Merged Studying Sharma's equation on Linear Field Equations

[Singularitarian]

Again, that did not answer the question.

Why are you asking me the dimensons of E, M and p? I know them, that is pretty standard stuff, which makes the mistake more unfortunate.

 

[Singularitarian]

Also, here on wiki, there is a mention of the accuracy of E=Mc^2, and it's not enirely equivalant:

''[edit] Consequences for nuclear physics
Max Planck pointed out that the mass–energy equivalence formula implied that bound systems would have a mass less than the sum of their constituents, once the binding energy had been allowed to escape. However, Planck was thinking about chemical reactions, where the binding energy is too small to measure. Einstein suggested that radioactive materials such as radium would provide a test of the theory, but even though a large amount of energy is released per atom, only a small fraction of the atoms decay.

Once the nucleus was discovered, experimenters realized that the very high binding energies of the atomic nuclei should allow calculation of their binding energies from mass differences. But it was not until the discovery of the neutron in 1932, and the measurement of its mass, that this calculation could actually be performed (see nuclear binding energy for example calculation). A little while later, the first transmutation reactions (such as 7Li + p → 2 4He) verified Einstein's formula to an accuracy of ±0.5%.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

 

[sol invictus]

It shows that conversion of matter into energy or energy into mass is never really equivalent. There will mostly be an error, making the equatio an approximation at best. I would imagine only on very rare occasions would one expect an absolute equivalance between the fundamental processes.

It neither says nor shows anything of the kind.

Energy conservation is exact to the best of our ability to measure experimentally (and there are extremely sensitive tests of it). Moreover, if it is violated by even a tiny amount the theoretical consequences would be catastrophic - meaning, more or less, that the incredible success of physics in precisely accounting for experiments would all have been a coincidence.

 

[Ziggurat]

So yeh, i haven't made any mistake bub.

Now go away. I showed he was wrong, and now you are defending him. Technically, yes, he is right, but fundamentally with the work, he was wholey wrong.

Yes, i have muddled that wrong.

First, you're not wrong. Then, I'm wrong even though I'm right. Finally, you admit you were wrong. And you wonder why you get responses that are less than warm. No, Singularitarian, you were wrong from the start. And you're still wrong. Antiparticles have positive energy (this is known for certain from pair creation/annihilation), and you need the correct factors of c in your equations or they will be wrong.

Also, here on wiki, there is a mention of the accuracy of E=Mc^2, and it's not enirely equivalant:
[snip]
A little while later, the first transmutation reactions (such as 7Li + p → 2 4He) verified Einstein's formula to an accuracy of ±0.5%.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence

You have completely misunderstood the meaning of that. The accuracy refers to the measurement. The measurement has errors in it, and so one cannot be sure that it matches the equation better than the error in the measurement. But this measurement uncertainty is not the same thing as the equation being inaccurate.

 

[ben m]

There is much to be said, Sing, from learning physics coherently from courses and textbooks, rather than Googling for isolated facts and trying to string them together. You have misunderstood each of your search results.

Conversion of Energy into Mass Conversion of Energy into Mass. In a NUCLEAR REACTOR, a spontaneous nuclear ... The "missing mass'' appears as the kinetic energy of the reaction products ...

When a neutron meets a proton, they fuse into a deuteron and release a gamma ray. The deuteron is less massive than the sum of p+n, which only looks like "energy loss" if for some reason you ignore the gamma ray. If you include the gamma ray's energy (and any final-state kinetic energy), then the energy balance is exact. The quantity Mp+Mn-Md is called the "mass defect" or sometimes "missing mass".

931.5 Mev/amu = the conversion factor to convert mass into energy, ...

That's just a statement of units. One amu is a unit of mass. One amu*c^2 has units of energy, and the unit conversion factor is 931.5MeV/amu.

A little while later, the first transmutation reactions (such as 7Li + p → 2 4He) verified Einstein's formula to an accuracy of ±0.5%.''

And that's a statement about the precision of early nuclear physics experiments.

 

[ben m]

Why are you asking me the dimensons of E, M and p? I know them, that is pretty standard stuff, which makes the mistake more unfortunate.

First: It's not "standard stuff" at all. E, M, and p (and c, for that matter) are sometimes taken in one unit system and sometimes in another, and asking "which system is that" is a perfectly fair question.

Second: Sorry, I am still not confident that you know the units.

 

[Singularitarian]

First: It's not "standard stuff" at all. E, M, and p (and c, for that matter) are sometimes taken in one unit system and sometimes in another, and asking "which system is that" is a perfectly fair question.

Second: Sorry, I am still not confident that you know the units.

Forget it.

You know, in Sharma's paper, it confidently recites such experiments which show how unfeasible it is to have a definite value for M. Whether or not anyone here believes me when i say Einsteins equivalance principle is best approximated or not, bothers me no more.

 

[ben m]

Forget it.

You know, in Sharma's paper, it confidently recites such experiments which show how unfeasible it is to have a definite value for M. Whether or not anyone here believes me when i say Einsteins equivalance principle is best approximated or not, bothers me no more.

I know this is what Sharma's paper says. It obviously comes across as "confident". But Zig and I did not say, "you idiot, you misunderstood Sharma". We said "that physics is wrong". Sharma and his paper are completely and utterly wrong. Their conclusions (and yours) are not supported by mainstream thought, research, or publications.

There is a good reason this paper is (a) not published in a mainstream journal and (b) has never been cited. There is a reason your Google searches did not turn up lots of citations of Sharma experiments, Sharma energy loss, and the Sharma effect. There is a reason your Google searches turned up a bunch of mainstream physics which you had to misread in order to find support.

Sorry, Sig, you got tricked by a lone crackpot.

 

[Ziggurat]

Forget it.

You know, in Sharma's paper, it confidently recites such experiments which show how unfeasible it is to have a definite value for M. Whether or not anyone here believes me when i say Einsteins equivalance principle is best approximated or not, bothers me no more.

Einstein's equivalence principle is not the famous energy-mass relationship, but the relationship between gravitational and inertial mass (and hence between gravitational fields and acceleration). Furthermore, whether or not particles have exact masses is different from whether or not the mass-energy relationship is exact.

And none of that addresses the mistake you made regarding the dropping of c's from your equation, or your erroneous claim that antiparticles have negative energy. You seem to have admitted your mistake on the former subject, but not on the latter.

 

[Singularitarian]

Yes, the words equivalence principle might be too decieving, whilst fundamentally, E=Mc^2 is a conservational equation, rather than principle. I do apologize for using those specific words.

And by the way, i never made any mitsake on the negative solution presented as antiparticles. I have already shown incontrivertible proof you where wrong. It had nothing to do with elementary charge, but for some reason, you've punnled it into your brain. It's not that at all. I advise you to read the Dirac Sea again, so that you can stop embarassing yourself. I was not wrong, it was you all along. You disputed that the negative matter solution cannot be an antiparticle because it has a positive charge - which is clearly wrong for virtual particles in the vacuum, which was the whole point all along.

 

[Singularitarian]

Read up on the Hamiltonian for E=Mc^2 as well. This will be your proof that the equation [latex]E=\pm Mc^2[/latex] is correct.

 

[uk_dave]

I wonder what part Lithium plays in all this.

 

[ben m]

Read up on the Hamiltonian for E=Mc^2 as well. This will be your proof that the equation [latex]E=\pm Mc^2[/latex] is correct.

You're trying to quote the Wikipedia article on the Dirac sea; you garbled it a bit but never mind.

The Dirac sea prediction of antimatter indeed can be reached by assuming E = -mc^2 is valid. If this were true, for fermions the set of negative solutions would represent a set of states called the Dirac sea. This sea would completely fill with electrons (or whatever fermion) up to the degeneracy limit. You could, however, knock holes in the Dirac sea. The holes behave as particles with the opposite charge and with positive energy.

So, now we have matter with positive energy, and also holes with positive energy. So E = +mc^2 and the negative solution is never, ever, ever needed again---not in quantum mechanics and certainly not in kinematics.

Moreover, if you read the whole Wikipedia article you would have learned that no one thinks this is how it actually works. It's a math trick with a certain duality to QFT (Sol, is it fair to call this a duality?), but it doesn't represent any real physics.

 

[sol invictus]

Moreover, if you read the whole Wikipedia article you would have learned that no one thinks this is how it actually works. It's a math trick with a certain duality to QFT (Sol, is it fair to call this a duality?), but it doesn't represent any real physics.

I would call it a discrete symmetry (CPT). And of course you're correct - not only is that not how things work, it cannot be (because there's no Dirac sea for bosons).

If there were negative energy states, the world wouldn't last very long. Nature likes to lower its energy, particularly if it can do so by increasing entropy (disorder). But if negative energy particles existed, they could pop out of the vacuum (along with their positive energy partners if energy is conserved). That increases the entropy, because there are now more particles. But there's nothing to stop that from happening again, and again, and again... and in an instant the whole space is swarming with positive and negative energy particles (real on-shell particles, not virtual). We'd constantly be bombarded by enormous numbers of them, and the world would be totally different than it is.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

The same Singularitarian who scoffed at others' use of Wikipedia as a source?

"...i never made any mitsake..." is funny, even if English is not your first language.

 

[Ziggurat]

And by the way, i never made any mitsake on the negative solution presented as antiparticles. I have already shown incontrivertible proof you where wrong. It had nothing to do with elementary charge, but for some reason, you've punnled it into your brain. It's not that at all. I advise you to read the Dirac Sea again, so that you can stop embarassing yourself. I was not wrong, it was you all along. You disputed that the negative matter solution cannot be an antiparticle because it has a positive charge - which is clearly wrong for virtual particles in the vacuum, which was the whole point all along.

I said absolutely nothing about the charge on any antiparticle, the sign of which is quite obviously irrelevant. So not only are you wrong about antiparticles having negative energy, you fundamentally misunderstand what I have said.

But let's suppose that an antiparticle has negative energy. What should happen when a particle and an antiparticle annihilate each other? Why, nothing: energy is conserved, a + and a - energy add to zero, so that's the end of the story. And what should be required to make such a pair? Again, nothing: I can create a positive and negative energy pair from zero starting energy, so real pairs (not just virtual pairs) can pop out of nowhere.

But that's not what happens. When a positron and an electron annihilate each other, it creates TWO photons, each with the same energy as the electron's rest mass. Which means the positron has the same energy as the electron. And what if I want to make a positron-electron pair? I cannot do so with zero energy. In fact, if I want to do single-photon production (whack a heavy nucleus with it), I need that photon to have TWICE the energy of the electron, because I need to create an electron and a positron which BOTH have positive energy.

So you are wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Where on earth did you get such a foolish idea?

 

[DazzaD]

Singularitarian, would it be fair to ask if you understand the relationship between symmetry breaking and violating conservation "laws"?

 

[blutoski]

I know this is what Sharma's paper says. It obviously comes across as "confident". But Zig and I did not say, "you idiot, you misunderstood Sharma". We said "that physics is wrong". Sharma and his paper are completely and utterly wrong. Their conclusions (and yours) are not supported by mainstream thought, research, or publications.

There is a good reason this paper is (a) not published in a mainstream journal and (b) has never been cited. There is a reason your Google searches did not turn up lots of citations of Sharma experiments, Sharma energy loss, and the Sharma effect. There is a reason your Google searches turned up a bunch of mainstream physics which you had to misread in order to find support.

Sorry, Sig, you got tricked by a lone crackpot.

I seem to recall that Dr. Singh dedicated a chapter of Big Bang to Sharma?

Long story short, Sharma sent letters to physicists and newspapers. He received a little bit of media attention because journalists just didn't have the technical background to recognize that he was a crackpot and didn't see any point in soliciting expert opinions. Nothing's changed.

Physicists reviewed his equations, sometimes replied to him by pointing out his errors, and he continued undaunted and seemed essentially uninterested in the thoughts of others working in the field.

As a consequence, his errors compounded and he became decreasingly connected to facts and actual experimental results, and is now essentially irrelevant except as an historical footnote about celebrity.

 

[ben m]

I seem to recall that Dr. Singh dedicated a chapter of Big Bang to Sharma?

You mean Simon Singh? Amazon Book Search doesn't reveal any such dedication.

 

[blutoski]

You mean Simon Singh? Amazon Book Search doesn't reveal any such dedication.

Sorry 'dedicate' may have not been the right word. I mean there was a chapter about Sharma in Big Bang.

I'll grab my copy when I get home. I may be mixing him up with another crackpot.