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 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-157 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks, for the Ping. PH :)
61 posted on 10/02/2005 5:57:46 AM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you :^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
Einstein's discovery of E=mc2 modifies the situation so that the speed of light can never be exceeded.

That's where you're wrong. They exceed the speed of light in almost every Star Trek episode ever made.

62 posted on 10/02/2005 6:22:34 AM PDT by Jalapeno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


63 posted on 10/02/2005 6:57:50 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping.


64 posted on 10/02/2005 8:19:36 AM PDT by GOPJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

As with most things, the default position is that longstanding science is right and Einstein is right.

If that leads to the unexpected (to a layman) result that chemical reactions convert mass to energy, then it's time to hit the books to find out how and why.

It's interesting how many people will try to stick with common sense when it conflicts with reality.


65 posted on 10/02/2005 10:11:37 AM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Your explanations are helpful.


66 posted on 10/02/2005 10:22:10 AM PDT by reasonisfaith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Actually, those were examples of mass being converted to energy.


67 posted on 10/02/2005 10:22:11 AM PDT by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: js1138
js1138 said: "It's interesting how many people will try to stick with common sense when it conflicts with reality."

What's even more interesting, perhaps, is that Einstein himself had serious concerns about quantum theory.

My guess is that Einstein was completely convinced that quantum theory always generates the correct answers. But the nature of quantum theory is that only the probability of a given outcome can be calculated. The actual outcome varies randomly as described by the mathematical probabilities. I believe that Einstein died a proponent of the "hidden variables" idea. That is, Einstein thought that "God does not play dice". Einstein thought that there could be hidden variables which dictated which of the possible outcomes of a quantum-physical experiment would occur.

Since then, there are some convincing experiments which indicate that quantum-physical events are truly random and such outcomes cannot be completely predicted.

68 posted on 10/02/2005 11:01:36 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith
reasonisfaith said: "Your explanations are helpful"

That makes the effort worthwhile.

I try to proofread each posting at least twice. Even then, I sometimes type something completely erroneous without being able to spot it.

If there's anything that seems wrong or unclear, don't hesitate to ask. I won't take it personally if you spot a mistake and I welcome comments from the Freepers out there who know more about this than I do.

69 posted on 10/02/2005 11:06:42 AM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

I didn't believe it either, but several months ago I had it explained to me in a manner I could follow.

As strange as it seems to someone who, like me, never advanced beyond high-school physics, matter-to-energy conversion and vice-versa does apply to chemical and mechanical reactions. Just to so slight a degree that it is not worth bothering with for explaining simple quotidian events.


70 posted on 10/02/2005 11:09:50 AM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
Question #1: Why do we appear to be in the center of the Hubble volume?

Question #2: Why does the Hubble redshift expansion appear to give the age of the universe as 1 billion years when the earth's surface is 4 billion years old and the Big Bang apparently happened 14 billion years ago?

Question #3: Why did Einstein assume that nothing moved faster than the speed of light and then conclude after a shower of tensors that nothing can move faster than the speed of light?

71 posted on 10/02/2005 11:16:21 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
1. dunno. 2. dunno. 3. dunno. also, I thought the conclusion was that nothing can accelerate from /=C
72 posted on 10/02/2005 11:22:35 AM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

what the HELL?
damned html...
1. dunno
2. dunno
3. dunno. also, I thought the conclusion was that nothing can accelerate from < C to >/=C


73 posted on 10/02/2005 11:24:17 AM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

74 posted on 10/02/2005 11:29:45 AM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: King Prout
The special theory describes how things will look, and looking means that we use light to make our measurements. This does not necessarily mean that things cannot move faster than the speed of light. In string theory there are tachyons. The math is consistent, but who said the universe obeys the axioms of math? There are a lot of things in math that have no immediate application to the world of matter. Even something cut and dry as mechanics does not a priori claim to predict how things will behave, but rather it is the other way around: we see how things behave and then adjust our mechanics to fit what we observe.
75 posted on 10/02/2005 11:32:17 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Did you ever notice that Einstein's E=MC^2 is similar to Newton's F=MA

In Einstein's case, E is the energy (or Force) of the electro-magnetic spectrum (ie photons and light) and the acceleration is simply the speed of light (the speed of the electro-magnetic spectrum) squared.

Einstein's E deals exclusively with the energy of light and the electro-weak-magnetic force.

It seems to me that F=MA and E=MC^2 should be expanded on to fit into other forms of energy.


76 posted on 10/02/2005 11:44:37 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

difference between acceleration and moving.
IIRC, as a particle with mass accelerates approaching C, it's mass would approach infinity, making the energy requirement for continued acceleration also approach infinity.
"things" without mass would not have that problem, would they?
also, nothing I understand of the theory suggests that there cannot be things, particles, waves that simply move faster than C, just that they cannot accelerate from below C to or beyond C.
IIRC, tachyons supposedly just move faster than C, period.


77 posted on 10/02/2005 11:45:04 AM PDT by King Prout (19sep05 - I want at least 2 Saiga-12 shotguns. If you have leads, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: King Prout

The thing that makes particles accelerate is electromagnetic forces. This is essentially light itself. Of course nothing can move faster than the speed of propagation of that which makes it move. The mass, the resistance to further acceleration, would appear to grow infinitely. We might create another kind of force that propagates faster, and if it interacts with matter we might then move faster than the speed of light. It wouldn't look like we were moving faster than light anyway.


78 posted on 10/02/2005 12:09:51 PM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways; RightWhale; RadioAstronomer
...and the acceleration is simply the speed of light (the speed of the electro-magnetic spectrum) squared.

Homework assignment:

What units is speed measured in?

In what units is acceleration measured in?

If you square a speed, what units is speed measured in?

79 posted on 10/02/2005 12:12:23 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: GummyIII

I'm quite surprised that the thread became so big without being in a sidebar.


80 posted on 10/02/2005 12:16:19 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 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