PDA

View Full Version : What is a famous E=Mc^2 ?


s0cratus
1st-February-2014, 01:11 PM
What is a famous E=Mc^2 ?
a) the energy E= Mc^2 is a "rest mass/energy"
b) the energy E= Mc^2 is responsible for inertial movement.
Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?
c) the energy E= Mc^2 can be very active and destroyed cities
like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
d) there are positive and negative (+/-) E=Mc^2.
What is a famous E=Mc^2 ? (!)
===..

Hawkeye
1st-February-2014, 01:28 PM
I am 76kg which equates to approximately 6.84 quintillion Joules.

I am not famous however...

Anktark
1st-February-2014, 02:06 PM
I just see it as a conversion ratio between mass and energy, followed by a conclusion that mass and energy is the same thing in different states.

I agree with both a and b options.

c - energy is always unstable from our point of view since we are bound to liquids and solids (flesh). Energy is not malicious by itself; energized mass starts moving and everything that happened after those atomic explosions was increase in entropy and mass dislocation.

d - I can't quite imagine negative energy. If we have a system, then energy/mass can leave it and we would register a negative. But the energy/mass didn't actually disappear, just changed it's coordinates. Negative energy would be something like negative speed- my mental faculties can't process that.

s0cratus
1st-February-2014, 05:58 PM
d -
I can't quite imagine negative energy.
If we have a system, then energy/mass can leave it and
we would register a negative. But the energy/mass
didn't actually disappear, just changed it's coordinates.
Negative energy would be something like negative
speed- my mental faculties can't process that.

In 1928 Dirac wrote his theory which showed :
a) in nature must exist electron with negative energy: - E=Mc^2
b) the hypothetical 'spin' is real process of electron's rotation.
==..

s0cratus
2nd-February-2014, 09:28 AM
To answer to the question *What is a famous E=Mc^2 ? *
one should analyze the derivation of this equation in the frameworks
of the SRT plus Dirac's equations plus QED plus
*The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass*
===.

Anktark
4th-February-2014, 01:35 AM
In 1928 Dirac wrote his theory which showed :
a) in nature must exist electron with negative energy: - E=Mc^2
b) the hypothetical 'spin' is real process of electron's rotation.
==..

I was aware about existence of positrons and antimatter. However, I imagine it as having a negative charge or just being a reflection of ordinary matter/different way to compose matter. If you add energy into a system made out of antimatter, there will be more energy in there. Or if you let electron and positron make a contact, they will annihilate each other and become 2 gamma quanta- energy changes it's aggregation state, but the amount remains the same.
Now when I said 'negative energy', I meant it being below zero. Like you would need to add energy into /whatever it would be called/ to reach energetic vacuum. And that is something I can't quite grasp.

Am I am making sense here? Or can I be sure I am an idiot?

s0cratus
6th-February-2014, 11:24 AM
I was aware about existence of positrons and antimatter.

a)
According to Dirac in the vacuum's holes- sea virtual particles exist
with negative energy; -E=Mc^2.
b)
According to QED in interaction with vacuum all electron's (E=h*f)
parameters become infinite: E= ∞ . That is impossible, because
it is forbidden by
* The Law of conservation and transformation of energy/ mass*

My suggestion.

Then in interaction with vacuum T=0K all electron's (E=h*f) parameters
changed into negative parameters and become * virtual positrons*
( E=Mc^2). These virtual positrons using the well-known
* * quantum tunneling jump- phenomena or
vacuum fluctuation / polarization / transformation*
can emerge as a real particle: E=h*f.
=====
Electron and positron are one and the same particle in different conditions.
==..

HAL9000
2nd-March-2014, 04:40 PM
E=mc^2 was a curious by-product from the study of the momentum of particles as they reach speeds near to that of light.

It seemed to be that a particle at rest still had some curious extra kinetic energy. This was a theoretical 'rest energy', which was then proven to be correct when pions were observed to decay into pure energy, where the measure of that energy was precisely, (pion mass)*c^2