Posted on 10/01/2005 8:10:18 PM PDT by GummyIII
Correction Appended
DURING the summer of 1905, while fulfilling his duties in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, Albert Einstein was fiddling with a tantalizing outcome of the special theory of relativity he'd published in June. His new insight, at once simple and startling, led him to wonder whether "the Lord might be laughing ... and leading me around by the nose."
But by September, confident in the result, Einstein wrote a three-page supplement to the June paper, publishing perhaps the most profound afterthought in the history of science. A hundred years ago this month, the final equation of his short article gave the world E = mc².
In the century since, E = mc² has become the most recognized icon of the modern scientific era. 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. It's an equation that tells of matter, energy and a remarkable bridge between them.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I made a mistake in #128. 1/t=delta KE=m-m0. Time is a dimension. The meaning of the dimension is, "is", or "exists". Delta t means "it" exists for some time period. This equation says, "it = 1/energy." Potential E exists, but that is always dependent on the presence of KE.
KE was given in Einstein's paper as:
KE = m0( 1/sqrt(1-v2) - 1)
So KE is Etotal - Erest. If v=0, then KE=0. The rest E, is the field energy that ends up localized in space. It has a local frame. The Standard Model says interation the the field with the Higgs field is responsible for the mass. The localized E then has the property of mass. Given it exists in this universe, the particle will always have KE and PE. Since KE + PE of the universe is ~zero, the universe will exist for a very long time.
"why are the terms "delta momentum" and "rest mass" oxmorons?"
Niether are. Rest mass is as above. Delta momentum is simply a change in p.
p= m0u/sqrt(1-v2)
Also, E= sqrt(p2 + m02).
" t=dKE right : time is the rate of kinetic enedt.rgy release."
The rate of E change is a dE/dt. t != dE/dt.
Should be KE + m + PE... then there's the dark E which hasn't been IDed yet...
placemark
You are having a tough "time" making the quantum leap in understanding. There is no such thing as "time" as distinct from kinetic energy, they are one and the same thing. You refer to "dark" KE which I presume you just mean uploading energy, ie, acceleration energy going INTO a system. Of course one can NEVER "see/observe" that because it would violate the first law of thermodynamics, you can only "see/observe" the downloading of KE, at some rate, from a higher PE level to a lower PE level. Or as Einstein put it : you can either have your money in your pocket or in the bank, but you can't have it both ways; there is no free lunch, you can't get something for nothing. That's one of the first great lessons of physics, although there are better buys...consider the woefully inefficient otto cycle engine in your car vs electric vehicles... As to "delta momentum" being an oxymoron : delta means a rate of CHANGE of something, momentum means NO CHANGE of state. Review Newton's First Law. Thus "delta momentum" literally means "rate of change of no change of state", see how ridiculous that sounds? Thus Heisenberg got it WRONG, momentum is NOT a determinant of the quantum area(h), it is a RESULT of balanced Wave energy = Particle energy, or W=P; whereas mass is W>P(deceleration) or W<P(acceleration). Normally you think of momentum as a ball rolling around in a cup, finally coming to rest, au contrare, the momentum-ball is VERY delicately balanced on a needle point, the slightest dWs or dPv kicks it off into mass-land... Got it? W=P
Oh, dear. What happened to the "miles" unit on the second factor of "C"? Shouldn't the units be "miles^2/second^2"?
Well, it was a good try anyway.
I have no idea what "miles^2 / second / second" means. Einstein must have though cause its in there.
In football, yes, but not in physics.
I wrote the relationship in the last post. t != E. I don't know where you got that. Here's the eq. for the E of a photon, E = f. Frequency is 1/t. Same as the Uncertainty Principle.
"delta means a rate of CHANGE of something,
Delta is simply a difference. Rate is a difference per time. Delta and rate do not mean the same thing.
" momentum means NO CHANGE of state."
No it doesn't. I gave it in the last post. p = E. Showing c explicitly gives, p = E/c. The wavelength of a massive particle is 1/p, or showing h explicitly, "h/p".
I used to argue with those in my class who played with the particle accelerator instead of doing their philosophy homework. That was going on half a century ago. How would they measure decay of a meson? Would it be by noting where it happened and thereby that it must have moved farther down the tube because it was going close to c and its timescale was stretched out of whack? Or was it going faster than c and for that reason moved farther down the tube before decay? How can you tell the difference?
Were the meson travelling faster than c, then there would be a standing wave (bow shock) in the ether (detectable, anyway.) This is analogous to the sonic boom emitted from a plane (or car) moving faster than the speed of sound.
Cerenkov radiation is an example.
Cerenkov radiation, the glow coming off a pile, our own 'black rock', is something that might make one wonder whether the idea of the speed of light being a limiting speed is right. After all, there are particles travelling faster than light in a medium other than pure vacuum where the index of refraction is 1.0000 . . .. There they are, not much doubt. Light travels slower in a medium, can even be brought to a crawl if the index of refraction is high enough. There is also the phenomenon where the index of refraction is less than one, mainly seen in some experiments with electronic devices such as special antennas. There is wiggle room. I don't know there would be a bow wave in the vacuum, that would imply a gradual loss of energy, but energy is given off all at once at some point when the particle decays.
Heisenberg(1927)got it wrong in his HUP because Plank(1900)got it wrong because Simon DeLa Place(1827)got it wrong. Momentum is not a determinant of energy, it is a RESULT of balanced Wave energy equals Particle energy, or W=P. You use the term p for momentum which is easily confused with particle velocity. Planck wrote it as h=pxq where h is an area defined by p(particle velocity)and q(momentum). It creates less confusion to use capital M to denote Momentum, vs small m to denote mass. Yes, Debroglie gives MATTER WAVELENGTH as Lambda=h/mv but not h/p. mv or mc just mean Momentum, the other "hidden" v in mv is the MATTER WAVE determinant(mv^2). Think of it(W)as the ordinate in the graph and(P)is the abscissa, with the 45 degree line as the Momentum-diagonal wherein dPv is the tread and dWs is the riser in the stairway up and down the Momentum D-line, each chevron-shaped area so defined is another unit quantum(h). You still get frequency of bose photons and fermions confused, its a common mistake. It's all explained by the wave galaxy of 3 quarks at the core of fermions as the model for our milky way(spiral)galaxy. As it expands/contracts it is the inductance part of resistance/capacitance/inductance in electric circuits. You still have to overcome the mistaken idea that time and kinetic energy are 2 different things though(blessed is he who OVERCOMES)... W=P
You have that wrong. p is momentum and q is a spacial coordinate. Also, that's Hiesenburg's eq., Plank wrote p=h/wavelength.
"You still get frequency of bose photons and fermions confused, its a common mistake."
Seriously? Frequency is 1/t regardless.
" It's all explained by the wave galaxy of 3 quarks at the core of fermions as the model for our milky way(spiral)galaxy. As it expands/contracts it is the inductance part of resistance/capacitance/inductance in electric circuits."
Art thou a troll?
DeBroglie. Plank gave the energy of harmonic oscillators as,
E = nh/t, or E = nhf.
Where n is an integer. Notice 1/t = E.
c = 1/sqrt(e0u0)
The dielectric and permittivity interaction of the photon, or field propagation, with the vacuum is what determines the speed.
"After all, there are particles travelling faster than light in a medium other than pure vacuum where the index of refraction is 1.0000 .
They are massive particles though and started their cruise in the vacuum.
"There is also the phenomenon where the index of refraction is less than one, mainly seen in some experiments with electronic devices such as special antennas.
The limit of EM propagation is still c. The index of refraction is c/u, where u is the group velocity of the wave. Information can't move faster than c.
Bond... Covalent Bond
Ya think, maybe?
LMAO!
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.