[guest39538]

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=mc²  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.

[Ethos_]

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.

[guest39538]

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

[guest39538]

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.

[Ethos_]

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.

[guest39538]

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=mc², 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

[Ethos_]

Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc², 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.

[guest39538]

Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc², 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.

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.''?

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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 ...

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

]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??

[agyejy]

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/c². The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass.

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.

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Ethos_]

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...........

[chiralSPO]

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).

[Craig W. Thomson]

agyejy: "A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c². 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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

]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.