Re: mass to space
- 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.
dU* = dUe + dUi (eq.
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 ,
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
(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
For the melting of ice, the thermodynamic data are approximately:
Entering these values in the previous equations that can be rewritten
under the forms:
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
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
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
Thank you and best wishes.
Jean-Louis Tane <TaneJL@...>
Journal Home Page
© 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
- 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