The first law of thermodynamics - conservation of energy

These shape-shifters like Strauss or Tyson or Dawkins whatever giving me lectures about theology and gods and all that business...

yeah sorry I didn't come to your lecture for that so like shut up and calculate.

I come for the science, not to be offended or not offended by personal political and theological opinions.

a reply to: iamthevirus

Sometimes those crackpots get it right, though. Einstein's Relativity was originally rejected by the scientific community. They called him a crackpot. Until his theories were proven, that is... mainly after his death.

Every scientist is called a "crackpot" at some time in their life. It's irrelevant; if their theories are sound, they will be proven sound. If their theories are unsound, they will be proven unsound.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: iamthevirus

Sometimes those crackpots get it right, though. Einstein's Relativity was originally rejected by the scientific community. They called him a crackpot. Until his theories were proven, that is... mainly after his death.

Every scientist is called a "crackpot" at some time in their life. It's irrelevant; if their theories are sound, they will be proven sound. If their theories are unsound, they will be proven unsound.

TheRedneck

I can agree with you there... but I was referring more so to a specific kind of crackpottery lol.

Einstein was shunned at first yes and he did not partake in the type of crackpottery which gets under the skin like a disease, they simply didn't want a working man (laborer) in their exclusive club.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Going over Don Lincoln's videos on gamma. I see where it makes sense, although the statement that the particle "gains energy" is still somewhat confusing. Doesn't the total energy on the left have to equal whatever is on the other side of the equation regardless whether you include gamma or not? If you reduce "m" to zero, you're at infinity.

I presume you're talking about the equation E=γmc² that Don Lincoln displays at time 1:29? If you reduce m to zero, E goes to zero, I don't know how you get infinity.

In the simplest case with the object at rest, γ=1 so reducing the mass to zero reduces the energy to zero, no need to get confused by gamma in that case. When the object is not at rest, γ>1 so if you reduce m to zero you just multiply some number greater than 1 by zero and you still get 0 on the left.

Remember this gamma equation is a limited case which does not allow one to calculate the energy of massless particles like photons. That's why I didn't even bother mentioning it in my thread.

The more comprehensive equation Lincoln also discusses and which I mention in my thread, does allow for calculating the energy of massless photons.

Interesting fact; gamma for protons at the LHC was about 7460 when they published this document, though it might be a little bit higher now:

LHC Frequently Asked Questions

7 TeV/c² divided by the rest mass .938272029 GeV/c² gives us 7460.52 times the rest mass

I guess it's not a physical problem so don't worry about it? Still reading, but very enlightening.

I'm not following your argument. I don't see any problem, except for the fact it's a limited equation which doesn't allow for calculating the energy of photons, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint, or is it? If so, just use the other equation he mentions, which also works for photons.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I meant to say gamma goes to infinity.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I went over his other videos on the derivation of gamma. I understand the reason for the two equations - one for massless photons at rest and one that includes momentum. So the idea is that the particle gains energy - or said another way, energy is created by momentum. Is that correct? How do you calculate the total energy of the system at any one point in time?
According to these two equations, the total energy of the system will change over time as velocity increases.
Maybe I have it wrong again, but I'm still asking about the total energy of the system at any point in time.

I'm reading through your other thread. Everything makes sense except for your comment on c squared - which I'll leave for another conversation so as not to divert from this one.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I thought gravitation and inertia were essentially the same thing - i.e. everything falls at the same rate regardless of mass.
Would be interested to read a summary of your ideas about that.
Good luck publishing. It's a big job.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I went over his other videos on the derivation of gamma. I understand the reason for the two equations - one for massless photons at rest and one that includes momentum. So the idea is that the particle gains energy - or said another way, energy is created by momentum. Is that correct?

Yes.

How do you calculate the total energy of the system at any one point in time?

Use the equation in my thread, re-posted here:


For example, the equation in words roughly says the total energy is (energy from (rest) mass) plus (energy from momentum)
so at the LHC, the energy from momentum is 7460 times greater than the energy from rest mass of the proton, so the total energy of the proton is the sum of those two, or 7461 times the energy in the rest mass of the proton.

According to these two equations, the total energy of the system will change over time as velocity increases.
Maybe I have it wrong again, but I'm still asking about the total energy of the system at any point in time.

That's correct. The 7460 times the rest mass was the final energy from momentum of the LHC protons, but they had to be accelerated to that energy, so at earlier points in time while they were still accelerating, the energy would have been somewhat lower.

I have what thought myself is an interesting question.

You would need some knowledge to answer this.

When you're making bread and you put yiest in the dough, the dough rises, when you don't use yiest the dough doesn't rise.
A small amount of yiest makes you end up with a larger volume of dough.

Does anything have anything to say about how the first law of thermodynamics is applied here?

For a small amount of yiest you get a volume larger than the amount of volume of yiest you put in.

I know, this is particular example.

originally posted by: Untun
I have what thought myself is an interesting question.

You would need some knowledge to answer this.

When you're making bread and you put yiest in the dough, the dough rises, when you don't use yiest the dough doesn't rise.
A small amount of yiest makes you end up with a larger volume of dough.

Does anything have anything to say about how the first law of thermodynamics is applied here?

For a small amount of yiest you get a volume larger than the amount of volume of yiest you put in.

I know, this is particular example.

The fermentation process of yeast gives off CO2 (carbon dioxide). The gas expands the dough, but the amount of dough remains the same.

When yeast digests sugar under anaerobic conditions, ethanol (ethyl alcohol) and carbon dioxide are released as shown by the following equation:

C6H12O6 → 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 CO2 + 2 ATP

So that's why dough rises. No energy gained or lost. Just transferred in another form.


P.S. The ATP in the equation is adenosine triphosphate - an energy producing molecule. For every molecule of glucose (a sugar), 2 ATP are produced in the anaerobic fermentation process. By contrast, aerobic respiration (when you breath oxygen in) 38 ATP are given off per molecule of sugar. You can look up glycolysis and the Krebs cycle for further details.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks, that was cool.

originally posted by: Untun
I have what thought myself is an interesting question.

You would need some knowledge to answer this.

When you're making bread and you put yiest in the dough, the dough rises, when you don't use yiest the dough doesn't rise.
A small amount of yiest makes you end up with a larger volume of dough.

Does anything have anything to say about how the first law of thermodynamics is applied here?

For a small amount of yiest you get a volume larger than the amount of volume of yiest you put in.

I know, this is particular example.

The dough rises (increases in volume) because the yeast you added is alive, has fed upon the carbohydrates in the dough, used that energy it acquired from its feeding to reproduce more yeast, and has, as a result of its feeding and reproducing, converted some of its food into waste into the form of CO2, which has caused the dough to stretch, increasing the apparent volume of dough.


ETA: Looks like I type too slow

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: iamthevirus

Sometimes those crackpots get it right, though. Einstein's Relativity was originally rejected by the scientific community. They called him a crackpot. Until his theories were proven, that is... mainly after his death.

That's false. Einstein was never ever considered a crackpot by other actual scientists, he was recognized to be a deep and important scientist from the start. He wrote 4 tremendously groundbreaking papers in 1905 as he was just completing his PhD. He was well recognized as a leader in many critical scientific conferences.

SR was recognized well enough such quantum field theory was developed starting with Dirac in full relativistic form, during Einstein's lifetime.

He won a Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect (inventing the photon really) because it was experimentally proven first. Special relativity was also convincingly demonstrated in his lifetime. General relativity was partly verified in his lifetime but not in full. If he had stayed alive, then he would have received Nobels for GR in one of central galaxy black holes, gravitational decay of fast pulsars, and most spectacularly gravitational waves in LIGO, the last 3 discoveries each earning a Nobel prize.

At that time, astronomy was not eligible for a Nobel prize, a rule which very fortunately has changed as most of the recent important Nobels in physics have been about astrophysics.

If that rule had not been in place, Einstein probably would have won another Nobel Prize along with Edwin Hubble for the explaining the redshift & expansion of the Universe, a concept utterly inexplicable in physics without General Relativity.

If he had lived a few years longer, he could also have won another Nobel for the laser, as he originally invented the concept of stimulated emission of photons and derived the first statistical theory of the laser. BTW, this phenomenon (stimulated emission) was one that Bohr didn't think could occur.

Every scientist is called a "crackpot" at some time in their life It's irrelevant; if their theories are sound, they will be proven sound. If their theories are unsound, they will be proven unsound.

TheRedneck

They're not called a crackpot by people who matter. But crackpots are called such by the overwhelming majority of actual scientists who can tell the difference. There is a tremendous difference between a heterodox scientist (one many people might disagree with and think is probably wrong) and a crackpot (doesn't even remotely understand the foundations of the field).

originally posted by: Untun


For a small amount of yiest you get a volume larger than the amount of volume of yiest you put in.

Yeast eats carbohydrates, breathes air, and exhales out CO2 gas, like we do. The bread is bigger because there's more gas in it and there are holes. Haven't you seen bread? It has small litle holes in a network.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So the idea is that the particle gains energy - or said another way, energy is created by momentum. Is that correct? /pic]

Energy is a property of a system, as is momentum. A particle or something may gain energy & momentum by some kind of physical interaction with other particles or fields.

originally posted by: Phantom423
But at the end of the day, isn't that the same thing as equivalence?

No. It means that the physical interactions which accelerate particles change both their momentum and energy simultaneously in a specific way, and there is a relationship between translational kinetic energy and translational momentum.

But total energy can be different, because there can be internal energies also in systems which aren't point particles, e.g. internal energy states of atoms or composite particles in excited states also increase energy but don't necessarily increase momentum, because it's a different kind of interaction but one whose energy can also be quantified.

Remember that energy is a computation you do on the state of the system (which ultimately is all the state of all the fields in the Standard Model).

a reply to: mbkennel

That's false. Einstein was never ever considered a crackpot by other actual scientists, he was recognized to be a deep and important scientist from the start.

O....K....

Not gonna argue history with you on that level. Believe what you want.

TheRedneck

a reply to: mbkennel
a reply to: TheRedneck

I almost wrote a reply to TheRedneck's "Einstein's Relativity was originally rejected by the scientific community. They called him a crackpot. Until his theories were proven, that is... mainly after his death. " post, but I chose not to do so until now since it has generated more discussion.

There were scientists who thought Einstein was wrong, so I didn't have a dispute with saying for example relativity was rejected by some scientists from 1916 to 1919 or so, but I think saying scientists thought Einstein was wrong is a lot different than saying they thought he was a crackpot, which as mbkennel suggests is usually a term referring so someone who doesn't understand the fundamentals in the field, and instead of saying they are wrong, it is sometimes said crackpots are "not even wrong". That "not even wrong" charge is leveled against proponents of the "electric universe" like Walt Thornhill who lacks any model that can make quantitative predictions.

But Einstein's model DID make quantitative predictions, which could be proven right or wrong or at least tested, and in 1919 the first test of general relativity was made with eclipse measurements, found to be consistent with general relativity. The accounts of history I've read said that within a few years after that, European scientists who initially doubted general relativity started to come around. American scientists might have taken longer but we didn't have a global internet back then so things moved more slowly.

If scientists back in 1916 were really calling Einstein "crackpot" I'd be intersted to see such specific references, but I'm sure you can find a multitude of scientists saying they thought Einstein was wrong; that's not the same thing. Some probably expected that the 1919 eclipse measurements would fail to confirm Einstein's model published around 1915, but good scientists after challenging experimental and observational data to make sure it's correct usually try to adjust their thinking in light of the new evidence.

Additional eclipse measurements after the original 1919 measurements contuinued to provide support for Einstein's theory of general relativity, as this newspaper article from 1923 shows (crackpots don't usually get newspaper articles like this published about their theories being proven).

Sun Eclipse Pictures Prove Einstein Theory (Special to the New York Times)

So you can see Einstein wasn't being called a crackpot in that 1923 newspaper article referencing the New York Times, quite the contrary, and that was about 32 years before his death in 1955.

This is an example of why I think by 1923, a lot of people who initially doubted Einstein's dramatically different and in some ways, strange theory of general relativity published in 1915, started to find it more convincing, based on experimental evidence. Of course not everybody was convinced by 1923, and even today we have some people who doubt Einsteins' work, but they are marginalized if they think observations are not consistent with Einstein's theory.

There certainly were many more tests of relativity after Einstein's death due to advances in technology and increased interest, but that doesn't mean the tests conducted before his death put him in the "crackpot" category.

So how do we tell a crackpot from a fringe theorist? Sometimes it's not easy, but John Baez took a crack at making a "crackpot index" which might be an indicator someone is a crackpot if they score too many crackpot points.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It's not the light that bends, light only knows straight lines... it space that bends

Einstein was a Jew who experienced two worlds wars, you have to let that sink in a bit and factor in the politics of the time. Many of Einsteins closest colleagues sided with the nazis, he was forced from his position in Germany just as many scientists at the time.

Einstein was also in the working-class as if dealing with all the political fallout wasn't difficult enough. There was also just as in politics today a left/right paradigm to how many scientists pursued science.

There are plenty of documentaries and books on the subject and in fact the very first book I bought on Einstein years ago I though I was going to learn about relativity and that jazz but the book ended up being more about the complexities f his life and placed in the context of history at that time... which is really important, one has to know a little about history.

I'm glad I ended up with that book when at first after I began reading I was like "where's the science" lol but it started me off on the right foot.

Here is a few documentaries which attempt to touch in on the climate of the time, some even feature many of Einsteins peers (very famous scientists) donning their Nazi uniform, science historians kind of leave that tidbit out.


www.documentarymania.com...:+Albert+Einstein

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I see the confusion; I should have been clearer in my statement. When I said some considered Einstein a "crackpot," I was referring to the years when he was still working as a patent office clerk, but also dared to try and publish some of his early works. At that point in time, yes, he was considered by many to be "just a patent clerk" and not capable of understanding the physics he wrote about. That seems to be a human behavior characteristic, as it still exhibits itself today.

Relativity, both General and Special, came to light after that initial period. Einstein was no longer considered a crackpot, but he was definitely challenged. Today, of course, we know (or at least we should know) that Einstein's Relativity theories are correct (although I do consider Special Relativity may be incomplete; and no, that is not something I can elaborate on at this time as I am still sorting through the mathematics).

So how do we tell a crackpot from a fringe theorist?

By their hypotheses. It is a hard metric to gauge at times, but I am of the belief that all hypotheses should be examined regardless of who proposes them. Most will likely be lacking in basic understanding of the science, but a few will also likely be shown as true to some degree. Otherwise, we run the danger of cults of personality becoming the major force in science rather than actual examination and discovery.

TheRedneck