Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

That Famous Equation and You
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/opinion/30greene.html ^ | September 30, 2005 | BRIAN GREENE

Posted on 10/01/2005 8:10:18 PM PDT by GummyIII

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last
To: voletti
"Why is Enstein so famous?"

Because he never sued anyone else.

21 posted on 10/01/2005 8:36:15 PM PDT by Professional Engineer (See my book, "Percussive Maintenance For Dummies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: speedy

David who? ;-)


22 posted on 10/01/2005 8:36:29 PM PDT by GummyIII (If you have the ability, it's your responsibility." Marine Sgt. John Place, Silver Star recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

Ah, I was just being stupid, Gummy. It's past my bedtime. I should never have tried to introduce slapstick into an Einstein thread. (He's the St. Louis Cardinal shortstop.)


23 posted on 10/01/2005 8:42:54 PM PDT by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
gondramB said: "I don't believe this is true."

Let's try a thought experiment.

Imagine that you have a helium atom whose nucleus consists of two protons and two electrons. These four particles are held together by the strong nuclear force.

Imagine now that one could somehow separate this nucleus into two identical nuclei each containing one proton and one electron. The act of separating these tightly bound particles would require enormous forces operating over a small distance. Once the separation has been accomplished sufficiently to result in two deuterium nuclei, one should then weigh each particle.

What Einstein's theory predicts is that the "binding energy" which is added to the system will be measurable as an increase in mass of the two resulting particles such that the sum of the two particles is greater than the initial mass of the helium atom.

When we run this process in reverse, the binding energy is available to do "work" and we normally see this energy as the fireball and radiation of a fusion bomb.

Now consider what happens when you stretch a metal spring. You are causing forces to act upon a collection of atoms. Acting under the influence of that force, the atoms change position. As they change position, "work" is being done on the atoms as they move through a distance experiencing the force which is holding them together. The energies holding atoms in a solid together are typically much lower than nuclear binding energies because the forces holding atoms together in a spring are electromagnetic forces.

Nevertheless, the atoms in the spring become less tightly bound and the energy stored could theoretically be measured as an increase in mass of the system. The reason we don't measure such mass changes is because it is many, many orders of magnitude smaller than the mass changes caused by nuclear forces.

Similarly to the nuclear case above, if we now release the metal spring it can be made to do "work", that is the energy can leave the system and be observed in objects outside the spring. We could run a clock with the released spring, for example. As the spring relaxes, it exerts a force on the mechanism of the clock, causing motion. The atoms of the spring will move under the action of the electromagnetic force and the atoms will become more tightly bound than in the extended state of the spring. The mass of the entire spring will then be less by the amount predicted by Einstein's equation. But far too little for our instrumentation to measure.

24 posted on 10/01/2005 8:52:49 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

BTTT


25 posted on 10/01/2005 8:54:01 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Tagline Repair Service. Let us fix those broken Taglines. Inquire within(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I said: "Imagine that you have a helium atom whose nucleus consists of two protons and two electrons. "

That should have said "two protons and two neutrons" and the separation will create two deuterium nuclei each consisting of a proton and a neutron.

26 posted on 10/01/2005 9:01:52 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: speedy

I knew that...did you see the ;-)? (wink..)


27 posted on 10/01/2005 9:07:37 PM PDT by GummyIII (If you have the ability, it's your responsibility." Marine Sgt. John Place, Silver Star recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

Hee hee -- I love versatile people, equally at home in the physics lab and the infield!!


28 posted on 10/01/2005 9:12:51 PM PDT by speedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
I don't believe this is true. Those are examples of energy changing form - from chemical to kinetic and from stored electrical to sound energy. The energies are in addition to the rest state energy of e=mc^2 no matter to energy conversion required. If he wanted an every day example he could have used glowing dials in a tritium watch or a Geiger counter finding background radiation in a concrete building. On the other hand, the guy is a professor of physics so maybe I am missing something.

I had the same reaction to that paragraph. I don't think any matter is destroyed when a battery releases energy or when gasoline burns. But I'm not a physicist.

29 posted on 10/01/2005 9:15:55 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
On the other hand, the guy is a professor of physics so maybe I am missing something.

I have to remind myself that a news article must pass through the filter of a reporter and an editor. And they typically don't hold doctorates in the subjects they cover. So some inadvertant scrambling of fact is possibly the case.

30 posted on 10/01/2005 9:16:24 PM PDT by BradyLS (DO NOT FEED THE BEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
On the other hand, the guy is a professor of physics so maybe I am missing something.

Did you ever see that classic Bugs Bunny cartoon - a very old one, I believe - based on the Aesop fable of the Tortoise and the Hare ? Bugs is done in by an organized campaign involving a dozen or so turtles. After losing the race, he muses to himself, "You know, I think there's something fishy going on around here", whereupon the dozen or so turtles thrust their heads on screen and intone in unison,

"EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, IT'S A POSSIBILTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

31 posted on 10/01/2005 9:16:33 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII
Did you know Einstein was a Zionist?

He studied Physical Zcience.

32 posted on 10/01/2005 9:18:07 PM PDT by fat city ("The nation that controls magnetism controls the world.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

tagged


33 posted on 10/01/2005 9:19:51 PM PDT by HighWheeler ("There is nothing worse than self-deception where the deceiver is always with you." - Randi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII
"If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber.

Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater.

Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.
Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity

Albert Einstein

34 posted on 10/01/2005 9:21:33 PM PDT by laotzu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

bookmark to read later


35 posted on 10/01/2005 9:23:37 PM PDT by TX Bluebonnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker

"I had the same reaction to that paragraph. I don't think any matter is destroyed when a battery releases energy or when gasoline burns. But I'm not a physicist."

I think you are correct. Batteries operate off oxidation/reduction.

E=mc2 applies to fission and fusion where the products of the reaction are slightly less in mass than the reactants. When heavy compounds such as U235 fissions, the byproducts have less mass than the original U235 they were made from. The resulting energy released (matter becoming energy) is that mass change times the speed of light squared. A little bit of mass change can produce a large energy release. In the case of fusion of some light elements such at Lithium and Deuterium, the fuzed byproducts are less in mass than the original Lithium and Deuterium. That mass results in the same energy production computed by E=mc2.

I don't think that make chemical reactions cause a net change in mass. Fission and Fusion are special cases.


36 posted on 10/01/2005 9:34:13 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

I believe the amount of mass lost is considered negligible for the most part in chemical reactions because it isn't easily measurable.


37 posted on 10/01/2005 9:48:15 PM PDT by GummyIII (If you have the ability, it's your responsibility." Marine Sgt. John Place, Silver Star recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

ping-a-rooney


38 posted on 10/01/2005 9:48:40 PM PDT by texas booster (Bless the legal immigrants!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII
Yet for all its symbolic worth, the equation's intimate presence in everyday life goes largely unnoticed. There is nothing you can do, not a move you can make, not a thought you can have, that doesn't tap directly into E = mc². Einstein's equation is constantly at work, providing an unseen hand that shapes the world into its familiar form.

Perspectives like this drive me crazy. 

39 posted on 10/01/2005 9:58:06 PM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (If you snit at the hand that feeds you, you're probably a leftist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

“What Einstein's theory predicts is that the 'binding energy' which is added to the system will be measurable as an increase in mass of the two resulting particles such that the sum of the two particles is greater than the initial mass of the helium atom.”

Just to be sure I understand—isn’t the sum of the two particles less than the initial mass of the helium atom, due to the loss of the binding energy?


40 posted on 10/01/2005 10:03:36 PM PDT by reasonisfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-157 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson