What is so special about this equation?
Physics Why E=mc2 is so famous in this world?
Physics Why E=mc2 is so famous in this world?
|
Jun 14 2009, 01:47 PM, updated 15y ago
Show posts by this member only | Post
#1
|
Junior Member
253 posts Joined: Mar 2009 |
What is so special about this equation?
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 01:52 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#2
|
Validating
127 posts Joined: Oct 2008 |
because it's the formula for building atomic bombs
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 01:53 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#3
|
Junior Member
37 posts Joined: Dec 2008 From: KL |
Einstein's equation E = mc2 has become part of popular culture and an icon of physics. Yet, despite its familiarity, its significance continues to be misrepresented in popular writing: a persistent myth is that it was the key to developing nuclear weapons and that it can explain the source of the Sun's luminosity and of nuclear power.
Extracts are quoted from a recent television broadcast and from a recently published book which both propagate this myth. This leaves us with the task of explaining the true status of the equation. We argue that the real importance of the equivalence of mass and energy is that it sanctions interactions in which the creation and annihilation of particles occur. This post has been edited by suushi: Jun 14 2009, 01:53 PM |
|
Jun 14 2009, 01:57 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#4
|
Senior Member
506 posts Joined: Jun 2006 From: Jungle |
E=mc2 is not the only famous equation in the world. There are lot other equations
usually when people mentioned Einstein most of them will surely pop out this equation in their mind since Einstein himself created this formula |
|
Jun 14 2009, 01:58 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#5
|
Junior Member
292 posts Joined: Feb 2009 From: Sparta |
it was the formula to make atomic bombs
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 01:59 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#6
|
Junior Member
59 posts Joined: Nov 2007 From: Penang+Kulim+Kuala Lumpur |
yeah.. I oso wondering y is it so famous.. |
|
Jun 14 2009, 02:06 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#7
|
Junior Member
24 posts Joined: May 2009 |
because no one else in this world thought of this before einstein.
How could someone think of that Mass is actually equivalent to Energy. |
|
Jun 14 2009, 02:06 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#8
|
Junior Member
253 posts Joined: Mar 2009 |
Oh, u mean this equation can make atomic bombs in which North Korea is using it right now?
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 02:12 PM
Show posts by this member only | Post
#9
|
Senior Member
5,124 posts Joined: May 2008 From: Mummy's tummy |
Google la brother... Sure you'll get all the queries in ur mind answered.
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 03:22 PM
|
Senior Member
617 posts Joined: Jun 2008 |
QUOTE(dveHetal3 @ Jun 14 2009, 02:06 PM) This is only the theoretical background to the development of the atomic bomb. The following is the significance of E = mc^2 to the invention of the atomic bomb.QUOTE 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 gets the exact binding energy available in an atomic nucleus. This is used to calculate the energy released in any nuclear reaction, as the difference in the total mass of the nuclei that enter and exit the reaction. Further contributions came from the Manhattan project where many other scientists, including Enrico Fermi and J. R. Oppenheimer (many scientists were Europeans who escaped from Nazi countries) contributed significantly in the development of the atomic bomb. Source: Wikipedia This technology was further enhanced with research into ICBM technology. |
|
Jun 14 2009, 03:37 PM
|
Senior Member
962 posts Joined: Oct 2006 From: KL |
QUOTE(chingwooi @ Jun 14 2009, 02:12 PM) yup, this is most definitely the reason the Science Lab was created. An absolute brilliant finding sir. Noted that we still need your particulars to be forwarded to the Noble Committee in Stockholm. Your particular work could indeed saved a lot of servers usage. Imagined if this was to be a standard answer to all the forums on the internet, not only we could cut down on internet bandwidth usage the after effects of it could be tremendous particularly to the environment in this age where cutting down carbon footprints is the utmost priorities in stopping our earth from plunging to an what the street persons would say 'Armageddon'. All in all a very hearty thank you sir from the scientific community for this ground breaking world changing answer. Truly you are a gem of our generation. The closest thing we could get to Nicola Tesla or Albert Einstein himself if its not too much of a flattery.@TS. I believe one word could aptly answer your question H-O-L-L-Y-W-O-O-D, |
|
Jun 14 2009, 03:40 PM
|
Senior Member
1,429 posts Joined: Sep 2006 From: Trance MUsic |
is a physics formula
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 03:50 PM
|
Senior Member
617 posts Joined: Jun 2008 |
QUOTE(NasiLemakMan @ Jun 14 2009, 03:37 PM) yup, this is most definitely the reason the Science Lab was created. An absolute brilliant finding sir. Noted that we still need your particulars to be forwarded to the Noble Committee in Stockholm. Your particular work could indeed saved a lot of servers usage. Imagined if this was to be a standard answer to all the forums on the internet, not only we could cut down on internet bandwidth usage the after effects of it could be tremendous particularly to the environment in this age where cutting down carbon footprints is the utmost priorities in stopping our earth from plunging to an what the street persons would say 'Armageddon'. All in all a very hearty thank you sir from the scientific community for this ground breaking world changing answer. Truly you are a gem of our generation. The closest thing we could get to Nicola Tesla or Albert Einstein himself if its not too much of a flattery. Sarcasm noted . Anyway. I agree with you that this kind of answers should be discouraged, but I think the person asking the question should demonstrate a prior attempt to find the answer or else the whole of science lab would be filled with basics questions like 'what is the boiling point of water' etc.@TS. I believe one word could aptly answer your question H-O-L-L-Y-W-O-O-D, This post has been edited by Thinkingfox: Jun 14 2009, 03:52 PM |
|
Jun 14 2009, 04:27 PM
|
Senior Member
4,852 posts Joined: Aug 2006 |
It's just a formula describing mass and energy are intechangable which is used in nuclear power plants,sun and atomic bombs.
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 05:19 PM
|
Senior Member
4,152 posts Joined: May 2005 |
It is so famous cause it is the equation that represents what a certain amount of mass is in energy. Is so important cause it connects the whole universe together, shows everything is related to each other, mass and energy.
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 05:35 PM
|
Junior Member
226 posts Joined: Nov 2008 |
because it proves that newton's law is wrong as newton said that energy cannot be created but in e=mc2 energy can be created
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 06:00 PM
|
Senior Member
2,898 posts Joined: Jan 2007 |
I would say Einstein's equation is a perfected formula. But why is it so popular is because he was darn popular in his era, he was so well-respected and yet he was a lazy person. I think it was his credentials that has made this equation so popular. But I can tell you one thing that without other mathematicians and physicists contribution, he would not be able to succeed. Just a thought.
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 06:23 PM
|
Senior Member
981 posts Joined: Jan 2008 From: Taiping / Sungai Petani / Butterworth |
i think Einstein regrets, he feels that he should not reveal this equation.. i read this sumwhere, cant remember
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 09:49 PM
|
Junior Member
181 posts Joined: Nov 2008 |
he worked really hard on this eqn.. saw it on discovery science.
|
|
Jun 14 2009, 11:20 PM
|
Senior Member
630 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
The reason it is so famous, is because of the simple and easy to remember formula. Despite that, it comes with great power, power to sustain life, and power to kill and destruct life.
But mostly, people remember it because of it's destructive power than anything else. |
|
Jun 14 2009, 11:24 PM
|
Forum Admin
44,409 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(bubbliblu @ Jun 14 2009, 01:52 PM) because it's the formula for building atomic bombs overly simplistic and totally inaccurate way of explaining the equation. my goodness, i don't even know what you guys are thinking. Basically E=MC2 is an expression that mass–energy equivalence is the concept that mass and energy are the same thing, so that every mass has an energy equivalent and vice versa. it is not the formula for BUILDING atomic bombs but rather it is something that explains how the atomic bomb works. http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence |
|
Jun 14 2009, 11:39 PM
|
Junior Member
221 posts Joined: Apr 2008 |
Dude, any of u guys actually studied physics? Why gave so many unrelated things about this equation? Look, its as simple as saying "to create X amounts of energy, we need Y amounts of mass" in a mass-energy equation. This formula only applies to atomic decay because radiation emits subatomic particles that give out energy.
So, development of Nuclear bomb does have something to do with this formula but only as a theory and also a way to calculate how energy given out for a given amount of mass. |
|
Jun 15 2009, 04:05 AM
|
Senior Member
1,357 posts Joined: Mar 2008 From: ☐ Earth ☐ Sky ☐ Heaven ☑ Hell |
QUOTE(Winston LYN @ Jun 14 2009, 11:39 PM) Dude, any of u guys actually studied physics? Why gave so many unrelated things about this equation? Look, its as simple as saying "to create X amounts of energy, we need Y amounts of mass" in a mass-energy equation. This formula only applies to atomic decay because radiation emits subatomic particles that give out energy. true true,remembering i studied this equation in atomic decay before....this formula is just to show that how much energy given out of some certain of mass...it is just simple as that.......So, development of Nuclear bomb does have something to do with this formula but only as a theory and also a way to calculate how energy given out for a given amount of mass. |
|
Jun 15 2009, 12:54 PM
|
Senior Member
1,604 posts Joined: Oct 2004 From: Seremban |
E=mc²
I always thought that this equation is related to time travel which Einstein thought is possible. E =Energy needed for the time travel m =Mass c = Speed of light So you can see how much energy is needed to make time travel possible =x |
|
Jun 15 2009, 12:59 PM
|
Junior Member
448 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(faidz85 @ Jun 15 2009, 12:54 PM) E=mc² Lol.. you got your facts all wrong.I always thought that this equation is related to time travel which Einstein thought is possible. E =Energy needed for the time travel m =Mass c = Speed of light So you can see how much energy is needed to make time travel possible =x E = energy.. nothing to do with time travel. |
|
Jun 15 2009, 01:01 PM
|
Junior Member
221 posts Joined: Apr 2008 |
QUOTE(faidz85 @ Jun 15 2009, 12:54 PM) E=mc² Sorry to disappoint you, there hasn't any equations or even relationship proposed by scientist to prove that Time Travel is possible. What we've been coming out now is always "Theory" about whether Time Travel is perceived as possible or just dream. I always thought that this equation is related to time travel which Einstein thought is possible. E =Energy needed for the time travel m =Mass c = Speed of light So you can see how much energy is needed to make time travel possible =x Just as the second video explained, particle sent back to him can only be the time that he built the machine, not before those time where the machine is not created. So, in other words he can only travel Forward but not Backward. |
|
Jun 15 2009, 03:35 PM
|
Senior Member
1,369 posts Joined: Sep 2008 |
i searched into this site, http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html and to my notice, its probably to explain that, u can make energy out of matter and vice versa. Probably, this is how the idea of atomic bombs appears.
Added on June 15, 2009, 3:36 pm QUOTE(goserto @ Jun 15 2009, 01:59 PM) think he trying to apply C- speed of lighttheres this theory that says, if u can travel at the speed of light, you could probably go back time.(which i personally dont believe) This post has been edited by IcyDarling: Jun 15 2009, 03:36 PM |
|
Jun 15 2009, 03:39 PM
|
Senior Member
2,718 posts Joined: Jan 2005 From: Kuala Lumpur |
It's because of this Equation, the American put 2 nuclear bomb in Japan and killed many peoples. Einstein did not produce this equation for this purpose, and he greatly regretted for creating this equation and he killed peoples indirectly.
|
|
Jun 15 2009, 03:42 PM
|
Senior Member
1,369 posts Joined: Sep 2008 |
QUOTE(DaViDcHiN @ Jun 15 2009, 04:39 PM) It's because of this Equation, the American put 2 nuclear bomb in Japan and killed many peoples. Einstein did not produce this equation for this purpose, and he greatly regretted for creating this equation and he killed peoples indirectly. without the 2 bomb, probably malaysian are still slaving themselves to japs |
|
Jun 15 2009, 03:52 PM
|
Senior Member
1,527 posts Joined: Jan 2008 |
Watched a documentary on Discovery about this theory.. Ultimately it pretty much sums up how the universe was born..
|
|
Jun 15 2009, 06:24 PM
|
Senior Member
617 posts Joined: Jun 2008 |
QUOTE(DaViDcHiN @ Jun 15 2009, 03:39 PM) It's because of this Equation, the American put 2 nuclear bomb in Japan and killed many peoples. Einstein did not produce this equation for this purpose, and he greatly regretted for creating this equation and he killed peoples indirectly. Again, over simplification of the process. Many..many.. people were involved in the production of the atomic bomb.Off topic: Some say that the number of lives required to end the war with conventional weapons (non-nuclear weapon) would have been higher, because Japan was willing to put their civilians at risk rather than giving up. However, this is just an opinion. |
|
Jun 15 2009, 06:34 PM
|
Senior Member
1,369 posts Joined: Sep 2008 |
QUOTE(Thinkingfox @ Jun 15 2009, 07:24 PM) Again, over simplification of the process. Many..many.. people were involved in the production of the atomic bomb. Yeah i agree with it. Einstein did not propose nuclear bomb. Off topic: Some say that the number of lives required to end the war with conventional weapons (non-nuclear weapon) would have been higher, because Japan was willing to put their civilians at risk rather than giving up. However, this is just an opinion. |
|
Jun 16 2009, 09:50 AM
|
Senior Member
3,645 posts Joined: Jan 2009 From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting |
Morning!
This will be my first posting in Science Lab. (Eh! I found out this is my number 201 posting in LYN too...HEHEHEHE~~~ Where's my test tube?! Oh bugger! Was browsing through this thread and Eureka! found an intriguing equation which is E=mc2. I did some readings/research on Einstein during my Univ time. I found out one thing: Did yu know that it was NOT Einstein that coined the equation of E=mc2 but rather an Azzuri named Olinto de Pretto (nice name although he's not Totti or Andrea Pirlo...anyway, Einstein is a nice name too) that CAME OUT FIRST with that equation. (there's alwaiz a catch, eh?). 2 years BEFORE Einstein's equation came into experimental confirmation in nuclear physics. (Please bear in mind that this CONFIRMATION IN NUCLEAR PHYSICS holds a significant manner in what we would say Einstein is correlated with E=mc2). Please stay on with me because what's on the following WILL be lay upon for yu will be justified with this significant manner. In my humble opinion, E=mc2 is the most significant equation is physics. In 1945 the explosion of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were base upon this equation. Why would I mentioned Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Basically these two met their fate of the realisation of E=mc2. (I would like to apologise to the Citizens of Japan for bringing this up, may the souls of the departed ones rest in peace). According to this SIMPLE YET COMPLICATED deriviation: mass (m) can be converted to energy (E) and energy can be converted to mass. If yu have a grasp on the said deriviation, I think yu should be able to understand the physics involved. For one last note: I think a lot of SMART ARSES here DO NOT KNOW that Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in TRUE SENSE SPECULATED it! (That's what I call a SMART ARSE SPECULATION!). I like Einstein's hair style. Seriously, I do. By the way, the Azzuris won previous the FIFA World Cup too... Regards, Joey~~~ p.s: Try some readings on a scientific journal Lettere ed Atti, dated back in Feb. 1904. Yu may find it in the Perpustakaan/Arkib Negara...not sure about Malaysia's library but I got my copy of the scientific journal from my aunt in Paris, France. (That's a few years back). MUAHAHAHA~~~Joey By the way, it not "2" as in "two". It's referring to as "power of two". (Please minimise your activities in pornographic materials and do some proper readings too). I take this as a community service reminder. Thank yu. Joey~~~ By the way, WHO SAYS a Dotard ain't no rocket scientist?! Yu got pawned by a DOTARD! This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 16 2009, 10:42 AM |
|
Jun 16 2009, 10:47 AM
|
Junior Member
221 posts Joined: Apr 2008 |
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... « Erm, this equation only enabled scientist to propose for an atomic bomb. Why? because when Curies first found nuclear radiation which is, basically Gamma, Alpha and Beta Radiation, he didn't know he can harness the power of nuclear decay into explosives! As all of the scientists know, nuclear radiation is due to nuclear decay which produces daughter nuclides from parent nuclide and was only able to harness the power of X-Ray for medical purposes.However, after Einstein publish this equation, the scientist came to realize that nuclear radiation can actually be used to make Bombs. As all have known in this thread, equation only states that energy is proportional to mass. So, this Nuclear Bomb is developed by many scientists through years of experimentation. So, conclusion is Einstein never even participated in the development of Nuclear Bomb, he merely gave an idea of how the bomb should be developed. |
|
Jun 16 2009, 11:06 AM
|
Senior Member
3,645 posts Joined: Jan 2009 From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting |
QUOTE(Winston LYN @ Jun 16 2009, 10:47 AM) Erm, this equation only enabled scientist to propose for an atomic bomb. Why? because when Curies first found nuclear radiation which is, basically Gamma, Alpha and Beta Radiation, he didn't know he can harness the power of nuclear decay into explosives! As all of the scientists know, nuclear radiation is due to nuclear decay which produces daughter nuclides from parent nuclide and was only able to harness the power of X-Ray for medical purposes. Sounds strong theoretical. I would give it to yu on the First Paragraph and Second Paragraph. However, I beg to differ regarding the Ending part. Although I know the Ending part is not a climatic scene of the whole show but to say Einstein NEVER?! participated in the development of a nuclear bomb is just a tick for me to scratch off. (Maybe I'm sensitive or something but it's still morning)However, after Einstein publish this equation, the scientist came to realize that nuclear radiation can actually be used to make Bombs. As all have known in this thread, equation only states that energy is proportional to mass. So, this Nuclear Bomb is developed by many scientists through years of experimentation. So, conclusion is Einstein never even participated in the development of Nuclear Bomb, he merely gave an idea of how the bomb should be developed. Einstein's role resolves in the development and use of nuclear weapons. As Einstein stated after World War II, "My participation in the production of the atomic bomb consisted of one single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt . . . in which I emphasized the necessity of conducting large-scale experimentation with regard to the feasibility of producing an atom bomb. . . I saw no alternative but to act as I did, although I have alwaiz been a convinced pacifist." Regards, Joey~~~ p.s: I better buy Scared Relics and Heart of Tarrasque and bash Roshan up...feels much relieved that way. Aaaahhhh~~~it's akin to masturbation. HEHEHE~~~Was wondering if Einstein can play DotA too if it was introduced back in his era. He would be GODLIKE and pawn noobs like yu... "I do not consider myself the father of the release of atomic energy." ~~~Albert Einstein, Atomic War or Peace, 1945. This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 16 2009, 11:08 AM |
|
Jun 16 2009, 12:40 PM
|
Junior Member
221 posts Joined: Apr 2008 |
QUOTE(Joey Christensen @ Jun 16 2009, 11:06 AM) Sounds strong theoretical. I would give it to yu on the First Paragraph and Second Paragraph. However, I beg to differ regarding the Ending part. Although I know the Ending part is not a climatic scene of the whole show but to say Einstein NEVER?! participated in the development of a nuclear bomb is just a tick for me to scratch off. (Maybe I'm sensitive or something but it's still morning) Oh thanks for the enlightenment! I never knew he actually signed that letter to Mr.Roosevelt. So, however the only participation is that he agreed that large scale experimentation on Nuclear Bomb be started as soon as possible as the War is not going to end any sooner right? Oh wow of course he would pawn noobs like me because I am just a student of physics learning a lot from his predecessors such as Max Planck and Ernest Rutherford. Einstein's role resolves in the development and use of nuclear weapons. As Einstein stated after World War II, "My participation in the production of the atomic bomb consisted of one single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt . . . in which I emphasized the necessity of conducting large-scale experimentation with regard to the feasibility of producing an atom bomb. . . I saw no alternative but to act as I did, although I have alwaiz been a convinced pacifist." Regards, Joey~~~ p.s: I better buy Scared Relics and Heart of Tarrasque and bash Roshan up...feels much relieved that way. Aaaahhhh~~~it's akin to masturbation. HEHEHE~~~Was wondering if Einstein can play DotA too if it was introduced back in his era. He would be GODLIKE and pawn noobs like yu... "I do not consider myself the father of the release of atomic energy." ~~~Albert Einstein, Atomic War or Peace, 1945. Yea, in the end, he only done a small part on developing Nuclear Bomb. Anyway, I am pursuing Mechanical Engineering later this year. So am really interested in Physics article. Nice to meet u. This post has been edited by Winston LYN: Jun 16 2009, 12:41 PM |
|
Jun 16 2009, 12:56 PM
|
Senior Member
3,645 posts Joined: Jan 2009 From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting |
QUOTE(Winston LYN @ Jun 16 2009, 12:40 PM) Oh thanks for the enlightenment! I never knew he actually signed that letter to Mr.Roosevelt. So, however the only participation is that he agreed that large scale experimentation on Nuclear Bomb be started as soon as possible as the War is not going to end any sooner right? Oh wow of course he would pawn noobs like me because I am just a student of physics learning a lot from his predecessors such as Max Planck and Ernest Rutherford. No prob. Anyway, it's about sharing knowledge. Actually I was a Pure Science stream student back in the 90s. Entered Univ and started off with Art based subject majoring HRM. Yea, in the end, he only done a small part on developing Nuclear Bomb. Anyway, I am pursuing Mechanical Engineering later this year. So am really interested in Physics article. Nice to meet u. This leave a preposition of: Am I a Science or an Art student? MUAHAHAHAHA~~~It's like chicken and egg theory. In addition to the letter, Einstein collaborated with fellow physicists Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, and Edward Teller on a letter in August, 1939, informing President Roosevelt of recent discoveries that indicated it MIGHT BE POSSIBLE (See how this correlates with my previous posting) to build "extremely powerful bombs of a new type." Coupled with a few motivational factors including Einstein's letter, President Roosevelt initiated programmes that led to the Manhattan Project and the eventual development of the atomic bomb. (He's not a bad scientist, he's more like a Creep for the Heroes to farm in DotA). Regards, Joey p.s: Expand your knowledge via readings and doing research on your own. Our learnings are well beyond the compound of our school/campus. Good Luck in your studies, "Winston LYN". This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 16 2009, 05:54 PM |
|
Jun 16 2009, 10:46 PM
|
Senior Member
3,417 posts Joined: Apr 2007 From: Gangster Paradise |
it is so famous because it contradicts with physics law of:
Mass cannot be destroy / Energy cannot be created E=mc² shows where mass can be destroyed and converted into energy commonly used to calculate atomic energic and photon energy.. This post has been edited by farscope: Jun 16 2009, 10:47 PM |
|
Jun 16 2009, 11:13 PM
|
Junior Member
221 posts Joined: Apr 2008 |
QUOTE(farscope @ Jun 16 2009, 10:46 PM) it is so famous because it contradicts with physics law of: The bolded words are still under Law of Physics. Because it stated "Energy cannot be created". But in this case, Energy is being converted from Mass. So in other words, Mass wasn't destroyed rather it is convertedMass cannot be destroy / Energy cannot be created E=mc² shows where mass can be destroyed and converted into energy commonly used to calculate atomic energic and photon energy.. |
|
Jun 16 2009, 11:22 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
Joey Christensen: What's the proof for:
QUOTE For one last note: I think a lot of SMART ARSES here DO NOT KNOW that Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in TRUE SENSE SPECULATED it! (That's what I call a SMART ARSE SPECULATION!). Because this paper seems to contradict you: http://www.bourbaphy.fr/darrigol2.pdf , page 18, right at the bottom afaik, Pretto used another set of assumptions, which have now been discredited (an aether) to arrive at the formula, which doesn't really mean anything does it? This post has been edited by bgeh: Jun 16 2009, 11:38 PM |
|
Jun 17 2009, 11:05 AM
|
Senior Member
3,645 posts Joined: Jan 2009 From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Jun 16 2009, 11:22 PM) Joey Christensen: What's the proof for: Morning!Because this paper seems to contradict you: http://www.bourbaphy.fr/darrigol2.pdf , page 18, right at the bottom What I meant was it's a speculation from an existing mathematical formula. For Einstein case, this existing mathematical formula, it COULD (Einstein proved it) and WAS (Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes into picture) speculated/derived into formulae. (Have yu heard of Trial and Error methodology?) It's similar in a way of getting a set of formulae from a existing/posed formula. I'll let yu do the thinking. Contradictorily speaking it is between yu, me and the understanding of the context per se. Regards, Joey p.s: I'm not talking linear logic here. If I apply linear logic in my initial posting, I wouldn't have written and posted replies. This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 17 2009, 11:14 AM |
|
Jun 17 2009, 06:32 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(IcyDarling @ Jun 15 2009, 03:35 PM) i searched into this site, http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html and to my notice, its probably to explain that, u can make energy out of matter and vice versa. Probably, this is how the idea of atomic bombs appears. Going back in time is theoritically possible with General Relativity. Reaching the conditions neeeded however, is not possilbe with current technologyAdded on June 15, 2009, 3:36 pm think he trying to apply C- speed of light theres this theory that says, if u can travel at the speed of light, you could probably go back time.(which i personally dont believe) Does anyone else here thinks relativity is and fun. |
|
Jun 17 2009, 06:34 PM
|
Forum Admin
44,409 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
why is it so famous?
because a) it's applies to many areas of our life b) it's a VERY simple equation (or at least so simple you can remember, or say, or whatever..........) |
|
Jun 17 2009, 07:17 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(Joey Christensen @ Jun 17 2009, 11:05 AM) Morning! I know he proved it. But wth is linear logic? Make it something we can all read and understand first, and explain your claims again please. Because as of right now you look like you're making a big load of false claims.What I meant was it's a speculation from an existing mathematical formula. For Einstein case, this existing mathematical formula, it COULD (Einstein proved it) and WAS (Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes into picture) speculated/derived into formulae. (Have yu heard of Trial and Error methodology?) It's similar in a way of getting a set of formulae from a existing/posed formula. I'll let yu do the thinking. Contradictorily speaking it is between yu, me and the understanding of the context per se. Regards, Joey p.s: I'm not talking linear logic here. If I apply linear logic in my initial posting, I wouldn't have written and posted replies. This post has been edited by bgeh: Jun 17 2009, 07:23 PM |
|
Jun 18 2009, 01:09 AM
|
Senior Member
691 posts Joined: Aug 2008 |
which also made mariah carey famous.
back to topic, well albert invented this formula, and this formula 'helped' to 'end' ww2, i wouldnt be surprise if it is famous |
|
Jun 18 2009, 02:47 AM
|
Senior Member
9,257 posts Joined: Aug 2005 From: Not so sure myself Status: 1+3+3=7 |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 17 2009, 06:32 PM) Going back in time is theoritically possible with General Relativity. Reaching the conditions neeeded however, is not possilbe with current technology Which reminds me of a book that I read in Borders when I was bored, it's about Einstein's biodata, and I remember this specific part of relativity. It was mentioned in the book whereby Einstein explained relativity in this situation: (reciting from memory so bare with me please)Does anyone else here thinks relativity is and fun. Imagine you sitting on a bench in the park, and opposite you there's a hot chick talking to this guy. You will feel like every second is as long as an hour. If you're sitting beside this hot chick, and talking to her, one hour passed and you will feel like you just chatted with her for minutes. Pretty interesting if you ask me, and hell, it's quite true. |
|
Jun 18 2009, 04:21 AM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(eXPeri3nc3 @ Jun 18 2009, 02:47 AM) Which reminds me of a book that I read in Borders when I was bored, it's about Einstein's biodata, and I remember this specific part of relativity. It was mentioned in the book whereby Einstein explained relativity in this situation: (reciting from memory so bare with me please) Well, thats more of a psychology issue Imagine you sitting on a bench in the park, and opposite you there's a hot chick talking to this guy. You will feel like every second is as long as an hour. If you're sitting beside this hot chick, and talking to her, one hour passed and you will feel like you just chatted with her for minutes. Pretty interesting if you ask me, and hell, it's quite true. Thing is, as interesting as relativity goes, deep understanding of maths is really needed to even know the basics of it. |
|
Jun 18 2009, 04:59 AM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 18 2009, 04:21 AM) Well, thats more of a psychology issue That is not true if you're considering special relativity, which only requires some knowledge of algebra, which you would've done in secondary school (F1 - F5 - heck I think F3 algebra would suffice). General relativity is another kettle of fish altogether though.Thing is, as interesting as relativity goes, deep understanding of maths is really needed to even know the basics of it. This post has been edited by bgeh: Jun 18 2009, 05:01 AM |
|
Jun 18 2009, 09:46 AM
|
Senior Member
3,645 posts Joined: Jan 2009 From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Jun 17 2009, 07:17 PM) I know he proved it. But wth is linear logic? Make it something we can all read and understand first, and explain your claims again please. Because as of right now you look like you're making a big load of false claims. Morning!In what sense that your convoluted mind tells yu that my claims were at default false and misleading. E=mc2? Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Trial & Error Methodology? My post script? Regards, Joey p.s: English proficiency is needed at times when it comes to understanding of questions, contexts, statements, etc...Is this sufficient as per my explanation? Let's take an example: When yu are answering an examination question, yu would first read and understand the question asked before yu even start penning your answers, right? Alright, time to mine some mana from the cave...Work, work! |
|
Jun 18 2009, 09:58 AM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(Joey Christensen @ Jun 18 2009, 09:46 AM) Morning! My understanding: In what sense that your convoluted mind tells yu that my claims were at default false and misleading. E=mc2? Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Trial & Error Methodology? My post script? Regards, Joey p.s: English proficiency is needed at times when it comes to understanding of questions, contexts, statements, etc...Is this sufficient as per my explanation? Let's take an example: When yu are answering an examination question, yu would first read and understand the question asked before yu even start penning your answers, right? Alright, time to mine some mana from the cave...Work, work! Your original claim: QUOTE For one last note: I think a lot of SMART ARSES here DO NOT KNOW that Einstein did not derive it mathematically but in TRUE SENSE SPECULATED it! (That's what I call a SMART ARSE SPECULATION!). Speculation? No mathematical derivation? Read the paper I posted. He made a mathematical derivation based on physical principles. Next thing you say: QUOTE For Einstein case, this existing mathematical formula, it COULD (Einstein proved it) and WAS (Hiroshima and Nagasaki comes into picture) speculated/derived into formulae. (Have yu heard of Trial and Error methodology?) It's similar in a way of getting a set of formulae from a existing/posed formula. I'll let yu do the thinking. Right, do tell me how exactly do you do it from trial and error. Oh, and also, first you say he got the formula from speculating it, and in the next post you said that he proved it. Right, how did he prove it, considering the following 2 things, firstly, that he speculated about the form of the equation, and from your original statement, he then got the form of the equation, but did no mathematical derivation at all (a mathematical derivation would be a sort of proof), or secondly, that he didn't do any experiments of any sort to check for the validity of the equation? (which again is a proof, scientifically) Also, since you stated speculated/derived, do you think those 2 words mean the same thing then? [Because if you do, then yes it'll solve all my issues with your original claim, because the paper I quoted would also be in agreement with you, but I'm highly doubtful, because you talked about things such as trial and error] And yes, your claims are by default false, until you can prove it isn't, and heck, it applies to us all when we make claims about something. The burden of proof is on the claimant. You have not done anything like that (proving the original claim), have you? This post has been edited by bgeh: Jun 18 2009, 10:18 AM |
|
Jun 18 2009, 10:55 AM
|
Senior Member
3,796 posts Joined: Nov 2008 |
For those like me, ordinary people. The formula is first imagined and then experiment has proved that it works, think of a solution is the same as imagine it as in daydreaming. The extreme state of mind that has virtually no limit which combine rational and the not and concoct a realm to simulate scenario, in this case, conduct the experiment in the mind.
Does that make any sense? |
|
Jun 18 2009, 12:10 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Jun 18 2009, 04:59 AM) That is not true if you're considering special relativity, which only requires some knowledge of algebra, which you would've done in secondary school (F1 - F5 - heck I think F3 algebra would suffice). General relativity is another kettle of fish altogether though. Thats the thing, special relativity ain't as special as general relativity despite its name hahaha. |
|
Jun 18 2009, 12:50 PM
|
Senior Member
3,645 posts Joined: Jan 2009 From: Fort Canning Garden Status: Dog Fighting |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Jun 18 2009, 09:58 AM) Hi there "bgeh",There's no point arguing here. My explanation in my prior post script was sufficiently eminent for yu to understand. I understand your concerns whole heartedly...however, I wish not to address it to yu in a straight forward way. That's how Science works. It's in a better preposition for your imaginations and critical thinking to do the groundworks. As mentioned above, I take my stand and I take this opportunity to sincerely apologise for my "attitude" of addressing your concerns. I take my leave from now on. Regards, Joey p.s: Yu were not wrong in questionings. But yu were wrong in interpretations of my context. I bid yu good day. This post has been edited by Joey Christensen: Jun 18 2009, 12:52 PM |
|
Jun 18 2009, 10:49 PM
|
Staff
1,361 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: A' Ghàidhealtachd |
QUOTE(Joey Christensen @ Jun 18 2009, 12:50 PM) Hi there "bgeh", Since you claim that he might be wrong in interpreting what you said,why not explain so that everyone understands?There's no point arguing here. My explanation in my prior post script was sufficiently eminent for yu to understand. I understand your concerns whole heartedly...however, I wish not to address it to yu in a straight forward way. That's how Science works. It's in a better preposition for your imaginations and critical thinking to do the groundworks. As mentioned above, I take my stand and I take this opportunity to sincerely apologise for my "attitude" of addressing your concerns. I take my leave from now on. Regards, Joey p.s: Yu were not wrong in questionings. But yu were wrong in interpretations of my context. I bid yu good day. By not letting us know in a 'straight forward' way,you might make us more confused and this might lead to more misunderstanding. So,please,explain. |
|
Jun 19 2009, 10:50 AM
|
Senior Member
1,008 posts Joined: Aug 2006 |
QUOTE(farscope @ Jun 16 2009, 10:46 PM) it is so famous because it contradicts with physics law of: i would say this is the main reason why this equation is so famous. it contradict with law of conservation of energy that we forced to remember since darjah enam. Mass cannot be destroy / Energy cannot be created E=mc² shows where mass can be destroyed and converted into energy commonly used to calculate atomic energic and photon energy.. simple, yes but for me f=ma is the simplest and most applied equation in this world. its the heart of engineering. |
|
Jun 19 2009, 05:21 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(kazairol @ Jun 19 2009, 10:50 AM) i would say this is the main reason why this equation is so famous. it contradict with law of conservation of energy that we forced to remember since darjah enam. How does it contradict conservation of energy?simple, yes but for me f=ma is the simplest and most applied equation in this world. its the heart of engineering. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 12:43 AM
|
Senior Member
1,542 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: cheeseland |
E = MC² is so yesterday....
Do you know that before einstein died, he was coming up a new formula to replace this ? Apparently E = MC² was his equation for everything... but he wuz wrong, he died before he came up with the equation for everything,.. until nao... we have the String theory that claims to be the 'equation for everything' that Einstein had strived so hard to produce. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 10:07 AM
|
Senior Member
536 posts Joined: Jun 2009 From: Earth |
You're wrong, Issac Newton was right which the whole universe has constant energy. you say that energy can be created by the equation E = MC^2 , well energy is create of course but at the cost of decreasing mass
|
|
Jun 20 2009, 01:32 PM
|
Senior Member
1,542 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: cheeseland |
QUOTE(myself379 @ Jun 20 2009, 10:07 AM) You're wrong, Issac Newton was right which the whole universe has constant energy. you say that energy can be created by the equation E = MC^2 , well energy is create of course but at the cost of decreasing mass Hmmm.. I remember something about Einstein's law denies Newton's law right? then dunno how he came up with a theory that support both his theory and newton theory |
|
Jun 20 2009, 01:36 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 01:32 PM) Hmmm.. I remember something about Einstein's law denies Newton's law right? then dunno how he came up with a theory that support both his theory and newton theory Newton's Laws are NOT wrong. They are just specialized cases which is more generally described by Einstein. Those are mainly concerning mechanics and planetary motion. I say again, Newton is NOT wrong. I assume you know which theories are concerned here.Though i have seen papers on recent experiment showing that even at slow speeds relativistic prediction can completely disagree with Newtonian mechanics. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 02:10 PM
|
Senior Member
1,542 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: cheeseland |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 01:36 PM) Newton's Laws are NOT wrong. They are just specialized cases which is more generally described by Einstein. Those are mainly concerning mechanics and planetary motion. I say again, Newton is NOT wrong. I assume you know which theories are concerned here. chill bro.. I didnt say Newton's law is wrong. yah I think it's the planetary motion.. Einstein says light is the fastest thing on earth, which clashes with Newton's claim on the gravity... again.. if you are talking about energy... E=mc2 is not the only possible answer rite?Though i have seen papers on recent experiment showing that even at slow speeds relativistic prediction can completely disagree with Newtonian mechanics. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 02:13 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 02:10 PM) chill bro.. I didnt say Newton's law is wrong. yah I think it's the planetary motion.. Einstein says light is the fastest thing on earth, which clashes with Newton's claim on the gravity... again.. if you are talking about energy... E=mc2 is not the only possible answer rite? Hah, do i sound ....er tense? Just emphasizing certain words with caps, nothing un-chill bout it I don't know on any part of Newton's "claim" bout gravity being fastest, heck gravity doesn't even has a speed. Just to let you know, gravity is by far the weakest of all the fundamental forces in the universe. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 02:16 PM
|
Senior Member
1,542 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: cheeseland |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 20 2009, 02:13 PM) Hah, do i sound ....er tense? Just emphasizing certain words with caps, nothing un-chill bout it weakest? what do you mean? hmm.. Einstein found a theory that accepts both "light is fastest in da universe" & "gravity iz superior" by.. i cannot remember wat theory liao.. was it relativism or quantum mechanics.. ermm.. it was about if the Sun dissappear..... would Earth go off course or darkness first.. coz gravity & light disappear at the same time.I don't know on any part of Newton's "claim" bout gravity being fastest, heck gravity doesn't even has a speed. Just to let you know, gravity is by far the weakest of all the fundamental forces in the universe. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 02:19 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 02:16 PM) weakest? what do you mean? hmm.. Einstein found a theory that accepts both "light is fastest in da universe" & "gravity iz superior" by.. i cannot remember wat theory liao.. was it relativism or quantum mechanics.. ermm.. it was about if the Sun dissappear..... would Earth go off course or darkness first.. coz gravity & light disappear at the same time. What do you mean by gravity is superior. Yes weakest as in, weak. Electrical forces are 10^30 more powerful then gravity. |
|
Jun 20 2009, 02:34 PM
|
Junior Member
107 posts Joined: Nov 2008 From: UKM Bangi |
QUOTE(chezzball @ Jun 20 2009, 02:16 PM) weakest? what do you mean? hmm.. Einstein found a theory that accepts both "light is fastest in da universe" & "gravity iz superior" by.. i cannot remember wat theory liao.. was it relativism or quantum mechanics.. ermm.. it was about if the Sun dissappear..... would Earth go off course or darkness first.. coz gravity & light disappear at the same time. 4 ur information, there four fundamental forces in this universal, and gravity is the weakest.. ur physic sure "sxxk" but xxxconfident... |
|
Jun 20 2009, 03:24 PM
|
Senior Member
1,542 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: cheeseland |
QUOTE(profdrahhen @ Jun 20 2009, 02:34 PM) 4 ur information, there four fundamental forces in this universal, and gravity is the weakest.. ur physic sure "sxxk" but xxxconfident... " my physic get A1 in SPM and all my 4 physics subjects in univ is A geh woh =P i dun understand properly what kind of weak was befitozi talking about mah..until i saw ur diagram This post has been edited by chezzball: Jun 20 2009, 03:26 PM |
|
Jun 20 2009, 04:05 PM
|
Junior Member
107 posts Joined: Nov 2008 From: UKM Bangi |
grade does not mean anything.. unless u realize it, uderstand it..
|
|
Jun 22 2009, 01:31 AM
|
Senior Member
3,584 posts Joined: Oct 2005 |
|
|
Jun 22 2009, 02:09 AM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 01:31 AM) and yet, gravity and not electromagnet was famous for bending and trapping the fastest thing in the universe (light) Light traps is a phenomenon related to curvature spacetime. Nothing to do with forces.If i were to put two objects of negligible charge, one which has mass x and another with mass 100000000000x, the attraction between them will be far less then if i were to put two objects of negligible mass,one which consist purely of particles of positive charge another which purely negative charge, even if the ratio between them is only 1:10 compared to 1:100000000000, the forces between them will be far greater when considering charges. This is clearly shown by the constant of proportionality where for gravity it is simply G, whereas for electric forces it is 1/4pi*(permitivitty of free space) Check out on the values in see what happens to the force. If you don;t want to calculate it, scroll up, refer to the table. If you don't understand what we're saying, go read up on this basic physics. |
|
Jun 22 2009, 02:20 AM
|
Senior Member
3,584 posts Joined: Oct 2005 |
point taken, but what causes spacetime to curve? an object of sufficiently large mass can do it via gravity, but i have no knowledge of an object with a sufficiently large charge to do the same.
Added on June 22, 2009, 2:22 amnote: i'm not disputing the fact that em is much stronger than g, but pointing out a curiousity that so far only gravity is the only thing that can trap light in natural condition This post has been edited by lin00b: Jun 22 2009, 02:22 AM |
|
Jun 22 2009, 02:30 AM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 02:20 AM) point taken, but what causes spacetime to curve? an object of sufficiently large mass can do it via gravity, but i have no knowledge of an object with a sufficiently large charge to do the same. I wouldn't phrase it like "mass via gravity". Gravity does not curve spacetime. Mass does. Gravity is the consequence of curved spacetime not the cause. On how spacetime is curved is described by Einstien's General Relativity.The example i gave was just hypothetical. It is nearly impossible for particles of a single charge to mass up the to scale on how matter would. Once again, refer to the table above and you'll see that strong nuclear forces, the forces which stops particles of similar mass from repelling each other (in the nuclues of the atom) do not function above a certain radius. This is why extremely heavy elements tend to be radioactive. As the strong nuclear forces are no longer able to to withstand the repelling forces due to EM, parts of the nucleus decays. EDIT: applies for your edit This post has been edited by befitozi: Jun 22 2009, 02:30 AM |
|
Jun 22 2009, 03:01 AM
|
Senior Member
3,584 posts Joined: Oct 2005 |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 22 2009, 02:30 AM) I wouldn't phrase it like "mass via gravity". Gravity does not curve spacetime. Mass does. Gravity is the consequence of curved spacetime not the cause. On how spacetime is curved is described by Einstien's General Relativity. moot i think as you cannot have mass without gravity? but then again in this new age quantum physics you have particles with no mass which no matter how i look at it seems awfully strange. and as far as i know some particles mentioned (ie gravitons) are very imaginary and used to cover "holes" in the logic of quantum mechanics.The example i gave was just hypothetical. It is nearly impossible for particles of a single charge to mass up the to scale on how matter would. Once again, refer to the table above and you'll see that strong nuclear forces, the forces which stops particles of similar mass from repelling each other (in the nuclues of the atom) do not function above a certain radius. This is why extremely heavy elements tend to be radioactive. As the strong nuclear forces are no longer able to to withstand the repelling forces due to EM, parts of the nucleus decays. EDIT: applies for your edit +1 for your scientific knowledge sir, never thought i'd seen such discussion on a malaysian forum. |
|
Jun 22 2009, 03:12 AM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 03:01 AM) moot i think as you cannot have mass without gravity? but then again in this new age quantum physics you have particles with no mass which no matter how i look at it seems awfully strange. and as far as i know some particles mentioned (ie gravitons) are very imaginary and used to cover "holes" in the logic of quantum mechanics. I can't remember if gravitons have ever been observed, but it's most highly unlikely, because of the weakness of gravity at those small masses - but you can infer the properties of gravitons. It is highly likely that they do exist, but because of the intrinsic weakness we may have never seen it.+1 for your scientific knowledge sir, never thought i'd seen such discussion on a malaysian forum. As for 'holes' in the logic of quantum mechanics, well try string theory's 'holes' . |
|
Jun 22 2009, 03:22 AM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 03:01 AM) moot i think as you cannot have mass without gravity? but then again in this new age quantum physics you have particles with no mass which no matter how i look at it seems awfully strange. and as far as i know some particles mentioned (ie gravitons) are very imaginary and used to cover "holes" in the logic of quantum mechanics. Why wouldn't we have mass without gravity? Mass is a quantity describing the amount of matter in a particle, independent on gravity. As opposed to weight....+1 for your scientific knowledge sir, never thought i'd seen such discussion on a malaysian forum. QUOTE I can't remember if gravitons have ever been observed, but it's most highly unlikely, because of the weakness of gravity at those small masses - but you can infer the properties of gravitons. It is highly likely that they do exist, but because of the intrinsic weakness we may have never seen it. As for 'holes' in the logic of quantum mechanics, well try string theory's 'holes' tongue.gif. Yea, we will not be able to observe these particles, not literally at least. Though it is actually not actually necessary. Take electrons for example, we can't actually see electrons, yet it is widely accepted that it exist and how it works. Hah, yeah its nice to be able to discuss physics of and at this level |
|
Jun 22 2009, 03:33 AM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 18 2009, 12:10 PM) It's special alright. True that it might just be a subset of general relativity, but it deals in the 'special' case of non-accelerating inertial frames, hence the name, but you probably already knew that already QUOTE Yea, we will not be able to observe these particles, not literally at least. Though it is actually not actually necessary. Take electrons for example, we can't actually see electrons, yet it is widely accepted that it exist and how it works. No I meant it in the more general sense, e.g. no one's ever really seen a top quark, but we're able to infer its properties from the resulting daughter products. I don't think we've seen anything of that sort for gravitons, we've only inferred the properties from symmetry arguments (the spin) and the range of gravity (hence zero mass)This post has been edited by bgeh: Jun 22 2009, 03:40 AM |
|
Jun 22 2009, 08:24 AM
|
Senior Member
3,584 posts Joined: Oct 2005 |
QUOTE(befitozi @ Jun 22 2009, 03:22 AM) Why wouldn't we have mass without gravity? Mass is a quantity describing the amount of matter in a particle, independent on gravity. As opposed to weight.... let me rephrase that. as Einstein suggested that gravity is a result of mass curving spacetime causing a "sink" and particles moving otherwise in a straight line to sort of "circle the sink", wherever there is a body of mass, there must be gravity, no?Yea, we will not be able to observe these particles, not literally at least. Though it is actually not actually necessary. Take electrons for example, we can't actually see electrons, yet it is widely accepted that it exist and how it works. Hah, yeah its nice to be able to discuss physics of and at this level so isnt it strange that while a weak force like gravity has been observe to be able to bend and trap light, similar phenomena is not observed in the much stronger em force? maybe it is because photons are without charge and cant be attracted/repulsed by em? but then again according to newton's equation, photon, being massless, shouldnt really be affected by gravity either? and while many small particles such as electrons, photons etc are not observable, we have interacted and manipulated them (electron microscope for example) no similar situation exist for many of the other particles in quantum mechanics (gravitons, neutrinos, etc) they only exist because the maths says then must exist. that, to me, seems to be shaky grounds |
|
Jun 22 2009, 12:53 PM
|
Senior Member
1,542 posts Joined: Jul 2005 From: cheeseland |
hmm we are deviating now.. guys try to keep track along TS topic ok.... if wanna talk more can start new thread lo.
|
|
Jun 22 2009, 03:10 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 08:24 AM) let me rephrase that. as Einstein suggested that gravity is a result of mass curving spacetime causing a "sink" and particles moving otherwise in a straight line to sort of "circle the sink", wherever there is a body of mass, there must be gravity, no? Light travels on spacetime, so light isn't exactly being pulled directly by the force, but its path is changed, hence light getting affected by gravity. It isn't a direct force of gravity pulling the photons, but merely the path of the light being warped by gravity.so isnt it strange that while a weak force like gravity has been observe to be able to bend and trap light, similar phenomena is not observed in the much stronger em force? maybe it is because photons are without charge and cant be attracted/repulsed by em? but then again according to newton's equation, photon, being massless, shouldnt really be affected by gravity either? and while many small particles such as electrons, photons etc are not observable, we have interacted and manipulated them (electron microscope for example) no similar situation exist for many of the other particles in quantum mechanics (gravitons, neutrinos, etc) they only exist because the maths says then must exist. that, to me, seems to be shaky grounds Also, the EM force is much stronger than gravity, but why do we not see this? Because almost everything we know today is (almost) neutral, charge-wise. Gravity has only one 'charge' and thus you never see any cancellations; it always adds up, which is why in the realm of the very big we see gravity dominating. We have seen interactions with neutrinos, quite a lot of times, just that it's rare comparative to the other particles. The maths say it must exist isn't really very shaky to be honest. Try engineering. In the design phase, we suppose Newton's laws work, and design something based on it. The maths say it must work, but the same principle applies. The reason for the existence of the graviton is because you need a carrier particle for each force, and we are agreed that gravity is a force, and thus some carrier particle for the force exists, we simply call it a graviton, that's it. |
|
Jun 22 2009, 06:08 PM
|
Senior Member
3,584 posts Joined: Oct 2005 |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Jun 22 2009, 03:10 PM) Light travels on spacetime, so light isn't exactly being pulled directly by the force, but its path is changed, hence light getting affected by gravity. It isn't a direct force of gravity pulling the photons, but merely the path of the light being warped by gravity. please do not compare engineering (while number based also have solid foundation in experimentation and past experience) with new physics such as super string/quantum mechanics that have to invent 11+ dimensions/create new particles as placeholders to get the maths to work.Also, the EM force is much stronger than gravity, but why do we not see this? Because almost everything we know today is (almost) neutral, charge-wise. Gravity has only one 'charge' and thus you never see any cancellations; it always adds up, which is why in the realm of the very big we see gravity dominating. We have seen interactions with neutrinos, quite a lot of times, just that it's rare comparative to the other particles. The maths say it must exist isn't really very shaky to be honest. Try engineering. In the design phase, we suppose Newton's laws work, and design something based on it. The maths say it must work, but the same principle applies. The reason for the existence of the graviton is because you need a carrier particle for each force, and we are agreed that gravity is a force, and thus some carrier particle for the force exists, we simply call it a graviton, that's it. |
|
Jun 22 2009, 07:40 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(lin00b @ Jun 22 2009, 06:08 PM) please do not compare engineering (while number based also have solid foundation in experimentation and past experience) with new physics such as super string/quantum mechanics that have to invent 11+ dimensions/create new particles as placeholders to get the maths to work. Why shouldn't I? Philosophically, a theory only remains true as long no experiment is found that will violate a prediction made by it. Everytime you design a new project, you are possibly running an experiment for which the thing can fail.There are physical principles that suggest the existence of the graviton, and it has nothing to do with string theory's 11 dimensions, so don't conflate them. Besides, the Standard Model's predicted the existence of plenty of particles that were found later. |
|
Jun 26 2009, 12:11 AM
|
Junior Member
252 posts Joined: Jul 2008 |
E=mc2
E=hf hf=mc2 m= hf/c2 |
|
Jun 28 2009, 12:31 PM
|
Senior Member
650 posts Joined: Feb 2008 |
according to bill bryson's book:
the formula E = mc2 explains that a small amount of mass can generate an unbelievably huge amount of energy. hence, solving the problem of how the sun can burn its fuel for such an eternal period, and hence opening the possibility that the solar system has existed for billions of years, which was previously an absurd notion (before E = mc2 was known). E = mc2 also showed that the speed of light was constant and supreme, and hence made it clear that ether did not exist, as the world then thought it did (Newton included). |
|
Jun 28 2009, 10:22 PM
|
Junior Member
218 posts Joined: Jun 2006 From: 1001010100010011101 |
Well, E=mc^2 is basically the general result due to the special theory of relativity.
QUOTE In accordance with the theory of relativity the kinetic energy of a material point of mass m is no longer given by the well-known expression 1/2*mv^2 But by the expression E = mc^2 / (1- v^2/c^2)^(1/2) This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v approaches velocity of light c. (so basically, this means that the energy required to accelerate an object with mass m to speed of light is infinity. Yea, this means no object with mass can move at speed of light.) If we expand the equation (use binomial expansion) we'll get: E = mc^2 + mv^2/2 +3/8*mv^4/c^2 Basically, the equation E=mc^2 was purely derived from mathematics, as we can see by substituting v = 0 into the equation. Do not accuse E=mc^2 for the root of having nuclear & atomic bombs all around us. It's human's greed for power and weapon which causes all these. (this is the point which i cant emphasise enough) Something interesting from my taught related to E=mc^2: Is it possible to have infinite energy? eg: just convert sand into energy! Answer: no. nuclear reaction are subjected to conservation of baryon number (correct if i rmb wrongly). Hence, don't get overjoyed with this equation. However, one might imagine what if conservation of baryon number does not exist. The answer: you don't exist It's an indeed beautiful equation. Though i like Euler's more. |
|
Jul 2 2009, 12:05 AM
|
Junior Member
394 posts Joined: Sep 2005 From: Satay Town! |
Greetings, 1st time here... I'm compelled to bring forward the prior equations that gave one of the starting point for Einstein's special relativity, and that would be the Maxwell's Equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/kaku.html |
|
Jul 4 2009, 06:48 PM
|
Junior Member
122 posts Joined: Nov 2007 |
Einstein enabled us to have GPS guise
Without him we wouldn't have accounted for gravitational redshift and our GPS would all be wrong isn't he awesome? |
|
Jul 28 2009, 11:56 PM
|
Senior Member
2,708 posts Joined: Oct 2008 From: Johor Bahru |
lol read through and alot of answers have been repeated over and over and over and over and over again....
QUOTE(IcyDarling @ Jun 15 2009, 03:35 PM) i searched into this site, http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html and to my notice, its probably to explain that, u can make energy out of matter and vice versa. Probably, this is how the idea of atomic bombs appears. so moving away from the famous equation... About traveling through time. If I remember correctly, Newton proposed a theory of relativity. So time moves in relation to you. So if you are moving, time moves differently for you and a person that is standing still. An experiment to prove this was using 2 atomic clocks. One was stationary one the ground and one was placed in a plane and flown a distance. Both clocked started timing at the same time. When the plane landed, the clock on-board the plane was found to be slower than the one on the ground. So then this created the twins paradox. Added on June 15, 2009, 3:36 pm think he trying to apply C- speed of light theres this theory that says, if u can travel at the speed of light, you could probably go back time.(which i personally dont believe) There is twin A and B. A was placed in a rocket and flew around the earth at the speed of light. B was left on planet earth. Following the theory of relativity, the time frame that A experiences will be normal to him, but to B it will be much slower. So when A returns, B has aged but A is still youthful. Since they are twins, should they be both the same? I remember this in a debate and one sided argued it wasn't a paradox since A and B experienced different time frames, so the experiment did not have same conditions. But anyhow, i think i got the person wrong.. was it newton? |
|
Jul 29 2009, 02:36 AM
|
Junior Member
5 posts Joined: Jun 2008 |
Time travel requires you to move faster than the speed of light, which obviously will remain just a theory for a very long time. However, there are arguments on a particle called tachyon being able to move faster than light.
*I believe in time travel Oh limitless power* |
|
Jul 29 2009, 03:55 AM
|
All Stars
14,990 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
|
|
Jul 29 2009, 04:12 AM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(wodenus @ Jul 29 2009, 03:55 AM) Note: I do not know how true the initial statement quoted by wodenus is, and to be honest I doubt it was ever stated by Newton.You have to consider the fact that we currently take for granted that mass is simply another form of energy now; this was absolutely not obvious pre-Einstein, that 2 different concepts mass, and energy were related in any way, except that both seemed to have their own conservation laws, etc, etc. Consider a tougher, non-obvious example then. Why do we, till today still grapple with the idea of spacetime, with all the paradoxes and stuff? The experiments are consistent with the interpretation of a 4D spacetime, and yet we struggle with those concepts, because we still see them as separate concepts, that space and time do not muck each other up, which they do, giving rise to the tons of confusion amongst many of us. |
|
Jul 29 2009, 10:18 AM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(DoubleU @ Jul 28 2009, 11:56 PM) lol read through and alot of answers have been repeated over and over and over and over and over again.... Pretty lengthily discussed here. http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1062770so moving away from the famous equation... About traveling through time. If I remember correctly, Newton proposed a theory of relativity. So time moves in relation to you. So if you are moving, time moves differently for you and a person that is standing still. An experiment to prove this was using 2 atomic clocks. One was stationary one the ground and one was placed in a plane and flown a distance. Both clocked started timing at the same time. When the plane landed, the clock on-board the plane was found to be slower than the one on the ground. So then this created the twins paradox. There is twin A and B. A was placed in a rocket and flew around the earth at the speed of light. B was left on planet earth. Following the theory of relativity, the time frame that A experiences will be normal to him, but to B it will be much slower. So when A returns, B has aged but A is still youthful. Since they are twins, should they be both the same? I remember this in a debate and one sided argued it wasn't a paradox since A and B experienced different time frames, so the experiment did not have same conditions. But anyhow, i think i got the person wrong.. was it newton? |
|
Jul 29 2009, 08:50 PM
|
Senior Member
3,165 posts Joined: Nov 2007 From: Hornbill land |
time travelling? mean dead people will be alive? -.-
|
|
Jul 29 2009, 09:54 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
|
|
Jul 30 2009, 10:05 AM
|
Junior Member
141 posts Joined: Jan 2009 |
einstein was not an A's student. but he's a genius.
conclusion: doesnt matter how many A's that u got in academic , it doesnt reflect whether u're a slowpoke or vice versa. |
|
Jul 30 2009, 01:32 PM
|
Newbie
3 posts Joined: Mar 2009 |
Yeah Einstein is genius all right. He makes the equation ahead of his time. Some academics even criticized his work but they can not prove its wrong coz they cant. Thus the equation is considered valid hands down.
|
|
Aug 3 2009, 11:59 PM
|
Junior Member
135 posts Joined: Mar 2008 |
QUOTE(lavunaz @ Jul 30 2009, 01:32 PM) Yeah Einstein is genius all right. He makes the equation ahead of his time. Some academics even criticized his work but they can not prove its wrong coz they cant. Thus the equation is considered valid hands down. That's not why its considered valid. the proof is in the pudding ie. if it wasn't right Trinity wouldn't have worked, geddit?? no more need for theoretical physics in this case.... |
|
Aug 12 2009, 12:02 AM
|
Junior Member
404 posts Joined: May 2005 |
QUOTE(lavunaz @ Jul 30 2009, 01:32 PM) Yeah Einstein is genius all right. He makes the equation ahead of his time. Some academics even criticized his work but they can not prove its wrong coz they cant. Thus the equation is considered valid hands down. All science theory is self critical and fallsifiable. Theory which is not fallsifiable IS NOT SCIENCE. Einstein TOR doesn't work in atomic level. Newton's Principia Mathematica prediction doesn't account for relativistic effect (near light speed) which make it less accurate in predicting body moving near speed of light. But it still sent human to the moon and his theory is still relevant today although it has been superceded by TOR because it is easier to work with. This post has been edited by slacker: Aug 12 2009, 12:07 AM |
|
Aug 12 2009, 04:19 PM
|
Senior Member
1,483 posts Joined: Dec 2005 From: Wangsa Maju |
so..the bombing on nagasaki, and let say if the world someday will be on nuclear war.. should we 'thanks' to Eistein?
|
|
Aug 12 2009, 06:45 PM
|
Junior Member
109 posts Joined: Aug 2009 |
QUOTE(suicideroach @ Aug 12 2009, 04:19 PM) so..the bombing on nagasaki, and let say if the world someday will be on nuclear war.. should we 'thanks' to Eistein? A knife can be used to cut an apple or to kill someone. Should we 'thanks' the inventor of the knife for the later case?A car helps us to go from point A to B. However it can kill too, e.g. in an accident. Should we blame that this technology shouldn't be exist in the first place Or it was due to an irresponsible driver (e.g. drink and drive) that caused this? Technology and sciences advancement are part of the civilization progression. If not Einstien, there would be someone else to discover that mass is actually unleash energy. Many countries where the water dam are lacking are using nuclear power to produce electricity for the entire nation. Like a sword has double edges, technology and science can build up a nation or destroy the entire nation if misuse. Again it is a question of how human being (world leader especially) take the advantages of it for greater good or for some narrow minded benefits on creating fear around the world. |
|
Aug 15 2009, 10:58 PM
|
Senior Member
3,037 posts Joined: Dec 2007 From: 6-feet under |
basically anyting with mass as big as a planet, be it pure rock or plastic, gravity will exist?
|
|
Aug 16 2009, 03:17 AM
|
Senior Member
3,584 posts Joined: Oct 2005 |
|
|
Aug 16 2009, 04:56 PM
|
Senior Member
3,037 posts Joined: Dec 2007 From: 6-feet under |
actually how is the eqn e=mc2 possible in reality? its near impossible to TOTALLY convert mass to energy right?
|
|
Aug 24 2009, 09:44 PM
|
Senior Member
1,468 posts Joined: Nov 2004 From: Earth |
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 16 2009, 04:56 PM) actually how is the eqn e=mc2 possible in reality? its near impossible to TOTALLY convert mass to energy right? Energy derived in all nuclear reactions are based on the realization of this formula. So, i don't think the reality of this can be disputed.If you do further reading, Einstein did not state his formula as e = mc2 where energy is the focus of it. Instead he made it as m = e/c2, where mass is the focus. Mass is not converted into energy, mass IS energy. Albeit in a different form. This formula describes the relation with 1/c2 as the constant of proportionality |
|
Aug 24 2009, 10:56 PM
|
Senior Member
636 posts Joined: Oct 2004 From: Deutschland |
QUOTE(farscope @ Jun 16 2009, 10:46 PM) it is so famous because it contradicts with physics law of: thats not true. the mass is not destroyed, its just converted to energy. that is a valid relationship.Mass cannot be destroy / Energy cannot be created E=mc² shows where mass can be destroyed and converted into energy commonly used to calculate atomic energic and photon energy.. in simplistic terms, mass is a form of energy. Added on August 24, 2009, 11:24 pm QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 16 2009, 04:56 PM) actually how is the eqn e=mc2 possible in reality? its near impossible to TOTALLY convert mass to energy right? ignore the eqn for a bit. we convert mass to energy all the time. burning fuels to drive vehicles for eg or our food intake is converted to energy. This post has been edited by kaffra: Aug 24 2009, 11:24 PM |
|
Aug 24 2009, 11:52 PM
|
Senior Member
696 posts Joined: Nov 2005 From: Ipoh, Selangor, KL |
QUOTE(kaffra @ Aug 24 2009, 10:56 PM) thats not true. the mass is not destroyed, its just converted to energy. that is a valid relationship. Everything around us consist of energy, for eg nuclear bomb...mass like uranium and plutonium is converted into mass energy by nuclear fission...in simplistic terms, mass is a form of energy. Added on August 24, 2009, 11:24 pm ignore the eqn for a bit. we convert mass to energy all the time. burning fuels to drive vehicles for eg or our food intake is converted to energy. |
|
Aug 25 2009, 08:53 AM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(kaffra @ Aug 24 2009, 10:56 PM) thats not true. the mass is not destroyed, its just converted to energy. that is a valid relationship. 1st part: That is post-Einstein and relativity. Not obvious when conservation of mass, and conservation of energy were regarded as different things.in simplistic terms, mass is a form of energy. Added on August 24, 2009, 11:24 pm ignore the eqn for a bit. we convert mass to energy all the time. burning fuels to drive vehicles for eg or our food intake is converted to energy. 2nd part: C-Note, it's just an exchange rate, if you may. Suppose some energy is converted into mass or vice versa. It'll change by that amount. It does not state how much % of energy is changed into mass or vice versa Also, burning fuels to drive vehicles/food intake is a very poor example. That's chemical energy stored in chemical bonds. |
|
Aug 25 2009, 12:47 PM
|
Senior Member
636 posts Joined: Oct 2004 From: Deutschland |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Aug 25 2009, 08:53 AM) 1st part: That is post-Einstein and relativity. Not obvious when conservation of mass, and conservation of energy were regarded as different things. the guys question was "its near impossible to TOTALLY convert mass to energy right?"2nd part: C-Note, it's just an exchange rate, if you may. Suppose some energy is converted into mass or vice versa. It'll change by that amount. It does not state how much % of energy is changed into mass or vice versa Also, burning fuels to drive vehicles/food intake is a very poor example. That's chemical energy stored in chemical bonds. As i mentioned in my post, ignore the equation for a bit(meaning not in nuclear case), and you see that it happens all the time with various other examples. mass of whatever is converted to a form of energy in whichever process. QUOTE That's chemical energy stored in chemical bonds. different energy etc, but even in nuclear fission bonds are being broken to produce energy |
|
Aug 25 2009, 02:45 PM
|
Senior Member
3,037 posts Joined: Dec 2007 From: 6-feet under |
basically the eqn covers EVERYTHG in the conversion between the two states, matter-energy.
but nothing in this world is 100% efficient right? |
|
Aug 25 2009, 06:38 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(kaffra @ Aug 25 2009, 12:47 PM) the guys question was "its near impossible to TOTALLY convert mass to energy right?" If you're going to play the pedant and use the example of 'bonds between nucleons' being broken in fission and then you have the total mass deficit increasing, hence energy argument, please re-read my statement again. You are using an extremely weak example, not a wrong example. I was perhaps being lazy in not adding that caveat and making it explicit, but yes you're making an extremely weak example. Reason?As i mentioned in my post, ignore the equation for a bit(meaning not in nuclear case), and you see that it happens all the time with various other examples. mass of whatever is converted to a form of energy in whichever process. different energy etc, but even in nuclear fission bonds are being broken to produce energy Average energy in a chemical bond (used in food and fuel example): magnitude of eV Average energy stored in terms of binding energy/mass deficit in a nucleon: magnitude of MeV Yes the mass interpretation holds (in terms of mass deficits) but frankly nearly no one even uses that interpretation at all [the nearly is a caveat, just in case you manage to find one paper that shows otherwise, but hey, show me a hundred and I might just change my mind]. You don't get people telling you how much the mass of some chemical substance's dropped before and after some reaction (measuring all the products and byproducts - they tend to assume it's equal instead because the approximation holds very very well); that's because the difference is simply close to negligible, if not negligible because of the minute binding energy stored in the chemical bonds. It's way easier, and this is what convention dictates, that you use the interpretation of the chemical bonds instead [of course other conventions exist in chemistry, but AFAIK no one uses the mass deficit method to measure the bond energy at all] It becomes non-negligible, and measureable when it comes to nuclear reactions, which is why they're used there. C-Note: I don't get what you mean. It just states the exchange rate, i.e. if conversion occurs, it occurs at that rate. That's it. It does not make any further statements. That's all you get from the equation. This post has been edited by bgeh: Aug 25 2009, 07:01 PM |
|
Aug 25 2009, 11:01 PM
|
Senior Member
3,037 posts Joined: Dec 2007 From: 6-feet under |
"The only way for ALL this energy to be released is for the kilogram of water to be totally annhilated. This process involves the complete destruction of matter, and occurs only when that matter meets an equal amount of antimatter ... a substance composed of mass with a negative charge. Antimatter does exist; it is observable as single subatomic particles in radioactive decay, and has been created in the laboratory. But it is rather short-lived (!), since it annihilates itself and an equal quantity of ordinary matter as soon as it encounters anything. For this reason, it has not yet been made in measurable quantities, so our kilogram of water can't be turned into energy by mixing it with 'antiwater'. At least, not yet."
the water is just used as an analogy. what ive been trying to point out was, theoretically speaking, 1 full gram of matter is converted to LARGE amount of energy. but izit practical? nuclear reaction is just the mass loss, which is the energy EMITTED, not CONVERTED. correct me if i'm wrong. http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html anyway, i have seen the full eqn of E=MC2 which goes E2=m2c4+p2c2 can any sifus here enlighten me a lil? a lil dizzy here @.@ |
|
Aug 26 2009, 12:01 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 25 2009, 11:01 PM) "The only way for ALL this energy to be released is for the kilogram of water to be totally annhilated. This process involves the complete destruction of matter, and occurs only when that matter meets an equal amount of antimatter ... a substance composed of mass with a negative charge. Antimatter does exist; it is observable as single subatomic particles in radioactive decay, and has been created in the laboratory. But it is rather short-lived (!), since it annihilates itself and an equal quantity of ordinary matter as soon as it encounters anything. For this reason, it has not yet been made in measurable quantities, so our kilogram of water can't be turned into energy by mixing it with 'antiwater'. At least, not yet." You're speaking about known channels for which mass is converted to energy. Yes, for nuclear interactions, only a small percentage of the mass is actually converted to energy. It is converted, because what you had before was a semi-stable heavier nucleon that got lighter post-interaction, emitting energy in the process. So no, the words emitting and converting don't really mean much at all. The mass lost was converted to energy, which was [the energy] then emitted.the water is just used as an analogy. what ive been trying to point out was, theoretically speaking, 1 full gram of matter is converted to LARGE amount of energy. but izit practical? nuclear reaction is just the mass loss, which is the energy EMITTED, not CONVERTED. correct me if i'm wrong. http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html anyway, i have seen the full eqn of E=MC2 which goes E2=m2c4+p2c2 can any sifus here enlighten me a lil? a lil dizzy here @.@ And yes if you really wanted too convert all the mass to energy, the only method which we know how to do that now is using antimatter instead. Otherwise you can't really press some magic button and all the mass turns to energy. Okay, seen that longer equation. That equation exists in 2 forms: E = gamma*mc^2 E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 The equation E = mc^2 only is valid when you try to measure the energy content of a particle when you're in the inertial frame of the particle (or in more intuitive terms, you're moving together with the particle, and it being stationary relative to you). [Google relativistic gamma to see what gamma is, it's a function of the relative velocity between inertial frames v. Also, to reduce confusion, the m I'm using here denotes rest mass. Some conventions use m0 for rest mass, and m = gamma*m0 to ensure that the formula E = mc^2 holds for all relative velocities between inertial frames] This post has been edited by bgeh: Aug 26 2009, 12:15 PM |
|
Aug 28 2009, 02:48 PM
|
Junior Member
297 posts Joined: Jun 2009 |
ok, im no science person. I am of the view that E=mc2 is so famous because it is derived by one of the greatest scientist in the world. Secondly, it is being used to create some of the most lethal weapon in the world.
|
|
Aug 29 2009, 10:42 AM
|
Senior Member
3,037 posts Joined: Dec 2007 From: 6-feet under |
QUOTE(bgeh @ Aug 26 2009, 12:01 PM) You're speaking about known channels for which mass is converted to energy. Yes, for nuclear interactions, only a small percentage of the mass is actually converted to energy. It is converted, because what you had before was a semi-stable heavier nucleon that got lighter post-interaction, emitting energy in the process. So no, the words emitting and converting don't really mean much at all. The mass lost was converted to energy, which was [the energy] then emitted. ohh ic. thx for the long-winded explanation And yes if you really wanted too convert all the mass to energy, the only method which we know how to do that now is using antimatter instead. Otherwise you can't really press some magic button and all the mass turns to energy. Okay, seen that longer equation. That equation exists in 2 forms: E = gamma*mc^2 E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 The equation E = mc^2 only is valid when you try to measure the energy content of a particle when you're in the inertial frame of the particle (or in more intuitive terms, you're moving together with the particle, and it being stationary relative to you). [Google relativistic gamma to see what gamma is, it's a function of the relative velocity between inertial frames v. Also, to reduce confusion, the m I'm using here denotes rest mass. Some conventions use m0 for rest mass, and m = gamma*m0 to ensure that the formula E = mc^2 holds for all relative velocities between inertial frames] basically if we bombard antimatter with matter, the formula e=mc^2 is still valid? wow the gamma thg is really beyond me .. i kinda get the gist of it. then when is the longer eqn used? |
|
Aug 29 2009, 10:52 AM
|
Junior Member
274 posts Joined: Sep 2006 From: Camelot |
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 16 2009, 04:56 PM) actually how is the eqn e=mc2 possible in reality? its near impossible to TOTALLY convert mass to energy right? there is a reason why it is called theory...theory does not require you to prove that it is correct... rather... it will be acceptable as long as u can show some evidence that it is possible... This post has been edited by Toriton: Aug 29 2009, 11:15 AM |
|
Sep 10 2009, 07:37 PM
|
Senior Member
1,814 posts Joined: Jan 2003 |
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 29 2009, 10:42 AM) ohh ic. thx for the long-winded explanation Sorry for the late reply.basically if we bombard antimatter with matter, the formula e=mc^2 is still valid? wow the gamma thg is really beyond me .. i kinda get the gist of it. then when is the longer eqn used? Well yes, as far as we know, E = mc^2 has not been violated (disregarding quantum fluctuations, but they follow that rule too at low energy scales), even in matter-antimatter collisions. That full equation is needed the moment you're in different inertial frames, i.e. you're moving with some relative velocity to the object you're measuring. If you're in the same inertial frame, sure, E = mc^2 will work just fine. Note: Actually, if you did either a binomial or Taylor expansion of gamma in the equation E = gamma*mc^2, you'll get E = mc^2 + (1/2)*mv^2 + additional terms... This actually shows that what you're then measuring, the higher order terms also include the Newtonian kinetic energy content of the particle in the other inertial ref. frame, plus higher order terms which are not accounted for by Newtonian mechanics. So yes, it can then be shown that Newtonian physics (not the part with forces, because they involve acceleration - that's handled by general relativity) is a subset of (special - I'm only dealing with special relativity here) relativity. Also, if you're truly interested in (special - general is a completely different kettle of fish) relativity, take a book and read about it. The math isn't very hard at all, it's just Add Math you did in F4, pretty much (or simpler). It's the physical implications that boggle the minds of students learning the subject till today [includes me] This post has been edited by bgeh: Sep 11 2009, 03:51 AM |
|
Sep 12 2009, 09:20 AM
|
Junior Member
19 posts Joined: Sep 2009 |
Well, E=mc2 comes from the basic facts that no object can travel at speed being greater than light speed. In fact, Einstein's theory of relativity is build on the facts that light speed is the same for any reference space(e.g. In a moving car or a idle car). As a result, Einstein derived his theory relativity start from the concept of using travelling light in vaccum container as a measuring device.
To visualize the concept of E=mc2, lets think when an object travel at speed approach light speed, its size along direction of motion will reduced, mass increase and time get shorten. Let say extra energy is provided to an objects moving near to light speed, at yet the object can no longer get itself increase it speed, hence it increase in mass. Therefore, the amount of mass increment due to extra energy provided to the system can be evaluate from E=mc2. I hope this explanation will make most who interested on this equation understand. |
|
Sep 12 2009, 06:04 PM
|
Junior Member
50 posts Joined: Aug 2009 |
physics formulaa
|
|
Sep 13 2009, 02:46 PM
|
Junior Member
175 posts Joined: May 2008 |
I can see it as:
1. Mass in relativity, m^2 = (E/c^2)^2 + (p/c)^2. connects momentum and the velocity, v p = Ev/c^2 Analogously, E and pc are components of a four-vector. The mass (m) is a four-scalar, which means that m has the same value in all reference frames, and does not depend on velocity (v) When particle at rest, p = 0 when E0 is rest energy, E0 = mc^2 2. Triangle case where, m^2 = e^2 - p^2, applying "Pythagoras theorem" with "fundamental laws of conservation of energy" will be ok, to describe relativistic properties of individual particles, plus the composite systems of the particles but, where at the particle rest p=0, triangle will collapse to horizontal line. so e0 = m 3. The velocity unit. That "c" is used in the basic equation not as a "speed of light". It was used as "maximum speed in nature", where "photons" velocity, particle of lights, their will smaller then c, but the basic equation will be the same. so, i want to ask, what is that Einstein want talk about at that time, E0 =mc^2 or E =mc^2? |
|
Sep 15 2009, 11:26 AM
|
Junior Member
19 posts Joined: Sep 2009 |
What Einstein want to tell you that for any single mass, there will be a rest energy for it, which can be calculated as E0 =mc^2. Then, when mass start to move, it will has another energy due to movement known as E =mc^2?, where m is the increment of mass due to relativistic effect. If one wish to validate whether this energy equal to the kinetic energy derived using Newtonian mechanics, taking subtration of E and E0 will eventually yield 0.5mv^2 with some higher order terms that become almost zero when speed of travelling is very far a way from light speed. The Einstein energy equation is just simply a modification of energy calculate by Newtonian mechanics so as to correct error when object travelling a speed approaching light speed.
This post has been edited by VA1701wb: Sep 15 2009, 11:28 AM |
|
Sep 17 2009, 06:23 PM
|
Senior Member
2,675 posts Joined: Dec 2008 |
To TS,
Others can give u a lot of complex answer, but I will give you a very simple one: Most ppl don't know shit about physics, yet they want to impress others That is why E=MC2 is famous |
|
Sep 21 2009, 01:00 AM
|
Senior Member
2,338 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Sarawak / United Kingdom |
|
|
Sep 21 2009, 05:40 PM
|
Junior Member
19 posts Joined: Sep 2009 |
|
|
Sep 22 2009, 06:40 AM
|
Senior Member
2,338 posts Joined: Jan 2003 From: Sarawak / United Kingdom |
well, the discussions in this thread all want to prove the formula.
this calls in the use of machinery, which is where entropy and enthalpy come in. nawww .. I kid , but you all came close to understanding that right ? Seriously though, Einstein introduced this equation in a paper titled "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?" . Putting the numerals we know, E=mc^2 becomes E=m(300000000)^2 or E=m(300000000 x 300000000) ... which tells us even a small mass has loads and loads of energy. There are loads of applications for this formula, so cornering it to one specific application would be unfair. No need to be confused though, it's just like KE's formula, 1/2mv^2 ... many applications and different usages. Such as when 2 bodys collide, (KE1 + KE2) but if they don't join (m+m) |
|
Sep 30 2009, 11:37 PM
|
Junior Member
457 posts Joined: Mar 2007 |
----
This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 10 2010, 04:43 PM |
|
Dec 6 2009, 06:01 PM
|
Junior Member
43 posts Joined: Nov 2009 |
actually there is nthg special bout tis eqn
just bcox of Einstein,tis eqn bcom so famous... just like F=ma is so famous, bcox evr1 knows Newton. |
|
Dec 7 2009, 01:28 AM
|
Junior Member
404 posts Joined: May 2005 |
QUOTE(cryzord @ Dec 6 2009, 06:01 PM) actually there is nthg special bout tis eqn What you talking about? They become famous becoz of their work which eventually summarise into simple and elegant equation. Not the other way round. Where do u pluck out the idea that the equation is famous because of their name? just bcox of Einstein,tis eqn bcom so famous... just like F=ma is so famous, bcox evr1 knows Newton. Nothing special? Do you know what's the implication of E=mc^2 in the first place? This post has been edited by slacker: Dec 7 2009, 07:23 AM |
|
Dec 7 2009, 09:26 AM
|
Senior Member
2,703 posts Joined: May 2007 From: where you need wings and awakened to reach |
QUOTE(slacker @ Dec 7 2009, 02:28 AM) What you talking about? They become famous becoz of their work which eventually summarise into simple and elegant equation. Not the other way round. Where do u pluck out the idea that the equation is famous because of their name? pop singer even use itNothing special? Do you know what's the implication of E=mc^2 in the first place? Emanticipation=mariah carey E=MC |
|
Dec 7 2009, 01:11 PM
|
Senior Member
684 posts Joined: Oct 2009 |
Perhaps the equation is uber famous coz it's calculating energy/mass and it's Einstein's greatest discovery.
|
|
Dec 7 2009, 01:14 PM
|
Junior Member
263 posts Joined: Dec 2008 |
new research found E=mc^2 still not perfect equation. since not all uranium converted into energy. they left radioactive waste which harm to the world health. btw Einstein stupid in math n ask his friend to derive this equation.
|
|
Dec 7 2009, 11:51 PM
|
Junior Member
404 posts Joined: May 2005 |
QUOTE(kubing @ Dec 7 2009, 01:14 PM) new research found E=mc^2 still not perfect equation. since not all uranium converted into energy. they left radioactive waste which harm to the world health. btw Einstein stupid in math n ask his friend to derive this equation. One of the essence of science is that all theory must be falsifiable. |
|
Dec 7 2009, 11:56 PM
|
Senior Member
774 posts Joined: Nov 2008 |
With anti-matter known, there is an adjustment on the formula as well
|
|
Dec 19 2009, 04:24 PM
|
Newbie
3 posts Joined: Dec 2009 From: Russia, Siberia |
I think E=mc^2 became so popular 'cause Einshtein in some works use E instead of E0. So some readers thinks that mass depend on energy. This guess, if it was right, would make the world upside down. Mass-media used it for making money. And it became famous.
P.S. This formula belongs to Lorence (i don't know how to write his name correctly) |
|
Jan 3 2010, 10:48 PM
|
Junior Member
245 posts Joined: Jan 2005 |
y is nuclear arsenal so famous? that is also why that eqn is so famous.
it's a eqn that show us the relationship between energy and mass(which is everything around us) and nuclear is a way to prove this eqn is not some bs. imagine i'm smoking a ciggarette it produce heat, smoke and ash nothing destructive but if i can dissintegrate the cig mass...then it'll be a massive release of energy like a nuclear explosion. |
|
Jan 5 2010, 10:09 PM
|
Junior Member
218 posts Joined: Feb 2008 |
because...i think this is the basic foundation for modern physics....
mass convert to energy |
Change to: | 0.0480sec
0.44
5 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 10:24 PM |