1

# What does E=mc^2 mean?

xris

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:26 am
@BaCaRdi,
I start to marvel at posters knowledge...then one marvel tells the other marvel his wrong it makes ignorant old me feel a bit better...This is one prob. i always had..im told as the mass increases so time slows down...so how come when the universe was so dense at the big bang it exploded at such a fast rate? Every time i try to grasp certain knowledge about time and space some clever clog changes the concept..am i alone?
Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:33 am
@BaCaRdi,
Interesting discuss, if I may say. Keep it up.

BaCaRdi wrote:
Energy = Mass x Acceleration.

Correction: Energy = Mass x Acceleration x Distance

OR

In the case of objects accelerating at the speed of light and covering a distance of one unit: Energy = Mass x (Speed of light)^2

Speed and Acceleration are distinct, as well as Speed of light^2.

BaCaRdi wrote:

You don't need to make it the speed of light to work. We should first begin by discussing the Mass of an object.
You can use ANY speed as c as the equation states.

I could agree on this algebraricly. However, is C not well defined, refering to the speed of light only? It's a symbol like the PI (3.142...) of a circle - never changing.

BaCaRdi wrote:

M=2.5kg c=200miles an hour.
2.5kg * 200 = 500
E= 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000 64000, etc to infinity.<--Joules
M= 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000 64000, etc to infinity.<--kg.

I did not see in the calculation how you derived E.

There is a lot to discuss here. So, may be we should start from the basics and discuss one symbol at a time. There are some concepts we really need to soak in. We should first discuss Mass.
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 07:36 am
@xris,
Xris,

0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 09:22 am
@Bracewell,
E is the byproduct of M and c! They are the same thing..linear expressions. Your answering both of M and E...again linear expression.

This is why the simple expression E=MC2 has been misleading to many. This is the simplification of a much bigger equation!

I never understood why they just left that part to the people. It is the simplified form of a higher linear state.

It like kinda giving you a bicycle wheel to try better understanding how to ride a bike.....don't get it to be honest..

Does that help?
Cheers,
-BaC
Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 09:40 am
@BaCaRdi,
Curds and whey are by products of milk, but there are not the same thing. Are they?

If E was the same as M the equation would be written as E = EC^2, but E = MC^2, where E and M are measured in different units and refers to two distinct ideas. It's like the difference between distance (m) and speed (m/s). While Speed is a by product of distance and time, distance or time for that matter cannot be speed. Speed is composed of a combination of two elements referring to different ideas.

BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 09:48 am
@Sir Neuron,
Can you get the curds/whey without the milk?

Mass is in a few forms, the most concentrated type are much more dense. Why, well for a few reasons, not only is the "information" packed very very tightly, it is spinning faster...

How can this be?
Take a look at a pulsar, the most dense being of the Neutron star. What do we see?

We see something spewing out information, copious amounts of such. Well the fact is that is also the fastest spinning thing our there as well(not comparing to black-holes).

We are Matter based, we eat our energies via this matter. WOW wait a minute, that is fuel, yes in the form of matter...stored energy.

We break it down, then we have energy..and we do what with it?

Move, the more we have..the faster and longer we go...

Everything in nature is via "discrete" energy transfer.
-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
Curds and whey are by products of milk, but there are not the same thing. Are they?

Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:05 am
@BaCaRdi,
No! But then I would restructure my language to say that curds/whey are dependant on milk. Its different from saying that curds is the same as milk. Can't drink curds.

The analogy can be extended to E=MC2, where E is dependant on M, but M is not dependant on E. It is one of those things not explicit from the equation.
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:16 am
@Sir Neuron,
That is also incorrect my friend. It's stored energy....potentially energy via "discrete" transfer.

How do you set that energy in "motion"? Hint hint clue clue..hehe Just add a little E to it;)

Can you move without such energy? Why should 'it" give you power without effort of some sorts?

Sorry in math/science it doesn't work that way my friend.

The equation is E=MC2

What does this mean again... well where there is mass and movement their is energy.. Does E exist with out M...not in this equation..

Yes I hear you and understand, believe me...the specific answer to you question...is you got it;)

As forums are concerned they are my philosophers' stone. chrysopoeia.

What turns into gold..(At that time it was the most valuable object on earth) wisdom/knowledge, is chrysopoeia my friends.

-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
No! But then I would restructure my language to say that curds/whey are dependant on milk. Its different from saying that curds is the same as milk. Can't drink curds.

The analogy can be extended to E=MC2, where E is dependant on M, but M is not dependant on E. It is one of those things not explicit from the equation.
Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:36 am
@BaCaRdi,
Can you elaborate on the term Mass? When the idea was first introduced, how did there determine the mass of an particular object was one gram?
Whoever

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:42 am
@Bracewell,
My thanks to everyone for a fascinating discussion, and one the most useful to me I've read in a while.

I'm grateful to Binyamin Tsadik for clarifying a few things. I'm grateful also to Rado for the link to the Walter Russell interview since I haven't come across him before. I share his view, in outline at least, and will be checking him out. Thanks also to Sir Newton for a brilliantly dumbed-down explanation of why c must be squared when relating E to M, something I'd never quite grasped previously. I had not realised that what is involved is acceleration and not simply speed.

But I remain a little confused. What does this value for acceleration actually mean when given a physical interpretation? As far as I'm aware light never accelerates. Yet the equation for energy seems to imply that light accelerates from zero to c in every moment of its existence. Is this a valid interpretation? If so, then this seems to imply something rather like the idea Bracewell presents in his original post.

This post was one of the best I've read for a long time and the idea it presents seems a profound one. It asks a question which has not yet been addressed.

" [s]uppose there was an alternative to this view where both sides of the equation were shown to be the same in that each is about waves but in two different forms (static and radiating say) then what effect would it have on physics?"

I can see the implication might be seen as trivial but, and as Bracewell seems to suggest, there seem to be two ways of looking at it, one by which it is not at all trivial.

But as more a metaphyscian than a physicist my main interest lies with Bracewell's golf ball.

"I now want you to go find a golf ball and look at it. You will see that the surface is covered in dimples, which you must imagine are waves. Now increase the amplitude of the waves until the waves meet in the middle. What happens is that as the waves meet the amplitudes interfere and are reinforced, which is another characteristic of waves.

The question is, can such a wave structure now decay or does it last forever as a three dimensional structure and what would the limit of complexity be if such structures exist?"

I find this a fascinating concept. I have great difficulty getting my head around the idea, but my first thought was that this golf ball structure could easily be as complex as the universe itself, and that this was as good a description of a super-atom as I've seen. I wondered if Bracewell had the same idea in mind. It was for this reason that there seemed to me to be a direct connection between this golf-ball idea and Russell's universe of light as seen in his vision, which I would interpret as the generic vision of the mystics from time immemorial.

As to whether such a wave would decay I have no idea how to even think about the question. A wave implies time and space, and if time and space are not fundamental then neither are waves. This bodes ill for the idea that the universe is a standing-wave. On the other hand, if light behaves as if it accelerates from zero to c in every instant then this could be interpreted as meaning that it oscillates in and out of existence instantaneously, in which case Russell's universe of light would be an oscillation whereby the universe is created afresh in every moment. This idea has some philosophical plausibility since the idea of motion and change as applied to an enduring photon (or anything else come to that) is incoherent, while a continual re-creation and dissolution might not be. It would also sit well with the mystic view and Russell's that the (psycho-physical) universe is comprised of evanescent 'thing-events' and not enduring objects, and with Hegel and Bradley's monism.

Anyway, that's my thoughts. Perhaps I'm reading too much into Bracewell's first post.

As the speed of light is one light year per year can we not say that E = M * 1^2 and dispense with the constant?

Whoever
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 10:42 am
@Sir Neuron,
Mass is defined as such;

How much "Matter" an object holds...

Matter is defined as such;

Commonly defined as being anything that has mass and that takes up space
which is absolutely ambiguous.

However to science now;
Matter that we know of constitutes about 5% of the mass of the "observable"<--there is that word again, damn that reality works!

Dark-Matter is defined as such;

Will/Does not interact with the electromagnetic force, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter

In other words 95% of everything via nothing.lol
A bit ambiguous...
Damn the paradoxical nature of science!! Said another way
Damn that Fractal design!
hehe
-BaC
Sir Neuron wrote:
Can you elaborate on the term Mass? When the idea was first introduced, how did there determine the mass of an particular object was one gram?
0 Replies

Icon

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:05 am
@Bracewell,
The 'Standard Model' is one that has perplexed us all for some time. Recently, the standard model has come under some scrutiny with the LHC and other such experiments breaking the rules a bit (I won't go into detail, research the results at the LHC website).

So here is something to consider. Einstein, as brilliant as he was, was beyond his capacity for learning when he developed this theory. He stated so himself. Relativity was, like most brilliant ideas, something that could not be enclosed in a single idea. It had far too many answers for far too many questions and Einstein himself admitted to not knowing the full extent of this concept. When we consider ANY great idea, it is up to us to question. Nay, it is our responsibility to question. Relativity sparked a whole new view of the world and how it works in particle reality. But does it truly explain anything? Have there not been exceptions to the rule? Of course there have. If not, then it would not be a theory but a law.

In math, it is stated that an equation which is ever wrong is never right. This is because an equation is supposed to be the end all of solving a problem and if it is wrong even a fraction of a percent of the time then it is only good for estimating answers sometimes. It is not a true answer.

Relativity is one way to view the material world in which Mass, Energy, Motion, are all considered seperate entities. Now let us assume, like we constantly should, that all the knowledge we possess is wrong. Let us state that the matter never moves and that, instead, the portion of the "space" which that matter occupies moves instead. So we do not take action, the universe moves and we stay still. If this were correct, relativity would be completely invalid. Have we proven this to be wrong? No. Can we? No.

So what does relativity mean if this model were to be proven true?
Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:06 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
That is also incorrect my friend. It's stored energy....potentially energy via "discrete" transfer.

That language again can be quite miss leading. Check the equation again.
E=M x A x D
where M = 10, A=0 and D=0

then, E= 10 x 0 x 0

therefore E= 0 and M=10

There is still 10 units of mass left, but no energy.

BaCaRdi wrote:
How do you set that energy in "motion"? Hint hint clue clue..hehe Just add a little E to it;)

We don't. We set the object in motion, its mass, acceleration and distance, is necessary to determine energy, which is a description of the objects mass and motion combined. Energy cannot exit without either one.

BaCaRdi wrote:
Can you move without such energy? Why should 'it" give you power without effort of some sorts?

I think you are speaking of calories. That's a different kind of energy, which has some relation, but that's another topic.

BaCaRdi wrote:
What does this mean again... well where there is mass and movement their is energy.. Does E exist with out M...not in this equation..

Agian,

E=M x A x D
where M = 10, A=0 and D=0

then, E= 10 x 0 x 0

therefore E= 0 and M=10

There is still 10 units of mass left, but no energy.
:whistling:
0 Replies

Bracewell

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:08 am
@xris,
Xris - no you are not alone and I also would like to ask a question.
How could the nucleus of an atom form in a 'big bang' if it takes a unique force to hold it all together? It is a chicken and egg problem as I see it, i.e. why would incompatible particles ever come close enough for the force to exist. Is the claim that a nucleus must be formed at the instant of the 'big bang' or what?

I don't like to interfere as you fellas are having a great session but this thread does not claim that mass and energy are the same but what it does pose is that they are made from the same stuff - waves. Present day mathematics are not changed by this.
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:39 am
@Bracewell,
Ohh my friends...lets see here.....

The big-bang <---up for interpretation.
The Atom<---not so indivisible any more is it?

My interpretation is as such;
The singularity was such a force, was it not.

Lets take this "big-bang" thing:P for example.

At one point, regardless of the time scale you choose. We where indeed an egg. That of dark matter maybe, pick a realm any realm...what door(dimension)?

1 2 3 or 4 :poke-eye:

-Montie
Bracewell wrote:
Xris - no you are not alone and I also would like to ask a question.
How could the nucleus of an atom form in a 'big bang' if it takes a unique force to hold it all together? It is a chicken and egg problem as I see it, i.e. why would incompatible particles ever come close enough for the force to exist. Is the claim that a nucleus must be formed at the instant of the 'big bang' or what?

I don't like to interfere as you fellas are having a great session but this thread does not claim that mass and energy are the same but what it does pose is that they are made from the same stuff - waves. The mathematics are not changed by this.
0 Replies

xris

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:51 am
@Bracewell,
Bracewell wrote:
Xris - no you are not alone and I also would like to ask a question.
How could the nucleus of an atom form in a 'big bang' if it takes a unique force to hold it all together? It is a chicken and egg problem as I see it, i.e. why would incompatible particles ever come close enough for the force to exist. Is the claim that a nucleus must be formed at the instant of the 'big bang' or what?

I don't like to interfere as you fellas are having a great session but this thread does not claim that mass and energy are the same but what it does pose is that they are made from the same stuff - waves. The mathematics are not changed by this.
The biggest mystery man has to accept the BB.....from nothing to everything in less time than it takes to imagine...no evidence of a before.... an event without a known cause...I imagine a vibration so loud so profound ...Im no believer but i can hear the word of god in the mystery of this singularity or the deep note of bassoon as it echoed out into the void...Absolutely amazing...
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 11:54 am
@xris,
A f@@k1ng men my brother;)

-BaC aka Montie
xris wrote:
The biggest mystery man has to accept the BB.....from nothing to everything in less time than it takes to imagine...no evidence of a before.... an event without a known cause...I imagine a vibration so loud so profound ...Im no believer but i can hear the word of god in the mystery of this singularity or the deep note of bassoon as it echoed out into the void...Absolutely amazing...
0 Replies

Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 12:15 pm
@Whoever,
[quote=Whoever] Thanks also to Sir Newton for a brilliantly dumbed-down explanation of why c must be squared when relating E to M.[/quote]

Welcome again Whoever,

I am not a physist or any thing like that. Just was curious, so I did a bit of research. All my views may not be accurate, but I try to be as accurate as I can.
You seam to know much more than I do, so I am looking forward to your input.

[quote=Whoever]But I remain a little confused. What does this value for acceleration actually mean when given a physical interpretation? As far as I'm aware light never accelerates. Yet the equation for energy seems to imply that light accelerates from zero to c in every moment of its existence. Is this a valid interpretation? Whoever[/quote]

Hey!! This just sparked my imagination. It reminded me of an experiment conducted lately, where the scientist claimed. they found a way to stop light. Sounds more weird...Uhh?

Let's ignore this for a moment and say that light tarvels at a constant speed, then, we are correct to say that it does not accelerate. It signifies that light has no energy, as seen in the equation E=m x a x d. If 'a' is zero, E =0. For an object however, with an intial speed of zero, would be able to accelerate, and hence posseses energy. So, this lead to the point in the other post, that E=MC2 must refer to objects at rest and has the ability to accelerate at the speed of light.

On the other hand, if light can be stopped, it is then it would possess energy.

[quote=Whoever]As the speed of light is one light year per year can we not say that E = M * 1^2 and dispense with the constant? [/quote]
Whoever wrote:

Whoever

Yes you can do that. It does not signifies however, that mass is energy. Mass is measured in grams, kilograms or the like. Energy is measured in kilogram/ (meters/second)^2 and such like.

Analogy:

Area of circle (A) = TTr^2
if r = 1 then A= TT.

however, A in measures in say meter^2 and would equal to 3.142 m^2, while TT would equal 3.142, a constant without units. Area speaks to the surface of an object, while TT speaks to the ratio of the circumference to the diameter which is a constant value for all circles.

Consider,

Milk(curds x (whey)^2)=curds x (wheys)^2
Milk=curds x 1^2
Milk=curds

My point exactly, Milk and curds are not the same thing.
BaCaRdi

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 12:36 pm
@Sir Neuron,
You just "Realized" "The Null-Axiom".

-BaC
congratulation my friend, your now on a path of enlightenment!

Sir Neuron wrote:

Welcome again Whoever,

I am not a physist or any thing like that. Just was curious, so I did a bit of research. All my views may not be accurate, but I try to be as accurate as I can.
You seam to know much more than I do, so I am looking forward to your input.

Hey!! This just sparked my imagination. It reminded me of an experiment conducted lately, where the scientist claimed. they found a way to stop light. Sounds more weird...Uhh?

Let's ignore this for a moment and say that light tarvels at a constant speed, then, we are correct to say that it does not accelerate. It signifies that light has no energy, as seen in the equation E=m x a x d. If 'a' is zero, E =0. For an object however, with an intial speed of zero, would be able to accelerate, and hence posseses energy. So, this lead to the point in the other post, that E=MC2 must refer to objects at rest and has the ability to accelerate at the speed of light.

On the other hand, if light can be stopped, it is then it would possess energy.

One in this case refers to time, not speed, and should not be substituted for C.
Sir Neuron

1
Thu 30 Oct, 2008 01:11 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
You just "Realized" "The Null-Axiom".

-BaC
congratulation my friend, your now on a path of enlightenment!

Hey, No ones perfect.

If your are speaking about my last post I have made the correction. A miss sight on my part O.K.. Thought 'Whoever' was relating to a year (time) per year as oppose to a light year(distance) per year.

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz