Misconceptions of E=MC^2

Absoluetly not. Pseudo-scientific bullshit perpetuated in popular science and all over the internet...

Thanks guys.

quote:

---

What the equation means is that when energy is converted to matter with mass, then the amount of mass is equal to the amount of energy times the square of the speed of light.

---

Does is really make sense to say energy is converted to mass or vice versa? This would seem to violate the conservation of energy.Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called mass is converted to another form of energy (gamma rays or some other high energy photon?)I'm not authority on this subject, just curious.

Hey, Heinrik, The way I understand it is that many experiments have been done that have measured the amount of energy and mass before, and the amount of energy and mass after, many energy gain\loss events. Then they compare before and after totals and the changes in energy to the changes in mass (that they can measure):If E = m•c² is true, then (E + m•c²)_before = (E + m•c²)_after
and
(E + m•c²)₁ - (E + m•c²)₂ = k (where k = 0 if the formula is correct)
or
(E₁ - E₂) + (m₁•c² - m₂•c²) = k
or
ΔEnergy + ΔMass•c² = k
For each of the experiments. If energy is converted into mass then In the reference provided by Modulus abovehttp://www.physorg.com/news9248.html

quote:

---

According to the basic laws of physics, every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation corresponds to a specific amount of energy. The NIST team determined the value for energy in the Einstein equation, E = mc2, by carefully measuring the wavelength of gamma rays emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms.

​

The NIST/MIT tests focused on a well-known process: When the nucleus of an atom captures a neutron, energy is released as gamma ray radiation. The mass of the atom, which now has one extra neutron, is predicted to equal the mass of the original atom, plus the mass of a solitary neutron, minus a value called the neutron binding energy. The neutron binding energy is equal to the energy given off as gamma ray radiation, plus a small amount of energy released in the recoil motion of the nucleus.

---

What they found was that
ΔEnergy + ΔMass•c² = 0±0.0000004Which is reasonably close to 0 for all practical purposes, especially given the accuracy of measurements of energy and mass.Now perhaps what you find problematical is the use of the speed of light as a conversion factor, when it seems to be just an arbitrary number to use as a constant. It could just be a conversion factor similar to "G" in Newton's gravity equation:F = GmM/d²
and it just happens to be equal to c².Is that it?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : formatEdited by RAZD, : =

---

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

If you really feel that strongly about it, okay.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

I wasn't trying to be pedantic.I just think a lot of confusion arises when a laymen (like myself and Heinrik) tries to understand the equation if that's not explicitly stated. Otherwise people get the impression that energy can exist in and of itself and doesn't have to be associated with something.

Well, I thought it was clear enough, but if you found it confusing then I apologize.But if you read his posts, I think you'll see that Heinrick's confusion is far, far deeper than we can possibly imagine.

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

quote:

---

I just think a lot of confusion arises when a laymen (like myself and Heinrik) tries to understand the equation if that's not explicitly stated.

---

Well, I don't think this is the source of the confusion, actually. I think the source of confusion is that laymen put too much values in the words while real physicists only use words as tools to communicate with other people.The words "energy" and "mass" are just linguistic representations of what physicists observe. Tomorrow, we could call it "hoogabooga" and it still wouldn't change what it is.I think the best way for laymen to understand these concepts is that they try to not put too much value on semantics and more on the concepts and mathematics of it.But yes, "mass" can be understood as just a form of "energy".

Thankyou but I still don't see myself travelling at the speed of light squared. I do not have enough scientific knowledge to understand the jargon but enough to understand the "misconceptions" involving a scientific equasion. It seems most of you are running past the winning post (so to speak.)Many of you have described experiments that prove/form the empirical evidence wich I do not dispute. In fact, I could not without going back to uni The focul point of this discussion is that no experiment has been done exactly as the equasion suggests, word for word. Science has not the technology to send any mass anywhere at the speed of light squared.The 'misconception' is that "the average great minded, none scientist who does not have the expertise to understand the difference between 'empirical' and 'actual' evidence believes and argues that it has been actualized and again, I repeat, it has not.

Oh dear, have I upset you in some way?

It isn't meant to be personal conceptions but conceptions in general. The one conception that I am disputing is that : science has reproduced\actualized the equasion E=MC2. They have not propelled any mass at the speed of light squared.The "misconception" is that the general lay man believes, argues and tries to prove that it has.Hope this clarifes the mis-understandings.Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

Nor do they have to, since the equation has nothing to do with any mass travelling at the "speed of light squared".

---

Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter;
His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows
And a parade of the gray suited grafters:
A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones

Hi Heinrik,c is a universal constant that can be directly measured because it is equal to the speed of light in a vacuum. The c² in the equation is just a conversion factor between mass and energy and has nothing to do with how fast the mass is traveling. Using units of meters/second for c, the equation could be rewritten like this: So if you converted, say, 5 kilograms of mass to energy, the amount of energy released would be: Does that help?--Percy

Nor at the speed of sound squared, or at the speed of a turtle squared, or that of continental drift squared. Speed (well, velocity) is in units of distance/time, as in meters/sec or furlongs/fortnight. Only those units. Not (meters)²/(second)², like c² is in.You simply have a misconception, Henrik, of what algebra is all about.Edited by Coragyps, : fix tags?

Hello, Humoshi!! Welcome!!