Electrons - when they move from Atom to Atom - where do they end up?

[mivey]

'Mass' is not a thing in itself. It is a property of matter and do not confuse mass with matter.

Don't confuse yourself:

Do you mean that the change in mass of an electron consistent with the Einstein's equation

[iceworm]

'Mass' is not a thing in itself. It is a property of matter and do not confuse mass with matter. ...

According to the article in the newspaper last week, about the Higgs Boson: "Mass" may well be thing unto it's self.

We all know the news media would never mis-represent or mis-quote.

ice

[K8MHZ]

According to the article in the newspaper last week, about the Higgs Boson: "Mass" may well be thing unto it's self.

We all know the news media would never mis-represent or mis-quote.

ice

That's kind of how it looks.....particles that have bosons, like protons and electrons have mass, and particles that do not, like photons, don't.

Did I get that correct? I may not be older than quantum physics, but I am older than the first high school text books that covered it.

[mivey]

That's kind of how it looks.....particles that have bosons, like protons and electrons have mass, and particles that do not, like photons, don't.

Did I get that correct? I may not be older than quantum physics, but I am older than the first high school text books that covered it.

Kind of sorta depending on how picky you want to be. Send a photon into a volume sphere and that sphere will experience an increase in equivalent mass because of the mass-energy equivalence. That is not technically perfect, but close enough. I have a physics paper somewhere that gets the terminology technically and pickily correct if it is important.

[iceworm]

That's kind of how it looks.....particles that have bosons, like protons and electrons have mass, and particles that do not, like photons, don't.

Did I get that correct? I may not be older than quantum physics, but I am older than the first high school text books that covered it.

I don't know. I've subscribed to Scientific American for maybe 40 years. After throwing out all of the left wing kitty-cat articles, I can read and sort of understand maybe half of the rest. Particle physics, quantum mechanics, is way beyond my ken. The first I recall of hearing about "up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom" was maybe while I was in college, in the early 70s.

Luckily for me, string theory and gravitrons have never affected my work. The math models that cover power and control fit the real world very well. And I understand those models fairly well.

ice

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

Don't confuse yourself:

This is incredible. You are thinking mass=matter.

Of course there is an error in one of statements in post #166. But now I am not certain you would spot it.

[mivey]

This is incredible. You are thinking mass=matter.

You are the one bringing up mass and the change in mass via the change in energy. I'm willing to discuss a topic if you want and we can discuss invariant mass, relativistic mass, energy mass equivalants, etc. but don't put words in my mouth just so you can have something to argue against. If you want to discuss something I have said in particular, that will be fine.

You posted E=mc² but if you want to get down to the particulars, we need the full equation for the mass conversion that also has momentum: m = sqrt(E²/c⁴ - p²/c²)

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

If you want to discuss something I have said in particular, that will be fine.

You promised to look for an expression for the energy flow outside ideal conductors connecting a resistance in a DC circuit. So far you are not successful, I presume.

[mivey]

You promised to look for an expression for the energy flow outside ideal conductors connecting a resistance in a DC circuit. So far you are not successful, I presume.

Where did I promise that? IIRC, you were looking for the equation for the axial electric field in a non-ideal conductor and I promised to help you if you could not do it on your own. Since you could not, I provided that equation: E=V/L.

There is no need for me to provide the equation for the energy flow outside the ideal conductor because you already have it: the equation for the Poynting Vector, which was the basis for that whole line of discussion. In an ideal conductor, the axially-directed electric field, which is external to the conductor surface, crossed with the magnetic field encircling the conductor gives the energy vector flowing towards the load.

[mivey]

Where did I promise that? IIRC, you were looking for the equation for the axial electric field in a non-ideal conductor and I promised to help you if you could not do it on your own. Since you could not, I provided that equation: E=V/L.

There is no need for me to provide the equation for the energy flow outside the ideal conductor because you already have it: the equation for the Poynting Vector, which was the basis for that whole line of discussion. In an ideal conductor, the axially-directed electric field, which is external to the conductor surface, crossed with the magnetic field encircling the conductor gives the energy vector flowing towards the load.

Just testing to see if this appears in the post list. The last post did not.