are used to detect new particles..

Proton at rest is accelerated to relativistic velocities (v > 0.9c), gaining relativistic mass (in some interpretations), have large kinetic energy, then collided with other particles (typically at rest).

From their large kinetic energy there is created shower of new particles, that are usually unstable and decaying quickly.

X-rays are/were used to take hundred photos, with slightly delay between them, revealing traces leaved by them in f.e. liquid Hydrogen (Bubble Chamber).

 

The large mass of W Boson most likely is not measured in normal neutron at rest that's decaying to proton, electron and antineutrino.

 

Read this

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

Edited August 2, 2014 by Sensei

[swansont]

 

Swanson

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.

----- Leaving aside evasive answers, please don’t take this as disrespect, but “that’s what we see” is not enough for me. So please don’t take for rudeness, if I am lost and have some questions:

1--Are electric charges that create fields, or are fields that create charges?

2--- What is the cause (source) of movement. Is it an intrinsic property of charges? mass particles? mass-less particles? fields? or an out-side general cause?

If you think this question are senseless, don’t answer.

 

 

Science tries to model what we see, so what we see is the starting (or ending) point for every theory. What we observed dictates what models we develop, and models are not confirmed unless they match what we observe. So you're saying science is not enough for you. Odd, on a science discussion board.

 

Movement is not an intrinsic property. Newton addressed that hundreds of years ago.

[Kramer]

Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

Strange
So reality is not good enough for you!?

____ What kind of reality are you talking about? That things “pop out of nowhere”. That thing “vanished in nowhere”. Sure is not enough for me. Is it for you?

Sensei

Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

I brought the example of “ W boson “ (or others) which possess mass, to argue that it is not indispensable that mass --- must be added. In this case, after your logic, an unstable neutron that posses a “W boson” must have a total mass equal that of iron atom, because of adds of mass of “W boson”.

Kramer, you don't understand how particle accelerators are used to detect new particles..
Proton at rest is accelerated to relativistic velocities (v > 0.9c), gaining relativistic mass (in some interpretations), have large kinetic energy, then collided with other particles (typically at rest).
From their large kinetic energy there is created shower of new particles, that are usually unstable and decaying quickly.X-rays are/were used to take hundred photos, with slightly delay between them, revealing traces leaved by them in f.e. liquid Hydrogen (Bubble Chamber).
----- “An excessive lesson”, if you have not any “new” explanation : how energy injected in proton (inside? or out side?) , why the collide transform energy in mass particles, why they are unstable, why they move, why in the end of the end all they unstable decaying particles degraded in ten common elementary particles.

The large mass of W Boson most likely is not measured in normal neutron at rest that's decaying to proton, electron and antineutrino.

----- So “pops” off nowhere, to vanish in nowhere.

 

Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Swanson

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.

----- Leaving aside evasive answers, please don’t take this as disrespect, but “that’s what we see” is not enough for me. So please don’t take for rudeness, if I am lost and have some questions:

1--Are electric charges that create fields, or are fields that create charges?

2--- What is the cause (source) of movement. Is it an intrinsic property of charges? mass particles? mass-less particles? fields? or an out-side general cause?
If you think this question are senseless, don’t answer.

Swanson

Science tries to model what we see, so what we see is the starting (or ending) point for every theory. What we observed dictates what models we develop, and models are not confirmed unless they match what we observe. So you're saying science is not enough for you. Odd, on a science discussion board.

If science, being unable to explain--- why ?, or how ? , gave weird interpretations of things or phenomena, and create models with aim to support weird interpretations, that mean--- is not what we see or observe, but what we want to se or to observe.
And why, instead to answer direct in questions, you see “odd” my doubt about assertion of annihilation, or reappearing in or out of nowhere.
Why, you all, see sacrilege toward science, doubt that neutrality of charge doesn’t mean indispensable annihilation?

So please answer to my questions.

Movement is not an intrinsic property. Newton addressed that hundreds of years ago.

Hundred years ago, universe was considered as a “clock builded and winded”. I don’t think that this is what you had in mind.

I used expression “intrinsic property”, instead of “intrinsic ability” but this doesn’t mean that you used to dodge the too direct answer on a too direct question. This I think (ala lay-mans) is a strait discussion in a science site.

[Sensei]

----- “An excessive lesson”, if you have not any “new” explanation : how energy injected in proton (inside? or out side?) , why the collide transform energy in mass particles, why they are unstable, why they move, why in the end of the end all they unstable decaying particles degraded in ten common elementary particles.

Make theory that does agree with experimental data, instead of one that is directly contradicting them..

 

The large mass of W Boson most likely is not measured in normal neutron at rest that's decaying to proton, electron and antineutrino.

----- So “pops” off nowhere, to vanish in nowhere.

IMHO Nope.

Neutron has mass-energy 939.565 MeV, proton has 938.272 MeV, electron has 0.510999 MeV, antineutrino + kinetic energy = 0.782 MeV.

Sum of input mass-energy is equal to sum of output products.

Nothing is created from nowhere, nothing is vanishing.

 

 

If particle accelerator will create relativistic velocity particle, energy will be conserved - in high kinetic energy of new particles that will be created (for instance). That energy won't vanish.

 

And why, instead to answer direct in questions, you see “odd” my doubt about assertion of annihilation,

You don't believe in annihilation??

 

or reappearing in or out of nowhere.

Nothing is appearing from nowhere, nor doesn't disappear.

 

Do you meant virtual particles?

Edited August 3, 2014 by Sensei

[Strange]

 

Kramer, on 02 Aug 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

Strange

So reality is not good enough for you!?

____ What kind of reality are you talking about? That things “pop out of nowhere”. That thing “vanished in nowhere”. Sure is not enough for me. Is it for you?

 

By reality, in this context, I mean: what we observe.

 

You seem to think that reality should be determined by what makes sense to you, personally, rather than what we observe. That is not sensible. It is barely sane.

[Sensei]

If you don't know how scientists are checking what is charge of particle we see, or its mass, you should ask such questions in the mainstream physics part of this forum, and you will get answer.

[swansont]

So reality is not good enough for you!?

____ What kind of reality are you talking about? That things “pop out of nowhere”. That thing “vanished in nowhere”. Sure is not enough for me. Is it for you?

 

It's what experiment shows. That's all the reality we have.

 

 

Swanson

Science tries to model what we see, so what we see is the starting (or ending) point for every theory. What we observed dictates what models we develop, and models are not confirmed unless they match what we observe. So you're saying science is not enough for you. Odd, on a science discussion board.

If science, being unable to explain--- why ?, or how ? , gave weird interpretations of things or phenomena, and create models with aim to support weird interpretations, that mean--- is not what we see or observe, but what we want to se or to observe.

And why, instead to answer direct in questions, you see “odd” my doubt about assertion of annihilation, or reappearing in or out of nowhere.

Why, you all, see sacrilege toward science, doubt that neutrality of charge doesn’t mean indispensable annihilation?

So please answer to my questions.

 

You are rejecting science. You are, in effect, saying that experiments are wrong. That's backwards — experiment tells you if the theory is wrong, not the other way around.

 

You can question the mechanism and come up with another model, but the event itself? No. Not unless the thousands of experiments are all flawed. (and, find the flaw)

 

Movement is not an intrinsic property. Newton addressed that hundreds of years ago.

Hundred years ago, universe was considered as a “clock builded and winded”. I don’t think that this is what you had in mind.

I used expression “intrinsic property”, instead of “intrinsic ability” but this doesn’t mean that you used to dodge the too direct answer on a too direct question. This I think (ala lay-mans) is a strait discussion in a science site.

 

I didn't dodge anything. The answer is that motion in not intrinsic, as I said previously. Motion requires energy, and energy is a conserved quantity. A System must also conserve momentum. An object at rest will not start moving on its own, without some interaction to initiate it and following the conservation laws.