1

# What does E=mc^2 mean?

Sir Neuron

1
Sun 2 Nov, 2008 10:14 pm
@Bracewell,
sarathustrah wrote:

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...

Sir Neuron wrote:

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

BaCaRdi wrote:

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.

for the derivation of C^2.
BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 09:35 am
@Bracewell,
Absolutely!

The only part I would correct is;<--not really of course

E = M * a * d

Let's take d.... Can there be an a without d?

Acceleration is a form of distance, can we make sometime accelerate without such?

Your cooking with gas now...LOOK out!

right on;)
-BaC
0 Replies

xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 09:47 am
@Sir Neuron,
Sir Neuron wrote:
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.

for the derivation of C^2.
could you tell this ignorant chap why light would change its speed in relationship to anything..sorry
BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 10:05 am
@xris,
Where not changing light here...we are saying it relative to the observer..You:)

-BaC
xris wrote:
could you tell this ignorant chap why light would change its speed in relationship to anything..sorry
xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 11:56 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Where not changing light here...we are saying it relative to the observer..You:)

-BaC
Is this a philosophical example or a factual?
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:02 pm
@Bracewell,
The truth is what you "observe" is true.....I don't but any limits on "seeing"

-The Minds Eye
xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:09 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
The truth is what you "observe" is true.....I don't but any limits on "seeing"

-The Minds Eye
I cant see light changing its speed ,so im perplexed..
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:16 pm
@Bracewell,
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
xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:22 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
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...
BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 01:30 pm
@xris,
Blob? Or the "Void"? "Phase-Shift"?
-BaC
xris wrote:
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...
xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 02:04 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
Blob? Or the "Void"? "Phase-Shift"?
-BaC
Idid not think modulation was altering its speed only its frequency...
BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 02:53 pm
@Bracewell,
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
xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 04:00 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
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
BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 04:02 pm
@xris,
hehe

Through "child" like "eyes" we "see"

Do I have to define what makes good security?

Lets say it's a l"Layer"| Physical Reality" approach....

-BaC by Di Vinci
xris wrote:
xris

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 04:05 pm
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
hehe

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..
BaCaRdi

1
Mon 3 Nov, 2008 04:11 pm
@xris,
I have 'clarity' beyond 'sight'...

"Envy"?

-BaC
"Fight" or 'Flight'? Oxy"moron"?
-PHd
xris wrote:
and when the smoke clears will it be reality you see or your refletion..
xris

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 04:35 am
@BaCaRdi,
BaCaRdi wrote:
I have 'clarity' beyond 'sight'...

"Envy"?

-BaC
"Fight" or 'Flight'? Oxy"moron"?
-PHd
so can you answer my question on the speed of light not being the constant it should be...I am trying to learn...I thought it was mass and energy relative to light with light being the constant...dont try being a mystic for once please...
0 Replies

Steerpike

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 05:59 am
@Bracewell,
Bracewell wrote:
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.
BaCaRdi

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 09:55 am
@Steerpike,
Thanks mate:)

-BaC
Steerpike wrote:
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.
0 Replies

BaCaRdi

1
Tue 4 Nov, 2008 10:36 am
@xris,
Phase-shift is not altering speed my friend:)

Modulation is also know as frequency in this form..

Let play with light bugs..... There are two types here..one of Red(pick your shade)on of blue. The c is valid..again where talking reality.

The Red type moves up and down at a particular modulation say 7000nm
The Blue type moves at 4500nm

Which gets there first? Now remember they are vibrating, oscillating modulating.

Whats the shortest path?

Phase-shift: Lets learn some electric, Phase is when your current or voltage appears.

In DC Current and Voltage are always in phase
In AC This is not the case...There is phases of both

Same speed different phase.
-BaC

xris wrote:
Idid not think modulation was altering its speed only its frequency...

### 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