It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: Aleister
That's the point, you can't square the speed of light and give it a value when the speed of light cant go faster then itself.
If light could travel faster then 299 792 458 m / s then it could be squared.
originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light and yet his equation says E=mc2
How can one posit a value of c2 when nothing can travel faster then C?
originally posted by: andre18
a reply to: Aleister
That's the point, you can't square the speed of light and give it a value when the speed of light cant go faster then itself.
If light could travel faster then 299 792 458 m / s then it could be squared.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The equation has much to do with rest mass.
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.
So no it is not possible to in the traditional sense accelerate and move from point a to point b faster than light. However that is not to say that we couldn't travel faster than light to point b from point a.
The two ways that we know of today that could theoretically really work are Wormholes and Warp Drives. Both of these cheat the law by not actually going faster than light, wormholes is simply a shorter trip between two places than light would travel... a shortcut through space-time... and Warp drives make space-time move around you as opposed to you moving through it.
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The equation has much to do with rest mass.
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.
originally posted by: Mastronaut
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
The equation has much to do with rest mass.
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent.. In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.
I don't think that the mass-equivalence formula (E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4) sets any limit to the maximum speed of an object.
momentum p = mv
-> E^2 = m^2*v^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4
for v=c
-> E^2 = m^2*c^4 + m^2*c^4
So the equation says that at the speed of light momentum has the same magnitude as mass in the energy content of a system. Doesn't put a limit, it takes v as the variable regardless of the energy needed to achieve such v.
It's the velocity addition formula that sets the maximum achievable speed thus implying infinite energy for v=c.
originally posted by: eriktheawful
E=mc^2 is a energy conversion formula, not a formula for making something go the speed of light.
In this formula, which was derived by Einstein by a math postulate not simply something he wrote on the black board, c is not a velocity, but is being used as a constant.
And you can square a constant just fine.
Think of it another way: A foot.
A foot is 12 inches long, and is a liner measurement. It's exactly 12 inches long, and that never changes. It can't be 11 inches, nor can it be 13 inches. It must always be 12 inches.
On the other hand, I can take that foot and square it. That gives me a new value: the square foot, which is used to measure not something in length, but it's area!
The famous equation E=mc^2 is not trying to take the actual velocity of light and squaring it. It's not trying to make something go faster than light.
It's a constant that is being squared, and you can do that just fine with any constant.
Here's a link to how that formula is reached:
Deriving the equation
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
originally posted by: Mastronaut
originally posted by: Korg Trinity
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
I don't think that the mass-equivalence formula .... sets any limit to the maximum speed of an object.
Yes yes.. Simply restating what I wrote in formula achieves what exactly?
Instead of stating equations in a veiled attempt at showing off your math skills, realize that there are not that many of us that could understand the raw math involved. Therefore I tend to restate the principles and results of the math into plain English.
This way you can engage with people of all different backgrounds and allows us to get across some quite complex math ideas and concepts.
originally posted by: Mastronaut
is just that you said something wrong, that e=mc^2 implies anything in the energy needed to accelerate an object.
originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light...
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
... snip ..
In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.
I said that E=MC2 in simple terms means that the required energy has a gradient which is exponential related directly to the rest mass of an object.
... snip .. It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent..
And yes E=MC2 is also very much about how much energy is contained within matter.... that matter and energy are interchangeable.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
originally posted by: andre18
Don’t you think it’s a fallacy for Einstein to say we can not travel faster then the speed of light...
There is a great deal more math to the Theory of Relativity than the equation you referenced.
However, to be clear, Einstein never specifically posited that an object couldn't travel faster than light; only that impossible things would be happening if it did. But what is clear is that an object cannot travel at the speed of light. Relativity technically allows for objects that travel faster than light, such as the theoretical partial, tachyons.
originally posted by: Mastronaut
a reply to: Korg Trinity
Here you were wrong:
in principle E=MC2 means that the energy required to accelerate an object with rest mass would grow exponentially the closer you got to the speed of light.
... snip ..
In other words it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any rest mass to the speed of light.
No, it means that the energy of a rest mass is equivalent to its mass times a constant.
I said that E=MC2 in simple terms means that the required energy has a gradient which is exponential related directly to the rest mass of an object.
It's wrong aswell, and the graph you posted is not E=MC^2 so it's misleading. The graph is M with variable v (which is only showed in the extended form) so there is no E and it is based on the relativistic velocity-addition formula.
Here instead you were right:
... snip .. It also means that energy and mass are directly interchangeable. The ratio of energy for mass equivalent..
And yes E=MC2 is also very much about how much energy is contained within matter.... that matter and energy are interchangeable.
But there is no ALSO, the contracted formula is ONLY an equivalence between inertial mass and energy.
The extended formula is the equivalence between relativistic, ie mass + momentum (momentum is velocity*mass) and energy. This shows the speed, but does take it as a variable, it does not attempt to calculate how to reach such speed.
Neither of the 2 versions imply infinite energy content of a relativistic mass, in fact it's twice the inertial mass at the speed of light. It's the energy required to accelerate that mass to such a speed to be infinite, due to the relativistic velocity-addition formula.
I don't want to seem a grammar/math nazi or nitpicking you, but the OP argument is probably due to these kind of confusions.