|
E=mc² ??
Link |
by
on 2006-01-30 06:12:42 |
|
I dont get it... its just... even if we do the calculations is it really possible to use "all?" the energy of something... is it possible that we can reach the speed of light? if we can.. how? if we cant.. why? is time really going to stop or slow down when we move as fast the speed of light...? can we do that? |
|
Re: E=mc² ??
Link |
by
on 2006-01-30 10:47:35 |
|
E=mc2 is not the complete equation. it is a simplification designed to illustrate a point: mass and energy are indistinguishable and the same. It is possible to use "all" the energy of "something" if by "something" you mean certain particles. For example, the energy of a photon can be completely absorbed by an electron, which is then elevated to a higher energy state. The age old question: "can we reach the speed of light?" has been discussed elsewhere in the forum. As I do not wish to repeat myself, pelase do a search. Short answer: no, you cant go faster than light, sorry! thats the law. Now, at near-light speeds, my clock and your clock may not agree. This is ok, no need to panic. If you fly around at near-light speed, you may do this in a space ship. You will not feel time slow down, you will just see stars wizzing by and crap. Then, when you later arrive back at Earth, you will know that my clock will disagree with yours. So, you re-sync your clock and everyone is fine. Although, if you travel at high enough speeds for long enough time, you come back to find all your friends and family have grown old. It felt like a normal 10 minutes for you, and a normal 100 years for them. 
|
|
Re: E=mc² ??
Link |
by desertranger
on 2006-02-02 06:29:39 (edited 2006-02-02 11:18:25)
|
|
Short answer: no, you cant go faster than light, sorry! thats the law. I would never say that. According to the theory you are supposed to be able to reach 99,999% of light speed. That's the theory. The problem is theories are meant to be shot full of holes. Einstein, who like to hang in the JT National Park, is not the be all end all of phyics. Because he says we can't exceed the speed of light we blindly accept that as gospel. We don't know if we can exceed the speed of light because no one has put forth a new theory yet. It is theorized that if the unified field thepry could be brought together and practical applications made out of it we could have space travel, cheap electricity and a lot more.  |
|
Re: E=mc² ??
Link |
by
on 2006-02-02 11:36:24 (edited 2006-02-02 11:37:46)
|
|
theories are meant to be shot full of holes I would never say that! Theories are not "meant to be". In physics, a theory is a model of the way nature works which has been accepted because it survived peer review, and rigorous testing. Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, for example, is accepted as true but incomplete. There are questions we would like to ask SR, but cannot. For example, "what does it feel like to move faster than light?". Inside the context of SR, this question does not make sense. You suggest that I blindly accept [special relativity] as gospel. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I listened to hours and hours of lecture, complimented by more hours of physics homework, until i was satisfied that i understood the ins and outs of SR. I will share that, at first, i had a VERY grievous time letting go of ideas like "absolute space" and "absolute time". However, once i - once anyone - is exposed to the ideas proposed by Einstein so many years ago, several things become clear: there is no "proper" reference frame. information cannot propagate through space-time at "a speed faster than light". There is absolutely NO reason to believe that these two fundamental aspects of nature will be shown wrong in a future theory, and EVERY reason to accept them as TRUTH. Newton's theories were not wrong, for the speeds he was working with. Only on TV do you hear people say "Newton was proved wrong". This is bunk. Newton was a genius, and his theories are still used today to fly rockets to the outer edges of our solar system. Similarly, Einstein's theories will not be "proven wrong". Some smart person will adapt them to work with QM. That event will not change people's minds about something as basic as "there is no preferred reference frame" or "information cannot propagate through space-time faster than the speed of light". That would be as likely as throwing out the Heisenberg uncertainty principal in a future adaptation to quantum theory; not gonna happen! My evidence to support these claims is simple: the correspondence principal, which states that new theories should collapse down to the old theories at their LIMITS. These limits MUST agree with classical (in the future, this word will be used to describe ST and QM) ones. (That was fun! Dr. Gaffney would be proud!)
|
|
Re: E=mc² ??
|
|
If yae view Popper's proposition on this, he replaced (Hume's) induction with the process of putting testifiable/falsifiable theories (Conjectures & Refutations) into test which he later on called, "Hypothetico-Deductive Method." So, how is a theory falsified? Because of 2 classes: 1. Consistent statements. Which if it is true (corroborated), bears/corroborates the theory. 2. Potential falsifiers. Which if it is true, falsifies the theory. In conclusion to this: hypothesis can be empirically tested; theories must be tentatively accepted until they are falsified by a deductive argument (as opposed to Hume's inductive argument); and all scientific knowledge is hypothetical (conjectural). Problems arise: 1. Is the past a reliable indicator of future? 2. Will the future be like the past? 3. Is generalization from experience reliable? 4. Can we develop theories based on experience? 5. How is theoretical learning? Then Hume's answer is his induction method, which Popper rejects... Blah blah... That's what I know from my philosophy of Science. Physics, physics. physics... argh!!! I <3 Biology. :P Utsubeshi, utsubeshi! "To be forgotten, is worse than death." |
|
Re: E=mc² ??
Link |
by
on 2006-02-02 16:07:36 |
Sure these formula is made and come up by Albert Einstein for sure.  Cardcaptor Sakura: Blooming Days!: Dreams and Fantasies Becomes A Reality |
|
Re: E=mc² ??
Link |
by desertranger
on 2006-02-02 18:40:29
|
|
The thing, Gendou, is yuo are looking at it from the point of a pure scientist. To a scientist a theory can sometimes be considered as close to gospel as you can get. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact there is everythng right with it because you are a scientist and a scientist looks to make things work. When he has a working theory, one that has all of the holes patched, he hands it to an engineer and says, "Look, look, look what I did, can you make it into something useful"? That's exactly what the first laser was in 1960. A gadget in search of a use. The engineer takes the gadet and creates everything from communications to laser surgery to particle beam weapons. All designes based on the scientific theory... Until he turns it on and says "Doc", you forgot to provide us with the quantitization frammis that makse the gloong hopper work, can you go back and crunch us a few more numbers to find out what the problem is. I spent a good chunk of my life as a engineer with expertise in mech and elec. I worked with scientists they're cool people not jaded by the fundamental facts and developing new ones to fit what others say won't. However no matter how much time a scientists takes to create his theories ad models it takes an engineer to create it. Science says it will work through theory and numbers. It takes an engineer to prove whether it actually work or not. I have spent a lot of time arguing with scientists over the fact of a slipped a decimal place as well as a slipped cog or two. Gendou, your a scientist and theories are a holy grail to be aimed for; to engineer the holy grail is a target to be aimed at. When it can't be destroyed, the scientists theories are proven. Until then, they are just that, theories, a thought that, "This should work, how come it doesn't"? Ask the engineer. In the AF I spent 7 years flying F-4 Phantom IIs. Aeronautical science says it can't fly. Just like a bumblebee. Aeronautical engineering says that in it's day it was the best plane in the world. Solid and reliable. Science exists for engineers to prove it wrong so the scientsts can go back and work on it some more so one day they can say, "See I told you it would work". Engineers want science to work for the simple reason they want something to build. |
|
Re: E=mc² ??
Link |
by
on 2006-02-02 21:14:34 (edited 2006-02-02 22:55:59)
|
|
The rules for this topic state clearly that all posts are made in the context of science. If you want to propose that science is gospil, do it in another topic. Information cannot propagate through space-time faster than the speed of light in a vaccume. This is one of the laws of nature. Smart people have done experiments to discover these laws. If you don't like them, you can move to another universe, one where the laws are different. Otherwise, just accept them.
|