|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Misconceptions of E=MC^2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I have no misconceptions of E=MC2. I do not dispute it's authenticity. What I do dispute is others conceptions of what it actually means. I am neither scientist, evolutionist or creationist and for this reason, I have chosen to start it here in the coffee house.
The only expertise I have is year 12 maths. However, I do have experience in misconceptions and the meaning of words. Therefore for easier understanding I will put the mathematical theory into words.E=MC2 means "Energy equals mass multiplied by the speed of light multiplied by the speed of light. For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum.I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved. Is this true? Edited by Admin, : Modify title.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved. It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven". Oh, yeah, it's a theory, too. In fact, being in the form of a concise equation, we might even call it a law. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Hi Heinrik,
Chiroptera gave the right answer, but I want to offer a little more clarification. Chiroptera put the word "proven" between quotes, and he did so because when scientists talking about science use the word "proven" they do not mean it in the same sense as laypeople. Laypeople tend to think of the word "proven" as meaning 100% certainty, but all "proven" means within science is that the idea is supported by sufficient evidence that it has formed a consensus of acceptance within relevant scientific circles. The acceptance is granted provisionally and only until such time as new evidence or improved insight indicates a change is required. So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Laypeople tend to think of the word "proven" as meaning 100% certainty.... And one has to ask, what in the real world is ever known with 100% certainty? One can state that something is not proven unless it is 100% certain, but then the word "proof" has no practical meaning in the real world. Edited by Chiroptera, : typo Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
For the sake of clarity I will start with one point that is misunderstood by some on this forum. I maintain this equasion is a theory and as such has not been proved. Is this true? It actually emerges out converting the Lorentz transformation and Newton's laws to take relativity into account. Relativity is the theory, the equation is just some maths resulting from the theory. It is more confirmed than: W = 1\2 mv2 The above is not a theory, and yet we can use this maths, and associated maths to get to the moon: so we can be confident that it is true as a general description of our local universe. The normal way of wording this is that W = Fd, but using F = ma we can show that W = 1\2 mv 2. Einstein's modifications to this formula is:
With a little more maths work we get to E = W + MC2 So even when W=0, something will have the energy of MC2. This is essentially a prediction of Relativity, and it provides a wonderful way to test the theory. If the description of the way the universe works as developed out of the mathematics of the theory then the theory is confirmed as being a useful description of at least part of our universe. They tested it, the description holds. Newton's description isn't as accurate, which is only practically detectable at particularly large values of v. Smaller values require much more sensitive equipment to detect any discrepancy. It is a modified law, not a theory. It was modified using ideas derived from theory. If the theory was right, those modifications should provide a more accurate description of the universe and they do. This is science, it can never prove the theory is true, it can only become strongly supported by evidence or falsified by it. No laws of nature have been proven true, and Einstein's modifications of classical equations is no exception. They are mathematical representations of our observations. The wonderful thing about Einstein's equations is that they came out of theory first, rather than observation with later theories trying to explain them. The fact that his theory predicted these kinds relationships is a stunning testimony to relativity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Chiroptera writes: And one has to ask, what in the real world is ever known with 100% certainty? One can state that something is not proven unless it is 100% certain, but then the word "proof" has no practical meaning in the real world. I grant this semantic issue, but I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations. Presenting the issue of tentativity alongside use of the word "proof" is also difficult, often seeming to be a contradiction. Plus creationists think the existence of the Christian God is 100% certain, proven beyond any doubt by the literal truth of the Bible in terms of history and prophecy. So that's why I take the approach I do, but I'm open to more effective approaches. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
...I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations. Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge. I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
So when a scientist says that E=mc2 has been proven, all he means is that the accuracy of the equation is supported by a great deal of empirical evidence. em·pir·i·cal (m-pr-kl) adj. 1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis. b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws So are you saying it is accepted although it is not 100% proven ORhas the actual E=Mc2 been tested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
It depends on what you mean by "proven". A brazillion experiments have been performed on this, and it has been verified in all of these. In science, that counts as "proven". Thanks for yur input. For the sake of a none scientific brain, could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst? Were they tested in Brazil?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
For the sake of a none scientific brain, could you tell me about one of these brazillion experiemnst? quote: http://www.physorg.com/news9248.html
Were they tested in Brazil? That one was French, unfortunately. Though interestingly Eddington's solar eclipse test of relativity was done in Brazil.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I'm sorry. I haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. I did specify that I am year 12 maths and you have also gone off topic. The topic is concerned only with conceptions and misconceptions by us about E=MC2.
I am certain Einstein knew his stuff and we cannot be expected to understand at his level. This topic is about those of us without a scientific background. The lay man to be precise. Please keep your posts in writing and not another language that most of us cannot understand. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
I grant this semantic issue, but I think creationists tend to think of "proven" in a more absolute sense and believe it implies that no other conclusion is possible, the way we think of mathematical and logical derivations.Presenting the issue of tentativity alongside use of the word "proof" is also difficult, often seeming to be a contradiction. Plus creationists think the existence of the Christian God is 100% certain, proven beyond any doubt by the literal truth of the Bible in terms of history and prophecy.
Please don't bring creationists into this discussion as it is off topic and explodes into slanging matches, as I could have whacked that back. I am not a creationist and I specified in post 1 the parameters. regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
In plain English:
Yes, E = mc2 has been directly verified. Spare a thought for the stay-at-home voter; His empty eyes gaze at strange beauty shows And a parade of the gray suited grafters: A choice of cancer or polio. -- The Rolling Stones
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
pelican Member (Idle past 4986 days) Posts: 781 From: australia Joined: |
Well, I'll go a bit further and say that many creationists (and many non-creationists) are still in a Classical mindset where they believe that definite knowledge about the real world can be obtained through the pure application of logic, and, in fact, feel that pure logic is the best way to acquire knowledge.
Can you prove any of this by logic or otherwise? If not please refrain from giving your opinion.
I may be wrong since I haven't paid much attention to the threads on which he has been active, but I'm suspecting that Heinrick is going to make some point about things not being "100% proven", something that hasn't been considered a problem in intellectual thought for about 200 years or so. Would kindly allow me and maybe support me to try and prove my point by sheer lagic? And foresight is a brilliant thing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024