Very "Concrete" analogies, Frank. Portland cement manufacture is a "Basic" industry too. :-)
Frederick Frank Grimer wrote: > > At 02:20 am 02/08/2005 -0500, you wrote: > >If this is true, Frank. How does the annihilation of an electron with a > >positron > >produce two photons each with 510 Mev positive energy? > > > >Frederick > > > > > No problem at all Fred. > > If you "annihilate" a prestressed concrete beam by destroying > the wedges at one end, then the steel shoots off in one direction > spearing anyone who's unfortunate enough to be standing in > line, and the concrete shoots off in the other direction squashing > the opposite in-liner. > > In the case of the steel it is minus epsilon strain energy which > has been converted into motion (your photon going in one direction) > and in the case of the concrete it is plus epsilon strain energy > which has been converted into motion (your photon going in the other > direction). > > The problem with the concept of energy is that it is really a > disguised velocity/strain squared - and in squaring, the vector > aspect of velocity/strain is hidden. > > Also as the Hotson paradox shows, the electron and positron don't > "annihilate" each other at all. They merely neutralize each others > mass and charge to form a neutral mass, neutral charge particle, > the Materon, the forth member of the minimalist nuclear Mendeleev > table. > > If we pursue the prestress beam analogy the we can see that > charge is analogous to the linear tension strain in the > steel and mass is analogous to the area compressive strain in > the steel. When the wedges are destroyed both the offset tensile > and area strains are converted into velocity, the photon analog. > > After all - ask yourself. Why on earth should the photons head off > in opposite directions, something you conveniently omitted to mention? > Velocity is a vector. The net velocity of the system is zero. > > Energy and mass are derivative concepts with consequent loss of > information. To understand the mechanics of any system one has > to integrate back to the underlying velocity/strain aspects. > > I would use the term "get back to basics" if it hadn't been besmirched > by the hypocritical action of John Major who introduced it to British > politics. > > Cheers > > Frank Grimer
