In fact, things get really dicey when we look at the De Broglie waves. We know E = mc^2 = hf; where E is energy, m is mass, c is light speed, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency. So, for mass m there is an inherent frequency f = mc^2/h and we also know that fL = c; where L is the wavelength associated with the frequency f.
Thus, c/L = mc^2/h and L = ch/mc^2 = h/mc, which says all mass m has a wavelength L that is inversely proportional to the mass. If you do the math for tangible, visible mass, like you or your desk, you'll find that L <<<<<<< 1, a very very short wavelength, which is why the De Broglie wavelengths have never been detected.
In other words, mass m and energy, the wavelength L at frequency f, are one and the same. This is why we talk of mass-energy rather than of mass or of energy seperately.
So, mass does not create energy, it is energy. And energy does not create mass, it is mass. What really happens is that neither is "created" from one to the other, but they are converted from one to the other....in other words, the conservation of energy is alive and well in the cosmos. Go figure.
Lastly, the dimensions of energy are varied, depending on the measuring systems used. Electron volts eV are one measure, but I find these to be arcane and easily forgotten. I like to remember that energy and work are the same thing...they are both energy. So work WE = Fd; where F = ma and d is the distance m is moved by the force F. m is in kg, a in m/sec^2, and d is in meters. From this we see that energy units are kg-(m/sec)^2 in standard kg-m-sec SI units. And there you have it...the units of energy.
2007-12-04 08:21:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by oldprof 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Right. First you need less caffeine loaded matter. Might make sorting it out easier.
Neither energy nor matter create each other. They can simply be converted into each other, just like one form of energy can be converted into another form of energy and one form of matter can be converted into another form of matter. There is no creation involved in that anywhere. Its all a zero sum game.
The universe is mostly energy, if we trust the best current model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Please bare in mind that the entry on the Wikipedia page hits the nail on its head when it says:
"These are the simplest assumptions for a consistent, physical model of cosmology. However, ÎCDM is a model. Cosmologists anticipate that all of these assumptions will not be borne out exactly, after more is learned about the applicable fundamental physics. In particular, cosmic inflation predicts spatial curvature at the level of 10â4 to 10â5. It would also be surprising if the temperature of dark matter were absolute zero. Moreover, ÎCDM says nothing about the fundamental physical origin of dark matter, dark energy and the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial curvature perturbations: in that sense, it is merely a useful parameterization of ignorance."
Couldn't have said it any better, myself.
2007-12-04 07:45:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋