Energy: Real Thing - Different Forms & Mass as Dense Concentration

[wat is energy]

Is photon purely energy?It shud having some moving mass.The mass can be attributed as a concentrated form of energy.But the mass--->0 as the density of energy of a photon is MINUTE[/QUOT

Photons are particles which have all of their mass converted to energy.
energy of a photon = h *v
energy = mass of photon * c^2
mass of photon can be found just that all its mass is in the form of energy

 

[wat is energy]

For those of you who think that mass can be defined as nothing more than "concentrated energy", consider the following:

Take an example of "pure" energy such as photons. Now clump them all very tightly to form as mass per the scenerio of the OP. Now explain to me the following:

1. photons have no charge, yet, electron, quarks, etc... all do. Where do these charges come from?


What i mean to say is that a neutron is uncharged. But it still gives rise to charged paricles. So from where do these charges come from ?

Can't a similar case happen when supposing photons are concentrated. It may be that overall charge is conserved in this case too.

 

[notknowing]

What exactly makes forms of energy different from each other?

Can we say that mass is a dense concentration of energy?

Good question. One can however only speculate about this (something which is not really appreciated in this forum, so I'll be carefull ).
Personally, I think that your idea as a concentration of energy is basically correct. Energy is normally associated with "work" which implies the product of force times distance. So, energy is normally related to things which "move". Light is a clear example of this. If you look at a proton from a distance, you don't see movement but if you go down to the quark level, things ARE in motion and at a deeper level, one could suspect that also quarks are composed of other particles - in motion. And of course, one has also all the virtual particles moving in between. So, continueing this line of argument leads to the conclusion that (probably) mass (or particle) is that thing in which energy (motional) is confined to a limited region of space. Instead of talking of conversion of mass into energy, it would be more appropriate to talk about the release of energy (from the confined region into the larger region).

 

[wat is energy]

you can say that the photon has relativistic mass

 

[anantchowdhary]

Bingo

Good question. One can however only speculate about this (something which is not really appreciated in this forum, so I'll be carefull ).
Personally, I think that your idea as a concentration of energy is basically correct. Energy is normally associated with "work" which implies the product of force times distance. So, energy is normally related to things which "move". Light is a clear example of this. If you look at a proton from a distance, you don't see movement but if you go down to the quark level, things ARE in motion and at a deeper level, one could suspect that also quarks are composed of other particles - in motion. And of course, one has also all the virtual particles moving in between. So, continueing this line of argument leads to the conclusion that (probably) mass (or particle) is that thing in which energy (motional) is confined to a limited region of space. Instead of talking of conversion of mass into energy, it would be more appropriate to talk about the release of energy (from the confined region into the larger region).

I ENTIRELY agree with these views of yours and had the same views.only when mass is supposedly Lost or CONVERTED,it releases energy so the density of energy of the object/matter changes

 

[ZapperZ]

What i mean to say is that a neutron is uncharged. But it still gives rise to charged paricles. So from where do these charges come from ?

Can't a similar case happen when supposing photons are concentrated. It may be that overall charge is conserved in this case too.

But in a beta decay, you emit not just ONE charge, but 2 charges of opposite polarity! Furthermore, it is also wrong to think that a neutron is made up of a protron and an electron, even though those are emitted (along with an antineutrino and even a photon) in a beta decay. A neutron is made up of 3 quarks, udd, and those are the ones that produce zero net charge. There is really no mystery here nor any violation of conservation laws. In fact, it is the need to follow the conservation laws that is the reason why the neutrino was hypothesized in the first place in beta decays before it was discovered.

It IS a mystery in trying to explain the net charges (and net spin) IF one insist that matter is nothing more than a concentrated clump of energy. I still don't see anyone who advocate this scenario attempting to explain this clear violation. Maybe you should do this first before bringing up other so-called examples that so far only seem to cloud the issue on hand.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

The photon is NOT converted into an electron in there,

I think i have been misinterpretated. What i meant was that you said that photon is pure energy packet. On hittting the already present electrons it imparts energy to them, basically displaces them. this is same as when an electron if struck by another particle say neutron. so photon / energy has same effect as mass.

It doesn't. May appear to you to quack like a duck, but it doesn't look like a duck, and it doesn't walk like a duck. I've already mentioned in the same post that you didn't quote, that the energy spectrum of the emitted electron is DIFFERENT than the photoelectric effect. The process is also not called the photoelectric effect. The emission of electrons via the bombardment of other electrons is called secondary emission. different mechanism, different outcome.

So no, the emission of electron due to a photon is not the same as the emission of electron via other electron. So your comparision of the similarity between the two isn't valid.

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

@ZAP Wat are Quarks made up of?At the elementary level its GOTTA be energy

 

[anantchowdhary]

Also ,zap cud u pls explain in the equation e=mc^2,what form is E in?I come back to my basic question.Why are forms of energy different?I mean to say wat makes em different in the fundamental sense?

 

[ZapperZ]

@ZAP Wat are Quarks made up of?At the elementary level its GOTTA be energy

Also ,zap cud u pls explain in the equation e=mc^2,what form is E in?I come back to my basic question.Why are forms of energy different?I mean to say wat makes em different in the fundamental sense?

These two questions are related, and if you do a search on PF, it has been discussed ad nauseum

The equation E=mc^2 has been misinterpreted many times. At the most naive level, all you can say is that if I have an amount of mass "m", and IF it is all converted to energy, it will give me an amount equivalent to mc^2

Now, this equation in itself does not include OTHER issues surrounding such conservation, because all it wants to address is simply the quantity of energy and mass conversion, nothing else. However, it does not mean that we can take this and run away with it. This is where a little knowledge will result in absurd conclusion (what I call "imagination without knowledge is ignorance waiting to happen"). The story isn't as simple as that. I have already described what is needed for pair production (energy into mass), and what is required in nuclear reaction (mass into energy). You will notice that OTHER process or by products are also required to uphold the various conservation laws.

Now physics, especially high energy physics, are notorious for not making a distinction between "mass" and "energy". This is because in their common notation, these things are "equivalent", and it is a matter of convenience to have everything in units of energy. But among ourselves, we pretty much know explicitly what we mean. The problem comes in when people (such as you), tries to go beyond what that equation says and ignoring all the other conservation laws. To say that matter is simply a "concentrated energy" doesn't address a whole slew of issues that I have brought up at the very beginning. While you have simply made an accounting of the quantity of mass and the quantity of energy via that Einstein equation, you have made NO ACCOUNTING of the imbalance of charge and imbalance of spin between "mass" and "energy". Now I don't know about you, but in physics, this is a SERIOIUS deficiency of ANY model.

The problem that I'm seeing here is this: (i) you seem to have downplayed the shortcoming of your idea, i.e. both you seem to think that the charge and spin conservation laws can be ignored. Maybe that is why you continue to offer no explanation to address those issues; (ii) you try to counter my argument by bringing out OTHER examples, which is are no way violate any of the conservation laws that I have mentioned. That does nothing but strenghten MY argument that all of these process HAVE to abide by those conservation laws, while your scenario doesn't!

So it comes back to MY ORIGINAL QUESTIONS. Remember, I am not the one proposing such a thing. You did. So the burden of proof is on you. I merely pointed the flaws of your model, and it is up to you to explain that away. I believe that so far, no attempt has been made to do just that.

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

Hey Zap thnx for ur insight.Now could u please explain to me how spin changes when mass is converted to energy and vice versa.And also can the behavior of matter be related to the energy density

Also about charge.Cannot it not be that when the DENSITY of energy changes it leads to an overall neutral particle but having sub-particles with opposite charges.

Also do be kind enough to really answer my question on the difference between forms of energy and their effects(afterall its energy)

Thnx for all ur views

 

[ZapperZ]

Hey Zap thnx for ur insight.Now could u please explain to me how spin changes when mass is converted to energy and vice versa.

Er.. nothing happens. It is conserved in the before and after reaction. For example, in electron-positron anhilation, each particle has a spin of 1/2. One can easily see that together, they would be able to make a net particle of spin of either zero, or 1. And guess what? Photons have spin of 1.

And also can the behavior of matter be related to the energy density

Thnx

Energy density of what?

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

Er.. nothing happens. It is conserved in the before and after reaction. For example, in electron-positron anhilation, each particle has a spin of 1/2. One can easily see that together, they would be able to make a net particle of spin of either zero, or 1. And guess what? Photons have spin of 1.



Energy density of what?

Zz.

Now arent u answering ur own query on spin consideration.And I've asked WHY does spin change .I wud lik to know the reason.

Also here i refer to energy density of the matter.DO forms of energy differ in effects beacuse of energy density?

 

[ZapperZ]

Now arent u answering ur own query on spin consideration.And I've asked WHY does spin change .I wud lik to know the reason.

At some point, the WHY's no longer have any answer YET. Why is there a "charge"? Why is there a "spin"? Why did I measure this instead of that when I "collapse" a superposition?

But think of this. Why did the momentum of object A colliding with object B change? Did you ever think of that? Essentially, THIS is what you're asking me. We know why the momentum of A and B changes when we invoke conservation laws. That's what I did in explaining the change in spin. What is important is the overall conservation, which isn't there in your "energy concentration" scenario.

Also here i refer to energy density of the matter.DO forms of energy differ in effects beacuse of energy density?

Er... energy density of matter? What is that?

If you are asking is "mass" different than "energy", then I'm sure even you can answer that, can't you? You would have learned this even in Intro Physics. And from my list of questions way in the very beginning, you would have also seen why simply clumping energy concentrated into matter will run you into trouble. So I'm puzzled (and tired, so someone else may want to handle this from now on) with this question. I believe that I have accomplished my original intention when I entered this thread.

Zz.

 

[anantchowdhary]

Hey ZAP sry for these things but I am a rookie.Im in grade 10.So i was just wondering wether u cud give me a GOOD introduction to spin,so that i cud understand wat ur saying really well.

Also u said that if we combine particles lik photons.Photons ain't pure energy,so please temme wat are physical parameters as defined by u of PURE energy.Also isn't it wrong of u to take a photon as the photon HAS some relativistic mass.And if u change the density to quite a lot wudnt it change the behaviour of the energy i mean as in the effects.Hence it should be able to form mass.

Thanx

 

[anantchowdhary]

PLs help!

 

[Ki Man]

What i mean to say is that a neutron is uncharged. But it still gives rise to charged paricles. So from where do these charges come from ?

Actually it has a charge on the sub-quark level. I gave http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/matter/10.html" a few posts ago and you should see it too

@ZAP,
Please tell me once and for all as u know much more than any average person,How is mass converted to energy?In my point of view ,say in a nuke reaction,wat happens is just the density of energy changes ,hence the form of energy given out changes.Mass is a form of energy(Remember)

dont mess with Zz. He'll turn into the hulk. He's gone to school almost twice as long as the average person so try not to get him mad when i was in junior high and i thought gravity might be another dimension, i nearly got banned =]

 

[anantchowdhary]

Hey its not bad to think.And when he is wrong by saying photon is pure energy then y shudnt i doubt it.PLs temme does PURE energy as he suggested have spin?

 

[disregardthat]

What is spin?

 

[anantchowdhary]

spin hmm.Please read a brief histry of time-stephen hawking and u should be able to get some idea

 

[anantchowdhary]

Energy the Real Thing(II)

we say that mass is another form of energy.But then what makes mass different?

 

[cesiumfrog]

mass isn't another form of energy, rather, energy has (relativistic) mass in every form.

 

[anantchowdhary]

mass is a form of energy.Why can't we say that?

 

[disregardthat]

Well the E=mc^2 says energy EQUALS mass. I see your point.

Can we measured how much energy one photon carries in Joules?

 

[ranger]

Well the E=mc^2 says energy EQUALS mass. I see your point.

Can we measured how much energy one photon carries in Joules?

The energy can be found by:
E = hf
Where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency.

If the units of Planck's constant is Joules second and the unit of frequency is 1/second:

J = J*s \frac{1}{s}
The seconds cancel out and we have the unit of joule.

 

[Zeit]

Hello,

Well the E=mc^2 says energy EQUALS mass. I see your point.

In fact, energy doesn't equal mass, but according to this well known formula, E=mc² indicates that whatever are the speed or the motion of a body, if it has a mass, it has energy.

E=mc² comes from a bigger formula which is E^2 = p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}. Using that equation, you can calculate the energy of anything moving at a constant speed in a "straight line".

EDIT : Well, ranger has been faster than me :)

 

[cristo]

mass is a form of energy.Why can't we say that?

we say that mass is another form of energy.But then what makes mass different?

anantchowdhary, I urge you to read through this thread, paying particular attention to Zapperz's posts. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask them, but you are still asking the same question you asked weeks ago; one that has been answered!

spin hmm.Please read a brief histry of time-stephen hawking and u should be able to get some idea

Pointing someone towards a popular science book and saying from that you "may get some idea" is not the way to explain a new concept to someone.

 

[cesiumfrog]

In fact, energy doesn't equal mass [..] E=mc² comes from a bigger formula which is E^2 = p^{2}c^{2}+m^{2}c^{4}.

Perhaps this is just interpretation, but I think those are different formulas.

Energy is the ratio of momentum to velocity, called relativistic mass. It is nonzero for photons and also "dilates" for matter that increases velocity.

But if you wish to only consider rest-mass (which photons in particular lack completely), then yes, you'll need that more complicated formula.

And if you completely forget about the other interpretation, it seems to you like those people printing E=mc² on t-shirts only understood half the story. Personally, I think they're following the ones who've applied Occam's razor correctly.

 

[Ballon]

Is Mass energy bending (or curving) the SpaceTime or the effect of the opposite ? Is Mass (energy) the result of the Spacetime pressure trying to restore its fabric (assuming that the normal geodesic is "no curvature") but finding this "matters" (Object) to deal with ?

 

[daniel_i_l]

What is spin?

The spin of a particle basically defines how many states of momentum the particle can have. For example, an electron with spin 1/2 can have two states of momentum: 1/2, -1/2. a particle with spin one can have 5: 1, 1/2, 0, -1/2, -1.