|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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. So, just for the record Heinrik, you are contending that every particle factory in the world doesn't actually work, and every particle physicist in the world is lying, and hiding a huge conspiracy that we have never observed pair creation You are utterly deluded, and beyond help. Truly pathetic. I just hope that the hundreds of lurkers who have perused this thread have managed to see beyond your mad frothy ranting and raving and have actually perhaps learned something about particle physics. Bye bye
|
|||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3672 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You don't even rcognise your own arrogance Arrogance is misplaced confidence. I can assure you that my confidence is very well placed
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3402 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
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. Conversion of energy to mass is happening inside your body all the time. Part of you is the nuclide Potassium-40, which is radioactive. Just after it decays, an energetic gamma-ray (energy) is emitted. Sometimes, when the gamma-ray encounters a nucleus, part of its energy is converted to a pair of particles (electron and positron) which possess mass. This is a very well-known nuisance in gamma-ray spectrometry. It is unfortunate that you have taken hold of an erroneous notion. Now you have an opportunity to relinquish it and carry on without it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
oops
first line should have been "If E = m•c² is true, then ..."
Please keep it simple. Sorry, didn't mean to skip explanations of the steps. The point is that then energy plus mass before an event that changes energy to mass or vice versa should be related to the energy plus mass after the event. You can measure the change in energy = ΔE You can measure the change in mass = Δm If there was conversion, then when one is positive the other should be negative. It is. And if the conversion rate is constant, then they should be related by some constant value. We can define and determine this constant by: ΔE + Kp•Δm = 0, where Kp is the assumed constant of conversion and solving for the constant gives you Kp•Δm = -ΔE Kp = -ΔE/Δm Do this for a number of different levels of energy to mass conversions and plot the value of Kp against (-ΔE/Δm) to see the distribution or trend. If the formula is true then the constant should be equal to c² (within the error of measurements for energy and mass). It is. For the experiments that have been made. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
The measured mass of 1kg of lead consists of almost entirely the binding energy (i.e. gluons) holding the quarks.... Ack! I forgot about that. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
All the physically proven experiments with e=mc2 have been in using it in reverse i.e mass divided by the square root of c2 = minus energy (mass). As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse. This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum. Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate? We just measure each of the variables and see how they relate to one another. If they relate to one another in the same way then the equation is right - yes? Likewise, if you measured, e, m, and c you might find that m = e/c2 If we find that e=mc2 when we measure e, m and c. If we find that m = e/c2 would you agree that e = mc2 is a correct description of the relationship between energy and mass?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Conversion of energy to mass is happening inside your body all the time. Part of you is the nuclide Potassium-40, which is radioactive. Just after it decays, an energetic gamma-ray (energy) is emitted. Sometimes, when the gamma-ray encounters a nucleus, part of its energy is converted to a pair of particles (electron and positron) which possess mass. This is a very well-known nuisance in gamma-ray spectrometry. Really interesting. i was hoping to take this to another level which does include the human body. I had no idea this knowledge was available but maybe you are the best one to open a new thresd on this subject.
It is unfortunate that you have taken hold of an erroneous notion. Now you have an opportunity to relinquish it and carry on without it. It's a pity you had to ruin a perfectly good post with taking the stance of 'you are right and I am wrong'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
first line should have been "If E = m”c is true, then ..." Thanks but these symbols are way over my head. Can these be expressed in words.
Please keep it simple. Sorry, didn't mean to skip explanations of the steps. The point is that then energy plus mass before an event that changes energy to mass or vice versa should be related to the energy plus mass after the event. You can measure the change in energy = E You can measure the change in mass = m If there was conversion, then when one is positive the other should be negative. It is. And if the conversion rate is constant, then they should be related by some constant value. We can define and determine this constant by: E + Kp”m = 0, where Kp is the assumed constant of conversion and solving for the constant gives you Kp”m = -E Kp = -E/m
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Heinrik writes: As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse. The equivalence has been experimentally verified in both directions. The conversion of energy to mass is much more difficult because such huge amounts of energy are necessary to create very little mass. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5014 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate? We just measure each of the variables and see how they relate to one another. If they relate to one another in the same way then the equation is right - yes? Likewise, if you measured, e, m, and c you might find that m = e/c2 If we find that e=mc2 when we measure e, m and c. If we find that m = e/c2 would you agree that e = mc2 is a correct description of the relationship between energy and mass? What does e/c2 represent? I really don't dispute that the equasion is correct. It seems that most posts are concerned with explaining the meaning of e=mc2 to me as though I didn't understand it. I do. I just made a few mistakes. mainly because I am human. Once more my contention is that many perceptions of E=MC2 are in fact, misconceptions. There are many contradicting versions from different points of view. This is science that is supposed to answer all evolutionists questions and because it is physical proof, creationists are supposed to accept it on face value without a hope of understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Shield Member (Idle past 2890 days) Posts: 482 Joined: |
Heinrik, it seems that you think that E=mc2 is some sort of recipe with the purpose of creating energy from mass.
It is NOT. Instead of arguing against better knowing people, i suggest you read the wikipedia entry on E=mc2:Mass—energy equivalence - Wikipedia |
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
What does e/c2 represent? m e = mc2 divide both sides by c2 e/c2 = m
Once more my contention is that many perceptions of E=MC2 are in fact, misconceptions. Yes, you've expressed some of them yourself, providing a wonderful example of the thread's topic; that it is about getting matter travel at impossible speeds so that it becomes energy, for example.
This is science that is supposed to answer all evolutionists questions and because it is physical proof, creationists are supposed to accept it on face value without a hope of understanding. Relativity doesn't come into biology. There simply isn't enough energy involved to make it necessary to take relativity into account.
I really don't dispute that the equasion is correct. You seem to have doubts that it has been experimentally confirmed. So, if you would be so kind as to answer the question: Would you agree that if we were to measure, e, m, and c and we were to find that e=mc2 that would confirm the equation was accurate? If yes: then creationists don't have to take at face value. They can look at the confirmatory experiments themselves. Even perform some of them if they can get the funds. If no: why not? By definition if we were to observe that e=mc2 surely that confirms that e=mc2?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Okay let's understand the equation in a simple scenario. I apologize if any of the following has a condescending tone, but I think you are severely confused.
First we will need a definition of Energy. Keeping it simple, Energy is the ability to do work. Now what is Mass? Again not to make things to difficult, I'll be horribly loose and say Mass is what you get when you put something on a weighing scale, a measure of how much gravity is pulling you down.* Now let's say I work in the Ikata Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. I take a large amount of Uranium and weigh it before I put it in the reactor. Now I put it in the reactor, turn the reactor on and power the whole Ehime Prefecture for a day. I take the stuff out of the reactor and weigh it. I find that the stuff weighs less. So the Uranium lost some mass and gained some ability to do work (Powering the Ehime Prefecture). How much ability for work? Well if the mass lost was M, then it would be E = MC^2. Now you are also asking can this work backwards? Can energy be converted into mass? The answer is yes, but not in a direct sense. You can't have "ability to do work" just hanging around on its own, waiting to be converted into mass. Rather a bunch of particles might reduce their own ability to do work. The lost amount of energy is then the Mass of a new particle, with mass given by E=MC^2.Really I'm skipping a lot here, but a full explanation would involve Special Relativity and some Quantum Mechanics. *This not what mass is. I'm keeping things simple. Mass is actually not the same as weight. Edited by Son Goku, : Removed a word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
humoshi Junior Member (Idle past 5277 days) Posts: 25 Joined: |
quote:Ah yes, I knew that somewhere in my brain. I think what I meant to say is:
Is it more accurate to say that one form of energy called matter is converted to another form of energy
That's probably inaccurate too, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
Thanks but these symbols are way over my head. Can these be expressed in words. Nonsense. You just don't want to try. I know what it's like to sit in a physics lecture and be so gd lost that you're just watching a guy write on a chalkboard. I felt that way in P Chem today. But RAZD's explanation is simple, clear and to the point. Every variable is defined, every step is explained. But maybe I am expecting too much. After all. You were unable to deduce the E = mc2 is equivalent to E/c2 = m. Oh. And one more thing. You are aware that particle accelerators create matter from energy now, yes? (Adding, of course, the necessary caveats re: "creation" that have been mentioned in this thread, e.g. Message 103.) Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given. Edited by molbiogirl, : darn codes
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024