If Energy is neither created nor used up, where did energy come from?

  • 129 Replies
  • 14138 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.

Always from moderators?

My thoughts

Cause effect means that there something asymmetric has happened in the remote past. This early state of asymmetry is closely associated with the idea of information/energy transfer,  with the resulting enigma of information/energy happening, when the net displacement of space and time became a reality.

This restriction on information transfer is the same as those on energy transfer, and that the movement caused by the interaction of matter and antimatter, suddenly resulted in the movement of fundamental particles, effected by the primordial conflict between the two forms of opposing matter.

The very early universe was asymmetrical with equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and when they met they annihilated almost all of each other leaving mostly, say colossal gamma rays clouds, that over vast periods of time have dissipated and now all that remains in our universe might be a mere .0000000000001% of those original sources. Which had spewed out their contents, into our matter dominated universe.   

This primordial state of unbalance resulted in all atoms and molecules moving and by extrapolation became known to us as energy or its potential. All this energy that has been left over is now contained within the confines of our closed universe.

From just a very rough estimate, maybe only .000000000001% remain as usable energy from the original sources, that had previous held/contained within them all of two primordial forms of matter. (from this primordial source when they met and annihilated each other) 

Information, energy and time and space must be considered in the same picture.

The law of conservation of energy, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, states that the energy of a closed system must remain constant, it can neither increase nor decrease without interference from outside.

"My question then do we know for sure that the universe itself is a closed system"?, if not information could be leaking into it from the "Outside"?

The Big Bang might have been a "White Hole" ? or a leak from the outside?
« Last Edit: 14/06/2016 02:13:06 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2026
    • View Profile

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.

Perhaps then I should considerably up my game, make my posts much more complex and profound, by the inclusion of much more detail and equations into my posts?  (I never seem to get any credit for my present method of posting). I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.

Maybe then I could join your list of the exalted few?

Alan
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 2026
    • View Profile
I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.
That is the best way. More complex answers are only necessary in rare cases.
and the misguided shall lead the gullible,
the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.

Perhaps then I should considerably up my game, make my posts much more complex and profound, by the inclusion of much more detail and equations into my posts?  (I never seem to get any credit for my present method of posting). I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.

Maybe then I could join your list of the exalted few?

Alan

Not everyone reads every thread. Not every person that reads a thread will post a response. I don't see posting as some kind of competition. If I post something and get no replies then I move on and try to research the answers I want from other sources. People will be reading what you write and it may well be giving them something to think about. Listening is even more important than writing your own ideas down. I have learned an awful lot by doing just that.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile

Always from moderators?
No, there are members whose contributions are judged to be reliable and who admit when they are mistaken eg PmbPhy, Ethos, JeffreyH. In this thread I would also mention agyegy who's contribution is sound.

Perhaps then I should considerably up my game, make my posts much more complex and profound, by the inclusion of much more detail and equations into my posts?  (I never seem to get any credit for my present method of posting). I have deliberately kept them as precise, simple and easy to read as possible, to enable the least informed member/visitor of having a real chance of actually understanding the answers to a particular topic question.

Maybe then I could join your list of the exalted few?

Alan

Not everyone reads every thread. Not every person that reads a thread will post a response. I don't see posting as some kind of competition. If I post something and get no replies then I move on and try to research the answers I want from other sources. People will be reading what you write and it may well be giving them something to think about. Listening is even more important than writing your own ideas down. I have learned an awful lot by doing just that.

I fully accept that, thank you!

I do carefully read the posts of the more informed members of the forum and have leaned a lot in the process, which is hopefully evident in the increasing quality of my own posts?

Alan

Alan
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Just keep at it. Science is fascinating and a very extensive subject. Too much for anyone to learn properly. At the moment I am going to try to start reading again. I had stopped for a while but it will be reading on mathematics rather than physics.

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile
I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.


Not sure I agree with this, energy being an 'attribute' of mass, and not a 'physical' thing, if by physical you mean actually existing as its own entity.  Spin, in relation to the spin of a particle, is an attribute.  Spin cannot turn into anything else, cannot take any other forms, it does not exist in any physical sort of sense.  The same cannot be said for energy; however, since all matter that exists condensed from a singularity of unimaginable energy.  And no, I'm not a physicist and am definitely a layman, so of course I attest that I may really be missing something in your comment.  But I'm just looking at it at face value and logically, and replying from that angle.

« Last Edit: 14/06/2016 21:02:39 by IAMREALITY »

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

You are speculating , there is absolutely no evidence of a macro universe, it has not even reached the stage of being considered a theory. Theories are based on some good evidence and there is of now, no evidence of macro or any other different universe, operating under different rules.

And even if there were other universes,  I simply cannot fathom how the conservation of energy would not apply in them as a fundamental law of physics?
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile
I could probably come up with dozens of theories, but they'd still have no more legitimacy than anyone else's, when it comes down to it.  Cause if it's one thing I've learned from my exploration of the universe and its wonders, is that literally ANYTHING is possible.  Anything at all.  Any theory could hold water, no matter how unreasonable or unlikely it sounds to another. 

So having that said, I guess I'll go in this direction.  We are taught energy can be neither created nor destroyed.  However we forget one small caveat: the fact that only applies to our universe, only to our set of physics, only to our 'reality' and within our own bounds.  No law of physics though, none at all, are said to be multiversally multiversal, if that makes sense (is that the first such a phrase has been uttered?  If so, I hereby lay claim to it!!!).  So we have no idea what the rules for energy or the creation/destruction of it would be external of our own universe, and therefore there can be a whole other set of theories as to where the energy that formed the singularity that has expanded ever since and condensed into all forms of matter may have come from.  Just something to ponder...

You are speculating , there is absolutely no evidence of a macro universe, it has not even reached the stage of being considered a theory. Theories are based on some good evidence and there is of now, no evidence of macro or any other different universe, operating under different rules.

And even if there were other universes,  I simply cannot fathom how the conservation of energy would not apply in them as a fundamental law of physics?

Ummmm, every single one of us are speculating son, that's the whole point of the exercise.    And though I'm not a fan of the multiverse myself, I am also forced to admit that there are plenty of reasons to accept that it actually is plausible.  There is nothing that has ruled it out and it is no longer considered a fringe idea. In fact, some of the best and brightest in the field accept the possibility.

Science since it's very first days has been limited by those with limited minds; who only can think as deep as their own narrow beliefs.  I choose to not be a slave to such limitations; even when dealing in angles I'm not a fan of.  I will still never allow my mind, nor my thought experiments, to have any boundaries. 

And it's not surprising to me that you are unable to fathom such a concept as you state, because you are in fact a slave of your self imposed mental limitations.  And it is silly to say there is no evidence of there being different rules in different universes, since it is likely that it would be impossible, no matter how advanced we get, to ever have any proof of anything beyond the bounds of our own universe.  So it will always be speculation based on the best theories or concepts our intelligent minds can indeed fathom.  And right now we're just only getting started.  But yes, there are not only reasons to believe the multiverse concept can be real, but also reasons to believe that physics may indeed act differently there.  Unless, of course, you believe Stephen Hawking to be a chump...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFUgMXVj0js

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan
« Last Edit: 14/06/2016 22:14:22 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

Sorry son, but I feel no need to start a new thread in a sub forum, when it is perfectly appropriate as an answer written here.  You asked a question.  I merely gave my opinion on it.  It's ya know, kinda like the point here and stuff. 

But you have yet to refute one thing I've said nor give any credible reason as to why my replies are any more invalid than anyone else's.  You seem to want to think you're the be all end all, but you've clearly shown to be the opposite.  You want to dabble in the deeper mysteries of the universe, the things we do not yet know, yet you start with boundaries and mental limitations that are not in any way conducive to discovery or the process.   You don't seem to like there to be any discussion about the multiverse for example, when it is actually a product of our physics and starting to be regarded more and more as a likelihood; albeit one that may always be impossible to prove.  But the things we can prove, and the theories we do have, and as a product of our own physics, the concept and even likelihood of a multiverse is very, very real...

So you're just gonna have to find a way to get over it I think.  I'm sure in time you will.

For now though, I will continue to reply to whatever thread I like, whenever I like, however I like, and do not require your permission nor your advisement with any of it.  For I will not ever take advice from a limited mind.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 16:58:21 by IAMREALITY »

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
IAMREALITY?

For me to be your son you would have to be at least 105 years old so please no patronising here keep it serious.

I see nothing wrong with speculation, however, there is another sub-forum for this type of debate

Maybe you should start a thread under 'New Theories" below? 

Thanks

Alan

Sorry son, but I feel no need to start a new thread in a sub forum, when it is perfectly appropriate as an answer written here.  You asked a question.  I merely gave my opinion on it.  It's ya know, kinda like the point here and stuff. 

But you have yet to refute one thing I've said nor give any credible reason as to why my replies are any more invalid than anyone else's.  Fact is, you've got nuttin pal.  You seem to want to think you're the be all end all, but you've clearly shown to be the opposite.  You want to dabble in the deeper mysteries of the universe, the things we do not yet know, yet you start with boundaries and mental limitations that are not in any way conducive to discovery or the process.   You don't seem to like there to be any discussion about the multiverse for example, when it is actually a product of our physics and starting to be regarded more and more as a likelihood; albeit one that may always be impossible to prove.  But the things we can prove, and the theories we do have, and as a product of our own physics, the concept and even likelihood of a multiverse is very, very real...

So you're just gonna have to find a way to get over it.  I'm sure in time you will.

For now though, I will continue to reply to whatever thread I like, whenever I like, however I like, and do not require your permission nor your advisement with any of it.  For I will not ever take advice from a limited mind.  Thanks.

(PS... I just read your god post lmao.  Ok, it all makes sense to me now lol.  )

OH! GREAT ONE! who is only able to write in gutter level English and has the gall to insult the intellect of someone he knows nothing about will in future be ignored.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66954.0
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 14:54:42 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
[quotes]
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives 28 -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass. Mass itself is not straightforward. John uses the term mass without specifying its type. Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand. It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science. It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
[quotes]
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives 28 -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

Feynman's the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature. Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing  energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter and energy that is useful tool in the physics .
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 14:53:43 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile
OH! GREAT ONE! who is only able to write in gutter level English and has the gall to insult the intellect of someone he knows nothing about will in future be ignored.
Gutter level english lmao.  And awwww, how cute, you're gonna ignore me for merely coming at you with logic, could you be any more childish?  How bout actually responding to the points given to you instead of constantly replying as if you're the be all end all with your nose up in the air while obviously having no idea what you're talking about?  You are just too funny!  And nah, not insulting your intellect...  You've done more than a fine enough job of that on your own with your own words and sentiments son...

Oh, and ps... I will say I appreciate you calling me Great One though....  I don't mind sharing that title with Gretzky one bit!
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 17:00:21 by IAMREALITY »

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile

Jeff is correct in what he said. When physicists use the term energy that is precisely what it means. Have you never read the Feynman Lectures on this topic? On the meaning and subject of energy Feynman writes
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and we add it all together it gives “28” -  always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.
The same sentiment is reflected in most good texts on physics such as those by French, Glashow, etc.

Who is Feynman??


Just kidding hehehe.  I'm familiar with him of course and have watched some of his lectures, but not necessarily what you are referring to.  I did just read a little about it, however. 

I guess what throws me off is how based on what I know everything had come from a singularity of unimaginably hot, pure, higher state energy, and how mass and matter only came thereafter.  How can something only be an attribute of something else that does not yet exist?  I guess that's the part that throws me off a bit.

And was Jeff earlier inferring that it is only an attribute of mass or that right now that's merely the only way we have to describe it?
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 16:49:31 by IAMREALITY »

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 489
    • View Profile
You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about.
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc. What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.
No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.
Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.
When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.
I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.
That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.
« Last Edit: 15/06/2016 17:22:59 by JohnDuffield »

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about.
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc. What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.
No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.
Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.
When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.
I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.
That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics .

The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline IAMREALITY

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 275
    • View Profile
Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics .

De Ja Vu.  Not sure you're really saying much of anything at all though, or at least to the point that it needs to be repeated now for any further inquiry on the subject...  I can't help wondering if you're thinking it's more profound than it actually is?  But anyway, there may not be blobs of energy roaming about, but I'm not certain that makes it any less worthy of existence than fields, or waves, or anything else there aren't blobs of.  What I've gathered so far, is that energy is simply something we have not yet wrapped our heads around to the point of truly understanding, much like so many other aspects of physics, quantum physics, and everything else universal.  In the end it could have mind blowing explanations, and be far more 'real' than we could even begin to surmise right now.  The most important thing Feynman said was that we simply do not know what it is.  I would caution you'd be well served to not try to imply that you in fact do.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
You assume to know what Einstein meant. You think that your one opinion outweighs the multitude of professionals working directly with the particles whose energy to presume to know all about.
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

The subtleties of science elude you John. You are like the proverbial bull shopping for china.
They don't and I'm not. There is no subtlety to E=mc. What Einstein said is there in black and white for all the world to see: "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c." If somebody tells you something different, don't just take it for granted, ask him why he's contradicting Einstein. And when he can't or won't explain, you'll know there's a problem, won't you?

Energy is not a physical thing but an attribute of mass.
No it isn't. Please don't peddle such twaddle.

Mass itself is not straightforward.
Mass is straightforward.

John uses the term mass without specifying its type.
When used without qualification, we mean rest mass.

Is it rest mass, inertial mass, gravitational mass or relativistic mass? These distinctions are important and are the exact type of subtleties that John show by his own words not to understand.
I understand them all. The latter three are nowadays considered to be measures of energy. A photon has a non-zero inertial mass, but it has a zero rest mass.

It is too easy to take on board misconceptions and to believe that they are accepted science.
That's what you've been doing. Energy is not an attribute of mass because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.   

It is a minefield for the layman. If in doubt question what you read and ask for other opinions. The best answers will come from moderators.
The best answers come from people who explain things carefully and back up what they say with robust references to papers and evidence.

Define what you think Einstein meant by radiation. You have your audience.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
John, for your personal education and development. Read and absorb.  [;D]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
John, for your personal education and development. Read and absorb.  [;D]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients


I read the article. Thanks

I know you know what I am saying below? However, I would like to put it over in my own way!

Energy for instant is released from an atom when an electron changes is discrete position from either a higher or lower state from the electron cloud or "Orbit", ("which is not a correct description of the make up of an atom but useful analogy") with the resulting release of a photon of light "containing potential energy", as is in the case of atomic fusion in the sun, where hydrogen atoms in the core are progressively over vast periods of time fuse into heaver and heaver elements. This energy then gets released in turn into the universe increasing its state of chaos and entropy.

In the almost unimaginably distant future at say "the heat death of the universe", all the original energy released into the universe "would still be it is confines", but so dissipated and the entropic state increased to almost infinity, that no further activities could ever take place again.

The basic causes of release of energy is the fusion taking place due to the huge force of gravity and colossal temperature at the core of the sun Thus; in my opinion while gravity plays a huge part in the energy flow or entropy of the universe at large, "it not really the primordial source of energy".

Energy can only be described as "an equation of thermodynamics" and is not a real separate, tangible material thing that could, "hypothetically, be picked up and held in a persons hands"
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Regarding energy and mass, I'd like to make a point that people might know subconsciously but not be aware of it consciously. Consider a  body whose relativistic mass m. Then The E in the expression E = mc2 is not the total energy of the body but what I like to refer to as the inertial energy which is the sum of the bodies rest energy and its kinetic energy. The E does not contain the energy of position, i.e., potential energy.

One of the excuses people use against relativistic mass is We don't need relativistic mass because it's the same thing as energy. This is wrong because energy means total energy which includes potential energy. However the E in  E = mc2 is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Regarding energy and mass, I'd like to make a point that people might know subconsciously but not be aware of it consciously. Consider a  body whose relativistic mass m. Then The E in the expression E = mc2 is not the total energy of the body but what I like to refer to as the inertial energy which is the sum of the bodies rest energy and its kinetic energy. The E does not contain the energy of position, i.e., potential energy.

One of the excuses people use against relativistic mass is We don't need relativistic mass because it's the same thing as energy. This is wrong because energy means total energy which includes potential energy. However the E in  E = mc2 is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.

What then in the case of an matter - antimatter "Clash"? Does that release all the energy (Total)  "held"? in those two opposing forms of matter, converting them into gamma rays? However, in the event just described, "all of the energy"? has just been dissipated into the gamma ray cloud only changed in form.

We are lucky this did not happen in the early universe or we would not be debating this subject, especially in light of the fact that the universe would have then existed as a vast gamma-ray void.

There is no such thing as anti-energy, as some have speculated , energy is energy, the release and consequence usage thereof, can only be reflected as an equation of thermodynamics, in the macro world. At the quantum level it seems to be more mysterious and difficult to define?

There must be a loss somewhere, because it is impossible to convert 100% of energy from one form of it to another. where would that energy have gone?
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
What then in the case of an matter - antimatter "Clash"? Does that release all the energy (Total)  "held"? in those two opposing forms of matter, converting them into gamma rays? However, in the event just described, "all of the energy"? has just been dissipated into the gamma ray cloud only changed in form.
The phrase release the energy is a confusing one since it doesn't have a exact meaning. Typically when people use this phrase they have in mind that photons are energy that's been released or something similar. However that's thinking of photons as "being" energy rather than "having" energy, which is the correct viewpoint. I recommend avoiding that kind of phrasing. It can lead to the wrong idea. For example when a nuke goes off, a lot of the damage that the radiation (in the forum or photons, alpha rays, beta rays, neutrons etc) that is released can do is in the form of particles with very high kinetic energy. So perhaps that's what you may have meant when you say released, i.e. particles with kinetic energy are released?

What is not well known is that when a particle annihilates its antiparticle the result is not always photons. Sometimes its other particles.

Quote from: Alan McDougall
There must be a loss somewhere, because it is impossible to convert 100% of energy from one form of it to another. where would that energy have gone?
It's possible to convert potential energy completely into kinetic energy. It's also possible to convert rest energy completely into radiant energy (in the form of photons).

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Einstein said what he said. "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Don't blame me if some particle physicist tell you something that flatly contradicts Einstein.

So you are effectively ignoring the gamma factor in there which shows that it is relativistic mass that Einstein is talking about. If you knew your physics you wouldn't make such silly mistakes.


*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Regarding energy and mass, I'd like to make a point that people might know subconsciously but not be aware of it consciously. Consider a  body whose relativistic mass m. Then The E in the expression E = mc2 is not the total energy of the body but what I like to refer to as the inertial energy which is the sum of the bodies rest energy and its kinetic energy. The E does not contain the energy of position, i.e., potential energy.

One of the excuses people use against relativistic mass is We don't need relativistic mass because it's the same thing as energy. This is wrong because energy means total energy which includes potential energy. However the E in  E = mc2 is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.

Ah - interesting!

Ok - so let me get with this one a bit better.

You say E=mc2 is inclusive of what you call 'inertial energy' and kinetic energy.

KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE

So when I see the formula E=mc2, can I assume that the calculation for KE has already been completed?

And that the m in the equation is already complete with the relativistic mass added via the additional KE energy?

And... is this what distinguishes the terms of E=mc2 and e=mc2?

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 489
    • View Profile
Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.
I'm sorry Alan, but Feynman was at odds with Einstein there. I'm something of a "Feynman fan", but on this, I'm with Einstein.   

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics.
Energy exists. It is not merely some mathematical quality of matter.


What then in the case of an matter - antimatter "Clash"? Does that release all the energy (Total)  "held"? in those two opposing forms of matter, converting them into gamma rays?
Yes.

We are lucky this did not happen in the early universe or we would not be debating this subject, especially in light of the fact that the universe would have then existed as a vast gamma-ray void.
Gamma-gamma pair production is the reverse of annihilation.

There is no such thing as anti-energy, as some have speculated , energy is energy, the release and consequence usage thereof, can only be reflected as an equation of thermodynamics, in the macro world. At the quantum level it seems to be more mysterious and difficult to define?
It isn't mysterious at all.

There must be a loss somewhere, because it is impossible to convert 100% of energy from one form of it to another. where would that energy have gone?
There is no loss. Energy is the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. 

Energy can only be described as "an equation of thermodynamics" and is not a real separate, tangible material thing that could, "hypothetically, be picked up and held in a persons hands".
Energy is real. It isn't tangible like a suitcase atom bomb is tangible. You can't hold energy in your hands like you can hold a  suitcase atom bomb in your hands. But when the latter detonates and energy is released, you will realise that energy is very real indeed. For about a nanosecond.

The bottom line is this: matter is made of it. You are made of it. 
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 13:42:34 by JohnDuffield »

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 489
    • View Profile
...However the E in  E = mc2 is not total energy because it doesn't contain potential energy.
I'm afraid it does. Consider a brick in front of you on a shelf. E=mc applies. Now you push the brick off the shelf, whereupon some of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy as it falls. The brick hits the floor, whereupon the kinetic energy is dissipated. Conservation of energy applies, along with the mass deficit. The brick is again at rest, and E=mc still applies. But now the rest-mass-energy of the brick is less than what it was. When you throw that brick back up onto the shelf you do work on it. You add energy to it. You increase its mass. Note that the Earth is involved in this process, but not much. Momentum is shared equally, but energy is not. Google on collision bullet block.

...that is released can do is in the form of particles with very high kinetic energy
This is a popscience particle-physics view that is at odds with the E=hc/λ wave nature of photons, and at odds with what Einstein said. Radiation does not consist of billiard-ball particles. It consists of photons, and a photon is a wave. When you remove the kinetic energy from the wave, the wave no longer exists. The same is not true for a billiard ball. This is why Einstein said radiation is a form of energy.

« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 14:04:56 by JohnDuffield »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: timey
You say E=mc2 is inclusive of what you call 'inertial energy' and kinetic energy.
No. What I said is that Inertial Energy = Rest Energy + Kinetic energy

Quote from: timey
KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE
That's the low speed approximation to the kinetic energy, K. Let E0 = m0c2 = the rest energy of the particle where m0 is the proper mass, aka rest mass, of the particle. Let gamma = 1/sqrt{1 - v2/c2}. The expression for the relativistic kinetic energy is then given by K = (gamma - 1)m0c2 = (gamma - 1)E0. If you have a strong math background and would like to follow the derivation for this expression then you can find it on my website at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/work_energy.htm

When following the derivation it's helpful to keep in mind that the kinetic energy is defined by the requirement that the change in kinetic energy equal the work done by the external force acting on the particle. This is called the Work-Energy Theorem.

With all of this we can find the expression for the inertial energy E.

E = K + E0 = (gamma - 1)E0 + E0 = gamma*E0

or

E = gamma*m0c2 = mc2

where m = gamma*m0 = the relativistic mass of the particle.

Quote from: timey
So when I see the formula E=mc2, can I assume that the calculation for KE has already been completed?
Yes, in the sense that I just demonstrated.

Quote from: timey
And that the m in the equation is already complete with the relativistic mass added via the additional KE energy?
The m in E = mc2 is the relativistic mass. I don't know what you mean by "added via the additional KE energy."
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 14:19:50 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Richard Feynman the great physicists, comment that there are no little "Blobs" of energy, nicely answers the question , because his little blob quote informs us that energy it is "Not"  A 'THING" that we find or will ever find in nature.
I'm sorry Alan, but Feynman was at odds with Einstein there. I'm something of a "Feynman fan", but on this, I'm with Einstein.   

Sadly to no avail because people, still seek it here, they seek it there, they seek the irritating illusive blob of non-existing energy everywhere. Sadly for them, in vain, because the"blob of energy" does not exist as a real thing in nature, but a describable mathematical quality of matter, that is useful tool in the physics and thermodynamics.
Energy exists. It is not merely some mathematical quality of matter.


What then in the case of an matter - antimatter "Clash"? Does that release all the energy (Total)  "held"? in those two opposing forms of matter, converting them into gamma rays?
Yes.

We are lucky this did not happen in the early universe or we would not be debating this subject, especially in light of the fact that the universe would have then existed as a vast gamma-ray void.
Gamma-gamma pair production is the reverse of annihilation.

There is no such thing as anti-energy, as some have speculated , energy is energy, the release and consequence usage thereof, can only be reflected as an equation of thermodynamics, in the macro world. At the quantum level it seems to be more mysterious and difficult to define?
It isn't mysterious at all.

There must be a loss somewhere, because it is impossible to convert 100% of energy from one form of it to another. where would that energy have gone?
There is no loss. Energy is the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. 

Energy can only be described as "an equation of thermodynamics" and is not a real separate, tangible material thing that could, "hypothetically, be picked up and held in a persons hands".
Energy is real. It isn't tangible like a suitcase atom bomb is tangible. You can't hold energy in your hands like you can hold a  suitcase atom bomb in your hands. But when the latter detonates and energy is released, you will realise that energy is very real indeed. For about a nanosecond.

The bottom line is this: matter is made of it. You are made of it. 

I meant "where has the energy gone" because there is never a 100% conversion of energy from its one form into another it was wrong of me to say "lost" However, you are wrong matter is not a block of energy it is something that contains potential energy as you, yourself pointed out.

Energy is just a mathematical expression of how work is transferred from one body to another and is not a physical material thing at all period!

I wonder if the Higgs Boson  could fit into this debate?

Alan
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 14:23:17 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
I meant "where has the energy gone" because there is never a 100% conversion of energy from its one form into another...
On what basis did you arrive at that conclusion? Consider an harmonic oscillator.  The energy of it is given by E = K + V. As the system, e.g. a pendulum, oscillates from one its top position to its bottom position and back starting the cycle over again, the energy shuffles back and forth from potential energy to kinetic energy with a complete conversion of one to the other. I gave another example using pair annihilation of an electron and a positron. Assuming that the particles start from rest and are in contact they will annihilate producing two photons thus converting rest energy into the radiant energy of the two photons. The energy of a photon is 100% kinetic energy so the conversion is between rest energy and kinetic energy. If the particles start off moving towards each other then the system will start off with some kinetic energy. The result will be the same with all of the rest energy being changed to kinetic energy which is part of the final kinetic energy of the two photons. If you place a vane into a bucket of water and let the vane have an initial kinetic energy then the system will eventually settle down with all of the kinetic energy being changed to thermal energy.

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Quote from: timey
You say E=mc2 is inclusive of what you call 'inertial energy' and kinetic energy.
No. What I said is that Inertial Energy = Rest Energy + Kinetic energy

Quote from: timey
KE is calculated as 0.5mv2=KE
That's the low speed approximation to the kinetic energy, K. Let E0 = m0c2 = the rest energy of the particle where m0 is the proper mass, aka rest mass, of the particle. Let gamma = 1/sqrt{1 - v2/c2}. The expression for the relativistic kinetic energy is then given by K = (gamma - 1)m0c2 = (gamma - 1)E0. If you have a strong math background and would like to follow the derivation for this expression then you can find it on my website at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/work_energy.htm

When following the derivation it's helpful to keep in mind that the kinetic energy is defined by the requirement that the change in kinetic energy equal the work done by the external force acting on the particle. This is called the Work-Energy Theorem.

With all of this we can find the expression for the inertial energy E.

E = K + E0 = (gamma - 1)E0 + E0 = gamma*E0

or

E = gamma*m0c2 = mc2

where m = gamma*m0 = the relativistic mass of the particle.

Quote from: timey
So when I see the formula E=mc2, can I assume that the calculation for KE has already been completed?
Yes, in the sense that I just demonstrated.

Quote from: timey
And that the m in the equation is already complete with the relativistic mass added via the additional KE energy?
The m in E = mc2 is the relativistic mass. I don't know what you mean by "added via the additional KE energy."

Pete - thanks, although I'm struggling to follow, I am following and would ask that you explain gamma a little.

I left school age 11 and am self taught in everything.  I don't have a formal basis in maths beyond long division but have been studying and catch on real quick.  I understand the principle of maths in relation to formula and geometry, (albeit that this understanding is of a visualist-ic nature), but am having trouble with relativistic mass, and the accumulative tendencies of relativistic mass and gravity.

So if e=mc2 relates to inertial energy and rest mass.  Then I assume that KE is then added as a calculation of 0.5 of that rest mass times velocity squared. (which is what I meant by adding KE to the equation).  For e=mc2 to be inclusive of KE, the result of 0.5mv2 is converted into mass and added to the rest mass to become the 'new' m for the E=mc2 equation...(this is what I suspect your maths are telling me, am I close?)

Then...when potential energy is considered, does this change relativistic mass again?

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
I meant "where has the energy gone" because there is never a 100% conversion of energy from its one form into another...
On what basis did you arrive at that conclusion? Consider an harmonic oscillator.  The energy of it is given by E = K + V. As the system, e.g. a pendulum, oscillates from one its top position to its bottom position and back starting the cycle over again, the energy shuffles back and forth from potential energy to kinetic energy with a complete conversion of one to the other. I gave another example using pair annihilation of an electron and a positron. Assuming that the particles start from rest and are in contact they will annihilate producing two photons thus converting rest energy into the radiant energy of the two photons. The energy of a photon is 100% kinetic energy so the conversion is between rest energy and kinetic energy. If the particles start off moving towards each other then the system will start off with some kinetic energy. The result will be the same with all of the rest energy being changed to kinetic energy which is part of the final kinetic energy of the two photons. If you place a vane into a bucket of water and let the vane have an initial kinetic energy then the system will eventually settle down with all of the kinetic energy being changed to thermal energy.

My wordings always seem to lack clarity this is what I meant below.

In the practical application of energy conversion at the electricity generating company where I worked for most of my life, there was a constant need for scheduled maintenance of the huge boiler and generators at the Power Station to keep them at maximum efficiency, because wear and tear over time resulted in poorer and poorer energy conversion of this open system and a drop in the efficiency of the machines.

At the most ideal situation the best efficiency of such as a system was in the region of 38%. The rest of the energy being dissipate or wasted out of the cooling towers, condensers and smoke stacks etc, etc.

"Thus the energy had gone somewhere" and this is the core of what I meant when I stated that energy conversion is never 100%. If this were possible we could create a perpetual motion machine .

Through, the conversion of thermal energy into other forms,we reduce the temperature of the system, increasing its entropy, keeping its efficiency at much less than 100%" (even when energy is not allowed to escape from the system).

This is because thermal energy has already been partly spread out among many available states of a collection of microscopic and macro, particles constituting the system.

In such circumstances, a measure of entropy, or dissipation, dictates that future states of an isolated system, must be of at least equal evenness in energy distribution.

In other words, there is no way to concentrate energy without spreading out energy somewhere else, and that is that I what I really meant in my badly worded response?

Regards

Alan.
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 16:38:55 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 489
    • View Profile
I meant "where has the energy gone" because there is never a 100% conversion of energy from its one form into another.
There always is. Energy is wasted in an engine or machine, but none of it ever actually disappears. Energy conservation always applies.

However, you are wrong matter is not a block of energy it is something that contains potential energy as you, yourself pointed out.
That potential energy is actually "hidden" kinetic energy, internal to the body. Gravity converts some of this internal kinetic energy into external kinetic energy. When this external kinetic energy is dissipated, you're left with a mass deficit.   

Energy is just a mathematical expression of how work is transferred from one body to another and is not a physical material thing at all period!
Energy isn't just some mathematical expression. Physical material things are made of it. That's the message from Einstein and E=mc, and unless somebody has a good explanation as to why Einstein is wrong, I'm sticking with Einstein. I recommend that you do the same.

I wonder if the Higgs Boson  could fit into this debate?
Yes of course. The Higgs boson is quite literally made from the kinetic energy given to the protons in the LHC. It's not totally unlike creating an electron and a positron out of photon kinetic energy in pair production. Note this on Matt Strassler's blog: "The Higgs field, though it provides the mass for all other known particles with masses, does not provide the Higgs particle with its mass".

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: timey
Pete - thanks, although I'm struggling to follow, I am following and would ask that you explain gamma a little.
gamma is a Greek letter which is set equal to 1/sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}. It's just a letter which is used to make the formulas look simpler.

Quote from: timey
Then I assume that KE is then added as a calculation of 0.5 of that rest mass times velocity squared.
As I explained in reply #82 that's the non-relativistic expression for kinetic energy. It's only valid for velocities which are much smaller than the speed of light.

Quote from: timey
(which is what I meant by adding KE to the equation).  For e=mc2 to be inclusive of KE, the result of 0.5mv2 is converted into mass and added to the rest mass to become the 'new' m for the E=mc2 equation...(this is what I suspect your maths are telling me, am I close?)
No.

Quote from: timey
Then...when potential energy is considered, does this change relativistic mass again?
As I explained above potential energy, i.e. the energy associated with the position of a particle in a field, is not part of the energy in E = mc^2. However, when a particle is in such a field it is subject to a force. That force changes the speed of the particle which in turn changes the relativistic mass of the particle.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Timey think of gamma in a similar way to a percentage. Although it isn't it may be useful to think of it in those terms. If we take a stationary object to have 100% mass then if we cause it to move and increase its speed we have to add some percentage to the mass proportional to the increase in speed. The faster the speed the larger the 'percentage' increase. The nearer to light speed the speed of our object is the nearer to an infinite amount of mass it has. Near to infinity however is misleading in this case since defining how near to infinity anything is is not possible. All that can be said is that the greater the increase in the percentage of mass the harder it is to move the object even faster. I have avoided time dilation on purpose here as it wouldn't help. That is a simplified interpretation which hopefully will clarify things for you.
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 18:56:36 by jeffreyH »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
As I explained above potential energy, i.e. the energy associated with the position of a particle in a field, is not part of the energy in E = mc^2.

That is not strictly true. The clearest example is the fact that a collection of unbound neutrons and protons has more mass than the same collection bound into a nucleus (assuming the binding energy of the nucleus is negative). Calculating that difference in mass requires that you take into account any electromagnetic forces as well as the attraction of the strong force (and probably the weak force if you want a lot of precision). Going down another layer the mass of the quarks in the protons and neutrons are a very small fraction of the mass of the protons and neutrons. The rest of the mass comes primarily from the fields of the strong force modified again by electromagnetic interactions between the quarks (and probably the weak force to some extent otherwise beta decay is hard to explain). Most of the invariant mass of composite particles like protons and neutrons usually comes from the force fields holding them together (i.e. potential energy). Even a hydrogen atom is slightly (very very slightly) less massive than the combined unbound masses of a proton and an electron.  Even for a single free electron there is still a mass renormalization due to the interaction of the electron with its own field. This is often described as the electron being surrounded by a collection of virtual particles that increase the observed mass.


*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
Timey think of gamma in a similar way to a percentage. Although it isn't it may be useful to think of it in those terms. If we take a stationary object to have 100% mass then if we cause it to move and increase its speed we have to add some percentage to the mass proportional to the increase in speed. The faster the speed the larger the 'percentage' increase. The nearer to light speed the speed of our object is the nearer to an infinite amount of mass it has. Near to infinity however is misleading in this case since defining how near to infinity anything is is not possible. All that can be said is that the greater the increase in the percentage of mass the harder it is to move the object even faster. I have avoided time dilation on purpose here as it wouldn't help. That is a simplified interpretation which hopefully will clarify things for you.

Thanks Jeff - it's s good analogy, one that I've heard before and have grasped the understanding of.

But... to understand 'exactly' how these masses and energies add up mathematically within relativity is my goal.

I am just a tad unclear as to what part of the physical process 'gamma' actual 'is', hence my request.

And my interest, for clarity, lies in the notion that a rock lying on the ground has a rest mass and inertial energy.  It is made up of atoms that have rest mass and inertial energy.  Presumably these atoms have a corresponding De Broglie matter wave.  Pick the rock up and we must add potential energy.  Throw the rock and we must add kinetic energy...

Does the frequency of the atoms that are the matter of the rock increase, and the matter wave decrease with the additional potential energy?

Does the frequency of the atoms that are the matter of the rock increase, and the matter wave decrease with the addition of kinetic energy?

*

Offline timey

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1355
    • View Profile
    • Patreon
gamma is a Greek letter which is set equal to 1/sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}. It's just a letter which is used to make the formulas look simpler.

Pete - I do not understand the physicality of 1/square root 1 etc, and what this term relates to within the physical process.  m is mass, v is velocity, e is energy of various types, squaring is a mathematical process, where does the 1 originate from?  What is 1?

As I explained in reply #82 that's the non-relativistic expression for kinetic energy. It's only valid for velocities which are much smaller than the speed of light.

Are you saying that the mathematical process of calculating KE changes above a certain velocity?  If so, what physical process causes the mathematical proportionality of relativistic and non-relativistic velocities to be un-reconcilable within the same mathematical process?
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 20:00:03 by timey »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half  the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.

Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1 - v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 1-1/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out.

This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
Firstly let's look at v and c that form the fraction v/c that is used in gamma. The value of v can never equal c but must be less than c at all times. We can look at this as v being a percentage of c. In this way we can multiply v by a fraction to represent this. When v = 1/2*c it is half  the speed of light and when v = 99/100*c it is 99% the speed of light etc. So that if v = 1/2*c this is like saying v/c = 1/2.

Since the fraction used in gamma is v^2/c^2 then for the value of 1/2 this becomes 1^2/2^2 which gives 1/4. This is not the end of it though because gamma has the square root of 1 - v^2/c^2 as the denominator. In this case we need to find the square root of 1-1/4. So then we are looking at the square root of 3/4 which approximates to 0.866. The final step is 1/0.866 which translates to a value of 1.1547 approx. So our mass is increased in this case by 115.5% approx at half light speed. If anybody sees an error in my working please point it out.

This is the mathematical description. The physical causes are an entirely different matter. Find that and you will be famous.

All that is informative but what does it have to do with the question of the thread "If Energy is not created or destroyed where does it come from"?
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 21:55:50 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4055
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
The increases in relativistic mass/energy via the gamma function indicate that some fundamental interaction is at work at the quantum level. Due to these effects being tied very closely to those of gravitation then finding the cause will lead you towards an answer to your question.That is if it can be answered at all.

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
The increases in relativistic mass/energy via the gamma function indicate that some fundamental interaction is at work at the quantum level. Due to these effects being tied very closely to those of gravitation then finding the cause will lead you towards an answer to your question.That is if it can be answered at all.

I agree!; if the answer is ever found it would come from the quantum level, with gravitation playing some vital role in the process
« Last Edit: 16/06/2016 22:43:09 by Alan McDougall »
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline Alan McDougall

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1285
    • View Profile
The Truth remains the Truth regardless of our beliefs or opinions the Truth is always the Truth even if we know it or do not know it (The Truth remains the Truth)

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: agyejy
That is not strictly true. The clearest example is the fact that a collection of unbound neutrons and protons has more mass than the same collection bound into a nucleus (assuming the binding energy of the nucleus is negative).
Hi agyejy. You're incorrect. What I said is precisely true. Please reread it carefully. This time please keep in mind the difference between the potential energy of position of a particle in a field and the internal potential energy of a body due to the interactions between the constituents of the body, i.e. internal potential energy. Wolfgang Rindler explains this in his text Relativity; Special, General and Cosmological - 2nd Ed., (2006). I did you a favor and extracted section 6.3 which is entitled The Equivalence of Mass and Energy. You can download it from my website at: http://www.newenglandphysics.org/other/Rindler_on_potential_energy_and_mass.pdf

On page 113 Rindler writes
Quote
One kind of energy that does not contribute to mass is potential energy of position.
Perhaps if you read it in the context of the entire section it will make more sense to you. Rindler is much better at explaining these things than I am.  [:)]

And, yes. I'm well-aware of the fact that the internal potential energy of a closed system contributes to the mass of the system. I took that into account when I described nuclear fission on my website. See:
http://www.newenglandphysics.org/physics_world/sr/nuclear_fission.htm

The problem here is that we have different notions of potential energy in mind. In the post above where I explained this I said that it was the potential energy of position that doesn't contribute to mass energy. You appear to have confused that with the internal potential energies between the particles that make up that body.

To be precise, if there is a charged particle, such as an electron, moving in a static electric field then the total energy of the electron is the sum of three forms of energy: kinetic energy, rest mass energy and potential energy. An electron doesn't have internal potential energy . The total energy, which I'll label W, is the sum of those three energies, i.e. W = K + E0+ U where U is the potential energy associated with position.

My intention in raising this point is because I believed that some people might not know this fact.
« Last Edit: 17/06/2016 06:04:07 by PmbPhy »

*

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2788
    • View Profile
Quote from: Alan McDougall
All that is informative but what does it have to do with the question of the thread "If Energy is not created or destroyed where does it come from"?
As I attempted to explain in my first post in this thread, the energy needn't come from anywhere. We can think of it as always having had he value of zero. We can do this because the absolute value of the total energy in the universe doesn't have a physical meaning. What does have a physical meaning is changes in each form of energy. As I'm sure you know the absolute value of the potential energy of a particle, or system of particles, is not physically meaningful. Only gradients in the potential energy function is physically meaningful. Recall that the potential energy of a particle, V, in a field of force F is defined as F = -[tex]\nabla[/tex]V. So you can add any constant to V without changing the force on the particle. So you can always set the value of the total energy to zero.

Alan Guth explains something very similar to all of this in his book The Inflationary Universe in Chapter 17 which is entitled Universe Ex Nihilo which starts on page 271. The idea was first speculated by Edward Tryon in a paper which appeared in Nature in 1973. Tyron explained it in terms of the fact that the gravitational energy is negative while mass-energy is positive. Tyron learned from the well-known general relativist Peter Bergmann that in any closed universe the negative gravitational energy cancels the energy of matter exactly. The total energy, or as Guth writes "or equivalently the total mass" is precisely equal to zero.

I believe that answers your question. I'd be more than happy to place chapter 17 of that book into a PDF file and upload it onto my website if anybody would like to read the entire chapter. If so then please let me know.