Physical Explanation for E=mc^2
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
Next: A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely youcan't be serious.
From: BURT on 14 Feb 2010 16:24 On Feb 14, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > In [Einstein's] original SR paper he stated the aether > > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. > > Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: > > http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf > > Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an > absolutely stationary space was superfluous: > > http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel... > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place." > > This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made > about the aether. Including but not limited to, "the state of the > [ether] is at every place determined by the connections with the > matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places". > > It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to > understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can > continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but > I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. > > DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. > Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear > fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to > aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I > understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit > experiment. Einstein said the aether is immatterial and doesn't move. That is space aether. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 16:45 > In [Einstein's] original SR paper he stated the aether > was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. Albert Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an absolutely stationary space was superfluous: http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made about the aether. Including but not limited to, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by the connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places". It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: Bill Hobba on 14 Feb 2010 17:52 On 14/02/2010 11:26 PM, mpc755 wrote: > On Feb 14, 3:03 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On 14/02/2010 3:55 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Feb 14, 12:38 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>> On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. >>>>>>>>>>>> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf >> >>>>>>>>>>>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass >>>>>>>>>>>> diminishes by L/c2." >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer >>>>>>>>>>>> exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as >>>>>>>>>>>> aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three >>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether >>>>>>>>>>>> and matter is energy. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear >>>>>>>>>>>> fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion >>>>>>>>>>>> reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>>>>>>>>> matter and aether in neighboring places. >> >>>>>>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on >>>>>>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably >>>>>>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is >>>>>>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume >>>>>>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. >> >>>>>>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the >>>>>>>>> surrounding matter and aether. >> >>>>>>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the >>>>>>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? >> >>>>>>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different >>>>>>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from >>>>>>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2 >>>>>>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass >>>>>>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. >> >>>>>>>>> What happened to the mass associated with >>>>>>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? >> >>>>>>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat >>>>>>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved. >> >>>>>>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am >>>>>>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of >>>>>>> energy. >> >>>>>> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of >>>>>> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle >>>>>> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. >> >>>>> Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but >>>>> if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his >>>>> stance on aether: >> >>>> It has nothing to do with Einstein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem >> >>>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is >>>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein >> >>>> That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of >>>> context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since >>>> Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought >>>> neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the >>>> existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis >>>> or consequence. >> >>> It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully >>> everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately >>> reflects Einstein's understanding of GR. >> >>> As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is >>> responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable. >> >>> You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's >>> understanding of GR. >> >> That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether >> was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. > > Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an > absolutely stationary space was superfluous: > > http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place." And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is - this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare. 'What Einstein really meant was that the aether which had been overthrown by str (and thus was incompatible with gtr, which incorporates str) involved a a specific "preferred frame of reference" in the classical field theory, whereas the field equation of gtr involves no "prior geometry" (such as the euclidean geometry of "space" which has assumed by Maxwell and his contemporaries), much less any "preferred frame".' And John Baez is correct when he says GTR is incompatiple with the usual version of an aether as an actual substance that pervades all of space that light undulates in. Eintein knew this. His new conception of an aether was completely different to the old: http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V08NO3PDF/V08N3GRF.PDF 'Recapitulating: we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of measuring rods and clocks, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.' It is interesting that those that harp on Einsteins aether comments later in life neglect to mention this. That's what I mean by out of context. Thanks Bill > > This is completely consistent with every other statement Einstein made > about the aether. > > It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to > understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can > continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but > I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. > > DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN' > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. > > The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. > Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear > fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to > aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. > > It is obvious you are going to choose to remain ignorant and not > understand the above and that is fine if that is what you choose. But > you can't expect me to not understand something I understand. I choose > not to belong to the Feynman camp. I understand what occurs physically > in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature > in a double slit experiment.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 18:24 On Feb 14, 5:52 pm, Bill Hobba <bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 14/02/2010 11:26 PM, mpc755 wrote: > >>> You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's > >>> understanding of GR. > > >> That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether > >> was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. > > > Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an > > absolutely stationary space was superfluous: > > >http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel... > > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > electromagnetic processes take place." > > And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view > he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is - > this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His > injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally > different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments > want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare. Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves. I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez words. And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel.htm "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place." http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html What Einstein means by the aether is not an absolutely stationary space is the following: "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of ether. "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether" "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman and choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 18:29
On Feb 14, 5:52 pm, Bill Hobba <bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On 14/02/2010 11:26 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 3:03 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 14/02/2010 3:55 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Feb 14, 12:38 am, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> On 14/02/2010 1:10 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> On Feb 13, 9:48 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>> On 14/02/2010 9:01 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Feb 13, 5:20 pm, Bill Hobba<bho...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 14/02/2010 12:26 AM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 9:17 am, "Dono."<sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 6:03 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 13, 8:41 am, mpc755<mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > >>>>>>>>>>>> EINSTEIN'http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2..pdf > > >>>>>>>>>>>> "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > >>>>>>>>>>>> diminishes by L/c2." > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > >>>>>>>>>>>> exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > >>>>>>>>>>>> aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > >>>>>>>>>>>> dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > >>>>>>>>>>>> and matter is energy. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> The effects of the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear > >>>>>>>>>>>> fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion > >>>>>>>>>>>> reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > >>>>>>>>>>>> matter and aether in neighboring places. > > >>>>>>>>>>> The 'E' in E=mc^2 is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on > >>>>>>>>>>> the neighboring matter and aether. I'm guessing you could probably > >>>>>>>>>>> modify the equation to be A=Mc^2, where 'A' is aether and 'M' is > >>>>>>>>>>> matter, and you would have a decent idea of the difference in volume > >>>>>>>>>>> between matter and aether.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>>> Imbecile. Autistic. Autistic imbecile. > > >>>>>>>>> Energy is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the > >>>>>>>>> surrounding matter and aether. > > >>>>>>>>> I take it when you think of E=mc^2 you are probably thinking the > >>>>>>>>> matter 'converts' to energy? > > >>>>>>>> I suspect he thinks about it correctly - that matter is just a different > >>>>>>>> form of energy like heat is another form. That this is so follows from > >>>>>>>> the modern defintion of energy based on Noethers Theorem. Note E=MC'2 > >>>>>>>> does not say mass and energy are the same thing or that energy has mass > >>>>>>>> - simply that it is another form of energy. > > >>>>>>>>> What happened to the mass associated with > >>>>>>>>> the matter? Did it disappear? > > >>>>>>>> Nope - it was simply converted to another form of energy like heat > >>>>>>>> energy for example can be converted to EM energy. No mystery involved. > > >>>>>>> And this is exactly the misunderstanding of what energy is that I am > >>>>>>> discussing. Mass does not convert to energy. Mass is not a form of > >>>>>>> energy. > > >>>>>> That is incorrect. It follows immediately from the modern definition of > >>>>>> energy based on Noethers theorem and the relativistic free particle > >>>>>> Lagrangian. You cant really argue with a definition. > > >>>>> Not sure who you are referring to when you say 'Noethers theorem', but > >>>>> if you are referring to Einstein then you don't even understand his > >>>>> stance on aether: > > >>>> It has nothing to do with Einstein:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem > > >>>>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > >>>>> unthinkable" - Albert Einstein > > >>>> That has been posted here innumerable times. First it is taken out of > >>>> context. And secondly relativity has moved on quite a bit since > >>>> Einsteins time. Regardless of what Einstein may or may not have thought > >>>> neither SR nor GR requires an aether. Indeed in either theory the > >>>> existence of such would be an adhoc assumption with zero physical basis > >>>> or consequence. > > >>> It is not taken out of context at all. If you read carefully > >>> everything Einstein ever said about ether the above quote accurately > >>> reflects Einstein's understanding of GR. > > >>> As far as Einstein is concerned, according to GR, the theory he is > >>> responsible for, space without ether is unthinkable. > > >>> You assume it is adhoc because you do not understand Einstein's > >>> understanding of GR. > > >> That is simply incorrect. In his original SR paper he stated the aether > >> was superfluous which was basically the position he always held. > > > Einstein did not say the aether was superfluous. Einstein said an > > absolutely stationary space was superfluous: > > >http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Specrel... > > > "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be > > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > > an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, > > nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which > > electromagnetic processes take place." > > And that is saying an ether is superfluous - which is the general view > he maintained all his life (the usual conception of the aether that is - > this is not the same as what he talks about later in life.) His > injudicious comments later in life were for a view of the ether totally > different to what you and others like you that bring up his comments > want it to be. John Baez laid the facts bare. > Why is John Baez interpretation of Einstein more accurate then Einstein's own words? It's not. Einstein's words speak for themselves. I guess I will have to keep posting Einstein's own words to reflect Einstein's thoughts on ether and you can keep posting John Baez's. And what about this 'first paper' of Einstein's? Are you just going to deny its existence? Einstein's 'First Paper' is all about the aether: http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf Einstein's definition of the aether as not being an absolutely stationary space is the following: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" Here are more Einstein statements, in his own words, in support of ether. "More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether" "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity." "But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever." "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light" It is obvious you are from the Feynman camp where it is impossible to understand easily understood processes in Nature. That's fine you can continue to believe things are incomprehensible if you so choose, but I understand what is physically occurring in nature in E=mc^2. DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. The physical effects caused by the newly released aether is energy. Think nuclear fission and fusion. The energy given off in nuclear fission and fusion reactions is the effect matter transitioning to aether has on the matter and aether in neighboring places. Obviously, you are going to choose to remain in the Feynman camp and choose to remain ignorant of what occurs physically in E=mc^2 and what occurs physically in a double slit experiment. I understand what occurs physically in nature in E=mc^2 and I understand what occurs physically in nature in a double slit experiment. |