It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Is there an e=mc^2 Recording Machine?

page: 1
0
share:

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:11 PM
Assuming??? e=mc^2 is correct, is there a machine or machines recording this apparent fact? If so, when did the recording begin and can it unquestionably determine the level of energy in the Universe before the equation was created?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:16 PM
Do you know what E=MC^2 means?

then come back and we'll discuss what we've learned.

It's actually pretty interesting stuff.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:33 PM
I am still confused, for at least two major reasons: 1) no elements or isotopes are labeled, and 2) why is the speed of light squared? Could it be cubed? Or beyond?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:38 PM

Originally posted by GreatTech
I am still confused, for at least two major reasons: 1) no elements or isotopes are labeled, and 2) why is the speed of light squared? Could it be cubed? Or beyond?

1. No elements or Isotopes need to be mentioned. It's their mass that matters, not their composition.

2. The speed of light can be cubed and beyond, but it wouldn't accurately measure the conversion of matter to energy.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 09:57 PM
Which machine has ever proved the conservation of energy?

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:08 PM
Mass energy conversion, and conservation of energy are two very different things. But if you're asking what machine has proven Einsteins theory correct, I'll say Fat Man and Little Boy did a pretty good job doing that.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:22 PM
Mass-to-energy conversion and the conservation of energy are not two entirely different things as the conservation of energy would require the former as a computation.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 10:28 PM
a recording of e=mc2 ? !!!

Unfortunately, this is a case of the thread/poster being in possession of just a little less information and knowledge on the subject than he, perhaps, might have liked. It seems like an inane senseless query.

But no question is as stupid as the one unasked. I hope that you will take this opportunity to acquaint yourself with a little more research into Einstein, relativity and, just for kicks, some quantum theory as well.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:10 PM
"benevolent tyrant", thank you for your comments. How does "Newtonian Mechanics" relate to Einstein's "relativity", and "quantum theory"?

I reduce all of physics, mathematics, and chemistry to combinatorics. Maybe the mathematician always knew more than the physicist and chemist.

posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:48 PM
Einstein used the Lorentz Transformation to solve equations but equations
can have many solutions.

He wrote a paper on the photoelectric effect based upon the uncertainty principle.

Tesla's "Dynamic Theory of Gravity" used C=E/R where I think R is resonant
frequency. Well to Tesla everything was electrons and resonant frequency so
that might explain it. C and E might be the usual but not certain, his theory
might have been confiscated. In any case much of what he did worked.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 05:05 AM

Originally posted by GreatTech
Assuming??? e=mc^2 is correct, is there a machine or machines recording this apparent fact?

Yes!! There is: it's a super computer, with transistor so tiny that we need electronic microscope to figure them out... and so numerous that you need around 30 zero to count them... it is called "Universe"
(or Creation for religious)

ps: think that it is computing this equation for about 15billions of year already!

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:27 AM
E=mc^2 is not a computer or a machine, but a mathematical fact.

It means that the amount of energy contained in a piece of mass is equal to the mass of the object times the square of the speed of light. Since it's too big of a number to always type/write out, we use c^2 to represent it. This is known as a "constant". It will always be the same number regardless of anything else.

So, if you have a mass of say 90 kilograms (about as much as I weigh), then if were to turn every neutron, proton, and electron in your body into energy (and by doing this you REALLY want to make a point), then you wind up with about:

8100000000000000 Joules

Or, 81 x 10^11 KJ - enough to blow up whatever state or province you live in.

Now, this made "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" work because Nuclear Fission turns SOME mass into pure energy. When Uranium 238 undergoes its chain reaction (essentially an explosive decomposition process) it turns from Uranium 238 to (I believe) two isotopes of Uranium 115. The actual isotope may be more, may be less, but the point being is that SOME of the protons, neutron, and electrons are missing in this chain reaction. Its these missing bits that have been totally turned into energy, releasing their staggering amount of energy.

In any case, I hope this answers how E=mc^2 works, but since I have no clue what is meant by a recording machine
then I can only guess at the answer.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:35 AM
e=mc^2 implies that mass AND light are necessary for energy to exist. Can't energy exist only with light? Can't energy exist only with mass?

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 10:45 AM

Originally posted by GreatTech
e=mc^2 implies that mass AND light are necessary for energy to exist.

C is speed of light. Not actual light.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by GreatTech
e=mc^2 implies that mass AND light are necessary for energy to exist. Can't energy exist only with light? Can't energy exist only with mass?

I still get the feeling GreatTech that you dont quite understand what the equation means or where it is used, or infact what the terms of the equation represent.

c is the speed of light in a vacuum, this is a universal constant that is the same whereever you are. c^2 is just a number. The equation shows that every kg of mass could be theoretically transformed into c^2J of energy. Of course this isnt realistically possible but some mass is transformed into energy, as mentioned above, in nuclear fission and fusion.

Energy can exist without light. The speed of light in the equation simply acts as a number.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:00 PM

Originally posted by GreatTech
"benevolent tyrant", thank you for your comments. How does "Newtonian Mechanics" relate to Einstein's "relativity", and "quantum theory"?

It predates both. For a layperson like you, newtonian mechanics describes the motion of objects around you, which are neither too small nor moving too fast. If an apple drops from an apple tree, newtonian mechanics will probably do a nice job at describing the fall.

If the apple is somehow accelerated to 80% of speed of light (I leave it to you to try) and is scattered off another apple, you'll need relativistic equations to explain (or predict) the results of such collision. Newtonian mechanics won't do.

Similarly, if botanists create a kind of apple which is so small that it's 10 atoms across (I know it's not possible, but please bear with me), newtonian mechanics will fail at describing the motion of such apple, and you'll need quantum mechanics.

I reduce all of physics, mathematics, and chemistry to combinatorics. Maybe the mathematician always knew more than the physicist and chemist.

Nah...

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Aelita]

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:58 PM
Energy can not just be made from light as light is both a particle and an energy wave, at the same time...somehow. You need to read up on wikipedia.

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 06:47 PM
gfad, if the speed of light is just a number, then mass and energy are just numbers that may vary according to conditions. Is there a machine that records the energy of the Universe and can constantly verify e=mc^2? What is this machine's design and element/isotope arrangement? Is it possible that another equation can describe energy better than e=mc^2?

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:15 PM
The 'speed of light' always makes me laugh.

velocity speed distance joules kilos what ever are all based on an unknown fundamental unit (which does not exist)

noone can truely measure anything on just earth

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:46 PM
Aelita, you indicated that I was a layperson in physics. This is probably true. However, I believe that physicists use words to prove numbers too often. Mathematicians frequently use numbers to prove words.

new topics

top topics

0