Blog 20161207
In response to my Blog on "Does Energy
Have Mass?," Ben
Gingrich asks:
“Do fresh batteries have more mass than spent
ones?”
[GB: Yes.]
And:
“Is a battery lighter after it has been used?”
[GB: Yes.]
Ben then asks:
“If
so, would this demonstrate our theory that energy (at least in some forms) has
mass?”
[GB: No.]
Ben then asks:
“I don't know the details of how a battery works, but it would seem a way to test the idea, no?”
“I don't know the details of how a battery works, but it would seem a way to test the idea, no?”
[GB: No.
It would not be a test of the “theory that energy has mass.” Instead, it would
be a test of the E=mc2 equation and its proper
interpretation.[1]
The gist of the previous Blog was that energy does not exist; it is a
calculation. So, energy does not have mass.
Energy
is neither matter nor the motion of matter. Energy is a matter-motion term. When
ordinary matter is involved in the exchange of motion we use the matter-motion
equation for kinetic energy KE=1/2 mv2. When EM (electromagnetic)
radiation is involved we use the bi-directional matter-motion equation E=mc2. This appears very
difficult for folks to understand, so I will go through it once again.
First
of all, you need to know the definition of mass, which is “resistance to
acceleration.” In a gravitational field, of course, we can measure this as
being correlative with weight. Indeed Ben, you are right that a discharged battery
would weigh less than a charged battery. But again, remember that mass is not
matter; mass is a measurement of matter.
Second
of all, you need to understand the meaning of the E=mc2 equation[2],
which we use in neomechanics for describing the emission of motion per Figure 1:
Figure 1. Neomechanical interactions demonstrating
the absorption and emission of motion.[3]
This cartoon
essentially shows that the internal motion of the microcosm (battery in this
case) slows as a result of the exothermic chemical reactions that result in the
transfer of some of this motion to the macrocosm (the light bulb in this case).
When the internal submicrocosms slow down, they present less resistance to
acceleration. In his book, “Relativity for the million,” the relativist Martin Gardner wrote “As the
coffee cools, mass is lost.”[4] This is
close, but no cigar. It is typical of the regressive view of what the E=mc2 equation signifies. Thus the statement is only
partially correct. Mass is not “lost”; mass decreases.
In the regressive vein, the use of the word “lost”
implies that mass is a thing that magically turns into another thing, energy,
which in this case supposedly flits magically throughout the universe as
matterless motion. The correct statement is “As the coffee cools, mass decreases.”
The submicrocosms that constitute the “guts” of the microcosm still exist after
part of their motion has been transferred across the microcosmic boundary to accelerate
supermicrocosms in the macrocosm (environment) (Figure 1). Because those
submicrocosms then have less motion, their momenta (P=mv) are reduced, causing
the microcosm to have less resistance to acceleration. They impact the internal
wall of the microcosm with less force, which otherwise would better counteract
and “resist” the force we would use to measure the mass of the microcosm.
In my forthcoming book on Infinite Universe Theory, I explain it with this example apropos to
the season:
"Suppose that an entire football team forms a
densely packed circle. Remember mass is simply a measurement: the resistance to
acceleration. Now, suppose that another football team tries to test the
resistance to acceleration of the first team by trying to push it over. They
might be able to do it, probably by running at the stationary team and
colliding with it. Next, let us have the first team display a little internal
motion, with fists and feet flying in all directions. Now, the second team will
have to run and push a little harder, because the first team will be less of a
pushover. In other words, some of the force (F=ma) produced by the second team
will be diminished by the hitting (F=ma) produced by the first. The mass of the
first team has increased because its resistance to acceleration has increased.
The second team will have to push even harder to push the more active team over."
Note that in neomechanics each microcosm is
surrounded by an infinite number of supermicrocosms. In the case of a battery
undergoing discharge as the result of an exothermic chemical reaction, some of
the supermicrocosms could be the nitrogen or aether in the atmosphere.
The absorption of motion produces the opposite
effect (Figure 1), increasing the mass of the battery along with its charge.
This principle is now being used to charge cell phones and other devices with
the application of infrared radiation (https://www.cnet.com/news/wi-charge-willcharge-all-your-devices-at-once-using-infrared-light-hands-on/).
It also is the same principle involved when plants absorb light during
photosynthesis.
Remember that
all these changes in mass are miniscule and that the amount of matter before
and after always remains the same per the Fifth Assumption of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion
of matter can be neither created nor destroyed). Above
all, the changes merely involve the transfer of motion from one thing to
another.]
[1] Note that the test would
be complicated by the far greater non-electrochemical production of
heat such as that produced by electrical resistance, etc.
[2] Borchardt, Glenn,
2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, Proceedings of the Natural
Philosophy Alliance: Storrs, CN, v. 6, no. 1, p. 27-31 [http://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2387.4643].
[3] Borchardt, Glenn,
2007, The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein: Lincoln, NE,
iUniverse, 411 p. [http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
1 comment:
Glen, Since there really is no boundary between a microcosm and a macrocosm in the it seems a waste of time to use phrases like the absorption and emission of motion.
As you know, there is no matter without motion and no motion without matter.
The two are one and the same.
We do call measurable changes in the world we have access to as changes in the form of energy observable, so "energy" is measurable in that sense.
The whole field of physics will be improved when the perspective is fundamental field and changes within it. Then all things are just changes in the local field and the overall field. We can measure only some elements of the changes in the FF.
G
Post a Comment