|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
You simply have a misconception, Henrik, of what algebra is all about. I think you have a misconception of what this thread is all about. Maybe you forgot to research the topic effeciently enough. I've have misread, missed words, missed the point, had preconceived ideas and blinkered. BUT I learned from my mistakes. Regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Let's say this together very slowly, Let's cut the attittude, shall we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heinrik, if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this question. Do you doubt our nuclear arsenal? What a siily qiestion. What do you expect me to say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
What a siily qiestion. What do you expect me to say? Not so silly when you say something like this ...
Mass has not travelled at that speed and has not been proved to transform into energy. Mass transforms into energy everyday, as has been mentioned countless times in this thread. Cavediver also took the time and trouble to explain that mass CANNOT move at the speed of light. It is really very simple, as RAZD showed earlier. We have measured the energy output of mass turning into energy. And it confirms that the energy released = the mass times the speed of light squared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
the theory of producing matter from energy using the speed of light squared has never been proved, only the reverse. You know absolutely NOTHING about this subject, so why are you so intent on making a complete idiot of yourself? Take a look at this picture:
{Source here} THAT is the creation of matter (electron/positron pair) from energy, perfectly obeying e=mc^2. This happens billions of times a day at the particle accelerators around the world.
This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum. Why have we suddenly a forum full of arrogant idiots? You haven't a clue about this subject so why are you so sure that the problem lies with others and not with yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Mass transforms into energy everyday, as has been mentioned countless times in this thread. You are absoluelty right. I wish someone had pointed this out to me before. A genuine mistake on my part. I meant to say it the other way around. This is what I meant to say: energy has not been transformed into mass as E=mc2 indicates.My apologies for looking like an idiot and thankyou mobigirl. Cavediver also took the time and trouble to explain that mass CANNOT move at the speed of light. Both of you explained it very well. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Chiroptera writes:
Does is really make sense to say energy is converted to mass or vice versa? This would seem to violate the conservation of energy. 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.
Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called mass is converted to another form of energy No, mass is not a form of energy - mass is a measure of energy, irrespective of the form of the energy. The space-time curvature generated by a pair of photons is exactly the same after they have pair-created an eletcron and a positron. The energy will now be in the form of the rest-mass of the particles plus the interaction energy between them. The measured mass of 1kg of lead consists of almost entirely the binding energy (i.e. gluons) holding the quarks, and in turn, the nucleons together, plus the binding energy (i.e. photons) holding the electrons, and in turn, the atoms together, plus the vibrational energy (i.e. photons) of the temperature of the lead, and finally plus a vanishingly small amount of energy from the rest-mass of the quarks and eletrons making up the actual matter. If you put that lead into a container with 1kg of anti-lead, and managed perfect annihilation all the way down to just having photons left, AND managed to contain those photons within the container, then you would still have 2kg inside the container... Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
No, it means that energy is proportional the mass of the object in question. It just describes the relation of matter to energy. It doesn't say that matter changes form. Actually when you look at the equations as a whole, we find that as we approach the speed of light, the mass of an object approaches an infinite magnitude. Quite the opposite of your understanding. In reverse e=mc2 is : the square root of lightspeed, divided by an equivelent proportion of mass. They are both the same value/ equivelant of each other. As has been stressed by many posts the reverse of splitting the mass into energy has been proven/demonstrated/reproduced whatever you want to call it. This formula in reverse created the atom bomb. This theory e=mc2 has never even been tested. There are two sides to an equasion and most posts see only one and deny the other. Much like you do with each other really. Hmmm...........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
My apologies for looking like an idiot and thankyou mobigirl. The wisest words you have uttered all this thread. There is hope for you. Now apply that humility when you read my post above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
But if you read his posts, I think you'll see that Heinrick's confusion is far, far deeper than we can possibly imagine. you are quite correct I did become confused. It's along time since I did algebra and I had forgotten to reverse the equasion. As I haven't a clue how to find maths. synbols I will write it in words. You clever people will understand without the symbols, I'm sure. Now that you have got me back on track I meant to say that: e=mc2 in reverse is the equivelent of 'the square root of speed/light divided by an equivelent amount of mass = minus energy (mass).In other words if mass can produce energy then energy can produce mass. This was the original idea of Einsteins theory of everything. However, this formula has never been tested. It was my contention that this half of the equasion has been misunderstood in this forum. Please refrain from personal comments if you can. I really don't wish to answer to some posts because of this. A little patience and a little consideration can go a long way. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
You know absolutely NOTHING about this subject, so why are you so intent on making a complete idiot of yourself? I can admit to my mistakes. I have amended quite a few and made my apologies. What do you want from me?
Why have we suddenly a forum full of arrogant idiots? You haven't a clue about this subject so why are you so sure that the problem lies with others and not with yourself? I see what you mean, hey cavediver?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
What do you want from me? To quieten down and listen to what you are being told. For you to realise that you are very mistaken about all of this. Nearly everyone repsonding to you is reasonably well grounded in this subject. In my case, it was my profession for ten years.
I see what you mean, hey cavediver? I'm not the one claiming insight in a field in which I have no experience...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Where did the energy come from when splitting the atom?
An equasion has to balance in every respect.
Science Dictionary: E = mc2 An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself. (See relativity.) Because the speed of light is a very large number and is multiplied by itself, this equation points out how a small amount of matter can release a huge amount of energy, as in a nuclear reaction. This is proved. However to obtain a small amount of mass from a huge amount of energy cannot be proved and cannot be tested. I contend that some believe e=mc2 has been verifed by testing and this is not true, only in reverse. It is asserted to be true because it must be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
The wisest words you have uttered all this thread. There is hope for you. Now apply that humility when you read my post above. Flattery is the lowest form of sarcasm and I wasn't talking to you. You mistake my honesty for my humility. You wouldn't recognize humility if it bit you up the arse. You don't even rcognise your own arrogance and humility is way underneath all that. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Maybe this proves the whole point of members having misconceptions concerning the meaning of E=MC2. Well, the main misconceptions that I see among the members right now is that you are not a nut and that you can be reasoned with. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024