After 103 years, Einstein's E=MC2 proved

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenns
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    E=mc2 Years
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the recent claims regarding the proof of Einstein's equation E=mc², particularly focusing on the methods used by supercomputers in this context, the conversion of energy to mass, and the implications of these findings. Participants explore theoretical and empirical aspects, as well as the significance of the results in relation to established physics concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the methods used by supercomputers to achieve results that seem to support E=mc², questioning the reliance on empirical approaches.
  • One participant suggests that energy can create mass, referencing the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) as an example where high energies lead to the creation of large particles.
  • Another participant challenges the notion of "proof," arguing that the calculations involved assume relativity and do not constitute a definitive proof of Einstein's theory.
  • Evidence for energy converting to mass is discussed, with examples including nuclear fission in atomic bombs and fusion in the sun.
  • A participant proposes a speculative idea that mass may be related to zitterbewegungen within the Planck volume, suggesting a deeper theoretical exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of the findings related to E=mc², with some supporting the idea of energy-mass conversion and others questioning the validity of the claims as proof of Einstein's theory. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of the relationship between energy and mass, with some emphasizing the theoretical underpinnings and assumptions involved in the calculations. There is also a recognition of the limitations in the current understanding of mass and energy interactions.

Glenns
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know how the supercomputers did it rather than the empirical approach? Also, energy can also be converted to mass, but how? Is there any evidence of this occurrence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Glenns said:
Does anyone know how the supercomputers did it rather than the empirical approach? Also, energy can also be converted to mass, but how? Is there any evidence of this occurrence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605

1) No idea how the computers did it.

2) Energy creates mass if there's enough of it. This is the whole principle behind the LHC, it creates high enough energies that large particles are created.

3) Assume you have two quarks. If you try to separate them, the strong force between them will be so great, that 2 new quarks will be created by the energy of the strong force. This process creates 2 new quark pairs. This is analogous to separating a magnet and consequently creating two new magnets, each with a north and south pole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is simply sensationalism in the reporting. This is certainly not a "proof" of Einstein in any sense of the word (in fact, the calculation itself assumes relativity). It is a new and better calculation of the mass of the proton in terms of a fundamental parameter of the theory of strong interactions.
 
QCD binding energy

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is there any evidence of this occurrence?

1. Atom bombs and reactors - using fission
2. The sun - using fusion.
 
Glenns said:
Does anyone know how the supercomputers did it rather than the empirical approach? Also, energy can also be converted to mass, but how? Is there any evidence of this occurrence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081120/sc_afp/sciencephysicseinstein_081120235605
Interesting!

What this demonstrates is that what most call rest mass is actually mostly relativistic mass.

Who knows, perhaps some smart scientist will in the future discover that mass is just zitterbewegungen within the Planck volume :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mtallingham, read the the message in your personal message box.
 
Thanks George for explaining that, But isn’t it food for thought, where else could I post it, do you think
 

Similar threads

High School E = mc^2, Wikipedia Mass–energy equivalence Clarification
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Graduate French Press Finally Calls it. E = MC²
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Einstein did not derive E =mc2 first
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
47K
Graduate Bending of Light: Newton vs Einstein
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Graduate Michelson- Morley's experiment
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
14K
Other 2 years for MS Eng or Longer for MS Physics? Science Entrepreneur Qs
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Does the equation E=mc2 prove that energy and mass are equivalent?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Graduate Some remarks on Einstein's 1907 paper on Relativity
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K
Admissions How to prove Physics competency to grad school admission committees?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Graduate Are Finkelstein/Kruskal Black Hole Solutions Compatible with Einstein's GR?
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
18K