Quotende FOKmongeaulen

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:17 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
Vind je dit niet grappig dan?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:18 schreef L3IPO het volgende:
Goed man! Maak me trots door je eigen stupiditeit te bewijzen!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:20 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
Denk aan je bloedruk man.
Het is bijna weekend. Lang weekend!
En het is mooi weer!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:18 schreef L3IPO het volgende:
Goed man! Maak me trots door je eigen stupiditeit te bewijzen!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:21 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
P.S.
Badminton

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:21 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
P.S.
Badminton

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:21 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
P.S.
Badminton

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:21 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
P.S.
Badminton

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:27 schreef BrauN het volgende:
Jongens, TS zit er volledig doorheen, dat is me duidelijk. Zullen we 'm een mop vertellen?

Wat is het verschil tussen een jood en een stokbrood?

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:25 schreef L3IPO het volgende:
Het is gewoon zo...ik snap niet dat mensen het leuk of interessant vinden om te lezen / te doen. Ook altijd hetzelfde in KLB of wat dan ook, iemand heeft een klacht en de MBO fokkertjes gaan massaal extra erop in, met welk doel? Grappig zijn? Nog meer irritatie veroorzaken met welk doel?

Het kan mij verder ook bitter weinig schelen, maar de meeste onderdelen van FOK! zijn al niet echt kwaliteitsonderdelen te noemen, maar deze "trent" verziekt hele topics gewoon.

Ik kan het gewoon niet begrijpen...

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:29 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Geef je zomaar een reactie zonder stompzinnig te quoten?

Maar vertel me brauntje, jij hangt al aardig wat jaartjes rond op FOK!, vind jij het dan totaal niet storend? Vind jij het echt nog steeds grappig? Of heb je je erbij neergelegd?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:32 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Ik maak me er niet druk om, maar vind het wel de moeite waard om er een topic over te starten. Niet dat ik er iets mee zal bereiken, maar kan ik ff me irritatie kwijt :p

En het is niet eens een bijzonder goede reactie, en wat voegt het toe om het alleen te quoten? Quote het dan en maak er nog een grappige opmerking bij ofzo, of is dat teveel denkwerk

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:32 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

zucht...

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:35 schreef -skippybal- het volgende:
Potverdikkie zeg, wat een leuk topic dit!!
En dat voor iemand met badminton als hobby!!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:38 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Kan er nu een slotje op? Ik ben mijn irritatie kwijt!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:17 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
Vind je dit niet grappig dan?

quote:

.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:48 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Je bent wel een beetje langzaam hoor

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:20 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
Denk aan je bloedruk man.
Het is bijna weekend. Lang weekend!
En het is mooi weer!

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:16 schreef L3IPO het volgende:
Daar wordt ik toch echt kotsziek van. Iemand start een topic, één van de eerste reacties is semi-grappig, en vervolgens krijg je daarna 3/4/5 "reacties" met alleen de semi-grappige reactie in een quote.

Vertel me eens, vind je dat nou echt grappig?
Is het zo belangrijk om het te quoten om het effect te versterken?
Ben je gewoon te stom om zelf iets te bedenken?

Of vind je het gewoon leuk om elke topic te verzieken met dit soort nutteloze en waardeloze reply's?

Zeg het maar...



-edit-

Ter illustratie: Fietsers die ineens gaan lopen bij een v.o.p.

quote:

In physics, mass-energy equivalence is the concept that all mass has an energy equivalence, and all energy has a mass equivalence. Special relativity expresses this relationship using the mass-energy equivalence formula
E = mc²

where
E = the energy equivalent to the mass (in joules),
m = mass (in kilograms), and
c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas) (in meters per second).

Several definitions of mass in special relativity may be validly used with this formula, but if the energy in the formula is rest energy then the mass must be rest mass or invariant mass.

Origination of the formula is popularly attributed to Albert Einstein in 1905 in what are known as his Annus Mirabilis ("Wonderful Year") Papers, though Einstein was not the first to propose a mass-energy relationship, and the formula appeared in works predating Einstein's theory (see Contributions of others, below).

In the formula, c² is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy, i.e., the energy density. In unit-specific terms, E (joules or kg·m²/s²) = m (kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2.Contents [hide]
1 Conservation of mass and energy
1.1 Fast-moving object
2 Meanings of the mass-energy equivalence formula
3 History and consequences of the discovery of mass-energy equivalence
4 Practical examples
5 Background
5.1 Relativistic mass
5.2 Low-speed approximation
6 Einstein and his 1905 paper
7 Contributions of others
8 Derivation
9 See also
10 Main sources


[edit]
Conservation of mass and energy

The concept of mass-energy equivalence unites the concepts of conservation of mass and conservation of energy, allowing mass to be converted to forms of active energy (such as kinetic energy, heat, or light) while still retaining mass. Conversely, active energy in the form of kinetic energy or radiation can be converted to particles which have rest mass. The total amount of mass and energy in a closed system (as seen by a single observer) remains constant. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, and in all of its forms, trapped energy exhibits mass. In relativity theory, mass and energy are two forms of the same thing, and neither one appears without the other.

[edit]
Fast-moving object

A fast-moving object moving at near to the speed of light cannot be accelerated to, or faster than, the speed of light, regardless of how much energy is put into the system. As a constant force is applied on such an object, and hence work is done on the object, its speed does not appear to increase by the amount specified by the kinetic energy formula Ekinetic = 1/2 mv2. Instead, the energy provided to it continues to appear as mass, even as the rate of velocity increase nearly stops. The object's relativistic mass increases, in what is known as mass dilation. The relativistic mass of an object is expressed as a function of its speed relative to the speed of light.

As discussed more fully in mass in special relativity, the relativistic mass which appears associated with a single fast-moving object is an observer-dependent quantity, and the part of it which is associated with a single object's kinetic energy is just as observer-dependent as the kinetic energy itself. In this case, either one may be made to disappear entirely, by proper choice of inertial frame. For this reason, mass in special relativity is usually chosen to be rest mass or invariant mass, which is a quantity which is not frame-dependent. There is no part of invariant mass for single objects which depends on kinetic energy. In contrast, although a part of the invariant mass for systems of objects may depend on the kinetic energy of some of the objects in the system, this part of the mass is not observer-dependent, and cannot be made to disappear by choice of observers, since it is already defined as that energy which is present in the particular inertial frame where the contribution of kinetic energy to invariant mass is minimized (the COM frame). See invariant mass for more.

[edit]
Meanings of the mass-energy equivalence formula

The mass-energy equivalence formula was displayed on Taipei 101 during the event of the World Year of Physics 2005.

Mass-energy equivalence proposes that when a body has a mass, it has a certain energy equivalence, even "at rest". This is opposed to Newtonian mechanics, in which a massive body at rest has no kinetic energy, and may or may not have other (relatively small) amounts of internal stored energy (such as chemical energy or thermal energy), in addition to any potential energy it may have from its position in a field of force. Thus in relativity theory, a body's rest mass is often called the rest energy of the body. The E of the formula can be seen as the total energy of the body, which is proportional to the mass of the body.

Conversely, a single photon traveling in empty space can be considered to have an effective mass, m, according to the mass-energy equivalence formula. A photon never can be measured at "rest" but the formula above applies not only to single particles when they are at rest, but also to systems at rest (i.e., systems when seen from their center of mass frame). Individual photons are nerverless often considered to be "massless", (i.e., they have no rest mass or invariant mass) even though they have varying amounts of energy and relativistic mass. But, systems of two or more photons moving in different directions (as for example from an electron-positron annihilation) may not have a momentum. Their energy E may be interpreted as an invariant mass m = E/c2, applying the mass-energy equivalence formula to them as a system.

This formula also gives the quantitative relation of the quantity of mass lost from a resting body or a resting system (a system with no net momentum, where invariant mass and relativistic mass are equal), when energy is removed from it, such as in a chemical or a nuclear reaction where heat and light are removed. Then this E could be seen as the energy released or removed, corresponding with a certain amount of relativistic or invariant mass m which is lost, and which corresponds with the removed heat or light. In those cases, the energy released and removed is equal in quantity to the mass lost, times the speed of light squared. Similarly, when energy of any kind is added to a resting body, the increase in the resting mass of the body will be the energy added, divided by the speed of light squared.

[edit]
History and consequences of the discovery of mass-energy equivalence

The equivalence or inter-convertibility of energy and matter was first enunciated, in approximate form, in 1717 by Isaac Newton, in "Query 30" of the Opticks, where he states:“ Are not the gross bodies and light convertible into one another, and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter their composition? ”


The exact formula for the mass-energy equivalence, however, was derived by Henri Poincare and Albert Einstein based on their work on relativity. The famous conclusion from this inquiry is that the mass of a body is actually a measure of its energy content. Conversely, the mass-energy equivalence formula suggests (see below) that all of the energies present in closed systems affect the system's resting mass.


According to the mass-energy equivalence formula, the maximum amount of energy "obtainable" from an object to do active work, is the mass of the object multiplied by the square of the speed of light.

Max Planck first pointed out that the mass-energy equivalence formula implied that bound systems would have a mass less than the sum of their constituents, once the binding energy had been allowed to escape. However, Planck was thinking in terms of chemical reactions, which have binding energies too small for the measurement to be practical. Early experimenters also realized that the very high binding energies of the atomic nuclei should allow calculation of their binding energies from mass differences, however it was not until the discovery of the neutron in 1932, and the measurement of the free neutron rest mass, that this calculation could actually be performed (see nuclear binding energy for example calculation). Very shortly thereafter, the first transmutation reactions (such as ) were able to verify the correctness of Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula to an accuracy of 1%.

The mass-energy equivalence formula was used in the development of the atomic bomb. By measuring the mass of different atomic nuclei and subtracting from that number the total mass of the protons and neutrons as they would weigh separately, one could obtain an estimate of the binding energy available within an atomic nucleus. This could be (and was) used in estimating the energy released in the nuclear reaction, by comparing the binding energy of the nuclei that enter and exit the reaction.

[edit]
Practical examples

Einstein performed his calculations using the CGS measurement system (centimeters, grams, seconds, dynes, and ergs). His formula works just as well using today’s SI system (with E in joules, m in kg, and c in meters per second). Using SI units, E=mc2 is calculated as follows:
E = (1 kg) × (299,792,458 m/s)2 = 89,875,517,873,681,764 J (≈90 × 1015 Joules)

Accordingly, one gram of mass — the mass of a U.S. dollar bill — is equivalent to the following amounts of energy:
≡ 89,875,517,873,681.764 J (≈90 terajoules), precisely by definition
≡ 24,965,421.631 578 267 777… kilowatt-hours (≈25 GW-hours)
= 21,466,398,651,400.058 278 398 777 1090 calories (≈21 Tcal) [1]
= 21.466 398 651 400 058 278 398 777 1090 kilotons of TNT-equivalent energy (≈21 kt) [1]
= 85,185,554,537.701 118 960 880 666 4808 BTUs (≈85 billion BTUs) [1]

Any time energy is generated, the process can be evaluated from an E=mc2-perspective. For instance, the "Gadget"-style bomb used in the Trinity test and the bombing of Nagasaki had an explosive yield equivalent to 21 kt of TNT. About 1 kg of the approximately 6.15 kg of plutonium in each of these bombs fissioned into lighter elements totaling almost exactly one gram less, after cooling (the heat, light and radiation in this case carried the missing gram of mass).[2] This occurs because nuclear binding energy is released whenever elements with more than 56 nucleons fission.

Another example is hydroelectric generation. The electrical energy produced by Grand Coulee Dam’s turbines every 3.7 hours, represents one gram of mass. This mass passes to the electrical devices which are powered by the generators (such as lights in cities, etc.), where it appears as a gram of heat and light.[3] Turbine designers look at their equations in terms of pressure, torque, and RPM. However, Einstein’s equations show that all energy has mass, per E=mc2, and thus the electrical energy produced by a dam's generators, and the heat and light which result from it, all retain their mass, which is equivalent to the energy. The potential energy — and equivalent mass —represented by the waters of the Columbia River as it descends to the Pacific Ocean would be converted to heat due to viscous friction and the turbulence of white water rapids and waterfalls were it not for the dam and its generators. This heat would remain as mass on site at the water, were it not for the equipment which converted some of this potential and kinetic energy into electrical energy, which can be moved from place to place (taking mass with it).

In the mass-energy equivalence formula E=mc2, mass and energy are more than equivalent, they are different forms of the same thing. Whenever energy is added to a system, the system gains mass. A spring's mass increases whenever it is put into compression or tension. Its added mass arises from the added potential energy stored within it, which is bound in the stretched chemical (electron) bonds linking the atoms within the spring. Raising the temperature of an object (increasing its heat energy) increases its mass. For instance, if the temperature of the platinum/iridium “international prototype” of the kilogram — the world’s primary mass standard — is allowed to change by 1 °C, its mass will change by 1.5 picograms (1 pg = 1 × 10–12 g).[4] All types of added energy add mass. Note that no net mass or energy is created or lost in any of these scenarios. Mass/energy simply moves from one place to another. These are all examples of the transfer of energy and mass in accordance with the principal of mass-energy conservation.[5]

Note further that in accordance with Einstein’s Strong Equivalence Principle (SEP), all forms of mass and energy have equivalent quantities of inertial and gravitational mass.[6] Thus, all radiated and transmitted energy retains its mass. Not only does the matter comprising Earth create gravity, but that gravitational energy itself has mass. This effect is accounted for in ultra-precise laser ranging to the Moon as the Earth orbits the Sun when testing Einstein’s theory of general relativity.[6] According to E=mc2, no closed system (any system treated and observed as a whole) ever loses mass, even as matter is converted to energy. This statement is more than an abstraction based on the principle of equivalence, it is a real-world effect. One can also just as easily say that in the context of E=mc2, no closed system ever loses matter+energy or energy.

Although all mass (including that in ordinary objects) is equivalent to energy, this energy is not always "active" energy (such as light or heat) meaning energy which is available for use to do work (such as power generation). All energy (both useable and unusable) has mass. Thus, statements that certain reactions "convert" mass into "energy" usually loosely refer to conversion of mass into specific types of energy, which can be used to do work. This energy is sometimes referred to as "active energy". Practical "conversions" of mass into active energy rarely make all of the mass into the sort of energy which can be used to do work. One theoretically perfect conversion would result from a collision of matter and antimatter (e.g. in positronium experiments); for most cases, hot byproducts are produced instead of useable energy, and therefore very little mass is actually converted to forms useful for doing work. For example, in nuclear fission roughly 0.1% of the mass of fissioned atoms is converted to heat energy and radiation. In turn, the mass of fissioned atoms is only part of the mass of the fissionable material: e.g. in a nuclear fission weapon, the efficiency is 40% at most, meaning that 40% of fissionable atoms actually fission. In nuclear fusion roughly 0.3% of the mass of fused atoms is converted to active energy. In actual thermonuclear weapons (see nuclear weapon yield) some of the total bomb mass is casing and non-reacting components, so the efficiency in converting passive energy to active energy, at 7 kilotons/kg, does not exceed 0.03% of the bomb mass.

USS Enterprise, Long Beach and Bainbridge in formation in the Mediterranean, 18 June 1964. Enterprise crewmembers spelled out the mass-energy equivalence formula on the flight deck to commemorate the first all-nuclear battle formation.

[edit]
Background

E = mc² where m stands for rest mass (invariant mass), applies to all objects or systems with mass but no net momentum. Thus, it applies most simply to particles which are not in motion. However, in a more general case, it also applies to particle systems (such as ordinary objects) in which particles are moving but in different directions so as to cancel momentums. In the latter case, both the mass and energy of the object include contributions from heat and particle motion, but the formula continues to hold.

The formula is a special case of a more general equation in which both energy and net momentum are taken into account. This equation always applies to a particle that is not moving as seen from a reference point, but this same particle can be moving from the standpoint of other frames of reference (where it has a net momentum). In such cases, the equation (if the mass used is invariant mass) becomes more complicated as the energy changes, since momentum-containing terms must be added so that the invariant mass remains constant from any reference frame (as it must, given the definition of invariant mass).

Alternative formulations of relativity, see below, allow the mass to vary with energy and simply ignore momentum, but this involves use of a second definition of mass, called relativistic mass because it causes mass (which is now relativistic mass, not invariant mass) to differ in different reference frames.

A key point to understand is that there may be two different meanings used here for the word "mass". In one sense, mass refers to the usual mass that someone would measure if sitting still next to the mass, for example. This is the concept of rest mass, which is often denoted m0. It is also called invariant mass. In relativity, this type of mass does not change with the observer, but it is computed using both energy and momentum, and (unless momentum happens to be zero) the equation E = mc2 is not in general correct for it, if the total energy is wanted. (In other words, if this equation is used with constant invariant mass or rest mass of the object, the E given by the equation will always be the rest energy of the object, and will change with the object's internal energy, such as heating, but will not change with the object's overall motion).

In developing his version of special relativity, Einstein found that the total energy of a moving body is


with v being the relative velocity. This can be shown to be equivalent to


with p being the relativistic momentum (ie. p = γp0 = mrel * v).

When v = 0, then p = 0, and both formulas above reduce to E = m0c2, with E now representing the rest energy, E0. This can be compared with the kinetic energy in newtonian mechanics:
,

where E0 = 0 (in Newtonian mechanics only kinetic energy is treated, and thus "rest energy" is zero).

[edit]
Relativistic mass

After Einstein first made his proposal, some suggested that the mathematics might seem simpler if we define a different type of mass. The relativistic mass is defined by


Using this form of the mass, we can again simply write E = mrelc2, even for moving objects. Now, unless the velocities involved are comparable to the speed of light, this relativistic mass is almost exactly the same as the rest mass. That is, we set v = 0 above, and get mrel = m0.

The formula E = mc2 in the title must be rewritten: either E = m0c2 for v = 0, or E = mrelc2 when v ≠ 0.

Einstein's original papers (see, e.g. [1]) treated m as what would now be called the rest mass or invariant mass and he did not like the idea of "relativistic mass" (see usenet physics FAQ [2]). When a modern physicist refers to "mass," he or she is almost certainly speaking about rest mass, also. This can be a confusing point, though, because students are sometimes still taught the concept of "relativistic mass" in order to be able to keep Einstein's simple equation correct, even for moving bodies.

[edit]
Low-speed approximation

We can rewrite the expression above as a Taylor series:


For speeds much smaller than the speed of light, higher-order terms in this expression (the ones farther to the right) get smaller and smaller. The reason for this is that the velocity v is much smaller than c, so v / c is quite small. If the velocity is small enough, we can throw away all but the first two terms, and get


This expresses energy as the sum of Einstein's term for a resting object and the usual kinetic energy which Newton knew about. Thus, we see that Newton's form of the energy equation just ignores the parts that he never knew about: the m0c2 part, and the high-speed parts. This worked because Newton never saw an object lose enough energy to measurably change its rest mass--as in a nuclear process--and only saw objects move at speeds which were quite small compared to the speed of light. Einstein needed to add the extra terms to make sure his formula was right, even at high speeds. In doing so, he discovered that rest mass could be "converted" to energy (or more correctly, converted to active energy which retained mass, but which could be drained away as heat or radiation, so that it subtracted from rest mass when gone).

Interestingly, we could include the m0c2 part in Newtonian mechanics because it is constant, and only changes in energy have any influence on what objects actually do. This would be a waste of time, though, precisely because this extra term would not have any noticeable effect, except at the very high energies characteristic of nuclear reactions or particle accelerators. The "higher-order" terms that we left out show that special relativity is a high-order correction to Newtonian mechanics. The Newtonian version is actually wrong, but is close enough to use at "low" speeds, meaning low compared with the speed of light. For example, all of the celestial mechanics involved in putting astronauts on the moon could have been done using only Newton's equations.

[edit]
Einstein and his 1905 paper

Albert Einstein did not formulate exactly this formula in his 1905 paper "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?" ("Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?", published in Annalen der Physik on September 27), one of the articles now known as his Annus Mirabilis Papers.

That paper says: If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c², "radiation" being electromagnetic radiation in Einstein's example (the paper specifies "light"), and the mass being the ordinary concept of mass used in those times, the same one that today we call rest energy or invariant mass, depending on the context. Einstein's very first formulation of this equation asserts that the invariant mass of a body does not change until the system is opened and light or heat is removed.

In Einstein's first formulation, it is the difference in the mass '' before the ejection of energy and after it, that is equal to L/c², not the entire mass '' of the object. At that moment in 1905, even this was only theoretical and not proven experimentally. Not until the discovery of the first type of antimatter (the positron in 1932) was it found that entire pairs of resting particles could be converted to radiation moving away at the speed of light.

[edit]
Contributions of others

While Einstein was the first to have deduced the mass-energy equivalence formula from the premises of a larger theory of relativity, he was not the first to have related energy with mass.

The connection between matter and energy was already known to Isaac Newton. In Opticks, published in 1704, Newton expounded his corpuscular theory of light. He considered light to be made up of extremely subtle corpuscles, ordinary matter of grosser corpuscles, and speculated that a kind of alchemical transmutation existed between them. "Are not gross bodies and light convertible into one another; and may not bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light which enter into their composition? The changing of bodies into light, and light into bodies, is very conformable to the course of Nature, which seems delighted with transmutations."[7][8]

During the nineteenth century there were many speculative attempts to show that mass and energy were equivalent, often within the premises of the electromagnetic worldview, though they were not regarded as theoretically successful.[9] The writings of S. Tolver Preston (1875) have been interpreted as presenting the mass-energy equivalence formula.[10]

In 1904, Friedrich Hasenöhrl[11] specifically associated mass via inertia with the energy concept through an equation. Hasenöhrl first concluded that m = (8 / 3)E / c2.

Philipp Lenard claimed that the famous equation must be credited to Hasenöhrl to make it an aryan creation.[12]

In a later paper,[13] Hasenöhrl re-calculated this result and arrived at m = (4 / 3)E / c2. Hasenöhrl indicated that if the internal energy of a system consists of radiation (as in radiation in a black-body] cavity), then, in general, the inertial mass of the system would depend partly upon that internal energy. This would be in accordance with his calculation. Thus, this new Hasenöhrl calculation establishes that due to the radiant energy E contained in his system, to that inertial mass must be added an apparent mass m. Indeed, in 1914 Cunningham[14] showed that Hasenöhrl had made a slight error in that he did not include the pressure of the radiation on the cavity shell. If he had included the shell pressure in his calculations, the factor would have been 1 or m = E / c2.

According to Umberto Bartocci (University of Perugia historian of mathematics), the correct equation E=mc² was first published on June 16, 1903 by Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, Italy, though this is not generally regarded as important by mainstream historians. Even though De Pretto was first to introduce the formula and to understand it, it was Einstein who properly derived it.

In a paper of 1900 the French mathematician Henri Poincaré discussed the recoil of a physical object when it emits a burst of radiation in one direction, as predicted by Maxwell-Lorentz electrodynamics. He remarked that the stream of radiation appeared to act like a "fictitious fluid" with a mass per unit volume of e/c2, where e is the energy density; in other words, the equivalent mass of the radiation is m = E / c2. Poincaré considered the recoil of the emitter to be an unresolved feature of Maxwell-Lorentz theory, which he discussed again in "Science and Hypothesis" (1902) and "The Value of Science" (1904). In the latter he said the recoil "is contrary to the principle of Newton since our projectile here has no mass, it is not matter, it is energy", and discussed two other unexplained effects: (1) non-conservation of mass implied by Lorentz's variable mass γm, Abraham's theory of variable mass and Kaufmann's experiments on the mass of fast moving electrons and (2) the non-conservation of energy in the radium experiments of Madame Curie. It was Einstein's insight that a body losing energy as radiation or heat was losing mass of amount m = E / c2, and the corresponding mass-energy conservation law, which resolved these problems. (See Henri_Poincare#Work_on_relativity.)

[edit]
Derivation

Newton's second law as it appears in nonrelativistic classical mechanics reads


where mv is the nonrelativistic momentum of a body, F is the force acting upon it, and t is the coordinate of absolute time. In this form, the law is incompatible with the principles of relativity; the law does not change covariantly under Lorentz transformations. This situation is naturally remedied by modifying the law to read


where now p=mγv is the relativistic momentum of the body, F is the force acting on a body as measured in its rest frame, and τ is the proper time of the body, the time measured by a clock in its rest frame. This equation agrees with the Newtonian form in the low velocity limit as required by the correspondence principle. Moreover it is covariant under Lorentz transformations; if this law holds in one reference frame, then it holds in all reference frames.

The relativistic momentum p=mγv is the spatial part of p, the energy-momentum Minkowski vector and therefore F must also be the spatial part of a Minkowski vector, F. The full covariant relativistic version of Newton's second law must include the full four vectors:


Here we have the momentum-energy Minkowski vector


which satisfies
p2 = m2c2

from which we may infer


In the particle's rest frame, the momentum is (mc,0) and so for the force four-vector to be orthogonal, its time component must be zero in the rest frame as well, so F = (0,F). Applying a Lorentz transformation to an arbitrary frame, we find


Thus the time component of the relativistic version of Newton's second law is


Recalling the definition of work done by the applied force as


and since the change in energy is given by the work done, we have


and so finally we see that, up to an additive constant,


The energy is only defined up to a constant, so it is conceivable that we could define the total energy of a free particle to be given simply by the kinetic energy T = mc2(γ – 1) which differs from E by a constant, which is afterall the case in nonrelativistic mechanics. To see that the rest energy must be included, the law of conservation of momentum (which will serve as the relativistic replacement for Newton's third law) must be invoked, which dictates that the quantity mγc2 = mc2 + T be conserved and allows that rest energy can be converted into kinetic energy and vice versa, a phenomenon that is observed in many experiments.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 10:11 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Waarom schrijf jij Josti met een hoofdletter? Fuck op wanna-be taalpurist.

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 10:18 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Verklaar uzelf nader?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 10:26 schreef L3IPO het volgende:
Maar ff OT...is er dan niemand die het niet irritant vindt? Of durf je er niet voor uit te komen? Is het een taboe om niet met de standaard FOK "grapjes"/ topicbewegingen mee te gaan

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 10:28 schreef L3IPO het volgende:

[..]

Waarom?

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:21 schreef Lariekoek het volgende:
P.S.
Badminton

quote:

Op vrijdag 27 april 2007 09:25 schreef L3IPO het volgende:
Het is gewoon zo...ik snap niet dat mensen het leuk of interessant vinden om te lezen / te doen. Ook altijd hetzelfde in KLB of wat dan ook, iemand heeft een klacht en de MBO fokkertjes gaan massaal extra erop in, met welk doel? Grappig zijn? Nog meer irritatie veroorzaken met welk doel?

Het kan mij verder ook bitter weinig schelen, maar de meeste onderdelen van FOK! zijn al niet echt kwaliteitsonderdelen te noemen, maar deze "trent" verziekt hele topics gewoon.

Ik kan het gewoon niet begrijpen...