1. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    19 Mar '10 14:53
    Originally posted by jekeckel
    But c^2 here is a conversion factor between anthropocentric units. In the natural units, which one generally uses when doing space-time calculations, c disappears. This seems to be the most natural way to do such calculations. c^2 serves the same purpose here as the number 1.61 is in the equation M=(1.61)K, the conversion between miles and kilometers. I would certainly call 1.61 a conversion factor.
    Are you studying Physics?
  2. Joined
    22 Jul '08
    Moves
    25957
    19 Mar '10 15:39
    It still exists in the equation and is required for its units ( m / s ) for the equation to make sense.

    As has been pointed out, this is incorrect. By connecting space and time, you use the same units of measurement for both, and the units disappear entirely.

    The speed of light as far as I am aware is a physical constant of the universe and cannot be derived from the Theory of Relativity or any other theory to date.

    In a sense it can be derived from classical electromagnetism. Maxwell was able to relate the speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum to the permeability and permittivity of free space. Although these constants are now defined, like the speed of light, they were measured experimentally in Maxwell's time. The observation that the speed of propagation for electromagnetic waves coincides with the speed of light allowed Maxwell to unite the two previously unrelated fields of electromagnetism and optics.

    If this is the case then building the speed of light into your units then pretending it doesn't exist is simply wrong.

    Meters, and seconds are rather arbitrary, human creations. The way to do physics for space-time calculations is in the natural units. I have yet to come across a general relativity text that does not use the natural units.

    The relationship between miles and kilometers tells us absolutely nothing about the universe. The equation E=mc2 does.

    Mathematically speaking, both equations use a conversion factor, though.
  3. Joined
    22 Jul '08
    Moves
    25957
    19 Mar '10 15:43
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Are you studying Physics?
    Nope, but my computerless boyfriend is, who often forgets to log on to his own account!
  4. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    19 Mar '10 16:05
    Originally posted by jekeckel
    Nope, but my computerless boyfriend is, who often forgets to log on to his own account!
    Your computerless boyfriend knows his stuff then.
  5. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    19 Mar '10 16:09
    Originally posted by ua41
    Who's the comedian who said we're basically just slow, cooled down bits of energy?
    no hits on google.

    http://www.google.com/cse?cx=002683415331144861350%3Atsq8didf9x0&q=%22slow%2C+cooled+down+bits+of+energy%22&ie=utf-8&sa=Search
  6. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    19 Mar '10 16:10
    Originally posted by jekeckel
    Nope, but my computerless boyfriend is, who often forgets to log on to his own account!
    lucky guy, knows quantum physics AND a GF with 1500+!
  7. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    19 Mar '10 16:211 edit
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Fundamental_role_in_physics
    ...
    Special relativity has many counter-intuitive implications, which have been verified in many experiments.[24] These include the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2), length contraction (moving objects shorten),[Note 4] and time dilation (moving clocks run slower). The factor y by which lengths contract and times dilate, known as the Lorentz factor, is given by y = (1 - v**2/c**2)**(-1/2), where v is the speed of the object; its difference from 1 is negligible for speeds much slower than c, such as most everyday speeds—in which case special relativity is closely approximated by Galilean relativity—but it increases at relativistic speeds and diverges to infinity as v approaches c.
    ...
    According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by ymc2, where y is the Lorentz factor defined above. When v is zero, y is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E = mc2 formula for mass-energy equivalence. Since the y factor approaches infinity as v approaches c, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with non-zero rest mass.

    Edit: replaced some characters (such as lowercase gamme with y) due to RHP mangling.
  8. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    19 Mar '10 16:21
    I am a very lucky guy 🙂

    Don't know too much quantum, though. Still learning.
  9. silicon valley
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    101289
    19 Mar '10 16:26
    Originally posted by amolv06
    I am a very lucky guy 🙂

    Don't know too much quantum, though. Still learning.
    relatively, you're miles past most of us, i bet 🙂.
  10. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    19 Mar '10 21:56
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Fundamental_role_in_physics
    ...
    Special relativity has many counter-intuitive implications, which have been verified in many experiments.[24] These include the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2), length contraction (moving objects shorten),[Note 4] and time dilation (moving clocks run slower). The factor ...[text shortened]... t mass.

    Edit: replaced some characters (such as lowercase gamme with y) due to RHP mangling.
    It's people like you that give wikipedia a bad name. Take a link and a quote from a reputable academic source:

    But in relativity, the symmetric appearance of
    the transformation tells us that space and time ought to be treated on the same footing, and measured in the same units.


    http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/6mr/ch01/ch01.html
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    20 Mar '10 20:10
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    If you are talking about different Universes and varying light speeds you are totally outside the context of the derivation of E=mc^2 and so you have to state precisely what you mean and your assumptions so that this dialog can continue.
    I think I am understanding better what you are saying, however, I am still certain that E=mc2 is a more general equation than E=m and it is wrong to simply call c or c2 a conversion factor just as it would be wrong to call 'a' a conversion factor in F=ma when we are talking about gravity at sea level. Just because we know a is constant (about 9.8m/s2 ) in the equation is no reason to forget that it is acceleration.
    Similarly, to say E=m is equivalent to saying "in the special case of our universe where the speed of light is thought to be constant".
  12. Joined
    08 Oct '06
    Moves
    24000
    20 Mar '10 20:161 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think I am understanding better what you are saying, however, I am still certain that E=mc2 is a more general equation than E=m and it is wrong to simply call c or c2 a conversion factor just as it would be wrong to call 'a' a conversion factor in F=ma when we are talking about gravity at sea level. Just because we know a is constant (about 9.8m/s2 ) in ...[text shortened]... ng "in the special case of our universe where the speed of light is thought to be constant".
    it is wrong to simply call c or c2 a conversion factor just as it would be wrong to call 'a' a conversion factor in F=ma when we are talking about gravity at sea level.


    But energy and mass are describing the same thing. The c^2 term converts between arbitrary, man-made units! The miles to kilometers analogy (or vice-versa) fits much better here, in my opinion.

    Similarly, to say E=m is equivalent to saying "in the special case of our universe where the speed of light is thought to be constant".


    Saying E=mc^2 is equivalent to saying "in the special case of our universe where the speed of light is thought to be constant."
  13. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    20 Mar '10 20:18
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think I am understanding better what you are saying, however, I am still certain that E=mc2 is a more general equation than E=m and it is wrong to simply call c or c2 a conversion factor just as it would be wrong to call 'a' a conversion factor in F=ma when we are talking about gravity at sea level. Just because we know a is constant (about 9.8m/s2 ) in ...[text shortened]... ng "in the special case of our universe where the speed of light is thought to be constant".
    Your analogy isn't a good one for two reasons:
    1 - c is a universal, cosmological constant in modern day Physics while a (more normally g) is just an accidental value that we get near the surface of planet Earth
    2 - While E=mc^2 is a derived equation from a more basic set of postulates f=ma is a postulate in "normal" classical Physics (it can be "derived" in Lagrangian Mechanics though).

    If you look at the the Terry Tao link I already provided in this thread you can see a derivation of E=mc^2 and hopefuly you'll understand why c^2 is just a conversion factor.

    Also check this out:

    But in relativity, the symmetric appearance of
    the transformation tells us that space and time ought to be treated on the same footing, and measured in the same units.


    http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/6mr/ch01/ch01.html
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    20 Mar '10 20:43
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Your analogy isn't a good one for two reasons:
    1 - c is a universal, cosmological constant in modern day Physics while a (more normally g) is just an accidental value that we get near the surface of planet Earth
    2 - While E=mc^2 is a derived equation from a more basic set of postulates f=ma is a postulate in "normal" classical Physics (it can be "deri ...[text shortened]... the same units
    .[/quote]

    http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/6mr/ch01/ch01.html[/b]
    Nice link, I printed it out for reference. Kelly, did you read this link?
  15. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    20 Mar '10 21:01
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Nice link
    It's part of a series of free books on Physics.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree