FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > Space and Time

Greetings!

Space and Time Discussions on space, time, relativity, physics, and the nature of the universe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2009, 02:28 PM
New Science New Science is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 615
E = mc^2

I have detected a lack of credibility in this formula and so I decided to do a dimensional analysis of it.

E? Well, the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%.

So with this concept, we go to the next step and that is mass? So why did he include mass? Light has no mass.
And he did include c^2 in his formula. So his mc^2 must have applied to the deBroglie matter waves?
Well, it just happens that the c^2 can apply to the standing waves of the hydrogen atom, since they radiate in a flat pi pattern. But unfortunately, these standing waves do not radiate any energy.

So in conclusion then, Einsteins formula is useless.

NS
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 05-17-2009, 04:53 PM
wu_wang's Avatar
wu_wang wu_wang is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 547
Einsteinís formula would include the defined thing within the definition, because mass has to be taken anyhow like energy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-18-2009, 02:18 AM
imagine imagine is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,235
light = mass

comparison = uncertainty (to make a comparison, e.g. to compare two movies, requires a category (an uncertainty about which movie is which!) to make the comparison (like: "what location were the movies filmed at (requires the possibility of at least two locations!)(an "uncertainty principle")

To differentiate "light" from "mass"; you need to differentiate "comparison" from "uncertainty", so you need something definite "in the either"; i.e. at least 3 locations the (2) movies could have been filmed at (this idea is called "space in time" or "Einstein Relativity", as the "at least 3 locations per 2 movies" gives "a floating fixed coupling, or "2 out of 3"!)

This "something definite in the "either" is (objective) "alternatives", i.e. "energy" (allows things to go from "A" to "B"- each movie can have its own location, and still there is room for other possible locations. The movies are not "inertial", one may say ("Vibrating", or "constantly in 2 places at once...)

To differentiate this concept "energy", from the concept "light" and the concept "mass"; requires a third, no 4th , wait,

how can - you would need a 3rd movie? Or a constant OVERLAP of the 2 existing movies: "space matter" (or "quantum disturbance")(imaginary 4 locations! A "state vector" or a general idea which group of (2 or more?) locations the 2 movies could have been filmed at).

A square.

The "speed of light" (the stillness of comparison!)

To differentiate this "speed of light" from "square" (from "squaring") would require "space matter quantised and/or relative...?) ...

matter waves?

Energy represented as a form of matter?

Matter continuously formed into groups (so having alternative combinations)?

If want to depict energy as a form of matter differentiated from this; then need

Einstein's equation: e = mc squared

a local limit on matter-waves

"freeze-dried matter"?

chalk?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-18-2009, 03:46 PM
New Science New Science is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_wang View Post
Einsteinís formula would include the defined thing within the definition, because mass has to be taken anyhow like energy.
I just recalled that I left out a very important point to add to what I said above.

And that is that when you use 'c' in any energy formula,
you have to include the 'frequency' because light energy varies with frequency.
This is a very important ommision that Einstein left out.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-18-2009, 05:24 PM
wu_wang's Avatar
wu_wang wu_wang is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 547
In my opinion, light frequency in the void is even. Surely this is the interpretation of the formula.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-19-2009, 06:02 PM
New Science New Science is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_wang View Post
In my opinion, light frequency in the void is even. Surely this is the interpretation of the formula.
No. the light remains as radiated .
We see the red light and the blue light and both have different energy levels.

Familiarize yourself with the Bohr Model of the Hydrogen Atom.

NS
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-19-2009, 08:01 PM
wu_wang's Avatar
wu_wang wu_wang is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Science View Post
No. the light remains as radiated .
We see the red light and the blue light and both have different energy levels.

Familiarize yourself with the Bohr Model of the Hydrogen Atom.

NS
Anyway I think that in the formula the certainty of the speed of the light is what counts and not its frequencies; these would not determine the light-speed. The energy depended only on the variation of the mass.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-19-2009, 10:22 PM
wu_wang's Avatar
wu_wang wu_wang is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 547
For me, mass which is finally translatable as weight is not inertial mass at all. The Einsteinian formula in my opinion must be seen as a vicious circle because somewhere must have originated the physical manifestation of an incipient mass and this one cannot be found but in the concept of matter, inertial by nature because energy, indefinable in itself, would lack some practical value without those concepts of mass or weight.

Of course the problem for me is only philosophical.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-20-2009, 02:35 AM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Science View Post
... the vast majority of energy in the universe is the light energy radiated by the stars that can accouint for about 95%. ...
Are you certain of this? Do you have a source for this claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Science View Post
... Einsteins formula is useless.
Mass and energy are equivalent properties of matter, not "things" in and of themselves. If you read Einstein's equation with E as the max amount of observable energy which is associated with a quantity of matter of a given mass, m, perhaps it will make more sense to you.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-20-2009, 03:21 PM
New Science New Science is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by wu_wang View Post
Anyway I think that in the formula the certainty of the speed of the light is what counts and not its frequencies; these would not determine the light-speed. The energy depended only on the variation of the mass.
What mass? Photons have no mass.
Study thr Bohr planetary model of the HA.

The radiated photons are created at different orbital transitions of the electrons. These different levels give the electrons variable speeds that determine the strengths of the Magnetic Forces that results in the different energy levels.

That is the way I understand it.

NS
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-20-2009, 03:27 PM
New Science New Science is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobbo View Post
Are you certain of this? Do you have a source for this claim?



Mass and energy are equivalent properties of matter, not "things" in and of themselves. If you read Einstein's equation with E as the max amount of observable energy which is associated with a quantity of matter of a given mass, m, perhaps it will make more sense to you.
Mass has nothing to do with energy. It is the FORCES that create all the energies.

NS
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-20-2009, 04:13 PM
wu_wang's Avatar
wu_wang wu_wang is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 547
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Science View Post
What mass? Photons have no mass.
Study thr Bohr planetary model of the HA.

The radiated photons are created at different orbital transitions of the electrons. These different levels give the electrons variable speeds that determine the strengths of the Magnetic Forces that results in the different energy levels.

That is the way I understand it.

NS
The understanding problem roots perhaps in not considering that the Energy referred in the formula of Einstein is kinetic energy that would be based on a static energy (supposedly) represented by mass. The application of the formula at atomic levels in my concept would not be determinable and in this respect you would be right when considering it is useless in radiation levels.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-20-2009, 04:19 PM
wu_wang's Avatar
wu_wang wu_wang is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 547
NS: "Mass has nothing to do with energy. It is the FORCES that create all the energies".

Based on what can you measure such forces or energies?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-20-2009, 09:06 PM
Darkenlighten's Avatar
Darkenlighten Darkenlighten is offline
Almighty Nothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: US ohio
Posts: 419
Send a message via AIM to Darkenlighten
So, no.

Ugh how many times do you guys have to bring this up. For one that is specifically REST energy of a particle WITH mass (otherwise E = γmc^2) We know and have derived the Energy of a photon as E=hν where ν is the frequency so ν = c/λ.

Just like you can derive the Energy of something moving as 1/2(mv^2) it depends on how you want to define and relate that energy and in respect to what.

yo!
__________________
That which does not exists, lets us imagine what could have...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-21-2009, 02:25 AM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Science View Post
... Photons have no mass. ...
Of course not. Photons are not matter. In fact a photon is not a separate identifiable "thing" at all. A photon is defined as a quantity of EMR.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
In the formula E = MC^2 what does C^2 mean eiselg Space and Time 87 10-08-2007 09:46 PM
So you think you're not a robot? TruthInArt Religion 23 03-03-2006 11:14 AM
Why E=mc^2 Kris Space and Time 96 02-12-2006 06:51 AM
E=mc2. Can someone explain in laymens terms? StBean Space and Time 42 02-03-2006 12:21 AM
Energy *Yawn*...God? Space and Time 16 11-09-2005 02:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network