0 registered members (),
1,397
guests, and 7
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|