[David Maes]

Hi Dipanyankar,

sorry about not answering your question; but as my costum title shows, i'm seeking for an answer myself this moment. i'm also busy very hard with mathematics (cause it has almost been tree years ago, when i saw something like a differential.)

So i hope you understand i won't says things at this moment, because i want to go to the bottem of these matters (which i am very interested in myself).

In the mean time, all keep stating, asking, thinking,...

i want to level up my own posts as good as i can; but i have to take some time for it (sorry).

As you have seen also, i changed my flag at this moment, because i have no intention to disgrace my country (i know lots of people in my country would do a lot better than i do.)

i'm planning only to state things when they go really deeply.

See ye! i'll be back
Cool!

[dipayankar]

Hi David,

I understand your feelings. The fact that you are a part of this forum will be a proud moment for your country.

[David Maes]

All right, what i said is still true; but i will post my temporary opinions (from this moment) which can be wrong or right; so you can all state yours. i'll do it with respect.

Else i have to wait to long for stating something which doesn't really bring me closer also.

[dleviwing]

My views of nature as being about balance and equilibrium is somewhat contrary to popular views. Just like the concepts of positive and negative, balance and equilibrium are convenient analogies to explain certain interactions and processes. These are not natural tendencies of nature nor of the universe; They are only illusionary views, and often misleading as to what the actual processes of nature really are.

[dipayankar]

With the concept of cyclic Universe (cosmological constant) gaining ground, lets look at the fact that matter and void are in fact related to each other seems possible...

[dipayankar]

I read somewhere that matter like quarks and other particles can pop out of nothing in a void and then disappear. My contention is, in case we are able to capture one of those quarks, then would we not be violating the law of conservation of matter and energy???

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

I read somewhere that matter like quarks and other particles can pop out of nothing in a void and then disappear. My contention is, in case we are able to capture one of those quarks, then would we not be violating the law of conservation of matter and energy???

Actually dipayankar, it's the "Conservation of MASS and energy" and really should be interpreted as "the conservation of motion".

[David Maes]

1 eV = 1,602.10^-19 joule = 23,05 kcal/grammol

m = mo (1 - v²/c²)^-1/2

The change of mass can only be observed with speeds which are comparable with c.

The formula has been confirmed experimentally by measurements of electrons which were accelerated with big differences in potential.

Once kinetic energy of a partical increases, then so does its mass. The connection between the increase of kinetic energy and the increase of mass is given by deltaE= c².deltam.

Matter and energy are no different. They are two different names for the same thing; we can call it 'matter-energy'.

When we bring the 'mo' to zero, then we get particels without mass; their energy is proportional with their impuls (E=pc).

When using accelerators we experience the effects of superfast motion; nature then behaves differently.

c is always the same = 299 792 458 m/s

Another thing; when crossing two laser-beams, they don't change direction...

they should be if they would be moving particles... why don't they do that?

E = mc² = (mo²c^4 + p²c²)^1/2

[dipayankar]

Is it that you are interpretting mass and energy in terms of motion and not vice versa???

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Actually dipayankar, it's the "Conservation of MASS and energy" and really should be interpreted as "the conservation of motion".

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by David Maes

Matter and energy are no different. They are two different names for the same thing; we can call it 'matter-energy'.

Matter is NOT a property of matter. Mass and energy are measured properties (dimensions) of matter. Stating matter is the same as energy or the same as mass it absolutely WRONG.

Originally Posted by David Maes

c is always the same = 299 792 458 m/s

Only by definition of its defined method of measurement. (2 way in a vacuum) This allows Relativity to work but at the expense of giving the illusion that time is a variance vector related to dimensional space.

Originally Posted by David Maes

Another thing; when crossing two laser-beams, they don't change direction. they should be if they would be moving particles. why don't they do that?

Because they are EM radiation waves and not particles.

Originally Posted by David Maes

E = mc² = (mo²c^4 + p²c²)^1/2

You are attempting to compare apples and oranges here. This is only true when the rest mass is zero and thus the momentum (p) becomes zero. EM radiation does not have "Rest mass" and thus the equation is correct for EM radiation only. Einstein's equation, however, is valid for the conversion of "Rest mass" to radiant energy.

I should mention that you have distinguished company in the belief that matter and energy are the same thing; Dr.MichioKaku