It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does gravity effect pure energy?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Umm. No. It emits gamma rays because the photons go flying off in every which direction, but the mass of those two particles is completely nullified. If you look at the total energy nullified during the event versus the energy emitted, there is a net energy loss in the universe, not a gain. It produces nothing. We might find it useful to utilize the photons emitted for our purposes, but we are literally erasing our universe one particle of matter at a time to gain access to a highly volatile form of ionizing radiation. We would be better off with nuclear fission which conserves the total matter/energy in the cosmos.




posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Umm. No. It emits gamma rays because the photons go flying off in every which direction, but the mass of those two particles is completely nullified. If you look at the total energy nullified during the event versus the energy emitted, there is a net energy loss in the universe, not a gain. It produces nothing. We might find it useful to utilize the photons emitted for our purposes, but we are literally erasing our universe one particle of matter at a time to gain access to a highly volatile form of ionizing radiation. We would be better off with nuclear fission which conserves the total matter/energy in the cosmos.


Are you sure about that?

UCSB scienceline


I am confused about antimatter. We have learned that matter takes up space and has a mass. If each matter has an antimatter how can things exist?

Answer 1:
For each matter particle, it is predicted that there should be an antimatter particle of the same mass, opposite charge, and opposite other properties.These particles can be created artificially, but they have to be isolated from matter in a strong magnetic field. You are quite right - matter and antimatter cannot exist together in the same place, because they mutually annihilate and create radiation of equal energy to their masses. This was predicted by Einstein in his famous equation,E = Mc^2.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Drunkenparrot

Modern science has it wrong. E=mc^2 does not describe the total energy that a particle possesses. It only describes the energy potential of the particle based upon relativistic forces. Meaning that a particle traveling at the speed of light has x amount more energy and mass than a "stationary" particle would.

It takes 1MeV to convert one electron into a positron. In doing so, they are converting one aspect of that particle into its opposite charge, not its whole mass. When those two charges meet, they nullify each other, totally erasing 2MeV worth of energy from the cosmos.

The total mass of the particle is not converted into energy. The total mass of the particle is lost completely. The resultant energy is merely the secondary particles and photons rushing away from the annihilation event. This might equal E=mc^2, but I don't know if anyone has demonstrated and accurately measured that to be sure, but it does not equal the full energy that particle comprised. It should equal the particle's full energy minus 2MeV worth of energy. Which is 2 million electrons worth of energy crossing a 1volt field. It is a ridiculous amount of energy loss for the energy we gain.

This is why we don't utilize anti-matter today. The cost to convert electrons is too high compared to the energy we gain, and there is no naturally occurring source of antimatter that we know of. From the models I've read, it is most likely that when anti-matter was created it either collapsed into a black hole en masse and remains at the true center of this universe, it went into a parallel dimension of some kind, or it was unstable and could not remain in an atomic arrangement and thus floats around in empty space somewhere. Maybe that is dark matter. I don't know for sure.

If you think of matter and antimatter as opposite crests on a sine wave, their net energy is zero. The resultant energy is not a conversion of matter to energy, merely the release of energy that was housed in all of the other particles and forces remaining where the atom or particle used to reside.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash



Which is 2 million electrons worth of energy crossing a 1volt field. It is a ridiculous amount of energy loss for the energy we gain.

Tell the nuclear bomb fan club that. The emotional energy they gain by blowing (stuff) up is what drives their equations.

The "energy loss" makes good weapons.
edit on 6-9-2014 by intrptr because: change in Parenthesis



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Well, modern science wants us to believe that 1 - 1 = 2, which is fallacious at best. Nuclear bombs rely on either fission or fusion, which does not annihilate anything. It does have a very infinitesimally small loss of mass, but the total number of electrons and protons is conserved, so this must come from some subatomic particle or field being broken. If you look at the mass loss in an fusion event versus the heat emitted and radiation emitted in alpha and beta particles, you should be able to tease out the real amount of energy that a particle of matter possesses.

I would say the true equations would be that an electron has 1 MeV worth of energy + 1/2 of whatever energy is emitted when it is annihilated by a positron. It should be a staggering amount of energy and we are just scratching the surface here.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Nechash

I meant more along the lines of all the lost energy put into the fuel cycle and the development, construction and employment of the weapons. There only purpose is to utterly destroy their target. All that lost time and energy put into building cities and the life therein.

What a loss.

Sorry about the twist, I was playling off the overall energy in and out. I am really enjoying your input.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Blowing up uranium is about as senseless as burning petroleum. Anytime you give humankind an abundant resource they seem to prefer the least effective method of utilizing it.



posted on Sep, 6 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
Matter and Energy are supposed to be interchangeable. I was just wondering if when matter that has gravity is converted to energy does that energy still have gravity and is it still effected by other matter.

By pure I mean all the matter is now energy.


Energy isn't something, it is a property of something. Particles are transformed into other things according to the laws and transitions which are allowed in Standard Model of quantum field theory.

If you ask a more specific question, which is, "if I have matter and antimatter which are X grams at rest mass and they come into contact and there are particle reactions which result in electromagnetic photons (which have zero rest mass, and non-zero momentum & energy), from a distant outside observer, will I still feel gravitation even though there is no rest mass?"

Answer: yes.

The 'source term' for gravitation (the causing stuff) is called the "stress-energy tensor", and in that (classically) you add up mass & pressure/kinetic energy and electromagnetic fields, and all of that makes gravity in a way given by the Einstein equations.

So the reactions of annihilation move the source term from the mass-dependent piece to the electromagnetic field dependent piece, but there is still gravitation being caused.

To some degree, the 'mass' of composite particles like protons and neutrons come from energy in the nuclear color fields (which have zero mass bosons theoretically)
edit on 6-9-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)







 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join