Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: vergon@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Sep 2006 03:38:57 -0700
ver...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
physicsajay wrote:
Einstein speculated E =mc2 from L =mc2 in Sep. 1905 : Ajay Sharma
VERGON
THE WAY I SEE IT:
ON THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
Vertner Vergon
Email: ver...@xxxxxxxxx
We have electrostatic fields -- and static magnetic fields.
What if the two pair up in a symbiotic relationship -- like people, the
farmer takes a wife. We could call this pair an electromagnetic field.
My, my, how unusual.
Now what if you shake electrons and they send these EM fields out to
travel on their own through space. We could call that "electromagnetic
radiation" (Oh, this is so novel, I can't believe it.)
What if these fields have mass. There have been experiments ( Nieto and
Goldhaber ) that determine the mass upper limit of electric and
magnetic fields. So these fields have mass and are pliable. Then we can
think of them as waves -- waves that have mass.
You don't know what upper limit means do you?
VERGON
I can tell you this, I have never liked the term.But here is one
definition (of many):
The limsup can be defined in a dual fashion.
The supremum of a sequence of sets is the smallest set containing all
the
sets, i.e., the countable union of the sets.
My translation for the mass of the photon is, the upper limit
(supremum) is the
smallest number of a set.
To my way of thinking that means the smallest mass detected. So the
upperlimit
is the smallest mass determined.
In my mind. the smallest mass should be the lower limit. But I don't
have a weird
mathematical mind.
I notice, however, that as Nieto & Goldhaber kept refining their
results over the years
that the mass they obtained became smaller and smaller until it became
extremely close
to the figure I had obtained theoretically.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Now if you will look up "superposition" you will see how waves group
together to reinforce and cancel each other.
And if you will look up Gaussian waves you will see how these waves
form standing waves and group waves (that have mass).
Is it surprising that a group wave, having mass, would act as a
particle -- and wave at the same time? Note that when a photon is of
high enough energy, it becomes so massive it can actually become an
electron.
So where's the mystery?
"Energy" is mass in motion. Every formula for energy contains two --
and only two -- elements, mass and motion.
No it isn't, no it doesn't.
VERGON
You know any biased ignorant prejudiced diehard can say "No it isn't"
and
"No it doesn't" without giving a reason. That means he has none except
his
dogmatism and bias. That makes his response absolutely worthless.
This is true for E = h nu because one of the absolute dimensions of h
is mass. The others are distance and time. The unit is one of action.
No it isn't.
VERGON
You just displayed a comlete ignorance. Go look it up in any text on
black body
radiation.
Momentum, of course, is mass in motion also. No mass, no momentum.
Conversely, if momentum, then mass.
No it isn't.
VERGON
Another ignorant worthless statement.
What kind of physics do you entertain?
Now we can regard the frequency, nu, of a photon as containing n
electromagnetic fields (Each EM field being 1 HZ). "n" is the
frequency NUMBER of nu.
Which would be incorrect.
VERGON
Your ignorance is showing again. "n" is the frequency number because I
and many others use it as such.
The larger n is, the more fields there are and the more massive the
photon. The more massive the photon, the more energy and momentum it
has. And the more particle-like it becomes
Photons are massless.
VERGON
Says you --- but you don't what you are talking about. You are
parroting an outmoded concept.
I have determined theoretically the mass of 1 Hz : 7.3720385 x 10^-48
gr. The number of Hz times this figure gives the mass of the photon --
call it m_p.
No you havn't. You have divided h by c (which appears all over the
place in fundamental equations) then multiplied by a frequency of 1 Hz.
VERGON
Again you show your stupidity. h/c does NOT give that figure. I have
posted
a good many times on this NG how I obtained it but apparently it went
right over your head.
m_p X c = momentum of the photon = h nu/c -- and m_p X c^2 = mc^2 = h
nu.
Thus we deduce that the kinetic energy of the photon may be expressed
by E = mc^2 .
No it isn't, it is expressed as E=h.f.
VERGON
nu = f , idiot, Reread the above: E = m_p*c^2 = mc^2 = hnu
There are those who believe E = mc^2 applies to ponderous matter also.
i.e, the whole scientific community.
This can be shown as not true. Kinetic energy of material particles
does NOT convert to mass.
E = m.c^2 is not kinetic energy. If m is the rest mass, then E=m.c^2 is
the rest energy which considered as potential energy,
VERGON
Yes,true. But E is rest energy, a special case where total energy is
used.
It should be labeld E_r. And it is for a ponderous particle only. The
photon has no rest mass but it does have kinetic energy.
.... or if m is
relativistic mass,
VERGON
Don't you know, your "whole scientific community" has rejected
relativistic
mass.
then E=m.c^2 is the total energy which is the rest
energy and the kinetic energy added together.
VERGON
Wrong again. Look up Einstein. Total energy is mv^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
In this equation, E is kinetic energy and should be written Ke. It is
for radiation only.
No it isn't.
VERGON
Another worthless statement.
As I showed you above, E = m_p c^2 = h nu.
In case you don't know, h nu is the accepted expression for
the kinetic energy of radiation.
For massive particles, the two correct equations for Ke are (where R
is the Lorentz transform.)
(1/R - 1)mc^2 and
mv^2/(R + R^2)
That, alone, should be convincing --- but let's go further.
Why?
(1/R - 1)mc^2 = (1/R)mc^2 - m.c^2
which gives, kinetic energy = total energy - rest energy
This proves that m.c^2 is NOT kinetic energy
VERGON
You just cannot keep track of anything, can you?
I said that for RADIATION, E = mc^2 is kinetic energy.
For ponderous particles, mc^2 is REST energy. The E's
should be so labeled.
The equation m = L/c^2 (where L is RADIANT energy) was given by
Einstein in his second paper of 1905.
My supposition is he used L instead of E to avoid confusion --- The
reason: L is radiant energy, i.e., radiant kinetic energy. That means
he was differentiating between the kinetic energy of a photon and the
kinetic energy of a ponderous particle.
Yes, you like to guess about a lot of stuff don't you.
VERGON
A stupid statement. I'm so far ahead of you that all you can do
is smell my ass. :-)
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
The Ke of a photon can be converted to mass as shown by m = L/c^2.
Let us examine the process more closely.
Perhaps the misconception of E = mc^2 being a conversion of energy to
mass got started when a photon was observed to collide with an electron
as in Compton scattering.
If you analyze it CORRECTLY you will find that when a high energy
photon collides with an electron it undergoes an elastic/inelastic
collision. Part of the mass of the photon is transferred to the
electron as in
an inelastic collision -- and the kinetic energy of the photon is also
transferred. So when the experimenter sees the energy disappear and
the mass of the electron gain, he assumes the energy was converted to
mass.
This because he thinks the photon is mass-less.
Utter nonsense.
VERGON
To a moron, yes.
The fact is, mass from the photon is transferred to the electron -
and that mass carries the kinetic energy that accelerates the electron.
Nonsense.
VERGON
To a moron, yes.
This is the same process as in a typical soft clay inelastic collision.
The moving clay ball unites with the target and transfers its kinetic
energy to it. If we viewed the moving ball as having no mass, we would
assume its kinetic energy converted to mass.
Complete nonsense.
VERGON
You can show a moron something as plain as the nose on face -- and you
know what he will say? "Complete nonsense".
Your whole post here shows you don't have a clue.
I've strained your poor little brain to where it is not functioning.
The elastic portion of the collision is where only PART of the photon
is absorbed by the electron --- and the rest rebounds (scatters) with
less energy than the original.
Complete and utter total nonsense.
VERGON
Why don't you drop dead. I will not waste any time on you in the
future.
You are completely ignoring the last 100 years of scientific research,
theory and experimental results.
VERGON
And you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
There is a complete analysis, with the conservation of mass and energy
displayed, in my paper On the Quantum as a Physical Entity
.
You can find it here: http://www.wbabin.net Go to LIST OF AUTHORS
and click on Vertner Vergon.
After what you have just posted, why would anyone bother to look at the
rest of your nonsense.
VERGON
Certainly a closed minded moron wouldn't for fear he might learn
something.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: vergon
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: Igor
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: PD
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: Sorcerer
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- References:
- THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: vergon
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: PD
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: Igor
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: PD
- Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- From: devianju
- THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- Prev by Date: Re: The Twin Paradox explained from the moving twin ?
- Next by Date: Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- Previous by thread: Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- Next by thread: Re: THE MEANING OF E = MC^2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
