flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

 Index > Heap > Does the Sun's light make the Earth heavier? Goto page Previous  1, 2
Author
l_inc

Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
Xorpd!
I think, you just needed to say "mass is a form of energy" in order to convince me. I finally started to google around and right away was directed to this article. It seems, that I missed some hours of the corresponding classes.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
28 May 2014, 21:06
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
what is mass and energy, in simplest possible described laymen term?
28 May 2014, 21:16
Xorpd!

Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Xorpd!
l_inc wrote:
Xorpd!
I think, you just needed to say "mass is a form of energy" in order to convince me. I finally started to google around and right away was directed to this article. It seems, that I missed some hours of the corresponding classes.

The article is a bit of an oversimplification. For example, it states that although total energy, hence relativistic mass, is conserved, rest mass is not. However, since total energy and momentum are separately conserved and rest energy is calculable from them, rest energy should also be conserved. The forms of energy that require motion still contribute to rest energy of the entire system until their motion makes them leak out of the system, consistent with the continuity equation for rest mass.
Oh, I see later in the article that it says that invariant mass is also conserved. These Wikipedia articles typically have more than one contributor so you can have little inconsistencies like this. Overall, I think you may take away from the article the notion that what I have been saying about mass and energy in this thread have been completely mainstream concepts, in fact the article gives some very similar examples to mine.
28 May 2014, 22:30
l_inc

Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
Xorpd!
Quote:
However, since total energy and momentum are separately conserved and rest energy is calculable from them, rest energy should also be conserved.

Wait. What about the Lyman-alpha transition? Photon (relativistic mass, no rest mass) absorbed by an atom results in an increase of the rest mass of the atom, as you stated before. Hence rest mass is not conserved. What am I missing now?
sleepsleep
I think nobody is actually able to tell exactly what those are. Some fundamental physical quantities, that satisfy a number of properties such as energy conservation. I remember to have learned mass as a measure of inertia of a physical body. But you can always consult the wiki for more up-to-date definitions.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
28 May 2014, 22:54
Xorpd!

Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 161
Xorpd!
l_inc wrote:
Wait. What about the Lyman-alpha transition? Photon (relativistic mass, no rest mass) absorbed by an atom results in an increase of the rest mass of the atom, as you stated before. Hence rest mass is not conserved. What am I missing now?

You're missing the system, atom+photon, before absorption vs. system, excited atom, after. We get the rest mass from the energy-momentum 4-vector which is the same before and after absorption because energy and all 3 components of momentum are separately conserved.
As I said earlier in the thread and also is pointed out in the article you referenced, although a massless particle alone has no rest mass, massless particles can make a nonzero contribution to the rest mass of the system of which they are a part.
29 May 2014, 04:17
revolution
When all else fails, read the source

Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17271
revolution
So edfed was correct then? Just not in the way that he suggested. If something is hotter it has more energy and thus more mass?
29 May 2014, 04:27
l_inc

Joined: 23 Oct 2009
Posts: 881
l_inc
Xorpd!
Quote:
You're missing the system, atom+photon, before absorption

Oh, yes, sorry. I was still thinking of the electron-positron annihilation example to be inapplicable here. Thank you for the explanation.

_________________
Faith is a superposition of knowledge and fallacy
29 May 2014, 13:17
sleepsleep

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8897
Location: ˛　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
i am totally confuse,

if i take a sealed glass box or glass jar, then in a dark room, i put a torchlight in it and switch it on,
i could see light pass through the glass container.

so, light is what nature here?
if they are photons, are they so tiny and energetic to pass through all those glass atom structures?

if they are some sort of wave, then it is weird, because,
if i put a mp3 player inside a sealed glass box or jar, on it, i hardly hear anything.
then i assume audio wave is restricted by the container.
if i get bigger woofer, speaker and put them inside bigger glass box, if the glass is think, maybe it breaks, but if it is thick, sound hardly escape too, i guess.

when the light bypass glasses, what happen actually?
29 May 2014, 13:58
 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

 Jump to: Select a forum Official----------------AssemblyPeripheria General----------------MainDOSWindowsLinuxUnixMenuetOS Specific----------------MacroinstructionsCompiler InternalsIDE DevelopmentOS ConstructionNon-x86 architecturesHigh Level LanguagesProgramming Language DesignProjects and IdeasExamples and Tutorials Other----------------FeedbackHeapTest Area
Goto page Previous  1, 2

Forum Rules:
 You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum