- Thread starter
- #1
mathmaniac
Active member
- Mar 4, 2013
- 188
I checked google and all they have is E means energy.But what energy?Maximum energy?
The equation to tell us exactly how much energy a given amount of mass represents.I checked google and all they have is E means energy.But what energy?Maximum energy?
I think Energy is compression or stress.So here energy means the total amount of compression of space inside a mass,which is the same as the amount of energy it contains?Am I right?LLand314 said:The equation to tell us exactly how much energy a given amount of mass represents.
The next step is to say that both mass and energy are illusions.I think Energy is compression or stress.So here energy means the total amount of compression of space inside a mass,which is the same as the amount of energy it contains?Am I right?
You din't tell if you think I am right.I think you think I am.The next step is to say that both mass and energy are illusions.
You mean mass is twisted space when photon which is actually a space wave goes in circles in the process of pair production?This is what I think.They are mere representations of a hyperdimensional space that is bent in such a way to create the illusion of mass-energy.
Streching or expanding is what happens when energy is released,but energy is actually stored as compressions...I'd like to think of that as stretching instead of compression though.
You mean the cannonball on a rubber sheet analogy.But I think thats the wrong analogy because it uses gravity to explain gravity.Near a mass the space continuum stretches into a sort of pit, making other masses fall into it.
I think Energy is compression or stress.So here energy means the total amount of compression of space inside a mass,which is the same as the amount of energy it contains?Am I right?
Pure energy is space,electromagnetic radiation is space,c is space,everything is space...The equation though is giving the pure energy; pure energy is electromagnetic radiation and electromagnetic radiation always moves at the speed of light which is why c is there.
How do you yourself exactly define "space"?Pure energy is space,electromagnetic radiation is space,c is space,everything is space...
This is what I think...
Please tell me if you think this is right or wrong...
"E" means how much the space is compressed in a mass.
Right or Wrong?
To quote a famous physicist, I think it's neither right nor wrong. It's meaningless since you haven't defined any of the terms you use. How does the speed of light equal space? What does "compressed space" mean? How can you be "in" a "mass", do you mean density?Pure energy is space,electromagnetic radiation is space,c is space,everything is space...
This is what I think...
Please tell me if you think this is right or wrong...
"E" means how much the space is compressed in a mass.
Right or Wrong?
Oh sorry,by "c" I meant light not "the speed of light".It's meaningless since you haven't defined any of the terms you use. How does the speed of light equal space? What does "compressed space" mean? How can you be "in" a "mass", do you mean density?
I was asking what Einstein meant by "E"To be honest I'm not sure this thread contains much information,
The fact that energy is stress is conceivable to any layman and the fact that photon tied in a knot is also evident from "pairproduction".But I as a layman don't know why light is considered as simply a moving stress.If it is conjectured then everything becomes space.this kind of physics doesn't really mean anything to the layman until he has some kind of background in relativistic and quantum physics (and I'm not claiming I have said background).
All I am sure is that mass is photon.But if I conjecture photon is a travelling stress in space I reach at the conclusion that everything is space.It sounds cool to say that "mass is energy" but it doesn't really mean anything without proper definitions and context. It may, however, incite further research and spark an interest in the relevant field, which is a good thing.
Now that I have given clarifications of my thoughts tell me what you think the "E" means.Or tell me what Albert Einstein meant by it.I think it's neither right nor wrong.
You have been answered, you just don't like the answers! And from you "thoughts" the reason appears to be that you do not know what energy itself is. You talk about "compression" which is a force, not a type of energy at all.I was asking what Einstein meant by "E"
but never got a satisfactory reply so far.I was to give more clarification and information of my thoughts and thats all I did.o
Yes!I have been answered that mass and energy are equivalent and "E" is energy.But thats not complete.I mean you say E=1/2 mv^2 . You can say it is the energy transferred to a body of mass moving at constant velocity v, by a force.You have been answered, you just don't like the answers!
OK,tell me what you mean by energy and what you mean by "E" in "E=mc^2".And from you "thoughts" the reason appears to be that you do not know what energy itself is.
I didn't say "compression" is a type of energy,I said "compression" is directly proportional to energy.You talk about "compression" which is a force, not a type of energy at all.
Mass and energy are concrete and distinct concepts that exist in a kind of "duality." When we say that [tex]E = mc^2[/tex] we are not saying that mass and energy are the same. By some process we may be able to convert all the mass of a particle into energy but the equation merely says how much, not in what form it will take. (Sorry Mr. Spock. There is no such thing as "pure energy.") For example if we collide an electron with a positron (an anti-matter electron) we get [tex]2m_ec^2[/tex] of energy from the collision, plus whatever energy due to the overall momentum of the system contributes. But what form does that energy take? Most commonly as a photon. But it could also be a Z_0 particle, or a graviton, etc. (No single gluons. They have a special property called "color" and we can't directly observe this. You could have a "glue-ball" though which is a combination of more than one gluon in a semi-stable non-color state.)The next step is to say that both mass and energy are illusions.
compression of whatever it is in.And atlast maybe compression of aether.I suspect that some of the problems here are due to language. However two things strike me:
1. You keep referring to a "compression." A compression of what? I don't have any idea what you are talking about here.
Doesn't "Pair Production" imply this as it implies that an electron is in a way "a photon stopped"?2. I believe you mentioned that all energy is made up of photons.
So what happens if all the mass is converted?massless photons?This is my attempt to make things clear. Many of these concepts have already been mentioned by others. Is there any specific question you have about this?
Is there any evidence for it?A special particle for gravity?Seems insane to me..graviton
When Quantum physicists deal with particles we put the interaction in free space. This is a microscopic viewpoint and not shared with Classical, or macroscopic, Physics. I am assuming that the conversation is centering about subatomic particles so there is nothing to compress in this case.compression of whatever it is in.And atlast maybe compression of aether.
Pair production of electrons and positrons is the interaction:Doesn't "Pair Production" imply this as it implies that an electron is in a way "a photon stopped"?
![]() |
As I mentioned in my last post when mass is converted to energy it has to be carried off by something, like photons, etc. Energy cannot exist on its own... it has to be carried off by a particle of some sort.So what happens if all the mass is converted?massless photons?
Gravitons (the particle field interpretation of a "gravity wave") are a tricky subject right now. No one has been able to detect one, but the theory of their existence seems sound. You can derive many of the properties of a graviton by looking at General Relativity and they are commonly used in Quantum Mechanics. And besides if you have two objects orbiting each other energy is lost to something as they spiral inward. For the moment we attribute the mechanism of such energy loss as the emission of gravitons. (For the record gravitons, like photons, are massless.)Is there any evidence for it?A special particle for gravity?Seems insane to me..