Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: jartza on 11/11/2010 05:00:04
-
If we have some mass in a closed box, it is not possible to the inertia of the box to change, also the weight of the box can not change. In other words inertial mass and gravitational mass are conserved. In other words mass is conserved.
(this "closed box" here is a "closed system", so it's much more closed than for example a closed safe )
Now that we know that mass is conserved, we know that mass does not change into energy, and energy does not
change into mass. We know that people who talk about mass changing into energy are confused, or uneducated, or they just haven't thought about it enough.
-
Now that we know that mass is conserved. . .
But mass isn't conserved, which is precisely what's being stated when it's said that matter and energy can be changed into one another. Energy is what is actually conserved.
-
A new conservation law hmm? Well how about the Law of Conservation of Information. Sounds all scifi and cool at least...I'll let you know if I figure it out ;)
-
Energy can only be changed into another state of energy. It can not be created or destroyed.
[???]
-
But mass isn't conserved, which is precisely what's being stated when it's said that matter and energy can be changed into one another. Energy is what is actually conserved.
JP, here's an example:
"An object that has a large mass is heavy to lift and difficult to stop when it's moving"
In this sentence the word mass is used correctly. It's correct English and correct physics.
Here's another sentence:
"Mass is conserved"
In this sentence the word mass has the same meaning as in the sentence number 1.
Oh yes and mass is conserved. The mass that I have been explaining here.
Also it's worth mentioning this same mass obeys this equation: E=mc2
(I'm not necessarily absolutely denying other "masses")
-
If we have some mass in a closed box, it is not possible to the inertia of the box to change, also the weight of the box can not change. In other words inertial mass and gravitational mass are conserved. In other words mass is conserved.
If the mass in your box happened to be the lump of uranopilite I picked up in Cornwall some years ago, would that not change the situation?
-
If the mass in your box happened to be the lump of uranopilite I picked up in Cornwall some years ago, would that not change the situation?
You asked the right question. No there is no change of mass in a closed box with a lump of radioactive material in it.
Here's one small exercise question:
In a closed box there is a lump of nuclear waste, that is always warm, and a bucket full of cold water. Tell me something about how mass changes place in this box.
-
Ah... the problem might be in wording. Conservation of some "stuff" means that if you add up all the stuff before a physical process, and then add it all up after the physical process, you get the same number. What you're getting at here is that if you fill a box with energy and seal it up, the box acts as if it has mass.
For example, if you have a closed box and fill it with radioactive matter such that no energy can escape from the box, then you can't tell whether it's mass is due to the energy or mass of the radioactive matter.
If you peek inside the box, still without letting any energy leak out, then you can see that the mass of the radioactive material has changed into energy, although the apparent mass of the box itself as viewed from the outside remains the same. Since mass can be "created" in a sense from energy, and since energy seems to be more fundamental to physical processes, this is usually called conservation of energy, not mass.
-
Ah... the problem might be in wording.
Physics says silly things sometimes.
Let's put a small lump of radioactive material into a large box, the lump is put at the middle of the box. Then we put the box at a frictionless surface, and we make the box spin. As we know, the spinning will slow down because of what happens in the box.
Now what words do we use to describe what happens in the box, so that slowing down will be well understood?
-
Physics says silly things sometimes.
Let's put a small lump of radioactive material into a large box, the lump is put at the middle of the box. Then we put the box at a frictionless surface, and we make the box spin. As we know, the spinning will slow down because of what happens in the box.
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.
Anyway you are right in pointing out the pitfalls in using the phrase "mass converted into energy". This phrase is reiterated from almost everyone but it's misleading, unless it's specified "mass of what" and "energy of what"; actually energy can shift from a kind, or a location, to another, but there is no conversion at all...
-
Here's one small exercise question:
In a closed box there is a lump of nuclear waste, that is always warm, and a bucket full of cold water. Tell me something about how mass changes place in this box.
Do you mean the fact that the lump's mass decreases while the water's mass increases?
-
the water's mass increases
Where did the water come from?
-
This is beginning to sound a lot more like a new theory than an actual question.
-
the water's mass increases
Where did the water come from?
<<In a closed box there is a lump of nuclear waste, that is always warm, and a bucket full of cold water>>.
-
Oops. Forgot the bucket of water. [:I]
-
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.
In physics book there is a formula for moment of inertia, there is a "m" in that formula, the "m" is pronounced "mass".
Anyway you are right in pointing out the pitfalls in using the phrase "mass converted into energy". This phrase is reiterated from almost everyone but it's misleading, unless it's specified "mass of what" and "energy of what"; actually energy can shift from a kind, or a location, to another, but there is no conversion at all...
It's a big sink hole to say that mass is not conserved. It spoils our moment of inertia formula.
-
Do you mean the fact that the lump's mass decreases while the water's mass increases?
Yes I do mean that.
There are two recoils too. One when something starts to move, another when aforementioned motion stops. This "something" is energy.
But saying "there's a recoil when mass starts to move" is actually better way to say it, isn't it?
-
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.
In physics book there is a formula for moment of inertia, there is a "m" in that formula, the "m" is pronounced "mass".
And? I don't grasp the problem.
-
Yes I do mean that.
There are two recoils too. One when something starts to move, another when aforementioned motion stops. This "something" is energy.
But saying "there's a recoil when mass starts to move" is actually better way to say it, isn't it?
I don't say that, because there is recoil even when you shoot a laser beam, or energy, in general, as you wrote. What is that you really want to say?
-
Are you talking about the increase of the moment of inertia of the system because some matter in the centre went out of it? That is the way I would describe it.
In physics book there is a formula for moment of inertia, there is a "m" in that formula, the "m" is pronounced "mass".
And? I don't grasp the problem.
Do you grasp the benefit? There is a formula for moment of inertia of a homogeneous cube.
The cube may be a matter cube. Or it may be an energy cube. When mass is evenly spread in the cube the formula works.
-
What is that you really want to say?
Do you grasp the law of conservation of mass?
-
Maybe it would be polite to pay some attention to the misguided point of views too.
These are JP's views:
Energy is more fundamental than mass, energy does not have mass, energy kind of "creates" mass, mass turns into energy.
Well, I have heard that mass and energy are equivalent.
This is from lightarrow:
It is not OK to say mass turns into energy, it is OK to say mass of a potato turns into energy.
Well, sounds to me the same thing is said, the last one is just more specific.
-
I think we can safely say this has strayed into New Theories territory...
-
Nearby Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?
-
I think we can safely say this has strayed into New Theories territory...
Are you going to elaborate on mass-energy relationship?
That's what I expected next in this discussion.
-
Nearby Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?
No, Sirius B doesn't have any clue that there is a photon approaching. This is according to the "information can't travel faster than c" -thing.
-
I wasn't asking about speed. Sirius B increases frequency of wave of an approaching photon.Does it increase energy of the photon? If yes, then where does the energy come from?
-
I wasn't asking about speed. Sirius B increases frequency of wave of an approaching photon.Does it increase energy of the photon? If yes, then where does the energy come from?
Does the energy come from Sirius B?
No.
-
Nearby Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?
Falling is a straightforward thing. No energy change happens.
-
I think we can safely say this has strayed into New Theories territory...
Are you going to elaborate on mass-energy relationship?
That's what I expected next in this discussion.
I think I elaborated a bit on it already. No offense, but I find your posts to be a bit confusing (it may be a language issue?), which is why I haven't been able to answer them better. Do you have a specific question about mass and energy and their relationship?
-
Let's attach some radioactive material on the center part of a big flywheel.
The radioactive stuff starts heating the flywheel. No heat is lost to anywhere else.
The flywheel is frictionless. Then we make the flywheel spin. What can we say about
the spinning rate?
Let's attach a spring on the center of a flywheel disk. Then we attach another disk
into the other end of the spring. Then we press the disks together. The spring becomes
compressed. Then we tie this thing with a string. This thing we have constructed is a
flywheel. It's frictionless flywheel. Now we make the flywheel spin. At some moment
the sting breaks. What can we say about the spinning rate, when the string breaks?
-
I think I elaborated a bit on it already. No offense, but I find your posts to be a bit confusing (it may be a language issue?), which is why I haven't been able to answer them better. Do you have a specific question about mass and energy and their relationship?
No I don't really have a question.
Would this be a tricky question for you:
Is the mass of relativistic gas the sum of rest masses of the particles?
Relativistic gas means very hot gas.
-
Generally, the answer would be no. It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.
-
Generally, the answer would be no. It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.
So the real mass of the gas in the box is the sum of every particle's rest mass.
If we put some mass in a box, and half of the mass turns into energy, then the mass in the box is halved. There is simple logic in this.
My mass is 7 kg. Scientists have found out that mass of typical adult human being is about 7 kg. This is still new and uncertain stuff. And silly laypeople think they know their mass, and with good accuracy. [;D]
-
Generally, the answer would be no. It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.
So the real mass of the gas in the box is the sum of every particle's rest mass.
That's not what I said at all!. You're describing one term, but the other term is from their kinetic energies, since this also contributes to the inertial mass of the box. Using terms like "real mass" is confusing, since various ways of accounting for mass have very specific meanings, and they're all real.
If we put some mass in a box, and half of the mass turns into energy, then the mass in the box is halved. There is simple logic in this.
It depends how you count mass. The inertial mass of the box, which is what most people would use to describe the mass of a box, stays the same. For example, atoms have more mass than you would get by just summing the rest masses of all their fundamental particles. This is because the energies associated with binding all these particles together also add to the inertial and gravitational mass of the atom.
I think you're describing the science of this correctly, but you're trying to claim that this science means there's some sort of new conservation law or some kind of "real" mass, which is incorrect.
-
I think you're describing the science of this correctly, but you're trying to claim that this science means there's some sort of new conservation law or some kind of "real" mass, which is incorrect.
The conservation of apparent mass is the thing that I mean. It's in Wikipedia. It's called conservation of mass there.
So when a flywheel is heated uniformly it's apparent moment of inertia increases an amount that is proportional to the apparent mass increase.
-
So what's new about the conservation law? I agree that it exists, but it's well-known.
-
It's not well known. It's new for you guys.
It might even be new. I don't know when it appeared into Wikipedia.
Should I have mentioned Wikipedia straight away?
-
It's not well known. It's new for you guys.
It might even be new. I don't know when it appeared into Wikipedia.
Should I have mentioned Wikipedia straight away?
How can I argue with you telling us what we know and don't know? Anyway, I think the question is resolved.
-
Nearby Sirius B a photon is approaching to it, this photon is receiving energy. Is this event reducing mass of Sirius B?
Falling is a straightforward thing. No energy change happens.
Plasma inhabitants of Sirius B see increased frequency of photons from Sirius A. Frequency of these photons is increased in 1,00023 times.However they don't see increasing of energy of the photons.Then you should change the formula of photon energy.
[:P]
-
Generally, the answer would be no. It would depend on what you wanted to do with "mass," but if you put the gas in a box and wanted to push the box, the apparent (inertial) mass of the box would be due to the rest/invariant masses of the particles plus a mass term resulting from the energies of the particles.
So the real mass of the gas in the box is the sum of every particle's rest mass.
If we put some mass in a box, and half of the mass turns into energy, then the mass in the box is halved. There is simple logic in this.
My mass is 7 kg. Scientists have found out that mass of typical adult human being is about 7 kg. This is still new and uncertain stuff. And silly laypeople think they know their mass, and with good accuracy. [;D]
Then you should change "G" [:)]
-
Plasma inhabitants of Sirius B see increased frequency of photons from Sirius A. Frequency of these photons is increased in 1,00023 times.However they don't see increasing of energy of the photons.Then you should change the formula of photon energy.
[:P]
These plasma people fell into Sirius B, their energy or frequency did not
change when they where falling. When they crashed into the surface of the
star their energy and frequency decreased, and the energy and frequency of
the surface increased.
Now same story with photons:
When photons fall towards Sirius B their energy or frequency does not change.
When photons crash into the plasma beings, photon's energy and frequency decrease
to zero, and the energy and frequency of the plasma folks increases.
-
Then you should disprove this formula:
v = v_0 /√[1-2GM/Rc²]
v-frequency [::)]
-
Then you should disprove this formula:
v = v_0 /√[1-2GM/Rc²]
v-frequency [::)]
When a photon whose frequency has not changed hits an observer whose frequency
has decreased, the observer says the frequency of the photon has increased.
Increase of frequency of a photon is a very silly idea.
Are new crests and troughs created? Well that's silly.
Does photon contract while holes between photons are created? That's silly too.
[Combined two posts & removed loads of unnecessary whitespace - Mod]
-
So where's the gratefulness? I'm trying to help you guys. [:)]
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.
Now read that sentence five times, slowly. Then answer the question "are mass and energy equivalent"
-
[:D] Is this load of old drivel still going???
Well, good luck with that! [::)]
-
I think Simplified is right in his description, The photon traveling toward Sirius are falling into a 'gravity well'. As seen from the 'frame' of A Sirian :) that photon indeed have increased its momentum and frequency becoming blue shifted as it according to the Sirian 'gains' energy through the 'gravity' bending the light.. The opposite happens to a photon climbing out from a gravity well where it instead becomes 'red shifted' as it 'expends energy'.
But that's all about frames of reference. You can also see it as the photon consists of some sort of 'Energy-quanta', and looked at this way the photon starts with, let's say three Eq (ahem:) and when free from the 'gravitational disturbance' it will be found to still have those three Eq, no matter if you measure it after 'climbing out' or 'falling in'.
What the observer sees is a relation connected to his 'frame of reference' and invalid in another 'frame of reference, for example the photon coasting next to our original photon 'at rest' with him will swear, if you asked him, that his pal never changed 'energy' or 'frequency'. As I see it :)
-
Quite right, yor_on, particularly the part where photon's pal saw no change in the other photon was good.
BUT ... there is a law of conservation of frequency.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Here we see two identical planets falling towards each other. While this falling is happening the frequency of the whole system stays F. And because of symmetry F1 stays the same as F2.
(F1 means frequency of schrodingen wave of planet F1)
-
[:D] Is this load of old drivel still going???
Well, good luck with that! [::)]
You are nasty.
-
[:D] Is this load of old drivel still going???
Well, good luck with that! [::)]
You are nasty.
I think that clear ad hom attack shows that this thread is going nowhere.
-
Interesting Jartza, especially the bit about 'symmetry', It's a big thing in string theory, and searched after as it is needed to validate the concept. Are you sure about this symmetry thing? and how do you think of 'frequency' here?
A planet is made of proper mass and so have 'matter waves' but, they are extremely 'small' in a planet. How do you measure a planets frequency? A harmonic? makes me think of the 'music of the spheres' :) I'm afraid I'm losing you there. You might think of heat? Different planets give of different heat and so might be seen as having different 'frequency's'?
The closest I can relate too looking at your drawing is 'conservation of energy' but that's about 'energy', as defined of whatever 'energy' the objects you depict have from your frame of observation, when defined as a 'system', meaning you handpicking, hijacking and highlighting some 'objects' of choice into a 'system' for some purported relation.
And in the case of the drawing I would assume that energy a kinetic, expecting a collision where matter becomes 'energy'. And that law just assume that we have a closed universe where nothing gets 'lost', just transforming into other 'stuff', its main rule being that it goes from 'usable energy' to 'unusable, also seen as entropy.
So, if i get it right? You're saying that no frequency's gets lost? Just 'transform'? Well, I guess you might be able to state that, but I can, with as good reason, state that no 'hubba bubba' ever gets lost too. They just 'transform' into something sticky, mostly under my left foot, sorry, I may like my small jokes a little too much ::))
-
Rereading you I see I missed you calling the planets frequency the schrodingen wave. (http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae329.cfm) Isn't that quantum mechanics? Like so tiny that I hardly can see it? Well, sort of, after all, I do see photons?
-
yor_on, just for you I tried to write an essay [:)]
So yesterday I happened to read about dimensional analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis#Definition)
Here's one set of fundamental dimensions:
M,L,T,Q,O
Notice, no energy E there. That's because M is equivalent to E.
We know this equivalence from the E=mc².
So E has been dropped as redundant.
We can put the E back in the set. Then we can take the M away from the set:
E,L,T,Q,O
From this: E=hf , we see E and f are equivalent, just like E and M.
So we can drop E from the set, if we put f into the set:
f,L,T,Q,O
Let's put E back there.
E,f,L,T,Q,O
Now we have a redundant set, where E and f equivalent.
If there is a conservation law of E then there is a conservation law of f.
Because E and f are equivalent and redundant, you see.
And there is a conservation law of energy, so there is a conservation law of frequency.
And conservation law of energy IS the conservation law of frequency, like conservation law
of energy IS conservation law of mass.
-
Yes, I understand that you think there to be an equivalence.
What I don't understand is what you expect your law to state?
If you have a 'box' with let's say 'waves', or photons, as you're talking 'frequency', and with duality allowing me to treat it as particles if I like.
Doing so I will find what?
In which way do you mean frequency is a conserved property in that box?
Try to use your own words and just write me a tale about what you expect.
I'll read it with interest.
-
yor_on, I don't feel like doing as you suggest [:)]
But here's a fine picture:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
There's a rocket that is moving. Yellow thing is a light bulb. Red balls are photons. There's also an observer that is standing still. The rocket has a window. (not drawn) Some photons have passed through the window, the observer will observe these photons. The observer will observe that said photons are mostly HIGH frequency photons.
I guess you remember that in a fast moving rocket time is SLOW?
Here's one more picture of photons:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34429.msg331856#msg331856 (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34429.msg331856#msg331856)
-
The observer will observe that said photons are mostly HIGH frequency photons.
If the distance between the rocket and the observer is increasing, the observer will observe that said photons are LOWER frequency. (They'll be redshifted.)
-
Yep :)
But we are discussing 'frames of reference' now, and that one weird subject. It's a little like the difference of running into a door, standing beside it, or getting chased by it :) Different "frames of reference" all of them. If you think of light as an accordion with the zigzag of its shape being how the 'jagged waves' are compressed in time, then, depending on if you're moving towards it, that accordion to you will be compressed. Being still at the side of the accordion is being 'at rest' versus it which will give you the correct image of its shape 'not moving'. And if you turn to leave it, going the opposite way, the accordion will 'stretch out' in time as it tries to reach you, like Geezer said.
The first is called lights 'blue shift' as the light when compressed, as seen from your 'frame of reference', will have a higher frequency and so also a higher energy.
The second is the lights 'original state' in its own 'frame of reference'.
The third is called a red-shift and will have a longer 'slower' frequency, and so from your 'frame of reference', also a lower energy than when you were 'at rest' relative it.
That light acts this way comes from the fact that it, in all frames of reference, will be coming at you at the same 'light-speed' if you measure it from your spaceship. The light doesn't care for your motion and direction, It will always have the same 'speed'. It is said that Einstein reached that conclusion as he started to wonder what would happen to his reflection in a mirror, if he was moving at light-speed, would he still see his reflection in that mirror?
It's a paradox, but he reached the conclusion that he should be able to see it, and from there he started to try to understand how that would be possible.
-
yor_on, pay attention [:)]
The light inside fast moving rocket is mostly high frequency light.
-
Inside the rocket :) Hmm.
Not to you being the pilot, from that frame of reference the light that a 60W hitech lightbulb sends out will have the same energy as it had on Earth, before you launched. Maybe you are thinking 'potential energy'? and thinking that it must have a higher potential, that light?
When you think so you always need to ask yourself, 'relative what'? If we take that light bulb as an example it have all sports of 'relative energy' or 'potential energy' as 'relations'. To define it you need to set against what you are comparing. If I define that lights 'potential energy' against the pilot it will be the same as it was on Earth before. If I define it against Earth, as you have turned home again accelerating, then its 'potential' energy will be much higher, just as its 'relative energy' will be.
Or maybe I'm missing your point here?
-
There are identical twin photons Bob and Rob.
Bob goes into a rocket and makes a high speed trip.
During the trip Bob waved a larger number of times than Rob.
-
Nope again :)
Or yep ?
You're protecting your theory huh :)
Ah well, tell me when you've got the patent.
I can read that :)
Nah, you're just working off steam here.
If you're thinking time dilation and ..
Awh.
-
I'm just repeating the same thing.
Group of photons in a box has a rest mass. When the box is accelerated, the group of photons gains some relativistic mass, which is equivalent to energy, which is equivalent to frequency.
-
Let's test it :)
Assume that you're inside that box, at rest relative one of the photons. the photon has 3 EQ (energy quanta) while 'at rest' in its own 'frame of reference'.
Would you then expect to see an added 'energy' from the acceleration in the photon? Assume that it is a uniform acceleration equivalent to one gravity.
Then do the same assuming that we now have a non-uniform acceleration for the box.
Tell me what you think, and I'll tell you what I think :)
Then we'll see if we agree.
==
To make it more palatable we could discus some particle of matter as they all have 'matter waves' (for the purists:) But for me photons are ok ::))
==
(And we better assume the box to be infinitely long as the photons will move :) inside it..)
-
yor_on, your question is silly
We have already noted that a 60 W light bulb seems like a 60 W light bulb for a
passenger sitting in a space ship, watching the lamp that hangs on the space ship ceiling.
But here's a drawing!
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Blue thing is a planet accelerator. Black balls are planets. Red ball is some particle. Green thing is a screen onto which planet hits make some marks. Because planet has quite high frequency, we can get a quite sharp planet-ray image of the particle. (x-ray, planet-ray, you see)
-
Ahh :)
I see..
Like using matter waves as your spectroscopy.
well they're small enough they are :)
With a very sharp focus, one only need the right emulsion for processing them.
-
Electron microscope produces maybe 1000 times as sharp images as light microscope,
because electron's frequency is maybe 1000 times as high as light's.
So, therefore:
The law of conservation of frequency forbids 2 light photons turning into electron positron pair.
But the law of conservation of frequency allows 2000 light photons turning into electron positron pair.
-
So where's the gratefulness? I'm trying to help you guys. [:)]
Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.
Now read that sentence five times, slowly. Then answer the question "are mass and energy equivalent"
Photon has a turned mass into energy.If photon has distance until big mass then this photon has potential energy,only (in my computings)a turned mass into energy has less potential energy than a gravitation mass per two times . Therefore if photon loses potential energy then this photon recieves kinetic energy. [:)]