Mass Energy Equivalence

Mass-Energy Equivalence and  absurdities of modern physics

 
Motto:

Sometimes, a thing can be as pretty on the outside as it is hollow on the inside. The famous equivalence mass-energy formula fits this scenario. It is a simple formula, easy to be recognized, but its consequences are so absurd that a rational science would never consider such statement as being true. This text is just an introduction to a long line of absurdities which are the consequences of the mass-energy equivalence.

  
Background and actual explanation 
 
Mass-energy equivalence, expressed by  E = mc² formula,  seems to be the most famous formula in physics. This equivalence postulate of relativity theory shows that we have a proportionality between the mass of a physical system (m) and its energy (E); the constant of proportionality  is equal to the square of the light speed (c²).
For ordinary phenomena (macroscopic world) mass variation predicted by  above  relationship is too small to be detected. Therefore in the macroscopic world we consider mass as a additive unit.

But according to quantum theory  corroborate with special relativity theory, at  microscopic level,  mass ceases to be an  additive size. If we consider the simplest atom - hydrogen (protium), its mass is equal to:

m_H= m_p+ m_e– E_ionization
where m_p is the proton mass,   m_e the mass of the electron  and  E_ionization is energy of interaction between proton and electron.
Consequently, the mass of the hydrogen atom will be less than the sum of masses of its component elementary particles. If the binding energy of hydrogen is 13.6 eV,  this would correspond to a correction of mass  close to 1 ppm (part per million):

Reported to the electron mass  which is  m = 9.1 × 10-31 kg,  than a bit less than one part of the million from electron mass is converted into energy when hydrogen is formed of elementary particles.
In case of  nuclear phenomena we observe that the binding energies have significantly higher values. For deuterium, the simplest compound nucleus consisting of one proton and one neutron there is:
m_D= m_p+ m_n– 2,2 MeV
In this case the mass difference is:

Reported to the nucleon mass that is approximately 1.6 × 10^-27 kg,  approximately 0.24% of the nucleons mass is transformed into energy in case of deuterium nucleus. For other elements, where the binding energy of about 8 MeV / nucleon, we can consider that 1 % of of these nucleons mass is transformed into energy when these nucleons are incorporated in various cores.
In the last century, nuclear physics and elementary particles have become a favorite field of theoretical modeling and of course plenty of Nobel Prizes have been awarded for these theoretical works. In one of these models, protons or neutrons aren′t considered elementary particles but they are merely regarded as composite particles made up of quarks. Of course between these quarks it was postulated the existence of another force, distinct from the classical forces (gravity, electromagnetic), that keeps these quarks bound together. This interaction between quarks has a very unusual feature: it increases with the distance! Therefore they can not separated or observed by breaking  the proton in pieces; only by indirect means it was possible to estimate that  quarks contribute with about 5% to the mass of a proton;  the rest was attributed to the interaction energy between them and supplementary it was postulated the existence of another elementary particle  - gluon.
Moreover, a multinational research team, under the patronage of the French Centre for Theoretical Physics was able to verify and confirm both the internal structure of the proton as such and Einstein's equation on the equivalence  between mass and energy as two different forms of matter manifestation.
 
Electron ionization energy and  absurdity of E = mc² relationship
 
Let's leave aside, for the moment, the atomic core with its specific issues raised by a rational approach  and lets  focus on electron ionization energies of different atoms. The values ​​of these energies are well known and measured experimentally but  of course, quantum theory  forgot to give them a proper interpretation (in fact variation of ionization energies flagrantly contradicts the quantum concepts  - see variation of ionization energy), but this is another story ....
For hydrogen, we have a  a value for electron ionization energy equal with few eV, but for multilayer elements the situation is a little different. An element as Pb or Bi may have for certain electrons energies of ionization of the order of 0.1 MeV. If these ionisation energies are correlated with  electron  mass, we can see that the percentage of the mass of the electron that turns into energy (according to relativity theory) becomes appreciable. In tab. 1 we present such data (ionization energies) for  bismuth (Z = 83) and the percentage of the electron mass which is converted into energy.

The amount of mass transformed into amount of energy (column 5) was calculated with Einstein's formula:

 and the remanent  mass of electron (column 6), i.e. the percentage of the mass of the electron that is not converted into energy was calculated with formula:

 where m_e is the mass of the electron at rest that is m_e = 9.1 × 10^-31 kg

 Table 1. Proportion of mass electrons  converted into energy for  element bismuth

As can be seen from the table 1, for an electron located on the first layer, an amount of 1.816 × 10^-31 kg of total of 9.1 × 10^-31 kg (representing 20% ​​of the electron mass at rest) is converted into energy (column 6, Nr. crt. 1 and 2).
For electrons situated on intermediate layers the proportion of  mass converted into energy decreases continuously and becomes insignificant for valence electrons.
All seem well and good, but at this time, according to modern physics we have two completely different and contradictory explanations for the same experimental unit - ionization energy.
On one hand, the electrons move around nucleus because of Coulomb force and of course there is a possibility to calculate the energy of interaction between these charged particles as being dependent on charges size and the distance between them. It is normal for electrons situated on the first layer, ie closer to the nucleus to have a stronger interaction and as we depart from the nucleus, this interaction is progressively reduced. Even quantum mechanics does not throw away the  electrostatic interaction between nucleus and electrons, only it gives a more complicated mathematical interpretation. As consequence, in quantum mechanic operators are used as a substitution for continuous functions used at macroscopic level in classical electromagnetism. 

On the other hand, relativity postulates that part of the electrons and protons mass is converted into energy and of course these binding energies are a result of different amount of mass converted into energy. Unfortunately, there is no plausible mechanism to explain how mass is  transformed into energy. Neither quantum theory,  nor relativity theory are able  to provide such details and the reason is very simple: none can even imagine how such a thing  could  be possible....

This text pours a little more fuel to the fire, because it brings into question other details that should be explained by a rational theory of physics.
A simple question should be: how is it possible for different percentages of the electron or proton mass to be converted into energy? 
Perhaps the current theorists should give a clear explanation of the significance of ionization energy and eliminate one of these contradictory explanations; but they prefer to cut leaves to the dogs and spend public money on absurd research ideas.

            Mass energy conversion  and quantum hypothesis 

 
If we shake yhe Einstein relation a little bit more, we can find other flows and these leads to other absurdities. 
At the atomic level, it is assumed that phenomena are discrete or quantic and in fact  the entire quantum mechanics is built on this assumption.
No one has ever done a study on the mass  quantification in quantum processes.
If we admit   the  veridicity of the formula E = mc²  and the quantization of atomic energies, than mass (or proportion of particle mass which becomes energy) must be a quantum process too. Of course the current theorists have built a complex model for nucleons as being composed of several quarks, but they forgot to build a model similar for a electron.
           Let us help them to see what it involves such a complex electron.
           If we represent graphically the residual mass of electrons (mass percentage who doesnt turns out in energy) reported at Z_specific we obtain a variation for Bismuth as in fig. 1.
 

Figure 1. Energy mass conversion quantization

 
As shown in the graph and table 1, we don′t have  a ,,quantum” unit of mass that turns into energy, or if we have such unit, this chunk should be about  10^-5 parts from electron mass.  Consequently we should admit that an electron is made up of at least 10⁵ elementary particles.
That means that while the electron performs some quantum jumps between different levels of energies in a simple electronic excitation process, simultaneously it converts some of its mass into energy in a discontinuous way.

 Consider some of the electronic transitions of hydrogen (tab. 2) and let′s see what are the  consequences for ,,a mass quantifying  process”.

 
Table 2. The energy levels of hydrogen

An electron that is jumping from level 5 on level 4 will change an energy of  E = .85-.54 = 0.31 eV.
This quantum leap of the electron corresponds to a variation of the mass of the electron:
 
Δm = ΔE / c² = 5.5 × 10^-37 kg

Certainly if we consider finest IR spectrum levels of hydrogen we can get even finer variation of  electron mass.
But, accepting that the value of 5.5 × 10^-37 kg would represent a quantum of mass, then an electron would be composed of:
 
number of quanta = 9,1×10^-31 / 5,5×10^-37  = 1,65 ×10⁶ 
 
Besides the proposed proton model, consisting of a few quarks, an electron model consisting in more than  ,,one million elementary particles" in his composition is impressive!

Soon other materials about the subject ......