Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (8962 total)
192 online now:
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,303 Year: 3,051/23,288 Month: 1,242/1,809 Week: 361/313 Day: 102/71 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
pelican
Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 1 of 243 (451943)
01-29-2008 10:20 AM


I have no misconceptions of E=MC2. I do not dispute it's authenticity. What I do dispute is others conceptions of what it actually means. I am neither scientist, evolutionist or creationist and for this reason, I have chosen to start it here in the coffee house.

The only expertise I have is year 12 maths. However, I do have experience in misconceptions and the meaning of words. Therefore for easier understanding I will put the mathematical theory into words.
E=MC2 means "Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light.

For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum.
I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved.
Is this true?

Edited by Admin, : Modify title.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 10:36 AM pelican has responded
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 10:50 AM pelican has responded
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 11:11 AM pelican has responded
 Message 221 by pelican, posted 02-04-2008 10:16 PM pelican has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6862
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 2 of 243 (451952)
01-29-2008 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
01-29-2008 10:20 AM


I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved.

It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven".

Oh, yeah, it's a theory, too. In fact, being in the form of a concise equation, we might even call it a law.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 10:20 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 11:50 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 3 of 243 (451963)
01-29-2008 10:44 AM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19444
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 4 of 243 (451966)
01-29-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
01-29-2008 10:20 AM


Hi Heinrik,

Chiroptera gave the right answer, but I want to offer a little more clarification.

Chiroptera put the word "proven" between quotes, and he did so because when scientists talking about science use the word "proven" they do not mean it in the same sense as laypeople. Laypeople tend to think of the word "proven" as meaning 100% certainty, but all "proven" means within science is that the idea is supported by sufficient evidence that it has formed a consensus of acceptance within relevant scientific circles. The acceptance is granted provisionally and only until such time as new evidence or improved insight indicates a change is required.

So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 10:20 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 10:52 AM Percy has responded
 Message 9 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 11:45 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6862
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 5 of 243 (451968)
01-29-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
01-29-2008 10:50 AM


Laypeople tend to think of the word "proven" as meaning 100% certainty....

And one has to ask, what in the real world is ever known with 100% certainty? One can state that something is not proven unless it is 100% certain, but then the word "proof" has no practical meaning in the real world.

Edited by Chiroptera, : typo


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 10:50 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 11:22 AM Chiroptera has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 243 (451978)
01-29-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by pelican
01-29-2008 10:20 AM



For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum.
I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved.
Is this true?

It actually emerges out converting the Lorentz transformation and Newton's laws to take relativity into account. Relativity is the theory, the equation is just some maths resulting from the theory. It is more confirmed than:

W = 1\2 mv2

The above is not a theory, and yet we can use this maths, and associated maths to get to the moon: so we can be confident that it is true as a general description of our local universe. The normal way of wording this is that W = Fd, but using F = ma we can show that W = 1\2 mv 2.

Einstein's modifications to this formula is:


MC2
W = ------------- - MC2
(1-(V2\C2))1/2

With a little more maths work we get to

E = W + MC2

So even when W=0, something will have the energy of MC2.

This is essentially a prediction of Relativity, and it provides a wonderful way to test the theory. If the description of the way the universe works as developed out of the mathematics of the theory then the theory is confirmed as being a useful description of at least part of our universe.

They tested it, the description holds. Newton's description isn't as accurate, which is only practically detectable at particularly large values of v. Smaller values require much more sensitive equipment to detect any discrepancy.

It is a modified law, not a theory. It was modified using ideas derived from theory. If the theory was right, those modifications should provide a more accurate description of the universe and they do. This is science, it can never prove the theory is true, it can only become strongly supported by evidence or falsified by it.

No laws of nature have been proven true, and Einstein's modifications of classical equations is no exception. They are mathematical representations of our observations. The wonderful thing about Einstein's equations is that they came out of theory first, rather than observation with later theories trying to explain them. The fact that his theory predicted these kinds relationships is a stunning testimony to relativity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 10:20 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:01 PM Modulous has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19444
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 7 of 243 (451983)
01-29-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 10:52 AM


Chiroptera writes:

And one has to ask, what in the real world is ever known with 100% certainty? One can state that something is not proven unless it is 100% certain, but then the word "proof" has no practical meaning in the real world.

I grant this semantic issue, but I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations. Presenting the issue of tentativity alongside use of the word "proof" is also difficult, often seeming to be a contradiction. Plus creationists think the existence of the Christian God is 100% certain, proven beyond any doubt by the literal truth of the Bible in terms of history and prophecy.

So that's why I take the approach I do, but I'm open to more effective approaches.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 10:52 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 11:34 AM Percy has not yet responded
 Message 13 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:08 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6862
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 8 of 243 (451989)
01-29-2008 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
01-29-2008 11:22 AM


...I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations.

Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge. I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 11:22 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:19 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 9 of 243 (451997)
01-29-2008 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
01-29-2008 10:50 AM


So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence.

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)
adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws

So are you saying it is accepted although it is not 100% proven OR
has the actual E=Mc2 been tested?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 10:50 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 10 of 243 (452002)
01-29-2008 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 10:36 AM


E=MC2 experiments
It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven".

Thanks for yur input. For the sake of a none scientific brain, could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst? Were they tested in Brazil?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 10:36 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 11:57 AM pelican has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 524 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 243 (452006)
01-29-2008 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by pelican
01-29-2008 11:50 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
For the sake of a none scientific brain, could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst?

quote:
In experiments described in the Dec. 22, 2005, issue of Nature,* the researchers added to a catalog of confirmations that matter and energy are related in a precise way. Specifically, energy (E) equals mass (m) times the square of the speed of light (c2), a prediction of Einstein's theory of special relativity. By comparing NIST measurements of energy emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms and MIT measurements of the mass of the same atoms, the scientists found that E differs from mc2 by at most 0.0000004, or four-tenths of 1 part in 1 million. This result is "consistent with equality" and is 55 times more accurate than the previous best direct test of Einstein's formula, according to the paper

http://www.physorg.com/news9248.html

Were they tested in Brazil?

That one was French, unfortunately. Though interestingly Eddington's solar eclipse test of relativity was done in Brazil.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 11:50 AM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:39 PM Modulous has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 12 of 243 (452009)
01-29-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
01-29-2008 11:11 AM


plain english please
I'm sorry. I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I did specify that I am year 12 maths and you have also gone off topic. The topic is concerned only with conceptions and misconceptions by us about E=MC2.
I am certain Einstein knew his stuff and we cannot be expected to understand at his level. This topic is about those of us without a scientific background. The lay man to be precise.
Please keep your posts in writing and not another language that most of us cannot understand. regards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 11:11 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 12:10 PM pelican has responded
 Message 17 by Modulous, posted 01-29-2008 12:27 PM pelican has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 13 of 243 (452012)
01-29-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
01-29-2008 11:22 AM


I grant this semantic issue, but I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations.Presenting the issue of tentativity alongside use of the word "proof" is also difficult, often seeming to be a contradiction. Plus creationists think the existence of the Christian God is 100% certain, proven beyond any doubt by the literal truth of the Bible in terms of history and prophecy.

Please don't bring creationists into this discussion as it is off topic and explodes into slanging matches, as I could have whacked that back. I am not a creationist and I specified in post 1 the parameters. regards


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 01-29-2008 11:22 AM Percy has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6862
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 14 of 243 (452013)
01-29-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by pelican
01-29-2008 12:01 PM


Re: plain english please
In plain English:

Yes, E = mc2 has been directly verified.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:01 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 12:52 PM Chiroptera has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3406 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 15 of 243 (452014)
01-29-2008 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
01-29-2008 11:34 AM


Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge.

Can you prove any of this by logic or otherwise? If not please refrain from giving your opinion.

I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so.

Would kindly allow me and maybe support me to try and prove my point by sheer lagic? And foresight is a brilliant thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 11:34 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 01-29-2008 12:27 PM pelican has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020