Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Petrochemicals on 04/12/2023 16:51:09
-
Has the mass energy equivalence been proved observationally? E being in joules I believe, has the relationship between mass and energy been measured at a practical level?
-
Yes.
-
Yes.
I second that.
-
I believe the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or any power companies that use nuclear could confirm this. 1 amu=~930Mev
-
@PC
Think of Photons...Massless!
What's 0 x c^2 ?
E = 0 ?
E = mc^2 is perhaps half the Equation, hence half Correct.
ps-m o m e n t u m
: )
-
Zero, the equation E=MCsq relates mass to energy. For a massless particle like a photon we use E=hF where h is the planck constant and F is the frequency. Theses symbols are not correct and I hope I am being clear, I can only find the reduced planck which is h/2pi.
-
But joules being equal to the mass in kg multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres covered in a second. Is there any mathematical demonstration that would satisfy a power engineer?
-
But joules being equal to the mass in kg multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres covered in a second. Is there any mathematical demonstration that would satisfy a power engineer?
Yes.
Ya know you google this question and get the answer in hardly any time at all.
-
But joules being equal to the mass in kg multiplied by the square of the speed of light in metres covered in a second. Is there any mathematical demonstration that would satisfy a power engineer?
Yes.
Ya know you google this question and get the answer in hardly any time at all.
If you wouldn't mind, the Wikipedia examples are not entirely convincing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=mass+energy+equivalence+proof&oq=mass+energy+equivalence+proof&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyCQgAEEUYORiABDIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjINCAQQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAUQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAYQABiGAxiABBiKBTINCAcQABiGAxiABBiKBdIBCTE1NjI0ajBqNKgCALACAA&client=ms-android-huawei-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1
-
Your google search reveals
Mass-energy equivalence implies that, even though the total mass of a system changes, the total energy and momentum remain constant. Consider the collision of an electron and a proton. It destroys the mass of both particles but generates a large amount of energy in the form of photons.
Which is utter drivel, probably compiled by an AI system.
-
As for a proof that would satisfy a power engineer, it is in the first lecture of Nuclear Reactors 101. But that was nearly 60 years ago so I won't attempt to recall it now.
-
As for a proof that would satisfy a power engineer, it is in the first lecture of Nuclear Reactors 101. But that was nearly 60 years ago so I won't attempt to recall it now.
They do the practical in the lecture, how exiting.
-
If you wouldn't mind, the Wikipedia examples are not entirely convincing.
Yes they are.
The problem must lie elsewhere.
-
As for a proof that would satisfy a power engineer, it is in the first lecture of Nuclear Reactors 101. But that was nearly 60 years ago so I won't attempt to recall it now.
They do the practical in the lecture, how exiting.
I do the practical from time to time when I measure pair production from photon-nucleon interactions or the gamma radiation from a positron source inside a body.
The question was asking for practical proof, and it has been offered from sunshine via Los Alamos and Sizewell to Hammersmith Hospital.
Then you asked for theoretical proof, and I find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence to be an adequate introduction if you don't have time to attend a formal lecture
What more do you want?
-
E = 0.5mv^2, 0.5Iω^2, 0.5CV^2, 0.5LI^2, & mC^2.
What happened to the 0.5?
-
It's the difference between kinetic energy and suchlike, and mass-energy equivalence.
-
Then you asked for theoretical proof,
No I did. That is from you.
Is there any sort of practical example, I would only think it possible as of late, in a similar fashion to the higgs Boson demonstration having taken years to achieve.
-
Is there any sort of practical example
Sure look at uranium 235 fission. The mass of the fission products is less than the mass of the U235 atom.
It sorta surprises me that you think the most famous equation in physics isn't supporting by real world evidence.
-
The problem is electromagnetic energy is massless and therefore cannot be described in MKS units which relegate it to the secondary derivative ML^2/T. So the formula is incorrect as no Mass equals zero energy thus banning sunshine.
-
I was wondering where the sun had gone, thinking it was seasonal, but now I know acsinuk proscribed it.
-
The problem is electromagnetic energy is massless and therefore cannot be described in MKS units
Sure it can.
For a massless photon it's energy is: E = hf. Where h is 6.626 x 10-34 Joule-sec and f is frequency. So the result is in joules.
-
Yes, E = hf. but what length or area dimension are you measuring in. Energy must occupy a volume it cannot be described physically without volume in cubic Metres x,y,z especially as it has no mass in Kg. Time in Seconds is relative.
MKS has a problem describing electricity and electro-magnetic light.
-
Is there any sort of practical example,
See reply #13, or try switching the light on at night when the wind isn't blowing. Right now, 16% of what comes out of the wall is generated by E = mc2, as it has been for about the last 50 years.
-
MKS has a problem describing electricity and electro-magnetic light.
The function of the system of units is not to describe anything but to rationalise its measurement. What properties of electricity and electromagnetic radiation are not measured in SI units? ("MKS" was consigned to obsolescence in the last century)
The rest of your post was nonsense.
-
electromagnetic energy is massless
That's a matter of perspective. Light has no rest mass, but it has relativistic mass.
-
Yes, E = hf. but what length or area dimension are you measuring in. Energy must occupy a volume it cannot be described physically without volume in cubic Metres x,y,z especially as it has no mass in Kg. Time in Seconds is relative.
MKS has a problem describing electricity and electro-magnetic light.
Energy is a property. It makes no more sense to say that energy must occupy a volume than it does to say weight must have a length.
-
Physicists needs to physically measure something in terms of its length, weight, time taken etc but fundamental electro-magnetic energy cannot be measured in those units and to use their mechanical energy equivalents is just misleading.
Matter is just made up of electrical charges held apart by magnetic spin inertia in an x,y,z, volume enclosure. How can we measure the 3D electric dynamic forces inside an atom and in which direction they are acting?
-
Physicists needs to physically measure something in terms of its length, weight, time taken etc
One of the etceteras is the magnetic permeability of free space which was defined as something like 4 pi * 10^-7 Henries per metre by defining the ampere as
" that constant current i which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross-section, and placed r = 1 metre apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force F equal to 2 x 10-7 newton per meter of length ".
So the thing you see as a "problem" was solved decades ago.
The use of things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibble_balance
Show that we quite definitely can, and in practice do, measure things in such a way to make this
" fundamental electro-magnetic energy cannot be measured in those units "
absurd.
-
Matter is just made up of electrical charges held apart by magnetic spin inertia in an x,y,z, volume enclosure.
That's not even wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
-
Physicists needs to physically measure something in terms of its length, weight, time taken etc but fundamental electro-magnetic energy cannot be measured in those units and to use their mechanical energy equivalents is just misleading.
Energy has dimensions ML2T-2 and is conserved. That is one of the most fundamental statements of physics. So it doesn't matter how you measure it, a joule is a joule.
Matter is just made up of electrical charges held apart by magnetic spin inertia in an x,y,z, volume enclosure.
is meaningless drivel, however you read it.
-
In theoretical physics we need to try and explain what quantum energy consist of and its relationship to matter and electricity
Thus, the modern understanding of mass, as per quantum field theory, supports the postulate that mass is derived from the density and intensity of field excitations.
-
In theoretical physics we need to try and explain what quantum energy consist of
It is energy, quantised. Energy is a conserved quantity. Nothing theoretical at all.
-
In theoretical physics we need to try and explain what quantum energy consist of and its relationship to matter and electricity
No.
What we need is for you to grasp that energy is energy.
The kinetic energy of a cricket ball is quantised.
Energy is all "quantum".
It's just that the effect is usually unnoticeable except with small things like electrons.
-
Electro-magnetic energy is fundamental energy has the formula = V*A *Cosineϴ*Time.
But if Cosineϴ is zero then even with volts and amps present we have no power energy only quantum power energy
-
You are mixing power engineering with quantum theory and confusing yourself in the process.
-
Acsinuk, you are starting to speak in regards to "New Theories" material in the main part of the forums. Please don't do that.
-
Electro-magnetic energy is fundamental energy has the formula = V*A *Cosineϴ*Time.
But if Cosineϴ is zero then even with volts and amps present we have no power energy only quantum power energy
That formula refers to specific situation when you are dealing with an alternating current and a circuit with either capacitive or inductive reactance. In such an instance, the voltage and current can be out of phase with each other, the difference in phase angle is what you are taking the cosine of to get effective power usage of the circuit. If the circuit were purely resistive, than there is no phase difference and you can just multiply volts times amp to get watts and then that by time to get energy usage.
It has nothing to do with the "fundamental energy" of electromagnetic energy.
-
AC electricity moves at the speed of E/M light and is massless just like photons. So 50/60 cycle per second domestic electricity could just be very low frequency E/M light.
Further problem is particles cannot accelerate to light speed without a huge amount of energy being pumped in.
So we need to rethink how we visualise electricity and the parameters surrounding photons inside a conductor.
-
Not "we", just you. Inventing absurdities does not advance understanding: a basic textbook might.
-
So we need to rethink how we visualise electricity and the parameters surrounding photons inside a conductor.
Can we start that "rethinking" process by realising that the photons are outside the conductor.
You can verify that fairly simply.
The speed of a signal down an insulated cable depends on the refractive index of the insulation.
If you didn't know that, it shows that you don't know what you are talking about...
-
AC electricity moves at the speed of E/M light and is massless just like photons. So 50/60 cycle per second domestic electricity could just be very low frequency E/M light.
Further problem is particles cannot accelerate to light speed without a huge amount of energy being pumped in.
So we need to rethink how we visualise electricity and the parameters surrounding photons inside a conductor.
No, it doesn't. The drift velocity of the electrons is really quite low, and even the effective speed ( like the time it takes between flipping a switch and the light coming on) can be as slow as 2/3c, depending on the conductor.
Quite frankly, it sound like your objections to the present model for the conduction of electricity is based on a lack of knowledge of what the present model actually is.
-
Possibly, so what is the current model look like now that we understand that electron particles cannot move at nearly the speed of light.?
-
Possibly, so what is the current model look like now that we understand that electron particles cannot move at nearly the speed of light.?
Electron drift velocities in conductors are less than a snail's pace.
That's not a figure of speech here.
For a reasonable copper conductor you can calculate it as 23 micrometers per second.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity#Numerical_example
And this knowledge is not new.
Any interested physicist could have calculated that any time since Millikan measured the electron charge.
And, of course, they did.
So "The current model" already knew what the drift velocity was before it was fully drafted.
The only one who recently realise how slow electrons are is you.
Let us know when you catch up.
-
Yes, AC electric current is not a flow of electrons but could it possibly be a flow of spinning magnetic charge?
-
Yes, AC electric current is not a flow of electrons but could it possibly be a flow of spinning magnetic charge?
In the sense that I can't prove it isn't a flow of leprechauns, yes, it could be.
But there's no reason to think that it is.
And a magnetic charge (equivalent to an electric charge) is impossible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole
So the leprechauns are technically more probable.
Why do you persist with your failed idea?
-
But how fast do electrons travel (or positrons) during radioactive decay modes?
-
But how fast fo electrons travel (or positrons) during radioactive decay modes?
Very fast, a large percent of the speed of light. Beta particles (electrons) from Uranium 235 fission can actually move faster than light through water.
Edit: The beta radiation is actually from the decay of the fission products not from the fission reaction itself.
-
But how fast fo electrons travel (or positrons) during radioactive decay modes?
Very fast.
So what?
-
But how fast fo electrons travel (or positrons) during radioactive decay modes?
Depends on their energy. Knowing the rest mass and kinetic energy of a particle you can apply a relativistic formula to deduce its speed.
-
Just glanced at magnetic monopoles Wiki edition and noted the 5,000 word diatribe article has no conclusion as to how massless electro-magnetic energy EM can exist .
The confusion is caused because the equations do not acknowledge that EM energy is a 3 dimensional volume of forces and identify which direction the electric and magnetic spinning flux/current forces are acting.
Power plant engineers know we can produce quantum power called VAR's and that an AC generator needs to have a voltage force field at right angles to the rotating flux current force field or a Cosine reduction will occur..
-
Just glanced at magnetic monopoles Wiki edition and noted the 5,000 word diatribe article has no conclusion as to how massless electro-magnetic energy EM can exist .
Hardly surprising as it has nothing to do with magnetic monopoles. It probably didn't tell you how sharks detect blood, or why the moon isn't made of cheese, either.
-
Vars are not "quantum power". That is a nonsense statement.
-
EM energy is a 3 dimensional volume of forces
Energy is not a force.
Again, keep this kind of speculation in New Theories. This is your second warning.
-
The confusion is caused because the equations do not acknowledge that EM energy is a 3 dimensional volume of forces
On the contrary; the confusion is caused by imagining that "EM energy is a 3 dimensional volume of forces ".
You are the only one who is confused.
-
@Stevens
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
-
From Wiki quote
Electric potential energy due to or stored in electric fields
Magnetic potential energy due to or stored in magnetic fields
Gravitational potential energy due to or stored in gravitational fields
Have you ever seen a field that is just a single dimension or scalar like most of our constants are?
What is needed is to know which direction the forces are acting in the field as it is not acceptable to say current is at right angles to flux which is at right angles to magnetic flux we must identify which direction x,y or z the forces are acting.
Same as matter, mass in kg must occupy a volume it cannot just be an area with no depth otherwise you cannot heat it
-
I think I can write on behalf of scientists in general, that we have no idea what you are talking about.
The question that a doctor would ask is: what do you think you are talking about?
-
From Wiki quote
Electric potential energy due to or stored in electric fields
Magnetic potential energy due to or stored in magnetic fields
Gravitational potential energy due to or stored in gravitational fields
That's not really a quote, is it?
Have you ever seen a field that is just a single dimension or scalar like most of our constants are?
No, by definition of "field" in this context.
"What is needed is to know which direction the forces are acting in the field as it is not acceptable to say current is at right angles to flux which is at right angles to magnetic flux we must identify which direction x,y or z the forces are acting."
Does not parse.
Same as matter, mass in kg must occupy a volume it cannot just be an area with no depth otherwise you cannot heat it
Ditto.
-
Have you ever seen a field that is just a single dimension or scalar like most of our constants are?
The Higgs field.