|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 11:14:41 [Permalink]
|
Simon.....
| I guess I mostly gathered a highly simplified understanding of the phenomenon. |
Simon, I salute you! Your understanding of the phenomenon is at least sophisticated enough to ask intelligent questions! Damn few of the Pox Populi have a cerebral neocortex matrix capable of recognizing, puzzling over, or processing information relevant to a subject as outré as particle physics!
Simon, you are definitely not Simple, nor a peter; not a leper nor a Trollz, a witch, chipmunk, fly lord, nor a Cowell; and likely not a Saint (who is?) What I like is - Simon sez: "What is really going on here? |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 09/22/2008 : 14:03:14 [Permalink]
|
BPS, Cune, Dave, Simon, Astropin, Kil, Filthy, Dude, Simon, and all those out there who are not-to-be-named..... from wiki| For many purposes, the photon behaves like a particle of zero rest mass moving at the speed of light. The particlelike nature of the photon is vividly exhibited by the photoelectric effect, predicted by A. Einstein, in which light is absorbed in a metal, causing electrons to be ejected. An electron absorbs a photon, gaining its energy. In leaving the metal, it loses energy because of interactions with the surface; the energy loss equals the product of the so-called work function of the surface and the charge of the electron. The final kinetic energy of the electron therefore equals the energy of the incident photon minus this energy loss. |
HOWEVER.....| Apart from having energy, a photon also carries momentum and has a polarization. It follows the laws of quantum mechanics, which means that often these properties do not have a well-defined value for a given photon. Rather, they are defined as a probability to measure a certain polarization, position, or momentum. For example, although a photon can excite a single molecule, it is often impossible to predict beforehand which molecule will be excited. |
I am beginning to believe that a layman may, with intense effort, begin to comprehend some of these hypothecations, but it is substantially more difficult to express them in a meaningful way (using language, not mathematics) than it is to understand them! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 15:38:12 [Permalink]
|
The momentum effect of photons can easily be tested in a simple experiment:
Take a good photographic flash and aim it directly under a cymbal of a drumm-set in a quiet room. Listen closely to the cymbal, there should be an audible sound from it when you fire the flash as the photons hit the metal surface.
Edited to add: A sheet of aluminium foil should suffice in case you don't know a drummer.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/22/2008 15:41:07 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 15:43:37 [Permalink]
|
Well; lemme try (plus, this way you guys can correct my misunderstandings):
E (Energy of a body) = M(gamma*mass at rest +The other mass) X C^2(speed of the body^2)
And this is this the totality of that E that actually affects the Higgs field and creates the gravitic pull, even if Newton only knew about the mass side of the relationship...
Ok, now, what did I get wrong? |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 17:04:13 [Permalink]
|
Simon.....
You have the E=MC2 right; what you have not done is define the terms Energy, Mass, and (at least partially) Speed
As Before:
E is expressed in joules
M is expressed in grams
C is expressed in meters per second
1a. Energy from Wiki: Energy (is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Energy is often defined as the ability to do work.
Several different forms of energy, including, but not limited to, kinetic, potential, thermal, gravitational, sound energy, light energy, elastic, electromagnetic, chemical, nuclear, and mass have been defined to explain all known natural phenomena.
While one form of energy may be transformed to another, the total energy remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.
Although the total energy of a system does not change with time, its value may depend on the frame of reference. For example, a seated passenger in a moving airplane has zero kinetic energy relative to the airplane, but non-zero kinetic energy relative to the earth. |
| 1b. Energy from Webster: An entity rated as the most fundamental of all physical concepts and usually regarded as the equivalent of or the capacity for doing work either being associated with material bodies (as a coiled spring or speeding train) or having an existence independent of matter (as light or X rays traversing a vacuum), its physical dimensions being the same as those of work. |
See how things are clearing up?
| 2a. Mass from wiki: Mass is a fundamental concept in physics, roughly corresponding to the intuitive idea of how much matter there is in an object. Mass is a central concept of classical mechanics and related subjects, and there are several definitions of mass within the framework of relativistic kinematics (see mass in special relativity and mass in General Relativity). In the theory of relativity, the quantity invariant mass, which in concept is close to the classical idea of mass, does not vary between single observers in different reference frames. |
| 2b. Mass from Webster: The property of a body that is a measure of its inertia, that is commonly taken as a measure of the amount of material it contains, that causes a body to have weight in a gravitational field, that along with length and time constitutes one of the fundamental quantities on which all physical measurements are based, and that according to the theory of relativity increases with increasing velocity (two free bodies have equal mass if the same force gives them the same acceleration) |
Hey, now we're really getting somewhere!
3a. Speed from wiki: Speed is the rate of motion, or equivalently the rate of change in position, often expressed as distance d traveled per unit of time t.
Speed is a scalar quantity with dimensions distance/time; the equivalent vector quantity to speed is known as velocity. Speed is measured in the same physical units of measurement as velocity, but does not contain the element of direction that velocity has. Speed is thus the magnitude component of velocity. |
| 3b. Speed from Webster: Rate of motion; specifically: rate of motion irrespective of direction: the magnitude of velocity expressed as a particular relationship. |
Well, that just about sums it all up now, doesn't it? What more is there to say?
Except - what have you learned about what transpires mechanically, in terms of the movement of, or transformation of, one particle in relationship to another particle (or "energy packet", "wave form" or other labels-for-processes)? What can you visualize?
Mabuse says, "Look and hear the impingement of a photon on a drum set's cymbal surface." One easily visualizes a tiny little ball of some kind of shit hitting the cymbal. But then wiki says, "Energy becomes matter." What do you visualize? Nothing.
Maybe those who invent and use the mathematics describing these processes derive visual imagery from numbers, symbols, and operation signs or maybe the information goes straight to cognition without any visual metaphors to help the understanding.
Unfortunately, although long ago I once finished sophomore year of Engine School (Electrical), with the math curriculum well into secondary differential equations; I still need to create visual crutches to get into a comfort zone of comprehension! I never learned to think mathematically! Then again, few mathematicians are writers!
Can the movement of and interaction of sub-atomic particles with each other and with energy fields be visualized in any constructive way? I have been trying in a number of posts here to convey what little I understand about these particle physics events, but it is extremely difficult to choose and use the proper descriptive words to achieve that goal!
Simon says:| And this is this the totality of that E that actually affects the Higgs field and creates the gravitic pull |
Well, yes, except for the part about how does the E become the M. And the invocation of the Higgs boson terminology and terms like "gravitic field" certainly do convey some information if one does the required look-up work; but when I do it, I am still left with considerable confusion as to the energy to mass and mass to energy transformation process.
Is it as simple as this: one pattern, arrangement, or concatenation of certain particles constitutes that which we call matter or mass; and another arrangement of certain particles is what we call energy? If this is so, then exactly how does the first particle collection become changed into the second? What exactly happens to transform one pattern into another? By what agency are the chess pieces rearranged?
Anybody have any ideas? Without using differential derivatives, definite or indefinite integrals; without using linear operators or algebraic formulas? Just words hopefully engendering images?
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 18:01:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Mabuse says, "Look and hear the impingement of a photon on a drum set's cymbal surface." One easily visualizes a tiny little ball of some kind of shit hitting the cymbal. But then wiki says, "Energy becomes matter." What do you visualize? Nothing.
|
Since it's been written that virtual particles pop in- and out of existence everywhere, all the time, and them being virtual because they are living on borrowed energy for their short existence (determine by their mass-energy and Planck's Constant)...
I imagine that a burst of intense energy could pay the debt that is created by the virtual pair of particles popping into existence. That way, this pair of particle and anti-particle does not have to annihilate themselves in order to restore balance, but are free to continue existence as true real particles.
That is how I visualize energy-into-matter. It may or may not be accurate though. When I hear a better explanation that works as an analogy, I will perhaps adopt it.
Edited to add:
The energy has to be localised, and sufficient to pay for the entire mass of the two particles for the exchange to pass.
This is also a somewhat tied into how the Hawking Radiation from black holes work, where a pair of particles pops inte existence at the event horizon. When one of the two virtual particles drops below the horizon, the other doesn't get annihilated but continues on as a real particle. The black hole has to pay the energy prize of the mass for the particle that got away, and thus lose mass.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 09/23/2008 18:13:19 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 18:18:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Anybody have any ideas? Without using differential derivatives, definite or indefinite integrals; without using linear operators or algebraic formulas? Just words hopefully engendering images? |
Some things are better expressed in math than in language.
But the real point that you seem to be missing is that matter is energy. E=mc2 is an equation describing the mass/energy equivalence. Thinking of it as a "transformation" is to miss what's probably reality: everything is energy, some of it is just found in little organized bunches that we call "particles." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 23:19:25 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck
| how does the E become the M. And the invocation of the Higgs boson terminology and terms like "gravitic field" certainly do convey some information if one does the required look-up work; but when I do it, I am still left with considerable confusion as to the energy to mass and mass to energy transformation process. |
I know what you mean. Plenty of math to describe E to M and M to E transformations, but what is mass? Finally knowing will be very cool.
There is a gap of knowledge concerning the origin of mass. The breaking mechanisms for generating W and Z boson masses and the 'flavor' symmetry for generating fermion masses are still big mysteries. This knowledge gap on the origin of mass is likely related to the search for dark matter/energy. Finding the origin of mass might just make for some novel transformation ideas down the road as well.
Before science can establish the mass generation mechanism of elementary particles, various Higgs boson couplings need to be determined first. I'm betting on supersymmetry, MSSM. http://web.mit.edu/~redingtn/www/netadv/specr/6/node2.html
Top it off, there may not even be a Higgs boson. Steven Hawking, (playing devils advocate?), is betting against LHC finding the Higgs boson. What fun. http://physicsandphysicists.blogspot.com/2008/09/peter-higgs-responds-to-hawkings-bet.html
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 01:17:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Thanks for the response. I had thought maybe you.......never mind!
| Some things are better expressed in math than in language. |
Yeah, seems I've run into that somewhere back in the distant past. As a matter of fact, some ideation can only be expressed in mathematical terms! I've no quarrel with the fact that the two languages are frequently incapable of mutual translation, it appears self-evident. Yeats or Tchaikovsky in binary code doesn't touch my heart. Transform the 0's and 1's into analog letters or sounds, and my emotions are roused!
I'm not really missing any point, it simply challenges me to try and comprehend, and then express in words, some rather bizzare physical events - bizarre when compared to our cognitive perception of the sensory data that those events generate.
For example, the macroscopic image, produced by the eye's retina, of a piece of coal contrasts so violently with the microscopic images of a carbon molecule's surfaces as produced by a scanning electron microscope; that it demands explanation. Going down a level or two, the presumptions of the nature of atomic and sub-atomic particles are very difficult to reconcile with what a layman's "common sense" and sensory faculties tell him. I hope to become skilled enough in the use of fairly simple English to be able to narrow that gap some!
There are many that lack, for various reasons, the mathematical background to appreciate the constructions of the particle physicists. The same holds true of many other disciplines. Hence, the need for popularizers. I am pursuing that type of conceit.
I hope ultimately to be able to write meaningfully of technical matters in several different fields of endeavor that are difficult for educated laymen to comprehend because of the language barriers presented by mathematics or any other specialized language used in other areas of the sciences and the arts - medical terminology, musical terms, any field of study and endeavor using a specialized language or jargon.
To comprehend, and render that comprehension into language, the tool of the intellect that I most highly revere, is somewhat of a daunting task.| the real point that you seem to be missing is that matter is energy. |
I feel from what I have read on the subject, that matter and energy are different expressions of the same primal entity. But I believe it is incorrect to say that matter ≡ energy, much as it would be incorrect to say that diamond ≡ coal, although each is a different form of the element carbon. The function of the entity matter can be transformed into the function of the entity energy and vice versa.
In that sense, I believe that I used the word "tranformation" correctly. Surely you wouldn't deny that ice and steam have significantly different forms and functions and one cannot substitute for the other; even though both assuredly are different expressions of the same compound - water!.| everything is energy, some of it is just found in little organized bunches that we call "particles." |
This is currently controversial, but even granting the possible truth of that statement, it is like saying all matter is made of molecules, so there is really no difference between rocks and aardvarks. The "organization" of, and the types of particles organized do define pretty significant differences between George Bush and an intelligent human being, for example!
Hmmmnn..."Everything is energy" I am going to have to think and research a bit on that proclamation. Any suggestions where to start, like where you did?
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 04:44:17 [Permalink]
|
New question!
If a mass were travelling past us at near light speed, how would we detect the Higgs field? |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 06:07:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
In that sense, I believe that I used the word "tranformation" correctly. Surely you wouldn't deny that ice and steam have significantly different forms and functions and one cannot substitute for the other; even though both assuredly are different expressions of the same compound - water!. |
And yet, steam condenses into liquid water, which condenses into ice, much like the energy present at the Big Bang condensed into quarks and gluons after 10-32 seconds, and those condensed into hadrons and leptons after 10-6 seconds (and those condensed into atomic nucleii some three minutes later, etc.). The individual water molecules don't transform in the state changes of water, they simply bond together differently based on their temperature. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 09:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
New question!
If a mass were travelling past us at near light speed, how would we detect the Higgs field?
|
Depend of the mass; but the closer it gets from C; the bigger would be its apparent mass for us and the bigger its Higgs field.
So; it would be something like a wandering black hole. At first it would be an object that appear to bend the light slightly around it (we would see stars that actually are behind it, as if it were translucent).
As it enters the solar system; its Higgs field would start messing with the other objects' orbits.
Then it will get even closer and start swallowing the earth atmosphere. Then us. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 09:41:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
I do not profess to expertise in particle physics, I am currently attempting to acquire a rudimentary familiarity with the field. I appreciate your efforts to help me in this effort.
But I am moderately adept in the use of the English language, and I have found in years of writing that it is well to follow authority as to the definition of words.
The Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged is well accepted a primary authority on the meaning and proper usage of English words. Wiki says "It was accepted as the ultimate authority on meaning and usage and its preeminence is recognized"
Webster's Third International defines the word "transform" thus (exact quote):| 3 a : to change (one form of energy) into another (the engine transforms potential energy into motion) |
You have stated: "Everything is energy"
Matter is part of everything
Therefore matter is energy
If one is to accept Webster as an authority on the proper use of a word, one would have to conclude that it is completely appropriate to state that matter (one form of energy) can transform into energy (undeniably another form of energy) - exactly as the Dictionary does in it's example of the proper usage of the word "transform"!
Your statement:| But the real point that you seem to be missing is that matter is energy. E=mc2 is an equation describing the mass/energy equivalence. Thinking of it as a "transformation" is to miss what's probably reality: everything is energy, |
I think of it as a transformation in precisely the sense that Webster informs me is the proper use of the word.
I did not misstate. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 09:47:48 [Permalink]
|
| Well; Webster is not a physic textbook so their definition may have overlooked some aspect of the physicists'. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 10:22:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I did not misstate. |
And my point was that thinking about it in such terms is probably where you're stumbling. But you'd obviously prefer to focus on the meanings of the words used to describe the concepts instead of trying to grok the concepts themselves. Have fun with that. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The speed of light and mass
