The phlogiston theory was a scientific hypothesis developed in the late 17th century stating that a combustible body contains a substance in the form of phlogistons, which during combustion is released into the air under loss of mass of the body. The theory was debunked by noting instead a gain of mass (in the form of oxygen taken from the air).
Modern physics describes combustion in terms of chemical reactions where energy is released by rearranging electrons in space into lower total energy, not substantially as loss of mass or mass defect.
Modern physics explains energy release in nuclear reactions in terms of mass defect with the products having smaller mass than reactants, as if mass is turned into energy according to $E=mc^2$.
According to the (debunked) phlogiston theory, energy released in chemical reactions comes from "burning of phlogistons".
According to modern physics, energy released in nuclear reactions comes from "burning of mass" with mass defect according to $E=mc^2$. Is this also a form of phlogiston theory not yet debunked?
To seek an answer, recall that nuclear reactions can be described in terms of spatial rearrangement of nucleons, in the same way that chemical reactions can be described in terms of rearrangement of electrons.
Does this description capture all the energy released or only some of it, the remaining then coming from "burning of mass"? But why only some of the energy, and not all?
With these arguments we are led to question the idea of "energy from burning of mass" as the prevailing idea. We are led to suspect that the mass defects trivially computed from list values of masses of reactants and products have been assigned values so as to allow mass defects to account for observed energy release as a form of self full-filling prophecy to impress the average mind along the Einstein model of the previous post.
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar