E=MC2

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
E = Energy
M = Mass
C = Light Speed

So in looking at this, Mass can be converted into Energy

BUT

Reverse the equation

M=E/C2

So now, any form of energy can be converted to Mass, meaning all energy has a Mass potential (just like all mass has an energy potential)

I guess what Im driving at is this

Scientist say that the Universe has missing mass

BUT I wonder if every source of energy has been accounted for. Even though in its "energy" form it may not have "mass" but it does have "mass potential" according to E=MC2. Which means that at some point in the past or future this energy COULD be converted into mass. (ALL energy from ALL places has this potential if E=MC2 is correct (or at least my understanding of it is))

Could that be what was happening at the beginning, a 100% energy form, with a substancial amount converted to mass? Now we can manifest gravity. Could this energy to mass conversion be the cause of the big bang itself?

We have a lot of clues, but they are as scattered as the galaxies. If only we could "wormhole" the theories together. There MUST be a relationship here.

Star
 
H

harper05

Guest
The equation E = mc^2 does state that matter and energy are "interchangeable," not to be confused with the presence of one implying the presence of the other. IE sun light can heat up objects but has no mass.

We have seen the conversion of mass to energy in an atomic bomb and yes, energy can be converted back to mass. One process was first observed by C.D. Anderson in 1932 when he discovered the creation of an electron-positron pair from the energy of a gamma ray photon.

I dont know the mass potential for the universe, but I do know that that 1 joule equals 1 kg·m2/s2... E (in joules) = m (in kilograms) multiplied by (299,792,458 m/s)2. In natural units, the speed of light is set equal to 1, and the formula becomes an identity.

Maybe this will help. I remember reading about this in relativity, but have forgotton, it is a long running debate. Cool thaught im going to research this further, ill let you know what I find. :)

I would like to know what the mass potential of a photon is? Any one? Bueller... :)
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Fallingstar1971":11e7g2nh said:
Scientist say that the Universe has missing mass

Star
Huh? Who says that???

In fact the Universe has more mass (i.e. dark matter) than we can see.
 
H

harper05

Guest
Here we go falling star,
I found some interesting info here, this will explain it in detail, its what I was looking for. I love the internet!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Are_photons_massless.3F

Sorry if you have to copy and paste, I dont know how to do a link on my mac. :)
 
H

harper05

Guest
Edited by MW to attempt to insert the whole link... Unsuccessful. Apparently our URL doohickey doesn't like the dash.

The wiki page says that E=MC2 redirects to that page, so

Do a search for E=MC2 and click on the Wiki page for mass-energy equivalence.

Sorry, tried to help, but that's the best I can do,

Wayne
 
H

harper05

Guest
I think Falling Star is refering to dark matter, and dark energy, as missing mass, wich in fact has now been found and calculated, and makes up the "missing" mass of the universe.

Sorry about my link, you will have to copy and paste the whole line, apparantly I can only create half a link?
We'll call it a "dark link"..... :lol:
 
R

ramparts

Guest
MeteorWayne":1jbgb3kp said:
Fallingstar1971":1jbgb3kp said:
Scientist say that the Universe has missing mass

Star
Huh? Who says that???

In fact the Universe has more mass (i.e. dark matter) than we can see.
Well, let's be fair M-dub, the dark matter is frequently (or was frequently in the 80s and 90s) called "the missing mass", since we were trying to account for all this mass which we knew was there but couldn't see.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
My point is there is more mass than we can account for, so if anything there is an excess of mass, not missing mass.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
This is true, but we're talking semantics now ;) It's perfectly legit to say "I read in some article that there's missing mass." It's certainly more legit than, say, "I claim as absolute fact that Newton's first law is F=mv^2 and that Einstein derived E=mc^2 from that", as might be claimed in some other threads :lol:
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 152248.htm Universe lighter than expected

http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/Outreach/Edu/missing.html Universe missing mass


Dark matter and Dark Energy were concieved to account for this missing mass and explain the behavior of rotating galaxies

What I am saying is that the mass was never "missing" to begin with. It was just "missed" because this mass was in the form of energy.

Convert all the energy in the Universe to mass, then you dont need "mystery" matter that no one can see. Its all right there. Not invisable, not mysterious, not unknowable. This mass has manifested itself as energy. Thats all. Nothing else.

The simple act of picking up a stone and dropping it stores and releases energy. Convert that energy to mass.

In fact, ANY object in motion stores and releases energy, convert this energy to mass.

How about all the energy being released as all these galaxies race away with expansion. Convert all that energy to mass. The gravitational energy provided by the black holes, convert it to mass.

Physics is supposed to be the simplification of nature. Dark matter and Dark energy seem to complicate it to me. Use up the ingrediants you already have before inventing new ones.

Star
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Mass and energy can never be created or destroyed, only converted. So as galaxies expand, it's not like energy is being created which we can just turn into matter as we please.

Anywho, what you're saying is "let's not bother coming up with new forms of mass to explain e.g. galactic rotation curves, let's come up with new forms of energy". I don't see how this helps much.
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
According to the math, it can be interchanged......

And I am NOT saying "dont discover new things"

Reread what I wrote, or explain why it is neccisary to invent new forms of invisable matter to explain mass that was never "missing" to begin with.

Energy is energy. It doesnt matter what KIND of energy now does it? It is STILL energy. When I pick up a pen and drop it, that is the storage and release of ENERGY. Mathamatically convert said energy into mass and poof, look, there it is. Not "Dark" or "mysterious" or any of that.

The bottom line is this

We have TONS of knowlage, but its all trivial, unconnected. We have NO wisdom to use said knowlage. The fact that no one has revealed the true universe shattering meaning behind E=MC2 is no fault of mine. But a true equation can be reveresed and the math checked. Thats high school math. When you reverse this equation, all of the "dark" matter and "dark" energy is no longer "dark". Now, its accounted for. (C2=E/M for example, that says a lot right there, Energy divided by mass ALWAYS equals the speed of light squared!?!?!?!? WTF is up w/that?) But the math says its true.

I didnt "invent" these equations, Im only showing you different aspects of the SAME thing.

I am NOT against discovery. I never said that. I said to use up your existing ingrediants before inventing new ones. This has not been done. Most of the existing ingrediants is hiding as energy, The kind of energy doesnt matter, its still energy. ALL inclusive, ALL types.


Star
 
R

ramparts

Guest
Hi Fallingstar,

I will forward along your "rearrange equations and think about what they mean" message at the next big meeting of theoretical physicists. I'm sure they'll take well to this new and exciting way of thinking about science.
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
O so what you are saying is that E=MC2 is a one way equation that is uncheckable?

So C2=E/M is invalid?

So M= E/C2 is invalid?

So E=MC2 is invalid?

I have now lost complete and total faith in anything physics related. Thank you. Go back to being someone elses assistant and let THEM make the great discoveries.

Star
 
R

ramparts

Guest
No, what I'm saying is that whatever the big breakthrough is, it's not going to be because someone on SPACE.com rearranges E=mc^2. Scientists have already tried the ridiculously simple things. Those don't work. The final answer is going to have to be a bit more complicated.
 
H

harper05

Guest
Ramparts is right, we have been rearanging e=mc2 scince its discovery. However it doesnt look like
C2=E/M
or
M= E/C2
more like

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0264-9381 ... 320l2.html

Also from a caltech textbook on the laws of thermodynamics
Energy: Generally, the capacity to cause change, and the basic quantity studied by thermodynamics. Energy comes in many forms (including kinetic energy, potential energy, chemical energy), and can be interchanged among these forms and transferred from one place to another (as heat or work) but not created or destroyed. This is the essence of the First Law of Thermodynamics: conservation of energy and equivalence among different forms of energy. In relativistic systems or when nuclear reactions are involved, energy and mass can be interchangeable (as in E=mc2), but in classical thermodynamics each is conserved separately. We use the term internal energy and the symbol E (some books use U) for the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a system.

Understanding the nature of the energy, ke, pe, ie, and mass, and there conservation seperatley is crucial to our understanding of this subject matter. No pun intended :) :)

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~asimow/glossary.html#mass
 
O

origin

Guest
Fallingstar1971":108lgo5h said:
O so what you are saying is that E=MC2 is a one way equation that is uncheckable?

So C2=E/M is invalid?

So M= E/C2 is invalid?

So E=MC2 is invalid?

I have now lost complete and total faith in anything physics related. Thank you. Go back to being someone elses assistant and let THEM make the great discoveries.

Star
Yes the first 2 equations are invalid in a physical sense even if they are mathematically they are correct. If you think about it for a minute it would be clear to you that the first equations has no physical relevence. What in the world could this mean in a physical sense:

If I take the square root of a quantity of energy and divide it by a square root of a mass I will end up with the speed of light.

That is competely meaningless in a physical sense, but mathematically it is correct.
 
D

darkmatter4brains

Guest
One reason the "rearranging" isn't totally valid is that E=mc^2 IS NOT the full equation ( a common misconception ). The full equation is:

E=mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

If you do a binomial expansion on this, you get:

E= mc^2 + (1/2)*m*v^2 + Higher Order Terms

Binomial expansion: (1 + x) ^ p = 1 +px +1/(2!)*p*(p-1)*x^2 + 1/(3!)*p*(p-1)*(p-2)*x^3 + ...

Now try rearranging that! You can see the first term is rest mass, and the second term is Kinetic Energy, plus the HO terms. So, E=mc^2 is energy for a mass at rest and is only a compete/valid equation for an object w/ NO velocity, or as viewed in the objects frame of reference.

In addition, it's not a good way to explain dark matter, because although energy/mass can be converted from one into another, you need MASS to generate the gravity to explain the galactic rotation curve.
 
D

darkmatter4brains

Guest
origin":wozhmsek said:
Fallingstar1971":wozhmsek said:
So C2=E/M is invalid?

So M= E/C2 is invalid?

So E=MC2 is invalid?

Star
Yes the first 2 equations are invalid in a physical sense even if they are mathematically they are correct. If you think about it for a minute it would be clear to you that the first equations has no physical relevence. What in the world could this mean in a physical sense:

If I take the square root of a quantity of energy and divide it by a square root of a mass I will end up with the speed of light.

That is competely meaningless in a physical sense, but mathematically it is correct.
I'm not sure I would call those equations invalid myself.

The second and the third are used in nuclear calculations. The third gives you the energy released based on a known mass deficit. The second can be used to figure out the magnitude of mass deficit you would need to release a certain amount of energy. Roughly ... much more complicated in practice.

Now the first (c^2=E/m) I think is probably fundamental in ways we don't quite understand yet. The fundamental constant c seems to be much more than just the speed of light, IMHO.

For example, in Special Relativity, space and time are now viewed as one single "entity". So, an object can be viewed as having motion through space AND time. And, for any object, its motion through time PLUS it's motion through space EQUALS the speed of light. For example, in the twin paradox, one twin is at rest (i.e. motion through time only). The other twin, which is on the interstellar trip, has motion through time AND space RELATIVE to the twin at rest. So, his time is slowed, or dilated, relative to the other twin, since some of his motion is now directed to displacing himself in space. Another way of looking at the twin paradox.

Anyhow, in special relativity, c is a fundamental quantity determining relationships of motion.

I view that first eq (c^2 = E/m ) as another fundamental relation between mass and energy. If one is "converted" from one to another, the universe WORKS IN SUCH A WAY, that the ratio is ALWAYS equal to c^2.

It's like the Lagrangian formulation of classical mechanics. The Lagrangian is equal to the kinetic energy minus the potential energy (L = T - V). Why does the Universe work in such a way that the time integral of this quantity, known as the action, is ALWAYS a minimum (really an extremum for the mathematicall precise). This is the least action principle and the equation used is [d/dt(dL/dqdot) - dL/dq = 0]. We don't fully know, but it's a fundamental way the Universe seems to work, and it comes in REALLY, REALLY, REALLY handy for solving many problems in physics

anyhow, sorry for the long winded post.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
I don't think the c^2 = E/M thing is anything too deep. It's like saying if you take the kinetic energy of an object and divide it by its mass times the square of its velocity - you always get exactly 1/2! Like magic!

So what is c? There is something deep about c (in fact, we've been having just this discussion in one of the other threads). As I see it, c is the fundamental scaling parameter between space and time, which is why when we formulate time as the "fourth dimension", we actually multiply it by c to get the units right. It is also (following from that) the speed at which all massless particles travel - so it's not actually defined as the speed of light, but rather light has to travel at that speed since light particles (photons) are massless.
 
D

darkmatter4brains

Guest
Well, if it was E = 2*m, I'd agree. But, that eq. shows a sort of equivalence between two things that at one time we never would have dreamed having a relationship, and what constant shows up in the equation ... why, the speed of light, of course! I guess the form, or rearranging of the equation, doesn't really matter from that perspective, though, which was where I was coming from

Of course, we could go to natural units where c=1 and then it would be E=m. Oh cr@P! What equation is valid now: E=m; m=E, E/m=1 or m/E=1!! :lol: :lol:

Even more fascinating than c is the fine structure constant. Why does each higher order feynman diagram have its contribution diminished by an equivalent order of the fine structure constant. And, the fine structure constant (alpha) is composed of three fundamental constants [alpha = (fundamental_unit_of_charge^2)/(speed_of_light*Plancks_Constant)] which is dimensionless regardless the system of units you use! Far out!!

As I'm sure you know, this one has captivated the interest of many major figures in physics. Wasn't it Feynman who said if we could answer where the fine structure constant comes from and why, we'd know everything...

but that's a whole different thread ....
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Just to point out, the equation is not E= MC*2, it is E= M*C^2 (Energy = mass times c (velocity of light)squared.

There's no 1/2 in the equation.
 
D

darkmatter4brains

Guest
this thread got me thinking about the array of formulas that the speed of light shows up in. It's also neat how it shows up in the macroscopic (classical) world and the quantum realm. Here's just some (all written with c on the left):

(1) In the eq we have been talking about:

c^2 = E/m

(2) As it comes out of the wave equation and relates to the permeability and permittivity of free space (vacuum)

c=1/sqrt(epilson_0*mu_0)

(3) In the fine structure constant, which is all over Qunatum Field Theory and shows up in Quantum Mechanics in the Bohr radius of the hydrogen atom and probably other places

c ~= e^2/(137*hbar) ; where e is the fundamental unit of charge, and hbar is Plancks constant

(4) As the phase velocity in the wavelength/frequency relation for an electromagnetic wave (and as ramparts pointed out, it's the speed for any particle of zero mass)

c = lambda*f ; where lambda is wavelength, f is frequency

(5) Compton wavelength, which represents a fundamental limitation on measuring the position of a particle

c = hbar/(m*lamda)

(6) I beleive it shows up in the De Broglie wavelength, which is the wavelength of a matter wave, but I forget the details here.

And, I'm sure there's more I'm just not thinking of off the top of my head or have in memory like Hawkings Entropy Black Hole thingy. Where else?

I'm not sure what this means, other than it's really neat how c is everywhere! Yes, much more than just the speed of a photon.

EDIT: this might belong in the other thread on c, but it looked like the whole f=mv^2 thing killed that thread .... or, was that v^2=f/m? :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts