Posted on 03/09/2002 5:41:26 PM PST by freedom9
Matter and Energy (My two cents)
One of the premises of Relativity is that matter and energy are interconvertable. Matter can be converted into energy and vice-versa. But the thing is, that matter is energy and only energy. It’s energy that has been channeled or routed to circular orbit thereby establishing a continuum.
Except for very dense matter, the type found in collapsed stars and the like, the composition of matter is more empty space than actual energy. The spacing of elemental particles in our bodies is on a scale of planets that orbit the sun. And in our solar system, empty space seems to comprise the greater part.
The discovery, exploration and understanding of the universe on macro and micro levels is really only in it’s infancy. Not being a physicist, I can only speculate and marvel according to my own understanding. But I suspect that all inward phenomena is reflected and can be outwardly observed. That is to say that all forces that seem to affect matter on a planetary scale are the exact same as the ones that govern matter or energy in atomic and even quantum scales. I think that the only two forces that have relevance are electrical and gravitational.
In particle physics, any and every particle is affected and reacts on the most part to the closest particle that’s comprised of greater mass.
In the physical realm, I don’t believe that there is such an entity as a massless particle.
The very concept of a massless particle is in and of itself a contradiction. I think further examination and explanation needs to made for any observance that’s seems to suggest such.
The Photon is a particle that is claimed to be massless.
I'm not convinced that it is a particle at all.
I believe that all interplay of cause and effect, action and reaction is back-dropped and emeshed within a FRAMEWORK of infinate mass.
The supposed ETHER that has been postulated and dissmissed for centuries does seem to have some validity. I'm willing to bet that the Photon is nothing more than tranmission of energy that is propogated somewhat like one bucket being poured into another and so on, (not a particle at all) Quantum physics even has a theory on this.
But given that we all indeed dwell within such a framework, our perceptions and awareness of it is limited only by knowledge and understanding. For if there is indeed such a critter as infinate mass, we all can be assured that we are part of it and that it is the very composition of our being. The implications of this are really something if you give them consideration.
But the real amazing thing is there are Biblical References to these vary supositions, however vague.
Isaiah 29:16
Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
and
Isaiah 28
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report. 20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
Until it evaporates. :)
If one considers the bound electron to be orbiting around the nucleus of the atom, consider it is also moving at close to the speed of light. The difference in charge between the electron and the nucleus is the main thing keeping the electron bound to the atom.
Up, charm, and top use the gluon for their force carrier.
Down, strange, and bottom use the photon for their force carrier.
All six quarks are acted upon by gluons and photons. This is because all of them carry electromagnetic charge (u,c,t have a charge of +2/3 e, while d,s,b have a charge of -1/3 e), and all of them carry a color charge. There are three kinds of color charge, which are commonly written as red, green and blue. Every quark in the universe has one of these charges. Each flavor of quark can have any color charge.
(Geek alert: because there is one kind of EM charge, there is one photon, but since there are three kinds of color charge, there are eight gluons. Gluons themselves carry both a color charge and an anti-color charge, so you'd think that there would be nine gluons, but the combination red-antired + blue-antiblue + green-antigreen is colorless, so if you define a red-antired gluon and a blue-antiblue gluon, a green-antigreen gluon can be described as a superposition of the other two. Only eight gluons are needed to span the color space.)
E neutrino, u neutrino, and t neutrino use the W boson for their force carrier.
Electron, muon, and tau use the Z boson for their force carrier.
All quarks and leptons couple to both W and Z bosons. A W, for example, transforms an electron to an electron neutrino, or a t-quark to a b-quark.
Strong – The pion (and others)
Not wrong, exactly. The pion does mediate the inter-nucleon force. That force isn't fundamental, however. The fundamental force is the inter-quark force that binds the quarks into hadrons (such as protons, neutrons and pions), and that is what we usually mean by the strong force, nowadays. The force between hadrons is a residual color dipole interaction that is analogous to the Van der Waals force in electromagnetism.
The weak force is also necessary for the formation of the elements above iron. Due to the curve of binding energy (iron has the most tightly bound nucleus),
The curve of binding energy comes from the strong and electromagnetic forces. The role played by the weak interaction is to convert protons to neutrons and vice-versa, which is often required to make stable nuclei out of two lighter ones.
This particle has a zero rest mass, however, light has relativistic mass (since its traveling at the speed of light “C”) and can be acted on by gravity.
The relativistic mass of a photon is also zero. Gravity couples to energy density, which is typically dominated by mass. But even in Newtonian gravity, massless light particles will bend in a gravitational field (the trajectory of a test particle doesn't depend on mass).
Some might be from electromagnetic interactions. But in a nuclear reaction the bigger part of the force is due to the nuclear binding force, or the release thereof. The nuclear force is far stronger than electromagnetic forces. The difference is comparable to the difference between 20 pounds of gunpowder or dynamite or gasoline exploding, which is a lot, maybe enough to take out the windows of a pizzaria, and 20 pounds of uranium or plutonium, which would vaporize almost any small town up to 10,000 population.
That is a good one. We can say something about it, but what it is must remain a mystery for the time being. It is like gravity in a way; it pulls 2 particles together. It is like electromagnetism in a way; it is much stronger than gravity. But the nuclear force acts over very short distances, so it is not inverse square like gravity or electrical force. The nuclear force is what causes protons and neutrons to stick together in atoms heavier than the hydrogen atom. Neutrons would not stick together at all without the nuclear force, being electrically neutral. Protons would fly apart, being of like charge.
Still doesn't say what it is, does it?
Your reply does raise issues I hadn't thought about e.g. protons sticking together but yet being of like charge. Neutrons "hanging out" for no apparent reason. Etc.
Does an atomic explosion release this nuclear binding force?
I find it unfortunate that United States did not build the super collider in Texas if for no other reason than to find the answers to these questions. I hear from time to time scientists are unsuccessful in controlling a sustained fusion reaction which would change the whole economic picture of playing patsy with 3rd world countries with oil. This has been a good thread and I appreciate your posts. I don't have any background in physics just a general fascination with it. Just grasping a little understanding of Einstein's theories are great mind ticklers. Thanks!
In a way, it does. The particles of what were nuclei come flying out at high speed [hot] once they escape the nuclear binding. That's where the heat and light come from. You want to start with very heavy nuclei such as uranium. That's for nuclear fission where the nuclei break apart.
The other kind of atomic explosion is the thermonuclear, which is a different kind of reaction altogether, the nuclear fusion reaction. You might wonder why if nuclei are being fused, or melted together, there would be an even bigger explosion than if they are being split. What happens is that protons are forced together stronger than the natural electric repulsion force where the nuclear binding force can grab them. This leaves excess energy which is given off as heat and light, photons to a great extent. It's the THERMO in thermonuclear. This works only for nuclei that are very small to begin with, such as single proton [hydrogen] nuclei, with one or 2 extra neutrons here and there. The new nuclei have 2 protons and are helium rather than hydrogen. The fusion process can continue until the nuclei are of iron atoms [middle-sized], but that mainly happens in stars, it's not very efficient.
Trying to adapt the hydrogen fusion process for municipal power generation has been more than difficult, but the payoff is huge, so work continues.
The preceeding has been RightWhale's Atomic Theory. If any terrorist thinks it may have been of use, well, put it into your data base and maybe your machine won't melt down. Or maybe it will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.