NationStates Jolt Archive


100th Birthday of "E=mc squared." And all our lives have changed!

Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:05
COMMENTARY: Amazing that it's been 100 years since Einstein first formulated the famous equation. Also amazing how much impact such a concise statement of a physical principle can have on our lives. For those of you who question the value of science, here's an explanation that may open your eyes ( although I doubt it ). ;)


That Famous Equation and You (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/opinion/30greene.html?th&emc=th)


By BRIAN GREENE
Published: September 30, 2005

DURING the summer of 1905, while fulfilling his duties in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland, Albert Einstein was fiddling with a tantalizing outcome of the special theory of relativity he'd published in June. His new insight, at once simple and startling, led him to wonder whether "the Lord might be laughing ... and leading me around by the nose."

An object's mass is its resistance to being accelerated (to having its speed increased). According to E = mc2, an object's mass depends on its energy. This means that the faster an object goes, the harder one must push to increase its speed. (If an object's "rest mass" - called m0 - is the resistance it has to being sped up from a resting position, then Einstein's result can be written more explicitly as E = m0c2/ (1-v2/c2)½, so m = m0(1-v2/c2)-½, where v2 is the square of the object's speed. As the formula shows, when the object's speed approaches that of light, its mass grows infinitely large, which explains why, regardless of how hard it is pushed, it won't exceed light speed.)
But by September, confident in the result, Einstein wrote a three-page supplement to the June paper, publishing perhaps the most profound afterthought in the history of science. A hundred years ago this month, the final equation of his short article gave the world E = mc².

In the century since, E = mc² has become the most recognized icon of the modern scientific era. Yet for all its symbolic worth, the equation's intimate presence in everyday life goes largely unnoticed. There is nothing you can do, not a move you can make, not a thought you can have, that doesn't tap directly into E = mc². Einstein's equation is constantly at work, providing an unseen hand that shapes the world into its familiar form. It's an equation that tells of matter, energy and a remarkable bridge between them.

Before E = mc², scientists described matter using two distinct attributes: how much the matter weighed (its mass) and how much change the matter could exert on its environment (its energy). A 19th century physicist would say that a baseball resting on the ground has the same mass as a baseball speeding along at 100 miles per hour. The key difference between the two balls, the physicist would emphasize, is that the fast-moving baseball has more energy: if sent ricocheting through a china shop, for example, it would surely break more dishes than the ball at rest. And once the moving ball has done its damage and stopped, the 19th-century physicist would say that it has exhausted its capacity for exerting change and hence contains no energy.

After E = mc², scientists realized that this reasoning, however sensible it once seemed, was deeply flawed. Mass and energy are not distinct. They are the same basic stuff packaged in forms that make them appear different. Just as solid ice can melt into liquid water, Einstein showed, mass is a frozen form of energy that can be converted into the more familiar energy of motion. The amount of energy (E) produced by the conversion is given by his formula: multiply the amount of mass converted (m) by the speed of light squared (c²). Since the speed of light is a few hundred million meters per second (fast enough to travel around the earth seven times in a single second), c² , in these familiar units, is a huge number, about 100,000,000,000,000,000.

A little bit of mass can thus yield enormous energy. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was fueled by converting less than an ounce of matter into energy; the energy consumed by New York City in a month is less than that contained in the newspaper you're holding. Far from having no energy, the baseball that has come to rest on the china shop's floor contains enough energy to keep an average car running continuously at 65 m.p.h. for about 5,000 years.

Before 1905, the common view of energy and matter thus resembled a man carrying around his money in a box of solid gold. After the man spends his last dollar, he thinks he's broke. But then someone alerts him to his miscalculation; a substantial part of his wealth is not what's in the box, but the box itself. Similarly, until Einstein's insight, everyone was aware that matter, by virtue of its motion or position, could possess energy. What everyone missed is the enormous energetic wealth contained in mass itself.

The standard illustrations of Einstein's equation - bombs and power stations - have perpetuated a belief that E = mc² has a special association with nuclear reactions and is thus removed from ordinary activity.

This isn't true. When you drive your car, E = mc² is at work. As the engine burns gasoline to produce energy in the form of motion, it does so by converting some of the gasoline's mass into energy, in accord with Einstein's formula. When you use your MP3 player, E = mc² is at work. As the player drains the battery to produce energy in the form of sound waves, it does so by converting some of the battery's mass into energy, as dictated by Einstein's formula. As you read this text, E = mc² is at work. The processes in the eye and brain, underlying perception and thought, rely on chemical reactions that interchange mass and energy, once again in accord with Einstein's formula.

[ This article is 3 pages long. To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/opinion/30greene.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th). ]
QuentinTarantino
30-09-2005, 17:10
Wow, its almost shocking how much I don't care.
Zero Six Three
30-09-2005, 17:15
Wow, its almost shocking how much I don't care.
"Only two things are infinate, the universe and human stupidity,
and I'm not sure about the former." Einstein


god that was so petty... sorry..
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:32
Wow, its almost shocking how much I don't care.
You are free to not post. :)
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:32
god that was so petty... sorry..
( shrug ) He's usually at least moderately sane. :confused:
Balipo
30-09-2005, 17:37
Awesome!!

The best equation like ever (sorry Pythagoreous).
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:39
Awesome!!

The best equation like ever (sorry Pythagoreous).
Agreed! [ makes note of this historic occasion! ] :D
Kermitoidland
30-09-2005, 17:44
Indeed, the elegance and fundamental importance of this equation are both astonishing!
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:48
Indeed, the elegance and fundamental importance of this equation are both astonishing!
Things of surpassing beauty have a way of changing our reality.
Kroblexskij
30-09-2005, 17:52
einstein, he roxors our soxors
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:53
einstein, he roxors our soxors
ROFLMAO!!! Um ... oh nevermind! Heh! :D
Eagle Cape
30-09-2005, 17:58
Take that Newtonian physics!
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 17:59
Take that Newtonian physics!
LOL! Talk about an "in joke!" :D
Eagle Cape
30-09-2005, 18:02
Such is the life of an engineer
Maineiacs
30-09-2005, 18:05
E=mc^2 is a wonderful thing, but the sci-fi nut in me still wants warp speed to be possible. Oh wel...
Balipo
30-09-2005, 18:06
Agreed! [ makes note of this historic occasion! ] :D

you are on a roll today with your agreeing.

But I still feel bad for poor Pythagoreous. HE did great things, just not e=(mc)^2 things.
Eutrusca
30-09-2005, 18:07
you are on a roll today with your agreeing.

But I still feel bad for poor Pythagoreous. HE did great things, just not e=(mc)^2 things.
"We stand on the shoulders of giants." :)
Keia
30-09-2005, 18:33
Wow, its almost shocking how much I don't care.

I'm glad I'm not that dumb.
Santa Barbara
30-09-2005, 18:39
So where are the IDers coming to point out their reasonable "alternative" explanation, hmm?

Eh, I guess the Bible doesn't really say much about mass and energy or give hints about the speed of light and nuclear energy.

OH well.

Happy birthday, E=mc^2!
Farbank
30-09-2005, 20:50
So where are the IDers coming to point out their reasonable "alternative" explanation, hmm?

Eh, I guess the Bible doesn't really say much about mass and energy or give hints about the speed of light and nuclear energy.


Lest misconceptions be perpetuated, allow me to clear a couple of issues. First, not all proponents of Intelligent Design hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, or are even Christian in name or creed.

Secondly, the Christian ID and Special Creation subsets of ID do not generally view the Bible as a book of science, but simply authoritative in the instances where its teachings do touch on scientific issues, such as the topic of origins. As such, even those "IDers" who do believe the Biblical account of Creation would not expect the Bible to deal with mass, energy, the speed of light, or related topics.

Now, what alternative explanation did you mean? I wasn't aware one was needed . . .

That said, there is nothing in the Theory of Relativity, in Einstein's work on mass and energy, or any other more modern aspects of quantum physics which opposes Intelligent Design. On the contrary, some current quantum-physical work has provided support for a younger earth than popularly conceived. (In brief, helium concentration has long been used as a dating method for granitic rocks, but has since been found to be inconsistent with known helium diffusivities in various granitic crystals such as zircons. However, it is now known that nuclear decay rates are variable under abnormal conditions, and that "normal" decay rates are simply those which occur at the low-energy point of the "nuclear potential well" for a given isotope. Given that, it is possible for uranium in rocks to release helium at a much faster rate, allowing observed concentrations of helium to be produced in a short enough time to maintain those concentrations without the helium diffusing out of the rock.)

Cheers!

ps. I noticed your name is "Santa Barbara". Are you from SB? I just moved out east from Ventura.
Balipo
30-09-2005, 21:00
Lest misconceptions be perpetuated, allow me to clear a couple of issues. First, not all proponents of Intelligent Design hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible, or are even Christian in name or creed.

Secondly, the Christian ID and Special Creation subsets of ID do not generally view the Bible as a book of science, but simply authoritative in the instances where its teachings do touch on scientific issues, such as the topic of origins. As such, even those "IDers" who do believe the Biblical account of Creation would not expect the Bible to deal with mass, energy, the speed of light, or related topics.

Now, what alternative explanation did you mean? I wasn't aware one was needed . . .

That said, there is nothing in the Theory of Relativity, in Einstein's work on mass and energy, or any other more modern aspects of quantum physics which opposes Intelligent Design. On the contrary, some current quantum-physical work has provided support for a younger earth than popularly conceived. (In brief, helium concentration has long been used as a dating method for granitic rocks, but has since been found to be inconsistent with known helium diffusivities in various granitic crystals such as zircons. However, it is now known that nuclear decay rates are variable under abnormal conditions, and that "normal" decay rates are simply those which occur at the low-energy point of the "nuclear potential well" for a given isotope. Given that, it is possible for uranium in rocks to release helium at a much faster rate, allowing observed concentrations of helium to be produced in a short enough time to maintain those concentrations without the helium diffusing out of the rock.)

Cheers!

*SNIP*

Just a point. Even in those "Earth younger than we thought" experiments, it is still not even close to 6000 years.
Farbank
30-09-2005, 21:26
Just a point. Even in those "Earth younger than we thought" experiments, it is still not even close to 6000 years.

And not all members of the ID community hold to a 6,000-year-old earth. What the helium-diffusion experiments showed actually is that granitic rocks dated by evolutionary geologists to be several billion years old (shortly the date set for the cooling of the surface, if I remember correctly) dated to have been laid down from magma flows around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The only argument for a 6,000-year-old earth there is that the evolutionary geologists set these rocks as some of their earliest "dawn of the habitable earth" layers.

So in this case, the allegation of a 6,000-year-old earth is possible only if you accept the supposition that those granite deposits do indeed predate most other rocks. There are other explanations which do not require a 6,000-year-old earth, but I personally believe that none of them can reliably put the age of the earth much beyond 20 to 40 thousand years, and probably much younger. (No, I do not discount the 6,000-year-old earth, but I think that's stretching the minimum age a bit.)

Cheers!
Tekania
01-10-2005, 00:56
E=mc^2 is a wonderful thing, but the sci-fi nut in me still wants warp speed to be possible. Oh wel...

Einstein and E=mc^2 had little to do with that....

You're looking more at Lorentz's time dialation...

t' = (to-(xv / c^2)) / ((1-((v^2)/(c^2)) ^ (-2))

Or Kaufman's inertial mass...

mv = mo / ((1-((v^2)/(c^2)) ^ (-2))
Dobbsworld
01-10-2005, 01:02
blah-blah, snipped.
Yeah, life sure is different for the wage-slaves and migrant workers that comprise the vast bulk of humanity now that we know about relativity. :rolleyes:
Maineiacs
01-10-2005, 01:39
Einstein and E=mc^2 had little to do with that....

You're looking more at Lorentz's time dialation...

t' = (to-(xv / c^2)) / ((1-((v^2)/(c^2)) ^ (-2))

Or Kaufman's inertial mass...

mv = mo / ((1-((v^2)/(c^2)) ^ (-2))


OK, good point.
Eutrusca
01-10-2005, 01:58
E=mc^2 is a wonderful thing, but the sci-fi nut in me still wants warp speed to be possible. Oh wel...
Actually, it may well be possible, if the latest theories of "branes" and "cosmic strings" are to be believed.
Eutrusca
01-10-2005, 02:01
Yeah, life sure is different for the wage-slaves and migrant workers that comprise the vast bulk of humanity now that we know about relativity. :rolleyes:
And that weirdness is appropros of what, pray tell?