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.

 

Is there an e=mc^2 Recording Machine?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2006 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
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?


Yes, Mass and Energy ARE just numbers that vary according to conditions! That's what the equation is used for - to predict what happens under certain conditions.

There is no machine that we have to measure the amount of energy in the universe. Neither do we have a machine to measure the amount of mass in the universe.

What we can do is measure the amount of energy per section of the universe. If we take a large enough section, since the universe is homogeneous in all directions, we should arrive at an almost completely perfect universal energy amount. Mind you, this also only applies to the amount of universe that we can see... which is tiny... comparatively.

So, no, there is no equation that can better describe energy in its relation to mass conversion, or to describe mass in its relation to energy conversion, than E=mc^2. This equation is a law of nature. It applies everywhere and anywhere. It is as much a law of nature as the laws of Thermodynamics. Changing mass into energy will always give you an amount of energy equal to the mass of the object(s) being changed times the square of the speed of light.




posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Yarium, which machine(s) is used to measure an energy section of the Universe? Does it assume what it is trying to prove? Can it prove e=mc^2?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I think you missed the point. It's an equation. It's mathematically proven, and sound. It doesn't require a machine to measure the universes radient energy to prove this equation. THere is no machine that is asking E=MC^2?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Is there a C=2πr Recording Machine?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Rasobasi420, e=mc^2 is a mathematical fact under what assumptions? Did mass come before temperature or did temperature come before mass?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatTech
Rasobasi420, e=mc^2 is a mathematical fact under what assumptions? Did mass come before temperature or did temperature come before mass?


I don't know what you're talking about with the whole temperature thing. As for the "assumptions", light has a difinite speed in a vacuum. It's been measured, and we know it to be 300,000 k/s. What other assumptions are being made?

As Guy Fawkes said, it's like making the assumption that π=3.141592... when calculating C=2πr. You could go out and calculate the value of pi, or you can assume that the agreed upon measurement is accurate. Pi is a little easier to calculate than the speed of light though.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Yes, Guy Fawkes said it best there. Is there a C = 2(pi)r? Or a X=(pi)d.

There is no machine that tries to constantly verify that we're correct. However, since this constant is non-repeating, but continues (apparently) forever non-repeating, we set a point at which (pi) is correct "enough". That tends to be 3.14

At that level, for all intents and purposes, Pi is correct in our calculations. The further you go in your decimal points, the more accurate the answer will be, even though it will still be off by a tinier and tinier amount. You could go 3.141592653589 and you still wouldn't have the correct answer. It'd be close... just not close enough.



Now, you asked about the machines that measure the energy of far away galaxies and such. There is no machine - but there are calculations that we can do. However, through that, their mass can only be INFERED. We can't tell exactly what their mass this. This is the whole Dark Matter question. There's some kind of mass that we can't see out there that SHOULD be there, but which cannot be detected by the normal bands or amount of light we use.


Now, perhaps you can help us understand why you want a recording machine, or why you want the answer, or just - in general - explain yourself to us. Then perhaps we can answer your questions better.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
GreatTech, and anyone else asking questions such as "what's quantum mechanics?" or "how does relativity work?" or "what's the answer to life, the universe and everything?" :

Why not get on Amazon and order youself some beginners books on physics, sit down for a few weeks reading them and then....order some more books and carry on studying until you feel you have understood the concepts you are interested in. Maybe then you can ask about specific points.

There are some very clever and knowledgeable people on ATS, but do you really think they are going to give some pithy 2 line reply which will suddenly enlighten you on such a such a subtle and complex subject as relativity? There is no shortcut to this understanding, you have to go and work at it.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I dont think greatech has fully understood the e=mc^2 equation as being just that, it has been derived by einstein after years of complex theroretical mathematics.


It is no different from the equation for the area or a circle, or acceleration etc.


Using the examples of little boy from the 2nd world war, it was a very inefficient bomb, yet it still managed to produce a yield in the region of 13-15 ktonnes from about 50 kg of U-238.

Greatech was wanting to know if there is a machine to measure this, not as such but an easy way to try to get his head round it would be to realise that nuclear bombs follow this equation, c^2 is a huge number 900,000,000,000,000,000,000 (m/s), this when multiplied by even a very time mass will produce vast quantities of energy. People have tried and failed to prove einsten wrong.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   
E=mc2?

I'm no physicist, I haven't read Einstein, or related works, but is that really figured out by math?

Seems to me it is more like a logical concept. For example, the amount of pure energy in matter can be identified relatively as the object mass (to judge the amount of energy) times the speed of light (to give an indication of potential.)

If your following my thought here, the concept is basically to find the potential of pure energy in a mass.

Does that make any sense? Or am I totally misinterpretting this and getting confused?

Thanks.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
GT: I think FatherLukeDuke is right in recommending to actually study physics to become better equipped to ask and receive questions of that nature.

As to your comment that physisists "use words" as opposed to mathematicians, physics is a science that can only exist in conjunction with mathematics. Seriously.
It's a "precise science" in the sense that results are numerical.

I think I understand now what you asked -- was the "e=mc2" proven in an experiment?

Yes, it has and it is every day, in nuclear and particle physics.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
mass of the universe is constant, proven by the big bang theory and mass conservation.
speed of light, c is also constant.
(speed of light)(speed of light ), c^2 is also constant.

Therefore E(m) = mc^2

plug in different values for m in kg and you get the energy yield in joules
E(20) = 20(c^2)
E(50) = 50(c^2)

where c = 299792458 m/s^2

You don't require a computer to record anything because theres no variable mass to record. mass of universe is constant, therefore E(m) = constant, which says the energy yield of the universe is constant.

[edit on 5-17-2006 by websurfer]



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
As to your comment that physisists "use words" as opposed to mathematicians, physics is a science that can only exist in conjunction with mathematics. Seriously.
It's a "precise science" in the sense that results are numerical.


I would go further - in fact maths is the language of physics. Physicists only use words when they want to try and express their ideas to laymen. Pick up a physics journal and flick through it - it will be page after page of complex maths - that is how they communicate with each other.

E=MC2 may be a simple equation, but the proof behind it is very long and very complicated.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

E=MC2 may be a simple equation, but the proof behind it is very long and very complicated.


Not really since it makes the simplifying assumption that net momentum is zero. So the mass must be at rest for the equation, E=MC^2 to hold good.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I know I am an idiot, but is there a basic diagram of e=mc^2, maybe like a circle that can be seen to help prove that its area is pi*r^2?



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
GreatTech,

Since you have suceeded in demonstrating to the ATS community that you are unable to grasp the fundamental principles upon which the equation e=m*C^2 is based, I refer you to a couple of sources which, though craftfully written, are actually fairly easy to understand. One even has great pictures which may assist you in your quest to understand relativism.

Universe in a Nutshell/Illustrated Brief History of Time both written by Stephen Hawking.

Though it will garner you a boatload of posting points, efforts to educate you on the subject, based upon your difficulties in understanding the tenets of the theory, will take pages and pages of posts. Go to the library...give these books a read, then start a new thread with more in depth questions if you still have any at that point.

Good luck!



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   
chaosrain, thank you for your suggestions. I have to do more research.

I do not post for a "boatload" of points, but only to gain wisdom and knowledge. It is unbeknownst to me the real value of obtaining a lot of points.

Measurements are all around us. Each particle or group of particles in the Universe at any given time are measured by humans and/or machines or not at all.
It is my doctrine (probably many others' doctrine too) that if particles or a group of particles is measured by humans only, the resulting equations are scientific philosophy. If the particles or group of particles is measured by machine only, there was no scientific philosophy and no equations. If the particles or groups of particles were measured by humans and machines and verified by both 100% of the time, the equations were and are scientific law.

My initial post was only a query to find if there is a machine measuring apparatus that has proven e=mc^2. If so, are there patents for it or has it been classified? Which organization or individual might own such a machine?



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
E=MC^2 is very easily apparent in chemistry in nuclear reactions

After a nuclear reaction event there is not the same amount of mass that you have started with that equation you can figure out how much mass has changed in to energy……



posted on May, 18 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
How many ways are their for writing that equation? One, or many?



posted on May, 19 2006 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Not to sound like a pessimist...

but any equation, when attempted to be proven by a machine...

wouldnt that machine be built around the concepts of that equation itself... making that very machine slightly biased? I mean, if you make a machine to prove something... wont it do exactly that... simply end up doing exactly what you intended? Prove it correct, whether it is or not?

I mean, mankind is pretty biased, and quite often incorrect... if you create a machine to prove our misconceptions as correct... wont it inherit the same flaws we've been following all along, and in turn, albeit incorrectly, justify our theories as correct?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join