Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
mean? Doesn't it mean mass and energy are
equivalent?"
This has repetitively been shot down or upheld depending on whether the
mass refers to rest mass. Well of course it does.
students that matter is bound energy or localized energy.
you holding when you have a 1-kg mass in your hand. A hunk of brass?
bunch of atoms? A bunch of protons and neutrons and electrons? A bunch
of localized energy?
Is that last question heresy?
we never spoke of mass in kilograms. We always
spoke in keV, MeV, or GeV. The mass of an electron/positron was 511
keV. The mass of a proton about 930 MeV. And so forth. People who
were viewing "transient particles" often spoke of seeing resonances in
energy. Has my 25-year-old language fallen out of fashion?
was trying to make. That the stuff we call matter today actually
started out as energy.
to teach that REST mass and energy are equivalent, and this would imply
that one way to view mass is as localized energy?
Is it in vogue or out
of vogue to view that the matter in the universe arose from energy?