What does E=mc^2 mean?

thats funny to realize i have no clear definition on what e=mc2 is... and yet its used so common as an illustration of knowledge...

Objects possses no predictable energy. I other words, Can one say how much energy an object posseses? - TRON ?

Called the "Ground State" Theory.

Is allot like electronics...More like electonics thought

-BaC

I must give credit to BaCaRdi. I do not think the others have quite grasp your assertions. I have not until a recent brain storm. Correct me If I wrong, while I attempt to clarify.

The speed of light is relative according to the theories of relativity. Then the energy from a given mass from the perspective that the light travels at 3 * 10^8 m/s is related to E=MC^2 where we consider C to be a constant. What if the speed of light had changed in relation to the equation's frame of reference - that BaCaRdi refers to as the zero state? What if the zero state from which the Mass was measured had altered? Because we have no knowkedge of the unknown, the world in which we exist is unpredictable. An unpredictable world yields an unpredictable frame of reference. An unpredictable frame of reference yields unpredictable energy.

Therefore, energy is unpredictable and is better measured after it has been consumed, when the events have already occurred.

For the benefit of sarathustrah, I have shown the derivative of the equation on page (4) of this thread. Energy like all other symbols of the equations is 'intangible' , and it is a 'descriptions'of a so called tangible object. It is a measurement of a measurements the latter refering to the Mass of an object and speed of light. In this case, where E = MC^2, it is a measurement of the relation between the magitudes of mass and the speed of light squared. If we consider C did remain constant then the relationship is static, so E would change in the same proportions as M.
If C became a variable, then the relationship will be dynamic, and signify that E changes in the same propotion as M alone , but that E would change in proportion to both M and C.

Please view my post at http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-forums/branches-philosophy/philosophy-science/2161-what-does-e-mc-2-mean-4.html for the derivation of C^2.

could you tell this ignorant chap why light would change its speed in relationship to anything..sorry

Where not changing light here...we are saying it relative to the observer..You:)

-BaC

The truth is what you "observe" is true.....I don't but any limits on "seeing"

-The Minds Eye

What eyes are you looking through? ..maybe that is your issue...It's that of 'Reality'..oops you can't get this equation, till you release 'your' 'bounds'...

-BaC

If i see X i understand it is an unknown that must be found but if i see the speed of light i dont expect it to be variable...not unless its passing through blob...

Blob? Or the "Void"? "Phase-Shift"?
-BaC

E m = Bound state

M e = Bound state

A d = Bound state

C a d m e = Bound state

-BaC
Where are you bounds?
-TRoN

So? im bound to ask...

hehe
Your seeing your security wrapper...That is your only fault my friend...

Through child like eyes we see

Do I have to define what makes good security?

Lets say it's a "Layer Physical Reality"

-BaC

and when the smoke clears will it be reality you see or your refletion..

I have 'clarity' beyond 'sight'...

"Envy"?

-BaC
"Fight" or 'Flight'? Oxy"moron"?
-PHd

The equation describes the exact equivalence between energy and mass and there is no debate in that. However, the equation also gives credence to the notion that there is energy and mass and these are different as described by the standard model.

Now suppose 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?

From the results of my first post I feel confident a philosophical debate on the question is possible.

It looks as if this thread has died a death. However, maybe if I say a bit more then I'll get a bit more.

It seems there are differing interpretations of the 'Standard Model' so maybe I should start with my interpretation.

Way back in time when tracks were noticed in cloud chambers and the like, it was concluded that some small particles were being ejected from some special substances. It was also noticed that these substances also very slowly changed chemically so the process became known as radio active decay and it was named so because the process could be detected at certain wave lengths on a radio receiver and it sounded similar to the interference caused by electrical sparks. It was then concluded that atoms contained particles much like peas in a can.

Over time and due to brilliant experimentation, particle physicists now know about the function of a huge collection of particles. There are particles at the heart of the atom, particles in ever complex layers around the atom, and there are particles being blasted from stars to name only some sources, and all of this experimentation is ongoing with the start-up of the LHC. There is no doubt that the standard model is hugely successful and has had a major effect on societies. However, all this brilliant experimentation has revealed some worrying puzzles, which may yet have explanations once the particle physicists have completed their tasks and it is rightly so that they should feel confident.

Personally though, as many of these puzzles are so fundamental I have nagging doubts; for example:
The need for Dark Matter and Dark Energy,
The need for the Higgs Boson,
The need for String Theory,
The insignificant volume and unique force at the heart of the atom,
The dual function of particles, and I have no doubt knowledgeable specialists could easily add more. It's not that the standard model now seems nonsensical but it worries me that so much of it relies on mathematics and mathematicians don't always need an accurate model to begin with. I don't think it's being unfair to express concern because the put-downs also seem familiar. I can imagine when the Sun was thought to orbit the Earth then put-downs might have sounded like this, 'If you don't understand mathematics then how can you possibly understand the movement of the heavens', and, 'If god wants some stars to whirl in circles then who do you think you are to doubt his wisdom'. Does any of it sound familiar, am I being unfair?

It might be considered judicious to explore other possibilities and in my opinion there is no better place to start than with Einstein's famous equation. Atoms and particles might just be wave structures and there is nothing in the equation to exclude the notion. To some people such a notion is too subtle a change, which is incorporated in the standard model anyway. However, let me explain what I mean by a wave structure then you can judge for yourself.

Firstly I need to make sure you understand that waves lose energy thru reduction of amplitude only; the frequency does not change. For example, a note played on a stringed instrument will remain constant until the note is too quiet to hear. Another way to think of it is to draw a graph where the vertical axis is amplitude and the horizontal axis is frequency. Any point on the graph will describe a wave with a certain amplitude and frequency. If the energy in the wave is not maintained then inevitably it will decay but not to the null point, but vertically with constant frequency to zero amplitude.

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?

Hopefully, your scientific philosophy talents now have something to work with.

You answered the question of the thread title with your first line. The equivalence of matter and energy is what the equation is about.

Regarding your question about the need for String Theory. It has to do with reconciling Quantum Mechanics with Relativity.

Idid not think modulation was altering its speed only its frequency...