h a l f b a k e r yFree set of rusty screwdrivers if you order now.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
e=m(c^2 +1/c)
New theory that proves Einstein was only approximating | |
When using the exact numbers without any
approximations,
it turns out that the amount of energy in any mass is
equal to
the square of a tiny bit more than the speed of light,
multiplied by the amount of mass.
This new theory can be checked and finally proven by
allowing
the Iranian scientists
to finish their research, for the
benefit
of all humanity.
The immediate result will be the removal of all the mfd
and
"bad science" remarks from many HB entries, and an
automatic Nobel prize to all fringe scientists.
Energy–momentum relation
http://en.wikipedia...y–momentum_relation
[xaviergisz, Jul 21 2013]
[link]
|
| |
Actually:
E=((mc²)² + (pc)²)^œ |
|
| |
Given that energy equals mass times the speed of light
squared, if I
weigh a piece of coal, then burn it; work out how much
hotter my living room gets, and take the square root of the
heat divided by the weight, do I get the speed of
light as the answer? |
|
| |
//do I get the speed of light as the answer?// |
|
| |
Assuming you can recover and weigh every bit of material
lost into the air in the process of combustion (gas, ash,
soot, and whatnot), you will find that the post-burning
weight is ever so slightly smaller than the pre-burning
weight (by a very, very tiny amount), and this lost mass
would correspond to the amount of heat and light produced
in the combustion according to e=mc^2. |
|
| |
//The immediate result will be the removal of all the
mfd and "bad science" remarks from many HB entries//
You severely overestimate the causal power of reality
over the HB. |
|
| |
xavier thanks for the interesting read. I saw that one
way to calculate it was by using norm. Do you
suppose it has anything to do with our HB user norm? |
|
| |
btw, in Amharic Xavier means God, as in: "Good
morning" = Indiette Derrick? (literally: how is your
way? or how's it going) and the answer: Xavier
Mezgiv (God is great). - Actually I'm never sure.
Sometimes it sounds like Xiever. |
|
| |
The E=mc2 describes the energy stored in the
mass of atoms (or better defined as groups of
protons), and released during the breakup of the
atom in an "atomic reaction". That's what happens
on the sun, and it seems that at the center of our
planet earth as well. |
|
| |
During combustion, you are only exposing the very
small amount of molecular energy. Combustion is
the breaking up of molecular bonds between
atoms, not between protons within the atom. The
protons stay intact during combustion, or usually
do, as ytk pointed out correctly. |
|
| |
During combustion the atoms find and connect to
other atoms with tighter bonds, usually in smaller
groups, while releasing energy as chaotic
movement of these molecules - called "heat", and
usually also emitting small particles such as light,
infra red radiation, and electromagnetic radiation. |
|
| |
Whereas in an atomic reaction, the atom itself
disintegrates, most of the protons, usually the all
the protons of the atom, are turned directly into
radiation and heat, losing their mass. |
|
| |
The amount of energy "released" (actually:
exposed) is extremely high. So much, that one
gram of disintegrating material will give off energy
that could move 900 billion tons, or send a gram of
some nearby material into orbit (if not for drag) at
the speed of 270,000 km/h. |
|
| |
I think I got the idea correctly. Please tell me if I'm
wrong. |
|
| |
Its good that people only think of good things to
do with this power, if anybody would ever dare to
use it in war, it could be mighty lethal. Not to
speak of the lasting radioactivity in the ground,
and its vast effects on large areas through
atmospheric radioactive pollution. |
|
| |
So there we are back at my idea. |
|
| |
There's two things wrong with your understanding. |
|
| |
The first is fundamental: In an atomic reaction,
the atomic nucleus is not completely broken,
usually only a single particle splits off (alpha,
beta) or is added, and no particles are generally
destroyed. The energy released (or absorbed) is
simply the change in bonding energy between the
nuclear particles. It happens that iron has the
tightest nuclear binding, so if the atom is less
massive then iron, fusion gives off energy, if it is
more massive than iron, fission gives off energy.
If the particle in question is a beta particle, then
a neutron may convert to a proton or vice-versa,
but again, no particle is destroyed, merely
combined or split. |
|
| |
The second, how mass comes into play is
something I didn't understand for a long time.
Einstein isn't saying that mass and energy are
convertible, he's saying that they are the same
thing. Any time energy is released, the materials
involved become less massive. Any time energy is
added, they become more massive. For most
cases (as in the chemical bonds [xen] and [ytk]
were discussing) this change in mass is so
vanishingly small as to be immeasurable (or nearly
so) with available instruments. It's only once we
get into the nuclear range that it becomes readily
measurable. |
|
| |
Anyway, [Marked-for-deletion] theory, and, unless
you can provide some documentation for said
theory, bad science. |
|
| |
If you actually want to destroy a particle, then you
are dealing with a particle/anti-particle pair, at
which point the full mass of the particles is released
as energy. |
|
| |
//Whereas in an atomic reaction, the atom itself
disintegrates, most of the protons, usually the all the
protons of the atom, are turned directly into radiation
and heat, losing their mass.// |
|
| |
When you make absurd, blatantly wrong statements,
you're not helping to dismiss those tags of... |
|
| |
In a fission or fusion reaction, the nucleon count is
unchanged. No protons nor any neutrons are converted
to radiation and heat. The energy emitted is from the
change in the nuclear binding energy, and can be
quantified by the change in the "mass defect" from the
reacting elements to their daughter elements. |
|
| |
The direct conversion of entire nucleons into energy has
been observed in nature, but only accomplished by
human artifice in particle colliders - crashing protons into
anti-protons. If we could do such a thing in bulk, it would
probably be a fair bit cleaner in terms of radioactive
pollution than the bombs we've built in the past. |
|
| |
<edit>[MechE] beat me to the comment, so I'll just add:
"what [MechE] said"</edit> |
|
| |
The idea was supposed to be TIC. |
|
| |
The annotation in answer to xenzag, was serious.
and as I now know - wrong. I stand corrected. |
|
| |
Meche and lurch both pointed out something
which I now realize, and as far as I can see in my
old 5th grade science books especially on
chemistry is a common mistake. My year at
university in physics didn't cover this, and neither
did my courses in organic chem or biochemistry. I
recently re-read Lehninger, nothing about e=mc2
or atomic power. I can only suppose its because of
the military taboo. |
|
| |
We are taught about Lavoisier's discovery of
conservation of mass, that atoms and elements
react in whole numbers, the (disputed) discovery
of the element table, and the explanation, that
the number of protons basically determines the
"weight" and hence mass of an atom. Protons were
defined to have an atomic weight of 1, and Prout's
hypothesis is still studied in highschool textbooks. |
|
| |
Wikipedia - which is quite edited on these
subjects and well sourced states about Prout's
hypothesis: "which was disproved when more
accurate values were measured." (WP:Proton) Let
alone awareness to the fact that there "is no
more" an atomic weight, and that that number is
now correctly called: Relative Atomic Mass. |
|
| |
So I'm sure many people like myself, figured that
its just some inaccuracy, not a basic flaw - that
mass is not due to the protons, but to the packing
of the protons and their binds. |
|
| |
I'm writing my answer again as a summary. Hope I
got it right this time (according to your answers
and Wikipedia: Mass-energy equivalence), here
goes: |
|
| |
xenzag asked: Given that energy equals mass times
the speed of light squared, if I weigh a piece of
coal, then burn it; work out how much hotter my
living room gets, and take the square root of the
heat divided by the weight, do I get the speed of
light as the answer? |
|
| |
The simple answer - is YES. but you must find the
difference in weight (mass) of the original coal,
and the current material left from the burning coal
- including all the particles that left it as smoke.
Also you must be able to know the exact quantity
of energy released. |
|
| |
For combustion, E=mc2 can be read E/c2=m,
meaning any energy emitted or gained in a system,
means that the system loses or gains an extremely
small amount of mass. |
|
| |
On the other hand, in a nuclear reaction, an
extremely large amount of energy is released, and
a perceivable loss (in fission, or gain in fusion) of
mass is felt. |
|
| |
In a typical fission reaction the bonds between
protons in an atom are changed, leading to closer
ties between the protons, in separate 'smaller'
"bundles" (atoms). These have less mass than the
original atom. That mass was released as energy , a
'massive' amount of energy, so to speak. |
|
| |
In 1938 this was shown to occur, when uranium
broke up (after being bombarded with nucleons),
and barium was found. The final process of the
Uranium breakup, after the barium atoms were
created has the two main parts of the uranium
breakup, one of them barium, moving away from
each other at high speed. It was found that the
resulting parts are lighter than the original at the
weight of a fifth of a proton, per uranium atom
participating. |
|
| |
This lead scientists to realize the "explosive"
potential of the process. |
|
| |
for example in nuclear fission of Uranium, when
the (236 neutron) Uranium protons can settle into
a closer bind in (141 neutron) Barrium and (92
neutron) Kryptonite, also releasing three
neutrons (at high speed) and a nice bit of
radiation. |
|
| |
This release of neutrons can lead to a chain
reaction, breaking up a large amount of Uranium at
once, or continuing the process over time. |
|
| |
In fusion, two atoms collide creating a single atom,
that have "closer" bonds, and less mass. That mass
was released as energy. |
|
| |
Something similar is happening on the sun, and it
seems that at the center of our planet earth as
well. |
|
| |
Barrium schmarrium - what about //Kryptonite//? |
|
| |
Also, I hate to ask this without having gone through
the whole post in detail, but isn't this just a re-
statement of the bleedin' obvious? Or did I miss
something? |
|
| |
woops: Barium (Ba) Krypton (Kr) |
|
| |
This entry was meant as a joke. If most of the
writers agree I should delete it, I will. |
|
| |
The idea did have an interesting turn: First xavier
pointed out that in fact E is not equal to M*c
squared, and that their is a small extra amount of
mass involved. |
|
| |
Then xenzag asked a question, the answer to
which I thought was obvious, but I was wrong. |
|
| |
My mistaken understanding was that there is a
fundamental difference between chemical
reactions and nuclear reactions. |
|
| |
I think the correction of that notion is NOT
obvious at all. |
|
| |
There is a fundamental difference between
nuclear and chemical reactions. One involves
intra-atomic bonding energies, and one involves
inter-atomic bonding energies. |
|
| |
Other than that, no, no real difference. |
|
| |
And I believe, although I won't swear to it, that
[xavier]'s equation goes away if you're using the
apparent rather than rest mass of the object in
question. That is, it is simply a way of relating the
increase in energy due to velocity to the rest
mass, which the relativistic mass already does. |
|
| |
//Einstein isn't saying that mass and energy are convertible,
he's saying that they are the same thing.// This explains why
it takes longer to eat a very hot meat pie than it does a cool
one |
|
| |
//one gram of disintegrating material will give off energy that
could move 900 billion tons// That makes no sense. Burning
one gram of petrol will also give off energy that could move
900 billion tons. |
|
| |
//Burning one gram of petrol will also give off energy that could move 900 billion tons.// |
|
| |
I dispute that: the movement would be impossible to prove even in hard vacuum, as natural atomic decay and interaction with the occasional Hydrogen atom would make more than enough noise to cancel it out unless said mass were packed in as sufficiently small area, in which case the noise from the explosion would do the same. Or if it were packed into an even smaller area there would be absolutely no provable effect from the petrol, the hydrogen, or atomic decay. |
|
| |
Nope. Put the 1 gram of petrol, plus air, in a sealed
cylinder with a tight-fitting piston. Keep the cylinder fixed,
the piston attached to the mass. Ignite the petrol. You will
create a large and sustained pressure in the cylinder. If the
mass is floating in microgravity, it will slowly start to move.
If the piston pops out of the cylinder at full travel, your
mass will continue moving slowly until forever. |
|
| |
Or, if you don't like that, use your 1 gram of petrol to run a
model aircraft engine for a minute. Engine drives a series
of reducing gears. Last gear moves the mass; use a
micrometer to measure the movement. |
|
| |
My point was - it is silly to talk about energy in terms of the
mass it can move, unless that movement is for a known
distance against a known force. I can say "this is enough
energy to lift a billion tons 1 metre against 1 gravity" - fine.
Or I can say "this energy is enough to accelerate a billion
tons to a speed of 0.01m/s - also fine. |
|
| |
//in Amharic Xavier means God,// |
|
| |
My 1946 edition of the Alone-Stokes Short Manual of the
Amharic Language disagrees, [pashute]; could you quote your
source? |
|
| |