e=mc2: 103 years later, Einstein's proven right

news.yahoo.com...

Here is another example that science can't rest until it finds a confirmation of an abstract idea that sets down certain relationships, even if it takes a non-physical corroboration, such as employing the brute computational power and the knowledge of how things work under the hood.

The issue concerning the famous, short equation was this:



In Einstein's time, there were no gluons and quarks to stain the impeccable formula with, but later questions were asked. Was Albert Einstein right and wrong at the same time?

After 103 years, due to the ever-increasing computational power, it turned out that Albert Einstein was right and right at the same time.



We can only hope that the guys know what they are talking about . . .

There is a simple model that generalizes the issue: In 1905, the formula that relates energy to mass and speed of light looked like this:

E = mc^2

After the discovery of other particles that make protons, it turned out that quarks and gluons cannot account by themselves for the mass of protons -- there had to be something that accounted for the difference. The interactive energy of quarks and gluons was the prime suspect, but there had to be some evidence of that happening. The inquiry added a question mark to the original equation. What if Einstein's equation couldn't account for everything going on in the world of subatomic particles?

?_______E = mc^2

It turned out that it wasn't not that easy to take on Albert Einstein's wisdom, even with the help of an army of computers.



Any message for the challengers, Herr Professor?

_________E





Aaah, let me see . . . (SCIENC)E?
No?

This is pretty interesting stuff. I just saw this on the front page of Yahoo!

Nice post stander.

I think there is a thread on this already.

And I will say it again...if all these mathmatical magicians can prove Enstein to be correct, then why cant they come up with a more MODERN way to power our world byond oil eh?


When they can do that and it hits lightspeed and defy's gravity, then and ONLY then, will I ever be impressed.


Cheers!!!!

reply to post by stander

---

Well that's the nature of quantum physics for ya.

You mean right and wrong at the same time?

I actually meant right in his time and possibly wrong until their time -- the Year of Our Lord 2008.

reply to post by RFBurns

---

I think that the simple answer is "money". Technology took great leaps and bounds during WWI, WWII and during the Cold War. During times of relative peace and contained engagements such as the Gulf War, the over-riding factor is still one of "finance" since such events do not place the economies on the total-war footing required for massive technical innovation.

There is still too much power and money centred upon oil so other energy streams will remain latent until such time as necessity really kicks in. If or when the oil starts to run dry, the political implications of this will be enormous, effectively wiping out the influence of oil producing nations who have no other major form of income.

I think they will discover somewhen that even the quark mass (the rest 5%) is in true also nothing else than concentrated energy (probabily caused by massless trapped photons*) and there is no mass at all but just energy.
*) I read an interesting paper of someone pointing toward that direction. It would make the most sense.

I don't wonder about mass so much but the charge gives me a hard time...what could be that?

reply to post by g210b

---

The whole effort is under development; the final chapter of The Book of Descriptive Quantum Physics may be two thousand pages away.

The great thing about the corroboration is the way it was achieved. Computer modeling in this field is a nightmare: there is not yet enough computing power and lots of clever things had to be thought up to accomplish the task. Computer modeling is the only way to gain further insight into the works, because particle smashing has its limits. It is like hitting a peanut with a hammer and hope that the peanut would break into all atoms that is made of.

Also, you can mathematically manipulate the conditions and the computer model returns particles that don't really exist. But their properties could turn amazing. Someone would surely like them to be for real, which could lead to two kind of ping-pong balls: one that falls to the ground and the other that stays suspended in the air.