swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 In terms of the current understanding of E=mc^2 and radiation, there is considered to be less physical mass in existence when a nuclear bomb explodes. Some of the mass is considered to transition into radiation which consists of waves. This is incorrect. There is still the same amount of mass in existence after a nuclear bomb explodes. Then there can be no energy released. No explosion. E=mc^2. If m is constant, so is E. All of the energy is tied up in mass. Nothing available to go boom, or make things hotter, or whatever, unless you toss the idea that energy is conserved. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) That can't be. First of all, "The transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter is the radiation given off" makes no sense. Radiation is comprised of energetic particles released in some interaction. It may be the result of a transition, but to say it is a transition is nonsensical. In an alpha decay, for example, the radiation given off is the alpha particle, which has some KE. That represents the bulk of the energy released in the decay (the daughter has some recoil KE. Gammas are possible but unlikely) The alpha, and possible gammas — the radiation — are not dark matter. There is no other radiation released. We can do this kind of accounting with all of the nuclear interactions. Your explanation is bunkum. ABC's of Nuclear Science Careful measurements show that the sum of the masses of the daughter nucleus and the particle is a bit less than the mass of the parent isotope. Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, which says that mass is proportional to energy, explains this fact by saying that the mass that is lost in such decay is converted into the kinetic energy carried away by the decay products. The mass is not 'lost'. The transformation of the mass of the ordinary matter evaporating into the mass of the dark matter is what causes the kinetic energy. msetlur, you're making stuff up on the spot... If you have radioactive isotope with rest-mass m0 it has energy [math]E_0=m_0 c^2[/math] (let's simplify example to isotope with even Z protons and even N neutrons, because they have all 0 nuclear spin) When it decays by alpha decay, It decays to daughter isotope Z-2,N-2,A-4 and Helium-4 nucleus (alpha particle), with Z=2,N=2,A=4. Daughter isotope has rest-mass m1, therefor in rest-frame it has energy [math]E_1=m_1 c^2[/math] Helium-4 nucleus (alpha particle) has rest-mass m2 and energy [math]E_2=m_2 c^2[/math] But after decay, they're accelerated. Therefor equation of energy will be: [math]E_1=m_1 c^2*\gamma_1[/math] [math]E_2=m_2 c^2*\gamma_2[/math] [math]\gamma_1 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_1^2}{c^2}}}[/math] [math]\gamma_2 = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2^2}{c^2}}}[/math] Giving finally [math]E_0=E_1+E_2[/math] [math]m_0 c^2 = m_1 c^2*\gamma_1 + m_2 c^2*\gamma_2[/math] Basically rest-mass of initial particle prior decay is equal to relativistic-masses of newly created particles. [math]m_0 = m_1 *\gamma_1 + m_2 *\gamma_2[/math] The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the dark matter connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the superfluid dark matter it exists in the greater the displacement of the superfluid dark matter by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object. Then there can be no energy released. No explosion. E=mc^2. If m is constant, so is E. All of the energy is tied up in mass. Nothing available to go boom, or make things hotter, or whatever, unless you toss the idea that energy is conserved. The physical effects caused by the ordinary matter as it evaporates and expands into dark matter is energy. It is the evaporation which causes the boom. It's what makes things hotter as it causes them to move. Energy is conserved. Where the pressure is great enough dark matter condenses into particles of ordinary matter. This energy is released when the ordinary matter converts back to dark matter. Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field The superfluid dark matter fills 'empty' space. The electromagnetic field is the state of the superfluid dark matter. In their essence, particles of ordinary matter are nothing else than condensations of the superfluid dark matter. Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 The mass is not 'lost'. The transformation of the mass of the ordinary matter evaporating into the mass of the dark matter is what causes the kinetic energy. For the third of fourth time, THIS CAN'T HAPPEN. You are double-counting the energy. IOW you are proposing a violation of conservation of energy. You get to pick one: either the mass is conserved, or energy is released. You don't get both, because that violates conservation of energy. If mass stays the same, there is no energy available for anything else to happen — the alpha particle goes nowhere; it has no kinetic energy. This is not what is observed. The physical effects caused by the ordinary matter as it evaporates and expands into dark matter is energy. It is the evaporation which causes the boom. It's what makes things hotter as it causes them to move. Energy is conserved. Where the pressure is great enough dark matter condenses into particles of ordinary matter. This energy is released when the ordinary matter converts back to dark matter. Your explanation is self-contradictory. If energy is released, mass MUST decrease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 For the third of fourth time, THIS CAN'T HAPPEN. You are double-counting the energy. IOW you are proposing a violation of conservation of energy. You get to pick one: either the mass is conserved, or energy is released. You don't get both, because that violates conservation of energy. If mass stays the same, there is no energy available for anything else to happen — the alpha particle goes nowhere; it has no kinetic energy. This is not what is observed. I am not double counting the energy. The physical effects caused by the mass expanding as it evaporates into dark matter is energy. Your explanation is self-contradictory. If energy is released, mass MUST decrease. The mass of the ordinary matter does decrease. It converted into dark matter. Think of the ordinary matter as being under pressure. When a portion of the mass is released it is no longer under pressure. The physical effects caused by the mass no longer being under pressure and evaporating into dark matter is energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 <sigh> If the ordinary matter mass lost is converted to mass of dark matter, there is no mass change in the system. Therefore, no energy released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) <sigh> If the ordinary matter mass lost is converted to mass of dark matter, there is no mass change in the system. Therefore, no energy released. <sigh> Energy is released due to the mass changing state. The mass goes from being under pressure to not being under pressure. The effects caused by the transition from being under pressure to not being under pressure is energy. In terms of E=mc^2, a change in state of that which has mass is energy. Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 In terms of E=mc^2, a change in state of that which has mass is energy. No, that's not true. Mass is a form of energy. If you want to release energy, mass must decrease. Regardless of whether that's from a change of state or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) No, that's not true. Mass is a form of energy. If you want to release energy, mass must decrease. Regardless of whether that's from a change of state or not. That is incorrect. Mass and energy are not the same thing. Consider particles of ordinary matter to be condensations of dark matter. Where the pressure is great enough dark matter condenses into particles of ordinary matter. Some of the energy associated with the condensed ordinary matter is released when a nuclear bomb explodes. The physical effects caused by the transition of the ordinary matter to dark matter is the energy associated with a nuclear bomb explosion. Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 That is incorrect. Mass and energy are not the same thing. You're swimming upstream against >100 years of experimentally verified physics. Mass is a form of energy. If you think otherwise, you have a whole lot of physics that suddenly requires an alternate explanation, including the Einstein work you cited and appeared to agree with. "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2" That's giving off light (i.e. photons). No dark matter involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) You're swimming upstream against >100 years of experimentally verified physics. Mass is a form of energy. If you think otherwise, you have a whole lot of physics that suddenly requires an alternate explanation, including the Einstein work you cited and appeared to agree with. "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2" That's giving off light (i.e. photons). No dark matter involved. Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Energy does not physically occupy three dimensional space in and of itself. The water in the ocean has mass. The water in the ocean physically occupies three dimensional space. The wave on the surface of the water has energy. The energy associated with the wave does not physically occupy three dimensional space in and of itself. As the wave knocks around the boat some of the energy associated with the wave is transferred to the boat. The same amount of mass associated with the water and the boat still exists. ABC's of Nuclear Science Careful measurements show that the sum of the masses of the daughter nucleus and the particle is a bit less than the mass of the parent isotope. Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, which says that mass is proportional to energy, explains this fact by saying that the mass that is lost in such decay is converted into the kinetic energy carried away by the decay products. Again, there being less mass associated with the daughter nucleus and the particle as had been in the parent isotope still exists, as dark matter. Nothing has to change in terms of E=mc^2, or any other equation. It's just correctly understanding what occurs physically in nature which E=mc^2 represents as a relationship, not that they are the same thing. Edited April 12, 2017 by msetlur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Energy does not physically occupy three dimensional space in and of itself. Energy is a property, so that's not particularly surprising. Mass doesn't occupy space, either, since it, too is a property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 Energy is a property, so that's not particularly surprising. Mass doesn't occupy space, either, since it, too is a property. It's when you have fermions, which can't occupy the same space as an identical fermion, that you have something that takes up space. And fermions have mass, and energy. The correct definition of mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 The correct definition of mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Not according to physics textbooks. They define mass as a resistance to acceleration, and correctly name it as a property. A property doesn't take up space. You are probably thinking of matter as that which takes up space (and has mass) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 The correct definition of mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Citation needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 Citation needed. I figured that one out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 I figured that one out. Well, it looks like you figured wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msetlur Posted April 12, 2017 Author Share Posted April 12, 2017 Well, it looks like you figured wrong. Nope. Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. In terms of E=mc^2, energy is a change in state of that which has mass. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 Mass is that which physically occupies three dimensional space. Things with mass may occupy space, but that is not what defines mass. Otherwise mass would always be proportional to volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 12, 2017 Share Posted April 12, 2017 ! Moderator Note Crackpot sockpuppet. Since he's been banned, closing this. No point for further discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts