Einstein's E=MC^2, Famous Or Notorious?
Einstein said, E=MC^2.I don't trust this because i don't think energy has no direct relationship (proportionality) to light speed( a number/second), it doesn't even has direct relationship with light. Instead energy is directly proportional to mass, mass density , acceleration( because moving objects always consume energy, ex:earth consumes energy while rotating along its axis and orbit),time, and inversely proportional to the area taken by an object at rest or in motion. and oppositely proportional to energy loss(entropy)..So that way we could formulate real energy value finding method. Would you correct me if i made any mistake? Thanks.
Update:Please delete s in In Zardosz, above. Thanks.
Update 3:"Isn't the sun's light the source of all energy on Earth..." I don't know, i am asking. Dos the earth rotate, with out energy applied on it(in nature)? Does that rotation require sun light? if the sun the, the light source, get dim and produce 0 light, do we on.ly fined 0 energy?
"...trust that Africa exists.." no i don't think that way at least i saw it through the map. I want just to be reasonable.Because just units match,i don't say e-mc^2 correct.That is why i am asking for reasonable answer
Update 5:Please Help. It is this equation that specified any object could not be moved at light speed, because it consumes more energy hence more mass(infinite),just because of the equation!?but, we know energy consumption depends by machines design. And we don't sense(see) whether or not any object is moving at much much more than light speed, right now.Right? Thanks.
Comments
He think E= mv^2/2 just as all others.No one would correct him of course. Indeed he keep in mind very very strict culculations. Once they do not waist a lot time to jump to sell for every lier but have a habit ti strike in teeth at once.
You don't understand the role of c^2 in the equation. It is a units conversion and scaling factor. Physicists often choose units where c=1 in which case the equation reduces to e=m (with appropriate changes to the units of e and m). This is a much cleaner way of looking at the equation.
In Einsteins 4-dimensional space-time, the time dimension is multiplied by an invariant speed (c) to give it the same units as spatial dimensions. This makes the mathematics much simpler to deal with. Because of this, you will often see 'c' pop up in equations with no obvious physical role. Changing the units such that c=1 will really clarify most equations in relativity.
This doesn't mean that c has no real role since it does provide a scaling in the relationship between energy and matter. If the speed of light was greater than observed, there would be more energy in an equivalent mass, If lower, there would be less energy.
If you look at how a mass moves in space-time, you will find that it has momentum in the space directions AND momentum in the time direction. When considered in the rest frame of a particle, all the energy is associated with momentum in time - and the value of c scales the momentum.
I doubt you'll follow this, but....
dP = d(MV) = MdV + dM V = F dT
dM = 0; so
MdVC = F dTC = F dS
MC INT(dV)|0 to C = F IN(dS)|0 to S
MCC = FS = E
MC^2 = E
Mull this over and learn.
Isn't the sun's light the source of all energy on Earth - isn't light energy converted into matter by plants during photosynthesis - isn't light energy released during fission reactions converting matter to light etc etc.
So now you need to suggest an alternative equation - it may be possible that the factors you quote could be formulated and then equated to MC^2 - but for the moment you have to accept it as it seems to work - especially in the work on nuclear bombs ( which is presumably why you think that it is notorious)
Yet, it is true.
Many facts or properties in physics are actually NOT intuitive. They actually do not make sense to the human brain. That is because our brain evolved to deal with the aspects of the environment that affect our survival. Knowing that energy and matter are two forms of the same thing is not a concept that primate brains needed to comprehend.
This might help:
http://www.althinking.com/2011/10/28/e-mc2-derivin...
Whether you trust a science equation or not is your own personal choice. But your choice does not effect the fact E = mc^2 is verified in particle accelerators around the globe everyday. You might as well choose not to trust that Africa exists because you have never personally been there.
Notorious Mc
The c in E = Mc^2 is there because the equation is derived by Conservation of Momentum for a photon. So, c gets introduced as the speed of a photon. Nothing more.
EDIT:
Neb: http://www.adamauton.com/warp/emc2.html
It is a fluke that E = Mc^2 looks sort of like KE = 0.5 MV^2. The 2 equations are for different things.
Energy is the bricks
Matter is the building
Bricks and buildings are not the same thing, but they are related.
E = Mc^2 tells us how many bricks (units of energy) it takes to build a building (lump of matter) of a certain size (mass).
That nothing with mass can reach or exceed the speed of light comes from the Lorentz Transform for converting space-time between inertial frames of reference moving relative to each other. The Lorentz Transform tells us that space-time dilates (changes) to keep the speed of light constant for all observers regardless of their motion. Space-time dilates to 0 at c and becomes imaginary at velocities greater than c, thus any solution for velocity V = distance/time ===> V = d/t ===>at c it becomes V = 0/0 which is a nonsense solution.
Well good for you.