e=mc2

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Leovinus

Guest
No, it means energy is mass x speed of light squared.<br /><br />Speed squared is not acceleration.<br /><br />Units of speed are distance/time<br /><br />Units of acceleration are distance/time squared.<br /><br />Units of speed squared are distance squared/time squared <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

averygoodspirit

Guest
The actual equation should be written + - E = M C squared. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
O

odysseus145

Guest
averygoodspirit, how would it negative? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

averygoodspirit

Guest
It’s mathematics. In an equilateral equation, when you have a square on one side you have a plus or minus on the other. This + - E = M C squared holds up in experimentation too. Negative energy does exist. <br /><br /> I first felt this negative energy when I was just 4 years old. I ran an experiment. I wanted to see how fast electricity really was so I pissed on an electric fence. Electricity is faster than a stream of piss. I learned this lesson twice. Once on the way over and once on the way back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
Mass is not negative and the speed of light squared is not negative either, so therefore the equation E=mc² is NOT negative.
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
If you want to think of Mass as a function of Energy, you can say that m(E)=E/c²<br /><br />mass is actually a function of only 1 variable (in a vacuum):<br />m(E)=E/c²=Ep<sub>0</sub>µ<sub>0</sub><br /><br />c = speed of light<sub>0</sub> = 1 / sqrt(p<sub>0</sub>*µ<sub>0</sub>)<br />p<sub>0</sub> = permittivity of free space (8.85419x10<sup>-12</sup>Fm<sup>-1</sup>)<br />µ<sub>0</sub> = permeability of free space (4pi*10<sup>-7</sup>Hm<sup>-1</sup>) <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity#Permittivity_in_media<br /><br />If this following is wrong I would like to know why:<br /><br />mass in a medum is actually a function of 3 variables:<br />where c = speed of light = 1 / sqrt(p*µ)<br />m(E)=E/c²=Epµ<br />E = simply the amount of energy<br />p = permittivity of the medium (Fm<sup>-1</sup>)<br />µ = permeability of the medium (Hm<sup>-1</sup>)
 
A

averygoodspirit

Guest
Stevehw33 or Kamarinas86:<br /><br />Does Antimatter, compared to matter, have a negative or positive energy?<br /> <br />In an equilateral equation when you have a squared property, that property can be described as a negative or a positive and still yield the same result. 2 x 2 = 4 or -2 x -2 = 4. I realize C squared is a constant and we have no scientific proof that there is such a thing as negative light, but who is to say it can’t exist? Who is to say there is no such thing as negative mass? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

thalion

Guest
^<br />In theory, antiparticles have the same energy as their "regular" counterparts; they are only opposite in charge.
 
N

newtonian

Guest
Thallion - Are you sure that is the only difference between matter and antimatter?<br /><br />I thought it also had an opposite spin?<br /><br />I agree that the energy from antimatter is positive - that is why antimatter - matter collision results in added energy, the Energy equivalent of both masses, both antimatter mass and matter mass.<br /><br />Avery - That is true about math. Try, however, expressing your math statement in words rather than numbers.<br /><br />Minus would be subtracting mass.<br /><br />Now try factoring in a negative to give a positive.<br /><br />Say you have 100 amu, atomic mass units.<br /><br />Now, say you have 200 amu minus 100 amu = 100 amu.<br /><br />Now convert energy separately. Say e in the formula e=mc^2 is 100 au (in this specific example).<br /><br />The energy which results would be the energy of 200 amu minus the energy of 100 amu.<br /><br />So we have 2e=2mc^2 plus -1e=-1mc^2 yielding e=mc^2<br /><br />Now, if -1e yields negative energy, rather than positive energy, the result would be 2 mc^2 minus a negative energy, or minus a minus.<br /><br />The result would then be a plus, or 3mc^2.<br /><br />See the problem?<br /><br />The only way the solution is correct is because the negative is simply a negative amount of positive energy, not a negative amount of negative energy.
 
M

Maddad

Guest
averygoodspirit<br />"<font color="yellow">Does Antimatter, compared to matter, have a negative or positive energy?</font><br /><br />Positive.
 
A

averygoodspirit

Guest
Is everyone in agreement that antimatter has a positive energy? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jatslo

Guest
That cracks me up!<br /><br />Who told you to piss on a fence?
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Get the impression Hoaglands' presence would more likely explain methane quantity on Titan rather than Mars.<br /><br /><br /><br />{How do Mods feel about <i>ad hominems</i> for public figures? Especially the annoying ones?} <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
<p><hr />I wanted to see how fast electricity really was so I pissed on an electric fence. Electricity is faster than a stream of piss. I learned this lesson twice. Once on the way over and once on the way back. <p><hr /><br /><br />You know, its actually really, really, really, hard to get the electricity to move through a urine stream? So much so that I don't really believe that.<br /><br />Ahh well.</p></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
R

rodrunner79

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That cracks me up! <br /><br />Who told you to piss on a fence? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Yeah, that is funny. Interesting way to experiment. So what happened after?<br />+
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Don't forget to plug in the charger first.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
E

electronman

Guest
One may look first of all Energy = Force x distance. <br /><br />However Force = acceleration or second degree derivative that is, distance with respect to time squared.<br /><br />Now one can look at c squared as the product of the first degree derivative that is, distance with respect to time or velocity where velocity is squared and velocity is equal to the speed of light.<br /><br />Energy then is equal to mass times velocity squared however if you pull out one distance out of velocity squared then velocity squared becomes acceleration times distance.<br /><br />so, E = ma = mc(squared) provided one's velocity is the speed of light c, just manipulating the units. <br /><br />Am I correct to think this way?
 
K

kmarinas86

Guest
<font color="yellow">so, E = ma = mc(squared) provided one's velocity is the speed of light c, just manipulating the units. <br /><br />Am I correct to think this way?</font><br /><br />No.<br /><br />If Force = Mass * Acceleration<br />And if Energy = Force * Distance<br /><br />Energy = Mass * Acceleration * Distance<br /><br />But the equation shouldn't be used this way - I think.<br /><br />The Equation for Gravitational Potential Energy Is<br /><br />U=-GMm/r<br /><br />http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html<br /><br />The equation for Relativistic Kinetic Energy Is<br /><br />KE=mc²(1/sqrt(1-v²/c²)-1)<br /><br />Which is approximately KE=.5mv²<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy
 
A

aerospacealpha

Guest
Well the way I view E=MC^2 is Energy = Mass x Constant Speed of Light Squared. That is how I was taught. I didn't check the rest of the posts since I'm in school <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
E

electronman

Guest
Thank you so much Kmar for the elucidating indulgence on my erroneous E=F times distance=m times c squared excursion.<br />One more before I leave you in peace just hopelessly curious of the expression something about some second degree derivative of a scalar function plus as you described 1/c squared times the second degree derivative of a scalar function again with respect to time. Or something of that nature. The whole thing is equal to zero? It is shown with the rest of Maxwell's Equations. <br />What the h..k it means for the comfort of a Physics Appreciation 101 sounding pledge? Psssst. I hate to ask my teacher. He always gives me a funny look. All my Winikea searches are in vain. Once again I'm exposing myself to ridicule in exchange to satisfy my suicidal curiosity. <br />I'll take anyones good say on it too. <br />Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts