E=mc2 passes tough test

[MeteorWayne]

That's correct Andrew.<br /><br />But the point is not where the energy comes from.<br /><br />The point he is trying to make is that E=mc^2 is incorrect (without any supporting evidence, I might add), whereas the data from the colliders indicates that when you add up the energy and mass of the particles involved, the equation is correct. Energy and mass in = energy and mass out, following the formula. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[3488]

Sorry MeteorWayne, I did not understand, but your answer, clears it up. <br /><br />Thank you very much.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Basically, in the colliders, they are attempting to create fusion. In a fusion reaction, two atoms fuse together to produce one atom of another element -- for instance, fusing hydrogen to produce helium. However, the resulting helium is slightly less massive than the two hydrogens were -- a portion of the matter was converted into energy, and E=mc^2 allows you to predict exactly how much mass is converted into how much energy.<br /><br />Fusion could be an astonishing clean source of energy except for one rather big catch -- it takes an enormous amount of heat to get two atoms to fuse, and that sort of heat just doesn't come cheap. Right now, the technology scientists use to produce the requisite heat consume more energy than is produced in the fusion reaction. This has a lot to do with serious inefficiencies in the way we use energy in our technologies, but they're not easy problems to solve.<br /><br />This, of course, is why there was such a tizzy about cold fusion. It's a holy grail of nuclear physics, because it would be the answer to the whole problem.<br /><br />The Sun produces staggering amounts of energy via fusion, but it doesn't need to burn a whole lot of coal to do it. Instead, the heat comes from gravitational compression. Gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, but with an object as massive as a star, it collectively becomes very powerful. Alas, there isn't really a way for us to do that in a laboratory settings, so we're stuck using these accelerators and colliders that require huge electrical supplies.<br /><br />Well, sort of. Actually, there is a cheaper way of getting fusion, but it's kind of a one-shot deal and tends to seriously annoy the neighbors: a hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bombs use the explosion of fission bombs to produce the necessary heat to produce a momentary burst of fusion. The amount of power released is devastating, and considerably more than could be achieved through conventional means. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[3488]

Thanks CalliArcale,<br /><br />I understand the basics of Nuclear Reactions both fusion & fission quite well, but <br />what I failed to understand was how that relates to the Albert Einstein's famous <br />equation E=mc^2, being<br />possibly wrong. MeteorWayne explained perfectly well, how that is nonsense & E=mc^2<br />still stands unchallenged.<br /><br />Cold Fusion would be a real breakthrough, but that's for another topic.<br /><br />The heat generated in a pile of hay, can be quite something, we have<br />had several fires in the local area on local farms where the hay store could fire, because they<br />where stacked too high.<br /><br />Of course with a star, its enough to fuse hydrogen into helium & so on.<br /><br />This is interesting stuff.<br /><br />Thank you very much CalliArcale.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Thanks for a good posting, CalliArcale<br /><br />It seems like the term ‘atom clock’ has been misused on occasions. Certainly commercial producers do. However, an atomic clock doesn’t have to be synchronized daily, - it hasn’t have synchronize at all to deserve the term. The term ‘atomic’ refers to the use of the stable frequency of atoms rather than mechanical solutions. Atomic clocks at that time were rather inaccurate compared to today’s clocks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock<br /><br />All satellites need some kinds of adjustment in order to communicate to Earth. One reason is that their positions are relatively unstable. Another reason is there is a minor difference in speed between the orbital and surface links, due to the difference in circumference. Such differences and adjustments were explained by Doppler and Lorentz.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor<br /><br />Even the stone-age man observed that there was some relations between energy and mass, when he lit the fire, saw the wood burn down to ash, go up in smoke, provide heat energy and even transform to light. He would have called it E=mx. We still haven’t determined what that x is. Consequently Einstein basically did just another guess, - or more precisely doubled Newton’s Ek and pasted Lorentz Y to it.<br /><br />I would very much like to see the evidences that the total energy is excactly E= 1.0 mc^2 and that the basis of relativity is excactly E*Y. It’s not my call to present proof when I am the one that question it.<br />

 

[origin]

<font color="yellow">Consequently Einstein basically did just another guess, - or more precisely doubled Newton’s Ek and pasted Lorentz Y to it. </font><br /><br />It does not matter how many times you repeat this it will still not be true.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I would very much like to see the evidences that the total energy is excactly E= 1.0 mc^2 and that the basis of relativity is excactly E*Y. It’s not my call to present proof when I am the one that question it.</font><br /><br />Fer crying out loud - open your eyes! <br />Google "evidence for E=mc^2".<br />Go to the library and read a book on special relativity.<br />Buy a College level physics book and read it.<br />Take a college physics course.<br /><br />Refusing to look at the evidence of special (and general for that matter) relativity does not mean that the evidence does not exisist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

You can cry out as loud as you want. It doesn’t help at all.<br /><br />Your goggles are far from scientific evidence. Have you read the content of your search suggestion yourself? I don’t think so. <br /><br />What books and courses do you suggest that provide empiric evidence that the total energy is exactly E= 1.0 mc^2 and that the basis of relativity is exactly E*Y? <br />‘None’ – is your indirect answer so far.<br />

 

[yevaud]

Vidar, scientists don't "guess," unless it's making an assumption in an experiment or Hypothesis that they're pretty damned certain is the correct answer. It would be an *astounding* thing, had Einstein just "guessed." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[origin]

vidar, you are correct the google searches I suggested would lead you to discussion boards or what I would call woo - woo sites. My mistake.<br /><br />The first place I would start would be wikipedia under special relativity. It is actually pretty good. They go through the derivation of E=mc^2 so that you can see that Einstein didn't guess the answer and you can also see that it does agree with Newtons equations at low velocities.<br /><br />At the end of the article is a section called status - this has several experiements that agree with the theory of special relativity. In addition the reference section has a very good list of sources that you could check out.<br /><br />One last thing, you have written a couple of times that the basis of relativity is exactly E*Y. I am not familiar with this. What does Y stand for?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

I read the article but it doesn't tell us anything new about converting mass into energy. For that reason I'm sticking to my previous understanding, E=mc² is a UNIT of energy interms of mass. It's very similar to expressing the same energy in Calorie or Joules or Kw-hour. Now we can express it in Kg.<br /><br />OK, more accurate statement would be expressing mass in terms of energy. Einstein sure gets the credit for being the first to find this relation between mass and energy. If one claims it as a conversion formula, it's a little-understood natural conversion, not man made.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[vidar]

origin<br /><br />â€Y†is the best I get out of this keyboard. It’s really a Greek letter for the Lorentz factor.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor<br />it’s the fundament for the Lorentz transformation that the theories of relativity is based on.¨¨¨¨<br /><br />It’s used in E=mc^2 this way:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Background<br />… and its used for time, lengh and mass, this way.<br />http://www.physics.northwestern.edu/Phyx103/web/extra/einstein-eqns.pdf <br />http://www.vidargander.com/public/eformula.pdf<br />I agree that wikipedia is rather good to refer to when discussing on the internet.

 

[origin]

AH! Y=gamma gotcha. It does kinda look like gamma. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

Here is a site with some animation that talkes about time dialation. This type of explanation is, imo the best way to see how Y (gamma) comes into play in special relativity.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vidar]

Yeah, Lorentz’s gamma, - that’s it.<br /><br />I see it like a black-box theory. <br />Something gets in – something else gets out.<br />In goes Ek, out goes 2Y Ek<br />The different is double gamma.<br /><br />Misunderstand me right, - I’d rather focus on that ‘black-box’ than some mathematical Gordian knot.<br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> the Universe doesn't care what you'd "rather" do <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

The Krell might <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />best sci-fi ever though<br />It should be re-made in today's perceptions.

 

[MeteorWayne]

I disagree, but there's a thread in the Sci-Fi forum addressing that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[vidar]

Well then, it seems we must disagree to most.<br />I suppose the readers can see something in-between our postings.<br />

 

[vandivx]

"I assume you are talking about the GPS system and the satelites, which has nothing to do with E=mc^2 or even special relativity. The problem is addressed in general relativity. Time goes slower in higher gravity, and since the gravity is stronger at the surface of the earth than at the satelites this time dialation must be taken into account for GPS. If the effects shown in general relativity were not taken into account the GPS would be much less accurate."<br />---<br /><br />I read this here all over and on other threads and I wonder how do you or anybody knows if that is really so, if there is any correction being made at all I mean<br /><br />a while back I was investigating time dilation and it seemed that this idea of gps satelites needing relativistic corrections for them to provide correct data to gps navigation is a popular myth that somebody once came up with and which everybody repeats, I have actually read some statement by folks who weren't just some (amateur even) theorists like most of us here are in this matter and they said it is popular myth and that such corrections are not done<br /><br />while it certainly looks that there is evidence for such deviations they are too small to worry about them in practical terms or the conscious decision were made not to adjust (or keep adjusting) for them, the subject seems to be quite complex once one begins to investigate it<br /><br />it actually appears that such time corrections as are being made are actually made not to satelites but in receiving units on the ground and even then I believe only some special receving units are so equipped, not your mom and pop car gps unit TBS, that is much of source of confusion including that satelite clocks are adjusted only before launch and no adjustment are actually made once they are in orbit, I think that's where my confusion comes from<br /><br />check this link out http://www.emis.de <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Let's see what Dr. Robert A. Nelson, president of Satellite Engineering Research Corporation, a satellite engineering consulting firm in Bethesda, Maryland, has to say on the subject...<br /><br /><i>"The precision of GPS measurements is so great that it requires the application of Albert Einstein’s special and general theories of relativity for the reduction of its measurements. Professor Carroll Alley of the University of Maryland once articulated the significance of this fact at a scientific conference devoted to time measurement in 1979. He said, “I think it is appropriate ... to realize that the first practical application of Einstein’s ideas in actual engineering situations are with us in the fact that clocks are now so stable that one must take these small effects into account in a variety of systems that are now undergoing development or are actually in use in comparing time worldwide. It is no longer a matter of scientific interest and scientific application, but it has moved into the realm of engineering necessity.â€<br /><br />According to relativity theory, a moving clock appears to run slow with respect to a similar clock that is at rest. This effect is called “time dilation.†In addition, a clock in a weaker gravitational potential appears to run fast in comparison to one that is in a stronger gravitational potential. This gravitational effect is known in general as the “red shift†(only in this case it is actually a “blue shiftâ€).<br /><br />GPS satellites revolve around the earth with a velocity of 3.874 km/s at an altitude of 20,184 km. Thus on account of the its velocity, a satellite clock appears to run slow by 7 microseconds per day when compared to a clock on the earth’s surface. But on account of the difference in gravitational potential, the satellite clock appears to run fast by 45 microseconds per day. The net effect is that the clock appears to run fast by 38 microseconds per day. This is an enormous rate difference for an at</i> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

thx, I added also a link to my post http://www.emis.de/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2003-1/articlese5.html that also talks about this prelaunch offset to frequency of clocks, still when one gets down to details it gets somewhat foggy what actual adjustments if any are made on continuous basis and where they are done (satelites or receiving units) and in what units (military/civilian) and if nothing were done what it would result into in practice, I think that's where is the source of confusion was when I looked into this a while back and found lots of conflicting opinions out there on net<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

From what I can gather from the article I posted, they adjust the satellites internal clock to compensate for the <i>average</i> relativistic difference, and then make periodic adjustments at the receiver to compensate for the "non-average" differences! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[origin]

Thanks for the link speedfreek. Looks like I was wrong again! Special relativity does need to be considered with GPS and not just general relativity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Glad I could help!<br /><br />But SR is a much smaller factor than GR in the adjustments made to GPS, and to be honest, it could be interpreted as purely GR in a simple sense. If SR causes -7ns and GR causes +45ns, then after cancelling out the SR we are left with an adjustment of +38ns, all of which is due to GR! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Can you quote standard mag like nature ,newscientist?