The Most Famous Equation of All Time is Flawed (E=MC^2)

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
POST REMOVED BY STAFF.

So explain it to me. I don't care what your source says.

I care what YOU say. If YOU read the source, YOU should be able to explain what YOUR source says.

Explain to me how an atomic clock works.

How does it measure time?


You know what? You don't even have to tell me how it measures time.

Just explain to me what "resonating frequencies of atoms" means.

Hint: "vibration", i.e. "movement"

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: wiredcerebellum
Ah please educate yourself a bit about physics before you make more of these threads.

E=mc² is only valid for NON moving objects. Photons move and they do have momentum. The correct formula for you to use in this case involves momentum p.

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Please educate yourself a bit about physics and math before you make more of these threads. It isn't that hard to understand.

Isn’t every particle in fact moving?

a reply to: ARM1986

Do you understand the term "relative"?

Spacetime
Here is the current physics definition of spacetime:
“In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.”

So, what is “spacetime?” Spacetime consists of two parts, space and time, which merge together to form a 4-dimensional structure called spacetime (don’t forget a 3-dimensional being could never perceive a 4-dimensional structure). But wait, if space is literally the absence of matter (has zero physical properties) and time also has no physical properties either, how can the two “fuse” together to form a 4-dimensional structure that can bend and ripple like a physical fabric?



Two constructs (space and time) that do not have any physical pieces of matter associated with them could never fuse together to form a 4-dimensional structure because there is nothing to fuse with. Each of these is made of absolutely nothing. Moreover, how can the fusing of space and time (which have no physical properties) produce something like gravity which exerts its effects solely on physical objects made of matter? It just does not make sense. So gravity apparently emanates from two things that are made of absolutely nothing, space and time.

a reply to: wiredcerebellum

Time, is an illusion. Lunchtime, doubly so.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Hear ya on the eye twitching!!
:up :
normally I suffer with Resting (rhymes with witch) Face. Until someone has ignored all information on a topic uses every logical fallacy causing my entire face to lock up in clenched homicidal mom-face.

Seeing where this thread went giving the OP the benefit of the doubt on my part may have been rash.
The last 5yrs or so, anyone even thinking about science anything still shocks me.
The Tic-Tockers are just that rampant.

a reply to: Caver78
It's the passiveness coming from TV and watching videos on smartphones all the time, maybe also lack of parenting. I think deep down we all have the craving to research, develop etc. Making tools. That is how we got so far. If it isn't killed by apathy.

Science can be so much fun! There are many experiments I did with my daughter, so she can experience science with her own eyes. It is like magic for them until they get to know what happens.

From basic electrical circuits, electrolysis, catching the H², making it go bang, discovering where the salt in the water went and how to get it back. Yesterday she built a tin can telephone on her own and brought it to me. It doesn't work real good because it goes around two corners meaning the string vibrations have a hard time getting through. I can hardly walk currently so she built that for me. So cute!

She is eager to figure out how to solve this, I am very curious what she will come up with. I hope she never looses that light in her eyes to discover new things.

It's sad to see so many kids with their heads down the smartphone.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: rickymouse
Have you heard about Newtons third law of emotions?

For every male action, there is a female overreaction.

originally posted by: wiredcerebellum
“The Greatest Equation of All Time”

Take a quick google for the most popular equation ever created. It will surely be Einstein’s E=MC^2.

This formula has a fatal flaw, but first let’s simplify this formula, which is the foundation of spacetime and is based off the speed of light, or the speed of a photon.

Energy = Mass * Speed of a Photon^2

Now, this formula is able to calculate the energy of literally every particle in the known Universe. All you have to do is plug in the mass of the particle or object. But do you know the one particle in the Universe this formula produces incorrect results for? A photon. If you plug in the mass of a photon to this equation (zero), then the formula will tell you that a photon has zero energy, which is not true. One photon of visible light contains about 10-19 Joules (not much, but it still has energy).

Current day physicists claim that there is an extra formula you must use to get the equation to work with photons but let me explain something people. If the most famous formula of all time can calculate the energy of every particle in the known universe EXCEPT photons, and the formula is based off the properties of photons, then something is terribly wrong with the formula, and it should not be dubbed the greatest of all time. It’s as simple as that.

A lot of that is correct, but I prefer the way I explained it in the thread I made about that topic, though admittedly I'm biased to prefer my own explanation.

Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?
The title of the thread is sort of a trick question called a false dichotomy that's supposed to encourage people to think, and realize that things are not always so simple as black or white, right or wrong.

In some respects it is the most famous "wrong" formula, but wrong is in scare quotes, because it's actually a simplified version of the correct formula as you yourself implied when you talked about the other formula. I don't like that you failed to say what the other, more correct formula is, but others have already mentioned it, and it's explained in my thread.

Some people might be surprised to learn that there is zero controversy among physicists about E=mc² being the "wrong" equation, but this is actually a good example of how in many, many, many cases, when we see science explained to laypeople, it's often "wrong" in similar ways, because the more correct ways are too complicated to communicate in a brief fashion that people not steeped in the subject can actually digest.

Watching science shows on the Discovery Channel, I often see scientists simplifying topics for their audience, and often within an hour show I would see them say four or five things that I know that they know are "wrong" in ways similar to the way E=mc² is wrong. They simply cannot give the full "right" explanation because they cannot assume the laypeople in the audience have the background to understand the full, correct explanation, and even if they did, the time constraints don't permit that, and many people would find all the techical aspects rather boring and the show would not be entertaining.

So consumers of mainstream popular science articles everywhere should beware that a lot of the popular science they watch or read is miscommunicated in some way. If you want to know the truth, it might help to have a good STEM education, then you can find the scientific paper the scientists talk about on arxiv.org, and read the paper for yourself, if you are able, thus bypassing the miscommunication by science writers who are not scientists, and who don't fully understand the science.

If you major in physics like I did, you can even find professors in your junior and senior year explaining that the things they taught you in your freshman and sophomore years were wrong in some way, because at that time the students don't yet have the mathematical background to understand the full correct explanation with all the complicated math. One example was being taught at first that photons have no mass, then later the professors explained they probably can't prove the mass of a photon is exactly zero, they just teach that to freshman because they don't want to have to deal with the additional complexity at that point in the education. They can prove that if the photon's mass is not zero, it has to be less than a very, very tiny amount, that changes from time to time with additional experiments to constrain it.

Anyway, Don Lincoln of Fermilab has a good video explaining why E=mc² is "wrong", and I also like his explanation better than yours, and even better than mine! When I made my E=mc² in 2014, Lincoln's video didn't exist yet or I might have used it in the OP, but I added in a post to my thread in 2018 because his explanation is so good.



Einstein tried to be tactful when talking about Newton's physics which appeared to be correct for centuries, when he said it is correct, "in the limited case" (meaning non-relativistic speeds etc), instead of saying it's "wrong". I think the same can be said about E=mc², that it's correct "in the limited case" where the object is at rest or has no momentum (which as you say doesn't apply to a photon). It's certainly not the correct equation outside of the limited case as both your thread and my thread tried to explain, but I think your explanations could use more finesse.