Anymore examples? Can anyone use e=mc2 in a hypatheical sitution to get a better understand of this forumula?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Trying to understand E=mc2 here !!!!!!!
- Thread starter worship4ever
- Start date
Yes, the most simple example is beta decay. Simply put beta decay is when a neutron decays into an electron and a proton (and a neutrino also, but a neutrino is so light we can safely ignore it)
The mass of a neutron is about 1.6750 x 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
The mass of an electron plus the mass of a proton is about 1.6735 x 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
Clearly when beta decay occurs we apparently lose about 1.5 x 10[sup]-30[/sup] kg of mass (which is about '1 and a half electrons'). This mass turns into the kinetic enrgy of the proton and the electron and we cna work out how much by using E = mc[sup]2[/sup] i.e E = 1.5 x 10[sup]-30[/sup] x (3 x 10[sup]8[/sup])[sup]2[/sup] = 1.3 x 10[sup]-13[/sup] J.
The mass of a neutron is about 1.6750 x 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
The mass of an electron plus the mass of a proton is about 1.6735 x 10[sup]-27[/sup] kg
Clearly when beta decay occurs we apparently lose about 1.5 x 10[sup]-30[/sup] kg of mass (which is about '1 and a half electrons'). This mass turns into the kinetic enrgy of the proton and the electron and we cna work out how much by using E = mc[sup]2[/sup] i.e E = 1.5 x 10[sup]-30[/sup] x (3 x 10[sup]8[/sup])[sup]2[/sup] = 1.3 x 10[sup]-13[/sup] J.
Upvote
0
A
Angel of God
Guest
It's like...if a mass becomes light..... 
mc^2 is equal to common mv^2/2 x 2;
the difference(2) can be(?).....
mc^2 is equal to common mv^2/2 x 2;
the difference(2) can be(?).....
Upvote
0
A
Angel of God
Guest
worship4ever said:
It's not very easy........
Surely a mass becomes energy.........
Upvote
0
quantumspirit
evangelical humanist
It sounds to me like you are trying to understand special relativity. The equations for dilation of time, contraction of space, and multiplication of mass through relative velocity, can all be traced back to the Pythagorean Theorem.worship4ever said:
Upvote
0
Illuminatus
Draft the chickenhawks
This isn't quite correct. Time does not flow smoothly. It's actually stopping and starting all the time. (Pardon the pun.)Magisterium said:
Upvote
0
Kal'thzar
Active Member
I would also like to throw my puzzeled expression onto how time stops and stars. Ain't time a human concept? Sure its in equations like D=VT (distance equals velocity * time) but thats an equation predicting a pattern. You can't have negative time (although in some mathmatical models you need negative time for the model to work within the boundaries of itself).
If time was stopping and starting wouldn't that mean that certain areas of the Universe were younger/older than others? I would have assumed it would be a constant...?
If time was stopping and starting wouldn't that mean that certain areas of the Universe were younger/older than others? I would have assumed it would be a constant...?
Upvote
0
Kal'thzar
Active Member
I'm not so sure, I think its in a different catagory. Space you can quantify (unless you mean outer space, which just means an absence of stuff in which case...i don't really see your point :S). You can only measure a change in time, you can keep splitting time down into smaller fractions and you will never reach a 'base' unit. Or if you beleive time is continuos then...urrr? (any ideas, i'm drawing a blank and getting distracted). You cannot go back in time you cannot change time. (observe yes, change, i don't thinks so) whilst with a space (area) you can change its area etc.
Of course if you meant space as the empty thing i just ranted. But if that is the case i don't see the connection/point.
Of course if you meant space as the empty thing i just ranted
. But if that is the case i don't see the connection/point.
Upvote
0
The only difference between space and time is that it appears we can only travel in direction through the temporal dimension.
This is the same with space.
This is the same with space.
Upvote
0
michabo
reason, evidence
Please re-read the earlier part of this thread. The question has been answered in different ways already. It would help if you say exactly what the problem with these answers are so that we don't just repeat ourselves.Kal'thzar said:right, but what does this have to do with time stopping and starting?
However...
Your questions have been asked for thousands of years, and your answers are actually the answers that were given up until Newton. He introduced the concept of "absolute space", against which all motion could be measured. This allowed him to explain why water in a spinning bucket (or kids in the spinning disc amusement park ride) would be drawn to the edges even though, from the water's perspective, the bucket was not moving.
Many people were uncomfortable with this notion, in part because there was no way to detect or measure this space. Later, Faraday (?) discovered that his equations showed that the speed of light was a speed without a baseline. Sort of like saying that your house is seven kilometres north, but without saying north of what. This was thought to be relative to Newton's absolute space, which because the basis for the luminiferous ether, which Michaelson and Morely showed didn't exist.
Things were uncomfortable until Einstein showed us something astonishing: that the speed of light was a constant, and all observers would measure the same speed. That is, if I was on a plane moving at 100,000 km/h and I turned on the headlights, I would see them leaving my plane at 3*10^8 m/s, and observers on the ground would see them traveling at the same speed. Normally you'd think they should be leaving at 3*10^8m/s + 100,000 km/h, just like everything else, but this isn't the case!
It's actually a shocking conclusion, and has many disturbing implications. For a start, picture an astronaut in a ship traveling at 0.9c who flicks on a light. Our intuition would say that the light leaving this light would be going 1.9c as measured from our perspective, but we see the light going at 1c, just like everything else. But the astronaut also sees the light going at 1c. The way these two contradictory observations can happen is if time varies with speed.
And, as Dragar hinted, our spacial dimensions also vary with speed.
(And, to make matters more fun, Einstein later added some additional complications to handle gravity, which actually warps both space and time. In cases where there is no gravity or acceleration, general relativity reduces to special relativity.)
If you're interested, you can read up on this in any number of physics books. I'm reading Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" right now which is a good introductory book. His book "The Elegant Universe" is excellent, but assumes a greater knowledge of math and physics.
Upvote
0
Kal'thzar
Active Member
My problem was that this
(time)
You yourself said
The unfortunate thing is i do know what you just wrote. I suppose i just wasn't articulating myself or something....
Ok urrmmm *must forumlate thoughts*. For time to STOP, wouldn't something need to either have mass and be traveling at the speed of light or some such similar impossibility? (oh and even if that was the case, would time not just stop for that mass, and to everyone else that mass would blink out of the universe ?!?)
(time)
suggested to me that everything (i.e. universe) was stopping and starting, not just from a perception
You yourself said
so this is me kinda =
The unfortunate thing is i do know what you just wrote. I suppose i just wasn't articulating myself or something....
Ok urrmmm *must forumlate thoughts*. For time to STOP, wouldn't something need to either have mass and be traveling at the speed of light or some such similar impossibility? (oh and even if that was the case, would time not just stop for that mass, and to everyone else that mass would blink out of the universe ?!?)
Upvote
0
michabo
reason, evidence
Yeah, well, that person was likely using a 16th century philosopher's view of time. It is not true.Kal'thzar said:
Mass is not important. Photons don't have mass and because they are traveling through space at the speed of light, they are not traveling through time at all.
Upvote
0
michabo
reason, evidence
No. The point is that time is relative to velocity, so anything which moves at the speed of light will not travel through time. But just because one thing is not moving through time does not mean the whole universe stops. And as for a mass being accelerated to c, it can not happen so it makes little sense to talk about its consequences. Even still, I don't know of anything which would stop time for the universe as a whole, unless the whole universe was eaten by a black hole.Kal'thzar said:
Upvote
0
No you wouldn't. I addressed this on the thread or so below this one. Mass does not increase as you go faster. This is a common misconception of relativity.Kal'thzar said:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
