How did Einstein arrive at E=mc^2?

Abstract · January 30, 2013, 2:43pm

James S Saint:

phyllo:

Go ahead and predict something.

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

Abstract:

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…

Abstract · January 30, 2013, 2:43pm

regardless what is this potential made out of?

James_S_Saint · January 30, 2013, 8:45pm

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.

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,…

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.

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;

Relativity is relative (as already displayed in the Stopped Clock Paradox)
In high energy fields, all particles will contain more mass
ALL particles and their properties can be fully explained with a single field concept - Affectance.
Gravity and Magnetism are aberrant effects of randomized distributed EM and accelerating potential, respectively.
There are no attractive or repulsive forces per se, particles migrate.
There is no “strong force” nor “weak force” as these are merely aberrant effects involving impedance matching and mismatching
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”.
Understanding for the appearance of a Big Bang without need of magical events.
Understanding of “dark matter”.
There is a Maximum Rate of Change inherent in the universe, MRC, responsible for propagation speed and particle formation.
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?

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.

phyllo · January 31, 2013, 3:48pm

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.

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.

James_S_Saint · January 31, 2013, 8:55pm

The measurements can’t be - yet.
The Logic can be.
But just as it takes someone knowing math to verify math, it takes someone knowing logic to verify logic.

Aristotle made “plausible assumptions” for his axioms.
RM makes no assumptions.

That is exactly my point. I have stated that many times. Anyone can build any kind of coherent ontology. The proof is in the final pudding.
So far, RM matches every single observation of modern physics.
Modern physics theories are what RM disagrees with, not the observations.
And in addition, RM answers the mysteries that modern physics claims to not be able to answer.

Abstract · February 1, 2013, 5:06pm

James S Saint:

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.

But then this “affectance” is governed by time… so what is time?

Helandhighwater · February 2, 2013, 12:18am

Well if we are going to be accurate he really kinda plagiarised other theorists who had already said the same thing but not necessarily in strictly mathematical terms or in a form that was totally derivable from experimental concerns: from Newton who said that light was energy and equivalent hence to all mass objects, paraphrasing there: to Boltzman and others the equation had already been rigidly framed in both maths and argument, the only difference is Einstein clearly showed it in a testable system. However the equation E=mc^2 has been written at least a half dozen times from the 18th to 19th century although not in the exact same terms, but close enough as to make no appreciable difference.

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

Albert Einstein.

James_S_Saint · February 2, 2013, 1:15am

Time is merely the measure of how much change has occurred relative to some other change. That is why time seems relative. All measurements are relative.

Helandhighwater:

Well if we are going to be accurate he really kinda plagiarised other theorists who had already said the same thing but not necessarily in strictly mathematical terms or in a form that was totally derivable from experimental concerns: from Newton who said that light was energy and equivalent hence to all mass objects, paraphrasing there: to Boltzman and others the equation had already been rigidly framed in both maths and argument, the only difference is Einstein clearly showed it in a testable system. However the equation E=mc^2 has been written at least a half dozen times from the 18th to 19th century although not in the exact same terms, but close enough as to make no appreciable difference.

“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”

Albert Einstein.

Would you happen to have references sources for any of that?

Helandhighwater · February 2, 2013, 2:10am

I do but since I am about to be permanently banned by a fucktard I fail to seen the need to supply them, so I wont. Look them up for yourself if you can be bothered.

Hobbes_Choice · July 18, 2013, 9:56pm

Einstein used his imagination. He looked at a sunbeam and asked what it would be like to travel on the wave.

Joules, metres and seconds is a completely circular argument.

Twiffy · July 19, 2013, 5:29am

Popped my head back in, and then remembered why I so rarely do. This thread is a travesty.

Phyllo, you called out James Saint in exactly the right way. Well done. Hopefully everyone understands enough of science to know that him failing to generate a prediction validated by experiement means he’s full of shit.

PhysBang, you seem like you are both rational and actually have some education. You poor bastard, what are you doing at ILP? I’m in math; I mostly work in algebraic topology and quantum field theory. PM me if you like.

The rest of you either seem corrupt and/or delusional (Saint), or else good-natured but lacking sufficient training in science to know that the corrupt ones are full of shit.

Here are some helpful hints:

Real scientists talk a lot more like PhysBang, and a lot less like anyone else on this thread.
If someone claims to have a theory that supercedes the best of the modern theories, he is a crackpot. If he tells you this theory without using a lot of complicated math, he’s a stupid crackpot.
If someone says he has sources for his claim, but refuses to produce them for any reason whatsoever, he is lying.
If the science in question is physics and someone says “you can loosely think of a photon as [simple idea X]”, that might be fine. If that person says “a photon IS just [simple idea X]”, he is a crackpot.
If you actually want to ask a question about science, and you can’t tell the real thing from the con artists, NEVER ASK IN A PHILOSOPHY FORUM. This is because even professional philosophers don’t know a damn thing about science, and armchair philosophers are much, much worse. For physics, ask here instead: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask
If you want to understand anything about physics in the 20th century or beyond, you need to know math. Sure, E=mc^2 has some vague intuition behind it, but if you really want to know why, you have to walk through the mathematical derivation. This is why physics is considered a hard subject – if you want to know why something is true, you have to follow the math. If someone says they can sell you a quick intuition, at best it’s something that’s vaguely related, but more likely, it’s complete bullshit.

Finally, the wikipedia article on E=mc^2 is quite interesting, and clears up the one or two correct things said in this thread, together with the writhing mass of bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#The_first_derivation_by_Einstein_.281905.29

Hobbes_Choice · July 19, 2013, 9:05am

Twiffy:

Here are some helpful hints:

Real scientists talk a lot more like PhysBang, and a lot less like anyone else on this thread.

This is a philosophy Forum. Have you ever heard of the “No true Scotsman fallacy”?

If someone claims to have a theory that supercedes the best of the modern theories, he is a crackpot. If he tells you this theory without using a lot of complicated math, he’s a stupid crackpot.

Charles Darwin superseded previous and widely held theories on evolution - and did so without ANY maths whatever.

If someone says he has sources for his claim, but refuses to produce them for any reason whatsoever, he is lying.

Not necessarily. Please cite this theory!

If you actually want to ask a question about science, and you can’t tell the real thing from the con artists, NEVER ASK IN A PHILOSOPHY FORUM. This is because even professional philosophers don’t know a damn thing about science, and armchair philosophers are much, much worse. For physics, ask here instead: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask

All the best scientists are also philosophers. This has been the case since the dawn of human history.
And has the basis of 20thC science has come from a person dedicated to philosophy and NOT science; I name Karl Popper, then what you say can be safely consigned to the round metal fining space on the floor PLONK!

If you want to understand anything about physics in the 20th century or beyond, you need to know math. Sure, E=mc^2 has some vague intuition behind it, but if you really want to know why, you have to walk through the mathematical derivation. This is why physics is considered a hard subject – if you want to know why something is true, you have to follow the math. If someone says they can sell you a quick intuition, at best it’s something that’s vaguely related, but more likely, it’s complete bullshit.

I think if you really thought about these questions, then you would probably not be wasting everyones’ time here.

Finally, the wikipedia article on E=mc^2 is quite interesting, and clears up the one or two correct things said in this thread, together with the writhing mass of bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#The_first_derivation_by_Einstein_.281905.29

Great - I suggest yo use that as your bible and leave the Philosophy to others.

PhysBang · July 19, 2013, 1:12pm

I agree that simply having a similar writing style is not something to judge claims. However, doing philosophy about something should not be done in complete ignorance.

The real success of his theory relies on quite a lot of mathematics. However, here we seem to be talking about physics and in particular about physics that is about subtle changes in position that rely on precise measurement. The first real test of general relativity relies upon the determination of 43/360ths of a degree of change in the orbit of Mercury out of about 538/360ths of a change over an entire century.

Einstein’s great achievements were aided by his imagination, but guided by his abilities in mathematics. He even co-created a new field of math for GR.

God no! Science has become a very specialized discipline, as has philosophy. There is a lot of trash out there written by physicists who think that they can simply relax when they write philosophy. This is not true of all of them, but it is definitely something to watch out for. Similarly, physics is nt something that one can merely armchair into correctness (sorry, Leibniz).

What science did he ever produce? He produced a very limited philosophy of science, one that is not widespread in popularity among philosophers of science–it is known, but not preferred.

Ed3 · July 19, 2013, 9:49pm

Hi Guys,

Some of my favorite people are here!

PhysBang, you wrote:

“He even co-created a new field of math for GR”.

I am not exactly sure about the field to which you are referring. I do know that Einstein cleaned up some tensor notation. Could you elaborate?

Ed

Helandhighwater · July 19, 2013, 10:07pm

Twiffy:

Popped my head back in, and then remembered why I so rarely do. This thread is a travesty.

Phyllo, you called out James Saint in exactly the right way. Well done. Hopefully everyone understands enough of science to know that him failing to generate a prediction validated by experiement means he’s full of shit.

PhysBang, you seem like you are both rational and actually have some education. You poor bastard, what are you doing at ILP? I’m in math; I mostly work in algebraic topology and quantum field theory. PM me if you like.

The rest of you either seem corrupt and/or delusional (Saint), or else good-natured but lacking sufficient training in science to know that the corrupt ones are full of shit.

Here are some helpful hints:

Real scientists talk a lot more like PhysBang, and a lot less like anyone else on this thread.

If someone claims to have a theory that supercedes the best of the modern theories, he is a crackpot. If he tells you this theory without using a lot of complicated math, he’s a stupid crackpot.

If someone says he has sources for his claim, but refuses to produce them for any reason whatsoever, he is lying.

If the science in question is physics and someone says “you can loosely think of a photon as [simple idea X]”, that might be fine. If that person says “a photon IS just [simple idea X]”, he is a crackpot.

If you actually want to ask a question about science, and you can’t tell the real thing from the con artists, NEVER ASK IN A PHILOSOPHY FORUM. This is because even professional philosophers don’t know a damn thing about science, and armchair philosophers are much, much worse. For physics, ask here instead: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/ask

If you want to understand anything about physics in the 20th century or beyond, you need to know math. Sure, E=mc^2 has some vague intuition behind it, but if you really want to know why, you have to walk through the mathematical derivation. This is why physics is considered a hard subject – if you want to know why something is true, you have to follow the math. If someone says they can sell you a quick intuition, at best it’s something that’s vaguely related, but more likely, it’s complete bullshit.

Finally, the wikipedia article on E=mc^2 is quite interesting, and clears up the one or two correct things said in this thread, together with the writhing mass of bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#The_first_derivation_by_Einstein_.281905.29

You should probably post on any thread James opines on, you will be ignored, but it’s one of those things. James hasn’t the mathematical background to do a model that makes sense so he waffles. The rest of us are told he is right by people because he says so, and on it goes. If it’s worth anything I am studying physics although at a pace that would stun icebergs into immobility and I agree with everything you said. Philosophy wise James has of course talked the talk, although even that seems merely a repetition of already existent science philosophy. Actual science abandon hope all ye who enter his threads, you are not going to see science ever. Nor should you expect to, nor should you expect him to answer you, but hell try it anyway, his wall of obtuseness does need to be tackled by people who know what they are talking about, I can assure you James doesn’t.

Every single point you make has been tried by dozens of people, there seems though a wall of obstinacy that allows non science and conjecture but disallows actual science to enter the discussion. You should try it, it is exactly why you should not come to this forum for any real information about science. This is not the place for it. Which is fair enough I suppose, I just wish people would stop acting as apologists for utter conjecture with no chance at evidence ever as if it is anything more than the religion it is. Hallowed be thy claim…

Moreno · July 19, 2013, 11:29pm

I am amazed how much Popper is whipped outin philosophical discussions as if his conclusions are either philosophical consensus or scientific consensus. Probablistic induction is doing much better in both Groups than his proposals. That said he certainly inspired excellent debate in epistemology and the philosophy of science, but as an appeal to authority, he’s a weak one.

Hobbes_Choice · July 20, 2013, 8:42am

PhysBang:

Hobbes Choice:

This is a philosophy Forum. Have you ever heard of the “No true Scotsman fallacy”?

I agree that simply having a similar writing style is not something to judge claims. However, doing philosophy about something should not be done in complete ignorance.
In that case I expect you will crawl back under your rock

Charles Darwin superseded previous and widely held theories on evolution - and did so without ANY maths whatever.

The real success of his theory relies on quite a lot of mathematics.

I can see you have never taken the trouble to read his books. Origin of Species has no maths in it at all, nor does Descent of Man

However, here we seem to be talking about physics and in particular about physics that is about subtle changes in position that rely on precise measurement. The first real test of general relativity relies upon the determination of 43/360ths of a degree of change in the orbit of Mercury out of about 538/360ths of a change over an entire century.

But verified by a single non mathematical observation during a solar eclipse.

All the best scientists are also philosophers. This has been the case since the dawn of human history.

God no! Science has become a very specialized discipline, as has philosophy. There is a lot of trash out there written by physicists who think that they can simply relax when they write philosophy. This is not true of all of them, but it is definitely something to watch out for. Similarly, physics is nt something that one can merely armchair into correctness (sorry, Leibniz).

You are just ignorant of the Intellectual History of the Subject.

What science did he ever produce? He produced a very limited philosophy of science, one that is not widespread in popularity among philosophers of science–it is known, but not preferred.
[/quote]
Ignorance upon ignorance. Popper is the most influential philosopher of science of the 20thC - superseded by none. in the Number 2 spot is Kuhn.
You are a waste of space. Has a science Forum closed from lack of interest, that you troll on this one?
The trouble with science is that it is only descriptive. It’s no wonder we get refugees that come here looking for something a bit more stimulating.

PhysBang · July 20, 2013, 9:24pm

Are you sure that you want to be calling people ignorant before you figure out how to use the “quote” function?

Darwin did great work with little direct mathematical appeal, but I never claimed that he used a lot of mathematics in those books. I claim that the success of his theories rests on a lot of mathematical work. The success of evolutionary theory relies on a lot of measurements and statistical inferences.

It takes far, far more than a single observation to provide significant support to a theory. In any case, the observation you cite relied on the ability of the observation to provide a measurement of the amount of bending of light produced by the sun. The observation was supposed to show that the amount of bending was twice that predicted by the Newtonian theory of the day.

You can say that if it makes you feel better.

Really? Kuhn has sold far more books and probably has far more references. I have never heard any professional philosopher or historian claim that anyone in the 20thC philosophy of science was more influential than Kuhn, even though vanishingly few of them think that Kuhn was right. Popper seems to be a good choice for second and that influence does seem to be somewhat deeper. But few people think that Popper is the last or best word on science.

Hobbes_Choice · July 20, 2013, 9:32pm

No. you are squirming. You attacked me when I refuted this:[i]

2) If someone claims to have a theory that supercedes the best of the modern theories, he is a crackpot. If he tells you this theory without using a lot of complicated math, he’s a stupid crackpot.

But verified by a single non mathematical observation during a solar eclipse.

Once again you talk from ignorance here as you did with Darwin above.
Arthur Eddington, verified Einstein’s theory by means of a simple observation during a solar eclipse.

Please educate yourself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington

Twiffy · July 20, 2013, 9:51pm

HobbesChoice,

I was the one who made that claim, not PhysBang. And there are two reasons why my claim is right.

Darwin came up with theory of evolution one hundred and fifty years ago. Science has changed dramatically since then. Much as being a lone inventor used to be a career path for the solitary genius but now everyone works for corporations, lone scientists who can generate entirely new theories are no longer part of the picture. This is because in science and regarding inventions, most of the low-hanging fruit has been picked; what remains is too complex for one person to solve alone.
If there were, somehow, a lone genius who was able to generate an entirely new theory without working alongside others – well, this genius might work in a Swiss patent office, but he sure as hell wouldn’t waste his time telling the other clerks about it. For example, I have created new theorems and advanced mathematical theory. (I’m not bragging that I’m some great genius – by definition every mathematican has done the same thing.) But (excepting as an example) I don’t go on ILP and say, “guess what! All fully nonarchimedean compact sets are countable, and so all existing theorems that purport to tackle nonarchimedean behavior by appealing to a standard finiteness condition have to be discarded! And I AM THE FIRST PERSON EVER TO DISCOVER THIS.” This is because people here might be interested, and I could explain it to them, but they would get very little out of it, and I would benefit even less. It would be exactly like you doing something important at work, everyone being pleased with you, and then you going home and bragging about this to your 7-yr old child.

No, even if someone were to generate a new theory, they would be publishing this in peer-reviewed journals and getting appointments at Princeton. They would certainly not brag about it on ILP.