Force, Energy & Matter--few questions?

[Kumar]

Hello all,

Best greetings.

I am still fine & hope same for all friends. To keep in touch, I have few questions on physics;-

1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?

2. What does it mean--atoms loose some mass when it release--emit, reflect etc.) energy? If it loose mass where this mass go? As Nuclear radiation?

3. Whether all forces, energy & vibrating mass have some thermodynamic=--motion & heat(vibration, spin, radiating etc.) and if yes, will there be some center/mid point or line(imagionary or otherwise) of those thermodunamics? if yes, what can the property & significance of such mid point or line?

Following animation clearly show mid-line of a wave/string:-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/StandingWavePhysics.gif

Following is a better model to explain mid-line.

This is a better model to explain the mid line:
http://tinyurl.com/4e83u32

4.Whether mediator of 4 fundamental forces gluons, photons, W and Z bosons & gravitons (hypothetical) are the only known elementary particles OR some other elementary particles so the fundamental forces/interactions, can be there?

We can opt good harmony contributing to us.

Best wishes.

[Mojo]

Hi Kumar.
1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?


Have you met Bishadi yet?

[Kumar]

Hi Kumar.



Have you met Bishadi yet?

Hello Mojo,

No I didn't yet? What is it?

[Mojo]

What is it?


We're not sure. But it keeps posting about "energy upon mass".

[Mojo]

Anyway, before we go any further with this thread, can you define some of the terms you are using (such as "energy", "mass", "force", etc.) in your own words without cutting and pasting from elsewhere, so that we have some idea about whether you understand what they mean?

[Kumar]

We're not sure. But it keeps posting about "energy upon mass".

Really I don't know.

[Kumar]

Anyway, before we go any further with this thread, can you define some of the terms you are using (such as "energy", "mass", "force", etc.) in your own words without cutting and pasting from elsewhere, so that we have some idea about whether you understand what they mean?

Whatever I could get idea from links & you type people.

[PixyMisa]

Get a 7th-grade science textbook from your local library. Read the whole thing. If you have specific questions about what you read, feel free to ask here.

[Kumar]

Get a 7th-grade science textbook from your local library. Read the whole thing. If you have specific questions about what you read, feel free to ask here.

That book can't awnser. Moreover due to many variables, it may be better to question to known people.

[Dancing David]

To answer 2.

The increase in mass would occur from EM radiation only when something abosrbs something else. So say that a photon of the right wavelength interacts with an atom and is absorbed by one of teh electron shells. I would guess that then the atom increases slightly in mass, but the mass of a photon is so small that it would make no difference.

Now when that same electrom emits the photon, there might be a corresponding decrease in mass, there is a reason I am unsure. Photons have no rest mass.

Now when a radioactive atom emits radiation there is a decrease in the mass due to the energy/mass of the emitted particle.

But to take a stab and 1.
No, it does not, except through absorbtion and emission.

[Kumar]

To answer 2.

The increase in mass would occur from EM radiation only when something abosrbs something else. So say that a photon of the right wavelength interacts with an atom and is absorbed by one of teh electron shells. I would guess that then the atom increases slightly in mass, but the mass of a photon is so small that it would make no difference.

Now when that same electrom emits the photon, there might be a corresponding decrease in mass, there is a reason I am unsure. Photons have no rest mass.

Thanks. Even so small mass of photon can still be taken as mass even vary small.

Following link tell about wave-particle duality;
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html

It also suggest reflection & refraction(should be absorption & emitting also) can be explained in terms of both wave & particals, interferance, differaction & polorization in terms of just wave AND photoelectic effect in term of just particles.

Is it not the property of particle/mass to settle/ accumulate on any thing?

Now when a radioactive atom emits radiation there is a decrease in the mass due to the energy/mass of the emitted particle.

But to take a stab and 1.
No, it does not, except through absorbtion and emission.

Why it is only for radioactive atom? Is it due to split of atom? Why it can't be for others, may be at much smaller level?

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Kumar, Nice to know you are OK. :)

That book can't awnser. Moreover due to many variables, it may be better to question to known people.

Translation: Kumar doesn't really want knowledge. He wants some snippets he can then twist to make believe there is merit to homeopathy.

Thanks. Even so small mass of photon can still be taken as mass even vary small.

Following link tell about wave-particle duality;
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod1.html)

It also suggest reflection & refraction(should be absorption & emitting also) can be explained in terms of both wave & particals, interferance, differaction & polorization in terms of just wave AND photoelectic effect in term of just particles.

Is it not the property of particle/mass to settle/ accumulate on any thing?



No, an atom can only absorb (and emit) a fixed amount of photons. How many depends on which element, but it is usually only one or two. If it gets one too many, it must emit one at the same time.


Why it is only for radioactive atom? Is it due to split of atom? Why it can't be for others, may be at much smaller level?


Yes. Radioacive atoms are unstable and break up to form other atoms. In the process they emit energy in form of particles and/or photons. Other atoms are stable, so they never break up. (At least not under normal conditions.)

You will find that in particle physics, things are very much either/or. Either atoms vill break up, or they won't. They don't break up a little bit, or something like that.

Hans

[PixyMisa]

That book can't awnser. Moreover due to many variables, it may be better to question to known people.
Kumar, you have absolutely no understanding of science. You need to start somewhere, and the best place is to get a general science textbook for beginners.

But that's only if you honestly want to learn. If you don't care, then the answers to your questions are: 1. Blue. 2. A mushroom. 3. Yes, but only in February.

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and to your original questions, some simple answers (although I expect you will get no more out of them than of Pixy's)


1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?

No, not just any. Energy can be converted to various static forms of energy, following quite precise laws.


2. What does it mean--atoms loose some mass when it release--emit, reflect etc.) energy? If it loose mass where this mass go? As Nuclear radiation?


Since the asnwer to #1 is basically no, question #2 has no answer.


3. Whether all forces, energy & vibrating mass have some thermodynamic=--motion & heat(vibration, spin, radiating etc.)


You can't have 'some thermodynamic'. Forces, energies, and matter are connected through the laws of thermodynamics.


and if yes, will there be some center/mid point or line(imagionary or otherwise) of those thermodunamics? if yes, what can the property & significance of such mid point or line?


The question makes no sense. What do you mean by mid-line?


Following animation clearly show mid-line of a wave/string:-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/StandingWavePhysics.gif

Following is a better model to explain mid-line.

This is a better model to explain the mid line:
http://tinyurl.com/4e83u32



The illustrations show waveforms, as in standing waves. They are irrelevant to your question.


4.Whether mediator of 4 fundamental forces gluons, photons, W and Z bosons & gravitons (hypothetical) are the only known elementary particles OR some other elementary particles so the fundamental forces/interactions, can be there?


There are a number of more or less hypothetical elementary particles. There can be more. Remember that some of these 'particles' are hardly entities; they are a way to describe an observed effect, or even a hypothetical effect.

Kumar, you do not want to go into particle physics or quantum mechanics. Trust me, it is way beyond your reach.

We can opt good harmony contributing to us.



We can, but it won't make your question make sense.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Kumar, you have absolutely no understanding of science. You need to start somewhere, and the best place is to get a general science textbook for beginners.

But that's only if you honestly want to learn. If you don't care, then the answers to your questions are: 1. Blue. 2. A mushroom. 3. Yes, but only in February.

You forgot #4.

The answer to that is 23.

Hans

[Kumar]

Hi Kumar, Nice to know you are OK. :)

Hello Mr hans. Thanks You will go on this good news.


Translation: Kumar doesn't really want knowledge. He wants some snippets he can then twist to make believe there is merit to homeopathy.

If I could do that(provide or ait to provide science of homeopathy, I shall be best among you all. Not so?:)


No, an atom can only absorb (and emit) a fixed amount of photons. How many depends on which element, but it is usually only one or two. If it gets one too many, it must emit one at the same time.

Thanks but simply tell, whether energy has mass or not? Whether atoms loose mass when it emit/reflect energy from it? OR if input of outer energy to an atom/molecule is absolutely equal to output energy(emittion, reflection..) from that atom/molecule? If yes, what does it mean--atoms looses mass?


Yes. Radioacive atoms are unstable and break up to form other atoms. In the process they emit energy in form of particles and/or photons. Other atoms are stable, so they never break up. (At least not under normal conditions.)

Is it sure that unstable atoms ONLY break up/split not other due to nuclear fission? What backround radiation/radioactivity mean?

You will find that in particle physics, things are very much either/or. Either atoms vill break up, or they won't. They don't break up a little bit, or something like that.

Hans

Whether breaking(spliting) atoms & atoms losing some mass is same aspect?

[Kumar]

Kumar, you have absolutely no understanding of science. You need to start somewhere, and the best place is to get a general science textbook for beginners.

But that's only if you honestly want to learn. If you don't care, then the answers to your questions are: 1. Blue. 2. A mushroom. 3. Yes, but only in February.

I should be the most dedicated person to learn but may be bit differently & dynamically. Otherwise why I shall waste my & your time.

[Kumar]

Oh, and to your original questions, some simple answers (although I expect you will get no more out of them than of Pixy's)

I know, it is your dedication to awnser questions on science which I tend to exploit.:)


No, not just any. Energy can be converted to various static forms of energy, following quite precise laws.

Do you mean to say, energy & even fundamental forces have no mass? Whether nuclear radiation is energy or mass and if energy, does it has mass? If no, how radition is accumulating/increasing on Japan nuclear crisis?

Since the asnwer to #1 is basically no, question #2 has no answer.

I thing someone somewhere told me that atoms loose mass on release of energy? I think nuclear power genaration do that?



You can't have 'some thermodynamic'. Forces, energies, and matter are connected through the laws of thermodynamics.

Simply pls tell, whether spin or vibrations or ups & down, more & less heat is there with all forces, energies & particles? If yes, then there should also be a midpoint/midline or centerline to all these like lowest point of a pendulum, midline in a wave/string as shown in the links provided by me here?



The question makes no sense. What do you mean by mid-line?

As above. midline/centerline is there in a wave & string in the animations links provided by me.



The illustrations show waveforms, as in standing waves. They are irrelevant to your question.

Still midline, mid point or centerline is there in these animations. What are there. Do these represent, starting & ending points & a mid/balance state of wave/string or of motions of these?



There are a number of more or less hypothetical elementary particles. There can be more. Remember that some of these 'particles' are hardly entities; they are a way to describe an observed effect, or even a hypothetical effect.

Kumar, you do not want to go into particle physics or quantum mechanics. Trust me, it is way beyond your reach.



We can, but it won't make your question make sense.

Hans

My scope of try to learn is infinite. Let us assume that of there can be more elementry particles there can also be more fundamental force?

[PixyMisa]

I should be the most dedicated person to learn but may be bit differently & dynamically. Otherwise why I shall waste my & your time.
You are indeed wasting your time. Go get a basic science textbook and read it. If you have specific questions about what you've read, feel free to ask those.

[Bishadi]

Hello all,

Best greetings.

I am still fine & hope same for all friends. To keep in touch, I have few questions on physics;-

1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?

2. What does it mean--atoms loose some mass when it release--emit, reflect etc.) energy? If it loose mass where this mass go? As Nuclear radiation?

3. Whether all forces, energy & vibrating mass have some thermodynamic=--motion & heat(vibration, spin, radiating etc.) and if yes, will there be some center/mid point or line(imagionary or otherwise) of those thermodunamics? if yes, what can the property & significance of such mid point or line?

Following animation clearly show mid-line of a wave/string:-

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/StandingWavePhysics.gif

Following is a better model to explain mid-line.

This is a better model to explain the mid line:
http://tinyurl.com/4e83u32

4.Whether mediator of 4 fundamental forces gluons, photons, W and Z bosons & gravitons (hypothetical) are the only known elementary particles OR some other elementary particles so the fundamental forces/interactions, can be there?

We can opt good harmony contributing to us.

Best wishes.

Hello!


I like your questions as you put the concepts into an anology that stumps the group.


perhaps consider 'mass' as any element or molecule (matter)

then any increase in potential is from what?

ie.... heat aint a gluon.... no matter what pion tells you so.

Heat aint even a property of nature (a force), it is the measurement of the systems temp.


ie..... a cold element plus what, makes a hot element?

[Kumar]

You are indeed wasting your time. Go get a basic science textbook and read it. If you have specific questions about what you've read, feel free to ask those.

Ok, please tell me where I can get properties & significance of mid/center line in a wave/moving string or also in moving pendulum(as shown in animations line provided by me)?
In string animation, when string come midway of vibration, it apears to be like still string. Why so & how it is different from still string?

[Kumar]

Hello!


I like your questions as you put the concepts into an anology that stumps the group.


perhaps consider 'mass' as any element or molecule (matter)

then any increase in potential is from what?

ie.... heat aint a gluon.... no matter what pion tells you so.

Heat aint even a property of nature (a force), it is the measurement of the systems temp.


ie..... a cold element plus what, makes a hot element?

Hello, we shall soon understand each other. Your reply seems to be bit deep. Will you make it bit simple for me?

[John Jones]

Hello, we shall soon understand each other. Don't count on it.


Your reply seems to be bit deep. Will you make it bit simple for me? Things are not always what they seem.

[PixyMisa]

Ok, please tell me where I can get properties & significance of mid/center line in a wave/moving string or also in moving pendulum(as shown in animations line provided by me)?
Get a basic science textbook. Read it. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them here.

[Bishadi]

Hello, we shall soon understand each other. Your reply seems


to be bit deep. Will you make it bit simple for me?

here is a simple version:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/bohr.html

ps...... hyperphysics link is a great usage of comprehending the existing paradigm all you need now is to comprehend the analogy of what energy is in itself versus the current belief of 'a particle' or purely a 'potential difference'

ie.... energy can exist that is not a potential difference from its environment

[sol invictus]

Your questions are very hard to read, but I'll try to answer what I think they're asking.


1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?

Yes, energy has a gravitational effect. Enough energy in a small enough region and you'll form a black hole, which would certainly affect anything nearby.

2. What does it mean--atoms loose some mass when it release--emit, reflect etc.) energy? If it loose mass where this mass go? As Nuclear radiation?

Atoms lose mass when they emit radiation, but not necessarily when they reflect it. It goes into the radiation.

3. Whether all forces, energy & vibrating mass have some thermodynamic=--motion & heat(vibration, spin, radiating etc.) and if yes, will there be some center/mid point or line(imagionary or otherwise) of those thermodunamics? if yes, what can the property & significance of such mid point or line?

I can't quite figure out what you're asking, but the answer might be "center of mass".


4.Whether mediator of 4 fundamental forces gluons, photons, W and Z bosons & gravitons (hypothetical) are the only known elementary particles OR some other elementary particles so the fundamental forces/interactions, can be there?

There are many other elementary particles - electrons, muons, quarks, etc.

[Kumar]

here is a simple version:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/quantumzone/bohr.html

ps...... hyperphysics link is a great usage of comprehending the existing paradigm all you need now is to comprehend the analogy of what energy is in itself versus the current belief of 'a particle' or purely a 'potential difference'

ie.... energy can exist that is not a potential difference from its environment

Thanks.

What does wiggle mean here?

"Electrons can only be in "special" orbits. All other orbits just were not possible. They could "jump" between these special orbits, however, and when they jumped they would wiggle a little bit... "

[Bishadi]

Thanks.

What does wiggle mean here?

"Electrons can only be in "special" orbits. All other orbits just were not possible. They could "jump" between these special orbits, however, and when they jumped they would wiggle a little bit... "



think of a recoil

or try the lamb

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/lamb.html

[Little 10 Toes]

Kumar, what is your native language?

[Kumar]

Your questions are very hard to read, but I'll try to answer what I think they're asking.

Sorry some language problem. Thanks for managing.



Yes, energy has a gravitational effect. Enough energy in a small enough region and you'll form a black hole, which would certainly affect anything nearby.

Means, energy has mass so the gravitational effect?



Atoms lose mass when they emit radiation, but not necessarily when they reflect it. It goes into the radiation.

Do you mean all type of radiations or just radiactive radiation?

Look;
In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energy or waves travel through a medium or space. There are two distinct types of radiation; ionizing and non-ionizing. The word radiation is commonly used in reference to ionizing radiation only (i.e., having sufficient energy to ionize an atom), but it may also refer to non-ionizing radiation (e.g., radio waves or visible light). The energy radiates (i.e., travels outward in straight lines in all directions) from its source. This geometry naturally leads to a system of measurements and physical units that are equally applicable to all types of radiation. Both ionizing and non-ionizing radiation can be harmful to organisms and can result in changes to the natural environment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation



I can't quite figure out what you're asking, but the answer might be "center of mass".

What can be the importance, properties & significance of a centerline in a wave?



There are many other elementary particles - electrons, muons, quarks, etc.

Does it also suggest many other fundamental forces?

[sol invictus]

Means, energy has mass so the gravitational effect?


Right.


Do you mean all type of radiations or just radiactive radiation?


All types of radiation have energy, therefore they all have a gravitational effect.


What can be the importance, properties & significance of a centerline in a wave?


Nothing much.


Does it also suggest many other fundamental forces?

No. The particles you mentioned are all force carriers. The ones you left out are "matter" - they're the things the forces act on.

[Vorpal]

Here we learn that Sol is "just like CERN." Strange.
3. Whether all forces, energy & vibrating mass have some thermodynamic=--motion & heat(vibration, spin, radiating etc.) and if yes, will there be some center/mid point or line(imagionary or otherwise) of those thermodunamics? if yes, what can the property & significance of such mid point or line?
Not sure what the question is, but if one thinks of particles as excitations of a field, the vacuum state could be interpreted as your "mid-line", since what you seemingly refer to is zero amplitude. (Well, here lowest, due to some caveats regarding the uncertainty principle.)

[Kumar]

Right.



All types of radiation have energy, therefore they all have a gravitational effect.

If all forces/energy has particles/mass why we can't take that those particles can stay & accumulate on any matter?


Nothing much.

Still what can be something? Even minimum can also be important in quantum.


No. The particles you mentioned are all force carriers. The ones you left out are "matter" - they're the things the forces act on.

Can elementary particles seprate from force/energy & vice versa? What is the differance in between particles, mass & matter?

Sorry one more question to add:

5. Is it true that energy or force is motion of mass or due to motion of mass? If yes, then how a mass can get motion without force/energy & how energy/force can be created without mass? I mean which is prime--energy/force or mass OR both?

[Kumar]

Here we learn that Sol is "just like CERN." Strange.

??

Not sure what the question is, but if one thinks of particles as excitations of a field, the vacuum state could be interpreted as your "mid-line", since what you seemingly refer to is zero amplitude. (Well, here lowest, due to some caveats regarding the uncertainty principle.)

Sorry but try. There is a difference in so thought centerline's properties. One at center when there is vibration & other still state. I think former one has just potential energy & later KE & PE both. Still both look alike, if we see animation of string provided by me. We can also easily look it, while looking at moving pendulam & still pendulum.

It also appears that motion get some pause & bit different at this midline point.

[Little 10 Toes]

I agree that meaning should be more important than words, but posts #5, #14, #28, and #36 all mention something about it being difficult to understand your questions. If someone can't understand your word's meaning and someone replies using words that you do not understand the meaning to, how is that helping? I'm not trying to derail your thread, but depending on what your original language is, there might be someone here who can translate for you.

[Kumar]

I agree that meaning should be more important than words, but posts #5, #14, #28, and #36 all mention something about it being difficult to understand your questions. If someone can't understand your word's meaning and someone replies using words that you do not understand the meaning to, how is that helping? I'm not trying to derail your thread, but depending on what your original language is, there might be someone here who can translate for you.

Sorry. My older friends here & there & my side people do understand my language. Still I shall try to be more clear.

[Zep]

We have people here who speak and write most Indian and Pakistani languages, at university level.

Incidentally, for those who have not met or interacted with Kumar previously, let me just say that he is both harmless and right off the planet. Don't expect your conversations to impinge even tangentially on reality. That said, have fun! :)

[Mojo]

We have people here who speak and write most Indian and Pakistani languages, at university level.


But not Kumarese, unfortunately.

[Kumar]

Then, should I stop here?

[PixyMisa]

Then, should I stop here?
What you should do is get a basic science textbook and read it. Feel free to ask any questions you have about what's in the book.

[Zep]

What you should do is get a basic science textbook and read it. Feel free to ask any questions you have about what's in the book.Just FYI, such texts will make as much sense to Kumar as he does to us. He lacks even the most basic of skills to deal with these topics. I'm talking about the ability to actually count high enough to grasp scales.

In Kumar's world, an atom is only just smaller than a pinhead; water is infinitely divisible; wavy lines carry hidden messages only he can see; and the planets are only just further away than the moon; etc.

He doesn't need to start at seventh grade. He needs to start again from the bottom.

[dafydd]

Hello, we shall soon understand each other. Your reply seems to be bit deep. Will you make it bit simple for me?

You need a basic understanding of science to disuss this. Please read some books on the subject and then come back.

[sol invictus]

If all forces/energy has particles/mass why we can't take that those particles can stay & accumulate on any matter?


This time I really can't tell what you're asking, sorry.


Still what can be something? Even minimum can also be important in quantum.


As above.


Can elementary particles seprate from force/energy & vice versa? What is the differance in between particles, mass & matter?


All four forces have certain features in common, and the particles that mediate them do too. In particular they are all spin 1 vector bosons (except the graviton, with a a spin 2 boson). They are also "intrinsically" massless, but can acquire mass if the symmetry that gives rise to the force is broken (as is the case with the W and Z particles).

The other particles are all spin 1/2 fermions, all have mass, and are all charged under at least some of the forces.


5. Is it true that energy or force is motion of mass or due to motion of mass?

No. Massless particles carry energy and exert forces, and motionless masses have energy.

[MRC_Hans]

Then, should I stop here?

Kumar have you considered this:

You believe you can find new ways, and you ask us for directions. But the mere fact that we can answer means that the ways are not new. All you think you explore has already been explored.

If you want to find new ways, there is nobody who can give you directions.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

If all forces/energy has particles/mass why we can't take that those particles can stay & accumulate on any matter?

Because whatever states a particle has is what makes that particle. Kumar, part exitations is dead. Well, in fact it is not even dead, it never lived.

Forget about it.


Still what can be something? Even minimum can also be important in quantum.


Don't try to understand quantum physics. Only the sharpest minds can try that. You are not one of them.


Can elementary particles seprate from force/energy & vice versa? What is the differance in between particles, mass & matter?



You wouldn't understand the explanation.

Sorry one more question to add:

5. Is it true that energy or force is motion of mass or due to motion of mass? If yes, then how a mass can get motion without force/energy & how energy/force can be created without mass? I mean which is prime--energy/force or mass OR both?

Whatever you are trying to say, no. You have obviously misunderstood something.

Hans

[Kumar]

This time I really can't tell what you're asking, sorry.



As above.

What do you mean by massless particles? How particles can be massless?

If prticles have mass, can't those be collected or mixed at at one place or mixed with another particles, as we can collect salt particles in our hand?



All four forces have certain features in common, and the particles that mediate them do too. In particular they are all spin 1 vector bosons (except the graviton, with a a spin 2 boson). They are also "intrinsically" massless, but can acquire mass if the symmetry that gives rise to the force is broken (as is the case with the W and Z particles).

Will you please tell me other features common in fundamental forces than spin and in their mediators?

As spin is common with all, obiously there should be a mid-point of such spin?

When/how spin of above can stop? Is it at absolute zero temp.?
The other particles are all spin 1/2 fermions, all have mass, and are all charged under at least some of the forces.



No. Massless particles carry energy and exert forces, and motionless masses have energy.

How it can be massless? Is it particles carry energy or mediate energy?

[Kumar]

Kumar have you considered this:

You believe you can find new ways, and you ask us for directions. But the mere fact that we can answer means that the ways are not new. All you think you explore has already been explored.

If you want to find new ways, there is nobody who can give you directions.

Hans

Yes it can be true that we may not create new under destruction phase but we can DIScover, REsearch etc.

Due to miss & weaknesses, one can still miss or forget opening way other to expose better either logically and/or scientifically.

[Kumar]

Because whatever states a particle has is what makes that particle. Kumar, part exitations is dead. Well, in fact it is not even dead, it never lived.[/quote]

I am simply asking if energy & particles have mass, what those can't be holded, accumulated or collected--like we can collect & hold salt particles in our hand?



Forget about it.

If I don't come to know, how can I forget?



Don't try to understand quantum physics. Only the sharpest minds can try that. You are not one of them.

Knowledge & understandings can't be a property of one esp. when our centrally prime entity GOD is said to be omnicient & omnipresent. Didn't we gained knowlege during evolutiion--as our nature or intinct + acquired.




You wouldn't understand the explanation.

You can try to make me understand.



Whatever you are trying to say, no. You have obviously misunderstood something.

Hans

You can correct me.

[PixyMisa]

What do you mean by massless particles? How particles can be massless?
They have no mass.

If prticles have mass, can't those be collected or mixed at at one place or mixed with another particles, as we can collect salt particles in our hand?
Short answer: No.

As spin is common with all, obiously there should be a mid-point of such spin?
No.

When/how spin of above can stop? Is it at absolute zero temp.?
No.

How it can be massless?
It has no mass.

[Kumar]

They have no mass.



Short answer: No.


No.


No.


It has no mass.[/QUOTE]

How then these can be treated as particles? Enen energy is said to have mass.

[MRC_Hans]

Yes it can be true that we may not create new under destruction phase but we can DIScover, REsearch etc.

Due to miss & weaknesses, one can still miss or forget opening way other to expose better either logically and/or scientifically.

We do discover and research. Thousands of highly educated scientists all over the world are busy discovering and researching as we discuss.

There are misses and weaknesses, but but how will you find them if you don't know the strong parts? You see weakensses all over, but they are just your own.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

I am simply asking if energy & particles have mass, what those can't be holded, accumulated or collected--like we can collect & hold salt particles in our hand?


Because they are something different.


If I don't come to know, how can I forget?


You can forget about discovering the science behind homeopathy.

For two reasons:

- There isn't any.

- In the unlikely case that there is you are not the one who can find it.


Knowledge & understandings can't be a property of one esp. when our centrally prime entity GOD is said to be omnicient & omnipresent. Didn't we gained knowlege during evolutiion--as our nature or intinct + acquired.


This is science, God is not involved.

You can try to make me understand.

You can correct me.

I have done that. I failed.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

How then these can be treated as particles? Enen energy is said to have mass.Energy has mass. Some particles don't.

Hans

[Kumar]

We do discover and research. Thousands of highly educated scientists all over the world are busy discovering and researching as we discuss.

There are misses and weaknesses, but but how will you find them if you don't know the strong parts? You see weakensses all over, but they are just your own.

Hans

Simply, skeptics suffer on a/c of keeping blind faith on those evidances which are not yet absolute & final Whereas believers can suffer due to keeping blind faith in God which is considered as absolute & final. As such both are at fault.

BTW, how skepticism is relevant to EQUANIMITY?

[Mojo]

Simply, skeptics suffer on a/c of keeping blind faith on those evidances which are not yet absolute & final...


:notm

The whole point is that science is never absolute and final. It is dependent on the evidence, and therfore subject to revision if new evidence emerges. It is not a faith-based system.

[Kumar]

Because they are something different.

How? Following is the defination of particle;

"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle"

Look at the bold words. Particles can be localized & have mass.



You can forget about discovering the science behind homeopathy.

Simply, I tend to take everything with EQUANIMITY>

For two reasons:

- There isn't any.

- In the unlikely case that there is you are not the one who can find it.

As per you, nothing can be said for absolute in science.

Third possibilty can be that it is unlikely case that either you are not able to find it due to miss or weakness OR you don't want to take it with EQUANIMITY & find it.

This is science, God is not involved.



I have done that. I failed.

Hans

Why can't be GOD is involved with science. Understanding the GOD in science can be Prime understanding/duty esp. of science people.

If you failed it is your failure.

[Kumar]

Energy has mass. Some particles don't.

Hans

How? I repect defination of particle;

"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle "

[Kumar]

:notm

The whole point is that science is never absolute and final. It is dependent on the evidence, and therfore subject to revision if new evidence emerges. It is not a faith-based system.

1. Do you want to say it is not yet absolute in terms of complete(all knowledges) or it is not yet absolute & final in any understanding?

2. Whether your so taken evidances are yet absolute & final and Do you intend to suggest us to keep faith in yet not absolute & final evidances?

3. On Other side, at least GOD is considered as Absolute & final by majority of people.

Then ????

[MRC_Hans]

Simply, skeptics suffer on a/c of keeping blind faith on those evidances which are not yet absolute & final Whereas believers can suffer due to keeping blind faith in God which is considered as absolute & final. As such both are at fault.

You (and many other believers) are projecting your own tendency to take things on faith onto skeptics. Nothing could be more wrong: Skeptics question everything. We love to find flaws, and nothing could please us more than to topple established fields of science. However, we go by the evidence.


BTW, how skepticism is relevant to EQUANIMITY?


plural equa·nim·i·ties
Definition of EQUANIMITY

1
: evenness of mind especially under stress <nothing could disturb his equanimity>




There is no direct relation. Skeptics are as diverse as other people.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

How? I repect defination of particle;

"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle "

Note the bolded words. Can be. Not MUST be.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

How? Following is the defination of particle;

"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle"

Look at the bold words. Particles can be localized & have mass.

They are localized. They can have mass.


As per you, nothing can be said for absolute in science.

Third possibilty can be that it is unlikely case that either you are not able to find it due to miss or weakness OR you don't want to take it with EQUANIMITY & find it.


Gibberish.


Why can't be GOD is involved with science. Understanding the GOD in science can be Prime understanding/duty esp. of science people.


Because God is above the laws of physics.

If you failed it is your failure.

I failed to make you understand. It could be my failure, but frankly I think it was yours.

Hans

[Kumar]

Note the bolded words. Can be. Not MUST be.

Hans

I think, you tend to tell;

In the International System of Units (SI), mass is measured in kilograms (kg). The gram (g) is 1⁄1000 of a kilogram.

Other units are accepted for use in SI:

The tonne (t) is equal to 1000 kg.
The electronvolt (eV) is primarily a unit of energy, but because of the mass-energy equivalence it can also function as a unit of mass. In this context it is denoted eV/c2, or simply as eV. The electronvolt is common in particle physics.
The atomic mass unit (u) is defined so that a single carbon-12 atom has a mass of 12 u; 1 u is approximately 1.66×10−27
kg.[note 1] The atomic mass unit is convenient for expressing the masses of atoms and molecules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

That is to cover energy unit for "mass-energy equivalence".

But as you say energy has mass, then even in this context particles should have mass?

[MRC_Hans]

1. Do you want to say it is not yet absolute in terms of complete(all knowledges) or it is not yet absolute & final in any understanding?

Both. We will never reach full understanding of everything.

2. Whether your so taken evidances are yet absolute & final and Do you intend to suggest us to keep faith in yet not absolute & final evidances?

Evidence must be taken according to its level of confidence.


3. On Other side, at least GOD is considered as Absolute & final by majority of people.


Which God? Do you think it is Absolute & final when people can't even agree on which God it is?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

I think, you tend to tell;



That is to cover energy unit for "mass-energy equivalence".

But as you say energy has mass, then even in this context particles should have mass?

No. Not all particles.

Hans

[Kumar]

Note the bolded words. Can be. Not MUST be.

Hans

To clarify previous definition of particle;

Is it either volume or mass OR both?

Below is the List of particles. Does it not tell mass of all particles. What does it mean zero mass in photon mass?

List of particles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles

[PixyMisa]

To clarify previous definition of particle;

Is it either volume or mass OR both?
A particle can have mass but no volume (the electron is treated as a point mass). It can have mass and volume (such as protons and neutrons).

Below is the List of particles. Does it not tell mass of all particles. What does it mean zero mass in photon mass?
Zero. Mass. Zero mass.

[Kumar]

In physics, mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent:

inertial mass,
active gravitational mass, and
passive gravitational mass.
Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter—such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)—also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Bolded letters in above may need to be understood.

[Kumar]

No. Not all particles.

Hans

Yes it is indicated on following link;


Can a sub atomic particle have no mass?

Yes. Neither photons nor gluons have a rest mass. Assuming gravitons exist, they would also be massless.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_a_sub_atomic_particle_have_no_mass#ixzz1IdXRWq uf

[Kumar]

A particle can have mass but no volume (the electron is treated as a point mass). It can have mass and volume (such as protons and neutrons).


Zero. Mass. Zero mass.

Are you suggesting that all particles have mass?

[Kumar]

Both. We will never reach full understanding of everything.

Why so? Are you not yet sure about earth shape or about sun-rise or about Sodium bicarbonate is antacid...?



Evidence must be taken according to its level of confidence.

How can we keep confidance unless an aspect is absolute & final?



Which God? Do you think it is Absolute & final when people can't even agree on which God it is?

Hans

Just name change & form change--is not a change in quality. If we start basing at quality not by name & form, we can remove many unclarities.

Look at this quote which emphasize or qualities instead of name & form(Maya-illusion );-

According to Jainism, Universe and its constituents are uncreated and everlasting. These constituents behave according to the natural laws and their nature without interference from external entities. Dharma[religion] or true religion according to Jainism is vatthu sahāvo dhammo translated as "the intrinsic nature of a substance is its true dharma." Kārtikeyānupreksā (478) explains it as : “Dharma is nothing but the real nature of an object. Just as the nature of fire is to burn and the nature of water is to produce a cooling effect, in the same manner, the essential nature of the soul is to seek self-realization and spiritual elevation.”[1]
Dharma-tattva and DharmastikayaDharma is one of the six substances constituting the universe.[8] These substances are – Dharma (medium of motion), Adharma[irreligion] (medium of rest), Akasa (space), kala (time), Pudgala (matter) and Jiva (soul). Since Dharma as a substance extends and pervades entire universe, it is also known as Dharmastikaya. It helps the matter and souls in movement. It itself is not motion, but is a medium of motion. Adharma is opposite of Dharma i.e. it assists the substances like soul and matter to rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma_(Jainism)

[MRC_Hans]

Are you suggesting that all particles have mass?

:nope:

Sometimes I think you are simply trolling.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Why so? Are you not yet sure about earth shape or about sun-rise or about Sodium bicarbonate is antacid...?

:nope:


How can we keep confidance unless an aspect is absolute & final?


Some of us can. Those who can't turn to religion. But you need to make a choice; you can't have both.



Just name change & form change--is not a change in quality. If we start basing at quality not by name & form, we can remove many unclarities.


(About different gods.) The perfect god is just words. It is an illusion.

Hans

[Kumar]

:nope:

Sometimes I think you are simply trolling.

Hans

My post was in reply to;

Originally Posted by PixyMisa
A particle can have mass but no volume (the electron is treated as a point mass). It can have mass and volume (such as protons and neutrons).

[Kumar]

:nope:



Some of us can. Those who can't turn to religion. But you need to make a choice; you can't have both.

If your choice to experiment or take CHANCES, it is ok for you.




(About different gods.) The perfect god is just words. It is an illusion.

Hans

GOD is said to be pious soul, is ONLY which is not illusion but the TRUTH.

[PixyMisa]

Are you suggesting that all particles have mass?
No. No I am not. That is not what I am suggesting. Nor is it correct. It's untrue. False. Wrong. Not all particles have mass. Some particles do not have mass. These particles have zero mass. Zero. Mass. Zero mass. They have zero mass, which is as much as no mass at all.

[PixyMisa]

If your choice to experiment or take CHANCES, it is ok for you.
We do experiments. Properly controlled, scientific experiments. The experiments say you're wrong.

GOD is said to be pious soul, is ONLY which is not illusion but the TRUTH.
First define God. Then show that it exists. Then you can post pseudo-intellectual drivel about its properties.

[Pixel42]

No. No I am not. That is not what I am suggesting. Nor is it correct. It's untrue. False. Wrong. Not all particles have mass. Some particles do not have mass. These particles have zero mass. Zero. Mass. Zero mass. They have zero mass, which is as much as no mass at all.
Zero rest mass. ;)

[Dancing David]

What do you mean by massless particles? How particles can be massless?

Kumar, physics is sometimes counter intuitive. In this case the issue is that photons are massless. If they were to be at rest, which they can't, their mass would be zero. It is counter intuitive, they only have relatavistic mass.

If prticles have mass, can't those be collected or mixed at at one place or mixed with another particles, as we can collect salt particles in our hand?

Those that are 'solid' yes, those that are 'not solid' no, you can not gather photons.

Will you please tell me other features common in fundamental forces than spin and in their mediators?

This is where you need to read an introductory book. :)

As spin is common with all, obiously there should be a mid-point of such spin?

Do you mean an axis of rotation?

When/how spin of above can stop? Is it at absolute zero temp.?

I would kindly suggest you read some introductory material. Quantum spin is counter intuitive.

[Dancing David]

Simply, skeptics suffer on a/c of keeping blind faith on those evidances which are not yet absolute & final Whereas believers can suffer due to keeping blind faith in God which is considered as absolute & final. As such both are at fault.

BTW, how skepticism is relevant to EQUANIMITY?

False dichotomy, why ask questions when you don't want to understand the answers.

Bogus Kumar.

[Dancing David]

How? I repect defination of particle;

"In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle "

Kumar, you have asked why some partcile have relatvistic mass, photons in particular are strange, they only have relativistic mass, ther rest mass is zero.

To understand you would have to read and understand the math. But there are no absolutes either. It may be that unders ome condition a photon can be treated as though it has a rest mass.

[Dancing David]

I think, you tend to tell;



That is to cover energy unit for "mass-energy equivalence".

But as you say energy has mass, then even in this context particles should have mass?

Because it is more complex than that, my understanding is that when particles are in motion and approach the speed of light, there is a portion of the mass that comes from that motion near the speed of light. In that case it is more complex.

So as you accelerate a proton or electron towards the speed of light, its mass increases.

Now photons are strange because they travel at the speed of light.

[Dancing David]

Are you suggesting that all particles have mass?

Sort of, but if you were to stop a photon, it would have no mass.

[MRC_Hans]

Sort of, but if you were to stop a photon, it would have no mass.

Photons move at the speed of light, so if they had mass, that mass would be infinite.

Hans

[Kumar]

Kumar, physics is sometimes counter intuitive. In this case the issue is that photons are massless. If they were to be at rest, which they can't, their mass would be zero. It is counter intuitive, they only have relatavistic mass.

Does it mean that photons have mass in practical sense(because they can't be at rest)?

Those that are 'solid' yes, those that are 'not solid' no, you can not gather photons.

At some link, I provided earlier, It was mentioned "trapped photons", what does it mean?

This is where you need to read an introductory book. :)

Sorry but it is too late for me to go to school.:)

Do you mean an axis of rotation?

I would kindly suggest you read some introductory material. Quantum spin is counter intuitive.

Not axis only but whatever is the center line or point of any force & of its spining mediator. What does it make difficuly to understand what a center line or a center point, when I gave two animation links & example of pendulum.

Regards.

[Kumar]

They are localized. They can have mass.

??



Gibberish.



Because God is above the laws of physics.

Yes--a miss or weakness.



I failed to make you understand. It could be my failure, but frankly I think it was yours.

Hans

Means of both. If a teacher couldn't make a student to learn or if a doctor couldn't cure a patient,It can also be a both side failure.

[Kumar]

:nope:

Sometimes I think you are simply trolling.

Hans

No, I am just getting or giving here & there by involving many sources.

[Kumar]

No. No I am not. That is not what I am suggesting. Nor is it correct. It's untrue. False. Wrong. Not all particles have mass. Some particles do not have mass. These particles have zero mass. Zero. Mass. Zero mass. They have zero mass, which is as much as no mass at all.

Zero rest mass only.

[MRC_Hans]

No, I am just getting or giving here & there by involving many sources.

Except you get nothing and give even less.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Does it mean that photons have mass in practical sense(because they can't be at rest)?

The energy borne by the photon has some mass. The photon itself has none.


At some link, I provided earlier, It was mentioned "trapped photons", what does it mean?


It has to do with some recent experiments where light is 'slowed down' by 'trapping' photons.


Sorry but it is too late for me to go to school.:)


If you refuse to learn, why should we continue to try to teach you?


Not axis only but whatever is the center line or point of any force & of its spining mediator. What does it make difficuly to understand what a center line or a center point, when I gave two animation links & example of pendulum.


It is not difficult to understand, it is irrelevant.


Hans

[Kumar]

We do experiments. Properly controlled, scientific experiments. The experiments say you're wrong.


First define God. Then show that it exists. Then you can post pseudo-intellectual drivel about its properties.

Still those fails many time because couldn't yet made absolute.

Someone learned told these qualities of God;

"Amongst unlimited qualities of God, few may be enumerated-that God creates,
nurses and destroys the universe. God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent
and Almighty, beyond description, Formless,eternal, beyond imagination, and beyond calculation.
Nobody on the earth can deny such qualities.God is only one who creates the universe and no other can create the universe except God..
He who is not indulged in any sorrows/sufferings, in any kind of deed
and result thereof, He is supreme in souls and is called
God, whereas, soul is indulged in all the said matters according to
deeds done in previous, and in the present life. So this is also a difference
between God and souls and therefore soul can never be God based on the different
qualities. The deeds of God of creation, nursing, and destruction of
universe are eternal, natural, and automatic
God is a reason to create the universe like Parents are
the reason to give birth to a child. God has all powers
and is independent. Not God but only His powers are enough to control, create,
nurse, destroy the universe.God is everywhere, i.e., lives/resides in every atom of the universe.God has been defined as Purush i.e., Who has complete
knowledge and Himself He is complete in all respects. God is alive matter..."

[dafydd]

Still those fails many time because couldn't yet made absolute.

Someone learned told these qualities of God;

"Amongst unlimited qualities of God, few may be enumerated-that God creates,
nurses and destroys the universe. God is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent
and Almighty, beyond description, Formless,eternal, beyond imagination, and beyond calculation.
Nobody on the earth can deny such qualities.God is only one who creates the universe and no other can create the universe except God..
He who is not indulged in any sorrows/sufferings, in any kind of deed
and result thereof, He is supreme in souls and is called
God, whereas, soul is indulged in all the said matters according to
deeds done in previous, and in the present life. So this is also a difference
between God and souls and therefore soul can never be God based on the different
qualities. The deeds of God of creation, nursing, and destruction of
universe are eternal, natural, and automatic
God is a reason to create the universe like Parents are
the reason to give birth to a child. God has all powers
and is independent. Not God but only His powers are enough to control, create,
nurse, destroy the universe.God is everywhere, i.e., lives/resides in every atom of the universe.God has been defined as Purush i.e., Who has complete
knowledge and Himself He is complete in all respects. God is alive matter..."

First provide evidence of the existence of any god or gods,otherwise you are just telling us fairy stories.

[Dancing David]

Does it mean that photons have mass in practical sense(because they can't be at rest)?

It means what I said they have mass because they travel at teh speed of light, AFAIK




At some link, I provided earlier, It was mentioned "trapped photons", what does it mean?

I don't know.

Sorry but it is too late for me to go to school.:)

You can read, that is a silly thing to say. :)

Try this one
http://www.amazon.com/Inward-Bound-Matter-Forces-Physical/dp/0198519974




Not axis only but whatever is the center line or point of any force & of its spining mediator. What does it make difficuly to understand what a center line or a center point, when I gave two animation links & example of pendulum.

Regards.

But we aren't talking about a pendulum. :)

[Kumar]

Photons move at the speed of light, so if they had mass, that mass would be infinite.

Hans

Is it so if one or few photons move instead of continious unbroken chain?

[Kumar]

Except you get nothing and give even less.

Hans

Most justified way is to judge with equanimity when you put yourself in other & then judge also from his angle/status.

[Kumar]

Because it is more complex than that, my understanding is that when particles are in motion and approach the speed of light, there is a portion of the mass that comes from that motion near the speed of light. In that case it is more complex.

So as you accelerate a proton or electron towards the speed of light, its mass increases.

Now photons are strange because they travel at the speed of light.

What such movement make then to gain mass?

[Kumar]

Sort of, but if you were to stop a photon, it would have no mass.

Means, practically all particles have mass?

[Kumar]

The energy borne by the photon has some mass. The photon itself has none.

Whether we have two types of photons, one at rest other moving?



It has to do with some recent experiments where light is 'slowed down' by 'trapping' photons.

It was there in following link;

Quote:
In physics, mass (from Ancient Greek: μᾶζα) commonly refers to any of three properties of matter, which have been shown experimentally to be equivalent:

inertial mass,
active gravitational mass, and
passive gravitational mass.
Although mass must be distinguished from matter in physics, because matter is a poorly-defined concept, and although all types of agreed-upon matter exhibit mass, it is also the case that many types of energy which are not matter—such as potential energy, kinetic energy, and trapped electromagnetic radiation (photons)—also exhibit mass. Thus, all matter has the property of mass, but not all mass is associated with identifiable matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

Will trapped photons not be photons at rest?




If you refuse to learn, why should we continue to try to teach you?



It is not difficult to understand, it is irrelevant.


Hans

One should do his duty(esp. when teaching) & leave other to get or not get.

[Kumar]

It means what I said they have mass because they travel at teh speed of light, AFAIK

I don't know.

You can read, that is a silly thing to say. :)

Try this one
http://www.amazon.com/Inward-Bound-Matter-Forces-Physical/dp/0198519974


But we aren't talking about a pendulum. :)

I have provided quote & link about trapped photons in my last post.

Ok.

I gave two animation links & example of pendulum. still centerline/point should be relevant to everything.

[Kumar]

First provide evidence of the existence of any god or gods,otherwise you are just telling us fairy stories.

Compare these properties to center/mid line/point. And do suvey of people. If you get substancial positive votes, you shouls consider it also an authority from LIVE EVIDANCES.

[MRC_Hans]

Is it so if one or few photons move instead of continious unbroken chain?

Photons have no mass. One photon has no mass. Many photons have no mass. An unbroken chain of photons have no mass.

In short, photons have no mass.

Did I mention that photons have no mass?

- You could say that photons are massless.

Do I get through to you?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Compare these properties to center/mid line/point. And do suvey of people. If you get substancial positive votes, you shouls consider it also an authority from LIVE EVIDANCES.

Reality is not up for vote.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Means, practically all particles have mass?Most particles have some mass, yes.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Whether we have two types of photons, one at rest other moving?

No. All photons are moving. However, we can calculate their rest mass.


Will trapped photons not be photons at rest?


No. Photons always move at the speed of light, but the speed of light can be slowed down.


One should do his duty(esp. when teaching) & leave other to get or not get.

I have no duty to teach you.

Hans

[Kumar]

Photons have no mass. One photon has no mass. Many photons have no mass. An unbroken chain of photons have no mass.

In short, photons have no mass.

Did I mention that photons have no mass?

- You could say that photons are massless.

Do I get through to you?

Hans

But photons has zero rest mass but in motion has mass of energy?

Whatever, what do you mean by particles. Can a wave be in part or when a photon is emmitted, it gives to one wave but when an atom is relesing continously it can be a long wave. As such can we say one photon/wave released from atom is a particle of long wave?

[Kumar]

Reality is not up for vote.

Hans

Means, you believe in machines but not in live people?

[Kumar]

Most particles have some mass, yes.

Hans

Most or all, practically?

[Kumar]

No. All photons are moving. However, we can calculate their rest mass.

What about emmited electrons?



No. Photons always move at the speed of light, but the speed of light can be slowed down.

When photons(light) is exposed to a substance, that substance can heat up. Then what is the fate of photons in this case? Can't we trap that heat?




I have no duty to teach you.

Hans

If you have excess in you then it become your duty or need to remove it & give to other person who has less to balance each other. Hence it become duty/need of both--no obligation.

[Kumar]

Hello,

I could get awnser to my this question--so just conclde;

"1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?"

Since energy has mass so it should be able to gather & settle on matters. Hence Avogadro constant is based on atoms & molecules but not on quantum particles. Below definition also tells about atoms & molecules;

[quote]In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant (symbols: L, NA) is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) N in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) through the relationship NA = N/n.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant quote]

However there can be something beyond atoms & molecules--quantum particles, This constant should be seen in consideration of E=mc2, alongwith.

Mass loss on release of energy--may also indicate that some mass go out of atoms/molecules.

Thanks. Let us close this topic & thanks for your contribution & no contribution.:)

[MRC_Hans]

But photons has zero rest mass but in motion has mass of energy?

That is more or less correct. At least I haven't the energy to try to explain the difference.

Whatever, what do you mean by particles. Can a wave be in part or when a photon is emmitted, it gives to one wave but when an atom is relesing continously it can be a long wave. As such can we say one photon/wave released from atom is a particle of long wave?

This makes very little sense, if at all.

A photon is the smallest quantity of any electromagnetic wave that can exist.

It is not equal to a single cycle (one wave) of the waveform, however.

The energy of a photon depends on its wavelenght (the shorter, the higher energy).

A continuous release is not a long wave, but a train of waves lasting for some time.

... I guess this is a close as we get.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Means, you believe in machines but not in live people?No, what I said could not in any conceivable way be interpreted such.

I said that reality is not up for vote. In other words, reality is what it is, no matter what people think or believe about it.

There are philosophies that speculate otherwise, but I don't subscribe to any of them.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

What about emmited electrons?

What about them? They have mass, and they move at a speed below c.



When photons(light) is exposed to a substance, that substance can heat up. Then what is the fate of photons in this case? Can't we trap that heat?


They are converted to a different form of energy. We can temporarily trap heat, yes.

If you have excess in you then it become your duty or need to remove it & give to other person who has less to balance each other. Hence it become duty/need of both--no obligation.

No.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Since energy has mass so it should be able to gather & settle on matters.

No. Energy has mass, but it is not matter.


Hence Avogadro constant is based on atoms & molecules but not on quantum particles. Below definition also tells about atoms & molecules;


Quantum particles do not retain the characteristics of substances.

In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant (symbols: L, NA) is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) N in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) through the relationship NA = N/n.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant
However there can be something beyond atoms & molecules--quantum particles, This constant should be seen in consideration of E=mc2, alongwith.

Nonsense.


Mass loss on release of energy--may also indicate that some mass go out of atoms/molecules.


Irrelevant.


Thanks. Let us close this topic & thanks for your contribution & no contribution.:)

Translation: "I did not get anything out of this, so I will now go away and pretend my ideas were supported."

Hans

[Dancing David]

What such movement make then to gain mass?

You will have to read up on Einstein's theory.

[Dancing David]

Means, practically all particles have mass?

No, sorry but no. There is no practcal about it. If photons stopped they would have no mass.

[Dancing David]

Whether we have two types of photons, one at rest other moving?

No, only one type of photon.



It was there in following link;



Will trapped photons not be photons at rest?

You should not ask such questions without understanding. Ir depends on the defintion of trapped. most likely they are 'sort of slowed in a medium'.

ETA: Not even, they are travelling between mirrors, they are still in motion as it were:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/researchers-get-trapped-photons-to-act-like-massive-particles.ars

[Dancing David]

I have provided quote & link about trapped photons in my last post.

Ok.

I gave two animation links & example of pendulum. still centerline/point should be relevant to everything.

Um just because you think it is relevant does not mean it is. Your assertion has not been demonstrated.

You are asking question that you don't want to know thee amswers to, if you want to know about partcile physics, you can start with introductory texts, the one by Pais is nice. That is if you want to know the answers.

[Dancing David]

But photons has zero rest mass but in motion has mass of energy?

Whatever, what do you mean by particles. Can a wave be in part or when a photon is emmitted, it gives to one wave but when an atom is relesing continously it can be a long wave. As such can we say one photon/wave released from atom is a particle of long wave?

No, photons are discrete, that is why they are called quanta. There is no long wave. It is not continuos, it is discrete.

[Dancing David]

What about emmited electrons?

They are not photons, they are a different sort of particle. Photons are not leptons.

When photons(light) is exposed to a substance, that substance can heat up. Then what is the fate of photons in this case? Can't we trap that heat?

No, if you want an answer it will require learning the defintions of the words.

If you have excess in you then it become your duty or need to remove it & give to other person who has less to balance each other. Hence it become duty/need of both--no obligation.

Then read Inward Bound by Pais :)

[Dancing David]

Hello,

I could get awnser to my this question--so just conclde;

"1. In view of energy has mass, whether such mass of energy can settle, accumulate or can effect to any incident sunstance on which such energy is exposed?"

Since energy has mass so it should be able to gather & settle on matters.

No
Hence Avogadro constant is based on atoms & molecules but not on quantum particles.

No, atoms and molecules are quantum particles.

Below definition also tells about atoms & molecules;

In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant (symbols: L, NA) is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) N in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) through the relationship NA = N/n.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant

Avogado's number is a measure.


However there can be something beyond atoms & molecules--quantum particles, This constant should be seen in consideration of E=mc2, alongwith.

Um, no. All particles are quantum particles.


Mass loss on release of energy--may also indicate that some mass go out of atoms/molecules.

depends

Thanks. Let us close this topic & thanks for your contribution & no contribution.:)

You did not gain understanding.

[dafydd]

Compare these properties to center/mid line/point. And do suvey of people. If you get substancial positive votes, you shouls consider it also an authority from LIVE EVIDANCES.

Kumar,please please find a bilingual friend who is proficient in English,tell your thoughts to him/her in your own language and let him/her translate them into understandable English. They could translate our posts into your language so you could understand our posts too. The answer above has nothing to do with the question I asked you.

[Kumar]

That is more or less correct. At least I haven't the energy to try to explain the difference.

Thanks.



This makes very little sense, if at all.

A photon is the smallest quantity of any electromagnetic wave that can exist.

It is not equal to a single cycle (one wave) of the waveform, however.

The energy of a photon depends on its wavelenght (the shorter, the higher energy).

A continuous release is not a long wave, but a train of waves lasting for some time.

... I guess this is a close as we get.

Hans

What can be the single cycle of the waveform? Is it when photon is emmitted from the decay back of electron from lowest orbital?

Then, what on wave be called as particle of wave?

[Kumar]

No, what I said could not in any conceivable way be interpreted such.

I said that reality is not up for vote. In other words, reality is what it is, no matter what people think or believe about it.

There are philosophies that speculate otherwise, but I don't subscribe to any of them.

Hans

Ok. It is individual.

[Kumar]

What about them? They have mass, and they move at a speed below c.




They are converted to a different form of energy. We can temporarily trap heat, yes.




Hans

Can we consider such trapped heat as "trapped photons"--directly or indirectly?

[Kumar]

No. Energy has mass, but it is not matter.

I mentioned;"Since energy has mass so it should be able to gather & settle on matters." I didn't mentioned energy as matter but I mentioned its mass should be able to gather on matters/substances?




Quantum particles do not retain the characteristics of substances.

I think big mistake. EM spectrum can have. Like sunlight of sun, reflective spectrum can be trapped on a photographic paper. We can remeber reflective spectrum etc.



Nonsense.



Irrelevant.



Translation: "I did not get anything out of this, so I will now go away and pretend my ideas were supported."

Hans

[Kumar]

You will have to read up on Einstein's theory.

Ok.

[Kumar]

No, sorry but no. There is no practcal about it. If photons stopped they would have no mass.

Is it not so that photons are always in motion in real world?

[Kumar]

No, only one type of photon.

You should not ask such questions without understanding. Ir depends on the defintion of trapped. most likely they are 'sort of slowed in a medium'.

ETA: Not even, they are travelling between mirrors, they are still in motion as it were:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/11/researchers-get-trapped-photons-to-act-like-massive-particles.ars

Ok sorry.

[Kumar]

No, photons are discrete, that is why they are called quanta. There is no long wave. It is not continuos, it is discrete.

Under wave-particle duality, what is particle?

[Kumar]

They are not photons, they are a different sort of particle. Photons are not leptons.

No, if you want an answer it will require learning the defintions of the words.


Then read Inward Bound by Pais :)

Whether particles are portion of any substance even of wave OR it is the particle of mass & matter?

Which defination?

[Kumar]

No

No, atoms and molecules are quantum particles.

Sorry.?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum

Avogado's number is a measure.

Um, no. All particles are quantum particles.

depends


You did not gain understanding.

Measure of what--of atoms & molecules OR also subatomic particles alongwith?

[MRC_Hans]

What can be the single cycle of the waveform?One waveform is a single cycle:

http://webpages.ursinus.edu/rliston/cs173/sine.gif


Is it when photon is emmitted from the decay back of electron from lowest orbital?


No, that is a photon.

Then, what on wave be called as particle of wave?

A photon is the quantum of a waveform.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Can we consider such trapped heat as "trapped photons"--directly or indirectly?

No. Heat is another form of energy.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Is it not so that photons are always in motion in real world?Yes, but we can still determine their rest mass. This is due to the theory of relativity (e=mc2); when a mass is in motion its mass rises, when it moves with the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite. Photons always move with the speed of light, but we can determine that their mass as such is only what can be attributed to the energy they posess, so we can tell that their rest mass is zero.

(Maybe you don't understand this, but now you know there is an explanation)

Hans

[Dancing David]

Can we consider such trapped heat as "trapped photons"--directly or indirectly?

No. The heat is a measure of the motion of the atoms of the material's atoms, it may reradiate as a photon, it may not.

It would be like saying the motion of a car is caused by the photons that don't exist in the gasoline. Consequences are not antecedants.

[MRC_Hans]

Under wave-particle duality, what is particle?You should be able to figure that one out for yourself.

Hint: It is like "under bread and butter duality, what is butter".

Hans

[Dancing David]

Under wave-particle duality, what is particle?

An effect of the intersection of waveforms. It is a classical notion in the QM world.

[Dancing David]

Whether particles are portion of any substance even of wave OR it is the particle of mass & matter?

Which defination?

Neither, your question is constrained. All is waveforms, all the time. 'Particle' behavior is still the consequence of the waveforms. the substance is waveforms.

[Dancing David]

Sorry.?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum

Atoms and molecules are subject to QM, in aggregate there is a diffusion of the quantum strangeness because of the aggregate of the waveforms.

Yet all things are govererned by QM, that does not mean that a large object will 'quantum tunnel', it can't because it is an aggregate and the chance of even two joined atoms tunneling are very small.

Bucky balls of carbon will show the interference of the double slit experiment however. And Bose-Einstein Condensate demonstrates the wave form of aggregates of atoms.



Measure of what--of atoms & molecules OR also subatomic particles alongwith?

Measure of the number of atoms, so it would include the rest.

[dafydd]

Thanks.





What can be the single cycle of the waveform? Is it when photon is emmitted from the decay back of electron from lowest orbital?

Then, what on wave be called as particle of wave?

It's a quantum of solace.

[Mojo]

Is it when photon is emmitted from the decay back of electron from lowest orbital?


The lowest orbital is the lowest orbital. Electrons cannot decay from the lowest orbital. Electrons are emitted when electrons return to the lowest orbital. When an electron moves from the lowest orbital, a photon is absorbed, not emitted, since the electron must move to a higher energy orbital.

We went through all this years ago.

[Kumar]

One waveform is a single cycle:

http://webpages.ursinus.edu/rliston/cs173/sine.gif



No, that is a photon.



A photon is the quantum of a waveform.

Hans

Ok thanks.

[Kumar]

No. Heat is another form of energy.

Hans

It it not relevant to photons?

[Kumar]

Yes, but we can still determine their rest mass. This is due to the theory of relativity (e=mc2); when a mass is in motion its mass rises, when it moves with the speed of light, its mass becomes infinite. Photons always move with the speed of light, but we can determine that their mass as such is only what can be attributed to the energy they posess, so we can tell that their rest mass is zero.

Hans

When photon has zero rest mass, how can we say it is mass in motion?

Does a photon has inherant energy & mass or acquire it from outside source while in motion?

[Kumar]

No. The heat is a measure of the motion of the atoms of the material's atoms, it may reradiate as a photon, it may not.

It would be like saying the motion of a car is caused by the photons that don't exist in the gasoline. Consequences are not antecedants.

But still can 't we say photons are product of gasoline?

[Kumar]

You should be able to figure that one out for yourself.

Hint: It is like "under bread and butter duality, what is butter".

Hans

Whether such duality exist in all other fundamental forces & their mediatons?

[Kumar]

An effect of the intersection of waveforms. It is a classical notion in the QM world.

Ok thanks.

[Kumar]

Neither, your question is constrained. All is waveforms, all the time. 'Particle' behavior is still the consequence of the waveforms. the substance is waveforms.

Ok thanks.

[Kumar]

Atoms and molecules are subject to QM, in aggregate there is a diffusion of the quantum strangeness because of the aggregate of the waveforms.

Yet all things are govererned by QM, that does not mean that a large object will 'quantum tunnel', it can't because it is an aggregate and the chance of even two joined atoms tunneling are very small.

Bucky balls of carbon will show the interference of the double slit experiment however. And Bose-Einstein Condensate demonstrates the wave form of aggregates of atoms.


Measure of the number of atoms, so it would include the rest.

Yes but when atoms loose mass when energy is released from them(even on non nuclear fissions) & when energy has mass, we may not consider an atom ielelmentry in chemical or non-QM sense?

[Kumar]

The lowest orbital is the lowest orbital. Electrons cannot decay from the lowest orbital. Electrons are emitted when electrons return to the lowest orbital. When an electron moves from the lowest orbital, a photon is absorbed, not emitted, since the electron must move to a higher energy orbital.

We went through all this years ago.

Sorry, I meant decay back to lowest orbital.

[Pixel42]

When photon has zero rest mass, how can we say it is mass in motion?
Because light is affected by gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

It was one of the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity), and was confirmed by Eddington in 1919.

[Kumar]

Because light is affected by gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

It was one of the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity), and was confirmed by Eddington in 1919.

Thanks. How light acquire mass when in motion?

[Mojo]

Thanks. How light acquire mass when in motion?


It was one of the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity), and was confirmed by Eddington in 1919.

[Vorpal]

Thanks. How light acquire mass when in motion?
It doesn't. Gravity couples to energy (and several other things). Mass has energy, and normally the largest part of the energy of an object is due to its mass. But anything that has energy will be affected by gravity; whether or not it has mass is not important to this.

[Dancing David]

It it not relevant to photons?

This is where the language as used by people who model these things matter. The words have specific meanings in context because the narrowness of usage prevents confusion.

Photons are involved in the transfer of energy between partciles. The aggregate motion of particles is commonly called 'heat'.

But you will need to learn about how the words are used to understand answers that people give you.

Here is a hint, the photon is not stored in the particles.

[Dancing David]

When photon has zero rest mass, how can we say it is mass in motion?

Does a photon has inherant energy & mass or acquire it from outside source while in motion?

This is a very specific area that has been explained by people who are experts but I can not tell you the answers. It has to do with moving at the speed of light. The issue is that the standard equation e=mc^2 actually is a simple expression, the complex expression has factors for movement at the relativististic velocities. The 'resting' part of teh factor for a photon is zero. The 'moving at relativistivs speeds' factor is not.

[Dancing David]

But still can 't we say photons are product of gasoline?

No, they interact with the various forms but the photons absorbed plant material that later becomes the peroleum are not stored and released later. They are converted into chemical bonds in the material, later other photons may be released. But they are not the same photons.

They are not like physical pennies in a money exchange.

AFAIK

[Dancing David]

Yes but when atoms loose mass when energy is released from them(even on non nuclear fissions) & when energy has mass, we may not consider an atom ielelmentry in chemical or non-QM sense?

I think the answer is no, all particles are waveforms. Here look at this:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/

What it shows is that an aggregate of largerer atoms act as an almost single waveform at cold temperatures.

[Kumar]

It was one of the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity), and was confirmed by Eddington in 1919.

ok thanks.

[Kumar]

It doesn't. Gravity couples to energy (and several other things). Mass has energy, and normally the largest part of the energy of an object is due to its mass. But anything that has energy will be affected by gravity; whether or not it has mass is not important to this.

Thanks.

[Kumar]

This is a very specific area that has been explained by people who are experts but I can not tell you the answers. It has to do with moving at the speed of light. The issue is that the standard equation e=mc^2 actually is a simple expression, the complex expression has factors for movement at the relativististic velocities. The 'resting' part of teh factor for a photon is zero. The 'moving at relativistivs speeds' factor is not.

Ok thanks. You contributed much. I shall be involved in other works & shall visit after some time. Bye for now. Regards.

[Kumar]

No, they interact with the various forms but the photons absorbed plant material that later becomes the peroleum are not stored and released later. They are converted into chemical bonds in the material, later other photons may be released. But they are not the same photons.

They are not like physical pennies in a money exchange.

AFAIK

Thanks.

[Kumar]

I think the answer is no, all particles are waveforms. Here look at this:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/

What it shows is that an aggregate of largerer atoms act as an almost single waveform at cold temperatures.

This is bit difficult to understand But when atom emit energy, and if some mass of atom is lost due to that release of energy, we can thinks that atoms particles(probably upto E=mc2) should also be accounted.

One thought;

When we dissolve say salt in water in a sealed bottle. Bigger particles are divided into smaller particles of salt. This dissolution should also be releasing energy. Whether this energy remains into bottle view of mass balance;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance
Input=output+accumulation
Input+generation=output+accumulation+consumption

What does accumulation mean.

In another way, if bottle with mixture is heated, then it will release heat i.e which is applied heat, but what about energy generated into corked botthed(closed container)? Will it accumulate in bottle in lieu of mass conservation--mass in energy genarated into closed bottle?

[Mojo]

In another way, if bottle with mixture is heated, then it will release heat i.e which is applied heat, but what about energy generated into corked botthed(closed container)? Will it accumulate in bottle in lieu of mass conservation--mass in energy genarated into closed bottle?


In what form do you think this energy will accumulate?

[Kumar]

In what form do you think this energy will accumulate?

Can't say but following links indicate that mass is conserved in a close system. As energy has mass, this mass may also need to be accounted:-


The general form quoted for a mass balance is The mass that enters a system must, by conservation of mass, either leave the system or accumulate within the system .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance

The law of conservation of mass, also known as the principle of mass/matter conservation, states that the mass of a closed system (in the sense of a completely isolated system) will remain constant over time. This is much like the conservation of energy in the sense that both keep the energy or mass enclosed in the system (hence, "conservation"). The mass of an isolated system cannot be changed as a result of processes acting inside the system. The law implies that mass cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be rearranged in space and changed into different types of particles; and that for any chemical process in a closed system, the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

The equation E = mc2 indicates that energy always exhibits mass in whatever form the energy takes.[3] Mass–energy equivalence also means that mass conservation becomes a restatement, or requirement, of the law of energy conservation, which is the first law of thermodynamics. Mass–energy equivalence does not imply that mass may be "converted" to energy, and indeed implies the opposite. Modern theory holds that neither mass nor energy may be destroyed, but only moved from one location to another. Mass and energy are both conserved separately in special relativity, and neither may be created or destroyed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence




Simply mass in energy formed with in a system may have to be accounted in the solution, if it does not leave the system. Let us take, energy formed in a system are just mass particles in formed energy.

We say energy is lost as heat. I don't kbow, if it is applied energy to system OR formed energy within a system.

[Dancing David]

This is bit difficult to understand But when atom emit energy, and if some mass of atom is lost due to that release of energy, we can thinks that atoms particles(probably upto E=mc2) should also be accounted.

One thought;

When we dissolve say salt in water in a sealed bottle. Bigger particles are divided into smaller particles of salt. This dissolution should also be releasing energy. Whether this energy remains into bottle view of mass balance;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance
Input=output+accumulation
Input+generation=output+accumulation+consumption

What does accumulation mean.

In another way, if bottle with mixture is heated, then it will release heat i.e which is applied heat, but what about energy generated into corked botthed(closed container)? Will it accumulate in bottle in lieu of mass conservation--mass in energy genarated into closed bottle?

A closed bottle is not a closed system, it will absorb and reradiate energy, ie heat.

[Vorpal]

This is bit difficult to understand But when atom emit energy, and if some mass of atom is lost due to that release of energy, we can thinks that atoms particles(probably upto E=mc2) should also be accounted.
Uh... I'm still not sure what you're asking, but I think it is accounted for.

Looking at this issue in reverse for hydrogen, just because the relevant measurements are easier to come by, here are some masses in atomic mass units:
Mass of proton: 1.00727646677 u
Mass of electron: 0.00054857990943 u
Total: 1.00782504668 u
Hydrogen-1 atom: 1.00782503207 u
Difference: 0.00000001461 u
Since 1 u = 931.46 MeV, the difference is 13.61 eV. A hydrogen-1 atom has less mass than a proton and electron do separately.

One of the easiest nontrivial things one can do in quantum mechanics is to calculate the energies of electron energy eigenstates in a proton's electrostatic potential. The answer, neglecting fine structure correction, is (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1031&bih=849&q=%28mass+of+electron%29*%28electron+charge%29^4%2 F%28%28electric+constant%29^2*%28hbar%29^2*%2832*p i^2%29%29+in+eV&aq=f&aqi=h1&aql=&oq=):
E_n = -\frac{m_e e^4}{32\pi^2\hbar^2\epsilon_0^2}\frac{1}{n^2} = -\frac{13.61\;\text{eV}}{n^2}
So this defect in mass is exactly the binding energy of the electron in ordinary, ground state (n = 1) hydrogen.

Speaking of radiation, the Lyman series part of the hydrogen spectrum is formed by the decays of electrons from excited (n>1) state to the ground state, which produce a photon corresponding to the energy difference between those states. The limit of that series (n→∞) gives the full 13.6 eV difference, since in that limit, the electron becomes free. In spectroscopy, this was discovered before quantum mechanics, with the corresponding wavelength of the radiation being the the reciprocal of Rydberg constant: 1/R∞ = 91.1 nm.

Thus, when hydrogen (and every other atom) radiates, it really does become slightly less massive.

When we dissolve say salt in water in a sealed bottle. Bigger particles are divided into smaller particles of salt. This dissolution should also be releasing energy.
In this case, the other way around: the binding energy is negative, i.e., you have to provide at least 13.6 eV to hydrogen in order to separate it. This is known as ionization energy, although for chemical purposes it's more useful to work in units of kJ/mol. This makes hydrogen lighter than the sum of its constituent particles.

[Zep]

Vorpal, you lost him after the word "Uh...".

[Kumar]

Uh... I'm still not sure what you're asking, but I think it is accounted for.

Looking at this issue in reverse for hydrogen, just because the relevant measurements are easier to come by, here are some masses in atomic mass units:
Mass of proton: 1.00727646677 u
Mass of electron: 0.00054857990943 u
Total: 1.00782504668 u
Hydrogen-1 atom: 1.00782503207 u
Difference: 0.00000001461 u
Since 1 u = 931.46 MeV, the difference is 13.61 eV. A hydrogen-1 atom has less mass than a proton and electron do separately.

One of the easiest nontrivial things one can do in quantum mechanics is to calculate the energies of electron energy eigenstates in a proton's electrostatic potential. The answer, neglecting fine structure correction, is (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1031&bih=849&q=%28mass+of+electron%29*%28electron+charge%29^4%2 F%28%28electric+constant%29^2*%28hbar%29^2*%2832*p i^2%29%29+in+eV&aq=f&aqi=h1&aql=&oq=):
E_n = -\frac{m_e e^4}{32\pi^2\hbar^2\epsilon_0^2}\frac{1}{n^2} = -\frac{13.61\;\text{eV}}{n^2}
So this defect in mass is exactly the binding energy of the electron in ordinary, ground state (n = 1) hydrogen.

Speaking of radiation, the Lyman series part of the hydrogen spectrum is formed by the decays of electrons from excited (n>1) state to the ground state, which produce a photon corresponding to the energy difference between those states. The limit of that series (n→∞) gives the full 13.6 eV difference, since in that limit, the electron becomes free. In spectroscopy, this was discovered before quantum mechanics, with the corresponding wavelength of the radiation being the the reciprocal of Rydberg constant: 1/R∞ = 91.1 nm.[/quote]


Thus, when hydrogen (and every other atom) radiates, it really does become slightly less massive.[/quote]

Many thanks.

In short, can we say when an electrom is exicited & release photon or even electron, three types of energies are created:-

1. Energy on a/c of absorption & emmition.

2. Binding energy.

3. Energy on a/c of mass loss due to mass conversion in to energy.

Ok? Since we see radiation is not escaping a nuclear reaction, what is its fate?

Further suppose a light is created in nuclear reactor & this light can't escape from reactor what will be its fate within reactor?

Likewise, if we take a non-transparent container & a light/photons are genarated in that container, what will be the fate of this light?

You may also tell about fate of all three energies as I told before(photon, binding & mass loss/conversion?
In this case, the other way around: the binding energy is negative, i.e., you have to provide at least 13.6 eV to hydrogen in order to separate it. This is known as ionization energy, although for chemical purposes it's more useful to work in units of kJ/mol. This makes hydrogen lighter than the sum of its constituent particles.

[Kumar]

A closed bottle is not a closed system, it will absorb and reradiate energy, ie heat.

Let us say a nuclear reactor or a non-tranparent container. What will be the fate of light/photons generated in such container. Pls look at my reply to Vorpol, in my last post & comment. Regards.

[dafydd]

Let us say a nuclear reactor or a non-tranparent container. What will be the fate of light/photons generated in such container. Pls look at my reply to Vorpol, in my last post & comment. Regards.

All nuclear reactors are contained in non transparent containers. They are called power stations. Why do you need to ask such a basic question?

[dafydd]

Speaking of radiation, the Lyman series part of the hydrogen spectrum is formed by the decays of electrons from excited (n>1) state to the ground state, which produce a photon corresponding to the energy difference between those states. The limit of that series (n→∞) gives the full 13.6 eV difference, since in that limit, the electron becomes free. In spectroscopy, this was discovered before quantum mechanics, with the corresponding wavelength of the radiation being the the reciprocal of Rydberg constant: 1/R∞ = 91.1 nm.


Thus, when hydrogen (and every other atom) radiates, it really does become slightly less massive.[/quote]

Many thanks.

In short, can we say when an electrom is exicited & release photon or even electron, three types of energies are created:-

1. Energy on a/c of absorption & emmition.

2. Binding energy.

3. Energy on a/c of mass loss due to mass conversion in to energy.

Ok? Since we see radiation is not escaping a nuclear reaction, what is its fate?

Further suppose a light is created in nuclear reactor & this light can't escape from reactor what will be its fate within reactor?

Likewise, if we take a non-transparent container & a light/photons are genarated in that container, what will be the fate of this light?

You may also tell about fate of all three energies as I told before(photon, binding & mass loss/conversion?[/QUOTE]

Don't quote things that you can't understand.

[Vorpal]

Likewise, if we take a non-transparent container & a light/photons are genarated in that container, what will be the fate of this light?
It gets absorbed by other atoms. Some of this will excite the electrons in the atoms so that it can be re-emitted directly as it was, but even in a mirror interior this will not be perfect due to Doppler broadening, etc. Eventually (rather, quickly) it winds up as heat.

You may also tell about fate of all three energies as I told before(photon, binding & mass loss/conversion?
When an electron gets excited, the atom is slightly heavier, and the electron binding energy is less in magnitude. When it emits a photon, it gets lighter and its binding energy increases in magnitude. The photon then transfers this bit to some other atom.

What the problem? For a hypothetical completely closed container, its total mass does not change at all. It's not particularly relevant.

[Mojo]

Let us say a nuclear reactor or a non-tranparent container. What will be the fate of light/photons generated in such container. Pls look at my reply to Vorpol, in my last post & comment. Regards.


What do nuclear reactors produce?

[Kumar]

It gets absorbed by other atoms. Some of this will excite the electrons in the atoms so that it can be re-emitted directly as it was, but even in a mirror interior this will not be perfect due to Doppler broadening, etc. Eventually (rather, quickly) it winds up as heat.

Do you mean that energy which is produced in such container will be lost as heat after some time? If so, should mass of container after such heat loss not decrease on a/c of energy loss?

Also, what about an insulated container from which heat can not be lost? Where energy produced within container will go?


When an electron gets excited, the atom is slightly heavier, and the electron binding energy is less in magnitude. When it emits a photon, it gets lighter and its binding energy increases in magnitude. The photon then transfers this bit to some other atom.

What the problem? For a hypothetical completely closed container, its total mass does not change at all. It's not particularly relevant.

Means, suppose if salt & water is dissolved in such container, then some energy and its mass can be transfered to water?

When energy genarated in container is lost as heat, how total mass of container is not decreased due to such energy(energy mass also) loss?

Since atoms are not elementary particle & these can be further divided into smaller particles say upto elementary particle levels, should we not account any materials presence upto E=mc2 instead upto atoms & molecules(Avogdro number)?

Btw, Do all atoms degrade naturally?

[Kumar]

What do nuclear reactors produce?

Now spreading radiation in Japan.:)

Is it due to applied energy, or binding energy or generated energy?

[Mojo]

Now spreading radiation in Japan.:)


OK, I'll put it a different way: what are nuclear reactors intended to produce?

[Mojo]

Also, what about an insulated container from which heat can not be lost? Where energy produced within container will go?


If heat is generated within an insulated container, what do you think will happen to the temperature of the contents? What happened to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima when their cooling systems could no longer remove heat from them?

[Dancing David]

Kumar, I am willing to answer the questions, but the answers are still the same.

You really need to read some introductory books. :)

[Dancing David]

Do you mean that energy which is produced in such container will be lost as heat after some time? If so, should mass of container after such heat loss not decrease on a/c of energy loss?

No
The photons are massless, therefore the energy remains the same

Also, what about an insulated container from which heat can not be lost? Where energy produced within container will go?

Real or hypothertical, it doesn't matter.

The mass will remain the same. As long as you are not adding mass to the container.

The question is : How are you heating the water in the container?

Means, suppose if salt & water is dissolved in such container, then some energy and its mass can be transfered to water?

No, the solution is a solution. The binding energy of the Na and Cl will not transfer mass to teh water. The photons are massless.

They are not 'trapped'.


When energy genarated in container is lost as heat, how total mass of container is not decreased due to such energy(energy mass also) loss?

The photons are mass less


Since atoms are not elementary particle & these can be further divided into smaller particles say upto elementary particle levels, should we not account any materials presence upto E=mc2 instead upto atoms & molecules(Avogdro number)?

Makes no sense , try again. :)

Yes and no.

Massless partciles are still mass less.



Btw, Do all atoms degrade naturally?

No

[MRC_Hans]

This is bit difficult to understand But when atom emit energy, and if some mass of atom is lost due to that release of energy, we can thinks that atoms particles(probably upto E=mc2) should also be accounted.

No, it is not difficult to understand. If an atom emits enery, it either looses a particle, or it emits a photon it has absorbed earlier.

It will loose the mass of the particle + the mass of the energy the emission represents. In the case of the photon the mass of the particle is zero.


When we dissolve say salt in water in a sealed bottle. Bigger particles are divided into smaller particles of salt. This dissolution should also be releasing energy.


That is a different kind of particles. You must stop confusing atomic particles with particles of matter, e.g. salt.

However, the energy state of a solution is normally different from that of its constituents. It can be higher or lower. If it is higher the solution heats up, if it is lower, it cools down. I don't remember what water and salt do.


Whether this energy remains into bottle view of mass balance;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_balance
Input=output+accumulation
Input+generation=output+accumulation+consumption


If the bottle was perfectly insulated (such bottles do not exist), it would stay. Otherwise the heat difference dissipates to the surroundings.


What does accumulation mean.


That an amount of something is gathered.


In another way, if bottle with mixture is heated, then it will release heat i.e which is applied heat, but what about energy generated into corked botthed(closed container)?


Well, before you ask questions like this, try to think: If you heat a bottle of water, and leave it on the table, will it still be hot tomorrow? (Try it, if you don't know the answer.

Will it accumulate in bottle in lieu of mass conservation--mass in energy genarated into closed bottle?

No.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Do you mean that energy which is produced in such container will be lost as heat after some time? If so, should mass of container after such heat loss not decrease on a/c of energy loss?

Also, what about an insulated container from which heat can not be lost? Where energy produced within container will go?

The mass will be less (but you won't be able to measure the difference, it's so tiny).

If you could produce a perfectly insulated container, the energy would stay. But you can't.


Means, suppose if salt & water is dissolved in such container, then some energy and its mass can be transfered to water?


It is already in the water (and salt): The solution has a different temperature.


When energy genarated in container is lost as heat, how total mass of container is not decreased due to such energy(energy mass also) loss?


It does loose mass (but by a very tiny amount).


Since atoms are not elementary particle & these can be further divided into smaller particles say upto elementary particle levels, should we not account any materials presence upto E=mc2 instead upto atoms & molecules(Avogdro number)?


No. Once we divide them they will no longer be the same. And we can't divide atoms into smaller particles by shaking a bottle. No homeopathy vindication here.

Btw, Do all atoms degrade naturally?

There are some we call stable. That means that they don't degrade, or if they do, it takes longer than the age of the universe.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

I think it is rather fun to see Kumar twisting and turning to find some tiny little scratch of argument that just might be taken as an indication that water can remember matter. :roll:

Hans

[dafydd]

If heat is generated within an insulated container, what do you think will happen to the temperature of the contents? What happened to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima when their cooling systems could no longer remove heat from them?

Perhaps Kumar would care to boil a kettle full of water.

[Kumar]

OK, I'll put it a different way: what are nuclear reactors intended to produce?

I know it, then?

[Kumar]

If heat is generated within an insulated container, what do you think will happen to the temperature of the contents? What happened to the nuclear reactors at Fukushima when their cooling systems could no longer remove heat from them?

Heat can also be apparent withing a container if we give outside heat/energy to that. When a container loose heat, we can say it is also from that applied heat. I am more concerned about a/c of energy generated internally.

[Kumar]

Kumar, I am willing to answer the questions, but the answers are still the same.

You really need to read some introductory books. :)

Sorry, but i feel it may be more productive, if you can continue.

[Kumar]

No
The photons are massless, therefore the energy remains the same

But photons in motion should have mass due to energy has mass. In container photons should be in motion.

Real or hypothertical, it doesn't matter.

The mass will remain the same. As long as you are not adding mass to the container.

I am not sure that although mass is same will it be same individually of salt & water(for example).

The question is : How are you heating the water in the container?

Most probably light heating may just cause applied energy is lost to released heat from container. I am trying to know account of energy produced/lost internally.

No, the solution is a solution. The binding energy of the Na and Cl will not transfer mass to teh water. The photons are massless.

They are not 'trapped'.

The photons are mass less

Makes no sense , try again. :)

Yes and no.

Massless partciles are still mass less.



No

Simply, I am looking the account on a/c of energy has mass & atoms loose/gain mass on energy absorption or release from it. Apart from atoms & molecule level I am trying to understand at quantum/elementary particle level.

It is surprising that atoms are naturally immortal?

[Kumar]

No, it is not difficult to understand. If an atom emits enery, it either looses a particle, or it emits a photon it has absorbed earlier.

It will loose the mass of the particle + the mass of the energy the emission represents. In the case of the photon the mass of the particle is zero.



That is a different kind of particles. You must stop confusing atomic particles with particles of matter, e.g. salt.

However, the energy state of a solution is normally different from that of its constituents. It can be higher or lower. If it is higher the solution heats up, if it is lower, it cools down. I don't remember what water and salt do.



If the bottle was perfectly insulated (such bottles do not exist), it would stay. Otherwise the heat difference dissipates to the surroundings.



That an amount of something is gathered.



Well, before you ask questions like this, try to think: If you heat a bottle of water, and leave it on the table, will it still be hot tomorrow? (Try it, if you don't know the answer.



No.

Hans

Thanks. Can you give me account upto quantum level for a salt & water heated in a closed container? You can account all types of applied & genarated energies.

[Kumar]

I think it is rather fun to see Kumar twisting and turning to find some tiny little scratch of argument that just might be taken as an indication that water can remember matter. :roll:

Hans

Is it not best, If one can try it for science esp. those which are not yet A&F?

[Vorpal]

Do you mean that energy which is produced in such container will be lost as heat after some time?
Yes.

If so, should mass of container after such heat loss not decrease on a/c of energy loss?
Not for a closed system. But if the container is not a closed system and (say) radiates into a colder environment, then its mass will decrease slightly.

Also, what about an insulated container from which heat can not be lost? Where energy produced within container will go?
Heat. The thermal energy in the container increases, e.g., in the vibration or motion of its atoms. Its total mass remains the same.

No
The photons are massless, therefore the energy remains the same
Careful, now. Individual photons are massless, but a box of them will have more mass than an empty box, unless they're all in the same direction or something.

Relativistically, massless particles have a null momentum four-vector (E² = p²c²), but the sum of two null four-vectors is not necessarily null itself. For example, adding two photons of equal energy but with opposite momenta gives a four-vector with energy but zero momentum, which definitely has mass. Therefore, (say) a sphere radiating uniformly into space will lose mass, unless space has background radiation that's hotter.

Kumar, I am willing to answer the questions, but the answers are still the same.

You really need to read some introductory books. :)
I agree with David on this one, and the rest.

[Kumar]

I think what you're asking is largely a philosophical rather than a scientific question.

As far as science goes, we say that certain particles are "identical" if they share all the same properties. Two electrons are not going to exhibit different behavior under the same conditions (aside from the inherent randomness that exists in physics, that is). That does not mean they're one and the same thing. There is also an issue of distinguishability. If two electrons start in states A and B, and end in states C and D, and we could (in principle, if not in practice) have tracked their trajectories, then it's meaningful to say that the same electron that was in A is now in C, for instance. If there was no way to track their trajectories, and it's impossible in principle to know which electron is the one now in state C, then it's meaningless to say that a particular one of them is now in C. (That it is meaningless is confirmed by the applicability of Fermi-Dirac statistics to ensembles of electrons at low temperatures.)

I would like to quote above here, posted at
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=205844

[Kumar]

Yes.


Not for a closed system. But if the container is not a closed system and (say) radiates into a colder environment, then its mass will decrease slightly.


Heat. The thermal energy in the container increases, e.g., in the vibration or motion of its atoms. Its total mass remains the same.


Careful, now. Individual photons are massless, but a box of them will have more mass than an empty box, unless they're all in the same direction or something.

Relativistically, massless particles have a null momentum four-vector (E² = p²c²), but the sum of two null four-vectors is not necessarily null itself. For example, adding two photons of equal energy but with opposite momenta gives a four-vector with energy but zero momentum, which definitely has mass. Therefore, (say) a sphere radiating uniformly into space will lose mass, unless space has background radiation that's hotter.




Thanks. can you give account at quantum level of applied energy, energy exchange & energy lost along with mass, if for example some salt is dissolved in water in a container & heated a bit?

[Zep]

Thanks. can you give account at quantum level of applied energy, energy exchange & energy lost along with mass, if for example some salt is dissolved in water in a container & heated a bit?Does anyone have any more doubts that Kumar has gotten utterly lost on his way to see the Wizard of Oz?

(For those who have not cottoned on yet, he is trying to tie quantum physics with homeopathic salt solutions in his ceaseless search for a potential reason for homeopathy's "efficacy".)

[MRC_Hans]

But photons in motion should have mass due to energy has mass. In container photons should be in motion.



I am not sure that although mass is same will it be same individually of salt & water(for example).



Most probably light heating may just cause applied energy is lost to released heat from container. I am trying to know account of energy produced/lost internally.



Simply, I am looking the account on a/c of energy has mass & atoms loose/gain mass on energy absorption or release from it. Apart from atoms & molecule level I am trying to understand at quantum/elementary particle level.

It is surprising that atoms are naturally immortal?

What you are really saying here is that you don't understand anything of what we are explaining.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks. Can you give me account upto quantum level for a salt & water heated in a closed container? You can account all types of applied & genarated energies.

Yes, Kumar, I can give you such an account. However, I won't. You wouldn't understand it. If I'm to spend time trying to educate an unwielding pupil, there will be a fee involved.

Hans

[Mojo]

Most probably light heating may just cause applied energy is lost to released heat from container. I am trying to know account of energy produced/lost internally.


Heat generated within the container will diffuse into the surroundings in the same way that heat applied to the container will.

246wD23cX-I

[Pixel42]

(For those who have not cottoned on yet, he is trying to tie quantum physics with homeopathic salt solutions in his ceaseless search for a potential reason for homeopathy's "efficacy".)
In other words he's trying to come up with an explanation for a phenomenon which doesn't actually exist. Like a kid trying to come up with an explanation of how Santa Claus can visit every house in the world in a single night.

[Zep]

In other words he's trying to come up with an explanation for a phenomenon which doesn't actually exist. Like a kid trying to come up with an explanation of how Santa Claus can visit every house in the world in a single night.Yup. Which is why his questions are of the form: If 3.162277660168279 is the square root of 10 (plus irrelevant quote), does that explain how Santa fits down the chimney?

[Kumar]

Yes, Kumar, I can give you such an account. However, I won't. You wouldn't understand it. If I'm to spend time trying to educate an unwielding pupil, there will be a fee involved.

Hans

Still, I request you to teach.

[Kumar]

What you are really saying here is that you don't understand anything of what we are explaining.

Hans

Sorry you taken it like that, pls go on teaching.

[MRC_Hans]

Still, I request you to teach.

To request education, one must adopt the atitude of a pupil.

Hans

[Kumar]

To request education, one must adopt the atitude of a pupil.

Hans

Sorry children can be odd but should not be parents. Same for pupils & teacher.

[MRC_Hans]

Sorry children can be odd but should not be parents. Same for pupils & teacher.It has nothing ot do with being odd, it has to do with refusing to learn. You are not here to learn what you don't know, you are here to make us confirm what you believe.

Hans

[Dancing David]

Heat can also be apparent withing a container if we give outside heat/energy to that. When a container loose heat, we can say it is also from that applied heat. I am more concerned about a/c of energy generated internally.

Same difference.

[Dancing David]

But photons in motion should have mass due to energy has mass. In container photons should be in motion.



I am not sure that although mass is same will it be same individually of salt & water(for example).

I don't understand what you said. The mass of a solution is exactly the same.




Most probably light heating may just cause applied energy is lost to released heat from container. I am trying to know account of energy produced/lost internally.

Same, same. No difference.




Simply, I am looking the account on a/c of energy has mass & atoms loose/gain mass on energy absorption or release from it. Apart from atoms & molecule level I am trying to understand at quantum/elementary particle level.

It is surprising that atoms are naturally immortal?

The material does not gain mass from the photons. The photons only have mass while in motion, once absorbed they do not. The heat of the material is not from photons being exchanged but the brownian motion of the molecules.

No, wether I am suprised or not doesn't matter.

[Dancing David]

Careful, now. Individual photons are massless, but a box of them will have more mass than an empty box, unless they're all in the same direction or something.

Relativistically, massless particles have a null momentum four-vector (E² = p²c²), but the sum of two null four-vectors is not necessarily null itself. For example, adding two photons of equal energy but with opposite momenta gives a four-vector with energy but zero momentum, which definitely has mass. Therefore, (say) a sphere radiating uniformly into space will lose mass, unless space has background radiation that's hotter.


Fair enough, but that is a whole lot of photons, to have an appreciable effect. Kumar is looking for a way to say that homeopathy works.

I think Kumar wants to know if an molecule of water will gain mass froma photon, then we can get into does shaking water heat it up.

[Dancing David]

Thanks. can you give account at quantum level of applied energy, energy exchange & energy lost along with mass, if for example some salt is dissolved in water in a container & heated a bit?

He wants to disolve something and then shake it, so he can say it has 'memory' of the solute after dillution.

[Dancing David]

It has nothing ot do with being odd, it has to do with refusing to learn. You are not here to learn what you don't know, you are here to make us confirm what you believe.

Hans

Yes, to put more in something must be taken out.

[Kumar]

It has nothing ot do with being odd, it has to do with refusing to learn. You are not here to learn what you don't know, you are here to make us confirm what you believe.

Hans

Ok, as you interpret.

[Kumar]

I don't understand what you said. The mass of a solution is exactly the same.

Suppose a corked bottle is filled half by mixture solution. Will energy/photons genarated in it be in motion or not?

Same, same. No difference.

Yes it look like esp. in consideration of photons converting into heat but still we can try to better understand account of generated energy in bottle/container.

Is it necessary that when a photon released from salt's atom/molecule travel to water's atoms/ molecule(i.e. from higher energy level to lower energy level, water's atoms instantly emit it in full?


The material does not gain mass from the photons. The photons only have mass while in motion, once absorbed they do not. The heat of the material is not from photons being exchanged but the brownian motion of the molecules.

No, wether I am suprised or not doesn't matter.

Will there be no black body radition/heat from photons? Please tell me the fate of photons if emitted by salt's atoms or by water's atoms in bottle?

I can't say, if atoms are decayed anyway or decayed ultimately into elementary particles or into fundamental force--naturally or on big bang?

[Kumar]

Fair enough, but that is a whole lot of photons, to have an appreciable effect. Kumar is looking for a way to say that homeopathy works.

I think Kumar wants to know if an molecule of water will gain mass froma photon, then we can get into does shaking water heat it up.

Whatever for science.

[Kumar]

He wants to disolve something and then shake it, so he can say it has 'memory' of the solute after dillution.

Let us think, if some energy is genarated into bottle and if such energy or spectrum of energies or mass of it is retained anyhow in bottle, it can be a science.

[Dancing David]

Whatever for science.

If you shove the cat into a box smaller than the cat, the cat is no longer a cat but mush.

David's Cat
No cats were harmed in the making of this analogy.

[Mojo]

Suppose a corked bottle is filled half by mixture solution. Will energy/photons genarated in it be in motion or not?


Do you think the photons will just be hanging around in the bottle?

As for your question about whether the energy will be in motion, do you have any idea how things heat up?

[Mojo]

Will there be no black body radition/heat from photons?


Do you know what black body radiation consists of?

Please tell me the fate of photons if emitted by salt's atoms or by water's atoms in bottle?


They will travel until they hit something. What happens then depends on the nature of whatever they hit.

[Kumar]

Do you know what black body radiation consists of?

I read it, otherwise you can add.

Blackbody Radiation
"Blackbody radiation" or "cavity radiation" refers to an object or system which absorbs all radiation incident upon it and re-radiates energy which is characteristic of this radiating system only, not dependent upon the type of radiation which is incident upon it. The radiated energy can be considered to be produced by standing wave or resonant modes of the cavity which is radiating.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html


[quote]They will travel until they hit something. What happens then depends on the nature of whatever they hit.

You should have told about all possible hittings within bottle.

[Kumar]

If you shove the cat into a box smaller than the cat, the cat is no longer a cat but mush.

David's Cat
No cats were harmed in the making of this analogy.

While any atom emit energy, does it not loose some mass in nett?

[Kumar]

Do you think the photons will just be hanging around in the bottle?

As for your question about whether the energy will be in motion, do you have any idea how things heat up?

No they will be hitting everything in bottle & to bottle.

I know about humans.:)

[Vorpal]

Thanks. can you give account at quantum level of applied energy, energy exchange & energy lost along with mass, if for example some salt is dissolved in water in a container & heated a bit?
Sure. So could you, if you were paying attention (hint: specifying "quantum level" doesn't affect the kinds of energy transfers that are going on).

You have water of mass M and salt of mass m. The total mass is M+m.
The salt dissolves. The total mass is still M+m.
You heat it, giving transferring some amount of heat Q. The total mass is now M+m+Q/c², and Q/c² is a tiny, tiny amount.

At least, it would be in an idealized totally closed container, but in practice evaporation, etc. means that you'll be losing way more mass than you gain by heating.

So what? What relevance does this have to anything?

While any atom emit energy, does it not loose some mass in nett?
Yes. Seriously: so what? How does it in any manner connect to where you're trying to go with this?

[dafydd]

So what? What relevance does this have to anything?

Yes. Seriously: so what? How does it in any manner connect to where you're trying to go with this?


You could say that about any of Kumar's posts. I have no idea where he is going with this.Nowhere,I suspect.

[Kumar]

Sure. So could you, if you were paying attention (hint: specifying "quantum level" doesn't affect the kinds of energy transfers that are going on).

You have water of mass M and salt of mass m. The total mass is M+m.
The salt dissolves. The total mass is still M+m.
You heat it, giving transferring some amount of heat Q. The total mass is now M+m+Q/c², and Q/c² is a tiny, tiny amount.

At least, it would be in an idealized totally closed container, but in practice evaporation, etc. means that you'll be losing way more mass than you gain by heating.

So what? What relevance does this have to anything?


Yes. Seriously: so what? How does it in any manner connect to where you're trying to go with this?

Issue for me is, Though M=m or M+m+Q/c2 remains same in closed container but whether something(atom's mass in form of its released energy mass) trasfer from m to M or Q to M etc.?

[Zep]

This still doesn't make homeopathy work, Kumar. No matter what you might consider or think. In fact, it proves conclusively that it does NOT work. That's F&A.

[Vorpal]

If you're going that way, let's ask:
-- Is there any conceivable re-distribution of energy among the types described that makes homeopathy or whatever-it-is-you-want possible?
In other words, why is it even relevant? Yes, in an idealized situation things get a very tiny amount heavier when they're heated, and lose that increase when they cool back down. So what?

The difference between drinking a cup of water at 5C and the same amount of molecules heated to 40C is about one part in six-hundred-billion or so in mass. But even if it was (for magical reasons) ten billion times more than that, what difference does it make beyond the fact that drinking warm water is mildly uncomfortable?

[Zep]

Vorpal, he just wants to find a justification for his utterly unreasonable belief. Even if that justification is utterly unreasonable.

[Vorpal]

Yeah, but I'm making a fair challenge anyway: if Kumar gives a reason that some kind of mass increase is in any way connected to homeopathy (or whatever-the-heck), I'd be willing to examine whether this reason is a good one. (And it's likely that some people much more qualified than myself would too.)

As it is, he's not even willing put a bad reason forward, much less a well-thought one; it's just "mumble mumble mass mumble photons."

[Mojo]

Let us think, if some energy is genarated into bottle and if such energy or spectrum of energies or mass of it is retained anyhow in bottle, it can be a science.


If energy is retained in the bottle, it will be in the form of heat. All this will do will be to make the particles in the bottle move a little faster. It will be indistinguishable from heat already present in the bottle, or heat transferred from outside the bottle (for example from the warmth of the homoeopath's hand).

Photons will not remain in the bottle. What do you think is the fate of photons generated in the special type of sealed bottle colloqually known as a light bulb?

How fast do you think the photons will be moving?

[Kumar]

If you're going that way, let's ask:
-- Is there any conceivable re-distribution of energy among the types described that makes homeopathy or whatever-it-is-you-want possible?
In other words, why is it even relevant? Yes, in an idealized situation things get a very tiny amount heavier when they're heated, and lose that increase when they cool back down. So what?

I am assuming something transfer during mixing, on energy application and on energy losing. Previously I thought it as "part excitation". As energy transfer from higher to lower level, energy transfer from salt to water should be possible.

The difference between drinking a cup of water at 5C and the same amount of molecules heated to 40C is about one part in six-hundred-billion or so in mass. But even if it was (for magical reasons) ten billion times more than that, what difference does it make beyond the fact that drinking warm water is mildly uncomfortable?

Alike materialistic toxicity there can also be importance of energetic toxicity or of energetic odd exposures(which are uncommon in real world). Our body should have evolved/habituated to the "Naturals to us"--to which we have inharent sense of right ans so, these can be processed preinformed by our body whereas other can be odd or unnatural to us from which body can produce shocking/odd effects. Such odd effects can also be healing effects.

I am more skeptical in homeopathy & other yet unknown systems in science. Though I use molecular part of it & do experiance its popsitives but still I am more interested in sense that---for curicity, for dedicated interest in this field and to ensure myself. Otherwise I may have to pay due to miss. People who are not using it, are not effected.

Since you being dedicated & well informed person in this field: Hence Direct question:-

Even sub-molecular or quanum levels can be important in homeopathic/energetic healing agent sense, so even fundamental force & particles can be relevant. So tell me about any possibilty of atomic mass or energy mass transfer from salt(or other substance) to water & memorizing this information. I was bit attentive to note that atoms loose mass on relese of energy & energy has mass(even zero mass of photons, still it can bring mass when applied). Pls evaluate deeply & tell unbiased and with equanimity.

[Mojo]

Kumar's apparent suggestion that the photons may be hanging around in the top of the bottle reminds me of this (http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20060527052106/http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=2557&PN=1).

[Mojo]

Previously I thought it as "part excitation".


And we repeatedly told you that "part excitation" doesn't happen.

[Kumar]

Yeah, but I'm making a fair challenge anyway: if Kumar gives a reason that some kind of mass increase is in any way connected to homeopathy (or whatever-the-heck), I'd be willing to examine whether this reason is a good one. (And it's likely that some people much more qualified than myself would too.)

As it is, he's not even willing put a bad reason forward, much less a well-thought one; it's just "mumble mumble mass mumble photons."

I can't accept challenge from a teacher to me in this subject but I can just ask & put my feelings--percieved or got during discussions to know science of not yet become scientific. If mass of water is increased which is transffered from active substance due to potentization or mass of lactose due to trituration with active substances and if it can stay there, it will be prove presence of active substance information in water/lactose.

[MRC_Hans]

I am assuming something transfer during mixing, on energy application and on energy losing. Previously I thought it as "part excitation". As energy transfer from higher to lower level, energy transfer from salt to water should be possible.

No, it is not possible.


Alike materialistic toxicity there can also be importance of energetic toxicity or of energetic odd exposures(which are uncommon in real world).


You may be referring to electromagnetic energy. Yes, it does have an effect on the body, in large doses.


Our body should have evolved/habituated to the "Naturals to us"--to which we have inharent sense of right ans so, these can be processed preinformed by our body whereas other can be odd or unnatural to us from which body can produce shocking/odd effects. Such odd effects can also be healing effects.


I'm afraid I could not convert this to any human language.


I am more skeptical in homeopathy & other yet unknown systems in science.


Homeopathy is not unknown in science. We know exactly what is the science behind homeopathy.


Though I use molecular part of it & do experiance its popsitives but still I am more interested in sense that---for curicity, for dedicated interest in this field and to ensure myself. Otherwise I may have to pay due to miss. People who are not using it, are not effected.


Popsitives? :dio: .... Molecular part of it?

Even sub-molecular or quanum levels can be important in homeopathic/energetic healing agent sense, so even fundamental force & particles can be relevant. So tell me about any possibilty of atomic mass or energy mass transfer from salt(or other substance) to water & memorizing this information. I was bit attentive to note that atoms loose mass on relese of energy & energy has mass(even zero mass of photons, still it can bring mass when applied). Pls evaluate deeply & tell unbiased and with equanimity.

Kumar, seriously: When you cannot even formulate the question, how do you expect to be able to understand the answer?

Hans

[Kumar]

If energy is retained in the bottle, it will be in the form of heat. All this will do will be to make the particles in the bottle move a little faster. It will be indistinguishable from heat already present in the bottle, or heat transferred from outside the bottle (for example from the warmth of the homoeopath's hand).

Photons will not remain in the bottle. What do you think is the fate of photons generated in the special type of sealed bottle colloqually known as a light bulb?

How fast do you think the photons will be moving?

But photons can be converted in specific type of heat in bottle. Sometimes it looks to me, specific type of heat(so motion also) is ultimate difference in healings.

Our first goal should be to check mass or energy in any form and in any quantity transfered due to potentization/trituration process, can stay in water/bottle for long.

Bulb is good example for me. I shall try to use it dynamically. It is noted that bulb ger fused or degraded over time.:)

[Mojo]

If mass of water is increased which is transffered from active substance due to potentization or mass of lactose due to trituration with active substances and if it can stay there, it will be prove presence of active substance information in water/lactose.


You're trying to pull a bait and switch: what you have been talking about in this thread is the generation of energy in the form of heat and light, not an increase in the amount of mass in the bottle. Heat is not information that is specific to the remedy substance; it just makes the particles move faster.

[Mojo]

But photons can be converted in specific type of heat in bottle. Sometimes it looks to me, specific type of heat(so motion also) is ultimate difference in healings.


Heat is heat. There are no specific types of heat.

[MRC_Hans]

f mass of water is increased which is transffered from active substance due to potentization or mass of lactose due to trituration with active substances and if it can stay there, it will be prove presence of active substance information in water/lactose.

Wow! That actually parses to a sensible enquiry! Congratulations, you just won a sensible answer. Unfortunately, it cannot be the one you wished for:

The mass of water is not affected from the active substance. During solution, ions and energy is interchanged, but once the active substance is gone, the interactions and their effects are also gone.

The only thing temporarily transferred is various energies from the solution and mixing (shaking, trituration), but they will diffuse away in a matter of minutes, and they will in no way reflect any specific characteristics of the active substance.

In short: No.

I'm sorry, but this is the truth.

Hans

[Kumar]

No, it is not possible.

What? part excitation or energy transfer from salt(higher level) to water(lower level)?



You may be referring to electromagnetic energy. Yes, it does have an effect on the body, in large doses.

Though I have also mentioned energetic odds, but I will discuss about Effects later.



I'm afraid I could not convert this to any human language.

How our body process any thing expoosed to it--naturally or unnaturally?



Homeopathy is not unknown in science. We know exactly what is the science behind homeopathy.



Popsitives? :dio: .... Molecular part of it?




Kumar, seriously: When you cannot even formulate the question, how do you expect to be able to understand the answer?

Hans

But still miss & weakness, A&F, well existing.. etc.:)

Sorry "positives", molecular mean here; whatever potency haning molecules of active substances.

My language become worse to you, when homeopathy come into picture.:)

[MRC_Hans]

But photons can be converted in specific type of heat in bottle.

No. There is no such thing as a specific type of heat.


Sometimes it looks to me, specific type of heat(so motion also) is ultimate difference in healings.


There is no such thing as a specific type of heat.


Our first goal should be to check mass or energy in any form and in any quantity transfered due to potentization/trituration process, can stay in water/bottle for long.


It cannot. Try it: Fill a bottle with hot water, and leave it. How long will it stay hot?


Bulb is good example for me. I shall try to use it dynamically.


Explanation: In Kumarese, 'use dynamically' means 'build another fantasy over'.

Hans

[Kumar]

You're trying to pull a bait and switch: what you have been talking about in this thread is the generation of energy in the form of heat and light, not an increase in the amount of mass in the bottle. Heat is not information that is specific to the remedy substance; it just makes the particles move faster.

Yes but first we should atleast find "some existance". Then later we can frame the theory. Diluting out to Avogdro number for atoms & molecules may not be sufficient to reject a therapy but presence at quantum level or to E=mc2 level may also be relevant, if energy has mass & mass is lost from atoms due to energy exchanges.

[Kumar]

Heat is heat. There are no specific types of heat.

Temp. difference can be there. 1C is also a heat 100C is also. But one can't burn you but other can.

Ok, do you agree that heat in bottle is changed & stay there for long?

[MRC_Hans]

What? part excitation or energy transfer from salt(higher level) to water(lower level)?

There is no such thing as part exitation (on the atomic level).

What makes you think that salt is a higher level then water?

The salt/water solution has a different energy level. The water in itself does not.


Though I have also mentioned energetic odds, but I will discuss about Effects later.


Odds are you won't make sense.


How our body process any thing expoosed to it--naturally or unnaturally?


Much improved. It still makes no sense, but it is much easier to read. ;)


But still miss & weakness, A&F, well existing.. etc.:)


Nonsense.


Sorry "positives", molecular mean here; whatever potency haning molecules of active substances.


That is allopathy.


My language become worse to you, when homeopathy come into picture.:)

With you, homeopathy is always in the picture.

Hans

[Kumar]

Wow! That actually parses to a sensible enquiry! Congratulations, you just won a sensible answer. Unfortunately, it cannot be the one you wished for:

The mass of water is not affected from the active substance. During solution, ions and energy is interchanged, but once the active substance is gone, the interactions and their effects are also gone.

The only thing temporarily transferred is various energies from the solution and mixing (shaking, trituration), but they will diffuse away in a matter of minutes, and they will in no way reflect any specific characteristics of the active substance.

In short: No.

I'm sorry, but this is the truth.

Hans

Thanks, I am bit progressive & flexible somewhat like center line.:)

Yes that is the common understanding but I am also trying for some dynamic understanding for science. Simply pls give account of energy mass transfer & mass loss of atoms during potentization process.

Nothing to feel sorry. I want either it to exist with absolute science or die naturally if not scientific in A&F science.:)

[Kumar]

And we repeatedly told you that "part excitation" doesn't happen.

I have quoted here or in other recent topic, one relevant post posted by a poster in Can two things be identical? topic.

[Kumar]

No. There is no such thing as a specific type of heat.



There is no such thing as a specific type of heat.

1C & 100C temp are different.



It cannot. Try it: Fill a bottle with hot water, and leave it. How long will it stay hot?

Still taste of water is sensed somewhat changed from cool water before & after heating.??



Explanation: In Kumarese, 'use dynamically' means 'build another fantasy over'.

Hans

..Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress: a dynamic market.
3. Marked by intensity and vigor; forceful.

[Aitch]

Photons will not remain in the bottle. What do you think is the fate of photons generated in the special type of sealed bottle colloqually known as a light bulb?


Hmmm...

So, we have a spherical contained, mirrored on the inside and introduce a bunch of photons. Ignoring such trivialities as the hole where they are introduced being a way out, I assume they (the photons) will eventually be absorbed as there is no such thing as a perfect reflector?

However, if there were such a thing (maybe the NWO is keeping its invention secret :boggled:) the mental image of a bunch of photons bouncing round for ever is mildly amusing.

But would it be forever for the photons? They travel at the speed of light, so presumably no time passes for them. Oh well, at least they wouldn't get bored.

I really shouldn't post after too much strong coffee!

[Kumar]

There is no such thing as part exitation (on the atomic level).

What about at sub-atomic or quantum level?

What makes you think that salt is a higher level then water?

Na & Cl are higher atoms in periodic table than H & O.

The salt/water solution has a different energy level. The water in itself does not.

Yes but when salt is mixed and diluted out then?? We do feel some taste change. How? Is it due to miss or adsorption?:)



Odds are you won't make sense.

Odds seems to be with KE and so dynamic & productive. Pendulum at lowest point while moving can be bit odd than while it is still.



Much improved. It still makes no sense, but it is much easier to read. ;)



Nonsense.



That is allopathy.



With you, homeopathy is always in the picture.

Sense in non-sense.:)

Allo mean different but those are same biochemicals in homeopathic dose.

I take different remedies. One remedy improve concentration & nurological power.:) Otherwise there can be other odds due to other remedies.

[Kumar]

Hmmm...


However, if there were such a thing (maybe the NWO is keeping its invention secret :boggled:) !

Can it be Silica?:)

[MRC_Hans]

Yes that is the common understanding but I am also trying for some dynamic understanding for science.

No, it is not 'common understanding', it is fact. I know you try to add your fantasies, but they are not fact.


Simply pls give account of energy mass transfer & mass loss of atoms during potentization process.


Simple: Potentization = shaking. You shake the bottle, things whirl round, part of the content gets slightly hotter. You put the bottle down, things stop whirling, and the temperature falls back to the same as before. - End of story.

Hans

[Kumar]

No, it is not 'common understanding', it is fact. I know you try to add your fantasies, but they are not fact.



Simple: Potentization = shaking. You shake the bottle, things whirl round, part of the content gets slightly hotter. You put the bottle down, things stop whirling, and the temperature falls back to the same as before. - End of story.

Hans

No you forget to account interactions & changes due to mixing/solution.....evergy generated within bottle.

[MRC_Hans]

1C & 100C temp are different.

Irrelevant.


Still taste of water is sensed somewhat changed from cool water before & after heating.??


Water has no taste. When water has a taste, it is due to things dissolved in it.

Hans

[PixyMisa]

No you forget to account interactions & changes due to mixing/solution.....evergy generated within bottle.

Wrong, Kumar. That's exactly what he accounted for.

Here's the problem, Kumar. Lacking any foundation in science whatsoever, you are completely unable either to formulate intelligent questions or understand the answers you are given.

Get a basic science textbook from the library. Read it. If you have questions relating to what you read, feel free to ask them here.