Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 181 of 243 (453652)
02-03-2008 3:07 PM


Equations and Theories
Heinrik,
Please allow me to explain something to you that I think is important for you to know, and that is tangentially related to the difference between equations and formulas. In your opening post and in a post later in the thread, I noticed that you have a mistaken idea of the meaning of the word 'theory', at least as far as its use in science is concerned.
Scientists use the word 'theory' to denote a framework of knowledge that explains observed phenomena. For example, we observe that masses attract each other, and as an explanation of this phenomenon we have a theory of gravity. This theory consists of a number of principles that can be expressed in words. However, it is better to write those principles down in formulas, because if we do that we can make calculations about the effects we observe. For instance, we can calculate how long it takes for something to fall to the ground, if we let go of it from a given height. We can also calculate the speed with which it will hit the ground, and the energy it releases on impact.
I think that you have a different idea about the meaning of the word 'theory' in this context. In lay circles, there is a persistent erroneous idea that a theory is some kind of upgrade from a hypothesis, and that a theory can in turn be upgraded to the status of 'law'. On this view, a theory is often pronounced to be "just a theory", meaning that it is viewed as being mere speculation, only less so than a hypothesis. Also on this view, when a theory becomes a law, it is viewed as fact.
As I have described above, scientists use the word 'theory' differently. But there is another important thing about theories. I mentioned the theory of gravity above. But isn't gravity also a fact? A layman with the erroneous idea of how scientists use the word 'theory' might think that this is a contradiction: how can gravity be a theory and also a fact? If you have read my explanation above, you now know that there is no contradiction. We know that gravity is a fact - you only have to drop something from the roof of a building to see gravity at work - and our theory of gravity explains that fact to the best of our knowledge.
I hope this is of some help to you.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:48 PM Parasomnium has replied
 Message 198 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 9:11 PM Parasomnium has not replied

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


Message 182 of 243 (453656)
02-03-2008 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by pelican
02-03-2008 3:05 PM


Re: equations and formulae
Are equations in physics simply to find the unknown quantity?
No, they describe a relationship between certain things in nature (energy, mass, the speed of light, force, acceleration etc etc).
Do the values of E and M remain constant?
No, the values of e and m depend on what we're looking at. If we are looking at an object of 1kg, then the m is 1kg. If we are looking at an object of 10kg then the m is 10kg.
If something has an energy of 1million joules, then e=1MJ - if it has an energy of 10million joules, then e=10MJ.
Is there no chemical reaction or physical reaction to this equation in any permutation?
No, there are no chemical reactions present.
You know, Modulous, my confusion is becoming apparent and I thank you for your patience.
Heh, don't worry about it - it is a selfish endeavour. There is nothing better to revise these things than to explain them to someone who doesn't understand them as well as yourself.
My endevours have been harshly judged by some in this thread. My confusion is confused with lack of intelligence by the 'more intelligent'.
Some people have short patience with people that make declarations that aren't true with a seeming confidence. You might not intend it, but some of your posts give off such an impression. I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt:- a lot of communication can be lost through the written word and it can take experience of the misunderstandings that can arise through the gap between what is said and what is meant.
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
This is true. I think a good example of a misconception, which I might have held until this thread, was that nuclear reactions and chemical reactions aren't different in the energy/mass equivalence stakes. I hadn't really thought on it before - but I don't mind admitting I might have made a boo-boo had someone quizzed me on it before reading cavediver's earlier post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 3:05 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 4:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 183 of 243 (453658)
02-03-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Modulous
02-03-2008 2:32 PM


Re: equations and formulae
i only have basic knowedge of chemistry too from many moons ago. I think my biggest probem is that I'm short of jargon which makes communication more difficult. But this is the name of the game, to find a common language of understanding. Here goes.......
N2 + 3 H2 ’ 2 NH3
Do these letters represent substance? I'm assuming they are nitrogen and hydrogen. In this case I see the formula as a process using measured quantities.
E=MC^2 is showing one substance in different form?
The format is irrelevent at this point in my thinking. Bear with me.
Chemical formulae is the 'mixing of chemicals to produce a reaction'. These are easily tested and will produce the exact results every time?
Confusion : doesn't E=MC^2 have one or two permutations that produce the same reaction or describes the same reaction every time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 2:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 3:45 PM pelican has replied

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


Message 184 of 243 (453662)
02-03-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by pelican
02-03-2008 3:34 PM


Re: equations and formulae
Do these letters represent substance?
Elements, from the periodic table.
I'm assuming they are nitrogen and hydrogen.
Good assumption.
In this case I see the formula as a process using measured quantities.
Yes, it is a way of producing ammonia.
E=MC^2 is showing one substance in different form?
No. It is a way of describing the relationship between a substance's mass and its energy.
Chemical formulae is the 'mixing of chemicals to produce a reaction'. These are easily tested and will produce the exact results every time?
There is usually more to them than given in these simple formulae.
Confusion : doesn't E=MC^2 have one or two permutations that produce the same reaction or describes the same reaction every time?
E=MC^2 doesn't describe a reaction, it describes a relationship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 3:34 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 185 of 243 (453674)
02-03-2008 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Modulous
02-03-2008 3:22 PM


Re: equations and formulae
Is there no chemical reaction or physical reaction to this equation in any permutation?
No, there are no chemical reactions present.
My mistake. Did not mean chemical at all. I meant only a physical reaction (Ah,I think this word is misleading) Instead of reaction can I say 'a chain of events' e.g "when the equation is observed in 'real' life, there is a process whereby the energy is released from mass?
Do the values of E and M remain constant?
No, the values of e and m depend on what we're looking at. If we are looking at an object of 1kg, then the m is 1kg. If we are looking at an object of 10kg then the m is 10kg.
This is what I thought it was. E is one unit, M is one unit and they remain constant in relationship with each other.
Heh, don't worry about it - it is a selfish endeavour.
I suspect this motive runs rife.
Some people have short patience with people that make declarations that aren't true with a seeming confidence.
Does not everyone make declarations in confidence of that which they believe to be true? Your judgement of me making declarations that aren't true can be said of many posters here.
You might not intend it, but some of your posts give off such an impression.
I certainly don't intend it. Can you show me one that gives this 'impression'?
a lot of communication can be lost through the written word and it can take experience of the misunderstandings that can arise through the gap between what is said and what is meant.
Absolutely. I am putting myself through this for no other reason. I don't have the same need to be right. It is easier for me to see my mistakes as I haven't anything to lose.
This is true. I think a good example of a misconception, which I might have held until this thread, was that nuclear reactions and chemical reactions aren't different in the energy/mass equivalence stakes. I hadn't really thought on it before - but I don't mind admitting I might have made a boo-boo had someone quizzed me on it before reading cavediver's earlier post.
Nice one! The great point you are making here is that no-one else spotted your error. It took your own observatiions and the willingness to be wrong and the willingness to learn. A 'man' after my own heart. regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 3:22 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 4:29 PM pelican has replied

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


Message 186 of 243 (453676)
02-03-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by pelican
02-03-2008 4:14 PM


Re: equations and formulae
My mistake. Did not mean chemical at all. I meant only a physical reaction (Ah,I think this word is misleading) Instead of reaction can I say 'a chain of events' e.g "when the equation is observed in 'real' life, there is a process whereby the energy is released from mass?
Same kind of thing. A reaction basically is a chain of events. There are no chains of events in e=mc^2.
Does not everyone make declarations in confidence of that which they believe to be true? Your judgement of me making declarations that aren't true can be said of many posters here.
I imagine many people, if not all do this from time to time. When you do, you can expect to be told in no uncertain terms. It can be a good thing - don't worry too much about it though, it's not usually meant to be personal. Where it is, hey - how personal can strangers get?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 4:14 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 7:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 187 of 243 (453681)
02-03-2008 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Modulous
02-03-2008 3:45 PM


Re: equations and formulae
E=MC^2 is showing one substance in different form?
No. It is a way of describing the relationship between a substance's mass and its energy.
Good yes! I really feel we are getting somewhere. What is the relationship?
Confusion : doesn't E=MC^2 have one or two permutations that produce the same reaction or describes the same reaction every time?
E=MC^2 doesn't describe a reaction, it describes a relationship.
Can any of the permutations of e=mc^2 be 'manipulated' in reality to reproduce a predicted outcome? ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 3:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 5:28 PM pelican has replied

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


Message 188 of 243 (453682)
02-03-2008 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by pelican
02-03-2008 5:13 PM


Good yes! I really feel we are getting somewhere. What is the relationship?
The amount of energy that something has is proportional to its mass. Using standard units (and in simple terms), the amount of energy something has is equal to the product of its mass and a constant that is equal to the speed of light squared.
Can any of the permutations of e=mc^2 be 'manipulated' in reality to reproduce a predicted outcome? ?
No, they just represent the way mass and energy are related. It is itself a prediction of Einstein's theory of relativity. The prediction is that mass and energy will be related in the fashion described by the equation.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:13 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2008 5:49 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 192 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:59 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 189 of 243 (453687)
02-03-2008 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Parasomnium
02-03-2008 3:07 PM


Re: Equations and Theories
In your opening post and in a post later in the thread, I noticed that you have a mistaken idea of the meaning of the word 'theory', at least as far as its use in science is concerned.
Thankyou, you are quite correct as I didn't understand it as 'jargon' having another meaning. Which post are you referring to where I have a mistaken idea?. I will check it out.
However, I did research it and this is how I know it is jargon. By saying 'just' a theory, it wasn't meant to demote it. You misunderstood my meaning.
I meant a theory and nothing else i.e not a formula and not an equation to discover an unknown quantity. As in 'is the only perception of e=mc^2, that of a theory in the world of physics?
Hope this clarifes my meaning.
Where on earth in my posts did I imply any of this?
I think that you have a different idea about the meaning of the word 'theory' in this context. In lay circles, there is a persistent erroneous idea that a theory is some kind of upgrade from a hypothesis, and that a theory can in turn be upgraded to the status of 'law'. On this view, a theory is often pronounced to be "just a theory", meaning that it is viewed as being mere speculation, only less so than a hypothesis. Also on this view, when a theory becomes a law, it is viewed as fact.
Now this angers me. Do you want to know why? It is all speculation derived from your erronious belief surrounding lay-people. Not very scientific at all.
Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Parasomnium, posted 02-03-2008 3:07 PM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by molbiogirl, posted 02-03-2008 8:45 PM pelican has replied
 Message 205 by Parasomnium, posted 02-04-2008 3:39 AM pelican has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 190 of 243 (453688)
02-03-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Modulous
02-03-2008 5:28 PM


Not predict?
Can any of the permutations of e=mc^2 be 'manipulated' in reality to reproduce a predicted outcome? ?
No, they just represent the way mass and energy are related. It is itself a prediction of Einstein's theory of relativity. The prediction is that mass and energy will be related in the fashion described by the equation.
I don't understand your answer.
e can be predicted by one permutation, m by another so why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 5:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 5:55 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 191 of 243 (453689)
02-03-2008 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by NosyNed
02-03-2008 5:49 PM


Re: Not predict?
I don't understand your answer.
e can be predicted by one permutation, m by another so why not?
Sure, you can predict what e will be given m and c. But I don't Heinrik meant that. If you read back through some of his comments he seems to still be thinking of e=mc^2 as something akin to a physical reaction like combustion. He seems to be wondering if one permutation of the equation does represent a physical reaction. Like maybe, e=mc^2 is sometimes thought of as the formula that describes a nuclear explosion or whatever, or it represents a reaction whereby pure energy becomes mass, or mass can be converted into the speed of light squared or some such strangeness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by NosyNed, posted 02-03-2008 5:49 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 6:09 PM Modulous has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 192 of 243 (453690)
02-03-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Modulous
02-03-2008 5:28 PM


more than one way to skin a cat
Can any of the permutations of e=mc^2 be 'manipulated' in reality to reproduce a predicted outcome? ?
No, they just represent the way mass and energy are related. It is itself a prediction of Einstein's theory of relativity. The prediction is that mass and energy will be related in the fashion described by the equation.
Ok, so can this be 'observed' in reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 5:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 6:00 PM pelican has not replied
 Message 203 by molbiogirl, posted 02-03-2008 10:59 PM pelican has replied

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


Message 193 of 243 (453691)
02-03-2008 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by pelican
02-03-2008 5:59 PM


Re: more than one way to skin a cat
Ok, so can this be 'observed' in reality?
Yes. Experiments have been performed that measure the mass of something and its energy and the relationship between them is as described in the equation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by pelican, posted 02-03-2008 5:59 PM pelican has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 194 of 243 (453694)
02-03-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Modulous
02-03-2008 5:55 PM


Re: Not predict?
Sure, you can predict what e will be given m and c. But I don't Heinrik meant that. If you read back through some of his comments he seems to still be thinking of e=mc^2 as something akin to a physical reaction like combustion. He seems to be wondering if one permutation of the equation does represent a physical reaction. Like maybe, e=mc^2 is sometimes thought of as the formula that describes a nuclear explosion or whatever, or it represents a reaction whereby pure energy becomes mass, or mass can be converted into the speed of light squared or some such strangeness.
yes I did! Not exactly but yes, I thought they could be separated in some way but they cannot. From discovering my misconceotion, I then came to believe that when the atom is split the energy is released (not transformed), virually no physical mass is lost and the energy released immediately becomes mass (form). How am I doing so far?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 5:55 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2008 9:10 AM pelican has not replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 4985 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 195 of 243 (453706)
02-03-2008 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Modulous
02-03-2008 4:29 PM


Re: equations and formulae
I imagine many people, if not all do this from time to time. When you do, you can expect to be told in no uncertain terms.
I do believe there is some cross purposes here. Science aside for a moment and come into my world.
I saw my own misconception that no-one else saw that I offered up as an example of mis-perceptions from a strongly held belief about science. Now don't you think this is possible in many other areas of science?
E.G. You saw one of your own. Did you not declare it with confidence, as you believed it to be true? Is that human behaviour not the same as mine? Just stating a fact I believed to be true?
I respect your knowledge and I believe what you tell me, (most of the time )If you had not seen it, you could have passed the misconception on to others who would have taken it to be true. Did anyone else see it?
My real glaringly obvious point is that my behaviour is no differnt to anyones elses. I state what I believe to be true just as you do. You make mistakes, so do I.
Why are my mistakes (even spelling) pointed out so harshly when yours are not?
Modulous, I have even been told to 'shut the fuck up' because I don't know what I am talking about. Hmmm. That was accepted by all and sundry. No objections to that post, not even by me.
Most posters were trying to blind me with science because they believed I was uneducated. In other words "One-up-manship,"
Those that could not stand their ground did not reply, and might have snuck back in seemingly unnoticed, but I did notice.
Others who were becoming confused, agreed with each other and supported each other and went on their own merry way, regardless of the topic.
Others come in at the last minute, haven't followed the thread and sling a bit of mud at me because I am the vulnerable one. Nothing constructive.
And then there was you. Earnest in your endevours to help me and share your expertise at a level I could understand. Thankyou.
It can be a good thing - don't worry too much about it though, it's not usually meant to be personal. Where it is, hey - how personal can strangers get?
May I point out this last misconception you hold of me. I do not worry at all. It is a challenge that I enjoy. And yes anonymous strangers talking on the internet cannot harm me. I am well aware of that. I do become angry when I have put a lot of work and researched something only to be told I can't spell or that I don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't worked so hard in years
However, this forum is a mini world, replicated outside in the real world. All these beliefs, behaviours, perceptions, judgements are all having an effect on the larger community. That is why I am here. Regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Modulous, posted 02-03-2008 4:29 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Modulous, posted 02-04-2008 9:36 AM pelican has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024