|
The true meaning
#447498
12/16/14 19:23
12/16/14 19:23
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Hello I see that nobody is posting anymore here, it is a shame I ask a question Who can explain in plain words the true meaning of the world most famous equation E = mc^2 by Einstein It is not that simple as most people assume I wonder myself if I grasp it
Last edited by AlbertoT; 12/16/14 19:24.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447499
12/16/14 19:33
12/16/14 19:33
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
It means that mass and energy are closely related to each other (...or basically that mass is energy)
...so if you know the mass of an object, you can use the 'E = m * c²'-formula to calculate the energy that this object theoretically contains.
But I have't got a lot of knowledge about this. (I might even be wrong with all this, lol)
Last edited by Kartoffel; 12/16/14 19:36. Reason: ninja
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447525
12/18/14 18:05
12/18/14 18:05
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439 Red Dwarf
Michael_Schwarz
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
|
Yes, the faster you move, the heavier you get. The energy of motion turns into "m" your mass. This is why reaching lightspeed is practically "impossible" since the closer you are to lightspeed the heavier you become and thus in turn need a lot more energy to accelerate.
"Sometimes JCL reminds me of Notch, but more competent" ~ Kiyaku
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447527
12/18/14 19:45
12/18/14 19:45
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439 Red Dwarf
Michael_Schwarz
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
|
No, inertia is motion and motion is energy and energy is mass.
To get energy from a motionless object you have to extract the energy from it's mass, thus converting mass into energy. The matter is not annihilated, merely transformed.
It's the same principle as with energy and motors. The mechanical energy of a turbine is turned into electrical energy and the electrical energy is turned back into mechanical energy.
The same applies to energy (E), mass (m) and motion (c^2). Matter has mass except for a few (photons, gluons and gauge bosons) which in turn have to always move at the speed of light to make up for the lack of mass and thereby upholding the equation.
E=mc^2 accounts even for these exceptions (which Einstein didn't even know about at the time), which is why it's so important.
To answer your questions, yes mass is a property of matter. Matter has mass and volume and therefore is defined as matter. It's like asking of "trueness" is a property of a boolean: Yes it is, since a boolean is defined by having trueness and falseness. If it didn't have trueness (thus only having falseness) it would not be defined as a boolean anymore.
It's mass is a property of matter by definition, because if a "something" didn't have mass you couldn't define it as matter anymore. Same thing would work in reverse, if something had matter but no volume it wouldn't be matter either.
And as to expand on "The matter is not annihilated, merely transformed.": You have matter(mass + volume) of which you transform the mass into energy, and you are left with volume but no mass and since a "something" without both mass and volume is not matter anymore, the matter "ceases to exist" which can be misunderstood, but merely means that you have taken the mass away and what is left cannot be defined as matter anymore. It is not, in fact, annihilated.
Last edited by Michael_Schwarz; 12/18/14 19:50.
"Sometimes JCL reminds me of Notch, but more competent" ~ Kiyaku
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447529
12/18/14 20:43
12/18/14 20:43
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439 Red Dwarf
Michael_Schwarz
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
|
What drugs are you on? Also: Can I have some?
"Sometimes JCL reminds me of Notch, but more competent" ~ Kiyaku
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: Michael_Schwarz]
#447530
12/18/14 21:23
12/18/14 21:23
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
He didn't say anything about weight?
..also 'weight' is just an effect of the gravitational pull between physical objects caused by their mass.
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: Kartoffel]
#447531
12/18/14 23:20
12/18/14 23:20
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Actually he did not say anything which makes sense
Weight is the effect of.... nowadays we know that
If you asked the question : what is matter ? before Newton,people would answer , something like :
Its weight inside a volume
Weight was supposed to be a synonimous with matter , the weight of a body being , apparentely, a constant on the surface of the earth All other properties shape, color, hardness etc can change but weight can not Consequently weight was not supposed to be a property of matter rather the matter itself For the same reason after Newton but before Einstein mass became a syonimous with matter even though , strictly speaking, it should be only a property of matter namely its Inertia
Einstein discovered that even the mass of a body is variable , consequently you should drop the equivalence
matter == mass
Same as you did with
matter = weight
The logical conclusion is that equation does not entail matter annhilation Apparentely ;
you could lose mass without losing matter
Is above claim correct ?
The point is that even scientists speak of matter annihilation
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447537
12/19/14 07:25
12/19/14 07:25
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439 Red Dwarf
Michael_Schwarz
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
|
it's just a definition
matter = mass + space
same as
water = H² + O
if you take the O away or one of the H, then it's not "water" anymore, it doesn't cease to be, it just turned into something else.
"Sometimes JCL reminds me of Notch, but more competent" ~ Kiyaku
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: Michael_Schwarz]
#447538
12/19/14 07:48
12/19/14 07:48
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434 UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
pararealist
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
|
And as to expand on "The matter is not annihilated, merely transformed.": You have matter(mass + volume) of which you transform the mass into energy, and you are left with volume but no mass and since a "something" without both mass and volume is not matter anymore, the matter "ceases to exist" which can be misunderstood, but merely means that you have taken the mass away and what is left cannot be defined as matter anymore. It is not, in fact, annihilated.
There we go, transformation is the key. Nothing ever ceases to exist(die) it just transforms(evolves or deliberate changes turns it) into something else. This is the basis of all life i think.
A8.3x Commercial, AcknexWrapper and VS 2010 Express ○pararealist now.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: pararealist]
#447544
12/19/14 12:55
12/19/14 12:55
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439 Red Dwarf
Michael_Schwarz
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,439
Red Dwarf
|
Until you get pulled into a black hole. Weird shit happens when space and time fold in on themselves.
"Sometimes JCL reminds me of Notch, but more competent" ~ Kiyaku
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: pararealist]
#447552
12/19/14 18:33
12/19/14 18:33
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Nothing ever ceases to exist(die) it just transforms(evolves or deliberate changes turns it) into something else.
you fill a nuclear reactor with 100 kg Uranium After the reaction you have 99 kg mass The reactor delivers to the ambient the amount of energy E = 1 kg x c^2 Following your assumption something having 1 kg mass has been turned into energy But what ? The total number of proton,neutrons and electrons inside the reactor is still the same Not even one material particle get lost
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: Michael_Schwarz]
#447562
12/20/14 09:35
12/20/14 09:35
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,660 North America
Redeemer
Serious User
|
Serious User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,660
North America
|
Until you get pulled into a black hole. Weird shit happens when space and time fold in on themselves. I've read that some physicists doubt the existence of singularities on the grounds that every time a physics problem was "solved" with a possibility for infinity in the mix (as with infinite density), the original understanding was either determined wrong in a number of years or left dubiously inconclusive.
Last edited by Redeemer; 12/20/14 09:36.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: MasterQ32]
#447563
12/20/14 10:25
12/20/14 10:25
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
So as heat is enery, it can "carry" mass. Nope, heat does not carry mass Take a radiation, it is made of photons Photons have energy : e = hf Where h is the Planck constant and f is the frequency of the radiation Yet,their mass is null
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447582
12/20/14 18:18
12/20/14 18:18
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
heat does not transport mass but heat can create mass If a body absorbes heat then its mass increases Does it mean that heat can create matter ? If not How do you explain the claim " mass is measure of the amount of matter of a body "
Is such claim maybe false ? ( nope it is true ) Heat cannot create mass. If anything, it can be transformed into mass (if you mean this) but how should that be possible? If an object absorbs heat it's simply heating up by taking the heat from something else which can for example cause a change in volume, but that doesn't mean that the mass changes. Also, afaik mass is a property of matter, although I don't know if it's proportional to matter (if you double the matter the mass doubles aswell)
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447589
12/20/14 22:11
12/20/14 22:11
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
I don't see the connection between thermal vibration of molecules and an increment in mass.
Edit: and I dont't see how the kinectic energy of molecules should change the mass of an object.
sorry but I just don't get what you're trying to say.
Last edited by Kartoffel; 12/20/14 22:14.
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#447597
12/21/14 10:51
12/21/14 10:51
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210 Bavaria, Germany
Kartoffel
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,210
Bavaria, Germany
|
no. It says that mass and energy are equal but they're not the same.
For example, if an object has the mass m and the temperature T.
The energy of both together would be: E(T) (thermal energy) + E(m) (mass expressed as energy, which theoretically is true because of E = m * c²)
Heating up this object would cause an increase in thermal energy E(T) and thus the total amount of energy increases aswell. But it's not gonna change anything at it's mass.
Although I'm pretty sure that this statement is wrong: you could see mass as a different type of energy, like kinetic, thermal, electrostatic, etc. Just because the amount of one of these energies increases doesn't mean that the others increase aswell.
Last edited by Kartoffel; 12/21/14 11:04. Reason: typos everywhere
POTATO-MAN saves the day! - Random
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#448150
01/21/15 16:17
01/21/15 16:17
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434 UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
pararealist
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
|
Apparently Einstein could not finish the formula completely because the other two forces were not incorporated. The Strong and the Weak Forces need to be today incorporated with the Gravity and Electro-Magnetic forces.
A8.3x Commercial, AcknexWrapper and VS 2010 Express ○pararealist now.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: pararealist]
#448162
01/22/15 04:57
01/22/15 04:57
|
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 886
Random
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 886
|
Temperature isn't a single string or atom, it is a macroscopic phenomenon. If a stand alone string/atom moves into a higher energy state it must absorb photon, in order to reach a lower state it must discharge photon. That process does change the mass of an object. However, the differences are nuances, insignificant small. It would be funny if temperature would make a significant difference in mass and weight. - As soon as you lighten a match, your hand smashes to the ground, because it suddenly became t0o heavy-
Last edited by Random; 01/22/15 05:02.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: pararealist]
#448226
01/23/15 18:50
01/23/15 18:50
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
Apparently Einstein could not finish the formula completely because the other two forces were not incorporated. The Strong and the Weak Forces need to be today incorporated with the Gravity and Electro-Magnetic forces. The equation was complete from the very beginning It simply, so to speak, claims that the content of energy contributes to the mass of the body The higher the temperature the heavier the body Even though the weight difference is not measurable because of the huge coefficient c^2 A common misconception is that the equation, by itself, entails the existance of nuclear energy or even of "Matter annihilation" That's false
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#448284
01/27/15 05:46
01/27/15 05:46
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434 UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
pararealist
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 434
UK,Terra, SolarSystem, Milky W...
|
As i understand it with my consciousness somewhat limited by matter and innerstand it with my sub-conscious:
It's not just the body's energy content alone, but how this reacts with external forces, known or unknown, which will affect both the mass and the energy content of any body.
For years thought was that there was nothing at the beginning, but as we know, you only get nothing from nothing, so the something that exists is what we are calling dark matter and dark energy, which affects all energy and matter in this universe.
Therefore the attempt to calculate this effect by using and expanding on Einstein's conclusions, who himself was only expanding on that which went before him.
A8.3x Commercial, AcknexWrapper and VS 2010 Express ○pararealist now.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#453008
07/04/15 22:13
07/04/15 22:13
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 968
EpsiloN
User
|
User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 968
|
Part of the mass (Inertia) of a body depends on the amount of "Matter" and part on the amount of "Energy"
How much ist the contribution of "Energy" and how much is the contribution of "Matter" to the total "Mass" ?
The equation by itself does not provide any answer to such question Maby, thats because "Matter" IS "Energy". Matter doesnt contain energy, it IS energy. Without energy, matter doesnt exist... It has been proven that there is energy even in vacuum empty space...But no matter...It takes some more energy to have matter. So, the total mass depends on the energy. You know that, the more electrons you have, the more energy that element contains...And, heavier elements produce more energy in a nuclear-reactor...or when burning...or anything. Its not really production, its a release of that energy. So, when a body hits something and it stops, it transfers all that energy (or mass gained through "Inertia", which is more like the change in speed, not withstanding a change in speed) to the other object, because of the impact, and it contains a lot less energy...therefore, a lot less mass. I dont know if you're familiar with the formation of heavier elements, but its an interesting read... Through collision, upon the death of a star, two elements "join forces" (or Energy) and form a new element with a higher energy... So, from hydrogen, you get gold or even uranium...Thus, it gets heavier than hydrogen because of the energy. The light alone, or external forces giving energy to an atom arent enough to change its atomic weight, thats why you cant form new elements by shining a flash light on them...It needs a big collision with energy to join it. A static block of iron isnt without energy. Its just, that, the energy is motionless. Energy isnt expressed solely by motion... The equation just shows, that mass is energy. Or, more like, that mass is a fraction of the energy that is forming it, because it needs to be multiplied by the maximum speed possible (speed of light). By the way, stop thinking in meters per second or joules, these are just names and milestones for measurement. You cant define a starting or ending point for energy or for mass, because there are infinite possibilities beyond our measuring capabilities. An atom is just a bundle of energy particles, as shown by recent tests and theories. And atoms form mass. What forms the energy particles and why is the bigger question I hope this helps a little
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: AlbertoT]
#453069
07/06/15 21:05
07/06/15 21:05
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
this is what I understood when I studied such stuff at school In other words
Mass and energy are the two sides of the same coin
The point is that it does not seem to be the modern nterpretation of the equation
Take matter annihilation A proton and an anti proton turn into a radiation of pure energy The photons of the radiation have "momentum " but they dont have " mass " Im many books, even at university level, you can read that the mass of photons at rest is null while their dynamic mass is given by the momentum of the radiation divided by c Anyway strictly speaking such claim is false
Last edited by AlbertoT; 07/06/15 21:12.
|
|
|
Re: The true meaning
[Re: EpsiloN]
#453094
07/07/15 19:04
07/07/15 19:04
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
AlbertoT
OP
Serious User
|
OP
Serious User
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,245
|
"Matter" IS "Energy". Matter doesnt contain energy, it IS energy. Without energy, matter doesnt exist...
.... heavier elements produce more energy in a nuclear-reactor...or when burning...or anything. Its not really production, its a release of that energy.
In a nuclear reaction fission type the total number of protons , neutrons and electrons remains constant Despite a common belief there is no matter annihilation The system loses a fraction of the "binding energy " i.e of the energy which binds protons and neutrons together preventing the nucleus from exploding because of the repulsive electromagnetic force The Uranium inside the reactor loses aboput 1% mass because it loses a huge amount of energy mainly in form of heat Protons,electrons and in practice also neutrons are immortal, nobody has ever seen a proton or an electron dying If so it is not 100% true that matter is energy and energy is matter I think that to fully grasp the meaning of the equation you must go deeper in the quantum physiscs In other words even Einstein himself did not fully grasp the meaning of the equation Thw original Einstein's equation was dm = L/c^2 if a material body absorbs ( emits) the amount od energy L than its mass increases (decreases ) of dm Einstein did not claim that matter and energy are the same stuff It claimed that both energy and matter contributes to the the mass of the body where the term mass must be strictly understood as the "Inertia" of the body The equivalence mass = matter came from Newton Since mass was apparentely a constant then mass and matter were supposed to be the same stuff Same as weight and matter , before Newton Einstein explained that the Newtonian mass of the equation F = ma It seems to be a constant but it is not Thus you must drop the equivalence mass == matter In modern quantum physics however , as fa as I know , mass is actually matter but it is not....energy Energy is something different The interpretation of the equation is not that easy you must be really familiar with quantum phisics...I am not, not to that extent at least
Last edited by AlbertoT; 07/07/15 19:11.
|
|
|
|