Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, Imhotep), 567 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: The true meaning [Re: pararealist] #448226
01/23/15 18:50
01/23/15 18:50
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted By: pararealist
Apparently Einstein could not finish the formula completely because the other two forces were not incorporated. The Strong and the Weak Forces need to be today incorporated with the Gravity and Electro-Magnetic forces.


The equation was complete from the very beginning
It simply, so to speak, claims that the content of energy contributes to the mass of the body
The higher the temperature the heavier the body
Even though the weight difference is not measurable because of the huge coefficient c^2

A common misconception is that the equation, by itself, entails the existance of nuclear energy or even of "Matter annihilation"
That's false

Re: The true meaning [Re: AlbertoT] #448241
01/24/15 15:39
01/24/15 15:39
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
pararealist Offline
Senior Member
pararealist  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
As i am learning to understand, the strong and weak forces can now be taken into account, AND also any other as yet unknown forces.

http://www.math.buffalo.edu/mad/physics/Animalu_Alex_GAGUTreview1.pdf


A8.3x Commercial, AcknexWrapper and VS 2010 Express
○pararealist now.
Re: The true meaning [Re: pararealist] #448245
01/25/15 11:08
01/25/15 11:08
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
The equation by itself claims that mass depends also on the content of energy where mass must be strictyt understood as the inertia of a body i.e its capability to withstand a change of speed
Einstein wrote

Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?"
(Does the inertia of a body depends on its content of energy ?)

Part of the mass (Inertia) of a body depends on the amount of "Matter" and part on the amount of "Energy"

How much ist the contribution of "Energy" and how much is the contribution of "Matter" to the total "Mass" ?

The equation by itself does not provide any answer to such question

Re: The true meaning [Re: AlbertoT] #448284
01/27/15 05:46
01/27/15 05:46
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
pararealist Offline
Senior Member
pararealist  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
As i understand it with my consciousness somewhat limited by matter and innerstand it with my sub-conscious:

It's not just the body's energy content alone, but how this reacts with external forces, known or unknown, which will affect both the mass and the energy content of any body.

For years thought was that there was nothing at the beginning, but as we know, you only get nothing from nothing, so the something that exists is what we are calling dark matter and dark energy, which affects all energy and matter in this universe.

Therefore the attempt to calculate this effect by using and expanding on Einstein's conclusions, who himself was only expanding on that which went before him.


A8.3x Commercial, AcknexWrapper and VS 2010 Express
○pararealist now.
Re: The true meaning [Re: pararealist] #448407
02/03/15 17:53
02/03/15 17:53
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
I doubt that you can change into equations your phylosopical consideration
Physics has to do with numbers nothing else that bloody numbers

Re: The true meaning [Re: AlbertoT] #453008
07/04/15 22:13
07/04/15 22:13
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 968
EpsiloN Offline
User
EpsiloN  Offline
User

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 968
Originally Posted By: AlbertoT
Part of the mass (Inertia) of a body depends on the amount of "Matter" and part on the amount of "Energy"

How much ist the contribution of "Energy" and how much is the contribution of "Matter" to the total "Mass" ?

The equation by itself does not provide any answer to such question


Maby, thats because "Matter" IS "Energy". Matter doesnt contain energy, it IS energy. Without energy, matter doesnt exist... It has been proven that there is energy even in vacuum empty space...But no matter...It takes some more energy to have matter. So, the total mass depends on the energy.

You know that, the more electrons you have, the more energy that element contains...And, heavier elements produce more energy in a nuclear-reactor...or when burning...or anything.
Its not really production, its a release of that energy. So, when a body hits something and it stops, it transfers all that energy (or mass gained through "Inertia", which is more like the change in speed, not withstanding a change in speed) to the other object, because of the impact, and it contains a lot less energy...therefore, a lot less mass.

I dont know if you're familiar with the formation of heavier elements, but its an interesting read... Through collision, upon the death of a star, two elements "join forces" (or Energy) and form a new element with a higher energy... So, from hydrogen, you get gold or even uranium...Thus, it gets heavier than hydrogen because of the energy. The light alone, or external forces giving energy to an atom arent enough to change its atomic weight, thats why you cant form new elements by shining a flash light on them...It needs a big collision with energy to join it.
A static block of iron isnt without energy. Its just, that, the energy is motionless. Energy isnt expressed solely by motion...

The equation just shows, that mass is energy. Or, more like, that mass is a fraction of the energy that is forming it, because it needs to be multiplied by the maximum speed possible (speed of light). By the way, stop thinking in meters per second or joules, these are just names and milestones for measurement. You cant define a starting or ending point for energy or for mass, because there are infinite possibilities beyond our measuring capabilities.

An atom is just a bundle of energy particles, as shown by recent tests and theories. And atoms form mass. What forms the energy particles and why is the bigger question grin

I hope this helps a little laugh


Extensive Multiplayer tutorial:
http://mesetts.com/index.php?page=201
Re: The true meaning [Re: AlbertoT] #453069
07/06/15 21:05
07/06/15 21:05
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
this is what I understood when I studied such stuff at school
In other words

Mass and energy are the two sides of the same coin

The point is that it does not seem to be the modern nterpretation of the equation

Take matter annihilation
A proton and an anti proton turn into a radiation of pure energy
The photons of the radiation have "momentum " but they dont have " mass "
Im many books, even at university level, you can read that the mass of photons at rest is null while their dynamic mass is given by the momentum of the radiation divided by c
Anyway strictly speaking such claim is false

Last edited by AlbertoT; 07/06/15 21:12.
Re: The true meaning [Re: EpsiloN] #453094
07/07/15 19:04
07/07/15 19:04
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
A
AlbertoT Offline OP
Serious User
AlbertoT  Offline OP
Serious User
A

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
Quote:


"Matter" IS "Energy". Matter doesnt contain energy, it IS energy. Without energy, matter doesnt exist...

.... heavier elements produce more energy in a nuclear-reactor...or when burning...or anything.
Its not really production, its a release of that energy.


In a nuclear reaction fission type the total number of protons , neutrons and electrons remains constant
Despite a common belief there is no matter annihilation
The system loses a fraction of the "binding energy "
i.e of the energy which binds protons and neutrons together preventing the nucleus from exploding because of the repulsive electromagnetic force
The Uranium inside the reactor loses aboput 1% mass because it loses a huge amount of energy mainly in form of heat

Protons,electrons and in practice also neutrons are immortal, nobody has ever seen a proton or an electron dying

If so it is not 100% true that matter is energy and energy is matter

I think that to fully grasp the meaning of the equation you must go deeper in the quantum physiscs
In other words even Einstein himself did not fully grasp the meaning of the equation
Thw original Einstein's equation was

dm = L/c^2

if a material body absorbs ( emits) the amount od energy L than its mass increases (decreases ) of dm
Einstein did not claim that matter and energy are the same stuff
It claimed that both energy and matter contributes to the the mass of the body where the term mass must be strictly understood as the "Inertia" of the body

The equivalence mass = matter came from Newton
Since mass was apparentely a constant then mass and matter were supposed to be the same stuff
Same as weight and matter , before Newton

Einstein explained that the Newtonian mass of the equation
F = ma
It seems to be a constant but it is not
Thus you must drop the equivalence mass == matter


In modern quantum physics however , as fa as I know , mass is actually matter but it is not....energy
Energy is something different

The interpretation of the equation is not that easy
you must be really familiar with quantum phisics...I am not, not to that extent at least


Last edited by AlbertoT; 07/07/15 19:11.
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1