Winamp & Shoutcast Forums Do You Believe E=MC2?

 7th November 2003, 12:49 #1 CarboHidrat Banned   Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Refrigerator Posts: 134 Do You Believe E=MC2? I thought many times but I can't solve this problem. I think Albert just know this problem.
 7th November 2003, 12:51 #2 psyfive Forum King     Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Colorado Posts: 2,526 Energy = Mass times the speed of light squared? whats not to believe?
 7th November 2003, 12:51 #3 SSJ4 Gogitta Followed by Gnomes(Forum King)     Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus Posts: 7,160 Of course. Energy (Joules) = mass (at rest) times the speed of light squared. Though if you want it more correct, you can throw in some relativity stuff to take in account that mass is always moving, and is thus never at rest. [e]Also, if you want a nice brain fuck, head over to PBS's NOVA site and watch all 3 hours of "The Elegant Universe", which covers some basic relativity, and goes deep into quantum mechanics and string theory: The Theory of Everything. Some AWESOME shit. I have all of it saved as .MOV, 141 MB per hour.[/e]
 7th November 2003, 12:54 #4 zootm Forum King     Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland Posts: 13,375 as with all of physics, if the glove fits...
 7th November 2003, 12:55 #5 will Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)     Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sheffield, England Posts: 5,569 This morning I had a physics lecture with went throught the full derivation or E=mc^2. There is no doubt, it works. DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS
 7th November 2003, 13:03 #6 Russ Mostly Harmless(Alumni)   Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 2,319 You can prove it in surprisingly easy and elegant ways. Of course once you get into quantum theory it becomes a little more amusing. But it still works. For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave. |Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
 7th November 2003, 13:29 #7 Mr_007 Banned     Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,838 E=mc2=??????????
 7th November 2003, 13:39 #8 NJK FRISIAN     Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: in a house Posts: 16,407 this is the man who came up with this my "one line friend" more info on the subject http://www.westegg.com/einstein
 7th November 2003, 14:56 #9 xzxzzx Forum King     Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 7,254 But wait - if you square a SPEED, how do you get a consistant answer? So, like, if I were measuring the speed of light at light-years per year (1), it would be 1^2 (1 light-year per year), but if I measured it at light years per half-year, it would be .5^2 (.5 light-years per year), and if I measured it at light-years per two years, it would be 2^2 (2 light-years per year). Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything. 1\/\/4y 34|<\$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R \${YOU} ~/base The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
 7th November 2003, 15:09 #10 fwgx Rudolf the Red. (Forum King)     Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 9,314 light years is a distance not a time. and the equation works to a point. It's not exacly correct because it can't take into consideration quantum mechanics which is why quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity should be combined into one theory. It's just noones that clever yet. I saw a whole hour long program on why string theory is the next big thing and it didn't mention loop theory at all even though it's more developed and offers a more palusable explanation and results. For example, string theory pretty much can produce an nfinate ammount of solutions that are all equally correct. "We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
 7th November 2003, 16:26 #11 xzxzzx Forum King     Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 7,254 Yes, but light-years per year is a speed. Which is what I was talking about. Did you read my post? Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything. 1\/\/4y 34|<\$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R \${YOU} ~/base The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
 7th November 2003, 16:42 #12 Mike H. Forum Esperantist(Major Dude)     Join Date: Nov 2000 Posts: 1,134 Since you're trying to get joules, you use meters per second for the speed.
 7th November 2003, 16:48 #13 Hollow Major Dude     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Baker Lab, Ithaca NY Posts: 1,128 mike is right, xzxzzx. Sure you can put any units you want in, you just might not get an energy unit you recognize out. The moon is made of cheese. Oh for some tasty moon cheese. www.redtetrahedron.org
7th November 2003, 17:11   #14
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)

Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
 Originally posted by xzxzzx Did you read my post?
I clearly did. I just read it wrong, sorry.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

7th November 2003, 17:30   #15
xzxzzx
Forum King

Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
 Originally posted by Phily Baby I clearly did. I just read it wrong, sorry.
It's OK. Sorry for being "gruff" about it. Take it as a compliment - I either figured it for stupidity or misreading the post - I assumed the latter (I meant "did you misread my post?")

But my point is that you can't square a speed - you can convert any of my speeds into meters per second (after the calculation) and you're still getting different solutions.

As far as I know, the meter is not a universal measurement - when the universe converts a particle into energy, it doesn't go "let's see, take this arbitrary measurement, square it, and here we go!".

Take this, for example:
```code:1g * (1 light-second / second ^ 2) = 1g * (299,792,000 meters / second ^ 2)
reducing:
1g * (1 light-second / second) = 1g * (89,875,243,264,000,000 meters / second)
converting:
1g * (299,792,000 meters / second) = 1g * (89,875,243,264,000,000 meters / second)```
shit, hit edit instead of quote >.< --will[/edit]

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<\$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R \${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.

7th November 2003, 17:33   #16
Vie
Forum King

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 8,003
Quote:
"How you doin?"
or
"What yah looking at punk?" on that...

..I'm buisy

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.

7th November 2003, 18:02   #17
dylman
Forum King

Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hawarden
Posts: 2,115
Quote:
 Originally posted by xzxzzx ```code:1g * (1 light-second / second ^ 2) = 1g * (299,792,000 meters / second ^ 2) reducing: 1g * (1 light-second / second) = 1g * (89,875,243,264,000,000 meters / second) converting: 1g * (299,792,000 meters / second) = 1g * (89,875,243,264,000,000 meters / second)```
Your mistake is that you are attempting to derive the speed of light from one light year, instead of the other way round. A light year is not an SI unit and cannot be used in that way.

The speed of light in a vacuum = c = 2.9979x10^8 metres per second. This is a fundamental universal constant. (aside: This also means that in the equation E=mc^2, c^2 is also a constant.)
One light year is the distance you would cover if travelling at this speed for one year. Bear in mind that the year (and therefore also the light year) is an arbitrary unit anyway, given that the Earth's orbit around the Sun isn't exactly the same each time around.

Incidentally, the metre is defined directly from the speed of light.

There's no need to tell me when I'm right;
I operate on that principle exclusively and with absolute certainty

 7th November 2003, 18:10 #18 xzxzzx Forum King     Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 7,254 The argument does not change, in fact, you've further supported by argument. The universe doesn't do math based on SI units. It doesn't matter what you use - the foot, the meter, the current distance from my ass to the ground. They should all result in the same answer if the equasion was (were?) correct. Distance per time cannot be squared, because the units are totally arbitrary relative to each other. The point is that the whole thing is arbitrary, and therefore there is no one way to solve the problem, and therefore cannot fundamentally be correct. Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything. 1\/\/4y 34|<\$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R \${YOU} ~/base The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
 7th November 2003, 18:17 #19 deathazre Major Dude   Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: behind the wheel of a Cat service truck Posts: 1,847 conversions square when you square what's being converted.
7th November 2003, 18:20   #20
Hollow
Major Dude

Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Baker Lab, Ithaca NY
Posts: 1,128
Quote:
 Originally posted by xzxzzx The universe doesn't do math based on SI units. It doesn't matter what you use - the foot, the meter, the current distance from my ass to the ground. They should all result in the same answer if the equasion was (were?) correct. Distance per time cannot be squared, because the units are totally arbitrary relative to each other. The point is that the whole thing is arbitrary, and therefore there is no one way to solve the problem, and therefore cannot fundamentally be correct.
Sure they can there is no reason you can't square them. The universe doesn't do math based on SI unit, but that is totally irrelevent. Take any unit system, you want and define a conversion to m/s and g. and you will get the same answer, altertativly define your energy unit in terms of whatever you want, and provide a conversion factor to J.

So your saying that all of the physics we have developed are moot because the universe doesn't provide a system of measurement? Of course the system of measurement is arbitrary, the answers, have meaning, only within that system. We can convert them to any other system you want, chains/fortnight from m/s and the answer still has meaning.

The moon is made of cheese.
Oh for some tasty moon cheese.
www.redtetrahedron.org

 7th November 2003, 18:22 #21 SSJ4 Gogitta Followed by Gnomes(Forum King)     Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus Posts: 7,160 c² isnt asking for DISTANCE square. If you want DISTANCE squared, then it would be about 5.878 trillion miles (9,458,505,796,867 kilometers) squared. Since it's SPEED squared, it's 186,282.3971 miles (299,792,458 meters) per second squared. E=mc² has nothing to do with distance. A light year is simply a measurement of distance, not speed.
 7th November 2003, 18:22 #22 dylman Forum King     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Hawarden Posts: 2,115 E=mc^2 works for all units, SI or otherwise. If you invent your own units for time and distance, then you also have to invent new units for mass and energy, too. The speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a constant, in whatever units you choose to express it. It doesn't change. I highly doubt that Einstein was using SI when he formulated his theory, in fact. BTW, if you think you've disproved Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity, then these guys would probably appreciate a call... edited for correctness There's no need to tell me when I'm right; I operate on that principle exclusively and with absolute certainty
 7th November 2003, 18:25 #23 SSJ4 Gogitta Followed by Gnomes(Forum King)     Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus Posts: 7,160 Speed of light is only a constant in a vacuum. The speed changes in various materials (such as glass, water, and quartz), and scientists have actually gotten light to stop.
 7th November 2003, 18:27 #24 dylman Forum King     Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Hawarden Posts: 2,115 I know, see my first post... There's no need to tell me when I'm right; I operate on that principle exclusively and with absolute certainty
7th November 2003, 18:32   #25
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)

Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
 Originally posted by xzxzzx But my point is that you can't square a speed - you can convert any of my speeds into meters per second (after the calculation) and you're still getting different solutions.
Incorrect.

Lets say you have you speed in units of 1 Charging Turtle (the T)

And you have a distace of ass-ground distace for the average sloath. (the A)

And a time in terms of the world longest burp. (the B)

Now, lets say that 1 T = 15 A/B (just arbiterially).

Therefore, 1 T² = 15² A²/B²
1 T² = 225 A²/B²

This is still correct, we have just squared both sides of the equation with related T to A and B, just now the right hand side has the units A²/B² and the left hand side the units T².

You see, these things ARE totally arbitary, and however you arrange it, so long as your maths is correct, everything WILL hold.

Dimentionally, E = mc²
or, J = Kg * m²/s²
but 1J is 1N.m
1N = 1Kg m/s²
so 1J = 1Kg m²/s²

Therefore Kg m²/s² = Kg * m²/s²

Which is true, so dimentionally, E=mc² is correct, the VALUE of c² just provides the conversion factor between mass and energy RELATIVE to the other units.

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS

 7th November 2003, 19:20 #26 Russ Mostly Harmless(Alumni)   Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 2,319 Go charging turtles! All E=mc^2 says is that mass and energy are interchangeable, and that the (constant, mind) conversion factor just happens to be c^2. For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave. |Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
 7th November 2003, 22:38 #27 Timzone8 Major Dude     Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 569 E!=MC2 E=MC² "I always thought it was the measurement of spliting an atom..."
 7th November 2003, 22:43 #28 Russ Mostly Harmless(Alumni)   Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 2,319 It is, in a way. In nuclear fission, when an atom splits up, a little mass is lost. This mass becomes energy by E=mc^2 (i.e. a hell of a lot of energy). For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave. |Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
 7th November 2003, 23:15 #29 laz Major Dude     Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: the internet Posts: 1,089 So if enery is mass times the speed of light squared, wouldnt that all make us pure energy? I mean, I can use pure energy (no mass) and creat something with a mass, so wouldnt that in some way imply we are highly compressed energy in certan state as we appear to be made of atoms. When you think about it, it will be hard to know what else is below the current sub-atomic structure we know. So who knows, there could be WORLDS like ours down there, but we will never know. We could be holding contless universes inside ourselfs, without knowing it. and SSJ4 Gogitta, thanks for the link, but do you know of any way to directly download the files? I dont have QT installed, but I have an app that plays the files.
 7th November 2003, 23:17 #30 dlinkwit27 has no CT(Forum King)     Join Date: Sep 2000 Posts: 13,236 e != mc^2 because c is not constant.
 7th November 2003, 23:22 #31 Russ Mostly Harmless(Alumni)   Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 2,319 No, c is defined as the speed of light in a vacuum. c is constant. The speed of light is not constant. What it means is mass and energy are interchangable. You can create mass out of energy and energy out of mass. For long you live and high you fly, but only if you ride the tide, and balanced on the biggest wave you race towards an early grave. |Musicbrainz|Audioscrobbler|last.fm|
 7th November 2003, 23:24 #32 deathazre Major Dude   Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: behind the wheel of a Cat service truck Posts: 1,847 c is the speed of light in vacuum, which is USED as a constant.
8th November 2003, 00:01   #33
Nat_roy
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Frosty North
Posts: 298
Quote:
 Originally posted by laz9999 So if enery is mass times the speed of light squared, wouldnt that all make us pure energy? I mean, I can use pure energy (no mass) and creat something with a mass, so wouldnt that in some way imply we are highly compressed energy in certan state as we appear to be made of atoms.
Thats what everything is really: energy, but in a form that is solid. For instance, water is like energy, ice is like matter. You see? The same thing, just in different forms.

Quote:
 Originally posted by laz9999 When you think about it, it will be hard to know what else is below the current sub-atomic structure we know. So who knows, there could be WORLDS like ours down there, but we will never know. We could be holding contless universes inside ourselfs, without knowing it.
I belive that's what string theory is concerned with: whats below the current subatomic structure.

 8th November 2003, 00:28 #34 ujay Forum King     Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: London Posts: 6,072 So what level have we reached here Nat_roy, is string theory at a level below quarks or is it the same thing. I seem to remember that E=MC2 is only an approximation, there are other terms in the equation, but compared with the term in C^2 they are small enough to be ignored. UJ
 8th November 2003, 00:40 #35 SSJ4 Gogitta Followed by Gnomes(Forum King)     Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus Posts: 7,160 String Theory states that all particles are made of extremely small strands of energy called strings. All strings are the same, the only difference between them are their vibration pattern and their energy. Their energy and vibration pattern determine what fundamental particle they make up, weather it be a quark or a photon. Scroll up to one of my earler posts and watch the PBS Nova special: The Elegant Universe. It covers all that. Also, to give a scale of how small a string is... Take and atom and enlarge it to the size of a football stadium dome. The nucleus is about the size of a grain of salt. Now enlarge the atom to the size of the SOLAR SYSTEM. A string is about the size of a TREE.
8th November 2003, 00:43   #36
SSJ4 Gogitta
Followed by Gnomes
(Forum King)

Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Virginia Googolplex: 10^10¹°° FB:/SSJ4.DominusDeus DeviantArt: DominusDeus XboX GT: A Wild Meeseeks Playstation 4: DominusDeus
Posts: 7,160
Here's a good flash file that covers most of the Elementary Particles.
Attached Files
 eparticles.zip (49.2 KB, 138 views)

8th November 2003, 00:55   #37
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)

Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
 "Today, a young man on acid realised that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration and that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There's no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and you are the imagination of yourself. Here's Tom with the weather..."
As far as I'm aware loop quantum gravity is a sounder theory than string theory. "String theory" just sounds cooler.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."

8th November 2003, 01:09   #38
will
Nullsoft Newbie (Moderator)

Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sheffield, England
Posts: 5,569
Quote:
 Originally posted by deathazre c is the speed of light in vacuum, which is USED as a constant.
It is called constant becuase it is the same no matter how fast you are travelling

DO NOT PM ME WITH TECH SUPPORT QUESTIONS

 8th November 2003, 01:17 #39 ujay Forum King     Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: London Posts: 6,072 Thanks Gogitta, looks like that is the same series that has just started on British TV. Watched the first part that took the story up to quantum theory, second part is on Sunday. I often wondered where quarks went. UJ
8th November 2003, 04:27   #40
distinctEVIL
Junior Member

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 3
Quote:
 Originally posted by Vie OH sombody please put eather: "How you doin?" or "What yah looking at punk?" on that... ..I'm buisy