Matter and Energy

[ovyyus]

It's neither an issue of believe either. It's just not practical

Why complicate the simple question of whether or not compressing a spring increases its mass? It either does or it does not. Hmm.

[ME]

eccentrically1,
ah I get it, somehow a misunderstanding slipped in I guess; I just agree.

I tried to break down the complexity and bring it back to classical mechanics as it's sufficient and complete enough for our own (practical) purposes, and perhaps only borrowing or emulating some principles found at deeper levels - then we should only glance over that exact quantum mechanism and avoid the more complex and bizarre stuff.
At least that's how I understood the intention of DannyBouy: just emulate a principle.

Why complicate the simple question of whether or not compressing a spring increases its mass? It either does or it does not. Hmm.

As the question is not simple, and the answer useless for the purpose of this forum.
We can't measure it, it's beyond any accuracy level we can achieve, and actually represent a loss in potential energy - even though there's some slight increase in mass on a quantum level.
So it's true and I never denied this, but on an academic level;
The classic-mechanical answer is much simpler, less complex, known... and practical.
Two ways to look at the same thing.

[ovyyus]

Such foolishness here.

Sorry, but energy is not mass. Energy does not have weight. A spring having pent up energy does not weigh more, not even an immeasurably small amount more.

ME, the above are 5 false statements. Why not simply correct them instead of proposing a practicality test in their defense?

[preoccupied]

haha ovyyus you just schooled Jim_Mich with the power of Einstein theory of relativity. Although even though Jim_Mich didn't acknowledge Relativity for that quote, I don't think it makes him any less likely to have discovered Bessler's wheel. I think Jim_Mich might have the working wheel in his design. And I'm not frustrated that he can't share it because it would disrupt intellectual property gains. Or just the opposite of that actually. Please tell me how Bessler Wheel works Jim_Mich. I'm begging! I'm begging here!!

[DannyBouy]

Thank you everyone for your input. It's very possible what I'm looking for is unnatural. Something we can't find in nature. I think that's true. If it were something that could have been copied from nature don't you think someone would have found it by now? I began this thread with this idea:

If it were possible to change a mass by compressing it or expanding it (as the universe is), would energy change?

My thinking was that if E=mc^2 that if you changed a quality of mass you'd vary energy. Another thought was how the universe is accelerating in its expansion. When you think about a state change like an explosion, eventually it slows down. However our universe isn't. Hasn't billions of years been enough for it to slow down?

Maybe what I'm looking for is very unnatural or as natural as our expanding and accelerating universe.

[ME]

Nature is a subset of the complete universe.
At quantum-level things are weird.
Particles can be created out of nowhere, but their net-result remains 0 (momentum, charge and what not). Despite some discrepancies we yet don't understand.
For all we know the universe works the same, perhaps it collapses perhaps it dies out. If it dies out: it can just happen again, because it happened before.
Perhaps an idea is gone: you'll just get a new one, because it happened before.

Good luck.

[jim_mich]

Such foolishness here.

Sorry, but energy is not mass. Energy does not have weight. A spring having pent up energy does not weigh more, not even an immeasurably small amount more.

ME, the above are 5 false statements. Why not simply correct them instead of proposing a practicality test in their defense?

Bill, aka ovyyus, states as fact, that my five statements are false. So let's look at each of my statements...

[1] Sorry, but energy is not mass.
I have no idea where Bill learned about physics, but mass and energy are different things. And the difference between the two is quite simple. Mass has weight. Mass is effected by gravity. Pure energy does not have weight. Yes, according to Einstein and other physicists, mass can be converted into energy. And energy can be converted into mass. But up until the conversion happens, the energy is not mass.

[2] Energy does not have weight.
Pure energy is not effected by gravity. It does not have weight. A flywheel is an example. A spinning flywheel does not get heavier. Its mass stays constant.

[3] A spring having pent up energy does not weigh more,
The molecules of a spring are either compressed closer together or stretched farther apart. In either case, the molecular bonds within the spring are stressed. And thus energy is stored by means of molecular stress. This stress does not cause the spring to gain or lose weight.

[4] not even an immeasurably small amount more.
This is true even on at an immeasurably small scale. The misunderstanding here seems to arise from the concept that energy can be converted into matter and that matter can be converted into energy. Matter has mass, and is subject to gravity, and thus matter has weight. Energy comes in may forms, but energy is not mass. Energy does not have gravitation attraction. Thus energy can't cause any increase of mass in a spring.

[5]
Bill does not know how to count. There was and currently is no fifth statement. Foolish Bill.

Why complicate the simple question of whether or not compressing a spring increases its mass? It either does or it does not. Hmm.

Compressing a spring does not increase its mass. It increases its energy. But energy is not mass. Energy can be converted into mass. But before conversion, energy is not mass. Energy does not have gravitational weight. Thus, compressing a spring can't cause the spring to gain mass. Stretching a spring can't cause the spring to gain mass.

[ovyyus]

Bill does not know how to count. There was and currently is no fifth statement. Foolish Bill.

[1] Such foolishness here.

Duh

[John doe]

Me is right Jim_mich is wrong.
Jim_mich you are confusing weight and mass. Please review your above statements and clarify weight vs. and I believe you will see your error.
Matter can be converted to energy Einsten proved that.
You CANNOT have energy without mass this is a fact.
E=mc^2 is a fact do we agree?
If you compress a spring and set it in the table. The spring now becomes a storage unit for the energy. Do you agree?
If the spring is setting in the table you did not increase its speed correct ?
If e=mc^2 to remain true the ONLY available option left is mass.

[rlortie]

Ask Jim; when he cuts firewood if it is mass? Then when he burns it he is turning mass into energy!

No; a spring does not gain in mass when compressed or stretched, but it does change in molecular density.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Jim_mich you are confusing weight and mass.

I'm not confused. "Weight" has many meanings. In my discussion, "weight" is in reference to the effect of gravity upon an object, thus producing a force, which most people call "weight". I could go back and add the word "force" after most instances of "weight", but such makes for clumsy reading.

Matter can be converted to energy Einsten proved that.
You CANNOT have energy without mass this is a fact.
E=mc^2 is a fact do we agree?

Such is nothing new. And you spelled Einstein wrong.

If you compress a spring and set it in the table. The spring now becomes a storage unit for the energy. Do you agree?
If the spring is setting in the table you did not increase its speed correct ?

Correct, its speed is stationary.
But you squeezed or stretched it molecules. A spring stores energy within it molecular bonds.

With a compression spring sitting on a table, held in a compression state, then its molecules are squeezes closer together and held there. And the energy in the molecules resist the squeezing. The spring does not gain any mass.

With an extension spring sitting on a table, held in a state of extension, then its molecules are pulled apart and held there. And the energy in the molecules resist the pulling. The spring does not gain any mass.

In either case, available energy is changed by the physical conditions imposed upon the molecules of the springs. In both cases the energy is stored by molecular bonds that are stressed. The molecular bonds of the spring are somewhat elastic. The molecular bonds of the bolt are much more rigid. The tension of the spring is counteracted by the tension of the bolt. There is no nuclear transformation of energy into mass, thus there is no increase of mass. Pure energy does not have mass. Photons are the closest physical thing to pure energy. As far are physicists can determine, photons don't have any mass.

If e=mc^2 to remain true the ONLY available option left is mass.

You logic is flawed. Go back to school.

I can post links to many websites that say a spring does not gain mass when it stores energy. And you or I can post links to many websites that say a spring must gain mass when it stores energy. People should stop trying to put an Einstein spin on everything. Energy and mass can be converted back and forth. But such only happens in a nuclear situation. At an everyday scale, the energy of a spring is stored simple as molecular bonds within materials. It is like squeezing a balloon. The molecules get closer together and their molecular pressure pushes back.

Energy does not have mass. Adding energy to mass does not increase the mass of an object. And weight (force of gravity) is always relative to mass.

[John doe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in ... relativity

[John doe]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in ... relativity
Maybe it is you that needs to go back to school.
E=mc2 only has 3 variables how is that flawed?
Granted we are talking about minute amounts on an every day scale but these amounts add up exponentially.

[Oystein]

Relativistic mass and rest mass or Newtonian mass are different concepts.

One discuss this, one discuss the other

If the spring gains Newtonian mass, a theoretical gravity machine is outlined, (even though extremely tiny amounts). So for Einsteins theories to fit, it could gain energy, and since equivalence between mass and energy is the foundation, it would therefore gain mass. But for universal conservation of energy (the original foundation for relativity) to hold, this "mass increase" can't gain Newtonian mass.

It would be the same for magnets. If magnets is pushed together, they should gain in mass and weight. Thus they could "drive" a theoretical gravity wheel. Pairs, compressed on one side and attracted on the other side, through a perfect balanced lever system. Theoretically there should be a gain, but according to the foundation (conservation of e) this can't happen.

So what law is wrong? (Universal) conservation of energy or Relativity? Or both?

Was it wrong to elevate the conservation of heat transfer, to a universal law?

What a paradox: From this fundamental law, that energy can't be created nor destroyed we can "conclude" that big bang must have happened. Big bang, the ultimate creation of energy... But then in quantum mechanics, we know that Energy is always created and destroyed at all time... Physics answers: Ok, but the amount of time the energy "bubbles" appear are sooo very very short, that they don't "count". So much for universal conservation...

Conservation of energy was used to understand how mass could "gain" energy when a meteor was entering a gravity field. Newtonian theories could not account for this increase in universal/total energy. Einstein added 2+2 and found that if mass has a lot of energy (electron spin etc) they could loose some of this, to obey total conservation of energy he would have an answer. So then if spin is slower, then time runs slower in that object. Slower than it did before outside the gravityfield. Soon you have Relativity.

But Relativity had strange implication. Like light, the wave particle duality. Mass, no mass?

Never did it occur all the scientists (nor Einstein) that light is neither wave nor particle, but waves in particles.. For the first time Light as waves in particles is photographed http://forskning.no/2015/03/lys-fotogra ... orste-gang Not so strange that light waves would have no mass. Those particles has mass, not light itself. But what are those particles? Is the fabric of the universe made of particles, former known as photons?

An inventor once discovered that all is photons. And invented the tiniest fabric ever made... Why would he suggest that?

And finally, how will the revelation of the Bessler wheel replica influence all this?

[jim_mich]

John doe, you can throw all sorts of special relativity equations at me. But the bottom line is that a compressed spring does NOT involve special relativity. It does not even involve general relativity.

A compressed spring involves only molecular bonds. If you squeeze molecules closer together then they simply push back. Such is simple molecular pressure. It has nothing to do with special relativity or general relativity. It is much closer to Newtonian mechanics, or simple chemistry (material composition).

Some materials are elastic. Others not so much. Squeeze a spring and you are squeezing the molecules closer together. In order to hold that tension you must restrain the spring using something that is not elastic. The tension of the spring matches the tension of the restraint. The energy stored in the spring is simple molecular pressure. There is no conversion of energy into mass. Thus there is no gain of mass.

John doe, you can throw all kinds of links to complex formula at us. But do you understand such formula and what they really mean in relationship to a compression spring?

Ah, I see that Oystein has chimed in. He always brings sanity to the crazies on this forum.