Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #457956 > unrolled thread

Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 01:16 -0700
    Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 08:44 -0700
      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 09:28 -0700
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:05 +0200
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:08 +0200
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 11:01 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-05-15 20:30 +0200
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-15 19:14 +0000
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 22:15 -0700
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 07:31 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 12:57 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 16:09 -0700
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 16:45 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 21:21 -0700
                  Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-17 01:15 -0700
                    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:33 -0700
                      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 01:28 -0700
                      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-18 02:28 -0700
    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 19:02 -0400
      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-15 22:24 -0700
        Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Dan Riley <dan131riley@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 10:11 -0400
          Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 07:37 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-16 15:23 +0000
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-16 21:12 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 12:22 +0000
                  Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-05-20 00:17 -0700
            Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-05-16 13:58 -0700
              Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-16 14:20 -0700
                Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Ursula Vankeuren <aln@divweo.id> - 2018-05-19 18:45 +0000
                  Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 21:15 -0700
    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. chanrasjid@gmail.com - 2018-05-19 06:11 -0700
      Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 16:01 +0000
    Re: Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified. paul jark <jarkpaulsmith@gmail.com> - 2018-05-19 13:31 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#457956 — Mass-energy equivalence of Emc2 not verified.

"A critique on Einstein’s mass-energy relationship and Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle"
Ling Jun Wang
A peer-reviewed paper:
2017 Physics Essays Publication. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-30.1.75]

Free download available:
https://www.academia.edu/36471203/A_critique_on_Einsteins_mass-energy_relationship_and_Heisenbergs_uncertainty_principle

Abstract: "We have shown that Einstein’s mass-energy relationship has never been confirmed by experiments. The mass-energy relationship is not compatible with potential energy and electro-dynamic energy. The mass-energy equivalence and mutual convertibility are not a fact but a
hypothesis. It violates the mass conservation law and energy conservation law and, in conjunction with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, opens the door to creatio ex nihilo of the Big Bang
cosmology."

From the above article:
The only experiments cited as verification of mass-energy equivalence is the textbook pair-production and annihilation of electron-positron or proton-antiproton.
1) no experiment has ever been done to match the mass defect of nuclides with the supposed binding energies; only theoretical analysis.
2) electron-positron  production ; "Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber". It is not a mass production out of vacuum.
3) no direct experiment about pair annihilation.

So E=m₀c² is only a hypothesis that has not been verified experimentally.

Chan Rasjid

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#457969

The first direct test of E = mc2 was done after Cockcroft and Walton split Li-7 with accelerated protons in 1933 to make He-4. The mass difference is measured by mass spectrometry, and the kinetic energies are measured also, and they agree.

A modern version binds neurons to Si and S atoms and carefully measure the capture gamma energy. It is equal to the mass difference in particles before and after binding.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maynard_Dewey/publication/7399131_World_Year_of_Physics_A_direct_test_of_Emc2/links/0fcfd512427eda05d6000000/World-Year-of-Physics-A-direct-test-of-Emc2.pdf

Your author needs to do his homework.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457972

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> The first direct test of E = mc2 was done after Cockcroft and Walton split Li-7 with accelerated protons in 1933 to make He-4. The mass difference is measured by mass spectrometry, and the kinetic energies are measured also, and they agree.
> 
> A modern version binds neurons to Si and S atoms and carefully measure the capture gamma energy. It is equal to the mass difference in particles before and after binding.
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maynard_Dewey/publication/7399131_World_Year_of_Physics_A_direct_test_of_Emc2/links/0fcfd512427eda05d6000000/World-Year-of-Physics-A-direct-test-of-Emc2.pdf
> 
> Your author needs to do his homework.

From your link:
"Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."

The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
"Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.

Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.

Chan Rasjid.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457978

chanrasjid@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
>> The first direct test of E = mc2 was done after Cockcroft and Walton split Li-7 with accelerated protons in 1933 to make He-4. The mass difference is measured by mass spectrometry, and the kinetic energies are measured also, and they agree.
>> 
>> A modern version binds neurons to Si and S atoms and carefully measure the capture gamma energy. It is equal to the mass difference in particles before and after binding.
>> 
>> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maynard_Dewey/publication/7399131_World_Year_of_Physics_A_direct_test_of_Emc2/links/0fcfd512427eda05d6000000/World-Year-of-Physics-A-direct-test-of-Emc2.pdf
>> 
>> Your author needs to do his homework.
> 
> From your link:
> "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> 
> The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> 
> Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> 
> Chan Rasjid.  
> 
I would be even more strict.

You need to do proper research of what is known, before posting
 contraversial  article  with suspicious  statements.

You are very uncritical with acceptance of the mentioned article.
There is bunch of nonsenses.

There are several serious physical forums, not based on Usenet.
The age of serious Usenet  has gone.

See 
physics.stackexchanhe.com
www.physicsforums.com 

But they have high standards to accept posting or discussion.

OTOH,  Usenet has no forced standards, except for few moderated
 forums like sci.physicics.research,
and allows posting of articles of any  quality. 

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457979

Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> Wrote in message:

 
> 
> See 
> physics.stackexchanhe.com
> www.physicsforums.com 
> 
Correction
https://physics.stackexchange.com

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457987

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:05:07 AM UTC+8, Libor Striz wrote:
> chanrasjid@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 11:45:00 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> >> The first direct test of E = mc2 was done after Cockcroft and Walton split Li-7 with accelerated protons in 1933 to make He-4. The mass difference is measured by mass spectrometry, and the kinetic energies are measured also, and they agree.
> >> 
> >> A modern version binds neurons to Si and S atoms and carefully measure the capture gamma energy. It is equal to the mass difference in particles before and after binding.
> >> 
> >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maynard_Dewey/publication/7399131_World_Year_of_Physics_A_direct_test_of_Emc2/links/0fcfd512427eda05d6000000/World-Year-of-Physics-A-direct-test-of-Emc2.pdf
> >> 
> >> Your author needs to do his homework.
> > 
> > From your link:
> > "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> > 
> > The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> > "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> > 
> > Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> > 
> > Chan Rasjid.  
> > 
> I would be even more strict.
> 
> You need to do proper research of what is known, before posting
>  contraversial  article  with suspicious  statements.
> 
> You are very uncritical with acceptance of the mentioned article.
> There is bunch of nonsenses.
>
"nonsense" is rather relative.
 
> There are several serious physical forums, not based on Usenet.
> The age of serious Usenet  has gone.
> 
> See 
> physics.stackexchanhe.com
> www.physicsforums.com 
> 
> But they have high standards to accept posting or discussion.
>
"high standards" again is rather relative.
 
> OTOH,  Usenet has no forced standards, except for few moderated
>  forums like sci.physicics.research,
> and allows posting of articles of any  quality. 
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
>
"stupidity" is again rather relative!
 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Chan Rasjid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457988

chanrasjid@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:05:07 AM UTC+8, Libor Striz wrote:


>> You are very uncritical with acceptance of the mentioned article.
>> There is bunch of nonsenses.
>>
> "nonsense" is rather relative.

Only for relativists, not for physicists.


>> But they have high standards to accept posting or discussion.
>>
> "high standards" again is rather relative.

Well, relatively to your standards, as I follow you for long time,
 they are very high.


>> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
>> 
>> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
>> Miloš Forman
>>
> "stupidity" is again rather relative!
>  

 "The shot goose has the loudest honking."

All your approach is confrontation and argumentative, the proper
 trolling behaviour, putting aside scientific approach.

I will not follow this thread.

-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#457990

Libor Striz wrote:

>>> There is bunch of nonsenses.
>>>
>> "nonsense" is rather relative.
> 
> Only for relativists, not for physicists.
>  
>>> But they have high standards to accept posting or discussion.
>>>
>> "high standards" again is rather relative.
> 
> Well, relatively to your standards, as I follow you for long time,
>  they are very high.

That's necessary. If you what to understand relativity, you have to go 
through the rabbit hole.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458041

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:28:18 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
 
> From your link:
> "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> 
> The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with >neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  

Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point.

When a neutron is added to Si-32, the resultant Si-33 does not gain the full mass of the neutron. It emits some  gamma radiation and picks up some recoil kinetic energy doing so, that THOSE when added to Si-33 mass, equal the total mass of the neutron + Si-32. Total mass-energy is conserved.

The mass of Si-33 is less only because you let the energy of the gamma ray escape the system, and we didn't count the kinetic energy. But they add mass to systems.

Einstein's original little gedanken had two photons emitted from an object, and lost. The object then loss mass equal to E/c^2 where E was the energy of the photons.

Suppose you'd come to Einstein in 1905 and said: "Sir, what happens if those two light rays are not allowed to escape, but bounce around in a can with the object. Does the whole can lose weight? 

He would have to say "no." Thus, massless photons add mass to closed systems, even though they individually have no mass!  That a fun bit of relativistic kinematics that Einstein hadn't worked out in 1905. Others would do it for him systematically in the next five years (energy-momentum-mass equation).

 








It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> 
> Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> 
> Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458052

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:15:20 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:28:18 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
>  
> > From your link:
> > "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> > 
> > The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with >neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  
> 
> Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point.
> 
> When a neutron is added to Si-32, the resultant Si-33 does not gain the full mass of the neutron. It emits some  gamma radiation and picks up some recoil kinetic energy doing so, that THOSE when added to Si-33 mass, equal the total mass of the neutron + Si-32. Total mass-energy is conserved.
> 
> The mass of Si-33 is less only because you let the energy of the gamma ray escape the system, and we didn't count the kinetic energy. But they add mass to systems.
> 
> Einstein's original little gedanken had two photons emitted from an object, and lost. The object then loss mass equal to E/c^2 where E was the energy of the photons.
> 
> Suppose you'd come to Einstein in 1905 and said: "Sir, what happens if those two light rays are not allowed to escape, but bounce around in a can with the object. Does the whole can lose weight? 
> 
> He would have to say "no." Thus, massless photons add mass to closed systems, even though they individually have no mass!  That a fun bit of relativistic kinematics that Einstein hadn't worked out in 1905. Others would do it for him systematically in the next five years (energy-momentum-mass equation).
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> > "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> > 
> > Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> > 
> > Chan Rasjid.

"Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point."

It is true that anything involving mass-defect and binding energy would be related to E=mc², but we may have to be more careful with certain exceptional cases.

Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458091

Why?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458106

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 7:31:40 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:15:20 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:28:18 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >  
> > > From your link:
> > > "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> > > 
> > > The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with >neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  
> > 
> > Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point.
> > 
> > When a neutron is added to Si-32, the resultant Si-33 does not gain the full mass of the neutron. It emits some  gamma radiation and picks up some recoil kinetic energy doing so, that THOSE when added to Si-33 mass, equal the total mass of the neutron + Si-32. Total mass-energy is conserved.
> > 
> > The mass of Si-33 is less only because you let the energy of the gamma ray escape the system, and we didn't count the kinetic energy. But they add mass to systems.
> > 
> > Einstein's original little gedanken had two photons emitted from an object, and lost. The object then loss mass equal to E/c^2 where E was the energy of the photons.
> > 
> > Suppose you'd come to Einstein in 1905 and said: "Sir, what happens if those two light rays are not allowed to escape, but bounce around in a can with the object. Does the whole can lose weight? 
> > 
> > He would have to say "no." Thus, massless photons add mass to closed systems, even though they individually have no mass!  That a fun bit of relativistic kinematics that Einstein hadn't worked out in 1905. Others would do it for him systematically in the next five years (energy-momentum-mass equation).
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> > > "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> > > 
> > > Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> > > 
> > > Chan Rasjid.
> 
> "Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point."
> 
> It is true that anything involving mass-defect and binding energy would be related to E=mc², but we may have to be more careful with certain exceptional cases.
> 
> Chan Rasjid.


Why? You've put so many post hoc and ad hoc objections in for no good reason, that this is comedic. 

"Oh, we can't put neutrons in. Oh, we can't use some cases of binding energy. Oh, we can't used charged particles if there is a third one. Oh we can't use charged particle if there is no third one, because that's a special case (neutral pion decaying to two photons). Oh, we can't use a paper where any author has a name that starts with 'k'."

The problem is that energy is not "converted" to mass, even in relativity, if you keep track of it all. Energy in isolated systems has mass, and so long as you don't let any energy out of the system, the mass doesn't change because the energy doesn't. If you DO let energy out and thus mass out (as in Einstein's 1905 dedanken) you can't say it's energy without mass, because in your original COM frame, even the energy you let out of the system continues to have mass-- you're just not counting it. So again, mass and energy are separately conserved if you do things properly. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458110

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 7:09:52 AM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 7:31:40 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 1:15:20 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:28:18 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >  
> > > > From your link:
> > > > "Our direct test is based on the prediction that when a nucleus captures a neutron and emits a γ-ray, the mass difference del-m between the initial (including unbound neutron) and final nuclear states, multiplied by c2) should equal the energy of the  emitted  γ-ray(s),  as  determined  from Planck’s  relation  E=hv."
> > > > 
> > > > The neutron mass of James Chadwick has E=mc2 written into it and anything with >neutron mass is not acceptable to verify E=mc2.  
> > > 
> > > Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point.
> > > 
> > > When a neutron is added to Si-32, the resultant Si-33 does not gain the full mass of the neutron. It emits some  gamma radiation and picks up some recoil kinetic energy doing so, that THOSE when added to Si-33 mass, equal the total mass of the neutron + Si-32. Total mass-energy is conserved.
> > > 
> > > The mass of Si-33 is less only because you let the energy of the gamma ray escape the system, and we didn't count the kinetic energy. But they add mass to systems.
> > > 
> > > Einstein's original little gedanken had two photons emitted from an object, and lost. The object then loss mass equal to E/c^2 where E was the energy of the photons.
> > > 
> > > Suppose you'd come to Einstein in 1905 and said: "Sir, what happens if those two light rays are not allowed to escape, but bounce around in a can with the object. Does the whole can lose weight? 
> > > 
> > > He would have to say "no." Thus, massless photons add mass to closed systems, even though they individually have no mass!  That a fun bit of relativistic kinematics that Einstein hadn't worked out in 1905. Others would do it for him systematically in the next five years (energy-momentum-mass equation).
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It is easy to dismiss the author  Ling Jun Wang  through :
> > > > "Your author needs to do his homework" and providing a link which shows e=mc2 has been "thoroughly" verified. You provide a link. Please tell me why I should accept what you linked to and why I should accept your dismissal of  Ling Jun Wang.
> > > > 
> > > > Finally this BBS type forum is generally not a decent forum for serious debate in physics. There actually is no proper forum to do any true debate in physics. Is there a proper manner of argument not base on "Your author needs to do his homework". I am bored by such statements as a serious statement of scientific discussion.
> > > > 
> > > > Chan Rasjid.
> > 
> > "Why not? The rest mass of all particles (not just the neutron) have E=mc^2 written into them. I fail to see your point."
> > 
> > It is true that anything involving mass-defect and binding energy would be related to E=mc², but we may have to be more careful with certain exceptional cases.
> > 
> > Chan Rasjid.
> 
> 
> Why? You've put so many post hoc and ad hoc objections in for no good reason, that this is comedic. 
> 
> "Oh, we can't put neutrons in. Oh, we can't use some cases of binding energy. Oh, we can't used charged particles if there is a third one. Oh we can't use charged particle if there is no third one, because that's a special case (neutral pion decaying to two photons). Oh, we can't use a paper where any author has a name that starts with 'k'."
> 
> The problem is that energy is not "converted" to mass, even in relativity, if you keep track of it all. Energy in isolated systems has mass, and so long as you don't let any energy out of the system, the mass doesn't change because the energy doesn't. If you DO let energy out and thus mass out (as in Einstein's 1905 dedanken) you can't say it's energy without mass, because in your original COM frame, even the energy you let out of the system continues to have mass-- you're just not counting it. So again, mass and energy are separately conserved if you do things properly.

What I talk about is what they teach in school and written in the textbook, not about philosophical interpretation. There is no ambiguity in the use of "equivalence". 

It is taught that an electron-positron pair of "pure" rest-mass is produced from a pure photon; but it cannot yet be done out of a vacuum. No one would complain if it is out of vacuum.

The CODATA (from somewhere ?) gives the mass-defect of every known nuclide and they teach that the equivalent binding energy per nucleon could then be used with E=m₀c² to calculate energy of any nuclear interaction. OK. But it is based on a yet unverified hypothesis. Such energies released have not been verified and measured accurately. The first experiment/link you gave has very great precision, but not acceptable. 

Your John Crockcroft experiment of 1932 was not a verification of of E=m₀c², only the first true nuclear transmutation from particle collision.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/5636
"Mistake in Nobel Lecture :
Sir John Cockcroft stated Einstein  E=mc2 is confirmed in experiments with reasonable accuracy
, in experiment of splitting of Li7 by swift proton yielding alpha particles, But actually % deviations in experiments are  16.594%, 2.491% and 9.678% at different times"

Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458125

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:45:29 PM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> It is taught that an electron-positron pair of "pure" rest-mass is produced from a pure photon; but it cannot yet be done out of a vacuum. No one would complain if it is out of vacuum.


You can't do it in vacuum because you need a second particle to absorb momentum. However, the reverse reaction of electron and positron to give two gamma rays is easily done in vacuum. What more do you want?

 
> The CODATA (from somewhere ?) gives the mass-defect of every known nuclide and they teach that the equivalent binding energy per nucleon could then be used with E=m₀c² to calculate energy of any nuclear interaction. OK. But it is based on a yet unverified hypothesis.<


No, it is not. A great many nuclear interactions have had their predicted energies *successfully* calculated that way. It works. How else do you suggest we verify hypotheses? 

The method is so well validated by now that we use it backwards: the best value for mass of the neutron is obrained by weighing deuterium, subtracting the mass of the proton and recoil energy, and the mass of the 2.2 MeV capture gamma, and the rest is the mass of the free neutron.

> Such energies released have not been verified and measured accurately.

Yes, they have. I gave you examples with S-32 and Si-28. The neutron mass experiment is checked against other previous values for neutron mass, and is accurate to them by at least 1%.


> The first experiment/link you gave has very great precision, but not acceptable. <


Why not? Because you don't like it?

 
> Your John Crockcroft experiment of 1932 was not a verification of of E=m₀c², only the first true nuclear transmutation from particle collision.
> http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Communications-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/5636
> "Mistake in Nobel Lecture :
> Sir John Cockcroft stated Einstein  E=mc2 is confirmed in experiments with reasonable accuracy
> , in experiment of splitting of Li7 by swift proton yielding alpha particles, But actually % deviations in experiments are  16.594%, 2.491% and 9.678% at different times"
> 
> Chan Rasjid.

The best figures were less than 10% different from prediction, even as cited by skeptics like the one below. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262925967_Did_the_Cockcroft-Walton_experiment_really_confirm_Einstein%27s_DE_Dmc2_first_of_all

Are you really going to suggest that E = 1.1 mc^2 or E = 0.9 mc^2 on first experiment, and hence Einstein is "wrong"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458130

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 12:21:41 PM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 4:45:29 PM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> You can't do it in vacuum because you need a second particle to absorb momentum. However, the reverse reaction of electron and positron to give two gamma rays is easily done in vacuum. What more do you want?

Here you win over me; but Wang did not accept the reverse reaction. I vote for him and not you.

> No, it is not. A great many nuclear interactions have had their predicted energies *successfully* calculated that way. It works. How else do you suggest we verify hypotheses? 

Have they really measured the energy and compare with the calculated?  

> The best figures were less than 10% different from prediction, even as cited by skeptics like the one below. 
Are you really going to suggest that E = 1.1 mc^2 or E = 0.9 mc^2 on first experiment, and hence Einstein is "wrong"?

You win again; but I what I know is this Cockcroft experiment  as in 1933 is no verification.

But this Crockcroft experiment could have settled the question of mass-energy equivalence and E=m₀c² conclusively and incontrovertibly. You have to ask the authors whom you cited earlier who did their verification with very great precision why they did no choose this interaction (or similar type interactions and instead chose what they chose):
		¹H  + ⁷Li  = ⁴He + ⁴He

If they had shown the world this experiment with the earlier precision they obtained, then no one could utter a single sound of protest.  Or maybe you have to ask your Almighty Lord God how such a verification could be done to settle a natural law He created incontrovertibly. Or what if the Lord God did not make any law of equivalence between mass and energy which some of His beloved creatures love so much to be true.

Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458189

On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:15:48 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Here you win over me; but Wang did not accept the reverse reaction [positron electron annihilation]. I vote for him and not you.


Question: WHY? What is logically wrong with positron-electron annihilation as an example of "mass to energy," (in the non-invariant mass sense) except that you don't like it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458250

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 3:33:43 AM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:15:48 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Here you win over me; but Wang did not accept the reverse reaction [positron electron annihilation]. I vote for him and not you.
> 
> 
> Question: WHY? What is logically wrong with positron-electron annihilation as an example of "mass to energy," (in the non-invariant mass sense) except that you don't like it?

Wang Ling Jun seems to have an argument why even the pair annihilation of electron-positron too cannot be taken as a verification of mass-energy equivalence,  but I don't understand the physics involved. Just as many here have "trust" in the relativists, I too have trust in the dissidents - that they must have done their homework.

Chan Rasjid. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458254

On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 3:33:43 AM UTC+8, Steve BH wrote:
> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 1:15:48 AM UTC-7, chanr...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Here you win over me; but Wang did not accept the reverse reaction [positron electron annihilation]. I vote for him and not you.
> 
> 
> Question: WHY? What is logically wrong with positron-electron annihilation as an example of "mass to energy," (in the non-invariant mass sense) except that you don't like it?

Read Wang's paper on pair annihilation:
"We simply do not have a solid experiment that provides evidence of annihilation beyond reasonable doubt. "

Chan Rasjid. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458029

chanrasjid@gmail.com writes:
> From the above article:
> The only experiments cited as verification of mass-energy equivalence
> is the textbook pair-production and annihilation of electron-positron
> or proton-antiproton.
> 1) no experiment has ever been done to match the mass defect of
> nuclides with the supposed binding energies; only theoretical
> analysis.
> 2) electron-positron production ; "Patrick Blackett's
> counter-controlled cloud chamber". It is not a mass production out of
> vacuum.
> 3) no direct experiment about pair annihilation.

Section VIII, the author claims that pair production is a photoelectric
effect, but how does a photoelectric effect create positrons?

Section IX, about half the objections are answered by positronium
spectroscopy, where the electron-positron annihilation is at rest and
has been observed with isolated positronium atoms--there ARE direct
experiments on pair annihilation.  The rest of the author's objections
are answered by e+e- collider mu-pair production, where only the
annihilation diagram is possible  and the final state is completely
clean.

wrt commercial PET scanners, they don't have tight timing or energy
windows because they don't need them--commercial scanners have windows
just good enough to reject cosmics, doing more would just make the unit
more expensive without improving diagnostic quality.  Experiments have
been done with very tight windows, picosecond timing windows and narrow
512 keV calorimetry cuts.  The author should be aware of these--so why
does the article instead talk about commercial PET scanners that have
windows no tighter than they need for diagnostic purposes?

Section X, the author confuses "relativistic mass" and mass-energy
equivalence.  They aren't the same thing!  This leads to a confusion
between the energy loss from synchrotron radiation vs. the energy
requirements to accelerate an electron at the relativistic limit.
The latter is seen at linear accelerators, where synchrotron isn't
a significant effect.

As an aside: in particle physics we mostly avoid "relativistic mass".
For us, "mass" means rest mass.  Contra the paper, this doesn't change
the fundamental mechanics, it's just a matter of conventional
terminology, and the prevailing choice is that "relativistic mass" tends
to lead to conceptual confusion.

> So E=m₀c² is only a hypothesis that has not been verified experimentally.

This plays the game of insisting on absolute proof, but there's never
absolute proof in science.  There's a huge amount of experimental
evidence that mass-energy equivalence is a good model, and this paper
doesn't mount much of an effective challenge to that evidence.

-dan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#458042

On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 7:02:08 AM UTC+8, Dan Riley wrote:
> chanrasjid@gmail.com writes:
> > From the above article:
> > The only experiments cited as verification of mass-energy equivalence
> > is the textbook pair-production and annihilation of electron-positron
> > or proton-antiproton.
> > 1) no experiment has ever been done to match the mass defect of
> > nuclides with the supposed binding energies; only theoretical
> > analysis.
> > 2) electron-positron production ; "Patrick Blackett's
> > counter-controlled cloud chamber". It is not a mass production out of
> > vacuum.
> > 3) no direct experiment about pair annihilation.
> 
> Section VIII, the author claims that pair production is a photoelectric
> effect, but how does a photoelectric effect create positrons?
> 
> Section IX, about half the objections are answered by positronium
> spectroscopy, where the electron-positron annihilation is at rest and
> has been observed with isolated positronium atoms--there ARE direct
> experiments on pair annihilation.  The rest of the author's objections
> are answered by e+e- collider mu-pair production, where only the
> annihilation diagram is possible  and the final state is completely
> clean.
> 
> wrt commercial PET scanners, they don't have tight timing or energy
> windows because they don't need them--commercial scanners have windows
> just good enough to reject cosmics, doing more would just make the unit
> more expensive without improving diagnostic quality.  Experiments have
> been done with very tight windows, picosecond timing windows and narrow
> 512 keV calorimetry cuts.  The author should be aware of these--so why
> does the article instead talk about commercial PET scanners that have
> windows no tighter than they need for diagnostic purposes?
> 
> Section X, the author confuses "relativistic mass" and mass-energy
> equivalence.  They aren't the same thing!  This leads to a confusion
> between the energy loss from synchrotron radiation vs. the energy
> requirements to accelerate an electron at the relativistic limit.
> The latter is seen at linear accelerators, where synchrotron isn't
> a significant effect.
> 
> As an aside: in particle physics we mostly avoid "relativistic mass".
> For us, "mass" means rest mass.  Contra the paper, this doesn't change
> the fundamental mechanics, it's just a matter of conventional
> terminology, and the prevailing choice is that "relativistic mass" tends
> to lead to conceptual confusion.
> 
> > So E=m₀c² is only a hypothesis that has not been verified experimentally.
> 
> This plays the game of insisting on absolute proof, but there's never
> absolute proof in science.  There's a huge amount of experimental
> evidence that mass-energy equivalence is a good model, and this paper
> doesn't mount much of an effective challenge to that evidence.
> 
> -dan

"Section VIII, the author claims that pair production is a photoelectric
effect, but how does a photoelectric effect create positrons?"

His use of "photoelectric effect" is meant generally, that it is due to nuclear interactions and not just pure energy to mass creation. The author was not able to pinpointing on the actual interactions with the target; so also is mass creation here vague.   

Section X
"We therefore conclude that the reason it gets harder to accelerate the electrons of high velocity in a cyclotron is due to the loss of energy into space by radiation, not due to the increase of its mass.

If the particles do not carry charge, then there would not be radiation and no confusion exists. Is there any experimental evidence to supply evidence of energy conversion into mass of neutral particles? Absolutely no. Quite the contrary, we do have solid evidence to disprove Einstein’s mass-energy relationship for neutral particles."

"not due to the increase of its mass" may easily be taken as not due to any increase in kinetic energy - it is the accounting of the total energy that matters.

The author's comment "energy conversion into mass of neutral particles?" is legitimate.

I cannot reply to your other comments as I do not know particle physics. 

"So E=m₀c² is only a hypothesis that has not been verified experimentally.

This plays the game of insisting on absolute proof, but there's never
absolute proof in science.  There's a huge amount of experimental
evidence that mass-energy equivalence is a good model, and this paper doesn't mount much of an effective challenge to that evidence.
"
It is only your insistence that "mass-energy equivalence is a good model". I can't comment on what is "absolute" proof. But if an electron-positron pair could be produced in vacuum - say without possibility of controversy - then the question of mass energy equivalence and E=m₀c² would be a closed question.  This would amount to an absolute proof. It is not impossible if mass-energy equivalence is absolute.

Chan Rasjid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web