|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Actually, the only misconception is yours. It's hard to tell what your misconception is, though, since you can't seem to express your idea very clearly. That is usually a sign that it's probably too nutty to really be understood, but maybe the problem is with communicating ideas you just don't really understand. E = mc2 has a definite meaning in physics. What you think it means or what it should mean is irrelevant. Physicists know what they mean when they discuss this formula. And it has been verified. You actually asked for an example of an experiment where it was verified -- Modulus provided one such experiment, and now you claim that he was off-topic. I'm guessing that you are a nut. Oh dear, have I upset you in some way?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Whose conceptions are you disputing? What conceptions do you find problematic? It isn't meant to be personal conceptions but conceptions in general. The one conception that I am disputing is that : science has reproduced\actualized the equasion E=MC2. They have not propelled any mass at the speed of light squared. The "misconception" is that the general lay man believes, argues and tries to prove that it has. Hope this clarifes the mis-understandings. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Hrm. I thought that, theoretically, if (the big IF) mass did travel at that speed, then it would be light. I.e. it would become light. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Oh well, then, did you at least think the joke was funny? Absolutely, don't we love taking the piss out of pollies?
What conceptions are those? Do you think my conception is erroneous? The one actual concept that I am challenging is the belief that the equasion has been tested as it stands. That is : energy has been produced by propelling mass at the speed of light squared. I don't dispute the theory would prove to be correct as their is much empirical evidense to support it. However, there is a misconception on this forum that it has been proved. I believe there are many misconceptions concerning science and I have used this one E=MC2 as I am more familiar with it than any other. The discussion is not in proving or disproving the theory but ascertaining if it is a theory or not. The misconception is in the belief that it is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Re: plain english please -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- E=MC2 means a piece of matter travels at he speed of light squared and changes form to become energy. No, it most certainly does not. Well thanks for explaining my error with such clarity and understanding. I feel much better now, thankyou.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Oh I think I do percieve the speed of light squared. I just cannot percieve any mass travelling at that speed, can you? 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. Science Dictionary: E = mc2 An equation derived by the twentieth-century physicist Albert Einstein, in which E represents units of energy, m represents units of mass, and c2 is the speed of light squared, or multiplied by itself. Hope this clarifies a little more. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
What the equation means is that when energy is converted to matter with mass, then the amount of mass is equal to the amount of energy times the square of the speed of light. Or, when mass is converted to energy, the amount of energy is equal to the amount of mass divided by the square of the speed of light. How is the energy converted to mass in the physical reality of science? It is my contention that only the reverse of Einsteins theory has been proved i.e mass has been converted to energy but energy has not been converted to mass.
E = the energy equivalent to the mass (in joules)
m = the mass (in kilograms) c = the speed of light in a vacuum (celeritas) (in meters per second). Two definitions of mass in special relativity may be validly used with this formula. If the mass in the formula is the rest mass m0, the energy in the formula is called the rest energy E0. If the mass is the relativistic mass, then the energy is the total energy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
As stated: experiments have confirmed that the equation accurately describes many parts of the universe. I have no idea what reproducing E=mc2 means, and based on my knowledge of the word, I do not think it has been reproduced. 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 = minus energy (mass). As it stands e = mc2 i.e the theory of producing matter from energy using the square of the speed of light has never been proved, only the reverse. This I believe is a common misconception amongst the members in this forum. Thanks. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Nor do they have to, since the equation has nothing to do with any mass travelling at the "speed of light squared". Maybe this proves the whole point of members having misconceptions concerning the meaning of E=MC2.
Definitions of E=MC2 on the Web: In physics, E = mc2 is the equation that expresses an equivalence between energy (E) and mass (m), in direct proportion to the square of the speed ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E=MC2 I've had many more preconceived ideas than I could swing a cat at. I know one when I see one. reagards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
If E + m”c is true, then (E + m”c)before = (E + m”c)after and (E + m”c)1 - (E + m”c)2 = k (where k = 0 if the formula is correct) or (E1 - E2) + (m1”c - m2”c) = k or Energy + Mass”c = k Please keep it simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
You simply have a misconception, Henrik, of what algebra is all about. I think you have a misconception of what this thread is all about. Maybe you forgot to research the topic effeciently enough. I've have misread, missed words, missed the point, had preconceived ideas and blinkered. BUT I learned from my mistakes. Regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Let's say this together very slowly, Let's cut the attittude, shall we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heinrik, if you are still not convinced, ask yourself this question. Do you doubt our nuclear arsenal? What a siily qiestion. What do you expect me to say?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Mass transforms into energy everyday, as has been mentioned countless times in this thread. You are absoluelty right. I wish someone had pointed this out to me before. A genuine mistake on my part. I meant to say it the other way around. This is what I meant to say: energy has not been transformed into mass as E=mc2 indicates.My apologies for looking like an idiot and thankyou mobigirl. Cavediver also took the time and trouble to explain that mass CANNOT move at the speed of light. Both of you explained it very well. Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 5015 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
No, it means that energy is proportional the mass of the object in question. It just describes the relation of matter to energy. It doesn't say that matter changes form. Actually when you look at the equations as a whole, we find that as we approach the speed of light, the mass of an object approaches an infinite magnitude. Quite the opposite of your understanding. In reverse e=mc2 is : the square root of lightspeed, divided by an equivelent proportion of mass. They are both the same value/ equivelant of each other. As has been stressed by many posts the reverse of splitting the mass into energy has been proven/demonstrated/reproduced whatever you want to call it. This formula in reverse created the atom bomb. This theory e=mc2 has never even been tested. There are two sides to an equasion and most posts see only one and deny the other. Much like you do with each other really. Hmmm...........
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024