Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,832 Year: 4,089/9,624 Month: 960/974 Week: 287/286 Day: 8/40 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 67 of 243 (452288)
01-29-2008 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by pelican
01-29-2008 11:06 PM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
Yep that's the theory that hasn't been actually tested. Mass has not travelled at that speed and has not been proved to transform into energy.
Many have the preconceived notion that it has. This is the "Misconception" that i was hoping to bring to light (excuse the pun). Thankyou
Let's say this together very slowly, since youve been told several times in this very thread and still have not grasped it:
The equation "E=MC^2" has nothing whatsoever to do with anything moving at the speed of light of faster. Nothing at all.
The equation "E=MC^2" does define the equivalence of mass to energy, meaning when mass is converted into energy (like in antimatter annihilation, for example) the energy released is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
Again, this has nothing to do with accelerating anything to the speed of light or faster.
If you believe that the equation "E=MC^2" has anything to do with accelerating a mass to the speed of light squared, you are mistaken.
If you again state in this thread that "E=MC^2" somehow involves accelerating a mass to the speed of light, you are ignoring what everyone else writes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by pelican, posted 01-29-2008 11:06 PM pelican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 2:22 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 70 of 243 (452296)
01-30-2008 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by pelican
01-30-2008 12:21 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
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 = energy.
As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the speed of light squared has never been proved, only the reverse.
This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum.
Thanks.
And now, since you've been completely disproven, you move the goalposts. Surprise, surprise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by pelican, posted 01-30-2008 12:21 AM pelican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 12:29 AM Rahvin has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 72 of 243 (452302)
01-30-2008 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Vacate
01-30-2008 12:29 AM


Re: E=MC2 experiments
I like the ones like this:
The focul point of this discussion is that no experiment has been done exactly as the equasion suggests, word for word. Science has not the technology to send any mass anywhere at the speed of light squared.
Not even remotely close to his latest statement. I was saving it for when he denied moving the goalposts from here to Uranus, but you spoiled my fun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Vacate, posted 01-30-2008 12:29 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 135 of 243 (453036)
02-01-2008 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by cavediver
02-01-2008 9:14 AM


Re: 0.6 grams of mass lost at Hiroshima
In both nuclear explosions and chemical explosuions, the energy released comes from the binding energy - binding energy of the nucleus and binding energy of the atoms/molecules.
This is different from antimatter/matter annihilation, however, where the particles are actually fully transformed into high-energy photons. Is that correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 9:14 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by cavediver, posted 02-01-2008 10:14 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4042
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 136 of 243 (453040)
02-01-2008 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Trixie
02-01-2008 8:59 AM


Re: 0.6 grams of mass lost at Hiroshima
A conversion tool that will translate between megatons (1 megaton is the equivalent of 1 million tons of TNT exploding, for those unaware) and Joules (the standard unit of energy) can be found here.
It's really interesting to see how much energy is in even a small nuclear weapon. Little Boy, for instance, was only about 15 kilotons (0.15 megatons), making it pretty small compared to the large weapons currently existing.
To translate Joules into something more easily recognized by those who haven't taken physics in a while, 1 Joule is equal to 1 Watt of power for 1 second. So:
1 Watt = 1 Joule/1 second
and
1 Joule = 1 Watt * 1 second
Since people are more used to seeing kilowatt-hours (like on your power bill), here's a handy conversion:
(1 kilowatt*hour)*(1000 W/kW)*(3600 secs/hour) = 3,600,000 Watts*seconds = 3,600,000 J = 3.6 * 10^6 Joules (or 3.6 MJ)
So 1 megaton would be the equivalent of 1162222222.22 kilowatt-hours.
Little Boy would be 6.276 * 10^16 Joules, so 1.743 * 10^7 kilowatt-hours
Or enough to completely destroy everything within a 1.6 km radius.
And that was just over one half of one gram of matter being converted into energy.
For those who find themselves incredulous at the amount of energy the equation E=MC^2 says is released when matter is converted into energy...there's your proof, right there. It's why nuclear reactors like those used by the Navy let ships go for years without refueling except for ammunition, crew changes, and supplies for the crew.
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2008 8:59 AM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Trixie, posted 02-01-2008 10:14 AM Rahvin 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