oz93666 wrote: ...and this shows that the mass of the proton was many times it's rest mass, showing the energy pumped in to the proton by the accelerator increased its mass.
The output mass is never measured, only the energy, so there is absolutely no proof the mass increased.
Sparky
Re: Relativity
Aardwolf wrote:
oz93666 wrote: ...and this shows that the mass of the proton was many times it's rest mass, showing the energy pumped in to the proton by the accelerator increased its mass.
The output mass is never measured, only the energy, so there is absolutely no proof the mass increased.
A change in energy level will change mass. Mass is not volume, but energy level.
Mass really is volume, but Einstein's E=MC2 conflated Inertia with volume. So, when I see someone using "mass", I think inertia/energy .....
And when I use "mass" it means Inertia, or volume, if I am tired..
oz93666
Re: Relativity
Aardwolf wrote: The output mass is never measured, only the energy, so there is absolutely no proof the mass increased.
The increase in mass is shown by the effect when it impacts another particle, there is 'conservation of momentum' search the term.
Nick
Re: Relativity
Hello everybody, My understanding is that all mathematics in accelerator and bubble chamber experiments started with E=mc2. Is it any chance to prove something else? Recently I tried to understand this famous equation by myself and here is my question: First nuclear reactor was started at the end of 1942. Quite long time ago, isn't it? My idea was pretty obvious - mass of Uranium on the input is known, mass of Uranium in the waste is known and the energy output is known. Looks like a good way to verify questioning formula. The sought does not looks like innovative and I started with internet search. For my surprise, after 3 days of browsing, I was not able to find any physic's paper on the subject! Why? Then I tried to enter into the formula values found in the internet for different reactors. My data was pretty inconsistent, but all of them are not fit to formula. Does anybody heard about some physical paper on the subject?
Thank you.
CharlesChandler
Re: Relativity
Mass isn't so complicated. It is known by the two fundamental forces that it manifests: inertia, and gravity. (I consider inertia to be a fundamental force, because I don't see how it reduces to any of the other forces, which means that it is fundamental itself. Anyway...) There is a direct relationship between inertial and gravitational forces — something that exerts a large gravitational force is also hard to accelerate. But since there are two distinct forces (i.e., inertia & gravity), it is useful to have a concept of the one property of matter that gives rise to both forces, hence the concept of mass. But unless you're dealing with both inertia and gravity in the same maths, you can simplify your equations by just referring to the one force in question. For example, F=m*a can be rewritten as the resultant force being equal to the resting inertial force times the amount of accelerating force that was applied to it.
But nooooo... that's just too freakin' simple... so in modern physics, everybody (starting with Einstein) looks for a way of redefining all of the terms. Mass is length cubed divided by time squared, or just plain volume, or energy irrespective of velocity, or it's all just relative to whatever you want it to be at the moment. This of course creates problems, since things were so well described by Newtonian laws. But in modern science, that isn't a problem — it's an opportunity. When you redefine a term, it creates a discrepancy, and then you get to sprinkle some fairy dust on it, and poof! a new particle is discovered, or a new force, or a new variability in what was previously immutable, or a new form of energy. And then you're famous!
But when Occam gets back from vacation, the fur will fly, and fame will be reduced to infamy.
In the end, there is truly no utility to obfuscating the sciences. We have enough problems in this world. Why manufacture problems, instead of using science to ease the suffering of the masses?
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
oz93666 wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: The output mass is never measured, only the energy, so there is absolutely no proof the mass increased.
The increase in mass is shown by the effect when it impacts another particle, there is 'conservation of momentum' search the term.
So you are inferring an increase in mass not measuring it. That is dependent on your assumptions not on any kind of proof. If you're not measuring the amount of output mass, you're guessing. You're trying to prove relativity by using assumptions about what relativity should do.
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
Nick wrote: Hello everybody, My understanding is that all mathematics in accelerator and bubble chamber experiments started with E=mc2. Is it any chance to prove something else? Recently I tried to understand this famous equation by myself and here is my question: First nuclear reactor was started at the end of 1942. Quite long time ago, isn't it? My idea was pretty obvious - mass of Uranium on the input is known, mass of Uranium in the waste is known and the energy output is known. Looks like a good way to verify questioning formula. The sought does not looks like innovative and I started with internet search. For my surprise, after 3 days of browsing, I was not able to find any physic's paper on the subject! Why? Then I tried to enter into the formula values found in the internet for different reactors. My data was pretty inconsistent, but all of them are not fit to formula. Does anybody heard about some physical paper on the subject?
Thank you.
Nuclear fission theory has nothing to do with relativity. Below is a quote from The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bomb, "Section 2. Energy of Fission Process," page 7: written from the notes or The Manhattan Project's Dr Robert Serber;
Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc2, plays some essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly.
Just like every other practical application relativity is just ignored. If Einstein had never been born the world would be exactly the same.
On the other hand if Tesla hadn't been born...
chrimony
Re: Relativity
Aardwolf wrote: Nuclear fission theory has nothing to do with relativity. Below is a quote from [Serber, elided for space]
While Serber's view of the strict lack of need to use mass–energy equivalence in designing the atomic bomb is correct, it does not take into account the pivotal role which this relationship played in making the fundamental leap to the initial hypothesis that large atoms were energetically allowed to split into approximately equal parts (before this energy was in fact measured). In late 1938, while on the winter walk on which they solved the meaning of Hahn's experimental results and introduced the idea that would be called atomic fission, Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch made direct use of Einstein's equation to help them understand the quantitative energetics of the reaction which overcame the "surface tension-like" forces holding the nucleus together, and allowed the fission fragments to separate to a configuration from which their charges could force them into an energetic "fission". To do this, they made use of "packing fraction", or nuclear binding energy values for elements, which Meitner had memorized. These, together with use of E = mc2 allowed them to realize on the spot that the basic fission process was energetically possible:
...We walked up and down in the snow, I on skis and she on foot. ...and gradually the idea took shape... explained by Bohr's idea that the nucleus is like a liquid drop; such a drop might elongate and divide itself... We knew there were strong forces that would resist, ..just as surface tension. But nuclei differed from ordinary drops. At this point we both sat down on a tree trunk and started to calculate on scraps of paper. ...the Uranium nucleus might indeed be a very wobbly, unstable drop, ready to divide itself... But, ...when the two drops separated they would be driven apart by electrical repulsion, about 200 MeV in all. Fortunately Lise Meitner remembered how to compute the masses of nuclei... and worked out that the two nuclei formed... would be lighter by about one-fifth the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy is created, according to Einstein's formula E = mc2, and... the mass was just equivalent to 200 MeV; it all fitted!
Aardwolf wrote: Just like every other practical application relativity is just ignored. If Einstein had never been born the world would be exactly the same.
I know there's plenty of debates on here about GPS, but relativistic effects were taken into account, at least in the early systems before the clocks were actively steered to be kept in sync. Even Ron Hatch, an EU speaker and favorite GPS go to guy, states that relativistic effects occur. He just has an alternative theory for them.
Aardwolf
Re: Relativity
chrimony wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Nuclear fission theory has nothing to do with relativity. Below is a quote from [Serber, elided for space]
While Serber's view of the strict lack of need to use mass–energy equivalence in designing the atomic bomb is correct, it does not take into account the pivotal role which this relationship played in making the fundamental leap to the initial hypothesis that large atoms were energetically allowed to split into approximately equal parts (before this energy was in fact measured). In late 1938, while on the winter walk on which they solved the meaning of Hahn's experimental results and introduced the idea that would be called atomic fission, Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch made direct use of Einstein's equation to help them understand the quantitative energetics of the reaction which overcame the "surface tension-like" forces holding the nucleus together, and allowed the fission fragments to separate to a configuration from which their charges could force them into an energetic "fission". To do this, they made use of "packing fraction", or nuclear binding energy values for elements, which Meitner had memorized. These, together with use of E = mc2 allowed them to realize on the spot that the basic fission process was energetically possible:
...We walked up and down in the snow, I on skis and she on foot. ...and gradually the idea took shape... explained by Bohr's idea that the nucleus is like a liquid drop; such a drop might elongate and divide itself... We knew there were strong forces that would resist, ..just as surface tension. But nuclei differed from ordinary drops. At this point we both sat down on a tree trunk and started to calculate on scraps of paper. ...the Uranium nucleus might indeed be a very wobbly, unstable drop, ready to divide itself... But, ...when the two drops separated they would be driven apart by electrical repulsion, about 200 MeV in all. Fortunately Lise Meitner remembered how to compute the masses of nuclei... and worked out that the two nuclei formed... would be lighter by about one-fifth the mass of a proton. Now whenever mass disappears energy is created, according to Einstein's formula E = mc2, and... the mass was just equivalent to 200 MeV; it all fitted!
chrimony wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: Just like every other practical application relativity is just ignored. If Einstein had never been born the world would be exactly the same.
I know there's plenty of debates on here about GPS, but relativistic effects were taken into account, at least in the early systems before the clocks were actively steered to be kept in sync. Even Ron Hatch, an EU speaker and favorite GPS go to guy, states that relativistic effects occur. He just has an alternative theory for them.
And I guess you ignored everything that was said in those threads. GPS never operated without the clocks being synced. They were synched from day one. The clock frequency adjustment was assumed to be necessary as a one off clock adjustment to counter relativistic effects, but the fact is anyone who knows anything about trilateration should realise that it doesn't matter how fast or how slow the clocks run, the ONLY consideration is that the clocks run at the same rate and have the same time. The engineers of ESA's Galileo are aware of this fact as they have not even bothered to adjust the frequencies and as reported below it works fine.
And before you state (as many relativists have) the receiver is going to do the relativity work, this is plain nonsense. The receiver will never be able to calculate the adjustments required for multiple satellites moving in different directions. To do so it would likely needs it's own atomic clock on board which is ridiculous. No, as any GPS engineer will know there will be no relativity adjustment for any part of the Galileo system.
marengo
Re: Relativity
Apologies for my long absence. I can only repeat what i have said at length before. Relativistic effects do occur BUT Special Relativity is not the correct theory to explain them. The Twins Paradox is proof of that.
CharlesChandler
Re: Relativity
marengo wrote: I can only repeat what i have said at length before. Relativistic effects do occur BUT Special Relativity is not the correct theory to explain them. The Twins Paradox is proof of that.
I'm not sure that SR actually constitutes a "theory". It's really just a different way of talking about things that sounds cool. A clock moving away from you appears to run slower, because each successive "tick" has further to travel to get to you. Thus its arrival time is delayed, and from your perspective, that delay added to each interval makes it seem as if the clock is running slower. Likewise, on the way back, the clock is moving toward you, and it appears to run faster, because each successive "tick" has less distance to travel. The clock itself is running at the same rate, and in no sense is time being "warped" by relativistic velocities. Einstein's "genius" amounted to nothing more than just figuring out that there is a certain way of talking about stuff that makes it sound a lot more complicated than it really is, and for a BS artist, that's a Good Thing. When a train passes by you, its whistle drops in pitch. For Einstein, and anybody else playing the same game, time is being warped. Just imagine what it would be like to be riding on the sound wave generated by a train whistle... very mind-bending indeed... But that isn't a "theory". It's just a rhetorical technique that makes something sound more complicated than it really is.
By popular demand, Einstein then figured other ways of turning modified appearances into warped realities. In GR, not only is time relative to velocity, but mass and energy as well. If the whistle on an approaching train has a higher pitch, and if it takes more energy to produce a higher pitch, velocity makes the action of the whistle more energetic. Wow — that's so cool! If you could get the train traveling at the speed of sound itself, the energy would become infinite or something. And then maybe it would explode or something. Holy cow. It's like time and space are being warped, and all of the rules go away. But that isn't a "theory". It's science fiction, and that's all it is.
Sparky
Re: Relativity
If you could get the train traveling at the speed of sound itself, the energy would become infinite or something.
Wouldn't that be relatively dangerous?
CharlesChandler
Re: Relativity
Sparky wrote: Wouldn't that be relatively dangerous?
Absolutely!
Sain84
Re: Relativity
CharlesChandler wrote: I'm not sure that SR actually constitutes a "theory". It's really just a different way of talking about things that sounds cool. A clock moving away from you appears to run slower, because each successive "tick" has further to travel to get to you. Thus its arrival time is delayed, and from your perspective, that delay added to each interval makes it seem as if the clock is running slower. Likewise, on the way back, the clock is moving toward you, and it appears to run faster, because each successive "tick" has less distance to travel.
What you've described is the classical expectation with a finite speed of light, not relativity. What relativity added was that not only is there this "signal retardation" caused by the distance changing but that there is also a transverse time dilation and Doppler effect. In other words if you have a clock moving tangentially to the line of sight, not getting closer or further for a short time, there is still time dilation and a Doppler effect.
There is time dilation, a Doppler effect and even distorted images like the train if you simply add a finite speed of light to Newtonian dynamics but relativity adds new factors to that and removes the paradoxes of a finite speed of light in ND.
http://youtu.be/cb8ybAAZjic Does this make sense?
But that isn't a "theory". It's just a rhetorical technique that makes something sound more complicated than it really is.
