What I propose is that the forums leaders partake in explaining the equation and all its theorys to us math and science novices in an attempt to teach us how you guys understand it. I have a feeling this will be a very hard thing to do as most of us math ignorants do not understand the language... clearly this is the case because we are after all ignorant of math to some degree and in this case far more so then the experts.
So if there is a forum leader in here that is an expert on this stuff please feel free to get us started. And if you have ideas about how to better do this first please share. I hope all can go into this with an open mind and positive understanding. If it happens to turn into a big fist fight about how god doesnt exist in this multiverse I would suspect that only happened because the subject got to be a bore.
I'm personaly hoping alpha will start this off and at the same time very worried about how well I will be able to understand him as he is by in large very intelligent at this type of stuff.
Have fun is the rule I propose for this thread. Not that I believe in rules.
Here's my guess:
Energy is interchangeable with matter. Hence E = M. The question is what relationship there is between the two. Since particles travel in 2D orbits, and the sweep-area of an orbiting body has something to do with the time it takes to move through the degrees of sweep-area (kepler? - RPenner posted a nice summation of Kepler's, Newton's, and Galileo's work during the 17th century -I forget which thread it was - I think the one on time dilation).
Anyway, I think the 2 dimensionality of an orbital elipse has something to do with matter's relationship to energy. Since EM radiation all supposedly travels at a constant "speed of light" represented by 'C,' C^2 may have to do with the area of an electron orbit, since I think electrons travel at C? Actually, I'm doubting what I'm saying because C is supposedly an absolute limit, but nothing actually ever travels at C. Hopefully someone will clarify this here.
But if an electron, or another particle is traveling at C, in theory, then its energy would be equivalent to its momentum at C^2. Somehow this seems to relate to centripetal force of circular momentum, since an electron or other object in orbit has the tendency to continue in straight-line motion when released from the constraint of whatever force is keeping it in orbit.
But if the C^2 would have to do with the sweep-area of an orbital eclipse, wouldn't the formula have to have pi in it somewhere? So, now I'm thinking that I am completely off and the idea that the squared part of the formula has something to do with 2D area is just random association.
Still, I submit this mess of speculative reasoning as a launching point for a real explanation of this equation by people who will enjoy setting me straight just to get the chance to show off their hilarious insulting abilities. You know you love doing it . . . you imbeciles!
Energy is interchangeable with matter. Hence E = M. The question is what relationship there is between the two. Since particles travel in 2D orbits, and the sweep-area of an orbiting body has something to do with the time it takes to move through the degrees of sweep-area (kepler? - RPenner posted a nice summation of Kepler's, Newton's, and Galileo's work during the 17th century -I forget which thread it was - I think the one on time dilation).
Anyway, I think the 2 dimensionality of an orbital elipse has something to do with matter's relationship to energy. Since EM radiation all supposedly travels at a constant "speed of light" represented by 'C,' C^2 may have to do with the area of an electron orbit, since I think electrons travel at C? Actually, I'm doubting what I'm saying because C is supposedly an absolute limit, but nothing actually ever travels at C. Hopefully someone will clarify this here.
But if an electron, or another particle is traveling at C, in theory, then its energy would be equivalent to its momentum at C^2. Somehow this seems to relate to centripetal force of circular momentum, since an electron or other object in orbit has the tendency to continue in straight-line motion when released from the constraint of whatever force is keeping it in orbit.
But if the C^2 would have to do with the sweep-area of an orbital eclipse, wouldn't the formula have to have pi in it somewhere? So, now I'm thinking that I am completely off and the idea that the squared part of the formula has something to do with 2D area is just random association.
Still, I submit this mess of speculative reasoning as a launching point for a real explanation of this equation by people who will enjoy setting me straight just to get the chance to show off their hilarious insulting abilities. You know you love doing it . . . you imbeciles!
magpies,
There is no easy way to do anything that is difficult. Someone can not teach a fast way around, putting in the time. I am in the same boat. The best thing for us to do if we really want to learn math is to memorize the symbols like letters in the alphabet you first learned before reading. If you do not waste time looking up unknown symbols and have a reference in your mind already then following the algebra becomes simpler.
There is no easy way to do anything that is difficult. Someone can not teach a fast way around, putting in the time. I am in the same boat. The best thing for us to do if we really want to learn math is to memorize the symbols like letters in the alphabet you first learned before reading. If you do not waste time looking up unknown symbols and have a reference in your mind already then following the algebra becomes simpler.
Start with E .. what do you think that is? What is it measured in?
I see confused in the future... He looks happy. But why? Because he finaly figures out the meaning of life. The meaning he knew all along.
[Suspended 60 days for evasion of moderator action.]
[Suspended 60 days for evasion of moderator action.]
Apparently Magpies has a hard time understanding when he's not wanted. My bet is that this is him with a new ip and name. Childish really.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
Hence E = M.
No, it isn't. Units don't match.
No, it isn't. Units don't match.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
Since particles travel in 2D orbits
Not in quantum mechanics they don't.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
The question is what relationship there is between the two., and the sweep-area of an orbiting body has something to do with the time it takes to move through the degrees of sweep-area (kepler? - RPenner posted a nice summation of Kepler's, Newton's, and Galileo's work during the 17th century -I forget which thread it was - I think the one on time dilation).
Not in quantum mechanics they don't.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
,' C^2 may have to do with the area of an electron orbit, since I think electrons travel at C?
Different electron orbitals have (generally) different radii. And the electrons don't move at light speed.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
but nothing actually ever travels at C
Other than massless particles.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
in theory, then its energy would be equivalent to its momentum at C^2.
Whose theory?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
since an electron or other object in orbit has the tendency to continue in straight-line motion when released from the constraint of whatever force is keeping it in orbit.
As does any object, that's what momentum and inertia are all about.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
is just random association.
That's the first sensible thing you've said.
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 1 2009, 10:44 PM)
I'm personaly hoping alpha will start this off and at the same time very worried about how well I will be able to understand him as he is by in large very intelligent at this type of stuff.
To be perfectly honest, typing up a lengthy explaination with a little maths as possible is going to take too much time and, as said, without the mathematics to allow you to do the logical derivation there's little of the derivation worth considering.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 5 2009, 04:24 PM)
Apparently Magpies has a hard time understanding when he's not wanted. My bet is that this is him with a new ip and name. Childish really.
What makes you think it's a new ip?
What makes you think it's a new ip?
Why physicists don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?
According to SRT rest mass and rest energy have equivalent
meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?
When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . . .’, then we
can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
to have a cup of coffee . . . . etc.
That a strange terminology the physicists use.
==================== . .
Comments:
#
In the early decades after Einstein introduced his SRT, the standard practice
was to make a distinction between rest mass and relativistic mass, and many
teacher who learned from old texts and older professors have not yet broken
that habit.
Among scientists who deal with relativity in practical situations daily, no such distinction is made.
Mass is just mass; the mass of a particle increases as it is
accelerated, and there is no need to distinguish between
the rest mass and the total mass.
Nice avatar, fellow Socratic guy.
Philip J
#
Your question is right in all earnestness. Although Physicists do not say
they mean it. E = Mc^2 has two aspects. It means every mass,
M is equivalent to the energy, E = Mc^2. If the mass really disappears
it would have been converted into this much energy. And if part of this
mass is disappearing then the same part must have been converted in energy.
Also if there is increase/decrease of energy due to motion or due to so called
potential energy due to elastic or any other forces, then there will be
proportionate increase in mass of the particle.
#
==================== . .
Why physicists never say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?
/ My opinion./
In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and
there is ‘ kinetic energy’.
And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of
Energy/ Mass" connects them together.
In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.
I think that there is problem here.
Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
there is active / kinetic energy E=hf.
But how „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
can unite them together nobody explains.
In other words:
Dont know how to explain transforms the potenial
mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf
the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words.
================== . .
Socratus.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab...Display&id=1372
===================== . .
[Moderator: Cut and pasted from a variety of preexisting sources. See other post for full explanation of suspension.]
According to SRT rest mass and rest energy have equivalent
meaning: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
Why SRT and Quantum theory use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
and don’t say: ‘ potential mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?
When somebody says ‘ the particle in the rest . . .’, then we
can image that particle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
to have a cup of coffee . . . . etc.
That a strange terminology the physicists use.
==================== . .
Comments:
#
In the early decades after Einstein introduced his SRT, the standard practice
was to make a distinction between rest mass and relativistic mass, and many
teacher who learned from old texts and older professors have not yet broken
that habit.
Among scientists who deal with relativity in practical situations daily, no such distinction is made.
Mass is just mass; the mass of a particle increases as it is
accelerated, and there is no need to distinguish between
the rest mass and the total mass.
Nice avatar, fellow Socratic guy.
Philip J
#
Your question is right in all earnestness. Although Physicists do not say
they mean it. E = Mc^2 has two aspects. It means every mass,
M is equivalent to the energy, E = Mc^2. If the mass really disappears
it would have been converted into this much energy. And if part of this
mass is disappearing then the same part must have been converted in energy.
Also if there is increase/decrease of energy due to motion or due to so called
potential energy due to elastic or any other forces, then there will be
proportionate increase in mass of the particle.
#
==================== . .
Why physicists never say: ‘ potential mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?
/ My opinion./
In Classic physics there is ‘ potential energy’ and
there is ‘ kinetic energy’.
And „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of
Energy/ Mass" connects them together.
In Quantum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a static factor.
I think that there is problem here.
Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
there is active / kinetic energy E=hf.
But how „The Law of Conservation and Transformation of Energy/ Mass"
can unite them together nobody explains.
In other words:
Dont know how to explain transforms the potenial
mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinetic energy E=hf
the physicsts began to use new terminology and new words.
================== . .
Socratus.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab...Display&id=1372
===================== . .
[Moderator: Cut and pasted from a variety of preexisting sources. See other post for full explanation of suspension.]
QUOTE (magpies+Oct 1 2009, 09:26 AM)
Have fun is the rule I propose for this thread. Not that I believe in rules.
I 'm breaking all the rules cause I have a far out alternative view of this formula, based on:
Electron Fields (8) and Nucleus (Triksel-ion)
It's all about rotation and centripetal force generating energy fields, the electron fields, volumes or shells (8) are generated by the nucleus (Triksel-ion). Mass is equal to surface (or volume), and linear "speed of light" is created by velocity.
Energy = Surface . Sines
Electron Spheres: 2 Sines (8) -> E=mc²
Nucleus: 3 Sines (T) -> E=mc³
For more fun please check the explanation on my blog:
http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com
I 'm breaking all the rules cause I have a far out alternative view of this formula, based on:
Electron Fields (8) and Nucleus (Triksel-ion)
It's all about rotation and centripetal force generating energy fields, the electron fields, volumes or shells (8) are generated by the nucleus (Triksel-ion). Mass is equal to surface (or volume), and linear "speed of light" is created by velocity.
Energy = Surface . Sines
Electron Spheres: 2 Sines (8) -> E=mc²
Nucleus: 3 Sines (T) -> E=mc³
For more fun please check the explanation on my blog:
http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com
QUOTE (Michel_sharp+Oct 7 2009, 02:17 PM)
I 'm breaking all the rules cause I have a far out alternative view of this formula, based on:
Electron Fields (8) and Nucleus (Triksel-ion)
It's all about rotation and centripetal force generating energy fields, the electron fields, volumes or shells (8) are generated by the nucleus (Triksel-ion). Mass is equal to surface (or volume), and linear "speed of light" is created by velocity.
Energy = Surface . Sines
Electron Spheres: 2 Sines (8) -> E=mc²
Nucleus: 3 Sines (T) -> E=mc³
For more fun please check the explanation on my blog:
http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com
So.....
You have a blog?
Electron Fields (8) and Nucleus (Triksel-ion)
It's all about rotation and centripetal force generating energy fields, the electron fields, volumes or shells (8) are generated by the nucleus (Triksel-ion). Mass is equal to surface (or volume), and linear "speed of light" is created by velocity.
Energy = Surface . Sines
Electron Spheres: 2 Sines (8) -> E=mc²
Nucleus: 3 Sines (T) -> E=mc³
For more fun please check the explanation on my blog:
http://800millionparticles.blogspot.com
So.....
You have a blog?
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Oct 7 2009, 03:27 PM)
So... You have a blog?
You know this vortex thing is seen as Crackpottery, but Helge Kragh 's book Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century tells us the real story; and the fact that this theory wasn't considered as fictional at the end of the 19ths century :
So Einstein must have been well aware of these theories, and that's probably why he alluded to "The juggler on the boat". I think as of then they have gone slightly in the wrong direction. And this topic was about breaking the rules of conformity.
User posted image: User posted image
Source Wiki Juggler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_juggling
Now please think for a second instead of woooing.
You know this vortex thing is seen as Crackpottery, but Helge Kragh 's book Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century tells us the real story; and the fact that this theory wasn't considered as fictional at the end of the 19ths century :
QUOTE
The most important of the nonelectromagnetic theories was the vortex atomic theory, originally suggested in 1867 by William Thomson (later, Lord Kelvin) and subsequently developed by a whole school of British mathematical physicists. According to this theory, the atoms were vortical modes of motion of a primitive, perfect fluid, usually identified with the ether. In his Adams Prize essay of 1882, young J. J. Thomson gave an elaborate account of the vortex theory and extended it to cover chemical problems, including affinity and dissociation. The theory was also applied to electromagnetism, gravitation, and optics and was an ambitious attempt to establish a unitary and continuous "theory of everything" based solely on the dynamics of the ether. As late as 1895, William Hicks gave an optimistic report on the state of art of the vortex atom at the annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS). Hicks's view of the goal of theoretical physics is worth quoting at some length:
While, on the one hand, the end of scientific investigation is the discovery of laws, on the other, science will have reached its highest goal when it shall have reduced ultimate laws to one or two, the necessity of which lies outside the sphere of our recognition. These ultimate laws—in the domain of physical science at least—will be the dynamical laws of the relations of matter to number, space, and time. The ultimate data will be number, matter, space, and time themselves. When these relations shall be known, all physical phenomena will be a branch of pure mathematics.
Source: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6683.html
While, on the one hand, the end of scientific investigation is the discovery of laws, on the other, science will have reached its highest goal when it shall have reduced ultimate laws to one or two, the necessity of which lies outside the sphere of our recognition. These ultimate laws—in the domain of physical science at least—will be the dynamical laws of the relations of matter to number, space, and time. The ultimate data will be number, matter, space, and time themselves. When these relations shall be known, all physical phenomena will be a branch of pure mathematics.
Source: http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6683.html
So Einstein must have been well aware of these theories, and that's probably why he alluded to "The juggler on the boat". I think as of then they have gone slightly in the wrong direction. And this topic was about breaking the rules of conformity.
User posted image: User posted image
Source Wiki Juggler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_juggling
Now please think for a second instead of woooing.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.