|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | == Introduction == | + | == History of quantum mechanics == |
| − | It is actually wrong for me to post a post in this wiki with the heading Conversion of mass into energy, because it does not exist. Rather, this area is about the refutation of the same.
| + | Max Planck taught the [[quantification]] of the world from black body radiation. This means that physical quantities do not appear as a continuous spectrum, i.e. one in which all real numbers are represented, but as multiples of a basic unit, i.e. only as natural numbers, so to speak. So far, so good, in classical quantum mechanics. Then came further progress. However, there are many misinterpretations of further progress here. Einstein summarized this in his quote: God does not roll the dice. For experimental physics in large particle accelerators with insanely high energies and tiny distances, probability theory may serve well, but is it the crux of the matter? |
| | | | |
| − | == History and nuclear fission == | + | == Uncertainty principle == |
| − | In both nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, however, such a transformation is assumed, known as the mass defect. But this cannot apply from the absolute mode of validity of E = m * c², underpinned by the [[equivalence of space and time]]. Correspondingly, the [[Conservation of Mass]] applies and therefore mass cannot simply be lost. The theory of the mass defect arises from a wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². This is interpreted in such a way that if I have a mass 1 and a reaction, then this mass 1 is converted into an energy 1. Mathematically completely wrong basic tool. | + | I particularly attack the misinterpretation of the uncertainty principle. In essence, as presented by Heisenberg, it is good, as it says that delta (p) * delta (s)> = h. h is Plack's quantum of action. The interpretation, however, that it follows that if I bombard a particle with a photon to determine the momentum, I directly change its position and then no longer know the position, is unacceptable. |
| | | | |
| − | == Refutation == | + | == Thought experiment == |
| − | Mathematically, if mass were to be converted into energy, the equation E + m = const. rather correctly, of course in a closed system. This of course also applies, since energy and mass are retained according to the [[energy conservation law]] and according to the [[mass conservation law]], consequently E + m = const applies in the closed system. + const. = const. So far so good, but it is not the case that one can conclude from this, as in some cases in the English Wikipedia, that mass can be converted into energy and possibly vice versa. Let's look carefully at the equation. Here again, complete induction helps:
| + | We envision a large, one-dimensional tunnel with only one photon, say, in the middle. Now I want to bombard this photon with another to determine the momentum. I choose photons because for me they correspond to energy quanta, and in my sense the smallest energy quantum there is. Let's say the photon shoots into the tunnel, is reflected by the other photon, changes the position of the shot photon and comes back into my measuring device. Now, abstractly, I know the momentum of the photon that I observed. But I also know the exact location because I shot it with an elemental impulse and so it could only change its position by +1 in the tunnel. So I only have to count up +1 on my measurement result from the location in order to make a sharp and exact statement here as well. |
| | | | |
| − | == Complete induction and proof by contradiction == | + | == Latest developments == |
| − | If we consider the case that the energy = 1 and the mass = 1, this is the only way E = m * c² is fulfilled, of course c is again equated with 1 according to the unit system. Now, our first induction step, the mass is reduced by 1 and converted into an energy that is then 2. Let us enter this into the equation E = m * c². And see that should apply:
| + | Meanwhile, even the prevailing opinion according to more recent developments assumes that the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]] does not apply and must be changed. I would have to read up on the mathematics behind it for my readers, but the statement is clear that it no longer applies in its form. I also assume that Planck's quantum of action h is too large and so only applies in the atomic range. This results from the fact that the Planck mass as [[elemental mass]] would be too large, because then according to the [[Weltformel]] there would be too much mass at every location in space-time. It is nice that contemporary physics finally recognizes this and also sees that quantum cryptography was first removed from underfoot. |
| | | | |
| − | 2 = 0 * 1 = 0
| + | And one more on top, which also confirms my thought experiment and Planck's doubts about the uncertainty relation: Forschungszentrum Jülich has published a paper in which they calculate the complete orbitals of electrons using photon emission. And that without blurring, because they use mathematical methods to calculate the blurring out [https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/12/1315716110 Paper on calculating quantum mechanical blurring]. |
| − | | |
| − | But 0 is not 2, so there is a contradiction here and accordingly our first induction step fails.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Conclusion ==
| |
| − | As a result of the method of proof by contradiction, the following applies: consequently mass cannot be converted into energy and also not vice versa. Rather, they are two images of a fact. The theory of the mass defect is completely wrong.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Proof of the thesis through a thought experiment ==
| |
| − | One can also prove by a thought experiment that the conversion of mass into energy is wrong. As I said, physical equations are not structured in the same way as chemical reaction equations. Imagine a universe in which the current would be constant. Such a universe is conceivable and thus it is sufficient for a thought experiment. In this universe our U = R * I, i.e. Ohm's law, would be a law of the form U = c1 * R. Would that mean that voltage is converted into resistance and vice versa? No! At resistor 10, we would have the voltage 10 if we set c1 according to the unit system 1. It would be clear to everyone that the voltage would not be 10 for the resistor 0 and the voltage would not be 0 for the resistor 10 either. Resistance generates voltage and resistance times current intensity is voltage. A conversion does not take place here either. This applies to all physical equations. Accordingly, mass and energy are the same, separate from the constant c, but not identical.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == More detailed analysis ==
| |
| − | It is or was once rumored in the Wikipedias of this world that there is no [[mass conservation law]], but only a combined energy and mass conservation law. Even gifted students are taught something like this at the university. Here one assumes the equation E + mc² = const. As I said, this is not wrong, but with the [[Conservation of Energy]] it is very easy to set mc² = const. reducible and then to m = const., the [[mass conservation law]]. All other interpretations would mean a violation of the [[law of conservation of energy]] and are therefore wrong. The [[equivalence of mass and energy]] according to Einstein would also mean that the equation [[E = mc²]] does not apply, but in strict mathematical and dogmatic terms E = const. - mc². Ultimately, the [[equivalence of mass and energy]] or the conversion of mass into energy would mean that the sum of the energy and the mass term is the same. That would be E + mc² = const. and not just in a closed system. And that because transformation would mean when mass decreases, energy arises and vice versa. As I said, converted that would be an equation like E = x (0) - mc² above. Such a formula or its validity would be completely unknown to me. Mass and energy are not equivalent, they are the same. Einstein's statement regarding equivalence is to be understood from a purely technical point of view that one can convert an unusable mass or mass energy into usable energy by generating light or heat, for example in atomic fusion. Strictly theoretically dogmatic, however, there is no equivalence, but an absolute equality. Since mass and energy have different units, there is no identity.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Sketches ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | <htmltag tagname = "script" src = "https://www.till-meyenburg.de/lib/js/graph.js"> </htmltag>
| |
| − | <htmltag tagname = "script">
| |
| − | window.onload = function () {var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: 0, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 100 - 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context. font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 175); context.fillText ("mass", 650, 60); context.beginPath (); context.lineWidth = 7; context.moveTo (0,0); context.lineTo (700, 400); context.moveTo (700, 0); context.lineTo (0, 400); context.stroke (); var canvas = document.getElementById ("myCanvas2"); var myGraph = new Graph ({canvas: canvas, minX: -10, minY: -120, maxX: 10, maxY: 120}); var context = canvas.getContext ("2d"); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return x;}, "blue", 3); myGraph.drawEquation (function (x) {return 10 * x;}, "red", 3); context.font = "10pt TimesNewRoman"; context.fillText ("Energy", 650, 60); context.fillText ("Mass", 650, 130);}; </htmltag>
| |
| − | <div>
| |
| − | <htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas" width = "700" height = "400">
| |
| − | </htmltag>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | Sketch1 <br />
| |
| − | <br /> <br />
| |
| − | <div>
| |
| − | <htmltag tagname = "canvas" id = "myCanvas2" width = "700" height = "300">
| |
| − | </htmltag>
| |
| − | </div>
| |
| − | Sketch 2 <br />
| |
| − | | |
| − | Sketch 1 shows the wrong interpretation of the equation E = m * c². If mass could be converted into energy or vice versa, if E = m * c² were like a chemical reaction equation, then with increasing energy the mass would decrease, or with increasing mass the energy would decrease. The graph would then look like an X in the positive. But this is wrong. Sketch 2 shows the correct course: the more mass an object has, the more energy it also has, and the more energy it has, the more mass it has. So E = m * c² is to be understood alone.
| |
History of quantum mechanics
Max Planck taught the quantification of the world from black body radiation. This means that physical quantities do not appear as a continuous spectrum, i.e. one in which all real numbers are represented, but as multiples of a basic unit, i.e. only as natural numbers, so to speak. So far, so good, in classical quantum mechanics. Then came further progress. However, there are many misinterpretations of further progress here. Einstein summarized this in his quote: God does not roll the dice. For experimental physics in large particle accelerators with insanely high energies and tiny distances, probability theory may serve well, but is it the crux of the matter?
Uncertainty principle
I particularly attack the misinterpretation of the uncertainty principle. In essence, as presented by Heisenberg, it is good, as it says that delta (p) * delta (s)> = h. h is Plack's quantum of action. The interpretation, however, that it follows that if I bombard a particle with a photon to determine the momentum, I directly change its position and then no longer know the position, is unacceptable.
Thought experiment
We envision a large, one-dimensional tunnel with only one photon, say, in the middle. Now I want to bombard this photon with another to determine the momentum. I choose photons because for me they correspond to energy quanta, and in my sense the smallest energy quantum there is. Let's say the photon shoots into the tunnel, is reflected by the other photon, changes the position of the shot photon and comes back into my measuring device. Now, abstractly, I know the momentum of the photon that I observed. But I also know the exact location because I shot it with an elemental impulse and so it could only change its position by +1 in the tunnel. So I only have to count up +1 on my measurement result from the location in order to make a sharp and exact statement here as well.
Latest developments
Meanwhile, even the prevailing opinion according to more recent developments assumes that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply and must be changed. I would have to read up on the mathematics behind it for my readers, but the statement is clear that it no longer applies in its form. I also assume that Planck's quantum of action h is too large and so only applies in the atomic range. This results from the fact that the Planck mass as elemental mass would be too large, because then according to the Weltformel there would be too much mass at every location in space-time. It is nice that contemporary physics finally recognizes this and also sees that quantum cryptography was first removed from underfoot.
And one more on top, which also confirms my thought experiment and Planck's doubts about the uncertainty relation: Forschungszentrum Jülich has published a paper in which they calculate the complete orbitals of electrons using photon emission. And that without blurring, because they use mathematical methods to calculate the blurring out Paper on calculating quantum mechanical blurring.
