Re: E=MC^2 and Mass Energy Equivalence?
From: Y.Porat (maporat_at_012.net.il)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: Jeff_Relf: "Re: Our world is facing an entropy crises."
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "re:E=MC^2 and Mass Energy Equivalence?"
- In reply to: raid517: "E=MC^2 and Mass Energy Equivalence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 14 Nov 2004 22:00:34 -0800
raid516@fairadsl.co-dot-uk.no-spam.invalid (raid517) wrote in message news:<4197a3e3$1_1@Usenet.com>...
> Hi I am a non technical mature student with an interest in the
> philosophy of science. I have read lot's of material concerning the
> great scientists, including Einstein's theory of relativity and the
> various debates concerning the supposed incompatibility of this
> theory with the later physical model which appeared to indicate that
> energy and
> mass were equivalent.
>
> However as I have thought about this more I have become increasingly
> confused. As far as I understand Einstein's theory of relativity, the
> basic explanation goes as follows:
>
> A simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This
> subatomic particle has a mass of
> 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kg
> This is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there
> are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the
> mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams,
> or
> 0.111 kg.Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass
> would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy.
> It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square
> of the speed of
> light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large
> number):
>
> = 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000
> = 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules
>
> So in effect so far it seems that this is telling us nothing more
> about the nature of matter, other than that a given body of matter is
> capable of producing a given amount of energy.
>
> But what if this is not all it was saying? What if it was really
> saying that in a very literal sense that energy and mass were exactly
> EQUIVALENT?
---------------------
Mr ... ?
why the confusion if things can be very simple?
energy is not mass
energy is simply .........
mas IN MOTION !! got it
just as in the macro mechanics!!
just simple as that
now you ask how is that magic that in fission
such huge amounts are 'created'??
the answer is .... it is not 'created' - it is always there
only we cannot 'see ' it .
because that mass is in motion of ...... the speed of light!
now how come that a mass can be at the speed of light
and not 'grow to infinity'??
i have an old answer to it that i keep on repeating it
but spoon feeding is a bad education so i leave that question and
answer
for you
to try and answewr youself (it is an unevitabel answer)
just forget about some parroting paradigma
and keep in mind that matemathical formulas in physics has thier
*limits of existance.*
---------------
all the best
Y.Porat
------------------
What if instead of just telling us how much energy a body
> of matter can produce, it was instead saying that energy and mass
> were simply
> interchangeable forms of each other? The equation would still hold -
> but instead of simply predicting how much energy one could obtain
> from any single body of mass, wouldn't also appear to predict that
> energy and mass should show exactly equivalent properties to each
> other? That is to say that if an experiment were conducted and
> certain properties of a given amount of energy were observed (whether
> that experimental observation appeared to show that this energy
> displayed particle like and/or wave like
> properties) that because E=MC^2 predicts that energy and mass are
> equivalent, then we should be able to observe the same properties in
> any body of matter when subjected to similar observational
> conditions. Isn't this taking E=MC^2 to it's complete and logical
> conclusion, by taking it to mean that mass is simply another form of
> energy - and that therefore given the right conditions we should be
> able to observe similar properties when studying either one of these
> physical states? So instead of E equalling MC^2, what if the real
> equation was that E 'is equivalent
> to' MC2 - as in mass/energy equivalence?
>
> i admit I may sound like a crank and if I do please feel free to shoot
> me down. But I am no expert in these subjects, so it is just something
> that I would like to understand a little better.
>
> Basically the question that sprung to my mind was that if Einstien's
> theory of relativity was saying that energy and mass were equivalent
> (in almost every concievable physical respect) to each other, then
> why is it a suprise to anyone when we do experiments that show this
> to be exactly the case?
>
> GJ
>
> *-----------------------*
> Posted at:
> www.GroupSrv.com
> *-----------------------*
- Next message: Jeff_Relf: "Re: Our world is facing an entropy crises."
- Previous message: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "re:E=MC^2 and Mass Energy Equivalence?"
- In reply to: raid517: "E=MC^2 and Mass Energy Equivalence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
