E=mc2 (what is the deal?)

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by g.owen, Feb 15, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. g.owen horseman with a banner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39
    E=mc2 (EDIT: added issue- Works both ways? Change ENERGY to MATTER?)

    Basic question. Bottom line what E=mc2 means and state how it matters.

    My primary interest is religion and art. But I have always liked science. I studied about the subject of my question in high school and college. Also, I have researched it on the internet. But my understanding of the subject has always seemed...incomplete.

    Please, no long, complicated answers. Keep it as simple as possible. Post, even if you feel the issue has been addressed. Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2007
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    e = mc squared means that matter can be converted into energy, and vice versa. This is the basic principle of relativity. The universe is not as we see it. Way down below the microscopic level, below even the scale of electrons and protons, it turns out that the difference between waves of energy (like light) and particles of matter (like atoms and the subatomic particles they're made of) is an illusion. Under the proper circumstances one can be converted into the other.

    How this is done cannot be explained in a SciForums posting. It takes a couple of years of university physics classes to explain it. I once read a 100-page book that consisted entirely of the calculation of this formula.

    Suffice it to say that matter can be converted into energy. This formula tells you how much energy. The e stands for the amount of energy, the m stands for the mass of the matter to be converted, and the c is the speed of light which is 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 km/sec.

    If you have one pound of matter and convert it entirely into energy, this equation says that you will end up with several billion kilowatt-hours of energy. I've used units that make sense to laymen because we all get bills from the electric company measured that way. Except our monthly consumption of electricity is only several thousand kilowatt hours, one millionth of this figure.

    Converting one pound of matter yields enough energy to supply an entire city for a month. In another familiar unit, it's also equal to one megaton of TNT, which is a nuclear bomb about 60 times larger than the nuclear fission bomb ("atomic bomb") we dropped on Hiroshima. It's much smaller than the nuclear fusion bombs ("hydrogen bombs") that several countries have in their arsenals today.

    That's a whole lot of energy to get out of a tiny amount of matter.

    How does this matter? It shows us how efficient nuclear power plants are. It does not take very much fuel to power a city.

    I have vastly oversimplified this and my math may be off by a factor of ten because I did it quickly. I'm sure ten other people will double-check it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ScottMana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    159
    This discovery is monumental to us. It is an advanced bit of data that will make it possible to handle and control power at level that can put us in much better spot. Notwithstanding war heads, it spells a solution to our power crisis and the ability to tame the wild universe around us by utilizing the power we are sitting on.

    In it's simplest form, it is the discovery that the universe is not so complex as we first thought and that we have a long road of future accomplishments ahead of us.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. g.owen horseman with a banner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39
    Thanks. It has been indicated that matter can be converted to energy. So, does the equation work both ways? Can energy be converted to matter?

    I know that their is proof that matter can be converted to energy (nuclear power/explosion). And I am guessing that their is scientific evidence that this equation is indeed accurate and that is among the things studied when you go through those years of study in university physics.
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Yes, you can convert energy into matter. If you smash small particles together at very high speeds, when they collide they can produce new particles - the result of the kinetic energy of the particles being converted into matter.

    Also, I'm not sure that nuclear weapons are the best example of converting matter into energy, since in nuclear explosion you still have the same number of elementary particles before and after the explosion - you're just releasing nuclear binding energy, which has a very small mass associated with it.
     
  9. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    gowen: look up pair production and annihilation.
     
  10. g.owen horseman with a banner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39
    Ok. I looked up pair production and annihilation. Most of the stuff I read (or scanned) was over my head. But I did read that on a subatomic level, there is little difference between matter and energy (the universe is made up of only those two things – matter and energy…right?). And as indicated, matter can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to matter.

    If that is so, is it theoretically possible for a person (made of matter and energy) to be converted to energy, and then back to matter again? (Like on Star Trek - yeah, I know this is silly; but stay with me a little longer here).

    You might say that even though it is theoretically possible, it will never happen because the energy could never be reconstituted back into its previous form with the prior molecular arrangements that made it a person to begin with. And I do not think we would ever be technologically advanced enough to create a machine that could do this. But, what if the person were converted to energy with special properties, or systems? What if the energy itself were a life form with consciousness that…remembered the DNA of the person, as well as all the memories of the person. So the energy would reconstitute itself using the DNA as the program to go by, resulting in that same person existing again. During the reconstitution process, the consciousness that was part of the energy life form would be “downloaded” back into the brain as it is being reconstituted.

    Is this science, or science fiction? If it is impossible, explain to me why not from a scientific perspective. And if this annoys you, I am sorry. I can't help it. This is the kind of things that I think about.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    The trick is to "convert" your input into data. Then you can use that data to rebuild the input, whether it's a block of steel or a person or wave of light.

    You render the person into a holographic image, complete with the state of all the electrons that are our synaptic functions, and you've got a record of the person's thoughts, feelings and memories as well as his physical body. We already know how to compress data, so the record of the person outside of his brain would not take up much storage.

    That record could be stored permanently, or at least for a long time, on something like a CD. Whenever you wanted, you could use it to rebuild the person. I doubt that the rendering of the record would be destructive, so you could rebuild a new copy of the person while the original was still alive. Star Trek replicators are destructive as a literary mechanism to conveniently solve the problem of duplicating people rather than merely transporting them. In practice I doubt that they would work that way.

    I'm sure that recording a person as data will be easier and cheaper than converting him into energy. And not nearly as hard on the person.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    WHAT is most interesting...

    is when we speed up a proton. up to light speed... thats as fast as it will go..

    but... if we keep pumping energy in.. to try and make it go faster.... it doesnt go faster... but it gets heavier.

    like layers of mass are added on...

    mysterious stuff... fun eh.?

    -MT
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2007
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    it doesn't mean anything as far as religion and art is concerned.
     
  14. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    Energy in = the Mass x cxc... c= speed of light.

    its a derived formula.... why its C squared.... is the big question.

    -MT
     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    It's science fiction. I say this because I understand what energy is and what matter is.
     
  16. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Farsight:

    Care to give us your rejection of E=MC2?

    I mean, we quite litterally have seen it in action. We've produced and annihilated matter from energy and back to energy.
     
  17. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    It's just a conversion factor that's necessary because of the units that we use for mass and energy. In E=mc2 the energy is in units of joules, where 1 joule= 1 kg m^2/sec^2 and "m" mass is in kg. So if you want to equate mass and energy, and you are using a velocity that is expressed in terms of m/sec, you will have to square it in order for the units to properly convert. If you wanted to use some units other than joules for energy and kg for mass, you would need something other than C^2.
     
  18. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    It doesn't matter whether you use the British system, MKS or cgs. Or furlongs and stones, if that system even has a unit of energy.

    The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant, like the charge of one electron or the vibration frequency of a cesium atom, and its status as a limiting factor underlies the entire theory of relativity. When you convert any amount of mass into energy, the ratio of the ending quantity to the starting quantity is a simple function of the speed of light. This is what is called "elegance" in a formula and it makes the theory of relativity stand out in the deceptive simplicity of its expression.

    If you measure the mass of matter you're about to blow up in pounds, then you have to measure the speed of light in feet per second and you probably get energy measured in BTUs.

    e=mc^2 no matter how you measure it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2007
  19. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    YES.... so c^2 is either just about right, and was used conviently.

    or it expresses a deeper relationship regarding the depth and body of nucleon mass...

    i would attempt to express it... but people get upset when i spout my theories.

    -MT
     
  20. Mosheh Thezion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,650
    OK I CANT STOP MYSELF..

    example... one proton.

    it has mass.... M... as in the E= MC^2....

    the c... represents the stored potential energy, which is released, would accelorate that mass outward in all directions at light speed.

    i.e... if it vollentarily exploded...

    the amount of energy stored per unit mass is that which would equal explosion at photon speed. in all direction... c^2... 4D expansion. IF IT EXPLODED AS PHOTONS.

    so the energy... is equal to the stored potential holding that amount of photons.... rolled up. and tightly held without exploding.

    E... energy in joules.... =equals... the c^2... velocity that all photons always have.... must have... and the mass...M.... which is the amount of rolled up photons....

    we measure it in pounds... Kg... grams.... mass... the amount of potential photon energy stored within matter.


    its not a convient coincidense... it is reality.

    but thats just my view... dont get mad.

    -MT
     
  21. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    It is a formula that essentially (I think) gives the space needed for a amount of mass and the potential space needed (which do not need to be used though) for the speed of that mass, and it shows also that the energy expressed in photons travel at the speed of light (which space is allready given for each photon in the mass).

    Mass is essentially energy, and the minimum amount of mass is a photon, which travels the speed of light, so there we have e=m*c (each minimum of mass times the speed of light of the photon. Then we have the potential speed of that mass, so if everything were travelling at the maximum speed (c), then we have, for each m*c a potential speed of light, so the final formula must be e=m*c^2.

    Can be expressed like this:

    The total amount of energy is the speed of the photon in every part of the mass and the potential speed that the mass itself can possibly travel.

    Mass itself is consisted of photons, so if the mass travels at the speed of light that the photons travel, the energy within that mass becomes infinite as it cannot break the equation.
     
  22. g.owen horseman with a banner Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    39

    I did. And it seems that I read that we believe that matter and energy are alike on a subatomic level.

    You later said:
    "It's science fiction. I say this because I understand what energy is and what matter is."

    Are you saying that energy and matter are NOT the same on a subatomic level? It would seem that they have to be for the equation to be valid.
     
  23. ladyhawk Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    73
    I would agree with gowen. Matter and energy are the same subatomically. My questions is why then so many different manifestaions of the same thing? What and how is it decided (for lack of a better word) a tree is a tree, people are people etc? And, IF it is the same, could we manipulate the result?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page