|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3644 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Despite the appearance of that Wiki article, it's actually standard senior high school advanced calculus - though in these days of diminishing standards in the UK, it's out of single A-Level mathematics and only remains in one-and-a-half or double maths. I expect you did study it at one point...
This wiki entry is better and provides the proof using basic integral calculus (work through it - it's not as bad as it looks) Essentially you are approximating a curve at a point by using a straight line with the same gradient at that point, plus a parabola with the same quadratic curvature at that point, plus a cubic, etc Edited by cavediver, : No reason given. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
Treat the equation as you would any algebraic equation. Remember, way back when Modulus plugged numbers into it
Imagine if e=2 x 32, then e=18So, 18=2 x 32 It follows on that 2=18/32 and also 32= 18/2 it's just pure algebra, the way you learned that if you have x + 2 = 9 you can transform the equation to read x + 2 - 2 = 9 - 2 I just subtracted 2 from both sides,so I can have the unknown on one side of the equals and knowns on the other side. Simplifying we get x = 9-2x=7 The reason I've picked such a simple one without squares, products etc is because you actually see it in action. You know the answer before you start, so each step of the process makes perfect sense and if you don't end up with the right answer, you know you've done something wrong. It doesn't matter how comlex an equation is or the complexity of the theory it's describing, the basic rules of algeba apply
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Heinrik Is Einsteins theory e=mc^2 actually cyclical? If you want to call it that. All equations operate the same way. E=mc2 m=E/c2 C=(E/m) E-mc2=0 E/mc2=1 Edited by bluescat48, : syntax There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
E=mc2 m=E/c2 C=(E/m) E-mc2=0 E/mc2=1 Thanks. Are these all the 'permetations' of e=mc^2?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Thanks Trixie, yes I followed Modulous more than anyone else. I understand basic algebraic equasions. Where I have 'unease' (so to speak)is that E does not represent a number and neither does M.
I know they do mathematically proportionately, but in real terms they represent Energy and Mass. When the equasion becomes a physical reaction (eg.nuclear)then logically, all permetations of e=mc^2 are capable of a physical reaction, although we do not have the technology to test them. Einstein was looking for the theory of everything. Through the learning experience of this thread I had an idea that all the permetations of e=mc^2 are cyclical in nature. Could they be joined together in a continuous circle reacting one upon the other, thus creating a cyclical equasion that is the theory of everything? The cycle of life. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Are these all the 'permetations' of e=mc^2?
if you understood basic algebra you'd know the answer to that question. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
It seems I am more interested in the input of others than you are. But in your case, I will make an exception. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3374 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
When the equasion becomes a physical reaction (eg.nuclear)then logically, all permetations of e=mc^2 are capable of a physical reaction, although we do not have the technology to test them. No matter how you rearrange the equation, it states exactly the same thing. What it says has been exhaustively tested and found to be correct. hints: equasion should be equation; permetations should be permutations.
Through the learning experience of this thread I had an idea that all the permetations of e=mc^2 are cyclical in nature. Could they be joined together in a continuous circle reacting one upon the other, thus creating a cyclical equasion that is the theory of everything? The cycle of life. See above. This equation is not a "theory of everything", it just relates energy and mass. Mystical claptrap is not appropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3706 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
All the equation does is provide a means by which you can work out the theoretical amount of energy that can be released for a given mass of a substance. While we can't measure energy directly, e can measure mass, so if we plug a value for mass into the equation at m we can then calculate the emount of energy since c is constant.
So, the only variables in the equation are mass and energy. The amount of energy is dependent on the amount of mass, similarly, if you know the amount of energy, you can calculate back to the amount of mass it came from. So if you have a mass of 3g you will get a different answer than if you have a mass of 6g. That's why the equation doesn't have a specific number for m or E. They are the "variables" so you can work out the energy for any given mass. Using m=E/c2 means yu can work out the mass for any given value of E I don't want to get into the complication of the various units that are used. At the risk of oversimplifying (and please don't be offended, this is how I have to think all the time, especially when I'm doing calculations for dilution factors for various chemical solutions) The number of oranges in my shopping bag is equal to the number of oranges I buy minus the number of oranges my son ate on the way home from the shops. Since I only allow him 2 oranges (because of the dreadful effects oranges have on his innards, but I better not go into that ), then the number of oranges I manage to get home with will be the number I bought minus 2, and 2 will always be constant (given his infamous innards) So if F is the number that finally make it into the fruitbowl, and b is the number I buy I can express it as an equation; F=b-2 If b=6 then F=4If b=10 then F=8 If b=4 then F=2 The reason b is used and not a number is that you can then plug any number in and the value of F depends on the value of b which is variable (depending on how much money I have on give day). Edited by Trixie, : You don't want to know, believe me
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Where I have 'unease' (so to speak)is that E does not represent a number and neither does M. No, it isn't just a number. There are units involved too. Look at this common equation: speed = distance/time They aren't numbers. Distance could have the unit of metres. Time could measured in seconds. If they are measured that way we might say that the unit of speed is therefore "metres per second". Not only do the numbers balance, but so do the units. In everyday life we measure distance in miles and time in hours and we measure speed in mph. It is rare in physics to find equations that are 'just numbers' but they possess units too (since they measure real things).
When the equasion becomes a physical reaction (eg.nuclear)then logically, all permetations of e=mc^2 are capable of a physical reaction, although we do not have the technology to test them. Permutations of an equation are not capable of a reaction. They are just different ways of expressing a certain relationship. If you want to know what c is you measure e and m and you can infer c. If you want to know what e is, you measure m and c, and if you want to know what m is... John has a brother called Mark. Their father is called Mike. OR Mike has two sons, John and Mark: his sons share the same mother. They are two different ways of describing the same relationship. 3 is the same as 2+1. 2 is the same as 3-1. The same relationship, expressed differently. You can perform an experiment to get e, m and c. You can then plug those values into any permutation of the equation and confirm whether the relationship is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2642 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
In a word? No.
I understand basic algebraic equasions. Where I have 'unease' (so to speak)is that E does not represent a number and neither does M. You understand basic algebra, but you are "uneasy" with variables? You understand basic algebra, but you were unable to see that E = mc2 is equivalent to E/c2 = m? You understand basic algebra, but you feel the need to ask "Could they be joined together in a continuous circle reacting one upon the other, thus creating a cyclical equasion that is the theory of everything?"? Algebraic equaTions are not "cyclical". They are algebraic. Algebra = the branch of mathematics that uses letters, symbols, and/or characters to represent numbers and express mathematical relationships. Those symbols are called variables.
Einstein was looking for the theory of everything. Albert Einstein had three great theories. His first theory of Special Relativity (1905) gave us E = mc, which led to the atomic bomb and unlocked the secret of the stars. His second great theory was General Relativity (1915), which gave us space warps, the Big Bang, and black holes. But many don't realize that his greatest theory was never finished: "a theory of everything". NOVA | The Elegant Universe | A Theory of Everything? | PBS E = mc2 is NOT the theory of everything. The theory of everything is also known as the unified field theory. And there is no unified field theory. Yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Hi Modulous, I guess I have always thought outside the box and I have trouble containing myself in this one of equations. Thank god you're here.
Permutations of an equation are not capable of a reaction. Is this absolutley fact? How do I tell the difference between equation and formula?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
You understand basic algebra, but you are "uneasy" with variables? You understand basic algebra, but you were unable to see that E = mc2 is equivalent to E/c2 = m? You understand basic algebra, but you feel the need to ask "Could they be joined together in a continuous circle reacting one upon the other, thus creating a cyclical equasion that is the theory of everything?"? Do you know how condescending this post is? Do you know how much effort I put into this? Do you have any idea how difficult it is to step into this world of maths and try to understand using my own logic? Do you know how these kinds of responses put people off from even trying. Do you know how darn 'cocky' you sound? "Anyone else notice this pattern"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Is this absolutley fact? How do I tell the difference between equation and formula? In mathematics, they are the same thing. A formula that you might be thinking of (in the sense of reactions) is a chemical formula. A chemical formula is quite different than a mathematical equation in format. A chemical reaction might look like several chemical formula like: N2 + 3 H2 ’ 2 NH3 Nuclear reactions are trickier still.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
There seemed to be some conflicting information in this thread. Back to basics for a second.
Are equations in physics simply to find the unknown quantity?Does E=Mc^2 represent this category? Do the values of E and M remain constant? Is there no chemical reaction or physical reaction to this equation in any permutation? You know, Modulous, my confusion is becoming apparent and I thank you for your patience. In truth I have no need and no desire to learn all this. I did it to find 'misconceptions' and used this topic as the means. My endevours have been harshly judged by some in this thread. My confusion is confused with lack of intelligence by the 'more intelligent'. It is difficult to uncover misconceptions about a strongly held belief and it appears I am the only one who is prepared to stand naked and admit them.regards
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024