timo Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 The correct equation is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 thats the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubJunk Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 i gave a source regarding neutrinos speed earlier What, just one source? This is the internet buddy. I can't find the source you posted (mainly cause i didn't look ) but surely you can't just believe one source. Oh and Atheist get off it. Either you're a smart-ass or jumped the gun very early on your reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timo Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 that [E² = (mc²)² + (pc)²'] is the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc a) no. b) Also not the same as the E = mc² + (pc)² that you were complaining about. c) Now I remember why I usually ignore certain threads so don´t expect me to participate here further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 here you go http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x18.htm Thanks ed, though it didn't quite address my questions over mass and the missing neutrinos. This one does that nicely so I am now a happy bunny.http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~jgl/nuosc_story.html#A%20Decade%20Old%20Problem Edit; just looked back through the post and I see Subjunk was asking for references. This one looks solid to me. But then I'm an Earth scientist and easily confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 should it not be E=Mc^2*g? or is that another way of describing p^2*c*^c Also im not basing it on one source, Im basing it on 2 there and a horizon episode i watched. Im not saying im definately correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 The correct equation is E² = (mc²)² + (pc)² Egads, yes. A brainfart on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 thats the same as saying E=mc^2 +pc No, if you square it you get a cross-term. I erred in my post. Serves me right, trying to watch the game and post at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted October 25, 2004 Share Posted October 25, 2004 Egads, yes. A brainfart on my part. Lol! and I just pasted your equation! (that'll teach me to trust you!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted October 26, 2004 Share Posted October 26, 2004 just to say that I see how photons could have no mass if e^2=(mc^2)+(pc)^2 and a photon has momentum. and then by that it had mass than it would have no momentum because otherwise you would have e=2e essentially Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndmc Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 I just finished talking with a man named Joao Magueijo after reading his book "Faster than the speed of light" which HE proves that einstein is wrong' date=' anyone else read the book? any thoughts on this? What do you think of VSL theory?[/quote'] hi dluther im currently reading that book. and i find it quite fascinating. someone mentioned above that light is slower when its crossing a medium; well, that´s true but it´s bullshit though. cuz magueji is talking about lightspeed in vacuum, not in a medium. someone else said that magueiji is only looking for attention. i guess he didnt understand anything. of course scientists are looking for attention; but that´s not the motor of the development of vsl. moffat had a vsl-theory years ago. barrows wrote about vsl before maguejio published his results. even einstein thought about vsl. in my opinion, vsl does not prove that einstein was wrong. i mean, when einstein published his theories of relativity, he did not prove that newton was wrong. he just added something that was new until then. i think it´s the same with vsl: it´s adding something new. if that means that einstein was wrong, well, then newton was wrong, too. but honestly, would anybuddy say that newton was wrong? imho you can say that they all were/are right with the knowledge they could achieve at their times. man, did you really talk to magueijro? he´s a genius to me! i actually love his book and his way of writing. it´s an adventure, it´s highly interesting and it´s funny too. my first post here. sorry if it´s too long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geistkiesel Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 E = mc2 is and always has been true. No. This is not true. It has never been true' date=' and it never will be true. No body is completely at rest.[/quote'] Sure. Maybe what you see when you look at night. Try this. Two photons are emitted tat he the same time. One goes this way the other goes that way. Now photons move instraight lines and do not drift. If there is a straight line in space that does not drift, then , by definition you have a zero velocity coordinate system. Maybe nobody is at rest, but abstraction are at rest, and they don't interfer with any motion, they don't push you off the road and they don't give you bad graxdes. The point where the photons are emitted is a zero veloicty point., absoltely Geistkiesel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Please excuse my ignorance, but I thought the Einstein equations merely stated that nothing could travel at lightspeed. They say nothing about going faster. Would it not be theoretically possible (if velocity increases in quantum jumps rather than a linear progression ) to go from slightly below LS to slightly above without actually travelling at c? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Please excuse my ignorance' date=' but I thought the Einstein equations merely stated that nothing could travel [b']at[/b] lightspeed. They say nothing about going faster. Would it not be theoretically possible (if velocity increases in quantum jumps rather than a linear progression ) to go from slightly below LS to slightly above without actually travelling at c? If you look at the equations, you will find that for v>c you get an imaginary term. So either the mass is imaginary (to get real energy) or if the mass is real, you have an imaginary energy. So jumping across that divide requires something to change character somehow, and there's no known physical attributes that can be discerned from all that. It is entirely possible that superluminal particles exist (tachyons) but as we have no way of interacting with them, it makes no tangible difference if they do or don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 Thanks mate, I thought it was something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHole Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Special relativity makes two assumptions: 1) The speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source or receiver. That is, the speed of light is the same in all reference frames in uniform motion, with respect to the source. 2) Space is isotropic and uniform. The fundamental laws of physics are identical for any two observers in uniform relative motion. Special Relativity rejects the idea of any absolute ('unique' or 'special') frame of reference; rather physics must look the same to all observers travelling at a constant velocity (inertial frame). These two assumptions were confirmed by hundreds of experiments (i.e muon decay). PS: If there is a violation, then either postulate (1) or (2) are incorrect for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kylonicus Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Hate to play Devil's advocate, but, what about Quantum/Superluminal tunneling? I agree that Einstein's General Relativity generally explains big things, but Quantum Mechanics is something completely different. Due to the uncertanity principle, a particle has a very small probability of teleporting halfway across the universe, or into another dimension(brane), back in time, or faster than light. Superluminal experiments have been done, and have been repeated. So lets just agree that for the big things, Einstein was right, and for the little things Quantum Mechanics is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Einstein wasn't and isn't wrong, just inaccurate but one hell of a lot more accurate than newton. Unless this guys theory explains why einstein was right when his theory works and then why his equations broke down in certain circumstances and then provide replacement equations to make up for the old deficiences then i'm inclined to stick to einstein. I have not read the book yet as i am currently buired in the "Dark Tower" series by stephen king and will get round to it eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Superluminal experiments have been done' date=' and have been repeated. [/quote'] Not that transferred information in any meaningfull way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Due to the uncertanity principle, a particle has a very small probability of teleporting halfway across the universe, or into another dimension(brane), back in time, or faster than light. iirc, matter, and all exchange particles, excluding the graviton, are open strings and are therefore stuck to our brane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 isn''t the proper equation for energy in special relativity E= mc^2 (1/squrt(1-v^2/c^2) [math]E=mc^2 over sqrt{1-v^2 over c^2} [/math] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 yes it is. m is the rest mass in that equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 yeah, I'm abit lazy to test it out but is [math]e^2=mc^2 + p^2c^2[/math] equivalent to that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted June 11, 2005 Share Posted June 11, 2005 yeah, I'm abit lazy to test it out but is [math]e^2=mc^2 + p^2c^2[/math'] equivalent to that? No, but [math]E^2=m^2c^4 + p^2c^2[/math] is. Three or four algebraic steps should confirm it, using [math]p = \gamma mv[/math] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now