| Pages:
1
2 |
aeacfm
Hazard to Others
Posts: 129
Registered: 24-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: chem
|
|
matter
do all forms of matter are solidified light ???
what i know is matter is composed of elementary particles then form atoms , then molecules and so on !!!
i read that here :
http://books.google.com.eg/books?id=oAmhK9V4gHUC&pg=PA55...
|
|
|
bfesser
Resident Wikipedian
Posts: 2114
Registered: 29-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
No.
|
|
|
aeacfm
Hazard to Others
Posts: 129
Registered: 24-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: chem
|
|
thanks
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
particles can be seen as "solidified energy" or light . the periodic table gives us the basic bricks of chemistry . outside of that the universe seems
to be made of other particles not yet isolated in the lab (accelerators) .
dark matter and dark energy together makes up to 85% of the universe .
so no.
Your answer would be a complicated one.
However the laws of physics (and chemistry) are valid here and on the other side of the universe, now and 10 billion years ago.
Thats what makes science so powerful
|
|
|
aeacfm
Hazard to Others
Posts: 129
Registered: 24-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: chem
|
|
may be ure right
but i am talking if this real , not to suppose.
|
|
|
zoombafu
Hazard to Others
Posts: 255
Registered: 21-11-2011
Location: U.S.
Member Is Offline
Mood: sciencey
|
|
Matter is energy, light is energy, light has mass (depending on who you talk to).
|
|
|
aeacfm
Hazard to Others
Posts: 129
Registered: 24-7-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: chem
|
|
this makes more confused
matter converted to energy........ correct
but atom is solidified light .... not for conversion but for real is this right ???
atoms don't have electromagnetic forces only , binding forces , present
|
|
|
Endimion17
International Hazard
Posts: 1468
Registered: 17-7-2011
Location: shores of a solar sea
Member Is Offline
Mood: speeding through time at the rate of 1 second per second
|
|
Matter is not energy, for god sake. Matter is matter. Energy is energy.
Matter is not solidified light because light is made up from photons, and you can not solidify photons.
I recommend reading highschool physics first. One of the last chapters is always dedicated to nuclear energy and quantum mechanics. After that, entry
level faculty nuclear physics.
|
|
|
ScienceSquirrel
|
Thread Pruned
13-3-2012 at 05:10 |
AJKOER
Radically Dubious
Posts: 3026
Registered: 7-5-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
A recall hearing that light does not always flow in a straight line in the presence of a large magnetic field. Attraction to a magnetic field is a
property of matter, but this is not to imply that light is matter.
I would suggest you post your question on the Physics Forum, which has many scientific disciplines including Astrophysics and pure Physics.
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Matter, at least normal matter by itself (not anti-matter), is not merely just energy. Matter seems to show a fundamental assymetry. Protons
and electrons (by themselves) cannot be converted into electromagnetic radiation. And similarly, it is not possible to convert electromagnetic energy
into protons without simultaneously creating anti-protons, or electrons without simultaneously creating positrons. (actually it is more complicated,
but I will avoid discussing pions and neutrinos for simplicity)
Trying to create only matter from energy has not yet been observed. Attempts to try to do so are termed Baryogenesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis
I has been experimentally observed that extremely high energy gamma rays contain the equivalent of a quark structure composition, in accordance with
accepted theory, but these quarks would always be in quark-antiquark pairs.
But consider this:
The positive pion, π+, contains an up quark and an anti-down quark. It decays into a muon neutrino and a positively chargen muon, which then
decays into a positron, electron neutrino, and anti-muon neutrino.
A proton contains two up quarks and one down quark, while a neutron contains two down quarks and one up quark.
So essentially, in terms of quark composition, 2 positive pions + 1 negetive pion is the equivalent of 2 protons + 1 antiproton. So one would
think that baryogenesis should be possible. In other words it should be possible to make a proton from a positron and electron neutrino, with
plenty of added energy of course. But this has never been observed.
The particle physics of the formation of matter from energy seems to display a fundamental matter-antimatter symmetry.
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
since nobody is going to say it then i will
does E=MC2 ring a bell to anyone?
how is it not matter is energy and vice versa?
everyday in the spectrogamma lab i can see a peak at 511Kev when ever 1.02Mev radiations are present.
that means that gamma ray above a certain energy can adn do transmute themselves into a pair of electron positron.
Anders is correct (without getting into the details)
AEACFM yes its is real ! we see it everyday !
in a particle accelerator when the protons reach (closed to) the speed of light ,any additionnal ENERGY added to them will not make them go any faster
but they will gather MASS.
For the same reason they cannot get to 100% of the speed of light.
light is pure energy.
Then when the protons collide with eachither some of the energy is converted into mass and we observe new, heavier particles.
when a nuclear weapon is detonated ,a small amount of its mass has turned into pure energy mass and energy are two aspect of the same thing thats not
a new thing,
|
|
|
AndersHoveland
Hazard to Other Members, due to repeated speculation and posting of untested highly dangerous procedures!
Posts: 1986
Registered: 2-3-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by neptunium  | in a particle accelerator when the protons reach (closed to) the speed of light ,any additionnal ENERGY added to them will not make them go any faster
but they will gather MASS.
For the same reason they cannot get to 100% of the speed of light.
light is pure energy.
|
It is not yet known whether this is a generalisation, or a truely fundamental property. The properties of mass may potentially be caused by
interaction with background energy (the quantum vacuum). Certainly the currently accepted theory holds that the quantum vacuum is essential to the
explanation of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces, through the spontaneous transient existence of various bosons. In other words,
potentially under certain conditions, the commonly accepted formula might not apply. This has not really been observed, except possibly for those
neutrions going faster than light experiments, which are still not entirely conclusive.
It is rather ambiguous to say that "light is pure energy". What does this mean? Everything- electromagnetic radiation, matter, and even "empty"
time-space are forms of energy. Some of these forms of energy are only potential energy, and are not really manifest outside of interraction relative
to separate bodies. For example, two massive bodies and gravity falling together, or two opposite electric charges.
http://particleadventure.org/fermibos.html
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by AndersHoveland]
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
it is indeed a work in progress the search for the Higgs is also taking more time than expected...
but generally ( and i thought it was his question) in everyday life yes E=MC2 applies fully and unarguably
short answer NO .
longer one. yes , only in everyday experiences
[Edited on 13-3-2012 by neptunium]
|
|
|
bfesser
Resident Wikipedian
Posts: 2114
Registered: 29-1-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Did any of you even bother to look at the content of the book he's reading (link in OP)!? It's incredibly annoying when every member jumps in with
her/his own two-cent opinion(s) and explanation(s) in an attempt to appear intelligent or increase post counts—<em>without reading
everything that was previously written or referenced within the thread</em>. <strong>In the context from which the original question was
asked, the answer is simply NO.</strong>
aeacfm, if you want to learn anything about physics (or reality, for that matter), throw out that new age metaphysical philosophical book you're
reading, and pick up a secular scientific introductory particle or quantum physics text. What you are reading is not science. Perhaps one of these
fine gentlemen would like to suggest a better book for you...as I'm sure they won't be able to resist increasing their post counts.
To the rest of you, I suggest you read the <a href="viewthread.php?tid=19143">forum guidelines</a>, specifically numbers 3, 5, 6, and 8.
The concise version of my thoughts to you:
<strong>Don't read? Don't post!</strong>
To moderators:
Don't you think this thread belongs in <em>Miscellaneous</em>, and not <em>Chemistry in General</em>?
[Edited on 3/13/12 by bfesser]
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
and post count means what?
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The reason is that the actual relationship is ΔE =
Δmc<sup>2</sup>. This is actually the relationship that Einstein proved, albeit with older notation. This is not a kind of
absolute equivalence, the term usually used, but rather partial inter-convertibility. Whether there's a complete equivalence is, to my mind, an open
question. The reference to baryogenesis is exactly relevant here. Yet the observation of baryogenesis itself wouldn't be sufficient to conclude full
equivalence; we'd also have to observe it's inverse process, what we might call baryothanasia.
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
forgive me for not being smart enough to find the delta sign on this old keyboard .i think everyone understood though.
should i mention the theoretical aspect of baryogenesis?
supersymetry is a powerfull theory that has been verified . i am just playing it safe here.
this takes us back to the begining of the universe and the baryon asymmetry problem,
a more general theory is obviously needed.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I wasn't aware of any such verification, in fact
my understanding was the opposite. See, for example, a recent blog post by Peter Woit: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4437.
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
wow! looks like i need to update my books and publications!
maybe i took it further than it actually was (wishfull thinking ?)
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Einstein plagiarized that equation.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=depre...
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2...
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
As usual, you are not only overstating the actual claim, but relying on
tenuous sources. There's exactly one person that's has actually brought a novel argument about De Pretto, and that's Umberto Bartocci. Every other
thing asserting this claim is simply parroting him, including you. Bartocci does not, in fact, prove that Einstein plagiarized the formula. Bartocci
does find it possible that Einstein did, but there's no confirmation.
Bartocci's thesis can hardly be called definitive. It seems to have been largely ignored in the academic world, with no publications I could locate
defending it.
What is certain, however, is that Einstein did not parrot De Pretto's argument. De Pretto's argument relied on the aether; Einstein's on special
relatively. The full structure of the idea incorporates both a mental model and reasoning that employs it; the equation that pops out at the end,
however significant, is something of an epiphenomenon of the ideas behind it. In this light, De Pretto developed very little of scientific import;
that credit is fully due to Einstein.
|
|
|
neptunium
National Hazard
Posts: 990
Registered: 12-12-2011
Location: between Uranium and Plutonium
Member Is Offline
|
|
Little proof or questionnable ones have no place here .Not only it demeans the famous man but it takes away from his ground breaking work on all his
achievement, and lower the standart of sciencemadness.
as a scientific forum ,one should always bring valuable data before advancing fantastic claims and frivolus conspiracy theory.
wise up
[Edited on 14-3-2012 by neptunium]
|
|
|
Vogelzang
Banned
Posts: 662
Registered: 26-4-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
See what Richard Moody has to say.
http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm
http://einstein52.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderf...
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda...
http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm 
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
He says absolutely nothing about De Pretto that he didn't crib from
Bartocci. He doesn't mention Bartocci at all in this narrative, though he does mention De Pretto. The only reference to Bartocci at all is in the
middle of a huge block of link spam. I don't think you're bolstering your argument very well by citing an author who parrots, who doesn't acknowledge
their own debts, and who certainly has added nothing novel to the understanding of the field.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
