E=mc2 questions?
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
Does that apply to everyone? Even the OP? Or just the non-crackpots?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
T-C, you were doing very well indeed, until the last para!
Yes, there is less energy in the motion of the molecules in the solid, more in the liquid and more still in the gas. It takes energy (in the form of heat) to raise the temperature, obviously. But it also it takes an extra dose of heat energy to melt ice and to boil water. So there is more energy in liquid water at 0 C than in ice at 0C and more heat in steam at 100C than in water at 100C. This extra is called the Latent Heat of Fusion (for melting) and the Latent Heat of Vaporisation (for boiling). The extra is in each case due to input of the energy required to break the intermolecular bonds.
But your last paragraph is not English. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Could you perhaps try again, expressing yourself as clearly as you can and checking your grammar before posting?
Actually I think I would suggest you leave entropy out of this for the time being. Entropy is quite a difficult concept to grasp (and we don't want to attract contributions from Wellwisher, who has a bee in his bonnet about both entropy and water. Wellwisher means well, but he will just confuse you even more).
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I had to look up who she is, I confess.
Even T-C might struggle to account for that in terms of gravity, though, since while you may be attracted to her, it is possible she might be simultaneously repelled by you. This is a situation that nothing in Newtonian mechanics can model.
Yes exactly that, the 1 slug at the poles has less energy than the 1 slug at the equator by thermodynamic means, the slug at the poles more of a positive loss than positive gain of energy, forcing the water to become a frozen state . The Kinetic loss to gravity is not replaced fast enough to make water not in a equilibrium state of energy within .
''In affect similar to what I said about ice being in a state of less energy than in its water or gas state, is that what you are saying?
So to be in a state of less kinetic energy and ice, it must have loss by entropy means of energy, greater than energy gain by entropy means that maintains its liquid state and higher kinetic energy?''
For the water to freeze, like you have stated there is a slowing down to an almost stop of Kinetic energy within the molecules, if you consider water to be like a rechargeable battery by entropy means, what is lost is gained to remain the liquid state, i.e water at the equator has more energy than the ice at the poles in its relative state.
For example , I am in the UK, we have seas around our coast that do not freeze, if I was to drop the atmospheric temperature to x degrees, the sea would freeze because the loss of energy from the water would then be greater than the gain from the atmosphere?
added- This is where and how I derived my anti gravity from, based on water evaporation, Hydrogen and helium being in a state of greater energy gain than loss to have the opposing effect on gravity and to rise.
Last edited:
Really? why what is not made of atoms, I thought Einstein discovered everything was made of atoms?
Photons are massless so do not have any bearing on gravity, do Neutrinos have mass?
My thoughts on Neutron stars if there is no atoms, that there is no gravity? because surely if they had gravity they would attract mass and have atoms from the mass?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
You do not need to invoke entropy to explain this process. Certainly, the heat energy retained in a body, including a body of water, represents a balance between the sources of heat loss and the sources of heat gain. And certainly, heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures, so if the air were colder than the sea the sea would cool, and this would tend to warm the air. Eventually, the sea might freeze, as the edge of it in fact does in very cold winters in Scotland, for example.
But you do not need entropy to explain this. It is just heat flowing from a higher temperature to a lower one - which we all know, I think. So yes, obviously water at the equator, at a temperature of 30C has more energy than water at -10C, or whatever it is, at the poles.
By the way I did not say the kinetic energy of molecules slows down almost to a stop in ice. The atoms can continue to retain quite a bit of kinetic energy in ice, in the vibrations about their fixed positions in the ice crystal. The thermal motion of molecules comes almost to a stop only as absolute zero is approached. But it is the case that as ice forms the motion becomes more constrained, because the molecules can only vibrate and cannot move from place to place any more.
I believe you already know the answer to that, so I'll just give a grin
Neutron Stars have immense gravity, in large part because they are immensely dense
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
No it's a bit of a trick statement actually, because you need to know that an atom is an arrangement of matter in which there is a positively charged nucleus of protons and neutrons, surrounded by a negatively charged cloud of electrons. There are other ways of arranging protons, neutrons and electrons, besides atoms.
Neutron stars are so named because the force of gravity is so intense that it crushes the atoms so much that the electrons are forced into the nucleus and turn the protons into neutrons. So this is a state of very very dense matter that does not consist of atoms.
Also, if you heat a gas sufficiently, the thermal motion becomes so violent that not only are molecules broken up into their constituent atoms but electrons can be knocked off the atoms, forming positively charged ions, surrounded by free electrons. This state of matter is called a plasma. So it is not made of atoms either. But it has mass of course.
Any form of matter with mass will be subject to gravity, but not all forms of matter necessarily involve atoms.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Not Einstein.
Dalton, Avogadro and Brown (of "Brownian Motion") revived the ancient Greek idea of atoms and gave the concept a solid base of evidence, during the c.19th.
Rutherford determined the basic structure of the atom in 1909, at around the time Einstein was publishing.
You say that a neutron star has a force of gravity that is so great it crushes the atoms!, does this not suggest that there is atoms to crush in the first place?
Thank you for the history.
- Status