• Time Travel
204 replies, posted
Prepare for unforseen consequences...
You can't have a mass and suddenly turn it into energy, you need to burn it or something. Likewise kinetic energy won't suddenly turn solid.
[QUOTE=BmB;22369422]Read it again.[/QUOTE] Ok, I get what you're getting at. You're confusing matter with mass. Mass is a measure of energy in an object, or rather a type of energy; and matter is simply your quarks: the up, down, charm, strange, top, and bottom quarks. [editline]11:10AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BmB;22369458]You can't have a mass and suddenly turn it into energy, you need to burn it or something. Likewise kinetic energy won't suddenly turn solid.[/QUOTE] Mass is energy. Matter is not.
You still need to explain how kinetic energy turns into this mass thing. Conversion process.
[QUOTE=BmB;22369504]You still need to explain how kinetic energy turns into this mass thing. Conversion process.[/QUOTE] Mass is not something solid. It is the measure of energy that a solid object holds. It is not the solid itself. Thus, there is no 'conversion process', as you so put it, to convert energy to energy. There is a conversion ratio, as there is a ratio in which energy exists as mass.
Ok sherlock, let's go : E=mc² right? Thus, if you add energy, it is only logical that mass increases too, considering c is an absolute and cannot be changed. So, to keep the equation correct, mass must increase of energy increases. This happens simultaneously.
[QUOTE=Yahnich;22369558]Ok sherlock, let's go : E=mc² right? Thus, if you add energy, it is only logical that mass increases too, considering c is an absolute and cannot be changed. So, to keep the equation correct, mass must increase of energy increases. This happens simultaneously.[/QUOTE] You hit it on the head. If you were talking to me, that is. I'm not sure.
Look, motion does not define weight, clearly these are two different things, you need to explain how one turns into the other.
[QUOTE=BmB;22369605]Look, motion does not define weight, clearly these are two different things, you need to explain how one turns into the other.[/QUOTE] Alas, weight is the result of the amount of energy matter has, and that energy is mass. Please understand this before you make you next reply: mass [b]does not[/b] need to be converted to energy because mass is already energy.
You still need to convert from kinetic to mass. Motion doesn't magically turn into electricity or radiation or magnetism or gravity. Why would it magically turn into mass? Why doesn't mass spontaneously turn into motion then?
ITT Facepunch pretends to know how time travel works.
[QUOTE=BmB;22369677]You still need to convert from kinetic to mass. Motion doesn't magically turn into electricity or radiation or magnetism or gravity.[/QUOTE] There is no conversion because kinetic energy is the same energy that mass is, just in a different form (attached to matter). Kinetic energy --> energy. Mass --> energy. Energy = energy. [editline]11:24AM[/editline] [QUOTE=DONUT KING;22369741]ITT Facepunch pretends to know how time travel works.[/QUOTE] We're discussing mass-energy equivalence.
[QUOTE=BmB;22369677]Why doesn't mass spontaneously turn into motion then?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BmB;22369771][/QUOTE] Because, as expressed by Faraday's observations, mass has to be converted into energy at the speed of light, thus the c variable.
[QUOTE=billeh!;22369747]There is no conversion because kinetic energy is the same energy that mass is, just in a different form (attached to matter). Kinetic energy --> energy. Mass --> energy. Energy = energy.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=billeh!;22369832]mass has to be converted into energy[/QUOTE] Please attempt to be remotely consistent here.
[QUOTE=BmB;22369458]You can't have a mass and suddenly turn it into energy, you need to burn it or something. Likewise kinetic energy won't suddenly turn solid.[/QUOTE] Energy is released because chemical ties and bonds are broken during combustion. And actually it's been hypothesised that can suddenly happen, just like how a cup of tea may spontaneously heat up, but because it relies on quantum entanglement and entropy working in reverse due to something I can't remember, we don't remember it :v: Source [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/aug/26/entropy-time-arrow-quantum-mechanics[/url]
[QUOTE=BmB;22369870]Please attempt to be remotely consistent here.[/QUOTE] You're arguing syntax. I know you know what I mean.
Its best to visualize this in terms of the individual constituents guys. Take an atom moving relative to two other atoms (which are at rest relative to each other. All atoms are identical aside from the fact that one of them is moving faster the the other two (relatively speaking). But, obviously, you can also say the other two are moving fast relative to the still single atom. The only way these atoms can interact is by the transfer of energy. There are many forms of transferring this energy; through photons, W and Z bosons, gluons, and (the still unseen) gravitons, higgs bosons and (highly theoretical) X and Y bosons. These are all called gauge bosons, and will travel between atoms at c, transferring energy.
[QUOTE=billeh!;22370004]You're arguing syntax. I know you know what I mean.[/QUOTE] I really don't, first you try to be pedantically overcorrect and then you start cocking up your terms and then you expect me to understand a word of what you're saying? You have yet to explain to me how kinetic energy magically turns into mass. I already explained it in my thought experiment, not correct by any means but I explained it.
[QUOTE=Kade;22370008]Its best to visualize this in terms of the individual constituents guys. Take an atom moving relative to two other atoms (which are at rest relative to each other. All atoms are identical aside from the fact that one of them is moving faster the the other two (relatively speaking). But, obviously, you can also say the other two are moving fast relative to the still single atom. The only way these atoms can interact is by the transfer of energy. There are many forms of transferring this energy; through photons, W and Z bosons, gluons, and (the still unseen) gravitons, higgs bosons and (highly theoretical) X and Y bosons. These will transfer from atom to atom, transferring energy.[/QUOTE] Bosons don't really help explain mass-energy equivalence. [editline]11:39AM[/editline] [QUOTE=BmB;22370058]I really don't, first you try to be pedantically overcorrect and then you start cocking up your terms and then you expect me to understand a word of what you're saying?[/QUOTE] Let's start over. So you're confused as to how energy is converted to mass. I'm confused as to why you think there needs to be a conversion medium for energy to be converted to mass.
The concept of massâ€“energy equivalence connects the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, which continue to hold separately. The theory of relativity allows particles which have rest mass to be converted to other forms of mass which require motion, such as kinetic energy, heat, or light. However, the mass remains. Kinetic energy or light can also be converted to new kinds of particles which have rest mass, but again the energy remains. Both the total mass and the total energy inside a totally closed system remain constant over time, as seen by any single observer in a given inertial frame. In other words, energy cannot be created or destroyed, and energy, in all of its forms, has mass. Mass also cannot be created or destroyed, and in all of its forms, has energy. According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed or transformed into the other. Rather, neither one appears without the other. Rather than mass being changed into energy, the view of relativity is that rest mass has been changed to a more mobile form of mass, but remains mass. In this process, neither the amount of mass nor the amount of energy changes. Thus, if energy changes type and leaves a system, it simply takes its mass with it. If either mass or energy disappears from a system, it will always be found that both have simply moved off to another place. Wiki: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence[/url]
Clearly there is a lack of equivalence. If mass is defined as the scalar for how much an object will be affected by gravity, i.e. weight. Then how come if kinetic energy is directly interchangeable that say, throwing it really fast doesn't make it heavier? Or that it doesn't suddenly shoot off into space, immensely lighter because all the mass just turned into kinetic energy? You need to convert this shit, like burning fuel in a rocket for the latter example.
Wow, ok. I've been reading online into some things about mass-energy equivalence and I've made a big mistake. Energy is not converted into mass; that is rather impossible. Neither energy or mass may not be destroyed, but energy can be moved into mass and mass may be moved into energy in the ratio E=m(c^2). So, BmB, in using the word 'conversion', I was very wrong because conversion, in conventional physical sciences, is described as an actual process. [editline]11:54AM[/editline] And yes, Kade is much more able to explain this stuff than I. As Kade stated, mass is energy and one is never found without the other.
I understand that, which is why I accept that it can happen at all. But I still need to understand how it happens.
[QUOTE=BmB;22370310]I understand that, which is why I accept that it can happen at all. But I still need to understand how it happens.[/QUOTE] Kade will have to explain that to you. I haven't read enough into bosons (force carrying particles).
Just to keep it on track, this is conversion of energy into mass at relativistic speeds we're talking about.
[QUOTE=BmB;22370355]Just to keep it on track, this is conversion of energy into mass at relativistic speeds we're talking about.[/QUOTE] In order to explain energy, one must delve into fermions. There are three types of fermions: quarks, leptons, and bosons. Because quarks and leptons can't occupy the same quantum state(be in the same place with the same spin etc.), bosons are usually force carrier particles and quarks and leptons are usually associated with matter. So, as such, if you really want to know how this all happens, you need to dive deep with someone who knows what they're talking about.
It needs to be relatable to the world you experience otherwise any understanding you achieve will be merely superficial. None of those concepts mean anything concrete to me.
Can we just shut the fuck up about mass converting to energy and just revel in the awesomeness of time travel?
[QUOTE=BmB;22370434]It needs to be relatable to the world you experience otherwise any understanding you achieve will be merely superficial. None of those concepts mean anything concrete to me.[/QUOTE] Oh boy, join the party. You're in company of great minds like Schrodinger and Einstein who rejected quantum theory because it fundamentally ripped apart classical physics. Since you are so interested in this stuff (and I really do appreciate that someone on the forums is earnestly interested), might I suggest a book called [i]The God Particle - If the Universe is the Answer, Then What is the Question?[/i] by Leon Lederman and Dick Teresi. It is an amazing book that really demystifies a lot of physics, and it's funny to boot. Give it a go. [editline]12:08PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DONUT KING;22370458]Can we just shut the fuck up about mass converting to energy and just revel in the awesomeness of time travel?[/QUOTE] ill shut ur donut hole up