Pondering Enstien's theory E=mc^

I've been pondering maybe the correct equation to Einstein's theory is SE=Mcsq'd. For mass x speed of light = solar energy and mass x speed (gravit) = energy which proper equation should be E=Mgsq'd.

Any input folks?

I believe that E=MC^2
is focusing in on Kinetic Energy.

Here is the full formula,
not it's "reduced to simplest terms" format.



with v the velocity, m0 the rest mass, and γ the Lorentz factor.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Right-on, Dave!

Glad you posted and pointed out that part of the equation.

Super cool

btw I ripped off the OP from one of LogiosHermes27 blogs.

reply to post by davidgrouchy


Correction.

Sorry, I can be so inarticulate at times.

It should've read, "Glad you posted the full equation and outlined the parts of the equation the way you did, very helpful."

reply to post by davidgrouchy


In fact, E = mc^2 is focusing on rest energy. The full mass-energy equivalence equation is:

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

where m is rest mass and p is momentum

reply to post by CLPrime


Now I'm confused again.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


You're welcome.

What's confused you?

reply to post by CLPrime


What it focuses on, rest or motion? I thought it was an equal balanced ying and yang relationship before I ran across my OP's source in pondering the question. That the equation did not focus on one nor the other... that each was equally relative to one another.

Remember I'm just a novice on this stuff, so I get easily confused in these subject areas.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Alrighty:

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

m is rest mass and p is momentum.
For an object at rest (p = 0), the right side of the equation disappears, and it becomes

E^2 = (mc^2)^2

which, simplified, is

E = mc^2

So, E = mc^2 only applies to an object that's not moving. That is, it's the non-kinetic half.

If, on the other hand, the object has no rest mass (like a photon), that means m = 0 and the left side of the equation disappears, leaving

E^2 = (pc)^2

which, simplified, is

E = pc

So, E = pc only applies to a massless moving object. That is, it's the massless kinetic half.
This is what predicts that photons have momentum and, therefore, the ability to exert pressure.

When a massive object is moving, the entire equation applies.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


a Yin/Yang interpretation of the extended formula CLPrime posted would be very appropriate.

however, it is ONLY the Yin (positive result of the square root of E) which is acknowledged as valid and useful. the Yang (negative result) is hidden away as a "meaningless" artifact of the math. I would be very curious to hear anyone's (clprime?) explanation of the negative result.


I, myself, am struck by the similarity of the simplified form (E=mc^2) to the formula giving the force of centripetal acceleration (a=rw^2) (centripetal acceleration equals the radius times the angular velocity squared). using this concept, energy is the acceleration necessary to maintain the integrity of the boundary of a particle which has a rotational velocity at the speed of light at a radius of r.

but probably that doesn't help to answer your question.

Originally posted by tgidkp

 

I would be very curious to hear anyone's (clprime?) explanation of the negative result.

What negative result would that be?

ETA: Nevermind. A couple re-reads of yours post later, I realized what you meant.

The negative result would, of course, involve negative rest mass and/or negative momentum. Of these two, only negative rest mass is meaningful.
The closest thing we have, currently, to a negative mass is the Casimir effect. Other than that, its properties are purely theoretical and mathematical.

reply to post by CLPrime


this is an ironic turning of the table, isn't it?

so often, I hear scientific dogmatists demanding proofs from the metaphysical mystical crowd. usually the mystics have none.

but here, we have a proof which could be legitimately used to describe all kinds of potentially mystical phenomena ....and the dogmatists dismiss it as "meaningless".


in other words, if the formula produces two results and one of them is regarded as useful and true, then SO MUST the other be. dismissing it because of its inherent implications is a real slap in the face for those of us that value the integrity of science.

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by LilDudeissocool

 

Alrighty:

E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2

m is rest mass and p is momentum.
For an object at rest (p = 0), the right side of the equation disappears, and it becomes

E^2 = (mc^2)^2

Zero time? 3D past and future become a solid? Meaning predetermination is true and chaos theory is therefore a bunch of bunk?

Originally posted by CLPrime
which, simplified, is

E = mc^2

So, E = mc^2 only applies to an object that's not moving. That is, it's the non-kinetic half.

That proves motion is time huh?

Originally posted by CLPrime
If, on the other hand, the object has no rest mass (like a photon), that means m = 0 and the left side of the equation disappears, leaving

E^2 = (pc)^2

which, simplified, is

E = pc

So, E = pc only applies to a massless moving object. That is, it's the massless kinetic half.
This is what predicts that photons have momentum and, therefore, the ability to exert pressure.

When a massive object is moving, the entire equation applies.

edit on 18-11-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)

That means the less footprint something has in this universe the faster it can move and sometimes even finds time escape velocity? No pun intended on your use of the word disappears mind you.


If I am correct on all my questions posed to you then I do believe I comprehend fully the equation's breakdown, and can return to my original comprehension of how the equation applies to our physical universe.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


The equation says nothing of time.

reply to post by tgidkp


Neither side - the positive or the negative - is disregarded as meaningless. In physics, though, only one side has ever been observed - the positive. But there are plenty of scientists out there searching for any hint of the existence of negative mass.

reply to post by tgidkp



Yeah and too I think since there are higher dimensional planes as there are parts of those planes that seem to overlap into our 3D Universe.

Diapering quarks and so forth.

It would be a strange world indeed compared to this one we live in if such phenomena was more apparent. Such you cut a board lengthwise and the top and back are being cut too with no visuals to connect anything that is happening except the side that is being cut. When you think of 3D in such terms then we realize that we actually only live in a two dimensional world. Only one other corresponding side to all three dimensions. take any of the three and the other two disappear from view. Within that understanding we actually only live inside one completed dimensional cub. This opens up the possibility that the next cub may have 9 planes, but is still a cub within the 9th dimension. From there beings living in that realm can then move in and out of ours affecting change in 3D without being seen by 3D creatures who see out whole universe past and future in one single frame by moving mosaic peaces around at will introducing additions or subtraction from total energy contained with this universe crating change otherwise everything is on a predetermined track. An unchangeable cause and effect sequence beginning with the Big Bang. Mystic or supernatural to me means something outside this universe is able to add and subtract from the total energy the Universe began with, the original total volume of energy this entire universe has at any given time if it is being changed by extra-dimensional beings. Something I think worth exploring anyway no matter how barking mad it sounds by some.

reply to post by CLPrime


Sure it does. You can't have motion without time and therefore time can't function without motion. It's part of the equation. It's right there in plain sight.

reply to post by CLPrime


and so also are they searching for negative entropy and the reversal of the arrow of time (cause/effect)? I think this would also follow from the negative solution, would it not?

I would be pleased to learn more if you happen to know any sources.

reply to post by LilDudeissocool


Time can't function without motion? That's obviously not the case. Time still functions in absolute zero, where there is no motion whatsoever. Motion affects the local rate of the passage of time, but that affect (time dilation) is the opposite of what you're saying - faster motion slows time.

reply to post by tgidkp


Entropy (and, consequently, the "direction" of time) is not connected with Energy-mass equivalence, so it doesn't follow from the negative solution of the equation. This single equation doesn't control every aspect of physics.

If you want some interesting reading as to the potential existence of negative mass, Jim's Negative Mass Page manages to be simultaneously fun and thought-provoking.