Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   A theoretical question: Can mass be converted to other forms of energy?

Nuclear fission.
Nuclear fusion.
Matter-antimatter annihilation.

In each case the mass lost is accounted for by emitted photons.

Post a reply to this message

> 
>   Well, you know what? Go fuck yourself. I'm tired of your condescending
> attitude.

Expert speaking...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
>>>>>   Assuming yes, how does this conversion affect angular momentum?
>>>>>
>>>> Simple - a photon carries angular momentum.
>>>   Is electromagnetic radiation the only possible form of energy?
>>>
>> No.
> 
>> Are you being obtuse ?
> 
>> Let me re-phrase that.  You are being obtuse.  Is it deliberate ?
> 
>   Why the hell are you constantly trying to turn this into a flamewar?
> 
>   I asked if mass can be converted to other forms of energy, and if this
> is so, what happens to the angular momentum. Your answer to this was that
> "a photon carries angular momentum". That seems to clearly imply that all
> forms of energy consist of photons. When I ask you if what you are trying
> to say is that all forms of energy consist of photons you call me obtuse.
> 
>   Well, you know what? Go fuck yourself. I'm tired of your condescending
> attitude.
> 
I guess there is an equal and opposite reaction :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Paul Fuller wrote:
>> If 'No' then please provide an explanation or link explaining how any 
>> form of energy can be turned into angular momentum in a closed system.
> 
> Hold your cat upside down, then drop him. ;-)
> 

...into a cardboard box (leather gloves recommended).  Close the lid 
flaps, overlapping them in such a way as to hold the box closed.  Then 
check the crisper drawer in your fridge.  If any vegetables have 
decayed, you should really clean out your fridge more often.

--Sherry Shaw


-- 
#macro T(E,N)sphere{x,.4rotate z*E*60translate y*N pigment{wrinkles scale
.3}finish{ambient 1}}#end#local I=0;#while(I<5)T(I,1)T(1-I,-1)#local I=I+
1;#end camera{location-5*z}plane{z,37 pigment{granite color_map{[.7rgb 0]
[1rgb 1]}}finish{ambient 2}}//                                   TenMoons

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Paul Fuller <pgf### [at] optusnetcomau> wrote:
>>>   Assuming yes, how does this conversion affect angular momentum?
>>>
>> Simple - a photon carries angular momentum.
> 
>   Is electromagnetic radiation the only possible form of energy?

No. Mass is the only possible form of energy. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   A theoretical question: Can mass be converted to other forms of energy?
> 
>> Mass *is* energy. That's where energy is stored. That's why things with 
>> lots of kinetic energy are heavier.  That's why a helium atom weighs 
>> less than four hydrogen atoms.   E=mc^2.
> 
>   That didn't really answer my question.

The answer is "mu". That is the answer that unasks the question.

There is no "other form" of energy. All energy and mass are the same 
thing. To ask whether mass can be converted to other forms of energy is 
meaningless. All forms of "energy" are sloppy ways of measuring the 
change of mass. Kinetic energy is an increase in measured mass. Energy 
of atomic fission comes from a decrease in rest mass of the atoms left 
behind.

It's like asking if heat can be converted to kinetic energy. Heat *is* 
kinetic energy, just going all different directions.

>>>   Assuming yes, how does this conversion affect angular momentum?
>> It doesn't. It doesn't go anywhere.  It's all the same stuff.

>   Since angular momentum is dependent on mass, that means that eg. heat
> has mass?

Yes. As the atoms move faster, they gain mass due to relativistic 
increases.  Yeah, really.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> There is no "other form" of energy. All energy and mass are the same 
> thing. To ask whether mass can be converted to other forms of energy is 
> meaningless.

  Then wikipedia is horribly wrong, I suppose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_conversion

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/29 09:32:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   A theoretical question: Can mass be converted to other forms of energy?
> 
>> Mass *is* energy. That's where energy is stored. That's why things with 
>> lots of kinetic energy are heavier.  That's why a helium atom weighs 
>> less than four hydrogen atoms.   E=mc^2.
> 
>   That didn't really answer my question.
> 
>>>   Assuming yes, how does this conversion affect angular momentum?
> 
>> It doesn't. It doesn't go anywhere.  It's all the same stuff.
> 
>   Since angular momentum is dependent on mass, that means that eg. heat
> has mass?
> 
Absolutely! It's just that in everydays terms, it's to small to be evaluated 
using ordinary instruments. Heat is manifested by an increase in the average 
motion of the atoms around a resting location. More heat = faster and longer 
movements of the atoms. Faster movement = more kynetic energy.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead.
Thomas Jefferson

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Yes. As the atoms move faster, they gain mass due to relativistic 
> increases.  Yeah, really.

They don't.  While to the outside observer there's no visible/relevant 
difference between an *apparent* change in mass and an *actual* change 
in mass, it's still not the same thing.  Even if it gives an identical 
measurement at any precision.  Why?  Because I say so.  :P  Kind of like 
how a rhombus with four equal angles isn't the same thing as a square, 
even if it has all the same properties.  ;)

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> There is no "other form" of energy. All energy and mass are the same 
>> thing. To ask whether mass can be converted to other forms of energy is 
>> meaningless.
> 
>   Then wikipedia is horribly wrong, I suppose.

E=mc^2

Energy and mass are the same thing. You can't take mass and turn it into 
energy, because it's the same thing.

The difference between the energy in carbon bonds and the energy in 
quickly moving water droplets is where the energy is stored and what 
tools you use to measure it. But it's all ultimately mass.

You're asking whether the bits in a void* can be converted into the bits 
in a float. The question is in one sense nonsensical: They're all bits, 
ones or zeros.  The question in another sense is about the 
interpretation of the behavior of different patterns assigned arbitrary 
meanings by human beings.  I answered the former. Wiki answered the latter.

Energy *is* mass. Mass *is* energy. They're the same thing as seen from 
different sides, measured with different tools. When Wiki says "you can 
convert chemical energy to heat energy", they mean you can change the 
tool you need to use to perceive as a human being the mass stored in 
different places. They mean "energy that shows up as increased mass 
because of a gravitational field can be distinguished from energy that 
shows up as increased mass because of the velocity relative to the 
observer."  They're both increased mass. You can take bits of the mass 
(like some of the mass that four hydrogen atoms have in excess of a 
helium atom made from the same fundamental particals) and distribute it 
into massy photons and massy relativistic increase in speed of air 
molecules flying away from the explosion. But the mass is still there.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message