Time from E=mc^2

I got this stuff out right from a book. The book can't be wrong !

Someone told me that me that E is binding energy and m is mass defect !

Ok now I'm getting really confused

I am being told two different things !

Originally posted by siddharthsma
I got this stuff out right from a book. The book can't be wrong !

In fact, it can be. Books get corrected and edited all the time and a few are published that are poorly researched and poorly presented. That's why you look at more than one source when doing research in literature. And on something as complex as Einstein's equation, it is (as others have said) a very good idea to read a LOT about the subject and to make sure you understand the formulas and (if it's been awhile since the formula was deried) the other things that have been derived from it (in the case of Einstein, you would have to look at what Heisenberg and Lorentz and others did with the information.)

Someone told me that me that E is binding energy and m is mass defect !

"Mass defect" is not a term in physics... and in fact, I'm not sure what it's supposed to say. Mass is mass, and the term "mass" doesn't include any qualitative judgements like "good mass" and "bad mass" and "crumbled mass" and "defective mass".

Nor is there any such thing as "binding energy." That sounds like it might be a misstatement/misunderstanding of "energy of chemical bonds" but the Einstein equation has nothing to do with chemical bond energy. The chemical bond breaking does not produce energy anywhere near the size of an atomic bomb.

Originally posted by siddharthsma
I got this stuff out right from a book. The book can't be wrong !

Are you serious? You do realize the author is human right? Hmmm, might I suggest books from David Icke to test this theory.

Interesting, time and space are actually one. 2 sides of the same coin, there can be no space without time and no time without space.
Maybe its the mass thats moving 300.000 km per second and light stands still, only activated and visible when the mass makes contact with it.

Originally posted by thematrix
And, Protector, to achieve traveling no distance, which would result in no time being passed, you would have to leave earth, sol and the galaxy, since all of them are constantly in motion.

Earth itself is going at over 20KM/s around the sun.

You are apparently forgetting about relativity. All forces and actions have a total depending on how, or where from, you decide to measure them.

I am aware that we are always in some type of motion, but relative motion is what is important here. You should know that.

Correct if I'm wrong. According to your equation, time doesn't pass if the mass you're observing is standing still. (By that, of course, I mean it's really standing still. No electrons orbiting atoms...no degration of any kind.)

If time is controlled at the subatomic level, doesn't that make it a constant?

The energy of atomic structures and their subsequent continuing motion are what help to hold it together. If the particles energies actually stopped moving, it would disappear into nothingness, as it would have no energy, where energy = motion.

Does this help?

The energy E is the total energy of a freely moving particle. We can define it to be the rest energy plus kinetic energy (E = KE + mc2) which then defines a relativistic form for kinetic energy. Just as the equation for momentum has to be altered, so does the low-speed equation for kinetic energy (KE = (1/2)mv2). Let's make a guess based on what we saw for momentum and energy and say that relativistically KE = gamma(1/2)mv2. A good guess, perhaps, but it's wrong.

Now here is an exercise for the interested reader. Calculate the quantity KE = E - mc2 for the case of v very much smaller than c, and show that it is the usual expression for kinetic energy (1/2 mv2) plus corrections that are proportional to (v/c)2 and higher powers of (v/c). The complicated result of this exercise points out why it is not useful to separate the energy of a relativistic particle into a sum of two terms, so when particle physicists say "the energy of a moving particle" they mean the total energy, not the kinetic energy.

Another interesting fact about the expression that relates E and p above (E2 = m2c4 + p2c2), is that it is also true for the case where a particle has no mass (m=0). In this case, the particle always travels at a speed c, the speed of light. You can regard this equation as a definition of momentum for such a mass-less particle. Photons have kinetic energy and momentum, but no mass!

In fact Einstein's relationship tells us more, it says Energy and mass are interchangeable. Or, better said, rest mass is just one form of energy. For a compound object, the mass of the composite is not just the sum of the masses of the constituents but the sum of their energies, including kinetic, potential, and mass energy. The equation E=mc2 shows how to convert between energy units and mass units. Even a small mass corresponds to a significant amount of energy.

* In the case of an atomic explosion, mass energy is released as kinetic energy of the resulting material, which has slightly less mass than the original material.
* In any particle decay process, some of the initial mass energy becomes kinetic energy of the products.

Even in chemical processes there are tiny changes in mass which correspond to the energy released or absorbed in a process. When chemists talk about conservation of mass, they mean that the sum of the masses of the atoms involved does not change. However, the masses of molecules are slightly smaller than the sum of the masses of the atoms they contain (which is why molecules do not just fall apart into atoms). If we look at the actual molecular masses, we find tiny mass changes do occur in any chemical reaction.

At SLAC, and in any particle physics facility, we also see the reverse effect -- energy producing new matter. In the presence of charged particles a photon (which only has kinetic energy) can change into a massive particle and its matching massive antiparticle. The extra charged particle has to be there to absorb a little energy and more momentum, otherwise such a process could not conserve both energy and momentum. This process is one more confirmation of Einstein's special theory of relativity. It also is the process by which antimatter (for example the positrons accelerated at SLAC) is produced.

SOURCE

[edit on 4-11-2005 by CogitoErgoSum1]

Originally posted by Senser

Interesting, time and space are actually one. 2 sides of the same coin, there can be no space without time and no time without space.
Maybe its the mass thats moving 300.000 km per second and light stands still, only activated and visible when the mass makes contact with it.

Actually, no. There can be time without space and space without time. Space doesn't require time as any of its dimensions. Time does not require space.

Originally posted by Protector
The energy of atomic structures and their subsequent continuing motion are what help to hold it together. If the particles energies actually stopped moving, it would disappear into nothingness, as it would have no energy, where energy = motion.

I don't think so. Things stop moving at absolute zero, but as we get atoms closer to absolute zero, they do not vanish or shrink into almost nothingnes.

Originally posted by Byrd
I don't think so. Things stop moving at absolute zero, but as we get atoms closer to absolute zero, they do not vanish or shrink into almost nothingnes.

www.nist.gov...
Reducing the thermal motion of atoms can lead to significant improvements in measurements and manifestations of the quantum nature of matter. Using radiation pressure from near-resonant laser beams, we can cool a gas of atoms to within a few microdegrees of absolute zero. These cold atoms can be trapped by laser beams and other electromagnetic fields. The temperature of the laser cooled atoms can be further reduced by evaporative cooling. At sufficiently low temperatures, the atoms undergo a quantum statistical phase transition called Bose-Einstein condensation in which the atoms accumulate in the lowest possible energy state.

www.colorado.edu...
Regarding Bose-Einstein particles:

The effects come from the fact that, at very low temperatures, most of the atoms are in the same quantum level.

...at very low temperatures, a large fraction of the atoms would suddenly go crashing down into the very lowest energy level.

All of the electrons, regardless of how many, crash into the lowest energy level. This is still above absolute zero. When motion completely stops, I guess anything could happen. I guess we'll never know.

This may be a bit of a stretch, but since mass relates directly to energy:
E/c^2= m, where E=0 since all motion has ceased, then m=0.

Of course, we'd have to know whether or not atoms have the ability to store potential energy, in which case there would remain a small amount of energy and have minimal mass.

Perhaps that is a large assumption to make. Oh well, make up your own mind as to what you believe is true.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Protector]

After a little more research, potential energy can only exist if an object is related to a source of energy, such as gravity, where a ball that is stopped will still fall at the speed of gravity when released. However, this becomes irrelevant since the definition of energy is the ability to do work. If motion becomes impossible at absolute zero, then the resulting energy must be zero as no work can be done. Thus, using my idea above, the total mass would drop to zero.

[edit on 5-11-2005 by Protector]

Originally posted by Protector


All of the electrons, regardless of how many, crash into the lowest energy level.

No, this will not and will never happen at the same time within the same atom, if that is what you mean. The crash, if it were to occur within a single atom would happen one electron at a time.

The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005
Published: Infinite Energy, Volume 10, Issue 60, pp. 28-37(2005).
Abstract: That the speed of light is always c (approx 300,000 km/s) relative to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of EinsteinÌs key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905. However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result. This implies that the foundations of physics require significant revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is shown to explain various so-called gravitational `anomaliesÌ, including the `dark matterÌ effect. So the centenary of EinsteinÌs Special Relativity turns out to be also its demise. Most importantly absolute motion is now understood to be the cause of the various relativistic effects, in complete contradiction with the Einstein viewpoint, but in accord with the earlier proposal by Lorentz.

www.scieng.flinders.edu.au...
The new theory of gravity which has emerged from Process Physics is in agreement with all experiments and observations. This theory has two gravitational constants: G, the Newtonian gravitational constant, and a second dimensionless constant which experiment has revealed to be the fine structure constant. This theory explains the so-called `dark matter' effect in spiral galaxies, the bore hole gravitational anomalies, the masses of the observed black holes at the centres of globular clusters, and the anomalies in Cavendish laboratory measurements of G.

www.scieng.flinders.edu.au...

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Protector
The energy of atomic structures and their subsequent continuing motion are what help to hold it together. If the particles energies actually stopped moving, it would disappear into nothingness, as it would have no energy, where energy = motion.

I don't think so. Things stop moving at absolute zero, but as we get atoms closer to absolute zero, they do not vanish or shrink into almost nothingnes.

Things don't necessarily stop moving at absolute zero...common misconception. If you want text on more thermal physics, you all should pick up An Introduction to Thermal Physics by Daniel Schroeder, or look up things like two-state paramagnetics or paramagnetism.

There are reasons why we can't get to absolute zero, and it's best to look at things from a mathematical standpoint than anything else. I will just say temperature is defined by taking the partial derivative of entropy with respect to the energy, which equals the inverse temperature...I recommend just reading what I said, hopefully things become a little more clear as to what absolute zero is =)

Well, here is what the site says, "However, at very low temperatures, a large fraction of the atoms would suddenly go crashing down into the very lowest energy level."

www.colorado.edu...

Bose-Einstein condensation occurs when a gas of atoms is cooled until the de Broglie wavelength of the atoms becomes comparable to the distance between them. The atoms then collapse into the same quantum ground state.

physicsweb.org...

Einstein rapidly extended the theory to cover Bose particles with mass and he himself published two articles in quick succession, predicting that when a given number of particles approach each other sufficiently closely and move sufficiently slowly they will together convert to the lowest energy state: what we now term Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) occurs.

nobelprize.org...

As the Pauli Exclusion Principle prevents any two Fermions from being in the same quantum state, this makes it tougher for a pair of them to collide, and thus harder to cool them. Bosons don't resist collision this way, and so researchers have exploited "evaporative cooling" to get them to the point at which they form a Bose-Einstein condensate-a quantum state in which the atoms collapse into their lowest energy state, losing their individuality in a kind of super-atom.

Because they all can't occupy the lowest energy level, they are forced to "stack up" into higher energy states, like people on a ladder, with at most one to a rung. By keeping their distance from one another, the Fermions create a kind of pressure. In this state, the Fermions have reached a limited size and cannot be compressed any further.

www.eurekalert.org...

[edit on 6-11-2005 by Protector]

Speaking of Bose-Einstein condensate:

Soliton Train. This is a 3D rendering of an image of a matter wave soliton train. Each peak in the train is a Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of atoms cooled to nearly absolute zero temperature. Solitons are localized bundles of waves, constrained to move in only one dimension, and which propagate without spreading. Solitons have been observed in many wave phenomena, such as the motion of water waves in narrow canals, and light pulses in optical fibers. Advanced optical communications systems employ solitons because ordinary light pulses spread and require frequent signal boosters. The atom wave solitons shown in the figure may someday be useful as the atom laser input to an atom interferometer. More details can be found in the paper by K.E. Strecker, G. Partridge, A.G. Truscott , and R.G. Hulet, "Formation and Propagation of Matter Wave Soliton Trains", Nature (2002) and on the website atomcool.rice.edu....