| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Dwib" |
| Date: |
04 May 2007 12:59:13 PM |
| Object: |
Is a hot brick more massive? |
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Dwib
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 01:51:26 PM |
|
|
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Tobin" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 04:21:45 PM |
|
|
In article <463B80AE.49626DB6@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
One gram of ice at 0 C obviously masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Ah, that'll be why it floats.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 05:20:29 PM |
|
|
"Richard Tobin" <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message =
news:f1g859$20ub$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <463B80AE.49626DB6@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
One gram of ice at 0 C obviously masses less than one gram of water at =
0 C.
=20
Ah, that'll be why it floats.
=20
-- Richard
HAHAHA... Sounds like the old kiddy saw, "Which is heavier, a ton of =
iron=20
or a ton of feathers?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
06 May 2007 09:48:57 AM |
|
|
On May 4, 5:21 pm, (Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <463B80AE.49626...@hate.spam.net>,
Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
One gram of ice at 0 C obviously masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Ah, that'll be why it floats.
Aha! A simple classroom demonstration of special relativity. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
05 May 2007 11:04:23 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 04 May 2007 11:51:26 -0700
<463B80AE.49626DB6@hate.spam.net>:
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Are you trying to play with our minds, Unc? :-) One might state
that 3.34556 * 10^25 molecules of H2O, when in a frozen state,
would have a smidge less mass than the same number of molecules
in a liquid state, though. (That's one kg or 55.56 moles of
water, give or take.)
Since it takes 334,720 J to melt 1 kg of ice, that translates into
334720 / c^2 = 3.72 nanograms additional mass.
Granted, I could be off here. Turns out that I'm calculating
3.72 milligrams per kilotonne of water/ice.
--
#191,
Error 16: Not enough space on file system to delete file(s)
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
05 May 2007 02:18:33 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 04 May 2007 11:51:26 -0700
<463B80AE.49626DB6@hate.spam.net>:
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Are you trying to play with our minds, Unc? :-) One might state
that 3.34556 * 10^25 molecules of H2O, when in a frozen state,
would have a smidge less mass than the same number of molecules
in a liquid state, though. (That's one kg or 55.56 moles of
water, give or take.)
Since it takes 334,720 J to melt 1 kg of ice, that translates into
334720 / c^2 = 3.72 nanograms additional mass.
Granted, I could be off here. Turns out that I'm calculating
3.72 milligrams per kilotonne of water/ice.
1 kilotonne nuclear warhead yield is 4.186x10^12 joules. That masses
as stated (wags occasionally truncate to 4 even). Heat of fusion of
anything has the appropriate mass equivalent in turn. Heat of fusion
is is not nuclear fusion (that is mostly fission anyway - excess
fusion neutrons fast-fissioning the U-238 bomb casing.)
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
05 May 2007 03:26:06 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Sat, 05 May 2007 12:18:33 -0700
<463CD889.C5A981A7@hate.spam.net>:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics, Uncle Al
<UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote
on Fri, 04 May 2007 11:51:26 -0700
<463B80AE.49626DB6@hate.spam.net>:
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Are you trying to play with our minds, Unc? :-) One might state
that 3.34556 * 10^25 molecules of H2O, when in a frozen state,
would have a smidge less mass than the same number of molecules
in a liquid state, though. (That's one kg or 55.56 moles of
water, give or take.)
Since it takes 334,720 J to melt 1 kg of ice, that translates into
334720 / c^2 = 3.72 nanograms additional mass.
Granted, I could be off here. Turns out that I'm calculating
3.72 milligrams per kilotonne of water/ice.
1 kilotonne nuclear warhead yield is 4.186x10^12 joules. That masses
as stated (wags occasionally truncate to 4 even). Heat of fusion of
anything has the appropriate mass equivalent in turn. Heat of fusion
is is not nuclear fusion (that is mostly fission anyway - excess
fusion neutrons fast-fissioning the U-238 bomb casing.)
Ah, OK; different events then. Thanks for the clarification. Of
course now I'm beginning to think I've misplaced a decimal point again.
:-)
But apart from a declaration in Wikipedia that it's actually 335.5 kJ/kg
for latent enthalpy of fusion of water (which yields 3.733 * 10^-12 kg
additional mass), I still get the same value; this means that it
would take a warhead with 892 metric tonnes yield to melt a kilotonne of
ice -- and a more likely result would be a flying mess of ice and
water, instead.
In any event, I'm aware of the difference between heat of fusion,
and heat of (nuclear) reaction named fusion; the exact value of
the latter depends on what's fusing, whether it be the impossible
reaction 4p => 2He4 + E, the sought-after reaction
D + T => 2He4 + n + E, or the interesting but at present
somewhat theoretical reaction 5B11 + p = 3He4 + E.
--
#191,
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 08:33:15 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:51:26 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
More feckless turning of the Einstein crank. E = mc^2 indeed. The
molecules in the brick will have increased random motion due to the
heat. Why would I believe the brick would exhibit greater resistance
to acceleration as a consequence?
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
06 May 2007 09:55:41 AM |
|
|
On May 4, 9:33 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:51:26 -0700, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
More feckless turning of the Einstein crank. E = mc^2 indeed. The
molecules in the brick will have increased random motion due to the
heat. Why would I believe the brick would exhibit greater resistance
to acceleration as a consequence?
Because it fits together as part of a self-consistent picture well
verified by experiment in different ways? In effect the mass
equivalent of KE is verified every time a relativistic particle is
accelerated, and the particle obeys relativistic laws.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
06 May 2007 11:09:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:51:26 -0700, Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net>
wrote:
Dwib wrote:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Assuming no phase transitions in the temperature interval,
[(mass)(specific heat)(/_\ temperature)] = /_\energy
/_\energy/c^2 = /_\mass
snip
One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
06 May 2007 11:58:46 AM |
|
|
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail. The more usual situation is to fail at
larger magnitudes (higher field strengths, larger relative velocities)
rather than smaller, but it seems to there are failures at the other
end -- something like an activation energy effect.
Is relativistic mass increase is governed by nucleation of mass? :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
06 May 2007 01:11:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1178470726.757892.69420@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure. Failure, in the context
discussed above, would consist of getting a measurement result
measurably different from the theoretical one. Since in this case the
relative difference between the classical and the relativistic prediction
is in the 10^(-12) range while the best achievable precision when
measuring macroscopic masses is (maybe) 10^(-8), observing no
difference is *exactly* what is expected.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
07 May 2007 11:41:32 AM |
|
|
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
<...>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
07 May 2007 04:59:18 PM |
|
|
In article <1178556092.016538.10160@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
Static friction will provide a simple example of the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
07 May 2007 07:57:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:59:18 GMT, wrote:
In article <1178556092.016538.10160@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
Static friction will provide a simple example of the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
We know mass M = nm, with each of n possessing E = kT per degree of
freedom of thermal chaos. We expect an increase dE = kdT, again purely
to increase the amplitude of chaotic local activity. How can anyone
justify dM= kdt/c^2 when we still have M =nm, neither n nor m of which
could be expected to increase.
Are we to believe that warming the brick will augment the brick's
vaunted reluctance to be accelerated? If so, to what purpose?
We know a case might be made for a brick that has been given some
velocity, but then we run into the "relativistic" mass quagmire,
which has been pronounced poor form and abnegated, but for which no
useful alternative is offered.
A warmer brick is not a heavier brick.
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
07 May 2007 10:01:07 PM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9fhv33l99avcno8osh1h95b2hopo18ehed@4ax.com...
We know mass M = nm, with each of n possessing E = kT per degree of
freedom of thermal chaos. We expect an increase dE = kdT, again purely
to increase the amplitude of chaotic local activity. How can anyone
justify dM= kdt/c^2 when we still have M =nm, neither n nor m of which
could be expected to increase.
Are we to believe that warming the brick will augment the brick's
vaunted reluctance to be accelerated? If so, to what purpose?
We know a case might be made for a brick that has been given some
velocity, but then we run into the "relativistic" mass quagmire,
which has been pronounced poor form and abnegated, but for which no
useful alternative is offered.
A warmer brick is not a heavier brick.
John Polasek
Bzzzt! http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909014
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 07:32:00 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 7:57 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:59:18 GMT, wrote:
In article <1178556092.016538.10...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
Static friction will provide a simple example of the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
We know mass M = nm,
The above is wrong.
I'll give you two counter-examples:
1. In a nucleus with Z protons and N neutrons, M =/= Z*m_p + N*m_n
2. A pi-zero with mass 135 MeV decays into two photons. The two photon
system still has mass 135 MeV, even though the individual photons have
zero mass. Clearly 135 MeV =/= 0 MeV + 0 MeV.
with each of n possessing E = kT per degree of
freedom of thermal chaos. We expect an increase dE = kdT, again purely
to increase the amplitude of chaotic local activity. How can anyone
justify dM= kdt/c^2 when we still have M =nm, neither n nor m of which
could be expected to increase.
Are we to believe that warming the brick will augment the brick's
vaunted reluctance to be accelerated? If so, to what purpose?
We know a case might be made for a brick that has been given some
velocity, but then we run into the "relativistic" mass quagmire,
which has been pronounced poor form and abnegated, but for which no
useful alternative is offered.
A warmer brick is not a heavier brick.
John Polasek- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ireckon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 09:28:42 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178627520.908244.97040@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 7:57 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:59:18 GMT, wrote:
In article <1178556092.016538.10...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it
up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the
1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the
details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of
experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
Static friction will provide a simple example of the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
We know mass M = nm,
The above is wrong.
I'll give you two counter-examples:
1. In a nucleus with Z protons and N neutrons, M =/= Z*m_p + N*m_n
2. A pi-zero with mass 135 MeV decays into two photons. The two photon
system still has mass 135 MeV, even though the individual photons have
zero mass. Clearly 135 MeV =/= 0 MeV + 0 MeV.
That is mildly interesting, but off topic. You're talking of binding energy
(without saying so) and the
brick has no binding energy nor is there at hand any event in which the
binding energy could make itself felt.
All of the brick's original mass is still there after it's warmed up and
neither more nor fewer molecules. From thermodynamics we know all the energy
went to increase the amplitude chaotic vibration and not any to its kinetic
energy. It is just a "stretch" to calculate a mass increase that resulted
from the application of heat. We even know that in an atomic event, the
event energy is only that of binding energy and E =/= mc^2.
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 11:12:58 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 9:28 am, "Ireckon" <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178627520.908244.97040@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 7:57 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:59:18 GMT, wrote:
In article <1178556092.016538.10...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it
up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the
1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the
details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of
experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
Static friction will provide a simple example of the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
We know mass M = nm,
The above is wrong.
I'll give you two counter-examples:
1. In a nucleus with Z protons and N neutrons, M =/= Z*m_p + N*m_n
2. A pi-zero with mass 135 MeV decays into two photons. The two photon
system still has mass 135 MeV, even though the individual photons have
zero mass. Clearly 135 MeV =/= 0 MeV + 0 MeV.
That is mildly interesting, but off topic. You're talking of binding energy
(without saying so) and the
brick has no binding energy nor is there at hand any event in which the
binding energy could make itself felt.
All of the brick's original mass is still there after it's warmed up and
neither more nor fewer molecules. From thermodynamics we know all the energy
went to increase the amplitude chaotic vibration and not any to its kinetic
energy. It is just a "stretch" to calculate a mass increase that resulted
from the application of heat. We even know that in an atomic event, the
event energy is only that of binding energy and E =/= mc^2.
John Polasek
The comment was directed toward the statement that the mass of the
brick could be computed as the sum of the mass of the components M=nm.
This is a misstatement.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 11:24:11 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178640778.602743.272470@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 9:28 am, "Ireckon" <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That is mildly interesting, but off topic. You're talking of binding
energy
(without saying so) and the
brick has no binding energy nor is there at hand any event in which the
binding energy could make itself felt.
All of the brick's original mass is still there after it's warmed up and
neither more nor fewer molecules. From thermodynamics we know all the
energy
went to increase the amplitude chaotic vibration and not any to its
kinetic
energy. It is just a "stretch" to calculate a mass increase that
resulted
from the application of heat. We even know that in an atomic event, the
event energy is only that of binding energy and E =/= mc^2.
John Polasek
The comment was directed toward the statement that the mass of the
brick could be computed as the sum of the mass of the components M=nm.
This is a misstatement.
Besides, the brick most certainly does have binding energy and
in three forms: Nuclear for the atoms themselves, Chemical between
atoms and molecules, and Gravitational between all its bits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John C. Polasek" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 11:51:44 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:24:11 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178640778.602743.272470@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 9:28 am, "Ireckon" <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That is mildly interesting, but off topic. You're talking of binding
energy
(without saying so) and the
brick has no binding energy nor is there at hand any event in which the
binding energy could make itself felt.
All of the brick's original mass is still there after it's warmed up and
neither more nor fewer molecules. From thermodynamics we know all the
energy
went to increase the amplitude chaotic vibration and not any to its
kinetic
energy. It is just a "stretch" to calculate a mass increase that
resulted
from the application of heat. We even know that in an atomic event, the
event energy is only that of binding energy and E =/= mc^2.
John Polasek
The comment was directed toward the statement that the mass of the
brick could be computed as the sum of the mass of the components M=nm.
This is a misstatement.
Besides, the brick most certainly does have binding energy and
in three forms: Nuclear for the atoms themselves, Chemical between
atoms and molecules, and Gravitational between all its bits.
So, then, are we to believe that the addition of high entropy energy
in the form of heat will enhance the inertia of the brick? Certainly
heat will not change its momentum. The thermal part averages to zero
in any case. The equation dM = dE/c^2 has no relevancy here.
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 12:44:03 PM |
|
|
"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:u7a143d5pg5rc1cgqm6qvnroon6l1jtlrv@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 May 2007 12:24:11 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
Besides, the brick most certainly does have binding energy and
in three forms: Nuclear for the atoms themselves, Chemical between
atoms and molecules, and Gravitational between all its bits.
So, then, are we to believe that the addition of high entropy energy
in the form of heat will enhance the inertia of the brick? Certainly
heat will not change its momentum. The thermal part averages to zero
in any case. The equation dM = dE/c^2 has no relevancy here.
Every particle that comprises the brick moves faster
when heat is added, so each particle will experience
a mass increase via the usual relativistic mechanism,
just as particles in an accellerator do.
Adding energy to the brick will increase its mass.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9909014
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ireckon" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
08 May 2007 12:20:37 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178640778.602743.272470@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 8, 9:28 am, "Ireckon" <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178627520.908244.97040@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 7, 7:57 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 07 May 2007 21:59:18 GMT, wrote:
In article <1178556092.016538.10...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back
it
up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of
water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed
to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the
1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the
details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of
experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John
Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations
from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common -- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes
have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
Static friction will provide a simple example of the same.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
m...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the
same"
We know mass M = nm,
The above is wrong.
I'll give you two counter-examples:
1. In a nucleus with Z protons and N neutrons, M =/= Z*m_p + N*m_n
2. A pi-zero with mass 135 MeV decays into two photons. The two photon
system still has mass 135 MeV, even though the individual photons have
zero mass. Clearly 135 MeV =/= 0 MeV + 0 MeV.
That is mildly interesting, but off topic. You're talking of binding
energy
(without saying so) and the
brick has no binding energy nor is there at hand any event in which the
binding energy could make itself felt.
All of the brick's original mass is still there after it's warmed up and
neither more nor fewer molecules. From thermodynamics we know all the
energy
went to increase the amplitude chaotic vibration and not any to its
kinetic
energy. It is just a "stretch" to calculate a mass increase that resulted
from the application of heat. We even know that in an atomic event, the
event energy is only that of binding energy and E =/= mc^2.
John Polasek
The comment was directed toward the statement that the mass of the
brick could be computed as the sum of the mass of the components M=nm.
This is a misstatement.
PD
I'll amend that to state that neither mass nor energy can be measured at
all. What value we assign is the result of arithmetic involving other
observables or comparisons with standards. I was merely trying to be precise
to indicate that a hot brick is neither more nor less than a cold brick, as
far as its gravitational properties are concerned.
The blind application of the slogan E = mc2 betrays blind acceptance.
It has its parallel in time dilation which provides a handy coefficient that
is routinely applied as needed, quite often to the reduction in frequency of
light climbing out of the well. But the clock itself in the well is brought
slow, and the addition of the 'climb' factor would give double redshift.
John Polasek
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
07 May 2007 01:42:26 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 12:41 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common ...
Euch. That's what I get for multitasking.
"Deviation at the high end of the scale" is what I meant to say.
-- at least in physics -- but
examples can be gvien on passage to zero: more common in biology or
chemistry than physics, perhaps. Examples would include the
biological effects of radiation or toxins, IIRC, which sometimes have
a threshold dose below which no damage is thought to be done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
07 May 2007 05:11:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1178563346.126442.58860@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> writes:
On May 7, 12:41 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> wrote:
On May 6, 2:11 pm, wrote:
In article <1178470726.757892.69...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Edward Green <spamspamsp...@netzero.com> writes:
On May 6, 12:09 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
We scientists don't use the word 'obviously' unless we can back it up.
If you are thinking that the heat of fusion endows the cc of water
with more mass, think how much nicer if that factoid could be
established. A stunningly simple experiment suggests itself.
A balance scale with ice on both sides, with one side allowed to
melt. Upon melting, the balance should tip to the water side.
(Unfortunately, 4 calories gives only 1.86x10^-13 gms. Even the 1.75L
party size wouldn't help all that much). I haven't got all the details
worked out.
It is true that theories extrapolated beyond the range of experimental
verification routinely fail.
But the above is ***not*** a case of failure.
I never meant to imply it was.
I was merely commenting on the subjective likelihood of John Polasek's
apparent fear, hope or expectation that if we _could_ carry out
measurements of the required precision, we would find deviations from
SR. As I said, deviation from theory adequate in a given range is
more common range seem more common ...
Euch. That's what I get for multitasking.
"Deviation at the high end of the scale" is what I meant to say.
Well, that's how I read it, so no problem:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 02:45:16 PM |
|
|
On May 4, 2:51 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Tilt. I think you mean that if you have a gram of ice and heat
it till it melts that it masses more. A gram of water at 0 C
masses 1 gram, just as a gram of ice at 0 C masses 1 gram.
"Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Neill" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 03:12:46 PM |
|
|
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178307915.977016.303330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 2:51 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Tilt. I think you mean that if you have a gram of ice and heat
it till it melts that it masses more. A gram of water at 0 C
masses 1 gram, just as a gram of ice at 0 C masses 1 gram.
"Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"
Socks
The Latent Heat of Fusion represents the energy that
must be put into a solid at a given temperature in
order to turn it into a liquid at that same temperature.
That energy has a mass equivalent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
06 May 2007 08:58:43 AM |
|
|
On May 4, 4:12 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@OVEsympatico.ca> wrote:
"Puppet_Sock" <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178307915.977016.303330@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 4, 2:51 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
[snip]
1 kilotonne nuclear masses 46.56 mg. One gram of ice at 0 C obviously
masses less than one gram of water at 0 C.
Tilt. I think you mean that if you have a gram of ice and heat
it till it melts that it masses more. A gram of water at 0 C
masses 1 gram, just as a gram of ice at 0 C masses 1 gram.
"Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"
Socks
The Latent Heat of Fusion represents the energy that
must be put into a solid at a given temperature in
order to turn it into a liquid at that same temperature.
That energy has a mass equivalent.
I think Sock realized that. He was just pointing out that, as
phrased, the claim is anti-tautological. It would have been better
phrased that "an Avogadro's number of water molecules condensed as
liquid at 0 C has greater mass than an Avogadro's number of water
molecules condensed as solid at 0 C.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a hot brick more massive? |
04 May 2007 01:21:42 PM |
|
|
In article <1178301553.792197.309460@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Dwib <dwibdwib@gmail.com> writes:
If you heat a brick you increase it's "energy". Since that energy is
'standing still" does that mean the bricks mass will increase by E/
c^2?
Yes.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
