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.

 

Synthesis of E = Mc2

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Ok for starters this equation was not originated by einstein, though erroneously he is given the credit for it.
Whether fission or fusion reaction itself is adiabatic in nature, But Have there been any concerted efforts to break down the energy obtained into proper constituents namely, heat , light, radiation, electric, magnetic, mechanical etc? Rather is there a quantitative break down of these various costituents
available anywhere in msm annals.




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
So who did come up with the equation?



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Henri Poincaré



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
So who did come up with the equation?
I simply cannot recall the name, however his name was there on the wiki in the past



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Yes, it is Einstein who found this equation. Using the Lorentz transform. Altough he didn't write it "E=mc²", he does have used this sentence:


If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L / V² .


He wrote E=mc² nearly 40 year after (it's Lorentz who propose this notation)!

Read the wikipedia page if you want more info:
Mass-Energy Equivalence
edit on 21-8-2016 by PersonneX because: Lorentz is written with a t. I specified who use the notation first. Then swith back the 2 for a ².



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Fritz Hasenöhrl? according to the article its debatable who was the first.. i only got confused by it



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I heard this documentary is good at explaining who came with what first, i havent seen it yet




posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: darkspace

Interesting, but that confirm Einstein. There are a difference between a experimental "Fit" and a mathematical solution. Fritz found the equation, without knowing why. Einstein found the mathematical link.

EDIT:
Just adding, Einstein found the full equation which is E=mc²((1-v²/c²)^(-0.5)-1)

edit on 21-8-2016 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Ok for starters this equation was not originated by einstein, though erroneously he is given the credit for it.
Whether fission or fusion reaction itself is adiabatic in nature, But Have there been any concerted efforts to break down the energy obtained into proper constituents namely, heat , light, radiation, electric, magnetic, mechanical etc? Rather is there a quantitative break down of these various costituents
available anywhere in msm annals.


Others realized that there was some equivalence between mass and energy and had various similar equations, each tweaking the mix to try and pin down the actual figures. Einstein's relativity provides a reason that there is an equivalence, more than just throwing numbers at various equations and seeing if they describe reality. At the time of Einsten publishing SR, many of the corrobaratory details were not yet established.

In regard to the different modes of energy, the question could be raised as to if there are different types of energy related to how we may measure it. Is electrical energy different from magnetic energy? Arguably, they are really different phases of an electromagnetic wave (radiative heat & light) and equivalence of magnetism and electrical charge was established by James Clark Maxwell in 1873.

One could consider a really "off the wall" analogy and ask if the color orange produced additively from light (mixture of red and green light) or subtractively produced by mixing paints (mixture of yellow and red) is actually the same color orange?



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

true its difficult to measures different types of energies and virtually impossible to form equations that do the same



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

I think dismissing the mathematical interpretation of the reality is a big mistake. Even if it's only an interpretation, it was proven a many occasions more precise than our own eyes.

----> (760 nm + 510 nm)/2 = 635 nm
----> Red+Green = Orange

Even if I'm color blind... It's Orange. In physics, all humanity is color blind.
edit on 22-8-2016 by PersonneX because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: PersonneX

Lol wt sheites are you on about mate? Talking on tangents, eh
do you have a equation for all types of energy yields from nuclear reaction?



posted on Aug, 22 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Science never gave up in terms of measuring different types of energy deposition... there is a wonderful handbook on the passage of particles through matter

pdg.lbl.gov...

Now that mostly deals with higher energies, and yes there is some loss to things like heat...BUT thats not unknown either, mainstream science has detectors at mK ranges, in which a nuclear decay can be observed based upon the heat it deposits AND the ionization... so yeah we have a fair bit of knowledge, it isn't a wild stab in the dark as many people on ATS might want to believe



posted on Aug, 23 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Ok thanks for the link and the info



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join