E=mc^2

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: FrankM

Einstein's formula does not require kilograms, nor seconds, to work. It only requires that the person

trying to calculate E has a valid value for m and c.

 

That was the whole point of the topic "Perfect physical constant". When you examine each of the SI

definitions of physical science units, how many of them can claim to have a valid relationship to

another? It was conceded that none of the physical science unit definitions are true constants

in themselves.

 

This is turning into an endless loop. My point is that the units don't matter, your point is that the units are not universal constants. Both points are equally valid but they are two different issues.

 

I do not contend that Einstein's energy to mass relationship formula is invalid on its face, it is not being

calculated using valid units.

 

This is more like it. What is a valid unit? However, we are veering off topic - maybe we should start a new thread or your could bring back the SI topic.

 

In practice, scientists have yet to achieve the actual calculated energy

yield from Einstein's formula using the given units. There are all kinds of explanations given for not

achieving the expected energy yield, mainly, we aren't doing if efficiently enough. Maybe they are using

the wrong "units".

 

This is news to me and I would appreciate some links to sites explaining this issue.

[FrankM]

I have been trying to determine the history of Einstein's equation and there seems to be some controversy whether the form presented in the topics subject is what Einstein originally presented. The Epilog at the bottom of the article states there is an American Scientist article which contains much of the same material.

 

Einstein's equation

 

The above document indicates the original formula was divided by what is now called the Lorentz transformation.

 

I have been having a communication with a physicist about mass energy conversion and he stated this,

"Apart from in a few cases at the subatomic level there is never a 100% conversion into energy. So, as in the example, uranium can split into two smaller atoms, three neutrons and a little energy. To work out how much energy is produced you need other data, which you should be able to find on the Web or a good book on the subject."

 

Essentially, Einstein's formula is a residual formula, you determine the original and final mass and the missing difference is the mass in the formula.

 

To quote from Figure 13 of the next site,

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/ publications/books/handbook/ch3.pdf

it states, "The energy released during fission is equal to this mass difference multiplied by the square of the velocity of light ((eq))."

[pie]

As you stated: "motionless object is actually travelling at the speed of light." - Yes, I would agree with this statement. After visiting Home Depot for a new kitchen, I was convicned that Motionless objects like Kitchen cabinets are travelling at the speed of light, based on their cost.

 

If at the speed of light, everthing becomes energy without exahsisting its energy. This would imply that matter would start on fire if going at the speed of light. - So everthing that is real knows its sub-posistion to maintian its electon makeup, otherwise it would have buned up from travelling faster than the speed of light.

[BlameTheEx]

pie

 

Who are you talking to? Oh never mind. If it is me I can't make head or tail of you logic. You might consider rewriting with more explanation for your conclusions. Also a quick go with a spell checker helps.

[Tormod]

pie

 

Who are you talking to? Oh never mind. If it is me I can't make head or tail of you logic. You might consider rewriting with more explanation for your conclusions. Also a quick go with a spell checker helps.

 

I think pie is joking. Or at least I hope he is. :eek:

[Tormod]

I have been trying to determine the history of Einstein's equation and there seems to be some controversy whether the form presented in the topics subject is what Einstein originally presented.

 

Thank you for an interesting post, Frank. But I don't understand what the controversy is about. But I'll read your posted links and see if I get it.

[paultrr]

Outside of the photon and particles like it nothing else travels in our spacetime at the speed of light. Everything else travels slower. Photons have zero rest mass by theory to begin with. Unlike regular particles like electrons which have a rest mass. All the energy in every photon out there is kenetic energy. E=MC^2 was the formular used in Einstein's published papers.

[Tormod]

Outside of the photon and particles like it nothing else travels in our spacetime at the speed of light. Everything else travels slower.

 

Well, we now know that gravity is transmitted/travels at the speed of light. But we don't know how. We did discuss gravitons and gravity waves but none of those are yet observed, let alone proved.

[Bo]

Outside of the photon and particles like it nothing else travels in our spacetime at the speed of light.

what do you mean by 'particles like it'? are you talking on supersymmetry here, or just on all massless particles (which i think would be the correct statement)?

 

E=MC^2 was the formular used in Einstein's published papers.

Well actually it isn't given in his original paper on special relativity. It was given in a sort of side-note, he later submitted. (source of this, and many other fine knowledge: "a short history of nearly everything" by Bill Bryson)

 

Bo