Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 151 of 243 (453317)
02-01-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by johnfolton
02-01-2008 7:51 PM


Re: mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?
Your formula is only based on time in mass not in motion
Plug it in if you want to do it:
( MC^2 )
e =( ------------- - MC^2 ) + MC^2
( (1-(V^2\C^2))1/2 )
Of if you want the easy version
e = w +mc^2
However, if you want to start working things out accurately and correctly, the maths is going to get obscene very quickly. Since it isn't on topic here, why bother going down that road?
Observations particles with a variety of velocities have shown that time dilation is a real effect.
Described by a separate equation:
t = t'
--------------
√(1-(V^2/c^2)
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by johnfolton, posted 02-01-2008 7:51 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 152 of 243 (453384)
02-02-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by teen4christ
01-29-2008 4:21 PM


It is all english
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.
Aren't physicists real people? Only joking! How do you communicate scientific information to the layman? Or do you want to keep it to yourself?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by teen4christ, posted 01-29-2008 4:21 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Vacate, posted 02-02-2008 3:54 AM pelican has not replied
 Message 154 by Jaderis, posted 02-02-2008 5:33 AM pelican has replied
 Message 155 by Trixie, posted 02-02-2008 6:23 AM pelican has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4601 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 153 of 243 (453399)
02-02-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by pelican
02-02-2008 2:37 AM


Re: It is all english
How do you communicate scientific information to the layman?
I think the best method would be for the layman to buy a textbook and then do assignments given to them by professors. Sounds odd, but it does seem to work.
Or do you want to keep it to yourself?
Modulous burned his library card in protest.
ABE: Joking, thank you Modulous for some great (free!) information. I picked you out because it sunk in.
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 2:37 AM pelican has not replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 154 of 243 (453415)
02-02-2008 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by pelican
02-02-2008 2:37 AM


Re: It is all english
How do you communicate scientific information to the layman? Or do you want to keep it to yourself?
Basic principles of any science can be easily communicated to the layman. The basic information for the theory of relativity is given to students every day, but the specifics require a lot more study (meaning you must have a prerequisite knwoledge...the pre-reqs at university are not just a nuisance. They actually mean something).
The problems come into play when 1) the layman refuses to use the scientific terminology that scientists use even after having it defined for them, 2) the layman does not have the prerequisite knowledge necessary to understand the more complicated terms (and in your case mathematical symbols) and 3) the layman attempts to debate the people who do understand the terms and equations and who do have the prerequisite knowledge and then try to "stump" them by arguing a mischaracterization (aka strawman), all the while pretending that the non-laymen have the misconceptions because they cannot respond to the mischaracterization to their liking.
If you storm around demanding evidence, but you have no way of understanding the evidence then that is no one else's fault but your own. Some concepts can be easily laid out (like the topic under discussion), but the evidence is not as easily understood (even though Modulous provided definitions for each of the symbols he used) if you don't even have a basic education in the sciences and maths involved. And I mean basic...division symbols and squares are pretty basic. 3rd and 6th grade respectively (if that).
I am a layman (meaning non-degreed in the sciences/maths) but I have no problem understanding the evidence in this thread. But, then again, I also don't pretend to know more than I do and then have to backtrack just to keep up. That may be where your problem lies. Thinking you know more than you do (how else can you say that other people have a misconception of something you do not understand yourself?) and then blaming it on the presentation of the evidence to save face.
Again, there are easy ways to explain many things, but without even a basic understanding of science or math you are not going to understand the evidence for which you ask. Some people here can try to make it easy to understand, but many erroneous ideas stem from simplification because much is lost in the "translation."
Some things said here are way over many heads (and you will see biologists here readily admit to a mediocre or non-existent understanding of physics and vice versa), but, if you really want to understand, the knowledge is out there. Find it. Use it. Don't underestimate yourself

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 2:37 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 6:30 AM Jaderis has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3706 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 155 of 243 (453417)
02-02-2008 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by pelican
02-02-2008 2:37 AM


Re: It is all english
Heinrik, do my posts help any? You'll only have to check back a few posts. I'm a complete physics turniphead so I've tried to get explanations from the physicists that avoid the formulae and include real-life situations. If you start at;
http://EvC Forum: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 -->EvC Forum: Misconceptions of E=MC^2
and then follow on from there you'll see what I tried to do.
Having said that, it may be so much gobbldegook. I must admit, I keep having to reboot my brain to understand even my own posts on this subject

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 2:37 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 6:36 AM Trixie has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 156 of 243 (453418)
02-02-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Jaderis
02-02-2008 5:33 AM


Re: It is all english
You aren't talking about me then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Jaderis, posted 02-02-2008 5:33 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Jaderis, posted 02-02-2008 9:35 AM pelican has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 157 of 243 (453420)
02-02-2008 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Trixie
02-02-2008 6:23 AM


Re: It is all english
Thanks Trixie. Us laymen have to try or they might blind us with science hey?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Trixie, posted 02-02-2008 6:23 AM Trixie has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 158 of 243 (453424)
02-02-2008 7:34 AM


Bump misconceptions e=mc^2
The intention of this thread was to uncover misconceptions of e=mc^2. In real life one cannot uncover misconceptions before the conceptions are known. I received lots of information and lots of differing concepts.
How would I know which was true? Everyone was claiming to be right, including me, and no two posts gave the information in the same format. Many various points were picked up and I was being totally blinded by science. I was literally going round in circles at this point. I was rereading one of Modulous' previous posts, and one word hit me. Velocity! I understood that word. It is the speed of a moving object, isn't it? Ding, ding! Thankyou Modulous.
C is not describing a moving object in e=mc^2, is it? Speed of light is just a friggin number validated by the empirical evidence. The speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s. Holy shit *********************
BIG MISCONCEPTION yet a simple misunderstanding. I took the speed of light to be literal, ever since I was 15yrs old and that was along time ago.
I wondered why the hell no-one has spotted this? Hmm better check and lo and behold there it was.........
Post 38. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with a mass travelling at the speed of light. Here, c is just a number, and c^2 forms the constant of proportionality between E and m. This number is also the speed of light, but that is (mostly) irrelevant to the equation.
It is tested true every second of every day at every nuclear reactor in the world. None of the billion $ particle accelerators in the world would work at all if this equation was not true.
There are very few equations in science that are better tested than this one...
............I get it!
The concept I held was so ingrained in me as a belief, I had no hope of knowing I had a misconception. It has been really hard work and taken a few kicks up the arse for me to see this. This is the same for everyone. Everyone holds on to their ingrained beliefs because they have no way of knowing if it is false.
An old saying comes to mind "you can't see the woods for the trees."
Very apt. Thanks to all participants.

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2008 8:04 AM pelican has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 159 of 243 (453432)
02-02-2008 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by pelican
02-02-2008 7:34 AM


The concept I held was so ingrained in me as a belief, I had no hope of knowing I had a misconception. It has been really hard work and taken a few kicks up the arse for me to see this. This is the same for everyone. Everyone holds on to their ingrained beliefs because they have no way of knowing if it is false.
An old saying comes to mind "you can't see the woods for the trees."
Very apt. Thanks to all participants.
For those about to learn, we salute you! I'm really happy you managed to take a step back and look and see the wood, even just a glimpse of it. There is much yet to be discovered, and I am not well versed in the terrain much beyond where we now stand - Lay on, Heinrik,
And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!' :-D

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 7:34 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 9:48 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 160 of 243 (453453)
02-02-2008 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by molbiogirl
02-01-2008 7:30 PM


Re: mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?
Relativity always turns out to be more complicated than I think, but I believe it would be correct to say that E=mc2 is for a mass at rest with respect to the observer. If the mass were moving at velocity v then the non-relativistic version of the equation might become:
E = mc2 + mv2/2
But mass actually increases with relative velocity, so for a mass in motion I'm guessing that the equation might really be:
E = mc2 + mv2/(2 * (1-v2/c2)1/2)
But I'm just guessing. Modulous's answer in Message 151 may be the correct one, and his equation simplifies to:
E = mc2 / (1-v2/c2)1/2
Anyone know which is correct and why? I'm trying to see how Modulous's answer reduces to mv2/2 (the Newtonian answer) for non-relativistic velocities after subtracting out an mc2, but I can't figure it out.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by molbiogirl, posted 02-01-2008 7:30 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-02-2008 9:52 AM Percy has replied

  
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 3426 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


Message 161 of 243 (453462)
02-02-2008 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by pelican
02-02-2008 6:30 AM


Re: It is all english
You aren't talking about me then?
Yes, I am.
Try a bit of humility...especially since you know next to nothing about the subject.
Also try to learn. I know I learned a lot from this thread.
Criticism is not condemnation. If I came across as harsh, I apologize, but you really should try to learn at least the basics of anything before you start a discussion about it, especially if you want to try to dismantle it.

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 6:30 AM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by pelican, posted 02-02-2008 9:51 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 162 of 243 (453465)
02-02-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by Modulous
02-02-2008 8:04 AM


anyone else spot a misconception of their own?
Thanks Modulous. I worked hard to find the splinter in my eye But along the way I learned a lot more than I expected. Getting past that misconception opened a new world. More and more things were making sense. The pennies were dropping.
I would like to throw a new(?) theory at you that is rattling in my head.
My logical reasoning using everything I've got:
e=mc^2 is an equasion representing two forms of the same substance. They cannot exist independently and is the function of nuclear power.
e/c^2=m is the same equasion having the same characteristics, same function but in reverse.
This last one I am not sure of c^2=m/e, but I will try it. This is the 3rd and final transposition of the equasion (I think).
Therefore, if e=mc^2 (energy=mass x 299 792 458 m/s. x 299 792 458 m/s.) transforms into e/c^2=mass (energy/c^2=mass) which then transforms into C^2=m/e (C^2=mass /ebergy)
The next transposition can only be back to e=mc^2.
IN sequence : e-mc^2 = e/c^2=m = c^2=m/e = e=mc^2.
Is Einsteins theory e=mc^2 actually cyclical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Modulous, posted 02-02-2008 8:04 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Trixie, posted 02-02-2008 12:25 PM pelican has replied
 Message 168 by bluescat48, posted 02-02-2008 1:58 PM pelican has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 163 of 243 (453467)
02-02-2008 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Jaderis
02-02-2008 9:35 AM


Re: It is all english
Thankyou for your response but I think you may have misunderstood the thread. It was about MISCONCEPTIONS. I used e=mc2 as a means to uncover these elusive rascals. The job now is to find your own. Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Jaderis, posted 02-02-2008 9:35 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 164 of 243 (453470)
02-02-2008 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Percy
02-02-2008 9:04 AM


Re: mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?
E = mc2 / (1-v2/c2)1/2
E = mc2 (1-v2/c2)-1/2
small v, so taylor expand
(1-v2/c2)-1/2 = (1 -(-1/2)v2/c2+...)
so
E = mc2(1 + 1/2v2/c2+...)
E = mc2 + 1/2mv2 + ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Percy, posted 02-02-2008 9:04 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 02-02-2008 10:26 AM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 165 of 243 (453480)
02-02-2008 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by cavediver
02-02-2008 9:52 AM


Re: mass * the speed of light squared = energy ?
Thank you. I looked at the Wikipedia article on the Taylor Series and it was a bit beyond me. Is this something that can be explained more simply?
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by cavediver, posted 02-02-2008 9:52 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 02-02-2008 10:46 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024