Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lucky45

E=mc2

Recommended Posts

Is it possible that Einstein's theroy of reletivity might have a little flaw

in it.Or is his theroy carved in stone\? and cannot be disputed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This depends what you mean. But you must be aware that special and general relativity have passed all direct and indirect tests asked of it.

 

However, we know that general relativity cannot be the final word on the nature of space and time. Quantum effects need to be taken into account.

 

Exactly how these will work and how these will modify low energy physics (not near Planck scale) awaits to be seen. For example, it is expected that there should be other terms in the Einstein--Hilbert action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that Einstein's theroy of relativity might have a little flaw in it.Or is his theory carved in stone and cannot be disputed

Electrodynamics of a point-like charge has a "self-action" problem. This particular problem is still under consideration. (A. Einstein had never worried about it, though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been found particles that move faster than light this particles called Tykons. This gives us impertion that the theory of relativity is not absolute true

Edited by Cap'n Refsmmat
link removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has been found particles that move faster than light this particles called Tykons. This gives us impertion that the theory of relativity is not absolute true

 

As far as I know there has been no tangible evidence of Tachyons.

 

Also, they in no way violate special relativity.

 

However, quantum theory states that such particles are unstable and decay.

Edited by Cap'n Refsmmat
spam link removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that Einstein's theroy of reletivity might have a little flaw

in it.Or is his theroy carved in stone\? and cannot be disputed

 

I can answer both your questions with one rudimentary answer. No 'theory' is set in stone and can be subject to flaws as we progress in understanding. Hence we call them theories and not laws.

 

e.g Theory of relativity.

Laws of physics.

 

Hope that explains well... something. As always my knowledge is limited and my opinion humble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Law tends to be an old term for a theory. I don't think there is any deep technical difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Law tends to be an old term for a theory. I don't think there is any deep technical difference.

 

I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any scientific theory is based on the scientific method:

 

"Four essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:

Characterizations (observations, definitions, and measurements of the subject of inquiry)

Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements of the subject)

Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from the hypothesis or theory)

Experiments (tests of all of the above). from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Elements_of_scientific_method

 

We begin with observation, we end with observation. The circle must be closed. If something escapes from observation, the scientific method cannot apply and there is no proper theory.

Relativity is based upon observation: C the speed of light is both a measurement and an axiom. And Relativity is supported by observational experiment. The circle is closed, everything goes well, Relativity is a Theory.

But if Mother Nature was more tricky than we thought, and if something bizarre happened in what we call "observation", the tricky part would be hidden both in the axiom and in the experiment. Even in this case, the theory could work, the circle would still be closed, the "tricky error" would be "outside" the theory, and we would never be able to notice anything of it. Everything would be explained perfectly, mathematically, but not necessary the way it really works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that Einstein's theroy of reletivity might have a little flaw

in it.Or is his theroy carved in stone\? and cannot be disputed

 

We have had many, many discussions on exactly this topic. Try using the search function to find some; I am sure they will all be very helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My view of seeing it is as follows:-

 

d/dx of General Relativity= Special Relativity

d/dx of Special Relativity= Newtonian Mechanics

 

In other words, Newtonian is a mechanics of small speeds, where as special relativity is a mechanics in smaller acc. tending to zero.

 

However in my view there is no flaw in any theory, its just a change in perception that we have because of the change in our way to see the approximations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually one known floor in the famous

 

"E=mc2"

 

For Einstein or anyone else deriving and simplifying this equation there is a square root to be resolved. Any function involving a square root always has 2 solutions, one positive and one negative. e.g. the square root of 4 is 2, but it is also -2.

 

So the famous equation should read

 

E=±mc2

 

In this formula, the existence of negative matter and negative energy are allowed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is actually one known floor in the famous

 

"E=mc2"

 

For Einstein or anyone else deriving and simplifying this equation there is a square root to be resolved. Any function involving a square root always has 2 solutions, one positive and one negative. e.g. the square root of 4 is 2, but it is also -2.

 

So the famous equation should read

 

E=±mc2

 

In this formula, the existence of negative matter and negative energy are allowed for.

 

Not from E=mc^2 itself, since there is no square root involved. Rather, it comes from the equation E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4, which is the "parent" equation, and allows for a negative mass (not matter) or energy solution. Antimatter was predicted via the Dirac equation, which is related, but not really the same.

 

But we really don't know what negative energy is, being a scalar quantity, so that solution is generally ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, swansont, for clarifying the 'E=mc(2)' issue (The equation is correct if 'm' represents the relativistic mass, not the rest mass). And Kudos to michel123456 for reminding us of The Scientific Method, the 'litmus test' by which ideas and concepts are elevated to 'Theory' status, which seems to be conveniently ignored in certain cases these days. I suspect GR will continue to hold up to future tests (within its limitations, of which Einstein was keenly aware). Consider this: QM comes in various 'Interpretations', whereas GR is BRAND NAME ONLY!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes B/E=c2 where B is magnetic & E electric field.

 

 

Hm. I mean it is unusual to square a constant. Usually, the squared values are variables, like in [math]\pi r^2[/math].

 

In reality in [math]e=m c^2[/math], [math]c^2[/math] is the constant, not c.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a product of the derivation of the equation.

 

besides, its better to have the one constant with an operator instead of making up a second constant so it doesn't require an operator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm. I mean it is unusual to square a constant. Usually, the squared values are variables, like in [math]\pi r^2[/math].

 

In reality in [math]e=m c^2[/math], [math]c^2[/math] is the constant, not c.

 

For example, [math]\hbar^{k}[/math] for [math]k [/math] a natural number occurs in quantum theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fine structure constant has the square of the fundamental charge

 

The Bohr radius has e^2 and h^2

 

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has k^4 and h^3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fine structure constant has the square of the fundamental charge

 

The Bohr radius has e^2 and h^2

 

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has k^4 and h^3

 

Hm. Right. I still find it intriguing to square a constant. Is that so natural?

 

When Insane-A says

besides, its better to have the one constant with an operator instead of making up a second constant so it doesn't require an operator.
i am not so sure it is so simple.

C has unities meter/sec. When you square C, you square the unities as well. Csquared are m^2 / sec^2 which is physically representing something (what is it ?) that is not a speed any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.