# Breaking News!  Einstein was Right!



## Drachir (Nov 22, 2008)

e=mc2: 103 years on, Einstein proved right | COSMOS magazine

It appears that physicists finally have definite proof of Einstein's core theory.  So does that mean it is now the Law of Relativity?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 22, 2008)

Well the way I read it he seems to have got it wrong.

It should be

E=(Mx0.95)c2.

Quite an error, almost a guess and if we allow the fact the speed of light is not necessarilly constant then 

E = mx? would work just as well


----------



## Drachir (Nov 22, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Well the way I read it he seems to have got it wrong.
> 
> It should be
> 
> ...


 
???????????????????


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 22, 2008)

So of the 4% of the universe that is meant to be made up of "visible" matter, only 5% is there in a commonly understood sense**.


"I think, therefore (I know that) I am (barely here at all)."




** - and then only by putting aside the actual nature of the matter that makes up those quarks, gluons....


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 22, 2008)

> Drachir


 


> According to the conventional model of particle physics, protons and neutrons comprise smaller particles known as quarks, which in turn are bound by gluons. The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five percent. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 per cent?
> 
> The answer, according to the study published in the U.S. journal _Science_ today, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons.


 
The speed of light varies greatly depending on it's environment. That's why it's usually quoted as the speed of light in a vacuum. Now it could well be that the value at the quantum level is the one we should use and who is to say what that will be from atom to atom.

If one of the items in the calculations is allowed to vary the the formula is nonsense. It could be the the c2 term is just the best approximation to the actual constant or it may be that the constant isn't a constant at all.


----------



## Drachir (Nov 23, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> The speed of light varies greatly depending on it's environment. That's why it's usually quoted as the speed of light in a vacuum. Now it could well be that the value at the quantum level is the one we should use and who is to say what that will be from atom to atom.
> 
> If one of the items in the calculations is allowed to vary the the formula is nonsense. It could be the the c2 term is just the best approximation to the actual constant or it may be that the constant isn't a constant at all.


 

Sorry, I still can't tell whether or not you agree with the finding or disagree.  I am going to assume that particle physicists might know more than me about this.


----------



## Nik (Nov 23, 2008)

Sounds like the Zero Point Energy problem, that Space is *buzzing* with incredible energy densities at quantum level...

Of course, you can't just hang out a bucket for the power to fill, you must convert mass into energy and pay the entropy tax...

Curious that the sub-atomic world has '95% of everything is energy', just as the astrophysicists & cosmologists are trying to make sense of similar ratios at other end of reality's scale...

Um, if you want an example of light travelling seriously sub-c, dip a finger skew into water, note the 'break'. To a first approximation, the Refractive Index of a material is the ratio of light-speed in vacuum to that through the material for that frequency...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 23, 2008)

Drachir said:


> Sorry, I still can't tell whether or not you agree with the finding or disagree. I am going to assume that particle physicists might know more than me about this.


 
No I don't agree with the theory. I'm sugesting that E=mc2 lacks a constant that can be relied on. Therefore it falls by the wayside as it may just as well be written in terms of Pi i and the speed of sound in custard.


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 24, 2008)

Forgive me if I seem a bit thick but doesn’t a variation in the speed of light simply mean that the final value of the formula merely depends on the value of light at that specific time -  but  does not in itself discredit the formula as a whole?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 24, 2008)

Well only if the speed of light has anything to do with it at all.

If we are going to specify everything in terms of 'c' just because it's there (whatever it is) then we should do the same for everything else.

If it does hold any relevance then it should be stated as local (course Einstein would never have considered such a thought.

Now if I can take a lump of matter form here to somewhere where the energy I can extract is different then we have lost the conservation of energy principle and entropy is dead.


----------



## mosaix (Nov 24, 2008)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Well only if the speed of light has anything to do with it at all.
> 
> If we are going to specify everything in terms of 'c' just because it's there (whatever it is) then we should do the same for everything else.
> 
> ...



TEIN correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I once read that when Einstein included c2 in the formula he just simply meant e = m(a very, very large number).

I have since tried to find this in the various books on physics that I was reading at the time, but failed.

Did I dream it?


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 24, 2008)

Sorry Mosaix, I haven't seen it if you did. 

However given his facination for the speed of light I think it's more likely that he used the c term.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 24, 2008)

You could try reading this, Mosaix: 
Massâ€“energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​A _very_ brief glance suggests to me that c squared was there at the beginning (although the energy was originally related to a change in mass, apparently).


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 25, 2008)

@TEIN  I see your point. I will have to ponder on this some more

@Ursa major  Good link. It helps somewhat but I am now having a headache


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 25, 2008)

Foxbat: You could take some E.


----------



## mosaix (Nov 25, 2008)

Ursa major said:


> You could try reading this, Mosaix: Massâ€“energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​A _very_ brief glance suggests to me that c squared was there at the beginning (although the energy was originally related to a change in mass, apparently).



UM - thanks for that. I agree that he included it at the beginning. However the article that I read implied that c2 wasn't specifically c2 but just there to imply *a very, very big number*.


----------

