How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby PhysBang » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:10 pm

James S Saint wrote:Quite seriously not boasting, my Affectance field is more fundamental and creates all of the fields, A,B,E, and G along with all of their fluxes. And then it continues into economics, sociology, psychology, health, and just about everything Man has ever done.

Given that you cannot follow the mathematics of special relativity, this is incredibly doubtful. Do you have any demonstration? Perhaps you should start another thread.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jul 22, 2011 2:14 pm

PhysBang wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Quite seriously not boasting, my Affectance field is more fundamental and creates all of the fields, A,B,E, and G along with all of their fluxes. And then it continues into economics, sociology, psychology, health, and just about everything Man has ever done.

Given that you cannot follow the mathematics of special relativity, this is incredibly doubtful. Do you have any demonstration? Perhaps you should start another thread.

You mean considering that YOU can't follow the math.
Go solve the paradox since you seem to think that everyone is beneath you.
And do you EVER say ANYthing that isn't merely ad hom?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby PhysBang » Fri Jul 22, 2011 4:38 pm

James S Saint wrote:You mean considering that YOU can't follow the math.

Well, I have the graduate course credits to prove to myself and the university that gave me my degree that say otherwise.
Go solve the paradox since you seem to think that everyone is beneath you.

And you have the crazy idea that somehow people have, for over 100 years, missed a simple mathematical mistake in special relativity. Since many people have shown you where you went wrong, to the point of finally banning you for pigheadedness on other boards, we can all consider your "paradox" solved.
And do you EVER say ANYthing that isn't merely ad hom?

It is not an ad hominem to point out that you are incompetent at the relevant science and that this makes us ask you to actually demonstrate your claims with more evidence.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Farsight » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:06 pm

James S Saint wrote:Oh geez.. The "A-field" is merely the potential to have a magnetic flux. Feynman merely wanted to think in terms of the real field = the magic field (magnetic field). Rather appropriate for the Ashkenazi. {{Pewthy, spit on the E-field.}}
Not the magnetic potential A, the Electromagnetic four-potential Aα. It should be a superscript alpha.

James S Saint wrote:You're just not getting it. Your mind seems to be half in and half out-of-the-box.
That's PhysBang talk. Don't do it. And don't feed the troll.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby PhysBang » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:27 pm

Farsight wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You're just not getting it. Your mind seems to be half in and half out-of-the-box.
That's PhysBang talk. Don't do it. And don't feed the troll.

I would never say that you are half-in the box.
PhysBang
Thinker
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Liteninbolt » Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:36 pm

Do I need to say something here?
Liteninbolt
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3312
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:15 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby James S Saint » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:33 am

Farsight wrote:
James S Saint wrote:You're just not getting it. Your mind seems to be half in and half out-of-the-box.
That's PhysBang talk. Don't do it. And don't feed the troll.

I was being sarcastic/ironic about our BOX analogy... geeez.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:39 am

Was the nuclear bomb inferred from this equation?
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Farsight » Mon Aug 01, 2011 12:12 pm

Not really. The equation does tell you that there's an awful lot of energy tied up in even a small amount of matter, but the atom bomb really came out of an understanding of atoms and binding energy. Have a read of this Einstein Online article for details.
Farsight
Thinker
 
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 6:24 am

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Fixed Cross » Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:02 pm

Farsight wrote:Not really. The equation does tell you that there's an awful lot of energy tied up in even a small amount of matter, but the atom bomb really came out of an understanding of atoms and binding energy. Have a read of this Einstein Online article for details.

Thanks.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Fixed Cross » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:54 pm

I am trying to wrap my mind around the formula.
I have been trying to think it through in terms of potential to cause change. Like this:

A bit of matter consists of a lot of crunched activity.
This activity is the potential to cause change.
The potential to cause change has a maximum rate of causing change.
This maximum rate is tied tot he speed of light - light travels at the maximum rate of change-of-potential.
Bit sof matter like an electron are cases of potential to cause change constantly affecting itself. What it exerts, it receives of itself. it stays the same while 'self-causing' it's activity, which is electromagentism.
C is enclosed in the electron as E.

In order to have this potential be absorbed by a greater whole, a potential corresponding to the max rate of change has to be exerted on the electron to ''neutralize'' it - to cause its potential to merge with something else.
So the C embedded in the electron is multiplied by the potential required to change its behavior.
The potential of the electron is translated into mass by enclosing that potential by matching it.

I can't get this into words properly. I hope I make enough sense so as for someone to be able to point out where I'm going wrong.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby James S Saint » Sun Jan 27, 2013 1:28 pm

When you first asked this question, about a year and half ago, I was still laboring under the theory that a particle was a “tumbling bundle” of EM wave. RM taught me a lot since then. Today, I understand what is really going on.

What we call physics today has a bit of a corrupted ontology causing quite a bit of confusion, so let me try to explain this in terms of RM translated to the more loosely defined common physics terms.

Energy by concept is the ability to cause change or to affect. “Potential energy” in RM is the Potential-to-Affect, PtA. But the changing of that potential is itself a form of energy referred to as “Affectance” which is related to “radiant energy” and “mass”. That changing takes place over time and distance. A particle and its mass is formed merely due to the clustering of that propagation of changing, the affectance, not of the PtA itself.

So the energy associated with a particle is the amount of affectance (the changing) that has clustered around a location.

The affectance clusters or congests in a location merely due to a maximum rate of change that gets challenged by the random changing going on at and very near the location. As small changes add to each other, they end up having to delay their propagation simply because potential can’t change as fast as they would have had it change such as to continue it velocity. As delays occur, those delays create more delays because the changing wasn’t getting out of the way of new changes being introduced, thus the particle grows.

Image

Due to the 3D universe, there is a fixed volume wherein the amount of delaying compared to the amount of new encounters becomes balanced and the growth stops. Thus a particle is formed with a fixed size. A particle doesn’t have an actual finite border, but at a specific radius, the amount of recursive delaying drops off quickly. The additional delaying still occurring in much less density outside that radius is referred to as the mass field or gravity field. The outer mass field also causes delays, but not significant enough to be considered as a part of the particle, as expressed in this piece concerning the movement of a particle;
Firstly, "force" is an after-effect, an aberrant effect that does not actually exist except via perception. In reality, particles "migrate" due to aggregation and dissemination of their internal affectance ("energy"). There is nothing actually pushing or pulling them any in direction. They simply have cause to grow toward one direction and shrink from the other direction. They are always reforming their constituents, their "affectance" and are actually only the center of the congestion involved. It is much like a crowd of people shifting while the individual people are coming and going from the scene. The "particle" is merely the congestion, not the people themselves. And thus when the center of congestion shifts, it is perceived that the "particle" has shifted, when in reality, merely more people got involved on one side as others left the other side.


Asking how much energy is within a particle is like asking how many people are within that crowd. But realize that the number of people within the defined crowd area is going to be directly dependent upon how fast those people walk around. We could say that at the center, they get delayed to the point of having to temporarily stop regardless of how fast they normally walk. As the people shift closer to the edge of the crowd, they can return to their normal walking speed. So the “propagation speed” of the people decelerates and then accelerates back to normal. Thus the “mass” of the crowd is determined by the amount of delay in their propagation speed. And the number of them within that mass is the amount of potential energy within that massing of them.

I don’t think that I can address that equation, E=mc^2, without going through more detail concerning the exact relationship between the ontological components that make up RM and physics.

The potential to cause change can be distributed over a distance but it cannot be a local potential to cause change if the potential is evenly distributed because if all points have the exact same potential to affect each other, none of them can actually be affect. Thus their true potential would be zero. The potential must vary from point to point else there is no means to cause actual change. And as such changing occurs, the location of the changing must shift or “the changing must propagate”. When it propagates, it is referred to as “radiant energy” and propagates at the “speed of light”.

The propagation speed within “free space” is the same regardless of the amount of potential that is changing, regardless of the amount of “radiant energy”. Thus if the amount of radiant energy is to be different at any time, it is only the amount of potential that can vary such as to cause any bit of radiant energy from being any more or less than any other. Thus when analyzing how much “energy” is within a bundle of radiant energy, it is the total summed up potential energy that is being measured.

Image

The equation in question involves the entities known at the time; “energy”, “mass”, and “propagation speed, c”. Thus to explain that equation, RM concepts have to be translated so as to reflect those concerns. And the basic concern involves how much radiant energy is being held within a confident space.

Energy = Affectance = changing of the PtA = PtA/t
Radiant Energy = propagating PtA/t = RptA
Propagation Speed = distance/time = c
Mass = radiant energy within a volume


The affectance, PtA/t, is the amount of radiant energy, RPtA, within a given amount of distance, RPtA/d.

Thus the amount of RPtA within a given distance, RptA/d, is the amount of changing PtA, PtA/t, divided by speed that it traverses that distance; time/distance, t/d, “1/c”.

PtA/t = RPtA/d * d/t
RPtA/d = PtA/t * t/d = PtA/t /c
RPtA/d = PtA/t * t/d
RPtA/d = PtA/t / c


The total amount of RPtA/d within a given distance is the amount PtA/t divided by the speed of propagation, c. Or the amount of radiant energy within a given distance is the amount of affectance divided by c.

Radiant energy / d = Potential energy / c

What is called “mass” in physics is a reflection of the amount of delay going on that doesn’t exist in free flow radiance. And it is from such delays that inertia is created. So obviously there is a connection between the mass and the energy within because the measure of the mass is the amount of energy being delayed.

In RM, the term “mass” doesn’t exist but is strongly related to inertia or the reluctance to change and the delay of affectance due to the maximum rate of change. The maximum rate of change is the anentropic element that not only causes the delays that create inertia and the particle to form, but also directly causes the propagation speed of the affectance or “speed of light”.

This creates the situation wherein the propagation speed plays upon itself such as to cause a delay upon itself. As PtA changes propagate into each other, they add such as to create a proposed rate of change that exceeds the maximum possible and thus propagation rate slows to allow more time for the changing to occur. Such slowing is what begins the formation of a particle and its mass.

Thus to calculate the mass, one must know that amount of radiant energy within a given volume. When that radiant energy gets high enough, delays come about that in turn create more delays that in turn confines more of the radiant energy within the same amount of space. The radiant energy becomes confined.

The amount of radiance getting trapped is a function of the inverse of the propagation speed in that if the propagation speed were allowed to increase, the maximum rate of change would have to have increased and thus less delays would occur. And the amount of radiant energy within the same space would also decrease, RPtA/d. Thus the amount of delaying is a function of the inverse square of the propagation speed due to propagation speed causing the propagation to slow. And if the propagation speed only slightly increased, the amount of delay and thus the amount of mass, would drastically be reduced.

Mass = RPtA/d / c
Mass = (PtA/t /c) /c
Mass = Affectance / c^2


Or as more commonly know;

Affectance = Mass * c^2
Energy = mc^2


But now realize that the equation itself was not precise and the translation between the definitionally exact measurements in RM to those of observational physics has not been created. So this explanation has been purely conceptual in intent.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Jan 29, 2013 2:52 pm

Incredibly interesting, the fog is lifting somewhat. I'm not quite there yet - you'll have to help me out a bit more.

Energy = Affectance = changing of the PtA = PtA/t
Radiant Energy = propagating PtA/t = RptA

I am having trouble picturing propagating changing potential to affect.
Is not the changing of potential itself a propagating of sorts?
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Abstract » Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:24 pm

so what exactly are you saying energy is james?
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Abstract » Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:31 pm

or perhaps i should ask what is it that is "changing"?
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:34 am

Abstract wrote:or perhaps i should ask what is it that is "changing"?

What is changing is the ability to change the ability to change. Nothing else exists at all.
And "energy" is that ability to change actually changing in the two forms of "potential to actually change" and "actual changing", "potential energy" and "kinetic energy" or "PtA" and "Affectance".

Energy can be expressed as the potential to cause change plus all of its time derivatives;

PtA
dPtA/dt
dPtA/dt^2
dPtA/dt^3
.
.
.


PtA is equivalent to "electric potential" in physics.

Fixed Cross wrote:I am having trouble picturing propagating changing potential to affect.
Is not the changing of potential itself a propagating of sorts?

That question takes a lot of careful conceptual communication to answer. Let me give it a shot.

If we begin with the idea that every point in space has a potential to affect the potential next to it, we have to conclude that since there is nothing stopping it from doing so, such affecting will immediately take place and thus every point in space will immediately begin changing as it begins changing the points around it. Again, what is changing is only each point's ability to change the other points. That is the fundamental makeup of physical reality.

Propagation merely refers to the chain of affects as point A affect point B which then affects point C which then affects point D and so on much like the domino effect.

Image

That is the simple part. But logic dictate that there is more complexity involved because as each point affects the next, it is using up the amount of potential to cause that affect merely by actually causing it and thus, in effect, as any potential gives to another, that other is taking from the first.

Image

This is like a rich man giving his money to a poor man. It is said that the wealth is passing to the poor man. But it is necessarily also true that the poorness is passing to the rich man. Thus for every direction of increasing affect, there must be a reverse direction decreasing of affect (which happens to be why energy is necessarily and always conserved).

Image

And what gets complex is the fact that such increasing and decreasing of each PtA at each point causes each of those points to pass the affect along to the next point in line - propagation. And such is always happening in all directions at the same time.

If we take the concept of varied potentials to affect, PtA, distributed across a small line, we have to conclude that propagation will occur in both directions along that line.

Image

But as that propagating takes place, each point is being affected from both sides by what was coming toward it from its left and also what was coming toward it from its right. Thus the point itself has the addition of both propagating affects.

That was still the easy part. What gets fun is realizing that as each wave of forward affecting propagates, it includes both increasing PtA affects as well as decreasing PtA affects traveling in the same direction at the same speed. And that is happening in both directions.

In the above pictorial, the red and blue segments indicate the decreasing and increasing affects, respectively. But note that there is increasing headed in both directions as well as decreasing in both directions. As those affects cross at each point, they add to the points PtA. Thus if both were increasing, that point increases more. If one was increasing and the other was decreasing, that point has the result of the addition of the increasing minus the decreasing and thus might not change much at all. But even if a point does not change in its total PtA, the propagation does not stop (it takes a lot more explanation to go into why it doesn't).

So what you see as the green line in the pictorial is the actual result of propagating affects. It is a line that would appear to be rapidly and turbulently swaying up and down with no apparent pattern. That is what causes the "springiness of space" noted by physicists 100 years ago. That line represents the true and real state that all space is actually always in, always has been in, and always will be in. That fact can never change.

Modern quantum physics ontology basically agrees with the exception that they claim that such turbulence is due to magnetic bubbles popping into and out of reality on a Plank level, without cause. RM doesn't accept causeless events as logically coherent.

RM's Affectance Ontology vs Quantum Physics Ontology
RM: The EM turbulence of space is due to a maximum change rate causing a finite propagation speed of EM waves
QM: The EM turbulence of space is due to uncaused magnetic bubbles randomly popping in and out of reality.

QM gains statistical accuracy merely because they don't need to know why things are happening in order to measure them. RM merely gives logically coherent explanation as to Why they see what they see and affords far more precise predictive potential.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby phyllo » Wed Jan 30, 2013 12:51 am

Go ahead and predict something.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Abstract » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:47 am

but in order for there to be change there must be a thing that changes so my question is what is that thing that is energy/change
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:31 am

phyllo wrote:Go ahead and predict something.

You are going to make another snide comment.
What would QM predict about that?

Abstract wrote:but in order for there to be change there must be a thing that changes so my question is what is that thing that is energy/change

For the 3rd time, that "thing" is Potential-to-Affect or in physics, "Electric Potential".
If you have never thought about such things before, it takes a little getting used to. People had trouble accepting the notion of an invisible "gravity field" too... then the magic "magnetic field", then the "electric field".

For anything to be said to have existence, it must have the potential to affect something; Existence Meaningfully Defined. The most fundamental "thing" for it to be affecting is that potential. Thus on the most fundamental level of existence is merely the potential to affect the potential to affect. From the actual affecting of the potential, all forms of physical existence noted by physics logically arise.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Fixed Cross » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:26 pm

I did understand the theory of this part, still I appreciate the clarification.
What I still wonder about is the foton. I can see how things sort of pop into existence as reaching a threshold of affectance, but this seems to be a local concern - what about the photon? What is the mechanism of radiant propagating potential to affect?

Another question: is there a minimum, a limit to the quantum of affectance, or units with the potential to affect? Because if it is infinitely small, how can we distinguish it from zero?
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7844
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby phyllo » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:53 pm

You are going to make another snide comment.
What would QM predict about that?
You advertized that RM 'affords far more precise predictive potential' than QM.

Sounds like you should be able to calculate the sizes of particles or at least the ratio. Yes?

Predict some fundamental constant? Particles resulting from collision of subatomic particles? Photoelectric effect?

I leave it up to you to decide what you want to show.

I won't make a snide comment if you show some results. Not gonna give you a free ride either.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Abstract » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:43 pm

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:Go ahead and predict something.

You are going to make another snide comment.
What would QM predict about that?

Abstract wrote:but in order for there to be change there must be a thing that changes so my question is what is that thing that is energy/change

For the 3rd time, that "thing" is Potential-to-Affect or in physics, "Electric Potential".
If you have never thought about such things before, it takes a little getting used to. People had trouble accepting the notion of an invisible "gravity field" too... then the magic "magnetic field", then the "electric field".

For anything to be said to have existence, it must have the potential to affect something; Existence Meaningfully Defined. The most fundamental "thing" for it to be affecting is that potential. Thus on the most fundamental level of existence is merely the potential to affect the potential to affect. From the actual affecting of the potential, all forms of physical existence noted by physics logically arise.

but a potential is not a thing that is it is a thing that is yet to be...
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby Abstract » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:43 pm

regardless what is this potential made out of?
Love is the gravity of the soul.
User avatar
Abstract
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4351
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:19 am
Location: Nirvana

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Jan 30, 2013 9:45 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:I did understand the theory of this part, still I appreciate the clarification.
What I still wonder about is the foton. I can see how things sort of pop into existence as reaching a threshold of affectance, but this seems to be a local concern - what about the photon? What is the mechanism of radiant propagating potential to affect?

I'm unclear as to what you are asking. A photon is merely a "bunch" of noisy affectance that happens to be all traveling in the same direction. The entire bunch gets reflected or absorbed due to impedance matching issues. It gets produced as a bunch due to the mechanism involved in its production. The bunch doesn't maintain any particular shape other than what it had when it was produced and that shape can be modified. Its "mechanism for propagation" is the same as any much smaller affectance wave with the exception that as a "bunch", it can evolve such as to change direction, "bend". Other than that, I don't know what to say or question about it.

Fixed Cross wrote:Another question: is there a minimum, a limit to the quantum of affectance, or units with the potential to affect? Because if it is infinitely small, how can we distinguish it from zero?

Absolutely not. And "we" can't distinguish an infinitesimal from zero. Fortunately we don't have to because it and its surroundings know that it is there already and they respond accordingly. Affectance doesn't come in particular sizes as QM would have it. Affectance waves can be any size until they start interfering with each other. At that point more interesting things begin to happen; bunching, forming particles, forming gravitation,...

phyllo wrote:
You are going to make another snide comment.
What would QM predict about that?
You advertized that RM 'affords far more precise predictive potential' than QM.

Sounds like you should be able to calculate the sizes of particles or at least the ratio. Yes?

The units of measure in RM are different than the metric system and so far there is no conversion, partly because the ontological entities are slightly different. RM entities are 100% exact and thus all calculations involving those entities are 100% exact. Physics began with observed phenomena and then tried to measure relations relative to prior chosen units of measure. That led to an oddity of both entities as well as units of measure. RM defines conceptual entities and the units based on the pure conceptual definitions of the entities involved without having to observe a "thing" and try to measure it, and then calculates from there.
RM wrote:Method
The method that defines RM is simply that all conclusions must be drawn from verified logic that has been based not on truth assertions, but upon conceptual definitions, "Definitional Logic". To ensure the rationality (the usefulness) of such conclusions, directly falsifiable applications must be made and verified ("scientific method" of verification).

Image


phyllo wrote:Predict some fundamental constant? Particles resulting from collision of subatomic particles? Photoelectric effect?

I leave it up to you to decide what you want to show.

I won't make a snide comment if you show some results. Not gonna give you a free ride either.

You have had plenty of time to learn what it is that I am talking about such as to be a constructive adversary. You chose to remain ignorant on the topic and merely take potshots when you see opportunity. In your eyes, this is one of those, like the typical atheist declaring that there is no God when he doesn't even know what a God is.

"Show me how you're so great and cool, walk across my swimming pool."

What RM does most is give logically based coherent understanding of what is already observed, unlike quantum magic. RM is about WHY things are they way they are. But in so doing a few small things come to light that are slightly different than physics currently believes. Just to name a few;

1) Relativity is relative (as already displayed in the Stopped Clock Paradox)
2) In high energy fields, all particles will contain more mass
3) ALL particles and their properties can be fully explained with a single field concept - Affectance.
4) Gravity and Magnetism are aberrant effects of randomized distributed EM and accelerating potential, respectively.
5) There are no attractive or repulsive forces per se, particles migrate.
6) There is no "strong force" nor "weak force" as these are merely aberrant effects involving impedance matching and mismatching
7) The Double-Slit experiment can be explained and proven by RM and offers A Double-Slit Hypothesis for falsification testing.
8.) The definition of Time as "the relative measure of change".
9) Understanding for the appearance of a Big Bang without need of magical events.
10) Understanding of "dark matter".
11) There is a Maximum Rate of Change inherent in the universe, MRC, responsible for propagation speed and particle formation.
12) the universe had no beginning nor can it have an end.

But now, I have a question for you;
What the fuck have You done lately?

Abstract wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:Go ahead and predict something.

You are going to make another snide comment.
What would QM predict about that?

Abstract wrote:but a potential is not a thing that is it is a thing that is yet to be...

A "potential" is a situation (like a glass sitting on the edge of a table without sufficient balance to remain there. The glass "has the potential to fall"). To change a potential requires only a change in the situation.

Each point within a situation is a part of the situation and thus a part of the potential of the entire situation as well as being, with its immediate surroundings, a situation in itself. The situation is one wherein balance cannot be achieved wherein the situation would not dictate that it become different. Thus it eternally changes = "the physical universe".

It is "the situation OF the situation" being logically unstable. The situation cannot be what it is and remain what it is. Thus it changes, forming time and substance. The universe is merely "the substance of a changing situation" = Affectance.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Postby phyllo » Thu Jan 31, 2013 4:48 pm

The units of measure in RM are different than the metric system and so far there is no conversion, partly because the ontological entities are slightly different. RM entities are 100% exact and thus all calculations involving those entities are 100% exact. Physics began with observed phenomena and then tried to measure relations relative to prior chosen units of measure. That led to an oddity of both entities as well as units of measure. RM defines conceptual entities and the units based on the pure conceptual definitions of the entities involved without having to observe a "thing" and try to measure it, and then calculates from there.
This is an admission that RM 'results' can't be compared to observations since the is no conversion between real world measurements and RM units.
What RM does most is give logically based coherent understanding of what is already observed, unlike quantum magic. RM is about WHY things are they way they are.
That's what Aristotle was doing. But that approach had to be abandoned because the logic did not in fact match observations.

You're a clever man and you can certainly weave together a plausible explanation for how and why things might be. How closely does the explanation match the world? If it matches well, then it is a truth or a useful fiction. If it doesn't match, then it is a waste of time or an entertaining fiction.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10901
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users