|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5221 days) Posts: 4 From: Farmington, ME, U.S. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
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: Member Rating: 9.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MatterWave Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 87 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 137 Joined: |
Percy,
that thread is closed.. "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you all. Amen." Sasuke!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
No it's not.
Percy posted the wrong link. Click EvC Forum: Where did the matter and energy come from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Sasuke writes: Percy,that thread is closed.. But this version of Where did the matter and energy come from? isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Link is correct now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sasuke Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 137 Joined:
|
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024