Particles and Circles... What gives!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 05:57 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
Well, we're far off-topic now, but I guess everyone's done with circles so let's keep this thread alive!!!


This is very useful though:)

Bones-O! wrote:
Not at all. We have dissipative forces all around us (friction, viscosity, air resistance), but what about in space?


Something that has bothered me is where does inertia fit in this little paradigm?


Bones-O! wrote:
Basic law of the Universe: energy is conserved. Such laws are required to maintain, for instance, causality.


The cosmos yes, the universe no.


Bones-O! wrote:
Magnetic forces, like electric and gravitational, are conservative. That means that if you don't need to expend any energy to keep things the same. Our muscles don't work like that. When we hold up a weight, muscle cells are constantly contracting, then relaxing. To keep that weight up, we have to contract them again. This requires a constant supply of energy.


How does unbound energy interact with bound energy?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 07:08 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
This is very useful though:)

Awesome! Glad to hear!

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Something that has bothered me is where does inertia fit in this little paradigm?

In dissipative forces? Well, any force is nothing more than the rate of change of momentum of the subject body, so the larger the inertia the more it resists change.


Holiday20310401 wrote:

The cosmos yes, the universe no.

I'm not sure what you mean. The Universe is by definition a closed system, since any environment with which it could exchange energy would automatically be included in the system, ad infinitum if necessary. The cosmos is usual used as synonomous with the Universe. The only applicable alternative definitions that I can think would be some kind of ideal Universe (same rules apply), or the Universe outside our planet. In the latter, the rule would be other way round to your statement, since the Universe outside our planet is not a closed system.

Holiday20310401 wrote:

How does unbound energy interact with bound energy?

[/quote]
I'm not sure if I understand the question correctly, but if you mean how does massless energy (e.g. light particles) interact with massive energy (massive particles), the former are created by the latter by transitions between confined energy states (or from free states to confined states) and destroyed by them in the reverse transitions. The mediating particle (e.g. light wave) carries the relevant properties of the interaction (e.g. change in energy, change in momentum, change in angular momentum, etc, etc). The properties are defined in the actual wave itself (e.g. wavelength <-> momentum, frequency <-> energy, etc).

[Edit]: Actually, free-free transitions occur too, such as Compton scattering where a free massive, charged particle destroys a light wave then creates a new, different one. An answer to this and a more fundamental answer to the first (e.g. why do photons interact with matter at all) requires quantum field theory which, as fascinated by it as I am, I have a pitiful understanding of. I'll know more by the summer.

I should make it clear that the property with which light interacts with matter is not its [edit mass but its electric charge.
 
GHOST phil
 
Reply Sun 25 Jan, 2009 08:28 pm
@Bones-O,
xris wrote:
Sorry my mind cant cant translate that leap from vibrations to something tangible..are photons mass or are they vibrations or are they vibrating mass..if they are mass what is their parts? are they vibrations?..oooooo much too much...The whole universe is made up of songs ..a song for iron one for silver..one for gold ...that must be diffucult song ..HUMMMMM thats a fart..

More like an extremely complex system of vibrating energy.

xris wrote:
then we have nothing but vibrations strings..when do we describe vibrations as energy when is it mass..if i sing the right note will i make a fruit sponge??

I think off matter in the way I described above, it's very complex, a huge complex system of vibrating energy, "tied" together in a way that makes it stable.

xris wrote:
When we get right down to it, this energetic vibration, is this the energy that creates mass.is that it? What maintains this vibration,where does it energy come from..you cant have constant energy it must disipate..aahh you cant loose energy on change it..why is that? I could never understand magnets clinging to each other for centuries ,where does that energy come from why does it not suddenly say ive had enough im worn out..

What you are asking would take some complex theory to explain properly but Bones-O! gave you a simple description. Why do stable atoms not decay? It is in a "knot" of vibrating energy, it is extremely hard to untie, and if you do, lots of binding energy gets released, hence, the Atom-Bomb, which, is a chain reaction caused by the neutrons released from naturally decaying Urunium-35. Oh, and photons seem to have no mass because
Quote:
Wikipedia - In physics, the photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation.]
but I don't really understand mass, as I don't really understand gravity, but I would guess, that the more energy you give a system, the more mass it contains...you are really asking something that science has yet to explain properly...
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2009 04:29 am
@GHOST phil,
Thanks everyone for your help..im not really understanding energy is mass but i dont think many do..thanks again..
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Mon 26 Jan, 2009 02:15 pm
@Bones-O,
Bones-O! wrote:
In dissipative forces? Well, any force is nothing more than the rate of change of momentum of the subject body, so the larger the inertia the more it resists change.


Yes, but where does inertia come from? It seems to oppose the products of the fundamental forces.

Bones-O! wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. The Universe is by definition a closed system, since any environment with which it could exchange energy would automatically be included in the system, ad infinitum if necessary. The cosmos is usual used as synonomous with the Universe. The only applicable alternative definitions that I can think would be some kind of ideal Universe (same rules apply), or the Universe outside our planet. In the latter, the rule would be other way round to your statement, since the Universe outside our planet is not a closed system.


Sorry, I got my terms mixed up, you're right, I'm wrong:brickwall:.

Bones-O! wrote:
I'm not sure if I understand the question correctly, but if you mean how does massless energy (e.g. light particles) interact with massive energy (massive particles), the former are created by the latter by transitions between confined energy states (or from free states to confined states) and destroyed by them in the reverse transitions. The mediating particle (e.g. light wave) carries the relevant properties of the interaction (e.g. change in energy, change in momentum, change in angular momentum, etc, etc). The properties are defined in the actual wave itself (e.g. wavelength <-> momentum, frequency <-> energy, etc).


You basically answer my question here.

Bones-O! wrote:
I should make it clear that the property with which light interacts with matter is not its [edit mass but its electric charge.


But this seems like one-way interaction. The light interacts with the charge of the mass/bound energy/particle, simply because the charge is indifferent to momentum; and I suppose the charge changes the wave properties of the particle. But the particle does nothing to the photon?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Wed 28 Jan, 2009 09:54 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Yes, but where does inertia come from? It seems to oppose the products of the fundamental forces.

Ah! Not sure I can help you there. The mechanism by which inertia is predicted to arise by the standard model of particle physics is via an interaction with something called the Higgs field. I know little about it and have little interest in it until they find the Higgs boson at the LHC, but the often used analogy is that particles that couple to the Higgs field are akin to people walking through treacle.

Inertia (i.e. rest mass) is essentially the energy that a particle has in its rest frame (i.e. the reference frame in which it is not moving). Relativity and quantum theory already provide mechanisms for changing the rest mass of something, but people who know a lot insist we require an entirely new mechanism to create it in the first place. Relativity, as you know, finds that E=mc^2 for a particle at rest, and charged particles that radiate away energy when binding to other charged particles have lower mass than before (more strictly, the bound system has lower mass than its individual components). This to me suggests that mass emerges from excitation from the vacuum state, in other words massive particles are simply those for which a given value of momentum p corresponds to something other than p*c as a value of energy in an energy-momentum graph.

Imagine two massless particles with opposite charges, spins and energies in the same location: that gives no net mass, no net charge, no net spin, no net energy... it isn't there! If you apply an electric field across this nothing pair, the opposite charges will be accelerated in different directions. Within a certain critical electric field, the charges are still bound to each other and, further, they have a imaginary momenta (this sounds bizarre, but it applies in solid state theory too and the fact that your PC and mobile phone work suggests solid state theory is on to something). These are 'virtual' particles. However, above the critical electric field, the momenta become real and the charges are essentially becoming ionised from each other. This gives a non-zero energy corresponding to a zero momentum: rest energy, or 'mass', or 'inertia'.

That is NOT accepted theory, although I have yet to read anything that explains why such ideas based on well-understood phenomena are not tolerated. That's how I think about mass - I like it, but I can't condone it!

Holiday20310401 wrote:

But this seems like one-way interaction. The light interacts with the charge of the mass/bound energy/particle, simply because the charge is indifferent to momentum; and I suppose the charge changes the wave properties of the particle. But the particle does nothing to the photon?

It eats the photon. And if it doesn't like it, it spits it out again. :bigsmile:
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 11:46 pm
@Bones-O,
Completely new question now. Is the wave not as much a psychological bias as the atom is?
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 12 Apr, 2009 11:31 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:
Completely new question now. Is the wave not as much a psychological bias as the atom is?

Perhaps. I've often thought about this, less about a psychology bias and more a historical one. We always seek a precedent when describing things. Waves were understood, and their behavioural properties known (diffraction, interference) so when we see something that appears to diffract or interfere, we assume it to be a wave. I think if it were a psychological bias, it would be an odd one to have: I can't see why we would have evolved it.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/18/2014 at 08:33:30