In Michelson-Morey experiment, light always propagates in the earth's atmosphere, and the propagation speed of light wave in the same atmospheric medium is constant, which completely conforms to the propagation characteristics of mechanical waves. This experimental result proves that light belongs to mechanical wave.
If scientists assume that the propagation medium of light is ionic electrons, not ether, and the Michelson-Morey experiment is carried out in glass, as long as the temperature of the glass material is uniform, then the result must be that the propagation speed of light in the same state of glass is constant. Can you prove that ionic electrons don't exist?
Obviously, relativity is the fallacy of logical thinking disorder.
The most easily misunderstood physical law, the mass-energy equation, has always been the most easily misunderstood physical formula. Some people think that it is the principle of atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb, and some people make a mistake about the mass-energy relationship expressed here.
First of all, the mass-energy equation refers to the principle of making atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs. Is this statement correct?
In fact, this statement is not accurate enough Why do you say that?
This will start with the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb itself. The principle of the atomic bomb is actually nuclear fission and chain reaction. Generally speaking, the material for making atomic bombs is uranium. Now the whole reaction is carried out at the level of nucleus, and a larger nucleus will split into two smaller nuclei. At the same time, if we carefully calculate the mass of reactants and products before and after the reaction, we will find that the mass of reactants is greater than the mass of products, that is, there are quality defects in the whole reaction process.
So where are all these qualities?
In fact, these energies are not lost. If we put the whole reaction in a closed container without any material and energy exchange with the outside world and weigh it with an ideal scale, we will find that the weight before and after the reaction is the same. (Add here that mass and weight are not the same thing, but satisfy a certain linear relationship on the earth. ) In other words, the quality has not changed before and after. To put it bluntly, it is the conservation of mass.
Then why is this happening?
Here we should mention the mass-energy equation E = MC 2, which tells us that mass and energy are equivalent. This theory was published in 1905' s paper "Equivalence of Mass and Energy", which was one of Einstein's four outstanding works.
The principle of the atomic bomb, nuclear fission, was actually put forward by several nuclear physicists. Therefore, it is impossible to make an atomic bomb if you only know the mass-energy equation. Only by mastering the basic situation of the nucleus can we build an atomic bomb.
How does the mass-energy equation solve this problem?
Einstein thought that mass and energy are one thing, two sides of an object, mass is energy, and energy is also mass, or there is energy in mass and mass in energy.
So when the atomic bomb explodes, there is mass loss before and after the reaction. In fact, this mass is released in the form of energy. If you collect the released energy, you will find that it is equal to the mass lost before and after the reaction.
The mass-energy equation can explain why the atomic bomb is so powerful, but it is not the principle of the atomic bomb. Similarly, the mass-energy equation can also explain the energy release of chemical reactions. If a chemical reaction is exothermic, it means that the mass of the whole system is lost before and after the reaction, and this mass loss is released in the form of heat.
However, due to the limited precision of our instrument, it is difficult to measure this loss of quality. We can move the terms on both sides of the mass-energy equation and find that m = e/c 2, where m is the lost mass, e is the released energy (exothermic reaction), c is the speed of light, and 3 * 10 8.
Therefore, lost mass = released energy /(9 * 10 16). Therefore, only when the released energy is huge can we obviously feel the loss of quality.
Through the above analysis, we can further understand the laws of mass conservation, energy conservation and mass-energy conservation. Many people used to say that mass and energy are transformed. So the law of conservation of mass and energy is not enough, so it is universal.
But in fact, this understanding is wrong. According to the equivalence of mass and energy, we know that mass and energy are the same thing. So the law of conservation of mass is right, and so is the law of conservation of energy. So the law of conservation of mass and energy is correct. It all depends on how you measure the system, especially mass measurement, that is, mass conservation, energy measurement, that is, energy conservation.
Where does the energy come from? The reason why many people misunderstand the mass-energy equation is conceptual confusion. To put it bluntly, quality, energy and matter are all silly and indistinguishable.
As mentioned above, mass and energy are actually the same thing. Then the question comes, what is matter?
Objectively speaking, there is no definition of matter in physics. The definition of physical probability has a basic requirement, that is, it can be described in mathematical language and analyzed quantitatively by experiments. So, we see that both mass and energy have units. When have you ever heard of physical units?
Of course, we will have the concept of quantity of matter, which refers to quality in the early days. Today, there is also the concept of quantity of matter in chemistry, which directly constructs the relationship between matter and microscopic particles. But none of these can directly describe the matter itself.
Now many scientists will put forward the view that matter is actually extremely compressed energy or extremely dense energy.
You see, all substances have mass, and according to the equivalence of mass and energy, all energy also has an energy side. So matter itself is energy, but the form is different from what we usually call energy.
In that case, in fact, the whole universe is energy, and you can also say that it is all mass or all matter, because they are one. Where does the energy come from?
Objectively speaking, we can't explain all this well yet. We only know that the universe originated from a big bang138 billion years ago.
Everything now comes from that big bang, that is to say, the energy comes from the big bang 654.38+03.8 billion years ago.
So if you want to ask, what was before the Big Bang? Or why there was a big explosion.
Objectively speaking, the answer is: I didn't know that many people would question BIGBANG's correctness. Objectively speaking, the Big Bang is the mainstream scientific theory at present, and there are also very conclusive evidences, such as Hubble redshift, cosmic microwave radiation, helium abundance and so on.
Even if we didn't know what the big bang was before, we can't deny the big bang theory. Why do you say that?
Let's assume that you know Zhang San, or listen to friends around you talking about Zhang San. Can you judge that Zhang San exists?
The answer is: yes. The evidence we have so far can judge that BIGBANG once existed.
If we don't know who Zhang San's mother and father are and how Zhang San's mother got pregnant and gave birth to Zhang San in October, can we just say that Zhang San doesn't exist?
Actually, I can't. So, even if we don't know what BIGBANG was before, why is there BIGBANG? We can't deny the existence of BIGBANG.
So as long as BIGBANG's evidence is sufficient, we can judge that this theory is established. Therefore, we only know that energy was in the Big Bang and everything existed in this universe.
Of all the equations we use to describe the universe, perhaps the most famous is E =mc? It is also the most profound. It was first discovered by Einstein more than 100 years ago, and it taught us many important things. We can convert mass into pure energy, for example, through nuclear fission, nuclear fusion or annihilation of matter and antimatter. We can only make particles (and antiparticles) through pure energy.
And, perhaps most interestingly, it tells us that an object of any mass, whether we cool it, slow it down or isolate it from other objects, will always have some internal energy. There is a problem that has been lingering in my mind, and that is:
In equation E =mc? Where does the energy in "M" come from?
Let's go deep into the internal matter at the smallest scale to find the answer.
The first thing we need to do is to understand the equation E =mc? Let's see what each term of the mass-energy equation represents.
The reason why we get so much energy from nuclear reactions comes directly from this equation E =mc? .
Even if we convert the mass of one kilogram (1 kg) into energy, C? [i.e. (299792458 m/s)? ] inevitably means that we will get the energy equivalent to 265,438+0.5 million tons of TNT from the transformation. This explains why the sun outputs so much energy. Why are nuclear reactors so efficient? Why is the dream of controlled nuclear fusion the holy grail of energy? And why nuclear bombs are so powerful and dangerous.
But E =mc? There is a more interesting side. This means that there is a form of energy, and no matter what you do to the particle, you can't take it away from it. As long as it exists, this form of energy will always exist with it. There are many reasons for this, but the most interesting thing is that all other forms of energy can indeed be removed.
For example, a particle in motion has kinetic energy: energy related to its motion in the universe. When a fast-moving huge object collides with another object, it will be given energy and momentum no matter how the collision happens. This form of energy exists above the rest mass energy of particles. It is an inherent energy form of particle motion.
But this is a form of energy, which can be removed without changing the properties of the particles themselves. As long as you accelerate yourself and move at exactly the same speed (amplitude and direction) as the observed particles, you can reduce the total energy of the particles, but only to a certain minimum. Even if all its kinetic energy is removed, its static mass energy (E =mc? Defined parts) will also remain unchanged.
You might think that this means that you can eliminate all forms of energy except static mass energy in any system. In fact, all other forms of energy you can think of-electric energy, comprehensive energy, chemical energy and so on. -It has nothing to do with rest quality. Under appropriate conditions, these energy forms can be taken away, leaving only bare, static and isolated particles. The only energy they had at that time was their static mass energy: E =mc? .
So, the rest mass (E =mc? Where does the "m" in "m" come from? You may answer "Higgs" soon, and this part is right. Less than a second after BIGBANG, the weak current symmetry of unified electromagnetic force and weak nuclear force was restored, showing a single force. When the universe expands and cools enough, this symmetry is broken, and the consequences brought by the particles in the standard model are enormous.
First, many particles (including all quarks and charged leptons) have obtained nonzero rest masses. Since each of these energy quanta is coupled to the Higgs field, a quantum field all over the universe, many particles now have nonzero rest masses. This is part of the answer to where the energy of these particles in M comes from: from their coupling with the basic quantum field.
But things are not always that simple. If you take the mass of an electron and try to explain it according to the coupling between the electron and the Higgs particle, you will get 100% success: the contribution of the Higgs particle to the electron mass just gives the electron mass. But if you try to use this to explain the mass of protons and add up the rest quarks and gluons that make up protons, you will come to a conclusion. It's very simple. In fact, we won't get the actual value of 938mev/c 2, but only the value of 1%.
Since protons (and other related nuclei) are all made up of quarks and gluons and constitute most normal (known) substances in the universe, there must be another contributor. As far as protons are concerned, the culprit is a powerful nuclear force. Unlike gravity and electromagnetic force, the strong quantum nuclear force (based on quantum chromodynamics and the "color" properties of quarks and gluons) actually becomes stronger with the distance between two quarks.
Each quark consists of three quarks, and each nucleus in the nucleus is bound together by gluons exchanged between these quarks: a spring-like force, which will become stronger with the increase of quark distance. Although protons are composed of point particles, their size is still limited, which is due to the strength of force and the charge and coupling of particles inside the nucleus.
If quarks can be released in some way, most of the mass in the universe will be converted back to energy; E =mc？ This is a reversible reaction. At ultra-high energy, such as in the very early universe or in the heavy ion collider (such as RHIC) or LHC, these conditions have been reached, thus forming quark-gluon plasma. However, once the temperature, energy and density are low enough, these quarks will be bound again, which is the source of most normal matter mass.
In other words, having three free quarks (even if Higgs gives them non-zero rest mass) is far less disadvantageous in energy than binding these quarks together to form composite particles such as protons and neutrons. Most of the energy (e) of the known mass (m) in our universe comes from the powerful force and the binding energy introduced by the quantum rules that control the "color charge" particles.
What we learned a long time ago is still correct: energy can always be converted from one form to another. But this is only a price: the price of injecting enough energy into a system to eliminate the extra forms of energy. For the example of kinetic energy, this means increasing your speed (as an observer) or the speed of particles (as an observer relative to you) until they match, both of which require energy input.
For other forms of energy, it may be more complicated. The mass of neutral atoms is about 0.000 1% less than that of ionized atoms, because the electromagnetic bonding between electrons and nuclei releases about 10 eV of energy. Gravitational potential energy produced by space deformation caused by mass also plays a role. Even for the whole earth, its mass is 0.00000004% less than that of its atoms, because the total gravitational potential energy of our world is 2× 10 32j.
Speaking of Einstein's most famous equation E =mc? Tell us that anything with quality has its inherent basic energy, which can't be eliminated in any way. Only by completely destroying the object-or colliding with antimatter (leading to energy release), or injecting enough energy into it (only for composite particles, its basic composition remains unchanged)-can the mass be converted back to some form of energy.
For the elementary particles in the standard model, the Higgs field and its coupling with each particle provide the energy that constitutes the mass M. However, for most protons, neutrons and other nuclei with known mass in the universe, strong binding can make us obtain most of the mass M. For dark matter? No one knows yet, but it may be the Higgs particle, some form of binding energy, or something completely novel. However, whatever the reason, there is always something to provide motivation for this invisible group. But, E =mc? Will remain true.
Quality can't get energy, because quality is energy and energy is quality.
.
Einstein's formula tells us.
How much energy you get, how much mass you get, how much energy you get.
.
Simply put, we can assume that the speed of a thing becomes faster, then, under the framework of Einstein's formula.
Faster speed means higher quality.
So, what if it's not that fast? In this case, these speeds must be transferred to other substances, so that these substances can obtain the same quality.
.
Similarly, if we combine one gram of antimatter with one gram of positive matter and release a lot of energy, then we use a completely sealed thing to completely seal all the released things in a large enough metal ball.
.
Then, we can easily know that the quality of this metal ball will not change before and after bonding.
.
So Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that it is impossible to build in space.
If you want to make one gram of matter with energy in a vacuum, then one gram of matter must be converted into energy.
Matter and energy are just different manifestations of the same thing, which is the profound meaning of Einstein's formula.
Matter will not be converted into energy-electromagnetic waves.
Matter is the carrier of energy; Objects flowing at high speed in the magnetic field are transformed into metal hydrogen ions, and the "magnetic moments" of metal hydrogen ions cut and polymerize with each other to form new elements, and at the same time, electromagnetic waves-energy are released.
From the microscopic point of view of matter, we can know that the wave-particle binary image is a quality-energy binary image, the wave is an energy-particle binary image, the binary image is quality and possibility, and the wave is quality.
Wave is bound, called matter, and dissolved matter is called energy. After all, the essence of matter is energy, so matter takes off its clothes and pats its chest. Look, am I not energy? Ah! Didn't you see me getting dressed? So you don't need to get the same thing from anywhere. The difference in appearance and name between matter and energy is only the difference in wearing clothes, understand?
Mass m= density p* volume v, which is the unit of measurement.
Weight W = mg. When we talk about multiple weights in life, we all mean weight, not quality. The derivation of Einstein's energy formula does not directly indicate that mass must contain energy, but more importantly, it has some relationship with the speed of light.
There is an example in life:
Water condenses into ice, releasing energy, making its density smaller and its volume larger, but its mass remains the same. Among them, energy is released from water into space, and space energy is much more.
Conversely, ice becomes water, space energy is absorbed, energy is reduced, and water quality remains the same.
So the change of mass and energy is very subtle, and it may take some environment to accelerate the object to the square of the speed of light. The mass of the object explodes instantly, and the atomic structure splits, releasing light energy like the sun and disappearing into the smoke. Of course, this is only a hypothesis, and more scientists are expected to prove the causal relationship between e = MC 2 mass and energy through experiments in the future.
? Newton answered this question:
In fact, this is a very simple question, which needs no explanation.
Einstein said e = MC? I don't think this formula means that energy and mass can be directly exchanged. E represents the energy carried by an object moving at the speed of light.
According to the discovery of modern science, energy exists in the form of waves, mass exists in the form of particles, moving objects generate energy due to speed, and objects with static mass have no energy.
For example, photons have wave-particle duality, and the property of waves is that the property of energy particles is mass, so photons have energy, light energy comes from energy, and light with different frequencies has different radiation energy.
Mass with energy is only an appearance, and mass objects are endowed with energy when they move. This movement includes two aspects, one is the linear or nonlinear movement of the object, and the other is the fission or fusion (such as atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb) produced by the movement of the inner core of the object itself.
Physics is simple and profound, and we are trying to explore it. ......
Your question. . .
E=MC？ This is correct and verified. How can I find you?
If you don't agree with this formula, there is nothing to talk about.
Quality is not to acquire energy, and quality is energy, and the two can be converted.