XPost: sci.physics.relativity
From: ttt_heg@web.de
Am Sonntag000004, 04.01.2026 um 20:51 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:
> Den 01.01.2026 17:19, skrev Stefan Ram:
>> "Paul.B.Andersen" wrote or quoted:
>> :that mass could be converted to energy as
>> :predicted by Einstein's E = mc².
>
> I resent very much that you:
> 1. Break threads so it is impossible to see to what you are responding.
> 2. Paraphrase and not quote.
>
> I can guess that you were responding to my statement:
> "The atom bomb proved in a very convincing way
> that mass could be converted to energy as
> predicted by Einstein's E = mc²."
>
> This statement isn't very precise, but not wrong.
> So let's look at a more precise statement about
> what is happening in an atomic fission bomb:
>
> One possible fission process is:
>
> 1n + U-235 → Ba-141 + Kr-92 + 3n
>
> The atomic weight (mass) of these are:
>
> Left side:
> 1n 1.008664 u
> U-235 235.0439299 u
> -------------------
> 236.0525939 u = 3.919748214E-25 kg
>
> Right side:
> Ba-141 140.914412 u
> Kr-92 91.926156 u
> 3n 3.025992 u
> ---------------------
> 235.866560 u = 3.916659047E-25 kg
>
> Lost mass: m = 0.1860339 u = 3.089167695E-28 kg
>
> E = mc² ≈ 2.776404839E-11 J
>
>>
>> I can spot three mistakes here right off the bat.
>>
>> First, the phrase "mass could be converted to energy" is
based on
>> a misconception, since mass already /is/ a form of energy - there's no
>> "conversion" happening. It's like saying, "water can be turned into a
>> liquid" - no, water /is/ a liquid.
>
> Note that m = 3.089167695E-28 kg is the _lost_ mass,
> it doesn't exist any more.
> So where has it gone?
> It is converted to E = mc² ≈ 2.776404839E-11 J of _kinetic energy_.
> Kinetic energy is not mass. Thus "convert".
>
>>
>> Second, "E=mc^2" only applies to systems at rest. In general,
>> it's "E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2", where "p" is the system's momentum.
>> (That basically says mass is the magnitude of the four-momentum.)
>
> E = mc² is the energy content, or the energy equivalent of
> the mass m. Mass is invariant, so this equation is valid for
> all speeds of the mass.
You contradicted yourself!!
Here your claim is, that mass is invariant, while a little below you
claim, that energy is conserved, while mass has vanished from a
radioactive sample.
But you can't keep both claims, because they contradict each other.
So let's keep energy and regard matter as some strange form of energy.
I actually had this idea long ago and wrote kind of book about it:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wT
xBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
(As proof of concept I had 'Growing Earth' in mind.)
TH
...
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
