TheBox on black holes

  • 310 Replies
  • 16609 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #50 on: 29/02/2016 15:51:11 »


Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?

Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.

As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.
Okay, so that's three posts in a row in this thread from you, and not one word about photons, black holes, or any kind of science. At least agyegy and I were arguing about physics. You're trying to get in that last word, that's all. Boring. Why not let the moderators do their job? You're not helping. Maybe that's why you have only five "thank you's" after more than a thousand posts, my friend. Sheesh.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #51 on: 29/02/2016 16:48:34 »


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #52 on: 29/02/2016 20:14:46 »


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #53 on: 29/02/2016 21:20:22 »


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.
Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #54 on: 29/02/2016 21:32:41 »


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.
Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.

Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.


*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #55 on: 29/02/2016 22:00:32 »

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 


I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy are not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 13:10:35 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #56 on: 29/02/2016 22:05:16 »
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.

If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #57 on: 29/02/2016 22:07:53 »

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 


I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy is not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.

arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc  is simply mass and a kilo amount.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #58 on: 29/02/2016 22:09:27 »
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.

If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.
Excellent post agyejy................
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #59 on: 29/02/2016 22:12:30 »


arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc  is simply mass and a kilo amount.
Excellent Mr. Box, ..................now that you have become a little more flexible with your views, I may decide to take you off my ignore list.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #60 on: 29/02/2016 22:19:40 »


arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc  is simply mass and a kilo amount.
Excellent Mr. Box, ..................now that you have become a little more flexible with your views, I may decide to take you off my ignore list.

I am always flexible on my views, believe it or not I always see two sides to a piece of paper.   I already know quite a bit about forces and energy, I have got to admit I do not see eye to eye with 

  ''One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.''


I am in no doubt this works for whatever purpose science uses it for, but I don't quite see the connection, I see mass is the newtons of an object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, (is always accelerating  Fn=9.81m/s2),  is the amount of Newtons of force of inertia being equal to the amount of mass.

That is the relationship I see.   Energy I see that as a separate process.
« Last Edit: 29/02/2016 22:39:53 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #61 on: 29/02/2016 22:44:06 »


I am always flexible on my views, believe it or not I always see two sides to a piece of paper.   I already know quite a bit about forces and energy, I have got to admit I do not see eye to eye with 

  ''One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.''

It would be advantageous for you Mr. Box to remember that definitions are very important when considering physics. For example; When people speak different languages, it becomes nearly impossible to share ideas, much less, the facts. This has been mentioned to you before my friend, but I don't think you took it to heart. Being familiar with Physical definitions is extremely important if one is going to be able to understand the points that are being made.

The difference between mass and matter is one example.

1. Matter is not the same as mass.

2. Mass and energy are equivalent; E=mc^2

3. Matter is not energy, however, matter possesses energy.

4. The photon, a particle of "Matter" possesses energy but has no mass.

5. Even though the photon has zero proper mass, what we call "rest mass", it still possesses energy in the form of momentum.



"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #62 on: 29/02/2016 22:55:00 »


I am always flexible on my views, believe it or not I always see two sides to a piece of paper.   I already know quite a bit about forces and energy, I have got to admit I do not see eye to eye with 

  ''One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.''

It would be advantageous for you Mr. Box to remember that definitions are very important when considering physics. For example; When people speak different languages, it becomes nearly impossible to share ideas, much less, the facts. This has been mentioned to you before my friend, but I don't think you took it to heart. Being familiar with Physical definitions is extremely important if one is going to be able to understand the points that are being made.

The difference between mass and matter is one example.

1. Matter is not the same as mass.

2. Mass and energy are equivalent; E=mc^2

3. Matter is not energy, however, matter possesses energy.

4. The photon, a particle of "Matter" possesses energy but has no mass.

5. Even though the photon has zero proper mass, what we call "rest mass", however, matter possesses energy

I am  trying dead hard not to  argue your views lol,

ok

1. yes

2. I still don't see the connection, 

3.however, matter possesses energy  ??????  I sort of see  that energy is made within the matter by converting photons into energy.  (convertual photons)

4. yes

5. yes

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #63 on: 29/02/2016 23:13:13 »
I consider that energy is something like this   A interacts with B =E    where (A) is light and (B) is object,  photons being a sort of polymorphism ''matter'' that when interacting with any matter reacts.
« Last Edit: 29/02/2016 23:20:26 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #64 on: 29/02/2016 23:27:59 »


I am  trying dead hard not to  argue your views lol,

ok

1. yes

2. I still don't see the connection, 

3.however, matter possesses energy  ??????  I sort of see  that energy is made within the matter by converting photons into energy.  (convertual photons)

4. yes

5. yes
Excellent Mr. Box, now we're getting some where. Let's take #2 first.

It's been proven through the experimental process that mass can be converted into energy. Case in point; Energy released by thermonuclear explosion.   

When u-235 is bombarded by neutrons, a chain reaction occurs releasing vast amounts of energy. I'm sure you are aware of the process so to break it down into simple terms, the "total mass" which remains after the blast occurs is less than the "total mass" before the explosion.

The equation: E=mc^2 tells us that; the energy in any measure of mass is equivalent to that measure of mass times c^2.

In essence, this equation tells us that mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. That's why it is often referred to as "mass/energy".

While each manifestation reveals itself different from the other , "mass/energy" can still be thought of in terms of oneness. A simple example of something similar would be "water and ice".

I'll allow you to respond to my comments regarding #2 before we consider the questions you have about #3.

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #65 on: 29/02/2016 23:34:24 »


I am  trying dead hard not to  argue your views lol,

ok

1. yes

2. I still don't see the connection, 

3.however, matter possesses energy  ??????  I sort of see  that energy is made within the matter by converting photons into energy.  (convertual photons)

4. yes

5. yes
Excellent Mr. Box, now we're getting some where. Let's take #2 first.

It's been proven through the experimental process that mass can be converted into energy. Case in point; Energy released by thermonuclear explosion.   

When u-235 is bombarded by neutrons, a chain reaction occurs releasing vast amounts of energy. I'm sure you are aware of the process so to break it down into simple terms, the "total mass" which remains after the blast occurs is less than the "total mass" before the explosion.

The equation: E=mc^2 tells us that; the energy in any measure of mass is equivalent to that measure of mass times c^2.

In essence, this equation tells us that mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. That's why it is often referred to as "mass/energy".

While each manifestation reveals itself different from the other , "mass/energy" can still be thought of in terms of oneness. A simple example of something similar would be "water and ice".

I'll allow you to respond to my comments regarding #2 before we consider the questions you have about #3.

Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc, I will read your post a few more times to  try and understand it. Please proceed we can come back to that one .

''u-235 ''' you mean Uranium and heavy water?   then yes I understand.

added- to be honest I could not even provide a 1% argument against it,   my thing is light and thinking about the things we can't see and relativistic affects.


arrr, you mean a nuke

« Last Edit: 29/02/2016 23:50:21 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #66 on: 29/02/2016 23:50:07 »


Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc, I will read your post a few more times to  try and understand it. Please proceed we can come back to that one .

''u-235 ''' you mean Uranium and heavy water? then yes I understand.
We'll take your last sentence first............

U-235 is an isotope of uranium which occurs naturally as U-238. This isotope was used in the first A-bombs. Heavy water is an isotope of Hydrogen called "deuterium or the heavier tritium. These are used in the H-bomb.

So now we go on to the issue I have with #3.

Photons do not turn into energy. When a photon is absorbed by a solar cell as an example, it gives up it's mass of momentum to the cell and triggers the flow of electrons. Remember, matter and mass are not the same. The photon is matter which possesses mass as momentum and it's this mass that manifests itself as energy in this process.

I've got some pressing things right now, I'll get back with you tomorrow Box. Give these issues some thought and we'll go over it in greater detail tomorrow.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 13:20:40 by Ethos_ »
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #67 on: 29/02/2016 23:57:09 »


Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc, I will read your post a few more times to  try and understand it. Please proceed we can come back to that one .

''u-235 ''' you mean Uranium and heavy water? then yes I understand.
We'll take your last sentence first............

U-235 is an isotope of uranium which occurs naturally as U-238. This isotope was used in the first A-bombs. Heavy water is an isotope of Hydrogen called "deuterium or the heavier tritium. These are used in the H-bomb.

I clicked on and added to my other post while you were writing, yes I am familiar with the process, think I was having a dim moment sorry , replying to hasty.

Quote
So now we go on to the issue I have with #3.

Photons do not turn into energy. When a photon is absorbed by a solar cell as an example, it gives up it's mass of momentum to the cell and triggers the flow of electrons. Remember, matter and mass are not the same. The photon is matter which possesses mass as momentum. Matter doesn't turn into energy, it only changes from one form of matter to another.
  Sort of what I put ''photons being a sort of polymorphism ''matter'' that when interacting with any matter reacts.''?



*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #68 on: 01/03/2016 14:48:21 »


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
First of all, "matter" is not a technical enough term for physics." If you're going to quibble, I suggest you be precise about it.

Second of all, look up "binding energy." When a photon is absorbed by an atom, its energy becomes mass, plain and simple.

Third of all, mass/energy "equivalence" means exactly that. Mass can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to mass. They are the same thing in different states.

Those ARE the facts.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #69 on: 01/03/2016 15:02:21 »

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 


I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy are not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.
That's a weak analogy. I am not a fundamental particle. I am made of billions of particles. Only if I was a single, fundamental particle could I "be" a unit of energy, despite having a cold.

Did you know that when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, you get energy? Sounds to me like "matter" is probably made of energy ...

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #70 on: 01/03/2016 15:05:01 »
One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing
Excellent post agyejy................
So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #71 on: 01/03/2016 15:10:42 »
1. Matter is not the same as mass.

3. Matter is not energy, however, matter possesses energy.
I want you to provide a working technical definition for what you keep calling "matter." Is matter mass? Is mass matter? What's the difference? I took a lot of flack a couple of years ago in another forum when I spoke about "matter" being converted to energy. The general consensus of non-laymen was that "matter" is not technical and precise enough for this sort of discussion. This isn't a 1940's elementary school documentary on nuclear power.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 15:13:37 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #72 on: 01/03/2016 15:28:52 »
When a photon is absorbed by a solar cell as an example, it gives up it's mass of momentum to the cell and triggers the flow of electrons.
Electrons don't flow. They oscillate. It's the energy that travels. A good mechanical analogy is dominoes. Stand them up in a row next to each other. Push the first one over, and they all fall down one by one, but it is the energy that travels from domino to domino. No dominoes actually travel from one end of the line to the other. They stay in a row, in order, as the energy travels from one to the next. Another example would be one of those desktop kinetic sculptures with a row of suspended stainless steel balls, bounce one at the end, and the two end balls bounce while the ones in the middle stay in place.

A photon is a carrier of the electromagnetic force. When a photon is absorbed, its electric and magnetic components tell the particle that absorbed it to oscillate faster. There is no "flow" of electrons.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #73 on: 01/03/2016 15:48:11 »
]Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy).
Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of light squared. When a photon is absorbed, it stops travelling at the speed of light and contributes a tiny amount of mass to the system that absorbed it.

According to your own lexically ambiguous terminology, that photon travelling at c "is not" itself the mass, but it "has" the mass. Don't you understand how a photon acts as a carrier of information??

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #74 on: 01/03/2016 16:28:25 »
Second of all, look up "binding energy." When a photon is absorbed by an atom, its energy becomes mass, plain and simple.

A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c. The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass.

Quote
Third of all, mass/energy "equivalence" means exactly that. Mass can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to mass. They are the same thing in different states.

Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another. For starters mass and energy are properties and properties can't be in states. Beyond that we know that photons have a mass associated with their energy content it simply isn't an invariant mass.

Did you know that when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, you get energy? Sounds to me like "matter" is probably made of energy ...

When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons.

So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.

Except you are not saying the same thing at all.

Electrons don't flow. They oscillate. It's the energy that travels. A good mechanical analogy is dominoes. Stand them up in a row next to each other. Push the first one over, and they all fall down one by one, but it is the energy that travels from domino to domino. No dominoes actually travel from one end of the line to the other. They stay in a row, in order, as the energy travels from one to the next. Another example would be one of those desktop kinetic sculptures with a row of suspended stainless steel balls, bounce one at the end, and the two end balls bounce while the ones in the middle stay in place.

In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy. Electrons do scatter in most metals but they scatter off impurities, phonons, grain boundaries, imperfections, etc. Electrons in a metal do not in general scatter off other electrons. I know it sounds weird but basically all of our current scientific understanding of metals relies on single particle approximations that treat the electrons as moving in an average field created by all the other electrons in the metal and hence no electron-electron scattering. They certainly do not oscillate unless driven by an AC current. When you move to superconductors the electrons just don't scatter at all which is why the resistance is zero.

Quote
A photon is a carrier of the electromagnetic force. When a photon is absorbed, its electric and magnetic components tell the particle that absorbed it to oscillate faster. There is no "flow" of electrons.

Electrons in atoms do not oscillate in the manner in which you believe they do. The charge distribution around an atom is static before the interaction with the photon and then static again after the interaction with the photon. There is no faster oscillation in the atom after the absorption of the photon. There is no time varying electric or magnetic fields in the atom after the absorption. Further, this is a clear misunderstanding of how solar cells work. In a solar cell an electron in a solid is promoted from what is generally called the valence band to what is generally called the conduction band. Then clever engineering causes that electron in the conduction band to leave the solid and enter a wire where it can do work. Thus there most certainly is a flow of electrons. There is also a flow of things called holes which are basically the absence of an electron that should be in the valence band from the valence band. These holes behave a lot like the antiparticles of electrons. The holes are made to flow the opposite direction. The net effect is a current through the solar cell and an outside circuit. Both the conduction and valence bands are special bands of states that exist only in the solid and are delocalized (that is to say they don't belong to any one atom).

Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of light squared. When a photon is absorbed, it stops travelling at the speed of light and contributes a tiny amount of mass to the system that absorbed it.

When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #75 on: 01/03/2016 16:51:58 »

I want you to provide a working technical definition for what you keep calling "matter." Is matter mass?


My opinion is that matter should be defined -  is a substance existing in physical presence but without solidity such as , light, gravity,

Mass is a resulting measurement property of an object relative to it's acceleration-rest inertial reference frame.
« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 16:53:59 by Thebox »

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #76 on: 01/03/2016 18:26:19 »

So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.

Except you are not saying the same thing at all.
Thank you agyejy, it appears to me that the only one here looking for an argument is Craig...........

"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline chiralSPO

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 1910
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #77 on: 01/03/2016 19:38:36 »
Regarding the motion of electrons:

One should also note that a circuit can be completed by a cathode ray, which is a beam of electrons moving through space (or at least a high vacuum). Cathode rays have been very firmly established as electron beams, and have been used in technologies such as the CRT screen, and more importantly, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which allows us to visualize matter on nearly atomic scale (limited by the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons).

The motion of electrons through solids is much (MUCH) more complicated, even for simple cases such as monocrystalline metals, so we use approximations (like long-range ballistic motion single electrons or holes), but ultimately it is still electrons that are moving (at least in DC scenarios).

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #78 on: 02/03/2016 16:10:48 »
agyejy: "A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c. The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass."

REPLY: E=mc^2 is actually a "relationship," defining E in terms of m and c. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. When a photon is emitted, the atom loses mass. In fact, in a particle accelerator, kinetic energy IS CONVERTED TO NEW MASS. So, you are incorrect. Mass does become energy, and vice versa.

agyejy: "Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another."

REPLY: Again, E=mc^2 is a "relationship," saying that every mass has an energy equivalent, and energy has a mass equivalent. Einstein's equation serves to convert units of mass to units of energy; no matter what system of measurement is used, there is still a relationship between the two. In fact, your statement doesn't make sense in terms of basic mathematics. Of course, 3 = 1 + 2 (three is equivalent to one plus two), and you can convert 1 + 2 to 3, but 3 is not "the same" as a 1 and a 2.

agyejy: "When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons."

REPLY: You (and I) often speak of photons being "created." Actually, energy cannot be created, OR destroyed. Neither can mass. They can only be CONVERTED from one form to another. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's technically a "new photon," but the "stuff" that makes it up already existed. It was merely converted from mass to energy.

agyejy: "In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy."

REPLY: "This is the fundamental difference between something that will carry electricity, and something that wont. It works a lot like dominoes. If you line up 1000 dominoes on end back to back with no space in between (analogous to the plastic) and tap the first domino in line, what will happen? Nothing. The dominoes are not free to move and they just stand there as though nothing happened. Now if you were to line them up again on end, but leave an inch or so between each domino (analogous to the aluminum) and then tap them again, would they just stand there? No, they would obviously fall down, one after another, until the last domino has fallen over at the end of the line.This is exactly how electricity works, and understanding this will make understanding the rest of the topic much easier. Electricity happens when a force moves the first electron on a surface where electrons are free to move, and this moving electron bumps into the next electron, and so on until the last free electron moves, and since the electrons can't fall over, they are instantly ready to repeat this process. If the last electron happens to come in contact with the initial pushing force, the cycle continues until there is no energy left."

SOURCE: http://seaperch.mit.edu/science_electricity.php

agyejy: "When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period."

REPLY: False. It is converted to mass, it only ceases to exist as energy.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 16:37:52 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #79 on: 02/03/2016 16:15:58 »
]Thank you agyejy, it appears to me that the only one here looking for an argument is Craig...........
False. I came here to talk about science. You still haven't said anything about science, but my name keeps showing up in your posts.

Say something about science, or shut your trap. This is a science forum. If I wanted to be harassed by a know-nothing, I would still be posting at physforum.com.

That's where he followed me from. You don't know anything about that, so maybe you should stay out of it and check your personal biases.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 17:07:22 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #80 on: 02/03/2016 16:22:37 »
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. W


I disagree, when the object absorbs a photon it is converted into positive energy ''charging'' the protons making positive ions, these + ions then try to expand and want to annihilate the object by stretching/expanding  the negative bond .

added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground.



« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 16:28:56 by Thebox »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #81 on: 02/03/2016 16:28:55 »
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. W


I disagree, when the object absorbs a photon it is converted into positive energy ''charging'' the protons making positive ions, these + ions then try to expand and want to annihilate the object by stretching/expanding  the negative bond .
I'm going to let someone else reply for me: "The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.6735327010−271.6735327010−27 kg. If you add the masses of a proton and electron together then they come to 1.6735327210−271.6735327210−27 kg. The difference is about 13.6eV, which is the ionisation energy of hydrogen (though note that the experimental error in the masses isn't much less than the difference so this is only approximate).

"This shouldn't surprise you because you have to add energy (in the form of a 13.6eV photon) to dissociate a hydrogen atom into a free proton and electron, and this increases the mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc2E=mc2. So this is a direct example of the sort of mass increase you describe.

"However you can't say this is an increase of mass of the electron or the proton. It's an increase in mass of the combined system. The invarient masses of the electron and proton are constants and not affected by whether they're in atoms or roaming freely. The change in mass is coming from a change in the binding energy of the system."

SOURCE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149744/does-the-mass-of-an-electron-change-with-its-energy-state

REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #82 on: 02/03/2016 16:31:28 »
added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground.


I think you missed the added part,

added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground making it have more mass which is not really mass,


Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.


mass is negative

''anti-mass'' is positive.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #83 on: 02/03/2016 16:39:11 »
I drew it you , just a rough scribble,

[attachment=21099]





*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #84 on: 02/03/2016 16:41:37 »
Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.
What maths? You mean the mass/energy equivalence formula? What rational thinking? What logic? Opposites attract, not the other way around. Are you familiar with magnets? LOL
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 16:46:49 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #85 on: 02/03/2016 16:45:34 »
Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.
What maths? What rational thinking? What logic? Opposites attract, not the other way around.

E=mc  I have still not got my head around the relevance.


Yes opposites attract , but negatives attract negatives.


the arrows represent direction



+→-

-→+

+←→+

-→←-


it is the only possible way it can be.

added - I drew you a better diagram.

[attachment=21101]


« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 16:58:17 by Thebox »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #86 on: 02/03/2016 17:04:03 »

E=mc  I have still not got my head around the relevance.
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of a composite particle, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.

Take a look at this model of a photon:

http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg

That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components, two energy oscillations in two perpendicular planes, and the photon travels along the intersection of those two planes, which is a line (basically, a "geodesic"). But, the intersection of three planes is a point, not a line. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive. In a sense, mass is really just a property energy has when it is confined to a location in space as opposed to being allowed to travel through space at light speed.

Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 17:17:41 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #87 on: 02/03/2016 17:16:13 »

E=mc  I have still not got my head around the relevance.
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of an atom for any length of time, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.

Take a look at this model of a photon:

http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg

That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components travelling along two perpendicular planes. But, the intersection of three planes is a point. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive.

Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.

In a similar sort of way I consider atoms are like little capacitors that absorb the photons to store them .    I consider the vibration is the ''clanging'' of quarks . 

50 seconds into this video is a comparative to the ''clanging'' i  mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5gHFJyMQ6o

''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''


Isn't that string theory?



*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #88 on: 02/03/2016 17:31:00 »
''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''

Isn't that string theory?
I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.

I'm no expert on string theory, though I've read a couple of books about it by Brian Greene and talked about it some at another forum. Here's my take, if you are interested.

String theory is more like, there's a single type of fundamental particle that all the other fundamental particles are made out of. I liken it to a string on a guitar or piano; music is definitely a helpful analogy here, at least for me.

A string on an instrument can be stretched loosely or tightly. That affects how it vibrates. It can also be a heavy string or light string, which also affects how it vibrates. Different strings have "pitches" that work well together because they are mathematically and harmonically linked. One string is like a single "note." The simplest atom is like three quarks singing a single proton "chord" in harmony using tenor, alto and soprano voices (though they keep switching identies while they are doing so, but that's another story), while an electron rounds out the chord, singing bass. A molecule is a "song." The world we see around us is "music."
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 17:47:07 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #89 on: 02/03/2016 17:51:13 »
''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''

Isn't that string theory?
I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.

I'm no expert on string theory, though I've read a couple of books about it by Brian Greene and talked about it some at another forum. Here's my take, if you are interested.

String theory is more like, there's a single type of fundamental particle that all the other fundamental particles are made out of. I liken it to a string on a guitar or piano; music is definitely a helpful analogy here, at least for me.

A string on an instrument can be stretched loosely or tightly. That affects how it vibrates. It can also be a heavy string or light string, which also affects how it vibrates. Different strings have "pitches" that work well together because they are mathematically and harmonically linked. One string is like a single "note." The simplest atom is like three quarks singing a single proton "chord" in harmony using tenor, alto and soprano voices, while an electron rounds out the chord, singing bass. A molecule is a "song." The world we see around us is "music."

Interesting, I have mentioned before about light being the conductor and the orchestra keep in synchronisation  with the conductor. I have also in my recent thoughts considered the ''tip'' of light, what I call , The Box singularity affect ''tip''  , to be like ''split ends'' .   So I suppose entangled strings ''hidden'' by the box singularity,  with visual split ends would make an interesting thought.





*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #90 on: 02/03/2016 20:27:53 »
agyejy: "A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c. The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass."

REPLY: E=mc^2 is actually a "relationship," defining E in terms of m and c. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. When a photon is emitted, the atom loses mass. In fact, in a particle accelerator, kinetic energy IS CONVERTED TO NEW MASS. So, you are incorrect. Mass does become energy, and vice versa.

This has already been addressed. Mass and energy are two different words for the same property. They also happen to have different units. The equation E = m*c is nothing but a formula for the conversion of units. Energy does not become mass because energy is mass and mass is energy. The fact that there are two different names for the same property is just a matter of historical ignorance about nature.

Quote
agyejy: "Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another."

REPLY: Again, E=mc^2 is a "relationship," saying that every mass has an energy equivalent, and energy has a mass equivalent. Einstein's equation serves to convert units of mass to units of energy; no matter what system of measurement is used, there is still a relationship between the two. In fact, your statement doesn't make sense in terms of basic mathematics. Of course, 3 = 1 + 2 (three is equivalent to one plus two), and you can convert 1 + 2 to 3, but 3 is not "the same" as a 1 and a 2.

Well for starters 3 is the same as 1 + 2 that is what equality means. Beyond that you are now arguing that a length that is expressed in centimeters is not the same thing as an identical length expressed in inches which is clearly absurd. Units of energy and units of mass are just different units to label the same quantity and converting units doesn't change the underlying quantity just like expressing a length in centimeters instead of inches doesn't change the actual length.

Quote
agyejy: "When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons."

REPLY: You (and I) often speak of photons being "created." Actually, energy cannot be created, OR destroyed. Neither can mass. They can only be CONVERTED from one form to another. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's technically a "new photon," but the "stuff" that makes it up already existed. It was merely converted from mass to energy.

This argument is ridiculous. If took apart of a table and constructed a chair from the pieces I would have created that chair. No sane person would argue that the chair I constructed was not created simply because the pieces existed in another form. There was no photon and then there was a photon hence the photon was created. The fact that the raw material existed beforehand does not change that. Also, as addressed above you cannot convert mass to energy because mass and energy describe the same property.

Quote
agyejy: "In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy."

REPLY: "This is the fundamental difference between something that will carry electricity, and something that wont. It works a lot like dominoes. If you line up 1000 dominoes on end back to back with no space in between (analogous to the plastic) and tap the first domino in line, what will happen? Nothing. The dominoes are not free to move and they just stand there as though nothing happened. Now if you were to line them up again on end, but leave an inch or so between each domino (analogous to the aluminum) and then tap them again, would they just stand there? No, they would obviously fall down, one after another, until the last domino has fallen over at the end of the line.This is exactly how electricity works, and understanding this will make understanding the rest of the topic much easier. Electricity happens when a force moves the first electron on a surface where electrons are free to move, and this moving electron bumps into the next electron, and so on until the last free electron moves, and since the electrons can't fall over, they are instantly ready to repeat this process. If the last electron happens to come in contact with the initial pushing force, the cycle continues until there is no energy left."

SOURCE: http://seaperch.mit.edu/science_electricity.php

That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.

Quote
agyejy: "When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period."

REPLY: False. It is converted to mass, it only ceases to exist as energy.

The photon always had a mass given by m=E/c^2. It is somewhat difficult (almost impossible) to measure the mass of something moving relative to you. If you try to chase the photon you find that as your speed relative to your initial inertial frame approaches the speed of light the energy of the photon you are chasing approaches zero and therefore so does its mass (assuming you can measure the mass of something moving). This is what is meant when we say a photon has a rest (or invariant) mass or zero. The photon still has a mass it just changes as your velocity changes relative to whatever source created the photon.

Quote
I'm going to let someone else reply for me: "The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.6735327010−271.6735327010−27 kg. If you add the masses of a proton and electron together then they come to 1.6735327210−271.6735327210−27 kg. The difference is about 13.6eV, which is the ionisation energy of hydrogen (though note that the experimental error in the masses isn't much less than the difference so this is only approximate).

"This shouldn't surprise you because you have to add energy (in the form of a 13.6eV photon) to dissociate a hydrogen atom into a free proton and electron, and this increases the mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc2E=mc2. So this is a direct example of the sort of mass increase you describe.

"However you can't say this is an increase of mass of the electron or the proton. It's an increase in mass of the combined system. The invarient masses of the electron and proton are constants and not affected by whether they're in atoms or roaming freely. The change in mass is coming from a change in the binding energy of the system."

SOURCE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149744/does-the-mass-of-an-electron-change-with-its-energy-state [nofollow]

REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy [nofollow]

A photon that you see as having 13.6 eV of energy has a mass of 2.42442019*10^-35 kilograms. This holds true as long as you stay in the inertial reference frame where the photon has an energy of 13.6 eV. If you change your inertial reference frame both the energy and mass change because they measure the same physical property.

Quote
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of a composite particle, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.

Take a look at this model of a photon:

http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg [nofollow]

That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components, two energy oscillations in two perpendicular planes, and the photon travels along the intersection of those two planes, which is a line (basically, a "geodesic"). But, the intersection of three planes is a point, not a line. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive. In a sense, mass is really just a property energy has when it is confined to a location in space as opposed to being allowed to travel through space at light speed.

Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.

I have previously addressed why all of this is wrong and counter to observations of nature.

Quote
I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.

String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #91 on: 02/03/2016 21:22:18 »



This has already been addressed. Mass and energy are two different words for the same property.


No they are not,I have already addressed this, ,mass is the same  as  Newtons of force, energy is a group term for various sub groups.


''mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.''

However it is the same thing at relative rest.


Energy - ''power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.''

« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 21:38:27 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #92 on: 02/03/2016 21:45:39 »
To define in my own terms, mass if the rest force of an object relative to  an inertial reference frame. 
« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 21:49:20 by Thebox »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #93 on: 02/03/2016 21:47:37 »
Quote
No they are not,I have already addressed this, ,mass is the same  as  Newtons of force, energy is a group term for various sub groups.

These words when arranged in this manner have no meaning and certainly do not trump the established science of relativity which is supported by over 100 years of experimental verification.

Quote
''mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.''

However it is the same thing at relative rest. and also back to front


Energy - ''power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.''

Those definitions are highly unscientific and based on the old understanding of the nature of energy and matter that predated relativity. Relativity showed us that in truth such distinctions are meaningless and that the only reason we do not observe a change in mass when the energy of a system changes is that or measurements of mass are generally to crude and imprecise to notice. I have said all of this previously. It takes a considerable amount of time for changes in understanding at the forefront of scientific study to filter into the pedagogy of university level courses. For example, a lot of the language used when teaching university level thermodynamics contains vestiges of the theory of caloric which was the supposed substance that was responsible for the phenomena of heat that was last used in the 1800s (i.e. we still talk about heat flowing and heat capacities as if heat is a physical substance). It takes even longer for those changes to filter into high school level science course and actually there is no guarantee they ever will. Therefore it isn't particularly surprising that easily searchable definitions contain anachronistic reasoning that is at odds with current scientific understanding.

Quote
To define in my own terms, mass if the rest force of an object in an inertial reference frame.

This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1280
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #94 on: 02/03/2016 21:48:57 »

String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.
I commend you sir for being well studied and physically literate, a welcome addition to the science forum here at TNS. A bit belatedly, I must confess, but I'd like to welcome you to the forum agyejy, ................enjoy!
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #95 on: 02/03/2016 21:50:23 »

String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.
I commend you sir for being well studied and physically literate, a welcome addition to the science forum here at TNS. A bit belatedly, I must confess, but I'd like to welcome you to the forum agyejy, ................enjoy!

He does seem to know  alot.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #96 on: 02/03/2016 21:58:17 »


This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.


That's what it means though,  mass is the amount of kilos of matter  at rest on the scales.


The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground. 


Mass -  is the measurement of matters force  while at rest in an inertial reference frame.





*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #97 on: 02/03/2016 22:01:44 »


This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.


That's what it means though,  mass is the amount of kilos of matter  at rest on the scales.


The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground. 


Mass -  is the measurement of matters force  while at rest in an inertial reference frame.






What you are describing is weight. Weight is well known to be a different concept to that of mass. The measured weight of an object depends on the gravitational field in which it is measured. This is why we say things weigh less on the Moon than on Earth.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3202
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #98 on: 02/03/2016 22:04:30 »


This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.


That's what it means though,  mass is the amount of kilos of matter  at rest on the scales.


The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground. 


Mass -  is the measurement of matters force  while at rest in an inertial reference frame.






What you are describing is weight. Weight is well known to be a different concept to that of mass. The measured weight of an object depends on the gravitational field in which it is measured. This is why we say things weigh less on the Moon than on Earth.

I big to differ, weigh a 1 kilo mass on earth


it will weigh less on the moon .


I know F=ma , if the F=ma is less, the object has less mass.

added - sorry that didn't sound right , my apologies for rushing. 


if there is less force of gravity, there is less newtons, the object will ''weight'' to have less mass.


Drop an object out of  an aeroplane on a set of scales, it will have no mass.

added- imagine your mass is about 45 kilogram, 45 kilogram is a result of the centripetal force pulling you ''into'' the ground while at relative rest mass.


44.145N=45kg

« Last Edit: 02/03/2016 22:25:02 by Thebox »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #99 on: 02/03/2016 22:38:59 »
I big to differ, weigh a 1 kilo mass on earth


it will weigh less on the moon .

That is the point I just made to you. Weight is the force of gravity that acts on an object. Any attempt to define mass as a force is simply a reference to the potential weight of said object. Force and mass are related by the concepts of inertia and gravity but that is all. You cannot use force to define mass.

Quote
I know F=ma , if the F=ma is less, the object has less mass.

Not really. The acceleration could also be less. This is what happens when you measure the weight of an object on the Moon when compared to the Earth. On the Moon the force on the object is less because the acceleration is less because the gravitational attraction is less. The mass stays the same. Now if you stay on the Earth and measure the weight of two different objects the one with the smaller mass will produce a smaller weight. Basically if the only piece of information that you have is that the force due to gravity (e.g. weight) is less in one situation than the other you cannot tell if the difference is due to differences in mass or acceleration due to gravity. You need more information like if someone were to tell you the same exact object was used in both situations then you would know the mass would be the same (due to the accepted definition of mass) and thus the change in force due to gravity (e.g. weight) was due to a change in the gravitational acceleration.

Quote
if there is less force of gravity, there is less newtons, the object will ''weight'' to have less mass.


Drop an object out of  an aeroplane on a set of scales, it will have no mass.

This is again a confusion of the meaning of weight and the meaning of mass. Weight is proportional to mass and the constant or proportionality is the acceleration of the mass. A scale does not measure mass it measures weight. It does this by measuring the force needed to counteract the force of gravity. If the scale and the object you are trying to weigh are in free-fall the scale will read zero because there are no forces acting between the scale and the object. This does not change the mass of the object.

Quote
added- imagine your mass is about 45 kilogram, 45 kilogram is a result of the centripetal force pulling you ''into'' the ground while at relative rest mass.

No it is not. If your mass is 45 kilograms it is 45 kilograms on Earth, on the Moon, and in space far away from any gravitational body. You can measure your mass in space far away from any gravitational body by applying a force to yourself (say via a rocket) and measuring the resulting acceleration. People often become confused because we often quote weight in terms of units of mass. The only reason we can do this is because when on Earth and not accelerating relative to Earth we know the gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s and we built that conversion factor into our scales. These scales cease to give accurate readings when they are removed from Earth or are accelerating with respect to Earth.

Quote
44.145N=45kg

For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.