Re: nuclei role in thermodynamics/energy transport?

From: Creighton Hogg (wchogg_at_hep.wisc.edu)
Date: 12/23/04 

Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 14:01:33 -0600

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:

>
> "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412220734530.32063-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
> >
> > On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:
> >
> > > "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412190945360.8346-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Creighton Hogg" <wchogg@hep.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0412181057100.2994-100000@dill.hep.wisc.edu...
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 18 Dec 2004, Tom Potter wrote:
> > > > > > > energy = charge * voltage
> > > > > > > mass = energy / velocity(light)^2
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The energy in your two lines are different things.
> > > > > > The first line is the relation between a change in potential
> energy
> > > and
> > > > > > charge's movement through a voltage difference
> > > > > > The second relation, commonly, would be read as the relationship
> > > between
> > > > > > rest mass and rest energy has little to do with the first
> relation.
> > > There
> > > > > > is some ambiguity if you mean rest mass or "relativistic mass".
> In
> > > > > > particle physics, we pretty much only talk about rest mass.
> > > > > > In any case, there is no obvious connection between the two.
> Indeed,
> > > a
> > > > > > direct relationship between charge and mass would be a bit
> difficult
> > > to
> > > > > > explain given the distribution of masses between the three
> generations
> > > of
> > > > > > quarks and leptons.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is interesting to see that "Creighton Hogg"
> > > > > seems to think that charge has nothing to do with mass,
> > > > > and mass has nothing to do with charge.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest that he do a Google search on "mass spectrometers",
> > > > > and see if this is the case.
> > > >
> > > > A mass spectrometer separates out isotopes according to their charge
> to
> > > > mass ratios. Essentially it is a measure of the ratios between
> protons
> > > > and neutrons.
> > > > That does not imply a *causal connection* between having charge and
> having
> > > > mass in the way you implied with
> > > > > > > energy = charge * voltage
> > > > > > > mass = energy / velocity(light)^2
> > > > Combining these relationships (the first one is technically wrong
> because
> > > > it is a change in voltage that matters) does not work for the reasons
> I
> > > > explained above! You are equivocating on the uses of "energy".
> > > > The three generations of quarks and leptons have different masses but
> the
> > > > same charge.
> > >
> > > My initial post in this thread was motivated by Uncle Al's comment::
> > > "What does mass have to do with charge, git?
> > > Bull*** meter quivers in its packing case."
> > >
> > > You defended Uncle Al by posting:
> > > > In any case, there is no obvious connection between the two. Indeed,
> a
> > > > direct relationship between charge and mass would be a bit difficult
> to
> > > > explain given the distribution of masses between the three generations
> of
> > > > quarks and leptons.
> > >
> > > Mass spectrometry show that
> > > charge DOES have something to do with mass,
> > > and Uncle Al's comment was uncalled for,
> > > as was your defense of the comment.
> >
> > No, that's not the issue here at all. I didn't care what Uncle Al said, I
> > was responding to this:
> > > > > > > energy = charge * voltage
> > > > > > > mass = energy / velocity(light)^2
> > which does not imply a relationship between mass and charge for the
> > reasons I, and Franz, have enumerated before. You've never addressed the
> > fact that the "energy" in these two lines are two different things.
> > You made an error, and we have been trying to explain what it is.
>
> Forgive me for misintrepreting your motive in supporting Uncle Al.
>
> Considering a couple of your posts, which are excerpted below,
> I think you can see how I could misintepret your motive,
> for jumping into the thread and nitpicking.
<snip>
I never even said I supported Uncle Al, and I do not feel I was
nitpicking, because what you wrote was not just poorly put, but in fact
quite wrong.
Tom, I feel you're doing exactly what you accuse others of doing:
avoiding the issue at hand and focusing things on a personal level.

You were implying a relationship between mass and charge using those two
equations above, and this was incorrect.
You also asserted that there was some relationship between the quantum
numbers of an elementary particle and its mass, but this is also incorrect
since the three generations of elementary particles have the same quantum
numbers yet different masses.

Quantcast