What does E=mc^2 mean?

@xris,

Steerpike - I have asked twice about when in the process of the BB that atoms might have formed and unlike Xris, I have not had one cheep of an answer (discounting BaCaRdi's grunts, which may be a temporary difficulty communicating with human beings).

Let me relieve the constipation on this question by stating that I am not at all surprised that all answers must be based on the present understanding of gravity and the interaction of the atom with it, which inevitably must end up in a singularity. However, (yep, you've guessed it) I am not happy about that concept and I would prefer to take a view based on three dimensions.

Consider, if the pressure drops quickly in a cloud chamber then a cloud will form, which is a basic principle. Ok, ok, I can hear you say, 'surely you are not suggesting the universe is some kind of giant cloud chamber'. Well, yes I am, but I have no idea what the analogous use of the word 'pressure' might mean but there does seem to be one huge rush of material out of the universe.

Isn't it nice to play with different ideas?

I am darned if I can find anything on the process of atom formation during the Big Bang. Maybe there is none and would there be any great priority in fundamental physics to establish a process in something so speculative? Anyway, the subject is pretty much off thread.
Wrong - Wikipedia have cunningly hidden it under Big Bang - Nucleosynthesis.

It is probably my responsibility to review and sum up this thread so far.
It seems there was an initial reluctance to get involved or comment and I suppose that was understandable especially in the light of the subject and the impressive and informative mathematical gymnastics that developed. However, there are two posts that stand out as appreciative of the initial idea of the thread and in view of the radical nature of it I suppose I should be pleased. However, most people seem to have missed the point of it.

In the initial post I mentioned some sources of particles but I missed one source that has come to dominate our technological toys and that are the particles generated by Lasers.

A Laser is a tube of material that bounces energy off the ends until it is emitted as particles in a coherent stream from the weaker end, mostly but not always in a narrow form. The stream can be considered as condensed matter (Wikipedia - condensed matter). The test for condensed matter seems to be that it has a focal point (a primitive dimension I suppose). The particles emitted can be very specific in their reaction with atoms and some so powerfully they destroy steel while others are so delicate they react with biological tissue and nothing much else. Some streams are colourful in their passage thru air while others are not.

The point of this is that even although the energy source is electro magnetic the streams exhibit very specific wave like characteristics and that is so obvious in the streams that exhibit colour. So, what may be true for one stream is probably true for other streams and it is probably true for the atoms as well, so why should the energy source be different?

This is what is meant by this thread and it seems the Laser encompasses the concept pretty well. So the conclusion is that condensed matter and uncondensed energy are much the same - is this tenuous - well, you are the judge? Whatever, I think the concept of condensed matter might not be too helpful.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

I'm still not quite clear what you're getting at, but I would like to be since your first post seemed to contain some interesting ideas. Is it that all matter is waves? Where did the golf ball come in?

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever - from what I have read about Lasers it seems that energy 'bounces' off the ends inside the tube until it reaches some critical level then it escapes. So, I want you to imagine that the energy must suddenly wrap into balls in order to escape (the golf ball analogy) then exit as primitive particles.

To put it another way, the Laser seems to be the opposite of the diffraction grid experiment i.e. instead of the particle diffracting into a wave, the wave is condensing into a particle.

So, if this is a valid notion then everything in the universe must be built on waves.

I hope this helps.

1 Reply

@Bracewell,

Aren't waves a collection of particles, which response to a single one?

1 Reply

@Sir Neuron,

Sir Neuron wrote:

Aren't waves a collection of particles, which response to a single one?

I am not entirely sure what you mean but I'll take a guess. I believe it is permissable for the purposes of some calculations to think of a wave as both a particle and a wave, it does not really matter which. However, if you need an explanation of why one particle is different from another, then the model that is suggested might be handy, i,e, if it is valid.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

What confuses me here is that I thought we'd already established that everything is waves. Is this not the case?

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

What confuses me here is that I thought we'd already established that everything is waves. Is this not the case?

Whoever - Yikes, I had to go all the way back to page 5 where I think you were happy that everything was waves, but you seem to express ambitions way beyond mine, which is great of course. However, all I am hoping to show is a practical way to link wave energy with 'solid' things using a golf ball analogously. Truely, I am chuffed that my post has stimulated more than I could see and that was written by Icon on the next page.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Whoops, sorry. I didn't mean I thought that we'd already established that everything is waves in this discussion, I meant that I thought we'd already established it in physics.

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

Whoops, sorry. I didn't mean I thought that we'd already established that everything is waves in this discussion, I meant that I thought we'd already established it in physics.

Whoever - aint it difficult to type and at the same time wave your arms about in frustration. You are correct to write that I am explaining things badly and Sir Neuron points out the same thing.

The argument then is not solely about what the universe is built on but it is about how it might be constructed. The conventional view is that an atom forms around a nucleus of particles which in larger structures requires a unique force to hold it together and then there is an assemblage of particles around that. However, the concept has advanced from this simple idea until it can no longer be imagined like that, however, in essence it still exists but in a mathematical form. Is this a fair assessment?

What is being suggested by the golf ball analogy is that a 'bricks and mortar' nucleus is not likely as the concept comes complete with a centre that is a point of interference, which would repulse all assaults on it (the heart of stone). The outer assemblage of particles is also not necessary as what would differentiate one atom from another would be frequency and amplitude. I asked about how complex could this get and there would be nothing to prevent one structure being inside another. If you could imagine it, then you would have to think of it as a swirling mass of waves much like a kids spinning top on a point but in three dimensions.

If it is true to say that a Laser is wrapping up energy into particles then this crazy alternative model might just have some worth.

Hopefully, this now helps.

0 Replies

@de Silentio,

Einstein's equation was as close as mankind had come to solving the quest for a universal unification equation or UFT. Had the Professor continued down his pathway of simplification by simplifying his own equation even further, he would have found right infront of him as is infront of us all, that most simply = is the natural truth that unites all things. It was his belief in the certainty of measure and the constant of C, that stood in his way.
Equal is the most simple truth that shall set us free.
When all is equal all is One.

e = mc2
e = mc
e = m

=
MJA

1 Reply

@MJA,

MMMM....hows dat then..

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell - I'm still not clear about something. You say the conventional view is that atoms form around a nucleus of particles... etc. But I thought that atoms exhibit the same wave behaviour as electrons under certain conditions, and so the idea that everything reduces to waves does not seem contentious. Is this not already a common interpretation of QM?

1 Reply

@Whoever,

Whoever wrote:

Bracewell - I'm still not clear about something. You say the conventional view is that atoms form around a nucleus of particles... etc. But I thought that atoms exhibit the same wave behaviour as electrons under certain conditions, and so the idea that everything reduces to waves does not seem contentious. Is this not already a common interpretation of QM?

Whoever - yes it is but that is not the argument. This is a small extraction from Wikipedia on the subject of fundamental construction -
Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting nucleons (protons and neutrons). It is believed that the primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark-gluon plasma from the theoretical Big Bang as it cooled below ten million degrees. It is thought that a few minutes afterward, starting with only protons and neutrons, nuclei up to lithium and beryllium (both with mass number 7) were formed but only in relatively small amounts. This first process of primordial nucleosynthesis may also be called nucleogenesis. The subsequent nucleosynthesis of the elements (including all carbon, all oxygen, etc.) occurs primarily in stars either by nuclear fusion or nuclear fission.
Notice the use of the words 'believed' and 'thought'. The article goes on to write about there being no experimental evidence that could possibly confirm anything. You can see that the thinking is a step by step construction from a basic nucleus. What the golf ball analogy and the Laser may be telling us is that there is a faster way of doing it but you need to read the article and judge for yourself.

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Thanks. But I think I'll have to leave this one. It's getting a bit too technical for me. See you around.

Whoever

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Nature does not necessarily have to comply with our concepts of a wave, a particle and wave-particle duality.

1 Reply

@validity,

validity wrote:

Nature does not necessarily have to comply with our concepts of a wave, a particle and wave-particle duality.

Does 'nature' include mysticism as it did when humans danced around Stonehenge? There is no wave - particle paradox.

2 Replies

@Bracewell,

At a fundamental level physics needs to re-consider the need for the concept of Force because if the source and structure of everything is Waves then you must ask what is it about them that could possibly cause a Force to be generated or even if one existed, make them sensitive to it. In a desperate bid to establish a path to solidness (condensed matter), it seems there may be some wishful thinking or at least, utilitarian thinking. Surely, a brave step needs to be made?

0 Replies

@Bracewell,

Bracewell wrote:

Does 'nature' include mysticism as it did when humans danced around Stonehenge? There is no wave - particle paradox.

Some see a paradox of duality in waves and particles, energy and mass, or yins and yangs, but the truly wise see them all as One and universally the same.

=
MJA

0 Replies

What does E=mc^2 mean?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know