Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,786 Year: 4,043/9,624 Month: 914/974 Week: 241/286 Day: 2/46 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did the matter and energy come from?
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4742 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 73 of 357 (543606)
01-19-2010 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Rahvin
01-19-2010 12:19 PM


Meter-mass equivalent
The way I conceptualize this is to imagine that all matter has an event horizon - except that it's such a tiny radius that the actual size of each particle is larger than the radius of the event horizon. Black holes are objects where normal matter has collapsed to such a density that the event horizon's radius is larger than the actual object. I'm sure this is an inaccurate conceptualization - it just helps me understand at the macroscale how we can talk about black holes having sizes ranging from the mass of a few protons to thousands of stellar masses.
This is the meter-mass equivalent. Its conversion factor is kg=7.424×10-28m. This is analogous to the meter-time equivalent, sec=2.998×108m. Both serve the purpose of keeping all the units the same in calculations.
AbE: Of course, it's not an event horizon unless the mass is tucked into that space. The meter-mass equivalent of the Earth, ME, is 0.444cm. But were we to dig a hole down to 0.444cm we'd not find ourselves within the event horizon of the Earth. In fact we'd be practically weightless.
Edited by lyx2no, : Formating.
Edited by lyx2no, : Lurker addendum.

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Rahvin, posted 01-19-2010 12:19 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4742 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 85 of 357 (544944)
01-29-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by cavediver
01-29-2010 12:36 PM


Re: An example
you will find that the total Mass has actually... wait for it... has what?
Been conserved.
In a chemical explosion the mass is also been conserved; however, no nucleic bosoms are freed, only photons.

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by cavediver, posted 01-29-2010 12:36 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by cavediver, posted 01-30-2010 6:30 AM lyx2no has seen this message but not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4742 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 154 of 357 (545656)
02-04-2010 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Sasuke
02-04-2010 3:10 PM


Re: Gravity
WRT our discussion on electrons and photons. I always thought that this is what is happening when photons are shed. You have two atoms. One atom is in a higher energy state than the other atom. The higher energy state atom sheds an electron and that electron is absorbed into the other atom(moving it from higher energy orbital to lower energy orbital) and a photon is shed during this process. This photon is then absorbed and reabsorbed over and over again through the same process. This process is how light travels(I realize my verbage is not perfect but essentially that is what happens).
That isn't what's happening. The good Dr's model for these intents is. A second atom is unnecessary. According to Bohr, electrons orbit about the nucleus, but only in orbits that have angular momentums that are integer multiples of Plank's constant divided by 2π: Ln=nh/2π. When an electron absorbs or emits a photon they gain or lose, respectfully, the energy of that photon. In gaining energy the electron will to jump to a higher energy orbit. (Possibly to a state higher then the atom will be able to sustain and the electron will be shed creating an ion.) If there is an empty lower orbit the electron will spontaneously emit a photon dropping into that orbit. (Everything likes being in the lowest available energy state.) The photo is then free to interact with another electron. If there are few electrons to interact with that photon may zip off to the other side of the Universe. If there are lots of high energy photons about where absorption out paces emission the you get a lot of high angular momentum electrons.
Yah. Totally. I get that much. In terms of our ROCK discussion though. The rock further away from the earth has more potential energy because of the distance from the earth. However, they are both still falling toward the earth or sun.... Whichever you prefer in the verbage of this discussion(technically it is the sun though).
It is that they have the potential to fall that gives them the potential energy. The rock in the hand can be dropped to the ground. The rock on the ground can be kicked into a hole. If they are falling they have kinetic energy. The Earth and the rocks are in free fall around the Sun. This would be their kinetic energy. In the case of the Earth's near circular orbit there is little exchange back and forth of its potential and kinetic energy. Halley's comet demonstrates a great exchange back and forth of its potential and kinetic energy having a very elliptical orbit.
moving/falling same difference. I don't know if it is kinetic energy or not but it certainly is some sort of energy.
The potential and kinetic energies are relative. When my reference frame is the little two meter box I react within the rock in my hand has potential energy while the rock on the ground does not. When my reference frame includes a 1000 meter cliff edge both rocks have essentially the same potential energy.

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Sasuke, posted 02-04-2010 3:10 PM Sasuke has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Sasuke, posted 02-05-2010 4:18 AM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4742 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


(1)
Message 161 of 357 (545779)
02-05-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Sasuke
02-05-2010 4:18 AM


Chemistry
So, photons are actually emited and reabsorbed? This is how light travels from point a to b? Its essentially chemical interactions?
Yes. Photons are emitted and reabsorbed by electrons. But it's important to remember that an electron's environment dictates the specific energies of the photons that the electron can emit or absorb. A spectrograph shows the pattern of large numbers of photons revealing the environment of these electrons; i.e., 2.725 K hydrogen.
No, photons do not requiring a medium to travel. Electrons hinder the travel of photons. That's why c had to be specified in a vacuum.
Not chemistry. Chemistry is the interactions of atoms and molecules via electrons. Photons are not reacting with the atom as a whole; only the electrons. However, because the atom or molecule is the environment of the electron, the energies of the associated photons tell us a lot about the atom or molecule as a whole.
Is there only 1 hally's comet or is it a different one each time it(they) passes by?
There is only 1 Halley's comet. Halley's has an extended elliptical orbit with a period of 76 years. At aphelion it is 35 times as far from the Sun as does the Earth and has a huge potential energy and little kinetic energy. At perihelion it is half as far from the Sun as is the Earth and has little potential energy and a hugh kinetic energy. There are hundreds of named comets.
Right. Potential energy is "potential energy" or energy that can be released but is not being released at the moment. Kinetic energy is energy that is being released but is specific to matter?
Kinetic energy is not being "released". Say you are floating along side the HST with a spanner in hand. Relative to you the HST has a kinetic energy 200 times greater, and the spanner 200 times lesser. Do you notice any energy transfer?

You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Sasuke, posted 02-05-2010 4:18 AM Sasuke 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