|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:27 pm
Khalida Nyoka The FLCL Guy what is mass? what makes something physical? what makes it so that when to molecules hit eachother them bounce from one another? What are atoms made of? Whats in the space where no molecules are at? Mass: what we choose to measure matter by. Weight is actually the effect gravity has on a body of mass. Perception makes something physical. Energy exchange causes the atoms to bounce off of each other. The atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons but we don't know what makes those (I'd argue for everything being strings, personally ^_^, I like string theory). Where there is nothing "physical" we have no way of knowing, in order to observe it there would have to be matter there. I can't be sure, but I think those questions were rhetorical. To try to get a "oh, matter is energy!" response. But by definition, the space where no matter is...is a vacuum, right? But as for the whole "matter is energy" thing, I'm not saying matter and energy are synonymous. That clearly isn't true. But they are related. Ambrose, I'm assuming you know what a photon is. You would agree light is energy? But what is the definition of a photon? Wikipedia, my savior, says "the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena...The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be slowed or even absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties; it exhibits wave–particle duality." A photon is energy, but it is also a particle. It has invariant mass, but has the ablility to change the invariant mass of a system. If a system emits a photon, the system loses mass. Granted, not much mass (E/c^2), but mass nonetheless. So, what does that tell you?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:50 pm
Then there are phonons as well. Phonons are heat particles. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 3:56 pm
Khalida Nyoka Then there are phonons as well. Phonons are heat particles. ^_^ Yeah, there are quite a few particles that behave similarly. I was just using photons as one example, since anyone who's taken a biology course and learned about plant cycles should know at least what a photon is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:37 pm
Or anyone in my high-schools "Integrated Physical Science" course...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:24 pm
Khalida Nyoka If you want abstract science, here is a bit for you. Science currently believes there are (I think) 27 dimensions. Logically I can only fathom six. Mass and matter are actually seperate dimensions. They are Orthogonal to each other, and only really minimally affect each other. Time is its own dimension, as is energy. first dimension: the line second: shape (circle, square) third: volume fourth: mass fifth: energy sixth: time. All of these affect each other, but by definition they should not. It is thought that within the void of space that matter spontaneously forms and then vanishes from reality. However, as one particle forms, another is suppsoed to vanish. The conservation laws are not really defied by that. I knows me some science. I can also talk to any professor for more details, if anyone would like more~! Where the hell have you been reading your theories from? confused Crackpots.com? I've read all books I found in the local library on Einstein's view of the universe as well as partially reading until I got bored Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time. You have your definitions of dimensions entirely wrong. A dimension is merely a measurement of WHERE in space something is. Something exists in a specific x coordinate for a specific y coordinate for a specific z coordinate for a specific t coordinate. Things don't exist within a certain energy, nor do they exist within a mass. Mass is an entirely different measurement. That's like measuring volume in degrees celcius! stressed There are only four dimensions as outlined by Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Minkowski, and hundreds of other great scientists. Width, height, depth, and time. Quote: "I want you to imagine a point. On the Euclydian geometry plane. You'd agree that this point doesn't really exist, right?" "Well, obviously. Because it has no width, height or depth. It's infinitely tiny, and therefore equal to 0." "Yes. Now suppose we had a line. You'd say that this line also doesn't exist. The same for a square. Neither of these exist for the same reason. They have a depth of nil." "Yes, that's true." "Now take a cube. I'd argue that this cube also doesn't exist." "I don't believe that. A cube has a height, width, and depth. It surely exists." "Yes, but can a cube exist that only exists for a nil amount of time?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:44 pm
DrasBrisingr Khalida Nyoka The FLCL Guy what is mass? what makes something physical? what makes it so that when to molecules hit eachother them bounce from one another? What are atoms made of? Whats in the space where no molecules are at? Mass: what we choose to measure matter by. Weight is actually the effect gravity has on a body of mass. Perception makes something physical. Energy exchange causes the atoms to bounce off of each other. The atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons but we don't know what makes those (I'd argue for everything being strings, personally ^_^, I like string theory). Where there is nothing "physical" we have no way of knowing, in order to observe it there would have to be matter there. I can't be sure, but I think those questions were rhetorical. To try to get a "oh, matter is energy!" response. But by definition, the space where no matter is...is a vacuum, right? But as for the whole "matter is energy" thing, I'm not saying matter and energy are synonymous. That clearly isn't true. But they are related. Ambrose, I'm assuming you know what a photon is. You would agree light is energy? But what is the definition of a photon? Wikipedia, my savior, says "the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena...The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be slowed or even absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties; it exhibits wave–particle duality." A photon is energy, but it is also a particle. It has invariant mass, but has the ablility to change the invariant mass of a system. If a system emits a photon, the system loses mass. Granted, not much mass (E/c^2), but mass nonetheless. So, what does that tell you? Actually- no scientist ever said that photons have 0 mass. It's that photons have indeterminate mass. It's impossible to figure out the mass of a photon. I believe the math leads it to be something like (c/λ)h/c ("The speed of the particle over the wavelength multiplied by planck's divided by the speed of light squared", or simplified- "The force of the particle divided by the speed."). One would agree that since F = ma that F/a = m, yes? However there's no way to determine the force in a photon since it's too small to measure and since photons travel too fast to capture. Photons, in essense, have the smallest amount of mass in the universe. Their sole purpose of existing is to carry a single quanta before being absorbed by an electron. And still- a photons mass is so small that we notice next to no change in the mass of the electron when it is absorbed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:01 pm
ambrose_sallia DrasBrisingr Khalida Nyoka The FLCL Guy what is mass? what makes something physical? what makes it so that when to molecules hit eachother them bounce from one another? What are atoms made of? Whats in the space where no molecules are at? Mass: what we choose to measure matter by. Weight is actually the effect gravity has on a body of mass. Perception makes something physical. Energy exchange causes the atoms to bounce off of each other. The atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons but we don't know what makes those (I'd argue for everything being strings, personally ^_^, I like string theory). Where there is nothing "physical" we have no way of knowing, in order to observe it there would have to be matter there. I can't be sure, but I think those questions were rhetorical. To try to get a "oh, matter is energy!" response. But by definition, the space where no matter is...is a vacuum, right? But as for the whole "matter is energy" thing, I'm not saying matter and energy are synonymous. That clearly isn't true. But they are related. Ambrose, I'm assuming you know what a photon is. You would agree light is energy? But what is the definition of a photon? Wikipedia, my savior, says "the photon is the elementary particle responsible for electromagnetic phenomena...The photon has zero invariant mass and travels at the constant speed c, the speed of light in empty space. However, in the presence of matter, a photon can be slowed or even absorbed, transferring energy and momentum proportional to its frequency. Like all quanta, the photon has both wave and particle properties; it exhibits wave–particle duality." A photon is energy, but it is also a particle. It has invariant mass, but has the ablility to change the invariant mass of a system. If a system emits a photon, the system loses mass. Granted, not much mass (E/c^2), but mass nonetheless. So, what does that tell you? Actually- no scientist ever said that photons have 0 mass. It's that photons have indeterminate mass. It's impossible to figure out the mass of a photon. I believe the math leads it to be something like (c/λ)h/c ("The speed of the particle over the wavelength multiplied by planck's divided by the speed of light squared", or simplified- "The force of the particle divided by the speed."). One would agree that since F = ma that F/a = m, yes? However there's no way to determine the force in a photon since it's too small to measure and since photons travel too fast to capture. Photons, in essense, have the smallest amount of mass in the universe. Their sole purpose of existing is to carry a single quanta before being absorbed by an electron. And still- a photons mass is so small that we notice next to no change in the mass of the electron when it is absorbed. Well, ok, yeah, I agree with you there. I must have skipped over that "zero invariable mass" part and just read it as "invariabe mass", since that is indeed what it has. A mistake on my and Wiki's part. But either way, you just kind of...proved what I was trying to say. A photon has mass, no? So energy has mass. Not all energy, you may argue, but at least one type. Do we agree on this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:09 pm
DrasBrisingr ambrose_sallia Actually- no scientist ever said that photons have 0 mass. It's that photons have indeterminate mass. It's impossible to figure out the mass of a photon. I believe the math leads it to be something like (c/λ)h/c ("The speed of the particle over the wavelength multiplied by planck's divided by the speed of light squared", or simplified- "The force of the particle divided by the speed."). One would agree that since F = ma that F/a = m, yes? However there's no way to determine the force in a photon since it's too small to measure and since photons travel too fast to capture. Photons, in essense, have the smallest amount of mass in the universe. Their sole purpose of existing is to carry a single quanta before being absorbed by an electron. And still- a photons mass is so small that we notice next to no change in the mass of the electron when it is absorbed. Well, ok, yeah, I agree with you there. I must have skipped over that "zero invariable mass" part and just read it as "invariabe mass", since that is indeed what it has. A mistake on my and Wiki's part. But either way, you just kind of...proved what I was trying to say. A photon has mass, no? So energy has mass. Not all energy, you may argue, but at least one type. Do we agree on this? I actually disagree with you here. I believe that a photon is the smallest piece of matter carrying in it the smallest piece of energy. A photon is the combination of matter and energy, not any single one. Matter, the way I see it, is like a container for energy. I know of no documented places or events in which energy exists that it isn't inside of matter. Whether it be potential energy stored inside of matter or kinetic energy of moving matter or some strange type of energy contained in photons that we can scarecely comprehend with our modern knowledge- energy exists inside of matter. The reason, though, that I don't believe matter and energy are closely related (despite the thus-far apparent need for energy to have matter containing it) is that matter can exist without energy. One can ground all electrons and place an atom at the center of the universe and it'll exist absorbing no energy, radiating no energy, and with no potential energy or kinetic energy. It'll simply exist. Nothing more. Yet it exists none-the-less, without the need of energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:35 pm
ambrose_sallia DrasBrisingr ambrose_sallia Actually- no scientist ever said that photons have 0 mass. It's that photons have indeterminate mass. It's impossible to figure out the mass of a photon. I believe the math leads it to be something like (c/λ)h/c ("The speed of the particle over the wavelength multiplied by planck's divided by the speed of light squared", or simplified- "The force of the particle divided by the speed."). One would agree that since F = ma that F/a = m, yes? However there's no way to determine the force in a photon since it's too small to measure and since photons travel too fast to capture. Photons, in essense, have the smallest amount of mass in the universe. Their sole purpose of existing is to carry a single quanta before being absorbed by an electron. And still- a photons mass is so small that we notice next to no change in the mass of the electron when it is absorbed. Well, ok, yeah, I agree with you there. I must have skipped over that "zero invariable mass" part and just read it as "invariabe mass", since that is indeed what it has. A mistake on my and Wiki's part. But either way, you just kind of...proved what I was trying to say. A photon has mass, no? So energy has mass. Not all energy, you may argue, but at least one type. Do we agree on this? I actually disagree with you here. I believe that a photon is the smallest piece of matter carrying in it the smallest piece of energy. A photon is the combination of matter and energy, not any single one. Matter, the way I see it, is like a container for energy. I know of no documented places or events in which energy exists that it isn't inside of matter. Whether it be potential energy stored inside of matter or kinetic energy of moving matter or some strange type of energy contained in photons that we can scarecely comprehend with our modern knowledge- energy exists inside of matter. The reason, though, that I don't believe matter and energy are closely related (despite the thus-far apparent need for energy to have matter containing it) is that matter can exist without energy. One can ground all electrons and place an atom at the center of the universe and it'll exist absorbing no energy, radiating no energy, and with no potential energy or kinetic energy. It'll simply exist. Nothing more. Yet it exists none-the-less, without the need of energy. But from a different angle, photons also have wave properties, correct? I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding something right. But you also said an atom can exist without energy, correct? In an atom, the electrons...revolve isn't quite the right word, but it'll do...around the nucleus in orbitals, correct? The reason the electrons stay completely equidistant from the nucleus is because the nucleus has a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge, correct? So why wouldn't that be considered energy? And if you ground the electrons...wouldn't it cease to be an atom, and just become a pile of subatomic particles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:42 pm
I think your mistake here ambrose is assuming that even the Earth, or the rest of the universe for that matter, follows Euclidian geometry. The planet earth is part of the Elliptical system, not the standard euclidian. If the earth were flat, then euclidian geometry would define it perfectly.
As for my sources:
Two electrical engineers, one a graduate of Purdue University, the other a Stanford graduate. The third source being another graduate of Purdue, with a Ph.D. in quantum physics, who works at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. I also draw my information from another Dr., but her field is actually biology (relevant chemistry knowledge).
Never rule out the possibility that other sources are incorrect. Just as Einstein proved Newton wrong, so too is it possible for Einstein to be proven wrong. I'm not saying he has been proven wrong yet, either.
For defining something in space, it takes more than four coordinates. When using a standard graph, that is ok, but it would take several reference points in space to pinpoint the location of anything.
One thing none of them explained is where mass is derived from, not as far as I know. Without the elements of mass, and energy, even if there was a lone cube in a void where time still proceeded, nothing would change. All laws and theories would be void (pardon the pun). There would be no entropy, the system would remain unchanged, as none of the variant quantities would be present. It would lose no energy, as it would have none. It could not break apart, as it wuld have no mass, or matter to compose it.
I needn't ask your sources, though I could ask for the dates of those sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 7:48 pm
DrasBrisingr ambrose_sallia DrasBrisingr ambrose_sallia Actually- no scientist ever said that photons have 0 mass. It's that photons have indeterminate mass. It's impossible to figure out the mass of a photon. I believe the math leads it to be something like (c/λ)h/c ("The speed of the particle over the wavelength multiplied by planck's divided by the speed of light squared", or simplified- "The force of the particle divided by the speed."). One would agree that since F = ma that F/a = m, yes? However there's no way to determine the force in a photon since it's too small to measure and since photons travel too fast to capture. Photons, in essense, have the smallest amount of mass in the universe. Their sole purpose of existing is to carry a single quanta before being absorbed by an electron. And still- a photons mass is so small that we notice next to no change in the mass of the electron when it is absorbed. Well, ok, yeah, I agree with you there. I must have skipped over that "zero invariable mass" part and just read it as "invariabe mass", since that is indeed what it has. A mistake on my and Wiki's part. But either way, you just kind of...proved what I was trying to say. A photon has mass, no? So energy has mass. Not all energy, you may argue, but at least one type. Do we agree on this? I actually disagree with you here. I believe that a photon is the smallest piece of matter carrying in it the smallest piece of energy. A photon is the combination of matter and energy, not any single one. Matter, the way I see it, is like a container for energy. I know of no documented places or events in which energy exists that it isn't inside of matter. Whether it be potential energy stored inside of matter or kinetic energy of moving matter or some strange type of energy contained in photons that we can scarecely comprehend with our modern knowledge- energy exists inside of matter. The reason, though, that I don't believe matter and energy are closely related (despite the thus-far apparent need for energy to have matter containing it) is that matter can exist without energy. One can ground all electrons and place an atom at the center of the universe and it'll exist absorbing no energy, radiating no energy, and with no potential energy or kinetic energy. It'll simply exist. Nothing more. Yet it exists none-the-less, without the need of energy. But from a different angle, photons also have wave properties, correct? I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding something right. But you also said an atom can exist without energy, correct? In an atom, the electrons...revolve isn't quite the right word, but it'll do...around the nucleus in orbitals, correct? The reason the electrons stay completely equidistant from the nucleus is because the nucleus has a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge, correct? So why wouldn't that be considered energy? And if you ground the electrons...wouldn't it cease to be an atom, and just become a pile of subatomic particles? I believe having a lone proton is actual an Alpha particle. Alpha particles = bad news for j00. This I learned from the AP chemistry teack back in high skool. A single isolated proton could yield massive destructive effects. Beta particles, I think, are the electrons. (It could be possible to build a bomb with the use of alpha and beta particles.) There is never, in anyt situation, a lone proton for long. It is also currently thought that they don't follow such nice paths as an orbital, the current beloved theory is the electron cloud idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:05 pm
Khalida Nyoka DrasBrisingr ambrose_sallia DrasBrisingr ambrose_sallia Actually- no scientist ever said that photons have 0 mass. It's that photons have indeterminate mass. It's impossible to figure out the mass of a photon. I believe the math leads it to be something like (c/λ)h/c ("The speed of the particle over the wavelength multiplied by planck's divided by the speed of light squared", or simplified- "The force of the particle divided by the speed."). One would agree that since F = ma that F/a = m, yes? However there's no way to determine the force in a photon since it's too small to measure and since photons travel too fast to capture. Photons, in essense, have the smallest amount of mass in the universe. Their sole purpose of existing is to carry a single quanta before being absorbed by an electron. And still- a photons mass is so small that we notice next to no change in the mass of the electron when it is absorbed. Well, ok, yeah, I agree with you there. I must have skipped over that "zero invariable mass" part and just read it as "invariabe mass", since that is indeed what it has. A mistake on my and Wiki's part. But either way, you just kind of...proved what I was trying to say. A photon has mass, no? So energy has mass. Not all energy, you may argue, but at least one type. Do we agree on this? I actually disagree with you here. I believe that a photon is the smallest piece of matter carrying in it the smallest piece of energy. A photon is the combination of matter and energy, not any single one. Matter, the way I see it, is like a container for energy. I know of no documented places or events in which energy exists that it isn't inside of matter. Whether it be potential energy stored inside of matter or kinetic energy of moving matter or some strange type of energy contained in photons that we can scarecely comprehend with our modern knowledge- energy exists inside of matter. The reason, though, that I don't believe matter and energy are closely related (despite the thus-far apparent need for energy to have matter containing it) is that matter can exist without energy. One can ground all electrons and place an atom at the center of the universe and it'll exist absorbing no energy, radiating no energy, and with no potential energy or kinetic energy. It'll simply exist. Nothing more. Yet it exists none-the-less, without the need of energy. But from a different angle, photons also have wave properties, correct? I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding something right. But you also said an atom can exist without energy, correct? In an atom, the electrons...revolve isn't quite the right word, but it'll do...around the nucleus in orbitals, correct? The reason the electrons stay completely equidistant from the nucleus is because the nucleus has a positive charge while electrons have a negative charge, correct? So why wouldn't that be considered energy? And if you ground the electrons...wouldn't it cease to be an atom, and just become a pile of subatomic particles? I believe having a lone proton is actual an Alpha particle. Alpha particles = bad news for j00. This I learned from the AP chemistry teack back in high skool. A single isolated proton could yield massive destructive effects. Beta particles, I think, are the electrons. (It could be possible to build a bomb with the use of alpha and beta particles.) There is never, in anyt situation, a lone proton for long. It is also currently thought that they don't follow such nice paths as an orbital, the current beloved theory is the electron cloud idea. Alpha particles are actually He+2 atoms ^^;; That being a Helium atom (2 protons, 2 neutrons, 2 electrons) with two electrons removed (leaving only 2 protons and 2 neutrons). However yes, a beta particle is an electron. And alpha particles are deadly because radioactive elements are too large to hold themselves together. A slight bump or shock could cause it to collapse. Therefore an alpha particle slamming into it could cause it to shatter. In shattering, the positive force of the now seperated nucleus (no longer under the affect of nuclear magnetic forces) propel more alpha particles in all directions- hitting more atoms and causing these atoms to release MORE alpha particles. In other words? Atomic bomb 3nodding And if you wish for the date of my sources, I shall happily provide 3nodding Einstein's Universe November 2, 1988Albert Einstein June 1, 1998A Brief History of Time September 1, 1998I also read some book in our school's library that I can't recall the name to which has a hard-back cover colored solid green with the exception of a golden etching of a gridded sphere on the front. I can't recall the name as it wasn't printed on the front, and I therefore can't look it up to find a date sweatdrop I believe it was from around 1970, though (it was the oldest of my sources). And all of my information on photons and the mass of electrons and such comes from chem class, wiki, and google. I won't pretend to be bored enough to study photons ninja It's dimensions that intrigue me ^_^ Anything I can do math with is a hobby to me whee - geek -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 8:20 pm
I am glad that you are using up to date sources. Which I actually mean, no sarcasm.
Thanks for reminding me what an alpha particle was. Though current atomic bombs do, of course, use uranium and.or plutonium. No Nuclear bomb arguments/discussions... I have the working knowledge it takes to build one. I also managed to find in depth schematics for them, using the internet! I'm a scary one... give me some uranum, protective gear, and some cash, and you'll get a bomb... or a prison sentence...
My point: I know far too much about nuclear weapons... at one point they were looking into making a nuclear depth charge (an under-water bomb for submarines to use, or have them used on). hen you have your old fashioned Davy Crocket...
My fav. non-nuclear bomb being the Daisy Cutter~!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:00 am
What's with all this censoring crap? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:28 pm
Blind Guardian the 2nd What's with all this censoring crap? neutral That was done for the sake of preventing anyone from understanding the symbol ^^;; You can't understand what you can't see. I've said this in past pages, but you may not wish to sift through 11 pages of nonsense, so I'll say it again for your convenience 3nodding There's no danger in the symbol itself. Just looking at it won't bring harm to you, and using it won't do anything. However if you understand it (and therefore possess all the knowledge that goes along with comprehending it) then that KNOWLEDGE is dangerous to possess. We removed the symbol so that no one could see it and realize what it meant. If you have any questions concerning the symbol, please ask me. I can answer all questions in such a way as to not speak of the specific powers of the symbol, protecting you from understanding it 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
