Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: mass to space

Expand Messages
  • cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne.jp
    A few days ago you told me an idea suggested by Ross Tessien (USA) that can be summarized in the following form: mass can be transformed in space (aether)
    Message 1 of 2 , Mar 17, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      A few days ago you told me an idea suggested by Ross Tessien (USA) that
      can be summarized in the following form:

      mass can be transformed in space (aether)
      exothermic reactions create space
      endothermic reactions consume space

      Then you asked me for my opinion about these proposals in the context
      of the article I have recently published in the Journal of Theoretics
      ("Evidence for a close link between the laws of thermodynamics and the
      Einstein mass-energy relation").

      Herewith is my answer to this interesting question. The main point of
      my paper is equation 11, written as dU* = dUe + dUi, meaning that the
      total energy dU* concerning a system is the sum of the energy dUe
      exchanged with the surroundings (in the form of work, heat, etc....)
      and the energy dUi, itself linked to a disintegration of mass, within
      the system, according to the Einstein mass-energy relation, and having
      consequently the numerical value dUi = - c2dm. The reasons for such a
      conception are given in my article.

      Compared with the classical expression dS = dQ/Te + dSi (equation 25 of
      my paper) that can be transposed as TedS = dQ + TedSi (eq. 26), I
      suggest that the correspondence take the form:

      TedS = dQ + TedSi (eq. 26)

      dU* = dUe + dUi (eq. 11),

      with each term having the dimension of an energy and not of an entropy
      as it is the case for equation 25.

      I think that the conceptual difficulty classically encountered in
      thermodynamics comes from the fact that the existence of dUi is not
      taken into account and is consequently considered as having a zero
      value. In my hypothesis, this is only true for reversible processes,
      while irreversible processes implicate a positive value for dUi, related
      to a (very partial) disintegration of mass.

      In the usual conception of thermodynamics, the interpretation of a
      chemical reaction is conveniently presented through the free energy G
      defined as G = H - TS, which gives . Crossing from the
      first to the second relation needs that T is constant, since the
      differentiation of G leads to dG = dH - TdS - SdT, which needs itself
      dT = 0 for giving . The well known efficiency of this last
      equation implicates that T is the temperature of the near surroundings
      of the considered system, so that T means Te, and these surroundings are
      supposed to behave as a thermostat.

      Referring to my article, and more precisely to paragraph 5.B (headed
      second example), I think that the exact meaning of T is T*e, which
      designates the mean temperature of the surroundings defined as
      , each term referring to the surroundings. In such a
      context, it is not indispensable for these surroundings to behave as a
      thermostat to explain the constancy of T in the previous equations. A
      similar observation can be made concerning P, which is implicitly
      present in the definition of G, since G = H - TS where H = U + PV.

      Strictly speaking, the difference written above between equations (26)
      and (11) is not perfectly rigorous since, in the context of a chemical
      reaction, the possibility for equalizing dQ and dUe implicates that the
      volume remains constant. In a more general way, dQ is assimilated to dH
      rather than to dUe.

      In order to eliminate this problem, which is of little importance for
      the question in discussion, we shall consider a process such as the
      melting of a mole of ice (at standard pressure) for which it is well
      known that and are practically equivalent. In such a case we
      can write successively:

      TedS = dQ + TedSi (eq.
      26)

      dU* = dUe + dUi (eq.
      11)

      TedS = dH - dG

      so that dG = dH - TdS

      which means dG = dH - TedS = c2 dm

      (as indicated in the appendix of my article)

      Integrating, we have ,

      which means

      that is .



      Applied to the melting of ice, the use of this tool is the following.
      Let us consider one mole of ice whose initial (instant t1) temperature
      is -20°C (= 253 K) and which is put in contact, at standard pressure,
      with a thermostat whose temperature is + 20 °C (= 293 K). We suppose
      that the whole system (thermostat + ice) is isolated until the mole of
      ice would reach itself the temperature 393 K (instant t2).

      We know that the ice would melt during the heating process so that the
      total interval of time (t1, t2) can be divided in three parts having the
      respective designations (t1, ti), and (ti, t2) and the following
      peculiarities:

      (t1, ti) is a sub interval of time during which the ice remains
      solid, while its temperature increases from 253 K to 273 K. The
      context is of the same kind as those described in paragraph 5.A. of
      my article . The interpretation is the same too, corresponding to a
      simple increase in entropy if we refer to the classical theory and
      to an increase in energy (linked to a disintegration of mass) if we
      refer to the theory I have suggested.
      (ti, t2) calls the same kind of commentary. The only difference is
      that ice is now replaced by liquid water and that its internal
      temperature increases from 273 K to 293 K.
      is the intermediate sub interval of time, the only one
      corresponding to the physical-chemical process where ice is
      transformed into water. Strictly speaking, we have a phase
      transformation rather than a chemical reaction, but the
      interpretation is the same for the purpose we are presently
      considering.

      For the melting of ice, the thermodynamic data are approximately:





      Entering these values in the previous equations that can be rewritten
      under the forms:







      we obtain:



      This result being negative, we see that is negative too.
      Inversely, if we consider the freezing process of water, the values
      and become respectively and so that
      we obtain for :



      This result remaining negative, we see that remains negative too.
      The fact that we have exactly the same numerical value for both cases
      comes from the choice of the temperatures (+ 20 ° C and - 20° C are
      symmetrically referring to zero, so that 293 K and 253 K are
      symmetrically referring to 273 K which corresponds approximately to the
      zero value of ).

      Returning to the propositions of Ross Tessien (that have been recalled
      in the first lines of the present text), my commentary is the
      following:

      If we agree with the idea that mass (by disintegration) can be
      transformed into space, we see (under the light of the example
      considered above) that the chemical reactions occuring in our
      universe (at least in our near universe) implicate a
      disintegration of mass ( ) whether they are exothermic or
      endothermic. Such an observation is the simple translation, in
      the enlarged language of relativity, of what scientists have
      noted in the XIX century, after Berthelot has suggested his
      theory of "affinity" consisting in the idea that natural
      reactions would be necessarily exothermic.

      Transposed in the field of nuclear reactions, a first important
      point can be emphasized: In books of thermodynamics, the
      numerical examples that are proposed generally avoid nuclear
      reactions as well as in books of nuclear physics, the
      commentaries concerning the reactions generally avoid details
      concerning the thermodynamic interpretation. Such a situation is
      probably linked to the fact that the usual theory of
      thermodynamics does not really take into account the possibility
      that an energy can be created by disintegration of mass so that
      it is not a perfectly suitable tool for the study of nuclear
      reactions.

      We have seen above that for the classical chemical reactions
      (i.e. the non nuclear ones) undergoing in our near universe, we
      have and consequently , whether the reaction is
      exothermic or endothermic.

      In a similar way, my present opinion is that for the nuclear
      reactions undergoing in our near universe, the energy released
      corresponds to and consequently to , whether the
      reaction is a nuclear fission (as occurring in the Earth) or a
      nuclear fusion (as occurring in the Sun).

      This is my answer to your question. I hope it can be useful for our
      discussions and remain very grateful to you and your scientist
      correspondents (Ross Tessien of the USA, Daniel Lapadatu of Norway, and
      many others) for giving me their own opinion on the subject through
      your instrumentality.

      Thank you and best wishes.

      Yours sincerely.

      Jean-Louis Tane <TaneJL@...>

      Journal Home Page

      email: mail@...


      © Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 1999-2000

      Full article at: http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Comments/2-4/2-4.htm
      Une injustice faite à un seul est une menace faite à tous

      Montesquieu (1689-1755)
    • c.h.thompson
      Dear Dr Tane I was very interested to hear what you said about the books on thermodynamics avoiding nuclear reactions! You might be interested in my idea, that
      Message 2 of 2 , Mar 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Dr Tane

        I was very interested to hear what you said about the books on
        thermodynamics avoiding nuclear reactions!

        You might be interested in my idea, that we need to forget all about our
        macroscopic concepts of mass, energy, heat etc and think instead of
        primitive waves in the aether ("phi-waves") whose intensity and coherence
        patterns underly the entire universe.

        "Energy" is not quite as well-defined as we like to think. The quantities
        that are really conserved are some measure of the intensity of the
        phi-waves ("phi-energy") and, approximately only, the "amount of pattern"
        carried in their modulations. The energy we recognise is related to this
        amount of pattern, but what we forget is that our instruments will ignore
        patterns that do not last long enough. When is a short-lived pattern too
        short to count? Nature undoubtedly uses a lot of very short-lived
        patterns -- in molecular interactions, for example, and we are only just
        beginning to be able to detect their existence. It seems to me to be
        fruitless to try and quantify total "energy"!

        For more see http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Papers/phi-waves.htm or
        http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Papers/phi-waves.pdf

        Cheers
        Caroline
        c.h.thompson@...
        http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.