Thread Closed

Need a credible reference

 
Share Thread Thread Tools
Oct25-04, 11:42 PM   #1
 

Need a credible reference


Hi Guys,

I'm in an argument with someone on another forum (car forum no less) and he refuses to accept that nuclear reactions break the first law of classical thermodynamics. I'm only trying to show him that before energy and mass were shown to be interchangeable, the laws of conservation energy and of conservation of mass is the classical sense are violated by nuclear/radioactive processes. However, it's so commonly accepted now that mass-energy is conserved together rather than seperately, I can't find a valid and credible source that distinguishes between classical and more modern thermodynamics.

Can anyone help with a link? Thanks guys.
 
PhysOrg.com
PhysOrg
physics news on PhysOrg.com

>> Iron-platinum alloys could be new-generation hard drives
>> Lab sets a new record for creating heralded photons
>> Breakthrough calls time on bootleg booze
Oct26-04, 02:16 AM   #2
Mk
 
I am not aware of nuclear reactions breaking any laws of thermodynamics.
 
Oct26-04, 09:32 AM   #3
 
Just that taken seperate from each other, the laws of conservation of mass and conservation of energy don't hold, because we'll lose mass in a nuclear reaction. Not until the revelation that e=mc^2 and the combination of the two laws do we actually get a conservation law that is not broken.

quoted from
Relativity, the Special and General Theory
by Dr. Einstein

"Before the advent of relativity, physics recognized two conservation laws of fundamental importance, namely the law of conservation of energy and the law of the conservation of mass; these laws appeared to be quite independent of each other.
By means of the theory of relativity they have been united into one law... "
 
Oct26-04, 10:29 AM   #4
 

Need a credible reference


You shouldn't see this as a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics, you should rather consider that in the first law, energy can now (since Einstein) include what is available through E = mc^2 in the case where you have nuclear reactions.
 
Oct26-04, 10:36 AM   #5
 
Alrighty then... No wonder it was hard to find that reference. Heh.

And yeah, obviously that's what makes the most sense. But the argument was about the classical definition which I was arguing wuold have to be observed in the strictest sense. But yeah, whatever.
 
Thread Closed
Thread Tools


Similar Threads for: Need a credible reference
Thread Forum Replies
other credible anomalies General Discussion 6
Is hypnotherapy credible? General Discussion 10
How Credible Is M-Theory? Beyond the Standard Model 19
Is this credible at all? Quantum Physics 14
USA government: still credible? Current Events 1