Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did round planets form from the explosion of the Big Bang?
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 76 of 156 (543548)
01-19-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by cavediver
01-18-2010 7:31 PM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
Agh, you can't turn matter into energy.
Sorry, I'm clearly not using matter in the refined way you are. I meant simply that the mass of the solid stuff drops as it's converted to energy useful to the body.
No, mass is a measure of energy. Chemical binding energy has the same mass as the heat it becomes.
Heat has mass? I didn't know that. Although, thinking about it - it makes perfect sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 01-18-2010 7:31 PM cavediver has not replied

  
MatterWave
Member (Idle past 5030 days)
Posts: 87
Joined: 01-15-2010


Message 77 of 156 (543551)
01-19-2010 5:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by cavediver
01-19-2010 3:55 AM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
Incorrect. Our current understanding has a unified picture of matter, forces, gravity, space-time, and energy. So you may well be justified in claiming that "it's not really clear what reality is", but to single out matter is just ill-informed.
Then, it's not the "Picture" that most people here have in mind. Besides, you do not know the exact relationship between fields and "matter", as it's an interpretational issue, and there a more than 20 interpretations.
If you don't know what reality is, how can you know what matter is??
Knowing how "matter" behaves is not the same as saying "We know what matter is".
MatterWave writes:
We don't know what energy is and what an elementary point-particle really is.
Ditto. It sounds as if you think our current understanding is at the level of layman explanations...
Same as above - Knowing how elementary particle behaves is not the same as saying "We know what an elementary particle is".
No, we are talking about mathematical physics.
Mathematics says NOTHING about what an electron is. There is absolutely no agreement between physicists about the true nature of the electron. It's been proposed that there is an electron and an accompanying wave at the same time, that the particle electron does not exist and there is never any collapse, but just an apporximation(illusion) of it, that there is an electron only when you measure it, etc. ect.
Maths only lets you calculate probability, charge, charge density, spin... it says nothing about the nature of the "entity" being described.
At the level of this discussion, there is almost complete agreement - between physicists who actually understand this particularly narrow field. Who cares what physicists outside this field think?
Who are these physicists and can you reference a source where they claim to know the nature of matter?
No, this is layman bullshit once again trying to sound authoratative.
I think you aren't being sincere and consciously or not deceive the readers that there is agreement on topics for which there isn't any.
My question stays - If you don't know what reality is, how can ever claim to know what the nature of matter is? If there is no "matter" prior to measurement, or prior to decoherence, or prior to a pilot wave probes the "environment", etc., how can you claim to somehow possess such fundamental knowledge?
BTW, you must get used to the inevitable notion that in the abscence of fundamental knowledge of ANYTHING, you can't make such sweeping statements as "I(or some physicists - which?) know what "matter" really is".
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.
Edited by MatterWave, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2010 3:55 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2010 6:52 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 78 of 156 (543561)
01-19-2010 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by cavediver
01-19-2010 4:51 AM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
cavediver,
in my previous Chemistry course at the local community college it was taught that mass is a measurement of volume which is different than weight because its not affected by gravity. No matter where you measure a piece of matter(same piece of matter) you will get the same measurement if you measure in grams(to get mass). Where as if you weigh something in lbs its weight will change depending on the location due to gravity. So if mass is a measurement of volume and energy has mass then why does that not = that energy is matter? I mean if something has a mass it must be made of material and hence therefor it is matter.
Edited by Sasuke, : clarity
Edited by Sasuke, : edit
Edited by Sasuke, : edit
Edited by Sasuke, : edit

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by cavediver, posted 01-19-2010 4:51 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 01-19-2010 12:31 PM Sasuke has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 79 of 156 (543563)
01-19-2010 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by MatterWave
01-19-2010 5:24 AM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
Mathematics says NOTHING about what an electron is.
Actually, it says everything - that is the bizarre revelation of fundemental physics, and marks the boundary between the classical physics of "stuff" with properties, and the modern realisation that there is no "stuff".
It's been proposed that there is an electron and an accompanying wave at the same time, that the particle electron does not exist and there is never any collapse, but just an apporximation(illusion) of it, that there is an electron only when you measure it, etc. ect.
You are confusing our existing discussion with that of quantum mechanical interpretation. Although that is an interesting topic, once you get away from the sloppy layman terminology, it is largely irrelevant for our discussion here as it actually sits at a higher level.
When I say electron, I mean a one-electron state. I don't care that you are upset that this could be interpreted as a matter wave, localised particle, or whatever. Which of these all depends upon the environmental conditions of which you, as an observer, are part.
Maths only lets you calculate probability, charge, charge density, spin... it says nothing about the nature of the "entity" being described.
Hmm, what is this "nature" and what is the "entity"? And do these characteristics enter into our observations? If I have a set of quantum numbers describing an electron state, then what am I missing?
Who are these physicists and can you reference a source where they claim to know the nature of matter?
"the nature of matter"... at this level we try to be a little more precise with our language. What do *YOU* mean by matter?
If there is no "matter" prior to measurement, or prior to decoherence, or prior to a pilot wave probes the "environment", etc., how can you claim to somehow possess such fundamental knowledge?
Who would be stupid enough to claim that there is no "matter" prior to a measurement??? Again, you don't understand the terms you are using.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by MatterWave, posted 01-19-2010 5:24 AM MatterWave has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 80 of 156 (543564)
01-19-2010 6:53 AM


Please Get On-Topic
Unless someone has a better suggestion, please take the matter/energy discussion to the Where did the matter and energy come from? thread.
Edited by Admin, : Correct link.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 7:14 AM Admin has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 81 of 156 (543566)
01-19-2010 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Admin
01-19-2010 6:53 AM


Re: Please Get On-Topic
Percy,
that thread is closed..

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 6:53 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Larni, posted 01-19-2010 7:22 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied
 Message 83 by Huntard, posted 01-19-2010 7:23 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied
 Message 84 by Admin, posted 01-19-2010 7:24 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 82 of 156 (543568)
01-19-2010 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Sasuke
01-19-2010 7:14 AM


Re: Please Get On-Topic
No it's not.
Percy posted the wrong link.
Click EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 7:14 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 83 of 156 (543570)
01-19-2010 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Sasuke
01-19-2010 7:14 AM


Re: Please Get On-Topic
Sasuke writes:
Percy,
that thread is closed..
But this version of Where did the matter and energy come from? isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 7:14 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 84 of 156 (543571)
01-19-2010 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Sasuke
01-19-2010 7:14 AM


Re: Please Get On-Topic
Link is correct now.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 7:14 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 85 of 156 (543588)
01-19-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Sasuke
01-19-2010 6:43 AM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
cavediver,
in my previous Chemistry course at the local community college
There's your problem. Chemistry is not physics - especially not the advanced physics cavediver is talking about.
it was taught that mass is a measurement of volume
Incorrect. Mass is not volume. A given mass, in fact, can fill varied amounts of volume - kilogram of feathers and a kilogram of gold will take up very different amounts of volume.
which is different than weight because its not affected by gravity.
"Weight" is a measurement of gravity's effect on a given amount of mass. The reason mass is more accurate is because the same amount of mass will have different weights on Earth or on the moon. This still says nothign about the volume of a given mass.
No matter where you measure a piece of matter(same piece of matter) you will get the same measurement if you measure in grams(to get mass). Where as if you weigh something in lbs its weight will change depending on the location due to gravity.
Correct.
So if mass is a measurement of volume and energy has mass then why does that not = that energy is matter? I mean if something has a mass it must be made of material and hence therefor it is matter.
Because mass is not a measurement of volume. And I'm positive that your chemistry teacher didn;t teach you that.
Look at what cavediver is saying. Mass is a measurement of an amount of energy in spacetime. The mass of matter is comprised of the rest mass and binding energy of the quarks that comprise its subatomic particles (we're beyond chemistry already - atoms are made of subatomic particles, which are themselves made of quarks). The binding energy of the quarks vastly exceeds their rest mass. The vast majority of your mass is nothing but binding energy.
At no point are we discussing volume. Volume is simply an amount of space. Alone, it has nothing to do with mass. Density is the amount of mass contained in a given volume.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 6:43 AM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 6:17 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


(2)
Message 86 of 156 (543610)
01-19-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rahvin
01-19-2010 12:31 PM


Re: E=MC(Einstein, 1879-1955).
Rahvin,
I was tired last night but I believe mass is D*V, that's what I ment anyway. I also think the problem with considering mass to be energy is that matter its self has no capacity to do work its just simply inanimate. I can see the point cavediver is making though I still fill like matter is simply taking energy and binding it with chemicals or atomic particles that make it inanimate in the form of matter. I will also admit that it does not matter what I think at this point as this is more of a hobby than it is something I really care about. I will read through this thread until I am able to really understand what cavediver is saying so that maybe I can present either a better argument or I agree. -Thanks for the help...
Edited by Sasuke, : clarity
Edited by Sasuke, : clarity

"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen."
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rahvin, posted 01-19-2010 12:31 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2010 11:07 AM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 87 of 156 (543662)
01-20-2010 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by cavediver
01-08-2010 8:46 AM


No, definitely not. That's like saying a compressed spring is a form of energy.
I think I see what you mean.
Is this right? ---
Matter is not energy.
Mass is energy.
If I'm right, please tell me what this means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by cavediver, posted 01-08-2010 8:46 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by cavediver, posted 01-20-2010 5:41 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 88 of 156 (543666)
01-20-2010 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Dr Adequate
01-20-2010 4:52 AM


Yes, that's essentially correct - but as per Percy's wishes I'm thinking up a summary of this discussion to go in the other thread - hopefully taht will clear all of this up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-20-2010 4:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 156 (543726)
01-20-2010 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Sasuke
01-19-2010 6:17 PM


mass has energy
I also think the problem with considering mass to be energy is that matter its self has no capacity to do work its just simply inanimate.
You're wrong. An atomic bomb relies on all that energy that is stored up in the mass of the material. Through the process of fission, an atomic nucleus is split into two smaller ones and releases a shitload of energy that is "in there".
And mass does not equal matter. Matter has mass, but not all mass is matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Sasuke, posted 01-19-2010 6:17 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by cavediver, posted 01-20-2010 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 90 of 156 (543760)
01-20-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by New Cat's Eye
01-20-2010 11:07 AM


Re: mass has energy
And mass does not equal matter. Matter has mass, but not all mass is matter.
All great
But your title leaves me a little queasy - energy has mass would be much better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2010 11:07 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2010 1:21 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024